Probably a newb-ish question

[Rob Zamites]

As you all know, I'm scraping together money to have a new OM built. I want to make sure I know exactly what I want before having the luthier start on it, and I'm also going to be banking on his experience to help with development. What I'd like to know is what aspects and physical characteristics are the primary modifiers of a given OM's tone/depth of bass/trebel/midrange and sustain? I read about Flatiron 'Pancakes' having great tone, but my logic says a deeper soundbox would make for a more booming sound. Then there's the whole aspect of soundhole design, placement -- and the actual body shape (I'm still going with a classic Celt teardrop shape -- but how extreme?)and scale length. I know this is probably a stupid series of questions, but I want to be sure when I start having my OM built, I'll get *exactly* what I want out of it. And don't get me started on whether I'm going to have 4 or 5 courses!!

[PCypert]

Hey,
These things can vary from builder to builder. There are some generalities that one can apply though.

For instance a shorter scale OM/Zouk will be better for melody line playing. Both because of volume and because of playability. The Longer scale OM/Zouks will have more sustain and will require more reach.

Body depth will of course play into sound.

Soundholes don't make as much difference as one would think. Check out the new Brentrup to see what I mean.

A cedar instrument (Slia's and my old Crump) will sound better off the bat. There's some debate about them dying off years later or at least not maturing. A spruce top will just take more playing in.

Back wood can vary the instrument quite a bit depending on builder and species. Rosewood is more melow with overtones. Maple is bright, loud...good for a mando I say why not go exotic on an OM when you're not having to compete with banjos...hopefully. Mahog has some really nice tones to it, but can get a little bit muddy when worked to hard. I like blackwood for these types of instruments but that's an aussie builder thing.

Also to consider is if you want a push pin or floating bridge. A push pin bridge will result in an OM/Zouk that's more guitar like in sound. More like a 12 string in most opinions. But the string changes are easier and it's easier to locate strings. The floating bridge gives more overtones/sustain and has more of the classic zouk sound.

Paul

[steve V. johnson]

Paul seems to have covered the basics pretty well, but as he notes, these are broad generalizations.

Folks usually start with body style (guitar-, celtic-, mandolin-body, or something completely different)and scale length, then go on to other details, bridge, soundhole, woods, frets, other dimensions.

I'd add that, in searching for a more mandolin-like than guitar-like OM/zouk sound in conversations with a bunch of luthiers (and threads here in the Cafe), I've come to feel that body depth, not just the volume of the body box, has a great effect on timbre.

It seems that, for a particular body size, the opening(s) in the top work best as a particular proportion of the top ("plate") area.
Luthiers know these mathematical releationships, and of course, play around with them. There are differences in the sound of various shapes of the hole(s), but each luthier has their own relationship with that.

I have had a Fylde Octavius pin-bridge 23" OM, and it wasn't -that- much more guitar-like, but the floating bridge and tailpiece to make a difference. I think that some builders are finding that a pin bridge can allow them to use different instrument dimensions and still get a lot of overtones and sustain. Just for examples, David Webber of B.C., Jack Spira and Fylde have used pin bridges really well.

My 25.4" Crump B-II is cedar over rosewood, and I really love it. The sound has changed over time, and I am very, very pleased with it. I don't know if it has, or will, stop playing in over time, but if it doesn't change any more, that's real ok with me. I enjoyed working with Phil Crump and I got better than I asked for. My B-II is very well-respected among players who are much better than I am!

The only way I could think of to shop for 'my' custom zouk was to ask every dumb question I could think of, and to everyone I could find who might be able to answer it, particularly luthiers. In the process I have corresponded with a lot of them, and learned a whole lot. Don't hesitate to ask. Look at all the designs and variations you can find. The builders' section here is invaluable.

It's a good time, a few years ago there were a lot fewer luthiers building these things. There were PacRim off-the-shelf models (that you still couldn't play anywhere before you bought them) and there were MegaBuck custom instrument that were made one at a time for great players who knew the luthiers somehow. <G>

I guess more choices are better... a bit more confusing... <GG> even overwhelming.

Also, there are threads here in the Cafe about recordings of OMs/zouks, and listening to as many of those as you can can help to develop a criteria for what sound you want.

Oh, you're in N. Indiana, right? I found two Weber OMs in Chicago, one in the Old Town School of Folk Music shop and the other at Hog Eye Music in Evanston. If you get up there, it's worth it to see if they have any more and put your hands (and ears!) on 'em. I hadn't ever heard a Weber F-bodied OM, so it was quite a revelation to me. There are other shops up there that occaisionally have an OM or a zouk, so calling around can be revealing.

Best,

stv

[Rob Zamites]

Steve, I'm in SW Michigan, but have the potential to cruise to Chicago every so often; the great news is that I'm only 44 miles away from Elderly! My last trip there, I had the chance to play a tiny bit on a Peterson Level 2 they had (used, only $885!), and the difference in sound quality and sustain was HUGE compared to the Trinity 'zouk they had. I'm really thinking a 3.5-4" deep soundbox is what I'm after, but it's the top and side/back wood combos I'm more concerned with...I know the most inexpensive route is spruce top, maple sides and back, but I like the idea of something more exotic, as long as I don't compromise on sound. What does it mean when folks here say their instrument has 'opened up' with regards to getting a new instrument and starting to play it? Does this have anything to do with the woods used to build the instrument?

[otterly2k]

BB-
Your questions are not stupid, but are the questions that luthiers and those of us who buy from them struggle to answer all the time.

Paul and Stv have covered a lot, so I won't re-iterate those things. I'd only add that while there are guidelines, there aren't absolute answers, since there's variation in sound amond instruments of the same design and even same woods. There's an element of mystery in addition to the science and woodworking prowess that goes into each instrument. also, there are a lot of different ways for these instruments to sound great, and it can be hard to describe.

I think the best you can do is try as many different kinds as you can get your hands on, and develop your own preferences, and then try to go after what you like. and know that your preference will evolve as your ears and skills evolve, which may eventually lead you to want something different or something in addition to what you pick now.

think of it as a process...get as close as you can, but know that you'll still be on the journey...

[steve V. johnson]

Oh, yeah... I get that area all mashed up... <GG> I've lived in South Bend and that area, Valparaiso and down in Marshall Co., Indiana, too, and I was gypsying all over the place, strafing party sites in Michigan from the Dunes to MC5 concerts in Detroit...
(boy that dates me, don' it?)

That Peterson is a great guy, shows up at Irish fests in a huge ol' top hat with feathers. I play his stuff there, when I can. Not my flavor, but that one at Elderly is a great value! They often have good new and used ones at real good bucks. They claim to have a Weber Absaroka OM also (23"), and you really, really, really should play that one. There's one in my neighborhood and I'm sorely tempted to add it to the collection.

"I'm really thinking a 3.5-4" deep soundbox is what I'm after, but it's the top and side/back wood combos I'm more concerned with...I know the most inexpensive route is spruce top, maple sides and back, but I like the idea of something more exotic, as long as I don't compromise on sound. "

As I mentioned, body depth is generally regarded as sort of formulaic. Guitar builders will mess with it, zouk builders sometimes mess with it, I've found that luthiers who build mandolins tend to be a bit less flexible about it, liking to stick to the mathematical relationships between the "plates" and the sides that have been long-established. I guess it seems that the Loar methods can't be improved upon that much... I've found it to be a touchy subject with mando builders, but Phil Crump has been happy to talk with me about messing with various proportions. (Tho we haven't tried any of them out, really...)

Have a look at what various luthiers have to say about woods on their sites. Many builders include nice descriptions of their woods. Jack Spira's are interesting because they are those Aussie woods that are unfamiliar to us, and I think Davy Stuart has some good words on woods. Have a look here for descriptions of woods < http://www.vtguitars.com >, too, and as I recall, Chris Baird's Arches site has some good wood info.

In the USA, mahogany tends to be sort of a baseline, a sort of de-facto standard (a la Martin D-18, I guess...), with maple being brighter and rosewood darker and with more overtones. Walnut wasn't used for a long time, cherry is still rare, but coming up a bit more. Like the Aussies and New Zealanders, there are other builders who use what is characteristic of where they live. Bill Bussman likes to use southwestern woods in his Old Wave instruments, mesquite and such.

Many luthiers' sites will say that folks spend too much attention on the wood choices and not enough on the design, but they usually include more wood information than they do design information. That's understandable, to a certain extent, since their versions may be 'proprietary' information. <G> I was looking at Nigel Forster's site and he made that statement, that woods are of less importance to the instrument than the design, but then he only works in top-$$ premium Brazilian rosewood... <GGG>

I didn't think too much about the differences for a long time. Back when I had John Greven build me a maple jumbo (all the wood cut here in Indiana, near Bloomington, too!) and I hadn't played it a lot. In the interval I got a rosewood Santa Cruz OM PW, a rosewood Lowden 032 and a rosewood Crump zouk. Then I started to play the Greven again and got a real lesson in what maple does. Wow. So they are different.

Again, look at all the luthier sites you can and ask them about the woods.

"What does it mean when folks here say their instrument has 'opened up' with regards to getting a new instrument and starting to play it? Does this have anything to do with the woods used to build the instrument? "

As Paul mentioned, the general view is that spruce tops (and the genetic variations of those woods called "spruce") start out with one sound (perhaps 'new' sounding or 'stiff') and as they are played over time, the sound develops and matures and "opens up". My Santa Cruz OM PW (with a spruce top) had been played a lot in the shop where I got it, so it had a somewhat mature sound when I got it, but has still developed a deeper, fuller and more complex tone over time.

The Crump zouk's cedar top has developed, too, but it was really amazing right out of the box. The orthodoxy, as Paul said, is that cedar tops are more mature-sounding at the beginning, but develop less over time. I dunno. I really like the 'warmth' of the cedar and rosewood together. It's also been said that it's easier to 'overdrive' a cedar top with hard playing than it is a spruce top... I play hard, but I've only heard that a couple of times, never on my own instruments, but on some mid-line instruments in shops.

There are loads of threads in the Cafe about how instruments mature and change in sound and feel over time, and even about how they change if they -aren't- played over time.

Don't be in too much of a hurry, this is a big process. <GGG> Enjoy it!

stv

[steve V. johnson]

p.s. I think that the top is the most important part of the instrument, really.

fwiw,

stv

[John Kavanagh]

Body depth gives you a bigger bass sound, but can also make the sound kind of boomy and make the response slower. My wife has a cittern - a "real" Rennaissance style cittern but strung like a Terz guitar (low note G like an OM). It's very very shallow - tapered to less than an inch at the bottom - but the sound is quick, bright, and well-balanced. I've played things that are too deep, and they can feel a little sluggish, like it takes a long time to get all that air moving (I don't know if that's really why).

I think I've heard that guitar flatpickers like a shallower body on a dreadnought size if they do a lot of lead playing, and that would kind of support my notion. But I'm not a builder at all.

[Bob DeVellis]

One way to go is to choose a builder whose approach (e.g., general style, tone if you get a chance to hear some) you like and then tell them what you want the instrument to do. Although certain specifications, across builders, will tend to produce certain tonal effects, there's no guarantee that a particular luthier uses that specification to get that particular effect. For example, a given builder may rely more on design variables than material variables to get more sustain (or whatever). Therefore, the builder is uniquely qualified to recommend what combination of factors, for his/her instrument, will produce the result you want. If you want an instrument that you will use primarily for melody in sessions with a fair number of loud instruments, a builder can make a specific recommendation tailored to that intended purpose. Each builder might have a different set of specs to achieve that end. Asking for an instrument with particular specs may or may not guarantee a particular result. The exceptions are things that have to do with playability. If you know you like the playability of a shorter, wider, fingerboard with an arch, for example, tell the builder and those can be factored into the recommendation.

[steve V. johnson]

John K wrote: "Body depth gives you a bigger bass sound, but can also make the sound kind of boomy and make the response slower."

I started a thread about this in the builders' section a while back, and your idea was confirmed. #There is a point of diminishing returns. #There was some variety of views there, some PhD posturing that led the topic away from the question, and finally some good math and good anecdotal information.

As I recall, the math has to do with the relationships between the area of the top and back (the "plates") and the depth of the #sides, or rims. #There is a pretty predictable point at which the sound loses definition and goes all woofy. #But, there are also offsetting variables, according to some of the luthiers, such as if the sides taper. #One or two of them said that they had just had good results making deeper ones anyway. # It's a mystery. #<GG>

Woops, am I sidetracking this thread? Oops, sorry... #No more... <GG>

stv

[steve V. johnson]

Good stuff, bobd!

stv