Science of Sound?

[Ivan Kelsall]

Myself & several other mandolin players whom i'm in touch with on here, have noticed that when cold or warm,mandolins do sound quite different. My own - when cold,sound tight,thin toned & also go 'sharp'. When warm,they usually go 'flat',but their tone becomes much more full bodied & the sound becomes much more 'open'.
Whether a person notices the 'opening up' of their mandolins when it's in a cool or warm envirionment would maybe give us a clue.
I know of 2 cafe members who don't post on here regularly any more,both of whom were once Weber "Fern" owners,who posted that they'd experienced a very noticeable change in tone (for the better) in their mandolins. Both were in a warm,domestic environment & their instruments suddenly sounded ''full on 'open' ''. I'd noticed exactly the same thing with my own Weber "Fern".
After i'd been playing it in a warm living room for an hour or so,the overall 'sound' changed quite dramatically. I would never attribute this to the ''opening up'' scenario,but hellfire !! - it did 'open up',
Ivan

[Beanzy]

It's not uncommon for bowlback players here in the uk to cradle theirs in their arms and laps for quite awhile before tuning up for the concert, especially in churches or draughty places. The harp player I play with has real issues and has to try to leave the harp in the venue for as long as possible, but is scuppered if the place gets packed out with warm breathing things. The big concert harp is much better behaved than the lever harp in this respect.

If the opening up phenomenon being postulated were to be related to this effect, the question would be why is the instrument in question not returning to the old state as soon as it has cooled to a more normal temprature. Does wood shrink more slowly than it expands for example? Does it take on moisture in its expanded state? Would those effects keep it expanded between frequent uses but not if the instrument is left unused for any length of time.

I've not seen any of those issues tested, so unless there are relvant experiments for these and other issues which could be at work, then the science would say it is unknown, unproven and still a matter of conjecture and hypotheses. Science is perfectly ok with returning those as answers. Our knowledge will increase once someone is motivated enough to design and execute the required experiments. Until then it's guessing and hunches, which are fun but could be a fairly flakey basis for designing improvements or changes to the tried & tested existing shapes and materials.

[Bertram Henze]

Does it take on moisture in its expanded state?

My take is that expansion/contraction is a direct reaction to moisture, not temperature. Dropping temperature will raise relative humidity, rising temperature will drop it if all else remains the same. Under these circumstances, warm breathing things are not as bad as cold breathing things would be

[Frankdolin]

I think if nothing else, this thread empathizes just how passionate we mandolin lovers are about our instruments and anything related to our "craft". And that's a good thing...

[Steve Ostrander]

Maybe it's not science. Maybe it's magic, and everybody likes magic, right?

[JeffD]

I think if nothing else, this tread empathizes just how passionate we mandolin lovers are about our instruments and anything related to our "craft". And that's a good thing...

Add to that our own personal experience. Regardless of the science we do feel something is "going on". Many of us do anyway. Its hard not to get hooked into a discussion about something you love and have direct experience with. Especially when that experience, or your own understanding of it, is challenged.

It can feel an awful lot like someone telling me I don't have shoes on. Yes it may seem I have shoes on, it certainly feels like it, but the scientific evidence isn't there to verify that I have shoes. OK dumb example, but that is what it can feel like. And I don't disagree with the arguments. Our own perceptions are often misunderstood.

[Jim Hudson]

Instruments and the music they produce are mysterious and wonder-filled things that, perhaps, shouldn't be overly quantified/analyzed scientifically or otherwise. The fact that this subject (and others, i.e. the purity of bluegrass tradition, how does the neck affect tone, what instrument finish is best, to mention a couple) keep coming up and continue to arouse such passionate discussion is all the proof you need of the deep rabbit hole we all have dedicated a big part of our lives to. Which brings us to the final and most mysterious part of the equation - the human factor, that thing that occupies the space between the instrument and the music, both from the perspective of creation and appreciation. Gillian Welch said "I choose to let the mystery be". My only addition to that sentiment would be that all of us have also chosen, in some way, to become immersed in the mystery ... and the water's fine!

[fatt-dad]

To me there are two topics; one being, "opening up" and the other being, "waking up." I believe in the latter more than the former. If I take a mandolin that I haven't played for a few months and have a go on it, the sound seems to go from forced to natural during the first 10 minutes or so.

Yes, we are a passionate bunch!

f-d

[catmandu2]

It's not uncommon for bowlback players here in the uk to cradle theirs in their arms and laps for quite awhile before tuning up for the concert, especially in churches or draughty places. The harp player I play with has real issues and has to try to leave the harp in the venue for as long as possible, but is scuppered if the place gets packed out with warm breathing things. The big concert harp is much better behaved than the lever harp in this respect.

Wire clarsach is the most challenging instrument in this regard - even more susceptible (than are gut/nylon harps} to humidity fluctuations; alloys produce so many overtones that any slight tuning imperfections are immediately noticeable. My harps are so sensitive - I have to work with their dynamics during a job. I play hour-long sessions therapeutically, and over the course of the hour I adapt my playing according to the changes in the instrument; I use gradually less and less of its entire range as the session progresses - the lower courses are affected first and I gradually retreat - sometimes using only the mid-range of the harp by the session's end.

[catmandu2]

Instruments and the music they produce are mysterious and wonder-filled things that, perhaps, shouldn't be overly quantified/analyzed scientifically or otherwise. The fact that this subject (and others, i.e. the purity of bluegrass tradition, how does the neck affect tone, what instrument finish is best, to mention a couple) keep coming up and continue to arouse such passionate discussion is all the proof you need of the deep rabbit hole we all have dedicated a big part of our lives to. Which brings us to the final and most mysterious part of the equation - the human factor, that thing that occupies the space between the instrument and the music, both from the perspective of creation and appreciation. Gillian Welch said "I choose to let the mystery be". My only addition to that sentiment would be that all of us have also chosen, in some way, to become immersed in the mystery ... and the water's fine!

That we do (overly quantify/analyze) is no surprise - in our quest to boil everything down to 'rational' systems; overconcerned with the peripheral - what produces sounds: the voice, instruments, environments and machines. We should ask questions about how we hear, how we focus attention through the ear. An intriguing field of research is music therapy - which approaches the problem from the other direction: rather than seeking to reduce phenomena to its atomistic manifestation, it explores (music and sound) phenomena in how it manifests in social and behavioral aspects. A phenomenologic view necessarily inculcates cultural relativism, which may begin to reveal the potencies of music through its many functions and uses throughout. Commensurate with research in psychodynamics, new ways of researching and implementing sound in therapeutic practice are emerging. Therapeutic efficacies have been wrought for decades (indeed, millennia) and are driving research from the analytic, atomistic, abstract outward where we can begin to understand the affect/effect of music. Anthropologic considerations are imperative in understanding. Music therapy is a scientific field (in that it performs experiments and documents results based on predicated theory) that seeks to account for the 'mysterious' - ritual, symbol, projection, sympathetics, synergetics, etc. - rather than reject it. 'Old' science thus far discounts these as merely 'paranormal' or illusory - lacking the apparatus to apprehend, whereas new views incorporate these as essential. The human mind/body is a wonderful laboratory.

A machine is an imperfect analog for a human being. The mysteries of music will be fully understood only when are the human mind and universe ... Someone said- the universe is more like music than matter.. a Cartesion view is going to be less helpful than other 'wholistic' models. We have a long way to go yet in our understanding..

[Maczart]

I've tried to stay out of this discussion as the subject has been argued ad nauseum here and everything useful has already been said. I have to take exception though to the statement made that there are "those who get offended at the suggestion that the 'opening up' phenomenon is real". This statement speaks more to the mindset of the poster than anything else. Apparently, according to the poster, anyone who disagrees with him must be offended. Nothing could be further from the truth! Member sblock has eloquently stated the position of most of the scientifically-minded and critical thinking types who post on here. I don't believe anyone has ever stated the' opening-up' phenomenon doesn't or can't exist but simply that there is no objective, impartial, repeatable, unequivocal evidence that it does. In the lack of such evidence, the rational thinking person will remain skeptical. We are open to being persuaded…just prove it. That is all we are saying. I think what the poster perceives as 'offended' is actually frustration at the lack of comprehension of this simple point by some. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is really a 2-part question. First, does 'opening-up' exist and if so, what are the root causes? I think most of the disagreements seem to concern the latter.

I do get a little peeved when folks make statements as if they were facts beyond a reasonable certainty rather than just opinions. This applies to all areas of life, not just here on the Cafe. Some folks ask why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient 'proof' to the critical thinker. The answer is because a sample size of one, two or even ten instances without proper controls is not sufficient to make generalizations about a whole population. All the variables need to be identified and accounted for. Would you base your opinion of the police based on one unpleasant encounter at a traffic stop? Would you truly feel comfortable making a statement of fact that all cops are pr*cks? I would hope not! Emotionally, you may feel that way but rationally and logically, you cannot judge the whole population by one occurrence.

And just because something has not been proven "yet" does not mean it isn't true…..

Agreed but the converse of that is just as true. Just because something hasn't been proven false doesn't mean it isn't! This is the old "it hasn't been proven false, so I believe it" argument.

The history of science is full of examples where a theory was postulated and then later validated when the technology to do so was available. But just as many theories have bitten the dust once objective evidence to the contrary came to light. Science is based on the best evidence available at the time and is always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available. The opposite of this is known as 'dogma'…the continued belief in something despite the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.

Again, as has been previously stated, feel free to believe whatever you want…..just be aware that belief is not knowledge. True knowledge does not require belief.

As for the metaphysical stuff, that is by definition beyond the scope of science.

Need to get more popcorn!

[catmandu2]

As for the metaphysical stuff, that is by definition beyond the scope of science

Indeed, there is much beyond the current 'scope of science.' However, I find it relevant to our issue at hand - a widening lens of the scope - or, at least in broad context not necessarily pertaining to instruments. What I find particularly intriguing is how science is changing, and the mechanisms thereby.

Personally I'm uninterested in the specific debate about whatever it is being debated here - I'm merely commenting on a body and school of research (and postulating on how it could be relevant...perhaps in your children's lifetime).

...everything useful has already been said

So much for the pursuit of knowledge ; )

[Maczart]

Indeed, there is much beyond the current 'scope of science.' However, I find it relevant to our issue at hand - a widening lens of the scope - or, at least in broad context not necessarily pertaining to instruments. What I find particularly intriguing is how science is changing, and the mechanisms thereby.

Personally I'm uninterested in the specific debate about whatever it is being debated here - I'm merely commenting on a body and school of research (and postulating on how it could be relevant...perhaps in your children's lifetime).



So much for the pursuit of knowledge ; )

I didn't mean to be dismissive, just don't know enough (nor care to) about metaphysics to comment. I need to amend my statement slightly. I should have said "beyond the scope of traditional science or classical Newtonian physics which is the daily world most of us inhabit, identify and interact with. Science is admittedly conservative in nature, requiring rigorous evidence to change. You are correct; science is always changing (often grudgingly) but the core of scientific inquiry, the Scientific Method, continues to remain unchanged.

Not saying there may not be other 'realities' we're not aware of, but if we believe they exist, then we really can't have a definitive discussion of anything, because then anything is possible. To be of any practical use, a debate about a phenomenon must be bounded by what is likely or probable or reasonably possible based on what we 'know'. For instance, if my answer to every question was "I believe alien beings from another planet are responsible" then the dialog comes to a screeching halt because it can neither be proven or dis-proven leaving no way to advance the discussion. I hope this makes sense, it's an awkward analogy. I'm trying say that the discussion at hand is assumed to bound by the principles we know or at least believe to be possible but there is always a tacit understanding that there may factors at play with which we are not aware.

Now, if we wish to delve into the world of quantum physics, then all sorts of possibilities exist (at least theoretically), such as a sub-atomic particle existing in two places simultaneously.

I've spent many hours trying to wrap my mind around the weirdness of the quantum world. The bizarre quantum theories exist simply because there is no other known explanation for the observed behavior, subject of course to the discovery of new evidence. Quantum physics may turn out to be closer to the metaphysical world than anyone imagines.

Since quantum physics, as far as our present knowledge goes, is only applicable to sub-atomic particles, it's unlikely that it would play a significant part in the discussion at hand. Or maybe I've just stumbled on the 'truth' of the opening-up phenomenon: It exists and doesn't exist simultaneously!

[catmandu2]

...I should have said "beyond the scope of traditional science or classical Newtonian physics which is the daily world most of us inhabit. If we wish to delve into the world of quantum physics, then all sorts of possibilities exist ..

Indeed. However, I would say that we actually daily inhabit the universe that is (rather than in the dualistic model of discrete phenomena as put forth by classical physics, etc), and that new models are bringing us toward better understanding.

*in the literature I've been reading over the years, these mechanisms are in fact better explained on the level of quanta. The energy fields being explored are necessitating more elaborate models -

[Ivan Kelsall]

OK - Let's just suppose that mandolins do ''open up'' in the sense we've come to understand. I'd still expect them to suffer tonal changes due to temp. & humidity. Do they return 'absolutely' to their natural ''opened up'' state,most likely,at least close enough so the tone we hear sounds the same.
I'd still like to know from the guys & gals on here who post to say how much their mandolins have ''opened up'',whether the environment was cold/warm/hot etc., & what the humidity was like ie.normal for their home or higher/lower than normal.
Other than that,i feel that with playing,a mandolin might simply settle down & begin to sound different anyway,even without temp./humidity changes. But when a changes is more dramatic - i'd like to understand the circumstances.

My own mandolins are affected by temp. & possibly humidity. Although in the UK,humidity changes are normally not huge,except for the past few days when it's been warm & very humid (for the UK !). I read of the time that Dave Grisman was playing at one venue where either the temp./humidity or both were pretty extreme & he couldn't get his mandolin to stay in tune for more than a few minutes at a time. Right now,having had several days of very warm,humid weather,my mandolins are sounding as good as they ever will. When it gets cold again,they'll start to shut down & unless they get into a warm room,they'll sound the exact opposite of 'opened up',
Ivan

[Mandoplumb]

Maybe the answer is there is no science of sound. We can analyze notes and harmonies mathematically we can compare "tones" we can talk of how music sets a mood, but isn't what we call sound a matter of our likes and dislikes. We have talked of sound being different but better or worse? A hard rock guitar sounds "angry" to me and I think that sound is terrible. A mandolin playing Rawhide or Sweet Bunch of Dasies or about anything is great. Someone else may feel just the opposite. That's not science that's opinion.

[fscotte]

I've tried to stay out of this discussion as the subject has been argued ad nauseum here and everything useful has already been said. I have to take exception though to the statement made that there are "those who get offended at the suggestion that the 'opening up' phenomenon is real". This statement speaks more to the mindset of the poster than anything else. Apparently, according to the poster, anyone who disagrees with him must be offended. Nothing could be further from the truth! Member sblock has eloquently stated the position of most of the scientifically-minded and critical thinking types who post on here. I don't believe anyone has ever stated the' opening-up' phenomenon doesn't or can't exist but simply that there is no objective, impartial, repeatable, unequivocal evidence that it does. In the lack of such evidence, the rational thinking person will remain skeptical. We are open to being persuaded…just prove it. That is all we are saying. I think what the poster perceives as 'offended' is actually frustration at the lack of comprehension of this simple point by some. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is really a 2-part question. First, does 'opening-up' exist and if so, what are the root causes? I think most of the disagreements seem to concern the latter.

I do get a little peeved when folks make statements as if they were facts beyond a reasonable certainty rather than just opinions.

Since you directed this at me, I should respond with the obvious statement above. On the one hand you say that I used the wrong term "offended", but then you say that you get peeved at folks. Maybe the word "offended" was the wrong term, but when people get peeved, arguments ensue, and it goes downhill. This is what I was meaning.

There is a search function to reveal how these debates go down hill, almost every time. Offended, peeved, etc.. It's all the same. There is never a reason for anyone to be peeved or offended because someone says a an instrument "opens up". For those people, it does. Just like the sky is black for blind people and dogs can't see all colors. The truth in THIS CASE is what is perceived by the perceiver. No need to get upset.

[catmandu2]

Maybe the answer is there is no science of sound...

Before the thread goes completely off and under, let me just say to Mandoplumb -

Sound is probably the oldest/longest studied phenomenon. That it eludes or exceeds the capacities of our modern lexicon and methods of quantification/validation only means that our methods are inadequate to apprehend the phenomena. Other cultures - with different perspectives, orientations, and valuations of experience have different scientific traditions, and language - the study of sound probably reached its zenith during the middle ages, before humans became increasingly dependent on external technology. The study of audition by other cultures is far more sophisticated in a wholistic universe (by and large, NOT how moderns are conditioned, but are beginning to understand). New research is beginning to explore alternative theories through studying the effects/affects of sound (for example, Tomatis' alternatives to traditional theories of transmission) ; what sound does, rather than abstract, atomistic theories of what sound is. In our pursuit to apprehend the phenomenon through modern methods, we only come up with explanations that our methods can convey - and through our language/lexicon - these are still largely modeled on a discrete, separate body which is stimulated via traditional anatomic and physiologic apparatus. This approach has been shown to be wholly inadequate (to provide a complete understanding of audition - beyond the traditional anatomical/physiological model which itself is still in early stages of understanding) - but we are learning.

[Mandoplumb]

Before the thread goes completely off and under, let me just say to Mandoplumb -

Sound is probably the oldest/longest studied phenomenon. That it eludes or exceeds the capacities of our modern lexicon and methods of quantification/validation only means that our methods are inadequate to apprehend the phenomena. Other cultures - with different perspectives, orientations, and valuations of experience have different scientific traditions, and language - the study of sound probably reached its zenith during the middle ages, before humans became increasingly dependent on external technology. The study of audition by other cultures is far more sophisticated in a wholistic universe (by and large, NOT how moderns are
conditioned, but are beginning to understand). New research is beginning to explore alternative theories through studying the
effects/affects of sound (for example, Tomatis' alternatives to traditional theories of transmission) ; what sound does, rather
than abstract, atomistic theories of what sound is. In our pursuit to apprehend the phenomenon through modern methods,
we only come up with explanations that our methods can convey - and through our language/lexicon - these are still largely
modeled on a discrete, separate body which is stimulated via traditional anatomic and physiologic apparatus. This approach has
been shown to be wholly inadequate (to provide a complete understanding of audition - beyond the traditional
anatomical/physiological model which itself is still in early stages of understanding) - but we are learning.

Yeah what he said!!!

[Bertram Henze]

no science of sound.

In a multiple musiverse, anything is possible. They say there are even people who hate any kind of music - and who knows what their perception of sound is like.

[Maczart]

Since you directed this at me, I should respond with the obvious statement above. On the one hand you say that I used the wrong term "offended", but then you say that you get peeved at folks. Maybe the word "offended" was the wrong term, but when people get peeved, arguments ensue, and it goes downhill. This is what I was meaning.

There is a search function to reveal how these debates go down hill, almost every time. Offended, peeved, etc.. It's all the same. There is never a reason for anyone to be peeved or offended because someone says a an instrument "opens up". For those people, it does. Just like the sky is black for blind people and dogs can't see all colors. The truth in THIS CASE is what is perceived by the perceiver. No need to get upset.

My last word on this thread, just to clarify a few things. First, you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said or are perhaps being intentionally obtuse. I am not offended, upset, angry, peeved etc.simply because someone mentions the opening-up phenomenon, nor do I believe is anyone else who may skeptical about the process. It is an opinion of some, just like an opinion that X brand picks are the best. It's an opinion that has not been proven beyond a reasonable certainty and a threshold of proof that critical thinking types can accept. Not saying it can't or doesn't exist, just that it hasn't been proven. I could just as easily claim that opening-up supporters are overly defensive about their position and get offended when someone challenges their belief but that would only be my perception, not a fact beyond dispute.

As far as being peeved goes, it has nothing to do with the subject of the debate, be it opening up, best picks or best strings, for which there is no definitive answer. It's about a certain arrogance of those who make claims as statements of absolute fact when it is anything but. It's just a pet peeve of mine, not limited to posts on the Cafe. It's not unlike those get annoyed with people who don't use turn signals or people who are sticklers for correct spelling and grammar. It's not the end of the world.

You're absolutely correct that these long threads tend to devolve into arguments just short of name-calling. That's why I've made a conscious decision not to participate in them. However, in this case, the statement that skeptics get offended at the mere mention of the opening-up phenomenon
was just so over-the-top presumptuous that I felt compelled to respond. (Unless it was meant to be an attempt at humor, then I apologize... it went right over my head)

"Just like the sky is black for blind people"......arrrgh. Here's another example. How do you know what the sky is like for blind people? I would postulate that the sky doesn't exist (in a practical sense) for blind people simply because they can't perceive it but since I don't know that for a fact, I wouldn't presume make that assertion. Also, there really is a difference between 'offended' and 'peeved' and I think if you really think about it, you will agree. Offended would suggest hurt feelings, a personal insult or feelings of resentment while peeved is merely being mildly annoyed, irritated or frustrated without any personal animus involved. As for there never being a reason to react to a post, everyone responds emotionally to stimuli whether they admit it or not. The trick is keeping the the response as free of emotion as possible.

Again, please feel free to believe whatever you want. I'm ok with it. Really, I am. Just keep in mind that belief is just opinion on steroids, not knowledge. You can have the last word, as I'm done with the topic.

[Mark Wilson]

whew - a lot of reading. is it solved yet?

[DataNick]

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”


― William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin


Who was Lord Kelvin? Among other things the inventor of the Kelvin Scale
and discoverer of the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics...

[fscotte]

whew - a lot of reading. is it solved yet?

Yes.

[billhay4]

This is so typical of this kind of discussion on the MC, and elsewhere on the net. It has devolved into semantics and hurt feelings because what one intended to say was not understood. And this is true of both sides of the issue.
I personally wonder if it doesn't point to a very different mindset among scientists that the rest of us. Their level of proof is quite different than mine. Yet, at the same time, they often don't address in their science the very questions the rest of us pose and want answered.
The question of whether instruments open up or not is one that has been posed for centuries and there is a vast amount anecdote about the issue. Why hasn't it been studied scientifically? Is it too complex, too vague, too unimportant? I just don't get it. Yet, scientists weigh in every time I have seen the matter raised here. They certainly have the right to do so, but, in the absence of a real scientific effort to study this question, their weighing in really amounts to pointing out to the rest of us how limited our understanding of the question really is.
But, our understanding isn't limited, or wrong, it's just different. Many people observe, sense, feel, hear that instruments open up over time. I'm not really one of them, as I am old and don't have a very good ear, but I sympathize with them when I see comments on this subject subjected to the same comment over and over: "That hasn't been scientifically proven." The comment is accurate, in scientific terms, but very frustrating to the non-scientist.
I think scientists owe it to the rest of us to come up with a better comment, or a real effort to ask this question and scientific terms and answer it in scientific terms. I can't think this would be too hard. Define the sound characteristics of a new instrument. Measure them again periodically over time. Are there changes? If so, the term "opening up" is just as applicable to that phenomena as anything else, but if not, propose a new one.
Bill