Quote:
Originally Posted by pwd72s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIrV9t7XAZY&ab_channel=PaulDavids
To my 78 years old tinnitus ears, the Taylor sounds crisper, the notes more defined and separate. The Martin warmer, the notes flowing one to another. Both sound really good, with excellent tone.
But that's just me. Thought those here who play might enjoy the video.
|
Nice video.
I think the tonal differences described can really be attributed to the guitar shapes themselves as much as the makers.
The Martin is a dreadnaught- full bodied, and with scalloped bracing, very deep bass. The size and shape was designed before electronic pick ups, and as an acoustic hail mary to "bigger is better/louder." Prewar Martin dreadnaughts have aged well tonally, and most new dreadnaughts are modelled after them.
The Taylor is smaller, it's a grand auditorium, with a cutout. Both the smaller size (and to a lesser degree- even the cutout) is going to clip that large mellow bass tone for a more defined upper end. It's a better balanced fingerstyle guitar with a more immediate response.
Back in the day, guitars were named by the room they could fill with music. Parlor, Auditorium, etc. iirc- That Grand Auditorium is Taylors modern interpretation of a 'jumbo auditorium', which is bigger than a auditorium, but still smaller than a Dreadnaught (named after the battleship)
That doesn't mean either size is better-
With a pick though, the dreadnaught shape is going to be flat out awesome too. Deeper, louder. That is why it is and will remain a flatpicking favorite.
In my own personal experience, Taylors are a more consistent brand in tone and playability due to their construction methods. Martins, can be more hit or miss, BUT, when they get a particular guitar right, they hit it
right out of the park in tone and playability.