"Opening Up"-- Which Frequencies Change?

[man dough nollij]

I have a couple of pretty green mandolins, and have never had one long enough and played it well enough to say it is fully "opened up". I am frankly sceptical of the concept, though I do respect the opinions of most (it seems) Cafe members who swear it's true.

If I had to critique the tone of the mandolins I have, I think I would characterize them all as being a little quiet on the E string. Maybe some on the A, too.

This got me wondering... when an instrument "opens up", is it more likely to improve the higher registers? Maybe the lower? All across the board? Do you have to play a lot of high notes to get the highs to come around?

My current (and only available) mandolin is an Eastman 505 (A body ff hole). It sounds pretty good all around, but a little thin in the higher registers. I have Elixir's on it now, which have a 0.011 E string, so it should be pretty loud there. I'm sure technique is part of it, but it just sounds a little dead in the high notes.

What say you all?

[grassrootphilosopher]

Maybe you´d have to experience the opening up process to get acustomed to it. I allways hated to be told "you´d have to experience..." but sometimes that´s the easy way.

All of my instruments, inexpensive and pricey certainly do sound better when they are being played frequently and intensly. The opening up is a lot less noticable on my old instruments than it is on my newer instruments. The old instruments are opened up allready and it just takes a little time to wake them up.

The opening up is the most noticable on my newer mandolin (pricey). When I got it in 2006 it sounded nice. I would refer the sound of the higher strings to the sound of an late teens F-4 (though my mando is an F-5 style). My mando even at that time has received the comments of being so loud that you could hear it throughout the house, even with all the doors closed. After a while the trebble strings got stronger sounding. If i take it up it will take some time (depending on the weather, other environmental conditions and my personal picking condition it takes a quarter of an hour or a little longer) until there is a noticable boost of clarity, of dynamics, of power and of complexity of sound. It astonishes me every time.

I do not wish to bash Eastmans, Bovier etc. as they are good instruments for the price. But might it not be that you mistake the "openingthing" that you wait for for the limitations some instruments have? I found out about the limitations of my mandolin when I learned about the prewar mandolin sound. To experience it it took me to play a prewar F-5. Now I know.

Since I wear out strings very fast I do no longer spend any time on "fancy" strings etc. I use your average J 74´s (D`Addario).

I found out that the pick has a profound influence on the sound. Here again I found out that you notice it less on newer instruments than on old instruments and less on inexpensive instruments rather than on pricey instruments. I used/use a quite well worn Clayton Tortex Ultem pick on my old mandolin though to bring out "the" sound Wegen or Red Bear (guitar-teardrop-pick) does the trick best (though they must be played in). The best allround is the "material that we are not supposed to discuss", and I did nor do I buy it but got it from a pro picker a long time ago. This is the best on high end musical instruments.

These gadgets do not have any effect on the opening process but on the overall sound.

[Mandophyte]

Here's (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50415) four pages of discussion on this subject.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Lee - I can only comment on my now 2 1/2 Year old Weber Fern. When i first got it,it sounded a bit
'tight' - not much sustain & the 'G' strings sounded a tad 'plunky'. I also had to raise the action firstly,to get a bit more volume from it & to get more clarity of tone from the 'E' strings.
Over the time i've had it,the 'G' strings now sound 'full' & have more than enough sustain.The 'E' strings are as clear as a bell (but not as powerful as my Lebeda) & i've been able to bring the action down to Weber's recommended height of 1/16" at the 12th fret. The sound overall has changed quite considerably,it's now louder with much more sustain & it has a tonal clarity that it lacked when new.
I possibly won't notice as much difference with my Lebeda "Special",as it was 8 years old when i bought it. It's as loud & as powerful as all h**l,with an "E string clarity right up to the 18th fret that my Fern just doesn't have (yet), but i think i know the reason for that,
Ivan:mandosmiley:

[Ravenwood]

I do not wish to bash Eastmans, Bovier etc. as they are good instruments for the price. But might it not be that you mistake the "openingthing" that you wait for for the limitations some instruments have?

My 504 and 815 have both definitely opened up over the course of a year of consistent playing, and continue to improve, so I don't think it is really a limitation for the Eastman's. Obviously neither the tonal quality nor the degree of improvement is as great as for some of the higher end instruments simply because of the differences in tone woods, but at least for the instruments I own there has been definite improvement.

That improvement has been across the board, but more so on bass side of the range. The D and G strings on both my instruments sounded a bit plunky when I first got them. I tried a variety of strings, but it didn't seem to make a difference. Over time, the bass tone has improved to the point where the quality of the tone is fairly even across the board.

For what it is worth, I'm using EXP74 strings on both, and switching between a Wegen TF120 pick and Blue Chip TAD60 and TD60 picks depending on what I'm playing.

[jim_n_virginia]

personally I think MOST of the opening up goes on in the person's head .... :grin:

[OldSausage]

personally I think MOST of the opening up goes on in the person's head .... :grin:

just before their brain falls out of the "opening" :grin:

[fatt-dad]

I'm with Jim on this. I do, however, believe in "waking up." Some of my instruments need to warm up for a spell before they are at their full potential, then they go back to sleep if I ignore them for a matter of a few weeks (rarely do that though - ha).

f-d

[John Flynn]

personally I think MOST of the opening up goes on in the person's head .... :grin:
I think there is a psychological/perceptual factor in the opening-up thing, but I also think there is a lot reality to it. There have been papers written on the phenomenon documenting studies where changes in frequency response over time have been systematically measured on violins and guitars. I can't imagine that the same effect wouldn't happen on mandolins as well. Subjectively, some great players and luthiers have said they can hear it and I can't accept that these experts are imagining it.

As to the question in the OP, my limited experience is that the changes vary by instrument. On my cross-braced Old Wave oval, I know that the treble, specifically the response of the E string up the neck, has improved over 2 years of hard playing. But then then I have a Rigel A+ that I don't think has changed much at all in any respect, even though it was played hard for about 4 years. In general, I feel that a lot of new instruments just have a "tight" sound to me. It's hard to describe, but it's there.

[billkilpatrick]

well ... vacating brains aside, i'm OPEN-minded about it and have to say there's not a tremendous difference in my oval-hole "f" from now and when it first arrived - youtube audio isn't the best for comparison but after a year, contrary to what i would have believed, it sounds as sweet and mellow to me now as it did then.

as for frequency change - i second the observation concerning the "right" pick and strings - when you find the ones that work, everything about your mandolin seems to opens up ... blossom.

[OldSausage]

Just to make my position clear, I find it highly plausible that a mandolin's sound will change somewhat over time, I only find it implausible that this change only goes in one direction: from "worse" to "better".

I also think it's important to bear in mind, when looking at anecdotal evidence, that even highly skilled and experienced professionals are not going to be immune to confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) when assessing subjective qualities, and this applies in any field.

[Chris Biorkman]

Lee, while I think mandolins do sound a little better after a lot of time has been logged on them, I am thoroughly convinced that a good mandolin will sound good the first time you pick it. Every good mandolin that I have owned has sounded good right out of the box. I have had tight sounding mandolins before and after months and months of pounding on them, they still sounded tight.

[Charley wild]

personally I think MOST of the opening up goes on in the person's head .... :grin:

I agree, Jim. A mandolin better be "open" right off the rack or it ain't going home with ol' Charley!
The last thing I want to hear from a mandolin salesman is,"It's a little tight right now, Charley, but you play 'er few months and it'll open right up for ya". :))

[MikeEdgerton]

Lee, while I think mandolins do sound a little better after a lot of time has been logged on them, I am thoroughly convinced that a good mandolin will sound good the first time you pick it. Every good mandolin that I have owned has sounded good right out of the box. I have had tight sounding mandolins before and after months and months of pounding on them, they still sounded tight.

I agree, start out with a good one and you'll have a good one. Unfortunately there is a perception that you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear if you sit it in front of the stereo speakers long enough.

[jim_n_virginia]

I agree, start out with a good one and you'll have a good one. Unfortunately there is a perception that you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear if you sit it in front of the stereo speakers long enough.

Why haven't you heard Mike? You can stick a vibrator in the sound hole of an instrument and it will "open" and instrument up in a week and make it sound 50 times better! ALL for $19.95!!! :grin:

[Mike Bromley]

....and the 'debate' goes on and on and on, and well, gee.

My Triggs is more or less a year old. I have played it steadily for six months, having to park it while I work overseas. The first nine frets are getting rather worn. Maybe it's just my getting used to it, but it really has gotten more sweet-sounding. It always was loud, but after last weekend's marathon bluegrass jamming, I notice it punching through even more. If I had any doubts about its cannon-credentials, they are gone forever.

If that is subjective, well who cares, really. The enjoyment is real.

[man dough nollij]

Here's (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50415) four pages of discussion on this subject.

Thanks John. I followed that thread back when it happened. I don't think I've seen my topic stated, though-- that is (restated), is the breaking in/opening up process more likely to augment the trebles, bass, or both? Good posts so far on that.

Thanks all for posting your experiences with this.

[Ivan Kelsall]

A good Mandolin very likely will sound good 'right out of the box',as we say. But after a while of playing it will sound 'different'. I constantly find what FD said to be true, as do many others on here,if i'm to believe the dozens of posts i've read to the effect,that a Mandolin does 'warm' up after playing it for a while. I'd been playing my Lebeda for the past few days,then i decided i'd better get the Fern out ,before it begins to understand the meaning of loneliness. I took it out of the case,made sure it was in tune & began playing along to my usual 'practice regime' of songs / tunes & it just sounded thin & tinny !.I carried on playing & after about 20 minutes or so,it just began to sound 'better'. The full,roundess of the G strings came back,so did the sustain & the clarity of the E strings - it simply all 'came together'. It does happen,especially as the instrument begins to get physically warm while being played. Neither of mine sound any good when they're cold,
Ivan;)

[billkilpatrick]

Why haven't you heard Mike? You can stick a vibrator in the sound hole of an instrument and it will "open" and instrument up in a week and make it sound 50 times better! ALL for $19.95!!! :grin:

i've removed that video - i got tired of every time i go to town you boys keep kicking my vibrator around ...

[grassrootphilosopher]

My 504 and 815 have both definitely opened up over the course of a year of consistent playing, and continue to improve, so I don't think it is really a limitation for the Eastman's. Obviously neither the tonal quality nor the degree of improvement is as great as for some of the higher end instruments simply because of the differences in tone woods, but at least for the instruments I own there has been definite improvement.

That improvement has been across the board, but more so on bass side of the range. The D and G strings on both my instruments sounded a bit plunky when I first got them. I tried a variety of strings, but it didn't seem to make a difference. Over time, the bass tone has improved to the point where the quality of the tone is fairly even across the board.

For what it is worth, I'm using EXP74 strings on both, and switching between a Wegen TF120 pick and Blue Chip TAD60 and TD60 picks depending on what I'm playing.


I have no doubt that your instruments have opened up. For the money Eastman (like Jade and Bovier) build a good utility instrument. I have a co-musician who owns two Eastmen and having had a chance to play them founded my regard towards them.

I had the impression though, that the higher registers on the Eastmen that my buddy has - especially the E-string and up the neck - are a little quiet indeed. My guess would be that they don´t carry the sound as well and that they sound a little restrained. This is the reason why I responded to this thread. On the other hand this sound perception is caused by a comparison with a high octane powerhouse of a mandolin and a vintage Strad-O-Lin. So it might not seem fair for various reasons to compare a Mercedes Benz and a Volkswagen Beetle (old style) with a Toyota Yaris. Without a point of referrence I would not have had this impression for sure.

That said, I think the opening process depends on many factors. Posters have rightfully stated that if the instrument is not "good" right out of the box, it won´t open up and still sound tight after prolonged periods of hard playing.

Factors that hamper the opening process though may be temperatures, especially low themperatures.

I would like to speculate that the opening process has a lot/all to do with the way the instrument was built. In the case of my newer instrument the openinc process was most noticable on the trebble strings while the overall break in/opening proces caused a great evenness across the strings, an overall clarity, complexity and a richness in overtones that was not there initially.

I had the oportunity to play two Gilchrists that were two serial numbers apart, thy looked about like twin brothers they were new millenium mandolins (D-log), one had been whipped with a couple of years of music while the other was virtually unplayed. It was interesting to see that there was not a strikingly noticable difference of sound in the two instruments. It was also interesting to see that they had a different character of sound though.

[Bertram Henze]

I am typically playing one instrument over a long time, not many in parallel, so I think I can say something about it.
The open-up processes I have experienced so far are not restricted to a certain frequency range - the whole instrument just gets louder, like you play in the next room all the time until somebody opens the door. Therefore, it is not easy to prove by recordings. There is one thing, however, that does not change: direct noises (pick noise, rattle from colliding strings, fretting noises) stay the same, so if the tone gets louder, these noises become less conspicuous in comparison.

Let me clarify a few common myths about opening up:

- what opens up is the sound conduction along the string-to-air path, mostly at the bridge-to-top contact, because the parts tend to settle into maximum contact area. If an instrument has optimum sound conduction off the shelf, there is not much further opening-up to be expected. That does not mean instruments that do open up are cheap or poorly made - often the process is an intentional part of the concept.

- bad sounding instruments don't get better.

- dead E strings are not awakened (they are mostly dead because of a wrong bridge tilt or damaged saddle grooves, which can instantly be mended without waiting)

Bertram

[Ravenwood]

I had the impression though, that the higher registers on the Eastmen that my buddy has - especially the E-string and up the neck - are a little quiet indeed.

I don't have a lot of experience with other mandolins so can't really compare the volume from the E strings. What I can say is that over time the sustain has improved on the E strings and taken on a ringing character that they didn't have when I first played them. The same holds for the lower register, but more so. As I mentioned the G and D strings on both were what I would term plunky (but not dead). Over time they have developed a reasonable degree of sustain (for a mandolin). Overall I would say that the change that has occured could best be described as a loosening up and development of sustain and tonal quality rather than volume. Both the 504 and 815 did sound good out of the box. But, both have also improved over time.

[grassrootphilosopher]

Both the 504 and 815 did sound good out of the box. But, both have also improved over time.

I have no doubt that they did. Were there any differences in the improvement between the two instruments? And if there were what were they?

[Ravenwood]

Were there any differences in the improvement between the two instruments? And if there were what were they?

That is a really good question and one that is difficult to answer. They are very different instruments. The 504 I bought at Elderly's, and I think it had been there about a year when I bought it. The 815 was a gift, and I have no idea where it was acquired or exactly when. Both were made in 2007. Both have about the same amount of playing time.

When they were both relatively new, the 815 tended to be a bit brighter sounding than the 504 and had better volume. Also, the bass register on the 504 had less sustain than the 815. At this time, I would say the sustain is actually a little better on the 504 across the board, but the 815 is still the louder of the two.

I should probably add that in all likelihood I am not getting everything out of the 815 that it has to offer. My focus is on "Celtic" and Renaissance music so I do very little with chords. I haven't a clue how to do a Bluegrass chop, and never play anything approaching rhythm on mandolin. That being the case, I am probably not hearing the true volume potential of either instrument.

[John McGann]

Some folks look at this opening up/awakening thing like Santa Claus, but it's real in my experience. I've played nothing but new mandolins since around 1981; in '81, '84 and '95 I got a new Zeidler, and yes, they change a lot in response over time, getting burnished and mellow with playing. Now, that's probably an average of 3-5 hours a day playing; some days a lot more (I have always owned a single mandolin at a time). John Zeidler certainly believed in 'opening up'.

Andy Statman told me my mandolin would have better treble response if I 'played it into it' by playing closer to the bridge- that even the area near the fingerboard would become brighter, since the instrument would be 'used to resonating at a wider variety of tones'. It worked!

So, I don't know about the scientific proof, but my own empirical experiments driven by lots of daily playing, striving for good tone, with high quality instruments proved it to me.

As far as exactly what frequencies change-I'd say very few mandolins have exactly the same frequency response anyway; the strings, pick choice and technique will dictate a lot about how an instrument sounds. In my experience of new top quality handmade guitars and mandolins, an instrument that sounds great out of the gate gets (forgive the dancing about architecture) warmer, mellower, more clear throated, burnished, the nature of the high end transforms from a 100 watt bulb to a 75-less glaring high beam and little more soft focus.

YMM certainly V!

[jim_n_virginia]

Some folks look at this opening up/awakening thing like Santa Claus, but it's real in my experience.

I know that wood fibers dry out, glue joints loosen up over time, an instrument gets worn in through lots of playing and it changes the way it sounds over time. An instrument will open up over time and lots of playing THAT is an undeniable fact.

But on the same note (hehehe) I think that some people think that EVERY instrument will just open up after time heck I have read posts from some fellas that claim they hear a difference in a week of playing!

Think of all the posts we have read where a person gets a new mandolin and plays it for a few weeks or months and then they post "Boy it is opening up more and more every day!"

When in reality they are just getting used to the new mandolin and are learning how to pull better tone out of it.

I think that mandolins do open up but I think that 90% of it is in their head, call it wishful thinking, bias whatever.

And also ... how come it always goes in one direction? How come they always sound better? You never hear anyone say "Boy I just got this new mandolin and it sounded great when I got it but as time goes by it is sounding worse and worse!"

It is because we "want" it to sound better and better. :mandosmiley:

[Charley wild]

Again, I agree with Jim. I won't try and deny that there isn't some change for better or worse over time. But over a short period of time I have never experienced any appreciable change at all in any acoustic instrument I've ever owned. I bought a D28 new in 1960 and owned it for eleven years. It was played by me and others extensively over that period of time. It sounded good when I bought it and when I sold it. I don't recall any great improvement. If I was to play that guitar now after almost fifty years who knows? My latest mandolin is only about five months old. I've played it a lot and because of medical issues I can only do certain things. But what I can do I can do with power. Chop chords, downstrokes, and tremolo, etc. I have been playing a LOT! I've just gotten back into playing mandolin and the enthusiasm level is high. No improvement in volume or tone yet!
And as Jim points out why does an instrument always IMPROVE with age and being played? To sum up: to say that an instrument never changes wouldn't be accurate, certainly! How much and over what period of time? Who knows?

[bonny]

Not only do new or long unplayed instruments open up but they open up differently for different players. So the question which frequencies change would be unique to any given combination of instrument and player. I heard a symphonic player once criticizing another player for not having the ability to open up a particularly fine instrument to it's full potential.

[Mike Bromley]

I heard a symphonic player once criticizing another player for not having the ability to open up a particularly fine instrument to it's full potential.

Oh darn, now we have opening-up critics as well!

I can just see the scenario: "So-and-so is not deserving of that fine instrument because she/he is unable to get tone out of it"

Says who? An envious glutton? Get in line, bubba/ette!

Brother!

[OldSausage]

Not only do new or long unplayed instruments open up but they open up differently for different players. So the question which frequencies change would be unique to any given combination of instrument and player. I heard a symphonic player once criticizing another player for not having the ability to open up a particularly fine instrument to it's full potential.

Something so unique, it's wonderful that we can still be so sure it's a real phenomenon. I also think it's great how, for those who need more singing highs, opening up will give them that, whereas for those who seek a mellower tone, opening up will give them that also.

I must go and put my new suit on now. My tailor told me anyone with enough skill could pull the visibility from it, although I have to confess I feel somewhat naked when I walk around in it.

[JeffD]

I think an arguement could be made that the process of "opening up" or what ever you want to call it always goes towards a better sound.

I am no physicist, and the only experience I have is the few mandolin's I own, but it makes sense to me that the accustical / mechanical system of wood and strings would, over time, optimize itself to the tensions and compressions imposed, and the vibrations of playing.

If you kept the instrument out of tune, rarely played it, well yea, the optimization would be towards the worse. But since we do keep our instruments in tune, and set up to sound as best as we can make them, the optimization is in that direction - towards where the instrument is.

It would take a bit of objective scientific experimentation to determine what are the predominant physical processes - is it staying in tune, or constant vibration that is more important? But it is not counter-intuitive that the instrument would "open up" in only one direction - that being towards optimizing where the instrument is at, and as we mostly keep the instruments at where they sound the best, the direction of optimization would always be towards a better sound.


That being said, I would never buy a mandolin that didn't sound they way I wanted it to right out of the box. I would never hope for "opening up" to give me the sound I wanted. Give me what I want now, and I am confident that it can only get better.

[mtucker]

Good stuff, John and Ivan.


It does happen,especially as the instrument begins to get physically warm while being played. Neither of mine sound any good when they're cold, Ivan;)
Without a doubt!


Andy Statman told me my mandolin would have better treble response if I 'played it into it' by playing closer to the bridge- that even the area near the fingerboard would become brighter, since the instrument would be 'used to resonating at a wider variety of tones'. It worked!
Never thought of it like this but now that you mention it... I think that picking (in the opposite direction) up on the board may be true for bass response overtime as well...




In my experience of new top quality handmade guitars and mandolins, an instrument that sounds great out of the gate gets (forgive the dancing about architecture) warmer, mellower, more clear throated, burnished;)
I think SO...

[Ken Olmstead]

Lee,
To answer your question, Fletcher Brock once told me that only the bass side really develops over time. He said if it does not have treble now, don’t hope for it in the future.

My personal experience is that most of it happens in the first 6 months. Lots of reasons but primarily, I learn how to get what I am looking for out of it in that time. I adjust the setup to my liking, play with strings and picks and usually find the combo that works.

My Fern definitely opened up over the time I had it however, the bass and chop was the most noticeable. However, when I began play more up the neck, it got better with time as well. But again, I believe that I learned how to sound better up the neck on that particular instrument.

I believe that they change over time. Wood dries, finish dries and becomes more sympathetic to the vibrations required of it. My Fern did not impress me at all when it arrived, but when I finally let it go for the Stealth it sounded pretty great in my hands (forgive the ego!) The Stealth sounds great right now all over! But it is changing the way I play and I am still getting to know it, but I prefer the sound far more to that of my Fern when it was new.

So I agree with most. If it sounds bad now, life is too short to beat your brains out hoping it will get better! Buy something that works for you now and will mature with you as the years blissfully pass!!

[billkilpatrick]

Some folks look at this opening up/awakening thing like Santa Claus, but it's real in my experience ... Andy Statman told me my mandolin would have better treble response if I 'played it into it' by playing closer to the bridge- that even the area near the fingerboard would become brighter, since the instrument would be 'used to resonating at a wider variety of tones'. It worked!


plausible - i'll give this a try.

thanks - bill

ps - dear santa - all i want for xmas is an enlarged sweet-spot ... i'been good.

[mandroid]

One hopes it's the audible frequency range , somewhere between 20 and 20K Htz'

real data , spectrum analysis gear , taking measurements writing down numbers, doing it over and over again, with multiple samples , once again ,
is what is needed ...

... Post Grad acoustic engineering students in need of a Thesis subject for Graduation, get out your University's Research Grant Applications ...

... is Scientific analysis... subjective opinion is not data ..

But it is Entertainment ;)

:popcorn:

[OldSausage]

One hopes it's the audible frequency range , somewhere between 20 and 20K Htz'

Not necessarily - it makes intuitive sense to me than listening to frequencies outside this range will make your ears "open up". Probably take about 6 months before you can hear them. ;)

[T.J.]

I've already posted in another thread about my experiments on this, using as subjects both guitars and the unsuspecting customers of the retail shop at which I was working. The other employees had no idea I was treating the instruments, and yet out of matched pairs of instruments, with the treatment the only difference, the treated instruments would always sell before the untreated. I have my doubts that it was the customers' expectations of the unknown treatment that made them prefer the sounds of the treated instruments.

Jim, in my experience, the sound never got "better." Instead, I can say that sound treatment caused the instruments to be more responsive to whatever type of sound was used to treat them. Therefore, the instruments which were treated with talk radio and spoken word comedy albums didn't move in the direction of musically useful sound, and the instruments treated with musical sound moved in that direction. It's not a matter of better, just a matter of what one used for the input.

Again, it wasn't a "Clever Hans" phenomenon, as I was the only one who knew and who was adding a small dot to the treated instruments' tags. No one else, customer or staff, had any idea... and yet they gravitated towards the treated instruments.

As much as some may make in these discussions of expectations playing a part, it is impossible to have expectations of a sound treatment if one doesn't know such a treatment is being done.

Or, better yet, perhaps those arguing for expectations also are arguing for a psychic sense of such treatments being applied... which definitely sounds woo-woo.

I think it's more reasonable to think there was some sound difference that led customers to buy the treated instruments, but I'm willing to entertain the woo-woo contingent.

*laugh*

Moving away from that silliness, is applied vibration part of the distressing package which Gibson has been applying to that round of mandos? Everyone has been raving about the amazing tone, and it would be interesting to know if Gibson had been making use of something which is being declared by some as ineffective.

And, if applied vibration is part of the distressing, would that do anything to demonstrate to the declarers that it might work? Or have they already made up their minds, regardless of whatever evidence might already be available (including the previously shown frequency analyses from the before-and-after treated instruments, showing the change in response)?

[300win]

I agree, Jim. A mandolin better be "open" right off the rack or it ain't going home with ol' Charley!
The last thing I want to hear from a mandolin salesman is,"It's a little tight right now, Charley, but you play 'er few months and it'll open right up for ya". :))

There it is ! I've always said if they don't sound good from day one, they ain't never going to sound good. And if they do sound good from day one, then after they get the tar picked out of 'em they will begin to sound GREAT !

[bonny]

"Opening" doesn't make a lousy instrument sound good.
Being "closed" or "tight" doesn't hide it's greatness.
I've always heard it as the instrument relaxing and the sound that it was already capable of making for me coming out of it less restricted. It's hard to use words to describe subtleties of sound quality.....

I found it very interesting to hear McGann taking Andy Statmans advice and further and very specifically opening up what I assume was a master instrument already well played by a master. That an instrument will open up to a player is something that's taken completely for granted amongst symphonic and jazz string players. Ray Brown, David Friesen, Rick Kilburn are guys I've had lessons with who all talked about instruments opening up. I remember very clearly Kilburn telling me I'd never get a good sound with the bow and my bass wouldn't open up if I didn't stop clenching my butt cheeks.
He was right too. :grin:

[Ivan Kelsall]

Well,it certainly seems to be a general concensus of opinion that 'something' does happen to 'some' instruments. Personally,i tend to the opinion that maybe only 'better' instruments have this potential. I don't mean mega-buck mandolins,but the ones that are hand carved & built in a traditional manner. No Mandolin with a 'pressed' top is going to have that potential (IMHO) however long & hard you play it.
My Weber Fern has changed quite significantly in the time i've had it. Whether it will continue to improve,only time will tell,but i hope it does. I can't see my Lebeda changing much,but i may be surprised yet,it certainly doesn't seem to be getting any more mellow - it's not a 'shy,retiring' type of instrument,
Ivan~:>

[billkilpatrick]

Moving away from that silliness, is applied vibration part of the distressing package which Gibson has been applying to that round of mandos? Everyone has been raving about the amazing tone, and it would be interesting to know if Gibson had been making use of something which is being declared by some as ineffective.

And, if applied vibration is part of the distressing, would that do anything to demonstrate to the declarers that it might work? Or have they already made up their minds, regardless of whatever evidence might already be available (including the previously shown frequency analyses from the before-and-after treated instruments, showing the change in response)?

interesting experiment with good results. can you elaborate a bit on this vibration treatment? ... does anyone know how - and with what - it's applied?

[T.J.]

First off, I don't argue that all instruments will respond the same. Just like baseball gloves, different instruments can be capable of greater useful flexibility, and some can just plain suck. *laugh*


interesting experiment with good results. can you elaborate a bit on this vibration treatment? ... does anyone know how - and with what - it's applied?

For me, it was just application of sound. The two long posts I wrote on using this at a retail store are on page four of a previous discussion, posts #78 and #82, found here. (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50415&page=4)

Or, more plainly,

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50415&page=4

As part of the mandovoodoo process also involves applying vibration to instruments (mandos, guitars) and fishing rods, it would make sense to me that the Gibson process also uses the applied sound to get the top to flex in musically useful ways.

As I've noted before, a baseball glove will eventually be easiest to flex in the ways it gets regularly flexed. There is no value judgement on whether that is a "good" way for it to flex or not, just that it gets easier. It is also just an observation that no one flexes that glove with the tips of the fingers towards and touching the heel of the palm.

Similarly, flexing a musical instrument in the way that it vibrates while sounding, either by driving the top with the strings or with an outside source of sound, makes it easier for the instrument to flex that way in the future.

I've commented before that I'd be interested in hearing the doubters explain how a baseball glove actually doesn't get easier to flex in certain directions. Although many claim to be able to observe the easier flexing, it could be in everyone's minds, just an activity that fathers and more experienced players pass on to their children and to the rookies.

Lastly, going to the previous posts I just linked to also provides a link to the article which caused me to start investigating vibration treatment on my own, found here (http://www.acousticguitar.com/gear/advice/vibration.shtml) or here:

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

That article contains, among other things, a spectrograph of the sound of the instruments, before and after treatment. The best part about the graph is that it shows that the effect is not just in someone's head, a major claim of those who say there is nothing measurable. For those who have claimed that there is no measurable difference, the graph show the differences, so they don't have to repeat the erroneous claim again in error.

----

I expect that the doubters probably won't address the actual evidence against their position (they normally don't in these threads), but I know that I'm really posting for those who are genuinely curious and who are open to examining the evidence. I'm not going to claim authority, but just want to put a few observable facts forward.

[John Flynn]

No matter what side of this debate you are on, there is a study to keep an eye on, linked below. The summary is that a study has been going on in Australia just on this topic. Two violins were made by the same luthier out of the same slabs of wood in 2001. One violin has been the regular practice and performance instrument of a professional violinist. The other sits in a museum. Both instruments were measured both subjectively, by a blind listening by a panel of experts, and objectively, by taking acoustic measurements, first right after they were built and then again in 2005. The conclusion was that after a few years, there had not been enough change for the panel of experts to tell the difference reliably. The quantitative measurements had showed some changes, but they apparently did not translate into improved sound quality, to the ears of the expert panel. The hope is that this experiment will be repeated as the years go on.

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

[Charley wild]

Baseball gloves? Next thing it'll be how much a fly bends an Ibeam by walking across it! I read the article in T.J.'s post. The word subjective kept popping up with alarming regularity. And I bear in mind that Jackson Browne's or whoever's ear, famous or not, is just as subjective as mine or yours. Maybe more so. If your mandolin sounds better after an intensive four hour bar gig than it did in the first set, does it still sound as good the next morning? How much of this "vibration" therapy is retained over time? Where is the limit? What does it enchance? I read here that it's mostly all bass and virtually no treble. Oh? Gee, why would that be? Did the people doing the tests have a bias going in? (Please re-read that sentence)! What did the machine really tell us??
Do you all think with all my "anti opening up" posts in the various threads that I can't be convinced? Not true! I believe in science. My sister is alive today because of science! Prove it to me, quantify it, no question, no doubt. Make me a believer! Show me that of the three D28's, two J45's, five Gibson mandolins, three other brand mandolins, four old Dobros, two old Gibson banjos, and many other acoustic instruments I've owned and played since 1953 were either the worst possible instruments I could have chosen or I have the worst ear on the planet! Because every single one of them sounded good when I bought them and good, but no better, when I sold or traded them. No better no worse. I'm not from the great state of Missouri but show me! Beyond all shadow of a doubt. But please don't imply that I and others who believe like I do, are some kind of ignorant narrow minded hillbillies who aren't bright enough to "understand"! If I'm wrong, I'll be the FIRST one to admit it!

[T.J.]

I read the article in T.J.'s post. The word subjective kept popping up with alarming regularity. ...If I'm wrong, I'll be the FIRST one to admit it!

In that case, Charley, let me ask you a direct question.

As the graph showed a measurable difference, will you admit that a measurable change was not just subjective?

The graph is readable even by me, and I can see the difference.

If you can admit that there is an objective, measurable change, then we can move forward with the discussion. If you can't, then you're definitely wrong in saying you'd be the first to admit you might be mistaken. In that case, why bother trying to have give and take with someone who is married to a viewpoint? On the other hand, once you admit there is a measurable change through application of sound, then the whole rest of the discussion can take place, one bit at a time.

(Incidentally, I'm not a college boy, and I never started in about anyone being a hillbilly. It's interesting that you pulled that out of nowhere. Let's leave that out of a discussion about whether a change can be measured objectively. If you can't make your points without that, then you don't have a good point to make.)

(Also incidentally, there is nothing wrong with college. My boy just graduated, and I'm hopeful that it will help him earn a good living.)

So, friend, the blunt question: Will you admit there is a measurable, objective change?

I'm hopeful that you're a man of your word.

[OldSausage]

In that case, Charley, let me ask you a direct question.

As the graph showed a measurable difference, will you admit that a measurable change was not just subjective?

The graph is readable even by me, and I can see the difference.


Actually the graph is really weird because the caption underneath it says:
"The straight line represents the frequency response at the peghead before the shaking; the jagged line shows the response afterward." The axes are magnitude and frequency. So before the shaking there was this incredibly even response, and after the response varied a lot more? It's not clear to me why the wibbly response is better. Also some frequencies have more response after the shaking and others have less response? I guess it's a measurable change, but I don't think anyone is denying the possibility of change. The issue is change for the better, is it not?

[Charley wild]

And what does a "measurable difference" tell us? Is it a first step in a long journey? Or is it the end of the journey? Are you just as wedded to your views as I supposedly am to mine? Does this tell us beyond all shadow of a doubt that a given instrument responds this way or that way? Why does it respond this way or that way? Is this change permanent? Why? What did a Strad sound like right out the door? What did it sound like in 1850? Or 1920? Why?
I'll take a step at a time with you any day, T.J. but don't try and imply by your findings that the journey is over. As far as education goes mine is sufficient. I just don't like someone to imply that if I disagree with them that it's obvious that I'm either incapable or unwilling to see another side of an issue that I disagree with!

[T.J.]

Before going further, I wish to say that I am not attempting to misquote anyone. If anyone feels that I've cut something out of your post which changes the meaning of what you wrote, please be sure and correct me.


I guess it's a measurable change, but I don't think anyone is denying the possibility of change.

Actually, OldS, the first question to be answered is, is there a measurable, objective change through the application of vibration? It's not good trying to further discussion, if someone then falls back to arguing about subjectivity, and whether any change has taken place in the real world. If proof of a "change" is only due to the expectations of the observer, then the discussion is over; there is no objective change to discuss. The nature of a change is only relevant if an actual change has taken place.

And yes, there are those who argue that there is no objective, measurable change happening. That's why I want to nail that issue down, before moving on.


The issue is change for the better, is it not?

Not until the matter is settled about whether there is change in the first place.


And what does a "measurable difference" tell us? Is it a first step in a long journey? ...I'll take a step at a time with you any day, T.J. but don't try and imply by your findings that the journey is over.

Well, although you never got around to giving a clear answer to my ONLY question to you, I'll answer your question. Hopefully you'll then get around to that simple, one-word answer.

To me, winnowing out the truth, and learning from the experience, is always a worthwhile journey. It could be long or short. In this case, the length of it depends on your ability to take even the first step, with just a "yes" or a "no" answer. I didn't find that first step yet.

I was hoping for a clear, unequivocal answer from you, Charley, but am unsure if you provided one, as most of what you wrote was asking a bunch of questions. To that end, let me ask a simple, yes-or-no question.

Charley, was there an objective, measurable change?

Again, I'm still hopeful.

[mandolirius]

<Lee,
To answer your question, Fletcher Brock once told me that only the bass side really develops over time. He said if it does not have treble now, don’t hope for it in the future.>

That was my experience, too. I've only broken-in one brand new mandolin, a Givens A I got in 1979. It was mostly the bass and some mids that changed. Fortunately, it had plenty of treble right from the start. It was actually over-balanced, so the extra bass and mid made it a much more even-sounding instrument.

[jim_n_virginia]

The more I read the more I am convinced that 90% of this opening up jazz is just the person getting used to (or warming up) the instrument and learning how to pull better tone out of that instrument. :mandosmiley:

[OldSausage]

And yes, there are those who argue that there is no objective, measurable change happening. That's why I want to nail that issue down, before moving on.

Not until the matter is settled about whether there is change in the first place.


Yes the graph certainly implies that some change was measured over time. I hope we can move forward now.

[Charley wild]

Yes, I agree. I apologize for implying that I saw this change rather than stating it outright. Now that I've answered that question definitely, T.J. answer mine! ALL of mine in the last couple of posts that you feel there is a definite answer to based on this evidence. What is this "measurable difference" tell us? It is a FINAL conclusion in our quest? Or is it but a step in a certain direction. You accused me of evading your question now I await your answers to my previous questions. What have we learned here that is definite from the empirical evidence of the "machine"? And what haven't we?
Your turn.

[mandolirius]

The more I read the more I am convinced that 90% of this opening up jazz is just the person getting used to (or warming up) the instrument and learning how to pull better tone out of that instrument. :mandosmiley:

There's no doubt that's part of it. But it's hard to tell where that stuff ends and changes in the instrument begin. I think it's all a part of putting the "mojo" into it. And the fact that it's a mysterious process that can't be quantified makes it kind of cool, don't you think?

[T.J.]

Now that I've answered that question definitely, T.J. answer mine! ALL of mine in the last couple of posts that you feel there is a definite answer to based on this evidence. ...Your turn.

Why, thank you, Charley, for that clear answer!

Since you asked quite a few questions, I'll answer them one at a time, so when I explain my answers, we can see where the disagreements start. Since you've only answered one question of mine, I'm sure you'll agree it's more than fair. In fact, let's do a little equal trading here. I'll answer your questions one at a time, and ask you to answer mine the same way.

Let's see what you asked first.


Baseball gloves?

Absolutely! *laugh* It is useful to start with something easily visualized, just so we can be sure we're on the same page regarding the basic concepts. If it turns out we don't agree on the basics, then we can hash out what the problem is more clearly, without a scattershot of questions that don't really help with getting to the answers.

Baseball gloves are a great example of applied flexing in a "useful" manner, with "useful" being defined in this case as "able to better catch and hold a baseball."

Some folks believe, rightfully or wrongfully, that it is possible to break in a baseball glove. The general method is to flex it in a "useful" way so that it eventually flexes easily in that way.

I suppose it's open to argument whether such a change is actually occurring. It's possible the glove remains as stiff as the day it was sold, and that any resulting ease of use comes out of someone learning to catch with that stiff new leather. *laugh* However, it's also possible that breaking in a baseball glove actually works in the manner intended.

It is also assumed that breaking in a glove will only break in the glove where it is actually being worked. The thumb of the glove and the fingers close along a central crease, in order to trap the ball. It is never supposed that the whole glove becomes flexible, and that the tips of the fingers curl down towards the palm. It is never assumed that the glove breaks in so one catches in the same way one would catch something barehanded... although again, the lack of perception of finger-to-palm bending could just be because someone's expectations are of a glove bending mostly along that central crease between thumb and fingers. They aren't expecting the fingers to touch the palm, and so they don't imagine it in the same way they are imagining that the thumb is coming over to meet the fingers along that central crease.

It's possible that some on this board have had some contact with baseball, and might even have used both new gloves and broken in gloves. That would be useful, but hopefully my description is enough for those who have never touched a baseball glove.

I could just as easily used leather shoes as examples as well, as those supposedly break in, but again, that could be that 90% of the comfort and usability of broken in shoes is in the wearer's head, call it wishful thinking, bias whatever... when in reality they are just getting used to the new shoes and are learning how to pull better walking out of them. *chuckle*

So, before even getting into any given flexing is "useful," here's the simple yes-or-no question:

Is it possible, through applied flexing, to make it easier for an object to flex that way in the future ?

Since I've played baseball, and broken in gloves, and even bought new shoes on occasion, the answer for me is definitely yes! How about you?

[John Flynn]

I ran across an interesting study that applies here. There is an article linked below and the full report is linked from that. The short version is that in Australia, an experiment was conducted where a respected luthier made two violins in 2001. He used the same slabs of wood for each instrument and built them as identically as was possible. One of the "twins" became the regular performance and practice violin for a professional violinist. The other went to a museum. The two were measured both subjectively and objectively. Subjectively, they were played in blind test before a panel of experts. Objectively, they had some frequency response measurements taken. This was done when they were new, and then again three years later.

Interesting outcome. After three years of one of the twin fiddles being played regularly and the other not, there were measurable changes in the played instrument. However, those changes were not enough to make a significant difference in the sound heard by the blind panel.

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

So what do we really know, for sure? We know that when instruments are played, or vibrated, SOMETHING happens. But sometimes people report hearing a positive difference as a result and sometimes they don't. In the controlled, blind test above, they did not.

There is a lot more we DON'T know, including:

1. What exactly happens? Right now it is conjecture.

2. Why does it happen? Again, conjecture.

3. How much of it happens? Is it more or less than the change you would get from a setup, a new set of strings or a few lessons?

4. Do the changes in measurements actually relate to changes in tone? In the violin test above, they didn't. Audio professionals can quantify this for stereo speakers. Why can't they do it for instruments?

5. Does it happen every time to every instrument to the same degree? If it doesn’t, what are the ranges and variables?

6. Is what happens is always positive, or are there possible negative aspects to it?

7. How fast can it happen and what are the variables?

These are reasonable, and answerable, questions. But we don't have answers.

When people buy a product, or invest in a process, they want it to be successful. Those peoples’ subjective evaluations, and the anecdotes they report, unfortunately have to be suspect. I think even experts can fool themselves into thinking something they want to be true, is true. There are many public examples of this.

Also, people find things like frequency response graphs or expert panel reports and then imply that is something like scientific proof. It’s not. Scientific proof would involve a things like controlled variables, a statistically significant population and blind measurements. It’s disappointing we don’t have any real science behind this because the technology and the methodology exists. But the argument will continue, with plenty of ammunition on both sides, until that happens.

Personally, I believe "opening up" happens, but I also realize that I'm biased, because I want to believe it. I like the idea of it for some reason. I think I've heard it in my own instruments, but I'm not 100% sure. I also think there are people trying to make money off it. However, I haven't seen anything close to even basic, relevant, hard evidence. The Australian study above is not perfect, but it's the best attempt I've seen to get that and it failed to prove that "opening up" occurs.

[OldSausage]

That's a very wise, well thought out and honest post John. I think it summarizes where we are very well.

In answer to TJ's question, I agree that flexing something once probably does make it easier to flex it again the same way later. It would be great if we could have your argument all in one chunk, if that's possible.

[T.J.]

I'd rather not lay the whole thing out at once again (I already have laid out a great deal, in case you hadn't noticed), and here's why.

I've read enough topics here and other places to know that sometimes people will go off on tangents, scattershot-wise; this flurry just confuses things, and doesn't do anything to clarify for those who are looking for answers. I got the same result here in this thread when I tried to lay out something fairly clearly and linearly. You can go back and read it; you'll be able to see that approach didn't work, and to ignore that evidence would be foolish, given that evidence is at the core of the discussion. *laugh*

Now that I've tried that approach, I'd rather find out where folks think I've gone wrong. That way, I can either learn something, or they can learn something. Even if one of us is wrong, and refuses to admit it, at least others can observe us making those mistakes, and will be able to take us with a grain of salt (or even a whole mouthful) in the future.

By moving along one bit at a time, with everyone agreeing along the way, it makes it easier to get to a conclusion.

Even better, it makes the forum a valuable place to come for solid information, instead of just someone declaring something strongly, and someone with less experience assuming that the forcefulness and certainty were possibly equal to being right. Even if folks disagree, onlookers can see for themselves if one person's argument or the other's just boils down to, "I don't believe it, regardless of how much evidence there is/isn't."

If I were a newbie, I'd appreciate seeing the different thoughts and assumptions, and would be glad of the opportunity to judge for myself which arguments held water better when actually examined carefully.

That's why I'm taking the slow approach, so that there is no doubt about anything which led me to the conclusion which I found inevitable from everything before it. That's also why I'm starting with simple examples like the baseball glove and shoes; these are easily observable, and folks can decide for themselves if they believe whichever side says that forced flexing of an object in a particular way does/doesn't make it easier to flex that object in that same way in the future. That's the joy of being clear about things; there's no way to be misunderstood with a yes or no answer.

In order to progress to all the questions of Charley's I have to answer, I have to know if the two of us are even on the same page as to how the real world works. That's why before even getting into whether any given flexing is "useful," there is just one simple yes-or-no question:

Is it possible, through applied flexing, to make it easier for an object to flex that way in the future ?

I can't imagine why anyone's answer to this would be different from mine, but if it is, I'd love to know why. (It's possible that some folks have never played with a good baseball mitt or worn leather shoes, but I doubt it in the US of A, so there likely would have to be a different reason for the disagreement. *laugh*)

And, if the answer is the same, then we can all go a little further towards usefully hashing this out, without anyone having to rely on declaration of authority and force of will to show they've drawn the correct conclusion. *laugh*

We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and I feel we should do no less to clarify things for those who will come after us. Hopefully I'm not the only one who feels that charitable.

[Charley wild]

Excellent post, John! Calm, reasonable, well thought out and most importantly, careful! I'll get back to you all but today is a busy one and I have to run.

[johnparrott]

Interesting topic...

I'll testify that I had the odd experience of owning a guitar that sounded worse as the years went on. It was a drednaught that started out with a nice bass, but the bass, which I liked and needed as a performer, vanished over time. It was a desirable guitar by a very reputable maker. I have no statistics or sine waves to display to get us beyond the subjective, but I'm still glad that guitar is out of the house, which is all the proof I require.

I believe that if you feel that your instrument is sounding better, maybe it's opening up, or maybe it's you. The main thing is that you think something is improving, and that your music is making progress.

I ran into this quote from Carleen Hutchins, a famed viola builder and acoustician(?) who passed on recently and was discussed in the builders section of the cafe. Maybe some of this relates to the mandolin.

"It will take some years for an instrument to be "played in"; you can't do it overnight even though we can shake them up [accomplished by playing a radio station through a speaker attached to the bridge] and make them sound better temporarily. You can't do it in a hurry... If you look in the Hill book on the Guarneri family it says that it takes anywhere from twenty to eighty years to properly season a violin when it's been played fairly consistently by a good player. Now that says several things. It's the time...it's consistent, and a good player. I don't think we're ever going to prove this, but I'm almost sure that it takes a good player to make a really fine sounding instrument because the instruments will respond to what's being done to them. As I shake them with a radio station, a lot of yickety-yak comes through at the same time...it's not the same thing as being well-played."

All the best

[OldSausage]

I guess I will just have to play my mandolin as well as I can for the next eighty years. I'll get back to you after that and let you all know how the opening up process has gone. :)

A classical guitar teacher I know says that new classical guitars are the thing to have, and they throw them away or make planters out of them once they start to get wore out from too much playing. Probably there are different reasons for that, if indeed that's what they do.

[Tavy]

Is it possible, through applied flexing, to make it easier for an object to flex that way in the future ?

I can't imagine why anyone's answer to this would be different from mine, but if it is, I'd love to know why. (It's possible that some folks have never played with a good baseball mitt or worn leather shoes, but I doubt it in the US of A, so there likely would have to be a different reason for the disagreement. *laugh*)

For sure, leather when flexed in a certain way gets easier to flex that way... and then it "wears out" and falls to pieces :grin:

In fact ultimately, if you bend the same material in the same place place for long enough then it absolutely will break in the end.

But... is that really of any meaning to "opening up"? OK I've had a few vintage instruments with cracks in the top that presumably had been stressed in the same place for too long, but I don't believe the sound improved as a result ;)

My gut feeling, is that an instrument being played does not get repeatedly flexed in the same way - surely every note will produce a different pattern of vibrations across the top? The only exception to this that springs to mind are certain high stress areas (around the bridge and the sound hole(s) for example) where even the static load may cause failure in the end. So I'm firmly in the "no difference" camp, and I believe the Australian study more or less backs that up - in as much as a study on a single instrument can ever tell us that is!

There is one thing I do believe in though - when an instrument is first strung up there can be a subjective difference over the first few days - the only explanation I have for that is that it takes the instrument a while to settle down under the string tension, and for the strings to settle down as well I would guess.

Still waiting for proof one way or another yours.... John.

[Nick Triesch]

Think about this...We spend can spend $ 5000 on a nice mandolin, bring it home, pop on a tone guard and hope it sounds better in a few months or years. On the other hand you can spend $3000-5000 on a guitar and just look for a great sounding on at a good guitar shop. You can find one in a day if you live near a place like Buffalo Bros. No need to open up! Sounds super right out of the box. My next mandolin I will take my time and find one that sounds great right from the start. I remember when I bought my $3500 F type 6 years ago and played it for my friend, he told me that maybe in time it will sound better!! Not going to happen again. Nick

[JeffD]

A classical guitar teacher I know says that new classical guitars are the thing to have, and they throw them away or make planters out of them once they start to get wore out from too much playing. Probably there are different reasons for that, if indeed that's what they do.


I have never heard this, but that is exactly what we would be hearing, about all instruments, if "opening up" were both a positive and a negative sonic direction.

Except for this post I have never heard of any stringed instrument, be it guitar, fiddle, or mandolin, beng worn out from too much playing. I have heard, often, of instruments that were abandonned for many years and especially with the strings off, and the sound suffered because of this.

[Charley wild]

These last few posts are very interesting! I agree with Tavy. I notice the same thing no matter what brand or gauge string I try. This isn't just working out the new string trebly sound. My mandolin is slower that Tavy's. It takes about ten days or so but the sound changes quite a bit.
I recall reading somewhere that D28's over time became more middy. True? I don't know. Mine didn't change any over ten years. Then I sold it so maybe it does now.
I've also heard the story about classical guitars having a sort of lifespan. Interesting.
This is all very fascinating but my stand is still the same. Whatever the significance of the "moving needle" is, it has yet to prove much. A baby step at best. It certainly doesn't warrant any definite conclusions at what is going on and what the long or even short term effects of this are.
Baseball gloves and tennis shoes are fine but they are only analogy. Analogy can help lead us to the truth but it's no substitute for it. There is no perfect analogy. Perfect analogy is a contradiction of terms. Plus it's getting very close to patronization.
T.J. if you are so sure of yourself you shouldn't be distracted by my posts. You seem much more enthused about arguing with me than getting on with it and letting us all in on this revolutionary information. You seem to have an almost magpie enthusiasum for this startling new evidence but your lengthy posts aren't really fountains of information. It would be nice if you answered some of my questions but feel free to ignore them and begin to enlighten us! You seem to feel that everyone has to agree with you every step of the way or you just can't continue! If that's the case, good luck!

[Nick Triesch]

All I know is that "new" high end guitars sound crip, clear and wonderful and also play like glass. New guitars are set up great and there has been no wood movement so they tend to play really well. Even McCabes of LA on their website used to say how new guitars were many times much more easy to play than vintage or used instruments. I think there is something to all of this. I know most older high end guitars get muddy and the clear tone seems to go away over a long period. I just think this is just the nature of the wood breaking down. Ever notice how many artists tend to play new guitars when you see them in concert or on TV? I think it's because they want loud, crisp guitars. I do! Nick

[Charley wild]

All I know is that "new" high end guitars sound crip, clear and wonderful and also play like glass. New guitars are set up great and there has been no wood movement so they tend to play really well. Even McCabes of LA on their website used to say how new guitars were many times much more easy to play than vintage or used instruments. I think there is something to all of this. I know most older high end guitars get muddy and the clear tone seems to go away over a long period. I just think this is just the nature of the wood breaking down. Ever notice how many artists tend to play new guitars when you see them in concert or on TV? I think it's because they want loud, crisp guitars. I do! Nick

I agree, Nick! I said this on another post. Someone brought this up. (you?) My new D28 I mentioned above didn't seem to change much over the ten years I owned it but it sounded best right off the rack. I worked in an acoustic instrument store in the late 70's and found the same thing. The new flattops sounded best. I had a chance to try a lot of them and a lot of used guitars also. Of course this is just my preference.

[T.J.]

All right, Charley, have it your way. I'm always surprised when someone isn't open to questioning things and learning from the process, but those differences make the world go around.

----

Charley, directed specifically at you and your talk of secrets, I didn't think I was holding back any secrets. I posted about what I had done in the store, giving as much detail as possible. Since the customers and staff didn't know I was pumping music through the instruments when no one was around, if there had been no effect, the treated instruments shouldn't have been the only ones that sold when there was a choice. They did. The customers were not all trained musicians, so it was something even the untrained ear could hear.

Here's the major things which seem evident to me.

Things which are consistently used in the same way will eventually be easier to use in that way. Faces which smile all the time will have smile lines.

If something is stressed beyond a certain point, it will break, of course. Usually the act of playing an instrument won't cause it to vibrate beyond that breaking point. However, it will be subjected to musically useful sound, and will flex in the way the sound production makes it flex.

I suppose it's like using a good old fishing rod (again, I realize that not everyone here fishes). As long as you don't push it beyond its breaking point, it can be wonderfully sensitive.

Some instruments are more responsive to such things than others, just as some baseball gloves are already better constructed than others at the outset. Some instruments are of such a construction that the materials just don't flex easily. I own two carbon fiber guitars, and those just don't change in tone, something even the manufacturers agree with. (None of them argue that "opening up" of wooden acoustic instruments doesn't happen, but I should suggest they talk about hiring Charley, if they think he's credible. *chuckle*)

As to whether an instrument would go away from a musically useful tone, I can't imagine why it wouldn't, although it is difficult to expose an acoustic instrument to a musically unuseful sound. I've done it, but it won't happen normally. It's made to produce musically useful sounds; it's the nature of a musical instrument, and it seems obvious to me, but maybe not to everyone. (I did also post about the spoken word comedy, and how it didn't do much for the instruments, so in my own experience, yes, an instrument will flex in the way it's stimulated, whether it's musically useful or not.)

Every luthier of long experience I know can hear their instruments start to open up after the first stringing. I've picked up new custom instruments which were tight, and played them for a few hours to get them ready for an upcoming event. I've got to say, if a builder ever told me that the tone would stay static on their instruments, and there was no opening up to be expected, I'd be out of there.

If even trained appraisers are finding the distressed Gibsons to sound played in, there must be something going on. Or, better yet, Charley is right and those who love the new Gibson are just full of ####. *laugh*

----

What's I hadn't thought about until now is that there is a company near me which builds musical instruments. I might ask them for their participation in an experiment, whereby we expose certain just-built instruments to musical sound, and then mix identical models of treated and untreated instruments and do a blinded test of tone perception. I suppose each person would try the run of instruments, just giving each one a simple "open/closed" rating. There's enough people in the workshop that I think I can get some advice on what would be more than just a chance result. I'll have to talk to the owners and see if we can manage to do this over a couple of days....

----

Anyway, Charley, I thank you for the lesson, that some folks want to learn, and some are comfortable with just declaring things on authority. There's many rooms in the house of the mandolin, and that's okay. I'll probably not ignore your posts necessarily, just as you don't ignore the posts of those who have observed the opening up, but I figure that, just as I'm willing to be challenged on the evidence and my conclusions drawn from it, you'll be just as comfortable with someone pointing out your dogmatic approach. I prefer experimentation to dogma, but to each his own.

Cheers!

[OldSausage]

Cheers TJ. *chuckle*

[Charley wild]

Well, T.J. I guess you and I are going nowhere. I read your post I STILL see generalities, fishing rods, subjective opinion being passed off as fact. Nothing empirical at all and yet I'm being accused of being dogmatic! My dictionary defines dogmatic as: 1. asserting without proof. (sounds more like you than me, T.J., I'm waiting for the proof!) 2. Positive or arrogant in stating opinion. Again, you're the one who is so positive, yet I see no empirical proof. I'm not arrogant, again, I'm waiting.
I could go on and on but that seems to be your bailiwick. Long posts that keep going round in circles.
I was in the antique business back in the early 80's. I also did some appraising. (Not musical instruments). I knew other appraisers also of course. It didn't endear us to the dealers to come in low or talk down the object T.J. It behooved us to pump it up. Find every single positive thing we could about it! The only appraisers that come in low work for insurance companies. I would have thought you knew that. CHUCKLE!
Anyway, I'm not dogmatic, I'm waiting for positive empirical evidence. I'm glad you're not doing research for the medical industry! CHUCKLE!
We have so far avoided getting into personalities here and that's the way to keep it. So the thread is yours. No reason for you to continue arguing with me. I'm finished on this thread. Now you have no excuse to divert you from this empirical evidence that I and I'm sure others are waiting for! Have at it.

[Nick Triesch]

TJ, just read my post......I'm right! End of story.:)

[man dough nollij]

TJ, just read my post......I'm right! End of story.:)


Glad that's settled! Seriously, Nick, you have no idea how much money you just saved me. I was saving my pennies for a Loar, but now I know it would have just sounded old and lame. Instead I'm going to get the freshest one I can! :)

[Nick Triesch]

I was really talking more about guitars but hey! I'm glad I could help! I know that a lot of folks love the old classic vintage Martins but I played a new Goodall at Buffalo Bros and Holy Smokes!!!! What a guitar! To me, they are the Porsche 911 of guitars. Nick

[Fretbear]

One thing that requires no proof, as it is self-evident:
They come and they go here on the old 'Cafe.....

[Jim Broyles]

I submit that incremental change such as one might expect from the "opening up" of an instrument would be next to impossible to discern. Kind of like looking at yourself in the mirror every day for 20 years. You sure don't look the same in the end as you did in the beginning, but you didn't really notice the change each day. To you, you always looked like you. I think it would take a controlled recording of a new instrument and an identical recording after the period of time you wish to evaluate. The trouble is you'd have to have a robot play it, because the skill and technique of the owner/player will probably have changed along with the opening of the instrument. A real good way I can see of evaluating the effect of vibrations to an instrument is to have two identical instruments and subject one to vibrations but not the other, and have one person play them both in the same sitting - like T.J. did at his store. The difference will be in the ear of the beholder.

[Tim2723]

Here's (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50415) four pages of discussion on this subject.


Thus demonstrating Tim's Eleventh Law: Any explanation of 'opening up' that exceeds 50 words becomes indistinguishable from the proof of Maxwell's Second Equation.

[JeffD]

Think about this...We spend can spend $ 5000 on a nice mandolin, bring it home, pop on a tone guard and hope it sounds better in a few months or years. On the other hand you can spend $3000-5000 on a guitar and just look for a great sounding on at a good guitar shop.

Something to think about - I have heard and my experience does not contradict, that a guitar will cost about half as much as a mandolin of comparable quality. In general. There are exceptions, but in general.

The point is that more often than not a 3 to 5K guitar is in all likelihood going to be a better instrument than a 3 to 5K mandolin. A better instrument will sound better out of the box. Its not apples to apples in your example.

[Dale Ludewig]

Signing in late here, but from my experience mandolins and guitars age a bit differently. Flat top guitars, that is. I think the guitars do change for whatever reason. Good quality mandolins do change more so. This has been discussed at length and I think you'll find the builders will agree that a good mando will sound good from the git-go, although the bass end will probably get stronger if you play the #### out of it. Treble is probably not going to get stronger but I can't attest to that although I think so. Some part of me believes that the general tone of a solid wood tone bar braced mandolin is going to get deeper over time if played a lot. I think Tone-guards are great. I think that oval hole instruments don't change as much over time. And I may be crazy.

[bonny]

I been thinking about why something that's just a given amongst violin family players isn't among some mandolin and guitar players. Then it occurred to me the single most obvious difference is frets. I have absolutely no evidence for it but I wonder if frets make opening up less noticeable? Or even less desirable to some ears?

[T.J.]

I can think of one other great difference... the body of knowledge behind the average player.

Frets are a delineator, because they make the guitar/mandolin easy to play in tune. A violin/fiddle players needs much more practice and education to get their intonation perfect. A fretted instrument is usually intonated as a facet of the set up.

Bowing/picking is a second delineator. It takes a certain amount of technique to be able to draw a bow and get a playable tone. It takes next to no technique to get a playable tone from a fretted instrument.

Given that two of the instruments are relatively easy to pick up on one's own, and one of them usually requires some schooling and education to begin to get good, which group do you think gets exposed to the body of musical knowledge which already exists?

(Note: for the following, I use the word "luthier" to mean someone who has actually studied lutherie, doing the whole thing including building a few varieties of instruments, not someone who picked up a few skills here and there or is putting together their extrapolations of a kit. It's the difference between puttering on a home AC unit or knowing all about HVAC home and commercial systems. I don't think anyone would argue they are the same thing, but my instrument tech is a full fledged luthier, and recently got in a mandolin which was HORRIBLE. The person who had dropped it off had mentioned that the builder had made a few kits about 10-20 years ago, and thereby had mastered his craft. My tech showed it to me, and after getting my reaction, said, "If this guy mastered his craft, then he's apparently forgetting more and more every day." *laugh*)

Of course, I've already noted that every luthier I know is aware of instruments opening up. I suspect those who staunchly protest the phenomenon's existence have never witnessed the opening up of a instrument, and so they don't have no reason to believe anyone about it. The best course of action, if they're genuinely curious, is to ask the builders of their instruments... but again, there is normally a disconnect between the doubters and genuine luthiers.

I'd be interested in a doubter putting forward a luthier who both builds fine instruments AND argues against the phenomenon. Is there any such luthier? I'd really like to know!

[John Flynn]

Well, what seems like a "given" among violinists just didn't happen in the Australian study I linked. And as for asking luthiers, I would say that's like asking car builders about how well their cars age. Builders have a vested interest in saying their instruments will get better and more fudamental than that, they have an investment in actually believing it.

My question is, if people who are so certain about it, they should be willing, and even enthusiastic, about proving it, scientifically, and I mean with scientific methodology, not just showing they can find or make a graph and claiming it proves something. I'm sure not going to buy off on it because someone wants to get preachy that they have all the experience and everyone who disagrees just isn't qualified. Like I said before, I do believe in my heart that "opening up" is real. But I also would like to see it proven, not just preached, and I haven't seen it yet.

[JeffD]

Like I said before, I do believe in my heart that "opening up" is real. But I also would like to see it proven, not just preached, and I haven't seen it yet.

I would like to see it proven for a different reason - not to convince me or to help convince others, but I would like to see the science in order to know how to optimize things. Is keeping it in tune enough. Is playing it often enough. Can I accelerate the phenomena in any way, in any of the ways that folks report.

[bonny]

My question is, if people who are so certain about it, they should be willing, and even enthusiastic, about proving it, scientifically, and I mean with scientific methodology, not just showing they can find or make a graph and claiming it proves something.

And what exactly would you like to see "proven"? Maybe the same study could "prove" a Loar F5 sounds "better" than a plywood Kay. How exactly do you "prove" the subjective? If you can't hear it now what difference would "proof" really make to you?

[John Flynn]

And what exactly would you like to see "proven"? Maybe the same study could "prove" a Loar F5 sounds "better" than a plywood Kay. How exactly do you "prove" the subjective? If you can't hear it now what difference would "proof" really make to you?
Well, I think the Australian study I linked earlier is a step in the right direction. I would say that proof to me would be a similar approach, done with mandolins, over a larger sample size, and then the outcome of that study verified by an independent study. Like I said before, the sound of stereo speakers are subjective also, but the industry does this kinds of research on speakers all the time.

I'm not talking about the difference between a Loar and a Kay. I'm talking about the difference in a new mandolin and one that has supposedly been "broken in." That's much more subtle. And I never said I couldn't hear the difference. If you re-read my posts, I've said that I believe I have heard it. But I also admit that I know I'm biased in wanting to believe it.

The difference proof would make to me is to get answers to all the questions about what we don't know about this phenomenon that I listed in my lengthy earlier post (#55). I think those are things very worth knowing. It would also get some of the "bloviators" on this topic to finally put up or shut up!

[OldSausage]

I agree with John, I have experienced the effect too, my skepticism is prompted because I don't find the conventional explanation of the cause compelling.

[Nick Triesch]

You really do not have to" prove " anything. Recording experts who record the artists know what instruments sound the best for that recording. They know what mandolin or guitar will stand out for a certain break or cut. It's like when you see any great artist, many times they will have a bunch of guitars or instruments on stage for the different songs or set they are going to play. This is not subjective, it's just what they know. It took a long time for me to learn with mandolin but I know now that if I take my time and I have enough money, I can find a new really great sounding mandolin. We all want two things....very loud and terrific bass.. Oh and toss in easy to play. You don't have to "open up" an instrument. You just need to find one that sounds like it should from the start. I just played my mandolin. It is the most pretty mandolin with no bass response that you have ever seen! Maybe I should add that tone guard and put in back in front of my huge speakers again. After all, it only cost $3500 5 years ago. Nick

[John Flynn]

"We all want two things....very loud and terrific bass.. "

Nick: I have to disagree. That may be what you want, but it is not what I look for in a mandolin and I'm not sure it's what everyone wants. I want balance. I want a mandolin where the bass, midrange and treble are well balanced. The volume, sustain and complexity would be roughly the same over the fretboard.

[Nick Triesch]

John, give me a break! All my life, when players hear a super loud deep bass on guitar or mandolin they just can't get enough of the sound. My friend who has the Gibson Doyle Lawson that is the best mando I have ever heard anywhere, when it was played at out local high end shop, people came running from up front of the shop just to hear the wonderful sound! Over the years when I have played my Goodall guitar at events folks would say "Holy Smokes that guitar has huge terrific sound". No one wants a quiet D28. People want a loud F5 like an Apitius. I think if folks say that they are not looking for a loud mandolin just balance it is because their mando is just not that loud. But my next one will be! Nick

[Jim Broyles]

John, give me a break! All my life, when players hear a super loud deep bass on guitar or mandolin they just can't get enough of the sound. My friend who has the Gibson Doyle Lawson that is the best mando I have ever heard anywhere, when it was played at out local high end shop, people came running from up front of the shop just to hear the wonderful sound! Over the years when I have played my Goodall guitar at events folks would say "Holy Smokes that guitar has huge terrific sound". No one wants a quiet D28. People want a loud F5 like an Apitius. I think if folks say that they are not looking for a loud mandolin just balance it is because their mando is just not that loud. But my next one will be! Nick

Not me. Nice, balanced bass, yes, but not a super loud, deep bass. I think the volume should be balanced across the strings. Sure, I want a loud mandolin, but not only loud bass.

[billkilpatrick]

I been thinking about why something that's just a given amongst violin family players isn't among some mandolin and guitar players. Then it occurred to me the single most obvious difference is frets. I have absolutely no evidence for it but I wonder if frets make opening up less noticeable? Or even less desirable to some ears?

an interesting point - the essential ingredient of "opening up" may be listening.

arabic music puts me to sleep - i don't understand it; not even sure i like it ... one "maqam" sounds pretty much like another, to me - but in theory, finding the correct 1/16th of a note required in some scales demands some subtle listening - a subtllity that may be truncated - abridged - somewhat by the use of frets.

if you're used to bending notes and shaving fractions off them - as one does when playing oud - micro-changes in the instrument's over-all tone might be more discernable.

nothing like a good, punchy chop to acccentuate the rythym and drive the song along ... but if it's all you're looking for, it might be all you get.

[Mike Bunting]

I have to agree with Jim and John. All bass and no mids and high don't cut it in the mix. The guitar will bury you.

[John Flynn]

Nick: I don't want an F-5 or a D-28. I don't want a Doyle Lawson or an Apititus. If someone gave me any of the above, I would sell it immediately to get something I did want. Really, I'm not kidding. I have a custom-built instrument by a major builder that is really loud and has incredible bass. I like the volume, but I wish it were more balanced.

I think you are generalizing what you want, is what everyone wants or should want. That's not saying that what you want is wrong. It's fine! It just means that there is a whole world of other equally legitimate preferences outside of yours.

[Charley wild]

Seeing as how we're not "opening" at the moment I'll jump in with my two cents. I tend to agree with the more balanced school. My A+ is real bassy and okay on the treble end. I love it for that but I could take an evener response all the way across. It will be the THE priority when I purchase my next mandolin. I won't get rid of the A+ as it's a good chopper. But after playing that Capek with the good bass and the great ringing highs I can see an oval hole in my future. Or an f with a bit more on the top end.

[JeffD]

Balance for sure. You want rich bright highs, but if the base is thunky sounding, and you want rich full deep end, but not at the expense of thin or worse a brassy high end.

Oh, and yes some volume, but not at the expense of tone.

I am not good at the words that describe sounds, but you can get the jist of it.

I have never played an Apitius, but if it is just described it would not be what I want.


I have the predjudice that guitar players want balance also, but I can't be sure, not being one. The guitar serves a very different purpose in music than the mandolin, so it would make sense that the requirements would be different.

[300win]

Balance for sure. You want rich bright highs, but if the base is thunky sounding, and you want rich full deep end, but not at the expense of thin or worse a brassy high end.

Oh, and yes some volume, but not at the expense of tone.

I am not good at the words that describe sounds, but you can get the jist of it.

I have never played an Apitius, but if it is just described it would not be what I want.


I have the predjudice that guitar players want balance also, but I can't be sure, not being one. The guitar serves a very different purpose in music than the mandolin, so it would make sense that the requirements would be different.


Yes most guitar players want balance. Although I play mandolin the most, I'm also a guitar and banjo player. Guitars at least the Martin type deadnaughts have very complex tones depending on which ones you get, just as in mandolins the differant tone woods will give you for the most part certain given results. Mahogany as in the D-18 vs Rosewood as in the D-28 etc, very differant tones. Even certain models in guitars as in the Martin D-35 always known for its huge bass response. I like the Mahogany myself, it has more midrange and trebles with enough bass to do the job. I'll also agree about any acoustic instrument the ones we are discussing, even 5 string banjos that have all that metal, if a instrument sounds good from day 1 that means it will sound great in the future, will keep getting better with age. In my experience if they don't sound good from day 1, they ain't never going to sound good, much less great.

[JeffD]

Oh I think we can all agree that the instrument you purchase should sound good right out of the box, and still needing to sort out whether the instrument will sound better in the future.

My friend recently bought a Martin mahogany 000-15 guiar and I just love the way that thing sounds.

For mandolin sound, I am very happy with my A2, for balance between highs and lows, tone, volume, and playability. (My only complaint is that the tuners are starting to act their age.)

While in my case "the search" might be over, I still have raging MAS.

[250sc]

Nick Triesch wrote: "John, give me a break! All my life, when players hear a super loud deep bass on guitar or mandolin they just can't get enough of the sound."

Nick,

You will probably find that most bluegrass players love those qualities but the vast majority of musicians in the world don't play bluegrass.

[bonny]

All my life, when players hear a super loud deep bass on guitar or mandolin they just can't get enough of the sound.

Depends on what you're listening for. Sometimes instruments that sound magnificent acoustically don't amplify or record well....they're just too complex to capture completely.

[JeffD]

My question is, if people who are so certain about it, they should be willing, and even enthusiastic, about proving it, scientifically, and I mean with scientific methodology, not just showing they can find or make a graph and claiming it proves something.

They are too busy enjoying to care whether anyone believes them or not.

Absence of people with the time, energy, tools and skills to prove it does not indicate a lack of something to prove.

[T.J.]

I recently acquired a second-hand Eastman 504 in mint shape. It sounded tight when I first showed it around.

Then I gave it a week of abuse, exposing it to Michael Hedges at high volume in an improvised box with sound-absorbing tiles lining it.

I took it back around, and everyone's first question was about the improvement, and wondering what I had restrung it with. Obviously it was the new strings... or would have been, except it was the same strings.

For me, testimonials about how a product has worked for someone else don't matter at all. However, the unintentional testimonials about how good it sounded after the sound treatment means that even those musicians who have no idea about what changed noticed a change.

Has anyone else tried this? I'd be interested in hearing about both how you pumped sound through the instrument, and what the results were. I'm not so interested in hearing from folks who haven't tried this, because they have no results, either positive or negative, right? *laugh*

[OldSausage]

Has anyone else tried this? I'd be interested in hearing about both how you pumped sound through the instrument, and what the results were. I'm not so interested in hearing from folks who haven't tried this, because they have no results, either positive or negative, right? *laugh*

I think we've pretty much all had the experience of change, but most would say that after owning an instrument for a week, if you're any good at all you will have learned how to get a much better sound out of it, whether you put it in a music box half of that time or not. It seems much more likely that the player changes than the mandolin.

I have tried playing music to my mandolin and it improved. I have tried just playing the mandolin myself and it worked. Just listening to silence for 5 minutes then picking it up again will make it sound better. Practically ANYTHING you do with your mandolin will make it sound better. Mostly practicing diligently, though. It really is you that changes, and not your mandolin.

[jim_n_virginia]

I just discovered that if I whisper sweet nothings into my mandolin's F holes at night and gently massage rose petals into the pickguard my mandolin's tone improved and increased by TEN FOLD!!! really it did! :grin:

[T.J.]

I think we've pretty much all had the experience of change, but most would say that after owning an instrument for a week, if you're any good at all you will have learned how to get a much better sound out of it, whether you put it in a music box half of that time or not. It seems much more likely that the player changes than the mandolin.

I have tried playing music to my mandolin and it improved. I have tried just playing the mandolin myself and it worked. Just listening to silence for 5 minutes then picking it up again will make it sound better. Practically ANYTHING you do with your mandolin will make it sound better. Mostly practicing diligently, though. It really is you that changes, and not your mandolin.

I don't get it. Since I wasn't the one playing it when they checked it out the second time, how did my changing affect the sound of the mandolin for those other players?

Oh, I get it! They practiced and improved and learned how to draw better tone out of it, in the week of not seeing it.

Wait a minute! That makes no sense! Sorry, Old Sausage, but I don't understand how the other guys improved their playing of my mandolin. What were you trying to say?

Jim, a dog howling might think it's adding something to the conversation, but those actually talking know it's not. It's just a dog, though, and can't think that far. You can't fault the dog for its limits, right? *laugh*

[bonny]

I think we've pretty much all had the experience of change, but most would say that after owning an instrument for a week, if you're any good at all you will have learned how to get a much better sound out of it, whether you put it in a music box half of that time or not. It seems much more likely that the player changes than the mandolin.


You've said all this before. Why does it have to be one or the other?....or one masquerading as the other? Certainly a player learns to get better sound out of any instrument he plays as he continues to play it and I'd suggest it happens over a lot longer than just the first week too. A player growing into an instrument and an instrument opening up may be symbiotic to one degree or another but they are separate (and very real) occurrences.

I've been holding my tongue but I really gotta ask you what you think players like John McGann and Ray Brown are hearing and what they mean when they talk about opening up? You seem to be going against people who have thought very deeply about all aspects of playing their instrument and who speak (spoke) very directly and precisely about it. In a post to this thread John speaks clearly about altering technique to open up certain frequencies. Was he confusing technique with real opening up? I had one lesson with Ray and a large part of it was spent on sound. He showed me things I could do to draw more sound from the bass and (since it was new to me and had been sitting uplayed for a while) he also talked about it opening up. I have a hard time buying the idea he was confused about the two things.....

[OldSausage]

Jeff, it is possible for people who think a lot and are experts on subjects to be misled by appearances. It happens all the time and is the reason that science is used to determine questions, since otherwise we could just rely on authority. Please understand that to say that there are other possible explanations than the ones they have given does not insult these fine gentlemen, and I'm sure they would not worry about what I had to say anyway.

[OldSausage]

I don't get it. Since I wasn't the one playing it when they checked it out the second time, how did my changing affect the sound of the mandolin for those other players?

Oh, I get it! They practiced and improved and learned how to draw better tone out of it, in the week of not seeing it.

Wait a minute! That makes no sense! Sorry, Old Sausage, but I don't understand how the other guys improved their playing of my mandolin. What were you trying to say?


You're quite right TJ. Your first post did not make it apparent whether this group of "others" had played your mandolin or whether you had played it to them, and I rashly jumped to a conclusion. If your results were really checked by an independent panel, then we are forced to conclude that Michael Hedges made your mandolin sound demonstrably better in just seven days. Did you get any sound files?

[Nick Triesch]

I'm just not talking about bluegrass. I'm talking about all kinds of music from Steven Stills to America. When I was a pup in Southern California, it was the thing to do to sand your Martin D28 for bass. Or have it sanded for bass. I don't care what anyone says....it was very common to do this. I would think thousands of instruments were sanded. It was done because players, not just bluegrass players wanted a ton of bass! I'm talking about the 1967-70 timeframe. The Martin lovers can say otherwise but I know it was the thing to have done when you bought a new or used Martin. When players saw your guitar for the first time , they would ask "Have you had it sanded for bass yet?" . I don't know a lot about balence but I do know what a good sounding guitar sounds like. Has to be crisp, clean with the notes just popping off the fretboard with a ton of bass response. I bought my guitar sounding great right out of the box but I did not with my F5 type mandolin. Now I'm paying for it. My Gibson A type however has the magic sound. I cannot say for sure but I bet it was born sounding great. Nick

[JeffD]

I don't know a lot about balence but I do know what a good sounding guitar sounds like. Has to be crisp, clean with the notes just popping off the fretboard with a ton of bass response. I bought my guitar sounding great right out of the box but I did not with my F5 type mandolin. Now I'm paying for it. My Gibson A type however has the magic sound. I cannot say for sure but I bet it was born sounding great. Nick


I would think a guitar player would want good response from all the strings. Classical players, jazz players, and lots of flatpickers take full advantage of those higher strings.

I don't think you can generalize to a mandolin. A mandolin is a treble instrument. You don't want those high strings to sound tinny, even if you have great bass.

Here is an example where balance wins the day, need the bass, need the treble, need the midrange, need the guitar, need the mandolin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff1hSDnCw9c