Volume [Archive] - Mandolin Cafe Forum

sunburst

Aug-19-2007, 4:31pm

...I would like to know is this something you have gleaned from OBSERVATION in the course of seeing and building many mandolins or did actually TEST it by setting up some kind of a jig to vary the angle and look at the amplitude of the wave produced on a single mandolin?
I haven't set up a break angle test for one mandolin. I'm only speaking from my observation of various mandolins, mostly ones I've built, with different amounts of break-over angle and/or bridge height. Some very loud ones don't have very high bridges or acute string angles.

What I have tried on individual mandolins is stringing them up with four strings. I do this nearly every time I set a mandolin up with a new nut so that I can move a string from one nut slot to the other and alternately cut the two nut slots until they are the correct height. When all the slots are cut, I usually tune the mandolin with four strings and play it a little bit, especially chop chords, and most are nearly as loud with half the normal bridge load. Interestingly, some mandolins loose more loudness than others with half bridge pressure.

woodwizard

Aug-19-2007, 5:02pm

After you get it right thru the building stage, which I know is the hard part, doesn't a good set up help the volume too? Like some like a higher string action to get more bark and loudness. Am I wrong?

Bernie Daniel

Aug-19-2007, 5:24pm

mythicfish: Like and adjustable bridge and/or tailpiece?

I do not think that would do the job.

An adjustable bridge does not change the neck angle-- I'm not sure you could test the concept very well that way as the action soon becomes an issue.

Dave Cohen

Aug-19-2007, 7:43pm

Early on, I made some mandolins with a 7 or 8 degree neck angle, instead of the traditional 4.6 degrees. The mandolins with the larger neck angle were no louder to my ears than the mandolins which I made with the 4.6 degree neck angle. The only thing different about the former was that they were awkward to play.

To a first-order solution, the static down force from strings has nothing to do with setting the top plate in motion. The force from strings which sets the top plate in motion is a dynamic force, i.e., it comes from the stretching and contracting of the plucked string(s). From the (approximately) sinusoidal motion of the string(s), a force pulse occurs at the bridge twice per period, and that is what drives the top plate. Fletcher & Rossing cover this nicely in their Guitars & lutes chapter, pp 241-245.

DavidB

Aug-20-2007, 5:24am

I am certainly no expert, I have only built one f style mando from kit. I have a very low bridge and break angle yet get positive comments on the projection of my instrument when played in a large room or on stage.

labraid

Aug-20-2007, 7:27pm

Makes sense that, how curious though. Why so much down pressure on an F-model, why a 18mm bridge height at regular action, would be my question. Why a 16 degree break angle if you could make the instrument last a thousand years and give it a 12-er. Hmm, I suppose my own error was not asking that question in the first place.
My experience had been from a mandola I made some long time ago, and it was a sort of test, and it had very little break angle and man she was quiet, but what a tone when you could hear it. That might have just been an anomoly but "lessons" stick.
Ok, so I'm thwapping on this new flat-top cytole mandolin, one of the latest in a set of "tuned" soundboxes.. and everyone who hears the thwap says the same thing, "that thing is going to roar." I suppose that should have tipped me off, but now I too would like to leave behind this hand-me-down phalsiphy once and for all. There was no down pressure when I gave it the thwap, yet it was loud.
Ok, my next thought. The more down pressure you have, the more you change the plates from their "designed" dimension and tuning. I mean, you thwap on it without strings and you get a nice chord of sounds from the plates. Then throw strings on it, and all that pressure has suddenly made everything different. It's no longer reacting *quite* the same -- there's torsion here, and tension here, ad compression there, and everything just taps differently, and it's all due to the downpressure which is the origin. Therefore, if I could say so, wouldn't we want the minimum angle on these things that makes them work? That's what rings true in my head after reading and pondering.. And perhaps even go as far as saying, too much pressure just messes up the sound? I know I've heard that claim before...

steve V. johnson

Aug-20-2007, 8:12pm

Yeeepaah...

I don't know how he did it, and he ain't talkin' (exactly), but that Brian Dean made an octave mandolin that is literally scary loud.

It scared off the original owner, scared -me- off and then found it's home with a guy who plays -finger style- with a twelve- or fourteen-piece worship ensemble. And -they- tell him to take it easy.

Beats me...

stv

Michael Lewis

Aug-20-2007, 11:39pm

Part of the human condition is a tendency to over simplify very complex conditions, to apply "logic" before all the particulars are known and jump to a conclusion. The answer is that there is no single answer. Dave Cohen hit on it pretty well from the scientific perspective when he mentioned dynamics, and John Sunburst with the idea that the top and back have to couple, that the entire structure has to work well with it'self. Each part has a range of properties (mass, stiffness, damping, etc.) that has an effect on the rest of the parts. It is finding the ideal size, shape, material, etc. that will accomplish this that is the quest.

A thin top will respond more easily and be louder when played lightly than a thicker top, but it can easily be over driven (less mass the strings have to move). The slightly thicker top will allow more volume before it is over driven (adding a bit more stiffness). The trick is to find the happy range for the particular musician so s/he can play it as hard as they are likely and not have it give up on volume or tone, and yet not be difficult to play. This is where Bill H brings some perspective, to make a lot of mandolins until you know how to predictably make a great instrument. It is your own personal experience that will allow you to make judgements as to how you should proceed. As he said, it may take a lifetime to understand. Unless you contunue to think and puzzle and try to make better instruments you are unlikely to progress.

I think the original question was asked in sincerity, but the answer is likely to be much more complicated and involved one can easily deal with. I find it difficult to express in words some of the concepts involved, and from some of the postings others do also. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif

Hans

Aug-21-2007, 5:04am

Yup, there is no "cure all do this answer". You just cannot deconstruct a mandolin into its component parts and make an analysis. Top, back, tone bars, neck angle-bridge height-breakover-tailpiece height, neck material and mass all enter into the WHOLE to make the tone.
Michael and Bill's advice is solid. The chances of hitting the perfect tonal qualities on the first instrument is impossible and moreover, your ideas of just what that is will change as you gain experience anyway.
The best advice I can give is to make small changes and only make one at a time. To make many changes will just leave you in the dark. Secondly, don't fall into the trap of thin tops. Thin tops sound thin, don't have any "meat" behind them, and cave in.

david blair

Aug-21-2007, 6:33am

Bill Halsey

Aug-21-2007, 7:17am

Secondly, don't fall into the trap of thin tops. Thin tops sound thin, don't have any "meat" behind them, and cave in.
Amen, Hans.

sunburst

Aug-21-2007, 7:43am

"Show me a loud instrument and I'll put tone in it"-Itzhak Pearlman

I've been led to believe that design features such as flatter arching and a narrower body may lead to increased volume. Soundhole size matters too. Also that if the bridge is perpendicular to the body more volume can be achieved. But I'm just a bookworm here...
A flatter arch can change the sound, but by itself. will not make a mandolin louder (unless the arch would otherwise be too high). A higher arch can sometimes lead to better projection. Narrower body, I don't know what wound happen. A thinner body will tend to sound different than a deeper body, but neither will necessarily be louder. Sound hole size changes the sound if the changes are extreme, but taken alone, the size of the sound hole is not a "volume Knob". You can do your own experiments with duct tape.

If you notice, all of those things are relatively easily observable from examining the finished mandolin. Things that people can see tend to get the credit (or blame) for what they hear. They can't directly see how the builder carved the inside of the plates, observe the flex, stiffness, and resilience of the wood, or how the luthier chose the wood for the top and back. It's like Michael said, people tend to jump to conclusions and then pass the conclusions on. "Mr. XXX had a mandolin with a 1 1/2" bridge and it was the loudest one he ever heard" gets translated into; "taller bridges are louder".

BTW, Itzhak was playing with a bow (on a violin) when I've heard him. With a bow, without frets, and with Itzhak Pearlman's talent, training and experience, he can probably drag some tone out of just about any fiddle. Give a players a pick and frets, and there's only so much tone to be had from a mandolin that doesn't have much to start with. I don't think Itzhak was talking about mandolins.

Jim Hilburn

Aug-21-2007, 7:57am

Speaking to the top thickness issue, I had the opportunity to be present when Mike Kemnitzer measured David Grisman's Loar with a Hacklinger last year.
It is suprisingly thin with the thickest measurement right at the bridge being 4.3mm. But it rapidly drops into the higher 3's and is somewhat inconsistent at the recurve but averaging around 3 with the thinnest spots being 2.7mm. There is a prominent bulge behind the bridge and has one of the higher bridges among Loars.
I think a case could be made that this mandolin doesn't have a thin sound.

Steve Davis

Aug-21-2007, 8:03am

“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” H. L. Menkin

sunburst

Aug-21-2007, 8:04am

4.3mm to 2.7mm is pretty consistent with the other Loar measurements I've seen, and not what I would consider a particularly thin top, though I doubt I'd have a piece of wood I'd carve thinner (especially if it was going to be called upon to support a tall bridge).

Hans

Aug-21-2007, 8:35am

Sure, but the bulge behind the bridge most likely means that the top has sunk necessitating the tall bridge. This would be an instrument (in my book) that is right on the edge structurally. I would also guess that it is a very hard chunk of red spruce. Might also have (or at one time had) a high arch.
Of course this is all speculation on my part (never having seen the instrument), but it sure sounds like it is carved too thin for my taste. Never having heard the instrument in person, I couldn't say whether it sounds thin...recordings don't do it for me.
Steve, like H.L's quote!

Jim Hilburn

Aug-21-2007, 9:11am

Adrian Minarov concurs in his prints that a 4.3 center is the norm although I don't know how many samples he had the opportunity to use. He doesn't show it going below 3.2 at the recurve and qualifys it by saying it all depends on the wood that's being used.
Don McRostie's print has a full 1/4" center thickness which is guitar thick. I always felt that was too much but because it was all I had to work with I never got much thinner than 5.5 in the center and thought I was pushing it at that.
What's clear to me now is that the Loars didn't drastically go from thick center to thin recurve. They have more mild graduations.
I don't faithfully follow the Loar's but I think Grisman's is a '22 and one of the earliest. Maybe they were pushing the envelope then since they were just inventing the thing. I personally can't imagine ever making a top that thin and sending it out into the world.

Chris Baird

Aug-21-2007, 9:27am

I think the Loar's got thicker as production progressed. Siminoff has Loar's Loar and he states some pretty thick grads as well.
I regularly build my mandolins too thick and work the grads down with them strung up in the white. I find that the tone of the instrument doesn't change much. What changes is the responsiveness and dynamic range. I am coming to consider graduations as a playability element and not so much a tonal element.

sunburst

Aug-21-2007, 9:42am

Jim, I started out with thicker centers (5.Xmm) and thinner edges (2.Xmm). As I built more mandolins, my centers got thinner and edges got thicker, until I ended up about 4.5mm or less in the center of a top and 3 or slightly less at the edge. Then I started seeing Loar graduations and realized I had settled with similar thicknesses, though somewhat different graduations. Mine seem to work better with less drastic graduations and slightly lower arches. (I carve my backs quite a bit different than the Loars.)

Dave Cohen

Aug-21-2007, 7:38pm

I know Michael personally, and I'm sure that he meant well, but saying that I did something "from the scientific perspective" bothers me a bit. The use of the phrase "scientific pespective" implies that there is a viewpoint from science, and then again there is one from luthiers. The mandolin, like all plucked stringed instruments, is a mechano-acoustic object. That is, it undergoes some kind of motion, and that motion somehow gets turned into sound. So whether you look at a mandolin with the empirical tools of science, or with the empirical tools of a working luthier, the fact remains that you are looking at the same mechano-acoustic object. If the scientific "perspective" and the luthier's "perspective" are at odds, then one could conclude that one or the other of the "perspectives" is at least partly wrong. I think that is a false juxtaposition. To be more specific, what I pointed out was in agreement with the observations of at least several of the luthiers posting in this thread. It was not a different "perspective" at all, but rather a corroboration of the luthiers' empirical observations with well-established theory. So Michael, I don't think that you meant to create the juxtaposition (at least I hope you didn't), but the phrase "scientific perspective" made me a bit nervous.

I also take issue with the idea that one "can't make an analysis" of mandolin motion. That one hits a little closer to home with me, because analyzing the coupled motions of assembled mandolin family instruments is exactly what I have been doing for the last eight or nine years. All of the holographic modal analysis I have published has been on the motions of plates, etc., coupled to the motions of all of the other parts of the instrument. In order to have analysed the isolated motions of, say, the top plate, I would have had to damp or somehow stop the motions of all of the other parts of the instrument. I didn't do that. All of the holograms published are of plate motions coupled to the motions of all of the other parts of the instrument. In other words, they are images and frequencies of body modes, not just plate modes. Way back in 1999, I found that undamped strings could steal energy back from the body motions, so I usually damp the strings by stuffing a piece of soft foam between the strings and the fingerboard. Other than that, the whole instrument was doing its' thing. I have often emphasized in this forum that all of the motions of the instrument corpus are coupled, and that the coupled motions occur at different frequencies than do the motions of isolated parts. Did it in a recent thread, in fact.

I often hear the notion from laypersons that science can't do this or science will never be able to do that. Reminds me a lot of the British MP in 1825 asserting that scientists would never be able to determine the composition of the Sun. As it turned out, Fraunhofer was even then using his newly invented spectroscope to determine the composition of the Sun! So as long as the mandolin is not operated by forest sprites or tone fairies, we will find out how it works. It may or may not reveal itself to me, but someone will eventually find out more about how the things work. You can count on it.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

labraid

Aug-21-2007, 8:14pm

Oh, I think science may have already done it... via the hands of an artist or two.

Mario Proulx

Aug-21-2007, 8:32pm

don't fall into the trap of thin tops. Thin tops sound thin, don't have any "meat" behind them, and cave in

I can add an amen to this quote.

about 9-10 years ago, on one of my first mandolins, one which was a disappointment, I decide that the sucker was going to "learn" me something on its way to its death bed. So, with scraper in hand, I began to thin that top, with the strings tuned to pitch! i began in the recurve, which was already down to about .115", and played it. left it a few days, and then thinned the center area, played, etc........ Did this for a few weeks, then went for the kill, and thinned then played, with it tuned(and re-tuned..<sigh>), until it caved-in.

A few important observations.

a) It never got appreciably louder. Never gained any real volume. Not from thinning the re-curve, not the center. Not the whole.

b) It's tone just got thinner and thinner, and had completely lost its "timbre" in the end. It was more banjo-like in tone as it got thinner.

c) when it did collapse, it didn't fall inward under the bridge, but instead, the top imploded with it bulging behind the bridge first, then it split into 3(through the F holes), with the ribs spreading outward, and the tailpiece being pulled -in- toward the neck. It folded, instead of collapsing!

In closing, mass -is- important, but way more for tone than for volume. Volume is the result of absolute efficiency, and to a large degree, the range of the instrument's tone. As others have noted already, some instruments sound "killer" on their own, but then get "lost" in the mix of a jam of band setting. And some other don't seem loud to the player, yet can be heard above the loudest jam.

an interesting subject, for sure, with no real answers...

Dave, I believe we all understand; the problem is, as you state, that science itself, isn't yet up to the task. Someday, for sure, and quite likely not in our time, but for now, we need to mix what science can bring us(thanks to folks like yourself) and what our ears and hands can tell us.

labraid

Aug-21-2007, 9:15pm

science itself, isn't yet up to the task.
I was kinda waiting to pounce.

Scio = "to know"

Knowing numbers doesn't mean knowing, it means labelling what you know.

I mean that in all respect to numbers people. My point is, you don't need to know numbers to know.

Of course you all know that.

Yay, my grudge of the day has been eliminated.

sunburst

Aug-21-2007, 9:55pm

I'm pretty sure science is up to the task, it is the scientists who haven't done all the experiments needed to fully document and understand the instrument yet. Don't forget scientific experiments take time and money, and as more experiments are thought of and tried, and more equipment is invented to measure what needs to be measured, more knowledge will be gained.

As for me, most of what I've learned from reading scientific papers and asking questions is what not to do. In other words, I've learned that some of my previous notions of how things might work are not correct, and by not exploring those "blind alleys", I can spend the time I save on things that might actually make a better mandolin. I feel like I owe a lot to Dave for his efforts.

Dave Cohen

Aug-21-2007, 10:27pm

Mario, did I say anything about science currently not being up to the task? #How many people claiming that science isn't there yet have read the musical acoustics and/or mechanical vibration literature enough to be able to say that with any authority? #For that matter, how many of them have read the Cohen & Rossing papers? #The references can be found on my website, [URL=http://www.cohenmando.com]

The word science[I] may be derived from something meaning "to know", but modern scientists understand the enterprise to be about the process of finding out, tempered with the understanding that all knowledge is incomplete. #The common mistaken assumption is that because "science" doesn't know everything[I] about a subject, what it does know is therefore tenuous and/or somewhat lacking in credibility. #Tain't necessarily so.

"Knowing numbers doesn't mean knowing, it means labeling what you know."

What? #Did you proofread that carefully before posting? #

Another common misconception about science is that it is all about "getting numbers". #Numbers are part, but not all, of the language of science. #Equations are part, but not all, of the language of science. #Formalistic theory and models are part, but not all, of the language of science. #Words and pictures, too, are part of the language of science. #Communication is part of science, which means that we have the responsibility of relating our knowledge in words and pictures that others can understand. #I try to keep that in mind. #

It's frustrating to me to see people casually dismiss the scientific knowledge about plucked stringed instruments, and especially about mandolins. #That's because the scientific information about mandolins thus far is largely my work. #Imo, it is good work, and I did it because I wanted to contribute something that would help luthiers and musicians to understand their instruments. #No money in it for me. #In fact, since the journals are published by scientific societies rather than by for-profit publishers, we have to pay page charges when a paper is accepted for publication.

labraid

Aug-21-2007, 11:15pm

Ahh, getting interesting now.
No, I may have written fast. Knowing numbers doesn't mean necessarily knowing, and it doesn't mean not knowing. One may understand an equation, and yet still not know how to implement it without inventing a giant contraption, or a mechanical ear, or what have you. But respect in the science field calls for proofs, yet the proof of some people's work is in the product, not in their ability to express it in other words. Respect all the same.
Someone once asked a musician, "why did you write that song?" to which he replied, "well, if I could explain it, I wouldn't have sung it." I don't think "famous" luthiers of the Renaissance would understand Rossing or Cohen ( http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ), but they did know stuff. And it was methodically conceived, and it was repeatable, and it was great. Therefore, "science" was observed. You must agree, David?

Now the misunderstanding that can arise is that I am for the artists. Look at me, I'm an artist. Science and art have lived hand in hand for thousands of years, and they won't stop being partners now. Art is often that thing [incl. physics, differential equations, eating a hamburger en route to the game and not crashing] which happens so out of habit that it becomes mindless. As players, as hand-workers, as statisticians, as publishing researchers...

Yonkle

Aug-22-2007, 12:53am

You are all wrong! Best way for a loud mandolin is a "pickup" installed, works wonders!
Seriously , and I shouldn't state my opinions being a rookie builder, but what I have found in the few mandolins I've done it just seems to be a overall of everything involved in building. The wood itself, the graduation's, type of finish, type of strings, neck angle,type of bridge, nut, pick all these things just come together and some come together better than others.
One thing you don't hear much of and I have done it is to do everything to spec, but add 1/32" to the rim height, added to good graduations #and this is very simple but it put a lot of loud in my #6 F5,
I also tried the neck angle deal and I agree with what Mr. Cohen said, the steep angle did not seem to do anything and if it did it is not worth the risk of too much tension on the front plate or the risk of the neck feeling odd.and risk of having a tall bridge.
Personally I'd rather have a less vocal mando with a great tone than one that really barks yet may not sound real pretty. I guess thats one of the goals we all hope to reach with each build, is a mandolin that has great volume and great tone to boot!
The loudest nicest sounding mandolin I have ever heard was an A5 built by Anderson in Portland I think. A fellow from the Redding CA. area owned it and he could really play it well too. He showed me the top thickness around the F holes and it was about 3/8" there (I couldn't believe how thick it was, maybe he just made it thick just there for durability?? #Hard telling. #He said the builder "Anderson" use's a carving machine for his plates. In any event there were about 30 of us all playing in a circle, 30 different mandolins all sounded different until his turn and it made you stop and look to see where this is coming from, it stood out like no other. I'd like to figure that mandolin out. He said he gets comments everywhere he goes. # JD

Dave Cohen

Aug-22-2007, 5:15am

Brian I don't mean to pounce, but the use of the word "proof" is part of what concerns me. Science is constrained by the Popperian doctrine of falsifiability. Translated, there is no such thing as a scientific "proof". But we can verify, corroborate, demonstrate, and disprove, hence John Hamlett's important emphasis on what not to do. In my last post, I forgot to emphasise the most important part of science, that is, experiment. Theory guides, but experiment decides.

Also, you seem to be assuming that I only do science. In fact, I wear a luthier's hat as well as a scientist's hat. The mandolin family instruments which I build are part of the daily lab work that I do. In answer to your emphasis on product, two of my mandolins won 2nd and 1st places in the 2006 CMSA mandolin consumer's survey. See http://www.cohenmando.com/bio.html for details. I don't claim to be using science to build "better" mandolin family instruments. That would be (i) wrong, and (ii) arrogant. But my instruments stood up to "good" (better than the rest, actually, but only in that case) in a blind listening test in Louisville.

That the work of great Golden Age luthiers was methodically concieved and repeatable, I agree. And to that end, their work was also describable. Whether you think of yourself as an intuitive builder or a scientific builder, you have to agree that a mandolin is not a supernatural object; it is part of the natural world. And to that end, the process of building it should be describable. Dana Bourgeous (sp?) had an excellent description on the web some time ago of his intuitive method for tuning guitar plates. There was none of the usual "Tap the plates all of your life, and then you will know what to do." Instead, he described what he listens for, and how he gets to his final destination by thinning, etc. Similarly, Peter Coombe has written two articles on his development of Chladni plate tuning in mandolins, as has Alan Carruth for guitars and violins. I submit that all of those accounts, be they "scientific" or "intuitive" are describable and repeatable, and that is a far cry from advising someone to "just keep listening and eventually you will know."

Hans

Aug-22-2007, 7:56am

John, did you say 3/8" as in 3-8ths, three/eighths", THREE EIGHTHS OF AN INCH?!? #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Mario Proulx

Aug-22-2007, 6:39pm

Mario, did I say anything about science currently not being up to the task?

Hmm, I must have mis-read you, as your last line " It may or may not reveal itself to me, but someone will eventually find out more about how the things work." implicated that, in my mind, at least.

Science, and the technology required for science to completely read and understand the makeup of sound, including tone, and how humans relate to it, is certainly not up to task yet.

peter.coombe

Aug-22-2007, 10:16pm

"Science, and the technology required for science to completely read and understand the makeup of sound, including tone, and how humans relate to it, is certainly not up to task yet."

I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. Science is certainly up to the task, the methods and techniques are very well known. The relevant EXPERIMENTS have just not been done yet. Theory and techniques are all very well, but someone has to do the experiments. As Dave says, part of science is all about experiments. These experiments either disprove a hypothesis or provide evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis. With Lutherie the experiments are difficult because it is difficult to get enough material (i.e. instruments) to do the experiments such that one can get some sort of statistical probability that is actually useful. An experiment on one instrument means nothing, it must be repeatable. Two is better, but 100 is MUCH better. Experiments take time, a LOT of time.

jasona

Aug-22-2007, 10:26pm

Seems to me that we're still in the descriptive phase. How do you describe the sound of good? Its hard, and it takes time. You guys are the first. Good luck!

Yonkle

Aug-23-2007, 1:59am

Han's let me clear my throat and get this out... Ahh Hummm. Yes 3/8" 3-8th Three eights inch, but maybe I am exagerating sp? It was over 1/4" it looked freaky it was so think! But mad what a boom box! jd

Hans

Aug-23-2007, 5:38am

Wow, that's thick!!! Would have been interesting to stick a pinky inside the ff hole to see if he just had a thick ff hole lamination of spruce as support. That's a good way of spreading dis-information. Can't speculate about much here...

Dave Cohen

Aug-23-2007, 5:57am

Mario gives himself wiggle room by using the word "complete". Problem is, all knowledge is incomplete. If one reads the literature thoroughly enough, though, one realizes that there are lots of good starting places, lots of empirical information that tells us, to paraphrase John Hamlett, "what not to bother with", conceptual relationships that suggest new directions, etc. The notion that because science will never be able to provide the complete description, it is somehow not up to "the task" is a fatuous one, a science-stopper. It's an argument that Tuft's U. philosopher Daniel Dennett likens to a game of tennis in which one player insists on serving with the net down, then requiring that the net be raised into place for the opposing player's return.

labraid

Aug-23-2007, 7:47am

With that very net in place, some players have been serving "aces" with their ear, a tuning fork, and scraper, for hundreds of years and they're still going strong. It may not be accessible to everyone, but that is what makes it valuable.

jim simpson

Aug-23-2007, 8:17am

Could one take apart a great finished mandolin, have it duplicated via cnc and get close to the same mandolin given that one would use same assembly and glues, etc?

labraid

Aug-23-2007, 8:39am

jim, the simple answer is no. Plate measures, when examined by themselves, have very little to do with with the final outcome of an instrument's tone.

on a side note. I am curious, would anyone else be of the same mind that maybe we're tripping over the word "science", when in this thread maybe a better term would be "technology"?

Jim Rowland

Aug-23-2007, 8:54am

With respect to the subject of mandolin volume,I think that the use of carbon fiber or other wood substitutes can answer a plethora of questions by analogy. In the final analysis,of course, no series of samples in any medium can be totally identical in constitution,but very,very close is possible with fabricated materials. This should make it more practical to deduce the effect of small changes in construction on volume. So,do you think isolating volume from tone and other factors would be of benefit in this question,or would it just stir the pot?
Jim

Mario Proulx

Aug-23-2007, 10:08am

Okay, maybe I am mixing science and technology incorrectly.

My point is that no matter how science wants to, and does, understand things that make sound, the technology isn't here yet to do it completely. And yes, I use the word complete again, but not as an "out", but because anything at this level that isn't done completely, still leaves too many debatable questions. We have a lot of information, as Dave points out, but the next step will take a technological leap before science can go much further.

We can, and do, use science in the way the John mentioned, and all of us do, as players or luthiers(as soon as we try to adjust action, intonations, anything, we ask a specific question and seek and answer, one for which science has the answer).

This entire deal is the result of my mis-interpreting Dave's " It may or may not reveal itself to me, but someone will eventually find out more about how the things work." comment, and he, in turn, mis-reading my interpretation.

Science doesn't even have the simple task of communication covered, much less complex acoustics!

Chris Baird

Aug-23-2007, 11:44am

The field of vibration and modal analysis is a fairly mature engineering field. There are many complex manufactured products which have undergone an enormous amount of vibrational and modal research. Musical instruments could easily be likewise researched and understood, IF, there was the funding. The technology certainly exists as does an understanding of what research would have to be done. It all comes down to there not being any financing for such "scientific" projects.
Many people refer to a process as being scientific if it employs a dogmatic empirical process. However, true science goes beyond carefully controlled empirical observations and experiments and submitts the results to a group of peers for review. I believe that many good luthiers engage in a very well controlled empirical process not unlike a scientist, however, they are generally not involved in peer review etc. and so you can't really call it "scientific".
Many of the accounts I've read on the practices and personalities of succesful luthiers indicates to me that they are dogmatic and empirical in their building process, they carefully controll as many variables as possible and observe specific experiments in a controlled way. It's not science but it is intelligent empiricism.

labraid

Aug-23-2007, 1:49pm

Thinking of adding that to my business card now, "intelligently empiric since 2001." http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Good thoughts, plyr..

Dave Cohen

Aug-23-2007, 2:24pm

With regard to the many "aces" served by luthiers for hundreds of years without the benefit of Cohen, Rossing, Caldersmith, Richardson, etc., etc.: First, they are not necessarily serving with the net either up or down. I will have more to say about that in a few lines. Second, they also occasionally serve up some double faults. I played Butch Baldassari's Gilchrist and thought that it was a wonderful instrument. Less than a year later, I played another Gilchrist in Bozeman, Mt that I thought was off the mark. It wasn't too bad, but had very quick decay and as a consequence, it was very hard to get much sound out of it without a great deal of effort. I have encountered many more comparisons similar to those before and since that time. If you watch Roger Federer on a good day, he easily gets 70%-80% of his first serves in. But even he can't get 100% in, and even he occasionally serves up a double fault or a few. I had two mandolins in the 2006 CMSA survey that really had it, and I chose them for that reason. I have made other mandolins that I thought were off that mark, which of course is why I didn't put those in the survey. Can the rest of you luthiers admit to making some mandolins that are off the mark? I have met a number of you personally, and I know that you have. Which gets around to my point. We don't know everything about making excellent mandolins, at least in part because we don't understand them too well. That's why I do the science. I want to contribute to the understanding of the things, and I think that I have done so. I will never satisfy Mario, b/c what I have contributed is not "complete", nor will it ever be. There's nothing in it for me, and it costs me money. I neither said nor implied that you need Cohen & Rossing to build good mandolins, but my results can and might help you. Rolfe Gerhardt has thanked me for publishing the first (CASJ) paper on more than one occasion, claiming that it helped him a great deal in improving the bass response of his mandolins.

Back to the Daniel Dennett tennis analogy: The analogy was not about products, but about arguments. If Mario were to say to me "I believe that forest sprites and tone fairies, along with a little bit of spicy picante sauce, are responsible for the volume and tone quality of mandolins and guitars", I might respond with "OK, I can find the picante sauce for you, but where do you think I should start looking for the sprites and fairies?". Say that Mario then responds with something like "Oh, you won't be able to find them; they are everywhere and they are invisible, and they have a way around any electromechanical transducer." Mario would be hitting the ball with the net down, while expecting me to return it with the net up. So when Mario says that science, or current technology, for that matter, is not yet up to the task, I expect him to keep the net up. He can't just say something like "I say that it is so because I am Mario Proulx." I can't (and shouldn't be able to) get away with that, even though I am the one with the Ph.D and the peer-reviewed publications and all of the classroom and laboratory experience. I am expected to justify what I say. So Mario, too, should have to justify what he says with an argument that is rational, causal, and deterministic.

All real world scientific problems are complex. That's why we build simple models do deal with those complexities. If we waited for a rigorous, closed-form mathematical solution to the problems, we would never get there. That is typified by atoms and molecules. We have an exact differential equation of motion (the Schroedinger equation), but we can't solve it exactly for anything more complex than an isolated hydrogen atom, since the mathematicians haven't been able to provide uus with multi-center integrals. Doesn't that mean that the science is not yet up to the task, and is therefore tenuous at best? No way in ____! We sidestep the mathematical difficulties by using expansions, perturbation and variation theories, etc., and the resulting "approximate" solutions turn out to be in extremely good agreement with experiment. Same thing with musical acoustics. The simplistic two-mass and three-mass models are still around because they approximate the actual behavior of guitars, and also of mandolins. Also, Bernard Richardson's work points to some interesting new directions. Some guitar luthiers have already started experimenting with that, and the results are encouraging. Your serve, Mario.

Mario Proulx

Aug-23-2007, 3:08pm

Uncle!

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Michael Lewis

Aug-24-2007, 11:40pm

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
This is great! I know that Mario is a very clever and talented luthier who pays attention and gets results. He works from his intuition and experience, as most of us do.

Mario, thanks for being the grit that caused Dr. Dave to cast the pearls of wisdom to all of us.

Dave, please keep after us. We are like most kids and need a bit of goading from time to time to advance our understanding. We need to know how it really is, not how to force reality into our preconceived patterns of thought, which is all too often what we tend to do.

John Bertotti

Aug-25-2007, 1:23am

"Also, Bernard Richardson's work points to some interesting new directions."
Where can we read about this Dr. Dave?http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Dave Cohen

Aug-25-2007, 6:27am

A short intro to Richardson's work:

Richardson, B.E.; "Simple Models as a Basis for Guitar Design", Catgut Acoustical Society Journal, 4, No. 5 (Series II), pp 30-36 (May, 2002).

There are a lot more details in Howard Wright's (one of Richardson's grad students) thesis. Unfortunately, I don't have the reference to that at the moment.

I hope that my post was not percieved as an attack on Mario, but rather as the challenge which it was.

Bill Halsey

Aug-25-2007, 7:56am

Thank you Dave Cohen et al for the rich, stimulating exchanges that make this forum so vital, and help it to be the great resource that it is.

Big Joe

Aug-25-2007, 10:31am

My only problem with "science" is that it assumes it provides the only answers to a problem. First, take the first Cohen example. The sun. We know its makeup because someone built a machine we ASSUME is going to give us accurate information about something millions of miles away. That is a pretty big assumption. Too much science is based upon theory that may or may not hold water over time. It seems there is constant revision of scientific theory all the time. Which leads to another thought. If it is truly scientific can it be theory. I guess even the so called "experts" are just guessing. They can set up a set of parameters and tell us these are the ways it works and nothing else can be true. Amazingly, years later we find there were other ways to make it work.

Science can only take you so far. It certainly will not build the best mandolin. It is the application of known scienctific theory (?) with the artistry and experience of a gifted luthier that makes the difference. If I had to chose between science and a gifted and experienced luthier, I chose the gifted and talented luthier anytime!

sunburst

Aug-25-2007, 11:13am

It is only a theory that gravity holds us down on the surface of the earth, that atoms and molecules make up matter, that matter exists at all, etc. etc.. Science never proves anything, as Dave has already said. Science is not based on theory, science creates theories. Science never assumes to provide the only answer to a problem, it can only disprove, never prove.
All one has to do is understand science and the scientific method to understand that science only seeks to learn and understand. I can't remember who it was who said "No theory changes what it is a theory about.". The sun was the same before scientists theorized it's makeup and didn't change when they did, and mandolins were what they were before scientists started trying to figure out how they work. Why not learn from what they find? The knowledge might lead to better mandolins.

Dave Cohen

Aug-25-2007, 11:40am

"Too much science is based upon theory that may or may not hold water over time."

Scientific constructs do not get elevated to the status of theory unless they have been supported by a substantial amount of experiment. Prior to that, they are called hypotheses, or sometimes, models. We don't proclaim to know the composition of the Sun based on the result of one experiment, or even upon the result of one series of experiments. It takes several different kinds of experiments, all subject to the razor of peer review, to bring about a scientific consensus. Fraunhofer's spectroscopic analysis was only the first of many independent measurements, all of which produced similar, if not the same, results. We don't claim to know a molecule's structure on the basis on one instrumental measurement, even though the instrument may be a very powerful one. To know a molecule's structure with any confidence, we analyze with nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry, infrared and/or UV/visible spectroscopy, and yes, classical qualitative chemical analysis. We take a melting point, and so on. Only if all of those analyses converge upon the same structure do we state with any confidence what we think the structure is.

Theory and experiment interact with each other continually. Theory is guided by experiment, and experiment constantly perturbs theory. Yes, theory is amended as necessary. If it weren't, it would not be theory, but dogma. To sum up; "Theory guides, but experiment decides" (H.A. Laitinen).

"It (science) assumes it provides the only answer to a problem."

That is just not true. Even within specific areas of research, there are dynamic controversies. Science avoids certainty when certainty is not in the offing. It is usually science's detractors who don't like it when they fear that science casts doubt on their pet explanations.

Mario Proulx

Aug-25-2007, 12:15pm

thanks for being the grit that caused Dr. Dave to cast the pearls of wisdom to all of us

You're welcome, Michael! Problem is, I wasn't trying to be abrasive... I was trying to support Dave's view. The internet is often a poor medium for communicating thoughts.... at least for me 'n the good Dr., here. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Dave Cohen

Aug-25-2007, 1:22pm

Mario, I didn't think you were the least bit abrasive. I just disagreed with you, and I wanted your argument to be up to the level of your considerable capabilities.

Big Joe

Aug-25-2007, 1:48pm

"Only if all of those analyses converge upon the same structure do we state with any confidence what we think the structure is."

So the best we can come up with is that science is just a good guess. That is exactly my point. Whether evidence is subjective or empirical it still results in the same degree of uncertainty. The scientist is certain he is correct by what he considers to be empirical evidence and the backup of a peer group (other persons who are in agreement with the scientist). The other person looks at it from his subjective evidence. This is often disregarded by the first group because it does not fit in their guess...er..theory.

All too often the real truth is found in a mix of the two. Yes, it is important to have some empirical evidence and some subjective evidence to find where the water hits the wheel. If we completely disregard one for the other we most often end up with an unbalanced view that cannot work in the real world.

When it comes to mandolins, the same applies. One can build a very nice mandolin from subjective experimentation without ever having a peer group or having read anything about plate resonance or knowing the components of the sun. With a good blend of the two we may be able to make the mandolin better. Still, if I had to choose just one in this case, it would be the subjective. Theory is important, but a theorist may have a hard time doing a good dovetail neck joint. A good luthier may never have heard of spectrum theory much less care.

It is the blending of all voices on this forum that brings us the quality of mandolin so readily avialable today from so many sources. I hope we continue to grow in that direction rather than leaning too heavily in one direction or the other. These are just my opinions and I am thankful to have a place to post them!

markishandsome

Aug-25-2007, 2:35pm

Joe - I think if you met a few scientists you'd find they're a lot less arrogant and presumptuous as you seem to think they are. They're regular folks who plop down on the sofa and have a beer after a 9-5 day at work, they just happen to work in a place with lots of computers and lasers etc. Any scientist who claimed to have "the answer" to any problem and that everyone else was wrong would be politely asked to leave thru the back door. No one is saying that hands-on experience should be replaced by scientific theories, or that Dr Dave's research should be pasted into the Bible. But if you can understand his and others' results you may be able to use their insights to improve your own instruments. No one's cramming science down your throat and you're perfectly welcome to go it alone if you like.

David Catalfamo

Aug-25-2007, 4:30pm

I am curious if any experienced luthiers out there have built two mandolins, that sound exactly the same. Or maybe the question would be have you built one that you and everyone else that you let play have been so satisfied with, that you didn't try to change the way you built the next one and did it turn out the exact same. Are mandolins like people? same species, but all a little different? can they be cloned?

Hans

Aug-25-2007, 5:09pm

Exactly...no. Very close...yes. Close enough to be very predictable.

David Catalfamo

Aug-25-2007, 5:28pm

So would you be saying that you know what works for you as far as tone and volume goes and try to duplicate that process with all the mandos you build? Or are you constantly trying to tweak something on the next one to get it better than the last one?

sunburst

Aug-25-2007, 5:34pm

If you go here, (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=46412;st=0) and scroll down, you'll find this:

Quote starts here:

Quote (LKN2MYIS @ Aug. 22 2007, 11:05)
...we found the exact guitar, however the difference between his and this new one was that the new one had an Adirondack spruce top. All the other specs were the same, even down to the sunburst. The difference between the two was simply phenomenal, and the only difference was the Adi top.

As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, that is an anecdote, not a scientific experiment, and certainly far from a representative sample. I'd say any conclusion drawn from it is "jumped to".

Here, then is my own anecdote.

Quite a few years ago, after hearing it proclaimed many times as fact that 'you can't build two instruments the same even from the same wood', I decided to test the hypothesis and built two mandolins from the same wood. I cut the tops, backs, sides, fingerboards, head blocks, tail blocks, point blocks, linings, everything from the same wood as close as possible from the same stock. I carved the arches the same, graduated them the same, stained them the same, finished them the same, etc.. In short, built them as nearly identical as I could. When they were done, they sounded the same. I couldn't hear a difference when I played them, I couldn't hear a difference when someone else played them, and nobody that listened to them or played them while I still had them could reliably tell them apart by sound (it wasn't easy to tell them apart by sight!).

I learned that, in fact, you can build two instruments that sound the same.

A few years ago, I did the "experiment" again, but this time I did everything the same except for the top wood. I built one with sitka spruce and one with red spruce. The sitka came from some very old "aircraft spruce" that I bought from a friend many years ago, and had probably been cut for close to 50 years, and the red spruce came from a tree I cut in West Virginia in 1989.
When the mandolins were done, they sounded almost the same. There were only subtle differences in the tone and both were about the same in terms of loudness. I took them to the Galax fiddlers convention when they were newly completed and got lots of mandolin players to play them, without telling them that they were different at all, let alone what the difference was, and asked them which one they preferred. They were divided in which they preferred, but slightly more preferred the sitka topped one.
Anyway, when I hear the properties of one species or another of top wood touted as amazingly better than some other, I'm skeptical because that has not been my experience, and I tend to assume that it is a conclusion drawn from limited evidence (just like my own conclusions from my own limited "experiments").

Quote ends here.

Those two were, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same. Would I be able to build another that sounded exactly like them now? Probably not, but I'm building mandolins now that I think sound much better than those two did, so I wouldn't really want to.

If I build one that I and everyone else is so satisfied with that there's no need to change anything it will have teh biggest chop, the clearest sparkling trebles, the strongest G-strings the best balance from fret to fret and string to string, etc., etc, of any mandolin. Obviously, that will never happen. There will always be room for improvement, and I assume I'll always strive to improve.
BTW, even if I did build a mandolin that I thought was the "beat all end all" you can rest assured that there would be those who thought otherwise. No one mandolin will ever satisfy every mandolin player.

peter.coombe

Aug-25-2007, 5:39pm

Maybe not absolutely exactly the same, but I have deliberately managed to build a pair of mandolins that sound so close that I fooled myself in a darkened room, and consistently managed to fool my other half. On the other hand I have also deliberately built a pair that sounded completely differnet. When I say deliberate, I mean that I could predict from the free plate modes which pair would sound the same and which pair would be different before the instruments were glued together.

Big Joe

Aug-26-2007, 11:21am

Guys...I have no problem with science or scientists, and yes I do know quite a few. #I am pleased they do the work they do...including Dr. Cohen. #I was only laying an argument in another direction. #I think the most important question man ever asked was "what if?". #That question is what turns the world upside down. #Any good researcher will find that question the start of an incredible journey. #I just have days when my muse enjoys a good argument http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

jasona

Aug-26-2007, 11:47am

"Theory" =/= "guess". Theory is best available explanation of the data at hand. There is always the possibility of coming up with a better explanation, or deriving new data from different analytical techniques, forcing us to consider the situation from a new perspective. "Guess" isn't constrained by data. What is important to realize is that our perceptions are subjective and will vary from day to day. Science tries to get things to an even, repeatable, level by removing that subjectivity.

Some would argue that will also remove the artistic spirit, but to that I cannot respond beyond asking whether Thile is the best or worst thing to happen to the mandolin. You I think will get my point. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Hans

Aug-26-2007, 12:40pm

David, I'm always intuitively tweeking...the trick is to only change one thing at a time and make those tweeks very small. Also have gained the experience to know what works best for me to give the customer what they want, or duplicate the Loar tone, F4 tone, Gil tone, etc... or to be able go out there a ways and know what German spruce and Bosnian maple are going to sound like compared to German and Bigleaf, etc.

Jim Hilburn

Aug-26-2007, 1:21pm

Steve Gilchrist told a friend of mine that after you've built a hundred or so, you start to understand what's going on.
I guess I've still got a ways to go.

markishandsome

Aug-26-2007, 2:23pm

My only problem with "science" is that it assumes it provides the only answers to a problem.

Guys...I have no problem with science or scientists, and yes I do know quite a few.

Maybe you should make up your mind before maligning the life's work of millions of scientists over the last few thousand years and chalking up the success of the scientific method to lucky guessing.

Is there a smileyface that says "I'm not actually upset with you nor am I trying to put you down or be rude, I'm just pointing out the misinformation and inconsistency of your posts"?

red7flag

Aug-26-2007, 3:39pm

This is just my take. My degree is in psychology and I think just like people, musical instruments made of wood add a bit of unpredictability that makes even the most careful scratch their heads sometimes. Even a builder like Collings that uses a great deal of scientific possesses in the construction process and has a strong degree of consistency, has made a few duds and a few that are something extra special. While there is some predictability, there seems to be an x factor that is beyond our control, at this time anyway. I think that is what makes mandos so intriguing. While I am no Loar scholar, a number of knowledgeable people say that even with Loars, there are some that are less than stellar.
Tony

Chris Baird

Aug-26-2007, 3:58pm

Part of the reason musical instruments are so difficult to "sum up" is that they are experienced on the other side of the human psyche. If one just observes the physical object and its motions and various effects then a large part of the picture is lost. A good builder is usually adept at understanding what good tone is, he/she then will eventually hit on some essential componets of building that delivers that good tone. It doesn't matter whether you are a scientific luthier or a voodoo shamanic luthier; the rules are the same. It takes both an artistic understanding of good tone/playability/aesthetics AND a dependable empirical understanding of the building process (whether it be didactic or subconcious)to create a great instrument.

david blair

Aug-26-2007, 5:13pm

I've heard that when the audience is quiet one can hear everything from the stage in Carnegie Hall. This demonstrates the effect of science and acoustics in my mind. I believe also that the great Italian luthiers used a progressive geometrical system to design the shape of the arch and body size of their instruments in relation to the scale length and after lengths of the strings. Reverberations, harmony, and overtone I speculate to have much to do with choice of building materials, and tuning of these to sympathize with each other also using a progressive equation, such as the tempered tuning of a piano in fifths. Also in regards to tone of course the ground and varnish play to dampen the high notes and contribute overall complexity.
Geometry firmly based in science, with beauty of design and artful execution by the craftsman. A measured scale length, body size, and a measured relationship of size of the soundhole in reference to the resonance of the body. Also a measure of graduation, and measured tuning of tone bars.
What's wrong with evaluating these ideas before making a hundred instruments? I like trees!

sunburst

Aug-26-2007, 5:34pm

Perhaps your right, David, but I believe violins were "reverse engineered" by the Italian makers for centuries. I think the violin became what it is because it has been around so long with builders trying this and that to see what worked. As most builders, they stuck with what worked and discarded what didn't work. It is the process of evolution.
Perhaps if they had had measurements, mathematical formulas, etc., the violin would have become what it is sooner. The violin, having been essentially the same for centuries, is a difficult thing to improve upon. Stradivari made changes and modifications through most of his building career, but he was building on a foundation laid down over hundreds of years. The carved top, f-hole mandolin, by comparison, has been around since about 1921 when the Gibson F5 (signed by Lloyd Loar) was introduced. That was the first try at the design. To me is seems rather amusing when people decree that the Loar mandolins are the "Stradivarious of mandolins"! Come on, now. That was the first try! It is true that they pretty much swung at the first pitch and got a hit, but there is almost certainly room for improvement.

Either we can continue to "reverse engineer" the mandolin, or we can measure and study and apply what we learn, or we can use a combination approach. In a couple of hundred years, if anyone still plays mandolin and they are still built, who knows what they will be like, but perhaps they'll get there sooner if we apply science to them.

david blair

Aug-26-2007, 5:56pm

They architects and mathematicians of the day certainly had a system of measurements, which is exactly my point. Research of the theory of "the golden principles" will demonstrate how the use of division and multiplication of area with a system using perfect fifths to arrive at size and arching/shape. This was the golden age of lutherie, or at least the beginning of it. Stradivari's notable design changes included flatter arching and a streamlined recurcve area resulting in brighter, even tone.
I am not comparing Loar's to those instruments in my last post. I do wonder why it's called the "F5", though. In my mind's eye I believe that the best are yet to come.

I continually wonder also why we carve and design from the outside, rather then designing the perfect sound and projection of our little Carnegie Hall with strings from the inside first. Carving the inside to spec, and tuning from the outside while strung in the white.

markishandsome

Aug-26-2007, 6:21pm

I continually wonder also why we carve and design from the outside, rather then designing the perfect sound and projection of our little Carnegie Hall with strings from the inside first. Carving the inside to spec, and tuning from the outside while strung in the white.

Many builders do just that.

As for concert hall acoustics, my understanding is that the entire field has been completely overhauled in the last 10 years and that older halls are looked at by todays architects saying "what were they thinking?" I've never been to Carnegie hall, and I'm sure it's very nice, but like sunburst says, there's always room for improvement.

Before the F5, the fanciest mandolin made by gibson was the F4. F for Florentine, 5 for "fancier than 4".

Dave Cohen

Aug-26-2007, 7:17pm

After peeking at this thread, I am surprised to see that it is still growing. #After negative experiences with threads becoming referenda on the validity of science, I am inclined to bow out of them. #They are certainly off topic, and I don't expect to change the minds of those who feel differently about science than I do. #Still, I don't like to see science and scientists maligned, and I don't like to see people misinformed. #The bizarre misinterpretation of peer review by Joe Vest is a particularly egregious piece of misinformation. #I don't think I can change his mind, as it has long since been made up. #I offer a description of the peer review process here for the sake of those who might be misinformed by him.

The peer review process deals only with manuscripts submitted for publication. #When an author submits a manuscript to a journal, the journal editor sends copies of the manuscript to three to five scientists who are familiar with the author's research area. #Those are the "peer reviewers", and their identities are not revealed to the author. #The reviewers' task is to check the manuscript for completeness of references, logical and scientific consistency, repeatability and interpretation of the experiments, violation of fundamental laws, etc. #Ultimately, the reviewers will recommend that the article either (i) be published, (ii) be published with minor revisions, (iii) be published only after major revisions, or (iv) not be published. #There are no "peer groups" as Joe Vest put it. #Scientists do not gather in groups to collude to promote their own slant on their research. #That is a serious charge, one that can result in withdrawal of publication and the end of a scientist's career. #If Joe actually does have friends who are scientists, I can't imagine any of them not being offended by his description of peer review.

Big Joe

Aug-26-2007, 10:07pm

Sunburst...The Loar was not the first try in the evolution of the modern mandolin. #We can go as far back as 1894 and Orville Gibson's first efforts at carving an instrument. #While it may seem rather lackluster by today's standard, it was quite revolutionary for its day. #From those early attempts when he carved the back and sides from one piece of wood (no joinery there) and put the tops on so the body consisted of only two pieces of wood, to the work during Loar's time with Gibson there were many stages of production resulting in the refinements made by Loars group. #Even since then there have been many refinements in an attempt to build a modern mandolin that would be even more durable than those designed by Loar. #We have discovered those alterations from 1924 to only a fairly recent history were not better and Gibson went back to what was done then with minor refinements in the manufacturing process. #

Arriving at what is the standard for today's modern mandolin was accomplished by a lot of scientific research and a lot of experimentation and a ton of subjective material. #The end result may have taken us back to 1923, but there was a ton that was learned in the interim. #Today there are more than one way to get to where one wishes to be. #Each builder has their own slant on the process and that is what gives each their particular slant on the tone/feel/look of their products. #

The only peer group needed to determine if a mandolin is good is the people who use them and desire them. #The good ones seem to be in high demand. #The poor ones seem to fall by the wayside. #That is a pretty good scientific means to accomplish the end results. #

I am always amazed at the consistency one can achieve with thier own products. #It is possible to determine before the first piece of wood is cut what the end result in tone will be...with slight variations. #We knew what spectrum of tone we could acheive with the MM and DMM products before the mandolin was even started. #Making the process as predictable as possible gives and end result quite predictable. #It is important to have enough experience to know what the end result will be, but it is quite possible. #Whether that will stand under peer review is secondary to whether it will stand with those who wish to play the instrument.

While scientific research can be good and does help in the total process, it is only a portion of the process that creates great mandolins. #It will be interesting to see where the mandolin will be in a hundred years. #Maybe even twenty. #Now we have carbon fiber mandolins available. #This product was not so much a result of scientific research. #The material was known to be a great possibility for mandolins after its success with guitars. #It only took someone with the will to bring it to fruition. #It's peer group is the public. #At the current time I have seen nothing revolutionary in mandolin design, but who knows what may come in days to come. #Whether it comes as a result of a scientist bringing his research to a material product, or some person with a new idea and a will to make it come to pass, only time will tell. #With the small market for mandolins compared to other areas, I can't see the scientific community caring much what happens with the mandolin. #I could be wrong, and I actually hope so. #It would be good to see if they can do better than Lloyd Loar. #Then comes the question, what if they can't? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #.

sunburst

Aug-26-2007, 11:54pm

...The carved top, f-hole mandolin, by comparison, has been around since about 1921 when the Gibson F5 (signed by Lloyd Loar) was introduced...
Big Joe, I know mandolins have been around for a long time, and I know that F-holes were used occasionally on mandolins before the F5, and I know that Orville Gibson and the Gibson company made carved top mandolins for over 20 years before the F-5, but if Orville Gibson or the Gibson company made any carved top, F-hole mandolins before the F-5, I don't know about it.

Hans

Aug-27-2007, 6:33am

Quote: "It would be good to see if they can do better than Lloyd Loar. Then comes the question, what if they can't?"

Joe, I might suggest that several makers (including Gibson) have done better than Lloyd. Pickers are astonished that copies are sounding "Just like my Loar." These instruments are nearly new. One shudders at the thought of what some of these mandolins will sound like with 100 years under their belt.
Since the parameters of what is visually acceptable to the general public (F5) are pretty much set, all the innovation seems to be coming from the inside of the instrument.

Big Joe

Aug-27-2007, 7:26am

Hans...I agree totally with your comments. I did not mean to assume only Gibson has a handle on this. Certainly your work and that of others I could mention will stand the test of time. My point was that the initial aspect of the modern mandolin really started in 1894 and continues to this day with continual refinement. I think we would mostly agree that the gold standard of modern mandolin building is the Loar era F5. Most of the better builders today use that for two things. First, to give them a target to aim for in thier own production, and second as a place to move from in thier experimentation. Your work shows much can be done in both the artistic and tonal veins with both of those aspects in mind. I do applaud you for that and those others that have made conscious decisions to try something outside the box. This is where growth in the industry will come from.

People our age seem to want the conventional. Many of the younger pickers have a desire to have an instrument that is not their fathers or grandfathers. I really do see a time when the current F5 style of mandolin will be a piece of historical curiosity rather than the standard. This will require people like Hans and Peter Mix and Will Kimble and many others I could name. The quality of thier work coupled with thier luthery skills and fearless approach to building will take the industry to new heights in the future. I truly believe the future of the mandolin is in better hands than most industry today.

Hans

Aug-27-2007, 8:17am

And I agree with your comments, Joe. My only point was that the Loars have a 90 year advantage over "new" instruments being built by many quality builders. That DMM's and other copies sound so close now, don't you wish that we could all be around 90 years from now to see just how much better THEY sound? #
Eh, on second thought we'd all probably be deaf... # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

fatt-dad

Aug-27-2007, 9:46am

While scientific research can be good and does help in the total process, it is only a portion of the process that creates great mandolins.
Dave Cohen understands the scientific process and makes a great mandolin by hand. It's not the scientific process that guides his ability to bind his mandolins using wood nor hand carve the gradations of the tops and backs - it's his experience. The scientific process may give him appropriate insight on what factor is more critical to design or yields the greatest return to the overall sound.

Dave doesn't need my support, but he is spot on in his understanding of the scientific process. In many respects, I think that there are folks that don't want instrument building "reduced" to a scientific meaning. I guess that's o.k. for them, but to others, acquiring scientific meaning provides drive to life.

fatt heck-I-can't-even-build-a-kit-mandolin dad

sunburst

Aug-27-2007, 10:00am

...In many respects, I think that there are folks that don't want instrument building "reduced" to a scientific meaning...
Yep, it looks that way to me too.
It's sort of like finding out about Santa Clause. Some people like and enjoy the mysticism of the magic hand of the luthier toiling away in his/her romantically secluded shop using the gift of some divine intuition...well, let's just say some people would rather behold the mystery rather than understand the materials and the processes that make a mandolin sound good.

(BTW, I don't have any inside information about Santa Clause that I am withholding.)

Big Joe

Aug-27-2007, 10:29am

Hans...I would love to be here 90 years from now to play these mandolins...deaf or not. #At least then I wouldn't have to worry about pick click http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #.

I think science has taken us a long ways in certain fields. #Sound research has given a new spectrum of speaker systems that are quite different from the systems of my youth. #Some say they sound better, some don't. #I love my Bose surround system that I've had for a very long time. #Some say it lacks the full spectrum of sound, but I still like it and it can rattle the windows in my house with no audible distortion. #That makes for great listening to good action movies.

When we come to the field of mandolins the concept of peer review is another matter. #The field is so small and so limited that the peer group is filled with those with as much subjective expertise as any other. #The theories are applied...whether understood or not...every day in every shop. #How they are applied is the probably the secret. #Still, we are where we are not by science. #Science may be used to validate what we have seen accomplished, as if that is somehow necessary. #Science may be able to take us to the next level. #That only time will tell. #Still, the concept of a scientific peer group on a limited field such as this is a bit optimistic. #There are not enough scientists working on the mandolin to provide an adequate peer group. #Even then, they would know one another and that can skew the real concept of outside peer review.

Peer review has given us many important things. #Things like Vioxx, Phen-Fen, Avandia, Actos, and many other drugs that were throuroughly reviewed only to be found later were not acceptable without serious side effects not realized at the time of review. #Aspirin was considered the medicine of choice for children until the late 80's when it was finally discovered to be the cause of Reye's Syndrome. #Now Aspirin is not recommended for children. #Aceteminophine was recommended, after lots of peer review, for over the counter pain medicine until it was discovered it can cause live damage and death.

My point is not that peer review is not a good thing...it is. #However, there must be a large enough peer group with enough experience to make a valid determination. #Even then there must be a system to correct errors found long before the problems some of these peer review groups missed. #A written document may be a wonderful thing, but it will never play Red Haired Boy on its own.

It is the melding of science and art that produces the greatest results. #Without science we would still see snake oil salesman in every drug store. #With science we still find ourselves in desperate situations at times.

Dr. Cohen's input is very good and provides a method to view what has been done and is being done. #That cannot be argued. #I do appreciate that. #I do think peer review can be a great asset. #I also think we need to understand all this is done by fallible men who, even with their best efforts, are sometimes wrong. #In the case of mandolins it is not fatal. #In other cases it can be.

Dave Cohen

Aug-27-2007, 10:51am

Once again, Joe's misunderstanding is dangerously misleading.

Over-the-counter medicines are developed by pharmaceutical companies. As commercial products, they are totally untouched by peer review. Pharmaceutical formulations are in fact proprietary, not unlike varnish and distressing formulations. They are developed under the pressure of time and money. They are "reviewed" and passed upon by Federal agency, amid much urgency by their commercial formulators. Understandable, since the more time a pharmaceutical company has to wait, the more money they lose, and the more chance they have of being "scooped" by another company. Still, commercial development of ethical drugs is worlds away from journal peer review. Also, please refrain from using the misleading phrase "peer groups", as peer reviewers are anonymous individuals. Not only are they not identified to the author, they are not identified to each other.

jasona

Aug-27-2007, 11:31am

Just one bit more: it is through scientific study that the dangerous side effects of things like Viox were discovered. There are statistical rules for figuring out the difference between anecdote and evidence, and Viox failed those tests. In fact, in science we are supposed to test our ideas, and we have checks and balances (including peer review) that help catch mistakes.

Really, I don't understand the staunch resistance of Joe. He makes the point that luthiers experiment and work towards improving their product. Science simply adds a level of rigor to the otherwise naive (in the true sense) experimentation of the luthier.

Or is it the impression that scientists seem to be above it all? Joe says
I also think we need to understand all this is done by fallible men who, even with their best efforts, are sometimes wrong. which suggests to me that it isn't really science that bugs him, but a perceived attitude *of scientists themselves*. Is this a correct impression?

Big Joe

Aug-27-2007, 1:11pm

jasona...You are partially right. I have no problem with the science itself and have tried to make that clear. In a perfect world with perfect people and perfect science we could have perfect outcomes. This will never be possible because we still have human intervention. That will cause perfection to never be achieved. On the other hand, perfection may not be all its cracked up to be. It is the human element combined with the best we understand of science that gives us the best result. I think that is a fair and reasonble assesment of my views. I really don't need anyone else trying to put words in my mouth. It's tough enough for me to say them right http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . I will now sit back and not be involved with this discussion any further since it seems it is getting away from the original intents of the thread.

fatt-dad

Aug-27-2007, 2:18pm

However, there must be a large enough peer group with enough experience to make a valid determination.
Not sure what this means or to what extent it is quantifiable (sp). It would be nice to have a large, experience peer group, but saying "must" makes it sound like an opportunity to dispell science on the basis of, "not enough experts". Do the scientific research, get a peer review, make progress, refine theories and the experts will come. Kind of like Field of Dreams - ha.

f-d

david blair

Aug-27-2007, 2:31pm

It's a pentagonal design with key points being the F nodes. Perfect scale length, arching, graduation, scroll, tone bar placement, f holes, and fret markers that will play in tune can all be arrived at using triangles. Throw out your rulers and hacklingers.
#Reference this link for Russell Johnson, unfortunately a recent obituary.

http://musicandculture.blogspot.com/2007....er.html (http://musicandculture.blogspot.com/2007/08/acousticianconcert-hall-designer.html)
“The math today may not help you very much,” he told The New York Times in 2000. “And if you believe some math that’s wrong, you can get into trouble very quickly.”

david blair

Aug-27-2007, 2:41pm

Would Mr Cohen comment about "C" modes?

Dave Cohen

Aug-27-2007, 7:57pm

"C" modes? #Violin acoustics parlance uses "A" modes (substantial motion of enclosed air), "T" modes (motion primarily of the top plate), and "C" modes ( for body or "corpus", in which the top and back plates move similarly). #One also occasionally sees "B" modes, for motion primarily of the back plate. #Thing is, the A modes involve body motion as well, so it gets confusing. #Also, some of the T and/or C (or B) modes may be coupled to neck motions as well. #Are these "C" modes the same ones you are asking about?

Guitar (and mandolin, i.e., me) acousticians tend to use their own slightly sloppier notation. #Plate modes are designated by matrix notation according to the number of longitudinal and lateral nodes. #So the "trampoline" motion, with no nodes save at the plate edge, is called the (0,0) mode, and so on. #When I refer to a (0,0) mode, it is the mode in which both the top and back plates are moving with the "trampoline"-like motion. #I do that because I observe them without trying to isolate the motion to one plate or the other. #In that sense, most of the modes I describe are "C", or corpus, modes. #Does this help?

luckylarue

Aug-27-2007, 8:15pm

I'd just like to say that the best mandolin I ever had was made by Dave Cohen and that It was sold to me by Butch Baldassari.

labraid

Aug-27-2007, 8:53pm

Sunburst...
Everyone's afraid of something. I take exception to your comments, but not in a bad way. I like looking up into the sky as our ancestors did. It kinda makes me wonder if I can invent fire... sometimes I do later that evening. then one of y'alls cell phones goes off and Puff Daddy comes to mind... Ahhhh P. Diddy.
Santa Claus only dies when you let him. I hope my kids believe in him. Benevolent mysticism... could be said to be the repression of science. And also it's greatest motivator.

david blair

Aug-27-2007, 10:00pm

Thanks, Mr. Cohen,

I understood that the C modes were a sort sum of the parts. I was thinking that If there was already an F model that your's were a C #as a result of design feature.
I came to the conclusion today after much thought about design that Loars' design was a conclusion from the application of A circle around the entire instrument ( think Da'Vinci) two equal rectangles lengthwise, then divided horizontally with perfect measures of fiths. Five of them. The middle of your scale length, 13 7/8 if your circle is 690 mm will fall in the middle three fifths. A pentagon drawn with 90 degree angle triangles of equal size starting with the first with the long side, (hypotenuse) using the width of the diagonally crossed rectangles as the mark #will result in the top of #the triangle intersecting the fretboard at midpoint of the scale length. Further division of these first three triangles (pentagon) will reveal more squares which are in a proportional nature. Circles of different sizes around these squares will reveal further familiarities of the F-5 design. Right angles drawn from the small sides of the long triangles will reveal more and more. As to body width the circle drawn from the side view with the top plate in the middle and a perfect scale length of fifths, proportional rectangles divided to the corners will show arch curves and plate thickness being a quotient of an additional fifth for top and back. #The division of #the total size by fifths with and doubled thirteen times and then again multiplied another formula using the square root of the numbers multiplied by the thirteen resulting answers/ numbers, and division of 5, then squared, by twelve then squared multipled again by two, and squared, thirteen times and the resulting number square rooted against itself a further thirteen times revealed a number;
"1".
Santa Claus is everywhere, I want a protractor for christmas.

sunburst

Aug-27-2007, 10:16pm

Mario Proulx

Aug-27-2007, 10:48pm

knowing that it is Earth's shadow though.

Oh, great! Now you've ruined everything for me....

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Hans

Aug-28-2007, 4:17am

Gawd, glad I approch it all from an intuitive point of view. C modes, AT modes, pi ala modes, protractors, square root of two...my brain hurts!
I've only got one question. Don't you guys sleep? #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Dave Cohen

Aug-28-2007, 4:48am

David, my C# ("c sharp") models were named in a much more happenstance and tongue-in-cheek fashion. #C# is halfway between A and F, i.e., A, B, C, C#, D, E, F. #Also, I was not the first to name a particular mandolin model as a "C#" model. #Most others reserve the name for some form of two-point mandolin. #I've given some thought to renaming my C# a D#, since it is kind of a scroll-ized two-point.

Of all those geometrical manipulations, I don't know from nuthin'. #Newton & Hamilton & LaGrange didn't suggest anything like that to me.

http://www.cohenmando.com/

markishandsome

Aug-28-2007, 8:05am

I'm a little fuzzy on how all these body/air modes occuring at their various resonance frequencies produce the sound we hear when we pluck the string. As in, if I'm hearing 500Hz, that means the mandolin is vibrating at 500HZ (right?) so is that some sort of superposition of, say, a 400Hz mode and a 600Hz mode? Is it known how much of which higher frequency modes contribute to audible sound?

Jim Rowland

Aug-28-2007, 8:28am

I hope this isn't redundant. I've searched everywhere and can't find it.Well,here goes...how can you increase the volume of a mandolin,like is it thin top or wood source or break angle or what? I'd like the sure fire answer please.
Jim

Hans

Aug-28-2007, 8:32am

See the last 5 pages for the answer! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

testore

Aug-28-2007, 9:42am

If you're playing a mandolin that isn't loud enough buy a better one. I've never heard a well made instrument that wasn't loud enough. As the old saying goes,"You can't polish a t&%d". If you expect a $600 mandolin to shatter glass then you're not very realistic. There is no mystery to this stuff, good instruments are good instruments. If they suck, they suck for a million good reasons.It is really that simple.

Dave Cohen

Aug-28-2007, 9:56am

Mark:

In order to image each of the modes with TV holography, I use single frequency excitations and scan the frequency in order to find the resonances. But nothing in a played musical instrument is single frequency. Multiple modes are always excited. The simplest analogy is a string. You know that it is vibrating in several modes simultaneously from playing harmonics. Depending on where along the string's length you pluck it, you excite many of the harmonics at once (cf Fletcher & Rossing, pp 40-44). The forces from the string motion similarly excite many of the body modes simultaneously. The body modes in turn excite the air modes. The body modes and air modes differ from the string modes in not being harmonic, i.e., the second mode frequency is not a whole-number multiple of the first mode frequency. The concept of multiple modes vibrating at once is probably the hardest for a layperson to wrap around. Think back to string harmonics. If you play an open string, then lightly tap the string over the 12th fret, you get the 2nd harmonic at twice the frequency (i.e., an octave above) the first harmonic or fundamental. The 2nd harmonic was there all along, but you had to suppress the first harmonic (which vibrates at greater amplitude) in order to hear the 2nd. Similar things happen in the plates and the enclosed air. Numerous modes are excited by even a single string frequency, let alone the multiple string harmonics normally vibrating at once. So any time you play a note, you are exciting a melange of different modes of motion. That just about ensures that you will excite the Helmholtz air resonance every time, necessary for the lower frequency component of sound radiation. So the string fundamental frequency dominates the frequency of what you hear, but the interaction of all of the various modes "colors" the tone and harmonic content a bit differently for each different note. People with perfect pitch or relative pitch pick up on those "colorations" in order to distinguish the different notes without having to refer to a single source. Does this help?

tree

Aug-28-2007, 10:13am

...I like looking up into the sky as our ancestors did...
Me too. I'll be headed out in a couple of hours to watch the eclipse of the moon. I don't think it will diminish my enjoyment of it knowing that it is Earth's shadow though.
Was that cool this morning or what? #I don't care how old I get, that kind of stuff always gives me a thrill. #I was fortunate to look out the window last night and see the full moon in a clear sky, and doubly fortunate that the eclipse, which I was unaware of, occurred during my normal walk this morning. #I actually ran most of the way back home when I realized that would be the only way to wake up my family in time for them to view the "moment of truth". #My 12-year-old twins rolled out of bed with astonishing ease, and we all stood at the end of the driveway and watched that tiny sliver disappear. #Wish we could've seen the emergence, but the moon slipped down below the trees and the sun came up before that happened.

No volume at all, though. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif #Unless you count the neighbor's dogs barking at the odd people standing in the driveway.

Jim Rowland

Aug-28-2007, 12:08pm

Gary,your answer is a good one,but it made me aware that my smart alecky post might be taken seriously. I've built many guitars and flat top mandolins and over forty carved,arched,mandolins. Some were good,some bad,some just OK and I'm not absolutely sure why. I do know that they seem to get better,certainly nicer,as time goes by. This thread has been extremely interesting and informative. Considering the mix of wonderful minds and experience,and the tangents that have sprung from the original question,one could note that it has been answered about as fully and completely as currently possible and,from the standpoint of a beginning builder,not so much. In short,I was trying to be cute..a longstanding blemish on my otherwise sterling character.
Jim

testore

Aug-28-2007, 12:28pm

grow, your experience is basically what I'm saying. I'll bet that your best made instruments sound better,generally speaking, than your earliest attempts.There are the ones that come out better than others without a tangible reason, but that's going to always be the case.With so many variables,science and whatever you want to use to help figure this thing out, you still have to build them and see what happens. There's no way to do something like this exactly the same way twice, therefore there is no way to get the exact same result. There is also no way to test the results perfectly.

labraid

Aug-28-2007, 2:45pm

There is also no way to test the res...

(Shhhh!!!!! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )

red7flag

Aug-28-2007, 3:30pm

My brother is an editor of a marketing journal and from what I can tell, the editing process works on a peer review much like David Cohen talked about. #The problem that I have had is that often the paradigm of choice, not necessarily scientific basis, is what decides whether an article is chosen. #A scientist that advocates that there is no global warming, no matter how articulate or versed, is put down. #There is way too much politics in science and can more be the theory de jour.
Tony

david blair

Aug-28-2007, 4:28pm

A textbook description of the lunar eclipse showed angles drawn like a pentogram. Yikes.
I felt sort of crazy while doing all the math, square roots and such. I was really hoping I wouldn't get 666. 1 is much nicer. But I've discovered that any number squared enough times will yield one.
Anyway, a lot of folks feel that the best instruments were made long ago. What tools were they using? It's interesting to me that using simple tools like right angles and circles a flowing form of design can be attained which integrates the theory of music and is endorsed by architects and and designers of concert halls. I'm sure that just about everyone here recognizes a difference it harmony, tone and volume when their strings are tuned in fifths to each other, for example Instead of individually to a tuner. I notice a big difference tuning my mandolin using a tempered piano tuner and switching the octaves for each string. It sounds better.
This theory would work for any scale length I would venture. The angles of the pentagonal triangles intersecting the divided rectangles of the original circle show a measure of perfect fifths from the F node, a Greek term, which is just a way of saying where the bridge sits. My theory is that the angles and vortex created by these lines would show what Mr Loar and others may have been thinking, or referencing.
There are perhaps other relationships of these theories for the A, H, K, and L models. Some 5', 4's, 2's.

Right now I would be happy with a perfect dovetail!
More reference here
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PentagonalSquareNumber.html
and here.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.HO/0505373

markishandsome

Aug-28-2007, 5:02pm

So any time you play a note, you are exciting a melange of different modes of motion. That just about ensures that you will excite the Helmholtz air resonance every time, necessary for the lower frequency component of sound radiation. So the string fundamental frequency dominates the frequency of what you hear,...

This is the part I don't get. How does the Helmholtz resonance radiate sound at the string frequency the resonance itself is at some other frequency?

I'm thinking back to my college physics class when we covered the two masses connected by springs problem. As I recall there were two normal modes, one where the two masses were oscillating in phase and one where they were opposite phase. But these modes, like the air/plate resonances, occurred only at certain frequencies. It intermediate frequencies, both modes where going at once and the masses wobbled all over like crazy. I don't remember the detail well enough to know if this is a good example or if i'm misinterpreting something, but here it goes:

The strings provide the driving force to the air/body system, which vibrates at that frequency (the one you hear) but that vibration is some linear (?) combination of all the various air/body modes. I guess that's just rephrasing what you said. What I'm wondering is if you could calculate or measure the coefficients in linear combination that quantify the contribution of each mode at a given driving frequency. Or am I way off base? I hear people say "the helmholtz mode is most important," I wonder if that can be quantified.

I agree that this is the hardest concept to understand, and unfortunately it seems to me that it's the key piece that connects your research with the "real world" that most of us understand. Probably one of the reasons you get so much flak around here, too. "What do these lousy modes have to do with making mandolins sound better?"

GTG

Aug-28-2007, 5:48pm

What a great thread!
But it seems that most of these debates are really not addressing the original question.

What is the general consensus here on achieving more volume when building? #Thinner soundboard, backboard? more/less arch? #more less recurve? #larger sound chamber? # Anything else?

For me, this immediately brings to mind the philosophical thread on what makes a mandolin. What are the constraints? Materials? Design? Shape? If you add too many constraints, then suddenly there aren't too many options for experimenting. I remember someone mentioning at one point on this board that if volume is the only consideration, a resonator mando is the obvious choice. Another obvious response (suggested early on by Mario, I believe) would be an electric mando. I suppose we might throw out both of these as being 'not in the spirit' of the question. Still, amongst the huge variety of possible materials, shapes and designs, string/pick combinations, etc. out there, it seems unlikely to me that the traditional F5 out of spruce/maple would be the configuration that really maximizes volume on our little 8-string instrument. #

Of course, as the discussion has demonstrated, we don't just care about volume, we also care about tone. I think the hypothetical/theoretical questions are actually more interesting, though. Given certain materials (wood) and scale length, and perhaps a certain need for playability, what body design and construction style would maximize volume? We'd also need to specify what register - mid-range or across the full range of the instrument (including the tiny frets above the 17th?). Alternatively, given a certain shape and design (F5, I guess), what material would maximize volume? There must be some metals out there that would be far louder than the woods we typically use... I actually think some additional inquiry into these questions would inject some fresh innovation into the mando building world.

Dave Cohen

Aug-28-2007, 6:45pm

This has become a thread of everything.

"A scientist that advocates that there is no global warming, no matter how articulate or versed, is put down. #There is way too much politics in science and can more be the theory du jour."

It's hard to even know where to start with that. #First, marketing is not physics, nor is it meteorology, nor is it climatology. #Second, any manuscript which is only advocacy, be it for or against global warming or anything else, would not be published. #On the other hand, papers with scientific content which does not support the existence of global warming are regularly published, as are articles with scientific content which does support the existence of global warming. #Peer review is not perfect, but neither politics nor opinion is a criterion for publication of a paper. #Third, global warming is not a theory du jour. #In fact, it is not a theory at all. #A case can be made for calling it a hypothesis, and a considerable amount of data of many types has been gathered. #Data from ice cores provide historical context. #Mean temperature measurements, ocean levels, polar ice cap volumes, etc., indicate current trends. #There is not complete consensus, and all who do sufficiently rigorous science and analysis are published, regardless of conclusion. #On the other hand, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing with the existence of global warming was about 66% in 2001, and about 90% in 2007. #Believe it or not, the other 10% are still heard, and they are still published. #To say that they are "put down" is a baseless accusation. #It is a popular and regularly voiced opinion in some circles to accuse the majority of scientists of conspiracy and collusion to promote liberal "theories du jour", as you put it. #Scientists are not monolithically liberal; some are liberal, some are moderate, and some are conservative. #I have not heard accusations of conspiracy from other scientists, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative. #If you are going to make an accusation like that, please hit the ball with the net up; back your accusation with specific examples and (at least) estimations of frequency.

"There is also no way to test the results perfectly"

There is also no way for a luthier to build a mandolin "perfectly". #Nor do luthiers hear the results of their craft "perfectly". #Nor are they completely objective. #Lack of "perfection" as an argument against analysis is as fatuous as the argument of lack of "completeness" of a discipline.

testore

Aug-28-2007, 7:18pm

I guess by "perfectly" I really meant "accurately". your last paragraph is very well said.

Jim Rowland

Aug-28-2007, 8:17pm

"Believe it or not, the other 10% are still heard,and still published" I believe that,
but their voices lack the huge amplification of the media in general,(hollywood people,comedians,a largely biased cadry of college faculty,silly cooking and home improvement people seeking some purchase on TV,etc,etc,etc.)
There is a general,but imperfect agreement that the earth may be,at this time in history,warming slowly, as it has done in the past,but much less agreement as to the cause. I'm waiting a while before changing all my lightbulbs and purchasing the ridiculous "carbon offsets".
This slanted media amplification of many scientific hypotheses and not the science itself is used politically and is the source of much of the anti science rancor sometimes even displayed here. Mandolins,mandolins,mandolins...why do I love them so..
Jim

Bill Halsey

Aug-28-2007, 8:18pm

My sweetie Marilyn taught me the difference between perfection and excellence: one is attainable, one is not.

Oh-oh... better scratch mathematics from that!http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

red7flag

Aug-28-2007, 8:19pm

I apologize for bringing up a hot (sorry for the pun) and reactionary topic like global warming. But do remember there was a time when the western European scientific community believed that the world was flat. My point is that consensus in the scientific community does in no way make a theory more correct. What is correct comes from the experimentation and from the facts gleaned over time. Just my take.
Tony

markishandsome

Aug-28-2007, 9:26pm

Carbon offsets are one thing, but there's absolutely no reason not to update you light bulbs. Even if we were headed for a new ice age, you'd save money on your electric bill. Then you could buy a louder mandolin! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Dave Cohen

Aug-29-2007, 8:07am

"What do these lousy modes have to do with making mandolins better?"

First, I have stated numerous times that I do not claim to make "better" mandolins through scientific knowledge. Better is subjective anyway. However, if one wants to push the envelope, the most thoroughly detailed knowledge of the great historical instruments will not allow one to do that. The only way for me to consider pushing the envelope is to understand what mandolins and guitars are in the most fundamental ways possible. There are currently two approaches to loudness or acoustic volume. One is the "bass reflex" approach involving the two-mass and three-mass models of Christenson, Firth, Caldersmith, etc. That has been alluded to pages ago in this thread. It is the interaction of the lowest body mode - what I call the (0,0) or "trampoline" mode - with the lowest air mode - the "Helmholtz resonance". The interaction ("coupling") of the air mode with the trampoline mode splits the trampoline mode into a higher frequency mode and a lower frequency mode. The greater the frequency separation between the two, the stronger the coupling, and in turn the stronger the sound radiation. Most stringed instruments to date have been built on this low-frequency approximation, whether or not the builders realized it. The second approach to acoustic volume has do do with the effective mass of modes, leading to an "acoustic merit" parameter, and in general raising the frequency of modes to try to get them closer to a "coincidence frequency", at which point sound radiation will get much more efficient. This is the approach of Bernard Richardson. I will spare you the math, since it probably will put off most readers. I have referenced one of his papers pages ago in this thread.

With either approach, you are left to deal with the lousy modes. Mandolins and guitars produce sound by vibrating. They don't just vibrate any old way. Their component parts vibrate in specific normal modes of motion, with specific peak frequencies, bandwidths, and internal losses. The modes of the assembled instrument are the result of the coupling or interaction of the modes of the component parts. So unless you believe in the sprites and the fairies, the modes are what there is. There is a lot I have left out here. I am not just some playback device that can regurgitate everything every time a new participant asks a variant of an old question. Also, I try to present what I know at a level appropriate to the physical knowledge of most readers. So I have to leave out a lot.

Lest I be accused of injecting physics into every discussion, I respond to threads in which the question involve physics, either implicitly or explicitly.

"A largely biased cadry of college faculty,..."

And you know this how? I have scrupulously avoided expressing personal opinions in the classroom. To the best of my knowledge, my scientific colleagues have done likewise. So instead of just making a blanket statement, it would be good if you justified your assertion with something more that anecdotes.

Larry Simonson

Aug-29-2007, 10:06am

As a retire chemist with chronic MAS I have found this thread interesting. I am grateful for all the tidbits of wisdom given by some pretty heavy hitters.

Dr. Dave has, in the true spirit of the academic world, freely described his and other scientific results for us to take,leave or criticize. The mandolin is indeed a complex structure and as such it is a interesting and valid scientific problem. Not only as a basic research goal, but with so many people interested in questions like "How will(fill in the blank)affect the tone/volume of my mandoline", it has lots of customers looking for answers. We need to be thankful that scientists are plugging along on these questions. One of the attributes of a successful theory is its ability to predict and it may be proper to lay the scientist label on Big Joe after his statement earlier *it is possible to determine before the first piece of wood is cut what the end result in tone will be...with slight variations." The description of that test is lacking, but I'd bet it is very difficult to communicate.

That so many really outstanding instruments have been constructed without knowledge of any of the lastest scientific results means there is a vast data base of practical information, and it is thru forums like this that that info gets disseminated. I say hurray to both the practical and scientific camps and wish the more and more success.

One of the biggest problems in my view is that apparently many of us can recognize a great instrument but few, if any, of us can explain in objective terms what makes it great. Science and craftmanship are chasing recognizable but undefined end.

Big Joe

Aug-29-2007, 10:45am

Newtonamic...I think you may have hit the nail on the head in every respect. Each person in pursuit of the perfect mandolin is in effect a scientist, though maybe not knowing this or understanding all the elements of physics involved. It is the continued research and study of these instruments that give us the advances we see. This is not an accident, but science in what I think it is real form, and that is the practical. Theory and assumption and endless papers do not make a mandolin. They may make it easier to get to the desired point, but a good student of the lutherie process will eventually get there anyway if his talent is large enough. It is this melding that I hold important more than any one aspect. This forum allows us the opportunity to examine both and come to our own conclusions on how to apply any or all of this information.

I was very blessed to spend nearly fifteen years with Charlie Derrington. The study and research done during those years, under his guidance, was quite expansive. This allowed me to see and do more with stringed instruments than I would ever have dreamed. I was blessed to run the largest stringed instrument repair faciliy in existence during those years. I had the opportunity to see such a variety of instruments and see them in nearly every state. This coupled with building and working with the OAI division of Gibson afforded me the opportunity to study from a practical way I would never have imagined. I have been blessed to become friends with so many of the builders of mandolins and guitars. These experiences have improved my understanding and knowledge. This is scientific research no matter how I may protest http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

This thread has taken so many turns but it certainly has made one thing clear. Everyone has a different idea of what "better tone and volume" may be and how to achieve that goal. In like manner we each have our particular persuasions on picks, strings, arm rests, tone guards, varnish vs lacquer, plating, body type, color, etc. Better is a percieved value known only to the individual by the standards he sets.

billhay4

Aug-29-2007, 10:53am

It must be very frustrating for David Cohen, and others of his scientific bent, to be constantly confronted with the fuzzy thinking of those of us who are not made, or inclined, to think in scientific terms.
I applaud their efforts, not only to further the science of music, but to educate the rest of us.
At the same time, non-scientific types contribute much to the field of mandolin construction.
The well-formed line of a Monteleone or a Michael Lewis, the brilliant ring of a Gilchrist, the timeless appeal of a Gibson A, the bark of a well-struck chop chord, a tremolo that catches the sound of the wind in the mountains at dusk. None of these things is scientifically describable. All are lovely and lasting.
It's all worthy of our attention. I read the scientists in awe. Only some build great instruments, but that's true of the general population of luthiers. Only some of us achieve greatness. I'm not one of them, but it's worthy of my efforts, and theirs.
Bill

fatt-dad

Aug-29-2007, 11:07am

Each person in pursuit of the perfect mandolin is in effect a scientist, though maybe not knowing this or understanding all the elements of physics involved.
Not according to the principals of science, however. This may be your opinion, but I wouldn't agree. It distills the goals of scientific research to make this sound like some universal truth.

Each person in pursuit of building a perfect mandolin may be in fact a researcher. There are lots of folks that do research (teenagers in the kitchen for example) that may or may not get the desired results, or get great results - they may not really be considered scientists; however.

Andrew Reckhart

Aug-29-2007, 11:15am

Ask Lou Stiver......... He knows! Nobody builds a consistently louder mandolin than Lou. They sound great too. I don't know (nor do I really care) about "how" he builds the volume into his mandolins. I'm just glad that he does.

markishandsome

Aug-29-2007, 12:21pm

"What do these lousy modes have to do with making mandolins better?"

This was meant to be an example of what someone might say who didn't understand the way physicists work, not an expression of my personal opinion.

I thought my question was pretty specific, and not just rephrasing anything I'd seen asked before.

Have measurements been made to determine how much of which modes are active under playing conditions? As in: "plucking the G course results in a vibration of the air volume which is 85% (0,0), 10% (1,0), 4% (0,1) and 1% (1,1)"? If you know the complete set of eigenmodes, shouldn't you be able to figure out their coefficients for any given driving frequency?

Antlurz

Aug-29-2007, 1:53pm

Also, I try to present what I know at a level appropriate to the physical knowledge of most readers. So I have to leave out a lot.
Dave..

Taking that statement at face value, I can only say I've read your explanations at every opportunity for the past couple of years, and while I think I might have gained some benefit from it, at the end of each session of trying to understand, I'm left in a fog of confusion. I see you explain what frequencies do what, and et cetera, but at the final line, I see...what?

I think you would serve your purpose much better to explain... or at least attempt to.. what the results are in the real world. That is, when a result is observed, what do you do about it to improve the sound? Never have I observed you attempt to take your results and transpose it into a useful working situation that Joe Sixpack can interpret to mean "OK, I guess I need to thin it out here a bit more to maximize this mode"

Not to be flippant, but when I blast the gas on my dragbike, I'm sure some kind of mode generates itself on the gas tank too, but, like, so what? without attempting to explain what can be done in the real world with your information after you have cataloged it, what have you proven? If that information isn't directly transferable into meat and potatoes that Joe Sixpack can use to his benefit, the question is ...

What's it all for?

Buffaloed in Buffalo..
Ron

sunburst

Aug-29-2007, 2:46pm

Ron, without trying to single you out in particular, I think your post points out part of the problem people are having with the scientifically derived knowledge of the physics of mandolins, so I'm sort of using you for an example.

When you say:
"I think you would serve your purpose much better to explain..."
I think what you really mean is:
"I think you would serve my purpose much better to explain..."

Dave is only answering questions in this thread (taking his time to do so, I might add, (and of, coarse defending science from the uninformed) with no personal gain), and his work on measuring mandolin response is similar in that he's not getting paid to do it, and in fact is spending money on it.

Personally, I too would like to see a paper or article or two, in lay language with with simple illustrations and explanations of how the physics relates to what we perceive and hear from a mandolin, but I'm not willing to pay for the papers to be written and published, so it's up to me to try to educate myself enough in the language of physics to understand more of the papers I already have in the file cabinet.

Furthermore, Dave's work isn't really attempting to figure out what to do to make a "better' mandolin so much as it is attempting to figure out how a mandolin works. Knowing how something works is the first step in knowing how to improve it.

As I said before, most of what I've learned from Dave et al and their work is "what not to do". I had some notions of how a mandolin worked that turned out to be wrong. I found out they were wrong from reading the papers, talking to Dave, asking questions, and thinking things through. I haven't learned any specific things to do while carving plates or tone bars or any of the nuts and bolts part of building a mandolin, but I feel like my rudimentary understanding of plate and air modes keeps me in line as I tweek things in my mandolins. It helps keep me from wasting time messing with trying to improve things that, as it turns out, probably don't really matter. While it may be true that "a good student of the lutherie process will eventually get there anyway", he/she could just as easily be charging down a blind alley if he/she doesn't understand a little bit about the physics of materials in general, and of mandolins in particular.

kestrel

Aug-29-2007, 3:02pm

I've been following this thread from the very beginning, and promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved, but... David - I must agree with Antlurz. I truly do appreciate what you attempt to do. It is obvious that you are trying to share the knowledge you've gained. I spent much of my life as an educator, and I understand the frustration involved in attempting to speak to Joe Sixpack - to borrow from Ron - without sounding condescending, but even with two degrees - very heavily laden with Science courses - I usually have a difficult time understanding what you are saying - at the "real world" level. Modes, nodes, PDEs? Like I said, I appreciate... but, most of us don't really understand, at a level which will give us any advantage when trying to understand how to build a better sounding; louder; mellower; whatever... mandolin.

Antlurz

Aug-29-2007, 3:19pm

John...

Exactly! Yet still he's driven to discover, so that is in and of itself a personal purpose, but for purposes of my post, you are dead on. Without some link to tie it together, it seems all for naught at times. Thanks for the tweak. ya dun good.

Ron

jasona

Aug-29-2007, 3:26pm

There was an article on the New York Times website several months ago about the physics of violins, which demonstrated the various ways the violin body vibrates, using distorted figures, to explain these concepts to "joe six pack" in accessible language. I can't find it now however.

Thing is, if you go back to early in this thread, Dave takes the time to explain what each mode reflects in terms of vibrations of the body of the mandolin. It is assumed, however, that you the reader will continue to make this association subsequently because it is faster to talk about the modes rather than "the vibration where the top plate bounces up and down". Scientific jargon is really supposed to make communication about complex concepts easier, believe it or not! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

No offense to anyone intended. I am not a physicist, or a builder, but I think I understand what is being discussed.

markishandsome

Aug-29-2007, 6:42pm

The reason you don't see the connection between Dr C's research and the "real world" is because that knowledge is not yet available. What I got out of his last post was that at this time he's identified all the ingredients (the modes) but he hasn't figured out the recipe (the relative contribution of each mode to the overall vibration). As such he is in no position to make claims about how to improve that recipe. It's not that he's bad at explaining, or that you're bad at understanding, he's just not explaining what you want to understand.

Big Joe

Aug-29-2007, 9:45pm

A test??? Oh no, not a test!!! #What if I flunk? #What if I only get a C? #What shall I do? #Will my mandolin making licesnse be revoked??? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif .

Antlurz

Aug-29-2007, 10:02pm

It's not that he's bad at explaining, or that you're bad at understanding, he's just not explaining what you want to understand.
That's probably as close as one can come without adding frustration factors....... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Ron

Antlurz

Aug-29-2007, 10:14pm

Furthermore, Dave's work isn't really attempting to figure out what to do to make a "better' mandolin so much as it is attempting to figure out how a mandolin works. Knowing how something works is the first step in knowing how to improve it.
....and the curtain is pulled away. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Ron

Bill Halsey

Aug-30-2007, 7:15am

I GET IT!

salleyann

Aug-30-2007, 7:34am

This thread is absolutely great! I thank everyone who is contributing to it, no matter their opinion.

david blair

Sep-02-2007, 10:09pm

Here are some interesting links about design and it's relation to volume, overtones, resonance, reverberation. The more I read the more I'm convinced that Loar was using these theories. Such as his claim about overtones-This scale temperament sounds familiar to the mandolin, and uses the maximum number of harmonics available. This is what he theorizes will emphasize the fundamental (played) note by not muddying the desired tone.

http://www.elvenminstrel.com/music....2.shtml (http://www.elvenminstrel.com/music/tuning/rational/harmonicseries/shf12.shtml)

Here are some more thoughts from Mr. Finnamore about geometry and tone. He also mentions "L" and "H", which is related again to the instrument designs. Was there an "L6"? There's a reason for 4,5,7, and 9.

http://www.elvenminstrel.com/music/tuning/horagrams/horagram_intro.htm

more on musical scales, the geometry, math, and Fibonacci, who's work with scales and overtones I speculate are what put the "F" in the name F5. Other scientists are known as L, K, and H.

http://goldennumber.net/music.htm

Here's a link to a Russian luthier explaining location of modes. It's a bit technical, but quite thorough. He now carves the inside first.

http://www.violin.odessa.ua/method.html

And another link to a viola specialist who applies this theory for every scale length with success.

http://theviolaworkshop.com/page15.html

Here's a very thorough examination of just about every variable discussed in this thread so far, except for the effect of full moon eclipse and obsessive MAS.
This is part five, everything you really never wanted to know about tap tuning. The other parts would likely be interesting to Mr. Cohen. Enjoy.

http://www.speech.kth.se/music/acviguit4/part5.pdf

Photos of what the modes look like.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/patterns3.html

So I hope some of you find these links interesting. I really believe that the path to a great instrument begins with design. Right angles, circles, and theory of 3:2 proportion for the for scale length.
But now, this Charlie Hunter guy just throws a wrench in, using the "tri-tone" (Pthagorus). It's the step between four and five. If you have listened to Charlie play it sounds like he's sort of out of tune, but maybe just adding color and overtone. What would Loar think?!

Here's a link to Novack's acoustic prototype fanned fret guitar. They're looking more and more like a Brentrup eclipse or the Lewis octave.

http://www.novaxguitars.com/sales/acoustic-prototype.html

I think I know why Loar put flying saucers in his mandolins too...

Bill Halsey

Sep-02-2007, 11:14pm

"I think I know why Loar put flying saucers in his mandolins too..."

Perhaps Loar wanted to offer the option of calming it down a bit, in response to the critical F-4 aficionados...
What's your take on it, David?

Chris Baird

Sep-03-2007, 7:28am

Loar on Tone (http://www.mugwumps.com/tone.htm)

markishandsome

Sep-03-2007, 9:27am

Fibonacci, who's work with scales and overtones I speculate are what put the "F" in the name F5. Other scientists are known as L, K, and H.

Orville was designating his Florentine mandolins with the letter F when Lloyd was still in diapers. If you look at one upside down from the back, it looks like the letter F.

Big Joe

Sep-04-2007, 5:36am

While I've not had opportunity to read Davids references, I do pose an interesting question. The current scale for music is considered A=440. That was not the case in Loar's era. I do not remember the exact frequency for that time, but it was somewhat less than that. If one studies the alterations of frequencies considered for the mandolin (music in general) it will produce a different tone and volume and all the math in the world becomes altered a bit. I would be interested in some of our more scientific members adding that variable into the equation and seeing how they feel it affects the outcome.

Don Christy

Sep-04-2007, 7:54am

"Believe it or not, the other 10% are still heard,and still published" #I believe that,
but their voices lack the huge amplification of the media in general,(hollywood people,comedians,a largely biased cadry of college faculty,silly cooking and home improvement people seeking some purchase on TV,etc,etc,etc.)
There was a study that looked at the "hard news" media coverage of global warming. It found that the coverage was biased toward the minority opinion rather than the majority opinion. In other words, those 10% were getting much more than 10% of the coverage.

Two obvious reasons I can think of are:
- media tends to try and be "balanced" by giving two sides of an argument equal time, without providing any real analysis. They would rather have to people yelling at each other than do any real reporting

- there is a lot of $ involved in promoting the dissenting opinion and keeping the public believing that the science is still ambiguous.

Here is a summary of those findings:

From a total of 3,543 articles, we examined a random sample of 636 articles. Our results showed that the majority of these stories were, in fact, structured on the journalistic norm of balanced reporting, giving the impression that the scientific community was embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans were contributing to global warming.

Don

markishandsome

Sep-04-2007, 8:05am

I'd venture to guess that if the main resonances are "low Q" as Dr C calls them, that changing the driving frequency by a couple percent wouldn't have much effect. You could try tweaking down your tuning a few cents and tell us what you think.

david blair

Sep-14-2007, 9:00am

This is a very interesting essay about geometry and tone by master luthier Otis Tomas. Well written, and a great read. Hope y'all enjoy. You'll have click "reflections", and "pythagorean".
http://www.fiddletree.com/

"Orville was designating his Florentine mandolins with the letter F when Lloyd was still in diapers. #If you look at one upside down from the back, it looks like the letter F."

Florentine, Florence, Italy. Also was once known as the capitol of Italy and the name of their spoken language. Orville was known for making violin style mandolins. He probably didn't want to tell all of his secrets. There are likely many here who feel the same way!
Joe I've thought a lot about the 440/432 tuning question, mostly because I have an ear for 432. I speculate that what matters more though is the geometry and proportional design, although I also theorize that a smaller air chamber will sound better than Loar's design. Perhaps you have some comments about the mandolins that have narrower sides?

Big Joe

Sep-14-2007, 10:13am

Charlie was convinced the actual chamber volume was more important than anything else in obtaining the "Loar" tone. That being said, I have noticed many Loars that were originally equipped with the Virzi had slightly thinner rims. This is likely because they built the mandolin, then removed the back to install the Virzi. Some were later removed by the same process. The backs were removed in the factory by cutting them off in those days. This gives a slightly thinner rim. If it is opened twice the same way the rim height is really noticeable. What is amazing is these often sound incredible!!! I think they sound every bit as Loarish as those that were never reduced.

I think the lower rim height can be one of several things that bring the tone and volume to its state. I think the rim height is important, affecting the sound chamber. I also think the carving has to be very close. The Loars were not one particular graduation, but each one may be a bit different but within a very close proximity. This allows for the slight difference in the tone from one to another. I think the neck size makes a real difference also. We have seen what the Sam Bush neck size does to tone and volume, but when we began working on the RSDMM we discovered that removing some of the wood from the neck also caused the same improvement. I am still trying to figure that out, but I do realize every mandolin is different and will respond differently. I have experimented on reducing neck thickness (front to back) and it seems to improve the tone. It seems to give a more even tone across the fingerboard.

The final item is the finish. Even slight changes in finish can give a much different tone and volume upon completion. We have experimented with numerous finishes over the years and have been amazed how they change an instrument. If you want to compare for yourself, try the Varnished Fern put out a few years ago. It was a production Fern. It came off the line when it got to finish and rather than spaying Lacquer on it, it was give the MM finish. The difference in tone was astounding. You have to determine what you like best, but it was certainly noticeable. The ONLY difference was the finish. The mandolins were not chosen becuase they were better in any way. They were chosen as they got to the finish area. When they needed a varnish one, they just grabbed the next one in line.

When one takes those elements together, it can make a tremendous difference in the outcome. We were trying to replicate the Loar tone and look at our time in Gibson. I think Charlie did an incredible job of replicating what Loar had done, but to a higher standard. I have often said I believe those mandolins from 01 through 05 would be viewed superior instruments in time. Charlie would not engage in that discussion but I still believe that.

The exciting thing about building mandolins is that we get to chose which elements are important to give the sound we chose. When I came up with my X brace design I knew it would alter the tone and the feel of the instrument. I had in mind what I thought it would do. I was very happy to see it gave exactly what I was hoping for, and maybe even more. While this was the result of experimentation, it was not the result of accident. Having worked on and messed with so many mandolins over such a long period it was pretty predictable. Still, there is always that unknown factor that sometimes seems to step in and mess up the best of plans.

I think the frequency a mandolin was designed to work with will make a difference in the end result. I wonder when Loar made the mandolins he did (the scale was A=432...or maybe even a bit less) if he predicted a certain output. It may be that with the strings they had at that time and playing in the lower tuning it may have produced a tone that was less desireable for the music of the day. Those same instruments are now tuned a bit higher and they seem to be very well accepted. I have not done any experimenting with the altered frequencies to see what the outcome is. That would be fun though.