Mando Comparison Methods

[mikeyes]

I know that there is a prevailing opinion that no matter what you say about a mandolin, it is always subjective so describing mandolins in any way (except to describe its physical characteristics) is "only a matter of opinion".

I object.

Wine tasters are capable of telling other afficionados what a wine tastes like so that the receiver of the information can make an informed decision so why not with mandolins? #

Granted it may cost more if you make a mistake, but why don't we at least have a set of descriptors that are more or less standardized so when I describe a mandolin as "woody , with a good eye and hand, and an outstanding chop" every one will understand exactly what I am talking about and be able to decide if that mandolin is for him or her?

I realize that there are multiple variables in describing mandolins and that others will object that there is no way to quantify a mandolin, but the point is that you don't have to. #For what ever reason, the Lloyd Loar Gibsons are considered the epitome of mandolins and there are a handful of contemporary luthiers who are highly sought after by mandolinists willing to pay five digit numbers for their product. #So there is a general consensus as to what constitutes a good mandolin (and a bad mandolin for that matter.) #It is the intermediate ones that seem to have no good descriptors.

So, I propose that this group work on a set of standard descriptions that are not value judgements and are understood by experienced and thoughtful mandolinists. #The first thing to do is to define a set of descriptors, agree on a definition and then possibly the range of the definition. #That should take about a week <G>

Then we can work on a rating system. #The result will be a semi-quantitative method of grading and describing mandolins that will allow others to understand what you are saying. #It will still be subjective, but as all the naysayers will undoubtedly say, it is all subjective anyway. #At least we will all be on the same page.

Tha standards can be called the IMTS (for International Mandolin Tasting Society) standards and published in 27 languages. #is anyone interested in this project?

[Big Joe]

The problem is exposure to the variety of sounds in the mandolin market. There are not many of us who have been blessed enough to have played at length the instruments which are regarded as the upper end or loars to have a basis for comparison. If all one has played are a handful of pac rim mandolin he/she may not have the breadth of exposure to give an adequate description. What may be woody with a great chop would have to be based upon experience and a developed ear. If that ear has not heard many the description would be flawed by that experience.

It's like appraising cars. Everyone thinks their car is in excellent condition but to a dealer who knows the cars inside and out it is only average. Hate to rain on anyone's parade, but that is my concern.

[grsnovi]

I think if there were as many mandolins sold each year as bottles of wine, we might have reason to clamor for such standardization. Even though wine tasters use a common descriptive language, it is likely that any two tasters might describe the same wine differently.

[Chris Baird]

I agree with Joe in that a rating system wouldn't work and would only cause misunderstandings. I do however believe a more standardized idea of different mandolin tones could help. For instance I often hear people discribe a mandolin as having a dry woody sound. But to me those two descriptors are mutually exclusive. I think of woody as fully resonate with a complex tone and lots of presence. Where as I consider dry to mean a penetrating focused tone that is strong but not what you would call complex or necesarily resonant. Dark and bright usually work well to illustrate a lean to either treble or bass but are subject to differences much like a rating system. Here are some descriptors on what I consider the woody side: Wet, hollow, boxy, complex, warm, strong presence, dark. And the dry side: Punchy, projecting, sharp, bright, focused, punch, pop. I sure there are many more. I've noticed some descriptors can be associated with both a dry and woody instrument as has to do with the chop: Woofy etc...and also with sustain and volume. Anyway, there are a few descriptors and how I percieve them.

[neal]

Mike, I was a wine salesman back in the 80's and I #can tell you, it's mostly sizzle and very little steak. #It's either tasty or it's not. #Gary's right, too, about any two people describing it different.

I suspect it would be the same with the mandolin.

[mikeyes]

What I am asking for is not a rating system as much as a common vocabulary. For instance a good B Chop is simething that should knock your socks off in a Whoomph! sort of sense. That's probably one descriptor we can agree on as an example. Rating such a quality is a different animal and may bring in much more subjectivity. We talk all the time on this list about mandolins and how they sound, but are we really communicating? The answer to that is "yes, sort of" as we are all familar with records of mandolins and have tried out other mandolins in the past. We can all agree that a mandolin is made of, say, maple and spruce because we recognize the wood and if you told me that the maple was quilted, I would know what you meant. As to the degree of quilting, we may disagree, but we both know it is not walnut.

This way we are communicating enough to understand one another and not mistake the description (in a general sense) for something else. Now imagine we extend these descriptive adjectives to action, intonation, and types of sound (of which there are many), etc. and put it together to describe the complex being of a mandolin. At this point there is no rating or value judgement made per se, just the description of an expert that can be understood by someone of a certain level of experience with mandolins. Neals point about tasty or not and the differences in description is valid, but with a common vocabulary we can bring those differences together a little more. And not everyone will be good at description but might aspire to be.

I am not advocating a 0-100 rating scale, nor am I suggessting that such an IMTS standard is infallible, but a consensus is a lot better than what we have now.

I have three very nice mandolins each of which is quite different from the other. All three are made by well respected luthiers and each has a quality that is superior to the others. I have a hard time describing them to you (although I could try) mostly because I don't have a good vocabulary to do so. Now if a hundred of us listened to my mandolins and squelched the urge to rate one over the other, we could probably decide how to describe them using the others as baseline or reference. I think most of us are interested in a finite number of qualities of mandolins (e.g. volume, tone quality which takes in a lot, "chop", feel, playability, looks, etc.) so we are not talking about thousands of descriptors.

Once you describe a mandolin to another musician with the same vocabulary, the second person can make some decisions about whether or not to proceed with buying, using, or playing that particular mandolin or maybe the class of manolins. After all we all have slighty different needs, in some cases greatly divergent needs concerning our mandolins. This way we avoid making value judgements until the time for value judgements comes.

[GTison]

Read some violin descriptions. They've been at it for years and the descriptions still are not conclusive with out being there.

Describe "woody" tone. give that a whirl. let 10 folks do it and then listen to their mando described as "woody". The mandolin tasting CDs are very telling about the tone of mandos. In MY OPINION OF COURSE!

[sunburst]

At the A.S.I.A symposium in 1989 (I think) Dana Bourgeois held a "guitar tasting" with the intent of trying to establish a more or less universal vocabulary for describing guitar sound.
Guitars were submitted by many of the builders that were there and played by the same players one after the other, sort of like the Wintergrass mandolin tasting. It didn't take long to see that it wasn't going to work. People just don't agree on what things sound like let alone how to describe them.

For what it's worth, I never know what people mean by "a woody sound". To me it means it sounds like there's too much wood in it so it sounds constrained. That is how the term woody gets used by violin people sometimes.

[Michael H Geimer]

Mike,
I'm wholeheartedly in your camp with this one. A significant part of my job entails translating 'art director speak' into concrete, measureable, odjective qualities. It certainly can be done.

But, I feel like we already have this vocabulary.
e.g.
Warm, Bright, Tinny, Dull, Boomy, Resonant, Focused, Full, Weak, Balanced, Unbalanced, Woody, Tight, Open, etc.

The important thing is context, how and where the term is applied. A measureable result is rarely important, if the useage can highlight certain sonic qualites and allow a discriminating listener to make comparisons. Like asking a luthier, "Do you think regraduationg the top will make my axe sound more open?"

But, trouble can start if not everyone is a discriminating listener. Like the time a few of us got into trouble by refusing to admit - at our friend's insistance - that 'Two-Buck-Chuck' is 'actually pretty good'. I just couldn't tell a lie like that to such a great friend! (I just kept drinking the Sterling Reserve)

People in my industry often take 'color tests' to identify any weak areas of color perception. I don't get upset with people who can see colors that I cannot. Neither do I claim those colors don't exist simply because I can't see them.

- Benig

[fatt-dad]

Having just bought my most recent house (after 15 years), we can learn from the euphisims of the real-estate market. You know they would never say "small" they would say "cozy". Knowing nothing about wine, I guess saying, "a hint of vinegar" would pretty well mark it as a stinker. So, how do we accuratly describe a mandolin that is "thin" to one ear but "pleasant" to another? If we had unique descriptors for sustain, overtones, chop, warmth (whatever), how would you relate the quality of the sound from a quality taterbug to a Gibson Master Model? I just would not be fair as the "tonal" objectives would be so different. Then you would need descriptors for the tater bug, the oval hole, the flat-top, the bluegrass A's and F's, etc.

I find this very interesting, but bordering on impossible. Wait - here's an idea, lets approach it from the acoustic perspective. Just strike several chords take an oscilliscope and make correlations from the graphs. Once you quantify the sound, the fit and finish can come in later.

Then again - never mind.

fatt-dad

[John Flynn]

I never know what people mean by "a woody sound".
It means the mandolin has a sound that is very exciting, as in "I got a woody over the sound of that mandolin." http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[mikeyes]

I like the idea of taking the descriptors we already use and defining them a little more. They don't have to have precise definitions, in fact, obsessive precision should be avoided at all costs (although that will be hard with this crowd as musicians tend to be detail oriented and pains in the ### when it comes to minutia). The idea is to get a common language and worry about dialects later. I think that most of us have a general idea about what someone says if they describe the tone as "thin and unbalanced" although we tend to make a value judgment as soon as we hear this kind of description. If you heard the terms "sweet, quiet, and trebly" it might make more sense and might also be more apporpriate if you were talking about a taterbug style mandolin.

The quality of a sound will always be more subjective and will be the synthesis of the parts of the sound that we describe. Thus the "thin and unbalanced" moniker would really be a qualitative judgment rather than a description. If a Lloyd Loar had the description of "sweet and trebly" it would not be a good mandolin because the expectation is that it would be something other than that. But an oval hole mandolin might be considered a great instrument with the same description by some. So we have to avoid value laden terms or we have to make sure theat the terms used are understood to have a specific meaning.

I don't think we have to be so specific that a) no one would agree or b) that we would constantly fight over the meaning and focus on the 2% difference we tend to fight over. Some terms are easy and some are hard to agree on, but most of them are ballpark for the average mandolin player. We can agree on those and disagree on the qualitative analysis. After all we don't have to agree on what we think, just speak the same language so we can disagree.

As for "relating the quality of sound from a quality taterbug to a Gibson Master Model" that is a matter of opinion. Frankly I am so much on the side of the MM that I would not even consider them in the same breath. Of course that is not fair, but who cares <G> That's why we have these wonderful discussions.

[grsnovi]

I was intrigued by the idea of the mando tasting that Ken did (does) at Wintergrass and went this past just to attend. Heard a lot of different mandolins. Then Ken and Scott posted the challenge some weeks afterwards here to identify 10 by their sound samples only.

A really hard challenge.

I suspect that an inexpensive, poorly set up Pac-Rim instrument would sound better to you when played by John Reichman than a Loar would played by me...

So, assume we do have a commonly understood vocabulary would we be able to factor out a) our own technique's impact on the sound and b) the fact that part of what we experience when we play our instruments is due to proximity to the instrument?

I made a comment about a beautiful Breedlove Rogue I played over the weekend. It was a nice looking, nice feeling instrument. I just didn't care for its tone (compared to my Collings) maybe because I'm used to my mandolin?

It might be fun to attempt such a vocabulary definition exercise at the next tasting. This last time the range of mandolins was impressive (and they were all requested to have new sets of the same strings, although I'm not certain that happened because of the last minute on-again/off-again circumstances).

It would likely be relatively easy to agree on each end of the spectrum for a particular quality, but (like wine) as you get into instruments of superior tonal quality that are roughly equivalent - would you be able to explain the subtle tonal differences between two essentially identical but different instruments? And, while splitting hairs, just how large a factor would the player make?

[Michael Lewis]

One factor that will keep the accuracy of descriptive terms at bay is the individual touch of each person that plays the instrument. Gary Smith brought this up and he is correct. It is amazing how much influence the picker has on the tone. I have heard tight shrill tinny sounds come out of a mandolin, only to have some one else make the same instrument sound full, sweet,and woody. Lots of variables involved here, but the point is that much of the tonal qualities come from the musician.

You know, this rating system will work quite well for some folks, but it will cause untold confusion and trouble for others. Maybe. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[mikeyes]

Again, not rating but description.

If an instrument sounds "tinny and shrill" in the hands of a total expert then that should be mentioned as part of the description just as a wine is better cold or at room temp. The idea is to try and not rate the instrument in the description - which may be hard as we all tend to be competitive and obsessive about the instruments, esp if we own a good instrument in the first place. I constantly avoid the urge to rank my instruments because it all depends on which one I play first. On the other hand, I enjoy the sound of each of my mandolins, esp if I am not playing them side by side.

I have to admit that I like to see the looks on other musician's faces when I pull out my RW A conversion and play it in a microphone. But that is my "Who's is bigger" mode and has nothing to do with description.

[Adare_Steve]

The sound of an instrument, for me, at least, is a very subjective experience and open to so many variables that it virtually defies description.

First of all, is there the problem (as pointed out in this thread) of getting a standardised understanding of what certain words (like 'woody') actually mean for individual listeners. I worked as a psychotherapist for many years - and came across the problems of reaching a mutual understanding of experience, based on the use of descriptive words every day of the week. What 'tired', 'depressed', 'shattered', 'fantastic', 'horrendous', angry, sad, etc, etc meant to the speaker might not have the exact same meaning for the listener - and we'd never really know the differences in our emotional and subjective levels of understanding, but usually assumed we knew what the speaker meant when using certain words.

Added to that, sound (like any other communicated message) has to go through several veriables (stages of possible interference and change) before it reaches the listener. Who is playing the instrument? What is their level of experience? What pick are they using? What is the level of attack? Is the pick new or worn out? What make is it? Is the sound amplified or acoustic? What amplification is used? What are acoustics like? What is the condition of listener's hearing ability? Is the room noisy? Is a wind blowing? Is the listener distracted in anyway? Is he/she overly influenced (psychologically) by the instrument itself or by the player, or by the conditions in which it is played? And on....and on...and on...

Sound is subjective. If you like the sound, and you feel moved emotionally by it, then perhaps that should be (and often HAVE to be) as much as you can hope to attain from listening to it.

Steve Power

[mikeyes]

Steve,

Granted there are problems with varying experiences (What is the color blue?) but in order for you to be a successflu therapist there had to be some consenual understanding of the client's concerns and needs even if it was only at a 50% level. I'm not suggestting total understanding and agreement on a description, only a ballpark idea so we can talk to each other. This is not rocket science, nor is it Philosophy 505, we are only trying to have a broad understanding of the words that describe how a mandolin sounds, feels, plays, and looks. It is qualitative and not quantitiative, similar to the descriptors used in your own profession. Granted that each individual is different, but there are terms that one professional can use with another to describe the general picture.

[grandmainger]

In my home country (FroggyLand), we obviously do a lot of wine description. Heck, you can even take a PhD in wine science http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif !
The main problem I see is the lack of standard testing methods. When the french experts get together to compile their wine book, they do so under a set of constraints and regulations that is very scientific. The room temperature, humidity, time of the year, etc are all taken into account. Also, everybody uses the exact same glass, which has an ISO defined lead content, shape of the rim, stickyness of the surface, etc. All these strict 'testing' regulations are designed to maximise the neutrality of the tasting environment.
In all things related to sound, the size of the room has a great influence, together with crazy things like carpet thickness and number of windows! The easiest test to judge that is to move the speakers from your stereo around a room... the differences are huge.
Now, getting together a set of keywords that are broad enough to be accessible by most, yet precise enough to accurately describe an instrument's sound will be quite difficult I think. If you add to this the fact that the same instrument is likely to sound different under different conditions, you can get into very blurry territory.

Maybe I'll go back to wine-drinking now http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[pickinpox]

One of my mandolins has a lot of nose. The other is very fruity. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[grandmainger]

One of my mandolins has a lot of nose. #The other is very fruity. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
...and most, like fine wines, get better with age...

[Bob DeVellis]

Well, this discussion has gotten me thinking. Measurement is an integral part of my work (look here (http://www.sagepub.com/book.aspx?pid=9343) if you're curious and relatively immune to boredom) and it's certainly possible to measure subjective variables. mikeyes in onto something, I think, in his advocacy for a common language. When people have difficulty measuring something subjective, the problem usually stems from their not having defined in clearly in the first place. Once you have a good set of definitions, things get easier. a "good set of definitions" implies terms that yield consistent interpretation. There are at least two ways to achieve this. One is to find terms that already have a universal meaning. "Salty," in the context fo taste, pretty much means the same thing to most people, although how much salt it takes before the term is applied will vary. Most terms aren't as readily agreed upon. The other way to achieve consistency is to teach people what words mean in a given context. This is actually what happens in at least some wine circles. Researchers at the University of California at Davis have identified chemical constituents of wine that give it its individual characteristic flavors. These can be isolated (or at least concentrated) so that the "signal" stands out from the background "noise." Then a would-be wine taster can sample the essence of a certain taste characteristic. "Oh, so THAT is what you guys mean when you say 'flowery'." Studies indicate that, so trained, people can produce verbal reports that correspond substantially with the actual chemical composition ( that is, presence of certain flavor components) of the wine.

By analogy, it might be possible to do the same thing with mandolins. What is a relatively pure example of each of a set of descriptors? What do, say, three instruments sound like that are low, medium, and high on that characteristic? In this way, people can be taught (for better or worse) to use terms in a consistent way. ("Oh, so THAT is what you guys mean by a 'dry' tone." The degree of consistency achieved can be tested.

What is less clear is how useful all this would be. It might be very helpful to talk to a seller and hear what tonal characteristics an instrument possesses. But, on the other hand, it might not be so much the individual ingredients of the tone, but the way they interact that produces a great or aweful instrument. If that's the case, it'll be a lot tougher to use the descriptions in a practical way. But it's an open question at this point.

[neal]

I understand that the Gibson has given the distressed model a woody nose with mildew undertones. #Not too desireable in wine, but it seems to work in this genre.

"obsessive precision should be avoided at all costs (although that will be hard with this crowd as musicians tend to be detail oriented and pains in the ### when it comes to minutia)."

It's just so darn hard to explain sound other than quantifying it like decibels or wavelength. Some words that seem to work are "Full sound" "Loud" "Very resonant". "Woody" I'm not really clear on, but I would think that "woody" and "dry" are synonimous. I played an F9 a while back, and if I had to describe the tone, I would probably use woody, and to me, that was a good sound.

I think it all depends on who is doing the describing, like the way C. Johnson describes his mandolins, pretty basic, words like "Loud" "Sounds great" work for me, but only with people that have a good reputation for not stearing you wrong.

And, the sound that comes from one player, as stated above, may not be the sound that is teased from the mandolin by another.

Houston, we have a conundrum here....

[mikeyes]

I think we can all agree on certain aspects of a mandolin's description such as construction, type of bridge, color, type (A, F, bowlback, carved, flat, etc), and action height (the "Eye"). Playability, "feel", and volume are a little more subjective (maybe not volume) but still something we can agree on in a broad sense (the "Nose" as it were). What is left is the description of the sound with the multitude of non-judgemental or (at least) professional terms to describe it (the "Ear").

So far we have seemed to focus on the term "woody" which describes the Gibson Style of carved mandolins at their best when this quality is high on the scale. I like the idea of it being also described as "dry" and most of us are familiar with the concept. A more detailed definition which we can all agree on might be a good start.

I'd also like to hear the consensus on the term "chop" (which might be a little easier to define with this crowd) as it applies to mandolins. The determination of how much of these qualities exist in an individual mandolin is left to the evaluator.

As for the circumstances of testing, let's face it, there will be no perfect world in this case. Besides, we play in all sorts of conditions and even setups. While a mandolin is subject to change due to environment, one can make a judgement as to whether or not the quality rating given after hearing the instrument and its various qualities will hold up in other circumstances. That part and parcel of the actual rating of the instrument. I admit that in certain circumstances various qualities may be exaggerated or lost, but that is the real world.

If an instrument really appeals to you, I think you should be able to describe why it does using standard language. So what if someone else disagrees or if your description does not hold up under a microphone or in a jam session? We all know that mandolins are going to have problems if the setup is wrong or in the wrong environment. Is this a surprising revelation to any readers here? No need to condemn wholesale the idea of communication just because it is hard to do at times.

So what are your ideas on the definition of "chop: and "woody"?

[grsnovi]

I don't think anyone is condemning the "idea" of communication Mike. I suspect everyone participating in this thread is intrigued by the idea of a well understood, common descriptive vocabulary.

[pickinpox]

I would agree that many of us (myself included) use terms we have heard and repeat them without having a common understanding of accepted use of the term, if in fact there even is one. Descriptive terms have been used and misused so often that a completely new set of words may be needed to accomplish this lofty goal. Drawing from Bob's analogy about salt, it is useless for people to say salty if it should have been called sweet because they weren't taught the obvious difference of salty like a cracker or sweet like a cookie. He makes a good point.

I hope I didn't offend the topic author with my flippant remark in an earlier post. I simply saw a window of humor and went through it :-)

[Flowerpot]

I like the concept of a common descriptive language. It's a great goal. But I think to get there, you can't start with words, you have to start with sounds, and somebody would have to lay down the law about which words correspond to which tonal qualities. Probably a set of contrasting audio samples would help (clip A sounds more warm than clip B, clip C sounds darker than clip D), but it would be awfully hard to get two mandolins that only vary in one aspect (mando A would be warmer than B but also dryer and darker). I guess the more I think about it, the harder the whole thing gets.

By the way, "woody" to me means a hollow, resonant sound on the attach of the notes (and the chop) that is similar to beating on a hollow log. Don't ask me why. That word has bound to have hundereds of different meanings to the hundereds of people who use it, and nobody is right or wrong, but nobody communicates much at all when they use it.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Let's not forget the infamous "cannon"...........what the ___ does that mean?

As I've posted before, I love George Gruhn's quote..."Loars are dark and melancholy, while Ferns tend to be bright and cheerful"
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[french]

i must say i agree that it must be possible to develop a standard vocabulary for mandolin assessment. although not capable of doing it myself, there are, i'm sure, many on the board who could give a great review of different mandolins. #what makes me confident is the great reviews of tin whistles on chiffandfipple forum. #all you have to do is search for "review" and you will see many examples, but here's one to wet the whistle:

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=18615

i, for one, would love to get good reviews from the esteemed mandolin experts on the board.

- tom

[mrbook]

Most of the people here (myself included) have definite opinions about mandolins and many other subjects. Some can't hear anything good in an instrument that isn't a Loar or very high end modern copy; a few people seem a bit biased against any instrument that isn't American (except, perhaps, for Canadian or Czech builders). There is also a little reverse snobbery, too - all those people who contend that their Asian import held its own against the Loar they played a couple days ago. It would be good to have a glossary of descriptive terms, but I'm wary of a rating system, because it has to be applied objectively. Some people are incapable of finding anything good about an inexpensive instrument, and others are only too happy to criticize the big names. In one way, we already do rate them - by price.

[Adare_Steve]

So what are your ideas on the definition of "chop: and "woody"?
Well, Here I go again...

'Chop' is a completely new term for me. I've only come across it in the last few weeks - since I've become interested in mandolin playing. But, I do know the term 'damping', in relation to guitar and bouzouki playing. So, is it the same concept, and technique? If not do we have to differentiate 'damping' from 'chopping'.

I know the term 'woody' in relation to flutes, not mandolins. I sell (amongst other things) wooden Irish flutes. I also sell polymer versions. Some of those, I have described as being more 'woody' than others. I have no way of adequately describing in words what I hear, when I hear a woody flute. Exvept, that the plastic ones sound similar to the wooden ones!

I really am trying to be precise and helpful - not just difficult! Honest. But, I think you've set yourself a really complex task.

Steve

[archie]

Then there's a word guitar dealers have started using..."growl".Is "growl" akin to the mandolin terms "woof" and "bark"? Dealers hope that the right poetic term will assist the potential buyer in loosening his purse strings. And who among us hasn't gotten some kind of tingle from the terms these folks use?
-archie

[mikeyes]

You don't have to be literal in the definition of any of the descriptive words, just consensual in the meaning. If "woody" means similar to the sound from a hollow log, then for our purposes, that's what it means. More important is agreeing on what qualities we want to describe. Whether or not you like the Loar sound, you still have to describe it so the next Loar sound lover knows whether or not the mandolin you are discussing (in its present setup in the environment you choose) sounds like a Loar. Again is it well constructed, does it use specific construction techniques, what color, what kind of strings, what is the action at the 12th fret, what kind of bridge, scale, and sound qualities (there will be several.) Later on you can decide if it meets the standards for quality you have set but by then most of us will have an idea what you are talking about and may or may not agree. This way we can discuss the instruments with a little more confidence.

Chop - A percussive sound produced by hitting a closed chord and immediately damping the chord. IT can have qualities such as woodiness, volume differences, and percussive thrust.

[archie]

So Mike, if different good mandolinists have different ways of playing a certain mandolin so that their chops and the tones, timbre, sustain of their single notes etc.are all different and distinctive...won't you have to pick ONE player whose way of playing will be the benchmark in the system?
-archie

[mikeyes]

Archie,

You will not be quantifying the mandolin, you will be reporting your perception of it once the vocabulary problem is solved. If you want to see if different mandolinists make a mandolin sound differently (which I agree happens) then you will be able to describe the differences. The idea is to get a common language of description, not a common rating system. That (rating) might occur, but I doubt it. Meanwhile we can describe what it looks like, how it is constructed and how it sounds even though the sound might vary with conditions including the player. You may also be able to describe the distinctive qualities of each mandolinist a little better too.

We need to develop and collect a way to describe what we hear that is more accesible to the readers of this list.

[Bob DeVellis]

One term that seems relatively straightforward is balance. On some instruments, certain strings predominate whereas on others, they're more equal. This is clearly a function of the strings as well as the instrument, but I can certainly think of instruments that have relatively equal prominence across strings and ones that don't.

One difficulty is that people get used to a certain sound. So, if you have a bass-heavy instrument, that sound might be perceived as balanced over time. Then, an instrument that has more comparable prominence from string to string might actually sound treble-heavy, subjectively.

Part of the nomenclature problem is what's called a "social desirability" bias. To the extent possible, it would be good to choose terms that don't sound inherently good or bad. Balance may sound like an inherently good thing in a way that might bias people's perceptions ("whose mandolin are you calling unbalanced?!"). Perhaps a concept such as a "prominence curve" would be more neutral, kind of like the curves used to describe loudspeaker performance. Those are usually measured curves, but people also use verbal descriptions, like "bass roll-off."

Attack and sustain also seem a bit less problematic than some other acoustical features. How sharp is the attack, relative to the sustain, for individual strings or all strings together? Some arch-top, f-hole mandolins have lots of attack and relatively little sustain, to my ears. Some flat back, round-hole instruments have less differentiation between attack and sustain -- less difference between the two than an f-hole instrument. Some bowlbacks have a sharp attack that stands out but also a very long, pronounced sustain. None of these sounds are inherently "better," although a particular one may be more well suited to a particular musical goal (e.g., percussive vs. fluid playing).

Bright vs mellow also seems relatively straightforward. Most bowlbacks are decidedly bright to my ear. More poetic terms might be "crystaline" or "bell-like" but I think it's a sort of bright, almost metallic quality that those terms represent. Mellow is more analogous to "woody" or "round." The difference is sort of like that between the sound of striking a very hard object (bright sound) or a softer object (mellow sound).

[fatt-dad]

Here is what I did during lunch today - I reviewed the descriptions for (most) the mandolins on ebay with prices greater than $750.00. Where there was an attempt to describe the tone, I sent the description to the clipboard and voilla, made this summary - the current state of practice in describing mandolin tone. (Anybody from the Cafe recognize their writing?)

1. The lows are warm, hoarse and woody, the highs are brilliant with "meat" as opposed to being "tinny".

2. Definitely a bluegrass instrument with the "chop" and bell sounding notes up and down the neck.

3. And boy howdy, does it sound great.

4. Very warm tone on this surprisingly loud instrument.

5. The instrument plays and sounds great, and has fresh frets.

6. It is very easy to play and has such a beautifully strong voice that it's hard to believe that so much sound can come from such a small instrument.

7. Awesome tone, amazing volume and clarity.

8. This mando has seen many a day and is not only a great historical piece as it has tone for days. This baby is dated to 1918, that's 86 years of tonal maturity and wood settlement. If I had a chance to acquire this it would be for the tonality alone and the cool history would be for free. This will sound monstrous on any serious, well executed, recording session. Rock On.

9. It also has a terrific balanced tone with woody and percussive bass and clear bell-like treble!

10. Mando has a full, rich tone, evenly balanced all the way up the neck. I'll try to describe the tone. The oval soundhole gives it excellent projection and volume. Intonation is perfect all the way up the neck. The tone is sweet, with lots of sustain. I compare it in tone to my Taylor guitars. This difference in tone between this Weber and lesser-priced models is like the difference between a ukelele and a Taylor, or Martin. This is a professional quality instrument, whose sound will get even better with use.

11. It has a sound that makes it stand out in jams or on stage.

12. This Mandolin has the "BEST" Woody chop & killer crisp topend!!! They don't sound much better then this... I have used this Mando at all my outdoor gigs because it just projects great with other instruments.

13. This instrument has great, well-balanced tone quality throughout the fingerboard range. It was shown and played at the 2004 Galax Fiddlers Convention in Galax Va.,with some of these remarks made - “This mandolin has the best tone and volume of any I have played.” “It plays so easily, an easy touch, it seems to note itself.” “I have played a lot of Gibson mandolins, and this one sounds better than your expensive F5 Masters.” “This instrument is so light and the sound is great, great tone and volume.”

14. Great tone and action, almost no wear on the finish. Very sweet tone, I might add.

15. It is in MINT condition (no signs of player use), and sounds absolutely fantastic. Pure, bell-like tone, and loud. Excellent for bluegrass, and it has such a rich tone, jazz, Celtic and folk music sound great on it as will.

fatt-dad