A Rant About Comparing Mandolin Tone

[9lbShellhamer]

I apologize in advance for bringing up a somewhat sore topic that's been beat to death. Alas, here goes...

I went to Nashville this week and had a blast stopping into Cotten and Carter Vintage! Gilchrist, Collings, Pava, Altman, Gibson, Dude, etc. What a treat!

I played a handful of incredible mandolins, but due a lack of consensus on terms used to describe mandolin tone I'm left to only think back fondly of each one and not describe their sound and the experience.

Dry

Woody

Wet

Thin

Tubby

Thumpy

Metallic

Etc.

In the English language, or any language for that matter, we have ways of classifying and codifying even subjective data, yet in millions of posts here we disagree on terms like woody and dry, etc.

Why is it so hard to have some governing body create a language to describe sounds?

I know that some mandolins have differences in tone even among the same brand, but in general terms, most brands shared characteristics among like models.

One thing in particular I noticed across the board was when we "hear" a mandolin, it's like we pick up two major traits; how the g and d courses sound, and how the a and e courses sound.

The Gibson mandolins all had that classic "woody" and "thumpy", see, there I go, using subjective terms, dang me, on the G and D strings, and the A and E strings were dry and punchy, ready to cut through and deliver.

The A and E strings on the Gibson mandolins sound very similar to my Kentucky master model, however the G and D strings sound completely different.

The G and D strings on the Gilchrist, (yes it was amaaaaazing, responsive and almost popped out of my hands with each pluck, a piece of art)..back to the G and D strings though...they possessed much less of the woody tone, and contained more metallic overtones.

The Gilchrist G and D strings resemble a Kentucky master model more than a Gibson's. (Please make no mistake in my comparison of a Gilchrist to a Kentucky Master...I'm only referencing tonal characteristics, not responsiveness or quality, although I do love my KM950)

My point is, the Kentucky master and Gilchrist share the same tonal traits for the G and D courses, with lots of metallic overtones compared to the woodiness of a Gibson.

Another favorite, the Collings mt2, had a beautiful woody, tubby, non metallic G and D course, and the A and E courses were warm and sweet, the opposite of the Gibson.

Anyways, my main point is, it seems first and foremost, there's no descriptor for the mandolins which possess those metallic qualities the bass side, and secondly, I wish a governing body would declare specific words in a lexacon of music vocab to describe certain tonal traits. It would make all of our lives a lot easier...then we'd finally stop bickering about what the heck dry and woody and warm and bright mean, along with modern and traditional.

Ok. Sounding off now. Please forgive me for even bringing this up...

[almeriastrings]

Yes, but, get to the important stuff. Were they banjo killers and did they play like butter?

[9lbShellhamer]

Oh
My
Gosh.

Ha ha ha. Yep. Played like butter and margarine.

Yes!!!

The Gilchrist at Carter takes the cake! So responsive and unbelievably loud!

A gentleman then suggested I play one of the Altmans and I obliged. I complimented the instrument and he then introduced himself as THE ALTMAN himself, the builder! He was there checking things out.

The Pava were better than I remember them being. A real value. I played the base model and it was nice.

The Northfield was the reason I went into Nashville, and I liked it but not enough to justify a purchase. It just didn't blow my socks off. Fine instruments, just not too different from what I have.

Although I love that "woody" Gibson pop, I'd definitely go with the gilchrist!-what a machine! IT WAS A TRUE BANJO KILLER! I feel like it could outshine a banjo and an hd28 even trying to play quietly...

I think another trip to Nashville is in order.

Oh. Yeah...The duff! I played a duff A5. I guess I'd say it was the best bargain in the shop, along with a specific collings I don't want to mention as I plan on buying it Monday as the counter point to my Kentucky.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Almeria - "... Were they banjo killers....". Perform the following test :- Drop a mandolin onto a banjo from a height of,say,2 feet & observe the result. Then,drop a banjo onto a mandolin from the same height,& sweep up the splinters. 'Pokerising',as in the case of Bill Monroe's mandolin, doesn't come close !.
Ok - back to seriousity. Even the commonly used terms to describe the sound/tone of our instruments are used by different people to describe different things. One person's 'woody' is another person's 'dull' ,& clear,open trebles can sound to some people 'overbright'. All we can really say is what suits us regarding the tone of any mandolin. Very often it will suit others as well for exactly the same reasons,but our / their opinions will differ from that of even more people. Even the same instrument(s) on different days will have a change of tone according to temp. & humidity. In other words, 'subjective' terms re.tone are only meaningful at any one time. My own mandolins change tone/volume dramatically after being in a warm room for a few hours. It's such a complex matter with so many contributing factors,that only scientific research could (maybe) define the sound/tone of a group of instruments under strict Lab.conditions. And what would that prove ?. Remove those instrument from the Lab. & they'll all start sounding ''different' again according to the conditions that they're 'now' subject to = a total waste of time (IMHO). All mandolins,even those from the same builder will sound different,although the differences may be subtle.
Mostly we 'listen to' & play a variety of instruments when we wish to buy one,& we choose the one that sounds best 'to us' & plays as easily as we wish - just as it should be,
Ivan
PS - From the OP - "So responsive and unbelievably loud!" Try playing an Ellis with DR strings on it & stand well back !!.

[Petrus]

I apologize in advance for bringing up a somewhat sore topic that's been beat to death.

The Cafe specializes in sore topics that have been beaten to death.

My resonators (uke & mando) both have a very metallic sound on all strings, nothing subjective about that. (My uke is strung with steel, btw.)

"Woody" ... wouldn't any instrument made of wood sound woody to some extent? But the strings are metal, so there'll always be a metallic element. Is it that "woody" instruments have more resonance in the wood, whereas in a "metallic" instrument the wood is less resonant so you're hearing more of the string?

Most people agree that the biggest tonal difference is when you go from the wound strings (G & D) to the unwound strings (A & E), so this could explain what you mention in your post about the differences. Someone should try out wound A's (or unwound D's if they exist) and then make the comparison and see if it's discernible. There's also a big difference between nickel and bronze strings, and between flatwound and roundwound. I generally prefer the darker, subtler sound of flatwound and nickel. Point being, strings do make a huge difference.

"Tubby"/"thumpy" vs. "thin" has to do with resonance, which is an objectively measurable phenomenon (consider electric guitar effects pedals! You can crank the resonance up to where it sounds like you're in an auditorium, or crank it down 'til it sounds like you're playing with a pillow over the instrument.) A less resonant body is going to sound "thin." I'd also note that some of the onomatopoeic descriptors have direct referents in the sound they're describing: "tubby" sounds resonant; "thumpy" sounds like a timbre that has a resonant attack but a fast and distinct decay (thus the plosive "p," cutting off the resonance at the end.) Etc.

[dhbailey]

One reason that it's so hard to find universally used and understood terms is that the way people hear things differs from person to person. One person may hear the high overtones very clearly while the next person may have lost the ability to hear the upper partials and so the two people may hear the same instrument at the same time and describe it very differently. The one with the great hearing may describe it as having a ringing bright tone while the second person who has lost the ability to hear the high partials may describe the same sound as woody with very little resonance. And a third person may describe the sound in yet a different way.

Words are very limited in their usefulness to describe sounds -- if you use the term "bright" about a sound which I have never heard, I have no idea if your concept of a bright sound matches my concept of a bright sound. The only way I can truly know what you mean by the term "bright" is that you and I have to have been in the same room and heard the same sound at the same time where you used the term "bright" and I could then know exactly what you meant.

[bart mcneil]

Don't worry how it sounds in the store..... Given twenty or thirty years it will definitely "open up" and you will have a fine sounding mandolin. At least it will if you spend a hundred or more extra for a bridge. And a few more hundred for a nice case, and a rhinoceros skin leather strap. And your pick should cost at least fifty dollars if you expect much tone. And oops - I forgot, a hundred more for a tone guard, so you won't have to learn how to hold your mandolin while playing. You'll be set to go!

[Mandoplumb]

Can the bluegrass police assume this responsibility or do we need a " description" police?

[jmagill]

One reason that it's so hard to find universally used and understood terms is that the way people hear things differs from person to person. One person may hear the high overtones very clearly while the next person may have lost the ability to hear the upper partials and so the two people may hear the same instrument at the same time and describe it very differently. The one with the great hearing may describe it as having a ringing bright tone while the second person who has lost the ability to hear the high partials may describe the same sound as woody with very little resonance. And a third person may describe the sound in yet a different way.

Words are very limited in their usefulness to describe sounds -- if you use the term "bright" about a sound which I have never heard, I have no idea if your concept of a bright sound matches my concept of a bright sound. The only way I can truly know what you mean by the term "bright" is that you and I have to have been in the same room and heard the same sound at the same time where you used the term "bright" and I could then know exactly what you meant.

Very true, and yet we still like to describe sound to each other, and words are all we've got, at least on a forum like this. I compare this daunting task to trying to describe the taste of an orange to someone who has never eaten one.

I have made it a bit of a hobby to photograph and review instruments by a number of small-shop builders, and I can sympathize with those who wish there were more standardization in the language we use to describe the sound of our instruments.

In an attempt at such standardization, in my own evaluations, a number of which can be found on the instrument reviews page at my website, I use the same defined metrics (below) to apply to each instrument:

Balance - Consistency in the prominence of frequencies throughout the dynamic range.

Sustain- Length and consisitency in the decay of audible frequencies.

Volume & Projection - Amplitude for both player (volume) and listener (projection).

Response - The energy required to move the strings as well as the speed at which it responds to that energy.

Depth - The depth or spaciousness of the sound is what gives it dimension and presence. I think of it as how far down in the body the sound seems to come from and how completely the sound chamber is pushing out sound.

Resonance - The character of the harmonic frequencies as an indicator of how completely an instrument seems to be vibrating is what many call resonance. However, I make a distinction for it here as a measure of fullness in the sound the player can both hear AND feel.

Overtones - Harmonic frequencies overlaying the fundamental tones.

Timbre/Tone - If the sustain and overtones give the sound 'personality,' timbre describes the quality of that personality, combining the fundamentals, overtones and all other resonant frequencies generated by both the vibrating strings and the vibrating wood to create a particular instrument's unique voice. It is this 'quality of personality' I believe most folks refer to when they speak generally about an instrument's 'tone,' and this is a subjective area where metaphor becomes the standard currency.


It is this last category, Timbre/Tone, where empirical measurement is difficult, that much of the inconsistency in meanings seems to lie, and many of us may simply give up and adopt a "I know it when I hear it" attitude when confronted with familiar terms used by others in ways we find unfamiliar or confusing. While not presuming to impose my own language on others, I offer here my own definitions of common metaphors that I have found useful. To my ears, many of these represent opposite ends of various qualities and so are presented here as continuums:

"woody" to "metallic" - A timbre reminiscent to that of a marimba bar or wooden bell struck by a wooden mallet on the woody end and a brittle, perhaps even harsh, timbre on the metallic end.

"warm/dark" to "bright" - Depth and prominence of the low end to the same qualities on the high end. "Mid-range-y" would emphasize the prominence of, duh – the middle.

"dry" to "sparkly" - Fewer overtones on the dry end to more on the sparkly end.

"focused" to "spacious" - Compressed-sounding timbre producing increased volume and projection on the focused end to an open-sounding timbre with less projection on the spacious end.

"thin" to "fat" - Lack of resonance on the thin end to abundance of resonance on the fat end.

"tubby" - A timbre prominent in vintage oval-hole mandolins emphasizing woody, fat and dry qualities.


I hope others might find these useful, but if not, perhaps they'll be more grist for the comment mill!

[Bertram Henze]

Once they figure how to make the strings of wood, too, sounds will range from woody to xylophonic.

[pheffernan]

along with a specific collings I don't want to mention as I plan on buying it Monday as the counter point to my Kentucky.

Is that MT2 in fact varnish? The description mentions both lacquer and varnish, although the discussion of the varnish is far more extensive. If it is, and that signature either can be removed or does not bother you, that's a good buy.

[Fretbear]

And then a single set of GHS Silk and Bronze puts a monkey in the wrench.......

[Bernie Daniel]

I .....Why is it so hard to have some governing body create a language to describe sounds?..

OK well mark me down as someone who does not want a "govering body" to determine what language I can use to describe the sound of a mandolin.

But in answer to your question I suggest the answer is that no governing body can regulate how every individual describes a sound (mandolin or other) is that that the governing body can not regulate how each person HEARS that sound as that is clearly a function or each person's genetics as we know.

But I wish I could have visited those music stores so I could come up with my descriptions of those great mandolins.

[Jim Taylor]

I wish Carters high end room wasn't so live - everything sounds loud in there!

[almeriastrings]

I wish Carters high end room wasn't so live - everything sounds loud in there!

Never been there, but looking at the photos and videos, that struck me too.

[Manfred Hacker]

And then a single set of GHS Silk and Bronze puts a monkey in the wrench.......

Or a different pick ...

I get a significant change in tone depending on which of my favorite picks I use.... from "dark(?)" "and "warm(?)" to "bright(?)" to ....
My mandolin sounds always super pleasant to my ears though, which is the most important thing, because I play alone 90% of the time, or record for the Song-a-Week Group

[Vincent Capostagno]

When describing instruments i hear, I try to limit my evaluations to "naughty" and "nice" with Bleh! allocated to the occasional clunker. "Harsh" describes the sound of any mandolin I play no matter what it's provenance.

[FLATROCK HILL]

I wish Carters high end room wasn't so live - everything sounds loud in there!

This is true. The walls are lined with beautiful little air chambers, carved spruce and maple boxes stung up to pitch with ringing metal strings. Everything played in that back room seems alive.

[EdHanrahan]

... I wish a governing body would declare specific words in a lexacon of music vocab to describe certain tonal traits. It would make all of our lives a lot easier...

... until some grinch finds a way to copyright the sounds, charge royalties for using those sounds, and enlist an army of liability lawyers to infiltrate your next jam session. I'd rather bask in the glow of insightful discussion, like this one. Thanks for starting it, 9lb! And thanks to All for your insight.

... then we'd finally stop bickering ...

Wrong!

[stevedenver]

Can the bluegrass police assume this responsibility or do we need a " description" police?

we definitely need another government regulatory agency. definintely

[JFDilmando]

I think the reference to environment alluded to in several posts here is one that escapes many of our descriptions when we "evaluate" any particular instrument.... especially when we think of how it sounds with reference to another instrument that we have experienced somewhere else....

Several examples come to mind. When living in Albuquerque, I became used to the sound of my D28 over the course of several years... upon my trip to Winfield Kansas, I opened my case, started playing my same D28 and BOOM.... I stopped and looked at it to see that it was indeed the same instrument. It was just exploding sound that was so very different from that which I had become accustomed.... amazing difference, presumably due to the marked humidity difference....

Another instance, was where one person had experienced a particular Loar, on the east coast.... along with several others... time passed, and that wonderful sound haunted and teased... and the instrument acquired.... when it arrived on the west coast, it was different. The same sound of memory, was just not there.... others verified the observation, with their collective memories. Something had changed.... was it the instrument.... was it the environment.... was it the folks themselves....

Who knows.

[Joey Anchors]

This makes me want to take a trip to Nashville just to play all these great mandos!

9lbShellHammer how well did your KM950 hold up to the best sounding mandos during your visit?

[9lbShellhamer]

Joey, I honestly thought I'd leave Nashville with a new Northfield to counter my km950, and although it was nice, I am blown away by my km950 every day more and more. I think it's the best value under $3000 for a traditional sounding instrument.

My favorite for the trip was an old collings mt2 that would be a perfect counterpoint to my traditional sounding Kentucky km950. I'm just thinking now if I should actually go a step farther and get a Collings O model to really make it a different animal...I think in reality ill get the mt2 with f holes though so I have a traditional sounding mando and a modern one to pick from. Since I mostly play bg.

[darylcrisp]

what about the Elkhorns-did they have any available and did you try one?

Carters is a real neat place

d

[mandroid]

woody _ Clarinet. metallic _ Soprano Sax..