Don't shoot, i'm already wounded

[billhay4]

Some of you may recall that I started a topic entitled, “What is a mandolin?” some time ago. I was starting on an examination of the design of the mandolin. To that end, I wrote a long, rambling article which I have posted here: http://billhay.nventure.com/mandolindesign.doc for those of you willing to inflict self-pain.
The topic of designing a new mandolin is, admittedly, too complex for a novice like me to undertake, but that didn’t stop me! “No task too futile.” And, I have come up with a preliminary design that I wish to present here for your comments.
Let me be the first to admit that instrument is not lovely. “Wounded duck” might be a nice name as would “deformed pigeon” and other, less complimentary phrases. Still, it’s what I have come up with for now.]
I’d like to explain some of my rationale for those who wish to actually overlook the design’s aesthetic shortcomings and investigate it further.
Let me start with the tumor. It’s there for those who play sitting down. When I do, my instrument slips off my leg. So, I put in a slight curve to sit on the thigh.
This, coupled with the fact that I wanted easy access to the upper frets resulted in a tumor. So be it.
The rest of the instrument is pretty conventional. I avoided a scroll, thinking correctly that they are expensive, of no acoustical value, and serve no function beyond strap hanger. To compensate for the loss of this, I placed the small point on the left side of the top and a hole will be drilled through the body there (and the point block inside), and a strap threaded through that hole. This should result in a very well-balanced instrument.
This is, to date, merely a shape. There will be many modifications when it actually becomes an instrument (maybe a year or so down the road). For instance, I hate the rubbing of tailpieces and the rim of the top against my forearm when I play. Therefore, I am working on some possibilities. I put an armrest on my last instrument and it works okay. Some modified version may grace this design.
I have also thought of recessing the tailpiece into the top to get it out of the way. A further design element could be a feathered edge of the top rim where the arm rests. I have seen these on guitars and like the look. But, the tailpiece is still there to rub against the arm.
Perhaps the lovely curved and arched armrests I have seen on some classical instruments is a possible solution. However, how do these affect ones ability to remove the top should this be necessary? A valid consideration, I think.
I have stuck a couple of sound holes on this sketch. They are crescent-shaped, a simple and effective shape, but one that may change. Placement is now dictated by bridge placement, but this is not necessary, merely traditional. I can see other possibilities.
Nor have I shown any bracing. Still under consideration. I suspect I’ll have to try a couple of versions to find out how they sound.
Some of you will see various influences in my design, all of which belie my expressed goal of creating a design ex nihlo, as it were. I will be the first to admit that such a design is impossible, especially for a neophyte like me. One of those influences is Giacomel whose instruments I consider the most beautiful made today. I have also borrowed from various wounded animals I have come across in my rambles. Nothing like a broken wing to inspire design.
Constructive comments welcome and encouraged. Jokes should be clearly marked as such. Vilification only indicates jealousy and your own personal inadequacies. If you wish to feel inadequate, try to design your own instrument.
Thanks,
Bill

[Bill Snyder]

24 pages. What, you did not have time to go in depth a bit? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Bill Snyder]

I do have one possible criticism/concern. Do you think it might have a weak spot where the non-f holes get so close to the sides?

[delsbrother]

Aw, don't make it cry!

[El Greco]

Is this a lefty upside-downy?

Wow, this is Ph.D. material my friend.

[Antlurz]

The way *I* hold one while sitting down would still place your rounded off lower point dead in the middle of my thigh, so even though it might be a friendlier contact, you would ...or I would, rather... still have the same problem. For me, it isn't so much a matter of the shape of that point as it is the positioning of it.

Ron

[otterly2k]

I was wondering the same thing as Bill about the close proximity of the soundholes to the edge... whether that would be a problem structurally and also how that would work in relation to the recurve. Not a criticism so much as a question.

[Narayan Kersak]

boy that's ugly. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Bill Snyder]

boy that's ugly. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
As is oft said beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It reminds me of one of Paul Lestock's designs and two of Hans Brentrup designs.
Mind you I do not mean to imply it looks like a copy of either of those, just that it makes me think of them.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/uploads/post-15-96745-FTvt.jpg
This is Mr. Brentrup's Eclipse model.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/uploads/post-15-85909-flst.jpg
His Stealth model.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/uploads/post-15-39164-BlackieGFront.jpg
Paul Lestock's G-Style.

[labraid]

Bold. This guy's not afraid of anything.
If I may ask, what is the reasoning behind the bridge placement?
Could I make one recommendation (which you can certainly ignore)? Drawing it on paper with compasses and rules and all manner of old-timey things like French curves (and a big eraser too).. I find it makes the mind even more inquisitive as regards the placement of all important objects, and it facilitate the imagination. Mine anyway. I love drawing in Illustrator, but it's nowhere as free-flowing from the mind (it involves so much of the intelligent mind -- "right" half?). You might find yourself faced with something completely different between the two methods. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[billhay4]

The soundholes are too close. I'll work on that.
It IS ugly, I guess.
I have seen Paul and Hans' designs before and forgot to add them (and others, I'm sure) to my list of influences.
I drew this using points first. Started from a trace of an A, and modified that more or less totally. After I got it done, I used Corel Draw to get a more symmetrical shape.
Bridge is placed for a 14.75" scale and a twelfth fret join.
Thanks for the comments.
Bill
Edit: the way Antlurz holds the instrument may be more common. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on exactly how and where you hold it, so I can look at the design more closely.

[Steve Cantrell]

Great work on the document Bill. Very well studied and thoughtful.

[Bill Snyder]

Bill what are the dimensions of the body? If the bridge represents a stock adjustable bridge it must be about 11 11/16" x 8 5/8".
What if you make it just a bit wider, like so.

[Bill Snyder]

Actually I should probably let you design without my input. I have heard that a camel is just a horse designed by a committee. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Dave Cohen]

The soundhole shapes are pretty close to mine; I hope that you have noted that. I will also chime in that the pointed ends of the soundholes, whether close to the plate edge or not, lend themselves to splitting. You will need to either round them just a bit, or reinforce the short grain enough that you don't get splitting when gluing and clamping the top plate to the ribs.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Celtic-Grass]

I'm wondering if the sharp corners of those "d" holes would just be inviting stress cracks in the top...

[Eugene]

As an official academic nitpicker, I suspect my thoughts aren't of great interest to you, but... #There are many points in your essay, especially regarding history and organology, that I don't think are quite borne out in reality. #A few examples:


In the modern form, there are two primary manifestations of the instrument – the bowlback, and the American style.
I'm not entirely comfortable with these descriptors. #It would seem to discount the earlier American tradition of building mandolins in emulation of the Neapolitan type. #It also disregards the uniquely American flat-backed mandolins with canted soundboards. #Why not describe construction in both instances to reduce ambiguity: e.g., bowlback and archtop?



The bowlback seems to be an older form of the instrument, but this is up to debate as guitarres, etc. are also ancient.
Not only "seems." #All evidence regarding the early application of "mandolin"-like terms to musical instruments indicate this to be so.



The bowlback has a neck that is partially external to the cavity of the instrument and partially internal. In other words, the ribs are glued directly to the heel of the neck and there is no joinery required other than this to construct the entire instrument.
This certainly is not universal. #Many have a dovetail set into a block, especially American incarnations.



Being mostly flat, the top is relatively easy to form. At most, a single bend (or pliage) must be made.
Regarding most quality pieces, the canted soundboard is a bit more complex than this implies, having a slight wedge missing from the join to induce a gentle arch perpendicular to the cant.



Bowlbacks normally have a slotted headboard and side mounted tuners, but this varies and is not vital to the definition of the instrument.
It varies so much so that I would argue most don't. #Such a set up is common to mature Roman- and German-type instruments, but rare to the much-more-common Neapolitan types, including those produced in hugely prolific American shops like Lyon & Healy or Vega.



...others are built like many guitars with the strings attached to the bridge itself.
Regarding bowlback mandolins, this really only occurs with regularity in rather rare and currently obscure historic gut-strung types.



American instruments take two main forms – the A-style and F-style.
Of course, these terms are strictly derived from Gibson's model designations, and I would argue they have no place in describing any mandolin that is not a deliberate effort to imitate Gibson's production. #All the Bacon, Lyon & Healy, Martin, etc. archtops are not appropriately describe as "A" or "F" in this sense, nor are the myriad flat-backed and canted-top instruments by Martin, Lyon & Healy, Regal, Vega, the Larson brothers, etc., and I wouldn't describe your design as such either.



Here are the elements of the mandolin as I see them.
Perhaps add a bit of caveat, something like "...of the most common modern mandolin types..." #Everything pictured on the Early Mandolin Eye Candy page (http://www.mandolincafe.com/archives/builders/early.html), e.g., is legitimately called "mandolin" and most have little in common with your list.



Tuned GDAE
As is, this could describe mandolin, octave mandolin/tenor mandola, or even bass guitar tuning. #Consider specifying octaves to eliminate ambiguity: g-d'-a'-e''. #Consider this glossary entry (http://www.mandolincafe.com/glossary/glossary_76.shtml).



Scale length 10 - 15" roughly
If only considering the modern norm, this seems far too wide for the standard tuning. #There may have been occasional anomalies at the extremes, but the status quo is more like ca. 13-14".



Again, I am suggesting the historical norm is four courses of double steel strings.
This is not really a "historical norm", but more the modern status quo. #Historic gut-strung mandolins with a standard tuning of [g]-b-e'-a'-d''-g'' were widespread and common--the historic norm, if you prefer--for more than a century before anything like the modern instrument existed.

Etc. Please take no offense. #I understand you are trying to loosely define a modern status quo, but I think you can do so without misstating the specs of historic forms or creating an unnecessary and slightly ambiguous organology. #This section of the old FAQ (http://www.mandolincafe.com/archives/faq.html#mandolintypes) might be of interest. #I wrote it many years ago, and would state some things differently now, but it still might amuse. #There is also some literature worth considering:

Hambly, Scott. 1977. Mandolins in the United States since 1880: An Industrial and Sociocultural History of Form. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Harris, Keith (trans.). 1984. Konrad Wölki (1939, 1974, 1979) History of the Mandolin: The Instrument, its Exponents and its Literature, from the Seventeenth until the Early Twentieth Century. Plucked String Inc. Arlington, VA.

Morey, Stephen. 1993. Mandolins of the 18th Century. Editrice Turris, Cremona.

Ruppa, Paul. 1988. The Mandolin in America after 1880 and the History of Mandolin Orchestras in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. MM thesis, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Sparks, Paul. 1995. The Classical Mandolin. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Tyler, James. 1981 The Italian Mandolin and Mandola 1589-1800. Early Music 9(4):438-446.

Tyler, James & Paul Sparks. 1989, 1992. The Early Mandolin. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Again, I really am an academic nitpicker, so please forgive this tirade. #Carry on.

[Antlurz]

Edit: the way Antlurz holds the instrument may be more common. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on exactly how and where you hold it, so I can look at the design more closely.
If you meant me, invariably, this is about how it ends up on my leg.

Ron

[billhay4]

Ron,
I did mean you and appreciate the picture. I was taught to angle the instrument upward more which puts the part resting on the back leg closer to the tailpiece.
It is interesting to see that others are trying to accommodate players who sit and either move or remove the point which is a major irritant.
Regarding the size of the instrument, it is 13" long and 10.25" on the x-axis. This is not the widest point but the centerline of the y-axis.
The instrument does resemble a camel, now that you mention it, Bill. Comments appreciated.
Bill
Edit: Dave Cohen, I did note the similarity of my c holes to those on your instruments. My second instrument used similar holes and I took the idea from you. Sorry not to include mention of them in my short piece on this instrument.
I now realize the subtitle "new design concept" was unintentionally brazen and might offend others who have labored long and hard to build, design, and innovate in the field of mandolin lutherie. I should have title the topic "new design concepts for Bill Hay" who is constantly a tabla rasa (whether this be the result of advancing age or a congenital condition is up for debate) and must reinvent the wheel. Sisyphus, indeed!

[Steve Ostrander]

Quote:
"I avoided a scroll, thinking correctly that they are expensive, of no acoustical value, and serve no function beyond strap hanger."

Ah, but the scroll does serve a function: it looks beautiful to me. And if it was good enough for Mr. Loar, it's good enough for me.

[SternART]

Last time I did this exercise in 2005, this is what I came up with. A matching dola & mando, done in collaboration with Lawrence Smart.

[billhay4]

SternArt,
Beautiful instruments, I have always thought. Some of the most beautiful ever made. You and Lawrence are supremely talented, much more than I am. But I'm glad others have been through a similar design process.
Some of us see the mandolin as an artifact of history, others as a tribute to a long-gone, brilliant foreman, others as an aesthetic challenge, some as a tool, some as a badge of honor, and others as a means of engaging a restless and wandering mind. Maybe they're a hill up which to push the always present boulder.
Bill

[SternART]

I'm all for tradition and think the F5 design is incredibly beautiful ad own a few myself.
But being a friend of John Monteleone, who in my opinion leads the pack, why not an evolution
of the design of the mandolin. In my case I tried to make all the curves sympathetic to each other,
just like the F5 has an ensemble of related elements. I used to own a Monty Radio Flyer A model
which got my wheels spinning....and being a designer, I just started doing sketches.

[billhay4]

Yes, I could see the symmetry of the curves. The only one that struck me as not quite the same is the top of the tailpiece, but I can't see it well enough to tell for sure.
Monteleone certainly established the bar for modern mandolin design. Your homage to the Radio Flyer is brilliant.
BTW, have you had any issues with cracking at the very sharp points of the sound holes as David Cohen suggested one might?
Thanks,
Bill

[Dale Ludewig]

Arthur-

That is knockout. Beautiful lines.

[steve V. johnson]

Bill bemoaned, "It IS ugly, I guess."

Foo. Not at all. Pretty mean of someone to just post a flat putdown like that. He must have his own problems.

I imagined it in wood, with wood bindings and smooth edges and curves. I think it'll look a -lot- different in 3d.
Perhaps if the holes have a bit more detail, or more curves, a bit more like trad f-holes, and that would soften the face
of it a tad more...

I've only read as far as that quote, so I'll read the rest now.

Keep on and be not discouraged!

stv

[JEStanek]

Bill, is this your work from the inspiration of the Rice University Students from earlier (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=12;t=43504;st=75) this year? Your design looks pretty cool and it's nice that many folks are trying to help you along the way.

Your design is interesting but I, similarly, play with my mando in my lap more like Ron than you. Keep at it! I bet a lot of players thought the F5 was odd looking when it first came out with it's heavy headstock and unusual tumors that didn't affect the sound.

Jamie

[markishandsome]

I've always used the lower point to prop the F5 up on my thigh and have never found it an irritant. I think yours looks like one of the last Rigel designs, i think it was called the comet.

[billhay4]

Well,
I had been thinking of new design ideas before the Rice thread, but it was certainly stimulating and helped me move forward to writing the paper. They were generally as ignorant as I am of musical considerations, but came up with some interesting and effective designs nonetheless.
I tried to strip the design process of all but necessary components (and these included structure, acoustics, ergonomics, and lastly and leastly aesthetics). Of course, this attempt failed for the most part.
The paper I posted was an exercise in formative thinking rather than a statement of any conclusions I have come to. I tend to write like someone thinking off the cuff. Gets me into a lot of trouble, but I've come to terms with that long ago.
What is interesting to me is that there are other, similar instruments to my poor attempt. There are either aesthetics out there that I sense unconsciously, or others are trying to solve some of the issues I am grappling with.
It's a fun process and I'll be interested what I come up with. I really appreciate all the input, even the ugly comment (the nature of which I'm not sure of yet; it could have been made in the same wiseacre spirit of my original post, or it could have been mean-spirited; neither bothers me as others are entitled to think my design is ugly).
Bill
Edit: I hadn't seen a Comet before. Interesting looking instrument as all Rigels were. I do find the point irritating if it pokes into your thigh. I was trying to avoid this, but think my idea needs a little work given your and Ron's input.

[MikeB]

I guess no one but Ralian can know for sure if he meant that "ugly" comment seriously, or not, but people are always saying, "Use emoticons!" and he did. A big smiley face. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I took the comment as a joke. Nothing ugly about this design.

[markishandsome]

I don't think you need to be so self-deprecating. You haven't broken any design rules, there aren't any! That's why it's an art and not math. You're not stepping on anybody's toes breaking with "tradition" either, there are hundreds if not thousands of different body shapes for instruments that people have called mandolins over the years. Doing something creative is hard work, and the willingness to undertake a new design is the only qualification you need to do so.

Just build the stupid thin and when you're done design something else completely different and build that. Talk is cheap, unique mando designs fetch big dollars!

[Bill Snyder]

A Giacomel was mentioned by someone earlier. I know when I hear that name I think of the J5 David Grismann plays. There is also this one (http://www.corradogiacomel.it/J3LFRONT.HTM), the J3. I think the fact that successful luthiers are pushing the envelope (or flat out breaking through it) shows that there is room for innovation.
Of course I have seen it mentioned on this forum or the MIMF by a very successful luthier that it is easier to gain acceptance of new designs once you have proven your skill with the tried and true designs. If you don't have to make a living at lutherie it is easier to try new things. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Keep on creating Bill. You may come up with something that is exactly what someone else wants.

[billhay4]

Actually, I have no intention of making instruments to sell to others. This doesn't mean I won't part with an instrument on occasion, but it isn't my goal. My goal is to build an instrument I think is a good instrument in terms of sound, construction, and ergonomically.
If this spurs some interest in a particular design, then I have done the lutherie community a service. If not, I will have earned the obscurity I richly deserve.
In short, I intend to remain an amateur builder. To be honest, my current building skills aren't up to the standards set by many of the fine builders here. In fact, they are light years ahead of me.
There is a line between being self-deprecating and being honest about ones current skills. Mine are still at the early stages of development. The interest in design comes from mental restlessness, creativity if you will, and sheer contrariness.
I have seen some refinements in my design that would be worthwhile. Naturally, the lines need to be smoothed. The soundholes need changing, either in shape or placement. The lower point may need some modification to accomplish my goal of allowing the instrument to rest on the thigh comfortably. And, finally, this is a shape only. The rest of the instrument needs to be fleshed out.
I'll be back seeking other input.
Bill

[Bill Snyder]

I know I said I would quit offering input, but I like to piddle around with designs as well.
This is just a poorly photoshopped mock-up.

[Antlurz]

Bill...

I like the way you attacked the shape here by using subtraction as opposed to addition. Instead of tacking on a big addition to the shape, by making an accomodation for the purpose.

Did that make sense?

Ron

[JeffD]

As an official academic nitpicker, I suspect my thoughts aren't of great interest to you, but... #There are many points in your essay, especially regarding history and organology, that I don't think are quite borne out in reality.
I had some of the same comments, but you beat me to it and said it better.

[pelone]

It takes an independent thinker and one who is confident to break from the norm. It is also tough to deviate from a design that is accepted. Heck, the violin, with its waist, scrolled head board, no binding, unfretted finger board has been around for about 400 years. Once in a while someone trys something new. I wonder how many great mando designs are out there but do not surface because of modesty or fear of not being accepted by their builders. I love some of the "oddities" for their refreshing nature.

[labraid]

As an official academic nitpicker, I suspect my thoughts aren't of great interest to you, but... There are many points in your essay, especially regarding history and organology, that I don't think are quite borne out in reality.
I had some of the same comments, but you beat me to it and said it better.
Ahh, but don't we all create our own reality... Think of how the art world would be bland if Van Gogh had been sane. Make that, all those schizo folks with brushes.
What need, us for "most people's" reality. <Mu-ha-haha>

I think that "real life" rendition of bill's mando pretty darn unique. I can pretty much gaurantee, knowing my own personal doubts in my own personal beginnings, that "someone will be interested." And they'll probably be some pretty darn cool people too.

[Eugene]

Ahh, but don't we all create our own reality... Think of how the art world would be bland if Van Gogh had been sane. Make that, all those schizo folks with brushes.
What need, us for "most people's" reality. <Mu-ha-haha>

I think that "real life" rendition of bill's mando pretty darn unique. I can pretty much gaurantee, knowing my own personal doubts in my own personal beginnings, that "someone will be interested." And they'll probably be some pretty darn cool people too.
Of course, I hadn't made any comment at all on the soundbox profile Bill developed, but only on the history aspects of his essay. Frankly, I'm kinda glad we haven't left the writing of history to our "shizo" population (they do seem more adept at creative endeavors), and, in any event, I suspect Bill isn't quite schizo (in spite of his evident fondness for asymmetric archtops). Eh, Bill? I hope he brings his mandolin to fruition and enjoys it in good health.

[markishandsome]

Is anyone really shocked by non-"traditional" mando body shapes anymore? Aside from the good ol boys who think Big Mon was the first person to ever pick up the instrument, I think most people are happy to have more than one flavor of ice cream in the shop, so to speak. I think it's great that Bill's working on his own design, but I don't see it as the Quixotic crusade some folks are making it out to be. LOTS of people do their own designs!

Question for Bill:
I recall you thinking a lot about eliminating internal blocks back on the "what is a mando" thread. Have you moved away from that idea with your upper point and thigh caddy? Keep it up! I want to see this beast in the flesh!

[Bill Snyder]

Bill take a look at this thread (http://mimf.com/cgi-bin/WebX?50@39.1QMLae8Tx2M.3@.1dcfb72a) at the Musical Instrument Makers' Forum.
It is a guitar, but it has a notch for the player's thigh.
It almost looks like an Army/Navy mandolin that has had a bit of reconstructive (or maybe it should be deconstructive) surgery.
The luthier that built is has posted several instruments on the MIMF over the last few years and he seems to be a talented and VERY creative soul.

[johnwalser]

Here's a quick sketch I did of basic shape.
John

[otterly2k]

Bill -- what do you think about adding another point... opposite the one on the bass side? I think that might balance it out a bit.

[Antlurz]

As long as we're expirementing....

[Tighthead]

Maybe if the 'thigh hollow' wasn't quite as exaggerated? Maybe a more subtle line would look more elegant and still be as functional? A smaller hollow might be more versatile where the larger one on the design seems like it would force a way of holding the mandolin.

Good on ya for the effort, though, and presenting your design for critique. Not an easy thing to do.

[david blair]

John Walser-I'll take yours!

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml

A study of these geometric theories may be helpful. Located within this site somewhere are proofs known by their respective mathematicians which demonstrate methods for finding the center of a shape, or the vortex (nodal) points. Starting with a circle, division then by rectangles, triangles, squares, and methods of bisecting lines from the middle point to other lines at right angles or parallel to. Creating equal proportion by dividing shapes and then moving them into a three dimensional object is my thought. #This way one could predict the overall volume of the soundbox, and using lines to corresponding notes of the fretboard to the nodal points predict placement of tone bars, F holes, and plate tuning. #I find it interesting that these theories are known by the letters, such as A, F, H, K, and L. What's in a letter?
Here's a photo of my new mandolin.It's not a lefty, just a photo problem. She wants to ball all night!
I'm waiting for the tomatoes...

[Bill Snyder]

The Giacomel mandolins have been mentioned and linked to previously in this thread and in several other threads at the Cafe so I don't know that the feared onslaught of tomatoes is eminent. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blues.gif

[Dave Cohen]

I just got around to reading your document today. As the other resident academic nitpicker, I'll note a few important negatives.

The single most grievous error is no references. F'rinstance, you stated something to the effect that someone told you that the kerfs in the linings have no impact on the sound. Who told you? You can't leave readers hanging like that. For all they know, it might have been Homer Simpson that told you that. Was it?

You note near the end that you need more familiarity with "the Rossing papers". Which ones? There are a few hundred peer-reviewed journal articles, several books, some conference proceedings, etc.,... Needless to say, you didn't cite or even mention the only two peer-reviewed papers (Cohen & Rossing) on the types of mandolins your document is focused on.

Your short paragraph on the effect of the size of soundholes is pretty far off. You don't necessarily get more sound radiation from a larger soundhole, and a too large soundhole does not damp the capacity of the soundboard to "resonate", whatever that means. A too large soundhole will have some adverse effects, but damping is not one of them. Damping always comes from either losses to other vibrating structures, or from internal losses. Your document does not need things like that to make your point. If you don't really know the science, there is nothing to be gained by making something up, and nothing to be lost by simply not saying anything. When you contemplate writing something like that, ask yourself if there is any information at all supporting what you are about to write. If not, then leave it out. The uniqueness of your ideas will not be lessened by any lack of science, but you will damage your own credibility if you add science fiction.

[Dave Cohen]

Sort of a disingenuous mode for finding out what is mechanistically correct. I can think of a few reasons why I'd rather you didn't do that, if indeed you are doing what you say:

(1) What am I, a tape recorder?

(2) You make up some goofball science fiction about how a mandolin works, and at least some of the forum readers are going to believe you. As a practising luthier, your words carry some weight and credibility. There is no particular reason why at least some of the readers won't take the word of a scientist over that of a practising luthier, even if the scientist also happens to be a practising luthier, and even if the topic is something about how a plucked stringed instrument works. This is particularly true and important in a time when one sizeable segment of society wants to discredit science as much as possible.

(3) I've brought this up before. Bob Benedetto had some wise words in his book on archtop guitar making. He said in essence that if you don't know the theory of how something you do in your instrument building works, don't make something up. That will only come back to bite you. Always attempt to tell the customer the truth, i.e., that you don't necessarily know the theory of how something you do works for you, but you have found it to work reliably. That's good enough, and it's the truth. Not only do you not need to justify what you do with some fiction, but again, that fiction will eventually come back to bite you.

[misterc]

I would suggest that before anyone decides to "improve" upon the design of the mandolin that one would take a few years to study FORM. Perhaps a study in Islamic Geometric Design, at least a some painting. I would ask questions like, how does my design relate to the world of art? What makes it aesthetically pleasing? The F-5 was influenced by the art deco movement, what kind of mandolin would a cubist or impressionistic influence produce. I think to many of these mandos look like medieval weapons rather than pieces of art.

[Bill Snyder]

The F-5 was influenced by the art deco movement...
What I have found online at various sources states the art deco movement was from 1920-1939. The F-5 looked pretty much like the F-2, F-4, etc. all of which predated 1920 by several years.

[Erk]

Orville designed the F-style mandolin during the Art Nouveau period in art and architecture, about 1880 to 1915.
The Art Nouveau style featured organic, flowing shapes and stylized organic patterns.
Pretty much the F-style design in a nutshell.

[Stephanie Reiser]

It seems to me that the Les Paul guitar design was vastly influenced by the F-5 design. Same company, I know, but compare both and you will see what I mean.

[Michael Lewis]

Stephanie, that stretches my imagination. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Stephanie Reiser]

...well, maybe not vastly. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Eugene]

It seems to me that the Les Paul guitar design was vastly influenced by the F-5 design. Same company, I know, but compare both and you will see what I mean.
For even more striking similarities, look at the Ibanez Les Paul knock-offs of the '70s called "Custom Agent." Groovy. I used to own one; I wish I'd never parted with it.

[james condino]

There is more to a good mandolin design than just a two dimensional outline. If there is something inside you that calls out for this shape as originally presented in the thread, follow your heart. The reality with new designs is that no matter what you initially put down on paper, during the building process the wood will tell you how to best balance things for that individual piece.

While I often build very traditional instruments and enjoy those lines, everyone knows that I also push the limits on a regular basis. Color, form, and balance take up a lot of space in my head; as a builder, I need to get those things out in order to progress and grow. Some folks are very vocal in their comments and dislike for a few of my designs. Their voice means very little compared to the encouragement of customers who do enjoy it and enjoy breaking from tradition.

Bill: I'd build that as you've presented it and see how it works out for you. Even if it does not wind up meeting all of your needs, over the course of a few more instruments it will evolve into exactly what you are looking for. Good luck!

_.

j.www.condino.com

[billhay4]

Just got back from a week in the San Juan Islands with no internet connection. Nice vacation. Had a visit with Spruce and came home with a load of wood and more appreciation of what a great guy and knowledgeable source Spruce is.
Interesting comments in my absence. I'll make a few of my own.
My document was not intended as an academic paper and I intentionally left out references. If this bothers you, so be it. The paper was a reflection on design considerations. It was written off the top of my head. Corrections and responses are welcome; complaints about the nature of the paper itself are not.
I think out loud. Like most of us, I take time to formulate fixed ideas. In fact, I hope most of my ideas never become fixed (but of course they do). My ideas on mandolin design are in their infancy. At least let them reach their teenage years.
The sketch I posted is just that, a sketch. It in no way represents an entire design. Note that there is no neck or headstock. How can you have a mandolin without them.
What I was doing (if you read the notes that accompanied the sketch) was suggesting a few considerations that have occurred to me re the body shape of the instrument. To this end, the thigh scoop, lack of scroll, and strap point were the main elements. I got some interesting comments on these.
Please note the process here. I was trying to think of factors that might influence the shape of the instrument and then shape the instrument accordingly, not the other way around. In other words, if you desire to rest the mandolin on the thigh, how would you shape it to accommodate this?
If you want a strap attachment point, but don't want a scroll, how would you accomplish this?
All of this within the general parameters of mandolin construction and design.
The nitpickers are welcome IF they make specific comments and emendations that will clarify my thinking on design as Eugene did.
Thanks all for thinking this topic worthy of comment.
Bill

[Bill Snyder]

It has been about 13 months since the last post in this thread and Bill I am curious if you ever constructed something similar to your original design. If you did, and posted photos, I missed it.

[Jim Nollman]

Billy,

when we first talked, over a year ago, I believe you were enthusiastic about the shape of the old L & H two point, and I recall mentioning that you also take a look at the Kay 2 point shape. What happened to those ideas?

[Bill Snyder]

Here(clickity click) (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33806) is a thread showing his L&H inspired mandolin. He did a nice job with it.

[billhay4]

Interesting this popped back up right now as the creative juices have been flowing (but not the creative activity so much). I did finish a Lyon and Healy model. It is a nice sounding instrument with a deep bass. I used a long scale length on it in order to keep the bridge where it was on the original. The option was a short scale length and I didn't want to do that at the time.
This makes four fingered chords hard for me (I have very small hands) so I don't use it as much as I should. My best sounding instrument, though.
I then embarked on four Selmer styled instruments. These are still underway. No pics yet, but I'll get some when I have done enough work for them to be recognizable. These are inspired by Eric Folke's instruments but I have little hope of matching his impeccable work.
All of this is derivative, though. Not to say this is bad; just that these are imitations of other instruments.
I have been working on another instrument in my mind. This one, too, is a Lyon and Healy inspired instrument. I think the "A" is one of the most beautiful designs to date. I have envisioned a few modifications. A slotted headstock for weight considerations. Very reduced points for aesthetic reasons. A built in armrest a la many modern guitars. And an integrated strap hanger a la Dave Cohen's idea. Plus an oval hole that runs the long way and not across the top.
Also, I have some ideas about changing the shape of the arch on this one. I want a low arch with a large recurve, all restricted to a smaller area in the middle of the top.
I have some beautiful myrtle that I'm going to use on this one. Am stymied at the moment by lack of access to my usual shop, but hope to get that resolved soon.
Will keep you posted.
As for the question "what is a mandolin?", I have not given up on it. I still struggle with many of Dave Cohen's assertions on the cafe about factors that affect the modes. In particular, the difference between the shape of the mode and its frequency puzzles me. Does shape affect the sound of the instrument? How so? What about frequency? Again, what causes changes in frequency and how?
I don't think answers to these questions are available now (if they ever will be), and I am not sure how scientifically informed luthiers differ from those who just imitate (regardless of how well), or even surpass, their predecessors.
It still seems to me that much of modern mandolin development has been the result of non-musical urges. The scroll, body shape, etc. of the Gibson type instruments are examples of this IMHO.
Tune in next week. And thanks for the interest in this old topic.
Bill

[billhay4]

Addendum: The original sketch has gone the way of many formative ideas. First, the scoop on the right side of the lower bout seems unnecessary to me. If a leg support is desired, a simple add on would do the trick without the aesthetic disruption the scoop represents in my mind. Plus, many would find the little point there just as intrusive as not having one.
The second factor is that many have already approximated this design. These include Paul Lestock and Hans Brentrup. Both of their designs are very elegant.
A built-in armrest may fall in the same category as the lower scoop, but I find it much less aesthetically intrusive. In fact, I love its look on the guitars that now use it. Construction is relatively simple, also. You simply put in a solid section of kerfing (which then would have to be called something else like lining), and carve a softened section where the edge would normally be.
I'll keep a top point, but intend to use it for a site for a hole in the top where a strap can be attached. I have some ideas on how to do this that may or may not come to fruition.
The lower point is for aesthetic purposes, but I might observe that the L&H design does allow for a pretty good cutaway and thus easier access to the upper frets.
Changing the soundhole orientation is pretty much whimsy, but I do want to try tone bars on this one instead of x-bracing (or, heaven forbid, a single transverse brace). The long oval will facilitate this though its not absolutely necessary. I want to combine tonebars with a stiff top to see if I can get some bark back into an oval hole.
Slotted headstock? Lighter, I think. We'll see what that does.
Here is a very preliminary sketch, but I have a much better drawing in the shop.
Comments welcome.
Bill

[mandroid]

One thing comes to mind is the Oval sound hole interrupts the grain in its strongest direction.
leaving cross grain, less strong , easier to split.
and the transverse brace helps , being placed between the hole and the force of the bridge.

Seen the floating reflector on original Selmer D hole guitars in blueprints.
Saga's versions leave that off,
as I understand It was to work like a Tone-guard,
where it carried some of the body resonance, making holding the instrument less damping.

anyhow My Djangolin made by the late David Hodson is a favorite mandolin of mine.
small hole mahog/rosewood laminated back and sides.
no forced arch, flat top, and cross braced..

[engr-tech]

I like this last sketch better than the original. Very nice.

[Dave Cohen]

Bill, the statements of mine to which you have referred are a bit more than "assertions", as they are a good deal more than just my observations and experience. If they were only the result of my own observations, one might be justified in calling them "assertions". What I said regarding normal modes applies to all stringed instruments. The holographic observations of normal modes goes back about 40 yrs to the work of Jannson, Sundin, and many others at KTH (Swedish Royal Institute of Technology). Jannson was in on the beginnings of the development of holographic interferometry and its' application to the normal modes of vibration of musical instruments. Pre-holographic observations, i.e., glitter patterns, etc., go back much further than that.

The normal modes of vibration of an object are characteristic of the object, and don't depend on how (or where on the object) the object is excited. Every object made of at least somewhat elastic materials has its' own set of normal modes of vibration. The shapes of those modes are closely related to the shape of the object. Recall that I said that all normal modes of an object are global, i.e., they occupy the entire shape/volume of the object. The fact that all but a few of the modes have nodal lines does not make them any less global.

Those who are familiar with either quantum mechanics or classical wave mechanics will recognize that the modes are what are called eigenfunctions, which are the solutions to the equation of motion for the object. In lay language, they are the spatial distribution of the (vibrational) motion of the object. The modal frequencies for each mode, on the other hand, are eigenvalues. They are constants characteristic of each mode of motion.

Short of taking a course on wave motion in elastic solids, the easiest way for you to understand modal frequencies is to think of the analogy of a very simple system, i.e., a mass on a spring. The solution to the equation of motion gives the result that the frequency of vibration for that system is proportional to the square root of the force constant (related to stiffness) of the spring, and inversely proportional to the square root of the mass which is hanging on the spring. In a way, all parts of instruments are like those masses on springs, since they certainly do have mass, and they have stiffness and elasticity as well. If you make the spring stiffer, the frequency will be higher, and if you make the mass heavier, the frquency will be lower. So if two top plates have the same stiffness but one is denser, the denser one will have lower modal frequencies. If two top plates have the same mass but one is stiffer, the stiffer one will have higher modal frequencies. Now, if you connect two mass/spring systems together, you get motion and frequencies which are characteristic of the coupled system, i.e., the individual masses/springs are no longer independent of each other. And so it is with strings, plates, and air masses in instruments; when they are coupled, you get whole-instrument modes. If you want something more than this, you will have to get yourself a textbook. I can recommend Rossing's "The Science of Sound" as one written for lay audiences, without any more mathematics than some simple algebra.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Santiago]

Looks a little like me... http://www.geocities.com/artboook2001/alien-555.jpg

[billhay4]

I meant the term "assertions" in the sense that Dave said them, not that they carried some personal bias on his part. I recognize they are part of a body of scientific knowledge (which is ever evolving).
What I was trying to get at is that elusive area where science and lutherie should connect. What does scientific data mean in terms of constructing an instrument?
And it is elusive for me precisely because I have difficulty with science. This doesn't mean that science is wrong, just that I have to proceed without its benefit in many cases.
It does seem to me that often a specific desire on the part of a luthier, say to elongate an oval soundhole while, at the same time, narrowing it, has no specific scientific "fact" to support or oppose it. Rather, there is a whole body of inter-related knowledge that must be absorbed and, even then, tested on an actual instrument. Structure, aesthetics, feasibility, etc.
On this new instrument, for instance, I will do just that, keeping the area of the soundhole roughly the same. However, the effects of this on the instrument are as yet unknown to me. We shall see how it works.
But building an instrument is not, and cannot be, a scientific experiment for me. I simply do not build enough, nor am I aware of all of the variables that must be controlled. It seems one would have to change only one variable at a time per instrument to conduct a real experiment. And then this would have to be repeated some number of times to verify the results.
I build a very few instruments. I make changes for odd, often non-scientific, reasons. Often they are aesthetic. Sometimes even whimsical. Most are ill-informed. I live with the results. And I hope the new instruments show an improvement of craftsmanship, at least, if not quality. Perhaps I'll even learn a bit.
Right now, I am not particularly interested in what modal frequencies are, but more in how my mandolin sounds. This may be a hard distinction to understand, I admit that. But I do think it is a valid distinction. It is not that I dismiss the science, but more that I have other concerns.
I do appreciate Dave's never-ending efforts to educate those of us who struggle with the science. It can't hurt us to learn something.
Bill

[Dave Cohen]

Thing is, Bill, you seem to be implying that a characteristic sound is independent of the physical behavior of the instrument (It isn't!). But if you haven't searched the literature, how do you know that there is nothing out there in science land that pertains to your sound?

A couple of anecdotes put this kind of thinking in perspective. Perhaps the most famous was the infamous 19th century British M.P. who claimed in a Parliamentary session that "...science will never be able to ascertain the composition of the Sun." Except that at that very moment, Frauenhofer was using his newly developed diffraction gratings to do just that. Another was the recent Dover, PA trial. Biochemist and I.D. advocate Michael Behe testified to the Judge that the immune system was an example of "irreducible complexity" - that it was so complex that scientists would never be able to unravel its' workings and relate it to evolution - ergo, it must have been "designed". Except that again, Behe had not bothered to go to the literature. Turns out that there had been about a dozen key papers on the evolution of the immune system in the decade or less prior to the Dover trial.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[billhay4]

Thing is, Bill, you seem to be implying...

http://www.Cohenmando.com
Isn't this just the sort of imprecise language you're taking me to task for, David?
I do read the literature as much as possible, but my focus is not on the science but on the very limited time I have to actually make instruments. I think this is true of lots of luthiers for one reason or another. We just want to get it done.
Some luthiers don't even want to think about the instrument at all. They just want to produce the same thing over an over. To make a living, in most cases.
Others like to make changes. Hans Brentrup makes changes and is very creative about it (see his latest instrument with tapered sides). I don't know his process of thinking, but I observe that he tends to make changes in small increments. This is probably so that he can measure them.
Others, like me, just seem dissatisfied with the design of the mandolin and make a lot of changes. Not a very scientific process at all, but I'll defend us by observing that Orville Gibson and Lloyd Loar were not very scientific either.
In reality, the science of the mandolin is hampered by one great logical flaw. It is the study of something that exists, and came into existence, by a non-scientific process. It is man-made, to boot.
While this makes it a very practical science, it means it is limited by the very nature of your starting point.
Perhaps I'm being platonic here, but it seems to me the mandolin has an "ideal" (which has aesthetic, structural, acoustic, and physical dimensions) which we can also do science on.
Enough of that.... I don't want to get into a debate with you, David. You are too strong of an advocate, and too correct, for me to do that. All I try to point out is that when I read your statements (trying to use a less loaded word here) about the science of mandolins, or sound in general, I often say "So?" Not in a challenging way, but in the sense that I don't understand what this means to me when I have a piece of wood in my hand.
Of course, this is the great gap between scientists and non-scientists, and the great challenge for one who, like you, has taken on the task of getting us non-scientists to 1) be more precise in our thinking or, at least, language, and 2) apply scientific principles to our work.
It is a noble task, as I've tried to say over and over. Doomed to failure, perhaps, but noble.
My best,
Bill

[Dave Cohen]

Interesting that you should use my first sentence in the previous post out of context. That sentence certainly contained qualifiers, but it was not composed without thought. The qualifiers were meant to include the possibility that I was wrong, and that you did not imply what you seemed to be implying. Thanks to your last post, it is clear that I was not wrong in that instance. You say that you do "read the literature", but your focus is not on science. You completely sidestepped my question, but I understand your statement to mean that you do not read any acoustics literature. My original question was essentially that if you don't read any literature on the acoustics of stringed instruments, how can you know that there is nothing in science that pertains to the sound of your instruments? To rephrase that as a declaratory statement, the asnwer is that you can't know that!

"In reality, the science of the mandolin is hampered by one great logical flaw. It is the study of something that exists, and came into existence, by a non-sccientific process. It is man-made, to boot."

That is just goofy. There is neither justification nor cause and effect in that statement. I'll leave it at that.

So how do you come to the conclusion that the science of stringed instruments is "perhaps doomed to failure"? There are so many levels of wrong in that kind of assumption. One is the use of the word "failure". I have been careful all along to point out that I am not trying to make a "better" mandolin through science, whatever "better" means. "Better" is ultimately left to the subjective judgement of musicians. What I do in the laboratory is try to understand what plucked stringed instruments do when energy is applied in the form of a plucked string, or a tap, or a sinusoidal stinger, etc., and that is all I do with the science. Nothing to do with "better". That is for engineers, and I am not an engineer. I have already published what the body modes and air modes are. So is that "failure"? Maybe you ought to read -and understand- my papers before you make such a pronouncement.

Interesting that you should bring up Hans. You will note in the "f-holes" thread that Hans gave me credit for saying something that freed him to try the mods he is currently trying. I've got another one. Rolfe Gerhardt told me that my first paper gave him the understanding to get better bass response from his mandolins. Apparently there is some good to my work. Maybe not a failure after all.

In response to "So?", I will point out that there is an entire group of technically aware luthiers devoted to an e-mail group list called "Leftbrainluthiers". Originally started by Ukulele luthier/chemical oceanographer David Hurd, it includes people like Alan Carruth, myself, and many others of whom you probably have not heard. All are working actively, albeit most of them avocationally, at the interface of science and lutherie. Needless to say, all are convinced of the importance of the application of science to the craft of lutherie. Glance at the pages of American Lutherie or Guitarmaker, and you will see that technically trained luthiers have an honorable place in the annals of the craft.

http://www.Cohenmando.com