Bingo! I guess what I've been trying to say is that a statement along the lines of 'an increase in sustain can only be had at the expense of volume' assumes that the current design model has reached perfection.
I guess I'm one of those heretics who doesn't feel that the Loar signed instruments were the divine perfection of the arch top mandolin. Before I get burned at the steak, let me assure everyone that I have a tremendous amount of respect for those original F-5s. They got a phenomenal amount of details right in a relatively short time of about 20-25 years from first concept to final product. So here comes the but. I have seen graduation measurements of at least a dozen Loar signed instruments recorded by competent people and have had the opportunity to measure one personally, and I have to conclude that the graduations on these instruments were not particularily sophisticated.
On Loars own spec. sheet, he called for a thickness at the center of the top of "3/16'. Fin. 5/32" and a thickness at the re-curve of "1/8". Fin. 1/10" with little further instruction. From all of the data I have seen, this seems to have been roughly carried out but with no great regard for accuracy, smooth transitions or consistency. The area north of the bridge is especially noteworthy in this regard. Feel free to disagree and say this was all very deliberate but this is my take after having hand carved over well over 100 tops and backs.
Anyway, that is why I statedYes, in a perfected system, volume and sustain would need to be balanced as part of a trade off but given as I believe we have not yet perfected all aspects of the arch top design, I believe that it is possible to give the customer a mandolin that is superior to most, in both of these aspects."I'm not quite buying the idea that you can't have both above average volume and above average sustain in the same mandolin." (Italics added)
Bookmarks