F vs. a style

[Durbin]

Hello. Registered last year about this time, and then never got around to actively posting,maybe twice last march. but that is changing. I have come back around. Planning on haning out here .

Kind of a newbie regarding mandolins. I bought a mandolin a year ago, practiced a bunch for a the first few months, then I bought a new guitar, and the mandolin got laid aside for a while. I have picked it back up lately. I love playing these instruments, I love the tone they produce, they are such fun. I have a Michael Kelly Deluxe F that I bought off ebay for a few hundred bucks for a starter. Someday in this next year, I am saving, I want to upgrade. I love the looks of F mandolins. Now we come to my question after the introduction:

Are there tonal differences between the two, and if so what are they? Does the scroll add that much more to the body that it changes the sound. I have only played f styles. Thanks for the help... looking forward to getting to know some of y'all, this is an educational place.

Durbin

[Paul Hostetter]

I think the primary difference is in the attitude of the owners. And the quality of individual instruments. If the scroll mass was that big a deal, the A would be extinct.

[Lane Pryce]

Paul I do not think Durbin's question could have been answered any better than you did ---- well said. Lp

[Durbin]

Thanks for the reply. I have met many players who will only play an f, and think an A is a lesser instrument. I found that musical snobbery, myself. I mean I think f mandolins are cool, but Tim O'Brien, Paul Barton and others pla A's really well. So you are right, attitude is huge.

But is there any tonal difference? Specifically is there more low end on either? Thanks

Durbin

[jasona]

No.

[Lane Pryce]

Some folks say the F has more bottom end due to the added mass from the scroll and points. With quality instruments I don't think there is enough difference in the two to walk across the room for. To my ear there is no difference in the tone of a well made A vs a well made F. Lp

[Jim Garber]

Bracing, shape and placement of soundholes (oval or f-hole or other), carving of the top and position of the bridge on the top make much more tonal difference than a scroll and points which are, for the most part, ornamental.

Jim

[Flowerpot]

Ditto to the above replies, there's no noticable sonic difference, in my opinion.

But keep this in mind: for the same money, you can get a better sounding A style, as you end up spending $$$ for the scroll/points that could have been put into a better quality instrument. If you gotta have the scroll, then so be it, but dollar for dollar you'll get better tone and playability with the A.

[Tim]

I can't hear a difference. #However, there are people who claim that very slight differences in any number of aspects of mandolin changes the tone. #I have trouble reconciling those statements (which I take at face value) with the assertion that changing the shape of the interior has no impact. #Granted there is usually only a small part of the scroll that is hollow but that is one more place for sound waves to bounce around.

[Jerry Byers]

Granted there is usually only a small part of the scroll that is hollow but that is one more place for sound waves to bounce around.
What mandolin are you referring to? The scroll area is a block; there is no cavity.

[Givson]

I think there are differences, mainly due to the added mass of the scroll and points and the larger headstock.

That said, a really good A model can often sound much better than a so-so F. Many great players have used non-F models.

Let your ears decide.

[MandoSquirrel]

It's my understanding that part of Monteleone's change in creating the Grand Artist was opening up the scroll, instead of using the block, but for the standard F style, as far as I know, the solid block is correct.

I'm no expert, but it seems logical to me that so much extra mass might actually absorb vibration somewhat & inhibit volume, though I know in electric instruments mass = sustain, so that probably proves me wrong.

[Chadmills]

The scroll area is approximately half hollow. The side doesn't reach the block until the top of the curve (with the instrument upright.)
Tom

[MandoSquirrel]

Well, my Siminoff book showed the block big enough it didn't add anything to the sound chamber, and solid points as well.

[Paul Hostetter]

Durbin, I think there's a notable difference between oval and f-hole instruments. I still don't think there's a "better" or "more" issue, but they do sound, on average, really different.

It's certainly logical to assume that scroll should account for something, but after you've played a few thousand good mandolins, and sat and listened to even more, you realize it's not about a detail like the scroll.

[Flowerpot]

Wait, are we talking about oval hole vs f-hole, or A vs F (both with the same type of holes)?

Oval hole vs F-hole, yes, big difference in sound.

A-style vs F-style (both f-holes, or both oval), not much difference.

[Paul Hostetter]

Ditto.

[Durbin]

Flowerpot,

I am talking A vs. F with F holes, not really interested in the oval hole style. I was thinking there would not be much difference if any at all. seems to be the general consensus. Thanks for the replies. Been good to read them. Keep em comin'.

[allenhopkins]

The scroll and points on Gibson's "Florentine" (F) model were added to the basic oval shape as ornamentation, to make a fancier appearing instrument in accordance with ornate turn-of-the-20th-century esthetics. The fact that the F's were Gibson's highest model mandolins, and therefore also got the best materials and decoration, led to them becoming the standard for mandolin construction. The "F mystique" has persisted to this day, as shown by the fact that most people building quality mandolins copy the scroll-and-points model, despite the fact that almost all luthiers agree that an oval model constructed of the same woods, braced in the same way, etc. would sound equally good.

The big drawback of the F model is that carving the scroll and points is a painstaking. laborious process, which adds to the cost of the instrument without providing a significant acoustic advantage. F models invariably cost more -- justifiably so -- yet we continue to follow Orville Gibson's century-old idea of what a "quality" mandolin should look like. I'm only thankful that his weirdest, most elaborate creation, the lyre mandolin, didn't catch on as the standard! Think what we'd be paying now for our instruments..,

[Hans]

At the risk of being shot down...there is a difference (MY opinion). There is a small chamberlet in an F model, and much more mass in the blocks (not to mention extra mass in the top and back). I also believe that shape does make a difference and while the tonal difference between A's and F's is subtle (given same builder, tonewood, finish, strings, setup, etc), F's have more authority and A's a more refined tone. This is not to say that one is better than the other...otherwise I wouldn't build both.
Fire away...

[Ted Eschliman]

If you use a pickup (or plug in), the most versatile alternative is to purchase an A body mandolin and add a scroll Pedal between your instrument and the amp to dial into your own personal preference and mix of that great "Scroll" sound.

http://jazzmando.com/new/archives/image/Scroll.jpg

It's true. I read about it on the internet...

[Flowerpot]

Ain't shooting you down at all, Hans... but what do you think of this:

1. two F models, different tonewood, or different builders, vs

2. one F, one A, same builder, same logs...

I think there's more difference in #1. Sounds like a good experiment, want to do experiment #2 and let me try them? I bet I'll like 'em both....

[Mike Buesseler]

Hans, there ain't nobody here who'd even want to shoot you down, let alone have the credentials.

But, I'm curious about this: "...much more mass in the blocks (not to mention extra mass in the top and back)" Is there more mass in the top and back of an F?!? Where is it?

Anybody done any experimenting with (carefully) clamping some 'mass' to an A model to see if it does make much difference. Wasn't it Roger Siminoff who used to have people put a C-clamp on a guitar headstock, to show the effects of adding mass there? (Not sure what purpose that test served, btw...Nobody builds guitars with lead headstocks that I know of...)

[Paul Hostetter]

I like Ted's idea. Saves time and trees.

[Tom Smart]

At the risk of being shot down...there is a difference (MY opinion). There is a small chamberlet in an F model, and much more mass in the blocks (not to mention extra mass in the top and back). I also believe that shape does make a difference and while the tonal difference between A's and F's is subtle (given same builder, tonewood, finish, strings, setup, etc), F's have more authority and A's a more refined tone. This is not to say that one is better than the other...otherwise I wouldn't build both.
Fire away...
I think a lot probably depends on the individual builder's approach to the F5 design. A. Lawrence Smart agrees with you, Hans, and would also add that since the neck block extends into the scroll, it significantly stiffens the neck-to-body join. In his personal building style, he emphasizes that stiffness even further by the way he carves the front and back in that area.

Since he's my brother, I've had the opportunity to play a bunch of his instruments in both styles, and there is a very unsubtle difference in how the A and F models respond and sound. The F models require more input from the player, and deliver more volume and "authority," to use Hans's word. The A models are easier on the player, and sweeter and more "refined."

Neither one is "better," just different. When other builders say their F and A models sound the same, I believe them. And I think they're probably doing something to compensate for the inherent differences in mass, etc.

Tom

[Chadmills]

I've wondered about building an A with attachable scroll and points!
Tom

[Paul Hostetter]

Someone did it. It was on eBay last year. They took a really beat A and added a scroll and points made out of wood dough. I'm sure it really helped a lot.


Anybody done any experimenting with (carefully) clamping some 'mass' to an A model to see if it _does_ make much difference. Wasn't it Roger Siminoff who used to have people put a C-clamp on a guitar headstock, to show the effects of adding mass there? (Not sure what purpose that test served, btw...Nobody builds guitars with lead headstocks that I know of...)
I remember that. People in fact were trying to market weights for headstocks, like big plates that attached to the back. That whole thing was just so profoundly stupid. The Emperor's New Clothes revisited, time after time. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Dave Cohen]

There used to be an ad over on Mandozine for an "Ad-a-scroll", made of sturdy styrofoam just like the McDonalds' hamburger containers. Said something like "Like the sweet sound of your A-model, but tired of the guys with the scroll-bodied mandos getting all the chicks? You need Ad-a-scroll! $9.95 postpaid."

I would be willing to bet that in a blindfolded test involving comparable quality A-models and F-models, many blindfolded listeners would be fooled and/or confused.

[allenhopkins]

If it's just a question of adding mass to the top, and stiffness to the neck/body joint, why go to all the trouble of carving a scroll? Why not just add a block, or the "lump scroll" of the old Gibson A-5 models? Luthiers spend hours carving the scroll, and then we critique their work (see this thread (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=27;t=39990)).

I go back to my point: it's 99% esthetics and tradition, and maybe 1% acoustic-related. If all we wanted to do was change some construction variables, we wouldn't spend so much time and painstaking effort on doing it.

[fwoompf]

Can anyone honestly tell me with a straight face they can tell the difference between an A and an F model in a recording?

The answer is no.

[Jerry Byers]

From what I'm reading, the scroll doesn't serve an acoustical purpose - kind of like the 29-fret extension. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Tom Smart]

Dave, Garnet

It's not just a matter of whether a blindfolded listener can correctly distinguish the A from the F. Far more important is how the instrument responds and sounds from the perspective of the player. And yes, with regard to A.L. Smart instruments, I'll say with a straight face there is a substantial and consistent difference.

Also, not everyone has the ears as a listener, or the skills as a player, to appreciate the difference. That's especially true for beginning players, and I'd recommend almost anyone in that category to start out with an A simply because it's more economical.

I'll also agree that the aesthetic difference is much more obvious than the tonal/response difference--and that the scroll and points were originally designed for aesthetic rather than tonal/response purposes. But that wasn't the original question.

[Hans]

Throwing a microphone, recording equipment, CD player, amplifier and speakers into the formula will overpower any perceived difference between the two instruments. Blind test are not the point. Regardless of visuallizing the shapes, there is a difference in tone. It's not that I could line up 10 A's and 10 F's and blindfolded, you couldn't tell the difference. It is that a good F and A built by the same builder with the same tonewood, graduated the same, with all the other parameters the same, will sound slightly different.The F has two points of extra mass, and the nose block is larger. The mass of the top and back scrolls adds wood to the instrument, and I agree with Lawrence (and Tom) the there is probably some stiffning effect of the scroll ridge. The F is also not symmetical, and who knows what that little scroll chamber does.
Whether it be more refined, sweeter, more delicate in the case of an A, or more powerful, more authoritative (don't know if I'd say louder...I've got A's that are quite loud), there is something there.
Finally, consider this...Peter O. told me once that he prefers the sound of an oval A to an oval F.
My plug nickel worth.

[Nick Royal]

We had Peter Ostroushko here in town for a house concert, and afterwards I tried playing his oval A mandolin--one that he helped to build. It had a tremendous resonance...more than my A2Z Gibson.

[Dave Cohen]

I have done the holographic modal analysis on numerous A-models and F-models by now. Included were nine vintage instruments (including a 1924 F5) which I did in Feb, 2005. I can say unambiguously that the mode shapes in F-models do not extend into the scroll region (I have the holograms to back that up). Rather, they look just like A-model mode shapes. The modal frequencies varied considerably from mandolin to mandolin, and there were no obvious or statistical differences between A-models and F-models. OK, next: I have measured the first three air resonance frequencies for all of the same instruments. The air resonance frequencies were completely unaffected by the presence or absence of scrolls and/or points. That leaves us with the effect of mass. Again, I didn't see any differences in modal frequencies (between As and Fs) that could be attributed to mass, let alone anything else. Mass does have an effect on the losses (related to a property called "Q" by physicists) in modes which probably manifests itself in a variety of ways. I haven't done that yet, except to make some crude estimates. So it's still possible that I might find something confirming what the scroll believers seem to think, though I get more sceptical as the number and kinds of experiments mounts.

[Ken Sager]

Fine, somebody had to use facts and actually do some sort of science.

Are we in agreement yet? A good mandolin sounds good, and that isn't determined simply by whether it has a scroll and points.

Love to all,
Ken

[Lane Pryce]

Ken I really like the way you can condense words. It only took you two sentences to say what took everyone else two pages. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif Lp

[Dale Ludewig]

This is a good discussion. Hans, I'm not aiming at you nor firing, but I disagree. In principle. And Tom and others. And this is my own opinion, so that's just what it is. I don't think there should be any difference in the sound between an A and an F (f holes) if the builder compensates for some little things. Like the crest on the scroll running into the body, and I bring mine in quite a bit. But you can change some graduations for that. The basic Helmholtz frequency shouldn't be affected at all by the addition of points and scroll. Only the hours and hours of work making them is an issue. Stiffness of the neck joint because of the scroll block? I don't think so. The neck joint is the neck joint and whatever wood is stuck out to the side for the scroll is irrelevant, basically. If the neck joint is good, it's good. If not, it's not. The scroll isn't going to keep a bad neck joint from causing problems.
I am not saying that there aren't sound differences between A's and F's built by the same builder. There's differences in two A's by the same builder. Same for F's. Perhaps builders put a little more effort into the plates of F models because they know how much extra work is going to be involved altogether, maybe not.
It's good to have Dave Cohen's observations entered in here. I'm not disagreeing with anyone's personal observations. I just know they're personal observations and as such are subjective. Including mine. There- you got what you paid for. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Tom Smart]

Sorry, but I don't regard it as "scientific" to reduce the opinions of experienced builders who have compared hundreds of their own instruments to:

"...what the scroll believers seem to think..."

I agree with Ken's point. But let's take it a little further. When choosing an instrument, do you trust your ears and hands, or do you take some holograms?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for science. But I also believe that deep, long-term experience counts for more than "belief" and "seeming to think."

Yes there are great mandos in both A and F styles. But that wasn't the original question.

[Edit:]
Dale,
Lawrence's idea (I won't say "theory") about the F-style neck joint doesn't have anything to do with the integrity of the joint. It has to do with the overall stiffness in that area of the instrument and the resulting playing feel and responsiveness. And again, it's not "better," just "different." His building style tends to emphasize the differences, while other builders (as you note) try to "compensate" for the differences. And that may be why builders tend to disagree on this subject.

[sgarrity]

Of course this question is next to impossible to answer. And is verrrryyyyyyyy subjective. I tend to think that a good A sounds pretty much the same as a good F. I tend to attribute any sound difference to the individual instrument rather than the body shape. I had the pleasure of playing two identical Webers. One a Fern and the other their traditional A5. They were made as a matched set. And they both sounded awfully close. The F sounded ever so slightly better. But I just don't believe one can attribute that to the body shape. There are just too many other variables at work.

Shaun

[Dale Ludewig]

Tom, please keep in mind that I'm exploring as much as anyone else here and my comments were in no way meant to demean anyone's ideas. Heck, I've got my own ideas and then there's things I do when constructing that work and I'm not sure why, but I'm not about to change them when they give me results that I like and my customers do also.

With that in mind, of course, the stiffness of the instrument in that area is going to be greater in an F style instrument- it's not even there in an A style. The points can't add very much, if any. (my idea)

I'll try to pay attention in the next few days if I see a difference in responsiveness between F and A, of my own building, so they should be close. But then, Lawrence may build differently than I (!). I'll try to report back.

Many interesting thoughts and ideas. Should keep me awake a bit longer tonight. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Tom Smart]

Dale, I'm not even a builder, just passing along thoughts from my computer-phobic brother. I certainly didn't take your comments as demeaning, and I don't mean mine that way either.

Interesting opinions here from many angles. Even good spelling and grammar. I just wish all threads could be that way...

[Dave Cohen]

I think that Tom may have taken the phrase "scroll believers" as being perjorative; it wasn't intended to be so at all. It was simply a hasty description meant to differentiate those who think that scrolls make some kind of audible difference in mandolins from those who don't.

I do think that Tom made some assumptions without knowing some facts. One assumption seems to have been that I only do science and have never built a mandolin. In fact, I am also an experienced builder. I have built about 60 mandolin family instruments, including mandolas, OMs, and mandocellos.

I think that it was phrasing things rather competitively to ask if people trust holograms or long-term experience. In the first place, my current holographic data does not have anything to say about quality factors in mandolin family instruments, but it does have something to say about how scrolls and mandolin plates move. A holographic interferogram is pretty darned unambiguous. If it shows a scroll moving, the scroll is moving. Further, one can only have so much confidence in the result of one experiment. The remedy is to do more repetitions of the experiment. The relative confidence in the results increases with the square root of the number of repetitions. So if you look at 25 mandolins, you can be 5 time as confident in a result as you could if you had only looked at one mandolin. I have done the interferometry on a number of my own mandolins, as well as on the several vintage mandolins which I mentioned in the earlier post. I have never (a) seen the scrolls moving, or (b) observed a repeatable effect on the air resonance frequencies attributable to scrolls. As I pointed out in my earlier post, I still don't have the last word on whether a scroll has any audible effect or not, as I haven't done all of the experiments necessary to make that kind of blanket statement. I have done enough that if I were to venture an opinion, it would be sceptical.

I have a lot of confidence that Lawrence Smart will use his experience to build quality mandolin family instruments; never had any doubt about that. But I have less confidence that he understands the mechanical motion of a scroll consistent with the knowledge which Newton, Hamilton, and LaGrange brought to us. It is important to recognize that I don't think that his lack of physical understanding negatively impacts his ability to consistently make quality mandolin family instruments. The pitfall for experienced builders is in thinking that because they really do understand how to make a wonderful instrument, they must necessarily know exactly how that instrument works.

[JimRichter]

I'm not a luthier nor could I say that I'm really a credible judge of what constitutes good tone--I just know what sounds "right."

I love scrolls. #I love the feel and the look of an F model instrument. #To me, it is the culmination of all things artistic in lutherie. #The florentine mandolin is perfection.

That being said, it doesn't mean that the F inherently has an edge over A model instruments. #I've had to really fight some prejudices in playing an A5. #It really is a matter of aesthetic than it is tone.

Case in point. #My main and only mandolin is a Will Kimble A5. #I've played Will's mandolins exclusively the last couple years. #My last Kimble was an F5--a very powerful F5. #My A5 started off slow--mainly because it hadn't been played. #I've learned the nuances of this particular instrument and it has Will's characteristic knack for tone.

Though the instruments each have their own distinct voice, I don't think you can listen to the A and automatically go "that's an A model." #It just sounds a little different. #But it's got some volume and growl, but can easily gather its wits and be refined and shimmery. #As someone said, there shouldn't be too many significant differences in the hands of a talented luthier.

To demonstrate (as well as to toot my own horn), here are a couple of clips that you might have seen for comparison:

The A5:

Evening Prayer Blues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCDX26GSeFc)

The F5

Tanyards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1SKeVZO2ds)

Both of these are early Kimbles. #My current A5 is #10 and the F5 (the second built) is #18.

Jim

[Chris Baird]

I think that for most builders there will be a difference in tone between their A and F styles. However, I think the difference will be different for each builder. Each builders designs will be different and their As will be uniquely different then their Fs. I don't believe that there is a general A style tone nor a general F style tone that transcends the boundries of individual builders. Some Fs may sound rounder and some As more cutting etc. It all depends on how the builder makes em'.

I do believe, however, that F-styles have a different "feel" over A-styles. Many of the reasons for that are obvious, some less so.

[mandolooter]

I don't know much...but what I do know is they ALL sound different, A holes, F-holes, A hole vs A hole, F hole vs F hole, everyone I have (way too many for my meager skills!) sounds unique ...YMMV
Jim Richter's sweet pickin ought a prove me right, but a quick trip thru my music collection would definitely disprove any "superiority" complexes you may have about inheirent sound qualities of body types. Folks that rip it up can rip it on anything, if ya don't believe me hand them your $49.95 mando and listen. Eeets dee player dats sooo impotant...!

[Hans]

Yes, a good mandolin sounds good. As far as agreeing on the original question...looks like we don't. Nothing wrong with that. i don't know about the scientific principals involved: modes, vibratory devices, holographs, or Q. All my years of research on mandolins has been in graduations and differences in tonewood. For me it's all on a sound and feeling level from past experience. How does the top or back flex while carving, and how does it ring? How does the whole assembly sound once the box is together? #
I have probably experimented with more different combinations of spruce and maple than any other builder. Each combination has it's own sound. In all my years experience building red spruce A's and F's, German spruce A's and F's, Italian spruce A's and F's, Englemann, Sitka, Ukranian, #I have not been able to make the A sound like an F. As I have said, the differences are subtile, and just sitting around playing "Jesus loves us mandolin player number xx97", on each instrument might not be telling. However, my wife will tell you that she is sick of me sitting around striking open strings: GDAE, GDAE, GDAE, GDAE. I have done this for years. I can hear a difference in MY A's and MY F's. This is my experience. Am I opinionated? You bet!
All this being said, I have a couple of A's that I would not trade for any F on the planet. I have an F that I would not trade for any A on the planet.
Catcha twenty-two! # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Mark Walker]

This is a great thread. #Interesting and informative. #Here's my 25-cents worth:

I do a fair amount of traveling with my job. #When on the road and with time to kill, I often stop into music stores to pass some time - playing mostly guitars and mandolins. #

For the sake of discussion, I'll start out with guitars. #I once stopped into a store in southern Mississippi that was the "...largest distributor of '(one particular name brand)' guitars in the south." # They had at least half a dozen of each model guitar this company crafted (through replicating machines and repetitive mass production processes) hanging on the walls. #I played every single one of them. #And - no surprise - 'identical' instruments of the same model had significant differences in tone.

Now move to mandolins - crafted by either a custom luthier or 'production' models made in a PacRim factory. #While custom luthiers can (and do) make several instruments from the same planks of wood and can - for several consecutive instruments anyway - control the material used in each one, eventually they'll have to migrate to another piece of wood. #It may be from the same tree; it might be a different tree or species entirely. #(This is assuming back and sides; the same would hold true for the tops - cedar vs. spruce, etc.)

The scientific comments posted by Dave Cohen and those observations by fine luthiers such as Hans Brentrup and Dale Ludwig certainly have merit. #I will simply add it has been my observation while playing many, many 'identical' instruments in an 'A-B' situation that the density, grain, and other inherent characteristics associated with the 'wood' affect the tone to a noticeable degree. #

So while there may be subtle 'air chamber' and other differences between A and F-style mandolins, who among us can - with any degree of certainty - associate a 'better' tone between one and another, when only God had 'input' on the actual characteristics of the wood being used in the instrument?

I'm not suggesting wood is the major determining factor; obviously the quality of construction - custom or production - plays a larger part in how a mandolin (or guitar, fiddle, etc.) sounds. #But certainly the actual wood CAN make a difference.#

(I recall seeing something on the Discovery Channel about the 'little ice age' and how it affected the annual growth rings on trees. #It resulted in 70-100 years of 'tight' or 'slow growth' and thus smaller and more dense growth rings on trees. #Ultimately the wood from some of those trees were used by Antonio Stradivari on his violins. The theory is the 'density' associated with the trees affected by those successive cold years created the unique sound of his violins - to such a degree that subsequent 'identical' construction methods have still never resulted in instruments with such rich and sweet tone.)

I would guess the construction methods employed in the crafting of A and F models by Hans Brentrup, Lynn Dudenbostel, Ken Ratcliff, Paul Tope or even the Gibson Factory at Opry Mills would be affected by the woods being used. #Thus, one or another might wind up being more 'mellow' or 'sweeter' or 'woody' based on that. #(Though I confess my poor human ears probably couldn't tell - as well as the fact it's pretty subjective.) #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

Great topic! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #Thanks for letting me bloviate!

[mythicfish]

All things being equal, the F style will burn longer.

Curt

[Rick Schmidlin]

I still think F's are louder,at least my girlfriend thinks so.

[Hans]

[QUOTE]
"All things being equal, the F style will burn longer."

Exactly!

[mythicfish]

That's got to be worth about two thousand words ... many of which are probably not allowed on this board.
Hot licks!

Curt

[Rick Schmidlin]

[QUOTE]
"All things being equal, the F style will burn longer."

Exactly!
Light My Fire http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[Dave Cohen]

Hans, shouldn't good stuff like that go up like paper, even with a scroll? I mean, I'll bet the MC of that stuff in the Winter in Minnesota is cetainly no more than 5%!

[Dale Ludewig]

Just to join in with the lighter mood (for the moment http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blues.gif ), I've got a couple of tops that should be in there with those, Hans.

[Hans]

Dave the moisture content of those tops is probably right around zero...course the humidity in the shop is 45%. Expensive fire starter. Dale, send 'em over...with the 9" of snow we just got last nite a fire sounds good!

[kyken]

When you take a piece of wood, any species and tap on it, then cut a little off, the tap gets higher. The longer the piece the deeper it is. Now, it makes sense that an F-style with the longer piece of wood on the bass side will be deeper or more bass. Isn't true. I've made wonderful sounding instruments A and F, built the same inside. It stands to reason that this wouldn't be true, but it's just another one of the mysteries of the mandolin.....

[Tom Smart]

I think that Tom may have taken the phrase "scroll believers" as being perjorative...

I do think that Tom made some assumptions without knowing some facts. One assumption seems to have been that I only do science and have never built a mandolin...

A holographic interferogram is pretty darned unambiguous. If it shows a scroll moving, the scroll is moving...

I have a lot of confidence that Lawrence Smart will use his experience to build quality mandolin family instruments; never had any doubt about that. But I have less confidence that he understands the mechanical motion of a scroll consistent with the knowledge which Newton, Hamilton, and LaGrange brought to us... The pitfall for experienced builders is in thinking that because they really do understand how to make a wonderful instrument, they must necessarily know exactly how that instrument works.
Dave,

I don't intend to be combative, and I think we can agree to disagree. I feel and hear something different; your experiments don't find any difference and I'll also assume you don't feel or hear any difference. That's cool.

I didn't take "scroll believers" as pejorative, so much as setting up a false dichotomy between science and subjective experience. The ears, hands and brain are highly sensitive instruments. The advantage of a hologram, I would guess, is not that it's more sensitive but that it's quantifiable. That's a real advantage, but it doesn't invalidate what the ears, hands and brain can do. Scientific instruments can only detect what they're designed to detect, and perhaps the hologram is missing something. Just because you can't see atoms with a magnifying glass doesn't mean there are no atoms. All I can say is that there seems to be a subtle yet 100% consistent and predictable difference between the F and A models of one particular builder, but I don't have any scientific instruments capable of quantifying it. I'm not knocking science at all; just giving human perception its proper due.

I've actually played one of your mandolins, Dave. I liked it a lot--it had a very warm sound, almost 'dola-ish. I wish I could see and play some more examples. I always love to explore the work of different builders. It's interesting (again being totally subjective, not scientific) how accomplished builders seem to achieve a recognizable, signature sound.

I'm pretty sure when they were covering Newton in high school, Lawrence was skipping class to go skiing or climbing. It's a wonder he ever graduated. He would be the last person to claim any scientific understanding of how instruments work; his understanding is all hands-on.

That said, his "idea" (not "theory") isn't that the scroll moves. On the contrary, he believes that the extension of the neck block into the scroll acts as a lever that *inhibits* movement in that area of the mandolin, stiffening the connection between neck and body. If the quality of a mandolin's sound was just about maximizing movement, we'd all be playing banjo-mandos, no? If his idea is correct, it would predict the results you're seeing: no movement in the scroll. Isn't it possible that the selective damping of movement has something to do an instrument's overall qualities?

My last point is not for Dave, but for those who seem to think this is a discussion about whether F5 mandos are "better" than A5 mandos. Nobody is saying "better," just "different." There's a local Smart A5 that I get to play all the time, and if I thought the owner would go for it, I'd probably offer to trade my Smart F5 straight across for it. I love my F5, and I'd lose about $2,000 in the trade, but that A5 is just sooooo fine. So please, folks, let's leave which style is "better" out of the discussion.

Thanks for the conversation, and keep up the experiments Dave. More knowledge, from every angle, is a good thing.

Tom

[Durbin]

Thanks Tom for your comments. #I want people to know I was not trying to stir up a nest of trouble or a fight between fans of one style or the other. I do not think A is better than F, or F better than A. I just like good mandolins, and #I was just wondering about tonal differences. #I appreciate everybody's comments, it has been educational.

Durbin

[Dave Cohen]

Tom, interferometers detect motion. The limit of detectability is a bit smaller than 1/4 of the wavelength of the laser light, which in this case is 635 nanometers/4, or about 159 nanometers. We typically drive the plates to see as many as 10 interference fringes, which corresponds to about 1600 nanometers, or 1.6 micrometers, of amplitude. We estimate that plucking strings drives the plates as much as 10 times harder than we do in the lab. That would mean that the kind of motion which you are talking about would be in the neighborhood of 16 micrometers. That kind of amplitude of motion would figuratively (not literally) hit me over the head. Couple that with the information that I have done this on at least a couple dozen mandolin family instruments, and I start to get pretty confident that if there were any scroll motion, I wouldn't have missed it.

[Thundercranium]

I'm a mando newbie, although not a greenhorn musician by any stretch - I've been playing over 30 years, and it is now my primary source of income.

Many years ago I sold audio gear. At the time we had a speaker that was so good it was unbelievable. Unfortunately it was also tiny and butt-ugly. We got around this problem by setting listeners up in a room with a very attractive (and large) speaker they could see, with the sleeper hidden behind a curtain. After the demo we would ask if they liked what they heard, at which point we would show them what they had actually been listening to.

My point is that it is nearly impossible for a person to divorce themselves from what they see. To my ear there is no appreciable difference between A and F. However. to my eye a good F will always sound better.

If I remember correctly, this phenomenon falls under the rubric of psycho-acoustics - but I might be wrong.

Just my $.02

[allenhopkins]

Just another testimony to the inadvertant genius of Orville Gibson and his successors in coming up with the Florentine shape, which for whatever reason has a stranglehold on the preferences of a plurality (I would guess) of mandolinists. There's not a single purported sound-modifying or enhancing feature of the F model mentioned above, that couldn't be achieved with a lot less work than painstakingly carving a scroll (and the points -- don't forget them!) on each instrument. Even the mandolins that don't have scrolls (Rigel, Tacoma, Breedlove) have some kind of hommage to the scroll, located in the same place on the instrument.

An inspired design, now over a century old, and still with a grip on our imaginations. Somewhere, Orville G is smiling...

[sunburst]

...Somewhere, Orville G is smiling...
As one who can sometimes be found "painstakingly carving a scroll (and the points -- don't forget them!)", a smile is not exactly the expression I envision on O.G.'s face, sometimes.

[jasona]

Somewhere, Orville G is smiling...
Yea, but all skulls look like they are smiling...

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

[Tom Smart]

...pretty confident that if there were any scroll motion, I wouldn't have missed it.
Geez, Dave, my last post said that Lawrence's idea would predict that the scroll does NOT move. I'm AGREEING with you about that. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I do want to be understood.

That said, I'm wondering if you could clarify something. When I pluck the G string while feeling the top of the scroll with my left hand, I can feel it vibrating, almost as strongly as the vibrations I feel when I touch the top. For that matter, I can touch any part of the mandolin--including the peghead, tuners, tailpiece and points--and clearly feel them vibrating.

So, to take the scroll for example, when you say it doesn't move, I'm guessing you don't mean that in an absolute sense. It obviously moves in relation to my hand. Perhaps you mean it doesn't move in some specific way--that other parts of the instrument are moving in an acoustically signficant way, and the scroll is just going along for the ride.

My questions are: 1. Could you explain what you mean by "movement," and why the vibrations I can feel aren't considered "movement"? 2. Is it possible that by "going along for the ride," the scroll is damping some energy in a way that colors the tone and/or changes the feel and response of the instrument?

I'm really curious about this stuff, and I'm glad there are people like you looking into it.

Tom

[Greenmando]

The entire mandolin vibrates, I clip my tuner on the headstock for tuning. I understand that the scroll area is not contributing to the plates.

[Dave Cohen]

OK, since you asked, this has to go back to the beginning. When an object vibrates, it doesn't just vibrate at any frequency; it vibrates at specific frequencies known as normal frequencies or eigenfrequencies. Think of an open string. It vibrates at a specific frequency dictated by its' mass, length, and tension, and at multiples of that frequency, i.e., higher harmonics. Plates and air in cavities are like that, inasmuch as they have characteristic frequencies at which they vibrate. Plates and air in cavities are unlike strings in that they are not harmonic, i.e., the frequencies of the higher modes are not multiples of the frequency of the lowest mode. These normal frequencies are associated with structural resonances. In a string, the half wavelength pattern is the one associated with the lowest frequency mode or first harmonic. In a plate, the lowest normal frequency is associated with a trampoline-like motion, the next one up is a rocking motion, & so on. The shapes associated with those structural resonances are known as Chladni patterns. When you look at holograms of guitar, violin, or (since Nov., 2000) mandolin plates, you are looking at images of the structural resonances of the soundbox, and you are seeing essentially Chladni patterns. The patterns with the right symmetry and the right frequency will set the air in the soundbox in motion at its normal frequencies (but not at any other frequencies), and the cavity air motion in turn will set the air in the soundhole(s) in motion.

Some of the soundbox modes don't talk to the air in the cavity, so they have two remaining functions. One is that they dissipate energy, resulting in losses in efficiency of sound radiation. The other is that the higher frequency ones (ca > 3 kHz) can set air outside of the soundbox in motion. Since their amplitudes are camparatively small, the strength of the sound radiation is not great. That is why most of what you have to work with in plucked string instruments are the lowest modes, i.e., the trampoline mode and the Helmholtz air resonance. Most, that is, but not all. The other modes are involved in losses. The losses certainly don't contribute to the efficiency of sound radiation, but they certainly do contribute to the overall tonal character of the instrument. So they are not "bad" nor are they unimportant; they just don't contribute to the loudness of the instrument.

Aside from the Chladni patterns, there are other modes of motion generally associated with losses. These are often whole-instrument bending and twisting motions, some involving the neck, some involving the headstock, and some involving the scroll. Also, some of the lower modes will involve vibrations which you will feel at the scroll and at other locations on the mandolin as well. The trampoline motion which I mentioned above actually occurs at two frequencies. The lower one, at around 280 Hz, involves the top and back plates moving out-of-phase to each other in a bellows-like motion. That is the main air mover. The upper one occurs at a higher frequency, ca 350 Hz and above, depending on the mandolin. In that upper trampoline mode, the top and back plates are moving in-phase with eath other, so not much air is moved. You should be able to feel that one through the scroll, or through any other part of the mandolin, for that matter. The scroll is not moving relative to the rest of the plate, but the sides are translating alternately toward and away from your belly (out-of-phase with the plates), and the scroll is going along for the ride (hence,the vibrations you feel). You may also be able to feel motion through the scroll during the whole-instrument bending motion, and probably during the body twisting motions as well. These losses are the part which I haven't looked at, and they are why I qualify my statements about what the scroll does or doesn't do. The scroll doesn't seem to affect the plate mode shapes or the plate mode frequencies of the assembled instrument, though it might have a small effect on a free plate. It doesn't seem to have a significant effect on the air resonance frequencies either. That leaves losses. Seeing no effect on the plate mode frequencies or the air mode frequencies is kinda like partly closing a door. Because I don't know about the losses, it isn't completely closed yet. I'm not rooting for one outcome or the other. Like you, I just want to know the answer.

[Dave Cohen]

Just saw Tom M's reply. Why didn't I think to say something simple like that?!

[Paul Hostetter]

If the mandolin works right, the player and the entire room vibrate too. I think a couple of you are missing Dave Cohen's point.

As this discussion starts to fragment into split hairs and misunderstandings, I'd just like to say that while my earlier comment about the lack of difference between A's and F's still stands, I deeply respect the modern makers working in that style (Larry Smart and Hans Brentrup among them) who have developed their designs for each style so they really do behave differently. It might be a fine difference, it might be night and day to some, but I'd never dispute the people making them, who have endeavored to go beyond the Gibson template.

[Jerry Byers]

So, where do the C# models fall into this mix? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I just had to throw in some humor into this thread - the tension here is outrageous. While I agree with most of what has been said, I think there is more than just pure science involved. If science explained everything, then we would have perfect replicas of Strads and Loars.

Personally, when it comes to A's and F's, my mind tells me that all things should be equal. However, greater factors play into the mix and create a bias. When I play an A, I hold it differently because it lacks a point and because the setup of the strap, if I use a strap on an A. If I don't use a strap, whether it's an A or F, I hold the mandolin differently and play it differently.

[Tom Smart]

...the tension here is outrageous.
No tension on my end, and I hope I'm not causing any. I'm really just interested in learning more, and in squaring my personal experience with what builders and scientists think. If it feels like sparks-a-flying to some, well, that's just what I call a good discussion.

Thanks, Dave. I expected that your answer would be along those lines, and I appreciate the clarity and detail of your explanation.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the scroll "produces" more or better sound by adding something to the air chamber or vibrating plates. On the contrary, my subjective feeling when playing an F against a comparable A is that it requires more input from the player to get the F going. That would be in line with the scroll possibly causing "losses" that have some kind of significance to the overall response.

I hope you'll keep us posted as you learn more, Dave. I find this stuff fascinating. Also, when are you going to post some photos of your instruments?

Tom

[Hans]

No tension here! Dave is a friend, and we end up having good discussions at IBMA every year. I have a great respect for Paul, Tom and Lawrence, and all others here. We all have different experiences and opinions based on those experiences.
The best answer to the original question may just be "Yes and no!" Maybe some of us are as Paul says splitting hairs or picking knits, but we are all expressing our experience.
And Paul, not only does the room vibrate, but the whole known universe does! (couldn't resist...reading Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy) # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Dale Ludewig]

No tension here either. None. Hans and Dave are good friends of mine and as Hans mentioned, we see each other every year, and talk via email or phone frequently. Most of the builders are good acquaintances or friends. We disagree on some things. We still go out and have dinner together. It's very nice. And as Hans said, I shall echo: I respect every builder, regardless of whether we agree or not on some things. And there are so many things we talk about privately about the building process that it would be another good book.

[Jerry Byers]

And that is what makes this place great - great minds, great talent, great pickers, all following a great passion!

[Patrick Sylvest]

I have a couple of A's and I want an F 'cause they look cool and if I find the right one it'll sound cool too! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blues.gif Trouble is, it'll be tough to beat my little Collings MT without spending some change. Oh well, while I'm saving I'll be sampling everything I can get my hands on or ears near!:cool:

[JEStanek]

You could tell where in the scroll the vibration was happening or how fast it was vibrating but I'm uncertain you could do both at the same time. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I always enjoy the insights of the world class (and class act) builder who offer up their experiences and opinions here. I learn so much.

Jamie

[MongoMando]

I may be in the minority, but I actually prefer the way the A's look. Go figure.

[Caleb]

I may be in the minority, but I actually prefer the way the A's look. Go figure.
Same here. The A's look old-world and really classy to me. But what do I know....I'm a slacker.

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

[MNDOLNR]

I'm an A guy as well. #I was just thinking about this the other day...I may be wrong, but it seems that there are far more F models that show up in the classifieds than A models. #Does this just reflect the overall population of A vs. F models in the market or is there something else...

[allenhopkins]

Perhaps that's because the people selling A models are able to unload them through garage sales...

Jus' kiddin', guys!

[GTG]

I have done the holographic modal analysis on numerous A-models and F-models by now. #Included were nine vintage instruments (including a 1924 F5) which I did in Feb, 2005. #I can say unambiguously that the mode shapes in F-models do not extend into the scroll region (I have the holograms to back that up). #Rather, they look just like A-model mode shapes. #The modal frequencies varied considerably from mandolin to mandolin, and there were no obvious or statistical differences between A-models and F-models. #OK, next: #I have measured the first three air resonance frequencies for all of the same instruments. #The air resonance frequencies were completely unaffected by the presence or absence of scrolls and/or points. #That leaves us with the effect of mass. #Again, I didn't see any differences in modal frequencies (between As and Fs) that could be attributed to mass, let alone anything else. #Mass does have an effect on the losses (related to a property called "Q" by physicists) in modes which probably manifests itself in a variety of ways. #I haven't done that yet, except to make some crude estimates. #So it's still possible that I might find something confirming what the scroll believers seem to think, though I get more sceptical as the number and kinds of experiments mounts.
Dave, to me it sounds like the most emphatic assertion of being able to detect the A/F model difference was expressed by Tom Smart, who was referring to the mandolins built with similar woods and specs by his brother. Your quote above suggests that your analyses revealed "considerable" variations" between different mandolins, which we would expect based on different woods, tailpieces, bridges, soundhole sizes, etc. I'm not a physicist, and I'm not sure I understood the significance of whether the modal shapes extend into the scroll or not. But I do play around with statistics (just hypothesis testing, I'm afraid, nothing fancy), and it seems that the 'lack of significance' you're finding could very likely be due to high variance (type II error). There hasn't been any disagreement here over whether different mandolins, some being As and some being Fs, sound different. The issue is whether an A and an F sound detectably different all else being equal, meaning that they really have to be from the same builder, and preferably very similar chunks of wood.

I know, I know - large sample size while minimizing ALL other possible factors (same builder with chunks of wood from the same tree, randomly allocated to A or F models), same specs, strings, bridges, finish, TPs, bindings, etc. - would be very expensive and maybe even tiresome (for the builder??) to test. There would still be some variation based on the wood, but that would be a much more powerful way of detecting difference. I mean, you want your results to be publishable, don't you??

Sounds like we need more funding!

[Dave Cohen]

(I) The results have been published. I have given the references several times in various threads here. The vintage instrument data and interpretation was part of an invited paper I gave at the 75th anniversary ASA meeting in May, 2004 in NYC, and is part of a chapter on mandolin family instruments which I am writing for a book to be published by Springer-Verlag (No, not Jerry Springer), and edited by Tom Rossing.

Your assumptions about same strings, etc, are probably based on the assumption that the experiments were simply sound spectra or other transfer function experiments. In addition to sound and accelerance spectra, we have done mainly holographic modal analysis - single (scanned) frequency excitation of individual modes (actually Operating Deflection Shapes) with holographic imaging of the motions. Also air resonance shape and frequency measurements using single frequency excitations. In both of those types of experiments, the strings were damped - necessary to avoid splitting of the modes by open strings stealing energy from them. To do modal analysis on an instrument with several coupled oscillators (i.e., strings, plates, air, etc.), you have to isolate the motion of each oscillator from that of all the others. Or at least, if you look at the entire soundbox as a subsystem, you still have to isolate it from the vibrational modes of all of the other subsystems.

(II) There is indeed a great deal of variation from instrument to instrument. The instruments are made of wood, after all, and every piece of wood is different. The observed differences in modal frequencies, Q, etc., between any two f-hole mandolins is easily equal to or greater than any differences observed between a given A-model mandolin and a given F-model mandolin. That is not conjecture or hypothesis; it is a summary of experimental observations. Plus, I think that it reinforces my contention that a blindfolded listener could very easily be fooled as to which mandolins in a population are As and which are Fs.

(III) If you find any grant money for musical acoustics research, you will be among the very, very, very few, and I will welcome any contribution. I would like to get a MacArthur Foundation grant, except that I am not a genius. So much for that.

[GTG]

Since the question is still coming up, I just thought I'd bring this thread back from the dead - my favorite A vs. F thread on the cafe, with input from lots of fine builders and other knowledgeable folks. Do we even remember 2007? Oh, the memories...

As for the debate - draw your own conclusions!

:popcorn::mandosmiley: