Link's Wacky Theory of Quality Density

[Link]

So, what are the most quality-dense mandolins? Quality density is basically "bang for the buck". In other words, if Mando A sounds 100 points good and costs $5,000, and Mando B sounds 75 points good and costs $3,750, their "quality density" is the same.

Another thing to ask yourself is whether the "best" mandos are the most "quality dense." Is a $200,000 Loar 100 times better than a $4,000 instrument? Is a $25,000 dollar Gilchrist 25 times better than a $1,000 instrument?

My apologies if a similar thread has been posted before.

[Flattpicker]

It doesn't work that way--the more you pay, the less improvement you get percentage-wise. You may have to step up 300% to get a 30% improvement. There are many less extreme and more extreme examples.
Bottom line--you have to pay a lot for the finest, but you can get most of the way there for a fraction of the cost. You have to find that fine line between price and quality in an individual instrument. I guess it's a matter of budget vs. how much or how little top-shelf sound/appearance/builder's name cache you can stand to live with.

[jim_n_virginia]

In my opinion it would be impossible to judge a mandolin with that system. Mainly because there are too many variables. First is that sound is subjective, what sounds good to be me not sound good to you.

And second likewise for judging a mandolin on price, I have heard mandolins that cost $25,000 and I couldn't understand why they were going for that high except maybe a certain high profile musicians was playing that particular type of mandolin and other builders who build beautiful looking and sounding mandolins and for some strange unfathomable reason they can't get more that $1800.00 for one of their F models.

A good example is Gilchrist. To my ears every one that I have been able to hear or play to me sounded too bright for my taste. But to others it is almost the holy grail of mandolins. Sound is just different things to different people.

I like Big Joe's simple advice to me a long time ago when he was with Gibson. Just buy the best mandolin you can afford that sounds good to your ears.

[Link]

I agree that an increase in price does not bring an equivalent increase in quality. This is just a sort of observation (though not a very original one) on my part.

[fatt-dad]

the answer is the pre-Gibson Flatiron 1N. You can get them for about $500.00 (there's one in the Classifides right now - nfi), they play great (i.e., nice neck) and have a very fundamental sound with the recommended light-guage strings. I'm not kiddin', I got this right!

f-d

[Rob Gerety]

Its called the law of diminishing returns.

[JEStanek]

I had composed a long response but the above replies captured what I was saying perfectly.

Jamie

[jim_n_virginia]

Its called the law of diminishing returns.

HA! wish I had typed that instead of the novel I just did!

[foldedpath]

Its called the law of diminishing returns.

That may be literally true, but I'm not a big fan of that phrase to describe the situation. I think it carries an implication that the far end of the quality curve isn't "worth the money," and it's not quite that simple, I think.

A less pejorative way to phrase it, might be something like "past a certain point, a 10% increase in perceived quality will cost more than 10% additional, until you reach the highest price the market will bear." Whether or not those additional costs are worth the money, will depend entirely on the individual and what other customers are willing to pay in the marketplace.

Same thing applies in many other areas, of course. Is a $2,000 USD Schoeps microphone worth the money, when you can get a Chinese small diaphragm mic for $200? It is, if that's the sound you want and can afford it. I'm personally in the first category (wanting) but not the second (affording).

The OP's idea of quality density won't work without some way to factor in what "affordability" means, for different people with different financial resources.

[JeffD]

There is no hard and fast agreement as to which qualities to give the most weight. Sound or playability, and what about workmanship. And within them there are vast differences in taste. There are many varieties of good tone, various shapes of neck, foregivable and unforegivable fit and finsih issues.

Add to that, the longer you have played mandolin, the more you value subtler qualities. The price saturation point, above which one cannot appreciate the differences, changes as you go along. The point at which the returns are diminishing is dependant on experience.

[farmerjones]

i dunno,
the longer i play the less mandolin i need.
That's not to say i don't want/know for better.

i think money in general isn't worth as much.

in the last hundred year what has changed more, the value of a dollar or pound, or the basic ingredients for a good mandolin?

[HddnKat]

I keep having this very arguement with a dear friend of mine. Yes a Gibson or a Gilchirst would be wonderful, but it wouldn't give me $5000 more playing ability on it - until I get to a certain ability level, I don't really think I"ll get much more 'bang for my buck' by getting a high end mandolin. At the same time, I'd sure like to get a mid-range instrument - something better than the little starter Fender that I play now - of course, when I explained to my husband that a 'mid-range mandolin' could still cost about $3000, his hairline receded a bit more, right before my eyes (Mind you, this is the same guy who has 20 different fishing poles, oh, excuse me, rods, and reels of every shape and color - so I guess it's all in what you value).

[Rob Gerety]

Its all relative to your ability to pay. There are folks out there for whom the large sums needed for high end mandolins are not an issue. For them it is no different - in relative terms - then buying a tube of toothpaste.

I think we all reach our own level on this - a balance between ability to pay and appreciation for sound and playability and appearance. For me, the medium or higher end mass produced instruments like Weber and Collings etc. suit my situation best. And I try to buy used.

Call them "fishpoles". That will keep things in perspective. I once did a calculation of the per pound cost of the trout and salmon I caught in a year. Scary. I had to go to per ounce - even then, it was not pretty.

[Andrew DeMarco]

I think we can agree that as far as sounds goes, the scroll is a purely aesthetic luxury that clearly adds cost to the mandolin.

[JeffD]

I think we can agree that as far as sounds goes, the scroll is a purely aesthetic luxury that clearly adds cost to the mandolin.

Yep.

[Bruce Evans]

So, what are the most quality-dense mandolins? Quality density is basically "bang for the buck". In other words, if Mando A sounds 100 points good and costs $5,000, and Mando B sounds 75 points good and costs $3,750, their "quality density" is the same.

You're an engineer, aren't you? S'OK. So am I.

[foldedpath]

I think we can agree that as far as sounds goes, the scroll is a purely aesthetic luxury that clearly adds cost to the mandolin.

I agree that the scroll adds nothing to the tone, but there's a long history of aesthetic luxuries in musical instruments. Try marketing a fiddle, cello, or double bass without a carved scroll at the peg head, which necessarily adds a little to the cost. There is no equivalent to the more basic "A" style mandolin in violin world, so they get a pass for having fancied-up instruments.

[papawhisky]

As has been noted already, the price to quality relationship is not linear. At the expensive end of the spectrum, it is clear that incremental increases in quality (however that is defined) cost far more than they do at the mid-range. The funny thing is that as mandolin players, we have come to accept this as normal. This came home to me recently.
My non-musician girlfriend asked me how my mandolin could cost six times more than my upright bass. Although I started out with an explanation that made sense to me and would probably make sense to many on the Cafe, I had to quickly admit that it was tough to justify.
Fortunately, I don't have to justify obtaining the mandolin that has the voice I am seeking. It's just a mandolin thing.

[Gerard Dick]

Availability also plays a big role. If enough folks desperately want a part of a limited supply the price soars. If the production run of Loars had gone to tens of thousands most of us would be able to afford one.

[yankees1]

In my opinion it would be impossible to judge a mandolin with that system. Mainly because there are too many variables. First is that sound is subjective, what sounds good to be me not sound good to you.

And second likewise for judging a mandolin on price, I have heard mandolins that cost $25,000 and I couldn't understand why they were going for that high except maybe a certain high profile musicians was playing that particular type of mandolin and other builders who build beautiful looking and sounding mandolins and for some strange unfathomable reason they can't get more that $1800.00 for one of their F models.

A good example is Gilchrist. To my ears every one that I have been able to hear or play to me sounded too bright for my taste. But to others it is almost the holy grail of mandolins. Sound is just different things to different people.

I like Big Joe's simple advice to me a long time ago when he was with Gibson. Just buy the best mandolin you can afford that sounds good to your ears.

Well stated!

[Link]

To me, the "sound is subjective and different people like different things" argument is irrelevant here (it's obviously not irrelevant everywhere). The quality density argument applies just as well when you are only considering one person's taste.

[EdHanrahan]

... the price to quality relationship is not linear. At the expensive end ... incremental increases in quality ... cost far more than they do at the mid-range.

And thus a (bottom-of-the-line but top-of-the-car-world) Ferrari costs 3 or 4 times more than a Corvette, even if the Corvette is faster, corners & stops better, and doesn't require a setup (engine re-build!) every 15K miles.

Of course, the Ferrari may provide more, uhmm, extracurricular activities to keep you occupied while waiting for that engine.

[Lefty Luthier]

It is my experience that once you get above $3,000, you are buying decoration and reputation for the additional cost. Not that I don't occasionally build more expensive instruments but they don't sound a bit better than the less expensive ones. I recently replicated a $7,000 mandolin for a young man for $2,800 by substituting Grover tuners for Waverly, a stamped tailpiece and a bit less expensive wood suite. It sounded great and wasn't that hard to look at.

[JEStanek]

To me, the "sound is subjective and different people like different things" argument is irrelevant here (it's obviously not irrelevant everywhere). The quality density argument applies just as well when you are only considering one person's taste.

How often can we use a metric like quality density when the purchase is based upon a sliding scale of sound preferences, look preferences, and budget? What might be a high quality instrument to someone with a budget of $300 is different for a price point of $2K and then what about $5-10k.

Lets say you can actually measure and quantify these variables. What do we do with them? How often do we update the metrics and how do we manage the exceptions "my humble Merkle played the pants offa builder X's mandolin at the jam last night."

I think when you find a good fit for your ears and hands you find a good fit. Kinda like dogs, wine, and friends. I think a more useful excercise might be to describe what you believe makes up a high quality mandolin. That will take some ruminating on my part to answer in a meaningful manner...

Jamie

[OldSausage]

What's the quality density of this discussion?

I probably just lowered it.