Instruments, Cost & the Placebo Effect

[Jim Parriott]

I have a J Bovier A5 Custom and a Collings MT2O. My Collings plays like butter - I'm cleaner and faster. But I can get more sounds out of my Bovier (Ok, its an f-hole instrument) and dig in when I want to. I play them both daily, and will keep both, if I ever upgrade. But if I had to pick one, it would be the J Bovier.

[Larry Simonson]

I has been written in this forum on several occasions that the mandolin's sound depends on the player so maybe we are searching for that instrument that will let us sound like our hero.

I'm reminded of the marketing hype in the golf clubs business.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Larry above - "...mandolin's sound depends on the player ..". To an extent,it does, - but !. Any individual mandolin will have a range of tones that it's capable of producing when played well by a good player. However,the top players seem to be able to discern 'tonal qualities' that the rest of of can't - or maybe we find them immaterial to us. If those players require those specific tonal qualities & ONLY a Strad. or Loar will provide them,then they've made the case for needing one. I have to admit to not being able to hear those tonal qualities myself & ask myself the question - ''do those tonal qualities actually exist,or is it simply a preference ?''.

Humans are incredibly fickle when it comes to making choices. We can attribute all sorts of 'properties' to items that we wish to own in order to justify buying one,it doesn't mean that those 'properties' (if the exist at all), make the item any 'better'. If we were more honest with ourselves (me included),we'd say that we bought 'whatever' because of the status that the 'whatever' gave to us - as long as it was a good 'whatever' !. There's nothing at all wrong in doing that,& in many cases, a more expensive 'whatever',might be the better investment anyway.

The bottom line for me has always buy the best you can at any specific time,& if someway down the line you can afford a better 'whatever',buy that as well. I'm personally very pleased that i bought my Weber "Fern" mandolin when i did & didn't 'dither'. Only 2 weeks after i bought it,the £ crashed against the $ & the cost shot up by £800 UK. A few weeks later,the cost went up by another £500 UK. A Weber "Fern" in the UK,now costs twice what i paid for mine. So,for those of you contemplating buying your 'dream mandolin' - if you can afford it & you're not depriving your familiies of food,clothing & health care (LOL !!) - buy it & enjoy it.

I'm in a position to do just that,but my 150 year old house demands that i have a the cash to put it right when another bit falls off !,
Ivan

[Bertram Henze]

I would love to see what would happen if all labels and logos disappeared from instruments. No one would know what they like, what they're supposed to like, and roughly 75% of the threads on this site would disappear.

...new categories of threads would emerge instead. Tiny hints would spark discussions about who built what and when, and everybody would be Indiana Jones analysing Ming vases.

And there would still be that thread about This weeks mandolin that won't get a bid or buyer, only the ads would be more bizarre.

P.S. and mandolins as such would be more bizarre, because every builder would try to be recognizable by his style.

[Charlieshafer]

...new categories of threads would emerge instead. Tiny hints would spark discussions about who built what and when, and everybody would be Indiana Jones analysing Ming vases.

And there would still be that thread about This weeks mandolin that won't get a bid or buyer, only the ads would be more bizarre.

P.S. and mandolins as such would be more bizarre, because every builder would try to be recognizable by his style.

That's a great point, about changing the looks. In Britain, during the old track races, it was illegal for a bicycle builder to put decals identifying his company's work, so they brought forth many interesting designs that are now highly sought after, like the curly-stay Hetchins or the Flying Gate.

Anyway, having been through the holy grail search for many years both for myself and family members, as well as having talked too many touring pros, the common denominator seems to be less about specifics, and far more about how the instrument, of any type, "feels" in the player's hands, and a sort of vague, overall excitement with the sound.

Reading into this, and probably incorrectly, it's not a matter of the name on the label for just about anybody, but more the player's picking style that gets what they want out of a specific instrument. For guitars this is easy, look at Dave Rawling's really hard attack when soloing, vs John Jorgensen's relaxed touch. They'll get different tones out of different guitars. Fiddles, I can think if a million examples of hard-bowing rockers like Ruth Ungar of the Mammals, and her dad's more classical approach. Mandolins, have fun with all your favorites.

This is the problem with discussing instruments of any type. It's fun, just like discussing super cars, but it's too personal to be of any value to anyone else, save for conversational value.

[Jim Garber]

This is the problem with discussing instruments of any type. It's fun, just like discussing super cars, but it's too personal to be of any value to anyone else, save for conversational value.

So very true. That is why I love when one person asks for opinions and gets lots of them all over the map. The final decision should never be based on others only on your own individual musical (and other) needs.

[Randi Gormley]

What I've found interesting in posts like this is the OP usually presents a dichotomy -- price vs value, looks vs tone, peer pressure vs personal attraction -- as if there were no other extenuating circumstances or other reasons why things are done. To say that people who buy an expensive instrument someone else wouldn't spend the money on and then describe their decision based on a placebo effect is simplistic, in my mind and assumes that the buyer/seller/critic/observer all use exactly the same meaning for the same words, have the same interests and understanding and the same motivations and all believe in the same truths, whatever they are. I don't think you can pigeonhole musicians -- or people at all -- quite as easily. All our experiences, expectations and yearnings are individual. I, for instance, just don't "get" scroll envy and wouldn't buy an expensive instrument with a scroll regardless of what anybody else plays -- unless its sound was better than what I play now. And even then, I probably would regret spending the money since I find them unbalanced looking (despite the obvious beauty in wood, fit, finish, sound etc.) Another person wouldn't understand a preference for bowlbacks ... would the OP describe these personal preferences as placebo effect? The trouble with dichotomy is the world isn't either/or, it's "all of the above" or "some of the above, depending." Certainly placebo has its place, but even among those people given a placebo instead of the correct medicine you have people who don't get well, or who die. There are always factors that can't be confined to either/or.

[Cliff Seruntine]

I was under the impression that the placebo effect is not necessarily a bad thing and that in medical situations is can be as effective as actual medical treatment. Check out this article from Harvard Health.

As for applying the placebo affect to musical instruments, I ask you if there is a possibility that the reverse effect can also work. That a musician can be convinced that his simple, inexpensive (but well-made) instrument is as good or better than those costing 10 or 20 times as much. Once again, it is the power of belief. It could work both ways, right?

I wasn't writing about whether the placebo effect is useful, but the types of things that affect it. Strength of placebo is affected by our confidence in its complexity. The more complex, the more likely we are to experience the placebo effect. The placebo effect is the result of the power of suggestion. What this topic is really about is the power of suggestion to affect our perception of not only what we hear when we listen an instrument, but our perception of the experience of playing it.

Confidence in belief applies to most anything. It is why double blind tests are essential tools in assessments. In the best experiments, even the scientist is not aware of which subject he is observing til after the data has been gathered and assessed.

[Bertram Henze]

How does placebo work? Wherever our wellbeing depends on the state of our soul, the soul is in control, basically. But often our intellect gets in the way, since we tend to let it do that. The intellect needs to be certain that there is something happening it can understand, such as taking a pill or having a named classification to rely on. The placebo is providing such an action to make a diversion for the intellect and let the soul do its job undisturbed. One of those placebos is pricing: the soul can enjoy quality better if the intellect believes it, too, and stays in its corner.

That's how high end instruments make their markets: people with an intellect that filled their wallets let it empty them again. Other people have just ears.

[Cliff Seruntine]

What I've found interesting in posts like this is the OP usually presents a dichotomy -- price vs value, looks vs tone, peer pressure vs personal attraction -- as if there were no other extenuating circumstances or other reasons why things are done. To say that people who buy an expensive instrument someone else wouldn't spend the money on and then describe their decision based on a placebo effect is simplistic, in my mind and assumes that the buyer/seller/critic/observer all use exactly the same meaning for the same words, have the same interests and understanding and the same motivations and all believe in the same truths, whatever they are.

I am certain that if you go back and reread my OP, you will find there are no dichotomies of choices other than at what point do gains outweigh cost in the question regarding dimiinshing returns. In fact, here is the relevant paragraph:

<<The difference between junk instruments and well made ones is obvious. But what is the difference between an instrument of modest cost and quality build verses one of extreme cost and quality build? What makes a mandolin worth spending a fortune on? Where do we define the point of diminishing returns, where the gains are worth far less than the price increases? And how do we know if what we believe we perceive actually is. Highly subjective questions that are always interesting.>>

My intent in the OP is merely to spark discussion. I am always interested in why people choose their instruments. There is a concept in existential psychology referred to as "bodying forth", which refers to how deeply loved and personal things that we use with great adeptness become extensions of who we are. Our instruments become an expression of our spirits and bodies. What forces compel us to choose a tool that we will spend so much time with and will come to be a means by which we express ourselves so deeply?

[Jim Garber]

All very interesting but I can only speak for myself. I have some relatively expensive instruments and I have some that are bargains that are really fun to play. I would never feel that just because an instrument costs in the five-figure range, that it is the best. I have played some mandolins by top makers that are absolutely to die for but I have also played other ones that I can easily walk away from.

Double-blind tests for instruments are all very interesting — the press loves them and seemingly will always cover them —but IMHO there are way too many variables that affect them. Even if you have the same person playing each in with the same strings and set up (if possible) there may be differences in how that player plays and differences in how the player interacts with that particular instrument as well as the subjectivity of the people who are judging the tone and other characteristics. There are no numerical measurements that are involved here as far as I know.

[Bob A]

Regarding comparisons with the violin world, a few points.

Instruments entered into double-blind comparisons have the advantage of being set up by the sort of expert who can and would spend days getting things just right. Bear in mind that many of them have worked on world-class instruments. Few fold would pay the price for such a setup on an inexpensive fiddle.

Speaking of fiddles, since the valuation of the above instruments, and therefore the stakes involved in obtaining a positive outcome, is quite high. It is not unheard-of for competitors to subtly mess with things like bridge position before the instrument is offered to the player. Violin fraud is not at all uncommon, to the extent that books have been written on the phenomenon.

Violins are priced primarily on provenance and antique value as much as on their quality as music transducers. You may or may not get a superior violin at any given price point.

Back to mandolins: I concur with the posters who have noted that the sonic qualities of a mandolin depend on the circumstances of their being played. A quiet and intimate venue can make a lot of difference; subtleties become more apparent. If you need a LOUD instrument, your choice will be modified by that need. Some instruments can deliver in both settings, some are biased toward one or another extreme.

We're also blessed by the lack of a standard or archetypical design. This presents opportunities for seriously varying sonic experiences. The differences between archtops, flattops, oval-hole or f-hole, bowlback, or hybrid designs, are notable and easily distinguished by even an uninformed auditor. Price may play a part in the process, as a skilled maker can fine-tune an instrument in the process of building, while a factory grinding out a large batch on an assembly line lacks the option. Sometimes there's a serendipitous set of circumstances leading to a better than expected outcome, often not. That's why the proof of the pudding is in the playing.

A player's interaction with an instrument can be, and often is, affected by the player's expectations. If a given instrument brings out the best in a given player, or if a player's expectations bring out the best in a given instrument, it hardly matters which came first; the essence of the situation is in the result.

End of ramble. Thanks for your patience.

[DougC]

This all comes at an interesting time for me as I'm shopping for a guitar after not playing for ten years. I miss my old Larivee guitar and I'm looking for something with the old qualities; 'value', 'performance', 'feel' 'good looks' are terms that come to mind. Now I'm able to afford a better instrument. But I have other considerations as I may not be 'on the road' that much and I need a smaller 'studio' sized instrument. So here I am guys! Choose an instrument for me. Ha, ha. (A James Taylor - Jim Olson guitar would be nice...).

[MikeEdgerton]

If I thought for a minute that buying an Olson would make me sound like James Taylor I would have already owned one.

Instead I sound like Mike Edgerton on every other guitar I own from three major builders and few smaller ones.

It's a curse.

[Jim Garber]

This all comes at an interesting time for me as I'm shopping for a guitar after not playing for ten years. I miss my old Larivee guitar and I'm looking for something with the old qualities; 'value', 'performance', 'feel' 'good looks' are terms that come to mind. Now I'm able to afford a better instrument. But I have other considerations as I may not be 'on the road' that much and I need a smaller 'studio' sized instrument. So here I am guys! Choose an instrument for me. Ha, ha. (A James Taylor - Jim Olson guitar would be nice...).

Check out this current thread for some discussion on small guitars.

[Loubrava]

I don't buy into the "diminishing return" part of the OP's post because it's highly subjective and it is not up for someone else to decide if a person has some type of" diminishing return" on there purchase. A much better way to look at this is ask the guys & gals who spent 2k to 30K on there ax and see how they feel, I would bet the overwhelming majority are more than happy with the buy and have no thoughts of "diminishing returns". I've owned cheap mandolins and played 22K mandolins I now own a 4K mando and if I could afford the 22K one I'd be playing it right now not the least bit concerned about what it cost or is it 18K better than the 4k mandolin.
Lou

[tiltman]

Hey Lou,

If I'm reading the OP correctly...you have some of this right and you may be misunderstanding some of it.

I don't buy into the "diminishing return" part of the OP's post because it's highly subjective and it is not up for someone else to decide if a person has some type of" diminishing return" on there purchase.

You are correct in that it is not up to someone else to decide if a person has a diminishing return on their purchase. I would say that is a VERY individual thing. To illustrate my point...I'm a solid intermediate player. I currently play a Gibson F-5 with a varnish finish. It is a really good one and, if I'm being honest with myself and others, is probably a better mandolin than I am a player. If I jumped up to a Gilchrist I would get a diminishing return on that investment because it would not significantly improve the sounds that I make. On the other hand, if Mike Compton (or fill in the blank with your hero) had my mandolin and then went back to his Gilchrist he would get a positive return on that change/investment because he would make much better sounds with the Gilchrist - a positive return on that investment.

I now own a 4K mando and if I could afford the 22K one I'd be playing it right now not the least bit concerned about what it cost

You are right - you should not be concerned about what it cost. Play what you want to play. The idea of return on investment is - would the 22K mandolin make you sound 18K better?

I think that makes sense...

Kirk

[grassrootphilosopher]

I think that there are a on of misconceptions.

Will a "pac rim" Loar sound as good as a Lloyd Loar. Heck no. May you play so badly that you´ll make a 1923 Gibson F-5 sound like a "pac rim" Loar: Yes.

Will you "need" a Gilchrist to sound good? No.

I think that you need to know what music you want to play and what you want to sound like. A Gilchrist may not be the instrument of choice to play oldtime (though you might). For oldtime music I´d probably chose an oval hole instrument...

Will you hear the difference between a Dudenbostel and a Lloyd Loar? Sorry Ivan, I think there is an extremely strong difference in tone between Thile playing his Dudenbostel and his Lloyd Loar.

The quality of an instrument is determined by clarity (up front), tonality and carrying power. Only great instruments have all three. I was astounded by a Gibson prewar Granada banjo. I heard it up close and was charmed by the sweetness of the tone while I thought it was not brash or loud or overbearing. When I went to my cabin (the scene was at a gettogether) I was blown away that I still kept hearing the banjo (not the other - lesser - instruments that jammed along) while the distance increased. I had the same thing happen to others when I played my 1936 D-28 copy or my F-5 style mandolin.

If you do not experience these things you will only see the price tag on the instrument. My opinion does not reflect the fact that I may not be willing to spend a certain amount of money to obtain a certain instrument. Yet I disavow the placebo effect. I do not deny that there are people who may not hear a difference yet claim to while parading with a 20 k instrument.

[Jim Garber]

I do not deny that there are people who may not hear a difference yet claim to while parading with a 20 k instrument.

I agree with grassrootphilosopher above but also wonder of there are people who claim to hear no differences between a 1K instrument and a 20K one when it is obvious that there are such differences. There are motives and justifications for both ends of that spectrum.

Please bear in mind that I am not accusing anyone here of acting that way, just that I would not be surprised that thius phenomenon could work both ways.

[MikeZito]

+1 on a Kentucky 272 being a FINE instrument . . .

[Tom C]

My nephew once did a "blind" taste test of us. He took clear flavored waters and colored each one a color you would not expect.
Cherry water was green, Orange was purple, lime was red...etc Wow.. it was unexpectedly hard to guess.

[CarlM]

I agree with grassrootphilosopher above but also wonder of there are people who claim to hear no differences between a 1K instrument and a 20K one when it is obvious that there are such differences.

You have hit the nail on the head there. While I am not a "mental health professional" nor do I play one on teevee, I do know what "passive aggressive" means and it is as real as the "placebo effect".

If you love your three hundred dollar instrument, by all means love it. If it is as special to you as someone else's $3000 instrument great and I will never belittle it. But I believe there is just as much a mental health study and room for discussion of people who are claiming to hear no difference when one is clearly present to objective observers as there is of people who have to have the most expensive gear to show it off.

To get a better understanding of what good sound is and where it comes from try building a mandolin. Read some of the discussions on the builder's page about acoustic science. They have gotten heated sometimes. No one has an objective, scientific definition of exactly what a good sound is. There are lots of ideas but no single definition or formula.

A fairly straightforward exercise that dispels the idea that everything is placebo is to fit a bridge. Take a mandolin with a bridge that is not quite fit and fit it properly. You will hear an objective improvement int he sound of the mandolin. There are a hundred other factors in the design and construction of the instrument that make an objective difference to a listener who has no ax to grind. Some builders have a better handle on what those factors are or a better formula to get a good sound out but no one has it totally down to a science and most builders will agree. While price does not equal quality and other factors come into play as well, those builders who have a better handle on it are for the most part able to charge more for their mandolins.

[Jess L.]

How does placebo work? Wherever our wellbeing depends on the state of our soul, the soul is in control, basically. But often our intellect gets in the way, since we tend to let it do that. The intellect needs to be certain that there is something happening it can understand, such as taking a pill or having a named classification to rely on. The placebo is providing such an action to make a diversion for the intellect and let the soul do its job undisturbed. One of those placebos is pricing: the soul can enjoy quality better if the intellect believes it, too, and stays in its corner.

That's how high end instruments make their markets: people with an intellect that filled their wallets let it empty them again. Other people have just ears.

Best explanation I've heard yet.

[Br1ck]

My $200 mandolin I like for its scroll, the fact I made it play decently, don't mind it sitting out on my desk, can take it camping worry free, and it's brightness is a contrast to my Silverangel.

My Silverangel I like for its beautiful tone, comfortable neck, craftsmanship, beautiful wood and finely reliced patina.

Both were great values. No contest which I'd take on a desert Island.

[jasona]

I was talking to a friend earlier today who liked my humble Kentucky KM-272, but wondered about some of the changes I have been making to it. After looking over its new fittings, he said, "How come you just don't get a better instrument."

I told him, "Why should I? I really like how this one sounds, and it plays very well."

He nodded and understood. We've both found gems that didn't cost much.

Having been in the musical instrument business at one time, I've often been amazed by how much musicians spend on instruments for what are often fairly questionable reasons. Violins actually made by Stradivarius and Guarneri are worth millions and highly sought, yet double blind tests have consistently shown even the most skilled players and appraisers can't tell them from other well made instruments. I am especially fond of the video in the link below, where an expert flutist not only fails to identify the most expensive flute but confused the best for a student instrument of modest price.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHMFdks4CGg

In my own work as a mental health professional, I am well familiar the power of the placebo. The belief that something is going to help is so powerful it can make us perceive healing. The placebo effect becomes more powerful as the thing we believe in becomes more complicated, too. This generalizes out to our perception of musical instruments. The more we spend on something, and the more experienced we believe its maker was, and the more complicated was it's making (i.e., hand carved verses cut by power tools), the more likely we are to perceive we hear better tone or that the instrument plays better.

The difference between junk instruments and well made ones is obvious. But what is the difference between an instrument of modest cost and quality build verses one of extreme cost and quality build? What makes a mandolin worth spending a fortune on? Where do we define the point of diminishing returns, where the gains are worth far less than the price increases? And how do we know if what we believe perceive actually is. Highly subjective questions what are always interesting.

(This isn't really a question post so much as just opening a topic for discussion, should anyone be interested.)

If you are happy with how your mandolin sounds just learn how to play it.

When you hear a mandolin that knocks your socks off, then you are ready to upgrade. Before that IMO its wasted money. Chasing a "holy grail" is a myth, especially early on when you lack an ear to hear those differences. Just don't worry about it and play the mandolin