Volume

[Hans]

Sure, but the bulge behind the bridge most likely means that the top has sunk necessitating the tall bridge. This would be an instrument (in my book) that is right on the edge structurally. I would also guess that it is a very hard chunk of red spruce. Might also have (or at one time had) a high arch.
Of course this is all speculation on my part (never having seen the instrument), but it sure sounds like it is carved too thin for my taste. Never having heard the instrument in person, I couldn't say whether it sounds thin...recordings don't do it for me.
Steve, like H.L's quote!

[Jim Hilburn]

Adrian Minarov concurs in his prints that a 4.3 center is the norm although I don't know how many samples he had the opportunity to use. He doesn't show it going below 3.2 at the recurve and qualifys it by saying it all depends on the wood that's being used.
Don McRostie's print has a full 1/4" center thickness which is guitar thick. I always felt that was too much but because it was all I had to work with I never got much thinner than 5.5 in the center and thought I was pushing it at that.
What's clear to me now is that the Loars didn't drastically go from thick center to thin recurve. They have more mild graduations.
I don't faithfully follow the Loar's but I think Grisman's is a '22 and one of the earliest. Maybe they were pushing the envelope then since they were just inventing the thing. I personally can't imagine ever making a top that thin and sending it out into the world.

[Chris Baird]

I think the Loar's got thicker as production progressed. Siminoff has Loar's Loar and he states some pretty thick grads as well.
I regularly build my mandolins too thick and work the grads down with them strung up in the white. I find that the tone of the instrument doesn't change much. What changes is the responsiveness and dynamic range. I am coming to consider graduations as a playability element and not so much a tonal element.

[sunburst]

Jim, I started out with thicker centers (5.Xmm) and thinner edges (2.Xmm). As I built more mandolins, my centers got thinner and edges got thicker, until I ended up about 4.5mm or less in the center of a top and 3 or slightly less at the edge. Then I started seeing Loar graduations and realized I had settled with similar thicknesses, though somewhat different graduations. Mine seem to work better with less drastic graduations and slightly lower arches. (I carve my backs quite a bit different than the Loars.)

[Dave Cohen]

I know Michael personally, and I'm sure that he meant well, but saying that I did something "from the scientific perspective" bothers me a bit. The use of the phrase "scientific pespective" implies that there is a viewpoint from science, and then again there is one from luthiers. The mandolin, like all plucked stringed instruments, is a mechano-acoustic object. That is, it undergoes some kind of motion, and that motion somehow gets turned into sound. So whether you look at a mandolin with the empirical tools of science, or with the empirical tools of a working luthier, the fact remains that you are looking at the same mechano-acoustic object. If the scientific "perspective" and the luthier's "perspective" are at odds, then one could conclude that one or the other of the "perspectives" is at least partly wrong. I think that is a false juxtaposition. To be more specific, what I pointed out was in agreement with the observations of at least several of the luthiers posting in this thread. It was not a different "perspective" at all, but rather a corroboration of the luthiers' empirical observations with well-established theory. So Michael, I don't think that you meant to create the juxtaposition (at least I hope you didn't), but the phrase "scientific perspective" made me a bit nervous.

I also take issue with the idea that one "can't make an analysis" of mandolin motion. That one hits a little closer to home with me, because analyzing the coupled motions of assembled mandolin family instruments is exactly what I have been doing for the last eight or nine years. All of the holographic modal analysis I have published has been on the motions of plates, etc., coupled to the motions of all of the other parts of the instrument. In order to have analysed the isolated motions of, say, the top plate, I would have had to damp or somehow stop the motions of all of the other parts of the instrument. I didn't do that. All of the holograms published are of plate motions coupled to the motions of all of the other parts of the instrument. In other words, they are images and frequencies of body modes, not just plate modes. Way back in 1999, I found that undamped strings could steal energy back from the body motions, so I usually damp the strings by stuffing a piece of soft foam between the strings and the fingerboard. Other than that, the whole instrument was doing its' thing. I have often emphasized in this forum that all of the motions of the instrument corpus are coupled, and that the coupled motions occur at different frequencies than do the motions of isolated parts. Did it in a recent thread, in fact.

I often hear the notion from laypersons that science can't do this or science will never be able to do that. Reminds me a lot of the British MP in 1825 asserting that scientists would never be able to determine the composition of the Sun. As it turned out, Fraunhofer was even then using his newly invented spectroscope to determine the composition of the Sun! So as long as the mandolin is not operated by forest sprites or tone fairies, we will find out how it works. It may or may not reveal itself to me, but someone will eventually find out more about how the things work. You can count on it.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[labraid]

Oh, I think science may have already done it... via the hands of an artist or two.

[Mario Proulx]

don't fall into the trap of thin tops. Thin tops sound thin, don't have any "meat" behind them, and cave in

I can add an amen to this quote.

about 9-10 years ago, on one of my first mandolins, one which was a disappointment, I decide that the sucker was going to "learn" me something on its way to its death bed. So, with scraper in hand, I began to thin that top, with the strings tuned to pitch! i began in the recurve, which was already down to about .115", and played it. left it a few days, and then thinned the center area, played, etc........ Did this for a few weeks, then went for the kill, and thinned then played, with it tuned(and re-tuned..<sigh&gt, until it caved-in.

A few important observations.

a) It never got appreciably louder. Never gained any real volume. Not from thinning the re-curve, not the center. Not the whole.

b) It's tone just got thinner and thinner, and had completely lost its "timbre" in the end. It was more banjo-like in tone as it got thinner.

c) when it did collapse, it didn't fall inward under the bridge, but instead, the top imploded with it bulging behind the bridge first, then it split into 3(through the F holes), with the ribs spreading outward, and the tailpiece being pulled -in- toward the neck. It folded, instead of collapsing!

In closing, mass -is- important, but way more for tone than for volume. Volume is the result of absolute efficiency, and to a large degree, the range of the instrument's tone. As others have noted already, some instruments sound "killer" on their own, but then get "lost" in the mix of a jam of band setting. And some other don't seem loud to the player, yet can be heard above the loudest jam.

an interesting subject, for sure, with no real answers...

Dave, I believe we all understand; the problem is, as you state, that science itself, isn't yet up to the task. Someday, for sure, and quite likely not in our time, but for now, we need to mix what science can bring us(thanks to folks like yourself) and what our ears and hands can tell us.

[labraid]

science itself, isn't yet up to the task.

I was kinda waiting to pounce.

Scio = "to know"

Knowing numbers doesn't mean knowing, it means labelling what you know.

I mean that in all respect to numbers people. My point is, you don't need to know numbers to know.

Of course you all know that.

Yay, my grudge of the day has been eliminated.

[sunburst]

I'm pretty sure science is up to the task, it is the scientists who haven't done all the experiments needed to fully document and understand the instrument yet. Don't forget scientific experiments take time and money, and as more experiments are thought of and tried, and more equipment is invented to measure what needs to be measured, more knowledge will be gained.

As for me, most of what I've learned from reading scientific papers and asking questions is what not to do. In other words, I've learned that some of my previous notions of how things might work are not correct, and by not exploring those "blind alleys", I can spend the time I save on things that might actually make a better mandolin. I feel like I owe a lot to Dave for his efforts.

[Dave Cohen]

Mario, did I say anything about science currently not being up to the task? #How many people claiming that science isn't there yet have read the musical acoustics and/or mechanical vibration literature enough to be able to say that with any authority? #For that matter, how many of them have read the Cohen & Rossing papers? #The references can be found on my website, [URL=http://www.cohenmando.com]

The word [i]science may be derived from something meaning "to know", but modern scientists understand the enterprise to be about the process of finding out, tempered with the understanding that all knowledge is incomplete. #The common mistaken assumption is that because "science" doesn't know everything[I] about a subject, what it does know is therefore tenuous and/or somewhat lacking in credibility. #Tain't necessarily so.

"Knowing numbers doesn't mean knowing, it means labeling what you know."

What? #Did you proofread that carefully before posting? #

Another common misconception about science is that it is all about "getting numbers". #Numbers are part, but not all, of the language of science. #Equations are part, but not all, of the language of science. #Formalistic theory and models are part, but not all, of the language of science. #Words and pictures, too, are part of the language of science. #Communication is part of science, which means that we have the responsibility of relating our knowledge in words and pictures that others can understand. #I try to keep that in mind. #

It's frustrating to me to see people casually dismiss the scientific knowledge about plucked stringed instruments, and especially about mandolins. #That's because the scientific information about mandolins thus far is largely my work. #Imo, it is good work, and I did it because I wanted to contribute something that would help luthiers and musicians to understand their instruments. #No money in it for me. #In fact, since the journals are published by scientific societies rather than by for-profit publishers, we have to pay page charges when a paper is accepted for publication.

[labraid]

Ahh, getting interesting now.
No, I may have written fast. Knowing numbers doesn't mean necessarily knowing, and it doesn't mean not knowing. One may understand an equation, and yet still not know how to implement it without inventing a giant contraption, or a mechanical ear, or what have you. But respect in the science field calls for proofs, yet the proof of some people's work is in the product, not in their ability to express it in other words. Respect all the same.
Someone once asked a musician, "why did you write that song?" to which he replied, "well, if I could explain it, I wouldn't have sung it." I don't think "famous" luthiers of the Renaissance would understand Rossing or Cohen ( ), but they did know stuff. And it was methodically conceived, and it was repeatable, and it was great. Therefore, "science" was observed. You must agree, David?

Now the misunderstanding that can arise is that I am for the artists. Look at me, I'm an artist. Science and art have lived hand in hand for thousands of years, and they won't stop being partners now. Art is often that thing [incl. physics, differential equations, eating a hamburger en route to the game and not crashing] which happens so out of habit that it becomes mindless. As players, as hand-workers, as statisticians, as publishing researchers...

[Yonkle]

You are all wrong! Best way for a loud mandolin is a "pickup" installed, works wonders!
Seriously , and I shouldn't state my opinions being a rookie builder, but what I have found in the few mandolins I've done it just seems to be a overall of everything involved in building. The wood itself, the graduation's, type of finish, type of strings, neck angle,type of bridge, nut, pick all these things just come together and some come together better than others.
One thing you don't hear much of and I have done it is to do everything to spec, but add 1/32" to the rim height, added to good graduations #and this is very simple but it put a lot of loud in my #6 F5,
I also tried the neck angle deal and I agree with what Mr. Cohen said, the steep angle did not seem to do anything and if it did it is not worth the risk of too much tension on the front plate or the risk of the neck feeling odd.and risk of having a tall bridge.
Personally I'd rather have a less vocal mando with a great tone than one that really barks yet may not sound real pretty. I guess thats one of the goals we all hope to reach with each build, is a mandolin that has great volume and great tone to boot!
The loudest nicest sounding mandolin I have ever heard was an A5 built by Anderson in Portland I think. A fellow from the Redding CA. area owned it and he could really play it well too. He showed me the top thickness around the F holes and it was about 3/8" there (I couldn't believe how thick it was, maybe he just made it thick just there for durability?? #Hard telling. #He said the builder "Anderson" use's a carving machine for his plates. In any event there were about 30 of us all playing in a circle, 30 different mandolins all sounded different until his turn and it made you stop and look to see where this is coming from, it stood out like no other. I'd like to figure that mandolin out. He said he gets comments everywhere he goes. # JD

[Dave Cohen]

Brian I don't mean to pounce, but the use of the word "proof" is part of what concerns me. Science is constrained by the Popperian doctrine of falsifiability. Translated, there is no such thing as a scientific "proof". But we can verify, corroborate, demonstrate, and disprove, hence John Hamlett's important emphasis on what not to do. In my last post, I forgot to emphasise the most important part of science, that is, experiment. Theory guides, but experiment decides.

Also, you seem to be assuming that I only do science. In fact, I wear a luthier's hat as well as a scientist's hat. The mandolin family instruments which I build are part of the daily lab work that I do. In answer to your emphasis on product, two of my mandolins won 2nd and 1st places in the 2006 CMSA mandolin consumer's survey. See http://www.cohenmando.com/bio.html for details. I don't claim to be using science to build "better" mandolin family instruments. That would be (i) wrong, and (ii) arrogant. But my instruments stood up to "good" (better than the rest, actually, but only in that case) in a blind listening test in Louisville.

That the work of great Golden Age luthiers was methodically concieved and repeatable, I agree. And to that end, their work was also describable. Whether you think of yourself as an intuitive builder or a scientific builder, you have to agree that a mandolin is not a supernatural object; it is part of the natural world. And to that end, the process of building it should be describable. Dana Bourgeous (sp?) had an excellent description on the web some time ago of his intuitive method for tuning guitar plates. There was none of the usual "Tap the plates all of your life, and then you will know what to do." Instead, he described what he listens for, and how he gets to his final destination by thinning, etc. Similarly, Peter Coombe has written two articles on his development of Chladni plate tuning in mandolins, as has Alan Carruth for guitars and violins. I submit that all of those accounts, be they "scientific" or "intuitive" are describable and repeatable, and that is a far cry from advising someone to "just keep listening and eventually you will know."

[Hans]

John, did you say 3/8" as in 3-8ths, three/eighths", THREE EIGHTHS OF AN INCH?!? #

[Mario Proulx]

Mario, did I say anything about science currently not being up to the task?


Hmm, I must have mis-read you, as your last line " It may or may not reveal itself to me, but someone will eventually find out more about how the things work." implicated that, in my mind, at least.

Science, and the technology required for science to completely read and understand the makeup of sound, including tone, and how humans relate to it, is certainly not up to task yet.

[peter.coombe]

"Science, and the technology required for science to completely read and understand the makeup of sound, including tone, and how humans relate to it, is certainly not up to task yet."

I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. Science is certainly up to the task, the methods and techniques are very well known. The relevant EXPERIMENTS have just not been done yet. Theory and techniques are all very well, but someone has to do the experiments. As Dave says, part of science is all about experiments. These experiments either disprove a hypothesis or provide evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis. With Lutherie the experiments are difficult because it is difficult to get enough material (i.e. instruments) to do the experiments such that one can get some sort of statistical probability that is actually useful. An experiment on one instrument means nothing, it must be repeatable. Two is better, but 100 is MUCH better. Experiments take time, a LOT of time.

[jasona]

Seems to me that we're still in the descriptive phase. How do you describe the sound of good? Its hard, and it takes time. You guys are the first. Good luck!

[Yonkle]

Han's let me clear my throat and get this out... Ahh Hummm. Yes 3/8" 3-8th Three eights inch, but maybe I am exagerating sp? It was over 1/4" it looked freaky it was so think! But mad what a boom box! jd

[Hans]

Wow, that's thick!!! Would have been interesting to stick a pinky inside the ff hole to see if he just had a thick ff hole lamination of spruce as support. That's a good way of spreading dis-information. Can't speculate about much here...

[Dave Cohen]

Mario gives himself wiggle room by using the word "complete". Problem is, all knowledge is incomplete. If one reads the literature thoroughly enough, though, one realizes that there are lots of good starting places, lots of empirical information that tells us, to paraphrase John Hamlett, "what not to bother with", conceptual relationships that suggest new directions, etc. The notion that because science will never be able to provide the complete description, it is somehow not up to "the task" is a fatuous one, a science-stopper. It's an argument that Tuft's U. philosopher Daniel Dennett likens to a game of tennis in which one player insists on serving with the net down, then requiring that the net be raised into place for the opposing player's return.

[labraid]

With that very net in place, some players have been serving "aces" with their ear, a tuning fork, and scraper, for hundreds of years and they're still going strong. It may not be accessible to everyone, but that is what makes it valuable.

[jim simpson]

Could one take apart a great finished mandolin, have it duplicated via cnc and get close to the same mandolin given that one would use same assembly and glues, etc?

[labraid]

jim, the simple answer is no. Plate measures, when examined by themselves, have very little to do with with the final outcome of an instrument's tone.

on a side note. I am curious, would anyone else be of the same mind that maybe we're tripping over the word "science", when in this thread maybe a better term would be "technology"?

[Jim Rowland]

With respect to the subject of mandolin volume,I think that the use of carbon fiber or other wood substitutes can answer a plethora of questions by analogy. In the final analysis,of course, no series of samples in any medium can be totally identical in constitution,but very,very close is possible with fabricated materials. This should make it more practical to deduce the effect of small changes in construction on volume. So,do you think isolating volume from tone and other factors would be of benefit in this question,or would it just stir the pot?
Jim

[Mario Proulx]

Okay, maybe I am mixing science and technology incorrectly.

My point is that no matter how science wants to, and does, understand things that make sound, the technology isn't here yet to do it completely. And yes, I use the word complete again, but not as an "out", but because anything at this level that isn't done completely, still leaves too many debatable questions. We have a lot of information, as Dave points out, but the next step will take a technological leap before science can go much further.

We can, and do, use science in the way the John mentioned, and all of us do, as players or luthiers(as soon as we try to adjust action, intonations, anything, we ask a specific question and seek and answer, one for which science has the answer).

This entire deal is the result of my mis-interpreting Dave's " It may or may not reveal itself to me, but someone will eventually find out more about how the things work." comment, and he, in turn, mis-reading my interpretation.

Science doesn't even have the simple task of communication covered, much less complex acoustics!