Bowl vs. Arch vs. Flat Back Mandolins

[LimuHead]

Well the topic says it all. I was wondering what the effects were that each type of back has on the sound of the mandolin. Is one sweeter, while another is punchier? If so, which is which. I don't want to think it's purely a visual thing. I did try the search function but came up with nothing.

Thanks ya'll
Aldon

[Bill Snyder]

This (http://www.mandolincafe.com/archives/faq.html) might help. Read the section titled The common types of mandolin construction.
BTW Aldon I enjoyed your music. Now you need to add a mandolin into the mix. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[Jim Garber]

I was wondering what the effects were that each type of back has on the sound of the mandolin.
Not just the back but the whole construction is different. Very hard to compare apples and oranges and bananas. Not only do they look different and the backs are different but the tops are also different. Factor in different soundholes, different woods and different bracing and you have... well... lots of differences.

We can also describe until we are blue in the faces but prob best to go out and try lots of different ones.

No quick answer... lots of long ones...

Jim

[Bob DeVellis]

I think Jim is exactly right, as usual. Bowlbacks are really a wholly different sound producing system, the bowl only being their most visible feature. Even with less radically different designs, like flat-backed vs arch backed versions of instruments from the same builder, there are usually other variables that are changed at the same time that make it hard to say that tonal differences are all due to one thing. But differences in the shape of the soundbox and the way that the acoustical plates (top and back) are loaded (e.g., with only bridge pressure vs an induced arch plus bridge pressure) do make a difference. As to which types are better and which worse, that's really a matter of subjective opinion.