Taylor vs Takamine
Tom Hartman
I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
Then the other night I noticed a country artist named Ken Chesney
playing a single cutaway Takamine that looked, and sounded great. I know
I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
Thanks for any input!
Tom Hartman
--
"Let me explain something to you Walsh...this business takes a certain
amount of finesse." ---"Chinatown"
JHberger
Tom-
This is rmmga heresy, but I much prefer the sound of an amplified Takamine
to any Taylor I've heard - especially in a band situation. Tak has had
that smallish cutaway body for quite a few years, and IMHO this
configuration is the tip for band use. Also, it avoids the anxiety of
taking one of those pricey boxes out of the safety of home.
THOMAS ADAMS
I was in the Guitar Center in Hollywood three weeks ago and played the most
incredible acoustic/electric I have ever laid my hands on. It was a brand new
Takamine, with a jet black finish, bound, without a cutaway for $600.00
(yipes!). I didn't get the model so I went back last week and it was gone. If
you find one of these babies snatch it, it was one of the finest playing
guitars I've ever had the pleasure to noodle on!
LPattis
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
Aguyathome
I have a Takamine 12 string(late '70s) and I love it. But, come on, a
Takamine compared to a Taylor?!? A Taylor is a much better guitar, but
also more expensive(and worth it) than any Takamine. Taylors are very
high in fit and finish and the woods.......
Jeff Deasey
DLS
Builder and Repairman to the NON-Stars!!!!
Ontario, California
Jim Pulling
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:33:07 +0000, Tom Hartman <ocea...@gate.net>
wrote:
>I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
>that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
>was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
>like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
>
>Then the other night I noticed a country artist named Ken Chesney
>playing a single cutaway Takamine that looked, and sounded great. I know
>I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
>ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
>out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
I have a Takamine which I've owned for 13 years. I also have a 6 year
old Taylor. Although I like both, the Takamine is not as good a guitar
as the Taylor. However, the Takamine does have the advantage that it
has a built in pickup and sounds good amplified. (I use a Trace
Elliott amp). The Taylor isn't amplified (it's a K20 and I don't want
to change it in any way) but I also have a Martin with a Fishman in it
and the Takamine will stand alongside it with no problem.
Hope this helps
Regards
Jim Pulling
Joe Breen
Tom Hartman wrote:
>
> I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
> that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
> was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
> like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
>
> Then the other night I noticed a country artist named Ken Chesney
> playing a single cutaway Takamine that looked, and sounded great. I know
> I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
> ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
> out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
>
>
> Tom Hartman
> --
> "Let me explain something to you Walsh...this business takes a certain
> amount of finesse." ---"Chinatown"
Last year I had a choice between a Taylor 512 and the 1995 Takamine LTD
Santa Fe. They were about the same price, but the Taylor dealer wanted
the cash up front, whereas our local Tak dealer let me make payments
(I'm still making them ;-) ) so I went with the Tak. Acoustically, I
found the Taylor sounded much better, but amplified The Tak had a much
nicer sound. Shortly after that we opened for Ashley MacIsaac. His
guitar player (Stewart Cameron) uses a 512; he listened to mine during
our set and tried it after the show and agreed with my assessment. (BTW
- my Santa Fe has the Accur-Acoustic electronics package which, in my
experience, blows away the older pre-amp/eq). Anyway, hope this helps.
Joe :-)
kevin kelly
LPattis wrote:
>
> HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
Larry Pattis sticks his foot in it again
sigh
Kevin
btif...@pbs.org
Tom Hartman writes:
> I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
> ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
> out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
Speaking as a Takamine owner who has played a number of Taylors (and many
Takamines) and finds the Taylors to be the most impressive guitars he's
ever played, I can say that Takamine is not in the same league as Taylor.
Nevertheless, there are some mighty fine Takamines.
The best advice is the advice you'll see again and again on RMMGA: Go play
a lot of guitars and they will tell you what to do.
-- Bruce Tiffany
Jon Forrest
I've thought about this issue too, especially after seeing
Roger McGuinn live playing an acoustic Takamine 12-string.
I asked him (via email) what he thought of Taylor and he said
that they were Martin wannabes. At the time McGuinn was playing
a Takamine FP 400S with stock parametric eqalizer and pickup.
I don't know what to think about this. I go to the local Guitar
Center about once a week to noodle around and I get to play some
pretty good Martins, Takamines, and Taylors. I find that I like
the Taylors best, especially considering the price. The Takamines
aren't bad but they all feel like they need a good setup job. Of
course, they cost less than the Taylors but I think, for the money,
the Taylors are the best deal. Now why anybody pays those prices
for Martins I'll never know but that's a different topic.
--
Anything you read here is my opinion and in no way represents the Univ. of Cal.
"I deal with dreamers, and telephone screamers." -- Joni Mitchell
LPattis
kevin kelly <kke...@inforamp.net> writes:
sigh
Kevin>>>>>
What was it that I stuck my foot in? The truth? I thought rmmga was all
about opinions. Anyone that compares (favorably) an all or partly plywood
guitar to any of the Taylor guitars has a screw loose. That's my opinion.
Taylor vs. Takamine, Martin vs. Ovation, Mitsubishi vs. Goldstar, Toyota
vs. Yugo, Starbucks vs. Folgers....it's all the same to me. Occasionally
I get a good belly laugh, othertimes I'm sad. This thread is a belly
laugh. Quality is a difficult thing to measure. I'm so terribly sorry if
I've *offended* anyone.
Larry
Jeff Wilson
TAdam...@gnn.com (THOMAS ADAMS) wrote:
I saw the same guitar (heck it was about the same time you were there).
Played it and thought that it was pretty nice, but the sound was a little
thin, which is typical of the Taks I've played. Beatiful axe, though.
My favorite in the entire shop is the Breedlove with the poplar sides and
back. Really light, but what a player!
Jeff Wilson
email: 70277...@compuserve.com
(don't reply to the header address - it's there to reduce spam)
Tom Hartman
I started this thread, so I suppose I should update it...;)
I bought a Taylor. Once in the store, there just wasn't anything close,
and they had a lot of Takamines, Gibsons, Martins, and Ovations. Oh
yeah, and Guilds (which were very nice). But none even approached the
quality level of the Taylors. This is one serious guitar company..I've
been playing and buying electrics in the last few years and really
hadn't kept up with what was out there in great acoustics...now I know.
Thanks so much for all of your input!
LPattis
n...@address.net (Jeff Wilson) writes:
>>>>My favorite in the entire shop is the Breedlove with the poplar sides
and
back. Really light, but what a player!>>>>
Myrtlewood.
Robert McArthur
In article <54p0l9$4...@news-e2c.gnn.com>, TAdam...@gnn.com (THOMAS ADAMS) says:
>
Thomas--when you ask a question like this you'll get responses
from all sorts of players with all sorts of levels of experience.
Trust your fingers and ears is the conventional wisdom. That said,
as you mature as a guitarist, so will you fingers and ears. I doubt, if
you keep playing, that years from now you'll still like the Takamines.
You'll more likely come to appreciate the finer tone and workmanship
of the Taylors. Then again, the Taylors are a compromise compared
to other more hand crafter instruments. One exception. I head
Badi Assad Thursday night, absolutely and unequivocabally the BEST solo
guitar concert I've ever heard in my life and from a woman half my age.
She played a Takamine classical and it was truley awesome sounding.
I would definately consider a Tak. classical for their on-board
electronics and crisp clean sound for a great price. To get a comp
sounding handmade you'd pay over 5 grand (maybe hers was a special
hand made job Tak. made to promote their cheap stuff - I dunno).
But the steel strings are crap. In your price range (Under $1000)
I'd check out
a Larivee L-05, or a Martin D-1.
Oh, my initial response was the same as Larry Pattis' (HaHaHA--you gotta
be kidding).
Robert
Robert McArthur
In article <54quts$p...@agate.berkeley.edu>, for...@nobozo.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Jon Forrest) says:
>
Try the Breedloves they now carry,
the others will seem thrown togehter.
Robert
Tom Hartman
"I've thought about this issue too, especially after seeing
Roger McGuinn live playing an acoustic Takamine 12-string.
I asked him (via email) what he thought of Taylor and he said
that they were Martin wannabes."
While I admire Roger, this statement is ludicrous. The Taylors at Sam
Ash just killed the Martins hanging next to them. Roger should stick to
Rick 12 electrics...;)
LPattis
Jesus H. Christ.....give it a rest, boys.
stephen kurtzman
In article <1996Oct25...@pbs.org> , btif...@pbs.org writes:
>The best advice is the advice you'll see again and again on RMMGA: Go play
>a lot of guitars and they will tell you what to do.
This is great advice. Just be prepared. Some guitars sing out like the
sirens.
Bill Shields
Jim Kownacki wrote:
>
> Jon Forrest wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about this issue too, especially after seeing
> > Roger McGuinn live playing an acoustic Takamine 12-string.
> > I asked him (via email) what he thought of Taylor and he said
> > a Takamine FP 400S with stock parametric eqalizer and pickup.
> >
> > I don't know what to think about this. I go to the local Guitar
> > Center about once a week to noodle around and I get to play some
> > pretty good Martins, Takamines, and Taylors. I find that I like
> > the Taylors best, especially considering the price. The Takamines
> > aren't bad but they all feel like they need a good setup job. Of
> > course, they cost less than the Taylors but I think, for the money,
> > the Taylors are the best deal. Now why anybody pays those prices
> > for Martins I'll never know but that's a different topic.
>
> especially the nice low action and quick neck feel. But to obtain that
> feel, a lot of trade offs are made in the design. The best dealers do
> it before putting the instrument out, but many Taylor owners have to put
> up with quite a bit of post purchase neck tweaking and saddle shimming
> until the buzzing and intonation is correct, and the action always winds
> up higher as a result! Also, the necks are so thin that two passes are
> always required when tuning a Taylor (except for the 600 series models
> with the hard Maple necks). Finally, if you a/b them carefully with
> Martins you're certain to find that Martins simply have lots more
> overtones, particularly on the bass notes. The Taylor bass is louder,
> but more artificial.
>
> McGuinn is right. Taylors are great guitars but they're certainly not
> up to Martin standards.
I don't think this argument will EVER end - that is, "what's better -
Taylor or Martin". Right now I have two Martins and one Taylor -
a D-35, a D-76, and an 812C. Which one is better? Well, I don't know
because my playing abilities aren't up to any of them :-)....
Each one sounds better for a particular style, mood, time of day, etc.
They DO sound different - and what sounds "better" is a moving target
which changes from moment to moment. I like all three of them - one more
than another, depending on what kind of "noise" I feel like making at any
given time. Some day I might be good enough to really be qualified to
declare one better than the other - but not likely....
Play them all, see what works for you, what you like (advice repeated here
endlessly - and worth heeding!), then be happy with your decision. Right
now I'm considering which one (or two) to sell to someone who will
appreciate them - I don't need (and can't justify) keeping them all, but
I wish I could. Fact is - I'm a plinker and a "hack" - but I appreciate
well-made instruments and the craftsmanship that went into them - and I
like them just for that!
I haven't seen a single argument from people who could "quantify" their
opinions that one is better than the other. I.E. - "I sold 5 million CDs
because I played a Martin and you only sold 2 million because you
played a Taylor". Most of the arguments seem to be between other "hacks"
that can't back up their opinions. Perfect example is above - the guy
who goes to the music store every single week, plays everything, drives the
salespeople nuts, declares one instrument better than any other - knows
everything - yet never buys anything...
My advice - buy a Taylor, buy a Martin, buy a Takamine, buy an Ovation,
buy a Breedlove, buy a Collings, buy any goddam thing you want (!!) and
then play it until it's not enough instrument for you - at which point
you'll need (and appreciate) something better. Fact is, they're ALL good
for a particular time, place, ability and style. I've seen sidewalk players
with no-name instruments who could get more sound and style out of whatever
crap they were playing than I could get out of the most expensive instruments
available - which I can afford - but which would do me little good...
A good player on a dog-shit guitar will win over a dog-shit player on the
most exquisite instrument available.
Keep playing and practicing!!! (Sorry for the rant - just my .02 cents-worth).
Bill
T E I X E I R A
>I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
>that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
>was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
>like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
Tom,
I too did not care for the sound of the Martin "D" (Dreadnaught) models. Then I found
the "000" "0M" "M".. These are small bodies. They have a nice delicate sound. The 0M
(modern 000-28) and the M38 are nice finger pickin guitars. Try them
Don
Fremont,CA
Joseph Howell
I am pained to carry on this endless thread, but I tried about twenty
Breedloves across the range, all in one store, and they ALL sounded like
they were dampened. Each one had one of those Bridge Doctors in it, and I
wondered if that was the source of the problem in these otherwise
delightful-to-play guitars. Anyone else?
Joseph
Robert Whitcomb
The Taylor 600 series does not have maple necks. The necks are of
mahogany. Best Regards, Bob
Robert McArthur
In article <327526...@m.cc.utah.edu>, Joseph Howell <Joseph...@m.cc.utah.edu> says:
>
>Robert McArthur wrote:
>
>I am pained to carry on this endless thread, but I tried about twenty
>Breedloves across the range, all in one store, and they ALL sounded like
>they were dampened. Each one had one of those Bridge Doctors in it, and I
>wondered if that was the source of the problem in these otherwise
>delightful-to-play guitars. Anyone else?
Brredloves have a classical guitar sound, great for fingerstyle.
Old strings , unfortunately make Breeloves sound dampened. They
require new strings, and IMHO, mediums. But the Breedlove does not sound
like other guitars at all. It has power in reserve and is great
for "pretty" fingerstyle music. It produces sounds Martins and
Taylors and their ilk can't ; the converse is also true. Robert
Marc C. Parsons
They all make good guitars, and each varies according to model / price
/ prefrence
Tak is good for the price
Taylor is pro quality , my concert sized koa needed setup but sang
like an angel
Martin is the classic if you have the meoney for a mercedes
personally I play Guild
to each his own
Tom Hartman <ocea...@gate.net> wrote:
>"I've thought about this issue too, especially after seeing
>Roger McGuinn live playing an acoustic Takamine 12-string.
>I asked him (via email) what he thought of Taylor and he said
>that they were Martin wannabes."
>While I admire Roger, this statement is ludicrous. The Taylors at Sam
Tom Hartman
"McGuinn is right. Taylors are great guitars but they're certainly not
up to Martin standards."
That's really a broad generalization for which I can find no factual
basis. The Taylors I spent a couple hours with the other day were made
great, stayed in tune just fine, had fast necks, and didn't buzz. Maybe
you've played a few lemons. For what I do, their sound was superior to
the Martins, but for what you do, that may not be true. I saw no
technical or cosmetic superiority by the Martin over a given Taylor in
the same price range. Both were terrific instruments.
Jeff Wilson
lpa...@aol.com (LPattis) wrote:
Sorry, Larry. I was talking off the top of my head, and remembered the
wood *looked* like poplar. Upon reflection, that wouldn't make much sense
to build the back and sides from, though.
Thanks for the correction.
It's STILL a great player! :-)
gi...@aol.com
I have 2 Takamines. They are a perfect instrument for the places I play.
Juke joints where your setting up in a corner by the bar, where drunks
have to walk thru the band to get to the bathroom. No way would I take my
Martin with me. If I had a Taylor I certainly wouldn't take it either. I
have noticed a goodly number of recording artists using Taks on stage.
Probably for the same reason. If your looking for an exquisite acoustic
instrument, the Taks bear no resemblance whatsoever to Martin, Taylor,
etc.
DEMcLEMORE
I'll admit up front that I'm a hard-core Taylor fan. My recent purchase
of a Taylor 814C with the new custom-for-Taylor Fishmann electronics makes
my 3rd Taylor behind a 410 and a 412 (both still in the family). When the
combination of price and amplification are the key issues, the Takamine
makes a great choice and one that's hard to beat. However, remove the
issue of price and this new Taylor/Fishmann blender system is hands down
the better instrument. Played without amplification, the Takamine trails
big time. Both are great systems and have their place in the diverse
world of needs, wants, and pocketbooks.
Giri Iyengar
In article <553058$nl...@jeanluc.quadralay.com>, par...@quadralay.com (Marc C. Parsons) writes:
> Martin is the classic if you have the money for a mercedes
Well, I might have the money for a Mercedes someday, but I doubt it because
I blow everything on guitars. :-)
..Giri
Scott Allumbaugh
Everybody please read the message below again.DEMcLEMORE has made a very
good observation.
...scotta
DEMcLEMORE <demcl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<555o5e$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
Jeffrey L. Suits
LPattis
And your point was...?
Jeffrey>>>>>
Here, let me try again:
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, as in the comparison of a high
quality, all solid wood guitar built in a factory created by a man (well,
several men!) who has changed the world of mass produced guitars to a
cheap Asian made plywood back and sides guitar is a laughable matter. Get
educated. Then ask me questions. And if you are educated but don't like
the *tone* of my post, well, don't take yourself, this newsgroup, or
anything else in life quite so seriously.
LP
Aguyathome
Here, let me try again:
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, as in the comparison of a high
quality, all solid wood guitar built in a factory created by a man (well,
several men!) who has changed the world of mass produced guitars to a
cheap Asian made plywood back and sides guitar is a laughable matter. Get
educated. Then ask me questions. And if you are educated but don't like
the *tone* of my post, well, don't take yourself, this newsgroup, or
anything else in life quite so seriously.
LP
<><><><><><><>><>><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><>><><><
My '70s Takamine twelve string does have SOLID sides and back(I know, only
the very most expensive top of the line Takamines are solid now, the rest
being laminated). But of course a Taylor is a much better, and very much
more expensive guitar.
Jeff Deasey
DLS
Builder and Repairman to the NON-Stars!!!!
Ontario, California
Nikki Shacklett
In article <55b2me$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lpa...@aol.com (LPattis) wrote:
>
> Here, let me try again:
> HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, as in the comparison of a high
> quality, all solid wood guitar built in a factory created by a man (well,
> several men!) who has changed the world of mass produced guitars to a
> cheap Asian made plywood back and sides guitar is a laughable matter. Get
> educated. Then ask me questions. And if you are educated but don't like
> the *tone* of my post, well, don't take yourself, this newsgroup, or
> anything else in life quite so seriously.
>
> LP
But, but, but....what's "educated"? How do I know when I'm educated
enough to ask a question that won't get me run out of rmmga, trailed
by shrieks of horrid, mocking laughter?
Was that question educated enough? Is this one? Oh dear, I think
I need a drinkie.....
Helplessly wondering (and thirsty),
Nikki
--
Nikki Shacklett::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ni...@rand.org
::::::::::::::::::::Opinions herein wholly my own::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tom Hartman
" Get
educated. Then ask me questions. "
Asking a newsgroup of fellow guitar players is one way to get educated,
unless of course, all of the responses were as unhelpful as yours.
Fortunately they weren't, and I did buy a Taylor....
LPattis
In article <55br30$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, aguya...@aol.com wrote:
>My '70s Takamine twelve string does have SOLID sides and back(I know,
only
>the very most expensive top of the line Takamines are solid now, the rest
>being laminated). But of course a Taylor is a much better, and very much
>more expensive guitar.
>Jeff Deasey
I know that Yamaha has tried to market an all solid wood guitar, but I
don't think Takamine has. Even their high end Sante Fe models have
plywood back and sides. I would also be surprised if they *ever* made an
all solid wood acoustic. Anyone???
Larry Pattis
LPattis
darn it.
Rick
I took that advice. I went to the store(s) determined to buy a
Taylor. I even ordered a 614C. But, I kept playing Taylors and
everything they have at Gryphon and Guitar Solo (Bay Area), from
Collings to Martin to Breedlove, etc. I ended up with a guitar I
hadn't even heard of -- a James Goodall. In the end, it wasn't even
close. A different tone than all of the others, and a guitar that can
hold up equally well under sensitive fingerstyle or hard flatpick
rhythm banging. Hadda have it.
Good advice: Keep trying them out until there's one that you can't
keep your hands off of.
Jim Pulling
On 31 Oct 1996 15:37:34 -0500, lpa...@aol.com (LPattis) wrote:
>je...@juno.com (Jeffrey L. Suits) writes:
>
>>>>>>In article <54paua$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> lpa...@aol.com (LPattis) wrote:
>>HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
>
>
>And your point was...?
>
>Jeffrey>>>>>
>
>
>Here, let me try again:
>HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, as in the comparison of a high
>quality, all solid wood guitar built in a factory created by a man (well,
>several men!) who has changed the world of mass produced guitars to a
>cheap Asian made plywood back and sides guitar is a laughable matter. Get
>educated. Then ask me questions. And if you are educated but don't like
>the *tone* of my post, well, don't take yourself, this newsgroup, or
>anything else in life quite so seriously.
I have a Takamine bought 13 years ago when they were trying to become
'big'. It is plywood and I quite like it. However, to me there are 2
different directions going on in this thread overall.
One appears to be about the technical build of a guitar and your views
on this are very clear (I refer to the HA HA etc.). While I agree with
the gist, the less knowledgeable or more sensitive of your readers may
be bemused by what appears to be meaningless drivel.
The second is about sound and has two facets to it. The first is
acoustic sound; the second is amplified acoustic sound. On both,
subjective opinion is important. I feel it is true to say that *in
general* there is no comparison between the sound of a solid-wood,
hand-built guitar (Taylor) and a plywood, mass-produced guitar
(Takamine). *But* ... depending on what sound you are trying to
achieve, be it acoustic or amplified, there is a case for both.
As mentioned above, I have a Takamine (bought 1983 - model EF 340). I
tried to sell it recently but my wife got upset about it - she likes
the sound. I also have a Martin D18 plus Fishman which my wife
dislikes and a Taylor K20 which we both think is superb. My *personal*
preferences for these three are as follows:
Build quality 1. Taylor (by a mile)
2. Martin
3. Takamine
Acoustic Sound 1. Taylor (by another mile)
2. Martin
3. Takamine
Amplified Sound 1. Martin (for folk, blues, country, slide)
2. Takamine (for jazz and most other things)
(The Taylor isn't amplified)
Playability 1. Takamine (but not by much)
2. Taylor (I may feel different when I've had this 13
years)
3. Martin
Regards
Jim Pulling
Charlie Gibbs
In article <nikki-31109...@nikki.rand.org> ni...@rand.org
(Nikki Shacklett) writes:
>But, but, but....what's "educated"? How do I know when I'm educated
>enough to ask a question that won't get me run out of rmmga, trailed
>by shrieks of horrid, mocking laughter?
That's easy. If we don't run you out, you've made it. :-)
But beware of those who flame for sport. Use your judgement -
you'll soon figure out when this is happening. Ignore the jerks.
Now can we go back to playing guitars?
Charli...@mindlink.bc.ca
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you're built umop-apisdn.
thomas
on average, how much more is a Taylor than a Takamine?
personally, when i go to the guitar stores to play acoustic guitars
many of the high-price-tag ones just aren't anything special...
Robert McArthur
In article <55e2f1$q...@vnetnews.value.net>, ri...@value.net (Rick) says:
I ended up with a guitar I
>hadn't even heard of -- a James Goodall. In the end, it wasn't even
>close. A different tone than all of the others, and a guitar that can
>hold up equally well under sensitive fingerstyle or hard flatpick
>rhythm banging.
Multiple congratulations. That just goes to show
what happens when you forget names and go with your heart and ears.
Robert
Stan Gosnell
enti...@ix.netcom.com (thomas) wrote:
This is due to the law of diminishing returns. Achieving a slight
increase in quality costs a lot more. Above approximately a thousand
dollars, I find any increases in cost impossible to justify with the
relative increase in quality. Of course, those with a lot of money
may disagree......
Jeffrey L. Suits
>Here, let me try again:
>HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, as in the comparison of a high
>quality, all solid wood guitar built in a factory created by a man (well,
>several men!) who has changed the world of mass produced guitars to a
>cheap Asian made plywood back and sides guitar is a laughable matter. Get
>educated. Then ask me questions. And if you are educated but don't like
>the *tone* of my post, well, don't take yourself, this newsgroup, or
>anything else in life quite so seriously.
>
>LP
Sorry, I still don't understand.
Jeffrey
DickSchnei
In article <55d3q7$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lpa...@aol.com (LPattis)
writes:
>I know that Yamaha has tried to market an all solid wood guitar, but I
>don't think Takamine has. Even their high end Sante Fe models have
>plywood back and sides. I would also be surprised if they *ever* made an
>all solid wood acoustic. Anyone???
>
>Larry Pattis
Hey Larry,
I don't know the answer to your question, but I was very surprised to
learn, after playing a couple of the Tak Santa Fe's, that they were
plywood. I actually thought they looked neat (a good reason to buy a
guitar, don't you think?) but when I played them, they sounded pretty bad
acoustically (and pretty good plugged in, to me). Anyway, I asked the
sales guy about it and he admitted that they were not solid wood (I think
he even told me that the top was plywood), but said that they were not
meant to be played acoustically! This shocked me, especially when they
cost more than some great all solid-wood guitars.
By the way, have you ever played one of Yamaha's solid wood "hand-crafted"
guitars? I have played a couple of them and was actually very impressed
with their sound. The small bodied mahogany one reminded me a lot of my
1939 Martin OO18. However, in that shop, these were the only solid wood
guitars they had and I had just spent a couple of hours trying out several
high-end Ovations and Alverez. I was about to leave when I saw these two
Yamahas at the very end of the Yamaha rack, next to a couple of very fancy
looking models with lots of decoration. These two guitars were certainly
plain looking, especially next to their fancy looking brethern, but the
price tags on them were more than the fancy ones. I hadn't realized
Yamaha had been making this line and, as I said, actually liked the sound
very much. I don't know if this will be a successful move by Yamaha, but
I feel that it is a step in the right direction for them.
Dick Schneiders DickS...@aol.com
Mike R.
ri...@value.net (Rick) wrote:
>I took that advice. I went to the store(s) determined to buy a
>Taylor. I even ordered a 614C. But, I kept playing Taylors and
>everything they have at Gryphon and Guitar Solo (Bay Area), from
>Collings to Martin to Breedlove, etc. I ended up with a guitar I
>hadn't even heard of -- a James Goodall. In the end, it wasn't even
>close. A different tone than all of the others, and a guitar that can
>hold up equally well under sensitive fingerstyle or hard flatpick
>rhythm banging. Hadda have it.
>Good advice: Keep trying them out until there's one that you can't
>keep your hands off of.
>stephen kurtzman <ste...@kurtzman.com> wrote:
>>In article <1996Oct25...@pbs.org> , btif...@pbs.org writes:
>>>The best advice is the advice you'll see again and again on RMMGA: Go play
>>>a lot of guitars and they will tell you what to do.
>>This is great advice. Just be prepared. Some guitars sing out like the
>>sirens.
From a Taylor owner, I've got no beef with someone buying a Goodall.
They're fine guitars.
chris...@aol.com
Well, you generally get what you pay for. I bit the bullet and got up the
cash for a Taylor 714, and man, the tone, the playability, the balance. I
ended up getting rid of most of the other wood I have lying around -
Yamaha, Ibanez - even my '51 Epiphone archtop, because I just never play
them anymore. Takamines I've played, can't compare.
As for contemporary Martins, I was looking for a Martin when I went into
Guitar Center. I played everything(new) they had on the wall, they were
okay - but the Taylors!
They blew everything away. And this particular guitar sounded better than
the more expensive taylors that were hanging next to it. You just have to
play everything to find the happy accident.
Jason Barry
In article <550t7k$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> lpa...@aol.com
(LPattis) writes:
>Jesus H. Christ.....give it a rest, boys.
Good grief, will I ever second that !!!!....
I can't believe you guys who compare apples and oranges...
Wake up would ya's?!@#?@?!?!?
Bob Hester
In article <55d76i$c...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, enti...@ix.netcom.com
(thomas) wrote:
> on average, how much more is a Taylor than a Takamine?
>
> personally, when i go to the guitar stores to play acoustic guitars
> many of the high-price-tag ones just aren't anything special...
Suggested retail? You could get a higher-end Takamine with electronics for
the same price as a lower-end Taylor. That's a huge generalization, but I
think it's fairly accurate. I imagine that Taks can be discounted more
than Taylors, but I wouldn't bet my check on it.
What would I do? I like Taks just fine, but I would buy the Taylor
400-series before I bought the Santa Fe model. But everybody is different,
so play away and see what happens.
--
My opinions...naturally.
Oliver K. Reichl
Tom Hartman wrote:
>
> I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
> that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
> was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
> like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
>
> Then the other night I noticed a country artist named Ken Chesney
> playing a single cutaway Takamine that looked, and sounded great. I know
> I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
> ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
> out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
>
> Thanks for any input!
>
> Tom Hartman
> --
> "Let me explain something to you Walsh...this business takes a certain
> amount of finesse." ---"Chinatown"
I've played Taylors and own a Takamine N-15 (sans pickup, but I had a
Fishman Natural installed). On stage, this Tak blows away Ovations, and
rivals Martin for sheer resonance, sustain, and volume, but has a warm
tone (not as boomy, in-your-face like Martins). Frankly, the brand name
is kind of irrelevant, just get something that has GOOD WOOD!! The
Taylors are your basic spruce top configuration, the Takamine N-15 uses
cedar for the top, and the all-important rosewood (rather than mahogany)
for the back, sides, bridge, etc....
Anyway, my vote is for the Taks.
Oliver
Brad Stark
Unless I'm mistaken, the Takamine has a laminate body with a solid top
whereas most (all?) Taylors have solid bodies and tops. This would make
them VERY different instruments.
Bottom line for me has always been: Buy the guitar that sings to you. You
will know it when you find it...
Brad Stark
Oliver K. Reichl <oli...@mulberry.com> wrote in article
<331A4A...@mulberry.com>...
El McMeen
"Oliver K. Reichl" <oli...@mulberry.com> writes:
> Tom Hartman wrote:
> >
> > I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
> > that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
> > was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
> > like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
> >
> > Then the other night I noticed a country artist named Ken Chesney
> > playing a single cutaway Takamine that looked, and sounded great. I know
> > I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
> > ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
> > out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
> >
> > Thanks for any input!
> >
> > Tom Hartman
> > "Let me explain something to you Walsh...this business takes a certain
> > amount of finesse." ---"Chinatown"
>
> I've played Taylors and own a Takamine N-15 (sans pickup, but I had a
> Fishman Natural installed). On stage, this Tak blows away Ovations, and
> rivals Martin for sheer resonance, sustain, and volume, but has a warm
> tone (not as boomy, in-your-face like Martins). Frankly, the brand name
> is kind of irrelevant, just get something that has GOOD WOOD!! The
> Taylors are your basic spruce top configuration, the Takamine N-15 uses
> cedar for the top, and the all-important rosewood (rather than mahogany)
> for the back, sides, bridge, etc....
>
> Anyway, my vote is for the Taks.
>
> Oliver
Here we go again...
Tan Kah Thye
Brad Stark wrote:
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, the Takamine has a laminate body with a solid top
> whereas most (all?) Taylors have solid bodies and tops. This would make
> them VERY different instruments.
Depends. I think Takamine uses solid sides and back.
The top depends on the model of the guitar. Usually an S is appended to
the
guitar model no. if the guitar has a solid top.
Eg. C132S has a solid cedar top.
> Bottom line for me has always been: Buy the guitar that sings to you. You
> will know it when you find it...
Solid wood will definitely mature as the guitar ages.
George C. Kaschner
> > Tom Hartman wrote:
> > > Then the other night I noticed a country artist named Ken Chesney
> > > playing a single cutaway Takamine...
> > I've played Taylors and own a Takamine N-15 (sans pickup, but I had a
> > Fishman Natural installed). On stage, this Tak blows away Ovations, and
> > rivals Martin for sheer resonance, sustain, and volume, but has a warm
> > tone (not as boomy, in-your-face like Martins).
Any particular Martin, or is this another case of the generic Martin
sound? ;)
> > Frankly, the brand name
> > is kind of irrelevant, just get something that has GOOD WOOD!!
There you have it. Construction, design, and detail have nothing to do
with tone.
> > Anyway, my vote is for the Taks.
> > Oliver
E.M.> Here we go again...
So does this have anything to do with the fact that Garth gaks a Tak?
Go for the tone...
George Kaschner
James
>
> Here we go again...
I own a Taylor and a Tak and love them both . So my suggestion is to buy
BOTH!!!!!
You can NEVER own too many guitars!
Keith Dunnigan
: > > I've played Taylors and own a Takamine N-15 (sans pickup, but I had a
: > > Fishman Natural installed). On stage, this Tak blows away Ovations, and
: > > rivals Martin for sheer resonance, sustain, and volume, but has a warm
: > > tone (not as boomy, in-your-face like Martins).
: > > Anyway, my vote is for the Taks.
: > > Oliver
:
I also have a Takimine N-15 and I'll consider a trade for a similarly
priced Taylor.
Keith Dunnigan
ke...@wubios.wustl.edu
DADGADTune
I have owned a Takamine N-15 and three Taylors. The difference is like
comparing a Subaru to a Mercedes (the Takamine is the Subaru here). They
are totally different classes and levels of guitars. Most Takamines are
mass produced laminated (plywood) backs and sides, and usually tops.
Taylors are mass produced, but with more care and workmanship, and also
made of solid wood. If you look closely at the two and can't see the
difference, you need to learn about read some magazines to learn about
guitar construction, etc.
sschrei...@gmail.com
> I was in a shop the other day and played two Taylors, one about 1900
> that had single cutaway and a pickup, which I really liked, and one that
> was non-amplified for about 2300, which I absolutely loved. Not to boomy
> like a Martin, crystal clear, and played like a champ.
>
> I don't have model numbers here, but is this Takamine a different
> ballgame (i.e., not remotely as good) or is that line worth checking
> out? I must say the Taylors were extremely impressive.
>
> Thanks for any input!
>
> Tom Hartman
> --
> "Let me explain something to you Walsh...this business takes a certain
> amount of finesse." ---"Chinatown"
At the end of the day, it will always be a personal choice based on what you like. But if play plugged in. Make sure you test both against the type of system you will be using. BTW, the P5 is less than half the price of a 814CE coming in at around $1,800. So, if price is a consideration Tak will win hands down. Good luck in your search.