Mandolins with no tone bars / bracing?

[dcoventry]

From Big Joe talking about 600 vs. 700 from a few months back

The necks are pretty much D shaped rather than V shaped. One can have the neck reshaped a bit if needed to make them a bit more conventional. We have done that for a few players. Most find the neck just fine for them. The lack of tone bars is not a structural issue, but rather affects the "tone" the instrument focuses on. The tone bars are traditionally used to enhance the mid range frequencies a bit more to help cut through in an ensemble setting. The tone bars used on the Loar mandolins (originals...1920's) were to enhance that spectrum. It was not considered a structural thing. By the size and shape of the tone bars you can make the mandolin stronger in some frequencies. By eliminating the tone bars you remove that frequency enhancement and theoretically give more balance across the frequency spectrum. The 700, in theory, should give a bit more balance to the bottom end and highs as well as the mids giving a more balanced tone across the strings. The 600, in theory should have a bit more enhancement in the mids much like the big G's instruments to help cut through a guitar or banjo. Which is better? It depends upon what you want to do with the mandolin. It also depends upon the tone you personally prefer. I think they are equal in quality of build and tonal quality, but not the same tonally. That's my take on it

[dcoventry]

Brent,

Please see my earlier comments about you being a voice of reason. 'preciate that.

[Brent Hutto]

I really liked the "balanced" and sweet voice of the LM-400. For my kind of playing alone in my living room, there's not much benefit really in enhanced midrange and cutting projection. Although in guitars and mandolins I do appreciate a certain amount of focus to the midrange tone and prefer that to a "scoop" tonal spectrum. Then again I love fiddle music so maybe I just like that idea anyway!

[Ed Goist]

...snip...Are there any other mandolins that do not use any braces or tone bars in their construction? ...snip...

I would propose a thought experiment...

Assume we took the 50 "most competent judges" of mandolin tone we could find. Say a panel of 50 experienced builders, players and long-time enthusiasts each of whom had universally respected opinions regarding mandolin tone.

Now, assume we asked them to each list the 20 best sounding mandolins they had ever heard. Finally, assume we combined those 50 lists into a single Master List of great sounding mandolins.

I'm guessing our 'Master List' would consist of a few hundred mandolins (since many individual mandolins [such as Monroe's, Marshall's, Grisman's & Reichman's Loars] would be on multiple,or even all! of the lists).

My guess is that 100% (or very close to 100%) of all the mandolins on the list would have some form of bracing built into the design.

(Actually, my guess is that a disproportionately high percentage of all the mandolins on our master list would be F-hole mandolins, with Red or Adirondack Spruce tops, Sugar maple back/sides, tone bar bracing, and a varnish finish, but this is a topic for a different thread entirely ).

Things are built the way they are built for a reason.

[Folkmusician.com]

I think anything that's been working in violins for several hundred years probably has at least the potential to be a pretty decent idea.

Although bowed instruments are quite different from fretted instruments played with a plectrum, I think I have to go along with Brent here.

[northfolk]

So what does the LM-300 have; tone bars, X-bracing or nothing?

[Ed Goist]

Since these non-braced The Loar mandolins are inspired by violin design do they have soundposts and/or bass bars?

[Mike Bunting]

Do they have Virzis?

[Rick Cadger]

Since these non-braced The Loar mandolins are inspired by violin design do they have soundposts and/or bass bars?

IMO, a soundpost wouldn't work on a plucked instrument. It'd compromise sustain by damping the top plate. On a bowed instrument, such as my fiddle, the bow imparts energy to produce arbitrarily long sustain dictated by the length of the bow stroke - the instrument itself doesn't need to ring once the energy source is removed.

Different process creating the sound. Some principles might carry over successfully. Some don't.

[Rick Cadger]

And is a bass bar not pretty much the same as a tone bar? Just that fiddles have one (obviously enough on the bass side), while mandos have a couple...

[Brent Hutto]

So what does the LM-300 have; tone bars, X-bracing or nothing?

X-bracing, if I recall correctly. I believe it's X-brace on the '300, no brace on the '400, no brace on the '600 and tone bars on the '700. Or maybe I have those last two backwards.

[John Kinn]

Or maybe I have those last two backwards.[/QUOTE]

Yes .

[Big Joe]

The main reason most mandolins have "bracing" is because no one tried to do it without. If properly done, braces are merely for enhancing certain tonal frequencies and not for structural support. The modern mandolin has always followed the Gibson form simply because it works very well and provides what most mandolin players demanded. Just like so many wonderful alterations to our music, someone finally decided to build and market one without tone bars or x bracing and it works very well. Just because no one else has done it this way does not mean it could not or should not be done. Innovation always meets resistance from those who are stuck in the "way it has always been done", but if Lloyd Loar or Orville Gibson had that concept the entire mandolin world would still be playing "tater bugs". Not that it would be bad to do that, but it certainly would not be the tone or playability I would look for.

The modern mandolin design, essentially begun by Orville Gibson, has been revised numerous times while still maintaining the historical appeal of the F model mandolin we know today. The Loar LM700 is just such an instrument. The mere removal of "tone bars" has not made an instrument that is lacking in any way whatsoever. It certainly has garnered much discussion about the lack of tone bars in its construction. So far, there have been NO failures or problems in any way resulting from those little pieces of wood not being there.

The LM600 and LM700 are equal quality instruments with different "fancies". From a structural standpoint they are identical with the exception of the tone bars in the 600. There is a slight difference tonally in the frequencies enhanced by the tone bars, but not significant differences. I have had both models in the shop at the same time on several occasions and each sounded great. If pressed I would say simply that the 600 should be a bit more focused in the mid ranges while the 700 is a bit broader in its tonal focus. However, one 600 may be very comparable to a particular 700 and vice versa. The end result is that both are great mandolins and priced very low compared to any competition. The fact that there is a choice is actually quite good and I applaud the guys at "The Loar" for the work they have done on developing these great quality instruments.

[billkilpatrick]

thanks guys - i like reading about my mandolin ...

[Stephen Perry]

It does, and in almost all cases it voids the manufacturers warranty.

Perhaps checking with me first would be appropriate, rather than making up non-facts and promulgating them! I'm still alive, and right here.

1. No shaving. No sanding. Very very light scraping. It's not how much, it's where and why. Clearly distinguished from "shaving" or other bulk removal techniques.
2. Does not void anything. One manufacturer has sent me special versions to do before sending to special clients and endorsing artists. Not really detectable afterwards. No other manufacturer, including a Weber I worked on and then went for warranty work for a later developing issue, has noticed or cared. No way this type of thing would have a structural impact.

I'll show anyone interested. So far demonstrations start with "Hear the difference between this - and this." Only my piano tuner associate says "yes." And Gianna.

What's interesting about the no-bar models is that everything still works, but with slight scrapings inside. The bars on conventionally braced mandolins prove more critical than the adjacent top wood. More mass, stronger resonance of each piece, I suppose. On the non-braced models there's a more diffused zone of top wood that influences tone more substantially than other areas of the top. In addition to this zone, there are 4 other zones of the top that play more strongly into tone character (from what I can tell), two areas that play into balance (like a crossover) and two (one more important) that play into brilliance (clarity and power of treble). This stuff is actually more clear in the braceless models. The braces do a great deal to the tops reaction to sound input.

Would actually be fun to come out to Montana and demonstrate this for you Weber folks. It's an interesting technique, applicable in part during construction. Just the stuff I use on violins, moved over to mandolins.

Hey, why doesn't Weber make violins? That would be fun. I'd like to live in Montana!

[Brett Byers]

Perhaps I overspoke then. Let me be clear, the mandovoodoo process, whether it's shaving, sanding, or scraping, or any other process that involves removing material from the interior of an instrument, absolutely voids our manufacturers warranty.

[Steve Sorensen]

300 - X bracing - rough and blocky from (what I feel in mine)
600 - Traditional bracing - shaped and sanded (from what I feel in mine)

[billkilpatrick]

Perhaps I overspoke then. Let me be clear, the mandovoodoo process, whether it's shaving, sanding, or scraping, or any other process that involves removing material from the interior of an instrument, absolutely voids our manufacturers warranty.

how about making additions ... like rattlesnake rattles?

[Stephen Perry]

Brett, do you have a problem with me specifically? Just curious. Interested in trying some fun stuff on mandolins? It's very interesting work. Check out Spears and Fry's work on violins, then go to it. Doesn't take much fiddling around to get some nice results.

Posts can "work" in some defective instruments. I've seen this on too-thin guitars between end of fingerboard and back. Clearly a remedial technique. Can't imagine them working on mandolins!

The bars' effects and the effects of bar variation seem quite engaging to me. Many imported instruments and some American instruments (I just worked on one) have quite tall bars. These instruments don't seem to like what those bars are doing. Can feel by flexing lots of stiffening at the ends of the bars.

A parabolic longitudinal profile works nicely for distributed forces along a beam. I'm not sure how this translates to a beam attached to a plate, especially a plate that's arched in 2 directions, and with both a localized force and vibrations to consider. I know that on violins a no-bar model will fold up pretty quickly. A purely structural bar bridging the area weakened by the F holes gives a strong, very pure, somewhat characterless tone. Addition of wings into the upper and lower bouts fills in the sound, adds a pleasing complexity, even if those wings are not connected to the structural bar. The mass of the structural bar influences the bass balance with treble a great deal. If the wings into the upper and lower bout are too heavy, the instrument gets dull sounding and the bass dries up. If too stiff, the instrument sounds very tight. I ran through about 30 bar variations on a test violin once. Very interesting. Noticed a violin doesn't need much bar at the ends, and that random lumps in bars are bad!

I like the sound of the non-barred mandolins. I don't like the overbraced ones very much. The ones with nicely done, low bars sound best to me.

Another influence of bars might be to cross link the top. One brand for a while put out mandolins with an X that crossed under the end of the fingerboard, quite high. These always had very even response and good output in mids and lows, without weird resonant peaks. I know the guitar makers talk about linking across the grain, at least the classical fellows.

Lots to think about. Regardless, the Loar unbraced work nicely.

Funny to think that enlarging an endpin hole for a jack would void an entire warranty. What an odd world.

[Strado Len]

Are there high quality violins made without tone bars? My violin has a bass bar on one side and a soundpost on the other. Both serve to stiffen the top. I did know someone who removed the bass tone bar from a Japanese Epiphone F5 copy. I seemed to loosen up the top and improved the bass response of the instrument.

[Stephen Perry]

I have not seen a high quality violin w/o a bass bar. In fact, the only violin I've seen set and played without a bar is one I did to see what would happen. Muddy and structurally unstable.

Keep in mind that the arching on mandolins tends to be substantially different from that of violins.

Also, violins get a continuous input rather than a plucked single input.

[Brett Byers]

Brett, do you have a problem with me specifically? Just curious. Interested in trying some fun stuff on mandolins? It's very interesting work. Check out Spears and Fry's work on violins, then go to it. Doesn't take much fiddling around to get some nice results.
Funny to think that enlarging an endpin hole for a jack would void an entire warranty. What an odd world.

Stephen,
I have no problem with you on any level. We've never met, and I'm sure you are fine and respectable man. Our position has nothing to do with you or your business. I wish you a lifetime of personal and professional success.
Obviously enlarging an endpin hole to accomodate a pickup jack will not void a Weber warranty. But modifying or reshaping tone bars or braces will. If a Weber owner is interested in having their tone bars reshaped, I'm sure Bruce would be happy to discuss that option with them, but we do not authorize any independent repair persons to perform this work on our instruments, and if such work is performed, we will not cover any resulting problems under warranty. It's a pretty straight forward, common sense policy. We've seen plenty of instruments come through our doors where after-market modifications have resulted in less than desirable results. It is a blanket policy and is not targeted at any specific person or business. For example, if someone decided to tackle a plane and refret on their own, and damaged their mandolin, obviously we're not going to cover that under warranty. The same can be said for finish modifications, structural alterations, or the modification of tone bars and bracing. It's a policy that protects our customers, our instruments, and ourselves.
Again, Stephen, I personally have no problems with you or your business, and as a company, Weber has no problems with you or your business. I have respect for anyone in the field of luthiery, and we all share a kinship when it comes to mandolins.

[Stephen Perry]

"we will not cover any resulting problems under warranty. It's a pretty straight forward, common sense policy. "

That is a common sense policy, but is a bit at odds with the earlier blanket statements.

I wouldn't expect any modification to tone bars on the order of .003" would be noticed or influence structural aspects - that's much smaller than the tolerances I generally see from mandolin to mandolin in a given line.

[dcoventry]

"I wouldn't expect any modification to tone bars on the order of .003" would be noticed or influence structural aspects - that's much smaller than the tolerances I generally see from mandolin to mandolin in a given line. "

If the changes are not structurally significant, are they tonally significant?


d.

[Brent Hutto]

Curioser and curioser this thread becomes...