Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Chop vs ringing clarity

  1. #1
    Registered User John Bertotti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    3,658

    Default Chop vs ringing clarity

    I am curious from the builder's POV if building to get good chop affects other tonal aspects of the instrument? What is it that makes for a good chop and does that create negatives elsewhere in tone or structurally? My mind tells me chop has a lot to do with the back but if it gets too thin or thick that can kill other tones or make it weak, I can certainly be wrong about this. I tend to prefer clarity up the neck and keeping it bell-like in tone. Maybe that is why I like my oval A from OldWave so much? Maybe those tones are a product of a shorter scale than an F or the oval sound hole? I honestly don't know for sure. But think it is only a bit of the puzzle as I have heard F-style F hole Mandos that were very bell-like but maybe just a touch tinnier than my oval hole. A Style. Thanks for any thoughts or some direction where to look for more info on this!

    Just to add I wonder also how much the elevated fretboard makes a difference. Less hindrance on the vibrating mass of the top maybe?
    My avatar is of my OldWave Oval A

    Creativity is just doing something wierd and finding out others like it.

  2. #2
    Registered User sunburst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15,863

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Study the scientific research done on guitars and mandolins. Especially more recent (last couple of decades) work done with holography. A rudimentary understanding of plate modes, air modes and coupling will enable you to answer most if not all of those questions and if you are like me, unclutter your mind and help direct your building to better work with said modes and coupling.

  3. The following members say thank you to sunburst for this post:


  4. #3
    Registered User John Bertotti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    3,658

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Great thanks! Any papers you found more helpful?
    My avatar is of my OldWave Oval A

    Creativity is just doing something wierd and finding out others like it.

  5. #4
    Registered User sunburst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15,863

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Dave Cohen's work has been most helpful for me. Conversations with Dave have probably helped even more because understanding scientific papers can be a challenge. Being able to ask questions and discus ideas makes things easier.
    For me, it boils down to: I can understand concepts well enough to use them to help me build while Dave understands them well enough to explain them to others like me. There's a difference, as anyone who has done any teaching/tutoring can attest.

  6. The following members say thank you to sunburst for this post:


  7. #5
    Registered User Tom Haywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    PTC GA
    Posts
    1,348

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    I don't fully understand the question the way it is asked, but I'll tell you what has been on my mind lately and maybe it will help. This showed up recently working with several Gibson mandolins made around 1920, and discussing the construction and sound of some European cellos and violins. It was pointed out that French made violins are the choice for many professionals who play in chamber orchestras and small ensembles, and Italian made violins are the choice for many who play solos in large orchestras. The reason is that the French violins are observed to have a sort of soft, ringy sound with lots of overtones and blend well with other instruments; whereas, the Italian violins have a sharper, harder sound that doesn't sound as good alone but cuts through and can be heard above the other instruments in an ensemble. The same qualities were observed with two cellos that are similarly used.

    Oval hole mandolins tend to have a nice full ringy sound when played alone, and they blend in well with other instruments. Those old Gibson A's are excellent examples and worked well in mandolin orchestras and folk music. This sound is also produced by many F hole mandolins, just as the French violin is an F hole instrument. Loyd Loar was after something that could be heard above the other instruments in a large orchestra. What he produced still chimes nicely, but has more of what we describe as a dry sound - not as soft and ringy. Like the Italian violins, it cuts through.

    It seems that the big difference in "projection" has to do largely with small differences in shape and design features. Some sound differences can be attributed to the type of spruce used on the top and the other woods in the instrument. At least, this seems clear with the cellos and violins, and many can hear these differences in mandolins. Scale length is also a factor. If you happen to own both a nice sweet sounding mandolin and a "bluegrass" mandolin, the difference is probably clear. You know which one to take to which jam session.

    I view chop as a technique that will sound different on each type of mandolin.
    Tom

    "Feel the wood."
    Luthier Page: Facebook

  8. The following members say thank you to Tom Haywood for this post:


  9. #6
    Adrian Minarovic
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banska Bystrica, Slovakia, Europe
    Posts
    3,462

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by John Bertotti View Post
    I am curious from the builder's POV if building to get good chop affects other tonal aspects of the instrument? What is it that makes for a good chop and does that create negatives elsewhere in tone or structurally? My mind tells me chop has a lot to do with the back but if it gets too thin or thick that can kill other tones or make it weak, I can certainly be wrong about this. I tend to prefer clarity up the neck and keeping it bell-like in tone. Maybe that is why I like my oval A from OldWave so much? Maybe those tones are a product of a shorter scale than an F or the oval sound hole? I honestly don't know for sure. But think it is only a bit of the puzzle as I have heard F-style F hole Mandos that were very bell-like but maybe just a touch tinnier than my oval hole. A Style. Thanks for any thoughts or some direction where to look for more info on this!

    Just to add I wonder also how much the elevated fretboard makes a difference. Less hindrance on the vibrating mass of the top maybe?
    Now that few folks replied I will try to take it from another angle. The questions you proposed are quite wide and can be interpreted in many ways ans since they also touch very subjective judgement of sound the answers will be very broad.
    First of all for me "chop" is a technique which involves playing chord with quick stroke and muting it by lifting fingers almost immediately after the stroke before the strings have time to ring fully. Some players use pinky to mute the strings but this sounds a bit differently (especially because it is mostly used with different shapes of chords). Any two players will have different chop even on the same mandolin because their left and right hand synchronization will differ.
    There are some differences among instruments that make this technique easier to perform and I think this was what you asked. From my testing hundreds of mandolins while I was actively playing with band around festivals I found that heavily built mandolins but especially those with thick tonebars and back respond badly to this. I think it is their response time of treble strings is shorter than of bass strings (they usually lack bass altogether) so you get either ringing treble strings in the chop or you damp the chord quicker and get something that sounds more like scratch across muted strings than real chop that carries at least hint of the chord. Then thre are mandolins that have tremendous WOOF of a chop even without muting strings in time, mostly the mandolins that have quite bassy tone and very often the cheaper plywood or pressed top mandolins that have very short sustain (especially) on treble strings. My first mandolin has quite decent top but I carved the back on the thin side (and with recurve thickness all around the back) and yes it has quite full chop but the tone is nice on all strings as well loud and good sustain. But the thin back takes away from it's carrying power. It will drown in a larger group of instruments unless I play very close to bridge to produce brighter tone. The best mandolins for bluegrass have both this good chop-ability and some cutting power. I guess the main difference in this between oval and f hole mandolins comes from different soundhole area and also the free vibrating top area. The soundhole area together with body air volume affects the lowest register and f holed mandolins usally have faster response of notes on low strings making them easier to play the typical modern bluegrass chop.
    BTW, Bill Monroe didn't play the modern chop either, when he played briefly on F-4 his chops were very similar to his main F-5.
    Adrian

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HoGo For This Useful Post:


  11. #7
    Registered User John Bertotti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    3,658

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Thanks everyone for your input it is all great knowledge to ponder. Hogo you hit in why aI was trying to ask thanks. The relation of back thickness and sound-hole to the chop and clarity of the notes and chords. I heard an F style mandolin that had great chop but all the chords were just seemed less defined. But yet another seemed like the chop was ok but the chords had note definition. I have never played around anyone with my oval A but I have with my Vega bowl back which I think held it’s own nicely but that is another beast entirely in it’s construction and I don’t tend to try to chop on it.

    Generally I prefer oval hole decent chop is nice but something about ovals seem less harsh to my ear, this of course has its exceptions but I was wondering why and that lead to my question. Thanks!
    My avatar is of my OldWave Oval A

    Creativity is just doing something wierd and finding out others like it.

  12. #8
    Registered User sunburst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15,863

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    The interaction of air modes and sound hole position is involved in "chop" as well as total sound hole area. To my knowledge, no mandolin with a more-or-less traditionally placed oval/round hole can chop like a well made mandolin with more-or-less traditionally placed f-holes (or other shaped holes in the "traditional" positions).
    Chop has a lot to do with coupling between the plate modes and air modes as well, and that is affected by total aperture size.
    'Treble' notes are produced somewhat differently from 'bass' notes and there is no particular reason that one will exclude the other, so a mandolin can at once have a strong chop as well as clear ringing treble notes.
    From my first mandolin, I've always achieved what I consider very good, clean, clear, ringing treble notes. Any attempts that I have made to strengthen bass response and chop (something I found slightly lacking in some earlier efforts) have been done in fear of loosing treble, but I have detected no loss of treble while improving bass and chop.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunburst For This Useful Post:


  14. #9
    I really look like that soliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    1,745

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    John can you add some definition and unpack the terms "modes"... what do you mean by "Plate modes" and "air modes?"

    All my builds to this point have been flat tops, but I am exploring carving and never realized how much there was going on there.
    Last edited by soliver; May-08-2021 at 9:05pm.
    aka: Spencer
    Silverangel Econo A #429
    Soliver #001 & #002: A double stack of Pancakes.

    Soliver Hand Crafted Mandolins and Mandolin Armrests
    Armrests Here -- Mandolins Here

    "You can never cross the ocean unless you have the courage
    to lose sight of the shore, ...and also a boat with no holes in it.” -anonymous

  15. #10
    Mandolin & Mandola maker
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bega NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,425

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Some reading that will keep you busy for quite a while. There are a lot of references you can follow up from these papers, so that wil keep you reading for a very long time -

    David J. Cohen and Thomas D. Rossing, Mandolin Family Instruments. In - The Science of Stringed Instruments, edited by Thomas D. Rossing. Published by Springer.
    Also from the same book - Thomas D. Rossing and Graham Caldersmith, Guitars and Lutes.
    If you really want to get into this stuff, buy this book, and also buy -
    Trevor Gore and Gerard Gilet, Contemporary Acoustic Guitar Design and Build. Volume 1: Design, and Volume 2: Build
    Also, the textbook used in Uni classes -
    Neville H. Fletcher and Thomas D. Rossing, The Physics of Musical Instruments, Second Edition. Also published by Springer.

    The Gore/Gilet books are arguably the best books on guitar design and construction written to date. They are primarily based on Graham Caldersmith's pioneering research on guitar acoustics, but with emphasis on practical implementation. They are grounded in sound physics and engineering principles (Trevor Gore has a PhD in engineering), which is quite different from most other guitar books. There is a lot of maths in the design book, but you can safely skim over most of the maths. Why read about guitars? Well Cohen and Rossing showed that mandolins vibrate like guitars, so all the guitar research work is relevant and can be applied to mandolins. Personally, I have implemented some of the principles from the Gore/Gilet books in my flat top mandolins which resulted in a massive improvement in sound. So much so that they embarrass most arch top mandolins, even some of my own (oval or round hole) in sound. Understand this stuff and a whole new world opens up.
    Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
    http://www.petercoombe.com

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to peter.coombe For This Useful Post:


  17. #11
    Registered User sunburst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15,863

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by soliver View Post
    John can you add some definition and unpack the terms "modes"... what do you mean by "Plate modes" and "air modes?"...
    All objects have modes and nodes. We are nearly all familiar with modes of vibration of strings. We can chime harmonics by touching the string at a node. Modes are portions that move while nodes are the stationary boundaries of modes. In strings, modes are harmonic.
    A mandolin top (or back) also has modes of motion bounded by nodes, but they are not harmonic, and we can, to some extent, influence frequencies through carving and bracing, but the laws of physics state that the plate can move only in it's normal modes of motion. In other words, no method of carving or bracing or hole cutting can make the top move other than in it's normal modes of motion.
    The air within the instrument likewise has modes of motion that likewise are governed by the laws of physics.

    This is only a brief explanation of what modes are and I imagine it is more confusing than enlightening, but you can follow up on Peter's suggested reading (and much more) as well as do some Google searching for video representations of things moving in their normal modes of motion, and then you can start to get the picture.

    Personally, when I learned the basic fact that tops, backs, air masses and all parts of an instrument can only vibrate in their respective normal modes of motion it uncluttered my thinking and perhaps saved much time and labor experimenting with things that are not important for helping the instrument make sound.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunburst For This Useful Post:


  19. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    486

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    This reminded me of when I worked in a prominent, well respected fly shop. Customers would come in and waggle (kick the tires) a fine graphite rod and seek information on how well suited the rod was for technical dry fly fishing---desiring to find an instrument that would really enhance their chances of success. Then--while on the water would resort to nymphing and swinging wet flies 95% of their angling rather than using the rod for dry fly fishing presentation. They could have bought a cheap clunky rod to nymph fish. If you want chop--buy a mando that sounds great for chopping. If you want crystal clear dominant notes that really sing-buy for that capacity. Heck, the prettiest mando that is muffled down to chop is wasting the expense of the instrument.

  20. #13
    Registered User John Bertotti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    3,658

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by pelone View Post
    This reminded me of when I worked in a prominent, well respected fly shop. Customers would come in and waggle (kick the tires) a fine graphite rod and seek information on how well suited the rod was for technical dry fly fishing---desiring to find an instrument that would really enhance their chances of success. Then--while on the water would resort to nymphing and swinging wet flies 95% of their angling rather than using the rod for dry fly fishing presentation. They could have bought a cheap clunky rod to nymph fish. If you want chop--buy a mando that sounds great for chopping. If you want crystal clear dominant notes that really sing-buy for that capacity. Heck, the prettiest mando that is muffled down to chop is wasting the expense of the instrument.
    Nice story but it doesn't seem relevant, I know nothing of fly fishing and will never learn it. To me, it is an odd statement to say buy one for chop and or one for clarity. I started this thread trying to learn the interaction of the two and to have one doesn't necessarily mean you can't have the other, unless you build to the extreme, and certainly is one or the other is all you want, go for it. I personally want to learn how to balance the two in a build. at least understand to some extent what factors affect the two. I'm not buying an instrument but learning more about building. And I certainly don't want people to think you can only have one of the other good chop or rining clarity because I have heard instruments with a nice percussive chop and good clarity.
    My avatar is of my OldWave Oval A

    Creativity is just doing something wierd and finding out others like it.

  21. #14
    Mandolin & Mandola maker
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bega NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,425

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    I started this thread trying to learn the interaction of the two
    Build another 50 and you might think you have learned it all, but then after the next 50 you discover you have learned what you don't know, and it is a lot.
    Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
    http://www.petercoombe.com

  22. The following members say thank you to peter.coombe for this post:


  23. #15
    Registered User John Bertotti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    3,658

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by peter.coombe View Post
    Build another 50 and you might think you have learned it all, but then after the next 50 you discover you have learned what you don't know, and it is a lot.
    Hahhahaha I don’t doubt that! I have always seen what others do but sometimes I have to try that which was proven ineffective or just wrong for the experience of it. My dad could never understand that but in my kid head I wanted to know why and since no one would tell me I would do it wrong to see why. Now I am far far far older and still experimenting and trying to learn what lead people to where they are in their endeavors. In this case building instruments. I will try to learn all I can from you all and read everything I can afford to get my hands on if it helps. Thanks to everyone for their two cents or fifty buck worth of knowledge. I am old enough to remember a time when craftsmen were not so willing to share their knowledge and secrets so your posts here are really appreciated. Even Pelone’s post helps because some people do see it that way and even so you still have to understand how to get the response someone wants. Probably that should have been my response. I wasn’t trying to be harsh. Hard to illustrate intent for me in words only.
    My avatar is of my OldWave Oval A

    Creativity is just doing something wierd and finding out others like it.

  24. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    486

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    Build for clarity----mandos were likely originally built for their range and voice and features as a string instrument. Chopping likely came out of their use as instruments used in bluegrass, folk, and country music. The fly fishing analogy was meant to point out that if one wanted a fine dry fly rod go ahead and get it but with that aim, why expect it to be a great nymphing rod ---a cheap rod, heck a telephone pole could accomplish nymph fishing. Chop is equivalent to a snare drum-- to be done on the 2 and 4 count. Chop can be accomplished on a cheap mando--why build a fine instrument to chop? Build for desired tone and clarity.

  25. #17

    Default Re: Chop vs ringing clarity

    I'd say a Silverangel generally sounds like closing a cigar box. Ken has developed a style which is pretty extreme, and which is really good for "chop".

    Naturally, all engineering is about compromises. I don't like the way the A and E courses sound on those mandolins. Not that I can't appreciate them or want to play them, just that it's not what I go for in my own builds.

    I've made several mandolins which are polar opposites of the Silverangel "thunk" tone, instead of sounding like closing a cigar box, it sounds like ringing a champagne flute. Still has bass and clarity, still has lots of volume, just not in the same way.

    I have lots of data and measurements from dozens of instruments. I don't have the background to analyze the data and make generalizable inferences. But I can figure out what a mandolin is going to sound like by measuring the plates, and comparing them to previous builds.
    I think that's what you should be going for. Build yourself a reference library and a method that allows you to have some ability to confidently predict the properties of the resulting structure (tone).
    Because of the differences in test setups, materials, and instrument designs, I don't think anyone can supply that information to you, unless you were to control for all those variables, which most of us aren't excited about doing. Even just the bare minimum which I've done is a huge project, and easy to miss a step along the way.

    If you're interested, I measure:

    -mass of plate rough carved
    -dimensions of plate rough carved (arch height, thickness under fretboard extension, under tailpiece, under bridge, recurve bass, recurve treble)
    -top 5 natural modes of vibration of the free plate
    (1. which exist within the instrument's effective pitch range, 2. sorted according to amplitude, 3. averaged across dozens of tap samples which are supported in multiple different places for different taps in order simulate an actual "free plate")

    Then I measure those same 12 parameters after final carving, and after applying bracing.

    I also save the MP3s of the tap tests in case I'm analyzing this all incorrectly and figure out a better way to analyze them in the future.

    Oh yeah.. I am not a lawyer, but if you want a good "chop", don't let the back get too floppy. Keep that back nice and stiff.

  26. The following members say thank you to Marty Jacobson for this post:


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •