View Full Version : The sound of a Rigel

Scott Tichenor
Dec-23-2003, 9:04pm
Just posted this page (http://www.rigelmandolin.com/listen.html) on Rigel's web site. Peter Mix playing four models including one of their new prototypes. I think this is a good idea. Wonder why more builders don't do it? The web is more than text and graphics.

Dec-23-2003, 9:18pm
I really like the sound of the G5. Good, deep tone. It's nice to hear a comparison by the same player playing the same song because we all pull different tone.

Ted Eschliman
Dec-23-2003, 10:16pm
Oh, now Scott this is SOOOO unfair. Bad enough to have to wait until Christmas to open presents; now we have to wait until NAMM to find out the poop on the G95 ? ? ?
(Sheesh, I thought I was done buying mandolins for awhile.)
If the MP3 is an accurate representation of that axe, I gotta have it...

Dec-23-2003, 10:16pm
For some reason this is one of the downloads my PC can not play. My PC wants to play it on realone player. After downloading it it can not "find" it. arg!

Dec-23-2003, 10:45pm
G95 ? Hmmmmm, I dunno either. Don't worry Ted, I'll take that old blue CT110 as a trade in!

John Flynn
Dec-23-2003, 11:03pm
Nice clips! They sound good and it is a great idea. I do hope other manufacurers start doing the same thing.

Greenmando: Try right-clicking on the clip and select "Save As." Navigate to a file folder where you know for sure you can find it later. Download it, then find the file and right click on it and choose "Properties." Hit the "Change" button and change the file association from Real Player to Windows Media Player or Quicktime. If you don't have Quicktime, you can download it for free. I am no computer whiz, but I have had the same problem on other sites and that has worked for me.

Michael H Geimer
Dec-24-2003, 12:55am
Cool clips.

I've only had occasion to play one Rigel, an A+ owned by Cafe memeber stanley. The sound clips definately remind me of that instrument; you can almost hear that legendary Rigel playability. ('Legendary playability' was a phrase that came up several times that afternoon.)

My personal fav of the MP3's ... the new G95, but they all sound great.

- Benig

Dec-24-2003, 8:02pm
I'll second that legendary playability comment. Maybe now with those audio files on the site, folks will start talking more about the legendary Rigel tone, too.

It was fascinating listening to brand new Rigels again (alas, no local dealers), but it's truly amazing how much they develop and open up over time. After a year and a half, my CT-110 (thanks again, Dale) sounds very much like thet new G5. It's a little scary to speculate what a G5 will sound like after a few years of vibration.

Dec-24-2003, 9:42pm
Is this the G95 prototype (http://www.rigelmandolin.com/This%20week.html) ?

Looks like a nod toward the conventional..

Dec-24-2003, 10:10pm
Dunno, I thought it was a Jethro.

Dec-25-2003, 12:16am
Hearing these clips makes me wonder why there are no Rigels on the Mandolin Tasting CD. #It seems that they'd compare favorably to many that are on the CD. #The G95 in particular-- WOW! #What an awesome tone! #


Feb-16-2004, 2:17pm
That very G95 (the one Peter used for the MP3s on Rigel's site) can be purchased from me at Wintergrass (or now, if you can't wait).

John Flynn
Feb-16-2004, 2:28pm

So what is a G95? You got pictures? Even a description? Is it a Jethro or something completely different?

Feb-16-2004, 2:48pm
The G-95 is an oval hole version of the G-110 and has been available for as long as the G-110. Peter Mix told me that although the G-95 sounds absolutely amazing it hasn't achieved much market acceptance. I suppose that's due to the broader appeal of f-holes.

Feb-16-2004, 4:01pm
Maybe he needs to describe it, show a picture of it on the website. Why make a sound clip for an unknown mandolin?

Feb-16-2004, 4:11pm
I don't know if I'd say unknown... obscure maybe? #This was the original G-95, the first made. #I think several others have been made since, it's just that the G-110 has been preferred by the market over it's oval hole sibling.

I enquired about purchasing this mando once and I have some images of it but, I'm ashamed to admit it, I haven't figured out how to attach images to a post here. #It has a black finish and BTW mrmando currently has an ad in the classifieds for Rigels that includes this very G-95.

http://www.mandolincafe.com/cgi-bin....trieval (http://www.mandolincafe.com/cgi-bin/classifieds/classifieds.cgi?search_and_display_db_button=on&db_id=8710&query=retrieval)

Feb-16-2004, 4:23pm
OK, here's a try at posting a pic of the G-95 Prototype. Hope this works...

Feb-16-2004, 5:31pm
hey, that's funny...no scooped extension? I didn't know they did that (or wanted to?). Anyway, it is a nice sound clip...but I'll probably hold on to my A+ for now.

benig: btw, you can also say that you played BenE's former rigel (you should check out HIS sound clips! - although I don't know if he has any posted using his 'old' mando).


John Flynn
Feb-16-2004, 5:59pm
I was saving this observation, hoping someone else would make it first, but since no one has, here goes: I have been playing fretted instruments for over 30 years, mando for about 12 years and I thought my hearning was pretty good. I own a Rigel and think they are great. But I have to say that I did not hear that dramatic a difference in the different Rigel online recordings. I was surprised that the A+ sounded as good as it did. I think it sounds a lot better than mine! I could hear a somewhat better tone in the higher models, it just wasn't as much better as I would have thought. Its not like the diffences you hear on Tone Poems, for instance or the difference I have heard playing a G-110 in a store. Am I completely out to lunch here, or did anyone feel the same way? If you did notice a huge difference between models, please describe the difference so I can at least learn a lesson here.

Feb-16-2004, 7:47pm
It is pretty hard to tell from mp3 clips. I guess it depends a lot on what you're using for speakers. A subwoofer really helps.

Feb-16-2004, 9:10pm
Man... the G5 is killer... whew. I can sure hear a very marked difference in all of them. The G5 has way more depth of tone and projection than the A+ (if indeed the micing was kept pretty consistent between recordings).

Feb-17-2004, 9:34am
The G-95 has just about more sustain than any mandolin I've heard (almost out of control), but a beautiful tone.

John Flynn
Feb-17-2004, 11:11am
I guess it depends a lot on what you're using for speakers.
That may have something to do with it. I have only listened to the clips on "ear bud" style earphones, plugged into a laptop with only a standard sound card.

Feb-19-2004, 5:00pm
Come to Wintergrass and taste 'em for yourself!

BTW, older Rigels, like the Jimmy Gaudreau G110 I'm selling, also have frets on the extension. Not sure when they stopped doing this.

Feb-19-2004, 5:19pm
Very cool! I'm not a Rigel fan but the sound clips were very tasty. To my ears, they all sounded good and fairly similar.

Peter Mix is certainly pulling the tone out of these instruments. Perhaps the tone has more to do with the player than the instrument? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Andrew Reckhart
Feb-19-2004, 5:37pm
Am I correct in saying that the tone that SEEMS TO BE the most popular around here (at least from these responses) is the tone of the G5. That being said, is it coincidence that the model with the most popular tone also happens to be the closest to a traditional F5 model. That being true, then would this model help to prove that the "traditional shaped" instruments produce better tone. This is almost like a scientific experiment in that the Player and composition are always the same from model to model and played at the same tempo. I'm not trying to start an argument.........just my own observation.

I was very impressed by the tone of the G5, and by the playing of Peter MIx.

John Flynn
Feb-19-2004, 6:19pm

I hear what you are saying, but I would disagree with your premise. It is an "apples and oranges" comparison. The appearance is absolutely the only thing about the G-5 that is "traditional." It is constructed completely differently than an F-5. What they have done with the G-5 is take the unique design they use on all thier instruments and just add the scroll and the points for appearances. I am sure they also have attempted to voice the instrument as much like an F-5 as they can by how they carve the top and the braces, but they could do that with thier R-series or their CT-series also.

Plus, it seems like a comparable number of people (myself included) thought the G-95 was the best sounding clip. As you can see from the photo, it is an oval hole instrument that doesn't look anything like an F-5 or any other traditional design. As to the Rigel clips and this resulting being like a "scientific experiment," I assure you that this event does not even begin to meet the criteria for the scientific method. The population of responses was not randomized, the "N" number is way to low...well, I could go on and on. I have nothing at all against F-5's or any other traditional design, I just think your conclusion does not logically follow from the facts. However, you may still be right and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Andrew Reckhart
Feb-19-2004, 6:54pm
Forget it I am wrong once again.
I know nothing as usual.

I didn't put quotes around "traditional" did I? #
"is it coincidence that the model with the most popular tone also happens to be the closest to a traditional F5"

I also didn't say it WAS traditional in any way. #I have done tons of research regarding Rigel's building processes. #I know that they are no where close to traditional. #By the way there is a little more to it than just #"take the unique design they use on all thier instruments and just add the scroll and the points for appearances".

My fault.... #I didn't say anything about not wanting to start an argument. #Oh yeah, I did say that I wasn't interestd in anybody's argument!

I didn't say that it WAS a scientific experiment.
I said that " This is almost like a scientific experiment". #ALMOST being the key word. #And for the average non-scientist on this board it is. #

I could go into variables, confounding variables, direct correllations, indirect correllations blah blah blah forever. #I do have a Master's Degree and have done more than my fair share of "scientific experiments.

You guys over analyze EVERYTHING.
Good God! #Don't you guys have anything better to do than nitpick every little thing. #Come on find some grammatical errors or something.

John Flynn
Feb-19-2004, 7:46pm

You expressed an opinion. I expressed an opinion about that opinion. I truly meant my response respectfully and I tried to state it that way. I thought that's what this forum is for! I regret it elicited the reaction in your post above. That was not my intention. It is true that we tend to overanalyze everything here. But it would seem that is the nature of online message boards. We should all probabaly spend more time playing!

Andrew Reckhart
Feb-19-2004, 7:57pm
Amen Brother! We can Both agree to that!