What accounts for the thin/tinny sound in cheaper mandolins?

[Caleb]

I’ve wondered about this a lot and thought I’d put it out there. Over the years of going to shops and playing different brands I’ve noticed a common thing: the cheaper mandolins, even “hand-carved, solid wood” ones, tend to have a thinner, more “tinny” sound than their pricier counterparts. There have been exceptions, but not many that I’ve found. Seems like more times than not I’ll pick up a Kentucky, Eastman, etc. and, while it may play nicely and sound pretty good, when I pick up a Weber, Collings, etc. next, they tend to always have more bottom end and an overall fuller sound.

I know Kentuckys and Eastmans are hand-built with quality materials, and their shops probably have the same CNC machines that are used by the USA makers. Does it just come down to details, bench work, experience on the part of the luthier?

[F-2 Dave]

All that, and better wood. I'm sure there's more, but there can be a big difference in materials.

[Tobin]

Usually it's that the tops are too thick, and not graduated properly. Small-shop builders tend to use the CNC to rough the shape in, and then they do the final carving/sanding by hand, using tap-tuning or other such methods to get the most from the wood. The cheaper, mass-produced ones don't go through that final step. They likely just CNC the tops to a predetermined profile (that's way too thick for good sound, and thick enough not to be in any danger of collapse), and then the only sanding they get is to smooth them out for the finish.

There are other variables at play in the instruments, but the top graduation seems to be the biggest one that affects the tone and makes the cheapies sound tinny.

[yankees1]

Great question ! I've also wondered about this !

[sunburst]

To boil it down to the simplest answer, it results from the top and back not working well together. It is much more complicated than that, and many other things can be involved, but even a top of well chosen wood, carved expertly, cannot sound it's best when coupled with a back that does not compliment that top. A lesser top, well paired with a lesser back might sound better that a great top paired with a great back that does not compliment it.
As important as material quality is, as important as top carving is, and important as quality construction is to good sound, no one thing by itself makes the big difference in how a mandolin sounds. That comes from the luthier's understanding and attention to building the instrument as a unit with parts that complement one another and work together. (It also, unfortunately from the standpoint of a builder, sometimes happens by blind luck. That's when we find a great sounding instrument made by a factory or builder who's work is inconsistent as best, or generally sub-par at worst. Large, high production companies can use the "shotgun approach", randomly pair tops and backs, and through sheer volume of units made, manage to have enough "hits" to keep their reputation for quality higher than it perhaps should be.)

[Hudmister]

I’ve wondered about this a lot and thought I’d put it out there. Seems like more times than not I’ll pick up a Kentucky, Eastman, etc. and, while it may play nicely and sound pretty good, when I pick up a Weber, Collings, etc. next, they tend to always have more bottom end and an overall fuller sound.

Price equals tone, volume, sustain, a beautiful finish, select solid woods, assembled by skilled craftsmen & women who are going by a proven design. Check the price tag on the Eastman or Kentucky or The Loar and compare to Collings, Weber or Gibson.

[stevedenver]

Price equals tone, volume, sustain, a beautiful finish, select solid woods, assembled by skilled craftsmen & women who are going by a proven design. Check the price tag on the Eastman or Kentucky or The Loar and compare to Collings, Weber or Gibson.

nonsense
every factory uses a 'proven design' -they all can turn out with a lot of differences in quality, fit, finish etc

price may reflect craftsmanship and materials, but I can think of at least one icon where htat hasn't always been the case..........

I have played a lot of webers and gibsons that I think are not as good as, or more accurately , no better than the eastmans and kentuckys have played, and, yes some were better-so the price factor, imho, while may be an indicator, it isn't a reliable one

I can say for certain the 2 northfield I have played were equal to any Gibson fern costing twice the price. only point being you don't get what you pay for, and sometimes you get more and sometimes you get less. the only constant is the name on the headstock and perceived value.

so, if my experience is typical, this tends to NOT answer the OPs question-ie regardless of materials, and build, things vary a lot.

to give a simple answer from a non mando builder, but extrapolating from guitars and lutes-a heavy build, ie too thick sides or top or back.

[OldSausage]

If you don't pay enough money for a mandolin, it gets fitted with a tone-inhibitor by the bluegrass police.

[stevedenver]

well, yes, I forgot to mention this.....

[Caleb]

To boil it down to the simplest answer, it results from the top and back not working well together. It is much more complicated than that, and many other things can be involved, but even a top of well chosen wood, carved expertly, cannot sound it's best when coupled with a back that does not compliment that top. A lesser top, well paired with a lesser back might sound better that a great top paired with a great back that does not compliment it.
As important as material quality is, as important as top carving is, and important as quality construction is to good sound, no one thing by itself makes the big difference in how a mandolin sounds. That comes from the luthier's understanding and attention to building the instrument as a unit with parts that complement one another and work together. (It also, unfortunately from the standpoint of a builder, sometimes happens by blind luck. That's when we find a great sounding instrument made by a factory or builder who's work is inconsistent as best, or generally sub-par at worst. Large, high production companies can use the "shotgun approach", randomly pair tops and backs, and through sheer volume of units made, manage to have enough "hits" to keep their reputation for quality higher than it perhaps should be.) This is excellent information, and it makes a lot of sense. I never knew anything about tops and backs needing to be matched up. All I ever hear about is "hand-carving" making the difference. Thank you for chiming in.

[Joey Anchors]

If you don't pay enough money for a mandolin, it gets fitted with a tone-inhibitor by the bluegrass police.

I guess my KM900 will never be good enough... Haha

[Jeff Mando]

The trick is to think outside of the box (or bun--Taco Bell!) and develop a taste and preference for a thin/tinny sound. Life can be so much more attainable, easier, and CHEAPER!!! :cow:~:>:mandosmiley::popcorn:

[allenhopkins]

Some companies deliberately build in a more treble sound, which could be characterized as "thin, tinny," by those who are used to, or are looking for, a big "woof" sound. Gibsons seem to emphasize the lower frequencies; my 1954 F-5 is majorly bassy.

On the other hand, my Eastman DGM-1 "Dawg" Giacomel clone is beautifully made, and has plenty of volume, but emphasizes the treble register. One reason why I wouldn't call it a "bluegrass" mandolin, although I've certainly played some 'grass on it.

Beyond this, totally respect what sunburst has to say above; John H should know, he's built enough to have experienced all the vicissitudes of shaping and matching mandolin components.

[bart mcneil]

I agree completely and I have also made a couple of vicissitudes myself, and they sound sound really swell.

[lex]

I've only been able to afford low-end mandolins so, I'm probably not the best person to reply to this; but in my experience installing a new "high-end" bridge on these instruments seems to improve their sound significantly. Invariable low-end Mandos come with bridges made from less dense wood, that are poorly fitted, and sometimes have small feet. I bet big manufactures save money on their bridges since the material type of the top/back plates tends to be more of a selling point to the consumer. Also, luthiers probably spend more time fitting their bridges than someone cranking out instruments on a factory floor. Obviously, an instrument that's been lovingly carved from the best wood with a nicely fitted bridge will sound better than a carved top box with the same fitted bridge, but it does help.

[CeeCee_C]

What, generally, is the process by which tops and backs are matched so as to work together properly?

I'm not asking for "trade secret" level detail (after which you'd have to kill me), just the general idea.

My guess would be that it relates to resonance such that the instrument back reflects waves forward. But that literally is a W.A.G.

Thanks,

[sunburst]

What, generally, is the process by which tops and backs are matched so as to work together properly?

The process is not as important as the results. It has to do with coupling. We want the top and back main resonant frequencies to be close to one another, but not the same. We also want them to be close to, but not the same as the main resonant frequency of the air within the instrument. Some method of measuring mass and stiffness of the assembled plates is the most reliable method of reaching that goal, but only if we have a database for comparison. Frankly, most builders use their past experience to judge their wood and their carving using their senses, and for most, results can be a bit variable.

Thinking in terms of waves reflecting is not a particularly good model. Any sound waves in the frequency ranges we are concerned with in plate tuning are much too long to "reflect" in the small space inside a mandolin. Instead, we have standing waves forming, and those are the air resonances we can measure.

[acousticphd]

Not seeing as many "thanks" for that last explanation, as for the earlier one, John ;)

[CeeCee_C]

Thanks, John.

[Willie Poole]

Thanks John, I was going to ask the same question but CC beat me to it, not that I really care because I don`t build mandolins but I did have a discussion about this with a friend and he thought John meant they were both tuned to the same tone but I didn`t agree with him...SO...There must be a certain note (Frequency) that you prefer for each one isn`t there? I read somewhere that the tops were tuned to a G note and the backs were tuned to a D note, (or the other way around) I wonder how many builders go by that?

Good threat and very informative

[sunburst]

There must be a certain note (Frequency) that you prefer for each one isn`t there? I read somewhere that the tops were tuned to a G note and the backs were tuned to a D note, (or the other way around) I wonder how many builders go by that?

The specific notes aren't important, the relationship between plates is much more important. In other words, a stiffer top (higher pitched note) needs to be paired with a stiffer back (higher pitched note) and a more limber top (lower pitched note) needs to be paired with a less stiff back (lower note). That way, we can have a good relationship between the plates and therefore good coupling. In other other words, if we have top-A and back-A that are stiff and top-B and back-B that are less stiff, we'll probably get a better sounding mandolin if we use top-A and back-A or top-B and back-B than we will if we use top-A and back-B or top-B and back-A.
I don't know how many builders tune plates to specific notes, but I can assure you that there are plenty who don't.

[Steve Sorensen]

There are so many aspects of tone generation that you can't see from the outside of the mandolin (or can be made to look superficially 'mandolin-ish' but not help the tone. Here a few which come to mind -

* Details of graduations for the back and the top. For example is there mass where it is needed and flexibility precisely located and set for the specific traits of that top/back across the entire plate pair?

* Soundhole placement and shape, cleanness of execution and open area. YES, soundhole placement and shape have an impact on tone since the soundhole area has a thickness of 0 and is surrounded by mass that is unattached to solid material.

* How thick is the area near the blocks and kerfing (how wide is the 'gluing area' beyond what is needed)

* Shaping, placement, length, precision of the glue-join between top and tonebars, and wood selection for each of the tone bars.

* Side and kerfing thickness, stiffness and weight.

* The drive train -- Neck wood, headstock shape and mass. Truss rod type and placement. Bridge and nut material and precision of installation. Fretboard wood and fret placement precision and quality of installation. Tailpiece type and quality of installation.

* Finish thickness and flexibility.

And then there is set-up. In our impatient age, I believe that more people start and then quit playing instruments because the instrument is uncomfortable (to downright physically damaging). What a shame ! ! ! If your fingers are fighting the instrument, you will never get to the tone or the joy.

A couple of times every year, I buy a low end instrument just to see where they are at and remind myself of the big picture goal of building. Unfortunately, I have NEVER been pleasantly surprised by the quality for the price.

On the other hand, every time I get to wrap my fingers around an excellent, real 'players' instrument, I am astounded by the value of the excellence built into these mandolins.

Steve

[sunburst]

Not seeing as many "thanks" for that last explanation, as for the earlier one, John ;)

Yeah, but it's still early...;)
Sometimes people don't really want (or need) the full answer to questions. Often, when people have asked me what tone bars do I've answered by saying "I don't know." If that causes raised eyebrows, I sometimes start to tell them what I do know about tone bars and their static and dynamic function, and it's not usually long before their eyes glaze over and they change the subject. They wanted a simple answer, and I can't give them one, so "I don't know" comes closest. There is a long standing tradition among luthiers to make something up. To intuitively conclude that it looks like 'this' must happen, so that must be it. Something about sound waves traveling traveling along braces and being distributed to the various parts of the top, braces acting like tunable marimba bars, all sorts of stuff. I don't think anyone is well served by such stuff even when it is what they want to hear, especially now, when there are folks who have put in the time and effort to scientifically analyze and publish their findings, there's no good excuse for propagating myths about how things work in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Caleb]

FWIW, I really appreciate the answers from the builders in this thread. I am genuinely interested. Early on when I started playing mandolin (8 yrs ago) I decided to build one. I got a pancake-style kit from StewMac and jumped in head first. Had an absolute blast building it in a buddy's workshop (he builds guitars). It turned out to be a really beautiful, completely unplayable piece of junk. We call it the "wood turd" and my children drag it all over the place and use it in sword fights. All that to say, my respect level went WAY up for builders after that. A lot of people complain about the high price of a good mandolin, but in reality most builders don't charge nearly enough.

[Tobin]

* Details of graduations for the back and the top. For example is there mass where it is needed and flexibility precisely located and set for the specific traits of that top/back across the entire plate pair?
This is just random pondering on the subject, but I've noticed a trend in the lower-end (thin-sounding) mandolins that relates to what you said, and goes along with what I mentioned in my previous reply. What I notice is that the higher-end mandolins have a well-defined recurve around the rim, where the lower-end mandolins don't. As I understand it, the thinning of the top around the edges is what gives it the flexibility to vibrate to its full potential, hence producing volume and tonal quality, which I would think makes a good recurve very critical. It's one of the things that jumps out at me when looking at photos of quality mandolins versus others. You can easily tell when the light reflects off the recurve area, and the lower-quality mandolins just don't have it at all.

[OldSausage]

But in fact, you don't even need to carve a recurve into the top to make it thinner towards the edges - that can all be done by carving it thinner from the inside, if desired. It sure looks nice, but as far as I understand, it's really just a style choice. There are many fine sounding mandolins with no or next to no recurve.

[Mark Wilson]

What accounts for the thin/tinny sound in cheaper mandolins?
It is a distinctive sound imo.

I always assumed the time (and talent) spent making it accounted for the difference.

If my name wasn't one it and I was rewarded for how many I made instead of how great it sounded I would probably favor shortcuts over proper time consuming methods.

[DavidKOS]

What I notice is that the higher-end mandolins have a well-defined recurve around the rim, where the lower-end mandolins don't. As I understand it, the thinning of the top around the edges is what gives it the flexibility to vibrate to its full potential, hence producing volume and tonal quality, .


But in fact, you don't even need to carve a recurve into the top to make it thinner towards the edges - that can all be done by carving it thinner from the inside, if desired. It sure looks nice, but as far as I understand, it's really just a style choice. There are many fine sounding mandolins with no or next to no recurve.

Interesting point - even my Sakis bowlback has the inside the top thinned by carving near the edges of the soundboard.

[sunburst]

This is just random pondering on the subject, but I've noticed a trend in the lower-end (thin-sounding) mandolins that relates to what you said, and goes along with what I mentioned in my previous reply. What I notice is that the higher-end mandolins have a well-defined recurve around the rim, where the lower-end mandolins don't. As I understand it, the thinning of the top around the edges is what gives it the flexibility to vibrate to its full potential, hence producing volume and tonal quality, which I would think makes a good recurve very critical. It's one of the things that jumps out at me when looking at photos of quality mandolins versus others. You can easily tell when the light reflects off the recurve area, and the lower-quality mandolins just don't have it at all.

As I continue to build mandolins and think about things, I believe less and less that graduated carving is particularly important other than being a way to adjust stiffness and mass in a plate. A graduated plate can be stronger/stiffer and lighter than a plate carved to even thickness from the same wood (equal density). In other words, we can carve a lighter, stronger/stiffer plate from the same piece of wood by graduating the thickness, and it is probably the advantage in stiffness to weight ratio that gives us better sound and not so much the thickness gradient in the wood. Re-curve is apparently not important to the function of a top or back, it is mostly for looks. Plates can be graduated with or without a visible re-curve and sound fine. I've encountered many good sounding mandolins with no visible re-curve to speak of.

[mrmando]

It's psychological. All mandolins sound exactly alike, but the more you pay, the better you THINK it sounds.

[Tobin]

But in fact, you don't even need to carve a recurve into the top to make it thinner towards the edges - that can all be done by carving it thinner from the inside, if desired. It sure looks nice, but as far as I understand, it's really just a style choice. There are many fine sounding mandolins with no or next to no recurve.
True, I guess it could be done from the inside. Which builders actually do it that way?

Perhaps another point to consider is that the recurve tends to accentuate the arch top, making it a tighter radius in order to arch to the same height in the center, as opposed to an arch that starts at the rim (with the thinning done in the inside). I wonder if that makes a difference in tone? This is just "out loud thinking" on my part, wondering if there's a physical difference in tone or volume.

I'm thinking of the way large speakers or woofers are made, where they have a speaker that's inset/sunk in the center of a rubbery material, allowing it to bounce/thump/vibrate. If that speaker were raised above the rim, I don't know if it would vibrate as well. Even with the same material holding it. I guess what I'm getting at is that it would seem to make more sense for the center of mass of the vibrating portion of the top to be more in-plane with the rim support, rather than being arched to the point where it's out-of-plane with the rim. Obviously, the centers of mass of mandolin tops are always going to be above the plane of the rim, but perhaps it makes a difference whether the thinning is done internally versus externally (via recurve)? I would think that an arch top with no recurve is naturally going to be more stiff across its width than one with a recurve, even if they have the same thickness profile.

A true arch is incredibly strong, as even the ancient Romans knew. It would seem to be logical that the recurve would offer more flexibility to the top as a whole, since it induces different internal stresses in the wood. By reversing the curvature near the edge, it prevents the top from acting as a true arch all the way to the support face. There is no doubt that the internal stresses are different with a recurve; the only question is whether it has any real effect on tone or volume. I wonder if anyone has ever studied the difference with similar thickness profiles but different arch profiles.