Why don't other quality mandolins sound like Gibsons?

[JonZ]

How would you describe the KittenRainbowMagic sound? And you can't use the words "Gibson," "Monroe," or "Loar" in your description.

Eh? Eh?

Also, furry and colorful.

[sgarrity]

Who was it that said, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" ?? There was a thread some years ago where we did this very thing. Tried to standardize how to talk about tone. It's just too subjective. People hear things differently and certainly use words differently. If you want to know what a Gibson sounds like, go play a few. Listen to recordings. Tony Williamson's recent Loar recording would be a great place to start.

[mandolirius]

mandolirius.. you have a way with words.. and a lot fewer than it took me...

Yeah, I don't really know how else to put it. One thing I think is true is that when someone does try to describe it, it's pretty clear to me they're talking the F-5 sound. I've played and listened to many, many Gibson oval holes and the variation in tone is simply too wide to be categorized as any one kind of sound.

The other thing I notice is that the adjectives used, and the attributes given to "the Gibson sound" don't appear to be exclusive in any way. I've heard lots of other mandolins with the same qualities. So yeah, it can make your head spin. I've played Gibson F's that were to die for and others I wouldn't walk across the street to fish out of a dumpster.

[Ivan Kelsall]

I think that overall,John Hamlett nailed it - '' ....all over the place''. Just what i'd expect,given the number of instruments they've built.That's not detrimental in itself,but it wouldn't reassure me if i wanted to buy a Gibson with 'the' sound.I could only reasonably expect to purchase a Gibson instrument that had it's 'own' sound & not a generic one - again,that's what i'd expect.The next guy in line would also get a Gibson with it's own sound & so on....... Should we reasonably expect anything different ?,personally i wouldn't. If it's a Gibson & it 'sounds good to me',i'd buy it,if it doesn't,i'll pass,& the same applies to any make of mandolin i might choose to buy - just as most of us do.
We have to be honest with ourselves here,the Gibson name has become synonymous with the sound of one man's mandolin - that of Bill Monroe.The very name Gibson carries with it so much kudos,that maybe if we can't have the 'exact sound' of Bill's mandolin,we can at least have a good sounding instrument that carries 'the name',& that for many people will swing the deal,& being personally honest,if it was a Gibson mandolin that i wanted,i'd be with 'em.The fact that each instrument would sound different,bothers me not at all. As long as i got one that i liked i'd be very happy,
Ivan

[almeriastrings]

I've played Gibson F's that were to die for and others I wouldn't walk across the street to fish out of a dumpster.

No question. The same applies to most manufacturers, however. Acoustic instruments by their nature are very variable beasts...

[trevor]

In my experience they are less variable from small builders because they have the ability to voice each one for the actual wood being used on that instrument and any duds quickly ruin a hard won reputation.

[almeriastrings]

I think it depends. A lot. For sheer consistency Taylor (guitars) and Collings (guitars and mandolins) are hard to beat. Whether you prefer them or not is quite another matter, however. They are certainly very consistent, though, not only in terms of sound but fit and finish also.

[trevor]

Good point. Though as you said not everybody likes them. The word from my customers is that Taylor sound thin and uninteresting.. (I couldn't possibly comment, as a character in a British TV comedy was fond of saying).

[pjlama]

The problem I am picking up is that many mandolin players have tunnel vision, it has to be an American Red Spruce/Maple F5 or a Gibson. Those can be great but often buyers pass tons of good/great instruments by and sometimes settle for a lesser instrument or pay more than they have to to fit the mandolin shaped hole cut out in their head. Too much presupposition or jumping on a bandwagon can be an inhibitor as there are many viable options, some more reasonable than others. We're living in the information age, there is more than one option. Also there is no "holy grail" tone, there is always something better or equally good. One instrument can not carry all tonal qualities and have every form of response. You might want to own several. They might all be Gibsons. I believe the best things have yet to be invented/made. I have come to be a fan of the Sitka/Walnut wood combination as a personal preference. Sitka to me says "players instrument" and I like the crisp, cold, "woody" response. Walnut seems to have rich dark tone. But opinions can change and almost any wood combination can be coupled with the right craftsmanship to make a great instrument. Buzz Words: Kimble Daley LaPlant Passernig Heiden Altman "slaw dog" Poe Pruitt Jeep Forrester "Road Trip" Vana Wynn

We do get tunnel vision. I have a Heiden that has an Englemann top and lacquer finish, it's the best mandolin I've ever played and goes against the norm but crushes anything else is volume and clairty, it's a beast for sure. I too thought you had to have red spruce, varnish, etc... Boy was I wrong.
Regarding the OP, I've owned probably a dozen Gibsons and many sound different, there's a bit of a signature there but I'm not convinced that there are not other people doing the same thing and in several cases even better. I had a recent Gil that had a very Gibson like tone with the depth of expression that you'd associate with age. I think Kimble gets there and more, Paul DUff is firmly in that wheelhouse these days. Chris Stanley makes what could easily be confused with a great Master Model. Many feel the Weins and Halsey are very accurate. They're out there for sure but at a premium.

[red7flag]

I have on order a short necked F4 reproduction of a twenties Gibson. The current Gibson F4s are long neck and while they are designated as F4s and are wonderful instruments, but a different critter than the original. I finally decided to order from Gail Hester. To me, she makes the closest reproduction today to those beautiful teens and twenties F4s.

[Rex Hart]

I think "the Gibson sound" is myth.

I think there are only two types of mandolin players....those who own a Gibson and those who wished they owned a Gibson.

But seriously, I think F5Loar nailed it. The Gibson tone that the OP was talking about is the Loar period F5's or anything that closely resembles that"woody tone" that you know it when you hear it. As mentioned other manufacturers have came real close (i.e. Stanley, Daley, etc.)

[Rob M]

I think it's great to have variety. I'm a guitar player whose only been playing mandolin for about 7 years, so I can relate to the guitar analogy. With guitars, there is a huge range of music types that people play, which dictates the need for a wide variety of guitar sounds. I have a Strat, a Tele, an Ibanez Satriani model, an ES-335- they all have different personalities and sounds and I like them all. I play a Taylor Grand Auditorium acoustic- it sounds very different from my buddy's D-28. I bought it when I was in a more jazz/fusion phase and it has the perfect tone for that. While I love it dearly, it is not very good for bluegrass. It has a beautiful balanced tone, but not the volume or bass for bluegrass jamming, and I'd love to complement it with a D-28 of my own! I guess I just need to get several mandolins as well to cover all my possible bases! It's just that mandolins are MUCH more expensive than guitars (you can pick up a used USA Strat or Tele for $500), so it's tough to do that with mandolins. I've got one shot right now, and I love the sound of the Gibsons, but can't afford a nice F5 (only an F9), but Webers of comparable price (say a used Bitterroot or Yellowstone) are much more polished and adorned and equally well-built (but lack the sound I want). While there are many builders that can give me that Gibson sound, they're WAY out of my price range (say a Kimble). I guess I just wished that I could get a reasonably-priced mandolin that had the Gibson tone without the super high price tag of the Gibson or custom builder. Oh well, that's life I guess.

I'll drink to that; not only am I also a recent convert to mandolin from a guitar/bass background, but when in public I mainly play Hammond organ in blues/soul bands. You've never known what it is NOT to have choice until you play Hammond. And with good reason in many cases, as I doubt "I think I'll take a Vox Continental out tonight, maybe a Farfisa" would win you many friends on a jazz gig as you cheezed and wheezed your way through a Jimmy Smith classic. But such was my determination that I would get some choice (like the Tele vs 335 mood and sound thing) that I harked back to The Band and Garth Hudson and got myself an old tube Lowrey for the studio; still fat and woody enough for blues organ but with so much character that a Hammond doesn't have available too. Taking this back to mando, I'm sure that as we are talking subtle differences that mainly scratch the itch of the player rather than the rest of the band or audience, you could really enjoy the different sounds/nuances of a variety of different mandolins, let that inspire slightly different moods in your playing and have a good time experimenting.

[Bob Clark]

Taking this back to mando, I'm sure that as we are talking subtle differences that mainly scratch the itch of the player rather than the rest of the band or audience, you could really enjoy the different sounds/nuances of a variety of different mandolins, let that inspire slightly different moods in your playing and have a good time experimenting.

I agree with Rob. I think that we mandolin fanatics often note differences that seem huge to us, but are detectable only to the rare similar fanatic that happens to be listening to us. These differences can have all sorts of impacts on us (the person playing) ranging from frustration to inspiration, and the audience may notice the difference in our playing that is generated by the impact these differences have on us, even if they are not able to sense the actual difference in the instruments.

So I am back to my usual notion that one should choose the mandolin that he or she likes best at that point in time, and play that one. As the player of the instrument, your own opinion is the one that matters the most (within certain limits, of course).

As for me, I don't choose Gibson mandolins, or Steinway pianos, for that matter. Different sounds for different players. It's the variety that makes music (and life) interesting.

Bob

[jman72]

Good point. Though as you said not everybody likes them. The word from my customers is that Taylor sound thin and uninteresting..

Speaking of the Taylors, I have a great 414CE that I've had for 12 years. I love the tone, but always coveted a nice Martin for bluegrass. My buddy bought a D28 a few months ago and we were jamming a bit. I left the room to get a drink and just stayed in the other room and listened to him play for awhile and thought, "man, that D28 sure is a sweet sounding guitar. How am I ever going to get one?!" It sounded just like I wanted a guitar to sound! Well, I walked back into the room and he was playing MY TAYLOR! That ended my Martin envy once and for all. Not as loud as the D28, but tone-wise, just as nice.

That's what I want in a mandolin- one that fits that tone I hear in my head, regardless of the name on the headstock. I just wish I had more chances to play lots of different instruments to see which one that was! I think that's why so many people fixate on the sound of a particular brand- because for most people, there just isn't an opportunity to shop around and we rely on the (possibly) naive assumption that there is some type of consisency of sound in a particular builder.

[f5loar]

the different strokes (sounds)...... applies to just the Gibson F5 too. You got Monroe who really went hog wild over his barbershop 1923 Loar find in 1945 that lasted him faithfully on a daily bases until his demise. Then you got Bobby Osborne who longed after Charlie Bailey's mint condition late 20's Gibson F5 Fern in the late 50's and after a million miles played on it Bobby is still playing it. Then you got Sam Bush who early on in his career latched onto "Hoss", a refinished, honed out late 30's Gibson F5 and 2 million miles later it's still ticking to his liking. Then you got Dean Webb(being discussed here elsewhere) who early on bought a brand new 1956 F5 and never looked back for the next 35 years using it in all his recordings and live shows with the Dillards. I could name a few more but my drift here is of these 4 major pickers they all had different Gibson F5s from different decades and yet none of them sound the same (to my ear anyway) and yet they were all tickled pink to have the Gibson that they thought best suited them regardless of price or condition. And let me add in Dave Apollon who after being given his first Gibson F5 in 1923 continued to play dozens of Gibson F5s from every decade up until the 60's only he didn't really care what year it was made as long as it was a Gibson F5 model he got the sound he wanted. So the Gibson F5 sound is all of these four and many more. You can't really put it into words but you will know it when you find it.

[trevor]

Every rule has an exception and every player has a preference. If Taylors (or Taylor) do it for you that's great.

[jman72]

Every rule has an exception and every player has a preference. If Taylors (or Taylor) do it for you that's great.

Is it valid to say that there is "Taylor sound" that runs through their entire line of guitars (which may or may not be best described as thin and uninteresting, depending on the listener), but equally invalid to say that there is a "Gibson sound" for their F5 mandolin?

This is the gist of my original posting question. I've played hundreds of acoustic guitars. I know not to automatically ascribe quality to any mass-produced brand like Taylor or Martin or Gibson because there are gems and there are duds from all makers. Taylors don't "do it for me"- I play the specific guitar I have because I liked the way it sounded when I bought it over all the others I played at the time and I could afford it (as do lots of other people, by the way- I don't think I qualify as an exception to some rule about Taylors). Play three D28s and one might sound dull and unimpressive. But the different builders DO have a distinctive sound to my ear. To me, Martin dreadnaughts have that volume and booming base; Taylors sound more balanced, and Larivees sound brighter. But a less than stellar D28 DOES NOT sound like a Larivee- it sounds like a dull Martin!

But I haven't played that many mandolins. A few Collings, Eastmans, Kentuckys, Rigels, etc. Never a Gibson. Most of my info has come from reading these forums (and a lifetime of listening to recordings of the great artists and their Gibsons). Most of the information on these forums is top-notch and very respectful. And in trying to learn what everyone thinks about the different builders, lots of people talk about the "Gibson sound", the "Collings Sound", the "Weber sound", etc., and many seem to think that mandolins from a particular builder DO have more in common with each other than with other brands. This thread has definitely shown that many believe that there is no "Gibson sound", since there's so much variability in instruments. But, does a sub-par Gibson still have more in common tonally with other Gibsons than, say, with a Collings or Weber? Like my guitar analogy, I've had people tell me that the Gibsons have more bass, the Webers more balance, and Collings more highs (or something like this). Is this true? I mean, even if the sound QUALITY varies, do the different builders have different sounds that they are trying to create with their instruments?

[mtucker]

I don't sell Gibsons and wouldn't because I find their business attitude to dealers and customers unacceptable.

I have owned a number of Gibson products never had A problem with Gibson. I was under the impression that this started as a dealer problem, not a Gibson problem and that dealers brought this on themselves by trying to cut slash pricing on Gibson products, Paul's in particular, in order gain a volume advantage....There were no standards for pricing...which in turn started WWIII amongst dealers and Gibson, tons of infighting... which necessitated Gibson set pricing standards on all instruments, and a congressional list of other rules to their dealers. I don't know all of it but that was my impression of how it all got started, maybe i got it wrong.

[Rob M]

I have owned a number of Gibson products never had A problem with Gibson. I was under the impression that this started as a dealer problem, not a Gibson problem and that dealers brought this on themselves by trying to cut slash pricing on Gibson products, Paul's in particular, in order gain a volume advantage....There were no standards for pricing...which in turn started WWIII amongst dealers and Gibson, tons of infighting... which necessitated Gibson set pricing standards on all instruments, and a congressional list of other rules to their dealers. I don't know all of it but that was my impression of how it all got started, maybe i got it wrong.

In the UK at least, Gibson have canned off the small outlets in favour of chains/biggies, which seems to argue against your point as it is these chains and biggies that could cut a small shop up like a loaf of bread, price-wise. Like you say...I don't know all either. Maybe we BOTH got it wrong!!!

Frankly, the brand new prices of Les Pauls wanted slashing! I bought an SG once and for my £700 I got a soft gig bag....

[mtucker]

In the UK at least, Gibson have canned off the small outlets in favour of chains/biggies, which seems to argue against your point as it is these chains and biggies that could cut a small shop up like a loaf of bread, price-wise.

no....actually... we may both have it right. i'm thinking, this is what spawned volume based pricing in the first place, which ultimately bit the smaller shops in the arse.

[Rob M]

no....actually... we may both have it right. i'm thinking, this is what spawned volume based pricing in the first place, which ultimately bit the smaller shops in the arse.

True. Whatever, it sucks a big one that you can't buy a Les Paul from a small shop who'd set it up for you, but only from a supermarket where it is still in the carboard box in the stock room, and the barcode gets zapped at the cash desk.

[trevor]

Rob, You hit the nail(s) on the head. This is what I mean by corporate behaviour. Fine for the aggressive box shifters, not to my taste.

[TonyP]

This thread has definitely shown that many believe that there is no "Gibson sound", since there's so much variability in instruments. But, does a sub-par Gibson still have more in common tonally with other Gibsons than, say, with a Collings or Weber? Like my guitar analogy, I've had people tell me that the Gibsons have more bass, the Webers more balance, and Collings more highs (or something like this). Is this true? I mean, even if the sound QUALITY varies, do the different builders have different sounds that they are trying to create with their instruments?

To me there is definitely a "sound" in Gibson. But this is true with any maker. For me there are shades of variation in them, but they have this centerpoint they are coming from. The problem with Gibson is there are so many periods and each one has the changes in manufacture that greatly change the sound IMHO.

The huge difference I hear in different Gibsons and luthier made mandolins for that matter, is whether they were tap tuned, and by whom. Once again you are inducing tonal drift because not all wood is the same, and certainly not all ears are the same. The Gibson "dark ages" were due from my understanding to not tap tuning, just doing more of the critical work of the top and back by strict spec. There are other examples I've bumped into by other luthiers that are not tap tuned. And they don't have "it" IMHO. I believe that "it" is the sound of all the parts working together, not against, each other. I've never heard a recording that can rival being in the presence of one of those tap tuned mandolins, sitting across from it. After it's been warmed up, and in a good room.

I've been lucky to be in the same room with JR's Loar, and Ricky Skaggs' ol' Boone Creek Loar when both were warmed up with them just playing and no other instruments at the time. Both are to me the holy grail of tone and carry that something that I hear when other great players and their Loars make music.

Unfortunately I've not gotten to hear other legends examples like Randy Wood, but John Monteleone, and Mike Kemnitzer I do know and the examples I've heard/played have a sound. Not a Gibson, their own. And that to me is why not all mandolins sound like a Gibson. Because there are a bunch of really talented luthiers out there who can shape the sound any way they want and they hear something a little different and possibly better.

And then there are the ones who for whatever reason end up having the sound it is when they are done. Luckily, they all speak to somebody and fit their ear and pocketbook.

[foldedpath]

Is it valid to say that there is "Taylor sound" that runs through their entire line of guitars (which may or may not be best described as thin and uninteresting, depending on the listener), but equally invalid to say that there is a "Gibson sound" for their F5 mandolin?

The variability in wood will insure that no series of wooden acoustic instruments from any one builder can be perfectly consistent in tone. But with that truism out of the way, I think the construction method for a flattop guitar lends itself to a consistency in sound, compared to the carving required for an archtop mandolin. I think you'll find similar variation in archtop guitars.

Tiny differences in the top thickness during the carving process add up, especially when combined with tap tuning. A flattop guitar is a single thickness of wood, braced in a consistent way from one guitar to the next. There's just less room for variation in the building method, I think.

Whatever the reason, I do think Taylor guitars have a fairly consistent family sound quality, as do the upper mid to high end Martins, Collings and Santa Cruz (which is my personal taste for "family sound" in a guitar line).

With the larger outfits, the consistency of tone can also be a result of top-down corporate mandates to limit how "close to the edge" the design is, so there aren't too many warranty claims. There have been periods where some of the major guitar names have overbuilt their tops with too much thickness and bracing, which detracts from tone but also makes the tone more consistent from one guitar to the next. As an extreme example, I have a mid 70's Guild D25M and my S.O. has a lefty version from the same period. They sound identical in tone. You could also drive a truck over either one, without the tops collapsing.


They dynamics are different with carved archtop instruments because the top already has a lot of reserve stability with the arch, so I think there isn't as much incentive to over-build.