"Opening Up With Time"

[Mark Gunter]

This was recently brought up anew in this thread and I read with interest the responses there. But the questions of whether and how seem to create a totally new question for me: How would one scientifically test this notion? What would be the criteria or means for such a test?

We can analyze sounds digitally very well in this day and age. Volume (amplitude) as well as the frequencies of sound waves can be measured, and the results seen on a graph very easily. So first, I would assume that we would use digital analysis of sound waves.

Second, we would have to test a variety of instrument styles and with a variety of construction methods and materials.

Third, we would want to test any particular instrument at several points chronologically, beginning soon after its creation, and at regular intervals for a period of, say, a decade.

Fourth, we would have to account for strings, and changes in setup over that period. I think the closest to neutral would be to purchase numerous sets of a certain string, and restring the instrument with a set from the batch prior to each test through the years.

Fourth, we need to account for the many variables of the player's performance. In that regard, I suppose it would be best to run the test using a machine or jig that would hold the instrument in just the same fashion, and pluck the strings with just the same force and angle, with just the same plectrum, for each test.

Seems to me just too difficult really to get a scientific read on whether or how sound might change over time. Perhaps it could be managed somehow, but who's going to do it? I think this will be a subjective matter to the end of time.

[Seattle]

I don't think it could be adequately tested either as I think the noise would always be greater than the signal.

There are some things that true mandolin connoisseurs probably would rather not know the answers to such as how little difference there is in sound between the cheapest factory made mandolin and the best custom made mandolin.

I just got a $60 laminated soprano ukulele and it sounds good. A better engineered solid wood ukulele would sound even better but the difference isn't as great as you would think. The difference in the sound output isn't proportional at all the the quality of the materials or construction methods or build skills.

Certainly any testing of an instrument "opening up" would have to be a double blind test and I'm doubtful that the results would show any great statistical significance.

[Bertram Henze]

Seems to me just too difficult really to get a scientific read on whether or how sound might change over time.

Everything scientific ist possible, BUT:

1 - Whatever can be determined under lab conditions will apply for those conditions only and can not be reproduced in a hot summer festival tent or in an Irish pub humidified with stout and urine, especially not when any human players are allowed near the instrument.
2 - Whatever the results, half of the people will take them as final proof for a Chinese instrument industry conspiracy. The other half will state that this only confirms all they already knew (about mandolins and conspiracy fans) and therefore was completely unneccessary.

[Mark Gunter]

You may be right, and I wouldn't disagree, but it would be interesting to actually see some scientific tests. In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Enjoying your own instrument is the most important thing IMO, and "getting the best sound" is more a matter of skill set and heart than anything else, I suspect.

[Seattle]

Haha...I've seen that video before and enjoyed it greatly. Yes, I think playing skill is the overriding factor here. I'm sure some will want to know what kind of pick the Walmart musician was using.

I've heard plastic guitars are the best as they are petroleum based and the tone comes from the millions of years that it takes for petroleum to form. American plastic is still superior to Chinese plastic of course.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From markscarts - "What would be the criteria or means for such a test ?". A) The time period over which the mandolin is played. B) The amount of playing it gets within that time period. From new - the instrument could be played until a noticeable difference in tone / volume is heard. The time period & the amount of playing could be monitored.Even then,the mandolin would very likely continue to change over an extended time period. The equipment required - a good pair of ears !. You'd also have to take into account the time period in which the mandolin is allowed to rest back in it's case,in which case (no pun intended) it might start to sink back into un-played mode. All this would be different for every mandolin tested = total waste of time & effort.
This same question in one form or another, has been gone over time after time, & with no disrespect to the OP who seems to be a new Cafe member,it's like asking how long's a piece of string ?. Too many variables in far too many mandolins to make any measurements realistic. Yes,you could measure 'some' mandolins & maybe come up with a 'result' for those,but what of all the others ?. It's a question with a never ending answer. As long as new mandolins are being built,the same question remains un-answered,
Ivan

[Bertram Henze]

Of course, there is always the would-be scientist's curiosity about how the universe works and understanding what is really going on. But the process of understanding is overrated - what we basically do is ask "if I had to build a universe in my backyard from DIY parts, how would I go about it?" Nature's honest answer should be "forget it" (if nature even bothered to think down to our level, that is).

I am saying that as an ex-scientist - I have a physics diploma somewhere in a drawer, but turned to the darkside and became a consultant right after receiving it. Now I am confusing customers the same way nature used to confuse me...

[k0k0peli]

I suspect analyzing constructed instruments over time would be NP-complex i.e. it ain't gonna happen. It *would* be possible to acoustically analyze representative samples of commonly-used woods over long periods. We might want to allocate about 50 years of lab time for that. Can we get a grant?

[Bertram Henze]

NP-complex

As if it were as harmless as that (I mean, polynomial time goes by, eventually). I suspect that this takes super-polynomial time.
And the answer might be fourty-two, reminding us that we still not agree what the actual question is, i.e. what "opening up", "waking up" etc. really mean.

[M.Marmot]

Good grief - two 'opening up' threads on the front page.

Truely, the gift that keeps on giving

[sblock]

"Opening up" on a long time scale of many years is a tough thing to test, I agree. But perhaps someone enterprising can conduct some shorter-term tests to debunk the myth that mandolins "fall asleep" when left unplayed for a few days, and then proceed to "wake up" within an hour or so of being played! I'd like to see that notion challenged, because I don't believe it. I think it's mostly the player who's really "waking up" (warming up) and re-adjusting (re-familiarizing themselves) to the instrument.

[k0k0peli]

I think it's mostly the player who's really "waking up" (warming up) and re-adjusting (re-familiarizing themselves) to the instrument.

Quite. Flexing fingers really opens-up the sound.

There's also the matter of changing environments. Does the instrument feel more 'open' when playing in large or small spaces, or with reflective or absorbent surfaces, or in clear-dry vs smoky-foggy air? Back in my long-ago US Army days at Ft Riley KS, I might be on field maneuvers (sans guitar) for a few days, then return to the sparse barracks to de-funk and noodle a bit, then head to the beery Flint Hills Theater (fairly small room lined with hay bales) to wail on open-mic and jam nights. The guitar always sounded better in the FHT. Or maybe it was the beer.

[Mandoplumb]

If one don't play any instruments for a few weeks then I'll agree it's more him "waking up" but if I lay aside mandolin one and play play mandolin two the same amount each day my fingers are flexing the same as if I had played mandolin one. I don't claim to understand why an instruments seems to not sound as good after not being played for a while, but I know that is the way it appears to be and I find it hard to blame it all on the musician, maybe it's a combination of things.

[Explorer]

If you're lucky enough to know someone who builds wood instruments for a living, i highly recommend asking if you can be around the next tume an instrument is first strung up and played. Your builder friend might even have an opinion on whether there is a change, and that opinion might be confirmed by what you'll br able to witness firsthand.

I think luthier Rick Turner did the write-up of that Timbre Tech shaker table a few decades back in Frets Magazine, with graphs of the difference in spectrum before and after shaking treatment. Yes, naysayers can shout theories against trusting a dedicated acoustic instrument magazine which is part of a vast conspiracy against their beliefs, but you can decide if that's reasonable or not.

Rick is joined by nice folks like Bob Taylor and Roger Siminoff as having observed instruments opening up. Again, there are folks who state that Turner, Taylor and Siminoff aren't qualified to really judge instrument construction and tone, or that they are simply lying to increase sales.

Luthier Alan Carruth, one of the lead innovators and investigators into the science of acoustic guitar design, brought the evaporation of hemicellulose in wood over time to the forefront, leading to a decrease in weight while stiffness remains the same. That's the same as having a heavy cone in a loudspeaker, and then magically swapping it for a lighter cone which is just as stiff. You get less of the energy being lost overcoming the inertia of the cone's weight, allowing more of that energy to be transmitted as vibrations to the air.

Following from that documented evaporative process, coupled with the increase in available energy for transmitting sound vibrations, Mark Dalton has written about torrefaction/torrefication/thermo-curing of tonewoods for acoustic instruments. The wood is reduced to *zero* humidity, and then raised to 3 to 6% humidity. It's a stiffer material relative to it's weight, and sounds amazing.

Martin has been building instruments with torrefied tops as well. They originally were doing it for the color change it induces, but then found that the process also changed the tone for the better. Again though, they might just be part of a conspiracy. *laugh* Here's a link to the Martin usage of it, which includes information about Martin researching how the process was being used in Finland for building materials... meaning the conspiracy of changing wood over time is international. *laugh*

Does wood change structure over time? Evidence shows that it does.

And now, remember that those who are claiming that it doesn't, or that one can't be sure, are arguing against that evidence without providing actual counter-evidence that, say, the Finnish construction industry has been getting their basic research wrong. It's not just enough to state that accumulating evidence is wrong. One must show how it is, or it's just an opinion.

[k0k0peli]

I never said wood structure doesn't change. I asked if the changes can be shown to affect acoustics. I can also wonder if such acoustic changes are consistent and repeatable -- that should be important to those engineering and constructing wood instruments -- and what level of effort and what time scales pertain. Can a two-year-old instrument (for example) that sat neglected for a month "open-up" after one or three or eight hours of intensive playing? Can such "opening-up" (if any) be shown / measured objectively, not merely reported as a subjective experience?

That's what science is about -- taking consistent and repeatable measurements over time rather than interpolating sporadic observations. Thank Tycho Brahe for introducing the practice to the world. To paraphrase it: "For example" is not proof.

I read the Wikipedia Torrefaction entry and also Mark Dalton's article on Torrefied Woods. Interesting. I wonder if DIY torrefication can be approached with a kitchen microwave oven? Has anyone here nuked their tonewoods? Yes, I know the process should be done in an O2-free environment. at certain temperatures. Just wondering...

[Tom Wright]

The question could be why does this matter, when a really good instrument sounds good right away, and a bad one never will. We can note that the great Stradivari violins are old because they were good, not good because they were old. Strads were expensive and prized when new, commissioned by nobles, and rich people. These instruments lasted because they were cared for.

We better hope that after some breaking-in an instrument settles down. If it continued changing it would have to reach a limit of weakened wood. This does happen when unscrupulous violin shops thin the top of a middling instrument to make it louder. It works but not for very long.

I can imagine that enough vibration from the systems that promise to improve an instrument could have an effect (although any effects of any kind of aging, use, break-in, etc, will be dwarfed by playing skill or lack of), but I would worry that there was actual degrading of the strength of the wood. I can't see how minor vibrating can change the wood significantly, and heavy mechanical insult is no way going to be good for the wood.

Players, get a fine instrument and practice. Builders, find good wood and practice your art. Strad didn't need any treatments, nor did Guarneri, nor did Lloyd Loar.

[sblock]

Explorer,

How ironic that you advocate a position, then fail to provide any actual evidence in its favor, and proceed question why any of the opponents of your position fail to provide any evidence! OK, then I'll turn this around and ask: So where's YOUR evidence that the sound of instruments "opens up?" You write that you "think Rick Turner did a write-up" and then appeal to "authorities" like Roger Siminoff -- who derives income by selling vibration treatments that he calls a "de-damping service".

OK, since you asked: Here is some actual evidence that folks can read and evaluate, from a real, scientific study conducted by a prof. of mechanical engineering at Stanford, and published in the peer-reviewed Savart Journal of the Science and Technology of Stringed Musical Instruments: click here to read it. They asked whether the ToneRite device and its ilk could improve the sound of an acoustic guitar in any way that could be measured, based on the sonic spectra. They found no evidence that it improved the sound.

Scientists know that mere anecdotal evidence from "experts" is basically worthless, both in medicine (where it is frowned upon as a basis for diagnostics and treatment) and in music. There is a large variance in the samples, as we all know well, and observer bias is not controlled in such situations. Just because so-and-so believes something does NOT make it true! The famous expression is that "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." It's true.

No here one is saying that the properties of tonewood don't change soon, a lot, after the tree is cut, sawed, prepared, and dried (often for a periods of decades) prior to its use in making musical instruments. And no one here is saying that those properties don't subsequently change with humidity, various wood finishes, glues, and lots of other things during the build process. But the amount of subsequent change WELL AFTER an instrument is built, and all the finish and glue has a chance to dry and settle, etc., is something very much open to debate. There is actually no solid evidence that wood structure changes well after it has been built into an instrument -- contrary to what you wrote. All the major changes (and there are many of these!) happen before all that. Furthermore, whether subsequent human playing changes the sound in any significant way is also open to debate.

Also, two recent, peer-reviewed studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) have shown that even top-level violin soloists are unable to reliably hear the difference (without seeing them, that is!) between Golden Age Cremona violins (Strads, Guarneris, etc.) and modern fiddles that are less than a decade old, when they are allowed to play them blindfolded. If any "ageing" or "breaking in" or "opening up" of the tonewood in the great Cremona violins, over hundreds of years, were chiefly responsible for their fabulous sound, then this result would have been impossible, because the new violins haven't had time to "open up." Click here to study some more evidence.

Yes, you are certainly entitled to hold your own opinion about this matter, of course! But please, don't EVER complain to us about "where's the evidence?" when you provide none yourself, and where the overwhelming bulk of the actual, scientific evidence, thus far, has been unable to support the position that instruments get much better with playing/vibration, or over the passage of time. It might be true, but if so, then the effect is so subtle, and hard to measure, that no scientific study has yet been able to show it convincingly, in a way that would pass scientific peer review.

None of this says anything AT ALL about whether tonewoods might not be improved by various treatments prior to their use in instruments, including various changes in humidity, storage techniques, salt bath treatments, enzyme or probiotic treatments (beneficial fungi, bacteria), and heat treatments -- including "torrification," which you mentioned. Some or all of these might work incredibly well, in principle, to produce great-sounding tonewood for instruments. But I am not sure why you brought that up in this context, though, because none of those treatments speaks in any way to the issue of whether instruments "open up." And these are NOT valid examples of tonewoods "changing over time." They are examples of the pre-treatment of tonewoods prior to their use in instrument manufacture. That's a horse of a different color!

[Explorer]

Speaker cone diaphram research and studies show quite a bit of amassed knowldge about the interactions between the stiffness and weight of a diaphram when transmitting vibrations as sound.

Research on how hemicellulose evaporates from wood over time shows that it does, thereby removing weight from the diaphram of an acoustic instrument, making it more responsive.

Torrefaction removes that weight faster and more predictably.

Therefore... what? Hemicellulose doesn't evaporate over time? A diaphram's efficiency isn't affected by the weight of the diaphram?

What special laws would prevent an instrument top from following the same rules as other diaphrams used for sound production?

I'm actually curious as to the reasoning, so I'm hopeful it can be explained as succinctly as I just managed to.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Scientifically proving the effects of dedamping has always been part of Gerhard A. von Reumont's work, which he started as early as 1972. You might be interested in this: http://www.henrystrobel.com/lehmannweb.pdf

http://www.henrystrobel.com/vibrate.htm

And then there is aging of wood. If you can't hear a difference, don't buy a Loar.

[Seattle]

Only marginally related to this topic but interesting nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OEog_2dyKw

[sblock]

Scientifically proving the effects of dedamping has always been part of Gerhard A. von Reumont's work, which he started as early as 1972. You might be interested in this: http://www.henrystrobel.com/lehmannweb.pdf

http://www.henrystrobel.com/vibrate.htm


And then there is aging of wood. If you can't hear a difference, don't buy a Loar.

Sorry, but the document you cited from Henry Strobel's website is an English translation of a "vanity piece" by von Reumont, and it is not peer-reviewed science. Sections of von Reumont's piece were were originally published (in parts) in a German magazine, Instrumentenbau-Zeitschrift, which is by no means a scientific journal that subjects its contributions to bona fide peer review. Basically, it's just an "editorial" by this individual. It is not proper science, at least not by any modern standards. It lacks proper experimental controls, and it contains numerous unsubstantiated assertions. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Even Strobel himself cautions us not to believe some of it, writing (about von Reumont's book): "This book remains the practical guide to "Vibration dedamping," which has been (like many areas of violin making) more art than science. The quantitative reduction in damping reported may contain errors of measurement and interpretation, but this does not exclude the possible benefits of the process, or of the book as a contribution to the art of violin making." (Italics mine).

If that is your evidence, then it's pretty bad evidence. Even its strongest advocates know that it is deeply flawed work, and apologize for it!

As for your second remark, there is a distinction to be made between (1) asserting that a Loar-signed Gibson F5 sounds great and that one can "hear the difference" with lesser mandolins, and (2) the unwarranted assertion that the reason for this has anything at all to do with the "ageing of wood." In fact, there is no compelling reason to believe that Loars sound good just because they are 90 years old!! That's a preposterous claim, in fact. I suspect they sounded pretty great from the start! Consider the fact that there are plenty of 90-year old mandolins out there that DON'T sound as good as a 1923 Lloyd Loar. And yet their wood is every bit as old. Hmmm. I suspect that the construction of the F5 Loars, including their shapes and the graduations of the top and back, have a whole lot more to do with the great sound. Most luthiers would agree with that. On top of all that, consider the fact that some of the best-sounding Loars today sat unplayed inside their cases for over 70 years, while some other great-sounding ones, by contrast, were played regularly. There would seem to be no clear correlation between time of playing and Loar sound, either! As further evidence, consider the fact that certain of the best modern mandolins (Nuggets, Gilchrists, Monteleones, etc.) are considered by many folks to sound nearly as good as Loars (and some think they sound even better, in fact), and yet these modern instruments are not 90 years old. So, older wood does not necessarily equate to a great sound. And newer wood can be used to produce a great sound. Where do these facts leave all those unsubstantiated notions about "playing in," I ask?

[Nick Gellie]

Thanks Sblock for your two detailed dissertations. I have said this in another thread on this topic is that wood has been cured to equilibrium moisture content (8-10%) as part of the process of building any wooden object or instrument. The wood has been laid down as a byproduct of a tree's growth over 100-300 years in some cases. The woods that are used have been picked for their sonic qualities in an instrument - that and the construction and shape and size defines the tone. As EMC does not vary that much and the wood structure by and large does not change, one would not expect any great changes in tone over time.

[Mark Wilson]

A week and a half ago I got a almost new mandolin that showed no signs of being played. Playing it today I realized it sounded better to me than the day I got it.

Took a week and a half to learn where and how to play it to get a better sound.

I'm adjusting to it. Next week it should sound even better.

[NoNickel]

Nobody is going to agree on this by throwing papers and studies back and forth, because you either believe it or you can debunk it as being "unscientific" or "vanity piece" or otherwise a peice of junk. Trying to prove something sounds better than something else is like trying to scientifically prove that one kind of music is better than than another. The ears are all that are needed. But me saying song A is better than song B will always have someone who calls bull.

Its enough for me that all major builders that I have heard talk on the subject (Gilchrist, Duff and Kimball) say that the sound changes over time. Every major player that I have heard (or read) talking about the issue (Compton, Bush, Thile, McCoury etc) also say that it happens. You would think that these people might have a little insight on the subject.

Nobody can agree that global warning is happening or not. It is not surprising there are naysayers saying that an almost hundred year old instrument sounds the same as it did when it was built.

[Mark Gunter]

@noNickel, I call foul - most people agree there is a global warming trend, and most of the disagreement is to what degree human behavior impacts it.

I can fully agree with your sentiment, "Fret less, play more". Also, I support your stance and opinion, but for the most part it seems you are saying that if the present-day gods among luthiers and players subscribe to a belief, then you are happy to embrace it. I am more interested in the question, "How can this be tested objectively?"

I've been interested in the subject for a long while, primarily because I had begun to realize that I could take cheap guitars (all I could afford) and do some set up adjustments, and play them enough to get to know them, and make some pretty sweet music with them. I play regularly alongside others who use 50 - 60 year old Martins and such. And then, the violin double-blind study came out. It seems to me, based on my experience and recent interesting tests, that the long-accepted opinions (as well as sometime snobbery) regarding certain things about musical instruments could be wrong.

At the same time, none of us are really slaves to "science" - and there is room in the world for magic, IMO. People will have differing perceptions about where this magic is coming from, and science probably won't be helpful with that. I do believe in mojo. I don't think it has much to do with vibrations transforming wood though, but at this point I don't know.