Taylor 814CE V Deluxe

Discussion in 'Acoustic Instruments' started by Jbonnet, May 23, 2018.


  1. Frozen Rat

    Frozen Rat Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Location:
    California
    I never trust any statement involving human interaction that leaves no room to incorporate individuality. What you're saying is that every guitar player with an experienced ear will always agree, from guitar to guitar, which sounds better and which does not.

    I disagree. E.g., There's a guitar store I go to that is run by trained musicians. I was talking to two of them about a particular Gibson J-45 and was pointing out a weakness I felt I was hearing in the sound. Both of these guys are always honest with me. I've been buying from them for many years and I know them personally now. They each give lessons and actively play professionally besides working in the store: these aren't kids, they are all in their 50s and 60s; one of these guys has a MA in music. Neither of them could agree if they heard what I was talking about. One thought he did, the other said flat out he did not. We couldn't agree on much of anything. I was on the fence about the guitar, one of the other guys liked it, the other guy said he thought J-45s all sounded kind of dull to him and thought I should be looking at a Martin D18 instead.
     
  2. s2y

    s2y Member

    Messages:
    15,517
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Location:
    Caught somewhere in time
    I own a mahogany GA. One problem with the GA series is that they're versatile...and a little generic. It doesn't help that they're strung with 12s. If ya own one guitar, a nice 714 or 814 can cover a lot of ground. I'd consider torrified Sitka or Adi. If you own a few acoustics, it's generic and redundant unless it's considered a backup guitar.

    I have a great 12 fret Taylor and a nice custom DN by Bob Thompson. I'll probably be selling my GA simply because the other 2 do exactly what I need.
     
  3. NeuroLogic

    NeuroLogic Supporting Member

    Messages:
    952
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    N. Canton, Ohio
    You and your friends are confusing preferences as to tonality with the objective standards. I not only have the equivalent of an MA in music/theory but also have written patents on acoustic guitar design and have undertaken substantial analysis with Audio Technica acoustic labs. They analyze sound waves based upon the laws of physics and mathematics. Those are totally objective of standards of which I doubt very much that you and your friends have any knowledge of.
     
  4. NeuroLogic

    NeuroLogic Supporting Member

    Messages:
    952
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    N. Canton, Ohio
    Yes, it should but this one didn't. First, I'm not convinced that Martin'd torrified process is very good. I know that Dana Bourgeois speaks very highly of his but says that the resonance of the wood must be evaluated first. According to him torrification alone will not do it. Based upon my meetings with Martin reviewing acoustic guitar patents and a tour of the factory, they do not evaluate individual wood planks other than by appearance and cut (quartersawn thru slab).
     
  5. s2y

    s2y Member

    Messages:
    15,517
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Location:
    Caught somewhere in time
    I have only briefly messed with a torrified 614ce and my Bob Thompson. Bob is a one man shop and comments on tapping all of his lumber before using. It must work because my DN sounds amazing.
     
  6. Frozen Rat

    Frozen Rat Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Location:
    California
    Certainly you can measure sound waves and establish what you think scientifically is correct for each note on a guitar; but is that then the rubric by which all are to judge proper sound verses improper sound? And how exactly are you differentiating tonal preferences from objective standards? And who is determining the objective standard? That is, by what method are you determining this objective standard? If a string is tuned to pitch and intonated correctly, then what beyond that are you measuring to establish the basis for a comparison between what is a proper/pleasing guitar note to one that is not proper or pleasing?
     
  7. NeuroLogic

    NeuroLogic Supporting Member

    Messages:
    952
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    N. Canton, Ohio
    Good questions. First, the more perfect a sound wave is the better the instrument sounds. This is done by direct comparison of instruments and their sound waves. When done in person the differences are actually quite obvious. Volume and projection are obviously the easiest to measure and generally louder acoustic instrument sound better. However, with the advent of CNC technology several of the lower price point production models have pretty decent volume.

    Second, the "rubric" is too general of a question. Tone quality and pleasing preferences are definitely subjective. For example, Martin guitars have a very identifiable tonality that is true of even the relatively poor examples. Taylor guitars also have a very consistent and definite tone for each body size.

    Third, I already stated that the objective standards are volume, resonance, body shape and overtones. I also should've included projection. I had the same personal discussion with Martin's R&D department, Martin authorized repairmen and several master builders and they all agreed.

    Fourth, it is not a question of perfect versus imperfect sound. It is a matter of determining what are the best sounding instruments. Good examples of vintage Martins are pretty hard to beat in the sound category which has a lot to do with why they're so expensive. However, the essential reason as to why they're so good is the resonance of the wood. Up until the 1960s Martin's woodstock was air dried for 75 years before use. All of the authorities I've referenced above agreed in that this ideal wood is by far the most important element due to the best resonance.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  8. Frozen Rat

    Frozen Rat Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Location:
    California
    I think my main objection is more about what is found pleasing within the parameters of what you would call your objective standard. If we leave that for the moment and let it stand on its own, I think that what we're left with is a range of results from each instrument and you're going to call any measured result that falls outside a certain set of parameters as being less than ideal. That is where my problem lies.

    First, you use the criteria of a trained ear, fair enough, but people often do enjoy instruments that would not be found acceptable to one with a trained ear. What do we call that result? Bias based on one's ability to purchase good sound? Do they train themselves to be happy with what they can get? I'm not so sure it is that easy.

    Secondly, a person with a trained ear might very well prefer results that are within the objective standards, but it has to be a range doesn't it? It cannot be some exact result because that simply would not be believable. Some variance in the result must be acknowledged within a set of parameters since we know that while we each pretty much hear pitch similarly (or do we?), we do not necessarily share all the same tastes in sound. Some like minor keys, some like major keys. Some like melodic playing, others like a driven/distorted sound. Naturally the underlying fundamental sound must be good for a good result in any of those types, but those fundamentals certainly do not have to be some exact result. If we accept that, we accept that there is a variety of results that can be said to be within an objective standard that supposedly all humans with a trained ear would accept as being a pleasing and proper sound from any particular instrument.

    Of course I do not know if you agree with this statement. Personally, I still think it's not nearly so cut and dry as you make it sound. And that, I think, is just another example of how humans are too individual to pin down so easily by saying that everyone agrees that sounds from an agreed objective standard are going to please everyone (or even everyone with a trained ear), or that everyone will agree that those are the sounds preferred. E.g., no one wanted distortion until someone heard it from a tube amp and thought it could be put to some good use. I'll bet at the time many listeners were saying, "what the heck is that noise?"

    I have no doubt that you can hear all these differences you speak of. I'm questioning whether you can apply your result to everyone else's perceived experience. At the very least I think you would have to throw out the top and bottom 5% of people who would respond to any kind of clinical test. And if you exclude 10% you're already in trouble in calling these parameters as universally pleasing. Better to say that, "there's a range of sonic results that are ideal, and tones/sounds within those ranges will appeal the largest majority of human ears."
     
  9. NeuroLogic

    NeuroLogic Supporting Member

    Messages:
    952
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    N. Canton, Ohio
    You're referring to subjective standards which are certainly OK. I did not say that everyone should undertake the clinical tests. What I said is that there is an objective comparison for evaluation. This obviously creates a "range". Every instrumentalist including guitarist that I have sat down with it and illustrated these concepts agreed and increased their knowledge. Objectivity is always more accurate than subjectivity.
     
  10. Frozen Rat

    Frozen Rat Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Location:
    California
    I understand your original post(s) better based on this bit of summary. I think we likely agree more than disagree as it turns out.
     
  11. clothwiring

    clothwiring Supporting Member

    Messages:
    6,697
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    Central NY
    I just got a Martin HD-28e from Sweetwater a few days ago, fantastic guitar. I've never been much of a high dollar acoustic owner though I owned a Taylor 712CE at one point. I have a few Alvarez-Yairi, one I play at home with and another that I use mostly for gigging. The Martin just stands out and above all of the others I've owned. Look at buying a Marting GPC-28e as well.
     
  12. Frozen Rat

    Frozen Rat Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Location:
    California
    I had one of those for a while. It was deep in tone but tough for me to play. The high tension of the strings and the size of the body just got to me or I'd still have it. I eventually ended up with a 00-28. Same great tone (although a bit different) but easy to play.
     
  13. Jp2558

    Jp2558 Member

    Messages:
    1,855
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    I have a GPC-35E and it’s a great guitar. Between that and my M-36 I have no need or desire for a dread.
     
  14. guitararmy

    guitararmy Member

    Messages:
    1,826
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    The Mountain State
    Congrats! I would love to play one of the new V-braced Taylors, still waiting for my local dealer to get one in. I wonder if they will do a V-braced dreadnought?
     

Share This Page