mandolins, wine tasting and organic bananas.

[jfrebel]

odd title. got your attention though didn't it? LOL

There's a show that ran on HBO for a time with a title that might violate the rules of this forum if I said it, so just in case swearing is against the rules here, let's just say it refers to what happens to grass after a bull is finished with it and deposits it on the ground.

It's a show that deals with skepticism. in one episode they had a banana they got from some store like walmart, and they peeled it and cut it in half. They put two halves of the SAME banana on a table with one half labeled fresh organic and the other something like old and from walmart or some such and then asked folks to pick which one they liked better. many would somehow like the taste better from the half of the banana next to the organic label.


in another they took water from a garden hose and filled up a bunch of water bottles with fancy names like mountain spring and glacier ice, and again the saps who were duped into taste testing this water would rave about all the flavors.


wine tasters also fail in double blind tests.



this to me proves that often your brain can trick you depending on expectations.


so this has me wondering. how much of a mandolins tone are we hearing vs think we're hearing because of a name or price, like with the fancy garden hose water and organic half of the same banana, and how would we overcome any bias we may have?

in a double blind test could we tell for example the difference between a $500 mandolin and a $5000 mandolin?


as in which one was the more expensive one?


I say this because I tried a weber gallatin once and liked my kentucky km-150 more. and oddly enough despite trying to convince myself otherwise I liked my trusty km-150 more than the gibson I had and a km-1050 I tried. but the km-950 I'm trying now does sound better to my ears. (unless thats bias creeping in on my part)

I'll see what the pava sounds like tomorrow.

I started this thread because the other thread on regretting upgrades got me thinking.


what if sometimes the cheaper one really does sound better and in a double blind test might be shocked picking some lower end model over some higher priced model?

or maybe you can tell but only between certain price brackets?

what do you think?

[George R. Lane]

It doesn't really matter what the name on the headstock is. What matters is how you feel when you play. Does it excite you? Does the tone move you. If you answer yes to the previous questions, then you have found the mandolin that was meant for you. I went through about 6-7 before I got my Weber Yellowstone, now I am a happy picker.

[jfrebel]

It doesn't really matter what the name on the headstock is. What matters is how you feel when you play. Does it excite you? Does the tone move you. If you answer yes to the previous questions, then you have found the mandolin that was meant for you. I went through about 6-7 before I got my Weber Yellowstone, now I am a happy picker.

I'm with you on this.

[JeffD]

Even though our perceptions are influenced by expectations, or by our conformist or non conformist bent, or by Descartes evil indwelling demon, still we do have what Descartes called our "clear and distinct perceptions" which we can trust.

So, while there are exceptions, and individual and systemic, in general an instrument costing $500 to $1000 more than the one you are playing will sound better than the one you are playing. Better to you, better to the informed listener, and better to the casual discerning listener. At the higher end those differences do become a bit more subtle, things like complexity, or specific tone qualities that are prized. But the difference is there.

Again, its a general statement. An individual exception might be an economy mandolin well set up with new strings versus a poorly set up pricey mandolin with old strings, or perhaps an individual pricey mandolin that just doesn't cut the mustard, or an excellent mandolin that for some reason is available at an exceptional price. A systemic exception might be a particular brand of mediocre mandolins that for some reason are way over priced, or a comparison different body styles, where one pays a premium for aesthetics (scrolls and points).

But in general the difference is real, objectively verifiable, and not illusory.

[Mandoplumb]

Better, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.I'm a big Don Reno fan, grew up listening to Top of the Morning and the cut ups. Don recorded a couple of songs where the banjo sounded dull and flat like a "hundred dollar" banjo. Don't know if it was the way he was playing or if it was a different banjo, but my point is on those songs it was great. So in that case it was the better banjo at least in my opinion. Personal likes may make some one choose an instrument as best when some one else would think it inferior. It is true that there is a Emperior's new clothes mentality that some seem to adhere to and all may from time to time but different folks like different sounds.

[yankees1]

Your title reminds me of Old Dogs, Children and Watermelon Wine by Tom T Hall ! You should write a tune with your title, might be a hit !!

[cbakewell]

The other factor, of course, is that how the mandolin sounds to the player is not always the same as how it sounds to the listener.

Which raises the question, if there is a noticeable difference between 'what you hear' and 'what they hear', which do you prioritise?

A true performer might go for the one that sounds best to the audience, I guess.

I would choose the one that sounded best to me. I suspect this is the 'wrong' answer, and says a lot about how selfish I am

[JeffD]

but different folks like different sounds.

That is true, and really hard to factor in. A really obvious example is the arch top. Many folks prefer an arch top because of its tone. Flat tops are just as well built, often enough better built, for the same price, but the sound is different. If you are going for the bluegrass sound you would spend the extra, but are you buying "better"? In some cases yes and in some cases no.

[jfrebel]

Your title reminds me of Old Dogs, Children and Watermelon Wine by Tom T Hall ! You should write a tune with your title, might be a hit !!

move over Bill Monroe! LOL

referring to couple posts made, I like a mandolin that sounds good to me AND my audience.

also regarding tone preferences, that's the key I think. I think we all can agree that a well made mandolin is better than a cheap particleboard nightmare.

but when you compare say a kentucky km-950 to a gibson F5G, if it was a double blind test how many would guess which one was the $5700 mandolin vs the one that's a bit over $1000?


or take the weber gallatin I once bought and sent back. it's like $4000 if I remember right but to my ears sounded like it was stuffed with socks. my km-150 (not a typo) sounded louder and better to me. and this weber was sent from the mandolin store so I know set up wasn't the issue. some suggested it needed to open up, but then why didn't my km-150, or the km-950 I currently have that sounds better to me than the even the gibson I had (much less the weber) did?

maybe the dude who started the upgrade regret thread lucked out and got hold of a particularly amazing sounding rogue (or whatever it was he has) and it really DOES sound better than the eastman. I'd still guess if you pitted 10 of each, the eastmann would likely win out but maybe occasionally it wouldn't but price and brand bias would make many folks choose the worse sounding instrument anyway.

[Bill Snyder]

It would be interesting to see a particle board mandolin even if not to hear it.

[Br1ck]

This is a subject I find fascinating, as I am the first to admit that musical instruments are multisensory in nature. Sound, feel, and sight. I know I have a bias toward old and worn and automatically want to like a D 18 with the finish worn off due to pick ware, or a beat up old J 45. I suspect this bias to continue in the world of mandolins. If you like fancy, how can you really totally have a great headstock inlay not bias you in favor of the tone, and since we use money as the benchmark of good, how many can divorce cost from tone?

As my electronic tech likes to say, if you just spent $1000 on one meter pair of audio interconects, you are going to think they sound great.

But does it really matter if you pick an F style over an A style that might sound a bit better if your eyes light up every time you open the case? Isn't the point to delight yourself every time out? Aesthetics is an incredibly important part of the experience. The fact that you really can have both is icing on the cake. If, like me, you happen to like simple and worn, you might be able to keep some dough in your pocket, unless of course you lust for an old Loar Gibson.

I got my 65 year old ears checked yesterday, and I'd be a fool to think I could judge anything for anyone but me. High frequency? Forget about it.

[Folkmusician.com]

I seem to be more sensitive than most.

I am a wine drinker, and I can tell (in general), the difference between $5 vs $10, $10 and $15, $15 and $30, $50 and above, but this is just a general rule and once it gets up past $50, I probably can't tell you a thing, and there are times I can't pick out what is what. Granted, I don't regularly sample wines above $50 and don't plan to.

I am pretty big on my coffee... I can drink anything, but do taste a difference between freshly roasted vs 2 week old. fresh ground vs ground the day before, the type of filter, brewing temp and length of brew time. But when we get into subtleties past that, I can't tell the region, the roasting technique, etc. and I honestly don't care.

I hear the difference between good and bad CD players and gauges of cable, but as far as expensive exotic cables vs good low cost cables, nope!

I can hear the difference between various mandolins, but there are plenty of times the under $500 mandolin can sound just as good as a $3000 mandolin. $500 vs $5000, it is Extremely rare that the $500 will be as good, but it can happen.

Now I have spent the vast majority of my life being critical of instruments. When not working on them, I have been recording and doing live sound, and there are still plenty of times I can't pick out what is what. There are just way too many factors involved.

A good example is listening to beginners test instruments. They are typically not aggressive enough to drive the mandolin. They are often using thin picks, and they haven't developed the technique to get the tone out of the instrument. It is perfectly normal for someone at this stage of playing to sound just as good on a $500 mandolin as they do on a $5000 instrument. It doesn't just sound the same to them, it sounds very similar to me. Put the same mandolins in the hands of am advanced player, and the difference becomes obvious.

Even an intermediate player has some issues getting the most out of a top level instrument.

[lenf12]

Pete Langdell of Rigel Instrument fame would often remark (complain) about folks visiting his booth at music festivals, picking up a mandolin, giving it a couple of feeble strums, put it down and walk away saying how bad it sounded. As Robert says above "listen to beginners test instruments". It takes years to get beyond that stage.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[Mark Wilson]

what if sometimes the cheaper one really does sound better and in a double blind test might be shocked picking some lower end model over some higher priced model?

what do you think?

I think there's more involved than we understand or suspect when 'first' comparing mandolins. I had my first mandolin for about a year before I considered an upgrade. I thought it sounded pretty good.

The first few strokes on my new pava concerned me. To my surprise - I actually preferred the $200 Kentucky. A day later I could admit the pava was way easier to play and sounded fine but still not convinced it sounded better. Within a week or so I played the Kentucky again (for the last time) and could not understand what I was hearing. No way it sounded comparable to the pava.

Had my ear been used to the brassiness of the kentucky? It was pretty loud - did that factor? Not sure but thankful that I kept the pava long enough to appreciate it.

I'm equally convinced it I played better mandolin now i might not recognize it at first.
Mostly I'm not at the player level required to put a mandolin thru a proper test without some quality time spent playing it. 2 or 3 days might do it - 5 minutes would not..

[BrianWilliam]

FWIW, the Kentucky km900s I've played sound nothing like the f5g I've played.

[jfrebel]

my pava arrived today.

now my gibson F5G sounded very cutting to me. I can see a hard core bluegrasser prefering that but I didn't. I want something that sings, more round for fiddle tunes yet still bright and loud enough to hold its own if I ever go to a jam.


so both the km-950 which I got on credit and the pava satin along with some money I got in trade for the gibson. sound more pleasing to my ears.

so I find myself preferring two mandolins that are probably cheaper combined than the gibson. LOL


now it's been mentioned that novice players may not be able to really take an instrument to its full potential so who knows that could be playing a role, because at best I'm an advanced novice. LOL but whatever it is I find myself liking the pava and the km-950 over the gibson. they seem to sing more and cut less. they sound less piercing and more ringing.


now here's the kicker. I like both the pava and the km-950 about the same. I couldn't guess by listening that one cost more. they sound slightly different but neither sound worse to me. the pava has a slightly fatter darker tone, but I think the km-950 is a bit louder and brighter but yet still sweet sounding.



speaking of the pros, that's an interesting thought. I wonder if we recorded some pros (with the best recording equipment we have, playing different mandolins if folks could tell which ones were the more expensive ones as they played the samples on the finest speakers we can get? folks say a pro can make even a low end mandolin sound good so maybe they can make a better mandolin sound even better still, but then I can't help but ask why would a novice sound better on the lower end mandolin then the higher end one? (or at least think he does, and feel upgrade regret?)


If I had the money and the connections to the right folks I'd totally run this experiment. it would be neat to see the results and how it turned out.

[Mandoplumb]

Bill Monroe recorded a couple songs years ago with a F4. I forget which ones but someone on here can probably chip in and remind me. Any way my point is you almost had to know it was a F4 or listen really close to detect the difference. Now everyone knows a oval hole sounds major different than a F hole right? I played a $100 mandolin (Rover) in a music store a few years ago that would give most mandolins I have seen (I've been playing 50+years) a run for their money,it was gone when I went back to get it and I've not played a Rover since that was up to that one, so maybe the newbie is right sometimes the cheep one out sounds the more expensive one.even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.