F holes,to bind, or not to bind, that is the question???

**norm351** · Jul-05-2012, 1:44pm

I have been reading a lot of older post, going back a few years, and there was a lot of question about the bond F holes on the Gibson Lawson MM F5, it was said that it produced more bass, and that of course brought on the sure to be asked question..."How is that possible", and I was just wondering what some of you think, but let be say that since owning one now for a little over a year..IT IS GREAT, it is bassier,,what I think is a proper mix of bass, mids, and treble, so I don't know what it does, or how it does it, but I can just tell you it does it..loud and clear, from the nut to the end of the neck. Can any engineer out there explain how this works? And any other Lawson Model owners whats your thoughts??

**lenf12** · Jul-05-2012, 3:04pm

There's been a lot of discussion of "aperture size" in the builders forum. Try a search there for some insights into the subject of the relationship between aperture size and resonant frequency. Not being an expert on the subject, all I can say is the smaller the apertures (f holes) the lower the frequency (greatly simplified for my tiny brain).

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

**billhay4** · Jul-05-2012, 3:17pm

Binding f-holes has nothing to do with the size of the holes at all. You can still make them any size you want. It isn't easy to do, but I personally like the look. One might even argue it might reduce the chance of a crack in the soundhole.
As for the effect of smaller holes on sound, others can chime it.
Bill

**Marty Henrickson** · Jul-05-2012, 5:21pm

Norm, if you have some free time, search for the thread titled "Stephen Perry is a Genius!". That thread was started by a forum member that was excited about the improvement in his or her instrument after having performed some or all of Mr. Perry's (another forum member, by the way) "mandovoodoo" process. Part of this process entailed the smoothing of the edges of the ff holes, and some fascinating conversations (as well as some trolling) ensued. I seem to remember that during this discussion, a mention of bound ff holes was made. Even if that part of my memory is wrong, there was some interesting stuff in that thread.

**Marty Henrickson** · Jul-06-2012, 9:46am

Here is the thread I was talking about, Norm.

**dcoventry** · Jul-06-2012, 10:52am

http://www.mandolincafe.com/ads/57892

If the bound f-holes are like this, hubba-hubba!!!

**Jim Garber** · Jul-06-2012, 2:01pm

Personal taste for sure. I agree with Bill that the binding itself should not have anything to do with the sound, however the size and edge of the soundholes may. I personally do not like the look in general -- it reminds me of clown makeup, but that is just me. I prefer the toned down look. Solamente mis dos pesos.

**45ACP-GDLF5** · Jul-06-2012, 3:00pm

I've had my "Lawson" model for 7 years now and it sounds better every year! Doyle told me that the binding of the f-holes was his idea. He liked the look, but since it made the f-holes smaller in size, it created more bass sound, but not diminishing the treble sound. The Goldrush model is not bound, but the f-holes are equally smaller therefore producing more bass as well.

**George R. Lane** · Jul-06-2012, 3:25pm

My Weber Yellowstone has bound f holes at the urging of Brett Byers at Weber. Mine has an engleman top and he felt it would stiffen it up a bit. Boy and howdy. The binding is wbw, not the normal hunk of white binding. I think it looks quite elegant.

**mnosretep** · Jul-06-2012, 3:39pm

Personally, I find bound F holes to be more of an aesthetic thing than something impacting the tone

**lenf12** · Jul-06-2012, 3:57pm

I agree with the observations made above; the binding is an aesthetic touch whose impact on the the bass frequencies was a byproduct because it did reduce the size of the apertures.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

**George R. Lane** · Jul-06-2012, 7:32pm

Originally Posted by lenf12

I agree with the observations made above; the binding is an aesthetic touch whose impact on the the bass frequencies was a byproduct because it did reduce the size of the apertures.

Len,
When they cut the f holes on mine they compensated for the binding.

**lenf12** · Jul-07-2012, 8:43am

Hi George,

I hear what you're saying, Weber cut the f holes a bit larger to compensate for the binding. In your case the the aperture size was not reduced hence no real affect to bass frequencies. In the case of the Gibson Doyle Lawson model, the f holes were cut to the standard size Gibson uses and then bound which does reduce the aperture size and lowers the bass frequencies. The Goldrush model has smaller than (Gibson) standard sized f holes which has the same effect, a deeper bass response.

Some posters here on MC have experimented with putting a piece of tape over part of the f hole thus reducing the aperture size. If you have a trebly sounding mandolin, try the tape trick to get a bassier sound.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

**Andy Alexander** · Jul-08-2012, 8:17am

Seems to me that binding the f holes would stiffen the top a little. This could reduce the movement of the top and affect the sound.

**allenhopkins** · Jul-09-2012, 12:33am

I'm generally anti-bondage, as a rule.

Maybe with some exceptions, which I'd never discuss here.

**pjlama** · Jul-09-2012, 12:56am

Originally Posted by allenhopkins

I'm generally anti-bondage, as a rule.

Maybe with some exceptions, which I'd never discuss here.

too funny

**Alex Orr** · Jul-09-2012, 10:33am

I've always thought it looked a bit garish and over-the-top. Aesthetically, it's not my cup of tea.

**Doug Edwards** · Jul-09-2012, 9:44pm

I bound my last projects F holes using tortoise binding. Nice look but a pain to do.

Click image for larger version.

Name: 2pntfhole.jpg
Views: 36
Size: 73.9 KB
ID: 89026

**dcoventry** · Jul-09-2012, 10:54pm

Originally Posted by Alex Orr

I've always thought it looked a bit garish and over-the-top. Aesthetically, it's not my cup of tea.

A bit garish and over the top?!? Well, that describes me fairly well! AND.......I like tea.

So, I'm in.

**Brett Byers** · Jul-09-2012, 11:43pm

it's been my experience (admittedly non-scientific), that engelmann spruce, in particular, benefits from having the f-holes bound. With the aperture size remaining the same I have noticed increased volume and bass response from an engelmann top w/ bound f-holes vs. one without. That's why I recommended to George that he have the f-holes bound on his Weber w/ engelmann top, and why I did the same to my own personal mandolin with englemann top. I haven't done any specific scientific experiments or studies in this regard. Simply A/B'd enough of em to know that I prefer the sound of bound f-holes on engelmann. I like my mandos with a lot of bass and mid-range, and that's what I've heard in those mandolins. With aperture size being constant, I suspect it is a result of the top being stiffened a bit from the binding. Purely anecdotal though. YMMV.

**hank** · Jul-12-2012, 8:06pm

There is a bit of info on the subject of reduced aperture at Roger Siminoff's site. I've got a 2006 kind of an odd ball Goldrush with slab cut sides and an odd grain mix match like on some of the old Loar Master Models. It is very powerful and balanced not only in bass but also the mids and treble. It's one of those that stiffens up without play and takes ten to fifteen minutes to get its full response and tone. I've been told not all Goldrushes are this good but but am constantly amazed by the low sale price of them on the used market where Lawsons seem to do better at holding their price. I'm the original owner and can't imagine letting it go especially so under priced.

**johnsoba** · Jul-14-2012, 1:18am

Aesthetics only: bound f-holes remind me of Roy and Dale Rogers' costumes.

**lenf12** · Jul-14-2012, 9:01am

Originally Posted by johnsoba

Aesthetics only: bound f-holes remind me of Roy and Dale Rogers' costumes.

I know they were married so technically you are correct. I read "Dale Rogers" and had to think for a moment. When I was a wee tike, I didn't want to be a cowboy like Roy Rogers. I wanted to BE Roy Rogers.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

**George R. Lane** · Jul-14-2012, 9:34am

Originally Posted by Brett Byers

it's been my experience (admittedly non-scientific), that engelmann spruce, in particular, benefits from having the f-holes bound. With the aperture size remaining the same I have noticed increased volume and bass response from an engelmann top w/ bound f-holes vs. one without. That's why I recommended to George that he have the f-holes bound on his Weber w/ engelmann top, and why I did the same to my own personal mandolin with englemann top. I haven't done any specific scientific experiments or studies in this regard. Simply A/B'd enough of em to know that I prefer the sound of bound f-holes on engelmann. I like my mandos with a lot of bass and mid-range, and that's what I've heard in those mandolins. With aperture size being constant, I suspect it is a result of the top being stiffened a bit from the binding. Purely anecdotal though. YMMV.

And Brett I thank you for that recommendation. My Weber sounds great.