That loar sound

[Jonathan Peck]

Except for an actual Loar itself, who is making, or has made the most Loar sounding 'F' style mandolin? All subjective opinions are welcome

[SternART]

Lynn Dudenbostel has a reputation for Loarlike tone.....I played a recent Will Kimble that I thought sounded like an ol' Gibson too.
I have an early 80's Monteleone F5, that is well played and has much of what I find special in the old ones. YMMV

[Jonathan Peck]

Thanks, I guess I could clarify things a little. I'm thinking of unloading most of the instruments I've acumulated over the years in hopes of getting as close to the holy grail as I can get. The instrument would need to be obtainable, cost less than 15K, and be closer to the Loar sound than my Dearstone, which has many Loar-like qualities.

[Greenmando]

The Gibson MM and DMM both have that Loar sound, the DMM even has the smell of a old Loar.

[cgwilsonjr]

I'd get a Brentrup with a red spruce top. Dry, woody, deep and powerful. I think the Dudes, Gil's and Monty's are pretty much out of the reach of mere mortals these days. I also think Wiens and Red Diamond specialize in near-exact replicas of Loars. There are many great builders to choose from. Cheers, Chuck

[Flowerpot]

I gotta say, this is a tough question and one open for interpretation -- cause if you lined up 10 Loars, they wouldn't all sound identical. Nor would everybody choose the same one as their favorite (some will like a deeper tone, some more pronounced midrange, some the dry woody treble).

But with that disclaimer in mind, my personal pick of the Loar-esque mandolins (of my admittedly small sampling) is Hans Brentrup's "Lloyd" model. When I first heard it in person, I though it had that old, core vintage tone, which it wore with hefty authority (i.e. it's a hoss). Especially up the neck, the treble is so throaty and clear, it just sounds OLD to me. Now I own one and would recommend it highly. (Got some sound clips if you want to hear.)

I played a Dearstone for many years, and still have it, so I may know where you're coming from... good luck in your quest, and play a lot of mandolins before you make your choice.

[Jonathan James]

Many believe the Wiens models sound close in tone to the old Loars.

In fact, if you search the archives, there is a sound clip posted by DanB of Tony Williamson's A/B comparison of his Loar and a new Wiens at last year's LoarFest event...

[dmamlep]

I have a 96 f5L and love it, have played lots of mm and dmm models and havent seen one yet with the sound of mine/. thats not to say that a real loar wouldnt sound better or at least thats what mas would think, I played a K&G that sounded better it was an even numbered mandolin, I had an odd number and it didnt sound as good. I guess
K made one number and G made the other lol

[Jonathan Peck]

I played a Dearstone for many years, and still have it, so I may know where you're coming from... good luck in your quest, and play a lot of mandolins before you make your choice.
Thanks, that hits pretty close to the mark. I've been looking at Brentrup's "Lloyd" model for some time. It's good to hear from a satisfied customer. I'd love to hear the sound clips.

I'm in no super rush, so an open waiting list is in no way a deterant. My instruments that aren't seeing play time (mostly guitars) are losing their appeal and are becoming easier to part with. My only hesitation is that I will be selling probably five instruments for one with no guarantees that the one will be 'the' one. But on the other hand, I also prefer a small builder like Hans, or others mentioned, to a factory built instrument so it's hard to believe that I could be dissapointed.

BTW - I also plan to keep my Dearstone

-jonathan

[kudzugypsy]

my honest answer would be (and i'm not attempting to be a smart a$$ - this is the very route i took myself) - how many Loars have you played? i mean, really spent enough time with to understand why & what sound you are after. could you play say, 10 mandos and be able to tell which one had the loar sound?
If you were to have a mando commissioned by someone, you would need to input as many characteristics as possible that appeal to you. i'm sure some luthiers get the "make it as close to a LL as possible" - but often the final product is not the sound someone had in mind.

the top-tier luthiers - the ones mentioned like Dudenbostle and Gilchrist really can get close to (or equal) that sound...but you're in the $25k range for those (and you cant even get one anyway) ....SO, the next step is to KNOW what sound you are looking for and when you hear it in a $15K (or less) mando, you know that is what you are after.

i was lucky enough to be able to spend a lot of time around vintage instruments and people who really knew what made them so desireable in my teenage years, and i just soaked *that sound* up - and believe me, it took a LONG time to find that mandolin - i played and could have bought Gil's when they were selling for $3500 on up, but that was back in the X-braced craze of the 90's and that wasnt the sound i was after, so i passed on a lot of good mandos i probably should have snatched up cheap. there are also a lot of mando's hyped as Loar sounding that, while excellent instruments, dont sound to ME like that have that lineage - i will stick my neck out and say that Nuggets, the ones i have played (and i also own one) dont have that LL sound, but that doesnt mean it cant stand on its own merits by any means. the same with the X-braced Gils.

ok, so what did i find that appealed to me? .... a 1990 Paganoni - you just know when you pick it up and hit it - there is that dry, throaty mid-range *honk* and bell-like trebles LL's are known for - plus, i dont think there are very many who get all the little details like John did - heck, he even built identical replica cases for each mando! - he could have easily just included an off the shelf case, but he went that extra step. the varnish, the shading, the neck profile - all very authentic - and when you play it against a Loar, very similiar characteristics.

[Jonathan Peck]

kudzugypsy,

Alot of wisdom to digest there. The fact of the matter is that I don't know, but the more I play, the closer I am getting to zeroing in on the sound that I want...need. I would like to try and stay patient about this but..."dry, throaty mid-range *honk* and bell-like trebles" oh man...where do I get me some of that http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

-jonathan

[G. Fisher]

Which Loar do you want your mandolin to sound like? I believe that even among Loars they all have a slightly different sound. Also, some of them have had extensive work done and aren't really very close to being orginal.


My favorite for sound is John Reischmans and of the 10 I've played I've only really liked one. I prefer the sound of the 20's Ferns to the Loars myself.

[cutbait2]

ah grasshopper, that's the $25,000 question, my advice save yourself some anxiety and don't even worry about it until you've played long enough and well enough to answer the question for yourself. or attend all the festivals you can this spring and listen to the mando's live. pick out the one's you like the tone of.

[danb]

My personal experience says Dude, the early Monteleones, and recently Jamie Wiens have the most mid-rangey and Loar-like treble to them. I've not played one, but have heard very similar reviews of Paganonis.

The Monte in the classifieds now surprised the heck out of me, I was visiting it just last week in a room full of loars. Has that magical midrange & nice rolling bass. It's from ~79, so I reckon it's had a good start on "aging its voice".

For my dollar I think Jamie has the ultimate treble sound. If you've played "A loar like this" you know what I mean, where "piano tone" means you hear a bass subnote under a steinway-like clarity (with no harsh overtones) right the way up the neck. I was really stunned to try one of his 2 years ago and to find myself preferring the A&E strings on it to the Loar I was borrowing at the time. The bass wasn't there like the Loar, but in 10-20 I bet it sure will be.

My favorite Loar tone is the Virzi/March 31 batch. That's a very particular sound, requires the virzi to work, etc. Your mileage will vary.. best advice was given above to say "which Loar do you mean"!

[kudzugypsy]

hey dan - do you still have the sound clip of Tony Williamson A/B'ing the Weins against the Loar? that was a great example of the quintessential Loar sound vs modern interpretation played by a master who knows how to pull every drop of *that sound* from a Loar (or anything else). when i heard that a while back and TW kicked into the intro to Mon's "Its Mighty Dark for Me to Travel"....man, that sent chills up my spine! thats THE SOUND.

my vote for quintessential Loar is #73728 (07/09/23)
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2985

just an amazing instrument, no matter how hard you pushed it, it kept giving the goods...haunting instrument, i can still hear it in my head to this day...actually, it was so good i made myself put it down, i just couldnt take it any longer http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[danb]

Tony W plays Wiens 22 vs the "Rybka" Loar (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/sound_clips/wiens22_tony_w.mp3). I think the Wiens is the second one on the clip..

[kudzugypsy]

thanks dan - what a great clip!

i'm gonna have to drive over and see Tony this week and get some of that in person! I cant even play around him, i just want to listen - its one of those times when i forget to even play cause i'm concentrating on him so much...plus he's always got some goodies laying around http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[danb]

Couple more I did on that Wiens.. I had microphones with me at Loarfest http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Scotland (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/audio/wiens22/wiens22_scotland.mp3)

Ragtime Annie (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/audio/wiens22/wiens22_ragtime.mp3)

[hanknc]

Any F5 copy from any maker will by definition have the Loar sound. Just some have more of it than others do.

[mandolooter]

Very nice A/B but with the head phones that first one has a way "thicker" tone to my ear. Of course I wish I hadnt know which was which so my brain didn't add anything...lol!

[goose 2]

I would vote for a Master Model in the price range you mentioned. I owned one for many years and it was just great. I played a half dozen of them and they all seemed to be in that tone family. I now have a DMM that I will never sell. I think that there are VERY FEW top builders that sound much like a Loar. I have owned or played essentially all the ones mentioned above (except a Brentrup) and I personally believe that the strident, penetrating, dark midrange snap that Loars have is really hard to find. Pags and Dudes are the closest non-MM/DMM modern day instruments to catch that tone. BTW the other models in the Gibson line do not sound very Loarish to me either.

[carleshicks]

I have that Master Model that goose2 used to own, and it sounds more like a loar than any other modern mando I have played. Don't get me wrong I haven't played them all so I can't say go by a Master Model or a DMM but the one I now have will be mine forever.

As far as looking like a loar Brenthrup's Lloyd and Jamie Wiens' mandos are about the best out there. Also on the Mando Tasting CD from Ken Cartwright I thought that The Hieden sounded very Loarish.

[ipmala888]

I got to play a Loar about 1 year ago--when I went down to Gibson OAI in Nashville to pick up my new MM (which was hand-picked by Charlie D., Big Joe, Danny, Jackie Miller, and Dave Harvey). I asked them to call me when they found
me a "cannon", and mine is loud enough to knock down a large
building--a real banjo killer. Anyway, the Loar was beat up
and had a virizi it and didn't have any volume, and had high
stiff action. The neck had been shaved down (it belonged to
Ricky Skaggs). Anyway, there was no comparison to my MM,
which was only one week old. So, not being an expert on the
Loars, my only thought is--is that the way a Loar sounds ??
What about loudness? And, what exactly is 'the Loar' sound?
My MM has a huge bottom end, killer mids, and crystal clear
highs--isn't that what a Loar is supposed to have ?? Maybe
I haven't been fortunate enough yet to play a really good
Loar--but what is a good 'Loar' supposed to sound like ??
IMO for the $150K-$200K prices that they sell for today, you
should have everything--loudness, big bottom end, explosive
mid-range, and beautiful clean highs--and the action should
play like butter. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[sgarrity]

I've never played a Loar. Never been up close and personal with one even. (Although now that I live in VA and am close to NC I'm hoping to change that one day soon.) But the MM that Mr Hicks now owns is exactly what I think of when I think of a good Loarish mando. I can still remember hearing/playing it. The tone of that mando just stuck in my head. I played a new MM at the Gibson Showcase that was every bit as good too. I actually preferred it over two DMM's that they had there. As critical as I've been of some of their other work, Gibson is definitely getting it right with these two models. Now, three mandos I'd love to play and A/B with a good MM would be the Brentrup Lloyd, the Red Diamond vintage and one of Jamie Wiens. They all 3 sure have the look! And I'd be willing to bet the tone to match.

Shaun

[Jonathan Peck]

Capin'

You reeling enough now http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
That was very sobering. I wonder how the Wiens will sound over time. The Loar is unbelieveable. I should probably look at some old Fern's for that 'Ole' broke in sound', but I'm sure that they're out of my price range.

-jonathan

[danb]

I should add that that is an oranges to apples comparison- the "Rybka" (aka 75709 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?212) ) was "virzi removed". Jamie's was patterned after 76547 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2781) aka "the Schultz Loar".

Check out these 2 clips one after another to see what I mean:

Scotland on 76547 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/sound_clips/76547_scotland.mp3)
Scotland on Wiens 22 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/sound_clips/wiens22_scotland.mp3)

Note that I'm not a bluegrasser.. I pick with a .72 clayton, and.. well, these both sound like I would play 'em..

Jamie also builds a non-virzi of course, but I don't have sound clips of that one. I think a lot of guys are hitting it very well, it's a question of which loar or loars a particular instrument might be using as an ideal.

Like a lot of people have said, there is a scatter-graph in play here. "Typical" loars are mid-rangey and focused with a quick decay, ie bluegrass tone. Some of them are bassy, some trebly, some louder, some more subtle & complex.

to "Get" the whole Loar thing, I think it's neccessary to make a couple assumptions.. first start off figuring that there is a lot of fuss and they are expensive, but there there is probably something to all that fuss. Don't be too quick to judge, some of them aren't set up properly, some sound nicer than others depending on your preference. It took me a while to figure out where to pick it before I could get the right response, but then BOY HOWDY did it give back.

It's probably safe to say that for any particular player and set of musical taste buds, there is probably a Loar out there that will knock your socks off, and another that won't. I often revisit ones I thought weren't great only to change my mind and shake my head at my own rush to judgement. I've found this to be true of many makes.. it's quite easy to align yourself as not liking brand XX, but it's harder to keep your mind open to trying them!

[Greg H.]

Another thought to consider, Michael Lewis has the specs from both Reischman's and Grisman's loars, and his 'Vintage' mandolins are around your price range. I tried one of each at his booth at the 2005 IBMA and both were killer instruments (the one done to Grisman's loar specs was the best mandolin I played that whole trip IMHO--and there were a LOT of mandolins to try).

[Spruce]

"IMO for the $150K-$200K prices that they sell for today, you
should have everything--loudness..."

Loar volume is deceptive. #Kinda like a fine violin. #Their strength lies in how they sound in, say, a concert hall.....

"....big bottom end..."

Not to my ear...

"...explosive mid-range..."

Now we're talkin'....

"...and beautiful clean highs..."

I don't know about "clean" or even "beautiful"....
"Hair-raising" maybe... # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

"--and the action should play like butter."

They obviously vary. #But considering their value (again like a fine violin), they've usually been set up on a fairly regular basis by someone who knows what they're doing....

"...who is making, or has made the most Loar sounding 'F' style mandolin?"

OK, what the hell...

My favorite sounding F5s have very little to do with sounding like a Loar. #Nugget #200, my old Monteleone GA, many-a-Gilchrist, and my current fav F5, a John Sullivan...

But I've played 2 mandolins within the past 5 years that immediately had "that" Loarish sound under the ear, with "that" distinctive mid-range bite.

One of Gary Vessel's early F5's, and a Don MacRostie F5...

YMMV... #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Jonathan Peck]

Thanks Dan, those sound clips put alot of things into perspective. I think what I'm realy after is an 'aged' instrument, after all, I'm not getting any younger. There's something about the way that father time has it's influence on an instrument that I can't quite put my finger on, but it is closer to the sound that I'm after.

In the end, I might just wind up staying on the instrument I have, realizing that greener patures are likely out of my price range and what I have is likely good enough, or even better than I deserve. I'd be curious to hear any thoughts on an older Randy Woods or a vintage F-4.

-jonathan

[Spruce]

"In the end, I might just wind up staying on the instrument I have, realizing that greener patures are likely out of my price range and what I have is likely good enough, or even better than I deserve. I'd be curious to hear any thoughts on an older Randy Woods or a vintage F-4. "


So we jumped through all those hoops so you could go get yourself an F4? # # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jonathan Peck]

So we jumped through all those hoops so you could go get yourself an F4? # # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ok,ok...no F4....whew, what was I thinking....but an ole Ajr. might just work and it won't break the bank either http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[sgarrity]

I agree with you 100% that the aged sound is next to impossible to get in a newer mandolin. So I'd go for the F4. But then again a nice snakehead would fit the bill too and save quite a bit of coin. I've never owned a vintage mandolin. So I think the next one I buy probably will be.

Shaun

[Jonathan Peck]

...ah, yeah, big thick old tone with gobs of midrange honk and bell like trebles without sacrificing bass.

I hope I didn't kill the discussion by mentioning an oval hole mandolin....but just in case I did...thank you everyone for all of your help. I've learned a great deal from your contributions to my question.

-jonathan

[Chris Baird]

For there to a "that Loar sound" there needs to a tonal quality that ALL Loars have which 99.9% of non-Loars don't have. My question is, what is "that" specific tonal quality that they ALL have and which most others don't have?

[mandolooter]

Im gonna have to agree with the above post by Chris B...if they are so different then how does one get "the Loar" sound. I think any mandolin's sound is so directly affected by the players attack and style of pickin...if I A-B'ed the Loar and the Weins what would folks think? Im no Dan B. or Tony W., not even close, just a mostly at home picker who loves music and mando's. I personally think my Givens sounds very Loar like with the descriptions I've heard of their tone since it has a "thick" sound, killer mid-range, sweet "cryin" trebles...but others have said it wasn't there thing and they didn't like it. Its definitely WAY different than my Clark F which both plays easier and might be louder unless your mic'n them. Then the meters show the difference as do the in-ear monitors. The Givens has way more "power" and the Clark has a more modern tone, I prefer the tone of each at different times and genre's. Its a tough thing to quantify not only in words but to each others ears. Variety is the spice of life...and mando's!

[danb]

Chris, to my ear a lot of makers have gotten the really nice mid-range & treble piano tone, but the rich bass that comes along with it and the effortless ability to pluck out a note must come with age. If a new mandolin is bass rich, to me it usually seems to detract from the treble & mid-range. I think many instruments made recently will sound like loars in 40 years.. This monteleone I played in Chicago recently was certainly on it's way.

Point on old F4s.. You get a lot of bang for the buck out of them. I still think they are undervalued. A nicely aged F4 can just sound specatcular.

[Nolan]

Tony W plays Wiens 22 vs the "Rybka" Loar (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/sound_clips/wiens22_tony_w.mp3). I think the Wiens is the second one on the clip..
Cool clip, thanks Dan.

It sounds like the Wiens has a little too much bass... at least if it's trying to sound like that Loar.

[kudzugypsy]

why not let Lloyd Loar himself tell you what the Loar sound is all about

http://www.mugwumps.com/tone.htm

this may or may not be over some peoples heads - a good reading of Hermann Helmoholz's "The Sensations of Tone", the *bible* of acoustic science that was written in the late 1800's was more than likely Loars main research behind this piece.

i think the essay is dead on in describing what makes a Loar so unique - #there is just a lot more to it than volume or woof or bass or sparking trebles - there is a complexity to the note in a Loar that is unique - #and yes, it can be very subtle and thats why i said earlier you need to KNOW that sound and what to look for - its a delicate difference that you have to be aware of - its not going to knock you down or blow your mind.

all these mandolins being made today have their strengths and weaknesses - it is a great time to be a mandolin player - ask any of the *old schoolers* what was available in the 60's-70's....hardly nothing - Givens, Wood and a few others were it - how many used F5 (non-Gibson) mandos from the 60's-70's have you seen - not many - most will be overbuilt asian imports. I really think that since the explosion of really talented luthiers took up the mandolin that it actually had a renaissance effect on the instrument. even in the late 80's when i started playing, there were hardly ANY mandolin players around - i could always get a gig or join a jam - now, it seems every other picker at the festivals is a mandolin player! (now we cant find good fiddlers!) - i think that when the supply of great modern instruments caught up with the demand, more people took up the instrument - man, it was hard to find mandolins even back in the 80's! - its A LOT better now.

oh yeah, i just wanted to finish this rambling by saying - dont worry about *that sound* and if your mandolin has it or not. every single instrument has the one certain model that has *that sound* everyone is searching and searching for. when i played pedal steel it was a 66 Emmons, banjos, its the mid 30's flatheads, guitars - mid 30's D's - but you know what, i couldnt tell one MasterClone banjo from another, and i've been around A LOT of em....they just sound like banjos, some good, some sound aweful...but to the banjo players (and us), they invent this *sound* that they MUST get or they are not completly satisfied...and most never are.
....reminds me of that song "love the one your with" - you know, if you cant have the one you love - love the one your with

[Dale Ludewig]

Dan, I'm intimately familiar with that Monteleone that you're talking about. As well as the room and collection within which you played it. The Monteleone has anything I think one could want. But that's all subjective. But I will say this- I've played with the guy selling it since the mid 70's, and I've played with and on that mandolin for many years. I'm not pushing anything here. I have no FI. In fact I'd rather have someone order one of mine! But it is a killer. Especially after the makeover.

The Loar sound? I'm no expert by any means, but I have played at least a dozen, which I know is no big deal when you get into Loar experts. Many sounds from these instruments. Some I've played were incredible to my ears. Others didn't stir me. Did Lloyd personally scrape the final graduations? I think not. But he did sign off on them as being acceptable to his ears. It's an interesting discussion. Values? I guess the market is deciding as we speak.

[mandolooter]

Interesting read...now to test it on my mandolins...lol. I own several tenors and have noticed on my 2 favorite ones that ya can get way more harmonics on them that some of the others. I wonder if thats why?

[Chris Baird]

I've had relatively limited experience with Loars. But, the expriences I've had have involved in-depth study. In one instance I WAS blown away (so to speak).

The Loar which caught my attention seemed to be much more "open" than any contemporary instrument. It wasn't that the range was different or even necessarily the balance, but that the instrument seemed to "give" more for the input than any contemporary mandolin I've played. It was something akin to the difference in any mandolin with new strings and broken-in string. The Loar was very balanced, much the same as many good contemporary mandolins, BUT, it just had MORE of everything. I could play it very softly or as hard as I wanted, the tone was there regardless. But, I wouldn't say the tone was exactly different from any contemporary instrument I've played. I guess just more "open" and full.

I've played a Distressed Master Model Gibson that I thought had a very interesting and "vintage" sounding tone. However, my Loar experiences have been different. The DMM was different; it had a very interesting mid-range tone (maybe a "honk") that reminded me of the typical first generation bluegrass sounds. But, like I say, the Loars I've played didn't sound like that. It is interesting that the most "vintage" sounding mandolin I've played has been a DMM even though I've played Loars and Ferns.

With regard to acoustical data that I've compiled. Loars are different from most contemporary builders. The contemporary acoustical "fingerprint" that most matches that of Loars is (surprisingly or not) that of contemporary Gibsons. But, I've never played a contemporary Gibson that sounded like any of the Loars I've played with regards to balance and "openness".

I hope to get out to Loarfest some day and get a better perspective.

[testore]

I've wondered if Lloyd was allowed to not sign some of the lesser mandos. I know someone who was approached by Gibson to do a signature model. His only criteria was that they allowed him to play everyone that left the factory with his name on it. Gibson declined and the deal was never struck.Is it possible that there were many Loars that were signed by him because of corporate pressure?Also, are there many Loar period F5's that were not signed? Are they any good? I can't wait to see them again next week at Loar Fest. I hope to get a broader sense of their complex sounds relative to other Loars, not other mandolins of any make.

[bradeinhorn]

capn-any interest in a trip to mando bros on friday??? i've been wanting to try some stuff out there vs. the kelley. the kelley by the way has a real honking midrange. one of the most impressive parts of the instrument. -oh and you can't go wrong with a snakehead. it is a welcome and unique part of my collection. it is actually the one i pick most when just hanging around the house.

B

[testore]

Just did a quick run through the archives. Doesn't appear to be any F5's made without his signature. They can't have all been great. Are there any out there that didn't get signed?

[Loren Bailey]

Doesn't Butch Baldassari own an "unsigned" Loar? One that was produced at the time LL was at the factory, yet is unsigned. Maybe I am wrong, wouldn't be the first time (just ask my wife.)

Loren

[Loren Bailey]

Shayne,

Can you call my wife and tell her I was correct about something http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Walter Newton]

I've never played a contemporary Gibson that sounded like any of the Loars I've played with regards to balance and "openness".
Isn't comparing a newer mando vs. an 80+ year old one "apples and oranges" though? #(Not to discount your observation by any means, just curious about the conventional wisdom with regards to a newer instrument vs. one with decades of "breaking in")

[Chris Baird]

While I agree that there may be something to age, there certainly isn't any objective information that would nail "that" sound to being a result of age only. Its mysterious.
To some degree I don't like the notion that we are always comparing apples to oranges. We are comparing mandolins to mandolins.

[f5loar]

Comparing a Loar to a Loar is like comparing apples to oranges or like I say a Ford to a Chevy. There is no specfic "Loar" sound. Maybe "Loar-like". Even Monroe's Loar went through changes with tone and sound over it's 50 abusive years. I've heard Randy Woods come as close as anything and I've heard Gils,Chestnuts,Wards,new MMs, Dudes,Pags,Monts,Nugs,Duffs,etc. come close too.
It's all in your mind and your ears! We all don't have the same ears and certaintly don't have the same minds. The best way I can tell is in a recording. Go back and listen to McLaughlin in those live and studio JMBoys recordings. No denying that mandolin in that boy's hands cut and was as great a sounding Loar as you could ask for. Listen to how Doyle's Pag cuts in those early QS recordings. Get some old Red Henry recordings from his Florida days and listen to that Randy Wood. Listen to those old PeeWee Lambert recordings using a refinished '22 Loar on those old Stanley Bros. songs. And many of these guys didn't use state of the art recording mics either like being used today.

[Lynn Dudenbostel]

I seriously doubt that Loar played and "approved" all of the instruments with his signature label. #Charlie D. did some research and discovered that Loar was on the road with the Gibsonians on the date that one of the larger batches of labels were signed on (July 9th, I think). #I believe any F/H/K/L-5 leaving the factory during his tenure got the signature label. #Were there instruments that didn't make the grade and never left the factory? #Possible... but I think there were others (Guy Hart?) that could have made that decision also.

As for the "unsigned Loars" like Butchs'... look at the serial numbers. #There is a definite cut off date for Loar signatures and all of the "unsigned Loars" have serial numbers after that date. #They were probably in process when Loar left the company in Dec. 1924 and were finished and shipped after that date. #They got a Master Model label, but no signature label. #I prefer to call these "unsigned flowerpots"... because they aren't Loars. #I've seen other transitional models with Loar type color and varnish, but gold hardware, fern inlay, and white binding. #It didn't take long for Gibson to transition to what most of us recognise as a fern, but there were transitional instruments, and the "unsigned" like Butchs' is one of them.

Lynn

[Five]

So Lynn,
Do you think that Mr. Loar presigned labels and were used by whomever approved the instruments in his absence.

[Big Joe]

When I first got interested in "high quality" mandolins I purchased a Gilchrist. It was an exciting mandolin to say the least. I bought it from Butch and thought I had died and gone to mandolin heaven. At that time it was "the" mandolin to own. Charlie was always telling me it was the second best mandolin and if I really wanted to have the best sounding mandolin I would have to get a real Loar. I played a number of Loars, and I really enjoyed the vintage thing but, I did not like the tone compared to the Gil. The Gil had a lot more bottom end, had a compressed tone that felt like it was going to explode from the mandolin any time. It was loud right there where you were. The Loars were too mid-rangy and the volume was not as heavy in your hand.

That was many years ago. As I developed and my ear developed I began to "get" the Loar thing. That tone began to resonate in my head and it was a quest for the tone that could eat your insides away with that mid range and bell like highs. Double stops that could peel paint. An old sound that seemed to fill a room. I began to realize it was louder at the other end of the room than it was in your hand. They way they carry was incredible. My quest was now for "that" tone.

The DMM project was a portion of that quest. When we began the project it was to get a mandolin to look eighty years old and still be new. We did not expect, but immediately recognized the tonal differences. We also realized we could predict the outcome pretty well by the amount of distressing.

If you play Goose2 DMM you will hear an exact replica of the Loar tone. It has been placed in a room full of Loars (several times) and passed the test quite easily. It may be the closest mandolin to the ultimate Loar tone I've ever heard without being a real Loar. My Brutus is pretty darn close also. They way they carry and the mid range and bell like highs and double stops will make one crazy!

With all that being said, the Loar tone is not for everyone. If you like lots of bass, you will not like the Loar. If you want a mandolin that is loud in your hands, you will not like the tone of the Loar. However, if you compare the way a Loar fills a room with sound to the "louder" mandolins with all that bass, you will find the bassier, louder mandolins do not carry near as well and the tone dies long before it reaches the back of your audience.

Now let me say this. I don't think most of the 'better' builders make a close replica to the Loar tone. That being said, they do make some incredible mandolins with some of the finest looking sounding mandolins money can buy. Just because they may be a bit different does not make them any less exciting or valuable. I just don't hear Loar in most of the others work. Maybe I'm spoiled by having had the opportunity to play so many Loars and so many MM and DMM and so many other mandolins. My work presents the best of everything to me and I love that part of my job. We had Lynn's #5 in the shop the other day. What a manodlin! I see why Chris Thile loves it! I've played some of Hans mandolins that anyone would love to own. I have always loved Michael Lewis mandolins and how about Fletcher Brock and Dale Ludewig? Then there is .......the list just goes on and I know I will miss someone and that is not what I mean to do.

When you search for the mandolin that flips your wig, find the one that speaks to you today and understand your ear may develop and the mandolin that you swear today will be the one for the rest of your life may actually change and you may find you like something else over time. I don't call that MAS as much as ear develoment. As my friend Charlie was wont to say, vote with your pocketbook. If you like an Eastman and it floats your boat, go for it. If it is a Gil, go for it, if it is a Dude, go for it. If it is.....go for it. If it is a Loar or DMM, go for it. You will never be sorry for the investment made in the dreams you have. Thank you.

[Five]

Big Joe,
Were the Loars tap tuned or built to spec?

[Lynn Dudenbostel]

Five... I'm not toally convinced that the Loars were "approved" by anyone. I could be wrong. Don't forget, these were "production" instruments made using the best technology they had at the time, as were Lyon and Healy's, Martins, etc. To my ear, Gibson hit the nail on the head in 1922, as did Martin with guitars in the mid-'30's. But still, they were all built in a "production" setting. I do think the Gibsons were built by very skilled craftsmen to pretty exacting specs, and as a result there probably weren't any real "clunkers".
Lynn

[Five]

Thanks Lynn,
That is what I thought also but was not sure. I was talking to Tony Williamson the other day about side depth and body depth at the bridge and he had an interesting thought. He said he sees more variences in the ribs than the tops. He said most Loar bridges fit other Loars pretty close. I then asked why later F5's where wider at the ribs, very noticable by the fifties to me, he said he thought that the replaceing of old templetes by tracing to make new had caused this. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Reggie

[danb]

The varying body depth has a pretty interesting explanation. The wonderful infernal virzi! When they started production, the virzi was an option, and later it became standard. Some folks probably sent their mandolins back for a retro-fitting, some for a removal, and some that were completed prior to shipping might have been fitted with a virzi after the fact.

Each time the virzi was in or out, the back would come off, and that would result in a slight thinning of the ribs to get it back on cleanly.

Charlie had an interesting Loar at Loarfest that had thin sides.. checking inside it he reckoned it had a double dip.. back to the factory to get a virzi in, then again to take it out.

The tone bars on an instrument that originally had a virzi were ever-so-slightly further apart.. and ones that were retrofitted often have notches cut in the tone bars to accomodate the virzi.

Anyway, this theory doesn't fit in all cases, but it does help explain some of them!

[Soupy1957]

I'm surprised nobody has talked about the strings that are used, as a contribution or detriment to the sound.

I suppose that when a discussion about "proper setup" ensues, that the presumption is that the right strings are being used (a potentially subjective thing), for the proper setup.

I have found, whether on guitar or mando, that the string gauge and type, (coated-vs-non coated; flat-wound-vs-round wound, etc.) CAN affect the tone.

-Soupy1957

[AlanN]

Joe, a very 'feeling' post.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard..."my mandolin is louder than yours".

I Just Walk Away, Renee http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Five]

AlanN,
I agree with BigJoe I don't think loud as in volume is it. It is that some instruments can be heard played loud or softly, a cutting power that all do not have. I call it the Strad effect. It is a type of prescence that a great insrument has. Loar was able to achive this in his master models. Maybe not every mandolin but in quite a few of the ones I have heard in the correct settings.

[testore]

Lynn and Joe,
Great posts. Learning to listen to fine sound takes time. It took me maybe two years before I could really hear cello sounds,listening almost everyday.Even though I know that there isn't one Loar sound, there sure must be a commonality to a good number of them. Like I've said before,I can pick an Old Wave blind folded by just playing their top end. But that's because I've seen,heard and played several of them. I hope to get the chance to do that next week a little at Loar fest. I have played only three so far, and only for a few seconds.Even though other mandos may not have the Loar sound it needs to be understood that there are a lot of great sounds out there, and no two are alike.

[Big Joe]

It is interesting that many of the Loars do have different rim thicknesses. I think there were two things going on with this. I think many of them were from repairs where they would cut the back off to remove a virzi, fix a brace, http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif, then when they glued the back on it would be to a thinner rim. It does not seem to negatively affect tone. I think they also experimented with some of them to see if the tone would be altered by the thinner rims. Remember the mandolins built before the F5 had deep rim thickness. Even the F4 was narrower after 22 than before. They may have felt the thinner rim gave more fiddle like projection.

I do not have any information to back up my theories, just observation from seeing so many. I will say that one of the best sounding Loars I've played had the rims quite thin (top to back). It was quite interesting to discover how the tone was so excellent.

In Loar's day they claimed to build them by doing a tap tuning, but after discussions with Charlie, I think they may have just tuned the cavity. Charlie was pretty convinced cavity tuning was superior to plate tuning for consistent results. One can vary the tuning by the F holes, and we have experimented with that ( look at the Doyle Lawson and Goldrush models). When it comes to tuning the final tone, there are so many things in the chain that one can consider. Even down the the littlest detail like the tuner knob material.

I think the Loar sound comes from three fundamental issues. The wood selection, the cavity tuning, and the finish. If you listen to the mandolins made after early 25 when the switch was made to lacquer, you can hear the sonic difference. One of Charlie's greatest accomplishments, according to him, was developing what he believed to be the exact finish Loar used. That is one reason the MM and DMM have "that" sound. His goal was to reproduce as close as possible, with great consistency, the tone that Loar found. Personally, I think he did just that. With the MM and DMM we have been able to replicate what the original may have sounded like new and after many years of use. We played many of the MM's and compared them to Loars as they came through the process. The similarity was amazing! When we altered any of those three things in the process the whole tone changed. The alternate tone was not bad, just different and that was not what the MM or DMM was all about.

Now, to answer one question about signing labels. Gibson was just a production facility. First of all, they did not know they were building mandolins that would be the most collectable ever at the time they were being built. They were just making mandolins. Yes, they believed they were doing something revolutionary and exciting, but they also realized the marked did not care. Sales were plummeting and demand sank to an all time low. What had been the core of the company was now just an afterthought. Still, there were only a few people in the mandolin department. Maybe as few as three or four guys. Loar was the 'sonic' engineer, but he was a manager and not a builder. He was not on the floor doing the building. He had many other duties to occupy his time. He established what should be done, how they should do it, and then got out of thier way and let them do it. I don't know how much he even contributed to R&D. No one really seems to have an answer to that. We do know there was constant research and inquisitive minds will try all sorts of things. Yes, we have done the same. That is one reason we know what works and what does not! So, back to the topic at hand, Loar probably played each instrument as it was finished and before it actually shipped and gave it the label at that time. He may well have signed labels ahead of time, but there is no indication of that. There seems to be no labels signed when he left in December of 24. He may have given the labels to whoever was supervising when he was out of the office. While the Loars are as different as night and day in some respects, the tonal qualities are very similar. Again, these are a combination of my experience and my theories. They are worth exactly what I charge for them http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[Five]

Joe,
Great info, great price. Is there any chance you would elaborate a bit on how tuning the f holes affects tone. And tunning knobs also. I have always wondered what the results where and why and what you do to the f holes.

Thanks again for the great info,
Reggie

[Dale Ludewig]

I think you'll find, if you do a search on the topic, that "tuning" the f holes has little effect. It would have to be a massive change in f hole size, if I understand my Helmholtz and Dave Cohen properly. And my own experience. I think, with no actual scientific evidence to back this up, that changing the internal body size would have a more noticeable effect. Even then, the whole thing is a system, so everything affects everything else. I would think that plate shape (arch) would have a more immediate effect. And, of course, graduations. Tossing in my $.02 again.

[Five]

Thanks Dale,
Here is another question that maybe you or someone would answer. How does removing small amounts of wood from the bridge affect the mandolin? Where on the bridge do you remove the wood from?

Thanks
Reggie

[Dale Ludewig]

Reggie, if you do a search on bridges, I think you'll find a bunch of info. This topic has been hashed over considerably over in the builder's forum. Much of it has to do with different bridge designs rather than removing wood from an existing one, except with the idea of boring holes underneath the base. In any case, if you can't find the thread(s) by doing a search, just ask a question over there.

Dale

[Big Joe]

Let me comment on f hole size relative to tone. We have experimented with this quite a bit and Gibson has used different sizes at various times. The smaller the F hole the more bass in the response, all other things being equal. For example, on the Lawson model that is the only difference between it and the Fern. The F holes are cut the same as the Fern and then bound. This reduces the effective size of the F hole and that accounts for the different tone in that mandolin. Each of the Lawson mandolins has a similar tonal difference relative to the Fern. If you look at the Goldrush you will see the F holes are actually cut smaller. They too have a bassier response from the Fern. If you enlarge the holes bass response is reduced. This does not improve treble or midrange as much as just decrease bass response. If scientific evidence is required, just play the models mentioned and you will see what I am talking about. That is enough science for me http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

The bridges will vary tone by several factors. First, does it fit the mandolin properly and is the bass at the correct angle relative to the top. Second, the way the feet are cut will affect the tone. I really don't want to go into this very much at this time, but it does affect tonal response. Third, the saddle and the way it is cut makes a difference. We often will recut a bridge when we do a full set up and it is amazing the difference we get when we shape them like the Loar bridges actually are....not how the replacement loar bridges are cut. The replacements are good, but when personalized for your instrument it helps even more. Like most things in the tone chain, each element has to be fit to that particular instrument to get the most of the tone from the instrument.

One advantage we have is the vast number of mandolins we work on in repair as well as the new ones that come through. We can see and hear so many in such a short period of time that we can pick up on subtle changes and how they affect each area of the mandolins tone.

No, these statements do not carry the weight of scientific research, but the results are as scientific as it gets. I am not trying to write a thesis as much as report what comes from the laboratory of many years working with these varying elements. Others may have different results depending upon where they start and where they plan on ending. We only know what has worked and what has not in our experience. Hope this helps. Thank you.

[Dale Ludewig]

Joe, I don't think I'd argue with you about the f-hole observations. I was talking about the body cavity resonant frequency. I can certainly say that I'd agree about what would seem, at least, to be the sound you're talking about. I've played a Doyle model and unfortunately it was too late at night and too noisy for me to make any sort of informed judgement. On the other hand, I would imagine a Coke bottle with a larger opening at the top would tend to resonate at a higher frequency and give such frequencies more prominence in the sound. But I haven't actually measured what an instrument's would be, as opposed to just the cavity frequency. Our ears can trick us sometimes. Is it actually more bass response or is it timbre? In a way, I suppose it doesn't matter except for electronic measuring instruments. If it's what you hear, then that's what you hear. I'm not laying any of my money right now on either side of the issue. But we can still go out for dinner the next time I'm down your way. We can even bring our wives. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Chris Baird]

Here is a link to a topic which covers f-hole alterations somewhat. I posted a graphic representation which may help.

F-hole thread (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=7&t=38029&st=)

[Big Joe]

Dale...Do we have to bring the wive's??? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[Mandoe]

Great topic and great discussion, as usual.

I've only played ~8-10 Loar F-5's over that past few years, so I'm certainly no expert. I have had the priviledge of visiting a couple of Loars many times. As such, and like Big Joe, I've been able to develop my ear a little better to the Loar sound. I think. And never played one I didn't love.

I too became obsessed with trying to get as close to the Loar sound as I could in something I could afford. I've spent 10 years playing/saving/purchasing/trading/selling in that pursuit.

The closest I could find to the Loar tone, in a "more affordable mando" were varnish models built by Randy Wood. I've owned four RW mandos. One of them, which I regret ever letting go, was terrifically close to what I consider the Loar tone. No surprise really. RW mandos played by Red and Chris Henry and Roland White all sound Loar-like to me.

I find David Davis' Kirk to be very Loar-like as well. To me, his recording "My Dixie Home" with the Warrier River Boys sounds as close to Monroe as any recording I have ever heard.

Other mandos that I've played that were Loar-like to me are mandos by Dude, Paganoni, Sargent, Henderson and Kimble.

There are other mandos that are generally considered Loar-like in tone that I have not had an opportunity to play, like a Brock or F-5 Monte or F-12 conversion. So I haven't played them all.

Intersting that I recently had the priviledge of holding and playing and hearing Compton's '03 F-5 Gil, which I know he feels is as close to a Loar as any F-5 Gil has ever made, and as close to Monroe's Loar as any he has run across. I agree that the attention to detail on that mando appears to be dead-on Loar-like to me. The feel/weight/carving/inlay/everything. I've never seen a more Loar-like mandolin. As for tone, it does have that "back of the room" sound discussed earlier in this thread. Not quite as immediate to the player, but terrific out front and terrific mic'd. With a great set-up as well.

As for me, I've concluded my search for the Loar tone with an '01 Gibson MM. Although I believe that most DMM's come closer to the Loar tone than mine, this it is as close to the Loar sound as I can afford. These mandos have all of the Loar qualites, including The Gibson in the headstock. I truly believe that age is all that separates these mandos from Loars.

My 2 cents. Sorry to be so long-winded. We are all mando junkies. And are so very fortunate to live in a golden age of mandos and have this great forum to talk about it.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I hear the "Loar" tone in the Gibson MM's and DMM's. This is not to say they do it best or other builders do not have it. I simply hear a consistency in them that mimics the overall consistencies in the Loars.

F-holes. I have noted that most '22 Loars have smaller f-holes than 23's, and that the 30's "Bush" type F5's have larger ones. This aligns with the more bass response for smaller f-hole observations.

[f5loar]

You seem to grasp what the Loar myth is all about without owning one. Many who don't own one say they never saw one they would own, while those that own them feel they have met the end of the road in the search for the ultimate mandolin. I agree the new MM and especially the DMM are really, really close in not only looks but sound. But in fairness other builders who have literally taken Loars apart to see what makes it tick have also come extremely close for a lot less money. I'll go back to what others say in that it's what you can afford and be happy with in what you are looking for in how it plays and sounds. The reality fact is there are not enough Loars for everyone who wants one to have one at any price. Factor in that the undiscovered still in the closet Loars are slowing down and those many collectors that seem to think one is not enough the shortage only gets worse. Like in the stock market if you want one the time to get one is now when you see one for sale.

[Hans]

I've resisted this thread for a while, but I suppose I ought to toss in my nickel. As far as I can tell from my endeavor to "find" the Loar tone, several factors come into play. Volume (internal) is important and from my experience planform makes a difference. Slight changes in shape have produced differences in tone. This has been born out by my past experiments with "A" shapes.
Of course, tonewood is a major part of the formula. From my point of view, anything but red spruce is not going to get you Loar tone. Maple is important too. You can't just slap any kind of maple on the back. Euro maple or Big leaf will not work. Don't know how much difference neck and ribs make, I just stick to what I have been using.
Graduations are important...both top and back. I've graduated them 6 ways from Sunday, and think that I have finally found what works for me. I don't mess with the ff holes as the prints show a pretty consistent size. I think that changing the overall size will make them sound different, but that, in my opinion has nothing to do with that basic elusive tone. I believe that Dave Cohen is right...you would need to make them significantly larger or smaller to have an effect. I have come to believe that the top doesn't "recognize" the ff holes sonically, and I have begun to think through the ff holes. If that sounds criptic, I'll just leave it at that.
Don't believe that neck angle/bridge height is that important as long as it is in the 3/4-13/16" range. I have been experimenting with raising the T/P with some interesting results.
Tuners, Tailpiece, and truss rods: I don't believe that they make that much difference as I have used heavy Waverlys, light Gotohs, Grovers and Elites, tin Can T/P's, James T/P and use a heavy stainless dual action T/R as opposed to the compression rod.
Pearl nuts...nah. Just for flash, but use them when I can get them.
Tone bars are very important, however I don't believe placement is that critical. Has more to do with length, size and shape.
Finish is very important in my book. When I started doing the distressed finish, I rethought my whole finish sequence and came up with what I feel is a better way of finishing.
There are a few other things that I do that I won't go into. I believe that some of the major differences between Loars is the differences in density of the tops and backs (and the difference between quartered and slab sawn backs), and how much and how they were played over the years.
Of course everything I've put down is a learning in process, and my own opinion. The most important factor in achieving the Loar tone is to build 90 years of playing into it. Good luck with that one. #
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Jerry Byers]

Interesting observations.

I am curious about one point that you made about red spruce. I have noticed throughout multiple threads, and even in the Gibson literature, that various woods were available and used. As someone put it, whatever was available at the time. I'm curious why other woods were used before and after, and why red spruce would be used elusively with Loars. I would think with the relatively "young" wood that this sound potential would have not been recognized during the short tenure of the F-5 Loar. Is suggesting that only red spruce was used, and is ultimately required to produce the Loar sound, part of the Loar myth.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Good post Hans, and I agree with everything you say from a relative importance stance.

[Hans]

Jerry, Lloyd specified Adirondack, and in his own script on notes for the instrument he specified West Virgina red spruce as the wood of choice. Secondly, it has been my experience that no other top tonewood (my experience is in red, German, Englemann, Sitka, and Italian) has that really fundemental sound in a finished instrument. That sound is in every Loar that I have ever heard. Thirdly, I don't think that it has ever been conclusively proven that other spruces were used...I may be wrong, but I'm stickin' with red for that type of sound. # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Jerry Byers]

The most important factor in achieving the Loar tone is to build 90 years of playing into it. Good luck with that one.
I wasn't disputing your observations; I was curious why if red spruce was used in other instruments, they didn't have that same Loar tone.

I think your last point makes for a stronger case.

[Hans]

No disputin' taken Jerry. Don't think Gibson uses red in any other instrument beyond the DM and DMM. I used to use red with Bosnian maple, but that gives a warmer tone than the Loar tone.

[Darryl Wolfe]

We know that Loars were essentially mass produced using templates and established techniques for consistency and ease of assembly. Dimensional accuracy and use of like kind materials has to be the key factors. Age is the only other factor that I see playing a part in the mix.

The above sounds simple, but it is exceedingly difficult to attain the consistent dimensional accuracy that Loars have. It cannot be replicated from drawings or a few measurements here and there. One needs to make patterns directly from a Loar mandolin. Then using like kind materials you might get there.

[Jerry Byers]

While Loars might have been consistent among batches, from what I'm reading and seeing, is they seem to vary batch to batch, and year to year. I guess I'm confused when you say they were consistent because they were mass produced.

As I view the various photos in the archives, certain design elements changed through Loar's tenure. The scroll shape changed, the burst and finish changed, the inlays on the pegheads varied, the back shape morphed. Throw into the mix the various repairs, upgrades, and modifications that were done over the years - it's hard to keep track of all the variables.

While I'm a Loar newbie, I'm not convinced there was an exact science to the Loar builds. I believe Gibson was a production house, like many others, building things to templates and standards, but also trying to produce a product and a profit. And I'm still confused why the magic was lost when Lloyd walked out the door. Did Gibson round up everything and toss it when Loar and Gibson parted?

Certainly, many Loars have been measured, and more, to know the working inwards. Is there a part of the puzzle that is still missing?

If I were to put many discussions and points together, something could be said of Bill Collings and his work. He is using great woods, including red spruce. There is no question about the exact standards and measurements of his manufacturing process. I'd sure like to be around in 90 years to play a couple of his worn-in F-5's.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I understand your point Jerry, but the inconsistencies were generally limited to cosmetic areas. #Finish color, bindings, inlays and such. #There are only a few areas on the mandolin where the luthier had some room to play. #As such, you can see that different people carved the scroll ridge and applied finish during the 2-1/2 year span. #These inconsistencies of course show up in batches because they represented a slice in time. #

The tops and backs were machine carved from templates for both the inside and outside surfaces. #The rimsets were assembled in forms, headstocks were cut from templates, necks were cut and set with jigs. #They even had a jig to drill the three required holes for the pickguard. #This is proven out by the fact that they are perfectly interchangable and the "shoplifted Loar" had no threads in the side from the wood screw. # There was very little room or need to vary any of the critical dimensions that builders of today try to replicate. #Pictures in catalogs pretty much confirm that the tops and backs came off of the carvers in nearly ready to install condition.

With that said, there are similarities in Loars and Collings with respect to repeatable accuracy, but the fact is that the two are dimensionally different from one another

[danb]

as Darryl says there are many more similarities than differences, even in highly modified instruments. You can still see what the intended state was and after you've seen and heard a few, you can place them pretty accurately. When I first heard Darryl & Charlie talking about these minutae I found it realy hard to believe all this stuff too, but in the years since as I've seen more of them and taking meticulous photos, I can see many of these details myself now

[Hans]

With today's modern CNC machinery, tops and backs can be graduated to a gnat's patoot. Darryl, any idea how close Gibson came with 1923 machinery and how much was left to be hand graduated?

[Darryl Wolfe]

I really do not know Hans. But from what I can tell from catalog pictures, they appeared to only need final scraping. See the picture of the fully carved A-model top that has not been cut out from the rectangular stock. If the spec sheet details hold water, they were carving to require no more than 1/32" cleanup for the finished product at the center and 0.025" at the recurve. It might be even closer in some areas if it could be final finished with less work. I have my carver set up where I treat the bottom of the cuts as exact and try only to remove the ridges. In theory if you made enough passes there would be no ridges.

I would like to think they had better carving equipment than I do and invested much time in bit sizing, jigs and fixtures and such to reduce work.

[Big Joe]

The final tops and backs were worked by hand to the final dimensions. If you check several Loars you will see the mapping is quite similar, but still a bit different with each. I'm sure there was a pattern used, but just as we did with the Archtop guitars until not too long ago (and they may still do this, I just don't know), the final work was done by scraping and sanding. We do the same in our facility today. Loar says he tuned the cavities, but I cannot say that with dead certainty. Too many things have happened in 80+ years to tell for sure.

The question was raised about being anything the luthiers of today do not do, and that one final element missing is the finish material used by Loar. The varnish mix makes a differnce in the final tonality of the instrument. Several current builders do make a very close physical representation, but the finish material is not the same as Loar used. This was discontinued when he left at the end of 24. Whether he mixed the varnish himself and kept the formula a secret (very possible) or what happened we do not know. We do know it is cheaper and easier (less labor and time in drying) to use nitrocellulose than the varnish Loar used. It made production faster and was less expensive.

Charlie D always said that was the missing element for many good luthiers work. They had so much else near correct, but the tone was not quite there. He was convinced (as am I) that he had found the right finish material and was using that on the MM and DMM models. That would explain the tonal similarity when all else was equal. We did experiment with other finishes to see how it affects tone and all other finished we tried (including variations of the finish we use) and nothing else was the same. I am not one to refute Charlie when it comes to that. I do know he spent many years working on the right varnish/french polish formula to give the exact tone he was looking for. He was never one to quit experimenting and when he found his formula, he knew it was right. I think the proof is in the pudding myself.

Gibson was/is a factory. However, if you visit us you will find there is not much factory like about it. I don't think the Loar era factory was much different. The main difference is we have better tooling and have developed jigs to help with many of the repetitive jobs. How many of these jigs were available then is hard to say. Those were long gone before any of us had opportunity to check it out. The factory was only a few people working on mandolins. Maybe less than six. Not much different from today. Each of the guys/gals are very highly skilled and extra skilled at the job they do. If one is not so great on neck fit, he does not do that job. Someone who is very good at neck fit does the neck sets. If one cannot fret well, he does not do the fretting. Each job is matched to the person who can best do the job. That is one advantage over the individual luthier. No one is great at everything and some do not like doing a particular job so try to get someone else to do that. That is one good explanation for the way inlays are done now as compared to eighty years ago. They had no one to farm it out to that had laser cutters. We do today and we utilize those persons for those repetitive nasty jobs.

Overall, the consistency of the Loar era (as well as today's mandolins) are as much a tribute to the workers as the machinery. While there is much to be said for consistency, and it does give predictable results, it is the areas of inconsistency that give the soul to the instrument and each its particular voice. Too much consistency will rob the individuality of each instrument. Of course there is only room for a certain amount of individuality, but it does give a similar but different voice to each of the instruments in question. If the consistency were too tight the tone would be too predictable and less desirable.

Look at the myriad of Loars. Each is very similar in tone, yet each has a voice very distinct from the others. That is how consistency and individuality work in harmony to give the best of both worlds. Even the necks are different. Some are pretty thin, some are very v shape. Some are more D shape, others C shaped. This gives each a feel that is different. This is what makes them so exciting. I love looking for the inconsistencies when I see several in a room together. Enough rambling from me. I just get too excited about these silly pieces of wood! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

[Jerry Byers]

Great post, Joe. That is what fascinates me about Loars - the consistencies and uniqueness of each Loar. When you start eliminating or identifying the variables, you're left with the finish and time.

[Lynn Dudenbostel]

Big Joe said...
"That is one advantage over the individual luthier. No one is great at everything "

I'll take issue with you on that statement Joe, as I'll be sitting on a panel Thursday in Bakersfield that include several individuals who are great at everything. It may be a rare thing to find someone who can do all tasks near perfection, but they do exist in the world of lutherie.

Dude

[Hans]

[QUOTE] #"Silly pieces of wood."

Well, REALLY... Joe! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Hans]

Let me just say something about perfection. I guess God would know about that. The rest of us just have to settle with our conception of perfection. Some will go for broke with every minute detail...others will go for an overall concept. Sometimes I feel it's like the "reductionist" folks compared with "systems" folks. It's a human frustration. "Where do I stop and call it enough." http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif

[Five]

This is a great post. It is quite a privilage to hear what the best builders in the country have to contribute.
Finish seems to be of parimount importance in mandolins as much as the lost Cremona finish of the famous Itialian makers. Then there is the perfect woods and last the ageing. I know that there has been much rescearch done on the lost Cremona varnish and also on tone woods. Has anyone been succeseful at finding a way to age the woods and finish with any noticible effect on the instrument? I would like to say that older instruments that have been played by better players always seem to have better tone. that to me this teaches the instument to sing at pitch and there is no way to speed the process.

Reggie

[Lynn Dudenbostel]

Hans... I know just what you mean and I had this same conversation with an attorney friend once. #He said "I can always make a brief a little better by spending a bit more time on it... but there has to be an end to the process somewhere". #It applies to our craft/art too. #Where to draw the line is a difficult thing for some to figure out. #Once you start depending on this "job" for a living, that line sorts itself out pretty fast. #Not that I'd do anything different if I were just building as a hobby... earning a living at it just puts things in perspective. #Don't allow yourself to get trapped in the "paralysis of analysis". #Do your homework, set your standards higher than those you are working for, and do it! ("You" meaning anyone attempting to build an instrument.... not Hans specifically!)

Lynn

[Hans]

Hiya Five, #
I believe that Gibson used a Sherwin Williams oil varnish available at the local paint shop in Michigan. They French polished over that varnish...makes it shiney!
Answer to your question about ageing and tone...NO, you can't build it in. You can approximate it, and a good year of hard playing helps to open it up, but 90 years is 90 years.
I will agree with your last statement...very important!

Might I just add that that piece of spruce that came from Noah's Arc... is zero years old when the mandolin is finished (dang...my opinion again!)

[Hans]

Sure Lynn, the old saw is "How much do you want to pay, when do you want it, and how perfect do you want it?" You can have any two at a reasonable price. All three will cost you plenty!
Hope to see you at Bakersfield!

[Big Joe]

Lynn...point well taken and my comment was not meant as a derogatory statement against anyone...especially you or Hans whose work is about as close to perfection as anyone can be. However, those guys who can do it all near perfection are few and far between. Thank you for your point of correction.

[Five]

Thanks again fellows,

I understand the point on how much time you can spend. I worked in the late 60's and early 70's doing repair work and found very quickly I could not spend all day on making a nut. But I also found faster ways to achieve the same end product that worked. I know this is true for all, perfection within reason. Hans you are serious about the Sherwin Williams thing I believe. I know this is the company Martin Guitars used for years.
As for the ageing I was speaking of the different light boxes that some have tried to cure the finish faster.

[Five]

Hans,
One more question on your thought on wood and age. I take it that you are saying there is no deference in 100 year old woods and any that has been properly dried as an effect on tone. Do you think that air dried as opposed to klin dried has very much effect on the end product.

Thanks
Reggie

[Hans]

I believe Bill Halsey posted a pix of one of the paint cans a few months back. Think he said that it was never opened and thought the varnish was still good.
As far as the aged spruce thing, who knows. I have used wood ranging from 2-30 years old (as far as I know). I really couldn't make any judgements as to the contribution of the age of the wood. Some of the best sounding mandolins I have built are from the 2 year old stock. Go figure. Same with air dried vs kiln...who can say? I do prefer air dried though.

[Five]

Thanks Hans,
Very interesting. This sure narrows things down.

[Lynn Dudenbostel]

Thanks Joe.... no offense taken. Never say "never" as someone/something will come up to prove a theory wrong!

Hope to see you in Bakersfield too Hans. Do you have a table there? I'm sure we will meet up at some point.

Lynn

[tin ben dur]

I am no expert but I do not think their is a perfect builder out there. I have seen some awesome mandolins but not perfect. A well known builder like the one I ordered from strive to be as perfect as possible. If it was totally perfect it would look like a machine built it. Handmade and almost perfection is what makes these crazy things go for big money. .02

[Hans]

I do have a table...see ya there!

[Big Joe]

I don't think the age of the wood or how long it has been since the tree was felled is as important as the way the wood is dried. Just leaving it sit someplace does not mean it is properly dried. It can see the humidity in the wood range by a great degree. Also, it can appear to be quite dry on the outside while still have excessive moisture on the inside. This is true with even kiln dried woods with a heat kiln.

We have a vacuum kiln that is very cool. We kiln the wood the conventional way first, then put it in the vacuum kiln. It will extract the water from the inside out so the inside of the wood is as dry as the outside. We dry it to a particular percentage and then set it aside for use as needed. This stabilizes the wood so it does not get as affected by changes in room humidity as easily. We see much less warping and twisting of wood stock with this method. It is used on our electrics as well as our mandolins.

[testore]

One dictionary definition of perfect is " suited to the purpose".There are just too many opinions as to what a musical instrument should be for a definition of "perfect" to apply. I think taste is a better or more accurate word to use. There are a lot of well made instruments that I don't care for because of taste,and many not so well made things that are impossible to put down. How many Loars would fall under that "perfect" definition? But I know several that I wouldn't be able to put down.I don't want to say "good enough" because that implys some laziness or inability on the part of the builder. This is an interpretive art form and each new instrument gives us the chance to interpret what has come before us in a new way.No two are ever alike and therfore should be judged more individually.

[jasona]

I believe Bill Halsey posted a pix of one of the paint cans a few months back. Think he said that it was never opened and thought the varnish was still good.
As I recall, he asked an old timer in K'zoo about what Gibson used to use as varnish, and he reached under the counter and retrieved an old can of Benjamin Moore stain--someone else went to a Ben Moore store and found they still sold it too.

[Flowerpot]

link to the Benjamin Moore varnish thread... worth a re-read!

link here (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=27;t=33041;hl=varnish+and+l oar+and+gibson)

hope it works

[Hans]

Ah, Benjamin Moore...my mistake.

[hanknc]

Gibson uses kiln dried wood for mandolins and electrics. I thought that was a bad thing. Why am I wrong?

[Nolan]

Does anyone know if most of the tops and backs of Loars were taken from the same tree or I guess One Red Spruce tree and one Red Maple?
From reading this thread it sounds like on any given day a builder could do things a little different, either intentionally or not, which would affect the end result of how an instrument sounds. #
It seems that having wood that was fairly consistent (from the same log) would narrow that margin of how each instrument would sound.
So even though you have 4 or 5 different people building mandolins at Gibson they are each building within the same parameters and are also all using spruce and maple from the same log. #End result.. the Loar sound but they all sound a little different. #
Does this theory hold water?

Neat thread by the way, thanks guys.

[Jerry Byers]

Maybe it wasn't the wood, maybe it was a secret ingredient? Hmmm...maybe it was salt water and grape juice. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Maybe not...who in their right mind would try something like with a stringed instrument!?

[Big Joe]

Actually, many of the Loars have backs and tops that are not from the same piece of wood. Many are also not bookmatched but slipmatched. It is not uncommon to see the parts are clearly not matched. On others, the matching is very good. On current Gibson mandolins a back or front is bookmatched and from the same piece of wood (tops from the same piece of spruce for that mandolin, backs from one piece of Maple for that mandolin), however two different mandolins may well be from different pieces of wood.

When the guys build, they don't each build different mandolins. One person does one part and another another part and another a different part yet. For example, one may prepare the tops and backs and put the rims and tops on. The next person may put the binding on while another puts the neck in and the back on. Then the fingerboard is put on and fretted by another. Another will sand and, finally, someone does the finish work. Each person does a certain portion of the building and knows that job very well. No one person does all the jobs (though we are more than capable of doing so...especially the guys in repair).

If you want to see the process, stop by the Showcase sometime in Nashville during the day when the shop is working and they will be happy to let you watch them build.

[mandolooter]

Hey Joe I have a question...about how many mandolins do you guys produce in a year.

[hanknc]

Joe, did I understand you corrcectly that Gibson uses kiln dried wood for their mandolins and electrics? I always thought that tonewooods were aged over time and not kiln dried. Has that changed?

Anyone?

Thanks,
Hank

[red7flag]

I am reluctant to chime in with all the heavy hitters, but hear goes. I see instrument making as much art as precision. I remember a person asked Earl Scruggs why he put a very fancy chord in a particular place. His reply, and I only paraphrase, was he didn't really know that chord was called that, but that the reason for it was that it sounded good. There is precision, but there is also judgment, experience, and feel. Perfect, in the eye of the beholder. In the case of a mando also that tone that knocks your socks off. I have noticed that my ideal for sound, is not always the same as others. The Loarfolks often, not always, disagree, even as to which Loar is the Loar sound. (Virzi, color, bass vs one register, etc.) I look at the inspiration in art and music and when that is expressed, is that not perfection symbolized? Just my take.
Tony

[Big Joe]

Gibson does use kiln dried wood. You could not dry enough wood by air methods and there would be no way to ensure all the wood was at the proper moisture level throughout if you did not kiln dry. We do air dry, but we also kiln dry and it is better for the product than just air drying. We can ensure each piece of wood is at a certain moisture level throughout that piece of wood. Air drying alone cannot give you that precise a measurement. This has been the case for many, many years.

[Five]

Joe,
You spoke of vacum drying in an earlier post. I know that just tradional kieln drying the wood will absorb mositure back quickly and cause stability problems. Does the vacum drying help to resolve this problem. I can understand the use of the kieln dried in solid body instruments but my understanding is that air dried is tonely much better for carved top instruments when done correctly.

Reggie

[hanknc]

Joe, thanks. Sorry to be such a pest, but do you know how many years ago this started? The 50's? 60's? Before that?

[mandopete]

Cool jam session, thanks!

[testore]

wood takes on and releases moisture with the climate.An air dried piece of wood is better initially because it never gets baked and possibly too dry.as soon as a piece of wood is taken from a kiln it is going to take on moisture at a level common to it's environment.I had pieces of wood that were stored in Utah for 20 years grow almost 1/2 inch in width when I moved to California.If you kiln dry wood the fear is that the piece of wood is too dry for the climate and if it is used too early the finished product will suffer.I have no problem with kiln drying but it should be air dried several weeks before you make something with it.

[ipmala888]

This really is an excellent topic, with comments from some
real experts--like Big Joe and the 'Dude'. A real learning
experience, especially the info provided by Big Joe. So,
soundwise then, can one conclude that the typical 'Loar' has
only what can be described as a below 'average' or just an
average bottom end, powerful midrange, and really nice top
end sound ?? I mean, other than paying $150K-$200K for a
rare old instrument with a rare label, I really can't see
paying that much money for an old mandolin that typically
doesn't have much of a bottom end. I think that the MM's
and DMM's probably have better 'Loar' tone than the actual
Loars themselves. Any other opinions on this ??

[goose 2]

I am not sure exactly what is meant by the bottom end but I think that the G string on a Loar and the MMs is killer. #Like all the strings anywhere on the neck, the notes snap of the string like when a hammer hits a railroad tie. #There is a ton of power with the snap follwed a quick decay of the note. #Note separation on these instruments is superb. #The G string snaps and then decays but with the most beautiful fat tone to it. #I #enjoy many different great sounding mandolins but, again, the Loar type of tone is rare. . . and #addicting. #Try it, you'll like it. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

BTW the MMs and DMMs sound very much like the Loars and some just like them. #I would not say better and most not quite as good just yet but time and playing will solve #that

[Big Joe]

The DMM that goose2 has will stand with nearly any Loar I've heard.

Testore...you are right...to a point. If you only bake the wood it will dry the wood, but not at a consistent level. If it is only heat kilned it will return to the state it is environmentally is kept in time. However, the vacuum kiln sucks the excess moisture from the inside out to help remove the excess moisture and the saps and resins and the wood is far more stable. It is not heated to excess to achieve this and this helps the wood to be far more stable and resistant to warping and twisting than conventional kiln process or just air drying. We have found it to be excellent for our use.

Now on a personal level, I air dry my wood for my personal shop. Mostly because I cannot afford a kiln of any kind for my use. I would not say one way to achieve a moisture level is better than another as long as it works and it keeps the moisture level stable.

[Jonathan Peck]

Thanks everyone for your help. I wound up seeing Daley #23 come up in the classifieds and I took posession of it yesterday. I got it out to a local jam last night and passed it around some. What struck me most is that even though there were probably ten mandos playing when coming back from a break, I could hear the Daley clearly from the back of the room. I really like the way it sounds and plays and I'm very happy that I also came in way under my projected 15K budget. I sold off three guitars in three days (two Gibsons and an SGCC)and wound up being able to keep my Mowry and a few other things I didn't really want to sell. Thanks everyone, this community has been a really great resource.

-jonathan

[Jonathan Peck]

I just went back and re-read this entire thread, and man...I'm just blown away all over again by the information that was shared here. I'm happy to report that I just put down a deposit on a 2002 Gibson Master Model #V70350 dated Aug 6, 2002 and signed by: Charlie Derrington.

I would like to thank Shayne (Mandopluker) for all his help in putting this transaction together. This is my second Cafe classified purchase. I wound up slighly over my original budget, but with the addition of Daley #23, I wound up with two fine mandolins instead of one.

My hats off to the Cafe, what a great resource!!

-jonathan

[pjlama]

Congrats Captain! I just read this and took up all my practice time tonight but it would seem getting the DMM is getting your Loar and the Daley is just icing on the cake. Envy... But jeez this is the most interesting thred I've encountered! I got 20 minutes left to practice!

[Jonathan Peck]

p.s. Capin' maybe we can talk about that Daley you have -perhaps it might be living in Atlanta Ga soon # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
The Daley came to me by way of Tennessee. It's been rode hard and put away wet. Cosmetically, it's seen the rigors of the road....looks like it rode under the truck too, but it's a player. It's also been de-florida'd. I don't miss the fretboard extension, looks like a Sam Bush, but it was done pretty poorly and the top has a scar from the operation. I'm calling it a distressed model
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

BTW - John is a heck of a nice guy, you've got a good friend there. Thanks again for the assist. Last time I was in Atlanta, I had a great time. Hope to get down that way again some day

-jonathan

[mandobando]

Hey Captain, How does Mowry measure up to the Daley and Gibson?

[Jonathan Peck]

I don't have the Gibson yet, but as far as the Mowry and the Daley go....they're as different tonally as night and day. The Daley is nicely balanced and has a big thick dry midrangey tone. It's very clear and percussive and cuts and carries at a jam without effort.

The Mowry is also evenly balanced, and it's voice is more in the treble range with a delicate complexity of tone. It's not as loud and doesn't have that big mid-range that cuts like a knife at a jam, but it will hold it's own. It is also clear and dry.

These are both fine examples by two good up and coming builders with different tonal approaches. I think trying to compare them would be like comparing chocolate ice cream to strawberry.

[Flatpick]

I purchased an Epiphone MM30 today and it sounds so much like a Loar that it's scary. Only set me back $150.

You believe that I'll tell ya another one....... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Flatpick http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif

[harrykat]

hey captain,
i'm a friend of barry's and i know daley# 23 very well; i rode up to sim's with him to get it. it is one of the best mandolins i have ever played; so good that i got on sim's list right after that. should get one this year. congrats and enjoy it. i am very envious, if i didn't have one on order i would have bought it.

[Jonathan Peck]

Hey Jeff,

I've been playing it alot since it arrived...thanks for not buying it http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif it's a good one. I think Sim's nailed the vintage vibe. BTW - Welcome to the Cafe

[pjlama]

Did you get the DMM yet? If so a full report would be great! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[SternART]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a 2002 MM, only be distressed to the point the previous owners distressed it?
When did Gibson start offering the "official" DMM?

I suspect many of the top builders instruments, will take on some additional characteristics of the old Gibsons as they age and get played more.
It is just my opinion, but the best luthiers today are incredibly skilled and are using the best materials, I also think there could be shortcuts like possibly dedamping instruments, or whatever Gibson does in the back room to the DMM, that starts them in the right direction, but I feel the age of the instrument is a BIG part of the equation. I hear an open-ness in the old ones, especially on the A strings that I just don't hear on most new mandolins. Then there is the question of if you could make them sound like a 90 year old instrument now.....what would they sound like in 50 years, or 90 years? Even better than Loars? Or might they lose some characteristics and just sound great, but different. And what will the existing Loars sound like in 90 years? Have they reached their final voice, or might the tone continue to evolve? Isn't this the case with coupla hundred year old violins? And with mandolins, I think they take more of a beating than violins....might Hoss or Crusher get played out at some point from the whooping they take on a daily basis from their current owners? So many variables ......fun stuff to think about, eh?

[Five]

I have always heard that a violin can fatigue. I worry that a mandolin that sounds great green may be carved to thin on the top and will fatigue with time.

[first string]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a 2002 MM, only be distressed to the point the previous owners distressed it?
When did Gibson start offering the "official" DMM?

I suspect many of the top builders instruments, will take on some additional characteristics of the old Gibsons as they age and get played more.
It is just my opinion, but the best luthiers today are incredibly skilled and are using the best materials, I also think there could be shortcuts like possibly dedamping instruments, or whatever Gibson does in the back room to the DMM, that starts them in the right direction, but I feel the age of the instrument is a BIG part of the equation. I hear an open-ness in the old ones, especially on the A strings that I just don't hear on most new mandolins. Then there is the question of if you could make them sound like a 90 year old instrument now.....what would they sound like in 50 years, or 90 years? Even better than Loars? Or might they lose some characteristics and just sound great, but different. And what will the existing Loars sound like in 90 years? Have they reached their final voice, or might the tone continue to evolve? Isn't this the case with coupla hundred year old violins? And with mandolins, I think they take more of a beating than violins....might Hoss or Crusher get played out at some point from the whooping they take on a daily basis from their current owners? So many variables ......fun stuff to think about, eh?
Some interesting topics raised here. I’ve often thought about these things myself—the violin vs. mandolin thing especially. The mando definitely takes more of a beating by the very nature of the way it is usually played. Then again, it is also usually constructed more solidly. But I think a big question will be how will mando players react to the inevitable wear and tear that will certainly take its toll? It seems to me that mandolin players care a lot more about repaired cracks, or neck adjustments/changes than do violinists. Maybe it’s just that the mandolin as we know it (Ie. carved top, longer scale, etc) hasn’t been around as long, but it seems that the perceived value of a given instrument goes down a lot more because of playing wear with mandos than with fiddles where a few cracks are considered par for the course as long as they have been artfully repaired. And how many Strads are there again with their original necks? How will the Bluegrass crowd react to those kinds of repairs/modifications which will most likely be necessary to keep any wood instrument playable? I don’t know. Maybe the differences between the two markets are only in my perception. Frankly I think the obsession with original condition seems pretty strange considering the shape that Big Mon’s F5 was in.

But I also think you raise a good point when it comes to sound. I think the level of craftsmanship we are seeing from luthiers these days probably does exceed that of Gibson, Martin, Lyon and Healy, and the other golden age makers, but what separates those instruments from their modern counterparts is forty plus years of playing. It will be extremely interesting to hear what some of these instruments will sound like when they have a few decades of life behind them. As to what the Loars will sound like in another fifty to a hundred years, who can say? I imagine they will sound somewhat different, but I would guess that it will be a more subtle change that will take place over their second century of life.

And finally, while I am no expert by any means, I don’t see why the classic mandos shouldn’t survive by and large for years to come. Though, I imagine Hoss will disintegrate or spontaneously combust at some point if Sam B continues to play it for another few decades. Frankly, it might be the only fitting end.

Anyway, I’ll sit back now and wait for someone who is actually knowledgeable to chime in.

[testore]

I've always thought SB was going to fold his mando in half the several times I've seen him.As for violins, only ones that are too thin get played out. And "too thin" depends on a lot of factors. Most violin tops are under 3mm thick.That's mighty thin when you look at it.They are amazing creatures.

[Jim Hilburn]

I had the good fortune to be present when David Grismans "Crusher" was measured with a Hacklinger gauge. Now I would guess this mandolin is easily rated in the top 10 of all archtop mandolins with many putting it at the top of the heap.
This mandolin has an exceptionally thin top. You don't have to measure it to see this. The top has deformed with a hump developing behind the bridge. It also has an exceptionally high bridge for a Loar. The thickest spot on the top is directly behind the bridge and is 4.3mm thick, or about 11/64". Thicknesses in the recurve area vary quite a bit but in the areas behind the bridge averages at about 2.9mm which is slightly less than 1/8" but there are some readings in the areas between the bridge and rim as low as 2.5mm. It's also quite inconsistant throughout leading me to believe they may not have been constantly measuring as they graduated it.
I don't know of any contemporary builders who are intentionally willing to risk those kind of thicknesses. I would venture to say this mandolin hasn't "fatigued" too much. I'm no violin expert but I've heard that the bassbar is installed with some spring to it which gives the instrument more power initially but over time looses this advantage and needs to be re-invigorated with a new bar.

[Jonathan Peck]

What is the difference between a MM and a DMM? I read here somewhere that the DMM is basically a MM with a distressed finish applied during a full moon. There's got to be something more to it than that.

I was down at the local GC this afternoon. I asked to play a Martin D-18GE and I was amazed at how much it sounded like and old bone. I started to look it over because it sounded amazing with an old cruddy set of strings on it. When I looked inside the sound hole, I discovered it was actually a D-18 Authentic. I played the GE, after the Authentic and the difference was huge.

Whatever is going on, builders are really discovering the secret recipe.

[Big Joe]

The ONLY difference from an MM and a DMM is the process of distressing. I will not discuss that process since it is proprietary, but that is the only difference. Also, the difference is huge in tone.

[Jonathan Peck]

Is the MM made with hyde glue?

[bradeinhorn]

The ONLY difference from an MM and a DMM is the process of distressing. #I will not discuss that process since it is proprietary, but that is the only difference. #Also, the difference is huge in tone.
joe-if the distressing is the only difference - are we to assume that the distressing leads to this difference in tone?

[first string]

The ONLY difference from an MM and a DMM is the process of distressing. I will not discuss that process since it is proprietary, but that is the only difference. Also, the difference is huge in tone.
joe-if the distressing is the only difference - are we to assume that the distressing leads to this difference in tone?
Yeah, as I previously stated I’m no expert, but I find it a little difficult to see how distressing will lead to a huge difference in tone. Maybe if you vibrate the heck out of them in addition to the sanding (I’ve heard a lot of argument about whether that type of thing will in fact open up a new instrument). One way or another, I’m rather suspicious of distressing to begin with. I understand that it takes a lot of work, so perhaps that is reason enough for the hefty up charge, but the idea that it will effect the tone substantially seems a bit suspect. If you were to say that you pick the best examples to be distressed than that would make sense. But short of that—or performing some serious magic beneath the full moon—it’s rather hard to see what’s going to make that difference.

Frankly, for my part, I would rather do my own distressing.

[Chris Biorkman]

I have always thought that the assertion that distressing significantly improves tone sounds a little silly. To me it just sounds like a justification for chargin $7,000 more.

[SternART]

Like James says......I suspect there might be some type of vibration or dedamping process,
secret mojo inducing mando voodoo process....or it wouldn't be propriety information, it can't
just be cosmetic.....can it? I've been experimenting with Roger Siminoff on dedamping a few of
my instruments. I was VERY impressed with what it did to my Gil 3A, definitely made it sound more
open and played in, movin' it in the right tonal direction, timbre was more complex too. I suspect
Gibson is doing something similar.

[Hans]

Well, my distressing ain't proprietary, I just ain't sayin' how I do it! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Five]

What is a dedamping process?

[Jerry Byers]

The ONLY difference from an MM and a DMM is the process of distressing. I will not discuss that process since it is proprietary, but that is the only difference. Also, the difference is huge in tone.
Well, don't forget about the perfume in the sound holes.

[SternART]

Roger does a 2 part treatment, starting with running this rig pictured for 3 days straight. It strums thru the strings with a credit card type material. Then he measures the resonant frequency of the cavity, back, bass bar & treble bar, and excites the wood at certain frequencies, for like 8 hours continuous at each, if I recall correctly. This is more often done in violin luthiery circles.....I've heard about guitars being vibrated as well. There are links to books & papers on the subject linked from the bottom of Simonoff's web page. I think Gianni Violins does some dedamping in his mando voodoo process. I suspect it relaxes the wood & finish in some way, that opens up the sound like it is more played in. I whooped on my Gil for a coupla years & the red spruce was so hard......but you could tell there was more in the mando, but it still seemed stiff. No longer the case, it has evolved nicely in the right direction, based on my observations & I think I have a good ear & know the instrument well, but YMMV.

http://www.siminoff.net/pages/siminoff_parts9.break-in.html

There are links at the bottom leading to some interesting stuff.

[Five]

Thanks......interesting. Does Roger remove any wood in his process?

[SternART]

No

[Greg H.]

Hmmmmm, well I don't know about the tone but that looks like an aristocratic mandolin during the French revolution. (How many seconds does the mandolin live after the peghead is severed?) http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[goose 2]

I remember a few years ago one of the cafe members, mandojeremy (where did you go, man?), #had his beloved Sam Bush go through the Gibson distressing process. #He was extremely positive. #The only thing I don't recall for sure is if the instrument was originally lacquer then refinished in varnish and then distressed or originally varnished and then distressed. #Anyway, #he much preferred the instrument after the distressing process. #

#I agree with Big Joe. #The difference between a new MM and #new DMM is real big. #I will also say that for 4 years I relentlessly played an '02 MM which I bought new and it matured amazingly during that time. #That gap closes pretty quickly with steady playing. #I now have a DMM but at the time I had that MM and my DMM both at my house for a week trying to decide which to keep. #The DMM still sounded older even though it was younger and had not been played anywhere near as much. The distressing was so well done it looks completely authentic but that does not really matter to me. #It just SOUNDS like a great old F-5 is supposed to sound. #I am a big fan of Gibson's distressing process. #Heck it probably saved me $180,000.00. # #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[danb]

Interesting, I've not heard details of this process before. I believe personally that much of the distressing process that Gibson uses is directly related to the same process in the violin world, where it is much more commonly done and discussed.. The aesthetic is so clearly for mature looking and sounding instruments in that world compared to the mandolin world.

I enjoyed the process of breaking in a few instruments over the years- I sort of felt I was molding the tone to respond well in a way that most fitted my style. When I've played others that felt more aged and broken in, I also found the instruments were speaking to me in new ways or leading me in new directions.

[SternART]

There is a book titled:
How to IMPROVE the RESONANCE CONDITIONS of Musical Instruments by VIBRATION-DEDAMPING, Elimination of Wolf Notes, Other Adjustments by Prof. Gerhard A. v. Reumont, Translated from the German by Lothar Tews, First English Edition

[ipmala888]

I've got one of the very last production MM's to come off the
line in late December 2005--only a little more than one year
old. But, this one is a real 'freak', and will beat anything out there...distressed or otherwise. Also, I've played the sh*t out of it, especially punching out the bottom end notes and chords. When you breakin a new mandolin hard--concentrating on the bottom end, it opens up evenly all the way across into the mids & highs as well. This particular mando was 'hand picked' by the 'Big 5'--Charlie D., Big Joe, Danny, Jackie Miller, and Dave Harvey. This one is loud enough to knock down a small building. Like Big Joe has told me..."they either BARK or they don't". My understanding of the distressing process is that it will give the mandolin a 'DRYER' sound--but, otherwise, if the mando doesn't 'bark' before the distressing process, it ain't gonna 'bark' after it, either. Or, to put it another way...if you take a new sh*tty mandolin and distress the hell out of it, you'll still end up with a distressed sh*tty mandolin. I'm sure Big Joe would agree with me on that. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[bradeinhorn]

I've got one of the very last production MM's to come off the
line in late December 2005--only a little more than one year
old. # #But, this one is a real 'freak', and will beat anything out there...distressed or otherwise. #
oh my god! someone found the greatest mandolin ever built! darn it. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hans]

Somehow I don't think any of us are talking about lousy mandolins.

[Big Joe]

Carmen (Impala) does have a great mandolin. However, we do not dedamp or whatever you wish to call it, to achieve the DMM tone. We don't vibrate the #### out of them or soak them in saliva for a month. We do have a process, but nothing that weird. There is a tonal difference from the predistressed to the post distressed and the ONLY difference is the distressing. Same mandolin made the same way by the same guys with the same finish, only it sounds different after distressing. I've discussed some of our theories on this in other threads and don't wish to repeat it here. For those who doubt, just try them out. Every one who has done so has testified to the difference. Is that scientific or subjective evidence? Who cares. If it works, go with it!

[hanknc]

"Or, to put it another way...if you take a new sh*tty mandolin and distress the hell out of it, you'll still end up with a distressed sh*tty mandolin. I'm sure Big Joe would agree with me on that."

Yeah, Joe, what does Gibson do with all their crummy ones? Recycle them? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[SternART]

Thanks for clearing that up Big Joe, I had heard Charlie was interested in violin dedamping, and wondered if it had become a part of the distressing of the Master Model. And since it is "proprietary" I figure it isn't fair to quiz Big Joe more about Gibson trade secrets. Hard for me to believe the sound improvement just comes from just cosmetic detailing, I thought there would be more to it.

[Jonathan Peck]

....one day we'll hear the story of when Big Joe, while inspecting a just finished MM, accidentally knocks his coofee over onto it...in trying to wipe the coffee off, he erringly removes some of the finish, but has saved the just completed mandolin from further damage...thinking fast, he chucks it into the lunchroom microwave to dry it off...and then, with a grin, hands it back to Danny and states..."nice one". Thus the DMM is born.

Course this is fiction...but rumor has it that in the employee lunchroom there is a microwave, and next to the popcorn preset, there is another preset inconspicuously marked DMM http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[carleshicks]

....one day we'll hear the story of when Big Joe, while inspecting a just finished MM, accidentally knocks his coofee over onto it...in trying to wipe the coffee off, he erringly removes some of the finish, but has saved the just completed mandolin from further damage...thinking fast, he chucks it into the lunchroom microwave to dry it off...and then, with a grin, hands it back to Danny and states..."nice one". Thus the DMM is born.

Course this is fiction...but rumor has it that in the employee lunchroom there is a microwave, and next to the popcorn preset, there is another preset inconspicuously marked DMM http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
now that's funny.

[Big Joe]

If only we had a lunchroom....if only we had a microwave....if only we got lunch! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[ipmala888]

Maybe it's something like what Nagyvary does to make his new
violins sound just like a Stradivarius. It's a chemical
treatment for 'woodworm' that Stradivari used, plus the
wood was also soaked in a saltwater brine solution. Nagyvary
challenged a 300 year old Strad with his new (3 week old)
Nagyvary violin which had been treated with the chemicals &
saltwater. The challenge was held at the amphitheatre at
Texas A&M with a concert violinist who played both violins
behind a curtain before a packed audience. The final vote:
the audience picked the Nagavary over the Strad. So maybe
Gibson uses some sort of chemical treatment spray mist in a
spray booth, and then slowly air dries the mandolin over a
period of let's say 2-3 months. After a chemical treatment,
they may also place it in a special oven on very low heat to
help dry it out. Anybody want to volunteer their MM to test
this theory ??

[Jonathan Peck]

I've never heard of anyone who either plays one of his instruments or has heard of anyone who plays one.

[bradeinhorn]

nagyvary (http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/)

[Jonathan Peck]

Hey Brad,

I know who he is and I also know what he claims. Bottom line is his violins aren't that good and no professional anywhere plays one as far as I know. You can also check here for some opinions on the subject

http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/001184-2.html

[first string]

Hey Brad,

I know who he is and I also know what he claims. Bottom line is his violins aren't that good and no professional anywhere plays one as far as I know. You can also check here for some opinions on the subject

http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/001184-2.html
This is a very interesting little subtopic that has come up. I read all the responses, as well as the articles on Nagyuary's site, and I don't really know what to think (once again, that not being an expert thing). It seems like the good Dr, truly is a shameless self promoter, and yet I can't say that anyone challenged his assertions directly or scientifically. The arguments all seemed to be along the lines that his own instruments aren’t that great, so he must be wrong. Well for certain it takes a great craftsman to make a great instrument and he obviously isn’t a craftsman, but does that necessarily mean that he isn’t correct about the woods used, and the approximate recipe for the varnish? I’m not arguing for or against, I’m just curious as to whether anyone has any scientific evidence to the contrary.

I think it is hard if not impossible to believe that Stradivari was simply a craftsman beyond compare. Also, it seems interesting to me that all his closest rivals seem to have been working nearby at around the same time. Was there simply a rash of geniuses that has never again been matched? Or is there something else at work? And if so, what is it? Is it the wood or the varnish used, as Nagyuary proposes? Is it simply the aging/playing in process at work? I don’t know. But after hundreds of years of being copied exactly down to the smallest increments, there still seems to be no substitute. To me, that sounds like it either has to be something about the materials, the age, or simply a psychological effect (Ie. you know it’s a strad, and therefore you decide it sounds better no matter what).

Thoughts? I’d love to hear some more builders chime in on the subject.

[Tom Smart]

I think it is hard if not impossible to believe that Stradivari was simply a craftsman beyond compare...
I'm not a builder, but there are several assumptions here that play right into Nagyvary's nonsense. Let's turn the question around. How easy is it to believe a retired biochemist who has never actually built an instrument has somehow found a way to equal the works of Stradivari? Nagyvary has been quoted, more than once, essentially saying that Stradivari didn't really know what he was doing and just got "lucky" with the wood and varnish materials available to him. He might as well go spit on Stradivari's grave. What a clever trick--insulting the very same giant upon whose shoulders you're trying to stand.

Consider: Stradivari built around 1,200 instruments over a career spanning seven decades. Stradivari experimented endlessly with new concepts and forms, perfecting in his golden period the designs that are still the most widely copied today--even by "Nagyvary's" violins. Even in his own lifetime, his clients included kings and nobles across Europe. His best instruments have been passed from one world-class player to the next for close to 300 years, continuously appearing in the world's greatest concert halls playing the world's most difficult music. A few of these instruments have been retired from performance to a museum, where anyone with eyes to see can verify that, yes, this was an unsurpassed craftsman.

It's true, there was a rash of geniuses in Cremona from the mid 16th to mid 18th centuries. There's no need to fall back on theories about shrimp shells, borax and chicken poo. The explanation is much simpler: the Cremonese makers all learned from, and competed with, each other. Stradivari, in terms of innovation, quality and sheer output, was clearly the top dog in a large, long-lived community of violin geniuses. He was so successful, the phrase "rich as Stradivari" was coined during his own lifetime. Here's a suggestion for an equivalent phrase for our times: "Full-of-it as Nagyvary."

As for the notion that no subsequent maker has equalled a Stradivari violin: Says who? For one thing, not all Strads are considered first-rate. More important, there are several modern makers who have equaled Stradivari in virtually every aspect except the 300-year history. Heck, I used to play square dances alongside one of them. Many world-class violinists routinely use these modern instruments.

So why isn't Sam Zygmuntowicz, for example, as highly regarded in the popular imagination as Stradivari? Because Strad did it first. He was the model. Trained in the Amatise style of building, he singlehandedly introduced nearly every innovation that improved on that design to create the modern instrument still copied today by the millions. And he built 1,200 of these groundbreaking instruments! That's something like one every three weeks, nonstop, for 70 years!

Nagyvary hasn't built even one!

To return to the main topic, of course everyone knows Gibson is the best. It's because they have a secret varnish and distressing process. Other mandolins won't even knock down a small house of cards, let alone a brick house.

[stevem]

Hi Tom. Great post. One of the best I've read in a long time.

[Jonathan Peck]

There can be no doubt that Stadivari was the most prolific builder of his time. I believe a number of the instruments he produced were aslo cellos. Some of which still survive today. There's a great recording by Perlman, Bach sonatas if I remember correctly, where he plays some sonata with a Stradivari and some with a Guarneri. Both great instruments with very different tonal quality and attack. The liner jacket on the cd explains has a ton of information about the two instruments, I'll have to dig it out.

[bradeinhorn]

stradivari mandolino (http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Mandolins/StradMandolin/StradMandolin.html)

[MandoSquirrel]

It's a Five courser, slightly pre Tiny Moore!

[Hans]

Bravo, Tom!

[first string]

As for the notion that no subsequent maker has equalled a Stradivari violin: Says who? For one thing, not all Strads are considered first-rate. More important, there are several modern makers who have equaled Stradivari in virtually every aspect except the 300-year history.
Well assuming you are correct—and I don’t disbelieve you—then that answers my question. Once again, I will reiterate that I’m not supporting Nagyvary or his theories, or disparaging Stradivari. I was simply stating that if you start from the assumption that Stradavari has never been equaled (an assumption I always had trouble believing), then there must be something beyond sheer technique that separates him from the other elite builders throughout history. It would certainly be nice to think that what that is, is some special process of varnishing and wood preparation, or the tuning of the plates to a certain pitch…But it seems more likely that what separates his instruments is sentimentality…the same way that the Loar has become the holy grail of the mando world, despite the fact that some of today’s lutheirs have probably exceeded the craftsman at Gibson who built those original F5s.

All that said, whether Nagyvary is full of it or not, it would be interesting to see more scientific study of the materials and techniques Stradivari employed.

[SternART]

Does that mandolino have wrap around adjustable frets?

Hey, I have 3rd row seats at Davies Hall for The San Francisco Symphony and have had the good fortune of seeing/hearing Joshua Bell as a soloist on several Concerto programs. His Strad is pretty amazing. With ALL those violins, violas, cellos & basses bowing away...as well as all the other symphony instruments.....you can still hear his voice clearly above the orchestra, a huge swelling expressive tone. His must be the "Crusher" of violins. And I don't think everyone else is backing off so you can hear him better......from the 3rd row you can feel the music from all those bowed instruments. It is quite glorious. There have been numerous other soloists over the years, many with great violins, but this Strad, in his hands, is "special"

[jmcgann]

this Strad, in his hands, is "special"

And the hands are not for sale http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Or you could go to the Guitar Center on any Saturday morning and buy tone!

A great Loar in the wrong hands may as well be an average Kay. Sad, but true.

[Jonathan Peck]

here's what I think is easily verifyable

1) Stradivarius was a craftsman of the highest regard
2) The wood that was available in his time belonged to the King and was not necessarily all from the same place, ie. 'the forest of the violins' in Trentino Italy, but likely all from the Southern Alps.
3) After cutting, these logs were transported via rivers and likely spent a good amount of time in the water before final sale by the King.
4) There was a known climate condition at the time of the great Cremonese makers called the Maunder Minimum AD1645-1715 which caused slow growth in trees due to reduced solar activity

Here's an article that I've found interesting and keep bookmarked
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/downloads/burckle%20grissino%202003.pdf

[Tom Smart]

It's interesting how a biochemist finds the "Secret of Strad" in biochemical analysis; dendrochronologists find the secret in tree ring analysis; and violinmakers, for the most part, simply honor superior craftsmanship and don't worry too much about lost secrets. Who has the most credibility?

How come the Maunder Minimum people never address this question: If you want a tree that grew under colder conditions or less sunlight, why can't you just get one that grew higher up on the mountain or in a more shaded location?

There's far more natural variability in the micro-climates found on any mountain than the 1-2 degree macro-climate difference posited by the Maunder Minimum guys. The mountains of Northern Italy rise from a few hundred feet above sea level to well over 10,000 feet. You can start out on a hot, muggy summer day and travel ten miles or so to arrive in freezing conditions above tree-line, surrounded by glaciers. Along the way, you pass millions of trees growing in all types of soil and sun/shade conditions. But somehow the Cremonese violinmakers had to wait around for a mini-Ice Age that changed the overall temperatures by a degree or two in order to find suitable wood?

[Jonathan Peck]

How come the Maunder Minimum people never address this question: If you want a tree that grew under colder conditions or less sunlight, why can't you just get one that grew higher up on the mountain or in a more shaded location?
I don't think that the article makes any claims other than that long winters and cool summers in conjunction with higher elevations and nutrient poor soil produced wood with slow even growth. It then goes on to say that this condition may haved played a role in the enhanced sound qualities of instruments produced by the cremonese makers.

I think that if nothing else, the author makes a pretty strong case that the wood available at the time was very desirable for producing quality sound boards.

[testore]

Nagyvary BTW is a complete fraud. I can't believe he's been wasting tax payers money for more than 20 years. Most everything he says is full of error and he shouldn't be thought of as having anything of value to add to any talk of acoustics

[Spruce]

"There was a known climate condition at the time of the great Cremonese makers called the Maunder Minimum AD1645-1715 which caused slow growth in trees due to reduced solar activity"

And helped create wood that I'm milling now... # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
(If you want to believe that sort of thing)....

"If you want a tree that grew under colder conditions or less sunlight, why can't you just get one that grew higher up on the mountain or in a more shaded location?"

Or simply mill a tree that is off-centered. #One side will be tight grained, the other looser...
Duh....

"I think it is hard if not impossible to believe that Stradivari was simply a craftsman beyond compare"

Have you groked and then played a few Strads??
He was pretty damn good..... #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

"Nagyvary BTW is a complete fraud."

I'm one of the few people I know who has actually met and hung out with Mr. Nagyvary.
He tends to keep a very low profile in violin-making circles... #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #

I liked him.
He's driven and facinated by the subject at hand, and I like that...

I think the thing to look at and criticize is the whole academic world and the way it interacts with the press, who both encourage and reward this sort of "research"....

[first string]

"I think it is hard if not impossible to believe that Stradivari was simply a craftsman beyond compare"

Have you groked and then played a few Strads??
He was pretty damn good..... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

No I haven't. But, I wasn't saying he wasn't a great craftsman...I was just stating the obvious, that it is extremely rare for anyone to be head and shoulders above every other member of their profession, and stay that way for hundreds of years. Maybe Shakespeare. But even the greatest of artists, athletes, scientists, and yes craftsman are usually subject to comparison. It is beyond rare, for someone to remain the unequivocal “greatest,” for centuries. And when they do, it is often the result of some accident of history (of course coupled with their own genius). For instance I would say that Shakespeare, who I mentioned before as being unparalleled in his field, was certainly the beneficiary of certain attitudes of his time. For instance the idea of intellectual property was pretty much nonexistent. It has been established almost beyond doubt, that he stole the plots for many of his plays wholesale. Of course that was perfectly acceptable at the time, and it doesn’t change the fact that he was a fantastic writer, and one of the great minds of his or any time. But I would say that playwrights in modern times are somewhat handicapped by comparison. To produce that volume of work, drawing only from one’s own imagination would be difficult if not impossible for even the most talented and prolific writer.

So in short, I just have trouble with the notion that one man could surpass all others in a given field. History shows us that it simply doesn’t happen without some kind of explanation. So I don’t see what’s so wrong (or disparaging) about assuming that in addition to being an extremely gifted builder, Stradivari had some secret or was touched by some good fortune. I don’t know what that was, but I don’t see what’s wrong with trying to figure it out. It seems to me that some take it as an affront if anyone proposes that it was anything other than pure genius, or divine inspiration.

[first string]

Once again, let me say that my post should not be taken as a defense of Nagyvary. I don't know enough about wood or varnish to have an opinion of him one way or the other. All I would say is that if you don't aprove of his methods of self promotion, that's fine. And if you think he's wrong about the treatment of the wood, that's fine too. But it seems to me that he suffers a lot of attacks from people who think it is too insultingly audacious for a scientist to try to unlock the secrets of the patron saint of violin makers, and that just strikes me as a little silly.

Then again, maybe he is just so full of bull that people are fed up, in which case it's hard to see why he hasn't slipped into obscurity.

Just my two cents.

[Dave Cohen]

Lot of assumptions about science here.

First, Nagyvary is not held in high regard by the musical acoustics research community. Most if not all of what he publishes is without the bounds and benefits of peer review. Commonly referred to as "Press release science", it is the kind of thing that brought Pons and Fleischman ("cold fusion") a lot of trouble.

Regarding taxpayer dollars, I doubt if there are any involved. Competition is keen for grant money. The percentage of proposals that get funded varies from maybe 50% in the best of times to maybe 10-15% or less in the worst of times. Certain areas are much more likely than others to get funded. Nanoscience and nanotechnology is hot, as are certain areas of molecular biology. Musical acoustics is just about at the bottom of the list. I don't know of anyone in musical acoustics who has funding. Which means that they are for the most part doing the work because of interest and dedication. That is true for "ordinary" researchers as well as for ASA (Acoustical Society of America) silver medalists.

Regarding the press and science, you are looking at an unfortunate collision of dedicated workers in two very different enterprises just trying to do their jobs. Work is not supposed to get published without peer review, but peer review takes time - lots of it. I wrote up my dissertation research for publication six months before finishing my dissertation, and the articles did not appear in print until eighteen months after my dissertation was approved. Some journals and research areas are more crowded (read "slower") than others. All of which means that the scientific work is not (supposed to be) available to the press in many cases until several years after the work is done. For journalists, that is, well, let's just say, worse than problematic. If they can find a way around that, they will. It's their job. The unfortunate part is that without expertise in the particular area of science on which they are reporting, they are apt to give proportionally more attention to work that is suspect in the consensus of the research community. There may be some fixes for that, but not without some blood, sweat, tears, and some shaking of the foundations. There is a substantial debate going on now about "open access", which means essentially putting scientific work out there for (free?) public consumption immediately after peer review.

What does all of the above have to do with "that Loar tone"? Some. There have been a few dozen papers published in the last few decades on quality factors in violins, some on pianos, and no more than a half dozen on classical guitars. Nothing yet on mandolins. All of my work with Rossing has been on the foundations, i.e., what are those things and what do they do. But identification of quality factors is possible, and has been done for other instruments.

[testore]

first string,
Strads methods of building are available to study in the museum in Cremona. It takes a little imagination and a lot of violin making experience to understand it all but it is readily available. Also, and most important, looking at his work tells you more than anything else.I've seen dozens of them and it is always striking how well the entire instrument looks and feels like it belongs to one instrument. I'm not sure how else to put it. Sometimes especially in violins, the instrument looks like it has 4 different parts but Strads have this amazing oneness about them. Like they were so well built that none of the concepts were lost by a slip of the hand and that how Strad intended his work to look in his head is exactly how he made them look with his hands. It's an extrememly hard thing to do especially 1200 times. They all have this feeling.I'm picking up a very famous one on Monday,if I have time I can post a few snapshots here.

[testore]

David,
I know Nagyvary got a huge grant from Baylor? a long time ago and assumed he's still riding that gravy train. In any case he's wasting someones money. I hope it's not mine or yours.

[Dave Cohen]

I don't know of any recipients of Federal $ for musical acoustics research. Rossing told me once that he remembered some guy at Purdue getting a grant from a piano company for research on pianos. No Federal $ there. Michigan violinmaker Joe Curtin got a MacArthur Foundation grant a few years ago. No Federal $ there.

You need to be more specific about the alleged "Baylor" grant to Nagyvary. I would be very surprised if it was Federal $. In the meantime, repeating it with the explicit assumption that taxpayers' money is being squandered does a disservice to all involved. When a proposal is Federally funded, the money is not given directly to the researcher; it is given to the University. Part of it pays for the Unversity's cost, including the salary of the grants administrators. The rest is earmarked for specific purposes, including equipment, materials, research stipends for grad students, etc., and the faculty member's salary. In other words, he/she gets his/her regular salary from the university - no more - and the University gets reimbursed for his/her salary, provided he/she does the research. It is all subject to periodic review, and the principal investigator has to file periodic reports. Further, grants are always for a specific period, usually three years. One could get in a heap of trouble should reviewers/auditors come into the lab and find that the equipment has never been purchased, no student is working on the project, etc. So the notion that someone is lining his/her pockets with grant money is just wrong. In research-oriented institutions, it usually means that the the researcher can continue doing his/her job for three years.

[Jonathan Peck]

"There was a known climate condition at the time of the great Cremonese makers called the Maunder Minimum AD1645-1715 which caused slow growth in trees due to reduced solar activity"

And helped create wood that I'm milling now... # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
(If you want to believe that sort of thing)....

[
What I believe is that different top woods can influence the tone of an instrument in different ways. Since we seem to delve into micro analysis, small differences can become quite large, but differences none the less....and, that the worlds most famous violins came out of that specific region during that specific time period, and not all built by Stradivarius.

Your wood may be quite good, amazing even...but different than the woods used by Stradivarius. Same time period, but different reqion, species, temp, and soil conditions. Small differences, but different none the less.

One question: I wonder if the 'distressing' prossess of the DMM reduces hemicellulose in the wood?


"Lumber Redux: Another Look at Wood

Do violins actually improve with age? The acoustical properties of the wood used in their construction certainly change with the passage of years.
Moisture in wood absorbs vibrational energy, converting it to heat energy by evaporation. Although the wood used in violins is already dry, minute changes in water content can have dramatic effects on violin acoustics: a 1 percent decrease in moisture content reduces damping by up to 3.5 percent. The long-term improvement of acoustical response depends mainly on the degradation of hemicellulose, the component of wood that adsorbs water most readily and degrades most dramatically over time. As hemicellulose degrades, the wood’s maximum water content decreases. Even over very short periods, the sound of a frequently played violin may noticeably improve as small amounts of water evaporate from the wood."

[testore]

I'm just remebering something I read 20 plus years ago in the Scientific American that's all. I'm not intending to do any disservice.I may have details wrong but he has used someones grant money and however it is delivered I find his work to be flawed. What ever he has "discovered" hasn't helped anyone in the bussiness of making better sounding instruments.He has made claims that Stradivari was a biochemist, that his wood was soaked in all sorts of stuff. Both of these are untrue.I feel he is the one doing more of a disservice by delivering his "findings" as if they have real historic merits. Antonio Stradivari was just a great violin maker,there is no mystery to his abilities. It's clear to recognize when you study his work. Nagyvary perpetuates his made up instrument building mystique that simply doesn't exsist. And when magazines with the credibilty that Scientific American has gives him press it makes his work seam to have more credibility. I wish I had a dime for everytime I had to talk to clients,family,and friends about that article. We all know who the great builders are and he doesn't come up in that conversation.

[Dave Cohen]

Two different issues:

First, the quality of Nagyvary's science. As I pointed out above, it is not highly regarded. My own opinion: It's nuts!

Second, the assertion that he is somehow squandering public funds granted to him. The problem with that is that it is a personal attack. A mild one, maybe, but personal nevertheless. If he actually got this grant of which you write, his proposal had to have been reviewed by peers and judged to have some scientific merit. Whether or not it did have merit is not the issue. There are no guarantees of results in science, but negative results are results, just the same as "breakthroughs". That is, if one finds that something doesn't work, that is a data point as surely as something that does work. In order for a scientist to squander public money and public trust, he/she would have to have recieved money, space, etc., for work that was not done. Nagyvary has never hit a home run with any of his data, probably not even a single or a walk. But as Spruce pointed out, he appears to be driven by his passion for the subject. So if you think that he is wasting your money, you would probably think that I have wasted your money as well. When one does scientific experiments, he/she has some intuition about the outcomes, but doesn't know with any certainty what the outcomes will be. So we all end up doing more experiments that don't work than ones that do work. If that weren't the case, the experiments (maybe even the whole project) would be trivial and not worth doing.

[Jim M.]

Gary / David, now behave boys, or we'll have to send you to the woodshed. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Here's a quote from Science. I don't have a copy of the State's resolution to back it up, but it seems like a reliable source.

"The state legislature recently gave the chemist a $275,000 start-up grant for a new business that Nagyvary hopes will make Texas the violin-producing capital of the United States - a sort of 20th-century Cremona." #Source: Science, Volume 241 22 July 1988

Sounds to me like it was probably an economic development grant, not a scientific research grant. I'm sure it took some political pull to get it, but we all know how politics work in Texas. I'd argure it's been a waste of taxpayers money, because I've been to Texas, and it's no Cremona. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[testore]

David, that was very well said and I agree with you.Jim,thanks for the research.That's the very article.

[Hans]

Hey, ain't you guys all on the wrong website? Try Stradnagyvaryiuscafe. # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[mandolooter]

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Spruce]

Hey, ain't you guys all on the wrong website? Try Stradnagyvaryiuscafe. # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Or Relic Deluxe (http://www.relicdeluxe.com/body_guitar_lacquer_finish.asp)... # # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[ipmala888]

I'm of the theory that if you 'play the hell' out of a new
instrument--and really pound in it--you accomplish just about
the same thing as "distressing". I think this would apply
especially to a new MM. And, how & where on the instrument
that you 'play it in' will make a big difference on how the
tone develops. Concentrating only on the mids or highs will
result in an instrument that is poorly balanced, with a weak
bottom end. I have heard that 'typical' Loars have a weak bottom end, with a strong midrange, and average to good highs. Personally, I don't like that mix. Just like many of
the old D-28 'herringbones' that I've played at Gruhn's over
the years didn't really sound as good as the 1950's D-28's.

[Jonathan Peck]

The Master Model arrived (V-70350) and we've been getting to know one another over the weekend. I'm very happy, search over, MAS cured.

This particulular mandolin has a clarity and note separation that I find very appealing to my ear. It is also very responsive in regards to volume to pick attack and definitely gives back in spades when you push her, but has a subtle beauty when handled delicately. This will be the one I play every day, I love it. She's a good'un.

BTW - She has a one piece flat sawn back and a wide grained top.

-jonathan

[Jonathan Peck]

Shayne,

Good on ya'. Come on up and have a visit anytime.

-jonathan

[evanreilly]

Shayne:
Has the Dude found an equally happy home yet?

[Jonathan Peck]

Hey Evan,

Shayne didn't own or sell the mandolin to me. He did on the other hand go out of his way to help a freind sell his mandolin and he made the introduction for me. Because I didn't have ready cash, Shayne went out of his way to help me secure the mandolin from the seller. I would not have wound up with this killer mando without Shayne's help, and everything that he said about it was spot on.

-jonathan

[Jonathan Peck]

Shayne,

So how would you describe 'the Loar sound' now? How does it compare with a Master Model?

[Rick Schmidlin]

WOW , this thread from four years ago was fun to read this morning, it a cafe classic just like it topic.

Old is good!

[Spruce]

...it a cafe classic just like it topic.

Yeah, couldn't agree more... :confused:

[300win]

Well being a guy who has not played or heard a lot of high end independant luthiers offerings. Common sense tells me that the Derrington era Gibson MM and DMM should give the closest sound to the original Loars. Why wouldn't they ?