Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: ISO standard for musical instruments

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    33

    Default ISO standard for musical instruments

    For the luthiers in the audience, I saw a notice today that China has proposed a new set of ISO standards for musical instruments. I've attached the announcement from ISO, which details the standards being proposed and existing musical instrument standards around the world. I didn't see any specific mandolin standards, but it's an interesting list.

    Participation in international standards activities is managed by national standards bodies. In this case, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) would organize a technical advisory group to coordinate the US position. ANSI is running a WebEx stakeholders meeting on 3/30 at 1:00 pm EDT to determine if there's interest. If you want to get on the call, contact Daniel Wiser at ANSI, dwiser@ansi.org.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ISO TSP 271 - Musical_instruments[24459].pdf  

  2. The following members say thank you to dshipp for this post:

    Nevin 

  3. #2
    The Amateur Mandolinist Mark Gunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South of Cleburne, North of Hillsboro, Texas
    Posts
    5,089

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    An interesting and worthy proposal I think. Especially standardization of terminology and test methods internationally.
    WWW.THEAMATEURMANDOLINIST.COM
    ----------------------------------
    "Life is short. Play hard." - AlanN

    ----------------------------------
    HEY! The Cafe has Social Groups, check 'em out. I'm in these groups:
    Newbies Social Group | The Song-A-Week Social
    The Woodshed Study Group | Blues Mando
    - Advice For Mandolin Beginners
    - YouTube Stuff

  4. #3
    Adrian Minarovic
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banska Bystrica, Slovakia, Europe
    Posts
    3,461

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    As a builder I would fear this sentence:
    The second aspect is about method standards, including the assessment of musical performance and test methods of limits of hazardous substances for musical instruments
    Someone may get the idea to ban celluloid binding of nitrocellulose lacquer altogether as they are now considered hazardous...

    I think standardization in this field is complately insane. WIth zillion of guitar types and accessories and relative freedom of smaller builders will never comply with such standards and will be ignored. And the cookie cutter products of chinese factories are (mostly) so uniform that such document is not needed...

    But I can see the next level of marketing like:
    "This unique style F model 5 mandolin has been made according to Loar specifications within ISO 12345 and the air chamber tuned to pitches prescribed in ISO 45678 assuring you get quality certified in accordance with ISO 78198... Just make sure you only use strings made to ANSI 32154 or your warranty will be void"
    Adrian

  5. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    High Peak - UK
    Posts
    4,171

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    The most worrying bit for me is that they are proposing a "Committee". Standardisation is probably one of the better ways to stifle innovation.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ray(T) For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    1,066

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Tanenbaum - "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from."
    - Jeremy

    Wot no catchphrase?

  8. #6
    Registered User jdchapman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roanoke
    Posts
    264

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jdchapman For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Barn Cat Mandolins Bob Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Beautiful Salem County, NJ
    Posts
    2,004

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    To me, it looks like bureaucrats with too little to do, manufacturing a reason for their existence. I can't imagine anything truly positive coming from it. But that may just be my unenlightened skepticism.
    Purr more, hiss less. Barn Cat Mandolins Photo Album

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


  12. #8

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    I feel like building instruments and subsequently creating the music on said instruments is an art (that may involve some science) and something like ISO standards do not really belong. There exists a plethora of nut widths, scale lengths, string gauges, body depths etc because it is not a one size fits all situation. I do think it is good when manufacturers do provide the specifications that they did use so that the customer can make an informed decision.

  13. #9
    Registered User John Kelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ardnadam, Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    2,280

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Clark View Post
    To me, it looks like bureaucrats with too little to do, manufacturing a reason for their existence. I can't imagine anything truly positive coming from it. But that may just be my unenlightened skepticism.
    Surely, Bob, the aim is to produce a single, generic instrument with a fixed and known tone, action, etc. Think of the amount of time we would be saving when we no longer have to spend hours reading threads which discuss scale length, nut width, string gauges, string materials, bridge types, finishes and all the other details we can spend inordinate hours discussing in our quest for the Holy Grail which is the ultimate goal of each of us!

    We will have The Mandolin, The Octave Mandolin, The Acoustic Guitar, The Tenor Guitar, and if an instrument does not adhere totally to the ISO specs then it is simply not that type of instrument and would have to be consigned to the bulging bin of beaurocracy.

    Think of the time I would be saving not typing this, and you would save by not having to read it - we could be playing our new generic instrument instead, learning the prescribed picking pattern with our ISO-rated pick!

    Oh, and then we could ask for a committee to set standard specs for all our tunes, so no more discussion about whether a tune is Old Time, Ragtime, Bluegrass, Scottish, Irish, Celtic or whatever. You simply apply the relevant criteria and you have an instant solution to your tune problem.
    I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order. - Eric Morecambe

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheOldBores

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to John Kelly For This Useful Post:


  15. #10
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    26,874

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoGo View Post
    ...I think standardization in this field is complately insane...
    Agreed. The market has created standards for things like tuner post spacing. You buy what's available. This makes no sense in a field like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by jdchapman View Post
    Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
    Indeed it is.
    "It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
    --M. Stillion

    "Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
    --J. Garber

  16. #11
    Registered User Drew Streip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    442
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    I come from a fairly extensive bicycling background, where art and creativity also overlap with the mechanical demands of the tool. And I can tell you that cyclists (not necessarily manufacturers) are clamoring for a world in which "standard" means standard.

    You practically need an engineering degree to figure out what kind of crank, hubs, axles and spokes will fit on your bike. And if it's more than three years old, there's no guarantee that if you go into a local shop with a problem that they'll be able to replace -- or even repair -- your part. "Standards" change by millimeters every few years under the guise of "lighter, stiffer, stronger" and your $6,000 mountain bike looks like a relic.

    I can certainly see some VERY LIMITED musical standards for supply-chain materials, like tuner post and mounting screw spacing, or hardness of fret wires. But not on dimensions or design -- things that can be totally separate from those parts.

    In other words, your peghead can be whatever shape you want it to be -- but at least we'd have no more threads about "Can I upgrade my tuners?"

    This could pose a challenge to things like armrest hardware if somebody decided to make a double-depth mandolin -- but at that point, either the market will bear new demand for after-market parts, or it will be so rare that a one-off solution would be preferred.

  17. The following members say thank you to Drew Streip for this post:


  18. #12
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    26,874

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Clark View Post
    To me, it looks like bureaucrats with too little to do, manufacturing a reason for their existence. I can't imagine anything truly positive coming from it. But that may just be my unenlightened skepticism.
    It's interesting to note that the mandolins I've seen that were manufactured in the USSR in the 60's and later all had a number on the label to identify the instrument as having been built to the specification associated with those instruments. It probably simplified the manufacturing process but I never had one of those in my hand that was anywhere near being a really nice instrument. Maybe I just never saw one of the better spec'd instruments.
    "It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
    --M. Stillion

    "Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
    --J. Garber

  19. The following members say thank you to MikeEdgerton for this post:


  20. #13
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    26,874

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Streip View Post
    I come from a fairly extensive bicycling background, where art and creativity also overlap with the mechanical demands of the tool. And I can tell you that cyclists (not necessarily manufacturers) are clamoring for a world in which "standard" means standard...
    It's been about 40 years since I was in the bike business. back then standards were based on where the bike was manufactured. The English, French, and Italian's all had different threads on their bottom bracket cups (for one thing). The French if I recall had different thread orientations on the cups as well. The American bikes with one exception at the time all used pressed Ashtabula cranks so they were different as well. They all used various seat post diameters. I won't even get into pedals. The Japanese entered the market and thankfully adopted one of the existing thread sizes (I think English). I'm not shocked that the bike market never got its act together.

    Armrest hardware was never built to be armrest hardware. They are actually chin rest hardware for viola's. We should be Ok there as the violin and viola folks seemed to have standardized themselves over the years.
    "It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
    --M. Stillion

    "Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
    --J. Garber

  21. #14
    Moderator JEStanek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Pottstown, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    14,284
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Mass produced instruments would really benefit from uniform standards (scale length, tuner post spacing and gauge, tail piece screw spacing, etc). One at a time shop builders can do what they want. But, just perusing the Cafe over the years the lack of standard in tailpiece hole and tuner posts (which are pretty standard) has caused lots of frustration over the years.

    I think things like top graduation and recurve shape, woods used, finish material are all free to move around but hardware and some structural specs being standard is a good thing. Welcome to the Industrial Revolution!

    Jamie
    There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and, after that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second. Logan Pearsall Smith, 1865 - 1946

    + Give Blood, Save a Life +

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JEStanek For This Useful Post:


  23. #15
    Registered User Drew Streip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    442
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton View Post
    It's been about 40 years since I was in the bike business. back then standards were based on where the bike was manufactured. The English, French, and Italian's all had different threads on their bottom bracket cups (for one thing). The French if I recall had different thread orientations on the cups as well. The American bikes with one exception at the time all used pressed Ashtabula cranks so they were different as well. They all used various seat post diameters. I won't even get into pedals. The Japanese entered the market and thankfully adopted one of the existing thread sizes (I think English). I'm not shocked that the bike market never got its act together.
    It's only gotten worse, with carbon fiber, disc brakes, suspension (front and rear), height-adjust seatposts, handlebar clamp diameter, threaded vs press-fit bottom brackets, even wheel size.

    And all that is after UCI rules have stymied innovation, especially on the road side. It'd be like a guidance saying professional mandolins can only play 75 decibels, even though we have the ability to make mandolins that play 90 decibels AND have balanced tone bottom to top.

  24. The following members say thank you to Drew Streip for this post:


  25. #16
    Mandolin Botherer Shelagh Moore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    1,378

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    I think standards could be useful in the areas of interconnectivity and interchangeability of some parts and perhaps for some environmental aspects, e.g. emissions, waste, and safety. I would absolutely deplore standards having an impact on design or creativity and, in principle, standards should not limit design aspects. I worked for a very long time on the technical side of standardisation (and I am certainly not a bureaucrat) and always worked to make sure that the standards I worked on covered only those things that were useful to cover and did not inhibit innovation (in this sense I am both in agreement and disagreement with RayT above because bad standards certainly have the capability of inhibiting innovation).

  26. #17
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    I am a fan of consensus standards in industries where it solves problems and in fact create opportunities.

    I can't figure out what problem(s) these standards address?

    A standard, even when established, has to be adopted. Is IBMA going to adopt the ISO/ANSI mandolin standard and only recognize standard mandolins in competition? Is Walnut Valley (Winfield) going to require that all competitors play ISO/ANSI standard instruments? Is ASCAP or BMI only going to recognize music made on ISO/ANSI instruments?
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  27. #18
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kelly View Post
    ... - we could be playing our new generic instrument instead, learning the prescribed picking pattern with our ISO-rated pick!
    ISO pick held in the ISO/ANSI Recommended Practice for holding a pick.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  28. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Since I started this thread, let me elaborate a bit. I'm writing not an an instrument maker, but as a player who's spent a career working for organizations that develop vountary industry standards, and has seen the ISO process up close (at my first ISO meeting the committee spent half a day debating the wording of a one-sentence scope statement).

    I'm not worried that ISO musical instrument standards will stifle innovation, or restrict design. If there was a "standard mandolin," it would not likely be a design standard, but rather a menu of perfrmance specs that could be use to define the instrument. But don't think you're immune from standards now. When you play, you tune to a standard pitch; e.g. A=440 (ISO 16-1975). You buy strings that are measured by standard wire gauge (SAE AMS 5112M-2008) Even the beat of a metronome is a kind of standard. That's the nature of standardization - interested parties go through a process to arrive at a norm, and agree to use it. Put another way, stanadrds enable harmony.

    Countries agree to use international standards (such as ISO) so they don't have to develop their own national standards, and so that their products can be accepted in commerce around the world. That's where I would urge the group to be vigilant. Look at the list of existing standards in the ISO proposal document: China has 110, far more than any other country in the world. Most of these are industry voluntary standards (QB/T), and lots of them are for distinctly Chinese instruments. China also wants to be the secretariat for the new ISO standards, which means it controls the agenda.

    The standards it envisions are for classification of musical instruments ("a x is a musical instrument made of x with a hollow sound chamber, x strings tuned to x etc."), terminology (fret, tailpiece, bridge, tuner etc), test methods of musical performance (this could be standard ways to measure acoustic performance of a finished instrment, standard methods for tap tuning - who knows?), and pianos. The discussion also notes that safety will be considered, which I would assume will focus on electric instruments (is there such a thing as a safe banjo?) but could also veer off into materials, sustainability etc.

    ISO standards for musical instruments may never have any effect in the US, but if they are adopted in other countries that could affect the availability of products and the market for instruments. It's clear that China wants to become the dominant international musical instrument manufacturer (if it's not already) and adoption of international standards that reflect their domestic norms and practices could enhance their position.

    The final decision on which standards to develop, and the final shape and content of these standards, will come from the committee, where each participating country has one vote. That's the reason I believe it's important for the US to take part. US participation on ISO committees is managed by ANSI throgh something called a Technical Advisory Group, which is a committee of stakeholders that determines the US vote. As I mentioned, ANSI is hosting a teleconference to find out if there's interest. I'll be glad to forward the ANSI e-mail - let me know.

  29. #20

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    sounds like a buncha MICKEY MOUSE sh........................stuff!

  30. #21
    The Amateur Mandolinist Mark Gunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South of Cleburne, North of Hillsboro, Texas
    Posts
    5,089

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by JEStanek View Post
    Mass produced instruments would really benefit from uniform standards (scale length, tuner post spacing and gauge, tail piece screw spacing, etc). One at a time shop builders can do what they want. But, just perusing the Cafe over the years the lack of standard in tailpiece hole and tuner posts (which are pretty standard) has caused lots of frustration over the years.

    I think things like top graduation and recurve shape, woods used, finish material are all free to move around but hardware and some structural specs being standard is a good thing. Welcome to the Industrial Revolution!

    Jamie
    Agreed. Standardization in terms and test methods is a good thing. Adopting standards never stops anyone from making non-standard items. What it does is provide a platform for dialog and understanding universally.

    In my career, I've seen the benefit of having an AIA standard for architectural millwork, as one example. In another area, I've benefited greatly from having a WWWC standard to work from in writing HTML and CSS.

    Having a 3WC standard never stopped Microsoft from creating the screwy Internet Explorers which ignored much of the standard at least through version 6. Having an AIA standard does not prevent millwork shops from using materials that are substandard or outside the standards.

    Standards aren't intended to stifle creativity or to solve practical problems, they are intended to solve communications issues and to encourage best practices. I'm all for having standards in industry, knowing the standards, and adopting for my own work the ones that make sense and have some value.
    WWW.THEAMATEURMANDOLINIST.COM
    ----------------------------------
    "Life is short. Play hard." - AlanN

    ----------------------------------
    HEY! The Cafe has Social Groups, check 'em out. I'm in these groups:
    Newbies Social Group | The Song-A-Week Social
    The Woodshed Study Group | Blues Mando
    - Advice For Mandolin Beginners
    - YouTube Stuff

  31. #22
    The Amateur Mandolinist Mark Gunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South of Cleburne, North of Hillsboro, Texas
    Posts
    5,089

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoGo View Post
    As a builder I would fear this sentence:

    Someone may get the idea to ban celluloid binding of nitrocellulose lacquer altogether as they are now considered hazardous...

    I think standardization in this field is complately insane. WIth zillion of guitar types and accessories and relative freedom of smaller builders will never comply with such standards and will be ignored. And the cookie cutter products of chinese factories are (mostly) so uniform that such document is not needed...

    But I can see the next level of marketing like:
    "This unique style F model 5 mandolin has been made according to Loar specifications within ISO 12345 and the air chamber tuned to pitches prescribed in ISO 45678 assuring you get quality certified in accordance with ISO 78198... Just make sure you only use strings made to ANSI 32154 or your warranty will be void"
    I think I hear a fear of governmental and legal stuff, rather than of a standards board. A board of standards is something that's adopted by an organization like AIA or 3WC whose goal is to articulate standards to encourage best practices. Has nothing to do with any banning of anything. Has no enforcement capabilities generally, other than that some may require adherance to certain of the standards when receiving certification from the board itself.

    But yes, this is boring and sounds academic, and surely in these times folk are extraordinarily paranoid, so don't mistake my attempt to shed some light as fanaticism, I don't care whether we end up with an international standards board or not - but I do see the value in it.
    WWW.THEAMATEURMANDOLINIST.COM
    ----------------------------------
    "Life is short. Play hard." - AlanN

    ----------------------------------
    HEY! The Cafe has Social Groups, check 'em out. I'm in these groups:
    Newbies Social Group | The Song-A-Week Social
    The Woodshed Study Group | Blues Mando
    - Advice For Mandolin Beginners
    - YouTube Stuff

  32. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,573

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    We can't even agree on width of neck or size of frets, how can we adhere to a "standard" for our mandolins?

  33. #24

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Having worked with ISO 9000 at several manufacturers I can assure you that ISO standards today exist primarily to generate fees for the certification companies and consultants. They are a load of bureaucratic nonsense generated by nonproducers that interferes with real activity. Actual design standards are developed by SME, SAE and similar groups, not ISO.

  34. #25
    Registered User sblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    2,335

    Default Re: ISO standard for musical instruments

    Wow. I'm a bit surprised to hear all the negative voices. I suspect that some of you with libertarian sympathies may have gleaned the wrong impression about these 'standards', and worry that they will somehow suppress future innovation in luthiery. Or that they will somehow be enforced in law with a zealous tenacity reminiscent of, say, the Bluegrass Police! Not a chance. There is almost no zero possibility that anything remotely like that will ever happen. In fact, there is a good side to standards, and part of that has to do with getting decent replacement parts at reasonable costs. We are, most of us, beneficiaries of how the mandolin design has become increasingly 'standardized' over the last 100 years.

    In fact, we have a whole series of de facto 'standards' that a great many of us rely upon in the mandolin world. If these pseuso-standards (traditions, really) did not exist, we would all be worse off. Consider these things, which are pretty much--but not entirely--much standardized by now:

    1) The 'standard' tuning of the mandolin, GDAE
    2) The 'standard' scale length of the carved back mandolin, at 13-7/8" (to 14")
    3) The 'standard' gauges of the wire used for mandolin strings
    4) The 'standard' body shapes of carved top/back mandolins, derived from the Gibson A4/F4 and A5/F5 paradigm
    5) The 'standard' hole spacing in the peghead for a great many brands of tuners
    6) The 'standard' gear ratios of mandolin tuners (16:1 or 18:1)
    7) The 'standard' hole spacing for mandolin tailpieces
    8) The 'standard' frets that get labeled with side-dots or inlays
    9) The 'standard' thumbwheel bridge with adjustable height and compensation
    10) The 'standard' loop end found on a mandolin string

    and many more.

    In several cases, there may be some competing 'standards', but realize that these are types of standards, nevertheless. Examples including fret wire sizes (there are only just so many choices of these), string set gauges (again, a limited set of discrete values), neck profiles, finish types, and so on.

    Of course, a good many of these conventions don't apply at all to older-style, bowlback instruments (Italian and German mandolins). And many of modern, carved mandolin 'standards', such as they are, owe a great deal to innovations that came primarily from the Gibson mandolins from the first quarter of the 20th century, which have dominated the mandolin sector for so many years.

    These 'standards' make it possible for me to order an instrument case that I know in advance will will fit my F5-style mandolin (which is not from Gibson). They make it possible for me to buy replacement tuners. They make it possible for me to swap tailpieces. They make it possible for me to install an abbreviated pickguard, or an armrest, or a ToneGard, and so on. They make it possible for me to buy strings from a different maker and to know that they will fit on my tailpiece, and not create string tensions that will break my mandolin.

    So please, don't be too quick to dismiss the advent of standards. And no, standards do NOT exist "just to generate fees" for certain agencies. That's an over-generalization in the extreme, and it's an absurd conclusion. In reality, standards are all over the map, and are sometimes a force for good, and sometimes for evil. It is never appropriate to compare, say, standards for bicycles with standards for heart valve replacements. Or for mandolins.

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sblock For This Useful Post:


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
  •