FIRST SOUNDS

**Brier** · Feb-06-2004, 10:56am

I put strings on #3 it's an F and is in the white. I don't like how quite it is and have been taking small amounts off the recurve.

When you first string up you new mando what do you hear? My first 2 mando's where quite and over time sound very good to me. I remember being disapointed at the early sounds from the first two.

Do some mando's sound great out of the gate, I would love info on first sounds, say the first few weeks in the white.

Peter

**Jim Hilburn** · Feb-06-2004, 11:40am

Try working the recurve of the back. Less chance of getting into structural trouble and it's a huge contributor to the overall sound. Easily as important as the top.

**tope** · Feb-06-2004, 6:38pm

My #1 and #2 did sound like they needed the breakin period. #3 sounded very diferent, sounded great right out of the gate. So there are a few that short cut the playing in period.

Feb-06-2004, 6:57pm

Jim...could you say more about the importance of working the back? I always see folks talking about the top but much less discussion regarding the back plate. thanks.

**Jim Hilburn** · Feb-07-2004, 8:30am

Dennis ,you've surely used a tone gard and probably noticed that it really works.
The graduations from the McRostie print and I assume all the others indicate a thinner recurve than the top. First ,it's maple ,much stronger than spruce ,and second ,it doesn't have the string load. It's job is to sympathetically vibrate along with the top.
Bob Bennedetto stressed that the warmth produced in a good archtop is coming from the back. I also remember Caleb Roberts talking about his conversation with Cliff Sargent.Cliff would point to the back and say "this is where the sound is coming from".

Feb-07-2004, 2:25pm

Jim...thank you. So is "the thinner the better" the idea or is there any eventual loss associated with a back thats "too thin"?

**P Josey** · Feb-07-2004, 3:10pm

Here is a link to a photo I find interesting. It's from Frank Ford's visit to Gibson's Factory at The mall.Here

**mandoryan** · Feb-07-2004, 3:20pm

You definetely want the back thinner in the center of the back than that pic shows. Also, the recurve doesn't look the same on the sides. Even graduations definetely help the vibration of sound through the wood.

**Jim Hilburn** · Feb-07-2004, 3:26pm

I suppose you can go too thin and maybe produce a tubby sound ,or even threaten structural integrity. It's each builders choice. I've read new builders on here even recently talk about how they didn't feel the back was all that critical ,so that's really what I'm addressing.
As for the the photo from Gibson ,I don't know why they chose that mandolin to saw in half ,but it certainly exhibits some inconsistencies in the graduations. The thin part of the back looks about right, but I can't imagine leaving as much wood in the center or the bass-side recurve as is seen there. But that's just me. What do I know?

**mandoryan** · Feb-07-2004, 7:37pm

From what I've seen, Jim, you know quite a bit!!!

**Yonkle** · Feb-07-2004, 9:51pm

I wonder if you called Gibson, if they would glue that body back together and sell it cheap?

**Keith Newell** · Feb-09-2004, 1:45am

Is that a bolt on Neck I see?
Keith

**MarkG** · Feb-09-2004, 5:42am

Originally Posted by (mandolinkgn @ Feb. 09 2004, 02:45)

Is that a bolt on Neck I see?

No. That's the tail block you're looking at.

**P Josey** · Feb-09-2004, 6:57am

I posted the Gibson photo hoping to generate some more discussion on graduating the backs of mando. There doesn't seem to be enough discussion on the subject. Myself, as a newcomer to building mandos would like to hear from the old timers on this. I have all the respect in the world for those people like Jim Hilburn and others and very much value their advice.

Paul Josey

**Chris Baird** · Feb-09-2004, 10:47am

I'm certainly no old timer but I'll throw in my process as it is simple and works fairly well. My graduations are pretty much modeled after the Loar specs above. I leave a very thick area right in front of the neck block. It is usually about .350-.400" at its thickest and tapers down to the 3/16 heel button. My graduations for the back are fairly symetrical right to left. If it its a 2 piece back I'll leave the center seam a bit thicker above the tailblock. I usually have a look at the chladni patterns and draw on the outside where the 4th mode nodes are. The nodes pretty much run around the thinnest areas and as F5journal stated the thinnest area is eliptical and doesn't run up into the neckblock area but is right next to the thick part. The nodes get a little funny down near the tailblock area in a freeplate but I assume they form a ring when glued up to the rim. This means that to lower the 4th mode one just has to sand/scrape away at the recurve/thin area. The closer the 4th mode of the back to the 4th of the top the sweeter and bassier the sound. I have been ending up with a relationship of 3-4 half tones difference. I always mess with the back before I do anything to the top. I like my tops thick and my bodies well coupled. If the coupling is as good as I know how to get it and I'm not getting the tone I want then I'll mess with the top a little.

**Brier** · Feb-10-2004, 9:31pm

Thanks for all the replies. My back on #3 is moving well by the defection gauge {MacRostie style}. My problem is the top is nice but stiff Sitka that dosn't want to deflect much. I'm already down way at or below 2.5 mm on the recurve and it still won't move more than .015. The mando is get louder so time may be the answer.

I would still like to here about first sounds? Do the quite one's all get louder in time? I know about 6weeks, 6 months, 6 years in the development of an instument. I would like any insite on how your mando's change. Thanks.

Peter.

**Chris Baird** · Feb-10-2004, 9:46pm

I really don't think mandolins change much with time. #They do change and nearly always for the better but just a little. #I find that the tonal qualities mature/become more complex. #I've never exprienced a huge difference in volume. #And if the mandolin doesn't have something to begin with I don't believe it ever will. #I believe that aging takes what a mandolin has in terms of tone and just makes it "sweeter" but I wouldn't bank on anything new developing.

P.S. Leave the top thick and take down the tone bars. Some wood is just stiff and is destined to make a punchy trebley instrument. Don't carve too thin or you will be making a new top in about 6 months. I learned that the hard way and I know many others have as well.

**Jim Hilburn** · Feb-11-2004, 7:58am

On mine ,I've noticed that they "open up" most in the first few minutes after getting strings, but I've never been sure if it isn't just me starting to percieve what I'm actually hearing, but they seem to grow quite a bit in the first hour.

**Chris Baird** · Feb-11-2004, 10:29am

I think one of the biggest changes a mandolin goes through is having the bridge "seat". I've replaced a broken bridge on a couple mandolins and after the repair they both sounded like new mandolins. It took about a week for them to mellow out. I assume the same goes for new mandos.

**MandoViking** · Feb-17-2004, 11:58am

I've made one F-5 and when I had it strung up in the white it sounded real brassy and twangy at first, but after about two weeks it was sounding real good. It's a very loud mandolin, but not as mellow as my "Laurel" F-5. I think all this was due to the mando "settling in" and the brassy newness of the strings wearing off. My mando top is European spruce. The center is carved at .22'' and the recurve is .10". I don't think that's too thin.
Brier, I hope to see you at Maltby April 3rd. I'll bing both my F-5's.
H. Bruun