Instruments, Cost & the Placebo Effect

[Ivan Kelsall]

From grassrootsphilosopher - " ..I think there is an extremely strong difference in tone between Thile playing his Dudenbostel and his Lloyd Loar.".
I didn't say there wasn't a ''difference'' - This is what i said - " For the life of me,i can't hear any 'improvement' in tone in Chris Thile's Loar compared with his Dude.". By that i mean that the tone of the Dude.,although 'different', was every bit 'as good' (to my ears 'more pleasing') than that of his Loar.

We've all come to realise that every mandolin sounds 'different',one to another to some degree.It's for us to choose 'which' we like from the instruments within our price range,it's as simple as that. My 3 are as different as chalk & cheese,that's what's so great about them,& it's the main reason why i can't bring myself to part with any of them in order to by my coveted Ellis F5. However,owning the Ellis "A" style is pretty awesome !,
Ivan

[Charlieshafer]

If you are happy with how your mandolin sounds just learn how to play it.

When you hear a mandolin that knocks your socks off, then you are ready to upgrade. Before that IMO its wasted money. Chasing a "holy grail" is a myth, especially early on when you lack an ear to hear those differences. Just don't worry about it and play the mandolin

The only thing I'll disagree with here is that I don't believe new players lack an "ear". You're born with that. What you lack are the confidence in your skills to really dig in, pick with different styles, and know enough tunes of different types to get the most out of an individual instrument. Some instruments keep surprising you with the quality of tone when played loudly or softly, with different types of music. Some seem to "top out" in depth of tone. It's a question of the player being able to push an instrument to uncover those differences, not that they can't hear them. Plus there's just the experience of playing a number of different ones and building that internal library of likes and dislikes. It's just experience to my mind, not so much of an ability to hear.

[Mark Wilson]

The only thing I'll disagree with here is that I don't believe new players lack an "ear". You're born with that.

I was born with taste buds but my appreciation for complex foods didn't develop until I was introduced to it by my wife. Until then I believed there was nothing better than the type of things what I choose to eat. I believe your 'ear' is more like your palate. It develops with exposure to more interesting choices.

Some new things you like, some you don't, but it's an informed preference that is unique to your experience. In that, there's no wrong opinion, but I think it's helpful to understand that 'what you like' doesn't work for everyone. And knowing that keeps me from feeling insulted when others have different tastes. It's the way it should be

[grassrootphilosopher]

From grassrootsphilosopher - " ..I think there is an extremely strong difference in tone between Thile playing his Dudenbostel and his Lloyd Loar.".
I didn't say there wasn't a ''difference'' - This is what i said - " For the life of me,i can't hear any 'improvement' in tone in Chris Thile's Loar compared with his Dude.". By that i mean that the tone of the Dude.,although 'different', was every bit 'as good' (to my ears 'more pleasing') than that of his Loar.


Ivan

Well Ivan, I do understand your opinion. I just do not share it.

I think there is a noticable difference in clarity (up front), tonality and carrying power between Thile´s Dudenbostel and his Loar(s).

Listen here to the Dudenbostel:



And listen to the Loar:



Admittedly it´s a recording which means that "real live" listening experience is different. Also, I have not heard either instrument. But I have heard great instruments (among them Lloyd Loar F-5 mandolins).

I do not know about the carrying power. But I hear more clarity in the Loar and more interesting overtones in the Loar as well. That does not take away anything from the Dudenbostel. It´s a great instrument in its own right.

I think that a thread like this one needs to take into consideration that
- we can be perfectly happy with a 30ies Strad-O-Lin (or a Kentucky, Northfield etc.)
- setup makes or breaks an instrument
- your playing ability gets the best (or the worst) out of an instrument
- not all instruments are created equal
- all outer influences equal there are quality differences between a 1k instrument and a 20k instrument as well as between a 20k instrument and a 100k instrument (while the value of the instrument is relative).

Built quality is not just determined by fairy dust; it´s not just so called intelectuals with money that fall for snake oil arguments, when they acquire a Lloyd Loar mandolin. This (my) opinion reflects the numerous posts that claim that a 1k Kentucky mandolin will sound as good as a Lloyd Loar F-5. This is just nonsense (to me). While instruments may sound great for what they are (I will never trade or sell my Strad-O-Lin) you have to keep an open mind and accept tonal qualities of other instruments.

[pheffernan]

But what is the difference between an instrument of modest cost and quality build verses one of extreme cost and quality build?

Resale value, for one. Getting away from vintage collectibles, the big difference seems to me to be the number of (wo)man hours that an expert, experienced in the craft, devotes to optimizing every aspect of the build.

What makes a mandolin worth spending a fortune on?

Possessing a fortune is always a good start. And fortunes are relative. In my case, mandolin budgets are funds left over when all obligations have been met or found money injected into the home economy at certain points in the fiscal year (stipend, tax refund, etc.).

Where do we define the point of diminishing returns, where the gains are worth far less than the price increases?

Where our budget allows. And that can be a moving target. I thought long and hard about spending $400 when I first started, and later four figures when I bought my snakehead. Right now, I think that the buy-in points (used) for a varnished mandolin expertly crafted of the finest materials by an experienced independent builder are roughly $800 for a flattop, $1750 for a carved oval, $2500 for an A5, and $4000 for an F5. I'm sure others think differently.

And how do we know if what we believe perceive actually is.

We don't; neither need we. In matters of enjoyment, perception is entirely sufficient. And thus, to return to the anecdote in which these "highly subjective questions" are embedded, you stated:

I've often been amazed by how much musicians spend on instruments for what are often fairly questionable reasons.

Outside of extreme circumstances surrounding a purchase -- like not paying the mortgage or feeding the kids -- I wonder why you are worrying yourself with how much musicians spend on instruments and determining which reasons are questionable or not. I am not a mental health professional, but as a hobbyist musician, it feels like you have been looking for external validation of your mandolin purchase and, in this instance, doing so by calling into question the validity of different choices that other people make.

[Randi Gormley]

I was thinking that blind testing -- which is designed to eliminate placebo as much as anything else it's designed to prove -- has its limitations as well. For one thing, the judges have to be looking for the same thing and know the difference. Couple of people have mentioned ear -- a guy I play with who picks up instruments just for fun -- and is OK, but not particularly proficient on them -- decided he wanted to try the mandolin so I loaned him my professionally set up Rogue. When he gave it back to me, beautifully shined up and lovingly placed, wrapped, in its gig bag, he thanked me and praised the mandolin for its sweetness ... I handed him my snakehead to hear a tune since I had it in my hand at the time and he played something and then said it was "a nice instrument" but he really liked the Rogue. He's probably the first person I've ever met who has played the mandolin who felt the sound of the Rogue trumped the sound of the snake. So, yes, there are people whose ears hear differently --certainly from mine -- for whom a blind test wouldn't produce any kind of definitive answer on whether the subtle differences between a $20,000 instrument vs a $50,000 instrument is all placebo effect.

[DougC]

This topic really hits on a number of issues here and it is really interesting reading for me. As I'm 'shopping' for another instrument I realized that the purchase has everything to do with my pride in knowing that I've done a good job in managing the cost and placebo effect.

Two ideas that have been mentioned that bear repeating for me at least are:
1. that you sound the same on almost any instrument,
2. and "can I 'live up to" the capabilities of a fine instrument?

[JonZ]

I have no illusions about my mandolin sounding better by virtue of its cost, but I do depend on it to create that illusion in others.

[Beanzy]

It takes me quite a while to learn how to approach each new instrument and I respond and adapt my playing depending on what I think I am hearing. Apart from the most obvious aspects of an instruments sound and playability it can take me between rmonths to a year before I begin to think I know what is possible on an instrument. I’ve never been able to walk in to a shop and play a selection of instruments and walk out satisfied that I know much more than how they compare in the various respects I tried at the time. It’s only after persuing music on them over a period of time and finding how they respond to what I’m trying to do, that I begin to understand the individual instrument. Price is just the hurdle to jump to access that. My most expensive mandolin was bought unheard, as I commissioned it to get around certain limitations I was finding in some areas and I’m still surprising myself with new aspects of its sound 20 months on. It still has areas where I prefer to use other mandolins for their characteristics, depending on what I’m after. My modified KM150 still gets regular outings, especially for when I want a really jangly rock sound from the pickup, or in pub sessions.
Price is irrelevant to me once I own an instrument & resale is not a factor as I buy few and for specific reasons, with no intention of selling them.

[CarlM]

Thinking on this a little more, the original post really kind of rubs the wrong way. The reason I feel this way is that it is pretty insulting to builders who have spent a lifetime and tens of thousands of hours working on their craft to try to achieve a better mandolin. They would be the first to acknowledge that they do not always achieve it and that they do not have all the answers. But to imply that there are no real differences and that the effort is wasted is really insulting.

It is similar to suggesting that it is all "placebo effect" when someone suggests Sam Bush or Grisman plays better than me, after they have spent tens of thousands of hours working at it. Everything in the world is not all branding and hype even though some might wish it otherwise.

[DataNick]

Ignorance is bliss...

Outside of reliable testing and measurable data, all we can do is offer our own thoughts, etc. We all have differences in perception, but there are also measurable abilities to "hear" sound, as for example a standard audiology test could measure. We only know what we know, and have no comprehension of what we don't know. Have you ever worked with someone who was tone deaf? They cannot "hear" their inability to produce or match pitch. Similarly, the typical karaoke participant has no clue that they are singing off pitch. Some of these things can be learned, but there are limits to what a person can perceive.

I'll share a couple of my anecdotal experiences:

1. When I first met Shaun Garrity I had a JBovier F5 Studio that I had purchased new for $650 that I was wild about. Looking back, it was a "good" mandolin, but there were some limits to its tonal qualities that I was unaware of, having played mandolin for almost 3 years. When Shaun played my Flatiron A5 after playing the JBovier, he pointed out to me that the Flatiron was just a better mandolin. I objected that the JBovier had so much "woof" and was loud, but Shaun correctly observed that the Flatiron had waaay more "cut" and clarity of notes with a much sweeter tone than the JBovier. I have observed that with instruments in that particular class, that they sound good by themselves, but once in an ensemble situation, the deficiencies come out. Once Shaun shared this with me, gradually my ear became more and more trained to perceive "cut" and clarity in a mandolin; along with subtle differences and complexities in tone. This takes time, and aural experience. I have played a lot of mandolins, and have owned several pac-rim models, and I can categorically state that I have never played or heard a pac-rim mandolin of the sub $2K variety that approached that next level of tone qualities. I don't dispute that there are some out there like that, but I've never heard one personally.

So I really don't buy the "my Kentucky is as good as a Loar" notion at all.

2. There are shades or levels of tonal qualities to mandolins that I believe do exist, but you really have to play a lot of them to get an appreciation. I've played several Nugget F5 mandolins; one needed a much better set-up, 2 were good mandolins, but I preferred my Gibson. Then there is one Nugget that I still dream of. The best way that I can describe its tonal qualities is that it's got everything my Gibson F5L has with about 10-15% more: meaning 10-15% sweeter tone, volume, cut, note clarity, "pop", etc. If I had never played that mandolin, I would never have an appreciation for a mandolin with such qualities.

So in summation, I really don't think there's a placebo effect, I believe quality is real in several different attributes in any instrument, and that there are levels that one can appreciate. What's not taken into account of very often, is that the ability to perceive these differences is not the same for you and I, and I fully recognize that I may be limited in my ability to do so.

Think of people who have perfect pitch, or people who can recognize that in measure 30 on the 3rd beat, that G# you played was flat. That is so far outside of the experience of most of the hobbyist musicians who frequent this forum, that it's like trying to explain calculus to a 3rd grader!

So as one person posted (paraphrasing here), if you like what you got, play it!

[LadysSolo]

How a person interacts with an instrument is a very real thing - my church has two pianos from the same manufacturer, purchased at the same time. One is in the choir practice room, the other is in the sanctuary. The organist and I both play piano, I prefer the one in the practice room, she prefers the one in the sanctuary for feel and sound. One plays easier for each of us (although neither is a problem,) just preference. They both sound fine.

[Charlieshafer]

Thinking on this a little more, the original post really kind of rubs the wrong way. The reason I feel this way is that it is pretty insulting to builders who have spent a lifetime and tens of thousands of hours working on their craft to try to achieve a better mandolin. They would be the first to acknowledge that they do not always achieve it and that they do not have all the answers. But to imply that there are no real differences and that the effort is wasted is really insulting.

It is similar to suggesting that it is all "placebo effect" when someone suggests Sam Bush or Grisman plays better than me, after they have spent tens of thousands of hours working at it. Everything in the world is not all branding and hype even though some might wish it otherwise.

I don't think anyone who has played a bunch of different mandolins would ever say that there aren't differences between them, and I don't see that anyone would say that a $300 is no different from a $15,000 one. I think what everyone is grappling with is that when grouped roughly within price structures (and that's a little arbitrary, i.e. $2500-$5000?) are you more influenced by the maker or not. Each mando will have different characteristics, but by and large, Andy Statman sounds like him, Mike Marshall sounds like him, Chris Thile.. ad infinitum. You'll hear minor differences if they're playing different instruments, but that's about it.

And there's also the holy grail aspect of the builders, each trying to make something that's very special, better than what they've done before. That said, if I had $5000 to spend, would I be just as happy with a 2k instrument if I was just trying them blind. I bet I would, assuming I tried the right ones. I also think there's too much emphasis placed on the builder as far as a musician's performance is concerned. The quality of the performance is in the hands.

[Tate Ferguson]

Hearing loss is the great equalizer between expensive and cheap mandolins.

[JeffD]

BTW, if anyone knows a good place to buy a reasonably priced German bowlback of decent quality, I'd be interested. It is one kind of mandolin I've always wanted to try.

It might be easier to look for a mandolin that cannot be distinguished from decent quality German bowlback in a double blind test.

[Jeff Mando]

Hearing loss is the great equalizer between expensive and cheap mandolins.

There is a lot of truth to that statement. We all hear different things and frequencies. Some of us wear hearing aids. Some of us have a more acute sense of what is "in tune." All these are factors when it comes to what mandolins we bond with. Like Mike says, if you can't hear the difference, YOU ARE LUCKY...........and get to save some $$$.

[Cliff Seruntine]

Listen here to the Dudenbostel:



And listen to the Loar:



Admittedly it´s a recording which means that "real live" listening experience is different. Also, I have not heard either instrument. But I have heard great instruments (among them Lloyd Loar F-5 mandolins).

Listening to these recordings, I had an immediately preference for the Loar. The tone sounded clearer and sweeter to me, though, of course, that could have been an artifact of the recording, or even of my computer's playback of the recording. There was also the fact that the recording of the Loar had much of the pick noise reduced (or perhaps he was using a less noisy plectrum).

[Cliff Seruntine]

It might be easier to look for a mandolin that cannot be distinguished from decent quality German bowlback in a double blind test.

I'd love to try one one day. I've been fascinated with them since watching Lichtenberg play. I have noticed that many bowl backs sound (to my ear) like strings drawn over tin cans and I distinctly don't like them, but then there are some that sound sweet and deeply enduring. I should set up some double blind tests one day and put some top grade flat backs in there against some bowl backs. Getting access to those instruments and players would be a challenge, though.

[mandocaster]

The room makes a huge difference in the sound. The Loar was recorded in a cavernous space. Listen to the way his voice sounds.

I saw CT play his Loar tonight in a big concert hall with a close mic. It didn't sound like the recording above, but it was beautiful.

[Jim Garber]

Cliff, forget all this double blind nonsense. Use your own ears. Wherever you can seek out different mandolins to play. Contact German makers and see if they have made some for anyone in your area or places you can travel to. I knew of a Montrealer who played an Alfred Woll mandolin similar to ones that Caterina plays. It was a lovely instrument, very nicely made. He let me play it for a bit. BTW he eventually sold it and bought an Italian instrument.

As I noted before in other of your threads, Brian Dean makes German Style bowlbacks and lives and works in your province. And Peter Sawchyn has also made that style. You could ask them to see if there are any near you. You could also attend some Mandolin conventions where you will see many mandolins from quite a few makers.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From GRPhil. - "I think there is a noticable difference in clarity (up front), tonality and carrying power between Thile´s Dudenbostel and his Loar(s)." I understand perfectly what you're saying,but as i say,it's a matter of preference & opinion if you think those differences are an 'improvement'.

I'm not in any way disputing 'differences' -ALL mandolins are different. If you listen to John Reischman talk about his own Loar mandolin,one of the things he likes about it is it's slightly 'dull' tone - by that i think he means that it's not 'ovebright'.

Here's CT playing his 'Dude' on Nickel Creek's first CD * to my ears it's totally well balanced across all the strings with no emphasis on any single course - that's what i look for in my own mandolins. The other clip is of John Reischman playing his own Loar,
which again,to my ears sounds beautifully balanced tonally,
Ivan

[Johnny60]

There are many, many things to consider with instruments - sound, playability, build quality, to name just three.

Add to that, the comfort of the neck (that is, does the neck and nut width suit your hands).

And, of course, sound is subjective. Some people use a mandolin with thin strings and a thin guitar pick to give what is, to me, a very tinny tone. But they must like that tone, otherwise they wouldn't use that combination of strings and thin picks.

Personally, I prefer a bit of a richer, and beefier, tone but am prepared to accept that not everyone would like that either.

I've played a lot of mandolins over my 6 year mandolin journey, having tried out many at jams and sessions, plus at good acoustic music stores.

In the main, the more expensive ones sounded better, and certainly had nicer woods and build quality. To be fair, there were a couple of the more expensive ones that didn't sound great and a couple of the cheaper ones sounded very nice. But, in general, the more expensive are at a higher price point for a reason.

To my ears, paying more (and I'm not talking 10 or 20K here) will generally get you a better sounding mandolin, with more going on in the sound. For example, my Eastman 505 sounded way better than my starter Savannah. And my Northfield F5S is a huge step-up from the Eastman.

And, moving away from mandolins for a minute, all tone is subjective. For the guitar players out there - mahogany backed guitars sound different to rosewood backed guitars. Which is better - a Martin D18 or a D28? And with which strings? And which thickness of pick? And which is better for which particular application? Etc etc. No need to answer that one - we'll be here all week!

[Cliff Seruntine]

To my ears, paying more (and I'm not talking 10 or 20K here) will generally get you a better sounding mandolin, with more going on in the sound. For example, my Eastman 505 sounded way better than my starter Savannah. And my Northfield F5S is a huge step-up from the Eastman.

Most of the professional builders, musicians, and sellers I've known have felt that at the cutoff point where you move into quality vs marginal/introductory instruments, the differences start to become slight and subjective. Where that cutoff is varies from time to time and instrument class to class, i.e., with violins, it's typically costs more than with, say, wooden flutes or mandolins. But I think once we move into the realm of decent instruments (which, fortunately for mandolin players, isn't too bad), preferences start to become very subjective and we can focus on the tonal qualities and playability of any instrument that appeals to us and worry less about its cost or pedigree.

An odd artifact of the music world I see here in upper Nova Scotia, where Celtic music rules and the people have been very poor for centuries, is a preference for less expensive instruments has developed. Nova Scotians are wealthier now, but it's become part of the music. When I was selling violins here, I was surprised by how the traditional fiddlers would often prefer the cheaper fiddles that reminded them of one an ancestor had carved. In old Ireland, and probably Scotland, where common folk were extremely poor, there was a tradition of making homemade fiddles and other instruments. That tradition is nearly dead here, but among small sessioners, there is still a liking for instruments others might consider amateurishly made. Yet, CBers are famous for their music and do marvels with those modest instruments.

But as you wrote, all tone is subjective. I know in our music we look for things that often differ, even contrast, from the usual. I'd buy a mandolin that sounded warm and dark as a lute, if I could find it. It would work so well with the old Scots airs. But by placebo effect (more accurately "suggestion/expectation/Gestalt), I just meant our belief that paying more equals better. I once sold musical instruments and I know that simply isn't the case. Some of the best sounding violins I ever sold were carved by local hobbyist luthiers who made decent instruments but now and then managed a marvel. Yet people would pass them by for more expensive instruments that didn't sound half as good.

I've always been fascinated by why people choose one instrument or another. Why does Johnny choose the Uilleann pipes and Jane choose wooden flute? Please forgive my curiosity into this element of human nature; it's part and parcel of why I went into psychology. No offense or denigration is meant. Just curiosity about why musicians choose the tools they will use to express themselves.

[Cliff Seruntine]

Cliff, forget all this double blind nonsense.

As I noted before in other of your threads, Brian Dean makes German Style bowlbacks and lives and works in your province. And Peter Sawchyn has also made that style. You could ask them to see if there are any near you. You could also attend some Mandolin conventions where you will see many mandolins from quite a few makers.

I did not write the OP because I am hunting for an instrument. I'm just curious why people choose one instrument or another. And I just enjoy talking about instruments and music.

I can't really go to any conventions or conferences as I also live on a farm and the animals need to be taken care of everyday. But I'm not mandolin shopping and most of what I want to learn, I can pick up from Nova Scotia's abundant traditional musicians.

I know of Brian Dean. His instruments are works of art, but they are out of my price range. And I'm pretty happy with the 2 mandolins I presently own.

[Charlieshafer]

The room makes a huge difference in the sound. The Loar was recorded in a cavernous space. Listen to the way his voice sounds.

I saw CT play his Loar tonight in a big concert hall with a close mic. It didn't sound like the recording above, but it was beautiful.

Absolutely. Along with recording equipment choices, the conversion of an analogue to digital format, the download-to-youtube bit size, the speakers on cruddy little computers and phones you listen from. I'm amazed at the number of people who want to hear sound clips of an instrument or make judgements about an instrument off of a youtube video. Hasn't everyone played enough, regardless of skill level, to know that there's no correlation between what an instrument really sounds like in person and then on a recording, regardless of the recording quality? As good as some recordings may sound, it's not the same.