Lloyd Loar soundboard thickness/

[HoGo]

I really do appreciate all the responses, but I want to assure you I have over the years looked through the archives and such.
My post was an honest, yet I admit, somewhat cynical question as to whether or not the thicknesses shared were truly accurate.
I do apologize if I have offended anyone. That was not my intent.

Searching the cafe is not always easy, often the best bet to find relevant results is via google using site:mandolincafe.com phrase in the search plus few well thought keywords.
We who have been around here for decade(s) often remember some of the most useful threads and can come with best keywords and then there is our "Master of search" who is capable of finding almost any old thread with ease.
Regarding the accureteness, it's impossible to tell for sure, but if you read the discussions you'll find out which are considered trustable and which not so much.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Quote - "The Original Lloyd Loar''. They were all original & very likely all different. Not knowing 'which' note to tap tune to for the very first loar- i feel that might have come later - ''maybe'' the method used by John Hamlett & others - gauging the flexibily of the top/back was used initially. As all pieces of wood are different,carving the graduations to achieve a specific note in every piece,may result in the wood being too thin /too thick ,depending on it's density, as the OP appears to have discovered for himself.

If i was a builder,i'd rather trust the flexing of the wood to gauge the correct graduations thicknesses. After all,it's the flexing of the wood that's all important. If the wood's on the dense/stiff side,remove more. If it's on the lighter side,remove less to achieve the same flexing. Using the same graduations on a piece of dense or light wood,won't get you there.

If it was possible to 'carve for a Loar tone',all the builders would be doing it - or would they ?. Steve Gilchrist has had his hands on as many Loars as any builder,but his mandolins don't sound like Loars. If any builder was in a position to use Loar graduations, it's SG. However he chooses to build to his own specifications & appears to be pretty successful. However,how his mandolins will sound in 80 years time - who knows ?.

IMHO - It really is about time we quit being so obsessive about 'Loar tone' - not ALL Loars sound the same anyway. There are many other mandolins by many makers that 'to my ears',sound ''more preferable''. The current crop of Gibson mandolins produced under Dave Harvey's guidance,sound more 'modern',similar to my Weber "Fern' - clean,wide open & with good projection.
Again - how they will age is anybody's guess.

A few other Cafe members as well as myself,have mentioned that they liked the tone of Chris Thile's 'Dude' more than his current Loar. I certainly did. That one had maybe more in common with John Reischman's Loar than Bill Monroe's.

The 'only' mandolin that i've heard that really has the 'Monroe' Loar tone,is the Randy Wood owned by Chris Henry,& that was more by good fortune than design,
Ivan

[fscotte]

Hey now Ivan, you're getting off course. The OP wanted Loar thicknesses, not Loar tone.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Fscotte - I agree - but why would he want Loar thicknesses if not to attempt to obtain 'Loar tone' ?. If he's simply building a (hopefully) good mandolin,why mention Loar at all ?.

Having been a banjo player for 50 + years,i was a member of the Banjo Hangout for several years. I thought that those guys (inc.me) were a tad obsessive about pre-war banjo tone,but we can loose 'em !.

It's all good fun,& often very educational - providing that we don't become obsessive to the point where our own common sense is overridden by the opinions of others ie. the ''ONLY desirable tone'' is the tone of a Loar - ok, but which one ?.

I've mentioned on here several times,that i'd love to own a good Gibson mandolin,because ''that's what Bill Monroe played'',but as long as it sounded good to me,i wouldn't give a toot whether it sounded like a 'Loar' or not. Unfortunately for me,there are very few Gibson mandolins (if any) for sale in the UK,& i'd have to sell a couple of mine,or part-ex.to get one if there were,
Ivan

[fscotte]

Yes, I was suggesting he was JUST wanting the grads, thinking that meant automatic Loar tone...

The big elephant in the room is that a mandolin will not sound like the traditional mandolin that we all know and love, UNLESS we stick to the grads as seen on most Loars. They are widespread and generic for the most part.

But one of the biggest differences I've seen when comparing Loars to modern builders is in how the back plate is carved. Some builders carve a thin area all the way around the back, even near the tail and head. Sorta like a speaker cone.

[fscotte]

Just for fun here's the back grads to my 99 Gibson A5L built by Sim Daley (sounds like a Loar), and the back to my current build. I try to stick to the Gibson grads, thick neck and thin lower bout.

[j. condino]

In a well established mandolin cafe tradition...another thread by a bunch of half deaf old geezers arguing about what the perfect tone is! All hail his holiness Lloydess of Lloaress....

If David Gilmour had found an old mandolin at the barbershop would the band have been Pink LLoyd???

[Willie Poole]

I am sure that a modern builder can tell by the density of a piece of wood that he/she will have to carve it either thin or thick but how does he/she know when they have gotten to that "perfect" amount of carving? I am told that they shy away from tap tuning...BUT...

Willie

[HoGo]

I am sure that a modern builder can tell by the density of a piece of wood that he/she will have to carve it either thin or thick but how does he/she know when they have gotten to that "perfect" amount of carving?

Willie

It's called EXPERIENCE...

[fscotte]

I am sure that a modern builder can tell by the density of a piece of wood that he/she will have to carve it either thin or thick but how does he/she know when they have gotten to that "perfect" amount of carving? I am told that they shy away from tap tuning...BUT...

Willie

The top is easier to carve consistent stiffness from one piece of spruce to another because spruce is generally consistent. So if you carve to the same specs each time, check the weight, and carve the same tone bars , you should be fairly close to your target.

Maple is notoriously inconsistent and I think each builder needs to find a way to check the overall stiffness. You can certainly tap it, even better if the back is glued on before the top, then you can tap it on the rim. If you don't go that method, you can do what myself and others do - build the back stiff, then scrape and sand it after the strings are on. Check the tone, if you need more bass, scrape and sand some more.

Gibson may have done this as well, if looking at the thin areas on many Loar backboards, usually thinner at the center. This could indicate the builder was sanding away at the center to get more bass.

[Willie Poole]

I think a lot of people look at the sound of Monroe`s mandolin and consider that "The Loar sound" but not many sound like Bill`s that's for sure....So rather than ask about the "Loar sound" we should ask about the "Monroe sound".....As Ivan pointed out there aren`t very many, if any, that sound just like Monroe`s mandolin...Just my opinion on this subject...

Willie

[Ivan Kelsall]

I must take up Willie's point - by the ''Loar tone',do we actually mean the tone of Bill Monroe's mandolin,or the tone of the other Loars as well ?. They're 2 different things IMO.

Bill Monroe played a Lloyd Loar mandolin,& it's the tone of BM's mandolin that certainly attracts me in his playing. John Reischman & Herschel Sizemore are 2 of my very favourite mandolin players,they both play 'Loars' but neither of them sound like Bill Monroe's 'Loar' - so what do we really mean by the 'Loar tone' in Bluegrass music ?.

''For me'' - it's the tone of Bill Monroe's mandolin. So maybe, rather than call it the 'Loar tone',we should be more specific & call it the 'Monroe tone' as derived from that specific mandolin. That would describe it better IMO,other than that we'd need to ask - ''which Loar ?'',
Ivan

[Marty Jacobson]

''For me'' - it's the tone of Bill Monroe's mandolin. So maybe, rather than call it the 'Loar tone',we should be more specific & call it the 'Monroe tone' as derived from that specific mandolin. That would describe it better IMO,other than that we'd need to ask - ''which Loar ?'',
Ivan

Reminds me of the thread from six months or so ago, with the cuts from the 1958 album where Bill played an F-4 on Big Mon and Monroe's Hornpipe. Sounds like Bill, I bet most of us never even noticed it sounded a little different. Probably just chalked it up to the acoustics of the room it was recorded in without thinking about it.

[Mandoplumb]

Reminds me of the thread from six months or so ago, with the cuts from the 1958 album where Bill played an F-4 on Big Mon and Monroe's Hornpipe. Sounds like Bill, I bet most of us never even noticed it sounded a little different. Probably just chalked it up to the acoustics of the room it was recorded in without thinking about it.

Right! Monroe's mandolin sounded like Monroe's mandolin because Monroe was playing it. Yes it had to be a good mandolin but I'll bet if he was playing Reishman's or Sizemore's Loar it would sound more like his. On one of his albums Sizemore was playing four different Loars, if memory serves me correctly, but there was not a big difference in sound. I doubt if anyone except Herschel could consistently tell which tracks were different mandolins.

[fscotte]

I think it was Derrington who said Monroe's mando was tuned to an E. A bit higher than most Loars which were tuned between D - D#

[Willie Poole]

how do they get that note? is it after it is put together or just the top and backs before being put together? I have three mandolins that ring to a C note, they are together without strings or a bridge on them...

Willie

[Ivan Kelsall]

From mandoplumb - "....but I'll bet if he was playing Reischman's or Sizemore's Loar it would sound more like his.". I agree totally.

In fact,i started a thread regarding exactly that point last week,but then deleted it. I've seen (heard) Bill Monroe play mandolins other than his own Loar & he sounded exactly like he does on his own Loar - but,the mandolins were all Gibsons !. That's why i deleted my thread.

Would that hold true if he'd been playing a Weber / Colling etc. (name your own builder) ??. I suspect that he'd sound similar ''stylistically' - the way he picked,but i also suspect that the tone might be very different -although ...?.

Chris Henry has Bill Monroe's picking style as close as any mandolin player i've heard,& his own Randy Wood mandolin most certainly has 'that' tone - so maybe we should ask Mr Henry to pick on a few different mandolins to hear what tone he can get from those using his BM technique. It would be interesting.

Marty - I'd like a $ for every time i've heard those tunes where Bill Monroe played the F4. I did exactly as you suggested,attributed the slight difference to the acoustic/recording. It wasn't until somebody explained what mandolin BM was playing that the penny dropped,
Ivan

[V70416]

I think Don MacRostie has a fixture for everything. Years ago I saw him measuring the flexibility of tops and backs with some kind of
dial-faced thingy. Combining that with thickness guides from great mandos.

Do most mandolin makers use such flexibility measurments?

[Ivan Kelsall]

From V70416 - "Do most mandolin makers use such flexibility measurments ?." . Some do,some don't, & some use this method along with 'tap tuning'. It depends on what method the builders think will get them to the right stage in graduating their tops / backs.

Personally,as long as they get it right,it doesn't matter to me what method they use - they do the work,i enjoy the rsults !,
Ivan

From Marty Jacobson - "You've broken the Luthier's Code by divulging the Sacred Numbers."

''All hail the sacred numbers !!!''