Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 94 of 94

Thread: What makes a classical mandolin?

  1. #76
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    You might want to try my favorite strings which are the Dogal Calace RW92b Dolce. Unfortunately, I see that Bernunzio is out of stock. I just emailed them to see if they are still carrying them.

    Was this instrument designed to work with the lighter strings?
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  2. #77
    mando-evangelist August Watters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Oregon
    Posts
    1,018
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Strings by Mail is carrying the Dogal Calace strings now. And they have the Dogal picks too!
    Exploring Classical Mandolin (Berklee Press, 2015)
    Progressive Melodies for Mandocello (KDP, 2019) (2nd ed. 2022)
    New Solos for Classical Mandolin (Hal Leonard Press, 2020)
    2021 guest artist, mandocello: Classical Mandolin Society of America

  3. The following members say thank you to August Watters for this post:


  4. #78
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Thanks, August.

    I just heard from Bernunzio's:

    Yes, they are on back order and should by here is a few weeks.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  5. The following members say thank you to Jim Garber for this post:


  6. #79
    Registered User Hany Hayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Egypt
    Posts
    622

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidKOS View Post
    Neck was figured maple, ebony fingerboard, aged redwood top, and rosewood back and sides.

    It came out quite nice!
    Congrats. We'll be waiting for that sound clip
    “Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent.”
    ― Victor Hugo

  7. The following members say thank you to Hany Hayek for this post:


  8. #80
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Wow, I can't believe it's been over a year since I started this discussion!

    After several false starts and one scrapped prototype (don't ask!), I now have a pair of prototypes: one conventional mandolin, and one with a deeper body and internal Kerman-style second soundboard (or internal back if you prefer). No sound clips yet, but in the mean time here's some eye candy. What I can tell you though is that they're chalk-and-cheese in terms of sound, completely different, despite building them as similar as I could except for the internal thingamajig. Scale length is 34cm, slightly longer than most bowlbacks, but the same as most Ceccherini's though.... I personally find that a better compromise between increased reach vs cramped frets.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	small-DSCF5225.JPG 
Views:	163 
Size:	336.3 KB 
ID:	162386Click image for larger version. 

Name:	small-DSCF5234.JPG 
Views:	131 
Size:	474.2 KB 
ID:	162387Click image for larger version. 

Name:	small-DSCF5230.JPG 
Views:	121 
Size:	482.5 KB 
ID:	162388Click image for larger version. 

Name:	small-DSCF5223.JPG 
Views:	130 
Size:	297.4 KB 
ID:	162385Click image for larger version. 

Name:	small-DSCF5229.JPG 
Views:	123 
Size:	319.9 KB 
ID:	162389

  9. #81
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    John:Nice work. It looks like the back and sides (of at least one or both?) are mahogany and one (I am guessing) has a cedar top and one spruce? And these are induced arched flattops?

    I wonder tho, esp if they are aimed to classical players, the neck access at fret 13. The Kerman instruments have an oval profile vs. your guitar-shape and I would think it necessary to at least provide easy access to the upper frets. Of course, that may be the case, however I cannot play one in person to affirm that. Was there a reason to go with that shape of body over any other and not include a cutaway (like Lyon and Healy)?

    I didn't read through the whole thread again, but I also was wondering why the choice of mahogany over maple or rosewood.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  10. #82
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Garber View Post
    John:Nice work. It looks like the back and sides (of at least one or both?) are mahogany and one (I am guessing) has a cedar top and one spruce? And these are induced arched flattops?
    All good questions Jim!

    Both Mahogany back and sides, both sitka spruce tops, one dyed a "pumpkin" colour. Originally these would have had tops off the same piece of spruce, but as I said, one body got scrapped And yes, induced arch (unlike the Kerman which is sort of necessarily dead flat).

    I wonder tho, esp if they are aimed to classical players, the neck access at fret 13. The Kerman instruments have an oval profile vs. your guitar-shape and I would think it necessary to at least provide easy access to the upper frets. Of course, that may be the case, however I cannot play one in person to affirm that. Was there a reason to go with that shape of body over any other and not include a cutaway (like Lyon and Healy)?
    When I sketched out the Kerman shape, they're actually pretty bulbous instruments - much wider than they first appear, heres an overlay of the Kerman geometry against mine:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	kerman-super-impose.jpg 
Views:	123 
Size:	14.8 KB 
ID:	162396

    The shape was of course inspired by these:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF2279.JPG 
Views:	105 
Size:	2.66 MB 
ID:	162397

    Which I've always thought sounded way better than they deserved to, so I wanted to see if the shape played any part in that (answer is probably yes, some: the extra surface area of the top helps IMO).

    I didn't read through the whole thread again, but I also was wondering why the choice of mahogany over maple or rosewood.
    Simple: they're prototypes, and the hog is cheap, great sounding, and easy to work. A year ago I would have made an exception for rosewood and used that instead, but with the changes to CITES I just don't see how I can anymore.... it really is a tremendous shame. On the plus side, the hog is nice and lightweight which probably helps generate that sparkly sound. It sure would be interesting to compare to a rosewood model with moderately hefty "reflective"/"immovable object" back and sides...

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tavy For This Useful Post:


  12. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    200

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    A very interesting experiment, and a lovely looking result. I can't wait to hear the difference between these two instruments. Which do you prefer? Does the internal soundboard model have the same volume as the other? How much deeper is the deeper body? How did you arrive at the soundhole size, which appears quite large?

  13. #84
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by tom.gibson View Post
    A very interesting experiment, and a lovely looking result. I can't wait to hear the difference between these two instruments. Which do you prefer?
    I can't decide: "without" has a more traditional/darker sound that I like, "with" seems to be more precise and give a really nice player experience.

    Does the internal soundboard model have the same volume as the other?
    From the players point of view, "with" is noticeably louder than "without". However, I've checked their volume reasonably scientifically, and a microphone placed roughly where the audience front-row would be, doesn't register much if any difference in volume between them.

    How much deeper is the deeper body? How did you arrive at the soundhole size, which appears quite large?
    The body is just deep enough to accommodate a "normal" sized front chamber, plus the internal soundboard and the braces on the back without clashing. The soundholes were chosen largely because I like the sound you get when the body resonance is not too close to the bottom G: not too tubby in other words.

    One thing I have noticed, particularly the "with" instrument, is that the sound builds/swells the more you play, particularly when playing open chords. Something I've only really encountered with CBOM type instruments before.

    Sound clips (good grief, how do I make these smaller??):







  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tavy For This Useful Post:


  15. #85

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Nice work, John! And very interesting to compare the two. No.2 is my preference, based on your sound clips, is this one with or without double top?

    It potentially opens endless possibilities to experiment with a guitar-like builds with a sandwich top, double back, arched back, lattice braced top and all the combinations.

  16. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by vic-victor View Post
    Nice work, John! And very interesting to compare the two. No.2 is my preference, based on your sound clips, is this one with or without double top?

    It potentially opens endless possibilities to experiment with a guitar-like builds with a sandwich top, double back, arched back, lattice braced top and all the combinations.
    I like number 2 as well, and if you could get Victor's list built by Xmas that would be appreciated
    - Jeremy

    Wot no catchphrase?

  17. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    200

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Thanks for the answers and sound clips, John. I understand your indecision - they both sound great. Number 2 (which I assume is the double backed one) does have a more typically 'classical mandolin' sound, with a more precise and less bassy character. But the other one has a pleasing fullness/warmth/darkness or however we describe it.

    So am I right in thinking that the internal thingamijig is in pretty much the same position as the back of the other one? And that it has a soundhole like the top, opening into the small chamber below? I'll stop before I ask more questions...

  18. #88
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Interesting that there are two votes for #2: as Tom correctly surmised, that's the double top one.

    Before answering Tom's specific questions, let me try and explain what I was aiming to do:

    At least in theory, internal thingamajigs make no sound, all they do is suck out vibrations, and maybe change them a bit before giving them back to something that might produce sound. Tone modifiers in other words. What I really wanted to try and do was create more sound-producing resonances: At least in theory, with two chambers, we can have:

    * Resonance of top chamber
    * Resonance of rear chamber.
    * Resonance of both chambers together.

    All producing sound, assuming of course that the rear chamber has an external sound hole (which Kerman's design does).

    In addition, it's been known for a good couple hundred years, that asymmetry in instrument construction can often be a good thing, that starts with bracing, typified by the Vinaccia style:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_4032.JPG 
Views:	117 
Size:	358.7 KB 
ID:	162501

    But then leads on to the decision to have a single sound port for the rear chamber, rather than the symmetrical pair that the Kerman's have. The port is on the side, purely because I couldn't bare to cut into the top there.

    There's one other thing we might be able to do to generate sound: if we're going to add an internal sound hole, then lets turn the 2 chambers into a tube open at both ends: potentially, we now have a woodwind instrument, with a standing wave along the length of the tube. I think this should answer Tom's questions:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	small-DSCF4971.JPG 
Views:	104 
Size:	356.8 KB 
ID:	162504

    It's difficult to say, which of those aims have been achieved, but "bonk testing" the top certainly shows a non-typical response:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tap tones.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	134.5 KB 
ID:	162503

    The "double-hump" of the blue curve of the reference instrument is fairly typical for a top and body resonance. The multiple humps on the double top instrument is not so typical at all.

    So... on the one hand, all aims accomplished, must be time to retire now? Except, looking at those tap tones, I can immediately see how things could be improved... so I guess I should turn Victors ideas into a test matrix, build say... 10 of each to get a representative sample... hmmm, might take a while do you think

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tavy For This Useful Post:


  20. #89

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    I guess positioning of a double top within the instrument has a lot to do with the resulting sound (leaving all the other variables and build types aside) and just tweaking it's position will provide a number of very different sounding instruments.The question is how to find that perfect spot so both tops resonate at their best together and do not have those overtone clashes?

    I am not sure whether a sound pole between two tops is a viable idea in case of a double top instrument, but it is another exciting area for experiments. At last it works well in violins...

  21. #90
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by vic-victor View Post
    I guess positioning of a double top within the instrument has a lot to do with the resulting sound (leaving all the other variables and build types aside) and just tweaking it's position will provide a number of very different sounding instruments.The question is how to find that perfect spot so both tops resonate at their best together and do not have those overtone clashes?
    If you pay attention to the tap tone graphs I posted, you'll see that the dominant resonance is actually the whole body together rather than one chamber or the other.

    I am not sure whether a sound pole between two tops is a viable idea in case of a double top instrument, but it is another exciting area for experiments. At last it works well in violins...
    I think it's fairly well known that sound posts in mandolins or guitars completely kill the sound.

  22. #91

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tavy View Post
    If you pay attention to the tap tone graphs I posted, you'll see that the dominant resonance is actually the whole body together rather than one chamber or the other.
    So you think positioning of the inner top won't change the sound that much?


    >>I think it's fairly well known that sound posts in mandolins or guitars completely kill the sound.

    I once had a guitar that had side braces that sort of worked as sound posts in a way. It was a very impressive instrument soundwise.

    Also I am not sure that the sound post that was placed in a violin fashion between the top and the back in a mandolin is the same idea as the sound post placed between two tops. It might work differently, but it could be a flop, of course. Not too difficult to try, actually.

  23. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    200

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    [QUOTE
    But then leads on to the decision to have a single sound port for the rear chamber, rather than the symmetrical pair that the Kerman's have. The port is on the side, purely because I couldn't bare to cut into the top there.
    [/QUOTE]

    As I understand the Kerman instruments (which I've never held) there is:
    - the soundboard, with its central sound hole plus the two lace side holes
    - some way below that, an internal board with a central hole
    - and below that, a carved back (with no opening).

    I don't see how there is any 'sound port for the rear chamber', other than the hole in the internal sound board. I certainly don't see how the two lace side holes could fill that function. Am is missing something?

  24. #93
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Quote Originally Posted by tom.gibson View Post
    [QUOTE
    But then leads on to the decision to have a single sound port for the rear chamber, rather than the symmetrical pair that the Kerman's have. The port is on the side, purely because I couldn't bare to cut into the top there.
    As I understand the Kerman instruments (which I've never held) there is:
    - the soundboard, with its central sound hole plus the two lace side holes
    - some way below that, an internal board with a central hole
    - and below that, a carved back (with no opening).

    I don't see how there is any 'sound port for the rear chamber', other than the hole in the internal sound board. I certainly don't see how the two lace side holes could fill that function. Am is missing something?
    Yes: the rear soundboard doesn't extent to the sides where the side holes are, rather there are "internal sides" supporting it and forming two "chimneys" which connect the rear chamber to the top. Look closely at some of the early ones, and there's even a mark/join visible where the internal and external sides meet. See for example https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/s...=1#post1244680

  25. The following members say thank you to Tavy for this post:


  26. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    200

    Default Re: What makes a classical mandolin?

    Ah, I see! That makes much more sense of the side holes, which seemed quite redundant to me, though decorative. So those 'chimneys' must reduce the internal volume of the main chamber quite a bit. Thanks.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •