Question for guitarists (off topic)

I'll be damned....I certainly can't argue those pics......Unless......the headstock is PHOTOSHOP!!!!

J/k....Well then i have to ask.....does his Gibson have "MIKE NESS" on the fretboard then too?

nope

Quote:

---

Originally posted by raptorschild:

THat guitar is a Gibson. I've never heard or seen him play a taylor. Taylors have a more "lively" sound to them that is not as bluesy and dark sounding that mike usually goes for.

---

<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">If you're wondering or curious, I think certain sounds are attributed to the the type of woods used in construction. Guitar size affects volume.

My experiences with different guitars are:
Maple-gives you the brighter, lively sound, the high's;
Ebony-bright;
Mahogany-dark, deep bass or low's;
Rosewood-cleaner punch, mid's and low's.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by raptorschild:
In my opinion....Taylors are fine guitars but the "happy" sound they put out isnt that great for a lot of genres. I know because i owned a Taylor T5. Pretty spendy little unit. I traded it in for an LP classic about a month later and lost a lot of money on that transaction, but it was well...well worth it.

Gibsons, and Martins are a different animal.

---

<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Huh?
I'm lost here!!!!

Let me recapture...you traded a Taylor acoustic for a Les Paul Classic which is an electric guitar because you didn't like its "happy sound"????
That's a totally different animal...basically like trading a fork for a spoon.
But I sure would love to know what you mean by "happy sound", especially since Taylors have a classic acoustic sound not much/any different to the way Gibson Acoustics, Martin Acoustics, Santa Cruz, Collings etc sound...

The only difference between Taylor and say Martin is that I've never ever tried out a Taylor that sounded bad but enough Martin's that were basically dogs. Taylor's are very consistent and always sport (contrary to Gibsons) the highest quality and "bang for the buck"...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by raptorschild:
I'll be damned....I certainly can't argue those pics......Unless......the headstock is PHOTOSHOP!!!!

---

<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Any why on earth should anyone Photoshop the headstock?
Are you a diehard Taylor hater? (just kiddin')

Check Taylor's site and see Mike's name among the artists who play Taylor guitars: http://www.taylorguitars.com/artists/awp/recording.html

<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ June 15, 2007 02:44 AM: Message edited by: lostheart ]</font>

i see where he's coming from tho, taylors have a very bright.. well, one may call it 'happy' sound. that's why i got a more bassy sounding martin too. need the best of noth worlds i guess.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thumpy:
i see where he's coming from tho, taylors have a very bright.. well, one may call it 'happy' sound. that's why i got a more bassy sounding martin too. need the best of noth worlds i guess.

---

<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Sorry, but I strongly disagree...

Taylors come in all kinds of "outfits"...with maple sides and back, rosewood sides and back, mahogany sides and back, koa sides and back, spruce tops, cedar tops, mahogany necks, rosewood fretboards, ebony fretboards, dreadnaught size, grand concert size, jumbo size, cutaways and non-cutaways...

And you guys say they ALL have a happy sound that lacks bass?

Gimme a break...

I seriously doubt that if you have a same-sized Taylor and a Martin with the same type of wood and same specs you could tell much (if any) difference.

Just MHO and of course YMMV...

The Taylor T5 is not a true acoustic though. It is an acoustic but an electric to. It has pickups under the top of the guitar and it is a whole different guitar compared to a 410 or 510. Those are true dreadnoughts.

My Taylor lacks no bass at all but it is brighter than the Martins. I,ve played them all and I think Taylor's are way better than Martin's. That's just my opinoin. Everyone is different and perfer different features and sounds. I will tell you I have played some cheapy guitars and some of them sound great. I played this one Ibanez and it sounded killer and it was only 200 bones. My point is it's not the brand you buy it's the guitar. Who cares if it's a cheap guitar if you like it and it works for you play it. For the beginers I do suggest buying a lower priced acoustic. I say this for two reasons 1. you may not like playing guitar or have the drive to keepp playing. 2.More advanced and expensive guitars are a little harder to play. In most cases you have to be right on. In other words you have to work your way up.

Acoustic guitars are very fickle instruments. They each have very unique tonal qualities. I've tried out 5 of the same exact guitar in one store and they all sounded different. I've tried many Taylors and some sounded bright, while others not so much. I think people that paint with such a broad brush when describing how a whole brand of guitars, acoustic at that, sounds are erroneous. There is simply too great of a chance that they will sound different.

alright, i may be wrong, but i'm not that much of a guitar nerd. it's just that i find on the whole martins sound a bit warmer than taylors.

<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ June 15, 2007 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Thumpy ]</font>