[pjchappy]

Beyond owning a Martin dreadnaught I play daily (a MMV), I have never spent significant time playing other Martins (or even Taylors. . .please keep reading).  Regardless, I couldn't accept the following comment as truth -- when ordering new strings today, someone made a comment/generalization that the sound of Taylors' is more v-shaped, EQ-wise, vs. the sound of Martins', which according to the poster, have more of a mid-range punch. 

Well, I have at least experienced that acoustic guitars with a similar construction (e.g., wood used, neck joint, strings) are going to sound fairly similar in the hands of the same person (if not even identical). 

I ask this because tonight, I ordered a few sets of light-gauge Elixir phosphor-bronze strings.  In doing so, I came across a review where someone stated the phosphor-bronze strings, vs. the normal Elixirs, have more of a mid-range tone that is more suitable for Martin acoustics vs. Taylor acoustics.  I have tried both types (and many others) on my Martin and personally do prefer the phosphor-bronze.  However, I only skimmed a few reviews as I the only change I am experimenting with is changing from medium-gauge to light-gauge strings for the first time on my Martin.  The only reason is because even after years of playing this damn thing (properly set-up), the tone of many barre chords still often drives me nuts.  Therefore, I hope these light-gauge strings will alleviate my frustration.

Nevertheless, I am not looking for validation with my choice (of guitar or strings), but am just asking about this string choice out of pure curiosity.  In my limited experience, such a statement truly is a generalization.

On a related note, a few years ago, I had the pleasure of strumming a late '20s or early '30s Martin, which if I recall correctly, was an 00-type (as for the specific model, I do not recall).  Although this guitar had a couple of (long-ago repaired) slight cracks on its top, it sounded amazing!  It had no truss rod and as a result, was strung with ultra-light strings (maybe light).  In spite of its diminutive size (at least in comparison to a dreadnaught), it had this amazing slight growl when strummed or picked with a bit of authority.  I will never forget that sound!  Looking back, it was somewhat like the guitar had a subtle/transparent mid-boost pedal or distortion pedal plugged into a very clean tube amp. . . resulting in an ever so slight mid-range crunch.  Looking back, clearly, the review of the strings triggered my beloved memory of this 80-year-old Martin. 

Now, a few months back, I noticed my Martin showing similar attributes.  I must say, it is good to know that break-in on an acoustic guitar can be scientifically proven! (to be clear, I laugh because it's true. . .)

With this, I am looking for any opinions and experience noticing (or not noticing) such differences.  This experience also does not have to only relate to Martin and Taylor guitars.

Thank you,


Paul

[AB]

The best sounding guitar I've played was a Martin 000 something that had been dropped down a flight of stairs. There were no obvious problems, cracks or gaps but the bouncing must have loosened the thing up. It was really incredible.

[pjchappy]

Who knows. . .maybe its trip down the stairs consolidated 10-years of playing during one fateful ride?      Nevertheless, it's great to hear that guitar wasn't destroyed.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to recall the year of the guitar?  I'm not saying one year (even ancient) is better than another.  Regardless of the year, I have definitely noticed things get better with age. . .especially concerning age as measured by time played on the guitar.

I do eventually plan on getting a 00 or 000 guitar down the road.  The problem is I also want new speakers (speakers as related to the main purpose of this site. . .), a Tele, a 12-string acoustic, a Les Paul, a new guitar amp, and a couple different semi-hollow body electrics.  Right now, the 12-string and the 00 or 000 are at the top of my list, however.  The real problem is I have another list that takes precedence over the music-related one, damnit!


Paul

[Steidl Guitars]

Yep, the sound of acoustic guitars changes over time.  They come off the bench sounding pretty tight, get to sounding much better after being played for a few hours, and continue to improve slowly over time. 

Pre-war Martins sound great, and one of the likely reasons explaining why is because they're old! 

Of course, same can be said for Stradivari's fiddles. 

[hibuckhobby]

I agree...my 38 yr old Harptone (think George Harrison, concert for Bangaladesh)  is richer and deeper in tone by far than it was when new.  My experience is that Martins D28 or up have a richer tone than the one Taylor I have owned.  The Taylor played beautifully, but was lacking in bass weight.
Hibuck....

[dflee]

Guitars, like stereo equipment are quite tweekable and can sound different with something like humidity change, temperature and other things. I've been messin around with my 72 D35 and have gotten many different subtle changes. I've recently been tryin out the different picks and the differences there amazed me. I had a new guitar and left it next to my speaker to break in. Set yours next to your speaker and you will feel the wood and strings vibration which helps with relaxing the instrument. Lastly, the old guitar you played. Did you know what it was made of. I've got a Gibson L00 Mahogany body that sounds completely different and cool in it's own way.

Later
Don

ps: Like the Elixir and DR strings. Can't go wrong with either and if you do not have a truss rod, definitely stick with lights.

[Wayner]

Strings are tricky. I have the Martin D-1 and usually put on the Martin "light" strings. Easier to play, perhaps a less tad volume. That seems to be the trade-off.

Our group bought a Martin SD12-41 (12 string) and you won't find much info on the internet as there were only 47 made. It needs new strings and with a 12 string, usually the lighter the better, unless we down tune it 1/2 step and capo it. As an old fart, the damn 12 strings with a heavier gauge are a bitch to jump on for any length of time.

My 2 cents.

Wayner 

[pjchappy]

Well, it turns out I actually never had used Elixir phosphor-bronze strings on my guitar (light or medium gauge).  I had used other phosphor-bronze strings, however.  I had been using just the normal Elixir (bronze) strings, in medium-gauge.

Regarding the Elixir phosphor-bronze, I do not like their tone on my guitar at all.  On top of that, it looks like the E-string is defective, as it had a bit of a warble from the first time I strung it up.  I do like the playability factor of the light gauge strings, however (easier/much better sounding barre chords).

Yesterday, I received some replacements. . .the regular bronze Elixirs (nanoweb. . .and am switching to light gauge vs. medium gauge). 


Paul

[Thirsty]

I own two Taylors, one is a 95 Dreadnought and the other is an 03 Grand Concert.
When comparing new Taylors to new Martins I have always thought the Taylors were brighter sounding and easier to play then the Martins.
A friend of mine owns a little music store and he recently took in a early 60's Martin D-28 on consignment, this guitar was beat to hell but it played great and sounded amazing, even with old strings on it.
I don't care much for Elixir strings but to be honest I haven't tried them in years, I'll stick with D'Addario Phospher Bronze.

[Vulcan00]

I recently bought some nano and plyweb         strings but have not tried them yet.  I seem to be in the minority but I like the sound of 80/20 bronze on my HD28 but I change them often, so I don’t buy the coated strings. D'Addario strings for me. I play the J25 D'Addario light gage treble and med bass strings.