Siminoff's de-damping service

[steelbuddha]

Has anyone used Siminoff's de-damping "break-in" service? I have a new Weber Bitterroot that I'm considering sending out there to get "opened up." It seems like they can give you equivalent of several years of optimal use and really make the instrument hum.

Experiences and general thoughts on the subject much appreciated.

[foldedpath]

This should be an interesting thread (firing up the popcorn here). http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

My $.02... I wouldn't do this myself. While mechanical vibration might be proven to show subtle changes in the wood structure, there is no double-blind test I'm aware of that proves this change results in a *musical* improvement instead of just a change of some kind. How do you know that change is better, or good for the instrument, compared to just playing the durn thing? It could be worse than the normal break-in method.

All the positive customer reviews on the Siminoff web site are from people posting anecdotal impressions. Nobody is posting results from carefully controlled recordings done with mechanical picking (to eliminate player bias) before and after, with blind ABX testing. Show me some tests like that, and let me do my own ABX comparisons, and I'll start to pay attention to this method... or any similar method like parking your instrument in front of a home stereo running full blast.

If break-in happens at all (and I'm naturally skeptical of the degree of break-in often claimed, not necessarily the fact that something does change over time), I want an instrument broken-in by my hand and by the types of music I play.

[TonyP]

The one person I know of, is a well respected member of the Cafe, Arthur Stern. He's had a string to the best mando's, is a collector, and decided one of them needed the treatment. If I remember right, he said it was night and day and recommended it highly. I believe if anybody was going to know how to do it, it would be Roger Siminoff. YMMV.

[steelbuddha]

An excellent point. Thank you.

There's the old cognitive dissonance thing coming into play, no doubt, with the satisfied customers' testimonials. That is, if you paid for it, it must be good. Zero science involved there.

One guy on here in another thread said he put his instrument in front of a large, well-amplified speaker and played bluegrass music at it for X-amount of time.

I'm probably extra susceptible to the sales pitch because I recently read Allen St. John's _Clapton's Guitar_, where he talks a bit about polymerization of wood over time and other aspects of developing resonance. Probably just playing the little bugger a lot will yield the desored effect...whatever that is.

[Paul Hostetter]

I've heard guitars that have been through the process and thought it was BS. The owners, having spent the loot however, were passionately convinced they'd witnessed a miracle. It's somewhere between the Princess and the Pea and the Emperor's New Clothes. Sorry. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Does this Weber have a Brekke bridge by any chance?

[MikeEdgerton]

The owners, having spent the loot however, were passionately convinced they'd witnessed a miracle. It's somewhere between the Princess and the Pea and the Emperor's New Clothes.
I'm with you on this one.

[John Flynn]

There was an article in Acoustic Guitar magazine a few years back. It was discussed here many times. They took some new guitars of different brands, measured frequency response on the tops and also had professional players play them and rate them. Then they sent the guitars to an acoustics lab for de-damping. They they re-measured the frequency responses and also had the players play them and rate them again. All the guitars improved significantly both in the objective frequency response test and in the subjective ratings.

[Glassweb]

Just play the sh*t out of it yourself... that'll get it broken in!

[Yonkle]

Agree glasweb! And your statement sums up the question here. If playing the "Shoot" out of them breaks them in, then Rogers Gizmo will do the same thing... (why wouldn't it?)

[fiddler59]

I get the idea of de-dampening but why waste the cash ....instead play the hound out of it.... you are out of no money
plus you get the benefit of building your chops up....no mechanical strummer can do that for you !!!!

David B

[Paul Hostetter]

This is tacit acceptance of the notion that playing (vibration, etc.) is what breaks an instrument in, or somehow that's basically all that causes it to change - for the better, I reckon - over time. Pretty shallow view in my estimation.

As far as articles in magazines, I have known and played instruments before and after that treatment. I'm operating from direct experience, not what I read in some magazine. The answer is still: Feh. (What's the question?)

http://www.roulettestudios.com/epitaph/images/Skeptic%20Tank.jpg

[Stephen Perry]

Would be interesting to see whether the effect, if substantial, persists through a subsequent period of non-use, or whether it simply warms up the instrument for a while. Presuming it warms up the instrument.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Paul,do you have some doubts about the effectiveness of the Brekke bridge fitted to some Weber Mandolins ?. I have a Brekke bridge on my Weber Beartooth & i think it sounds fine BUT - is there any evidence to show that maybe the Brekke bridges perform less well than the conventional type bridge,or is it just 'horses for courses'?.I'd be interested in your views,
Saska

[emitfo]

"Logic is a function of desire"
JG

To wit: Several posts claim they want scientific evidence and the supposed holy grail of science, the "double blind" study. Then someone posts a study--albeit w/out a link for a verification--and no one posts that they are convinced and the replies return to anecdotal "I couldn't tell a difference." Well if the people who said they thought the de-damping was great for them isn't enough evidence why would the same type of logic on the other side be any different?

With that being said, my take on the de-damping process is that it is a poor (price not-withstanding), red-headed, 3rd cousin, twice removed version of playing the instrument yourself. Why? Pretty simple really. Vibrations DO affect the wood---and though not part of the vaunted(?) "double-blind" method there IS such a large number of anecdotal stories that it lends itself AT THE VERY LEAST, a bit of credibility, i.e. the opening up process. Vibrations created by you, through time, will be more closely attuned to you and the way you play. And the sound of you playing the instrument itself is also in the correct order: You pluck the strings THEN the sound board resonates. Playing loud music--of whatever kind--is a poor second AND it's bass-ackwards: Recorded music (which to my ear, no matter how great the system is NEVER sounds as good as live...the player may be better but the sound doesn't even come close) hits the soundboard which causes a sympathetic vibration which will still have a desirable effect upon the instrument but it's still not the proper sequence.

And that's what I think about it until I think something else!

If mandolins really do get better as the result of playing, and not age alone, then it would seem that any type of playing would help to improve the mandolin. If the mandolin is mechanically played for the equivalent of one year's normal play then the mandolin would be one year better than new at the end of the process. Since I play more than 72 hours per year that part of the de-damping process would only speed the mandolin's improvement by a matter of a few months. If the mando in question was my only one it would be maybe a month's worth of improvement.

The other part of the de-damping process (essentially blasting the mando with sound) makes less sense to me. I've done that bit with setting a guitar in front of a stereo speaker but whether that helped it or not I can't say. It sure did annoy the neighbors though.

I think I'd rather spend the money on voodoo or a tone gard.

[danb]

Well they do vary considerably in responsiveness absent of string changes etc. I've always wondered. I've noticed my own instruments will vary with humidity. Old ones certainly "Wake up" after a bit of playing. I've entertained the idea that it's fine tuning to technique to get better response, but I don't believe that to be the case.

I've always been suspicious of people who say things don't open up. The measuring systems that are built-in (the ears) detect that, and absent of personal feelings of attachment. I've found it happening on borrowed instruments, things I dislike the look of etc just as much as ones I have an emotional tie to.

So I'd lean towards thinking "that should work", though the specifics and the science of why would be interesting to see.

[Big Joe]

I know Roger Siminoff well enough to know that if he claims it, I believe it. I do think it can offer some substantial help to some instruments. Still, I think a professional set up and trying a conventional Loar style bridge properly fit will make as much difference as anything you can put your money on. It is amazing what a professional set up can make to a brand new mandolin!

I would have no problem sending one to Roger because I trust him. I would want to do what I could first, and then if I felt it needed it, send it on. Just my opinions.

[Jim Hilburn]

You could just give it to one of those kids in a Dodge Neon with 10,000 watts going to an array of subwoofers that sounds like an earthquake and have him drive it around town for a while.

[MikeEdgerton]

It is amazing what a professional set up can make to a brand new mandolin!
From that statement can I assume that my brand new Gibson I bought a few years ago never had a professional setup but would have benefited from one?

[Steven Stone]

[From that statement can I assume that my brand new Gibson I bought a few years ago never had a professional setup but would have benefited from one?]

Depends on WHO you bought it from.

New Gibsons are all set up from the factory with an AVERAGE set up designed to withstand the rigors of inital break-in and adjustment wherever they end up.

The local Gibson dealer is SUPPOSED to do a second set up before sale based on the customer's needs and their local environment.

Few do.

I had my 2002 Gibson Fern set up by a local mando specialist after I got it.

He was OK. After a couple of years I sent it to Gibson Nashville where Jackie Miller did a set-up.

Night and day difference.

Jackie is a master who knows how to do a set-up properly. The other guy's setup was not even in the same league.

Long answer to a short question.

[steelbuddha]

Does this Weber have a Brekke bridge by any chance?
[QUOTE]

Yes it does. I'm happy with the instrument in every respect, just wondering if I'm missing out on something good. I'm starting to think I'm going to have to spend the $200 just to satisfy my curiosity. (And, of course, develop a completely subjective opinion as a result.)

[David Lloyd]

I played bluegrass via speakers to my mandolin and I really do believe it helped. I also played it 7 or more hours a week. The speakers were not turned up any louder than normal listening volume. My neighbors never suspected anything..lol. Worst case..there was bluegrass playing when I came home from work , and I was pretty sure that this treatment would not cause harm to the instrument?
Dave

[dirty harry]

I knew a Mandolin player that had a F-5 which was an excellent Loar fake. So much so he was forced to have "The Gibson" logo removed via the original builder. This mandolin player stored the instrument under his bed for a long period and in the coastal environment and home heater, it became wet inside and was rescued before the top warped.
He then let it air dry and stated it changed in tone dramatically and for the better. Who knows what effect this weird treatment had? I can vouch for its tone although it has been over twenty years since I heard its heavely Mission Street tone! Have not heard better since then as my memory in this regard is clear and present.
Harry:blues:

[woodwizard]

How much does it cost $$ for A Siminoff treatment? Does anyone know.

[danb]

I've been open-minded about the "Break-in" of instruments from quite a bit of personal experience of it.

It could be something else, but I am not sure what explains it better at the moment. You always talk about the bass "Developing" or "playing in". The various vintage pieces I've owned (especially ones that were played quite a bit) would have fairly dramatic wake-ups after a half hour of playing or so.

It seems to me that to get this effect, you also have to have a really good set-up as Joe says. Once everything is ticking over, there seems to be a ridge you cross when the tone really leaps up.

This was most dramatically noticable to me with the schultz Loar when I borrowed that some years back. I had to position the bridge, adjust the action etc. I found that fine-tuning the bridge position and setup was an incredible difference. And again when Jamie Wiens replaced worn out parts and did a better set-up. But there is always a little lag at least, between the set-up and the big pay-off. Certainly *something* is changing, it's quite an audible difference.

[JeffD]

Just play the sh*t out of it yourself... that'll get it broken in!
Hey, send your mandolin to me, I'll play the potatoes out of it... break it in, and send it back.

The process takes about 12 to 18 months, and will equate in effectiveness to the break-in that occurs when YOU play the potatoes out of your instrument for 12 to 18 months.

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

[Steve Ostrander]

I don't know if it works or not, but I guess it's like chicken soup: it couldn't hurt!

I'm just waiting for my wife to go visit her sister so I can crank up the speakers!

[Paul Hostetter]

Jonathan -

I asked about the Brekke bridge because they sound quite different than a conventional Gibson style bridge. I'm reluctant to say which is better, though many prefer the purer Gibson sound. It's safe to say it's just different and I understand why people prefer one or the other, once they've had a chance to try both on the same mandolin. I can say with some assurance that getting a good Cumberland bridge fitted to your mandolin's top will have a much more profound effect on the mandolin than a break-in treatment will. Neither one will hurt, except perhaps financially. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[David Newton]

I've been dying to ask this question, and I mean no disrespect, in fact, I have all the respect in the world for Rodger, I have an early first edition of his book, and he critiqued and offered encouragement on one of my first builds, at a 1978 convention, but...
Where are the Siminoff mandolins?
I know, I know, I say that I build mandolins, but none of you have ever seen one, but Rodger is famous.

[testore]

GREAT question. I'd love to see his mandos too.

[mandopete]

If mandolins really do get better as the result of playing
I think it's the mandolin player that gets better as the result of playing.

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

[stevem]

I've had pretty good results with this fella. Tough to track down though...

[John Flynn]

Where are the Siminoff mandolins?
I asked that question a long time ago and didn't get a clear answer. He could be like the proverbial Professor of Sex Education who has never had a date!

He does make parts and kits. I gotta believe has assembled his own kits, just to see if they work! He also says in his bio that he was a consultant to Gibson for 16 years, so I guess you could say the Gibbies made during that period were partially his. To put it in perspective, I'm not sure Lloyd Loar ever actually made a mandolin himself either. He just contributed to the designs and then signed them.

[Paul Hostetter]

Ah, Pete, I'm so glad you said that.

The secret sonic treatment is many orders of magnitude beyond the apocryphal "strap it to the speakers" thing people like to tout. Rick Turner's currently at large in the Southern Hemisphere, and maybe this thread will still be plodding along when he gets back, but he has the scoop on what SWR did (they originated this technique) and why they had to stop. I remember him telling me and I remember it being amusing and somewhat scary, but I just don't remember the details.

[Joel Spaulding]

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Although, the subject's fingers might be more suited to mandobass?

[steelbuddha]

Paul -

Thanks for your comments re: the bridge. Right now, today, as it stands, my Weber is an infinitely better instrument than I am a musician. Maybe one day I'll try different bridges. But think for now I'll save my money, play the mando until my fingers bleed, and see if it doesn't start to "sound better" as time passes. I'll bet it does, probably exactly in proportion to time spent practicing. Funny how that stuff works. Kind of like the more time I spend building stuff, the better a carpenter I become.

Thanks to all you guys for your well-considered and/or humorous contributions.

[good_ol_al_61]

No disrespect to anyone here, but this seems to be like golf clubs. People (including me) try to buy a better game. However, the mandovoodoo ® process did make my Eastman mandolin louder, significantly.

[Chip Booth]

Al, you just bought some serious game with that new Arches of yours! I still think about how that thing sounds daily.

Here's some vaguely related, non-scientific anecdotal evidence... the music shop where I teach sells Breelove guitars in all shapes, sizes, and varieties of wood. Every Breedlove that has come in the shop has been an ok guitar, but rarely are they outstanding. Some VERY expensives ones have been real duds. Since they are unusual designs they don't get near as much attention as other brands. It's safe to say we've had some that don't get played more than once a month. But usually in a about a year, even with very minimal playing time, every single one of them has turned into a fine sounding guitar. Some have gone through changes so drastic they hardly even resemble the sound they had when new. I point this out only to suggest that at least in this case there is some breaking in going on that has very little to do with vibration but more with age, or who knows what?

Chip

[Bernie Daniel]

MandoJohnny: There was an article in Acoustic Guitar magazine a few years back. It was discussed here many times. They took some new guitars of different brands, measured frequency response on the tops and also had professional players play them and rate them. Then they sent the guitars to an acoustics lab for de-damping. They they re-measured the frequency responses and also had the players play them and rate them again. All the guitars improved significantly both in the objective frequency response test and in the subjective ratings.


There seem to be lot of skeptics of de-damping on this string. #

However, given the quote above it would appear that there IS some OBJECTIVE as well as subjective evidence that there might be something to the process. #

I do not claim to know anything about the process but find Mr. Siminoff to be both knowledgeable and logical -- thus I think he is also credible (my opinion).

What objective evidence do all you skeptics have that shows that the proceedure has failed to improve an instrument that has been treated? #

Are there a string of unhappy customers out there?

If not why not?


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

[MikeEdgerton]

Bernie, I trust your judgment. Send a mandolin off to Roger and let me know what you find.

[foldedpath]

MandoJohnny: There was an article in Acoustic Guitar magazine a few years back. It was discussed here many times. They took some new guitars of different brands, measured frequency response on the tops and also had professional players play them and rate them. Then they sent the guitars to an acoustics lab for de-damping. They they re-measured the frequency responses and also had the players play them and rate them again. All the guitars improved significantly both in the objective frequency response test and in the subjective ratings.


There seem to be lot of skeptics of de-damping on this string.

However, given the quote above it would appear that there IS some OBJECTIVE as well as subjective evidence that there might be something to the process.

I do not claim to know anything about the process but find Mr. Siminoff to be both knowledgeable and logical -- thus I think he is also credible (my opinion).

What objective evidence do all you skeptics have that shows that the proceedure has failed to improve an instrument that has been treated?

That's not how science (and skepticism) works. It's not up to us skeptics to disprove anything. When someone makes an extraordinary claim, like the idea that an artificial vibration process somehow improves tone... or that you have a pink unicorn living in your garage, or any other extraordinary claim... it's up to the person making the claim to provide the proof. Then that data can be peer-reviewed and tested by others to see if it's repeatable. Otherwise we're all just flapping our gums on anecdotal evidence.


Are there a string of unhappy customers out there?

If not why not?

Maybe because nobody bothers to make critical, repeatable recordings of their instruments when they first get them, and then a few years later (or after mechanical vibration). We all want to believe that our instruments will somehow improve over time. That's a natural human bias, but it's dangerous. It can encourage people to buy instruments on the assumption that they will ALWAYS open up and sound better, if they don't sound that great in the store.

Anyone who posts anecdotal evidence for this is relying on fallible human memory for tone. Do you actually remember what the instrument sounds like when you first pulled it out of the case, a year or two ago? Is your tone memory that good? Are you using the same strings, the same pick? Have you "grown into" the instrument, and learned how it wants to be played? Are you a better player now than you were when you first bought the instrument? How do you eliminate those factors?

The way to find out if this is actually happening is to make careful, repeatable, tests. Make recordings, and use a mechanical pick device so there is no player bias. Have a neutral judge handling the files and labeling them so nobody knows what they are, and distribute the files online so we have a wide statistical base. Use an ABX comarison program so listeners don't know what they're hearing when they pick the "best" sound. Then we can start talking about this stuff. I haven't read that Acoustic Guitar article... did they actually do blind testing, or was it anecdotal?

I have a Santa Cruz guitar that I think sounds better than when I first bought it as a new instrument eight years ago. Is it the guitar, or is it me? Has the instrument opened up, or have I opened up as a player? Who the heck knows, without hard data?

[Stephen Perry]

I notice that instruments hanging around get better. Especially if not in a case. Have to be kept adjusted. I suspect, based on a violin-oriented article I have somewhere, that at least part of that effect is from humidity cycling. The wood shrinks a little, too, with the top showing reeds and the surface of the backs reflecting figure in the wood. Guitars, violins, and mandolins all show this effect.

Hard data would be nice. I don't expect to see it. Most places dealing in instruments don't have the time, interest, and equipment to treat and measure. Were I promoting or selling the service as consistently making the instrument better then I'd be getting spectra and recordings of every job. It isn't that difficult! I used to have a great spectrum program. I didn't have a repeatable picker machine, but the changes in violins from a few simple tweeks were consistent and quite visible in spectra. All that stuff went away with my last laptop.

A non-science approach isn't necessarily bad. But may be psycho-acoustic adjustment - the player wants to hear something different! This is pretty common with violins, which have lots of adjustments. After a while, all one can do is take the fiddle to the back, bring it out again, and tell the customer "It should be fine now." Usually the machine is now acceptable. So some people just want a certain amount of hands on work done, whether or not it does anything!

Could vibration do something permanent? I suppose so. Fatique. Move water molecules around. Break tight bonds between and within pieces of the instrument. Seat bridge. Settle truss rod. All kinds of things.

Does vibration do something permanent? Temporary effects are pretty easy to get. Even the faint vibrations of speaker pounding. Not difficult to hear in guitars. Have to vibrate a mandolin pretty hard. They're stiff. Adjustment really goes better on a warmed up instrument, so I vibrate instruments prior to final adjustment. I use a WalMart biggie vibrator working through a mouse pad. Pretty clear effect! Takes the harsh edge off a new mandolin. Whether a short warmup would create noticeable changes for a long time, I don't know. Stiff mandolins seem to like longer term vibration. I built a torture box using a suspension case and my vibrator. About 4 hours would really wake up mandolins. Webers especially love the box. They're pretty stiff at first, and the change proved extremely obvious. Whether that would hold or not, I don't know. I'd keep working on them afterwards. I couldn't stand having the box going, so I broke it down. Noise.

I've considered building a combo box for instruments with vibration and humidity cycling combined. Sealed system. Problem is how to vibrate. The old robotone just vibrated the bridge, but substantial changes come from vibrating the back hard, too. Nevertheless, I suspect that a month of humidity cycling and vibration would do a great deal towards stabilizing and opening up instruments. Would be fun, but who has a month??

I'm not sure we really need "hard data." Really good players can tell what's what very consistently. When skeptics consistently change to supporters after any treatment I hold that something positive is going on. On the other hand, hard data are nice to have! I'd run the study, but I'm pretty busy!

Anyone interested in duplicating my box, drop me a line and I'll give instructions. It's easy and seemed to stabilize the instruments for the time they were in the shop. I'd like to hear other's reports.

[Bernie Daniel]

foldedpath: I haven't read that Acoustic Guitar article... did they actually do blind testing, or was it anecdotal?

I did not read it either. But I intend to.

But according to the description of the Acoustic Guitsar account given above, OBJECTIVE evidence WAS obtained -- that is physical measurements on some kind of sound analysing equipment were taken. That is not anecdotal.

Therefore, it seems that before one debunks the process you first have to find fault in the physical evidence that had been gathered to support the idea. Scientific method?

Mike Edgerton, same answer to you.

I am not defending the process at this point. #However, if you think the evidence gathered by the Acoustic Guitar study is faulty, or flawed in some manner, then I accept the skeptism about the approach.

But if the AG study is not flawed and the physical evidence collected is a valid scientific analysis of the sound emitted (before and after treatment) -- then your objections (and other's objections) become the anecdotal (or opinion) part of the discussion.

Hey, I do not have a mandolin that needs help right now -- if I did I might give it a fling. #I already had one re-graduated with great success! #

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

[MikeEdgerton]

Bernie, I don't have any problems with any of mine so I can't help out. I play the cr@p out of them. I'll be honest, if I wasn't happy with a mandolin I'd probably buy one that I was happy with. I'm all for getting the setup right. Beyond that, being dumber than dirt as I am, I don't feel the need to spend the money on something like this. I would however have a 40-50's whatever Gibson regraduated if need be. That I understand.

[steelbuddha]

Chip - Re: the Breedlove guitar "awakening" process, they use a bridge truss system developed by a couple of guys from, of all places, Roswell, NM. It's my understanding that they install these gizmos in all of their guitars. I retrofitted one on a good, older Washburn a few years ago, and you have the play the instrument for awhile until a critical dowel is properly seated and begins to "sing" with the rest of the guitar. Then the instrument roars -- it's amazing.

The device was originally designed to compensate for bridge collapse due to top bracing failure in flattop guitars, but according to the developer (with whom I once talked at length), once the Breedlove guys heard the acoustic enhancement it generated, they made it part of their design spec.

If you ever want a bridge truss, Stew-Mac sells them now. Takes about a half-hour to install.

[Hallmark498]

You could just give it to one of those kids in a Dodge Neon with 10,000 watts going to an array of subwoofers that sounds like an earthquake and have him drive it around town for a while.

A good friend of mine had a killer system in his van. #While traveling across the country racing motocross, my 03 fern (In the case)fit perfectly on top of the speaker box.
If the mando wasnt being played, it was getting Boooom boooom booooom vibrations for hours a week. (everything from rap, rock, punk, country, classic, and bluegrass)

Not sure what effects this "really" had, but myself and many others believe I have one of the best sounding gibsons around. #I must say that the mando was a pretty good one from the word go. #
.

[sunburst]

The device was originally designed to compensate for bridge collapse due to top bracing failure in flattop guitars, but according to the developer (with whom I once talked at length), once the Breedlove guys heard the acoustic enhancement it generated, they made it part of their design spec.
I talked to Larry Breedlove, quite a few years ago when he was still with Breedlove guitars, about the "bridge doctors" that they put in their guitars.
First of all, they did not, and I assume still do not put them in all their guitars. The "doctored" guitars sound quite a bit different from the "un-doctored" guitars and there is a market for both, so they build both.

The decision was not made because of "acoustic enhancement" of retrofitted guitars, but instead the Breedlove guys looked upon it as a way to transfer the duty of controlling bridge torque away from the top and it's bracing and to the "bridge doctor", thereby being able to build the top and it's bracing much lighter than otherwise would be needed.

I've talked to many very experienced repairmen about using the "bridge doctor" to correct bellied tops in "vintage" guitars, and all have said they absolutely don't like them because they change the sound so much (in a direction that they don't like, obviously).

[steelbuddha]

I stand corrected.

[SternART]

All RIGHT......I'M HERE TO TESTIFY!!!
I'm a believer.....I have a fine Gilchrist Model 3Artist......and Glassweb I played the sh*t out of it.....for a coupla years.
It is #509 from 2001, so I had it over 5 years before sending it to Roger.
I just knew it had more.....bass was fabulous, but the top end was sweet, but out of balance in comparison. Other Gil fanatics would
play it and say it had more in there....keep whuppin' on it. I sent it to Roger, it came back much improved, so much in fact
I decided to send it back for more AND I'm glad I did. The top end finally came in balance, it screams if you step on it now,
the entire instrument seems more in balance up & down the neck & plays with more power without digging in, a light touch is just more
responsive than it used to be. I'm into audio, in a big way.....my ears are tuned.....I have a lot of good mandolins & I'm here to tell you
that I'm not hallucinating...and to think I considered selling this instrument!!! Now.....it is one of my favorites. And BTW
Roger does do scientific measurements, and the service includes not just vibrating by a plectrum running thru the strings for
a coupla days.....but measurements of resonant frequencies of the cavity, top, back, each tone bar....and it gets concentrated blasts
of just those frequencies for several hours..... I think it all just loosened up the parts and they just start acting more like a team,
in concert with each other.

That said, I'm a believer in dedamping. I experimented with 3 other instruments an F5, an oval hole, and a 2 point. Two of the
instruments I could only say were slightly improved....another, my Heiden Heritage was significantly improved, but the Gil, geeze Louise, I was intimate
with what this instrument had to offer.....and it was transformed......think what you want..... I'M A BELIEVER!!!
But YMMV.....

Hey I just visited Roger's web site & see that my Gil 3A and Heiden Heritage are pictured during dedamping. All the info on pricing is there too:
http://www.siminoff.net/pages/siminoff_parts13-dedamping.html

[jim simpson]

"Chip - Re: the Breedlove guitar "awakening" process, they use a bridge truss system developed by a couple of guys from, of all places, Roswell, NM. It's my understanding that they install these gizmos in all of their guitars". - Jonathan

I get it, they were reverse engineered from the discovery on that fateful day.

[foldedpath]

But according to the description of the Acoustic Guitsar account given above, OBJECTIVE evidence WAS obtained -- that is physical measurements on some kind of sound analysing equipment were taken. That is not anecdotal.

Therefore, it seems that before one debunks the process you first have to find fault in the physical evidence that had been gathered to support the idea. Scientific method?

Okay, it's easy enough to demonstrate that wood undergoes some kind of structural change when it's vibrated fiercely. I have no problem with that, or with the studies that have been done so far to demonstrate it.

It's the idea of extrapolating this to a "better" sound that I have a problem with. Someone needs to demonstrate, in a way that can be repeated and verified, that this is a *musical* change... something that actually improves the sound and doesn't make it worse, or just the same thing as playing the durn thing for a few weeks. For that, you need blind-tested human listeners, with real instruments and not planks of wood, in statistically significant numbers. Otherwise, again, we're back to flappin' our gums about this.

[Paul Hostetter]

OK, based on Art's testimony, I am reconsidering. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Bernie Daniel]

foldedpath: Okay, it's easy enough to demonstrate that wood undergoes some kind of structural change when it's vibrated fiercely. I have no problem with that, or with the studies that have been done so far to demonstrate it.

OK so there is a possible physical basis for the improvement then. You agree with that I guess?


foldedpath: It's the idea of extrapolating this to a "better" sound that I have a problem with. Someone needs to demonstrate, in a way that can be repeated and verified, that this is a *musical* change... something that actually improves the sound and doesn't make it

Now you are not making any sense in my opinion.

Exactly what kind of proof DO you want? #

Both objective (physical) and subjective evidence WAS OBTAINED according to the report. #

If is sounds better to someone than either is really better or the person(s) is (are) wrong. #

Of course there is no machine to evaluate the "sound" quality because that is a subjective matter the domain of the the human mind. #

However, apparently those that listened to the treated guitars apparently thought they were improved in sound quality. #

You did not hear those guitars either before or after the treatment but yet you know the idea is bunk? #

What is the basis for your objection and -- yes you DO need to provide a basis for your objection just a you have to provide a basis for support. #If you have no basis for the objection then you are just giving an opinion. #If you think the folks that did the test did not know what they were doing what is the your evidence that leads you to that conclusion?

I could say that Vince Gill is tone deaf too but I think some might ask me for a reason for that view.

So again exactly what kind of proof do you want? #Spell it out because so far all of your "objections" have been met-- apparently by the Acoustic Guitar study.

Sounds like you don't have a basis - rather you just don't accept the concept -- OK fine that's your choice -- but why do you have to hide your objection behind some psueduo-criteia that you cannot seem to articulate or define?

[foldedpath]

You know, I'm having a problem transitioning from guitar to mandolin and it's not the main problem I thought I'd have (the fourths to fifths thing). Its tremelo. I can do it on one string just fine, but it falls apart when it goes wider to cover two or three strings.

So I'm going to invent a mechanical gizmo that attaches to my wrist, and vibrates my hand in just the right way so my wrist "opens up" and improves my tremelo.

There is a ton of scientific evidence behind the idea that just using a muscle changes it... makes it stronger, more muscle mass. So I'm sure that will translate to a musically appropriate result. I'm going to mass-produce these things and make a fortune.

[Bernie Daniel]

foldedpath:There is a ton of scientific evidence behind the idea that just using a muscle changes it... makes it stronger, more muscle mass. So I'm sure that will translate to a musically appropriate result. I'm going to mass-produce these things and make a fortune.


Sure thing. Great idea.

Now if you can get Acoustic Guitar to do a study you will be on your way. #The difference between your tremelo enhancement idea and the de-damping idea being discussed is that for the latter they have some level of published proof of the concept and you don't? Right?

[TonyP]

Thanks Arthur for finally joining this, and dispelling some of the natural skepticism. I hated to name drop. But I do believe knowing of a person that is well known to the community, that has gone through the process with a well known make of mandolin means something. And to help those who know you, and know you know your way around a mandolin and are articulate about it.

Years ago I had the pleasure of taking a lesson with John Reishman and we ended up talking about mando's "waking up". This was in the early 90's, pre Cafe. He told me he always noticed when he would store his Loar in the spare tire space of his Volvo, it would be ready to "go" when he got to the gig. And not until we got talking about it, did he seem to put 2 and 2 together.

My Newson F5 is much more sensitive to being warmed up. It's also sensitive to humidity. My Furch, with it cedar top isn't so sensitive to either. But I know on the first chord whether the Newson is a sleep. After 20yrs with the same mando, of course I know what it sounds like when it's warmed up. I cam practice all I want and it never gets to the volume and warmth it does after a good jam. I don't think it's just playing it loud. I hear the bass reacting with it, and when we sing. My personal experience is if I'd just practiced by myself it would have never gotten to the place it is. Add to that all you lucky folks who have several mando's. How DO you keep them all awake and sufficiently played in? If I didn't have bands to play with, and multiple mando's, on the testimony of Arthur, and the reputation of Roger, I'd do it. Just to move things along, if I KNEW the mando had more in there. YMMV.

[John Flynn]

foldedpath:There is a ton of scientific evidence behind the idea that just using a muscle changes it... makes it stronger, more muscle mass. So I'm sure that will translate to a musically appropriate result. I'm going to mass-produce these things and make a fortune.

There's a corallary to Murphy's Law that says,

"Every man has one truly great idea...that will NOT work." http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Bernie Daniel]

Well this has been an interesting discussion to me.

I first got interested in this "concept" back in 1974 when a an individual(who was an incredible picker) told some guys at a jam that he broke his brand new Martin D-41 in by putting a transistor radio in the box every night and playing it on full volume until the batts ran down.

Now maybe that guitar sounded good because of the player --I can't be sure but the idea stuck. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

It seems the empirical evidence would suggest you can expect anything from a mild change to a very significant change as the result of the de-damping process.

If the results of the treatment are not consistent from one mandolin to another there is no way to undertake a scientific study that would produce statistically significant results. Even if you could produce statistically significant results you would still run into the brick wall of attempting to define "better."

There are always skeptics demanding scientific proof but even if you provide that proof they will find something amiss with the test methodology. Better to rely on your ears and your own preferences.

[John Flynn]

There are always skeptics demanding scientific proof but even if you provide that proof they will find something amiss with the test methodology. Better to rely on your ears and your own preferences.
I concur. I think it is interesting that there are people on this thread that support the idea that a mandolin can "open up," but don't believe in de-damping, even though de-damping actually has a couple of studies to support it, whereas "opening up" does not. The studies may not have been perfect, but they were good enough that you have to at least consider the possibility.

Also, I wonder what we are trying to accomplish here. It seems to me that some people are demanding scientific proof of something that that is pretty subjective. We want our mandolins to sound better, to our own ears, not to pass scientific tests. So if I were to send my instrument in for de-damping and I like the results, what difference does it make if you can't hear it or measure it? I'm happy.

Some related examples: People think Gilchrists are great. I have met Mr. G, he is a great guy, his stuff is beautiful, etc. But I played one of his instruments and found it just OK. But either way, there is no science that says any brand is better than any other. I can't prove that instrument was just OK and you can't prove it's great. People swear by Tone Gards (I am no longer a Tone Gard basher, BTW. I may even buy one at some point!) and they swear by them based on subjective observation, not some scientific study. That's fine. So the same standard should apply to de-damping.

While there may be, theoretically, ways to gather hard data on changes in mandolin sound, I think, 1) It is practically very improbable that it could, or will, ever be done across a large enough sample in a standardized way to have any validity. And 2) I'm not sure it would really solve any real-world problem. It may settle some theoretcial arguments and give some people bragging rights, but I doubt it could lead to any holy grail for mandolins. I would still like what I like and you would still like what you like.

[SternART]

With the results I had on my Gil...... wish I had known about this service Roger has available, for a few of the instruments I've sold
over the years.....I was thinking they were too tight & might not break in for a "long" time......or ever. While it might not produce a
holy grail mando every time.....I found it well worth the experiment.

If the de-damping puts the equivalent of six month's playing on your mandolin you will probably notice the difference more than if you played that mandolin every day for six months. Rather than experiencing the gradual change over time you are shocked with a sudden change. Sudden changes are always easier to perceive.

The effect that something like a tone gard might have on your mandolin can at least be simulated before you decide to buy one. Whether de-damping or voodoo or a different bridge or tailpiece or different strings will have an effect that you like is hard to simulate. To make things worse, the change that you really liked on one mandolin might not be to your liking on another mando.

If you aren't happy with your mandolin's tone de-damping might help, or maybe not. Maybe you really need a new bridge or tailpiece or different strings. Or maybe you need to have the top and/or back regraduated. Or maybe that's just what that mandolin sounds like and you need a different mandolin.

[foldedpath]

Also, I wonder what we are trying to accomplish here. It seems to me that some people are demanding scientific proof of something that that is pretty subjective. We want our mandolins to sound better, to our own ears, not to pass scientific tests.

Aside from a lack of anything I've seen so far that would constitute objective, repeatable proof... this is what I really get hung up on with this subject (and I've been there with guitar, before getting interested in mandolin):

Why do you want your mandolin to sound better? I mean really... why? If you don't like your current mandolin (which is one way think about "it could sound better"), then why aren't you looking for another mandolin, instead of some artificial process like this?

In order to do a scientifically valid evaluation one would need a fairly large number of identical mandolins as test subjects. One must have multiple control subjects and multiple test subjects for each variable being evaluated. It is not possible to build even two identical mandolins so no scientifically valid test can ever be done.

Experienced mandolin players and builders know that new mandolins do get better with time. Why wouldn't someone be willing to spend $125 to accelerate that improvement on a mandolin that cost a few or many thousands of dollars?

[John Flynn]

Why do you want your mandolin to sound better? I mean really... why? If you don't like your current mandolin (which is one way think about "it could sound better"), then why aren't you looking for another mandolin, instead of some artificial process like this?
The main reason I would think is someone might not be able to afford a better mandolin and the de-damping process could easily be cheaper than a big step up. We just read that a guy had de-damping successfully done on his Gil. I mean, where is he going to go from there? Would you suggest he find a Loar for $150K instead of paying for this process? And if it worked, shouldn't we just be happy for him?

Also, someone might like some things about things about thier mandolin, say the playabilty and the looks, or even the bass and the midrange tone, but they would just like to enhance it in some area. I have read that some of these de-dmaping processes can just target specific ranges of frequency response.

If you take your argument to the extreme, you could say the same thing about setups and string changes. Your setup is off? Get a new instrument! Strings are bad? Trade it in! Also, I don't see this process as "artificial." It's just another luthiery technique. It seems like it's one that some people see as a threatening change, however.

[MikeEdgerton]

It seems like it's one that some people see as a threatening change, however.

I seriously doubt that anyone feels threatened by this "change", they just don't believe there is any real value in it. Why that could be construed as being threatened I don't know. I also don't believe in acupuncture but I don't feel threatened by it. Others swear by it and I'm happy to let them stick needles in their bodies. Blindly accepting something just isn't my way of doing things. Call me cautious. YMMV.

[John Flynn]

Why that could be construed as being threatened I don't know.

Well, I work for a "household name" consulting firm, making a very good living specializing in helping people go through major changes in thier work life, especially change brought on by new technologies. I have been doing that kind of work for over 25 years. I see this as classic behavior of people threatened by change.

Here is what I see:
> People saying "I don't believe there is any value in it" when they have absolutely no data and scant experience to support that, in the face of scientific studies and multiple respected personal accounts that say it does work.
> People rejecting an idea without even being curious as to whether it might work, without even giving the idea a chance. #

Here is what I would expect to hear if people were merely skeptical, as opposed to being threatened:
> "I'm for any technique that could improve the sound of my instrument. But I would need to see more of X kind of evidence to be convinced about this process."
> "The scientific studies of von Reumont, and Lehmann, seem to have some specific weaknesses and although Roger Simonoff is a recognized expert, I am not convinced by his experience and the endorsements of his customers. I would like to see these studies and that experience validated in the following way..."

People who are merely skeptical are still curious and looking for ways things can be improved, they just need to be convinced. People who are threatened pre-judge without evidence and reject new ways out of hand. Also, people who are threatened will always deny the possibility that thier actions are due to fear of change. A skeptic will at least be open to that possibility.

[Bernie Daniel]

Mike Edgeton: I also don't believe in acupuncture but I don't feel threatened by it. Others swear by it and I'm happy to let them stick needles in their bodies. Blindly accepting something just isn't my way of doing things.

Interesting thought. I am a professional career life sciences person -- and I was pretty narrow minded for years if something did not fit into my world of biochem/biophyics than it was voodoo medicine. #

But after 30 years in the trenches of research I came to realize there were a lot of things that I do not understand in biology and a lot that happened for which I had no logical explaination -- or even a clue. #

There are many things outside of biology like infinity, eternal life, no end to the universe, the relationship between matter and energy, the Trinity and on and on.

That goes for the physical world too like #actupuncture, magnetic bracelets, and de-damping. #At least de-damping has a possible phyiscal explaination. #

We have accept many things blindly whether we acknowledge it or not because we have no choice - faith is blind acceptance.

So why not de-damping? #Heck what have you got to lose?

Turn on the juice Roger -- "...turn it on, turn it on, turn it on!" #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[mythicfish]

"faith is blind acceptance."

I thought that "faith is the evidence of things unseen"
I could be wrong ... or maybe mistaken.

Curt

[MikeEdgerton]

Curt, you're right. That is the definition.

jflynnstl, I'm an old guy with too many years of experience in the trenches and honestly to classify skepticism as threatened behavior seems a bit over the top. I honestly don't feel too threatened by anything in this stage of my life. I think that your line of reasoning (with respect to the "threat factor") here is basically hogwash, but hey, I'm open to change. I honestly can accept the fact that mandolins open up, I just don't (yet) accept the fact that Roger can do it magically. I could be wrong on that.

[John Flynn]

Mike:

Thanks. That's exactly the answer I expected.

"Yer honner, Ah rest mah case!" http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Stephen Perry]

Why do you want your mandolin to sound better? I mean really... why? If you don't like your current mandolin (which is one way think about "it could sound better"), then why aren't you looking for another mandolin, instead of some artificial process like this?
Why not? I don't see a clear line. Why bother setting up the one you've got - just get another. Why bother getting a better case, just get a new mandolin that comes in a better case.

I like my car. It feels good, handles the way I like. Maybe I should figure out what tires it likes best the way I drive it, and at what pressure. Same sort of thing - get the most out of what you already like.

The violin world seems to have a certan group of people even more obsessed with keeping performance up and improving it.

But an interesting question. As a dealer, I kind of like the idea of casting out the instrument as soon as it displeases in the least! But I'd rather see people really really happy with what they have.

[SternART]

Boy am I glad I didn't cast away my Gil! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[TonyP]

Exactly Arthur.

A band mate has a KM1500 I always thought was a nicely made mando, but just didn't seem to have "it". Then one nite I forgot my mando, DOH! and he graciously let me use his. By the end of the first set, I had to keep turning down as it was overdriving the mic pre! There was a couple of factors, it doesn't get played as much as it used to, and it was HOT that nite and they had fans going with water mister's going. What started out sounding kinda quiet and thin, ended up being a cannon and would put my main ax to shame! Point being, there are different things that make a mando come to life. If the de damper is what it takes, bring it on. Not every mando is going to have that, and those are the ones I would turn(if I was into that, as I've never sold one http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ). But once you experience that peak, it sux to go back. Arthur is just one of those rare people who knew there was more in there. Or lucky http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[MikeEdgerton]

I concur.
I knew you were going to say that.