Opening Up - Science or Perception?

[Mandophyte]

As a newbie here I am (no doubt) leaving myself open to some stick here, but I have to ask this question.

I've been fighting this bit of wood and metal for fifteen months now (never done anything musical before) , mainly with Ted's excellent FFcP for excercises and some Scottish tradition music for pleasure. As my ears (brain?) become used to the sound of the notes I am recognising some relationships and when it's gone out of tune.

I've read the recent posts about acoustic science and "opening up", but how do you tell if (when?) a mandolin is opening up?

Is "opening up" a scientifically measurable phenomenon or are people just becoming accustomed to individual qualities of their (new, and possibly (very) expensive) instrument?

Hoping I don't get castigated too much,

John

[BiscoMando]

i've heard that with solid wood instruments (not plywood, i don't know about plywood), the fibers and conective tissues in the wood begin to relax and release slightly with time and lots of playing (vibrational energy slowly breaking down wood) and the top can therefore vibrate more easily. that's what i've heard on here, i'm an engineer myself, although not a particulaly smart one, and this makes sense to me, scientifically. but that's just my gut reaction to the phenomenon, i've never seen documented evidence in some kind of journal, if that's what you're looking for.

[BiscoMando]

oh and also, from one newbie to another, a search through the cafe archived posts on "opening up" would probably have yielded better results than my measly .02 i just gave.

[sunburst]

Yep, take a look at these:
http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/search.php?searchid=801484

[earthsave]

Both. I've read many posts about the science of it, but it takes a good ear to hear and describe the difference.

Problem is perception. How do you recall how an instrument used to sound and compare to what it sounds like now? Best way would be to record it in as close to identical setups/locations over played time, denoting temperature, humidity, pick, strings, player, etc. and then compare those two to each other.

[OldSausage]

However, there's no doubt that if you practice diligently on a mandolin several hours every day for 6 months, it will sound much better. As a bonus, so will every other mandolin you pick up.

[CES]

I think there's some science to it and will defer to the posted links, but I've recently noted this phenomenon on my Kentucky 675-S...it just sounds so much woodier, more full, just better than it used to. Part of it is improvement on my part, but I haven't made enough progress to account for the change in tone. I also have changed the bridge and worked on setup, but, again, I noticed this several months after those changes (and actually remember being a little disappointed that it didn't sound much better after the bridge change). I don't know that I would have had the, "Wow, this thing sounds good!" moment had I not taken a few days off to play around with some electric guitar stuff, but when I picked it back up the difference in how I remember it sounding was pronounced, and it only got better with more playing...I noticed this about 3 years after buying it, and I'm not sure what the thing went through before me as it came with some issues...:mandosmiley:

I've noticed this with my acoustic guitar as well.

From what I've read, this phenomenon doesn't really happen with laminate instruments...not that they can't sound great, but pretty much what you hear when you first play them is what you're gonna get.

[foldedpath]

I'm with the skeptics on this one, and on related things like "de-damping" (artificial vibration) to improve or maintain instrument tone. Nobody ever posts careful before and after recordings for blind testing. It's all anecdotal evidence, based on what people remember over time.

It isn't that I think nothing at all is happening. Some change over time with a new instrument is likely, even with an instrument that isn't being played. The wood continues to lose a little moisture over the first few years, and there will be chemical changes in the resin as it ages. In non-equatorial climates, the wood will probably be exposed to seasonal humidity changes. Any change from "playing in" the instrument will be mixed with whatever else is going on, as pieces of dead trees try to forget their former life and settle into being a musical instrument. We're talking about trying to measure something that might be happening on top of other factors, which are hard to separate.

So I'm not that skeptical about some degree of change over time. What I'm mostly skeptical about, is the degree of change and improvement claimed by some folks, and the way it's always attributed to banging on the instrument with a pick instead of other things. How do you know? And isn't it curious how the change is always in a positive direction, the way we'd all like it to be? That's the kind of thing that automatically raises my skeptic's antenna.

Finally, if we're going to talk about "science" here, let's also talk about what the scientific community is starting to understand about how memory works. Check out this recent post on the Cosmic Variance blog about recent MRI research on brain activity done at Harvard.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/04/14/remembering-the-past-is-like-imagining-the-future/

Here's the gist of that article, but read the whole thing for the supporting MRI evidence, it's very interesting:


Quote from Cosmic Variance blog post on memory (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/04/14/remembering-the-past-is-like-imagining-the-future/): We tend to assume that the brain must be like a computer — when we want to access a memory, we simply pull up a “file” stored somewhere on the brain’s hard drive, and take a look at its contents. But that’s not it at all. Schacter believes that pieces of data relevant to any particular memory — times, images, sounds — are stored piecemeal in different parts of the brain. When we want to “remember” something, another part of the brain assembles these pieces into a (hopefully) coherent picture. It’s like running a new simulation every time you need a memory, and it’s the same thing we do when we try to imagine some event in the future.

Everyone has heard that memories can be unreliable, but many of us don’t appreciate the extent to which that is true. It’s not the case that “real” memories are stored once and for all deep in the darkest recesses of the brain, and it’s just a matter of digging them up. False memories — conjured from any number of sources, from gradual embellishment to direct suggestion by others — seem precisely as vivid and real to us as accurate memories do. For a good reason: the brain uses the same tools to construct the memory from the available raw materials.

[OldSausage]

Yes, I agree, until someone does a properly controlled study, there is absolutely no science to go on. There is a lot of evidence, bit it's all poor quality, much like the evidence for bigfoot.

Until someone finds the funds to get some actual studies done, I would make the baseline assumption that the sound of all-wood instruments likely does change very slightly over time and perhaps with playing, but whether that change is for the better or not is going to be very much in the ear of the beholder.

After all, it cannot be a result of design.

[allenhopkins]

Also, as we get used to playing an instrument, our brain welcomes the familiar learned sound and attributes to it positive qualities, although the sound may differ only slightly from the unfamiliar sounds we heard the first time we played it. "That's what a mandolin's supposed to sound like," since that's what a mandolin does sound like every time we pick it up and play it. Just as the once-unfamiliar-feeling pair of shoes now seem familiar and comfortable; part of that is the shoes "breaking in," part of it is our getting used to them.

Since I almost always buy old instruments, each of them has been thoroughly "broken in," and has opened up as much as it's ever going to. However, I just purchased a brand-new Eastman Giacomel/Dawg mandolin, and it'll be interesting to see if I perceive a change in it over the next months.

[mandozilla]

~o):popcorn:

[CES]

I agree there's no real evidence and many confounding factors...is the change always positive, or do we just not hear about the negative experiences? I will say that a potential confounding factor with my guitar is the other guitars I've played since I've had it...I initially was comparing it to a very broken in late 70's Yairi with rosewood b/s (vs my mahogany)...that guitar may be the best sounding guitar not played by a pro I've yet had the pleasure to hear...anyway, I'm now primarily comparing it to my beater, which is an Applause (laminate top, helicoptor b/s)...there's no comparison, really, sound-wise, but I still think it sounds better after aging over the last 5 or six years.

As for the mando, I generally have hated the little thing, because it came with serious neck issues (ebay special), but I kept working with it b/c I couldn't afford to do otherwise...I remain surprised that it sounds as good as it does now, and it may eventually be my first "neck project..." SO, not a lot of feel-good positivity with that one...with the Guild, maybe...

Interestingly, re: the memory article above, my guitar had some laquer issues (I got it at a great price b/c of finish checking) and smelled like Wintermint flavored Kodiak snuff at first...I don't chew or smoke but my dad dipped for many years, and I still have a pleasant olfactory response to that smell...summer days riding horses or going to ball games, etc. One of my younger brothers, however, snuck some when he was maybe 11 or 12 and got pretty sick (think the movie "Sandlot," when the guys get their first chews and get on the tilt-a-whirl)...anyway, the first time he tried to play my guitar he made it all of 2 minutes before he gave it back, saying, "It sounds good, but if I play it anymore I'm gonna throw up," and he wasn't kidding...even kind of had that greenish tint to him...anyway, agree with the article, and also agree that smell is probably the most potent trigger of memory we have...

[Mike Bunting]

~o):popcorn:
:mandosmiley:

[Dave Cohen]

To add to what Foldedpath said, there is an article by my friend R.M. Mottola in American Lutherie #96 (Winter, 2008), on the listening evaluation of soundports in a classical guitar. R.M. did some homework on the subject of sensory evaluation.

I know of only one scientific article on the "opening up" phenomenon. The reference follows:

Hutchins, Carleen M.: "A Measurable Effect of Long-term Playing on Violin Family Instruments", Catgut Acoustical Society Journal, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Series II), pp 38-40 (May, 1998).

"Long-term" in the case of the Hutchins article was 3-6 yrs. In a nutshell, she did find some amplitude differences in the air modes, and paticularly the higher ones. They were not very large differences, though. It may well be that differences in an instrument over time are more felt than heard.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[ralph johansson]

As a newbie here I am (no doubt) leaving myself open to some stick here, but I have to ask this question.

I've been fighting this bit of wood and metal for fifteen months now (never done anything musical before) , mainly with Ted's excellent FFcP for excercises and some Scottish tradition music for pleasure. As my ears (brain?) become used to the sound of the notes I am recognising some relationships and when it's gone out of tune.

I've read the recent posts about acoustic science and "opening up", but how do you tell if (when?) a mandolin is opening up?

Is "opening up" a scientifically measurable phenomenon or are people just becoming accustomed to individual qualities of their (new, and possibly (very) expensive) instrument?

Hoping I don't get castigated too much,

John


familiarity is probably the worst possible explanation. familiarity blunts the senses. my guitars, and I know more about guitars in this respect, never sound as good as when I've been away from them a couple of weeks or even days.

what seems to happen (in some of my instruments)
over the years is a certain evening out and quickening of response; it takes less effort to get the thing going. notes at "dead spots" sustain longer, overtones get less harsh; i can execute trills and glisses
that i could hardly do when the instrument was new. those are operative criteria.

also, it seems that over time the top gets springier so i can use a lower
setup without buzz.

another silly explanation is that these changes occur because you "adjust to" the instrument or simply improve as a player. i speak of things you can hear just playing a few chords or simple scales, not playing music in earnest.
a luthier who is constantly reminded of the character of new instruments notices the played-in character when one of his products enters the shop for repair after a couple of years.

i'm less ure about the mandolin or violin, never kept an instrument long enough and i'm sure whatever happens the process is slower.

[ralph johansson]

Both. I've read many posts about the science of it, but it takes a good ear to hear and describe the difference.

Problem is perception. How do you recall how an instrument used to sound and compare to what it sounds like now? Best way would be to record it in as close to identical setups/locations over played time, denoting temperature, humidity, pick, strings, player, etc. and then compare those two to each other.


indeed, how can you possibly remember different tonal qualities? nobody remembers the tone of a mandolin well enough to hear the difference between an f-hole or an oval-hole (assuming a carved top)? nobody can hear the difference between an alto and tenor sax in their common range (2 octaves)? and nobody, but nobody, remembers guitar tone clearly enough to hear the difference between a UST'd and a PA'd acoustic guitar????

[Mandophyte]

Dear All,

Many thanks for the responses so far.

Ralf,

I only speak English English here, what does UST'd mean (I think I've got PA'd).

[Richard Moore]

In an earlier life (I work in a different branch of science now) I used to do research and forensic work in relation to the micromorphology/anatomy of woods, so am very interested in this subject. There has been some research on this topic, some of which is referenced in this chapter

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z4bIWmwoxQkC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=wood+ageing+in+musical+instruments&source=bl&ots=QBMlpqlxNL&sig=MQFReBZFCiR8YESAKpNXB4J46vs&hl=en&ei=_FrsSauoCMGDtgfDiIHABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

of this fairly recent and interesting (at least to me) book "Acoustics of Wood" by Voichita Bucur

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z4bIWmwoxQkC&dq=wood+ageing+in+musical+instruments&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

[Hans]

Here's scientific proof. Every time I go to a festival and display two F5C's, one new, the other old, folks always want the old one. If I take the new one (which has now become old and display it with a newer one yet, folks always want the older one. :popcorn:

[JeffD]

There is a scientifically plausable explanation, a few in fact, and there is direct objective verifiable evidence.

I don't know if any scientific study has been done.

Until this thread I didn't know there was anyone who doubted the reality of the phenomena.

[fredfrank]

Just remember, the believers are as right as the doubters with the lack of scientific evidence supporting either assertion.

[MikeEdgerton]

Take a look at these (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/search.php?query=opening&exactname=0&starteronly=0&forumchoice%5B%5D=&prefixchoice%5B%5D=&childforums=1&titleonly=1&searchdate=0&beforeafter=after&do=process) threads. The applicable subject lines should jump out at you.

[Steve Ostrander]

So, I'm not getting older, I'm just opening up?

[pickloser]

So, I'm not getting older, I'm just opening up?
__________________
Steve O.


Yes. That certainly sounds better to me.

[sunburst]

I guess I forget to double check my link in the 4th post of this thread to find out it didn't work. (oops) Mike's link above is the same search I linked to, but I apparently did something wrong.

[MikeEdgerton]

You didn't do anything wrong, you can't post normal searches as links with this forum software. You can link to a thread but not a search. The search links I post are created with a software app that I wrote to get around this limitation.

[JeffD]

Just remember, the believers are as right as the doubters with the lack of scientific evidence supporting either assertion.

:))

Isn't there enough evidence that something real does happen? Perhaps the phenomena has not been fully explained, and certainly we don't have complete control over how to make it happen or foster it or accelerate it.

But, does anyone maintain that the sound of a new wooden instrument set up properly and well played, won't really change over time?

:disbelief:

[Chris Keth]

:))

Isn't there enough evidence that something real does happen? Perhaps the phenomena has not been fully explained, and certainly we don't have complete control over how to make it happen or foster it or accelerate it.

But, does anyone maintain that the sound of a new wooden instrument set up properly and well played, won't really change over time?

:disbelief:

Don't give him too much ####. I have thought the same thing. It seems only natural that an instrument could sound better over time because of opening up OR because of the player improving, finding the sweet spots and little nuances that particular instrument likes, etc.

Besides, I've always been the guy who just has to question everything he's told.;)

[Farmjazz]

nobody can hear the difference between an alto and tenor sax in their common range (2 octaves)?

Well, maybe you , or nobody you know can, but being a listener of jazz music, and a sax player myself, I can tell the difference between a tenor and alto sax within a few notes. Completely different sound to my ears. Not trying to be contentious. Just want to clear that one up.

[foldedpath]

indeed, how can you possibly remember different tonal qualities? nobody remembers the tone of a mandolin well enough to hear the difference between an f-hole or an oval-hole (assuming a carved top)? nobody can hear the difference between an alto and tenor sax in their common range (2 octaves)? and nobody, but nobody, remembers guitar tone clearly enough to hear the difference between a UST'd and a PA'd acoustic guitar????

Nobody is saying they can't remember the taste of an apple, and can tell it's different from an orange. What we're talking about here are subtle differences between the taste of an apple in your mouth today, and what you remember an apple tasting like a few years ago. That's where the accuracy of human memory can break down, and be subject to wishful thinking (see article referenced above).


Just remember, the believers are as right as the doubters with the lack of scientific evidence supporting either assertion.

That's not how science works. With the scientific method, someone making a claim has to demonstrate an objective, falsifiable test that demonstrates the claim. Then others try to reproduce it. If enough other people can duplicate the results in a controlled test (not a bunch of folks saying "it works for me!" based on fallible memory), then science moves forward and we can start to understand phenomena in the real world, instead of in our memories.

Shorter version: the burden of proof is on those making the claim, not the doubters. That's how science has always worked.


But, does anyone maintain that the sound of a new wooden instrument set up properly and well played, won't really change over time?
:disbelief:

The dispute is about whether the change is due to natural aging or the "playing in" part. I have some antique furniture in the house that is surely different in color, wood moisture content, and resin chemical properties than it was when new, back in the 1800's. If I rap my knuckles on a walnut side panel on this furniture, it has an acoustic sound that is probably different that it was 150 years ago when the wood was green (although I can't prove it). But I didn't "play in" or vibrate the furniture to get it into that condition. I don't think anyone here disputes that wood ages over time, and might change in tone due to those effects alone.

P.S. right about now in a typical thread on this subject, someone will mention the vintage Martin guitar or Loar mandolin discovered under a bed, like new and never played, that sounds "tight" because it hasn't opened up due to lack of playing. That assertion is always accepted with nods of approval, as conventional wisdom. And yet, Chris Thile doesn't seem to mind playing his "under-the-bed," nearly untouched Loar. :)

[sunburst]

I keep looking under my bed, and so far...:(

[ralph johansson]

Well, maybe you , or nobody you know can, but being a listener of jazz music, and a sax player myself, I can tell the difference between a tenor and alto sax within a few notes. Completely different sound to my ears. Not trying to be contentious. Just want to clear that one up.

you missed my ironic point (cf. the message just after yours). i cited alto vs. tenor saxophone as an easily recognizable difference in tonal quality, transcending individual style or ability. i certainly recognize the alto as such whether the player be hodges, ornette coleman, benny carter, charlie parker,etc.

in many cases i think the perceived difference between a newish-sounding and well played in instrument is of such a qualitative nature. i noticed this very clearly in two of my guitars and there are words for it. one went from a very stringy to a very full-bodied sound; in the beginning i could hardly even feel the vibrational patterns of the top.

the other went from a somewhat tight response to a very loose character. when in the beginning i strung it up with mediums it just froze - i just had to tear the strings off. recently i tried mediums again, for the first time in at least 10 years, with no such effect.


i have no similar experience of mandolins to share.

[pops1]

A friend of mine was given a new handmade fiddle when he graduated. He was a good player, and at jams i never thought the fiddle sounded that good. Very tight and weak. Now a few years later as he has been here and gone several times we have been doing weekly jams and i can't help but hear his fiddle it has a wonderful sound and is very loud and dominant. I know this fiddle has opened up from playing and vibrating. If you build an instrument from an old desk that has been around for a couple of hundred years, it won't sound as good new as it will after it has been played for a few years. Vibrating the wood that much, for years definitely has an effect that we all can hear, but have not done scientific study on. There has been studies done on Stradivarius violins to see why they sound so good. I can be a skeptic, but i believe in this phenomenon. I had better be right, I am anxiously waiting my new Pomeroy to open up more and sound even better than it does now.

[Tobin]

It's got to be a combination of factors. Aging of the wood, stress relaxation of all the components, vibration from playing, settling of parts, etc. Even the glue will continue to harden and shrink over time, creating subtle changes in the internal stresses of the wood components.

I responded to a thread last week about someone's MK opening up and I had said that I hadn't noticed it in mine. But as I was playing over the weekend, I really noticed that it sounded great. It could just be my imagination or wishful thinking (and there's no doubt that these come into play quite often). Certainly my playing style and fingering/picking techniques have been a tad refined too. I only have about 300 hours of playing time on it. But man, whether it's real or not, I just love the way it's starting to sound. And I'm looking forward to more tone development over time. It is one of many factors that inspires me to play, play, play.

So it's odd for me to say this, being a professional engineer and normally a by-the-numbers kind of guy (i.e. if it don't work on paper, it don't work!), but I don't care whether "opening up" is scientifically provable. If it's music to my ears and elicits a pleasant emotional response in me, that's good enough. I actually prefer for it to remain somewhat of a musical mystery; it keeps things interesting and gives us something to marvel at.

[Marty Henrickson]

foldedpath said:

The dispute is about whether the change is due to natural aging or the "playing in" part. I have some antique furniture in the house that is surely different in color, wood moisture content, and resin chemical properties than it was when new, back in the 1800's. If I rap my knuckles on a walnut side panel on this furniture, it has an acoustic sound that is probably different that it was 150 years ago when the wood was green (although I can't prove it). But I didn't "play in" or vibrate the furniture to get it into that condition. I don't think anyone here disputes that wood ages over time, and might change in tone due to those effects alone.

P.S. right about now in a typical thread on this subject, someone will mention the vintage Martin guitar or Loar mandolin discovered under a bed, like new and never played, that sounds "tight" because it hasn't opened up due to lack of playing. That assertion is always accepted with nods of approval, as conventional wisdom. And yet, Chris Thile doesn't seem to mind playing his "under-the-bed," nearly untouched Loar.
However, Thile does believe that instruments can "go to sleep", as evidenced by this quote from the article on page 24 of the January 2008 issue of Vintage Guitar. This paragraph actually addresses at least two of the different issues in this fascinating discussion:



For most of his career, Thile has played mandolins built by luthier Lynn Dudenbostel. He acquired Dudenbostel #5 in 1998, then sold it to buy #14 in 2001. Several years later, he bought back #5 because he liked it so much. "When I first got it back I hardly recognized the sound. The mandolin hadn't been played much and had gone to sleep. I cold still hear it in the background, but I was a little concerned that my memory was bad about how it sounded. It took several months for the mandolin to get back to the sound and feel that I remembered." His experience with "Dude #5," as he calls it, convinced Thile that instruments go to sleep if they aren't played regularly. "I think if you honestly love your instruments, you have to play them regularly."

Now I'm no scientist, but my own experience and that of many other musicians tells me that the tone of an instrument does change over time, and that if it's not played on a regular basis it can change for the worse. I have a Seagull minijumbo that was my main guitar for about two years, that I haven't been playing much now for the last 16 months or so. The tone before was very lively and warm. The bass was full and well-defined without being "boomy", the mids cut through without being nasal, and the treble was rich and "sparkly". Right now this guitar sounds as dead as a plank. The notes sound flat, as if they just drop to the floor after exiting the soundhole. Whether this change is the guitar reverting to its previous "unplayed-in" condition, or sonically "going to sleep" in a different way due to lack of use is definitely a good question. I personally believe that it's a different phenomonon, as an instrument that has "gone to sleep" sounds worse (to my ears) than a brand-new instument.

[JeffD]

It isn't that I think nothing at all is happening. Some change over time with a new instrument is likely, even with an instrument that isn't being played. The wood continues to lose a little moisture over the first few years, and there will be chemical changes in the resin as it ages. In non-equatorial climates, the wood will probably be exposed to seasonal humidity changes. Any change from "playing in" the instrument will be mixed with whatever else is going on, as pieces of dead trees try to forget their former life and settle into being a musical instrument. We're talking about trying to measure something that might be happening on top of other factors, which are hard to separate.
:

Is it not likely that among all the things happening to the wood over time, the instrument as a whole, and the wood too, is responding to the forces imposed by the tension of the strings? And further, since we know for a fact the wood vibrates in response to picking those strings, is it not plausable that frequent exposure to those vibrations have some effect on how that wood ages?

Yea there are all kinds of hyperbolic descriptions and yes there are probably many things going on here at once, and yes its not strictly scientificly verified, but it does not seem unreasonable. Its not like claiming that my mandolin hovered above the chair when I turned up the Bill Monroe CD.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The phenomena of "breaking in" doesn't seem so extraordinary to me.

Not after seeing my mandolin hover above the chair. :disbelief:

[bobby bill]

Nobody is saying they can't remember the taste of an apple, and can tell it's different from an orange. What we're talking about here are subtle differences between the taste of an apple in your mouth today, and what you remember an apple tasting like a few years ago. That's where the accuracy of human memory can break down, and be subject to wishful thinking

I agree but think the ability to discern any change is even more difficult than you describe. To continue your analogy, between the apple you ate today and the apple you ate several years ago, you have eaten an apple every day, each with an imperceptible change. Each day you get used to the taste of the new apple and cannot tell the difference from the one the day before. If you could only compare your memory of the two apples years apart you might be able to tell a difference, but all the apples in between cloud this ability.

But at least you kept the doctor away.

[Mattg]

If you've ever had the experience of making an instrument or being present when an instrument is strung up for the very first time, I am confident that you will notice that the sound changes dramatically over the first few hours and very noticably over the next few days and weeks especially if it is being played a lot. These changes are not at all subtile in my own observation. (there, I used the word observation which is part of the vocabulary of the scientific process). This happens every time I string up an instrument for the first time. It's repeatable (there's that science vocabulary again). This type of evidence is not easy to defend because it is based on perception and can't necessarily be measured with some sort of device, yet. I would maintain, however, that just because it has not been measured numerically doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[Tobin]

This type of evidence is not easy to defend because it is based on perception and can't necessarily be measured with some sort of device, yet.
And on that subject, what exactly are we referring to when we say "tone"? An A-440 is the same on a trumpet as it is on a mandolin, but obviously they sound different. The pitch is the same, but the tone is different. The pitch of an A-440 is 440 Hz, a wavelength (frequency) measurement. How do we measure tone? Is it just a difference in wave height (amplitude)?

If so, then I would think it would be fairly easy to measure tonal differences in a new mandolin versus one that has "opened up". Measure the amplitude of an A-440 (or any other note, as long as it's the same in both measurements) when new versus used.

But if what we hear as "tone" is something different, I suppose we have to define it scientifically first before we can measure it. Surely if our ears can hear the difference, there's got to be a device that can measure it with a number.

[bobby bill]

And on that subject, what exactly are we referring to when we say "tone"? An A-440 is the same on a trumpet as it is on a mandolin, but obviously they sound different.

There are a few cobwebs on this recollection but it is my understanding that tone, or timbre (i.e., why a trumpet sounds different from a mandolin) is a result of the difference in relative volume of the various notes in the overtone series. When a mandolin string is struck, it not only vibrates over the full length of the string, but also has sub-vibrations in halves (creating an octave) and thirds (creating a fifth) and so on in increasingly smaller fractions. So when you pluck an A-440, you are also hearing (albeit imperceptibly) a series of notes above the fundamental. Some instruments, such as the flute, are fairly "pure" and have a very strong fundamental and very weak overtones. Others, such as a sax, have overtones out the wazoo. I recall seeing pictures of the overtone series for all the orchestral instruments so it is definitely a thing that can be measured.

Altering timbre, and whether that is a good thing or bad thing, is pretty subjective. My impression is that the "opening up" people are describing involves both a change in timber ("more woody" is what I hear) and overall increase in volume. The latter, of course, is always a good thing.

[sunburst]

This type of evidence is not easy to defend because it is based on perception and can't necessarily be measured with some sort of device, yet.

Science uses sampling as well as measuring tools.
Apply for a grant, and if you get funding, build a few hundred mandolins and each time one is finished have as many people as possible play it and listen to it, and have them describe the sound in terms of tone, loudness and so forth. Continue to have large groups of people play and listen to them regularly as they age, mixed in with the new ones as they are done, and do it all double blind.
If, after 5 or so years of doing that, the responses show statistically significant preferences for older instruments, then you have scientific evidence that "opening up" does occur. You have not, however, proven anything.

It's not that we can't gather scientific evidence for or against instruments opening up, it's just that we can't really afford to do it. To whom would we propose the grant? What incentive would there be for spending the money on the tests in terms of practical applications for any knowledge we found? What would it cost to have hundreds of mandolins built and have a controlled environment for the players and listeners to do the double blind listening tests over a period of years?

[Marty Henrickson]

It's not that we can't gather scientific evidence for or against instruments opening up, it's just that we can't really afford to do it. To whom would we propose the grant? What incentive would there be for spending the money on the tests in terms of practical applications for any knowledge we found? What would it cost to have hundreds of mandolins built and have a controlled environment for the players and listeners to do the double blind listening tests over a period of years?
Well, the government has funded some pretty strange projects over the years. Now may be the time to jump on the stimulus bandwagon. I'm just sayin'....;)

[billkilpatrick]

As a newbie here I am (no doubt) leaving myself open to some stick here, but I have to ask this question.

I've been fighting this bit of wood and metal for fifteen months now (never done anything musical before) , mainly with Ted's excellent FFcP for excercises and some Scottish tradition music for pleasure. As my ears (brain?) become used to the sound of the notes I am recognising some relationships and when it's gone out of tune.

I've read the recent posts about acoustic science and "opening up", but how do you tell if (when?) a mandolin is opening up?

Is "opening up" a scientifically measurable phenomenon or are people just becoming accustomed to individual qualities of their (new, and possibly (very) expensive) instrument?

Hoping I don't get castigated too much,

John

aging and constant use will change things: animate as well as inanimate.

try this, judge for yourself:

[Flowerpot]

I'll repeat my post from 5-5-2004; I don't think anybody posted the link. Do look at the artice, it has some valid experimental data.

********
Somebody had posted this link before in another thread, but I think it bears repeating. Good food for thought.

article (http://www.scoraig.com/arts/abeavitt/humiditycycling.htm)


The author attributes part of instrument break-in to humidity cycling, which occurs naturally over the lifetime of the instrument( in this case a viola), but which can be accelerated. The humidity cycles induce creep in the wood (measured in his experiment) and every humidity cycle brings the instrument closer to steady state. As well, with each humidity cycle, the sound profile (measured on a spectrum analyzer) gets "richer" (i.e. fewer high harmonic wolf tones). He even went as far as making a bowing machine to create a controlled stimulus for the instrument during testing, and the differences in sonic spectrum are very noticable as the instrument "ages".

If I remember right, he implied that if the string tension is removed, the process has to begin again, which has been the experience of many people who change strings all at once -- the instrument goes through an adolescent phase while the top re-settles. The article was reason enough to convince me to change strings one at a time, and I do think it helps.

[TonyP]

I'm always reminded when people talk about "proof" how nowaday's it seems nothing can be proved. Remember how long they said there was no proof smoking caused cancer? How there can be so many scientists who have "proof" about global warming, but it's still described as a "controversy" on some shows on tv.

I've gotten to talk to several of my hero's over the years and the constant seems to be they believe in the idea that a played in instrument has the sound they want/expect. They have their main axe, and maybe a backup just in case when on tour. They don't seem to be like electric guitarists I've seen like Keith Richards that will change guitars every song. Yeah, I've seen somebody like Sam Bush change out for one song like Get Up John instead of retuning. But they come back to that usually played in, sometimes thrashed main axe.

I heard Mike Marshall exclaim once, "I don't see how these people with all these instruments, keep 'em all awake!" or something to that effect.

And none of this means I don't think the camp who doesn't believe is wrong. For like in Bill's case, I would argue it's not the humming that makes the mando sound better, it's the humidity of his breath that has more to do with it. In my experience, if my mando isn't humidified, I can play all I want and it never gets as "warmed up" as when it's humidified properly. And like Foldedpath points out, the distortion of the mind in relationship to time is undeniable. All good points, and I don't think any of these discussions has ever changed anybody's mind. But I always end up reading them because I'm fascinated by the differing viewpoints.

[billkilpatrick]

flowerpot/tony - that's a new one on me. i thought it was vibration that "settled" the issue - "wood creep" - hmm ... - not humidity.

[Tobin]

Well, the government has funded some pretty strange projects over the years. Now may be the time to jump on the stimulus bandwagon. I'm just sayin'....;)
If any one of you gets that grant, I am hereby offering my services to play one of the test mandolins. We will be paid for it, right?:grin:


I've gotten to talk to several of my hero's over the years and the constant seems to be they believe in the idea that a played in instrument has the sound they want/expect. They have their main axe, and maybe a backup just in case when on tour. They don't seem to be like electric guitarists I've seen like Keith Richards that will change guitars every song. Yeah, I've seen somebody like Sam Bush change out for one song like Get Up John instead of retuning. But they come back to that usually played in, sometimes thrashed main axe.
Willie Nelson is a firm believer in it too. He plays that old Martin ("Trigger") with the hole in it because he simply can't find any other guitar that sounds like it. He talks about it in "The Tao of Willie" and how it just keeps getting sweeter.

[man dough nollij]

:popcorn:

[foldedpath]

Is it not likely that among all the things happening to the wood over time, the instrument as a whole, and the wood too, is responding to the forces imposed by the tension of the strings? And further, since we know for a fact the wood vibrates in response to picking those strings, is it not plausable that frequent exposure to those vibrations have some effect on how that wood ages?

Yea there are all kinds of hyperbolic descriptions and yes there are probably many things going on here at once, and yes its not strictly scientificly verified, but it does not seem unreasonable. Its not like claiming that my mandolin hovered above the chair when I turned up the Bill Monroe CD.

Okay, that's a valid theory; "Vibrating strings produce sound in a wooden instrument when played by a musician, and therefore vibrating the instrument over time (whether by the player or artificial means) must also improve the tone." You didn't mention it, but everyone who brings this up always assumes it's an improvement, and not a change for the worse.

It may be true, but let's see some peer-reviewed research on it.

I agree the claims aren't as outlandish as someone saying their mandolin levitates to the sound of a Bill Monroe CD. But it's still awfully awfully close to a concept in magical thinking called "similia similibus curentur" (like equals like), which has been the basis for a lot of dead-ends in human knowledge over the years. For example, homeopathic medicine.

[Gene Korte]

Don't know about anybody else's mandolin, but on the eleventh month in my posession, mine truly did open up. My wife even commented on it, and she usually doesn't pay that much attention to how my mando sounds.

The "proof" is in the ears. Don't know why it opened up. but am very happy it did. The new sound is more mellow and much rounder. I'm a believer.

[ChrisStewart]

I don't see where it matters one way or the other. People believe whatever they want.

I am more the scientific type and think that if there was any validity to the claim we would have evidence. Personal observation is not good science, even if a room full of people agree. Beauty is and always will be in the eye of the beholder.

I like what someone pointed out earlier - why do they always change for the better? Have we ever heard someone remark "dang the year after I bought it the thing opened up on me, now it sounds like a chest of drawers with strings"

Maybe because they want to sell it for enough money to buy a new improved one that hasn't been opened yet?

[Chris Keth]

I tend to think that there is some reality in it. There is a good logical basis to the phenomenon. It's like creasing paper through repeated folding. The crease gets easier and easier to fold along. Just the same, it would follow that an instrument that has been vibrated for a great amount of time would develop many microscopic "creases" and vibrate easier.

I also think, however, that perception, love for an old standby instrument, and improvement of the hands, brain, and ears of the player play a big part, too. The question, I suppose, is what ratio do these aspects occur in?

[Geoff B]

Seems like the question becomes, if tone changes, in what specific way/s does it change and how do we relate that to our subjective experience? Good or bad, better or worse, really don't matter. Rather, when an instrument opens up, what physical changes occur, how do we measure it and how do we relate that to our verbal description of it? The humidity article seemed to try to address that with the talk of the relative changes in overtones and subharmonics within the spectra from before and after. Dr. Cohen seems to have alluded to it in some of his links/research. That's where my mind goes with it. The question is not 'whether or not it happens', it is 'how do we recognize it if it does?'

[OldSausage]

If, after 5 or so years of doing that, the responses show statistically significant preferences for older instruments, then you have scientific evidence that "opening up" does occur. You have not, however, proven anything.

It's not that we can't gather scientific evidence for or against instruments opening up, it's just that we can't really afford to do it. To whom would we propose the grant? What incentive would there be for spending the money on the tests in terms of practical applications for any knowledge we found? What would it cost to have hundreds of mandolins built and have a controlled environment for the players and listeners to do the double blind listening tests over a period of years?

Actually, you wouldn't need lots of money for this, there are only 3 predictions being made, and you could probably disprove or confirm them quite cheaply with only a few borrowed mandos, though it would take a little time.
1. The instrument sounds better when it's older
2. It sounds better still when older and played more
3. It will sound worse if you stop playing it for a while

[sunburst]

...few borrowed mandos...

That wouldn't be a representative sample. The more mandolins you test, and the more people who test them, the more confidence you can have in the results.

[Richard Moore]

As a former wood scientist, now working in the nanoscience field, I tend towards the view that it ought to be possible to detect any changes in the micromorphology of the tonewoods as they age using modern instruments and measuring techniques. I'm not sure if any researchers have done that and am well out of that field now (interestingly it was a topic I had proposed for my PhD research for violin tonewoods some 30+ years ago but I was coaxed into another direction).

[Chris Keth]

As a former wood scientist, now working in the nanoscience field, I tend towards the view that it ought to be possible to detect any changes in the micromorphology of the tonewoods as they age using modern instruments and measuring techniques. I'm not sure if any researchers have done that and am well out of that field now (interestingly it was a topic I had proposed for my PhD research for violin tonewoods some 30+ years ago but I was coaxed into another direction).

Too bad for all of us you were dissuaded. I would love to see what real scientific data says about all of this. I have very little doubt that something happens, but I would love to know what.

[ralph johansson]

Seems like the question becomes, if tone changes, in what specific way/s does it change and how do we relate that to our subjective experience? Good or bad, better or worse, really don't matter. Rather, when an instrument opens up, what physical changes occur, how do we measure it and how do we relate that to our verbal description of it? The humidity article seemed to try to address that with the talk of the relative changes in overtones and subharmonics within the spectra from before and after. Dr. Cohen seems to have alluded to it in some of his links/research. That's where my mind goes with it. The question is not 'whether or not it happens', it is 'how do we recognize it if it does?'

i welcome this post. the subject becomes a bit heated when people insist on thinking in purely quantitave terms about an elusive, yet one-dimensional, property called "tone", whereas the desirable property of an instrument
is made up of lots of things.

once you start thinking like a musician, asking what the instrument is there to do, and how it helps you, the proper concepts emerge. and finally we may even be able to pin-point those physical variables that scientifically explain a phenomenon that almost all luthiers that i know are aware of. and you will hear them.

not that i need it myself. i trust only my spontaneous reactions (which also means that i distrust blindfold tests, especially when someone else is doing the playing; what matters is of course, as already noted, what you want the instrument is
there to do for you and whether it achieves it).

i recently bought an ovalhole. i tried it on the assumption that it would nicely complement my two f-hole mandolins, and it did. i claim there is a distinctive ovalhole quality that generally transcends the quality of the individual player or instrument or material played. i don't await scientific proof or even scientific terminology for this, i simply trust my ears, and i'm sure most mandolin players will agree. for instance,
anyone familiar with the mandolin and with bluegrass will note the particular
sound of the mandolin on, e.g., monroe's hornpipe. i did, long before i knew the explanation (monroe played a borrowed f4).


i haven't the slightest idea of what to measure, or how. of course, ovalholes generally sustain better than f-holes, which is probably the most easily measured parameter, yet not entirely reliable).

the same applies to "dead spots". on one of my instruments there's such a spot at f. in the beginning that note stood out; if i played a scale through that note it just slammed. played alone, the note fell dead immediately after being struck. today that spot remains, simply because the frequency of the note clashes with some built-in resonance. but it doesn't slam, and the note continues to live quite some time after being struck. none of the "explanations" offered above can account for that. or does anyone really believe that i've become much better at striking one single note and watching it decay? to check this i've tried to strike this note with the most awkward technique possible, an outward sweep instead of a proper rest-stroke.

now this is the kind of mellowing that sometimes takes place in stringed instruments, especially guitars, an evening out of response. also there's a general quickening, or loosening, of response all over. can this be measured? the only simple parameter i could think of is the rise time of various notes, but the really important fact is that the more responsive an instrument becomes the less effort does it require to set it in motion. that, i suppose, is the quality that rick turner speaks of as the instrument virtually playing itself.

[billkilpatrick]

to argue that no physical change occurs to your mandolin as it ages - that alternations in tone are purely subjective - is to believe that it's made from something inert; constant and unchanging. wood - more to the point - a wooden structure doesn't comply.

it would be interesting to ask someone with a carbon fiber mandolin (http://new-mad.com/) if they've mellowed any in tone due to time and extended play. i don't know what the "shelf-life" of carbon fibre is or if it's subject to fatigue, in the way that metal is, but i imagine it would be more constant than wood.

[MikeEdgerton]

The mandolin below experienced a dramatic opening up after years of hard playing.

[Tobin]

Yikes, that picture is enough to make a grown man cry!

[billkilpatrick]

The mandolin below experienced a dramatic opening up after years of hard playing.

... more invasive than blossoming out, wouldn't you say?

[mandozilla]

It's true! So there! But seriously, I'm sure it could be scientifically proven if, as Sunburst said, one had the necassary equipment and resources. But since that ain't happening anytime soon, we have to rely on anecdotal and subjective evidence. I can only speak of my mandolin and not the gazillions of carved instruments, mandolins and fiddles, er, violins that are the subject of this question.

I'm always happy with the tone and volume of my 27 year old mandolin but I have noticed, as I'm sure some of you have, that after jamming for a couple of days at a fesival, my mandolins' tone and volume seem to be optimal. I'm talking after playing a dozen or so hours a day. I wish it were so all the time!

I've taken to de-damping recently and I've found that it keeps my mandolin in that 'OPTIMAL' state...or as close to it as possible...I can't prove it, all I know is I'm a happy camper and believe in de-damping whole heartedly. Some on here say I'm only saying that to justify my investment in the de-damping equipment to myself...to them I say BALDERDASH! Some will never believe it no matter what and that's just fine with me. This (de-damping)
combined with continued aging and playing can only improve the tone and volume of my mandolin...Still can't prove it but I know it's true!

:mandosmiley:

[OldSausage]

That wouldn't be a representative sample. The more mandolins you test, and the more people who test them, the more confidence you can have in the results.

Well, there's no end to the sample size you would need if you wanted to be completely sure. But say you tried 5 mandolins and you got negative results each time?

To me, that would be conclusive. The myth is that this applies to all mandolins of sufficient quality, so really only one negative result is needed to bust it. If all 5 behaved as the myth says, then you could at least say it was plausible, if not absolutely confirmed. Have you never seen Mythbusters?

If the effect is as clear cut, universal, and easy to measure as the believers claim, it really should not need a big sample size.

[pickloser]

Have you never seen Mythbusters?
There ya go, let's send this question in to Mythbusters.
I've been following this thread with great interest. ~o)

[Chris Keth]

Well, there's no end to the sample size you would need if you wanted to be completely sure. But say you tried 5 mandolins and you got negative results each time?

To me, that would be conclusive. The myth is that this applies to all mandolins of sufficient quality, so really only one negative result is needed to bust it. If all 5 behaved as the myth says, then you could at least say it was plausible, if not absolutely confirmed. Have you never seen Mythbusters?

If the effect is as clear cut, universal, and easy to measure as the believers claim, it really should not need a big sample size.

Well I would hardly go by Mythbusters for flawless scientific method. ;)

I think 5 is far too few. I would be pretty happy if 50 instruments of varying makes, models, and materials were tested. 100 would be better.

[sunburst]

Have you never seen Mythbusters?

Is that a TV show? I don't watch TV.
I did take a statistics class once though, and quite a few science classes, and good scientific studies rely on large sample sizes to get accurate results; the bigger the better...and then there's repeatability and all that...

If you give blood pressure medicine to 5 people with high blood pressure, and one of them still has high blood pressure does that prove that the medicine doesn't work? No, no more than one mandolin proving that "opening up" doesn't happen.
Science cannot prove that "opening up" happens, only collect evidence for or against it.

[TonyP]

And as entertaining as the MythBusters are, they were blown completely out of the water in one supposed busted myth. They went through this whole "scientific" thing of trying to see if you would get fried by ######### on the third rail of an electric train track. They ended up concluding it was a myth as they couldn't get it to work with their dummy setup.

But I can tell you first hand as one who made the mistake when I was young, if you wiz on an electric fence it will knock you into next week. I don't see how that is not so for an electric train too.

So to use their vernacular, BUSTED! They did have to announce later they might have been wrong about that one. I think they got some mail on that one. :)

I don't see how you are going to take the human element out of the test and make it so all doubt can be removed. And I'm sorry, but the human ear can hear differences even a good recording setup can't. So it's always going to be somebody's word against another IMHO.

[OldSausage]

So to use their vernacular, BUSTED! They did have to announce later they might have been wrong about that one. I think they got some mail on that one. :){

So because the Mythbusters were wrong once, the whole of edifice of science is a shambles and should be thrown out?


I don't see how you are going to take the human element out of the test and make it so all doubt can be removed. And I'm sorry, but the human ear can hear differences even a good recording setup can't. So it's always going to be somebody's word against another IMHO.

You wouldn't need to take the human element out. Really it's the "experts" who make the claim that they can tell the difference that you would need to test, not the instruments so much. I can think of many experiments that could be devised.

[OldSausage]

Is that a TV show? I don't watch TV.
I did take a statistics class once though, and quite a few science classes, and good scientific studies rely on large sample sizes to get accurate results; the bigger the better...and then there's repeatability and all that...

If you give blood pressure medicine to 5 people with high blood pressure, and one of them still has high blood pressure does that prove that the medicine doesn't work? No, no more than one mandolin proving that "opening up" doesn't happen.
Science cannot prove that "opening up" happens, only collect evidence for or against it.

You've shifted the goalposts by saying it is a weaker effect that would require statistical sampling. I was very specific about the claims I thought we could test. I agree that if it's only a tiny, statistical, maybe/maybe not effect, you would need hundreds of mandolins to know for sure.

You seem to be saying that the effect is so weak that it is hardly even testable, which I have to say makes me even more skeptical about it.

[Geoff B]

Actually, you wouldn't need lots of money for this, there are only 3 predictions being made, and you could probably disprove or confirm them quite cheaply with only a few borrowed mandos, though it would take a little time.
1. The instrument sounds better when it's older
2. It sounds better still when older and played more
3. It will sound worse if you stop playing it for a while

That's definitely a start. But HOW would those things be measured in an objective way? This thread has shown that people's impressions are useful, but not conclusive. Nor do they help if there were a sort of continuum of change over time. That's where the data needs to be predictable, falsifiable, repeatable and statistically significant.

I'd also, if one were to really try this, think it would be absolutely necessary to define (clearly and thoroughly) what "sounds better" means. Again, with folks' different experiences, I'm afraid a test of those hypotheses couldn't give satisfiable results. You'd need to correlate a group's overall impression with some measurable criteria, ie. relatively stronger odd harmonics correlate with a good impression, then test for the development of odd harmonics as the instrument ages. Then get the same group to come back and give their impressions again... May turn out that odd harmonics also correlate with humidity changes... then correlation is not causation and the whole thing goes boom... I wonder if Siminoff keeps before/after recordings of his dedamping process... that may be useful.

[Tobin]

So because the Mythbusters were wrong once, the whole of edifice of science is a shambles and should be thrown out?
Not at all. But Mythbusters do not practice strict scientific methodology. Even they admit it. They provide entertainment. Real science is a lot more controlled and documented than what they do. I actually find it pretty disturbing that so many people think what Mythbusters does is science.

[sunburst]

You've shifted the goalposts by saying it is a weaker effect that would require statistical sampling. I was very specific about the claims I thought we could test. I agree that if it's only a tiny, statistical, maybe/maybe not effect, you would need hundreds of mandolins to know for sure.

You seem to be saying that the effect is so weak that it is hardly even testable, which I have to say makes me even more skeptical about it.

I'm not saying there is any effect, I'm not saying there is not any effect, and I'm not saying how strong or weak any effect is. I'm not talking about whether there is or is not an "opening up" phenomenon. The question of the original post was "science or perception?". Some folks speculated on what measuring instruments could be used to measure something to see if there is "opening up" and how to measure, and I suggested that statistical sampling could be used rather than trying to measure some elusive difference in "tone" with some instrument/s. Statistical sampling is a scientific method, and to be good science it has to use a large enough sample size to get statistically significant results. The smaller the sample the closer the results are to anecdotal, the larger the sample the closer the results are to science.
As with most things, there is more than one way to do it. We could use statistical sampling, we could try to measure sound in controlled conditions, any method of testing the hypothesis. I'm just saying statistical sampling is one way.

I have my own opinion about whether or not instruments "open up", but my opinion makes no difference to whether or not the phenomenon exists or if it is scientifically measurable or how it could be measured. I can go outside and observe that the sun goes around the earth, but science tells me otherwise.

[ralph johansson]

my own position is i know the phenomenon exists, by the experience of SOME of my guitars. they changed in ways for which there are words, and in ways affecting their usefulness as musical tools. it's not, as some seem to believe, a matter of "finding the sweet spot" or adjusting, because that's not a process of several months or even years.

i would, however, never predict it even on any instrument of some given construction, and i haven't kept a mandolin long enough to hear or feel anything noteworthy. it does get a bit ridicuolous when a salesman tries to convince a customer that a dull, overbuilt, muffled-sounding instrument will grow into something spectacular.

i don't quite understand what kind of tests people are thinking of here. the properties of an instrument are most important to the player. when the character of an instrument is perceived as "open", "free", "responsive"
we're speaking of things that inspire the player, hence
freeing him of his inhibitions (if any), thus
producing better
music. so whoever is to judge an instrument must play it, not just listen.
most listeners have a very poor sense of sound quality in instruments.


and the really interesting thing would be to determine if instruments perceived as "open", "free" or "responsive" actually share some
definite physical properties. i'm at a complete loss as to what and how to measure, as stringed instruments, particularly guitars, are very complicated sound sources, by their very size and shape.

i hope to discuss these issues with some experts in signal processing in the near future. i'm sure they won't tell me it's a simple exercise in fourier analysis.

[OldSausage]

Statistical sampling is a scientific method, and to be good science it has to use a large enough sample size to get statistically significant results. The smaller the sample the closer the results are to anecdotal, the larger the sample the closer the results are to science.
As with most things, there is more than one way to do it. We could use statistical sampling, we could try to measure sound in controlled conditions, any method of testing the hypothesis. I'm just saying statistical sampling is one way.

Sure, I agree if you're talking about an effect that is only measurable statistically. I'm just saying that statistical methods aren't always the answer. For example, if someone makes the statement: "all swans are white", I do not have to sample the entire swan population to disprove it. I just need one black swan.

[sunburst]

We're still not quite on the same page, OldSausage.
The swan analogy is more black and white (pardon the pun), there is no controversy there, but there obviously is controversy about whether or not mandolins open up over time, whether mandolins open up from playing, and if so then why, and on and on. If it was obvious that they do, then everyone...well, nearly everyone would agree (surely someone would argue that all swans are white). Since there is no agreement on the point, any effect must be subtle or at least not observable by everyone. Perhaps some mandolins do and some don't. Finding a mandolin that can be proven not to open up wouldn't prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist, and furthermore, science cannot prove that even one mandolin doesn't open up, only provide evidence that it doesn't, so the statement "all mandolins open up" cannot be proven a false statement anymore than "no mandolin opens up" can...at least scientifically speaking it cannot.
One mandolin that doesn't open up does not prove that the effect doesn't exist, and one black swan doesn't prove that white swans don't exist.

And once again, the original question was about whether or not any science has been done to indicate whether or not mandolins open up. Statistical analysis would be one way to test the hypothesis. Whether you or I feel that statistical analysis is needed makes no difference, statistical analysis is still a way to apply science to the question; "do mandolins 'open up?' ".

[JeffD]

Two characteristics of the sound of a mandolin that has "opened up".

Louder sound for the same plucking force

Fuller sound - also described as less thin, less brassy, more body, creamier, more complex.


The first characteristic is much easier to measure. The second needs more definition but should be measurable. I know I can consistently detect it.



One test that can be done right now, get 10 mandolins of different ages and extremely different prior experiences, and have someone play the same tune on all of them, and record the clips. Have a lot of mandolin players participate in a secret ballot election as to which mandolins sound more opened up. At the least we should mostly agree on that. Or if we don't, that tells us something. Then compare the predominant vote to the mandolin's prior history.

No definitions needed, no fancy test equipment.


I saw a similar test of astrology. They described a real live person's history, personality, successes and failures, relationships, very thorough description.

Then they gave three astrological signs, one of which was correctly the person's sign.

A board of 100 professional or expert astrologers, in a blind voted on which was the correct one. The vote came out almost exactly 33, 33, 34.

Regardless of who was right or wrong, it was demonstrated that there are some serious problems with astrology as it was practiced by these professionals.

[T.J.]

As Mike Edgerton notes back in post #23, there have been quite a few threads on this. At least one of them has the results of an experiment conducted with Timber-Tech, a company which would shake a guitar on the equivalent of a 7500-watt speaker/amp combo; there is the excerpt of a graph which shows how the frequency response changed, along with observations of how the instruments became more responsive.

http://www.acousticguitar.com/gear/advice/vibration.shtml

As Earthscience notes in post #5, it can be difficult to tell if something is purely in one's head, and it is more helpful to be able to record something. The article mentions the difference of at least one instrument in A/B recordings, before and after treatment, in addition to the graphing of the A/B frequency responses. As foldedpath notes in #8, memory can be fallible, but I doubt the frequency measurements show any memory effect.

----

I remember when this article was published. When I read it, I decided to try out some experimenting of my own, using the guitars we were retailing. I started putting new solid-top guitars, which had duplicates in stock, atop speakers in the back at night, leaving the duplicates alone. I would tag them and put them out for sale alongside the ones which hadn't had music pumped through them, with a special mark for the ones which had been "treated." Customers would, after trying the different guitars, inevitably buy the one of the pair which had been treated.

The owner might have been skeptical at first, but it was hard to argue with the strange ratio; only instruments which were singletons (not part of a pair) would sell untreated, with the vast majority being the treated members of a pair. This led to the next question, and one I never tested, feeling it was cheating: would this work if we just treated high-end guitars, and left the lower cost ones alone? *laugh*

The procedure didn't work as astoundingly with laminate instruments, sadly, but there was a difference in tone.

As the article in the link notes, it feels as if an instrument vibrates more readily, and thus is more responsive. I had always assumed it had to do with the top having been flexed in a musically useful way, and, like a piece of stiff cardboard which has a crease, the top was now able to vibrate along its new creases more easily.

----

A few have also asked if the change was always positive. I'll say that the change was always in the direction of the sound treatment being applied to the instrument.

We eventually started trying other recordings and sound sources, to see if it was just vibration, or musical vibration, which enhanced the instruments. It turned out that recordings of spoken word comedy was the worst source, and the best was good fingerstyle guitar. Given that, we assumed that the sound source had to induce vibration in the top in a musically useful way.

We also found that it was bettter to have a sound source which was tuned to pitch, so we would use CDs where the performer was tuned so, regardless of whether it was standard tuning or something else. Sometimes recordings would be off by 20 cents or more, and the instruments so treated didn't seem to vibrate/flex as readily at standard pitch as when tuned to the offset. Strange, no?

Our conclusion was that the instrument would more easily flex in the ways in which it had been flexed before. If it was flexed/treated with music, it would flex in those ways; if it was spoken word, it would come alive with the sounds of Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Cheech and Chong. *laugh*

As it is, a musical instrument is normally most affected by the musical sounds it is designed to produce, and thus will gain flexibility for those frequencies. Are those sounds negative or positive? That's irrelevant; the point is, you get back in flexibility what you put into it for flexing in the first place. It's like bending a fencing foil before using it; one wants the foil to bend in a predictable way, so it doesn't normally snap under the stress or bend in a way that can hurt someone. One bends it the way one wants it to bend in the future. Can one bend it in a way that is not positive? Yes, easily, merely by putting the bend in by hand.

With a musical instrument, it's a little harder to get away from bending it in a musically useful way... as long as one keeps the instrument in tune. Like a foil, one can make the instrument flex more easily in a less desireable, out-of-tune way.

----

I don't recall what guitar maker or retailer started doing sound treatment on some of their instruments, but there were some writeups years (maybe 10-20?) ago in Guitar Player or Frets Magazine. We found the treatment good for business; your mileage may vary.

Cheers!

[sunburst]

...the sounds of Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Cheech and Chong...

Seems like that would make those guitars sound funny...

[Tobin]

Excellent post!


I started putting new solid-top guitars, which had duplicates in stock, atop speakers in the back at night, leaving the duplicates alone. I would tag them and put them out for sale alongside the ones which hadn't had music pumped through them, with a special mark for the ones which had been "treated." Customers would, after trying the different guitars, inevitably buy the one of the pair which had been treated.
One question: did the customers know which ones were treated? In other words, is it possible that the treated ones sold better due to a psychological sales pitch? Or was it a "blind" experiment where only you knew which ones had been treated?

[OldSausage]

Excellent post!


One question: did the customers know which ones were treated? In other words, is it possible that the treated ones sold better due to a psychological sales pitch? Or was it a "blind" experiment where only you knew which ones had been treated?

It would also be possible that the salesman's confidence in the guitars was affected by knowledge of which guitars were treated, so increasing their likelihood of making the sale even if the customer did not know: the "Clever Hans" effect.

[T.J.]

Excellent post!

One question: did the customers know which ones were treated? In other words, is it possible that the treated ones sold better due to a psychological sales pitch? Or was it a "blind" experiment where only you knew which ones had been treated?


It would also be possible that the salesman's confidence in the guitars was affected by knowledge of which guitars were treated, so increasing their likelihood of making the sale even if the customer did not know: the "Clever Hans" effect.

I was doing this at night, when everyone had gone, and coming in a few hours before staff in the morning to put everything back. The owner was the one who came in late one night and gave me a call, wondering what the h*** was going on. *laugh* That's when I had him try a couple of pairs of treated/untreated we had on the floor; he didn't play a lick, but could sit and strum them. Once he had separated them according to their sound, I showed him the small change I had made in the tags, and that, even as a non-player, he had heard the difference and found all the treated one, and rejected all the untreated ones. (There's nothing like evidence and blind testing, no? *laugh*) By pulling the tags and seeing the subtle alteration, we could see that the treated ones were the ones selling.

Speaking of any kind of sales pitch, my "pitch" wasn't quite the norm. I would teach folks how to judge the instruments, showing them how to check intonation, action, and so forth... and then would walk away, telling them that ultimately, it was their ears and fingers they had to please. The owner would go nuts when I would recommend they go to other stores as well, because we weren't the only game in town. *laugh* Although I didn't work on commission, I did start asking customers to put that I had helped them initially on the sales ticket. It turned out I was selling the most product, because the customer knew "I'll be taken care of in the future like I was at the beginning. I didn't get sold what was available, but empowered to know which was right for me. Thanks, folks!" *laugh* You can't buy that kind of advertising... and it definitely helps when one is trying to reign in the "sell now" philosophy, and trying to instill customer service as the main principle instead.

(Can you tell I didn't work for GC? *laugh*)

----

So, no knowledge on the part of the staff or owner, so no Clever Hans from them, and definitely no steering on my part towards those instruments, as I wouldn't even tell the customers what kind of guitar they should get. Further, as it was one of a pair, and the treatment was blinded (a small dot in the center of a one letter was the only mark on the tag, and only I knew of it), I am confident that there was something about the treated guitar of the pair which led, in every case, to it selling before the untreated one.

I appreciate the thought, though. I have been involved in debunking of a few things, and so I really took care to not let the cat out of the bag... until someone let it out for me. *laugh*

Cheers!

[300win]

Did that old Loar of Monroe's that got broken sound good before it did?, yep I think so in my opinion. But how about after it was fixed. Did it sound the same? I don't know, but a injury like that to something that had soaked up all those years of music and did sound good after Charlie repaired it almost seems like a spiritual thing to me. Do instruments over time absorb the music played on them so they respond better? I am no scientist, probably the farthest thing there is from one, but I think that there is something going on in the bond that we have with our instruments, and over time as the saying goes, when does it stop thinking its a tree, and starts realizing its a musical instrument, makes a much sense to me as any other theory.

[Mandophyte]

Dear All,

Many thanks for your broad range of comments, I really didn't expect it to reach four pages though.

Cheers,

[brianf]

Think of the mandolin as the victim of a boa constrictor. When one is played frequently, the strings are being tuned frequently, compared to one that sits in the closet. The tension, therefore, keeps a constrictive pressure on the wood, causing the reduction of the size of the pores, and mashing the fibers together. The more dense the wood, the better the response.

[Mike Bunting]

Did that old Loar of Monroe's that got broken sound good before it did?, yep I think so in my opinion. But how about after it was fixed. Did it sound the same? .
I don't know if the source would like me to name him on this list, but a very well known mando playing contemporary of Monroe said that it was not the mandolin that it once was after the repairs.

[OldSausage]

Think of the mandolin as the victim of a boa constrictor. When one is played frequently, the strings are being tuned frequently, compared to one that sits in the closet. The tension, therefore, keeps a constrictive pressure on the wood, causing the reduction of the size of the pores, and mashing the fibers together. The more dense the wood, the better the response.

I sell an appliance to help with this, it's called the "Squeeze-Rite". Beware when ordering, though, because the product is an actual live boa constrictor, so needs feeding.

[bjshear]

Both. I've read many posts about the science of it, but it takes a good ear to hear and describe the difference.

Problem is perception. How do you recall how an instrument used to sound and compare to what it sounds like now? Best way would be to record it in as close to identical setups/locations over played time, denoting temperature, humidity, pick, strings, player, etc. and then compare those two to each other.

Does anyone know of such records? Would be interesting to see if the average person could hear the difference, or if it's only the mandolin playres and/or musicians that can tell.

In my experience with music as a paid professional who makes a living playing music, most people (non-musicians) really don't hear what we do. Most non-musicians have a general idea if a song sounded 'good' or not, and whether or not an instrument sounded 'right'.

Anyway, just curious if the average ear can hear the difference and if anyone knows of a side-by side comparison recording.

[sunburst]

There may be some data starting soon. Luthier Dennis Merril has put together the "Sonic Sitka Project" (http://www.guitarbench.com/2010/03/28/the-sonic-sitka-project/), and perhaps some evidence one way or another will show up, or perhaps it will be inconclusive. We'll have some idea in 10 years or so...

BTW, my own Sonic Sitka guitar is finished as of about 3 days ago, and if I can afford the trip I hope to be at the Newport Festival with it.

[Bernie Daniel]

:))

Isn't there enough evidence that something real does happen? Perhaps the phenomena has not been fully explained, and certainly we don't have complete control over how to make it happen or foster it or accelerate it.

But, does anyone maintain that the sound of a new wooden instrument set up properly and well played, won't really change over time?

:disbelief:

Could you layout some of the evidence? That is some proof that goes beyond the mere testimony of someone who claims that, "yup! it sounds better"!

You were correct, I think, in your first post when you said that there is no scientific evidence of "opening up" -- and so therefore EVIDENCE is not available. Just opinions? :)

[Bernie Daniel]

Dear All,

Many thanks for your broad range of comments, I really didn't expect it to reach four pages though.

Cheers,

I expected it to reach 40.

[Mandophyte]

Well! I reall didn't expect this one to raise its head again.

However it's reall good to see that someone's going to produce some evidence, so thanks to John Hamlett and Dennis Merril.

I wait eagerly (although I know it will take quite a while).

[billkilpatrick]

an analogy might help - try not using your vocal chords for a while then try singing like you used to.

[Nick Triesch]

I've been playing both guitar and mandolin for many years and the one thing that I have learned is that you can find a great sounding instrument right out of the shop if you look long enough. I don't think I will ever buy a mandolin again that I hope will open up. Why put that much time and pain into it? I think you just need to really take your time to find a good sounding mandolin. From a KM 1000 to a super high end...they can be found. I think instruments are born good, bad or so so.

[300win]

I've been playing both guitar and mandolin for many years and the one thing that I have learned is that you can find a great sounding instrument right out of the shop if you look long enough. I don't think I will ever buy a mandolin again that I hope will open up. Why put that much time and pain into it? I think you just need to really take your time to find a good sounding mandolin. From a KM 1000 to a super high end...they can be found. I think instruments are born good, bad or so so.

I agree 100%. If they start out good, they will only get better. If they start out mediocre or poor, that is the way they will always be.

[JeffD]

Whether "opening up" is a verifiable phenomenon, or not, whether it is something that can be measured but not as easily explained, or not - has nothing to do with whether you should purchase an instrument that doesn't sound as good as you want it to sound.

One has nothing to do with the other. I would say that one should never, ever, buy a mandolin that doesn't sound great, the way you want it to sound, immediately. And, at the same time, I firmly believe something or perhaps many things, objectively verifiable things, are going on to produce what we experience as "opening up".

[Santiago]

I once asked a teacher whether mandolins really open up. He told me to me play my mandolin. Then he had me play an open G chord xx23 "violently" for about 20 seconds. Then he told me to play the same thing again. The mandolin was clearly louder the second time -- and it wasn't because my wrist was warmed up or exercized or that I played it louder. This difference was temporary as far as I can tell. Try this and let me know if you hear a difference. Any explanations?

[foldedpath]

I once asked a teacher whether mandolins really open up. He told me to me play my mandolin. Then he had me play an open G chord xx23 "violently" for about 20 seconds. Then he told me to play the same thing again. The mandolin was clearly louder the second time -- and it wasn't because my wrist was warmed up or exercized or that I played it louder.

How can you be sure of that?

[Santiago]

You can't. It's not a scientific test, but I did hear a difference. Try it.

[SincereCorgi]

You can't. It's not a scientific test, but I did hear a difference. Try it.

Okay, but in that case you can't say you're sure it wasn't because your wrist was warmed up or exercised or you played it louder.

For that matter, if all it takes is playing hard for twenty seconds, it would be an extremely easy thing to test.

[Santiago]

I can be sure. Give it a try before you dismiss it.

[OldSausage]

I tried it. It didn't sound louder, or different in any way at all.

[Rob Gerety]

It depends on the mandolin. My old Gibson A - yes, it sounds louder and better after 10-20 minutes of hard playing. I have little doubt in my mind about that. My Eastman - it makes no difference whatsoever.

[wsugai]

Whether "opening up" is a verifiable phenomenon, or not, whether it is something that can be measured but not as easily explained, or not - has nothing to do with whether you should purchase an instrument that doesn't sound as good as you want it to sound.

Yes, I agree, and am greatly amused whenever I read in mando ads (especially in the classifieds), statements like, "... will open up nicely." I mean, how in the world could you know that?

[foldedpath]

It depends on the mandolin. My old Gibson A - yes, it sounds louder and better after 10-20 minutes of hard playing. I have little doubt in my mind about that. My Eastman - it makes no difference whatsoever.

Hi Rob. You may not be intending this, but a statement like that can be read as "you'll hear this effect in a fine mandolin, and you won't in a cheap one."

What about those of us who don't hear this effect, or who do hear it and don't trust our perceptions about the player "waking up" vs. the mandolin "waking up," and are using very nice instruments?

I don't hear this short-term waking up effect in my $4500 Lebeda. Does that mean I got a bad mandolin?

This goes back to my main theme in all these discussions: I think we're focusing way too much on these physical lumps of wood and wire, and not on the way a musician's ear isn't as accurate as a hardware recording device, and can be easily fooled by all sorts of things, including emotions and preconceptions.

[Bernie Daniel]

I tried it. It didn't sound louder, or different in any way at all.

In my case I think my ear opened up....

[JeffD]

Could you layout some of the evidence? That is some proof that goes beyond the mere testimony of someone who claims that, "yup! it sounds better"!


If it were just someone I would agree. But so many people report the phenomenon, and describe it using different words, that there is a better chance that something is going on, perhaps not scientifically understood, but something more than mass hysteria and coincedental user illusions.

[foldedpath]

If it were just someone I would agree. But so many people report the phenomenon, and describe it using different words, that there is a better chance that something is going on, perhaps not scientifically understood, but something more than mass hysteria and coincedental user illusions.

And what does it say about those of us who aren't hearing this effect, or can't tell whether it's us (the player) or the instrument?

Are we deaf? Are we playing dead instruments? Or are we just a little more careful in what we're willing to claim about things?
;)

[Fretbear]

Don't feed the troll........

[JeffD]

And what does it say about those of us who aren't hearing this effect, or can't tell whether it's us (the player) or the instrument?


Huh? what? I didn't mean it as a challenge. It doesn't say anything about you, and I certainly don't mean to imply anything.

I think there are enough variables that it is difficult to claim anything reliably for all instruments or under all conditions. The type of playing, the type of construction, the environmental factors, all the variables that a scientific study would try and control for.

I'll go one further. My Aspen II mandolin was purchased brand new by me a few years back. To this day I haven't noticed any opening up or change in tone. But others at my weekly jam have told me things like "that mandolin is opening up nicely" or, "I didn't like the tone of that at first, but now that its played in a bit I like how it is sounding". Now I am not hearing a difference, even when I try, and I am not soliciting comments. By the same token I don't think these folks are just being nice. Its possible that the difference is subtle, or projected more infront of me than back towards me behind the instrument. I have no idea.

With other of my mandolins I have detected an improvement in tone after playing it a lot over many many months, and yet nobody has said anything to me about them.


All I am saying is that enough people have reported the phenomenon that it is hard to ignore, whether or not it has happened to you or to me.

In any case it is not probably accurate, and certainly not scientific, to generalize too much from our own individual experience of the phenomenon.

I assure you I did not mean to imply anything beyond my statement.

[Bernie Daniel]

If it were just someone I would agree. But so many people report the phenomenon, and describe it using different words, that there is a better chance that something is going on, perhaps not scientifically understood, but something more than mass hysteria and coincedental user illusions.

That is fair enough. Obviously this is one of those topics that will keep coming up.

It is something that probably could be proven but it probably won't be. It is unlikely that anyone will ever construct a large (i.e., statistical significant numbers) and double blind study on this -- in the absense of such analysis we'll never know.

It would be possible to measure some physical properties of the sound waves emitted and prove that these change (or do not change) with play time. Dave Cohen already mentioned that. But that does not mean those physical changes even if you could prove that they happen -- could be discriminated in the human ear.

Without any doubt there are those who believe that they can hear a mandolin open up over time (one person stated it happens over a period of minutes?) -- I think most are thinking about a change that occurs after a few weeks (months?) of playing. But none of these individuals can prove this point is anything more than their own personal perceptions.

Others claim it does not happen and these cannot prove that point either because maybe their hearing is not as acute?

That leads me to thinking that until a definative test is do there is not much point in argueing about it as it will always come down to this point. That is no one knows for sure. :)

[Bernie Daniel]

If it were just someone I would agree. But so many people report the phenomenon, and describe it using different words, that there is a better chance that something is going on, perhaps not scientifically understood, but something more than mass hysteria and coincedental user illusions.

That is fair enough. Obviously this is one of those topics that will keep coming up.

It is something that probably could be proven but it probably won't be. It is unlikely that anyone will ever construct a large (i.e., statistical significant numbers) and double blind study on this -- in the absense of such analysis we'll never know.

It would be possible to measure some physical properties of the sound waves emitted and prove that these change (or do not change) with play time. Dave already mentioned that. But that does not mean those physical changes even if you could prove that they happen -- could be discriminated in the human ear.

Without any doubt there are those who believe that they can hear a mandolin open up over time (one person stated it happens over a period of minutes?) -- I think most are referring to change in the instrument that occurs after weeks (months?) of playing. But none of these individuals can prove this point is anything more than their own personal perceptions.

Others claim it does not happen and these cannot prove that point either because maybe their hearing is not as acute?

That leads me to thinking that until a definative test is done there is not much point in argueing about it as it will always come down to this. That is no one knows for sure. :)

[Bertram Henze]

That leads me to thinking that until a definative test is done there is not much point in argueing about it as it will always come down to this. That is no one knows for sure. :)

Yep. After a definitive test the argueing will probably go on regardless - with no more point to it than now.

[Fretbear]

In the Winter 2009 issue of “Fretboard Journal”, David Grier’s 1955 Martin D-18 guitar is discussed. Grier received the instrument from his father Lamar Grier who played banjo with Bill Monroe’s Bluegrass Boys. David played the instrument long and hard for many years (well evidenced by it’s “corrugated” top) and recorded five solo albums and countless shows and sessions with it. In the article, it says:

“Unfortunately, a neck re-set with a too drastic angle change left it with only a portion of it’s previous tone…..”

Now, some might say that guitar virtuoso David Grier is “mistaken”, and that he has begun to employ a 1946 Martin D-28 herringbone instead, because he cannot tell the sound of one guitar from another. Someone else might say that this occurrence is “impossible” because the sound of acoustic wooden stringed instruments “doesn’t change”, or that if they do change, that it can’t be proven, so it can’t be discussed. Someone else might say, what has a change, obviously effected by a repair, got to do with the sound of an instrument changing from being played? This last is the only one I will address, which is that they DO change; not consistently, not predictably, and sometimes not even necessarily in a positive manner (and certainly not in this particular case) but that to maintain that acoustic stringed instruments (especially extremely fine ones) are static and are not subject to various changes in their tone and response from all different sorts of effects, including hard playing, just because it may not be able to be empirically "proved", is to simply not be aware of the actual facts regarding the matter.

[Tom F]

In response to instruments changing over time, there is no mistaking the preference for older instruments. I read once, that the resin in the cells begins to break down and eventually turns to powder, thus leaving the cells partly empty and able to resonate differently. Who knows. But everytime I pick up my buddy's 62 braz Martin D-28, there is no newer guitar with the same specs I have played that sounds like it, not even close. But we are talking 50 years, not 2. An old pair of shoes indeed.

As far as an instrument "waking up" after playing for 20 minutes or so, I am a bit more skeptical, I think our technique improves as we warm up as does the tone.

It would be cool to have a blind study done.

[Nick Triesch]

I think new high end guitars like a James Goodall sound much better that a 60 year old Martin. For one a new guitar is much eaiser to play up and down the neck and a new high quality guitar has a deep yet crisp sound that just cannot be beat. Old Martin guitars while cool usually sound on the mellow, muddy side to me. Just about always. But I have to say they play great on the first 3 frets!!! After that, you can shoot arrows off of them.

[Tom C]

I believe in opening up over a long period of time. Some say they hear their mando open up after 30 minutes of playing. My lousiest sounding Grateful Dead tapes from the 60's sound like soundboards after listening to them for 30 minutes.

[foldedpath]

It is something that probably could be proven but it probably won't be. It is unlikely that anyone will ever construct a large (i.e., statistical significant numbers) and double blind study on this -- in the absense of such analysis we'll never know.

It would be possible to measure some physical properties of the sound waves emitted and prove that these change (or do not change) with play time. Dave Cohen already mentioned that. But that does not mean those physical changes even if you could prove that they happen -- could be discriminated in the human ear.

Right, that's been a point I've been emphasizing for a long time in these discussions: that a change in frequency response doesn't necessarily equate to "better sound" in the human ear. An increase in volume would have that effect, but I don't think that's ever been demonstrated. The study I linked to in the other thread demonstrated small changes in frequency response with a played-in violin vs. a close copy over a 3 year period, but the test audience and players still couldn't tell the two test instruments apart:

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

The paper from that study, with the frequency response graphs (PDF file):

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/reprints/IntaViolin.pdf

Maybe 3 years isn't enough time? The sample size was also fairly small, although it did include experienced musicians who should have a good ear. And of course it's far from the last word on this subject. As one of the only studies I'm aware of though, I think it's worth reading for people on both sides of the fence.

[Jim Nollman]

There's a corollary to the standard objective method which fits this debate like a glove. We seem to asking how to prove that something sounds "better". For a scientist to actually prove that this is true or false, he or she needs to figure out how to measure these rather personalized qualities of "better" or "worse"? But no one can measure such qualities, since, at best they are anecdotal, and made by personal listening. "Better" only exists in the ear of the beholder.

this kind of impasse has always caused a problem for science. If there is no way to measure something, scientists tend to treat it as not existing. Telepathy, ghosts, and non-human language are three examples where science can't measure something and so say it doesn't exist. The truth is, maybe they don't exist, but can't be measured. This debate about mandolins opening up might make a worthy fourth example of this phenomena.

If we are merely asking if it sounds "different", then someone can devise an experiment. String up three new mandolins. Or violins, or maybe an assortment of two each: guitar, mandolin, violin. Play and record them through three or four different microphones to provide a fair assortment of sensor variability. Keep a record of the spatial arrangement between instrument and sensor. Maybe include that day's air pressure as another criteria. Then let musicians play the instruments for a year. and let them change the strings as often as they like. After a year, string the instruments with the same set used at the start, return to the same room, follow the same spatial arrangement, maybe wait for a day with the same air pressure. Now record all three playing the same tune again. Compare the spectrograms.

And certainly plot some statistical variation, related to the difference in strings, and the variance in pick technique.

Look for a measurable change in both frequency and dynamic response that occurs in the spectrograms of the instruments at the start and the same instruments after a year. Could be worthy material for a thesis in some university's doctoral program in music.

[Rob Gerety]

Hi Rob. You may not be intending this, but a statement like that can be read as "you'll hear this effect in a fine mandolin, and you won't in a cheap one."

This was most definitely NOT what I intended. I meant to say that in my experience this opening or warming up after a few minutes of playing happens in some mandolins but not in others. I have only two mandolins. One sounds different (I think better) after playing a while. The other does not. Beyond that narrow observation I have no clue.

[OldSausage]

...to maintain that acoustic stringed instruments (especially extremely fine ones) are static and are not subject to various changes in their tone and response from all different sorts of effects, including hard playing, just because it may not be able to be empirically "proved", is to simply not be aware of the actual facts regarding the matter.

No-one has tried to maintain that. I think the one thing we all agree, on both sides of the argument, is that instruments can change their sound and response over time.

[SincereCorgi]

No-one has tried to maintain that.

Right. Mixing up arguments to authority with strawman attacks – that dastardly 'someone' sure is wrongheaded, eh? - isn't offering much of an argument. I don't understand why there's this disdain for empirical proof in this matter.

[foldedpath]

There's a corollary to the standard objective method which fits this debate like a glove. We seem to asking how to prove that something sounds "better". For a scientist to actually prove that this is true or false, he or she needs to figure out how to measure these rather personalized qualities of "better" or "worse"? But no one can measure such qualities, since, at best they are anecdotal, and made by personal listening. "Better" only exists in the ear of the beholder.

Right, but this is where science is useful, because a negative result can be just as valuable as a positive result. The first step is to see if people can tell any difference at all, favorable or not.

That study I linked to above, showed that the test subjects couldn't identify which instrument was the played-in one, vs. the clone stored in a museum case over a three year period. Matters of taste and judgment don't matter, if people aren't hearing a change.

If we can demonstrate that people in a well-designed study can at least identify which is instrument "A" and which is instrument "B," then that's a starting point for digging deeper. If we can't even get that far, then maybe there isn't anything to the premise being advanced... which, I hasten to add, would have to be demonstrated with many studies and not just this one.

[MikeEdgerton]

The problem I see with a side by side test of instruments that were played vs. those stored for three years is that you aren't playing the same instrument. Each instrument is different. They'll never be exactly the same. Do they open up? I'm not so sure it isn't other environmental factors like temperature and humidity. I don't accept it as gospel any more than I accept the fact that putting your mandolin in front of your sub-woofer and blaring heavy metal at it will help open it up. I'm a skeptic but if I could see the proof that it was happening I could accept it. There are days that my instruments sound great to me and days that I just can't get the sound out of them that I'm looking for. I usually chalk it up to what my ears are doing more than what the instrument is doing.

[Bernie Daniel]

:)
The problem I see with a side by side test of instruments that were played vs. those stored for three years is that you aren't playing the same instrument. Each instrument is different. They'll never be exactly the same. Do they open up? I'm not so sure it isn't other environmental factors like temperature and humidity. I don't accept it as gospel any more than I accept the fact that putting your mandolin in front of your sub-woofer and blaring heavy metal at it will help open it up. I'm a skeptic but if I could see the proof that it was happening I could accept it. There are days that my instruments sound great to me and days that I just can't get the sound out of them that I'm looking for. I usually chalk it up to what my ears are doing more than what the instrument is doing.

That's the basic problem -- every insturment tested must serve as its own control -- i.e., test against itself --before and after "opening up".

Now it is impossible to test the "closed" and the "opened" instrument on the same day, at the same time, with the same group of people, all feeling the same way, with the same temperature, humidity and position of the other planets relative to the earth, and whatever else you might want to control.

Which is why I say this comparison/analysis would have to be done with a very large number of instruments so that the random variation could be handled via statistical testing.

Only in this way, I suggest, would the analyst have a chance at detecting a true "signal" (the instrument opening up) over the "noise" (the instrument did not really change --but one or some of those other variables changed in some unpredictable manner -- some of the test subjects had a cold or just felt exubrant/positive versus depressed/negative on the test day or whatever ).

This is kind of like the "angels dancing on the head of a pin thing -- I guess it makes some people happy to talk about it but does it matter much from a practical point of view? What can you do with that information even if you had it?

Maybe knowing how to carve tops that open up versus those that that don't? That might have some value I guess -- but really doing this test in a meaningful way is near impossible. So I think it is something for mandolin mavens to talk about -- and not much else.

If you believe it happens, good! If you dont -- then also, good! :)

[bratsche]

I've owned many violas and violins over the past four decades, and a few mandolins/dolas over the last decade. I've only really noticed the "opening up" phenomenon just once in my life, with a viola that was several years old but had not been played much (no more than a few hours) in that time. After I had owned it for about 6 months, I definitely noticed an improvement in its sound quality. Another viola, which was brand new and unplayed when I got it, did not open up at all after a couple years of being played professionally, despite my hoping it would. (I later sold it and bought the first one I mentioned. An upgrade in quality, but not price - it got me back a difference of about $3500!)

Some years after buying the viola that opened up, I had occasion to find another nice looking viola for even less money, that was on a still-unknown website called eBay (this was in about 1998.) Despite my colleagues thinking I was nuts, I took a chance, and bid on it to win. It was about 30 years old and sounded very good out of the box, but a perfectly fitting bridge (I just happened to have a preowned one that fit) also made a huge immediate difference. For what it's worth, while it never "opened up" (or perhaps it was already as open as it was intended to be), it became my main player right away and remains so, and the other one was relegated to backup, and didn't get needed again for about 5 years. When I finally had occasion to play it again, of course the strings were dead, but the viola had not gone to sleep. Once it was restrung, it resumed right where it had left off. In fact, I have never experienced an instrument of any sort "going to sleep" or needing any playing to "wake it up".

(For the record, I realize it was very unusual and that I was extremely blessed to be able to upgrade instruments not once but twice, paying far less for each improvement!)

So while I think the initial "opening up" phenomenon is at least plausible, I think "sleepy" instruments must be either extremely rare, nonexistent, or the case of a player's mistaking his or her own warmed up status as having something to do with the instrument. Or else it is more common in mandolin family than violin family instruments, and I haven't owned enough of either yet to experience it. Just my $.02.

bratsche

[Bertram Henze]

One of the larger impacts on sound is string age. Every time after string change the new ones sound brilliant but eerily distant, and I have to play them in for a few hours. Not easy to detect a smaller longterm effect behind this strong shortterm one.
Also any scientific tests would have to make sure to be run on equal string make and age.

[Rob Gerety]

Pretty tough to control all the things that need to be controlled to test these questions. I love science. I really do. But when I pick up my old Gibson to play with folks I'm going spend a few minutes warming it up - just in case my subjective perceptions are accurate.

[Bernie Daniel]

Pretty tough to control all the things that need to be controlled to test these questions. I love science. I really do. But when I pick up my old Gibson to play with folks I'm going spend a few minutes warming it up - just in case my subjective perceptions are accurate.

Good idea because in doing that you will warm up somethings much more important than the wood on your Gibson -- namely your fingers, your memory, and your ears!:)

[JeffD]

Waking up,the improvement in sound after a short time of playing, I always associated with the instrument being back in tune, and my fingers being warmed up. When ever I pick up one of my instruments that has not yet been played that day, it is out of tune and sounds bad. Putting it back in tune, and playing in tune for about 20 minutes or more, and the instrument sounds like it should, my fingers are behaving as they should, the extra strength Tylenol has kicked in - and I am ready to take on all th 9/8 jigs you can throw at me.

[Bertram Henze]

Waking up,the improvement in sound after a short time of playing, I always associated with the instrument being back in tune, and my fingers being warmed up. When ever I pick up one of my instruments that has not yet been played that day, it is out of tune and sounds bad. Putting it back in tune, and playing in tune for about 20 minutes or more, and the instrument sounds like it should, my fingers are behaving as they should, the extra strength Tylenol has kicked in - and I am ready to take on all th 9/8 jigs you can throw at me.

Yep. I wonder if everyone is aware of the tremendous impact of exact tuning of the string pairs. Without that, the whole instrument is dead.
I tend to save on practising time lately by warming up my hands in advance.

[Rob Gerety]

Good idea because in doing that you will warm up somethings much more important than the wood on your Gibson -- namely your fingers, your memory, and your ears!:)

True enough.

[Amandalyn]

here' an article just printed in the NY Times that might interest you...
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05tonerite.html?src=me&ref=technology

[MikeEdgerton]

Yeah, like the in the other thread, that really doesn't make it true does it? When someone can figure out how to actually test this accurately then I might become a believer. Until then we all can either think it's true or not true.

[OldSausage]

The link is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05tonerite.html?src=me&ref=technology

IMHO this article just reprints the company's PR with no fact-checking attempted, as usual.

[Bertram Henze]

Why do these gadgets remind me of these other gadgets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7iwRQkakSk)?
Even if they work, I'd never want to miss out on the fun of playing my instrument to openness myself - it would be like giving away your child to have it raised by someone else.

[Jeff May]

"IMHO this article just reprints the company's PR with no fact-checking attempted, as usual."

Oooooo....IMHO, that's perilously close to a political statement.:grin: The Times is THE newspaper of record in the US, isn't it?;)

[SincereCorgi]

IMHO this article just reprints the company's PR with no fact-checking attempted, as usual.

Seriously, this thing reads like a press release. Music articles by 'civilians' are almost always irritating that way. The NYT did an article about Bohlen-Pierce clarinets a month or so ago that somehow managed to aggrandize the subject while omitting all the things about them that make them interesting- my journo friend Mark said it was probably a case of how many people called the writer back before the deadline. Anybody who knows a workaday journalist knows how lazy and starved for page filler they can get. I mean, seriously- "Musicians have long known"?

[OldSausage]

"IMHO this article just reprints the company's PR with no fact-checking attempted, as usual."

Oooooo....IMHO, that's perilously close to a political statement.:grin: The Times is THE newspaper of record in the US, isn't it?;)

I wasn't attempting to single out the NYT, I was commenting on journalism in general. And thankfully there are still refreshing exceptions, some of the best of which are in the NYT - again IMHO.

[Jeff May]

I wasn't attempting to single out the NYT, I was commenting on journalism in general. And thankfully there are still refreshing exceptions, some of the best of which are in the NYT - again IMHO.

I'm with ya... I was just horsing around.

[SincereCorgi]

Hey, guys, I exhumed this here horse- let's beat 'im agin!

No, just saw this and thought it was one of the better explanations for how wood and varnishes age... the author is refreshingly ambivalent.

http://www.acguitar.com/article/default.aspx?articleid=24089&page=2

[Amandalyn]

That was a good article, thanks for the link. On the same note, the Tonerite has received the MMR ( Musical Merchants Review) award for "2010's Most Innovative New Product". and Bob Bendetto of Bendetto Guitars has endorsed, saying: ""After one week with the ToneRite® on the guitar, the voice of my LaVenezia opened-up beautifully!"

[Malcolm G.]

Sure liked the first part of the article - made perfect sense.

How come I don't lose weight with age?

[banJoe]

No kiddin' Malcolm! I also got more stiff rather than loosing stiffness with age. I guess I'd have to only measure these qualities in my brain, as that is the only part of my anatomy the closely resembles wood.

[sunburst]

From Rick's short article from the link above:
"Guitars vibrate in patterns that define areas of little motion called antinodes and other areas of great relative motion called nodes."

The terms are reversed, nodes are the places of little motion and antinodes are the portions of maximum motion between the nodes. The areas of motion are called modes, and the nodes outline or define the modes.

[OldSausage]

I guess the guy who wrote it never node that.

[Bertram Henze]

I liked the part about thermal ageing improving high frequencies - now hand me my flamethrower, please. :cool:

[billkilpatrick]

in matters of metaphysics i tend to side with those favoring the scientific method but in terms of whether an instrument opens up or not after extended play, i'll have to stand with those believing in big kahuna.

metaphors haven't worked so far ... so here's a challenge:

jump out of bed in the morning - especially those of us who creak - and run a mile. afterwards - with hand over heart - vouchsafe that at no point in the exercise did you notice any improvement in your stride; that your coordination, muscle tone, breathing etc. got any better and that the last lap was just as rough and raggedy as the first.

that'll be me sitting under the tree at the finish line with a frosty pitcher of kool-aid for you'awl and some irksome declarations to sign.

- bill (coach)

[Bertram Henze]

You forgot to prescribe whisky before the exercise, Bill ;)

[fscotte]

Although I agree with the article, it seems to me to be a giant ad for Tonerite.

[D C Blood]

"You forgot to prescribe whisky before the exercise, Bill'

That's where the ole song "Whiskey Before Breakfast" came from...

[billkilpatrick]

You forgot to prescribe whisky before the exercise, Bill ;)

taking this challenge in the proper "spirit," i see ...

[SincereCorgi]

Although I agree with the article, it seems to me to be a giant ad for Tonerite.

Dang it, I messed up- that was page 2 of the article, the 'sidebars' which had the shill for ToneRite. I meant to post the main article: http://www.acguitar.com/article/default.aspx?articleid=24089

With the full article taken into consideration, the author seems to actually come down against long-term 'opening up' if you read it all the way through, and is careful to use language like 'many people claim so' when talking about gizmos like the ToneRite (which, I should note, almost certainly advertises with MMR and Acoustic Guitar Magazine and so forth).

[OldSausage]

Dang it, I messed up- that was page 2 of the article, the 'sidebars' which had the shill for ToneRite. I meant to post the main article: http://www.acguitar.com/article/default.aspx?articleid=24089

Indeed, that is a very different and much better article, which even includes some elements of what is now called "critical thinking", but used to be called "thinking".