Describing The Sounds From Each of These?

[Al Trujillo]

Looking down the road at my next mandolin I know that it will be an Oval (probably A-style). I enjoy listening to these videos but I'd like to hear initial impressions / descriptions on each and the sound coming from them?

I understand the subjectivity, especially with recording devices....but still worth a shot at hearing your thoughts. Love to be able to play them all but that isn't possible (and a couple are already sold):

1. Collings MT2-O (one of my favorites here): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hubp3xw5iOI

2. Girouard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7NmwZyxjfI

3. Pava: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqYkA7c-Rkk

Weber Vintage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WNYuI5HrFw

Thanks!!

[red7flag]

Collings MT2-O. Sharp, precise, requires soft touch. Oval provides a bit softer tone than F holes, but not soft by any measure.
Girouard Deep, throaty, full tone.
Pava, Ellis overtones and tone, complex.
Weber Vintage Soft and warm, but full.

I answered from my personal experiences as I cannot listen to the youtubes at work, today.

[fatt-dad]

they are all hybrid oval hole mandolins. They all sound just fine. Some of the differences I'll attribute to the different pickers and the style of tune they are playing.

So, who knows? I don't like the hybrid oval holes, but enjoyed listening in on your choices. I think if you want an A or F with the 14 or 15-fret neck joint - go with the f-holes. If you want an oval hole mandolin, get one modeled after the paddle or snake-head Gibsons.

Not to be a traditionalist that is. . .

f-d

[Don Grieser]

I didn't like the Weber as much as the other 3, but I don't think you'd go wrong with any of them. They are all great builders. I like the clarity of the hybrid ovals as well as the playability.

[Walt]

I understand the subjectivity, especially with recording devices....but still worth a shot at hearing your thoughts.

I think you're correct to go into this knowing that the sound is going to be colored by the musician and the recording setup. Also, the people creating the videos may have eq'd the sound changing things up even more. All that being said, based strictly on the sound coming from youtube, I'd rank them Fattest to Thinnest: (1) Girouard, (2) Collings, (3) Weber, (4) Pava.
Also, just a word about terminology. I treat "Fat," "Warm," "Dark" as having the same meaning. On the other end of the spectrum I treat "Thin," "Bright," "Tinny" as having the same meaning. And then there are words that I have no idea what people mean when they use them: e.g., "sweet" and "bell-like."
I was surprised at how thin the Pava sounded, but I'm willing to bet that the room noise in the recording is making it sound thinner than it actually is. All four, I'm certain, would make wonderful mandolins.

[Mike Snyder]

I met Pava at the Ellis booth a year ago at Winfield. Very nice lady and her instruments were beautiful. The oval A she brought was very, very tight. It probably would be a great player after being played long and hard, but it was really tight. I don't bash and I know how to keep my opinions to myself, but you asked. I have good friends with Collings and Weber ovals and they are nice, sound good.
Never been around a Girouard.

[Mike Snyder]

Duplicate post

[Al Trujillo]

Also, just a word about terminology. I treat "Fat," "Warm," "Dark" as having the same meaning. On the other end of the spectrum I treat "Thin," "Bright," "Tinny" as having the same meaning. And then there are words that I have no idea what people mean when they use them: e.g., "sweet" and "bell-like."

I think this is probably a difficult thing for somebody who has played the one instrument they started with. When I read a description of a mandolins sound it an be easy to understand, but on the other hand when somebody uses descriptives such as 'woody', or 'complex' then I begin to think I've run into a wine tasting room.

I do appreciate your comments. You're descriptive terminology is pretty useful.

[sblock]

I met Pava at the Ellis booth a year ago at Winfield. Very nice lady and her instruments were beautiful. The oval A she brought was very, very tight. It probably would be a great player after being played long and hard, but it was really tight. I don't bash and I know how to keep my opinions to myself, but you asked. I have good friends with Collings and Weber ovals and they are nice, sound good.
Never been around a Girouard.

I have no idea what the word "tight" means to you -- sorry. Is it something about the playability being harder that makes it "very tight" to play? As opposed to "loose," meaning easier playability? Or is "tight" meant to convey instead some type meaning about the sound, in which case you've totally lost me. I have absolutely no idea what a "tight" sound is. Is this meant to be an analogy to what we mean when we say a band sounds "tight", meaning that their relative timing is excellent? If so, I don't understand, because one instrument is always in time with itself!

Can you explain further about "tight"? More treble? More bass? Woofy overtones? Tinkly ones? Something about the midrange? I'm flummoxed.

[Mike Snyder]

Quiet, no overtones, new sounding, not broken in, unresponsive, no projection, closed as opposed to open. This is not new nomenclature. Tight is a term used at the cafe through the years I have been a member as a descriptor of a mandolin that needs play time to begin to move toward its potential.

[sblock]

Many thanks for that clarification. Of course, this gets into a whole discussion about whether "breaking in" and "opening up" actually occur (and if so, to what degree), or if such phenomena are partly or wholly in the mind of the owner, but there's no need to get into any of that here! But words like "quiet" and "no projection" certainly carry meaning for me, and I appreciate your taking the trouble to explain "tight."

[Br1ck]

I've never played a modern oval hole that sounded as good to me as the better teens and twenties Gibsons, and if I were adding an oval flavor that is where I'd go. But I love old instruments in general and that tone might be too much in that direction for you.

I've played some oval Collings, and they just aren't my thing, but none I've played had any mileage on them, so what do I know. Like one of the posters above, it would be hard to go wrong with any of them.

If I had to buy via sound clips, I'd try to listen to clips made by one dealer. I find TMS has a very consistent recording method.

[Walt]

When I read a description of a mandolins sound it an be easy to understand, but on the other hand when somebody uses descriptives such as 'woody', or 'complex' then I begin to think I've run into a wine tasting room.

It really does get into wine tasting territory sometimes. One of the biggest problems, I think, is that the terminology isn't very standardized. For years I thought "woody" had a straight-forward meaning, but it turns out that there is major disagreement about even that word.
When it comes to the sound of an instrument, there are multiple dimensions. Here's how I think about it:

Tone Color: This is the Fat to Thin spectrum. You might also think about it as Dark to Bright. Or maybe Warm to Tinny. To give an extreme example of "Fat," think about the sound of an upright bass. It has a full sound. On the "Thin" side, think about striking a single note on an autoharp. It has a sharper, shrill, emptier sound.
Note: In the grand scheme of things, mandolins will fall on the thinner side of the tone color spectrum. So if we call a mandolin "fat" or "warm," it doesn't mean that it sounds like an upright bass, it just means that it is "fat for a mandolin."

Volume: This is self explanatory. If someone says their mandolin is "a real cannon," they are saying that the mandolin is loud. The main problem here is that everyone thinks they have "a real cannon" so it's hard to rely on that description.

Sustain This describes how long a note rings out.

Complexity: I think people are trying to describe the overtones that they hear in addition to the fundamental frequency. I'm not sure what to call this spectrum, but I usually think about the sound as ranging from complex to dry. On the "complex" side you hear more overtones, and on the "dry" side you hear mostly the fundamental note. I treat the words "dry," "hollow," and "woody" as meaning the same thing (but there is disagreement here). I treat the words "complex" and "rich" as having the same meaning.

Tight/Open: Mike did a good job of describing that. I think these two terms describe some combination of Tone Color, Volume, and Complexity.

There are certainly more ways to describe mandos beyond what is listed above. In the end, the terminology is just a shortcut to help us find a mando we like.

[Teak]

Looking down the road at my next mandolin I know that it will be an Oval (probably A-style). I enjoy listening to these videos but I'd like to hear initial impressions / descriptions on each and the sound coming from them?

I will give all of these a listen later when I have time, BUT you really should add a Mike Black oval hole A model to your list to try out. Mike makes a very good A2z that comes close to the Gibson sound, short scale of course. He told me he can make a long scale oval hole but it puts the sound hole too close to the fretboard for my tastes.

No FYI on my part. I own a Black A2z.

This video has been posted before to show difference between mandolins with and without a virzi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KwwE5LpvM

[Jill McAuley]

The MT2-O and the Girouard were my favorites - both recordings also state that no EQ was used, just a decent mic set up. I had a Weber Vintage A several years ago and had to sell it due to financial difficulties after only a few months of ownership. When I had it I was a little on the fence about it's sound but now when I listen back to recordings of it I think I really underestimated it when it was in my possession. Definitely one that I wish I still had in the stable.

[Al Trujillo]

It really does get into wine tasting territory sometimes. One of the biggest problems, I think, is that the terminology isn't very standardized. For years I thought "woody" had a straight-forward meaning, but it turns out that there is major disagreement about even that word.
When it comes to the sound of an instrument, there are multiple dimensions. Here's how I think about it:

Tone Color: This is the Fat to Thin spectrum. You might also think about it as Dark to Bright. Or maybe Warm to Tinny. To give an extreme example of "Fat," think about the sound of an upright bass. It has a full sound. On the "Thin" side, think about striking a single note on an autoharp. It has a sharper, shrill, emptier sound.
Note: In the grand scheme of things, mandolins will fall on the thinner side of the tone color spectrum. So if we call a mandolin "fat" or "warm," it doesn't mean that it sounds like an upright bass, it just means that it is "fat for a mandolin."

Volume: This is self explanatory. If someone says their mandolin is "a real cannon," they are saying that the mandolin is loud. The main problem here is that everyone thinks they have "a real cannon" so it's hard to rely on that description.

Sustain This describes how long a note rings out.

Complexity: I think people are trying to describe the overtones that they hear in addition to the fundamental frequency. I'm not sure what to call this spectrum, but I usually think about the sound as ranging from complex to dry. On the "complex" side you hear more overtones, and on the "dry" side you hear mostly the fundamental note. I treat the words "dry," "hollow," and "woody" as meaning the same thing (but there is disagreement here). I treat the words "complex" and "rich" as having the same meaning.

Tight/Open: Mike did a good job of describing that. I think these two terms describe some combination of Tone Color, Volume, and Complexity.

There are certainly more ways to describe mandos beyond what is listed above. In the end, the terminology is just a shortcut to help us find a mando we like.

Walt....I appreciate your comments more than you will ever know. For budding mandolin players your personal definitions add clarity to so many of the conversations we read here on MC. If there was ever a MC 'Dictionary' of terms your list would have to be given consideration to inclusion.

Still though....would you take a shot at describing (in short detail) each of the four I pasted at the top of the thread? Thanks!!

- - - Updated - - -

I will give all of these a listen later when I have time, BUT you really should add a Mike Black oval hole A model to your list to try out. Mike makes a very good A2z that comes close to the Gibson sound, short scale of course. He told me he can make a long scale oval hole but it puts the sound hole too close to the fretboard for my tastes.

No FYI on my part. I own a Black A2z.

This video has been posted before to show difference between mandolins with and without a virzi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KwwE5LpvM

I'm not familiar with Mike Black's instruments but I will take a look at them. Thanks for the tip.

[fatt-dad]

Mike makes a very good A2z that comes close to the Gibson sound, short scale of course.

I would imagine that Black's oval hole, Gibson's Teens paddle-heads, early '20s snakeheads, Collings, Webers, etc. all have the same scale length. To my knowledge you really have to go out of your way to find a short (i.e., Classical - 13-in) scale mandolin.

The 12-fret neck joint (ala Gibson and more recent Black clones) have larger bodies and move more sound. The hybrids have the elevated fretboards and a body that's shorter. It's 2 or 3 frets shorter. So, it's not clinically accurate to claim there is a sound/playability difference owing to scale length.

Not to interlope that is. . .

f-d

[pheffernan]

I would imagine that Black's oval hole, Gibson's Teens paddle-heads, early '20s snakeheads, Collings, Webers, etc. all have the same scale length. To my knowledge you really have to go out of your way to find a short (i.e., Classical - 13-in) scale mandolin.

The 12-fret neck joint (ala Gibson and more recent Black clones) have larger bodies and move more sound. The hybrids have the elevated fretboards and a body that's shorter. It's 2 or 3 frets shorter. So, it's not clinically accurate to claim there is a sound/playability difference owing to scale length.

Not to interlope that is. . .

f-d

I think that Teak meant short neck, as you describe with the 12th fret body join, which as you know impacts tone and playability.

[Walt]

Still though....would you take a shot at describing (in short detail) each of the four I pasted at the top of the thread? Thanks!!

I'll try my best! It's all very subjective, so hopefully some other people will respond and you can compare thoughts.

Collings: This one sounds like it falls somewhere in the middle of the fat/thin spectrum. I think it's a nice mix. It's warm enough to not sound shrill, but it's bright enough to cut through while playing with other instruments. I'd put it on the complex side of the complex/dry spectrum. If I had to rank them, I'd say that this one is the most complex. It has good sustain.

Girouard: I'd put it on the fat side of the fat/thin spectrum. I'd also consider this one to have a dry sound; the fundamental note is very strong. Sustain is good, too. I like this one a lot.

Pava: Of the four, I'd say this is the thinnest. Note: sometimes "thin" is used in a derogatory way. I don't mean it that way here; it just has a very bright sound which a lot of people prefer. I think it's probably on the more complex side, but the room noise in that recording is throwing me off. It has good sustain.

Weber: I would put this on the thin/bright side as well. Sustain is good for this one as well. Not sure where exactly to put it on the complex/dry spectrum. I'd say, not as complex as the Collings, but definitely not dry. The proper way to assess that is probably to use some sort of scope that measures frequencies.

All in all, they're all good sounding mandolins.

[Denman John]

Kimble and Old Wave make excellent oval hole mandolins with a 12th fret neck join. Can't go wrong with either!

[Bob Clark]

I had a Weber Vintage A several years ago and had to sell it due to financial difficulties after only a few months of ownership. When I had it I was a little on the fence about it's sound but now when I listen back to recordings of it I think I really underestimated it when it was in my possession. Definitely one that I wish I still had in the stable.

I'm with you on that, Jill. I had one of the old-wood Vintage A's about the same time as you did, as I recall. Sold it to fund another mandolin purchase. Love the one I bought, but looking back, I wish I could have kept the Weber as well. I really miss it. I find myself wondering what the heck I was thinking at the time.

[Mike Snyder]

As far as full disclosure goes, this. I own Mike Black #27 A4 and strongly recommend his mandolins whenever it is appropriate to do so.

[Teak]

Looking down the road at my next mandolin I know that it will be an Oval (probably A-style). I enjoy listening to these videos but I'd like to hear initial impressions / descriptions on each and the sound coming from them?

I understand the subjectivity, especially with recording devices....but still worth a shot at hearing your thoughts. Love to be able to play them all but that isn't possible (and a couple are already sold):

1. Collings MT2-O (one of my favorites here):

2. Girouard:

3. Pava:

Weber Vintage:

Thanks!!

Okay Al, I listened to all four a couple of times each. Knowing that the sound recordings were different and the rooms were different and the players were different and all those caveats we have to put out for the naysayers to this exercise, here are my impressions.

The Collings is very bright; too bright for my tastes, however. I like to use the bottom three string sets for swing and older jazz which means no chop chords and rarely playing the high E set in a chord.

I loved the Girouard. Based upon it's 'throatiness' (mid-register), I could use it in the style of music that I like.

The Pava sounds even across the strings and seems to be a good all-purpose mandolin. However, since I don't play bluegrass (chop chop), I would take the Girouard over the Pava.

The Weber sounds nice, but not enough to pique my interest.

Here are my choices, in order: Girouard >> Pava > Weber > Collings.

For what it's worth, I have a 1979 A5 Givens (f-hole) which is perfect for swing and jazz. It is a LOUD mandolin so one could do chops on it. I also have a 2015 Black A2z with oval hole, short scale as I said before. I would place it about even with the Pava in the above ranking. That Girouard was NICE!

BTW, I mean short scale by the fret board being joined at the body at the 12th fret. This opposed to long scale (like the Givens) being joined at the 15th fret.

[Teak]

I think that Teak meant short neck, as you describe with the 12th fret body join, which as you know impacts tone and playability.

Thank you, Pat. One must parse one's words carefully in these forums.

Short scale to me = fret board joined to body at 12th fret.
Long scale = fret board joined at 15th fret.

On an oval hole, the bridge gets too close to the hole if trying for a 15th fret join so the hole gets moved way too close to the end of the board. It can be done, but it isn't pretty. On the other hand, Mike Black's A2z mandolin (in blonde) is a thing of beauty, and it sounds great! See the photo on the left.

Everyone here is more of an expert than I am, so I will leave it at that.

[ralph johansson]

I like to say that instruments are tools for making music, not tone generators. What we call "tone" or "sound" ususally is something else, depending a lot on the player, the stuff (s)he plays on it, timing, dynamics, etc. So, really, you'll have to play these mandolins yourself and find out how they respond to your touch, pick technique, etc. etc. etc. All I can contribute is that I liked the second mandolin best, but wouldn't have identified it as an ovalhole in a blindfold test.