Mando Massage

[Bernie Daniel]

I agree with this to an extent. Scientific results are only consistent while there is a consistent way of testing them and of measuring the results. The reason that the tone characteristics of musical instruments cannot be scientifically tested is that the woods and other materials involved are never exactly the same from one instrument to the next. And even if they were, there are still too many setup variables involved.

That's not to say that no scientific test works on a mandolin. For example, if you apply a sufficient amount of pressure to the top and back of a mandolin, it will flatten. However the specific amount of pressure required to flatten a mandolin will differ from one mandolin to the next.

The problem we all face as we seek better sounding instruments, and for that matter music in general, is that the sound we hear is always filtered by our emotions about it. No scientific test has ever been able to completely get around that.

Well I agree it would be a challenging concept to assess but I don't agree with that view that can't be done. As I suggested before don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

First, it is most likely that no scientific (or non-scientific) analysis of anything will ever prefect or associated with certitude.

What we seek, using the scientific method of analysis, is the most probable answer and also we want some quantitative assessment of the probability that the answer that we have determined is indeed correct. That is true with every test.

We seek the likelihood of an answer. The probability is incredibly low but it is possible that gas might flow someday happen to flow from a low pressure vessel INTO a high pressure one -- it is theoretically possible as a consequence of random molecular motion. But again the odds are massively low for this to ever happen.

Models for the relationship of atmospheric characteristics (like CO2) to global temperatures contain REALLY hundreds of thousands of variables -- admittedly none of these models are currently predicting very well but very complex process can be tested -- this is certain.

Scientific testing of mandolin tone (or sound or volume or projection or you name it) is not automatically and permanently an un-testable black art even if there are tricky or problematic variables (including human ones). Everyday we see organizations taking a scientific opinion polls on feelings, opinions, beliefs, or anything else. It is not impossible. It is done every day.

Are there variables that need to be controlled? Of course. Do some of the variables involve difficult-to-control measures? Yes. But are they such that a valid test cannot be made and valid result at some known probability be rendered? Absolutely not IMO.

Will the answer on the detectability of enhanced versus not-enhanced mandolin characteristics be associated with a certitude of p < 0.001? Most likely no. But if we would accept some lesser level of certitude (we would want to be wrong less then 1 time in 20 - i.e., p<0.05) going in. Then sure. We can then test to see if we can meet that level. That's what statistics is for.

But just as the very eloquently designed Paris test showed on violins the answer to the question, "can musicians or critics distinguish the sound of a classic violin from an excellent modern violin if they can not use the sense of sight?" The answer was no.

Because of the Paris test we know that with some level of statistical confidence. Is the answer absolute -- or could we say that no one would ever be able to perform the test and correctly identify the classic violin every time? The answer is again no.

But we do know that probably most individuals will not be successful at it. I say yes that is what the test demostrated.

It would be no different with mandolins.

So of course these tests can be done! That is my opinion and I am sticking to it!!

[ccravens]

That is the curse of science - it is expensive to build absolute proof, and after you made the effort people will discard your proof and return to believing what they want to believe (my signature line is based on experience).

Reminds me of a statement I heard recently: "facts do not determine what people will believe."

The older I get, the more life I experience, the more I think about "science" (as discussed on this thread) and "facts," the more I believe this statement to be true.

[foldedpath]

Reminds me of a statement I heard recently: "facts do not determine what people will believe."

The older I get, the more life I experience, the more I think about "science" (as discussed on this thread) and "facts," the more I believe this statement to be true.

There is a relevant quote from Richard P. Feynman:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- "Cargo Cult Science", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address

[Bernie Daniel]

Reminds me of a statement I heard recently: "facts do not determine what people will believe."

The older I get, the more life I experience, the more I think about "science" (as discussed on this thread) and "facts," the more I believe this statement to be true.

There is a relevant quote from Richard P. Feynman:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- "Cargo Cult Science", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address

Those are true statements but in my opinion, the fly in the ointment is not science per se. If it were not for science we would all be journeying down much shorter, more arduous lives and we would have few opportunities or life paths to choose from.

The problem is that all of us as scientists do not always live up to strict scientific protocols.

[OldSausage]

Those are true statements but in my opinion, the fly in the ointment is not science per se. If it were not for science we would all be journeying down much shorter, more arduous lives and we would have few opportunities or life paths to choose from.

The problem is that all of us as scientists do not always live up to strict scientific protocols.

Indeed, while pondering science's weaknesses it becomes all too easy to overlook the staggering accuracy and precision of most of our scientific results, as well their bountiful harvest in our lives.

[Bernie Daniel]

Indeed, while pondering science's weaknesses it becomes all too easy to overlook the staggering accuracy and precision of most of our scientific results, as well their bountiful harvest in our lives.

Yes and power of science is staggering. The questions seem unanswerable can indeed be answered by the patient and careful application of scientific methods.

[Simon DS]

Not sure about the mandolin but I did douse my hands in handcream and then did a lot of hand massage and stretching exercises this morning.
Amazing the benefits for the whole body.

[maxr]

...If it's a bad sounding instrument there must be some things one can do to,at least,make it sound a little better,yes?

I think Mike Edgerton just covered that above with his post about the 5 ton press...

We all remember the iconic photo of Bill Monroe hugging his Loar;so,there's gotta be something to it. Right?

Is that what 'main squeeze' is about then?

[Kevin Briggs]

Would we need a scientific test to prove that suppressing the mandos vibrations would make it less resonant, have less sustain, have less tone? I think thats something we could all agree on.. i dont know anyone who says theyd rather lay their hand on the mando top to make it sound better.

So obviously, why a mando sounds good has something to do with how it vibrates as a whole. Thats not the entire formula for good tone, but its part of it.

Any method which may enhance its ability to vibrate as a whole, Im open to. Some of the best mandos Ive played almost sing by themselves when theres a draft. They just want to make noise.

In my anecdotal evidence of using an orbital sander while the mando in is the white, the sander doesn't change the stiffness of the plates. So theres something else going on because the effect doesnt last more than a few hours. Id like a scientific answer bit I know that wont happen any time soon.

Thank you for this.

To take it an additional step.... even if we could somehow "control" all of the variables in an experiment to generate some relevant data, and even if we succeeded at crystallizing some kind of information or formula that accounts for an instrument vibrating in such and such a desirable way, it wouldn't make a difference if we weren't able to hear the results. This then places human beings and the infinite variables that result in their perception of something squarely in the middle of the process. Once that happens, good luck reducing and measuring their experience, something that exists in the content of their consciousness.

I suppose if we generated enough data using the first approach we could eventually justify a mixed-methods study, but it would be all for naught without the subjectivity of individual humans' perceptions. What might help is doing a handful of phenomenological studies to establish potential structures of the experience of listening to mandolins that have been massaged. This would need to be ongoing in and of itself because as mentioned above the variables are infinite and arguably reduceable. Again, I suppose we could eventually start to make some reasonable assumptions if we had enough data, but getting that data reliably and anytime soon is a tall, tall order using either approach.

So, from my perspective, this circles back to Mr. Isabelle Mandolins' point. Do we really need this kind of research to confirm that something is indeed happening? It reminds me of mindfulness research. Western researchers have been conducting scientific mindfulness studies for 50 years or so. It's been a processing of discovering what people from another side of the world have known for thousands of years. But, somehow now that the west is verifying the information it's actually "true," which is a prototypical example of naval-gazing.

Circling yet again back to the original point, how in the world would we ever account for differences of opinion. I love my mandolin because it sounds rich and complex. It's beautifully resonant. However, a local mandolin friend prefers her Gibson because of its hulkish chop. I think hers' is a little one-dimensional, etc. and so on. It seems to be a self-evident process that has everything to do with the content of our consciousness, which has everything to do with our conditioning, a phenomenon western science considers "hard" due to a to-date inability to determine what consciousness even is....

[Dave Greenspoon]

So, what metric determines the tonal quality that is expressed as the woods of an instrument age in place together?

[Kevin Briggs]

So, what metric determines the tonal quality that is expressed as the woods of an instrument age in place together?

That’s exactly my point. First we’d have to all agree (reduce) until we have those characteristics, then we’d need to develop and test a scale. I can’t even effectively think about agreeing on what mandolins, with what aged woods and from where, types of glue, luthier(s), type of living environment of the mandolin, etc. would be candidates for that study. We know anecdotally two mandolins from the same luthier, built at the same time, with woods from the same trees, etc. can result in two quite different mandolins. All of this and remembering it is in service of a subjective end.

Even if the numbers could somehow in someway align, that won’t/cannot account for the listener’s/player’s perception and biases. It would be a fun project to get all of the vibration math going on mandolins. The purpose, however, would be to get the numbers, not to determine the quality of tones. As soon as we’re determining the quality of something related to our senses, the murk sets in.