Siminoff's Thoughts On Accoustics

[DataNick]

Two points:

Roger is in bounds to be criticized for his methods, because he has put himself out there in many ways, books, classes, making money off his methods. There is no reason to tap dance around Roger's ego. He is a big boy who is fully capable of defending himself. No need to step in and defend him. He reads this forum and has defended his methods, right or wrong, many times.

Secondly, he's a wealth of information about musical instruments and design. He's one of the finest resources for luthiery.

Two points in reply to set the record straight:

1. I have not attempted to "step in and defend..." Roger. I only observed by way of comment that the thread in my opinion had taken on the quality of a roast, or that it seemed headed that way.

2. My description of Roger's F5 was in reponse to Jim's question, nothing more, nothing less.

Carry on....I've been wrong many times before but I'll be surprised to see this thread hit 40 posts...

[Floyd Lord]

I wonder how Loyd's credentials hold up today?
Just curious how much undergraduate physics and mathematics coursework Loyd Loar actually took.
Or if he had taken any graduate level courses in either physics or mathematics or published any papers on acoustics in
peer-reviewed journals?
Or did he use a more ritualistic procedure for the final carving of plates, interspersed with some very incorrect and even nonphysical interpretations..?
It is furtunate for us all....he didnt know how unqualified he was...

[peter.coombe]

All of us use empirical methods when building mandolins - i.e. do A and it sounds good, so keep doing A in the future. Do B and it doesn't sound so good, so never do B again. Basically trial and error and that is how violins have been developed over the centuries. What A and B are is based on educated guesswork rather than a deep understanding of how a mandolin works, and that is what Loar must have done all those years ago. What Roger Siminoff does is to present that educated guesswork as fact when it clearly is not because his "facts" do not match the physics. That then misleads the reader of his books which are otherwise excellent. That is my only problem with Siminoff, I respect him for the great contribution he has made. His methods may work, and he may be right about Loar and how the Loars were made, I don't know and we will never know for sure, but the theory he uses to explain how the method works is just plain wrong. You can't re-invent the laws of physics and present that as fact and expect people who understand the laws of physics to accept it. Some people will accept it as fact, but they are being misled about acoustics and unfortunately a lot of budding luthiers have been misled by Siminoff's explanations which in his books are presented as authoritative facts when they are not.

[Bill McCall]

Frank Solivan plays the one he made at the Siminoff building camp. I heard him play it in a show and it was fine, but of course he could make a cigar box sound good.

I also have an 80 f5L that was from his batches in that initial run. Not bad either.

Didn't see the earlier post.

[Jim Hilburn]

I had more of a beef with how the original book was laid out than with tap tuning, an example being " make the neck, add the ears shape the peghead and shape the neck. Now rout a slot for the truss rod." That step should have been near the beginning when you could use a fence.

[Emmett Marshall]

[Petrus]

All I know is you strum the strings and it irritates the little sound demons who normally rest quietly inside, and they all come rushing out the hole(s) in fear and/or anger (there's still some controversy over which it is.) Which particular demon gets out the hole first and its general size and demeanor determines the exact tone.

[TonyP]

Has anyone ever seen or heard a Siminoff mandolin?

Yes I have. His F5L prototype, one he made for his daughter and two other F5's. One of which I believe he kept for himself. I can say uneqivicably his craftsmanship is as good as I've ever seen anywhere, period. Flawless inside and out. Fit and finish were perfect. I also got to play his Loar and all 4 of those mandolins were about as close to that sound as I think is possible. As a matter of fact I played the Loar and the F5L back to back and it was a really interesting comparison.

To me the Loar(in my hands) was a solo machine. It's single notes rang and it penetrated a band. And I'm not a hammer down kinda guy like Roger is. His right hand will peel paint. The Loar sounded good for chords but to me it wasn't as strong as its soloing potential. The F5L was the same range of sound but it just barked chords. Single note was nice but not as strong. So it was s subtle flip of the eq'ing somehow.

The next one I played was going to be his daughters and it was in the same ballpark sound wise but more sweet and balanced. Not as powerful as the Loar and the F5L. It was interesting in that it had almost a clear goldish finish to the top. Very unique and I though beautiful. The next was what I would call a typical sunburst finish like the Loar and F5L. This is the one that impressed me the most. It had it all, very balanced tone and just as good for chords as single line. It was my favorite and I think he kept it for his playing out mandolin. The last one was just like that one but somehow not as spectacular. It was great, don't get me wrong, there was nothing to complain about it just was not a level above the 3rd one.

As just a hack mandolin player all I can say is he owns the holy grail and somehow he's figured out how to get that sound in his reproductions. And that is not something that abundant in the mandolins I've played. I feel like the proof is in the pudding. There are a bunch of luthiers who frequent here that I would love to sample their creations and I hope to do so one day. I always thought I don't have a bucket list, but I guess I do!

[fscotte]

I believe the one he built for the Bluegrass Construction Manual was recently sold here or on EBay?

[Bertram Henze]

All I know is you strum the strings and it irritates the little sound demons who normally rest quietly inside, and they all come rushing out the hole(s) in fear and/or anger (there's still some controversy over which it is.) Which particular demon gets out the hole first and its general size and demeanor determines the exact tone.

Takes a wizard to do that...

[Mandoplumb]

I wonder how Loyd's credentials hold up today?
Just curious how much undergraduate physics and mathematics coursework Loyd Loar actually took.
Or if he had taken any graduate level courses in either physics or mathematics or published any papers on acoustics in
peer-reviewed journals?
Or did he use a more ritualistic procedure for the final carving of plates, interspersed with some very incorrect and even nonphysical interpretations..?
It is furtunate for us all....he didnt know how unqualified he was...

I take the opposite view what could he have done if he was more qualified I don't think someone should just say I'm not qualified and do nothing but I don't think you can be over qualified. You can be a snob both ways

[fscotte]

I'll bet they simply got the top to around the same thicknesses and arching, then just kept sanding the back plate until the mandolin started sounding good. Some Loars have evidence of this due to the center being very thin compared to the rest of the back thickness. Tops are far more consistent if dealing with normal spruce varieties, so once find a good top stiffness carve them all the same, and just work the back till it starts to loosen up. Even some modern mandos look the same. My SimDaley Gibson is no different.

[Tobin]

Now see what y'all did?

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/co...ces-Retirement

[Bertram Henze]

Now see what y'all did?

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/co...ces-Retirement

Yes, it's fascinating. For an encore, we might try to scare the Weber company out of business.

[Dave Cohen]

I think I need to set the record straight here before this thread dies. I have no intention of "roasting" Roger siminoff. I have no quarrel with any of his lutherie innovations and services. To the contrary, I do respect him for those things. I used his first edition of the bluegrass mandolin book to get started, and it was nothing if not helpful.

My only problem with Roger Siminoff is what I have already stated, i.e., that he (a) claims to be an acoustician, and (b) he commonly states incorrect assertions about the motion(s) of instrument bodies as if they were fact, thereby misleading the many readers of his publications. Roger claiming to be an acoustician is like me claiming to be an expert on Lloyd Loar. Compared to Roger, I know little or nothing about Lloyd Loar; claiming that I do know something about him would be a lie on my part, since I am well aware of my deficiencies in that regard. Roger Siminoff may or may not realize the extent of his deficiencies in acoustics, so I won't go as far as accusing him of a lie. But he is definitely incorrect about being an acoustician. Regarding his incorrect notions about instrument body motion(s), and about wave motion in elastic solids and fluids in general, I have posted about that many times before. I do not want what I have posted to be conflated with a criticism of his capabilities as a luthier and a lutherie entrepreneur. If mandolin players attest to the quality of his instruments, I take them at their word. For that matter, I take Roger Siminoff at his word on that.

[CarlM]

Yes, it's fascinating. For an encore, we might try to scare the Weber company out of business.

You might scare them into selling the company to Bedell and for Bruce Weber to retire

[Scott Tichenor]

I think I need to set the record straight here before this thread dies. I have no intention of "roasting" Roger siminoff... <content removed>

No need. You killed it.

Your public beef and vitriolic comments on Mr. Siminoff's writing are well documented throughout this forum, ad nauseum, to be blunt. To use your own words against you, it's you that doesn't know boundaries. Enough. And now seeing his retirement announced it would appear you see this as the perfect opportunity to stick the knife in a little deeper and twist to complete the desired result. I'm through with your personal attacks on the membership at large with whom you find disagreement. If you are unable to express yourself appropriately in public on this forum it'd be a very good idea for you to leave. We welcome ideas, opinions, criticism and facts, yes. We don't welcome personal attacks which you've leveled against multiple members. The problem is not your ideas, Dave, it's how poorly they're expressed.