Has anyone built a mandolin trying to get the most bass possible?

[nmiller]

I have a pretty bluesy/old-timey picking style, and I like mandolins with a bassy thump that hits you in the chest - definitely not the bluegrass sound. Lately, I've been thinking about how to get the most bass out of a mandolin, and I have a few ideas: oval hole, mahogany top and back, deeper body than normal, and maybe shorten the scale slightly.

Has anyone built something like this? Is there a production model like it (even from a small builder) or would it have to be a completely custom job?

[Willie Poole]

That's a good question, I don`t have an answer but I also have wondered if making a bridge thicker would add more bass to a mandolin, maybe someone has tried that and will chime in soon...

Willie

[LongBlackVeil]

I think you should definitley look to the gibson oval holes for inspiration.

I love my A JR for that sound when I play the blues. The g string is like a cannon all by itself.

I see you have a gibson oval so I think you know what I mean.

What if instead of the normal birch or maple, you put rosewood as the back and sides? Rosewood has more bass than maple/birch or mahogany (generally)

Though I've never played a rosewood mandolin, I know martin made some

You actually seem to be describing a martin a style in your original post. I don't consider those to be too bass heavy, but of course they are flat backs and canted tops not arched tops

[dcoventry]

Smaller f-holes have been heard to produce more pronounced bass, I believe.

[Fretbear]

"I like my mandolin to sound like a bass...."
Jesse McReynolds

I concur, and it sounds like you do too.

Of course we are not talking here about the treble courses, and I have also found the D string to be the most forgiving string (as far as it sounding "OK" goes) on most mandolins, whether of a grand or more modest pedigree. So it essentially comes down to the low G.
In this vein I am reminded of a story that Mike Marshall told when he asked Tony Rice to help him pick out a fine bluegrass guitar. Tony simply walked down the long line of Martin guitars that were all hanging next to each other in the shop, and without even taking them down or looking at them, simply plucked the D and G string of each one, until he arrived at a particular one and said, "This is great guitar......"
As the low G on a mandolin correlates to the G string on a guitar, this gives food for thought, in that Tony seemed unconcerned about the sound of the low E and A (I am assuming because he felt the primary tonal characteristics of the guitar he chose could be ascertained from the sound of it's mid-range)
My only qualification to comment on such a topic (considering the master luthiers we have here on the Cafe) is that I own a mandolin with an exceptionally fine bottom (ahem) that I happened to have built. Luck likely had as much to do with it as any skill on my part, but it has made me very interested in this very topic, which is why I am posting about it. A few points then.

1: I don't have any interest in round hole mandolins, so nothing I am saying relates to them, this all relates to F-hole mandolins.

2: Regarding F-holes, it has always intrigued me how the signed-Loar mandolas (where one would naturally be looking for more bass response) have quite narrow/skinny F-hole dimensions compared to the Loar mandolins. This is definitely counter-intuitive. The earliest '22 Loars also had narrower than average F hole dimensions. I am not going to make any unprovable statements, but I believe there is some effect from these narrow F holes upon bass response and over all presence in general upon the whole instrument.

3: I have never played a mandolin with an extremely thin neck that sounded good to me (as far as bass goes) and yes I know that many Loars have skinny necks. As I said "that I have played" (I've never played a Loar) but the experts also comment that Loars are known more for their mid-range honk than for their bassiness, which is more often described as a "modern sound." So I believe more mass in the neck (more like the neck dimensions commonly found on vintage Gibson F-4's etc., also has a contributing effect on the bass response. An exception to this would be the Loar that Skaggs played with the New South that reportedly had it's neck thinned so much that the truss rod was peeking out the back. That was an exceptionally fine-sounding mandolin (in the bass too) that you can hear on some YouTubes ("Sin City") with Rice and Crowe.

4: The back has to be just right, not too thick (but thick enough) and not too thin either. I believe other woods could contribute to different tonal flavours, but hard maple will definitely supply the bass if it is graduated correctly.

[nmiller]

You actually seem to be describing a martin a style in your original post.

Flat-top/flat-back mandolins certainly can be bassy, but I find that they tend to have a volume limit; if you play them too loud, they "distort" for lack of a better word. Martin did make some rosewood mandos (Style B), and they actually made some carved-top mandolins as well; all of them were great instruments, but not really the sound I have in mind.

Smaller f-holes have been heard to produce more pronounced bass, I believe.

I could see how smaller f-holes would trap more air in the body and perhaps cause it to resonate more; maybe that's a stretch, I don't know.

[nmiller]

I am not going to make any unprovable statements, but I believe there is some effect from these narrow F holes upon bass response and over all presence in general upon the whole instrument.

3: I have never played a mandolin with an extremely thin neck that sounded good to me, and yes I know that many Loars have skinny necks. ... So I believe more mass in the neck (more like the neck dimensions commonly found on vintage Gibson F-4's etc., also has a contributing effect on the bass response.

Interesting, that's 2 similar comments about the f-holes now. I wonder if the same idea applies to decreasing the size of an oval hole.

I agree with you about the neck, to a point. More massive necks do tend to sound better (same with guitars). I've found a few exceptions, though, such as my '32 F-2 with a truss rod.

[LongBlackVeil]

Flat-top/flat-back mandolins certainly can be bassy, but I find that they tend to have a volume limit; if you play them too loud, they "distort" for lack of a better word. Martin did make some rosewood mandos (Style B), and they actually made some carved-top mandolins as well; all of them were great instruments, but not really the sound I have in mind.



I could see how smaller f-holes would trap more air in the body and perhaps cause it to resonate more; maybe that's a stretch, I don't know.

Yes I agree, martin mandolins don't have the sound that your looking for. But the specs you listed do describe them


Yes smaller soundholes make for more bass. I have a 00018 norman blake model guitar. It's a 12 fret 000 with a short scale and a smaller soundhole. It's much brassier than any 000 (12 fret or otherwise) that I've ever played. It sounds like a 12 fret dread!

So my experience says yes, smaller soundholes equals more bass

[Marc Ferry]

Check out Silverangel mandolins, built by Ken Ratcliff. They are known for their wonderful bass sound.

[sgrexa]

it has always intrigued me how the signed-Loar mandolas (where one would naturally be looking for more bass response) have quite narrow/skinny F-hole dimensions compared to the Loar mandolins...........(I've never played a Loar)

I think this needs clarification!? I believe the Silver Angels with small F holes have confirmed this phenomenon. That would be my recommendation.

Sean

[ombudsman]

In my experience with guitars, I have the impression that a large round hole gives a lot more low end than F holes, and that smaller F holes allow for less low end compared to large ones. Also I have a berde with a round hole, which is more or less a mandobass, it definitely has more lows although less overall volume than my upright bass. So I am unscientifically guessing that (up to a point), the more porting in the top, the more lows.

I've been impressed with the low end of my round back mandola since it arrived recently. (It has a round sound hole of course.) Granted, it's a mandola, but compared to my Waldzither which is about the same size and has about the same size hole, it's clearly bassier.

An abundance of highs is not the same thing as a deficit of lows nor does it imply the existence of one, so it's important to be as specific as possible about what we are looking for and hearing. That said, if I was looking for the bassiest mandolin, I'd probably want to try a bowl back with TI flatwounds, and also a mando with an unusually large flat backed body (whatever that may be).

[Fretbear]

GHS Silk and Bronze strings don't hurt either.......

[edandjudy3946]

My Silverangel (see post photo of mando) by Ken Ratcliff will certainly thump your chest and then some. The top is from a piece of 1850 redwood and sides are sugar maple.

[mandroid]

The open G is barely the top space of the bass clef..

the overtones can develop better.. as many find with the back free to also vibrate .. a benefit of the Tone Gard ..

My 1922 A 4 paddle head is OK in that regard.

oval hole, mahogany top and back, deeper body than normal, and maybe shorten the scale slightly.

curious enough to commission a custom built?

How about a longer scale and a Mandola or Octave mando where the notes are Lower.

[nmiller]

curious enough to commission a custom built?

How about a longer scale and a Mandola or Octave mando where the notes are Lower.

I've been pondering a custom build for a while. I'll be heading to the Woodstock Luthier's Showcase in a couple of months, so I may see if any of the exhibitors have any ideas within my budget.

I have a couple of mandolas, but frankly I've never played one that sounded fantastic on the lowest notes. Archtops, in particular, seem to be pretty weak on the C strings. Mine are both flat-backs, which helps somewhat, but neither are bass monsters.

[OldSausage]

I think you can make bass heavy mandolins with combinations of all the factors people have mentioned - even the ones that are contradictory. When I started thinking about this, I dramatically underestimated the number of variables involved, using just my intuition. I think that's why builders speak so much about experience - I don't believe there's any simple recipe you can follow to achieve this.

The easiest way to get a mandolin like that is to play a whole bunch until you find it.

[barry k]

Someone once said "you cant get something for nothing" In other words if you build a bass heavy mandolin, chances are something else would be sacrificed in the tonal spectrum. From my experience , very heavy bass mandolins will lack clarity in the mid and especially in the treble range , which I describe as muddy. These also tend to breakdown tonally also, as another poster had said.. distorting so to speak. And that's why Gibson mandolins are so popular in the bluegrass world, they have achieved this balance as good as it gets....well, other builders have achieved it also, Gilchrist, Randy Wood, Altman, Red Diamond and many, many more that have THAT bluegrass tone. The Lloyd Loars are among the most sought after mandolins in the world and they are NOT bass heavy...just beautifully balanced. My 2 cents...bk

[sblock]

Yeah, Old Sausage may be absolutely right to point out that the most practical way to get more bass is to just select a mandolin that has it.

Of course, "bass" is a complex, subjective tonal quality, and not well defined. At the risk of stating the obvious (sorry!), musical sound is generated across an entire spectrum, and a mandolin spectrum that has relatively more low frequency peaks in may, or may NOT, sound more "bass-y" to you or me, depending on exactly where these peaks are, how many of them there are, and how they compare with other peaks in the spectrum in the treble and mid-range. So getting more "bass" is not only subjective, but there is no straightforward route towards it.

That is not to say that there aren't several clues to guide you. On many (most?) acoustical string instruments, the lowest air cavity resonance -- the Helmholtz resonance -- serves to share the string-driven energy and smooth out and enhance many of the lower-frequency components. Put simply, the Helmholtz resonance affects the bass response, and it's an important (but not unique) factor. The physics of this phenomenon is well established and backed up by numerous luthier experiments.

The approximate formula for the Helmholtz resonance of a hollow SPHERE with a circular sound-hole cut in it, attached to a tube (the same diameter as the hole) leading out, can be calculated easily. A sphere, of course, is not the body shape of a guitar or mandolin, but it DOES provide some general clues and guidelines. That formula is:

f = [c/(2*Pi)] * SQRT{S/VL}

where: f is the sound frequency of the resonance
Pi = 3.141592653..., c is the speed of sound in air, about 300 m/s
S is the cross-sectional AREA of the SOUND HOLE, V is VOLUME of the sphere, and L is the length of the tube.
Of course, * means multiply, / means divide, and SQRT {x} means take the square root of x!

From this formula, you see that -- all else being equal -- the larger the sound hole, the higher the resonance frequency. And the bigger the cavity volume, the lower the resonance frequency.

So, to tune an instrument body to have a lower Helmholtz resonance, with the aim of exciting more of the low-frequency end of the output spectrum (call that "turning up the bass", but it's not exactly the same, as I pointed out), you should:

1) Make the body cavity bigger
2) Make the sound hole smaller

These guidelines will only work within strict limits, of course -- doing away with the sound hole altogether (setting S to 0) will not drive the Helmholtz resonance to zero! And making the cavity too big (setting V to infinity) will send all the string energy away into the vast void, where damping (from the walls and air) will kill the sound.

Still, you want to go towards smaller soundholes, not larger ones, and deeper (or just larger) body cavities. For example, the Northfield Big Mon has a slightly larger top area and therefore body cavity (about 5% more, I think).

As a suggested experiment, you could try partially taping over the sound holes on your current mandolin and assess the effect (to your ear) of the sound that comes out.

The exact shape of the soundhole (e.g. ff holes vs oval holes) will have an effect, but it is a very small one. The mass/shape of the neck will have an effect, but it is an even smaller one. Actually, just about EVERYTHING will have an effect: body shape, type and thickness of finish, woods used for the back and sides, tailpiece mass, type of glue used, and so on. But all those effects are surprisingly small, despite what some folks say here on the MC (okay, I will gird my loins for the flames that are sure to follow!). More important than any of that, so far as the instrument sound spectrum is concerned, are (1) the strings and pick you use, and ... drum roll ... (2) the sonic characteristics of the mandolin top.


Re item (1), you could just try changing the string gauges and types/brands. The effect might surprise you -- in a pleasant way!

Re item (2), above, this is at least as critical as the Helmholtz resonance. It depends upon the tonewood used, its carved shape, thickness and graduations, its stiffness and internal damping, the effects of the bracing (X braces or tone bars, and their shapes/masses), the finish used on the top, and all that.

You may get a lot of opinions on how to enhance the top to bring out more "bass!" This is more art than science, and there are few guidelines -- at least few that luthiers will agree upon. But the physics part, which is also important, is to go for a lower Helmholtz resonance.

Finally, what you mean by "bass" might just turn out to be volume, or responsiveness. Or it might mean toning down the highs (or the mid-range frequencies) rather than actually bringing up the lows. These effects are all perceived, under many circumstances, as providing more "bass." What barry k wrote was substantially right, and a "bass-ier" sound may well reflect more than just enhanced lows.


I hope this information (mixed with opinion!) helps to focus thinking. Good luck with your quest!!

[Jim Garber]

I've been pondering a custom build for a while. I'll be heading to the Woodstock Luthier's Showcase in a couple of months, so I may see if any of the exhibitors have any ideas within my budget.

Interesting... I plan to be there if I can. In the last few years there were very few mandolin makers, tho this coming one looks like a few more -- Exhibitor List: Ithaca Stringed Instruments, Joe Mendel, Grimes Guitars, Bernard Lehmann. All the more reason to go.

[peter.coombe]

Someone once said "you cant get something for nothing" In other words if you build a bass heavy mandolin, chances are something else would be sacrificed in the tonal spectrum. From my experience , very heavy bass mandolins will lack clarity in the mid and especially in the treble range , which I describe as muddy.

That is certainly true. If you want lots of bass then oval hole is the way to go. There are F hole mandolins that could be described as bass heavy, but they can never have the woofy sort of bass an oval hole has. There are well balanced oval hole mandolins as well as bass heavy oval hole mandolins. I aim to make them well balanced, but have made a few I would describe as bass heavy, with an overly strong G string. Over all these were disappointing tonally, and I don't intent to intentionally repeat that. So, you do lose clarity and sweetness in the mids and treble.

[nmiller]

Someone once said "you cant get something for nothing" In other words if you build a bass heavy mandolin, chances are something else would be sacrificed in the tonal spectrum. From my experience , very heavy bass mandolins will lack clarity in the mid and especially in the treble range , which I describe as muddy.

That sounds perfect - I love a bit of mud. I'd be very happy to lose a lot of the highs, as I find the traditional F-5 to be horribly shrill. My goal is to produce low notes that are felt as much as they're heard; note definition is not a big concern.

More important than any of that, so far as the instrument sound spectrum is concerned, are (1) the strings and pick you use, and ... drum roll ... (2) the sonic characteristics of the mandolin top.


Re item (1), you could just try changing the string gauges and types/brands. The effect might surprise you -- in a pleasant way!

Re item (2), above, this is at least as critical as the Helmholtz resonance. It depends upon the tonewood used, its carved shape, thickness and graduations, its stiffness and internal damping, the effects of the bracing (X braces or tone bars, and their shapes/masses), the finish used on the top, and all that.

First, thanks for such a detailed reply!

I try a variety of strings with all my mandolins. The differences are really just subtle variations on the instrument's fundamental tone, and while they can dampen some frequencies, they can't add huge amounts of volume in any particular frequency range. I agree that the top is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) factor in a mandolin's sound, but my goal is to fine-tune all of the instrument's characteristics (where feasible) to produce a particular sound.

[trevor]

"Interesting, that's 2 similar comments about the f-holes now. I wonder if the same idea applies to decreasing the size of an oval hole."

Many years ago Rosta Capek increased the size of the hole on his oval hole mandolins. The loss of bass was dramatic.

[Petrus]

I'm surprised no one thought of this yet.

[nmiller]

I'm surprised no one thought of this yet.

I'd have one, if only it fit in my car!

[Jim Garber]

Interesting... I plan to be there if I can. In the last few years there were very few mandolin makers, tho this coming one looks like a few more -- Exhibitor List: Ithaca Stringed Instruments, Joe Mendel, Grimes Guitars, Bernard Lehmann. All the more reason to go.

I just noticed another mandolin maker I am very interested in: Wyatt Wilkie.

The trouble is many makers (like Grimes, for instance) may not have any samples of his mandolins, since his focus is more guitars. A few years ago when I almost went to this but got hurricaned out, Joe Mendel was the only mandolin maker. All the more reason to go this year.

As far as bass response in general: I would look for a maker who is very sensitive to different voicings in instruments. Rolfe Gerhardt of Phoenix mandolins is one. All his instruments look basically the same but are voiced for different sounds. For instance, his Jazz model is voiced to emphasize the bass. I would also connect with Marty Jacobson who thinks along these same lines.

I am also not a bluegrass player -- play lots of old time, getting into Irish and other genres. My favorite is an A4C made by Hans Brentrup which is essentially a modernized Gibson snakehead. I think that the bracing on this (tranverse like Gibson ovals) also adds to the bass response as opposed to the more popular x-bracing that is used by many contemporary makers.