Climate & grain growth - a question for builders.

[testore]

I too know Joe and Fan, and their incredible work. They are both absolute top notch builders. I have not dismissed any of their work. I have dismissed people who have spoken here in this forum who don't have enough experience to talk about Stradivari on a high level. There are MANY makers today building violins that sound great and will sound great for generations. But they will never be Strads. And the makers I am talking about would agree. Remember Strads aren't great or expensive because they sound good. For the same reason Loars cost what they cost because of WHAT they are.

[pefjr]

Uninformed and inexperienced. The latter may be true, but I feel obliged to counter the first claim.
Here's the abstract from an article published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science":

"Player preferences among new and old violins", C. Fritz, J. Curtin, J. Poitevineau, P. Morrel-Samuels, F. Tao, PNAS, january 2012.
Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri “del Gesu” are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins in particular. Many mechanical and acoustical factors have been proposed to account for this superiority; however, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly investigated. Player's judgments about a Stradivari's sound may be biased by the violin's extraordinary monetary value and historical importance, but no studies designed to preclude such biasing factors have yet been published. We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences were based on the violinists’ individual experiences of playing the instruments under double-blind conditions in a room with relatively dry acoustics. We found that (i) the most-preferred violin was new; (ii) the least-preferred was by Stradivari; (iii) there was scant correlation between an instrument's age and monetary value and its perceived quality; and (iv) most players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old. These results present a striking challenge to conventional wisdom. Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins. Rather than searching for the “secret” of Stradivari, future research might best focused on how violinists evaluate instruments, on which specific playing qualities are most important to them, and on how these qualities relate to measurable attributes of the instruments, whether old or new.

Unfortunately, I cannot view the full article. However, the PNAS is a renowned peer-reviewed journal. It's not easy to get an article published there. If it's published, then at least the research has been done well.

Thank You. Sometimes I see a similar bond of blind love between a fiddler and his fiddle, as between a sow Grizzly and her young cub. Similar tests have been periodically made in the past many times, and the results were always the same, but..........that bond is too strong to be broken by logic, reason, or numerous tests.

[Paul Hostetter]

I wish the conversation had remained focused on the notion of grain width having anything to do with anything other than looks. One only needs to look to the great instruments to know there's no correlation between grain count and tonal quality. And to how the "little ice age" was a non-event and an embarrassment to the guy who got roped into the lab analyses.

I have played and made HUNDREDS of new violins including several made by Joe Curtin and MANY other builders. I have played HUNDREDS of violins that few can offord to buy including MANY by all of the Guarneri members, ALL of the makers in the Stradivari family, many played by the most illustrious soloists past and present, and basically every maker of ANY merit you could mention. There is a HUGE difference from the perspective of the player that is immeasurable. There is truth that it may not be noticed by the listener but they are very different under the ear and left hand. But this has nothing to do with the grain width of the spruce.

I'm far more inclined to listen to someone with Gary's experience than people who primarily just discuss what they've read in journals but who aren't serious players and in fact lack real experience with great historical (and contemporary) instruments.

Hmmm...

All this time I thought the quality of the instrument--whether Loar or Strat (sic)--was completely in the hands of the wood cutter, and had very little to do with the person who made the instrument...

[Spruce]

Love it... ;-)

[TijnBerends]

Nonsense, the earth has always been the center of the universe. Anyone who claims different is uninformed and inexperienced. Let me tell you, I've walked this earth far longer then you, and in all those long years of experience I've never ever seen it move. It has always remained where it is. Anyone who has had this much experience will agree that it's the sun that's moving around, and I don't need no "scientists" telling me any different!

[Ivan Kelsall]

" My(OP) question was - as builders,have you found that the closeness of the woodgrain in your instrument tops influences their tonal qualities,& is a closer grained top better or worse in any way?." . With all due respect Dave,you haven't commented on my basic question with regard to YOUR instruments,& neither have any other builders.You've all given your opinions on wood,climate, rigidity etc.,but not one of you has said - "Yes,i have built a Mandolin from close grained wood & it sounded ....... compared with one i built from wood with a wider grain",which is the information i was seeking.Forget the climate,that was purely a natural mechanism by which the wood became close grained & i mentioned it,only because the TV programme did.
Here's a pic.of the Strad. that was featured in the actual TV programme - the 1721 ex-Fenyves Stradivarius Violin. In which case i'd comment 'forget the Strad.',
Ivan

[Spruce]

With all due respect Dave,you haven't commented on my basic question with regard to YOUR instruments,& neither have any other builders.You've all given your opinions on wood,climate, rigidity etc.,but not one of you has said - "Yes,i have built a Mandolin from close grained wood & it sounded ....... compared with one i built from wood with a wider grain",which is the information i was seeking.

With all due respect, there is no way in the world to scientifically prove--one way or the other--the information you are seeking....

If you "built a Mandolin from close grained wood & it sounded ....... compared with one i built from wood with a wider grain", it tells you nothing, as there are too many other variables in play...

Even if you re-topped it, you're dealing with new graduations, archings, and a new piece of wider-grained wood that reacts entirely differently (as each piece does) from the previous top made from tight-grained wood, even if they are from the same tree...
And those differences (and here's where experience comes into play) have absolutely nothing to do with how the graining is spaced....

You can offer your informed opinion (and we all do around here), but to make a blanket provable statement that tight-grained wood will sound a certain way and loose-grained wood another, just ain't gonna happen....

[Dave Cohen]

In science, we never prove anything. That is part of what is called the "doctrine of falsifiability". No matter how much evidence accumulates in favor of a given hypothesis, there is always another experiment to be done. And that experiment always has the potential to give results which are contrary to the prevailing evidence. However, it is very easy to disprove something. All you need is one experimental result contrary to the hypothesis, as long as that experiment can be repeated with the same result(s) by other impartial observers, and the hypothesis is disproven.

With regard to the tight grain/wide grain question, anecdotes have been presented by several people in this thread which disprove the hypothesis that grain count is a major factor in either the quality or the characteristics of a resulting instrument. Does it play some role? Posssibly, but as Spruce pointed out, there are too many variables to unscramble to say with any confidence exactly what that role is. Further, the importance of stiffness (actually Young's modulus), density, and internal damping ("Q") are large. If you test numerous samples of instrument wood (as Haines has done), along with keeping track of the grain count, you will find that there is little if any correlation between grain count and any trend in those properties. What matters most in instrument top plate wood is the ratio of a product of the parallel and perpendicular Young's moduli to the density (see Haines). You will find that there is no correlation between the grain count and that ratio. There are stiff and light pieces of wood with tight grain, and stiff and light pieces of wood with wide grain. Same thing with Q; samples of wood with low Q and wide grain, as well as samples of wood with low Q and tight grain, and so on. Build those various pieces of wood into instruments, and the properties will remain, despite differences in construction. The wide variation in properties with grain count insures that grain count by itself will not be a major factor in either the perceived quality of the instrument or specific characteristics. If you want something more, you are looking for tone fairies or wood sprites. I can't help you with that.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[peter.coombe]

Well said Dave.

To answer your original question. I personally have not noticed any sort of correlation between grain count and sound in my mandolins. They all sound different, but there is no consistent quality I can associate with wide grain, nor to fine grain. The reasons for that have just been nicely explained by Dr Dave Cohen.

[sunburst]

I haven't noticed any correlation between grain width and sound in my builds either, and if I had, I would chalk them up to chance because of all the reasons many of us have been mentioning in this thread. There simply isn't any credible evidence, scientific or anecdotal, of any difference in sound attributable to grain width in top wood.

[Willie]

I asked that same question to Mike Longworth of Martin guitars quite a few years ago and he said it just a bunch of bull....He did say that Martin used wood with a tighter grain on their top of the line guitars because people thought it made them sound better and it was a tradition for many years....He showed me a D-28 with narrow grain and a D-18 with wide grain and we both agreed that the D-18 sounded every bit as good as the D-28...There are a lot of people that believe the D-18`s are the better of the two anyway even with mahogany sides and backs....

Willie

[Spruce]

I asked that same question to Mike Longworth of Martin guitars quite a few years ago and he said it just a bunch of bull....He did say that Martin used wood with a tighter grain on their top of the line guitars because people thought it made them sound better and it was a tradition for many years....

This guitar was at the Martin booth this year (with a mega $$$ price tag), so I guess things have indeed changed....
4-5 GPI or so....

[pefjr]

The best sounding guitar I have owned is a Dauphin Classical with a Cedar top and Brazilian Rosewood back and sides, made in the 70's by the Japanese. Still have it. I think my son would shoot me if I sold it. Lots of guitar players have agreed with me over 40 years now, and that's doing a lot of comparing with 2/300 other name brand Guitars including Martins. In fact I once owned a Martin Sigma Acoustic D-28H made in the same time period for Martin. The Japanese made the Sigma better than the American made Martin D-28. I sold it 10 years ago and still hear about it from my son over that. I think Martin is over-rated, and the older Alvarez under rated.

[Michael Lewis]

There is a generality that as the growth rings get closer together the wood becomes stiffer. As has been stated previously, there are many other variables to consider that contribute to the structural and acoustic qualities of the wood. At some point as the grains get so close together the stiffness seems to fall off, and this effect will vary from tree to tree. Generalities are great if one wishes to speak in general terms, but when we focus on one instrument of one piece of wood the generalities can go out the window because we would be dealing with the specific qualities of that one example.

As a member of the human condition we try to simplify complicated things, try to apply 'logic', and arrive at conclusions that may not exist. Logic only works if you have all the information you need. I think we're all guilty to some degree or other. Life is good!

[Ivan Kelsall]

Please tell me in which of my posts i asked for 'scientific proof' !.
The TV prog.i mentioned,brought up the subject of 'close grain' being a factor in the tone of the 'Golden age' Strads.Having no experience myself,i put my OP question to the builders on here for their opinions.Maybe the bit about the 'Little Ice Age' was irrelevant,but as i mentioned,i only put it in because it was mentioned.
It seems that the general consensus is that,there will be differences in woods used,but not purely down to close or wide grain.& that there are other more important properties as mentioned by John Hamlett.
It's taken a long time to get round to it,but thanks for the 'positive' answers even if they pointed to 'negative' effects of the grain. I totally agree with Spruce & others re.the 'variables' that come into play. I've said exactly the same myself in several threads on here.But having heard 'one factor' being put forward as a possible reason for the tonal qualities of some Strad.Violins,i thought i'd ask 'the experts' their thoughts on the subject.
Now when i comes to Banjos....... !,
Ivan

[Dave Cohen]

While no one may have asked for a 'proof' of anything, Spruce did mention the word. "Scientific proof" is a common misconception that scientists all too often have to deal with. And, since the concept was brought up, it provided an opening for the explanation of how science cant prove, but can disprove. And being able to disprove is certainly relevant to this thread. There have been numerous examples in this thread counter to the notion that grain count alone is responsible for superlative qualities in mandolins. Quantify any one of those examples with measurements, and you have disproof.

Earlier, you asserted something to the effect that I had not made any statements about how grain count has affected the qualities of my mandolins. In fact, I did state in an earlier post that of my best efforts, some had very wide grain, and some had very tight grain. In the best instruments, the grain counts actually ranged widely, but the qualities of the instruments were quite similar. Seems to me that others posted similar arguments as well.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Spruce]

Spruce did mention the word. "Scientific proof" is a common misconception that scientists all too often have to deal with.

Sorry about that....

[Dave Cohen]

No problem, Spruce, and certainly no need for any apologies. I have even noticed some scientists using the words "proof" and "believe", usually in press releases. They are usually scientists who don't teach. Once you bump up against what it is you want students to know, you start to realize the importance of empiricism and falsifiability. Students not majoring in the sciences may take survey courses for their science requirement, and the contents vary. If I were still in the classroom, I would push for curriculum reforms in the survey courses (and the courses for majors, too) that would emphasize the common need for empiricism and falsifiability in all the scientific disciplines.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[HoGo]

Well Dave, my main area is math and we always prove things ;-) (just kidding, this is whole different thing). I also teach statistics and working with hypotheses is always about acceptance of some possibility of error in statement. Slight change in formulation of hypothesis may change things a lot and most violinmakers or journalists don't know too much about that.

[DougC]

This discussion although very entertaining and informative has a characteristic that I have seen before at mandolin cafe. And that is that some novice posits a 'hot button' issue and argues the point despite the answers and information returned. Many very experienced people get 'ticked off' and give even more explanations to really erase any doubt about the topic. All of the experienced people have a great amount of social time, though the original questioner is unable to understand or back down. It is sort of like Lord of the Rings and a 'spell' cast over all who consider the ring. Thanks everyone. I had a few really good laughs and learned a lot.

[Dave Cohen]

Adrian: Mathematicians certainly can and do prove things; I envy you for that. Lawyers claim to require proof, though I am not so sure about what "proof" is in their case.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[pefjr]

I am just back from inspecting and playing a new handmade Classical Guitar, made from 150 yr old Piano. I was impressed to the point of almost just forking over the cash. I had to remind myself that I was inspecting this guitar for someone else. The top was made from the Spruce soundboard and the back and sides from the Walnut cabinet of an old throw away Piano. Incredibly beautiful and fabulous tone right out of the hands of a gifted luthier, and he can not play a note on any musical instrument. On the drawing board was a violin he has started, I can't wait to see this one, it's Brazilian Rosewood back and sides. I have never seen one.

[Schlegel]

Lawyers claim to require proof, though I am not so sure about what "proof" is in their case.

Generally it's about 80.

[John Arnold]

There is a generality that as the growth rings get closer together the wood becomes stiffer.

After having cut over 5000 red spruce guitar tops and 2000 mandolin tops, I cannot say that I would agree. There is a correlation between density and stiffness along the grain, but density seems to be unrelated to the grain width. I general, the wider the grain, the thicker the latewood, meaning that the ratio between the dense wood and the less dense earlywood remains fairly constant.
I do know that the stiffest, densest red spruce I have ever cut was wide grain. Not only that, but another tree cut in the same area was just the opposite....very lightweight and much less stiff. To look at the two tops, you wouldn't know the difference. Both trees were pretty much identical in grain width.....4 to 5 GPI in the heart, gradually slowing to about 8 GPI at the bark.

[Spruce]

I do know that the stiffest, densest red spruce I have ever cut was wide grain.....4 to 5 GPI in the heart, gradually slowing to about 8 GPI at the bark.

Same here!

The stuff was like metal...
It looked a lot like the pic of that Martin I posted...