Taylor 614ceFE First Edition First Play

[timfitz63]

Well, I finally got my hands on one of these today.  Empire Music had one in stock.  Being a fan of Maple, I was eager to check it out.

The first thing that struck me was the aesthetics.  I really have to admit: Taylor hit it out of the park with the dark stain on the Maple; it really highlights the figuring well without hiding it.  The other appointments were very nice and worked well with the darkly-stained Maple.  On the whole, I give Taylor high marks on the new 600 aesthetics.

Sat down and began my typical ELO-based guitar-testing playlist, starting with "Turn To Stone" and an "E" chord.  "Wow," I thought.  "Pretty impressive bass, especially considering it's Maple!"  But the buzz-kill (for me) came with the next few chord changes; as I went from the introductory "E" to "F#" and then to "F#m", it sounded like all the bright, sparkly highs that I'd come to expect and love from Maple had been clipped away...  To my ears, Maple's characteristically-balanced brightness (at least as it had been done by Taylor in the past) had been ruined...  I was really trying to be open and objective, and give the new 614ce a fair chance; but when I grabbed some of the other guitars off the wall to compare it against (e.g., a Cocobolo PS14ce), it only confirmed for me what I was hearing...

I get what Bob Taylor wants to do, and I can respect his foresight here:  Maple is plentiful in North America and probably the most sustainable wood source for the future of guitars.  But it has not been a popular choice because natural-finish Maple doesn't have mass visual appeal; and the brightly-focused tone also doesn't seem to capture the ear of most guitar customers.  So, I must be one of the 'odd-ball' consumers that actually preferred Taylor's former visual and sonic treatment of Maple...  In fairness, if Bob Taylor and Andy Power's objective was to create a Maple guitar that neither sounds nor looks like a Maple guitar, they've succeeded admirably:  mission accomplished.  And on the whole, the new 614ce sounds reasonably good; Taylor will probably sell more of the newer 600 Series than their older 600 series, based solely on its ability to give customers the impression that they are purchasing a more conventional-looking and -sounding guitar.  Sadly, the new 600 Series is just not going to be for me...

Your reported experience is an outlier, (I think I've read 6 or 7 reviews so far, not including mine of course) Sounds like it might have been that specific build you had in your hands. Or the pick you used. Or....  But, good thing it's not for you, or the GAS would start all over again.... 

Yeah, I'm willing to concede that I'm probably expressing a minority opinion where the re-voiced Taylors are concerned.  You could also be correct about it being a isolated 'dud' guitar; even Taylor builds one from time to time.  And right now, anything that controls GAS in my world is probably a good thing...!

Don't get me wrong:  I'm not saying the new 614ce sounds bad; just that I've formed certain expectations -- whether outdated or not -- about how a Maple guitar should sound.  And the new 600 Series doesn't seem as if it will match those expectations for me.  It's all fine; I'm content to stick with my 'legacy' 656ce and BR-V to get my Maple fix...

In retrospect, I'm not surprised that you found the new 656ce appealing enough to replace a brand new 456ce with one; the tone of the new 656ce is going to be much closer to Ovangkol now; yet still retain Maple's clarity and focus, which is generally a good for a 12-string...

[Willhubbs]

We've had one come in and go out already in the shop, and my boss (who's 10 times the guitarist I am) loved it. I only picked it up for 5 minutes or so, but I would agree with what's been stated. It's nothing like a normal maple guitar, in fact I found it wasn't really even a 'Taylor' sound, more like the sound of a Rosewood back and sides Martin to me, so yup, if their goal was to create something made from Maple that doesn't sound like Maple, then they did it. Visually the torrified top, and the grain of the maple along with the nice inlays definitely made it a real looker, but would personally I wouldn't have one over an 8 series from my personal judgement of what I'd want from a Taylor based off this one first edition so far.

[timfitz63]

We've had one come in and go out already in the shop...

Yeah, apparently the one at Empire Music became spoken-for, even as I was playing it.  They seem to be flying off the shelves, so to speak.

... I only picked it up for 5 minutes or so, but I would agree with what's been stated. It's nothing like a normal maple guitar, in fact I found it wasn't really even a 'Taylor' sound, more like the sound of a Rosewood back and sides Martin to me, so yup, if their goal was to create something made from Maple that doesn't sound like Maple, then they did it. Visually the torrified top, and the grain of the maple along with the nice inlays definitely made it a real looker, but would personally I wouldn't have one over an 8 series from my personal judgement of what I'd want from a Taylor based off this one first edition so far.

I think those who either prefer or have become comfortably familiar with the traditional treatment (primarily sonically) of Maple in the Taylor line will find that they do not like the new 600 Series as much.  If this was purely an aesthetic upgrade, I'd be fine with the dark stain treatment.  But, as we've discussed here, that's not really the sole point with the dawn of the Andy Powers Era at Taylor Guitars.  Taylor clearly wants to generate more mass appeal while sticking to their guns about long-term wood sustainability, and re-voiced Maple with a dark stain will be their ticket.

So for anyone who's been considering a 600 Series Taylor for a while, you've come to a fork in the road:  old sound or new sound.  If you prefer the old sound, you can probably make a killer deal right now on a any leftover 'legacy' 600 Series models...

[Guitarsan]

So for anyone who's been considering a 600 Series Taylor for a while, you've come to a fork in the road:  old sound or new sound.  If you prefer the old sound, you can probably make a killer deal right now on a any leftover 'legacy' 600 Series models...

Choice is good! (If not great). The neat thing is, the "new" tone doesn't sound exactly like anything else, so I see it as a successful outcome.

Ironically, Andy Powers says "The thing with maple is that, historically, we did the same things to maple as we did to rosewood or mahogany guitars - and that's not fair. Maple has its own personality and needs to be treated in such a way. You don't cook a steak in the same way as you cook salmon, right?"

That's from the Acoustic Magazine article.

As I reported in my original post above "Second thing was the responsiveness. I would describe it as "punchy", but in a good way. Like a very fast and steep attack very noticeable compared to the rosewood 814ce and a typical rosewood guitar. It just stuck out to me right away." Well, it was cool to see in their review of the new 600 in the same magazine, they commented several times about responsiveness. In addition to everything else about it, it will suit those who want both a strummer and fingerstyle guitar in one package.

[timfitz63]

So for anyone who's been considering a 600 Series Taylor for a while, you've come to a fork in the road:  old sound or new sound.  If you prefer the old sound, you can probably make a killer deal right now on a any leftover 'legacy' 600 Series models...

Choice is good! (If not great). The neat thing is, the "new" tone doesn't sound exactly like anything else, so I see it as a successful outcome...

That's a fair point.  And I don't want to give the impression that I'm denigrating the new 600 Series; it's still a great guitar with Taylor's signature quality and playability.  I'm merely pointing out that their is a distinct difference in tone between the 'legacy' 600 Series and the re-voiced 600 Series.  If one prefers the old tone, the time is ripe for a great deal on a 'legacy' model.

... Ironically, Andy Powers says "The thing with maple is that, historically, we did the same things to maple as we did to rosewood or mahogany guitars - and that's not fair. Maple has its own personality and needs to be treated in such a way. You don't cook a steak in the same way as you cook salmon, right?"

That's from the Acoustic Magazine article...

Hmm.  Interesting analogy Andy is drawing.  I guess I see his point if he's referring to Taylor's former practice of using essentially the same bracing, finish thickness, glues, etc. on each Series, regardless of the woods involved.

But I'm going to play a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here and say that's not really what Taylor is doing with the re-voiced 600 Series.  And for Andy to portray it that way is somewhat disingenuous.  Taylor has taken Maple, which is traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood; and rather than using (if you'll pardon the pun) tailored bracing to accentuate Maple's characteristics, they've shifted it's sonic response -- somewhat artificially through the use of bracing techniques -- to sound more like Mahogany or Rosewood (i.e., traditional guitar tonewoods).  This re-voicing solution has, seemingly not been driven by the desire to give Maple its most favorable bracing treatment; but rather to create more mainstream sonic appeal for Maple because Taylor views that tonewood as being the most promising for them to sustain and acquire in the long term through their stringent wood procurement requirements.  In essence, Taylor wants to rely on Maple trees to supply the bulk of their tonewood; but in order to make that a financially viable path (because bright-sounding Maple has apparently not been commercially successful for guitar makers), they need the wood to look and sound more like traditional tonewoods.

So one can, in fact, successfully prepare beef and salmon in the same way -- and have both meats be enjoyable.  And it can be done without making the salmon taste like the beef -- just so more people will buy your ready supply of salmon...

... As I reported in my original post above "Second thing was the responsiveness. I would describe it as "punchy", but in a good way. Like a very fast and steep attack very noticeable compared to the rosewood 814ce and a typical rosewood guitar. It just stuck out to me right away." Well, it was cool to see in their review of the new 600 in the same magazine, they commented several times about responsiveness. In addition to everything else about it, it will suit those who want both a strummer and fingerstyle guitar in one package.

Yes, you're absolutely on the mark there.  But I think that's simply a characteristic of Maple itself, rather than anything that was done with the re-voice bracing.  To me, the main accomplishment of the re-voicing is to make the tone of Taylor's Maple-bodied guitars more like guitars built using Mahogany or Rosewood...

[Guitarsan]

... Ironically, Andy Powers says "The thing with maple is that, historically, we did the same things to maple as we did to rosewood or mahogany guitars - and that's not fair. Maple has its own personality and needs to be treated in such a way. You don't cook a steak in the same way as you cook salmon, right?"

Hmm.  Interesting analogy Andy is drawing.  I guess I see his point if he's referring to Taylor's former practice of using essentially the same bracing, finish thickness, glues, etc. on each Series, regardless of the woods involved.

Great, he obviously is, especially if you read it in the context of the whole long article.  You really should get a hold of the article, it's packed with great expansion on what's already out there. And you wouldn't think Taylor's not telling the truth......

But I'm going to play a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here and say that's not really what Taylor is doing with the re-voiced 600 Series.  And for Andy to portray it that way is somewhat disingenuous. 

Taylor has taken Maple, which is traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood; and rather than using (if you'll pardon the pun) tailored bracing to accentuate Maple's characteristics, they've shifted it's sonic response -- somewhat artificially through the use of bracing techniques -- to sound more like Mahogany or Rosewood (i.e., traditional guitar tonewoods). 

It's actually completely reversed. He's saying up to now they've braced maple like rosewood and mahogany [examples, he doesn't call out tonewoods]. It's traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood because it has been braced traditionally. Now they're bracing maple to suit maple. He backs my assertion up with other details in the article, I just haven't shared them here. (And I'll leave it for you and others to get the original source in Acoustic Magazine.)

[timfitz63]

... Ironically, Andy Powers says "The thing with maple is that, historically, we did the same things to maple as we did to rosewood or mahogany guitars - and that's not fair. Maple has its own personality and needs to be treated in such a way. You don't cook a steak in the same way as you cook salmon, right?"

Hmm.  Interesting analogy Andy is drawing.  I guess I see his point if he's referring to Taylor's former practice of using essentially the same bracing, finish thickness, glues, etc. on each Series, regardless of the woods involved.

Great, he obviously is, especially if you read it in the context of the whole long article.  You really should get a hold of the article, it's packed with great expansion on what's already out there. And you wouldn't think Taylor's not telling the truth......

But I'm going to play a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here and say that's not really what Taylor is doing with the re-voiced 600 Series.  And for Andy to portray it that way is somewhat disingenuous. 

Taylor has taken Maple, which is traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood; and rather than using (if you'll pardon the pun) tailored bracing to accentuate Maple's characteristics, they've shifted it's sonic response -- somewhat artificially through the use of bracing techniques -- to sound more like Mahogany or Rosewood (i.e., traditional guitar tonewoods). 

It's actually completely reversed. He's saying up to now they've braced maple like rosewood and mahogany [examples, he doesn't call out tonewoods]. It's traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood because it has been braced traditionally. Now they're bracing maple to suit maple. He backs my assertion up with other details in the article, I just haven't shared them here. (And I'll leave it for you and others to get the original source in Acoustic Magazine.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is becoming a chicken-or-the-egg thing; or perhaps a disagreement over perspective.  I don't see (or perhaps more accurately, hear) what you claim is being said in these articles about the re-voiced 600 Series; I did hear what Bob Taylor himself said in the interviews you posted, and put the rest together myself after playing the new 614ce.  Granted, I'm an outsider looking in, so it's fair to say what I'm posting now is speculative opinion on my part.

But if we're all in agreement that Maple is naturally bright-sounding, what makes bracing that takes away that natural brightness more suitable than the traditional bracing?  That's a rhetorical question, perhaps.  But to me, the primary reason that doing such a thing ('normalizing' the tone from the guitar lines, regardless of the wood being used) makes sense is to do exactly what Bob Taylor said they wanted to do in the video interviews you posted:  make more widespread use of a more readily-available wood supply (i.e., Maple).  And the only way that succeeds (given the apparently lower commercial success of the 'legacy' 600 Series compared to other lines, as hinted by Bob Taylor in those video interviews) is to brace the Maple-bodied guitars so they sound like more traditional tonewoods.

Now, I'm not trying to make a case whether that corporate decision was right or wrong; or that someone who prefers the re-voiced 600 Series is equally right or wrong.  Just saying that if this new bracing is being publicly portrayed (either by Taylor Guitars or any industry publications) as 'fine tuning' that complements naturally-bright Maple -- by diminishing that natural brightness so that the tone is more like Mahogany or Rosewood -- I'm not hearing -- or understanding -- it...

[Guitarsan]

Oh, I've concluded it's perspective too. Here's mine (to finish (for me) and summarize):

B - It would be great to sell more maple guitars, given we have and can grow far more of it than other stressed tonewoods.
A - Why don't we sell more of them?
B - A lot of folks say they're brighter than what they like to hear in a guitar.
A - Well, I've wondered why you braced them the way you do, and there are other things I can do that have been done for centuries with other maple instruments. That would give it a more richer, balanced tone. And then I think those folks who say "its brighter than what they like to hear in a guitar" could change their minds, if we give them what a lot of them like to hear in a guitar.
B - That would be awesome if you could. Of course, some folks will then say you made it sound like guitars they now like, and furthermore then will equate it with other tonewoods they like.
A - Ok?
B - So they might think you changed maple's sound to be like other tonewoods.
A- Rather than say, "hey, I thought that maple was too bright for my tastes in a guitar, but I'm digging it now"?
B - Yep.
A- And they would both be right from their perspective, I guess! Small price to pay for sustainability progress.
B- Amen to that!

[michaelw]

... Ironically, Andy Powers says "The thing with maple is that, historically, we did the same things to maple as we did to rosewood or mahogany guitars - and that's not fair. Maple has its own personality and needs to be treated in such a way. You don't cook a steak in the same way as you cook salmon, right?"

Hmm.  Interesting analogy Andy is drawing.  I guess I see his point if he's referring to Taylor's former practice of using essentially the same bracing, finish thickness, glues, etc. on each Series, regardless of the woods involved.

Great, he obviously is, especially if you read it in the context of the whole long article.  You really should get a hold of the article, it's packed with great expansion on what's already out there. And you wouldn't think Taylor's not telling the truth......

But I'm going to play a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here and say that's not really what Taylor is doing with the re-voiced 600 Series.  And for Andy to portray it that way is somewhat disingenuous. 

Taylor has taken Maple, which is traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood; and rather than using (if you'll pardon the pun) tailored bracing to accentuate Maple's characteristics, they've shifted it's sonic response -- somewhat artificially through the use of bracing techniques -- to sound more like Mahogany or Rosewood (i.e., traditional guitar tonewoods). 

It's actually completely reversed. He's saying up to now they've braced maple like rosewood and mahogany [examples, he doesn't call out tonewoods]. It's traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood because it has been braced traditionally. Now they're bracing maple to suit maple. He backs my assertion up with other details in the article, I just haven't shared them here. (And I'll leave it for you and others to get the original source in Acoustic Magazine.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is becoming a chicken-or-the-egg thing; or perhaps a disagreement over perspective.  I don't see (or perhaps more accurately, hear) what you claim is being said in these articles about the re-voiced 600 Series; I did hear what Bob Taylor himself said in the interviews you posted, and put the rest together myself after playing the new 614ce.  Granted, I'm an outsider looking in, so it's fair to say what I'm posting now is speculative opinion on my part.

But if we're all in agreement that Maple is naturally bright-sounding, what makes bracing that takes away that natural brightness more suitable than the traditional bracing?  That's a rhetorical question, perhaps.  But to me, the primary reason that doing such a thing ('normalizing' the tone from the guitar lines, regardless of the wood being used) makes sense is to do exactly what Bob Taylor said they wanted to do in the video interviews you posted:  make more widespread use of a more readily-available wood supply (i.e., Maple).  And the only way that succeeds (given the apparently lower commercial success of the 'legacy' 600 Series compared to other lines, as hinted by Bob Taylor in those video interviews) is to brace the Maple-bodied guitars so they sound like more traditional tonewoods.

Now, I'm not trying to make a case whether that corporate decision was right or wrong; or that someone who prefers the re-voiced 600 Series is equally right or wrong.  Just saying that if this new bracing is being publicly portrayed (either by Taylor Guitars or any industry publications) as 'fine tuning' that complements naturally-bright Maple -- by diminishing that natural brightness so that the tone is more like Mahogany or Rosewood -- I'm not hearing -- or understanding -- it...

tim, i think that Taylor is hoping more hands will go up,
regarding the redesigned 600 series than ones that go down,
but there will still be players that may not like the end result -
putting regular light gauge .012 & .016 unwounds may bring
some of the sparkle back but if it doesn't a 14 spec 600 can be
ordered through the Custom program for those that would to

maple probably will not be the end-all'-be-all for all players & imho,
neither is adi/braz (i have one & it's nice, but not the 'grail' to my ear) -
when it comes to tone, we each hear what we hear & none of us are
wrong, especially when it comes down to who's pulling out their credit
card & ends up sitting/standing behind said guitar ... it's all good

Gsan, i won't say anything else other than to state andy
agrees with you comes across as being a bit arrogant,
especially considering andy's background as a player &
builder & the resources that are available at Taylor ...

i've developed some opinions based on experience first & then finding out about
what went into the development of certain processes & i've come to find out after
i read it, i sort of had an idea of where things were going & it wasn't because
the company that made the guitar agrees with me, it's the other way around

ymmv

[timfitz63]

... Ironically, Andy Powers says "The thing with maple is that, historically, we did the same things to maple as we did to rosewood or mahogany guitars - and that's not fair. Maple has its own personality and needs to be treated in such a way. You don't cook a steak in the same way as you cook salmon, right?"

Hmm.  Interesting analogy Andy is drawing.  I guess I see his point if he's referring to Taylor's former practice of using essentially the same bracing, finish thickness, glues, etc. on each Series, regardless of the woods involved.

Great, he obviously is, especially if you read it in the context of the whole long article.  You really should get a hold of the article, it's packed with great expansion on what's already out there. And you wouldn't think Taylor's not telling the truth......

But I'm going to play a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here and say that's not really what Taylor is doing with the re-voiced 600 Series.  And for Andy to portray it that way is somewhat disingenuous. 

Taylor has taken Maple, which is traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood; and rather than using (if you'll pardon the pun) tailored bracing to accentuate Maple's characteristics, they've shifted it's sonic response -- somewhat artificially through the use of bracing techniques -- to sound more like Mahogany or Rosewood (i.e., traditional guitar tonewoods). 

It's actually completely reversed. He's saying up to now they've braced maple like rosewood and mahogany [examples, he doesn't call out tonewoods]. It's traditionally a very bright-sounding tonewood because it has been braced traditionally. Now they're bracing maple to suit maple. He backs my assertion up with other details in the article, I just haven't shared them here. (And I'll leave it for you and others to get the original source in Acoustic Magazine.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is becoming a chicken-or-the-egg thing; or perhaps a disagreement over perspective.  I don't see (or perhaps more accurately, hear) what you claim is being said in these articles about the re-voiced 600 Series; I did hear what Bob Taylor himself said in the interviews you posted, and put the rest together myself after playing the new 614ce.  Granted, I'm an outsider looking in, so it's fair to say what I'm posting now is speculative opinion on my part.

But if we're all in agreement that Maple is naturally bright-sounding, what makes bracing that takes away that natural brightness more suitable than the traditional bracing?  That's a rhetorical question, perhaps.  But to me, the primary reason that doing such a thing ('normalizing' the tone from the guitar lines, regardless of the wood being used) makes sense is to do exactly what Bob Taylor said they wanted to do in the video interviews you posted:  make more widespread use of a more readily-available wood supply (i.e., Maple).  And the only way that succeeds (given the apparently lower commercial success of the 'legacy' 600 Series compared to other lines, as hinted by Bob Taylor in those video interviews) is to brace the Maple-bodied guitars so they sound like more traditional tonewoods.

Now, I'm not trying to make a case whether that corporate decision was right or wrong; or that someone who prefers the re-voiced 600 Series is equally right or wrong.  Just saying that if this new bracing is being publicly portrayed (either by Taylor Guitars or any industry publications) as 'fine tuning' that complements naturally-bright Maple -- by diminishing that natural brightness so that the tone is more like Mahogany or Rosewood -- I'm not hearing -- or understanding -- it...

tim, i think that Taylor is hoping more hands will go up,
regarding the redesigned 600 series than ones that go down,
but there will still be players that may not like the end result -
putting regular light gauge .012 & .016 unwounds may bring
some of the sparkle back but if it doesn't a 14 spec 600 can be
ordered through the Custom program for those that would to...

Those are all fair points, Michael.  I'm not trying to give anyone the impression that I want to see the new 600 Series fail; if Taylor sells more of these than of the 'legacy' 600 Series, more power to them.  I just can't say that I find it to be a tone improvement.

And BTO's tend to be expensive avenues; personally, I try to reserve that option for woods that are unavailable in the regular lines.

... maple probably will not be the end-all'-be-all for all players & imho,
neither is adi/braz (i have one & it's nice, but not the 'grail' to my ear) -
when it comes to tone, we each hear what we hear & none of us are
wrong, especially when it comes down to who's pulling out their credit
card & ends up sitting/standing behind said guitar ... it's all good...[/font][/size][/color]

Concur.  Everyone has their own tastes -- which is seemingly why Taylor offers so many different lines with different wood combinations.  I guess that I tend to be a purist, and would prefer to just let Maple be Maple, and Mahogany be Mahogany, and Rosewood be Rosewood -- and let the consumer choose which tone suits them best -- rather than offering a 'Rosehogany'-sounding Maple that gives no one an option for that really bright tone...

Eh, I guess the sales numbers will ultimately decide this debate...

[Guitarsan]

Great conversation. Have either of you read the Acoustic magazine articles?

[BobSol]

Hi Guys
             I have read the article which taken as a whole speaks volumes for Taylor's vision for the future of the industry. Traditional tonewoods are getting more difficult to sustainably source and less economically viable for a firm the size of Taylor. I cannot imagine them producing a guitar at this level without considerable testing and development, not to mention market research. We all like what we like and we're all different. It simply makes no sense to dismiss a fine instrument purely based on the woods used on the back and sides. Time will tell, gentlemen, but I for one applaud their efforts.

[Guitarsan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJ6uOUwwhc

....a bracing to optimize the way maple wants to move naturally......

[Jersey tuning]

Is any other major guitar maker voicing similar concerns?  If not, do they lack foresight or is Taylor boldly going where no one has thought to go before?  Will Taylor offer both traditional and reconfigured maple models?

[guitarsrsoawesome]

As a former 614ce owner, when seeing the video guitarsan just posted and hearing that last strum as the video ends, I heard the revoiced 6 throw more bass than I could have imagined Maple ever could.  It sounded beautiful to my ear.

And, after following this thread closely, and hearing the two sides of the discussion (which I have enjoyed immensely, I love it when really smart, knowledgeable people present their viewpoints, even when they disagree), it's hard not to see the validity of both sides. 

Clearly Andy Powers is trying to change what has become the traditional voicing of maple, as well as the aesthetics (of which, the new asthetics I love because of the proximity to the stain of traditional stringed maple instruments such as the violin, viola, cello, etc.), efforts which Taylor hopes will give Maple a broader appeal.  But I can see how Maple traditionalists enjoy the brightness of maple, especially in acoustic/unplugged multiplayer situations where they want to cut through with lots of sparkle say where there's a bunch of boomy rosewood dreads, or do the same in a band/plugged in environment where maple can still cut through bass, drums, etc. while managing overtones. 

In my view, this is really the crux of the matter, and Taylor was willing to leave behind the old brightness for this new version, perhaps because they know just a little eq in a band situation will still allow the new maple to punch through with brightness, while the essence of maple to limit overtones remains (as compared to rosewood).

It is also amazing how much changing the back bracing to taper away at the sides (you can see that in the video) immensely impacted the tonality.  Over the years I've watched you more knowledgeable fellows discuss the impact of the changes Taylor has made in top bracing, hearing the difference the bracing changes to the back have made only makes sense, as well as thinning wood thicknesses and veneer.

This whole re-voicing experiment with both the 8 series and the 6 is incredibly interesting.  One day, I hope to have the time and wherewithal to make just one guitar myself, as some of you on the forum have, and to experiment with all of these variables.  Fascinating. 

Funny how nothing I've said resolves the issue at hand, which is, which version is better?  That's up to each listener, as so many of you regularly surmise.