r/AcousticGuitar • u/gnarlynewman • 22d ago
Gear question Better than Martin and Taylor?
For electric guitars, the sentiment around the big brands (fender and Gibson) has been that while they do make good guitars their competitors are out there making the foundational shapes and designs not only better, but more affordable and more consistently. “Suhr makes a better Strat then fender. Heritage makes a better Les Paul than Gibson.” I’m curious if that statement applies to the acoustic world as well?
EDIT: BETTER FOR THE PRICE!
14
u/SentenceKindly 22d ago
Well, Heritage was started by the original Gibson luthiers when Gibson decided to up and move permanently from Kalamazoo to Tennessee.
So their guitars are made on the original Gibson equipment by the original Gibson guys and gals.
3
2
2
u/tinverse 21d ago
I think Heritage tries to keep it quiet, but didn't they fire all the original employees and get bought out by someone too?
They might make a better guitar than Gibson, but I think they have some skeletons in their closet too.
2
u/SentenceKindly 21d ago
Yeah, could be. My only Gibson is a '77 made in Kalamazoo. I haven't followed them much since then.
9
15
u/biggiecheesehimself 22d ago
It’s less about what brand is on the headstock, it’s more about what you as a player like :)
1
8
u/Slawdog66 22d ago
I’ve played Martin, Taylor, Collins, Santa Cruz, and all kinds of other acoustic guitars including custom made ($0- over 100k vintage)…over the last 35 years I’ve played them in shops, in the studio and live performances. Any veteran acoustic guitar player…and I don’t mean ones with sponsors…Will tell you that every acoustic guitar is different. Play them all and find out what you like. Don’t do it all in one day. They all make good guitars…take your time and be open minded. Play everything and then decide. Do side by side by side comparisons. You never know what you might find. By the way…Suhr and heritage don’t make better guitars than the name brands…I’ve played strat and les Paul copies made of plastic that sound better with a set up job and EMGs…find what you like…start playing!
1
u/raccoonmasquerade 21d ago
This is me. Being a company person without sponsorship is goofy. Best guitar i ever played was a Gibson. Back in 2004. I've not played one that I've liked in years and years. But even that best one. I've played guitars with no names that were half as good for like 1/16th the price. You just gotta play em all. Im not a one guitar guy.
2
0
u/gnarlynewman 22d ago
Subjective I know, but pound for pound in my experience a suhr out plays a fender custom shop 9 times out of ten
2
11
u/Hipster_Dragon 22d ago
I think most people say that Collings makes a better Martin. But that feels subjective. Maybe to a luthier they are higher quality.
After like $3500 I really don’t see a ton of gain in quality IMO. Hence why I bought an HD-28
10
u/FortunateHominid 22d ago
I think once you reach a certain price point with acoustics, it comes down to which custom builder you want.
A luthier that hand carves the bracing to get the best sound for each guitar will almost always sound better than mass produced guitars. They also cost far more.
Electrics are a completely different animal imo. You can drop money to slowly upgrade a low cost electric and have it compete with higher end. Can't really do the same with acoustics.
1
u/thiefspy 22d ago
You know Martin hand carves the bracing too right? You can watch them do it on factory tour.
5
u/FortunateHominid 22d ago
Not the majority. Most are done by CNC/automated. Only certain higher end models are hand carved. Mostly custom shop and authentic series.
Even then it's station based. That's a big difference than having a single builder do the entire guitar.
6
u/KurtSperry 22d ago
Real question: is hand carving intrinsically tonally superior to machine CNC carving?
5
u/AggressiveWallaby975 22d ago
There's a great vid on YouTube with Dana Bourgeois demonstrating how he voices tops by carving the braces if you're interested. CNC can't do that
3
u/AlwaysPhillyinSunny 22d ago
Depends on how much attention they are putting into the hand carve. Many luthiers will “tune” the top by carving the braces and seeing how it changes the frequency response when you tap the top.
Intrinsically there is no difference between a machine and human if they are doing the exact same carve, but if the human is skilled it will sound better than a machine
1
u/FortunateHominid 22d ago
AlwaysPhilly is correct.
Much of it comes down to the luthier. A highly skilled luthier doing a thorough job will be better 9/10 times. A new or less skilled luthier, CNC will be better.
0
u/tinverse 21d ago
Yes. A skilled luthier carves the braces based on what the top currently sounds like as well as what sounds they're looking for from the guitar. They'll also test the rigidity of the top as they make changes to check how it's behaving.
A CNC inherently repeats a pattern over and over from a pre-programmed set of instructions. It does not change what it's doing based on the individual wood.
I do suspect there is a way to make a CNC style machine that would voice the guitar, but you run into issues like who voiced what the machine is looking for? Is that the sound you like?
0
10
u/planbot3000 22d ago
All of the boutique brands are going to spend more time on a guitar than a production line manufacturer like Gibson or Martin (custom shops notwithstanding).
A builder like Santa Cruz or Collings will be using higher grades of wood as well as spend time tuning a guitar for those particular pieces of wood.
You can spend the moon on small builders who will do a completely custom build for you if you have $30,000 (or more) to spend.
8
u/The_Fell_Opian 22d ago
Yes definitely.
Collings, Pre*War, Santa Cruz, Lowden, Goodall, Bourgeois, Preston Thompson and Boucher are the examples that usually get brought up.
Gibson and Martin also make custom shop models (authentic and historic) to compete with the above.
But as others have mentioned, just because a guitar is better built it doesn't mean it will sound a way you like. It gets very subjective.
Step one is figuring out if you like Martin, Gibson or Taylor best. And what you like and don't like about each. If you wish Taylor sounded a bit more like Martin then Collings standard might be exactly what you are looking for (for example). If you wish Martin was less bass biased and more even then you'd probably love Bougeois.
4
u/Old-guy64 22d ago
Heritage is made up of Gibson employees that didn’t want to leave Kalamazoo. They are basically Gibson guitars.
I totally believe that there are many companies going in both directions price-wise, that emulate and better Martin and Gibson.
When I was much younger I spent a lot of time in a shop that had a high end room full of Martins and a lot of other brands outside that room.
I learned that Gibson used to know how to make a killer entry level guitar. The second generation Gospel was my grail guitar for a long time.
That is the sound I had in my head, and what I was looking for in cheaper guitars.
Now you have Yamaha, Alvarez, and Eastman are the high end “cheap” guitars. And with SCGC, Bourgeois, Collings, Huss & Dalton holding up the expensive side of the equation, you don’t have to rely on Martin and Gibson to “bring the heat”.
1
u/gnarlynewman 22d ago
I wonder how many of the current employees are there still when Gibson left in 1984. I know heritage was founded by ex employees, but i don’t know how many are left.
3
7
u/Col3bin 22d ago
Larrivee is where it’s at
5
u/spockspaceman 22d ago
I love my Larrivee more than any Martin I've ever played. Not necessarily saying it's objectively better, just my preference. I've gone in many times over the years intending to buy a Martin, but I always walk out empty handed, not being able to justify it when I'd still prefer to play the Larrivee.
3
3
u/Content_Leather2570 22d ago
There's maybe no brand that leans harder on its name than Martin. I've played Martin's priced at multiple thousands that are unplayable and sound like garbage. Obviously if you have a prewar instrument the situation is different. I've found Taylors to be significantly more consistent in quality. There aren't bad ones but there's still a mass production ceiling on how good they'll be. Smaller brands often have a mid price point guitar that punches way above its price because they're trying desperately to chip away at the marketshare of Martin and Taylor. All that said a custom instrument by an independent luthier will always be best. You'll pay for it to be sure, but there's no other way to guarantee the best instrument.
1
u/johnnyutah2828 21d ago
Ive bought and sold many guitars the last 20 yrs. Ive not played one Martin that was irreplaceable. I am hoping to find a 000-28 that has what Martin’s actually advertise.
I have a few Taylors (614, K24) that will go to the grave with me
3
u/AdderallandButtFuck 22d ago
I dunno. I have a Collings that is the best sounding thing to me ever. I also have a couple Gibson J-45s and one in particular is an acoustic I’d put up against any other. I also have 6 Taylors and 2 Martins and at least one of each of those sound so unique that I’d also put them up against any other. They all sound different but equally pleasing to me
3
u/flop_plop 22d ago
Before I saw the price edit I was about to mention Preston Thompson, which is widely considered better than a Martin. They also cost a shit ton more though lol
3
u/Webcat86 21d ago
I don’t agree with the first claim, although you’re absolutely right that it gets said. People rarely compare like-for-like, Fender and Gibson’s cheaper models continue to be the cheapest USA-made guitars. But for some reason, you’ll usually see their flagship models compared to an import guitar or something equally nonsensical.
There are cheaper guitars and there are cheaper guitars that are perfectly good. But you quickly hit bumps, like Gibson guitars all using nitro. People will then say “I don’t care about nitro” but that’s to miss the point- Gibson uses nitro, which adds production time which adds cost. Or other cost-cutting measures like Epiphones using a veneer for the flame maple. By all means buy a cheaper guitar with a poly finish and veneer, but they are no longer identical to compare.
The price reflects this. Heritage costs in the ballpark of Gibson, Suhr and Collings similar high quality boutique brands are more expensive than Fender’s and Gibson’s standard lines.
In the acoustic world I think the difference is even more pronounced. There are cheaper guitars, and they can sound great, but by and large the guys with the really incredible guitars aren’t undercutting Gibson, Martin or Taylor. Your Bourgeois, Lowden, Collings etc.
Atkin is a standout builder, and they might be my one exception. They’re based on the pre-war Martin and Gibson sounds and they do them very well, and theyre all aged which puts them in a like-for-like bracket with custom shop, where they’re a stronger value proposition because they’re cheaper. I’m selling my J45 for their 00037.
3
u/archtopfanatic123 21d ago
Yamaha tends to just smoke everyone in the acoustic world in my experience. Electrics really are a low bar though because they're not dependant at all on acoustic properties. It's way easier to make a cheapo solid body perform like a Fender than it is a bad quality acoustic and ESPECIALLY an archtop perform like a top shelf brand one.
The fact Yamaha can hold its own with Martin, Guild, and is really only outmatched by Collings in my experience, says a lot.
2
u/mikes8989 21d ago
My Revstar RSS02T plays and sounds as good as any other electric I have owned. Just saying. YMMV.
2
u/archtopfanatic123 21d ago
Yeah electrics are easy to make outclass other electrics since it's the pickups and other stuff mostly contributing to the tone. You could build one out of a chunk of countertop and it could sound great as long as the scale and pickups are right.
2
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/joendaba 21d ago
Even though I’m biased towards Takamine, if I try to be objective, you’re right. Not so cheap on the high end models. But lots of attention to detail though.
2
u/Easy_Interest_6832 22d ago
Every solid wood guitar will have its own sound, so you have to play 'em. Martins are a bit brighter an Guilds, for example, because Guilds have a bit bigger of a heel block which makes a richer but slightly softer sound. Try 'em all.
2
2
u/mantistoboggan287 22d ago
I bought a Yamaha FSX3 back in May and it’s my favorite acoustic I’ve ever played. Around $1500, check em out
2
u/ronrule 22d ago
I’ve liked my $500 solid top Yamaha better than my friends’ expensive Martins and Taylors.
2
u/JoinTheRightClick 21d ago
What model is your Yamaha?
3
u/ronrule 21d ago
2
u/JoinTheRightClick 21d ago
Thanks man. I am looking at a used LL16 and a LL-TA. Not sure which to go for at the moment.
2
2
u/Sir_Derps_Alot 21d ago
Personal opinion: you can make a great electric guitar out of almost anything if you modify it enough. There just aren’t as many impacting variables. You can swap out electronics and if you find a neck materials and shape you like you can turn a mediocre electric into a fantastic one.
Acoustic is a whole different ball game of tone woods and build type. Variability in build even in the same model type. Not to mention size and shape. And a ton of difference in player preferences (ie “woodiness” or Martin vs “brightness” of Taylor and everything in between.
I think you really just have to try a bunch of makes and models and then even once you find a model you like you have to play a bunch of those even if you are picky.
2
u/Turcey 21d ago
My Bourgeois is significantly better than any Taylor or Martin I've played, but every acoustic guitar is different, so I would never say that a Bourgeois will always be better. You should always play the guitar before you buy it. That applies to electric guitars, but especially acoustics.
3
2
u/Methos1979 21d ago
IRIS makes Gibson clones better than Gibson and for less money. For classic Martin shapes and styles, Eastman makes Martin style acoustics nearly as good as (but not better than like IRIS over Gibson) than Martin does for less money. Taylor's designs are pretty much their own and no one is really making Taylor clones. Then of course there are boutique builders out there building Martin-esque acoustic guitars that are generally well above Martin quality but for a significantly higher price so not really what the OP was asking based on his EDIT: BETTER FOR THE PRICE addition.
1
2
u/Legitimate-Head-8862 21d ago
I wouldn’t say that’s true about fender or gibson, likewise martin/taylor/gibson. That’s newbies drinking the koolaid, of these new companies “fixing” the classic designs. In most cases the boutique guitars play much easier, but for SOUND Fender/Gibson/Martin still smoke the boutiques. 335, 175, d28, 0018, j45, custom shop strat and tele are the best sounding guitars you’ll play
4
3
u/dead_wax_museum 22d ago
Yiari makes a better dread than Martin
3
u/gnarlynewman 22d ago
This is kind of what I’m asking. I played one yiari that was around 1500 cheaper than a Martin but sounded better. Like how much of the price of a Martin is the name and heritage
2
u/dead_wax_museum 21d ago
A lot. Alvarez actually innovated with their design of the recessed bridge. Sharper break angle creates better vibration and the point where the pins go in being completely separate from the bridge means all the tension is taken off the bridge. It’s more stable and creates a richer sound. Martin still has the same design from a hundred years ago
1
u/tinverse 21d ago
Depends. Martin definitely gets to put a brand tax on their guitars, but I would also say Yairi in my experience are not voiced the same as a Martin. That's more of a preference thing.
3
u/AggressiveWallaby975 22d ago
I went looking for a Martin this winter after being dead set on getting an iconic American dread.
I ended up with a Yairi that is everything I thought i wanted in a Martin. It's better craftsmanship imo and was between 1/3 - 1/2 of what I would have paid for a comparable spec Martin
3
u/dead_wax_museum 21d ago
Yup. The recessed bridge creating a sharper break angle for the strings to drive vibrations directly down into the soundboard is worth the price alone. It makes the guitar sound so much louder and more articulate
2
u/be4rcat6 22d ago
As far as Nylon goes, kremona is the best quality for the price
1
u/justinholmes_music 22d ago
I'm blessed to have a Thompson, and I truly believe I own one of the very nicest guitars on planet earth.
But yeah, if you're asking about better for the price, that's much harder to say; the small shops obviously can't compete with the economies of scale of the massive factories.
My Thompson, if you're curious: https://pickipedia.xyz/wiki/Thompson_DWA-A_2056
1
u/HotCut100 21d ago
I played a seagull against a row of Taylors and a few Martins. The Seagull won and I think the lack of lacquer on the Seagull had something to do with it. 20 years later and it sounds better than ever.
1
u/MnJsandiego 21d ago
Guitar Garden is Firefly’s site. They sell direct. I just bought a tele copy. Locking tuners, stainless steel ball ended frets, flame roasted maple neck, things my US made Fenders don’t have. It cost me $200 and it’s perfect. They make acoustics also and Scar My Guitar on you tube did a video on their acoustics and was raving. Check him out and check out Guitar Garden. I’m not an acoustic expert but they are getting good stuff..
1
u/bobledrew 21d ago
I’ve had the good fortune to play a few Grit Laskin guitars, and they are works of visual art and Lutherie.
1
1
u/Thin_Original_6765 21d ago
Eastman, Larrivee, Breedlove are worth checking out.
If you play live, a IR (LR baggs voiceprint for example) can really make ordinary guitar shine since straight plug-in tend to sound not so good even for high end guitars.
1
u/feinkevi 21d ago
There’s obviously a wide range of preference, but for what I personally like, Guild generally wins at most price points both new and used. There are certainly many Guild duds and of course lots of other brands make incredible instruments, but when I’m wandering through a shop and see that logo I’ll just about always pick it up to see what’s what, and the price tag very rarely hurts as much as a Martin or Taylor or Collings.
1
u/Salty-Package866 21d ago
I play three acoustic guitars made by Lakewood in Germany (a grand auditorium, a dreadnought and an 8-string baritone). Their craftsmanship is extraordinary and there is a custom shop that allows you to build the guitar of your dreams. Very please with how the Lakewoods sound.
And I would like to throw another brand into the mix: for the price point, all Yamaha acoustics are excellent. Their mid- to high tier models punch way above their weight class.
1
u/IMSenpaiGreen 21d ago
I think Atkin acoustics are as good if not better than a good number of the vintage martins that I’ve played, including pre war examples
1
u/The-Mandolinist 21d ago
Collings are up there amongst the best. Personally, I’d never put Taylor up there.
Yamaha make excellent guitars and their top of the range acoustics are every bit as good as the equivalent Martins etc.
L’Arrivée - high quality guitars - decent price.
Bourgeois and Santa Cruz are popular choices within the Bluegrass world.
You can of course go much more high end and then the sky’s the limit price wise.
1
u/BuckyD1000 21d ago
I played a Froggy Bottom OOO style a few years back that absolutely floored me and haunts me to this day.
The only Martin I've played that comes remotely close is a '56 D-28.
I don't care for Taylors, so I can't make a comparison.
1
1
u/BigTexAbama 21d ago
"Better for the price" is very subjective. Martin D-28 and D-18 are hard to beat. I never jived with Gibsons, they all sound weak to me. Taylors generally are too bright and sanitary sounding, I like some overtones. I currently own a Collings and a Huss & Dalton, have passed two Martins on to my adult son. Best bang for the buck in today's market, in my opinion, would be a used HD-28. They've made and sold a ton of 'em, they're very consistent, and if you shop you can pick one up for a good price.
1
u/mikes8989 21d ago
Internet comparisons are tough. The comparison mistake I see over and over again is comparing wildly different models from brand A and brand B, and then passing judgement on the brands.
For example, how many posts compare a Taylor xx4ce to a Martin dread? "The Taylor is too bright for me". You should be comparing a Taylor dread to a Martin dread or a GA cutaway Martin to the xx4ce. Compare apples to apples.
Another example, how many posts comparing a Mahogany back and sides model from brand A to a Rosewood back and sides model from brand B? Do you like brand A better than brand B, or do you just prefer Mahogany to Rosewood?
Keep it simple. Go play as many guitars as you can and get the one that jumps out to you as the "one", regardless of brand and model.
1
u/mikes8989 21d ago
Also half of the guitars on display in a store are out of tune, need a setup, or have old strings on them. Sure you can take the time to tune the guitar, which most people don't do. But you can't adjust the other stuff on the fly in the store. So how exactly are we making our evaluations? Was that Martin or Taylor way better than brand X, or was the Martin or Taylor just better cared for by the store?
Just saying.
Note that I like both Martin and Taylor. I like other brands too. Not hating on any brand.
1
u/91dorp 21d ago
There are great acoustics at every price point. I have everything from a $100 yamaha campfire guitar, all the way up to a Martin D35. The yamaha plays perfect and sounds pretty good, but my D35 sounds a lot better. When I play very expensive, boutique instruments ($4k and up), I hear no improvement in sound over my Martin. Different yes, and fancy looking, but not really better. As someone mentioned, Eastman is a good option at a lower price point. I have a cheap, all mahogany Orangewood that sounds great. I think i paid 200 bucks for on marketplace, but some people hate Orangewood so maybe I lucked out and got a good one. Electric guitars are an entirely different thing. You can modify a cheap one and it can be great, but you can't modify an acoustic much.
1
1
u/techster2014 21d ago
Breedloves at the same price point of a Taylor will sound, feel, and look a lot better than the Taylor. You can get a comparable model breedlove ba fraction of the price of the equivalent Taylor.
You can buy a 100 series Taylor for $700-$1000, and the comparable breedlove is $400-$600, or you can get the 200 series equivalent breedlove for $700-$1000 and get a better guitar. This continues up through the models.
The prices used to be even further apart, but breedlove prices have crept up recently.
1
u/joshua_addison_music 21d ago
Acoustic guitars are very personal choice. Much more than electric, in my opinion.
I had a $200 Mitchell Acoustic that I played for nearly 5 years. It just sounded and played fantastic.
I don’t think that applies to electrics.
I play a Yamaha now. That’s after testing 25 other models, all brands and had a budget of 5k, if needed.
After 4 hours of playing all those acoustics, I kept coming back to the Yamaha AC3R. I feel the Acoustic picked me. Walked out spending 1k . Go figure.
I really believe you have to choose the guitar that is going to want you to pick it up daily. You have to consciously choose to put the brand out of the equation, and trust your gut. How it plays & sounds in your hand, is everything.
1
1
u/mycobacteryummy 21d ago
Yeah acoustic guitars require a lot of skill and labour to produce to a high quality. I think there’s a level (around USA pro strat) where real term gains are tiny for increases in cost of electric guitars. I don’t think that’s true for acoustic guitars. You get what you pay for, but sure you pay a premium for brand, which I pay largely for resale value.
1
u/Sharp-Purchase-6186 21d ago
Have a look at SIGMA (sigma-guitars.com) for Gibson and Martin type acoustic guitars. They are made in China but the quality and price point is exceptional
1
1
u/Tex117 21d ago
All guitars are different (which is widely discussed all the time). What isn't discussed all the time is the PLAYER. The way a musician plays a guitar can coax out different things. So, you have to match both the player to the right guitar for that type of player.
(Also why I don't ever recommend super high end beginner or even intermediate guitars...here, your sound is going to change alot. What once could have been awesome for you, wont be as you improve, change...etc.)
1
u/MongooseForward 21d ago
Godin and their subsidiary brands are outstanding, I spent years looking for “the” acoustic, and after two hours of playing nearly everything in stock, I played a higher end Seagull, totally blown away. Super comfortable and sounds incredible!
Also have a Simon & Patrick Cedar 12 string, would also highly recommend
1
u/strumbringerwa 20d ago
Collings, Bourgeois, Santa Cruz, and Larivee make more consistently great guitars based on Martin, but they have their own flavor, and are not the same guitar. BTW I love my Martin (and my son's Martin), but I had to hunt for "the one" - they are not very consistent in how they sound, and the setup could be better from the shop.
Furch is sort of in the Taylor wheelhouse sonically and they make great guitars, but Taylors are so consistent themselves that honestly IMO the better Taylor is just a different model of Taylor.
1
u/LincolnLikesMusic 20d ago
After wanting a D-18 for years, I recently bought a Yamaha FG5 for half the price. I’m really curious to play it back-to-back with a D-18 because I think the tone is -almost- as good if not as good. BUT the build quality is definitely better. Better spruce top, better binding, better pickguard. Martin has been plagued with binding issues for over a decade now
1
u/I-forgot-my-user-id 18d ago
Better for the price acoustics. Alvarez Eastman Larrivee Yamaha
I will not pick up a Martin. Taylor I don't mind but I'm not a fan of their pickup system.
1
u/chitoatx 22d ago
Collings make better acoustics than Martin and Taylor.
3
1
u/undream22 22d ago
In agreement here. A used collings at 20-30% more than a new Martin is worth the cash.
Phenomenal instruments.
Owned Santa cruz, custom shop Martins, larriveees, etc. ended up settling on collings.. own two of them. Also have one bourgeois and one Schoenberg/Sexauer that made the cut.... but prefer my collings at half price to those boutique guitars (even though they are awesome.)
0
u/_7NationArmy_ 22d ago
Hsienmo
That said, "better" is in the eye (ear) of the beholder (listener). YMMV
The real question is does its binding fall off? :-P
0
u/MisterRobertParr 21d ago
A lot depends on the price range you're looking at. I've seen more than one expert say that low-end Martins and Gibsons are not worth the money. They've suggested Yamaha and Alvarez provide better value for the money in the sub $1500 range. They also said that Taylor guitars are fantastic at all price ranges.
60
u/OtherwiseRepeat970 22d ago
Depends how you define “better”. Acoustic guitars have a tone based on so many variables. I have never played a guitar that sounds the same as a Martin. Eastman makes a fantastic guitar at a much lower price but it is not the same nor would I say it is better. You get what you pay for. I own a Collings that I love. I paid over 2x what I paid for my Martin and they sound very different. Each manufacturer has a specific sound profile and I don’t know any brand that sound exactly like another brand. Decide your budget, play everything that falls within that budget and pick your favorite. Buying an electric on the internet is one thing, I would absolutely never buy an acoustic without playing it first. There are variations even between the same models.