Modern Classical Mandolin Design ?s

[Chris Baird]

Greetings,

I am in the planning stages of a modern classical mandolin. The mandolin will be arched top and back. I would greatly appreciate any input on the following subjects.

Scale Length - What scale length would be most appropriate and ultimately desired for the modern classical player?

Fretboard width - What nut width and fretboard taper would work best for the modern classical player?

Strings - I am planning on using 4 gut courses. Does anyone have any input on how gut courses will compare to wire or wire/gut combos? Diameters? Links to favorite gut manufacturers?

Tuner options - I am considering friction pegs but have reservations. Would friction pegs be too much a hinderance?

Tone - If anyone would care to elaborate on what type of tone a good modern classical mandolin should have I would be honored to try and interpret it.

Additional recommendations etc. welcome.

Thanks.

[Jim Garber]

First of all: you may be making an anomaly A "modern classical mandolin" with gut strings? Also, are you carving the top and back a la Gibson? I am not sure how that would work with the gut strings. Perhaps, look at violin construction, ie, very light top might be the best. Otherwise, I am not sure that the strings will have enough tension to "drive" the top.

Be aware that the standard "modern classical mandolin" is a Neapolitan tuned mandolin with metal strings. My favorite playing instrument is an Italian bowlback with 13 inch (330mm) scale and 1 1/16 inch (27mm) measure at the nut end.

If you are looking to make a carved top instrument to appeal to classical players I would look to the Lyon & Healy. Doug Woodley and a few other makers make models like the old ones. These do use steel strings tho.

As far as a source of gut strings for mandolins, Gamut Strings would be a source in the US. This is run by Daniel Larson who is also a fine maker of both modern and historic instruments.

Jim

[vkioulaphides]

I second Jim on metal strings. As for specs, both my post-1881 Ceccherini and my 2004 Calace have a wee bit longer scale: 34 cm. the former, 33.5ish the latter. Regarding width at the nut, Jim's Romanesque Pandini may be a bit tight for my paws. For comparison, a modern Greek I have is 26 mm. at the nut— veeeeeeery tight! The Ceccherini, a merciful 28 mm. My very, very comfortable de Meglio, 29 mm. I know of some (English?) mandolins that reach 30 mm., at which point one may be experiencing diminishing returns, i.e. a nut too wide to grip with comfort. I have no experience with that.

Still, metal strings are a given.

[Chris Baird]

Thanks for the string input and fretboard input. I will be designing around the string tension that I eventually choose. The top will be graduated accordingly. As far as metal strings go what would be the most widely accepted brand and diameter. It is essential that I know the tension my strings are going to be at before I move on in my design.

[Jim Garber]

We often use much lighter strings than the std bluegrass gauge. Not sure of the technical aspects but I lean toward Dogal Calace strings RW92b (ultra light) for the vintage bowlbacks and medium RW92 for more contemporary instruments. You may have to write to Dogal to get the actual tension specs.

As far as carved top instruments specifically meant for classical check out Phoenix NeoClassical. He says they are meant for medium gauge TI strings.

Checking out the Phoenix site i noticed that our own Jim Dalton (JimD) plays one.

BTW are you building this for yourself or for a potential customer?

Jim

[Eugene]

I will add a 3rd unison voice to Jim's and Victor's. #Gut strings are the domain of historic replicas, not the modern instrument.

David Cohen gave this some thought and concocted this fine model. #I don't build anything, but I've given my preferences some thought too. #I think the most graceful form ever applied to the archtop mandolin was Lyon & Healy's mature style A: i.e. the later one with asymmetric points and short scale. #I like a scale length of ca. 13 1/8", an oval soundhole, and a top light enough to be responsive to light strings (down to ca. 0.009"-0.0095" on e"). #A fingerboard extension to 24 or even 29 (often omitting 28) would be a necessity for virtuoso-type characters (i.e. better players than me!). #Maybe atypical, but I definitely prefer the lower bridge/string height like that on bowlbacks and pre-1908 Gibsons; I don't know of anybody still building archtops like that. #I can do without the scratchplate/pickguard/finger-rest; although, those inlaid bowlback-style into the early Gibsons were attractive (like that on my own visible here). #I guess my ideal archtop classical mandolin would be #hybrid of the ca. 1907 Gibson and ca. 1920 L&H aesthetic.

[Chris Baird]

Again, Thank you all for the input very helpful. I will admitt that the gut strings were a romantic idea not grounded in practicality. I have a friend however, who has a gut strung classical guitar that has wonderful tone. The instrument I am attempting to build in no way is intended to replace the classical standard. It is an endeavor to fuse the finer points of classical tone and playability into the frame of a modern mandolin that has more projection and volume. This instrument will be a prototype and is not intended for anyone in particular. The shape will be somewhat like a non-cutaway archtop guitar fused with a standard classical guitar shape, of course mandolin sized.

[Jim Garber]

I think that if you want to use gut you might consider a much lighter construction like a mandolino or early Vinaccia type.

See Eugene's links on this thread.

Jim

[vkioulaphides]

Ah, how multiple applications of the term "classical" lead to materially (pun intended, I suppose) different understandings! Yes, for "classical" guitar, gut just might be a more "authentic" substitute for nylon. I leave this to the guitarists on board to discuss, if thus inclined. But for classical mandolin, metal is standard, as of the birth of the Neapolitan "standard" instrument.

I know virtually nothing about non-bowlbacks —is it "carved" that they are called collectively?— so I take my leave before I outlast the welcome.

Best of luck. Keep us all posted as your worthy project progresses.

[John Bertotti]

I have been kicking this around for about a year now. Haven't begun but a previous post about a carved top bowl back instrument and the replies led me to believe this is done. I am under the impression that the greek mandolins forgo the cant and use a carved top. What type of carving I don't know. It may be graduated or it may be a relief carved into the recurve area. I haven't seen a greek instrument yet. I would add that part of the classical sound is in relation to the immovable back, at least in comparison with carved backs, and the body cavity volume. Please let me know what you come up with. I find this most interesting.
Also Victor may be able to help with the Greek instrument knowledge since he has one. John #

[vkioulaphides]

Actually, John, it was Bob A who once made the best-suited simile I know of between the function of the (carved and graduated) top of Greek bowlbacks and the usual mechanism of a speaker: The top, suspended around the periphery, vibrates freely. The Neapolitan canting, while allowing for far more pressure to be put on the top, obviously does not foster that sort of suspended-membrane-like vibration.

[Chris Baird]

Yes, I realized shortly after posting that the term "classical" would be confusing and in and of itself may mean nothing more than non-bluegrass. I do however intend an instrument that will be played in a "classical" way meaning music from and/or inspired by composers of mid and eastern Europe and the Mediteranean. I would certainly use factors of design from bowlbacks if I can, esp. fretboard measurements and scale lengths. I do, however, have more of a spanish classical guitar tone in mind over the Italian bowl back. Whether or not that tone would transfer well into a mandolin is unknown to me.

[vkioulaphides]

Oddly enough, Chris, the mandolins that are most akin to the classical guitar TONE are the extra-stout German bowlbacks! So confusing, isn't it?

[Eugene]

I think the tone you describe is like that the modern German luthiers (Seiffert, Knorr, Dietrich, Albert & Mueller, Woll, etc.) have striven for and achieved in their bowlbacks built for use with flat-wound strings. I don't think you need to go there again.

However, your notion of creating a mandolin for European-style art-music repertoire is largely untapped amongst modern carved instruments. Sure, there are a few (e.g., Phoenix) that make an instrument with a "classic" tone in mind, but these are really interesting, modern, historically isolated concoctions based mostly upon post-mandolin-heyday Gibsons. I would say Dave Cohen's "oval" model (which, I believe, he actually used to call his "classical" model) is the only real post-depression effort to create an archtop mandolin for classical reperoire with some consideration to the functionality of the instruments for which much of the classical repertoire was created. Hooey, Im sorry about that last sentence; it's a whopper.

[Eugene]

Simultaneous-post alert: You took the words right out of my mouth, Victor.

[Eugene]

I would say Dave Cohen's "oval" model (which, I believe, he actually used to call his "classical" model) is the only real post-depression effort to create an archtop mandolin for classical reperoire with some consideration to the functionality of the instruments for which much of the classical repertoire was created.

...Other than those directly copying the Lyon & Healy models, of course.

[Chris Baird]

It is my intention to design a mandolin that is not even a little "Gibson"-like. Since bowlbacks are not even close to what I build I will stick to my own repetoire of building techniques and see what happens. If nothing else I will make sure it looks good.

[Jim Garber]

I would say Dave Cohen's "oval" model (which, I believe, he actually used to call his "classical" model) is the only real post-depression effort to create an archtop mandolin for classical reperoire with some consideration to the functionality of the instruments for which much of the classical repertoire was created.

...Other than those directly copying the Lyon & Healy models, of course.

What about the Phoenix Neo-classical I mentioned above? Non-L&H, for sure andf meant for those purposes. I have never played one and frankly, I am not pleased with the look, but the intent of the maker is there.

Jim

[Eugene]

What about the Phoenix Neo-classical I mentioned above? Non-L&H, for sure andf meant for those purposes. I have never played one and frankly, I am not pleased with the look, but the intent of the maker is there.

Those I had addressed with:

Sure, there are a few (e.g., Phoenix) that make an instrument with a "classic" tone in mind, but these are really interesting, modern, historically isolated concoctions based mostly upon post-mandolin-heyday Gibsons.

[Eugene]

It is my intention to design a mandolin that is not even a little "Gibson"-like. #Since bowlbacks are not even close to what I build I will stick to my own repetoire of building techniques and see what happens. #If nothing else I will make sure it looks good.

I'm mighty keen to see whatever you come up with.

[Jim Garber]

Those I had addressed with:

Sure, there are a few (e.g., Phoenix) that make an instrument with a "classic" tone in mind, but these are really interesting, modern, historically isolated concoctions based mostly upon post-mandolin-heyday Gibsons.

Sorry, Eugene... I had not read your posts thoroughly. But please, let me know how Dr. Cohen's design veers further away from the Gibson design, more than, say, Mr. Gerhardt's Neo-Classical.

The Cohen one looks like a Gibson A with the soundhole moved futher up and some contraption below the oddly shaped bridge. I know he has done much scientific acoustic research on mandolins, but I was wondering what he is doing in this model.

Jim

[Eugene]

I personally have only seen Dave's pre-oval models. The biggest differences on those are internal. His bracing isn't much like anything else in mandolin; I believe it is largely a riff on the Kasha-Schneider guitar patterns. The bridge certainly is. I think his oval-hole model features similar creative bracing. Also, I understand he used a more bowlback-like scale length on the oval model. With any luck, he'll happen by here and reply himself.

[Jim Garber]

He offers that model with either 13.875" or 13.125" scale lengths.

I would be curious as well.

[vkioulaphides]

By way of a post-script: After posting the above specs, I got home only to realize that I was a bold-faced liar. Havind said that Jim's Pandini, 27 mm. wide at the nut, would probably feel cramped, I measured my modern Calace last night: 26 mm.! So, apologies and amends to both Chris and Jim. Other than the super-super-narrow Romans with their 24-25 mm. wide nuts, the 25-30 mm. range is open for experimentation. Then again, of course, said Romans have arched fingerboards, so that the curvature creates more room for the fingers than width alone would have one believe.

I am still left wondering, though, having just measured my Calace. Vintage creatures of the Calace shop were often a good deal wider at the nut; I recall a specimen in Alex' excellent text with a good 29 mm. Others, too... Have the Neapolitan master's models been "Romanized" over the generations?

[Rex]

I prefer the short scale, 13" or 13.125". I feel the longer scale contributes to the bluegrass type focused tone (but is probably more a function of the extra string tension on most long scale instruments). 13" is also easier for me to play. Light guage strings like the Dogals. I also like a wider neck, like some of the Gibsons have. I do not like the standard narrow neck on most bowlbacks. Classical guitars have wider necks than steel strung guitars. I play classical guitar and really like the extra space a wider neck allows. I can fret notes cleanly without interfereing with neighboring strings. I also like nylon strings. Radim Zenkle has a custom made nylon string mandolin with a wide neck. I used to have the string gauges he uses but have lost that information. I prefer nylon to gut strings on a guitar, synthetic materials are much better IMHO. I really like the direction Mid Mo had gone with the raised fingerboard. This makes for a taller bridge so you get a good bend over the bridge without resorting to a cant. You also get a little better access to the higher frets. There is a line of classical guitars, Millenium I believe is the name, (made by Humphrey, maybe?) that employs a raised fingerboard for better access to high notes. It would be interesting to go even a bit higher than the Mid Mos, or even tilt the neck back like a violin to employ a high bridge. Not as high as a violin bridge. Plucked instruments don't behave like bowed ones. I would use a flat top and graduate the braces instead of arching the top. For sure I would want an oval or round sound hole, no f holes on a plucked instrument. Save those for the bowed instruments. F holes are too percusive sounding in a plucked instrument. 4 single strings are enough unless you tremolo a lot. But the instrument would have to be braced for that. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'm not a pro, just been picking and having fun a long time.