PDA

View Full Version : Resonator Mandolins



Garyinboston
Nov-21-2010, 10:34pm
Hey There has anybody her used one of those metal body resonator mandolins like the Johnson or Recording King?

Are there any sound clips etc.

Thanks!

Gary

raulb
Nov-22-2010, 2:05am
I played a National at last winter's NAMM and liked it very much. It is a different sound, just as a resonator guitar is a different sound. Something that would take some getting used to.

warh0rn
Nov-22-2010, 7:42am
there is a guy in the Social group: song a week... that uses one... sounds pretty darn good... could just be him though. you should check out some of his videos or ask him. I think they call him the mandonater... or something like that.

Douglas McMullin
Nov-22-2010, 8:34am
I have played a National RM-1 and it impressed the hec out of me. It is a very different sound though, and while I would love to have one, it would probably be a bit of a novelty for my current playing interest. I could definitely see getting on in the future if I start delving into more bluesy material.

allenhopkins
Nov-22-2010, 11:19am
Two different "animals" being discussed here. The Johnson and Recording King (and Republic) instruments are Chinese-made, copying the older metal-bodied, nickel-plated National mandolins that were made pre-WWII. They have received very mixed reviews here on the Cafe, with the general consensus being that they're very loud, somewhat harsh-sounding, perhaps suitable as introductory instruments for the resonator-curious, but not "pro-grade" mandolins.

The National mandolins are US-made, and get uniform positive evaluations. They are also very loud, but have better tone quality and construction. They're also six times the price of the Asian imports. The Nationals, while definitely "channeling" the earlier National instruments, are wood-bodied with resonators, not plated brass like the Johnsons et. al.

You can buy one of the Asian imports on Amazon currently for $300. The Mandolin Store lists the National for $1900. While comparative price is not the only indicator of relative quality, the number of orders of magnitude tells you something.

I have a Johnson resonator ukulele, and owned a Johnson tri-cone resonator guitar for about a year before trading it. There are many many inexpensive Chinese-made resonator instruments currently on the market. They are what they are, serviceable and affordable, but not up to the level of either the US-made resonators, or the US-licensed (Beard, Wechter/Scheerhorn) instruments made in Asia.

If you want to try out a resonator mandolin, one of the Asian instruments won't cost too much, and will give you some idea of the sound. Don't, however, expect what you'd get from a National.

JeffD
Nov-22-2010, 11:24am
Allen I have been waiting to have that difference discussed. I have been interested in an RM-1 for a while now, but have not had opportunity to try one. My experience with a Recording King resonator mandolin kind of turned me off to the whole resonator thing, while at the same time all the rave reviews and the youtube clips of the RM-1 keep me interested.

allenhopkins
Nov-22-2010, 11:37am
Jeff, I have two "vintage" resonator mandolins myself, both from the 1930's, a National Triolian and a Dobro. The National has the "biscuit" bridge and convex cone construction, which is what all the new resonator mandolins seem to have -- as opposed to the "spider" bridge and concave cone of the Dobro. The National also is "loud, somewhat harsh-sounding," as I described above. It has a painted steel body, not even the plated brass of the new Asian instruments.

I think that the new RM-1 wooden body has a lot to do with its more pleasing tone, as compared with the brass-bodied Johnsons, Recording Kings, etc. The main vibrating element in any resonator instrument is the aluminum cone, and doubtless the Nationals have better quality cones than the inexpensive Asian instruments. I have read postings from resonator ukulele players who have replaced the cones in their Asian instruments, with cones purchased from National, and have reported improvement in the sound. Don't think I've read anything similar from mandolinists.

Must confess I've never played one of the new RM-1's, and I'm working from listening to sound clips and reading Cafe reviews, same as you. Spending nearly $2K on a mandolin is a pretty major commitment, so I'd say you need to be sure that you want to go that route. However, if disappointed you could probably re-sell an RM-1 without much trouble.

Seems to me that we're talking about two very disparate types of mandolin, National RM-1 vs. the Asian "Triolian" clones, and I'd anticipate you'd get much more satisfaction from the National. Six times as much? That's up to you...

Tim2723
Nov-22-2010, 11:51am
Allen, you mention that Nationals have better quality cones than the Asian imports. For our edification, what makes up a high quality cone, what should we look for?

Shelagh Moore
Nov-22-2010, 12:10pm
I've been playing mandolin for around 45 years and the National RM-1 is one of the two most pleasing buys I've made. It's now my main session and gigging mandolin. The RM-1 is indeed a very different beast from the cheaper metal-bodied resonator mandolins as noted above by Allen... loud but much mellower. The RM-1 certainly won't be for everybody but for those like me who play mainly old-time, Irish/Scottish and blues it's a very versatile performing instrument.

Ray(T)
Nov-22-2010, 12:15pm
I've owned an RM-1 for a year or so. Don't be fooled into thinking that the sound only suits a "blues" or similar style. I find that the sound will fit into a wide variety of musical situations and, with a set of JazzMando strings, you can almost get away with a bluegrass chop. The only thing I would say is that the RM-1 does sound better when played alongside other instruments than on its own.
Ray

allenhopkins
Nov-22-2010, 12:23pm
Tim, I'm pretty amateur on this. There are specialty cone manufacturers -- Quarterman comes to mind -- who "hand-spin" aluminum cones. The big difference in the pre-WWII days was "spun" vs. "pressed" cones; the spun cones were made when an aluminum blank was rotated at high speed until it formed a uniform thin disk, while the pressed cones were just pressed out of sheet aluminum. I had a pre-war Chicago Regal "Dobro" (spider bridge, concave resonator) with a pressed cone; my current "Dobro" is a Dick DeNeve, with a spun Quarterman cone, and I can attest that the spun cone is louder and sweeter-sounding (although the DeNeve's rosewood body and slightly different soundwell also contribute).

The two variables, obviously, are materials and manufacturing methods. National has its cones made in the US, I don't know by whom, and seems to have uniform high quality. The Asian instruments are advertised with "spun aluminum cones," so it's apparently not a question of spun vs. pressed. Elderly sells the six-inch National resonator cones for ukulele for $60, and some of the Johnson/Republic/Recording King uke players have retrofitted their instruments with National cones, and report an improvement in sound. Elderly also sells National 9.5-inch cones for National mandolins ($80), but the Asian instruments apparently have ten-inch cones, so no retrofitting. Some of the Asian mandolins advertise "Continental resonator cones," and you can buy resonator cones by Continental in various sizes for less than $30; they're European made, and should fit the Asian mandolins.

Continental advertises a "special aluminum alloy" that allows the cones to be spun thinner, presumably producing more sound. With my limited expertise, I sorta assume that if a particular cone maker develops enough of a "rep" so that the brand of cone becomes a selling point for the instrument, as Quarterman and Continental have, there's probably some advantage to changing out the "factory" cone for an upgrade. The questions of properly seating the cone in the resonator (rattles are often the curse of resonator instruments), finding a cone that has the right height so that the biscuit bridge sits where it should for proper action, and other such arcane matters -- well, I leave that to my trusted repair-and-adjustment friends.

foldedpath
Nov-22-2010, 2:33pm
I've played the National RM-1 briefly in a local store, and it does have a more pleasing (to my ears) sound than the cheap Asian imports. I think Allen is right about the wood body being a big factor there. If I'm not mistaken, it's a solid piece of wood with the body cavity routed out. In any resonator instrument, the cone determines the overall sound, but the body material and construction does make a contribution

I have several different roundneck Dobros from the mid 1930's with different body materials. One is wood, two are nickel-plated brass, one is steel. The wood body instrument has a very different sound from the three metal ones, but I can hear a distinct difference in tone between the brass and steel bodies too. If you spend enough time around resonator instruments, you can start to get a feel for what part of the tone you hear is from different cones, and what's determined by the body material.

Because one objection to a resonator mandolin might be harshness in tone, it makes sense that the darker sound of a heavy wood body like the RM-1 would take some of the edge off, and be more acceptable to those of us accustomed to a traditional mandolin tone. On the other hand, if you're into blues or rock, then a brighter, jangly, "trashier" tone from a metal-body resonator mandolin might be just the thing you need.

I've been tempted to try a RM-1 as an Irish session instrument. One thing that's held me back, is that we usually have a tenor banjo player in the group. I'm just not sure how those two tones will blend... whether it would be too much "twang" in the overall mix, so we start sounding more like a Jug Band than a session. The tone of a traditional mandolin may have trouble being heard due to volume, but at least it's a sweet, woody tone that mixes well with fiddles, flutes, and concertinas. It's easy on the ears. With the relatively high cost of the RM-1, it would be an expensive experiment if it didn't work, and they're not easy to find on the used market.

mandroid
Nov-22-2010, 3:38pm
Big dividing line , National, now is a Wooden body with some substance and a biscuit resonator .

Tried a Rigel Made Resonator for a While , Peter used a Dobro type spider bridge,
which didn't have intonation bridge offsets.

so up the neck went out .. But did have a solid feel with its wooden structure .

needed a thicker piece of wood in the center of the spider so as to allow offsets, I'd think.

But Gary is in the entry level price points.. I thought I read earlier posts of replacing cones ,
improving neck/body joining, to make them decent.

Shelagh Moore
Nov-22-2010, 7:07pm
The tone of a traditional mandolin may have trouble being heard due to volume, but at least it's a sweet, woody tone that mixes well with fiddles, flutes, and concertinas. It's easy on the ears. With the relatively high cost of the RM-1, it would be an expensive experiment if it didn't work, and they're not easy to find on the used market.

For what it's worth I've been having a good experience leading a Scottish/Irish session with my RM-1 and it at least works well for me and is liked by the other musicians in my local session. At a recent session weekend up in the North of Scotland it blended well with the tenor banjo someone was playing (and it saves me from having to play TB too!).

mandroid
Nov-22-2010, 7:21pm
My 4 string 'melody banjo' a converted mandolin banjo works well doubling the ITB, an octave higher,
and I can hear myself (for) better (or worse) and was low cost

even after paying someone to re set the rimstick into the neck . a common situation with old Manjos

Larry S Sherman
Nov-22-2010, 8:07pm
I love my RM-1. It's not at all harsh, and has a bold tone with a creamy reverb (kinda like a Roland JC120 amp).

National did some fine tuning for me, lowering the action, and it is perfect for my playing style. I don't really use it for blues-mostly Choro actually. It's versatile...more than you might imagine. It is a bit heavy, but there's a lot of mass going on.

It's louder than vintage nationals, but not as metallic sounding.

Some pics:

This is what it looks like inside:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=1369

Walnut back:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=1364

Tailpiece:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=1366

Front view:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=1367

Mine has the older art-deco style decal, which I prefer, but I understand that they stopped using them since they were very hard to apply. Newer ones have the metal shield on them, which is cool too:

http://www.nationalguitars.com/instruments/mandolin/rm1maple/images/6full.jpg

Larry

Ron McMillan
Nov-22-2010, 10:24pm
I had a brief opportunity to try a friend's National recently, and with Thomastik strings on it, the instrument was a joy to play. The big big sound makes you think of a huge instrument, but it's not a lot larger than 'normal' mandolins, and the whole experience was an encounter with fine quality manufacturing. Another very noticeable thing is how wide the fret board is; the difference between it and my regular mandolins felt huge, and would take a little getting used to. The National is now high on my notional wishlist, though quite when I'd be able to afford one is another matter.

ron

Mike Thomas
Nov-22-2010, 11:16pm
Because one objection to a resonator mandolin might be harshness in tone, it makes sense that the darker sound of a heavy wood body like the RM-1 would take some of the edge off, and be more acceptable to those of us accustomed to a traditional mandolin tone. On the other hand, if you're into blues or rock, then a brighter, jangly, "trashier" tone from a metal-body resonator mandolin might be just the thing you need.

I've been tempted to try a RM-1 as an Irish session instrument. One thing that's held me back, is that we usually have a tenor banjo player in the group. I'm just not sure how those two tones will blend... whether it would be too much "twang" in the overall mix, so we start sounding more like a Jug Band than a session. The tone of a traditional mandolin may have trouble being heard due to volume, but at least it's a sweet, woody tone that mixes well with fiddles, flutes, and concertinas. It's easy on the ears. With the relatively high cost of the RM-1, it would be an expensive experiment if it didn't work, and they're not easy to find on the used market.

I've strung my RM-1 with Thomastik strings and have used it in Irish sessions and groups of 3-20 players. My 3-piece group actually prefered it to my Collings MT2 for a while, and all i've ever recieved is complements and the comment "I could finally hear you!" The RM-1 taught me how to play really loud as well as really soft. It'll step on banjos and play sweetly with a fiddle and guitar. The only negative comment I've gotten was in a old timey session, and from another mando player. He said it was an interesting novelty, and would sound good with a Jug band, and I would have to agree that it would sound good with a Jug band. I'm looking to sell it now because I have learned how to get great volume out of the MT2. Anyway, try flatwound strings to mellow the resonator.

Michael Eck
Nov-23-2010, 1:11am
I have, love and use an RM-1. I do play in a jug band and it's perfect, but I have successfully used it in other contexts as well. I initially had it strung with 774s but it is currently strung with Labella flatwounds (which don't get mentioned much here but are wonderful strings).

One thing that helped me adjust to the sound very quickly is the fact that I have been a resonator guitar player for many years.

allenhopkins
Nov-23-2010, 1:32am
We've strayed a bit from the OP's question about the Johnson/Recording King/Republic Chinese-made, brass-bodied resonator mandolins. I think you can get a consensus of happy National RM-1 owners, that it's a well-made, versatile instrument, with a unique and pleasing sound. But -- it's also six times the price of the Asian imports, which are by no means as universally accepted as the National. They are also quite different instruments, with metal bodies, larger resonator cones, and a different sound.

Seems the original question was about the proverbial "ham sandwich," and we've moved it to discussing a "steak dinner" instead. To return to the original point: Elderly describes the Recording King instrument as a "decent repro" (reproduction), and I guess if the most positive adjective the seller can come up with is "decent," we're not in "masterpiece" territory here. If one wants to get some experience with resonator mandolin, he/she can lay out about $300 and get one of the Asian instruments with a hard foam case. A loud, raucous-sounding mandolin, very heavy, acceptable neck feel and tuners; but from what I've read here, some people who've purchased the Asian mandolins, have been turned off and not pursued resonator mandolin further. Upgrading with a retrofit cone may result in a more pleasant sound, or buying one that advertises a European made "Continental" cone. But realize that we're dealing with student grade instruments, in terms of price and quality.

Later: I should also mention that the Asian instruments have a 15-inch scale length; that's about an inch longer than the standard "Gibson" or National RM-1 scale length. In this, the Johnson et. al. models emulate the old National mandolins (like my '30's Triolian), which have longer-than-modern-standards scales. Means the frets are slightly further apart, and the strings are under a bit more tension, which could well contribute to a loud-and-raucous sound.

Ron McMillan
Nov-23-2010, 1:49am
Allen is right, we did get sidetracked away from the OP's questions. I did try one of the Recording King all-metal resonators in a store a while back, and it immediately made me think 'I'd soon get sick of this'. It had a very, very metallic tinny sound (not surprisingly) that I felt would quickly become a limitation, since the instrument would certainly not lend itself to many different situations. The National, however, is much more like a regular mandolin, and therefore a lot more versatile, albeit at a considerably higher price.

There are other independent makers producing all-metal resonators. Here are two of them, one in the UK, the other in Australia.

Wailing: (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wailingresonators/mandolin.html)

and DonMo (http://www.donmo.com/Guitarsite/Mandolins.html)


rm

Garyinboston
Nov-23-2010, 7:08am
Yikes the tail piece on that National looks like something out of the industrial age! Very beautiful instrument however.

Gary

Ray(T)
Nov-23-2010, 3:06pm
I initially had it strung with 774s but it is currently strung with Labella flatwounds (which don't get mentioned much here but are wonderful strings).

The JazzMandos are made by Labella and I suspect they are basically the same string - anyone know any different? Always wondered what the inside looked like Larry but never had the need to take the thing apart - thanks for the photos.
Ray

mandroid
Nov-23-2010, 5:57pm
I thought it looked like a roasted nuts tray minus the cashews, peanuts and walnuts, black and english,
from the Christmas snack table. then I realized it was baffling or braces, across the inside of the back.

Chief
Nov-23-2010, 7:21pm
Have to throw my 2 centavos in. I've got a 1929 National Triolian, and it sounds great- loud and brassy, but pleasant. Almost bought a used new National, but went the vintage route for about the same price. You can't beat the mojo of a vintage instrument. That said, I've also got a Johnson reso(same as Recording King), that I played for a few years. It sounds so so- not in the same league as the National. But it has a Highlander pickup (according to the guy I bought it from), and that puts it in the big league sound wise. Played through my Ultrasound acoustic amp-with Baggs Venue pre amp- it has a very nice sound- brassy, yes- but hey isn't that what they're supposed to sound like?

JeffD
Nov-24-2010, 12:28am
... and they're not easy to find on the used market.

Says a lot right there.