Can you describe tone... modern vs... um, traditional?

[terzinator]

I've heard people go deeply into describing the sounds that come out of these little instruments, saying some have a more "modern" tone, which I think people ascribe to Collings, for example, vs a "traditional" tone, which the Gibsons supposedly have.

A recent thread had comments about Collings which said "never liked the tone" or "shrill and harsh" or whatever. I've never found that, which just goes to show that it's all subjective.

I've played not-inexpensive Gibsons that sounded "thinner" to me than my modest MT. A jam pal let me try his Gibby MM at a recent fest, and I liked the tone of mine better. But he definitely got more "Monroe" sound out of his than I could ever get out of mine -- regardless of my proficiency, which is light-years behind his.)

Maybe it's "the faster you play, the more traditional you want it to sound!"

Is there a way to objectively differentiate the "modern" vs "traditional" tone, and what current production instruments (small builder or big, doesn't matter) generally fall into which category?

[yankees1]

Good question, but----------- I have no answer!

[barry]

Usually a "traditional" tone is characterized by a strong mid-range response. "Modern" sounding instruments typically have a deeper low end and a rounder, fuller sound. What you play and the settings in which you play will determine which you would prefer.
I've played some mandos that sounded great by themselves with a deep, rich, warm tone. When played in an ensemble setting that same instrument got lost in the mix and required a good bit of extra effort to be heard.

Conversely, the same traditional-sounding instruments that cut like a knife through a band or jam situation can sound rather dry and sparse while picking alone on the couch.

[djweiss]

Barry wrote pretty much exactly what I was thinking...

I find that it's hard to evaluate a mandolin when you're alone in a room versus in an ensemble. My primary instrument has what I consider the "traditional" tone, whereas it isn't the fullest sounding when I play it solo at home, but I can always hear myself in a bluegrass jam around the fiddles/banjos. It's not a volume thing, its that the mid's punching through the mix at the right frequencies.

I think the "modern" sound has more woof on the low end and more shimmer on the high end, but for me, it's harder to hear myself with others.

[sunburst]

Q: "Can you describe tone..."

A: No

[sunburst]

(double post)

[terzinator]

Usually a "traditional" tone is characterized by a strong mid-range response. "Modern" sounding instruments typically have a deeper low end and a rounder, fuller sound. What you play and the settings in which you play will determine which you would prefer.
I've played some mandos that sounded great by themselves with a deep, rich, warm tone. When played in an ensemble setting that same instrument got lost in the mix and required a good bit of extra effort to be heard.

Conversely, the same traditional-sounding instruments that cut like a knife through a band or jam situation can sound rather dry and sparse while picking alone on the couch.

Barry wrote pretty much exactly what I was thinking...

I find that it's hard to evaluate a mandolin when you're alone in a room versus in an ensemble. My primary instrument has what I consider the "traditional" tone, whereas it isn't the fullest sounding when I play it solo at home, but I can always hear myself in a bluegrass jam around the fiddles/banjos. It's not a volume thing, its that the mid's punching through the mix at the right frequencies.

I think the "modern" sound has more woof on the low end and more shimmer on the high end, but for me, it's harder to hear myself with others.

Thanks, this is really what I was looking for. I think it really describes it.

I agree; I like the sound of my Collings on its own, but you're right, the "traditional" ones cut through more.

How would you categorize the tone of an Ellis, say? Or a BRW, or a Kimble, a Duff, or other similar small builder? I know they vary between models, obviously, but if we're able to say that a Collings is "modern," where do these others fall in the spectrum, generally?

[mandolirius]

Thanks, this is really what I was looking for. I think it really describes it.

I agree; I like the sound of my Collings on its own, but you're right, the "traditional" ones cut through more.

How would you categorize the tone of an Ellis, say? Or a BRW, or a Kimble, a Duff, or other similar small builder? I know they vary between models, obviously, but if we're able to say that a Collings is "modern," where do these others fall in the spectrum, generally?

I have no idea. To me, it's all BS. Modern vs traditional sound. An instrument sounds like it sounds. Once you get to know mandolins some things can be concluded. Old Gibson oval holes can be expected to sound a certain way, but only in a very general way. Play a bunch and you come across wide variety of tonal qualities. There is talk of a Loar sound (as in Lloyd not The) and yet most experts agree they all sound different. I've only played about half a dozen Loars but my experience confirms that.

[djweiss]

...An instrument sounds like it sounds...

Well, I agree with that, too. I won't generalize about which builder has what kind of sound...but I do know that the mandolins that have been through my hands tend to either have a "bassy" (relative to a mandolin) tone that doesn't cut well, or a more mid-rangey tone that pushes through. Somebody once described it on this board as Chop (modern) vs Chirp (traditional). I think that describes it as well as it can be...

[Charlieshafer]

Hmmmm, I agree with those who say all the sound characteristics are indescribable. To my mind, the best mandolins have totally even tone and volume across the strings and up and down the fretboard, and it's up to the player to get their signature "sound." Best post on this recently was under the "Old Brooklyn-Andy Statman" thread where Andrew Mowry stated that he was listening to the cd trying to see how his mandolin sounded, but all he could hear was Andy Statman. I've heard this over and over where we'll sit down and relax with someone after a show, like Jason Norris of Bearfoot or Josh Pinkham. Every single time, no matter what they're handed, they sound like themselves. I think the player might hear something subtle, or more like "feel" something subtle under the fingers, but from a few feet away, all the players sound like themselves.

[barry]

"How would you categorize the tone of an Ellis, say? Or a BRW, or a Kimble, a Duff, or other similar small builder? I know they vary between models, obviously, but if we're able to say that a Collings is "modern," where do these others fall in the spectrum, generally?"


Generalizations for individual builders are subjective.. My opinion:

Collings=modern
Ellis=modern
Duff=traditional
BRW only ever played one that I happened to own and it fell into the "modern" category
Kimble=earlier ones had a more contemporary tone/later ones are traditional
Randy Wood=traditional
Nugget=while dry sounding, I consider them more modern in overall balance
Gilchrist=once again depends on the era. Older european spruce x-braced are more modern (though most have aged I to a nice dryness). Recent ones are more traditional but with his own signature sound.

[yankees1]

Q: "Can you describe tone..."

A: No

If the mandolin sounds good to your ear, than it has a good tone! If it doesn't sound good to your ear, than it has a less desirable tone!

[Charley wild]

If the mandolin sounds good to your ear, than it has a good tone! If it doesn't sound good to your ear, than it has a less desirable tone!

Works for me. I don't go looking for a certain tone. A certain tone seems to find me. And it's never the same certain tone as the last one.

[resophil]

So we have all these posters in this thread saying that, no, you can't describe tone, but when you read through these pages there are thousands, nay, tens of thousands of posts trying to do exactly that, inquiring about doing exactly that, proclaiming exactly that, or decrying exactly that....

Gosh, if you read some of the descriptions around here, you'd think Gabriel himself had descended from on high and anointed somebody's mandolin with the tone of the golden harps.

[Charley wild]

Gosh, if you read some of the descriptions around here, you'd think Gabriel himself had descended from on high and anointed somebody's mandolin with the tone of the golden harps.

???[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you've been reading the classifieds!

[terzinator]

So, structurally, what would you say is the biggest contributor to a mandolin having modern vs traditional tone? Is it the way the top is carved? Thickness of the wood? Is it differences in the bracing? Tonewoods?

I mean, there must be something specific that results in a mandolin sounding (or luthier building) one way or the other, right?

And yeah, I know that it's not "here's a bunch mandolins that sound like THIS, and here's a bunch that sound like THAT." I know there are degrees, and it's subjective, and whathaveyou... but there must be a decision that a luthier/builder makes, or a process they choose, that results in the mandolin going down one general path or the other, right?

[Charlieshafer]

I'm just not sure this makes sense to me. If everyone of the top builders uses the Gibson Loars as the "Holy Grail" of tone, and everyone compares the best builders to Loars, then everyone is trying for a traditional sound. If a certain builder has a slightly different sound based on construction techniques, then that's fine, but I have never heard of a builder saying something to the effect of, "I'm not trying for a traditionally-accepted quality of sound, I'm going "modern."

[resophil]

Terz, your opening statement, "I've heard people go deeply into describing the sounds that come out of these little instruments,,,," is the big problem,

Just because you've heard someone somewhere use the terms modern or traditional, they don't mean a dern thing, unless there is a common frame of reference, and you're both listening to the same thing when describing it, (and agreeing on it, I might add...) Flowery language doth not a mandolin make!

So one builder uses wood for his braces that's a little off-quarter, or a little softer, or a little harder, or a little something else. Maybe his braces do not fit quite as well as the next luthier's do. Maybe he uses different, harder glue. Maybe he has more arch in his top. Or his back. Etc. Etc.

You can go on forever with this stuff, but there are no answers readily available. A lifetime of working with wood has taught me that much, at least. If you want to knock yourself out searching for a description of tone, with your idea of suitable language to match, go for it!

I'm quite content to play an instrument, however, and make assessments at that point, not by listening to somebody else's verbiage and description of tone.

[Cheryl Watson]

I think that the bottom line is that if you need a mandolin that cuts through in a full band situation then you need to try it out in that context if you can. If not, you buy on reputation and you ask the seller if it cuts or if it has a rounder, fuller, darker tone. A mandolin that sounds really full and rich and on the dark side tonally played solo is generally not the one that will cut through in the mix. Are there mandolins that will do both? I don't know. My Williamson F5 is LOUD, but it will not cut through in a full band situation. My 2009 Kimble has a LOT of cut (without being abrasive) but it does not have the full, rich bottom end of the Williamson. Volume, cut and power are all different qualities actually.

[barry]

I'm just not sure this makes sense to me. If everyone of the top builders uses the Gibson Loars as the "Holy Grail" of tone, and everyone compares the best builders to Loars, then everyone is trying for a traditional sound. If a certain builder has a slightly different sound based on construction techniques, then that's fine, but I have never heard of a builder saying something to the effect of, "I'm not trying for a traditionally-accepted quality of sound, I'm going "modern."

I think that may be exactly what builders like Tom Ellis are thinking. I believe he owns a Loar. He knows what they sound like intimately. But there is a sound and response that is appealing to him and that's what he wants the instruments that bear his name to sound like.
That's perfectly logical. After all, the headstock says "Ellis".

[multidon]

This thread reminds me of one I started a while back asking people to describe what they meant by "woody" tone. That thread went on for a long time and basically went nowhere. A good number of my fellow Cafe members came down on the side of "You can't describe tone, you have to experience it". Some of those opinions are being rehashed here. I do think there is some validity to that viewpoint. But if that is the case, there are a great many people advertising on our classified who are wasting their time trying to describe the tone of the instruments they are selling. "Loud", "banjo-killer", "tubby", "woody", "bright", "bell-like", "dry", etc., etc., etc.- the descriptive vocabulary goes on and on even though describing tone is supposedly an exercise in futility.

I will tell you my theory about what people mean by "traditional" tone. I think it means the instrument's tone sounds like Bill Monroe's tone. That's it. Listen to some Bill Monroe recordings and if your mandolin sounds like that its tone is "traditional". Of course he is associated with the Gibson F style, but you can't even generalize about those. People who have played several Loars say that even they sound different from instrument to instrument. So, for one thing, instruments are individual creations with individual tonal characteristics. They have to therefore be judged individually. Secondly, part of what makes an instrument sound a certain way is how it is played. Bill Monroe defines the "traditional" mandolin tone partially because of the instrument he chose to play but also because he played it like Bill Monroe!

[terzinator]

OK, I totally understand when a premise might be flawed... But some of the responses seem to indicate that I have company in my misery (or perception). And, also, a couple responses have hit the nail on the head, as far as what I've experienced, too.

And it's this idea: That some mandolins, while sounding "thin" on their own, are the ones that cut through in the jams. And others sound full and rich on their own, but just don't have the same bite to be heard over the cacophony.

I know all about labels that might be misleading or misguided, and I know that tone is subjective and can't be easily described to mutual agreement, but there are elements I think that I hear.

And I don't think that a builder necessarily decides to go Loar or Modern, but I would argue they have a sound in their heads of how they want the mandolin to sound, and they build to get that result. It might wind up being what we have described as being "modern" or "traditional" or "neoconservative" or whatever. And I would argue that there are structural elements that contribute to a mandolin sounding a certain way. No?

There's a running joke in the Martin Guitar Forum, where one well-respected member described a certain guitar's tone as having "toasted wheat underpinnings." I tell you, that's gotten lots of humorous mileage, regardless of whether it was originally intended to be funny or tongue-in-cheek or whatever. Others send their guitars to a certain luthier to get their guitars "Kimseyfied," to remove the popsicle brace, and get other stuff tucked and shaved and whatnot, all in some attempt to re-create some pre-war sound. So, it's there. It might be crazy, but the belief exists. We have mandovoodoo and virzi tone producers and tone-rite vibrators and all kinds of other techniques that we use to modify or "improve" tone. (I might argue that you can't improve tone, but you can enhance certain characteristics, such as resonance, or volume, or a certain frequency response, etc...)

That's why the classifieds are so fun to look through, because someone has an instrument they think might not be all that and they decide to sell it (or they need to sell because of finances, or a one-in-one-out policy, or whatever), and the same mandolin gets into someone else's hands, and it's the holy grail. Subjective, subjective, subjective. There are more pretty girls than one.

It's fun to try to describe sound, even if the frame of reference isn't universal, or the language gets flowery. I think Phosphor Bronze strings are brighter than 80/20s. I think PBs complement the dark, chocolatey, spicy complexity of Rosewood. I think 80/20s bring out the fundamental, dry, woody character of Mahogany. You might think the opposite, or you might discount it as the ravings of a loon.

Yeah, I know, every instrument is different, so the target is always moving, and generalizations are silly -- and yes, tone is subjective. But it's still fun to share one's observations.

Oh my goodness, look at the time!

[terzinator]

I will tell you my theory about what people mean by "traditional" tone. I think it means the instrument's tone sounds like Bill Monroe's tone. That's it.

Yes! I think this is a big part of it.

[sunburst]

...Others send their guitars to a certain luthier to get their guitars "Kimseyfied," to remove the popsicle brace, and get other stuff tucked and shaved and whatnot...

That's one of the advantages to building F-hole instruments. It is difficult for people to see and get their hand inside the instrument to second guess the luthier and attempt to tweek around the edges and try to make the instrument into something other than what the builder intended.

Just a few words on mandolins that "cut through" vs. those that don't. In a band situation with several instruments, those instruments are emitting various frequencies of sound waves into the air. Some frequencies are prominent in the voices of other instruments, besides the mandolin, in the band. It the mandolin is to "cut through", a good way for it to do that is for it to be strong in frequencies where there is not a lot of competition from other instruments. I guess a way of looking at it is "band width". The mandolin needs a section of band width where there isn't a lot of competition in order to be heard over the other instruments. If a mandolin has that, and does cut through, it is OK for that mandolin to be strong at other frequencies too, and since the mixture of frequencies we hear is a large part of what determines "tone", saying that a "thin tone" cuts better than a "full tone" doesn't hold up. The one with the "full tone" may have just as much or more of those frequencies that "cut through" plus plenty of everything else. We want plenty of everything from a good mandolin.

[terzinator]

... saying that a "thin tone" cuts better than a "full tone" doesn't hold up. The one with the "full tone" may have just as much or more of those frequencies that "cut through" plus plenty of everything else. We want plenty of everything from a good mandolin.

Good point, and I didn't mean to say it was "one or the other!"

I guess that's what keeps us on the hunt for amazing instruments to play (or buy, if we're that lucky), and why I get weak in the knees looking through the classifieds. I have tasted a few life-altering wines, but I have yet to play a life-altering mandolin. (My Collings MT, though nice, is hardly "life-altering.")