ShortScale.org

honeyiscool wrote:

MMPicker wrote:It's not just a matter of full dynamics, these guitars are lacking in bass, IMO. for one thing. Anyone interested just go on Youtube and look up some examples of 000s and OMs vs. the little guys and compare yourself.

But that's partly also the Taylor sound, too. Most of their guitars have that bright sound.

With an emphasis on"partly".
It's true Taylors do tend towards the bright side in general, they are often critiqued as sounding "thin and reedy" by those who are not fans. But there is an unmistakable effect on bass , constrained sound often poorly described as "boxiness", and overall volume, that is attributable to the size of the box itself. this goes to the tonal physics of acoustic guitars and transcends maker. And Taylor is not immune.

Interested parties just go to the youtube links, play a bunch in the shops, and decide yourself.

I don't know that I completely agree.

A friend of mine made me a brazilian back and sides, cedar topped L-32. Its an odd scale, like 23.2X or some such and it sounds pretty dang similar to an old J-45.

Oranges to Oranges, you're not going to be able to transcend the laws of physics but if you're using rosewood and light bracing, you can get huge sounds out of small guitars.

Leisureclub wrote:brazilian back and sides

tee hehehehheheh hehe a tee hee tee hee

Leisureclub wrote:I don't know that I completely agree.

Oranges to Oranges, you're not going to be able to transcend the laws of physics but if you're using rosewood and light bracing, you can get huge sounds out of small guitars.

Yes you can get a big guitar and fill it with concrete and a bunch of rags, and a teeny guitar built and braced optimally by an expert, and in that case you will get more from the teeny guitar, I quite agree.

But let's assume the same maker is trying to optimize each of those designs, using simlar materials.
For example, which do you find has the biggest bass here, the GS mini? All but the first are Taylors.

isn't it kind of obvious a smaller acoustic is going to have less volume and less low-end? right, we can swap materials to maximize the potential. . . and end up with a small guitar that costs more than a big one does. i wouldn't have a travel/junior acoustic as my main player as i like a full (not boomy) sound. i had one of those a while back, and it was fine for what it was. that's not to say smaller guitars can't sound great, but lets not kid ourselves that differences in tone are negligible.

Of course!

I probably just want to make myself feel better about having to play small guitars.

There probably is a point where in a dreadnaught sized guitar, constructed to be played fingerstyle will sound absolutely terrible played with a pick. You can go with super thin tops, sides and backs and go with light bracing and it would be waay too alive. If you shrink the scale, it'd potentially sound really good though.

Maybe my point was that there's a lot that goes into making an acoustic guitar and body size is just one of many contributing factors. I'm not sure though.

I leave this thread with a link to a performance of a "short scale" (24.9"), but hardly small body guitar.
I guess he could have used a GS mini..

MMPicker wrote:With an emphasis on"partly".
It's true Taylors do tend towards the bright side in general, they are often critiqued as sounding "thin and reedy" by those who are not fans. But there is an unmistakable effect on bass , constrained sound often poorly described as "boxiness", and overall volume, that is attributable to the size of the box itself. this goes to the tonal physics of acoustic guitars and transcends maker. And Taylor is not immune.

Interested parties just go to the youtube links, play a bunch in the shops, and decide yourself.

But I think it sounds wonderfully balanced. If you like the Taylor sound, the GS Mini really gets it in a small package. Especially in a recording or if you're going to be playing through a pickup anyway (although I don't suggest the GS Mini soundhole, I'd suggest something else) or with other musicians, these things sound great. But don't expect them to work solo in a campfire setting.

[youtube][/youtube]

I'm just saying, it sounds great to me, and to me, they get the Taylor sound. I mean, sure, the GS Mini lacks bass and is pretty bright sounding, but have you heard my full sized GS (316ce koa)? It sounds a lot like that, and you know what? That's why I bought a Taylor. I wanted presence and a guitar that could easily be mic'd and be easily heard in a dense mix. I didn't want warmth and depth. If I wanted a deep, full, bassy sound, I'd have gotten a J45 for the same money. Or at least I would have gotten a dread instead of a GS shape. My Seagull dread is far more mellow with more depth than my Taylor (though not as loud) and that's why it's my usual guitar I play around when I'm by myself. But as soon as I'm playing with other people, I want the Taylor because it has presence.

Art & Lutherie Ami. My fav acoustic I've ever had.

Leisureclub wrote:Of course!

I probably just want to make myself feel better about having to play small guitars.

There probably is a point where in a dreadnaught sized guitar, constructed to be played fingerstyle will sound absolutely terrible played with a pick. You can go with super thin tops, sides and backs and go with light bracing and it would be waay too alive. If you shrink the scale, it'd potentially sound really good though.

Maybe my point was that there's a lot that goes into making an acoustic guitar and body size is just one of many contributing factors. I'm not sure though.

hey, man, to each his own. someone's probably going to tell me my gcpa4 sounds like dick, so whatevs.

Can't go wrong with a baby taylor!