Tonal Differences - 09 versus 10 Series ?

[Folkestone]

Hi Everyone:

I'm aware of the aesthetic differences and the structural similarutues between the 09 and 10 series.  At the risk of being contaversial, has anyone noted any significant difference in tonal quality between these two series?   In a recent edition of Iron & Steel, Bob Taylor commented in the Letters Section, that in Taylors he couldn't honestly perceive tonal quality differences between the 810 and the 910.

Your observations, please.
Thanks,
Jeff

[Mr_LV19E]

Not any more than you might experience between two 09's or two 10's.

[BluesMan1]

   Jeff, I've had both. My L-10 is almost 17 y/o now & sounded fantastic from the first note. Had it made for me, so had an L-09 & L-05 while waiting for my L-10. Took a little over 3 months, Wendy & Jean personally working on mine due to their relationship with my luthier. Loved all of those guitars but ended up just keeping the L-10. Got a couple of Flammang OM's after I sold the -05 & -09. The -09 was very similar in tone & sound to my L-10, but the L-10 just had an overall better sound, being a little more balanced & just sounding better.
   Now, this was back in '93 when I was told that the tone would be affected because the woods on the higher series were a little better as you went up. Others agreed about the comparison of the 2. Those that have played my L-10 have said it was in the top 5 guitars they ever played. The -09 might have matured into the same sound, but no 2 guitars are alike.
   Many will tell you that there is no difference other than bling between the two. I personally think it's a subjective thing. If Bob can't tell the tonal difference, maybe he should make them so he can? Will differentiate the 2 series better?
   I can only give you my story. This has been a topic of many different answers for a long time, & not just since I joined the Forum. You can probably find an -09 series that sounds better than a -10. My experience has been, @ least back in the dark ages, yes, I could tell a difference. Everytime I play my L-10, it just makes me smile & glad that I bought it. Must be, since I still have it after all of this time?
     Jeff

[JOYCEfromNS]

   Jeff, I've had both. My L-10 is almost 17 y/o now & sounded fantastic from the first note. Had it made for me, so had an L-09 & L-05 while waiting for my L-10. Took a little over 3 months, Wendy & Jean personally working on mine due to their relationship with my luthier. Loved all of those guitars but ended up just keeping the L-10. Got a couple of Flammang OM's after I sold the -05 & -09. The -09 was very similar in tone & sound to my L-10, but the L-10 just had an overall better sound, being a little more balanced & just sounding better.
   Now, this was back in '93 when I was told that the tone would be affected because the woods on the higher series were a little better as you went up. Others agreed about the comparison of the 2. Those that have played my L-10 have said it was in the top 5 guitars they ever played. The -09 might have matured into the same sound, but no 2 guitars are alike.
   Many will tell you that there is no difference other than bling between the two. I personally think it's a subjective thing. If Bob can't tell the tonal difference, maybe he should make them so he can? Will differentiate the 2 series better?
   I can only give you my story. This has been a topic of many different answers for a long time, & not just since I joined the Forum. You can probably find an -09 series that sounds better than a -10. My experience has been, @ least back in the dark ages, yes, I could tell a difference. Everytime I play my L-10, it just makes me smile & glad that I bought it. Must be, since I still have it after all of this time?
     Jeff

there is absolutely no way I could have answered this differently my experience and thoughts are identical

[cke]

Now, this was back in '93 when I was told that the tone would be affected because the woods on the higher series were a little better as you went up. Others agreed about the comparison of the 2. Those that have played my L-10 have said it was in the top 5 guitars they ever played. The -09 might have matured into the same sound, but no 2 guitars are alike.

My L-09 supposedly has "Master grade " wood, that may usually go to -10's. That was what the tag said. All I KNOW is that it is beautiful and sounds fabulous. I personally prefer the lower 'bling' level of the -09.  It would be far more likely that two or three samples would vary more than the tonal difference between the -09 and -10 models. Still if the higher grade wood makes a tonal difference, then I thank God I found the one I did.

BTW I have played only 2  Larrivees: my L-09 and a D-60. Why? because it is so hard to find stores that carry them in a variety between the San Fernando Valley and Santa Barbara where I live and work - and the Oxnard Factory is right there in the middle!@ My comparison was with a long list of high-end manufacturers. What sold me was the tone and balance that the L provides. I would like to play more Larry's now, but have a hard time finding them.

[BluesMan1]

   cke, I personally prefer a lower bling guitar also. But after seeing Wendy's work & hearing that she might be leaving to go back to school, I had to jump on this build to make sure she did my genie. I had the money for a P-72 (top of the line back then), but didn't want more bling than I was already getting. Larrivees just blew me away back then. The -09's were great guitars & still are. I'll post 2 pics, one about 1 year after I got it, the other in '07, just to show how nice she's aged. I think it's "honeyed" even more in color in the last few years. And as you probably guessed, the inlay you see on my sig is the one on the L-10 Custom. Sounds like you have a nice guitar. A keeper! I liked the L over the D also. Just had a more balance sound to it. Am starting to prefer smaller guitars as I get older.
  My F-III is low bling, which adds to the total look. Has a vintage look to it. And, sounds amazing! Since I got it, it's been hard to tell which of the 2 guitars sounds & plays better. Think it's more of what I'm in the mood for playing, as far as styles? A little off the topic, sorry.
  I'm having a guitar built that is VERY low bling, as all is in the sound & playability of this guitar. Based on Erwin Somogyi's guitars & guidance. He has been helping the builder with his guitars, exchanging emails & pics. Kind of cool, considering Erwin's guitars start @ $26,000? That is the correct price. Go on YouTube & search his name. Some cool videos.
  And there are different grades of "master grade" woods. Bob Taylor uses "master grade" woods on some series, but saves some of the real special pieces for limiteds & custom guitars. Jean & family do the same. He actually supplies Bob with lots of his woods, and many other builders. They've become friends over the years & have a good relationship. Think about that for a second. He sells wood to Bob, one of his biggest competitors, and has no problem with it. Amazing!
    Jeff

[attachment deleted by admin]

[ducktrapper]

Other than differences inherent in any two guitars, I wouldn't expect much of a difference solely due to the extra shiny stuff.

[GA-ME]

Other than differences inherent in any two guitars, I wouldn't expect much of a difference solely due to the extra shiny stuff.

[BluesMan1]

   Both are extra shiny series. Some think gloss sounds better, some think matte. Some think no difference. I have no opinion on the finish affecting the sound. Have both, have had many of both, & actually prefer matte to gloss. My SD-50 was gloss & sounded fantastic. Because of the gloss? Don't think so. Just a great guitar. But it's a gloss finish. Another personal preference. Wasn't my point in my answer. The thread is asking about comparing two series of Larrivees, both gloss. My F-III is matte & sounds fantastic.
  It's not about the finish, but about the woods? At least that's what I thought the thread was about?
    Jeff

[jeremy3220]

I don't know why this keeps coming up. The difference is right in the names. The tonal difference between the 10 series and 09 series is 1 ATU (atomic tone unit). This is of course is in metric since Larrivee is Canadian so you can't compare Martin and Taylor models to Larrivee without converting the units. For Martin models you can just divide by 1.34 to get to metric ATU's since they are measuring 'Absolute Tone'. With Taylor you have to convert from 'Relative Tone' to 'Absolute' (subtract 147 then... divide by 1.34).

[cke]

Suddenly it all becomes clear!! Thanks

[leerichards]

 
good one, Jeremy, you are a jester of the highest order.  Rick

[flatlander]

I don't know why this keeps coming up. The difference is right in the names. The tonal difference between the 10 series and 09 series is 1 ATU (atomic tone unit). This is of course is in metric since Larrivee is Canadian so you can't compare Martin and Taylor models to Larrivee without converting the units. For Martin models you can just divide by 1.34 to get to metric ATU's since they are measuring 'Absolute Tone'. With Taylor you have to convert from 'Relative Tone' to 'Absolute' (subtract 147 then... divide by 1.34).

Yea, I wouldn't be assuming anything by the differnce in 09-10. I have 10 but 09 that was beside it sounded every bit as good. At the time, the inlay that was different than other makers' appealed to me,

[leerichards]

I don't know why this keeps coming up. The difference is right in the names. The tonal difference between the 10 series and 09 series is 1 ATU (atomic tone unit). This is of course is in metric since Larrivee is Canadian so you can't compare Martin and Taylor models to Larrivee without converting the units. For Martin models you can just divide by 1.34 to get to metric ATU's since they are measuring 'Absolute Tone'. With Taylor you have to convert from 'Relative Tone' to 'Absolute' (subtract 147 then... divide by 1.34).

Jeremy, while you have your ATU tables handy, would you do me a great favour, please, and look up the relevant figures for the L03R and the Yamaha FG720S 12 string (solid spruce top, laminated nato B&S, N.B. gloss finish) because I'd really like to know which sound I prefer and I note that you have seen into the heart of this business. You would have to convert to metric because NZ has been that way for some time now and then there is the time difference to be taken into account. I'm sure you'll appreciate the seriousness of my problem and what a relief it will be to me to have it resolved. Many thanks, Rick   

[BenF]

I don't know why this keeps coming up. The difference is right in the names. The tonal difference between the 10 series and 09 series is 1 ATU (atomic tone unit). This is of course is in metric since Larrivee is Canadian so you can't compare Martin and Taylor models to Larrivee without converting the units. For Martin models you can just divide by 1.34 to get to metric ATU's since they are measuring 'Absolute Tone'. With Taylor you have to convert from 'Relative Tone' to 'Absolute' (subtract 147 then... divide by 1.34).

That is total genius.  Like Spinal Tap.  'Well, it's one louder, isn't it!!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY sorry, can't resist posting the link.  Makes me laugh EVERY time I see it!

[Zohn]

Both the 09 and 10-series are bad sounding guitars anyway with all that gallons of finish.  

[Zohn]

And there are different grades of "master grade" woods. Bob Taylor uses "master grade" woods on some series, but saves some of the real special pieces for limiteds & custom guitars. Jean & family do the same. He actually supplies Bob with lots of his woods, and many other builders. They've become friends over the years & have a good relationship. Think about that for a second. He sells wood to Bob, one of his biggest competitors, and has no problem with it. Amazing!
    Jeff

Bob is a special individual in that regard too - Jim Olson had the same to say about him.
Hey Jeff - that is a pretty L-10 you have there mate!
For the record: I'm a huge 10-series fan!!

[ducktrapper]

Jean Larrivée has a reputation for being an astute businessman. He owns his own saw mill. Why wouldn't he sell wood to Taylor Guitars or anyone else for that matter? I just see that as a no brainer. It all goes to same bottom line. If it were me though, I'd keep the absolutely best stuff for my own guitars. Just saying.   

[leftync]

There does seem to be a nice camaraderie among guitar builders, particularly the solo shops which really do compete, guitar by guitar. In Larrivee's case, he's apparently trained half the quality luthiers in Canada, so he does have a reputation for generosity of spirit. Of course, Edgar Monch graciously trained him. Larrivee is older than Taylor and has been at it a bit longer. Both have built impressive businesses with loyal followings. Taylor's marketing success as a competitor to Martin is downright astonishing. I like his guitars, as do many, but I haven't bought one. All four of the premium (all-solid) guitars I've bought were Larrivees. I prefer the sound, but I do like the sound of Taylor's GS in maple and in rosewood.
I'm not amazed that Larrivee, who deals in wood, sells to a friendly competitor like Taylor. I'd be amazed if he gave it to him.

[jeremy3220]

Jeremy, while you have your ATU tables handy, would you do me a great favour, please, and look up the relevant figures for the L03R and the Yamaha FG720S 12 string (solid spruce top, laminated nato B&S, N.B. gloss finish) because I'd really like to know which sound I prefer and I note that you have seen into the heart of this business. You would have to convert to metric because NZ has been that way for some time now and then there is the time difference to be taken into account. I'm sure you'll appreciate the seriousness of my problem and what a relief it will be to me to have it resolved. Many thanks, Rick   

Oh no way, that's too time consuming. The L-03R is easy, it has 3 ATU's (the R does have a tonal mass but it's insignificant so we don't count it when doing calculations). The Yamaha is the hard one because we have to know the tonal half life of FG702S; and the mixture of solid wood and laminated will require us to combine laws. So in this case I suggest we just burn them in the lab and see which guitar displaces the greater volume of water by emitting mojo in a gas state.