# Instruments and Equipment > Builders and Repair >  Mandolin sound changing over time

## NicktheFlame

Good day,

I am having a friendly argument with the guitarist of my band about the prospect of the possible changing of sound of my mandolin over time. 

I just bought a Gibson F-9, (David Harvey, 2016). I named her Firedoll! She is absolutely amazing! ... And I was thinking that her sound would get even better and better with the time.  

So, I've decided to ask my luthier if aging would give my Firedoll a better sound. He answered that it was a myth. That if I take good care of Firedoll, her wood might dry and give a upgrade of sound opening about 2% of current sound. He says that there is no simple reason to expect that age-related changes in general would necessarily improve an instrument.

So I went with that argument to my last practice and got into a fun fight with my guitarist. He believes firmly that time gives better sound to good instrument, that the sound of a good instrument with good wood would improve with time.

Any facts or proofs to back me further with my luthier's position? 

Thank you for your help! 

Nick

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Bill McCall

In these discussions, facts are hard to come by and harder to agree on.  While we can agree that things change over time (dust to dust and all that), not much past that is settled in terms of instruments sound changing over time.  As I have mentioned, the plural of anecdote is not data.

But nothing will stop people arguing about it though.

----------

DHopkins, 

fox, 

Jim Garber, 

MontanaMatt, 

sblock

----------


## Steve Sorensen

Instruments are like people and grape juice -- The best see their basic traits get better and better over time, eventually exceeding their youthful vigor like a fine wine . . . while the neglected and poorly crafted only turn more sour, bitter, and unpleasant with each added day in a most distasteful and vinegary way.

Steve

----------

j. condino, 

Kevin Briggs, 

MontanaMatt, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

Why would "dry" wood sound better than properly humidified wood?

Agreeing with Steven - don't treat your mandolin friends our your friend friends poorly!

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Br1ck

When I finished my mandolin build, I was fairly happy with the tone of the instrument. There is a sound I've heard in most imports related to the body of the G string, a sound that is just not as resonant fat and warm as is found in most premium brands. It is the main difference that is worth, to me, paying many times the price for.

My build had maybe 70% of the tone I was hoping for on the G string. Six months later we are at 90%. All the thinness is going away. I've never had an adirondak top, but the instrument is getting better. To me it is real. This instrument gets two to three hours a day play time. Weather it is time passing or hours played or both, but the change is there.

Now had this mandolin been hanging in the store new, it might have been passed by, which is another reason I like to buy used. I would not go so far as saying you can count on change though.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## pops1

My mandolin has definitely changed over the years, and more folks than me have heard it.

----------

Bill Findley, 

cayuga red, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## John Bertotti

I tend to think mine has opened up over the years as well, just my perception, no data. I do believe that if I don't play mine for a while it goes to sleep, but once I play it for a bit it opens right back up.

----------

Bill Findley, 

cayuga red, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## HoGo

I've played mandolin for over two decades and built a few as well so I know what "fresh" mandolin sounds like and how it evolves (they visit me from time to time for setups or refrets).
It would not be honest from me as builder to promise possible maturing of tone to the better.
Here is my take on this:
I agree that there is a phase of settling down when new instrument is first strung (or one that has been without string tension for a long period of time or after big structural repair) but that decays pretty fast. In new mandolins few months at best IMO. On instruments that were just unstrung for weeks or even months this is no more than few days.
There are way too many factors that contribute to the tone that time alone cannot be separated as one that affects tone.
Usually when instruments come back to me it sounds/plays worse than it did when it left my shop previously. Apparently the frets got worn a bit, there is dirt in the nut slots, setup is slightly messed from environment changes and string changes. On fresher mandolins (year or so after build) the bridge contact may not be optimal anymore (due to the initial settling) etc... so after few hurs of my time it will play its best again when it leaves my door and this change can be quite dramatic (especially if owner neglects the instrument care)
Whenever I get my handson instruments where owner claims the tone changed dramatically (to better or worse) I look for structural issues... For example, failing top arch (sagging in the center and bulging under tailpiece) will add some woofiness to the chop that bluegrass players will love, but the tone slowly becomes tubby/ muddy (especially with older strings) and thin/harsh on higher notes, but less experienced players who seldom play those notes and need to produce them clean, strong and articulate will not notice until it becomes really bad (death crack, impossible setup problems keeping tuning etc.).
Whenever I sell instrument I tell the owner if he doesn't love how it sounds now he shouldn't expect much change in the instrument, the instrument won't change, his musical tastes may change though (as my did over years as well)

There is so much BS on the internet and spread by some makers or players - there are few local banjo makers who explain to customers that have issues with tone of their instruments that the bronze alloy in tone ring etc will continue to crystallize and mature into fuller sound over time but they need to be played a lot as the vibration energy helps...

----------

Jim Garber, 

John Bertotti, 

Mandobart, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## onassis

My distrust of the concept of "opening up" comes down to the fact that it only ever seems to operate in one direction - you never hear of instruments sounding worse over time, only better.  As Adrian noted, worsening of sound is typically seen as a function of environmental factors and upkeep (strings, frets, etc).  Improvements are attributed to "opening up".  For me personally, I can't claim to have a fine enough ear or memory to say whether an instrument has changed significantly, or whether I've just learned how to pull a tone with it that I enjoy even more.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## HoGo

> My distrust of the concept of "opening up" comes down to the fact that it only ever seems to operate in one direction - you never hear of instruments sounding worse over time, only better.  As Adrian noted, worsening of sound is typically seen as a function of environmental factors and upkeep (strings, frets, etc).  Improvements are attributed to "opening up".  For me personally, I can't claim to have a fine enough ear or memory to say whether an instrument has changed significantly, or whether I've just learned how to pull a tone with it that I enjoy even more.


I agree with that. The evolution of playing skills is very significant factor as well.
I think I have quite well trained ear (back when I played actively with few bands I took every chance to play every mandolin at event - we made rounds around dealers and tested everything) but the human sound memory is really not good enough to discern changes in time reliably. That's why I kept my old Krishot as a point of reference for all my builds (and mandolins that came for repairs). That mandolin had quite specific sound (but a great one) and I know it didn't change much (if at all) from my recordings. I always compared new mandolins with that one.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## sblock

We all want our mandolins to sound better as they age.  Heck, we want _ourselves_ to sound better as we age! If only wishing made it so.  Ah, but when it comes to subjective matters like perception -- it does!

Based on the testimony of the folks who post on the Mandolin Cafe, all their mandolins are above average, and getting better by the day.  Garrison Keillor would be proud.

----------

bradeasley, 

Cobalt, 

Marty Jacobson, 

MontanaMatt, 

Phil Goodson

----------


## dan in va

My Stanley and another are proof that sound can mature. John Hamlett also noted the last 4 notes on the G strings lost a lot of volume and the D strings were out of balance and louder than all the other strings. Some 2-3 years later the volume came into balance. The G strings' low notes caught up and the D strings evened out with the others. It's in balance across the strings and up the neck also.     

Another A that Don Julin had for awhile had D strings that were louder than the others. A few years later it had also evened out by the time Don Grieser had it. It also oozes that Monroe-like tone. 

Chris builds under dry conditions so they don't need to be humidified, so it's not a matter of the wood drying out. 

Some mandolins definitely mature with age to a degree.  Several really good mandolins have come and gone and the Stanley stays. I've not heard of others that had gone this route.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## John Bertotti

How much of this is also our ears becoming attuned to the instrument and our technique adjusting to draw the tone we want from that instrument.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Br1ck

So is the notion that Adirondack spruce takes a year or two to break in just a myth?

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> So is the notion that Adirondack spruce takes a year or two to break in just a myth?


Some pieces of Adirondack are identical to pieces of Sitka spruce. Some pieces of Adirondack are worse as tonewood than an average piece of Sitka (too brittle, too dense, too light, poor grain orientation, etc.). 

ANY claim which is generalized to an entire species of wood is too vague to be useful. If you're talking about balsa vs. rosewood, yes, the rosewood will definitely have characteristics different than the balsa sample. But spruce needs to be assessed on a piece by piece basis.

----------

Andy Morton, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## belbein

My mandolin sounds better and better, the worse and worse my hearing gets. 

I can only say that I have a 35 year old lower end Yamaha classical guitar and it is sooooooo mellow now.  FWIW.

----------

MontanaMatt, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Bill McCall

> So is the notion that Adirondack spruce takes a year or two to break in just a myth?


Yes, unless you can explain some physical changes and show that through measurements.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## JeffD

While it may or may not be the case (and we have argued it here often enough - just search on "opening up") I certainly would not buy an instrument that didn't already sound great hoping that it would sound better in time.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## David Lewis

> While it may or may not be the case (and we have argued it here often enough - just search on "opening up") I certainly would not buy an instrument that didn't already sound great hoping that it would sound better in time.


People do though. I mean, I never have- the instrument has to 'speak' to me (in some undefinable way) - I have to hear the possibility of great playing or great sound (either 'this will be great after a setup', or 'the action's a little wrong', etc.), otherwise I'm not interested. And plenty of nice properly set-up instruments haven't spoken to me.

My point is that you might have an instrument change, or you mightn't. Play what you like and let it be.  :Smile:

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Mandoplumb

+1 for a good instrument getting better, at least for a time. I don't think a 10 year old mandolin will be better in 50 years or even a 2year old better in 5 years, but you will never convince me that a new instrument doesn't sound " new". I've told the story here before of being able to tell if my dad had taken his banjo apart for any reason since I had last played with him ( we played almost every week, him playing the same banjo he had owned and I had listen to for years. I knew it's sound better than I knew my wife's body) I don't know how but his knowing how to get the sound from it should not have changed, my musical hearing must have  been accurate or I couldn't have told. There have been other instrument that someone else owned that I played when new that I thought were good sounding then maybe a year or so later played again and they were great. In those cases it was my opinion memory that changed, not necessarily my music memory. As far as always getting better, why would it get worse? If all the pieces are "learning" to work together as intended, to become one instrument, instead of multiple pieces. A poorly made of poor materials by a poor builder won't get better, but neither will it get worse. I know there is no way to prove any of this and I can't say I understand it completely, but after being around good instrument all my life (65 years)  you can't disprove it to me.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## tonydxn

It's generally reckoned among guitar makers (and players too probably) that guitars with spruce tops do mature noticeably in the first couple of years, though ones with western red cedar tops don't mature very much. My experience does bear this out. Of course, the OP asked about mandolins, which may be different.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Maczart

I think this topic can be summed up by 'Believers gonna believe!’. Belief is based in emotion and as such, can sometimes be irrational. Belief does not require facts, objective evidence or proof and can even exist despite evidence to the contrary. A typical attitude is "Prove me wrong".  All that is required is a premise that ‘makes sense’ to the believer. It’s common in all areas of human activity like sports, politics and religion for example. While debates of this type can be fun, ultimately nothing gets resolved.

----------

Earl, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## peter.coombe

Relying on memory as far as sound goes is an exercise in self delusion.  Research has shown that human auditory memory is very short, so remembering what your mandolin sounded like one hours ago is unreliable.  Even more unreliable is remembering sound for days or weeks or months.  The only reliable way is to do one on one comparisons with another instrument.  If you notice differences the question then becomes what instrument has changed?  If the reference instrument is much older and has been played a fair bit and continues to be played then it is likely the new one has changed.  Using this technique, I am convinced that new mandolins do change over time.  Some change quite a bit, others not much.

----------

Cobalt

----------


## Don Grieser

While it doesn't reach the level of scientific evidence, go watch Jill's tune a week thread. First video is the mandolin at brand new. We will eventually have 52 consecutive videos one week apart to see if we can hear any difference. I could hear a difference after 6 or 8 weeks. What do you hear?

----------

Chuck Leyda, 

Cobalt, 

Joe DiLorenzo, 

Markus, 

MontanaMatt, 

tonydxn

----------


## Phil Goodson

> While it doesn't reach the level of scientific evidence, go watch Jill's tune a week thread. First video is the mandolin at brand new. We will eventually have 52 consecutive videos one week apart to see if we can hear any difference. I could hear a difference after 6 or 8 weeks. What do you hear?


A player adapting to a new instrument and improving her technique????   Just saying......

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Bill McCall

> While it doesn't reach the level of scientific evidence......


Well that certainly says it all.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Larry Simonson

What about short term changes?  How many of us think their instruments sound better after playing it x minutes after its been in the case for a week, a month?   Can we separate out the player vs instrument warming up by playing a different instrument before testing the "waking-up" nature of the instrument in question?

----------

MontanaMatt, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## illinoisfiddler

There is some evidence to bear this out. Instruments that are played get played in certain modes, in certain keys, that cause the wood to vibrate in ways that are more pleasing. The more the instrument is played, the more it starts to respond in certain ways that the physical structure is used to. Think about vibrations in your car. Things start to rub and respond in ways that are typical for the way that car is driven. I feel that same is true for musical instruments: they begin to respond in more musical ways, assuming they are played in ways that produce the desirable sound. Very good, antique violins are often prized not only because of their heritage but because of the great musicians who have played them, this adds to their provenance. This makes them "played in."

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## pops1

I know when my mandolin was not broken in other mandolin players would say "your mandolin sounds great except for the G string". Now many years later the G string sounds great along with the rest of the mandolin. No memory involved, although I know how the G string changed, but others opinions over the years. Now the comments are "that is a great sounding mandolin". The G string is completely different than it was the first several years, it's easy to hear and I don't think my technique could make the change, I have played a long time before this mandolin and have not done anything different that I am aware of, tho it could happen. Many many hours of playing have definitely opened this mandolin up. When new others have said it was bright in the highs, now it is warm and lovely and complex, and a joy to play.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Mandoplumb

The question I have is.    If auditory memory is so short, how did I know Dad's banjo had been apart (post 20)  I realize that I'm talking about an instrument that I " knew" very well, had heard every day while I was living at home and had heard many times the difference in sound when it had recently been apart but if not memory how did I know it had been apart after not hearing it for a week or so. I think I noticed every time and never accused wrongly. By the way Dad seldom took the banjo apart, hebwas not one to work on it on a whim.

----------

Cobalt, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Br1ck

> While it may or may not be the case (and we have argued it here often enough - just search on "opening up") I certainly would not buy an instrument that didn't already sound great hoping that it would sound better in time.


Frank Ford gave me that advice decades ago, and I believe pretty much everything he says.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Br1ck

I went to Gryphon every week for a decade or more when I lived in Palo Alto, and would play everything on the used wall. I must have played a hundred or more D 28s in that time, most were 60s and 70s models which were between twenty and thirty years old. Played many newer ones too. The impression I came away with, was heavy playing had more of an effect than time. I would play a D 28 that had heavy playwear, pick worn through the finish type wear, and they always sounded better to me than very clean examples of the same vintage. Now, the problem is, and has always been, were these instruments better to begin with, and handpicked by advanced players and played a lot, or did playing them a lot make them better? So it impossible for me to say, heavily played instruments sound better because of it. They might very well have been played heavily because they were better to begin with.

But that does not negate that I light up when I see a very played in  instrument.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Now, the problem is, and has always been, were these instruments better to begin with, and handpicked by advanced players and played a lot, or did playing them a lot make them better?


It's hard to avoid thinking that correlation implies causation. Do fast cars win races.. or did the cars get faster because of all the winning? That's an obvious example, but lots of life is not as clear-cut as that.

I love Tyler Vigen's correlations from real data...

----------

bradeasley, 

Drew Streip, 

Earl, 

GTison, 

John Bertotti, 

Larry Simonson, 

MontanaMatt, 

NotACreativeName, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## NotACreativeName

I've always thought it wasn't that my mandolin was necessarily opening up as much as it was a reflection of what I wanted to hear. Which is why some days it just doesn't sound right to me simply because there is a sound in my head that my mandolin isn't going to meet no matter what.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## John Bertotti

> It's hard to avoid thinking that correlation implies causation. Do fast cars win races.. or did the cars get faster because of all the winning? That's an obvious example, but lots of life is not as clear-cut as that.
> 
> I love Tyler Vigen's correlations from real data...


Those are hilarious comparisons! Thanks!

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> I've always thought it wasn't that my mandolin was necessarily opening up as much as it was a reflection of what I wanted to hear. Which is why some days it just doesn't sound right to me simply because there is a sound in my head that my mandolin isn't going to meet no matter what.


I think instruments sound a lot different on different days. I think it's a complex system consisting of:
1. Human - can have sinus infections, ear inflammation, bad sleep the night before, etc which contribute to our perception of sound/tone. Also if it's a cold wintery day we probably don't play as dextrously.
2. Weather - temperature and humidity do make physical (geometry) changes to our instruments which can impact tone, as well as the efficiency by which the sound gets to our eardrums. I think warmer, humid days make my mandolin sound the best.. but maybe that's just when I feel the best.
3. The instrument itself

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## John Bertotti

> I think instruments sound a lot different on different days. I think it's a complex system consisting of:
> 1. Human - can have sinus infections, ear inflammation, bad sleep the night before, etc which contribute to our perception of sound/tone. Also if it's a cold wintery day we probably don't play as dextrously.
> 2. Weather - temperature and humidity do make physical (geometry) changes to our instruments which can impact tone, as well as the efficiency by which the sound gets to our eardrums. I think warmer, humid days make my mandolin sound the best.. but maybe that's just when I feel the best.
> 3. The instrument itself


Years ago I wondered why I liked one guitar over another on different days and was actually able to tie it into the environment I worked in on any given day. I do industrial equipment repairs and audit, training, etc. Some days are much louder than others because of different facilities but the days I was around certain loud equipment more I found I tended to prefer a brighter guitar on those days. I have ringing in my ears 24/7 but that in and of itself doesn't seem to sway my tonal likes on any given day but the exposure to loud equipment does.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## belbein

> an exercise in self delusion


Ah, Peter, but isn't that the most important art in life?

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Don Grieser

> Well that certainly says it all.


Can you point me to the scientific evidence that shows instruments don't change over time? I'm not aware of it.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## CWRoyds

It is the wrong question. 
*Do instruments change over time?* 
Well, if you take a new instrument and put it away in a case for 30 years, probably not. 
It will probably be a bit lacking from nonuse, and not a lot different than when new.
It might have improved slightly from wood settling in, getting used to the shape they have been forced into.
It might then open up if it is played vigorously over time.

*Do instruments change over time when they are played a lot?*
Of course they do, especially when they are a finely crafted instrument. 
A low end, heavily built instrument has less chance of developing, although it may still improve with playing, and probably will.  Anyone who has ever had a fine instrument will see changes in the tone and resonance as the instrument gets played in.

Fine classical instruments (violins, violas, cellos, and double basses) are very changeable over time with consistent playing. I doubt if you can find one pro violinist who will say instruments don't change with consistent playing over time. 
You can even use techniques and exercises to train a fine instrument to be better is specific ways.
My viola teacher, when I was a teen, had a wonderful old viola, but was disappointed with the G string compared with the others. 
He took it to a specialist who gave him a series of exercises to perform on the instrument every day.
My teacher played these exercises every day and eventually he corrected the issue after 6 months to a year.

*Fine quality instruments open up over time, and then can continue to improve over time if they are played a great deal.*
I have experienced it in a variety of instruments, from mandolins, to many guitars, to Classical Indian Sitars.
A fine quality Classical Indian Sitar usually takes about a year of hard playing before it "blooms".
It will open up into a very different instrument, with increased volume, sustain, resonance, and sympathetic response. 
No one in the sitar world would dispute this fact.

*Is there a point the instrument won't improve past?*
Sure. An instrument will get to a point where it is just about as good as it is going to get. 
It will change with the weather, temp, humidity, etc.
Some times it will sound labored, and some times it will sing, depending on the environment.
BUT in general, from new, a fine instrument can be improved with dedicated playing over time.

----------

MontanaMatt, 

Northwest Steve, 

vic-victor, 

William Smith

----------


## Bill McCall

> Can you point me to the scientific evidence that shows instruments don't change over time? I'm not aware of it.


Here's one.  https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/powerhousetwins.html

Its interesting to note that there are lots of studies about how music changes your brain, which is apparently a lot more plastic than a wooden instrument.

----------

Don Grieser, 

Marty Jacobson, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Can you point me to the scientific evidence that shows instruments don't change over time? I'm not aware of it.


There has been at least one rigorous study showing that guitars played frequently (for a long period with a mechanical device, versus by real players, versus by not played at all) and substantially equivalent guitars not played were identical ("scientifically irrelevant"). 

Here you go: https://www.savartjournal.org/index....rticle/view/22

----------

Don Grieser, 

Doug Brock, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Steve Ostrander

Everybody says that they're instrument has improved over time but nobody has any recordings to prove it. The recordings would have to be in the same room with the same mic at the same temp and RH, etc etc, so that is probably why.

My two mandos sound pretty much like they did when I bought them, but they sounded good then. Hopefully I have gotten better.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## mtucker

My new mandolins have all gone through an adjustment period, they feel tight and not openly responsive...tone seems compressed, and they're definitely finicky about staying in tune. That changes quickly with play over 2-4 weeks I believe. I say they think they're still a tree at least for a period of time. 

It makes sense to me that the vibration (non-scientific term) of the top changes the response if it gets consistent play unless it's a complete dog from the start.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Phil Goodson

People believe lots of things and they talk about them a lot.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> People believe lots of things and they talk about them a lot.


You will never convince me of that.

----------

Canuckle, 

MontanaMatt, 

Phil Goodson

----------


## mtucker

> People believe lots of things and they talk about them a lot.


I'm a skeptic by nature!  :Laughing:

----------

Phil Goodson

----------


## MontanaMatt

> There has been at least one rigorous study showing that guitars played frequently (for a long period with a mechanical device, versus by real players, versus by not played at all) and substantially equivalent guitars not played were identical ("scientifically irrelevant"). 
> 
> Here you go: https://www.savartjournal.org/index....rticle/view/22


When this got kicked around here a year or two ago, and everyone was sure that they were right, this article was put up as the definitive argument ender...
I then, and now, point out that though guitars and mandolins share wood, wires, and bracing as their means of sound production, they are different machines.   There is no compression load on a flat topped guitar, no arch, no tailpiece attachment to endblock...
I consider the guitar research to be relevant to guitars, I think you should too :Mandosmiley: 

Additionally, wood does age, and the internal unfinished wood is quite exposed to the environment...my instruments go through radical environmental changes seasonally, and daily.
My more than two cents...ymmv :Grin:

----------


## Br1ck

> It's hard to avoid thinking that correlation implies causation. Do fast cars win races.. or did the cars get faster because of all the winning? That's an obvious example, but lots of life is not as clear-cut as that.
> 
> I love Tyler Vigen's correlations from real data...


It is obvious to me that Computer science doctorates go out and celebrate at arcades.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

My experience building mandolins and guitars is that the knowledge gained from one is transferable to the other. And anyway, guitarists say the same thing about their instruments maturing, crystallizing, drying out, etc. Oh yeah, I can tell that guitar sounds great from the eBay pictures, by the way that lacquer checking looks.

I think the only real argument ender is to agree that the instrument itself is a small part of a complex system. There are many things in that system which change considerably, and on a daily basis. The instrument is by far the most static part of the whole system. It's not surprising that we perceive the instrument differently on a daily or minute-by-minute basis. But we don't need to assume the world moves around the elevator.

One thing that never comes up in these discussions is how we all have a vested interest in this phenomenon being real (real, and strong -- personally I do believe it is real, but too small to perceptible). 
We have a vested interest because this is a major selling point and rationalization point in used instrument transactions. Hence why there's not a myth that all new instruments sound the best because they haven't been "worn out by all those vibrations, gone all mushy and dead" - that would be great for builders, but terrible for most people to talk about instruments, and engage in buying and selling used instruments.
Things in which we are financially vested tend to skew our perceptions to a great degree.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## MontanaMatt

My vested interest is my enjoyment of my mandolins.  I don't build or sell.  My mandolins get to be family heirlooms that my kids get to sell if they deem it necessary.  
My experience is limited to two mandolins.  Both owned from day one(likely several weeks into their "lives")
I also rely on info passes on to me by one of my music mentors, who had a PhD in musicology, was a lifelong player of arched instruments (viol family), a well respected performer and university professor.
His opinion was that internal surface cell structure changed with seasonal fluctuations, causing the release of organelles from the exposed cells on the unfinished surfaces, thus changing the cellular structure and resonance properties. That process takes a long time, if it actually happens  :Whistling:

----------

lflngpicker

----------


## Markus

I find it interesting that no one disputes when someone says `I can hear that the strings I put on two months ago are dead' but if they say `my mandolin sounds better a month after I got it' no one wants to believe them. 

Both would seem to impressions from the player about the sound over the course of a month [or many months] ... one is *never* disputed, one pretty much always is. 

Given that, I'm not sure how useful these conversations ever are - though I always end up reading them.

----------

Canuckle, 

Drew Streip, 

j. condino, 

John Bertotti, 

Mandoplumb, 

MontanaMatt, 

O. Apitius, 

pops1

----------


## Bill McCall

> I find it interesting that no one disputes when someone says `I can hear that the strings I put on two months ago are dead' but if they say `my mandolin sounds better a month after I got it' no one wants to believe them...........


People certainly can hear changes in sound on any mandolin as the sound changes with the pitch, pick, pick location of pick attack (near or away from the bridge), and weather changes among other items including new strings or different strings.  The question is whether instruments change over time due to some physical change of the mandolin itself, typically explained as the 'top breaking in'.  

On new instruments, especially varnished ones, I could see that the slow hardening of the varnish *may* cause some some change to an instrument, but I don't know of anyone who has measured the tone of an instrument when completed and then measured the tone (whatever that may mean) 1,2 or 3 years later to verify any change.

See the study I mentioned above for an interesting study of identical instruments over time.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## peter.coombe

> I consider the guitar research to be relevant to guitars, I think you should too


Sorry, but you are wrong.  Cohen and Rossing have shown that mandolins vibrate similar to guitars, so the guitar research is highly relevant to mandolins.  There are differences of course (higher frequencies in mandolins), but they do vibrate very similar.

----------

Marty Jacobson, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Doug Brock

> There has been at least one rigorous study showing that guitars played frequently (for a long period with a mechanical device, versus by real players, versus by not played at all) and substantially equivalent guitars not played were identical ("scientifically irrelevant"). 
> 
> Here you go: https://www.savartjournal.org/index....rticle/view/22


Interesting read. Thanks!

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Don Grieser

Thanks Bill and Marty. I believe in science.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Mandoplumb

Markus brings up an interesting point, if our auditory memory is so short, how do we know the strings have gone dead. If we can't remember how the strings sounded new, how do we know that a month or a week later they don't sound the same. Or for that matter with out memory how do those of us that play entirely by ear remember how a whole step, verses a half step or two steps sound that enables us to pretty much play melody on the fly. My Dad could pick up an instrument he had never played and tune it very close to standard pitch. Or for that matter how can we tune an instrument if we don't remember how it supposed to sound. We could not play anything by ear or have any idea if correct or not by written music without auditory memory. I KNOW I can remember my wife's voice and how my mandolin sounds. Ramble complete

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## dang

> ...His opinion was that internal surface cell structure changed with seasonal fluctuations, causing the *release of organelles from the exposed cells* on the unfinished surfaces, thus changing the cellular structure and resonance properties. That process takes a long time, if it actually happens


Your friend may have a PHD in musicology  I have a masters in plant biochemistry, and while I never studied cell death specifically, the current understanding of the natural senescence of plant tissue that would occur over time in cut wood doesnt currently support the concept that the organelles remain intact to be released later.

----------

Donal H, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## MontanaMatt

> Your friend may have a PHD in musicology — I have a masters in plant biochemistry, and while I never studied cell death specifically, the current understanding of the natural senescence of plant tissue that would occur over time in cut wood doesn’t currently support the concept that the organelles remain intact to be released later.


His info led me to understanding that exposed external cells would rupture and release their contents.

----------


## vic-victor

Well, there are myths and beliefs. And they change over time. Torres, the famous guitar luthier, believed that wood type for the guitar back has nothing to do with the sound. He built a papier-mache back for one of his guitars to prove it and it still sounded great. Now nearly everyone believes that maple or rosewood or mahogany or cypress backs and sides do make the guitar sound differently. Leave alone laminated backs and sides vs solid ones discussion.

I, personally, believe in top opening up. I've experienced it many times on new instruments and instruments that haven't been played for a long time. I guess the new wood and wood that didn't vibrate for a while just gets stiffer and vibrations help the wood to vibrate more freely over time. I do not see any contradiction with simple physics there.

----------

lenf12

----------


## lenf12

The wood used to be a tree. Now it has to learn "how" to be a mandolin or guitar or (?) whose sole purpose is to produce beautiful music. That takes a bit of time and playing to learn. Don't ask me why...

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

----------

j. condino

----------


## Br1ck

The auditory memory studies pertain to subtle nuance, that which might be the differences in two finely built f style, f hole mandolins. If you are trying to pick between two Collings MF mandolins at two different stores, you are likely out of luck. Play them side by side and you might hear a difference. No one disputes you'll hear a difference between an old Gibson A and an MF.

I was playing my Arches kit yesterday, a mandolin that I believe is getting warmer sounding with time. I had been scraping paint off of a large double gate and my picking hand thumb was sore, so holding the pick was a tad painful, so I lightened up on my grip, and the tone changed dramatically, well, perceptibly at least. Certainly as much as the six month aging has. So the variability of many factors come into play.

----------


## O. Apitius

Personally, I hold the scientific method in high regard in its ability to determine objective reality. The issue, as I see it, is that "good" tone cannot, to my knowledge be objectively defined. The term good, or its equivalences, is by nature subjective. If a person perceives an instrument to have good tone, he/she is not wrong. Others may disagree and they are also not wrong. Beauty truly is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. Our brains do a lot of processing of these fluctuations of air pressure we call sound. Therefor, as much as the scientific method _is an extremely powerful tool_, and has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the mechanical functioning of musical instruments it does have its limitations when dealing with human perceptions in the artistic realm.

----------

Bill Findley, 

GTison, 

lenf12, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## dang

> ...The issue, as I see it, is that "good" tone cannot, to my knowledge be objectively defined.


Of course you wont define quality, you must have read the book The quote in your signature line is from...  :Wink: 

Robert Pirsig also said the real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasnt missed lead you into thinking you know something you know actually dont know.

To someone who has read Pirsig it is obvious why I am saving up to commission a mando and Oliver is my front runner, quality!!

----------

O. Apitius

----------


## O. Apitius

Pirsig, a tragically misunderstood intellectual giant. 
God rest his soul.

----------

dang

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Personally, I hold the scientific method in high regard in its ability to determine objective reality. The issue, as I see it, is that "good" tone cannot, to my knowledge be objectively defined. The term good, or its equivalences, is by nature subjective. If a person perceives an instrument to have good tone, he/she is not wrong. Others may disagree and they are also not wrong. Beauty truly is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. Our brains do a lot of processing of these fluctuations of air pressure we call sound. Therefor, as much as the scientific method _is an extremely powerful tool_, and has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the mechanical functioning of musical instruments it does have its limitations when dealing with human perceptions in the artistic realm.


There are scientific disciplines devoted to exactly this - the interaction between humans and things or the built environment, perception, etc. The stimuli (i.e. sound of the mandolin) can be quantified, but you are right that the perception or experience of that stimulus cannot be directly quantified.

I agree 100% with what you said here.. what I have been arguing against in this thread is the statement many folks make, which is essentially, "I like this instrument more than I did when it was new, therefore, the mandolin must have structurally changed".

----------

Bill Findley, 

GrooverMcTube, 

O. Apitius

----------


## GTison

When I bought my Mandolin new, I bought it for what it sounded like then, and I advise anyone to do the same.  I did expect some changes from a new mandolin in the store.  In the store new it was in a somewhat dryer environment than where I live.  The lacquer was still outgassing quite a bit.  
   I thought it had a "cooo" sound to it I liked when I played double stops.   I don't hear the "cooo" sound anymore.  But I've changed my setup over the years, changed picks, strings, changed other minor things about how I physically play.  The mandolin sounds different some but not much.  Back then the manufacturer fellows said it would change over the first 2 years.   
  I think I've changed how I play it, and how I approach my mandolin to get what I want from it.  People say it is loud but I think its just me.  This mandolin is not loud by comparison to many others.
  Lately I've had the opportunity to play a custom mandolin that has a much different sound.  More powerful trebles.  I've had a skilled  friend play it, he sounded great.  I believe it is a fine mandolin.  But playing it is a different approach for me.  Is the new custom mando changing because I'm playing (breaking it in) it or because I'm learning to play THAT mandolin?   I think mostly the player changes.

----------

John Bertotti

----------


## Bill McCall

> ....... Therefor, as much as the scientific method _is an extremely powerful tool_, and has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the mechanical functioning of musical instruments it does have its limitations when dealing with human perceptions in the artistic realm.


But a lot of work has gone into dealing with this, and a very good read is 'Music, Physics and Engineering' by Harry Olsen.  The book is about the development of hifi stereo audio reproduction which required:  an understanding/measurement of the source output  and the physics/engineering design of the reproduction equipment.  Lots of a acoustic research there, such as 'why do clarinets sound different from violins.  Its all about the overtones and decay cycles.  And for recording, its the ability to understand and accurately reproduce  the native sound series of the individual instruments.  This knowledge of that helps us understand why you can recognize your mother's voice, which is yet another instrument, and people are very good at discerning differences in sound sources (instruments) from different people, although the recording of a sibling may fool you at times.  The recognition of pitch is a separate component independent of the source, ie, a middle C on a clarinet will be recognized as middle C on a violin although we can tell they are two different instruments.

it dawned on me that while we all hear differences in strings and picks, I haven't seen any recordings of an instrument played with different picks and recorded so that we could see the sound profile differences.  I may try this later using Audacity to determine if I can see in the output chart what I can hear, or indeed if there is a measurable difference.  Play only 1 note on a wound string and repeat on an unwound string.  Seems simple enough.  I suspect we partly underestimate the subtlety of our hearing in processing complex tones and that that ability varies widely with age and life experience.  You could also use the same pick and vary the attack angle on there string to verify if what you hear (if anything) is tracked in the recording.

I certainly wouldn't mind if instruments got better over time, I have a few 40+ year old ones, but without a physical explanation its only anecdotes.

----------

O. Apitius

----------


## O. Apitius

> I certainly wouldn't mind if instruments got better over time, I have a few 40+ year old ones, but without a physical explanation its only anecdotes.


I agree that without a physical explanation, time or playing or time+playing having a perceived affect on the tone of an instrument is only anecdotal. That doesn't prove that it does not exist, only that our currant understanding cannot detect any mechanism for this effect. When I was in high school (just after the earth cooled) I was taught that the atom was the smallest possible indivisible particle of matter. 
I also agree that a player warming up or getting to know an instrument will cause him or her to perceive that the instrument has "opened up". But in my 40+ years in the instrument making business I have, _anecdotally_, experienced an improvement in an instruments voice countless times. For example, occasionally, I will have an instrument come back to me from 20 years back for a set-up or fret job and at the very first notes I play (no warm up) I am pleasantly surprised at how the instrument sounds compared to my recollection and notes. Likewise, _nearly all_ of my customers (including well known professionals) report an "opening up" of the sound of their instruments over time. Personally, I expect that most of this is due to the continuing curing of the finish, which apparently can be demonstrated to happen on a molecular level. Further to that, I also highly suspect a change in the structure of the wood over time. Why are people torrifying their tonewoods? Why do so many musicians hold that vintage instruments sound better than modern instruments especially given the higher levels of craftsmanship that many top makers are producing today? 

Yes, these things are all anecdotal and it is certainly healthy to be skeptical. I myself try to keep an open mind that is prepared to change with emerging _evidence_. (I don't believe there are any _facts_ privy to humans, only closer, more accurate descriptions of physical reality) At this point in time, I see no convincing evidence that the vast majority of musicians are delusional, although that _is_ a distinct possibility.

I guess for now, I will just disagree and you can call me a romantic. I am only interested in making instruments that musicians like to play and so far, I have seen no one who uses a purely high level of scientific knowledge to guide their building, create an instrument that musicians find superior. It's great to see people who do delve deeply into this approach. I do learn things from their expended energy and I do respect there point of view.

----------

bradeasley, 

dang, 

MontanaMatt, 

Nick Gellie

----------


## Kevin Winn

Coming in late here, but I'm surprised that no one has brought up torrefication.  Isn't that supposed to be a hastened 'aging' of the wood?  My understanding is that is structurally changing the wood itself.  Can you hear the difference of a mandolin that's made from torrefied wood?

Another thought is that what might be heard is in a sense an aural illusion.  Similar to the Moon Illusion, where the full moon appears larger when it's near the horizon, but can be fairly easily shown to be the same size as when it's high.  There are theories about why this illusion occurs, but no definitive answer.  

In other words, it may not change the mandolin's sound, but you still hear it as such...

----------


## Cobalt

> I certainly wouldn't mind if instruments got better over time, I have a few 40+ year old ones, but without a physical explanation its only anecdotes.


Explanations are the icing on the cake, but lack of explanation doesn't make a phenomenon a mere anecdote.

Eclipses of the Sun and of the Moon still took place, were just as genuine when the cause was unknown. In any case many of our explanations may be wrong, people in different time periods may have explained various phenomena such as earthquakes or tornadoes as being caused by the gods. But nevertheless the phenomena still took place, even with what we now regard as an incorrect explanation.

Continental drift (plate tectonics) was something for which there was at one time no explanation, it was incorrectly dismissed - it still happened.

One thing we can always do is to make observations, take measurements. That is the start.

----------

MontanaMatt, 

O. Apitius

----------


## Bill McCall

Yes, data.

People thought the sun revolved around the earth until they had actual data.

----------


## JeffD

> Can you point me to the scientific evidence that shows instruments don't change over time? I'm not aware of it.


Nice try.   :Smile:   There are no scientific studies showing that mandolins can't fly either.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

As evidence that the vast majority of musicians are delusional, I offer these links as evidence:
https://www.mandolincafe.com/cgi-bin...lassifieds.cgi
https://reverb.com/
https://ebay.com/
:-)

----------

Nick Gellie

----------


## dan in va

It's sounding as tho' some folks are a touch skeptical and thinking tone improvement can be totally subjective and otherwise in the heads of those who have heard the differences.  Well, let's talk about volume.  i posted earlier than when my Stanley was new the last 4 notes of the G strings dropped off significantly in volume and was noticed by John Hamlett and others.  Some 2 1/2 - 3 years later all the strings came into balance and every time someone else plays it i'll ask and they give me a strange look and say something like "of course the volume is balanced across the strings; it's plain to hear and i'm surprised you're asking."  

Then there is the other Stanley that also had hot D strings (like mine) as noted by Don Julin.  A few years later Don Grieser had it and testified the string volume was in balance.  

i remember reading an article about John Schofield talking about discounting a new mandolin because it sounded so bad and sometime later the owner brought it back and sounded like the world's best mandolin, so he never discounted another new mandolin.

Well, maybe, just maybe some folks haven't experienced this and choose not to believe it until they do.  i understand that and hope it will happen to them soon.  But i've gotta tell all y'all that it happens with some mandolins and there are lots of credible pickers and builders who are here to tell ya.  It would be nice if some folke like Gilchrist, Monteleone, Gruhn and Carter would add their experience, but i won't be holding my breath for the nay sayers to get the revelation.  Just sayin'.

----------


## John Bertotti

How much of this is change is actually just cells vibrating and opening up enough to let the remaining moisture escape? I have always figured torrefication was just a bit more extreme way to eek some trapped moisture out of the woods cells.

----------


## Doug Brock

I'm an engineer by education (well, I started as a music major and then changed over to Electrical Engineering after 3 semesters), so I am all for the scientific method. That being said, history is full of scientific research that came to faulty conclusions - that's part of the scientific process. Does your work stand up to peer review? Can I replicate your experiments and get similar results? I am also well aware of just how faulty human perception is. The norm is for people to take their limited data points and draw faulty conclusions. That's just the way the brain works. It HAS to simplify, to jump to conclusions based on experience and observation, or else the chaos around the person would be overwhelming. Thus the need for the scientific method!  :Smile:

----------

dave vann, 

Earl, 

sunburst

----------


## lenf12

"The norm is for people to take their limited data points and draw faulty conclusions."

While I totally agree with you re: the preponderance of fault conclusions, how many data points would
it take to draw a "non-faulty" conclusion? At some point (if you really care to, debatable) you'll have to
draw your own conclusion. I don't much care as long as the sound does change (whatever the cause).

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> How much of this is change is actually just cells vibrating and opening up enough to let the remaining moisture escape? I have always figured torrefication was just a bit more extreme way to eek some trapped moisture out of the woods cells.


Torrefaction isn't the same as aging, and it's not about moisture content. Moisture content equalizes pretty quickly, in a few months after the tree was standing. Then the wood is going to be equalized to the ambient relative humidity. It doesn't need to get dryer to sound good. Luthiers generally avoid kiln-dried wood (which would be the way to get your wood drier than just sitting there for a few months). But torrefied wood commands higher prices from well-known makers. It's a bit of a double standard. Torrefaction forces some structural changes, basically caramelizing sugars and that sort of thing, supposed to make wood more stable, which is always a good thing if taken at face value. If it's taken too far, waterbased finishes won't adhere well, and waterbased glues (hide glue, Titebond, etc) won't work well either.  Sure does make the wood look pretty, though. The suppliers I know who make torrefied ash and poplar are very clear that their decking products are NOT to be used for musical instruments under any circumstances. More torrifaction does not equal a better or more aged sounding instrument.

----------

John Bertotti

----------


## John Bertotti

> Torrefaction isn't the same as aging, and it's not about moisture content. Moisture content equalizes pretty quickly, in a few months after the tree was standing. Then the wood is going to be equalized to the ambient relative humidity. It doesn't need to get dryer to sound good. Luthiers generally avoid kiln-dried wood (which would be the way to get your wood drier than just sitting there for a few months). But torrefied wood commands higher prices from well-known makers. It's a bit of a double standard. Torrefaction forces some structural changes, basically caramelizing sugars and that sort of thing, supposed to make wood more stable, which is always a good thing if taken at face value. If it's taken too far, waterbased finishes won't adhere well, and waterbased glues (hide glue, Titebond, etc) won't work well either.  Sure does make the wood look pretty, though. The suppliers I know who make torrefied ash and poplar are very clear that their decking products are NOT to be used for musical instruments under any circumstances. More torrifaction does not equal a better or more aged sounding instrument.


Thsat is good to know. Thanks. Do you know what temps they use to do this process?

----------


## Br1ck

I was a torrefaction skeptic until I went looking for a J 45 with a vintage dry tone that wasn't eight grand. Played every new J 45 I could get my hands on. They all sounded too pretty. One day I found a J 45 vintage. It had the banner tone. Quite close. So close I upped my budget. Figured at the price, I would go play some 60s guitars. If I had not found my 65 Epiphone, I'd have bought the J45 vintage.

----------


## Harmon Gladding

Sound travels faster in older wood:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96207412000404
Effects of aging on the vibrational properties of wood
Author Takunori Noguchi, Eiichi Obataya, Kosei Ando
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.02.008
Abstract
Vibrational properties of aged wood (121∼296 years old) were compared with those of recently cut new wood (8 years old). The aged wood showed higher sound velocity (VL) and lower mechanical loss tangent (tanδL) than the new wood. The ratio of Young's modulus and shear modulus (EL/GL) remained unchanged or increased slightly during the aging period. These results coincide with musicians empirical observations that the acoustic quality of wooden soundboards is improved by aging. In addition, the reduced tanδL of the aged wood indicates the qualitative difference between the naturally aged and heat-treated wood. The experimental results were explained by using a cell wall model when we assumed the following: increase in the volume fraction of cellulosic microfibrils; reduction in the shear modulus of amorphous matrix substances, and; reduction in the loss tangent of the matrix. These assumptions appear reasonable when we consider the crystallization of cellulose, depolymerization of hemicelluloses, and cross-linking in the lignin complex during aging

----------


## Harmon Gladding

I think I have read in the following book of experiments involving observations of changes in cell walls of wood that has been exposed to sound waves.  I'll try to find more info.

The Physics of Musical Instruments
by Neville H. Fletcher, Thomas D. Rossing
 4.45  ·   Rating details ·  20 ratings  ·  3 reviews
When we wrote the first edition of this book, we directed our presenta- tion to the reader with a compelling interest in musical instruments who has "a reasonable grasp of physics and who is not frightened by a little mathematics." We are delighted to find how many such people there are. The opportunity afforded by the preparation of this second edition has allowed us to bring our discussion up to date by including those new insights that have arisen from the work of many dedicated researchers over the past decade. We have also taken the opportunity to revise our presentation of some aspects of the subject to make it more general and, we hope, more immediately accessible. We have, of course, corrected any errors that have come to our attention, and we express our thanks to those friends who pointed out such defects in the early printings of the first edition. We hope that this book will continue to serve as a guide, both to those undertaking research in the field and to those who simply have a deep interest in the subject. June 1991 N.H.F and T.D.R. (less)

----------


## HoGo

> Sound travels faster in older wood:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96207412000404
> Effects of aging on the vibrational properties of wood
> Author Takunori Noguchi, Eiichi Obataya, Kosei Ando
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.02.008
> Abstract
> Vibrational properties of aged wood (121∼296 years old) were compared with those of recently cut new wood (8 years old). The aged wood showed higher sound velocity (VL) and lower mechanical loss tangent (tanδL) than the new wood. The ratio of Young's modulus and shear modulus (EL/GL) remained unchanged or increased slightly during the aging period. These results coincide with musicians empirical observations that the acoustic quality of wooden soundboards is improved by aging. In addition, the reduced tanδL of the aged wood indicates the qualitative difference between the naturally aged and heat-treated wood. The experimental results were explained by using a cell wall model when we assumed the following: increase in the volume fraction of cellulosic microfibrils; reduction in the shear modulus of amorphous matrix substances, and; reduction in the loss tangent of the matrix. These assumptions appear reasonable when we consider the crystallization of cellulose, depolymerization of hemicelluloses, and cross-linking in the lignin complex during aging


I cannot access the rest of the article but I see many potential flaws that make it worthless....
First, you just cannot reliably compare different wood (old versus new) if your sample sizes are not large enough and of similar origin (think hundred or more pieces from different treess) to overcome natural variability of wood properties.
Then there is large number of different artificial aging processes (wet, dry, with/without oxygen, temperatures/ lengths etc) and many variable parameters within each so any generalization is not possible.
One notable violin maker (physicist in NASA in former life AFAIK) processes his wood and did lots of tests before and after and showed that speed of sound density and other parameters change differently with varying temperatures/ pressures or length of cooking and managed to find paramaters that optimize the result for his violin making (he won several medals for tone of his violins). He didn't publish exactly his process, but at least he showed that not all  processes are equal.
I did some torrefaction (gentle baking process without access of oxygen) myself starting with two identical pieces of wood (same log) and made them into two identical mandolins (the rest of wood was natural and all from same logs). I could not hear any real difference between the two. But if the baked one will be more stable (baked wood is less affected by RH) then it is worth trying.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Benski

I remember once reading somebody on the Cafe has having said: "The plural of anecdote is not data". Point worth considering in this discussion.

----------

Phil Goodson, 

Timbofood

----------


## Bill McCall

> Sound travels faster in older wood:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96207412000404
> Effects of aging on the vibrational properties of wood
> Author Takunori Noguchi, Eiichi Obataya, Kosei Ando
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.02.008
> Abstract
> Vibrational properties of aged wood (121∼296 years old) were compared with those of recently cut “new” wood (8 years old). The aged wood showed higher sound velocity (VL) and lower mechanical loss tangent (tanδL) than the new wood. The ratio of Young's modulus and shear modulus (EL/GL) remained unchanged or increased slightly during the aging period. These results coincide with musicians’ empirical observations that the acoustic quality of wooden soundboards is improved by aging. In addition, the reduced tanδL of the aged wood indicates the qualitative difference between the naturally aged and heat-treated wood. The experimental results were explained by using a cell wall model when we assumed the following: increase in the volume fraction of cellulosic microfibrils; reduction in the shear modulus of amorphous matrix substances, and; reduction in the loss tangent of the matrix. These assumptions appear reasonable when we consider the crystallization of cellulose, depolymerization of hemicelluloses, and cross-linking in the lignin complex during aging


An interesting area of study for sure.  Since the article is paywalled, I can't/didn't read it, but I also see these studies which make the relationship statement about the empirical observations a little less clear.  You can read them for yourselves here:


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96207415000266
https://www.research-collection.ethz...h-47394-02.pdf
https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/f...tr113/ch04.pdf

The last study mentions speed of sound in particular:  "The speed of sound decreases with increasing temperature or moisture content in proportion to the influence of these variables on modulus of elasticity and density. The speed of sound decreases slightly with increasing frequency and amplitude of vibration, although for most common applications this effect is too small to be significant. There is no recognized independent effect of species on the speed of sound. Variability in the speed of sound in wood is directly related to the variability of modulus of elasticity and density."

None of the articles mentioned the relationship, if any, of speed of sound and tone, although one wouldn't expect FPL to be studying that area :Smile: 

Remember the word 'coincidence' in the summary.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

Many years ago, I was involved in a fundraiser where a “super group” was put together for a one time performance. Leading professional musicians from popular area bands/groups were selected to participate. The drummer was a percussionist with the primary symphony orchestra. I’ll not forget at a break during one of the rehearsals, the bass player accompanied by the keyboardist and a member of the horn section said to me: “That guy is a great percussionist; but he ain’t no drummer.”**  Some folks may be technically proficient with their playing, but somehow they miss the boat in delivering the soul  of the music that they may be playing. (**Please recognize that I'm not lumping all symphony percussionists into this category. It was simply that this percussionist was technically very good, but wasn't "feeling" the music.) 

There are technical folks and there are creative folks. The creative people feel things differently than those who have a technical lean. They think differently. They experience life differently. They hear things differently. That’s  what separates those artists whose names we all know, and recognize, and respect from the rest of us. 

For the creative folks, science is irrelevant. Technical data, well, that’s meaningless. Because what they hear, we will never hear. Because it’s all in their heart, their mind, and their soul. If a creative person picks up a mandolin, and it sounds better than it did yesterday, then that’s what he/she hears. And whatever they hear should not be denied. Because if it brings that creative person joy, then that joy may be channeled into creating music that we all can appreciate. 

So to argue with a creative person that what they hear is wrong…well that’s doing a disservice to their creative spirit. They hear what they hear. And for that I’m glad.

----------

Kevin Briggs

----------


## j. condino

'Another thread with bunch of half deaf old geezers arguing about tone ..... :Wink:

----------

GrooverMcTube, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Bill McCall

> 'Another thread with bunch of half deaf old geezers arguing about tone .....


Nice of you to join :Smile:

----------

j. condino, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Nice of you to join


Hey, at least it's a club with no membership fees which all of us get to join... :-)

----------


## MontanaMatt

> Hey, at least it's a club with no membership fees which all of us get to join... :-)


Speak for yourself  :Laughing: 
I hear vast changes of Tone over time in my mandolins.  Age of string, r.h., ambient temp., sun, moon, mood, joy, all contributed to the tone I can generate.
Aged mandolins are better, mine definitely sound betters than they started, and I'm a better picker, they kinda go hand on hand.

----------


## dan in va

Sorry to hear that other folks' mandolins don't get better with age.  i've had a few of those, but the one i've kept was bought new and there's no question that the tone has changed for the better.  It's hard to debate the last 4 notes of the G strings coming into balance with the other strings and the D strings calming down also.  John Hamlett noticed the G strings before it even got out of the case.

And about the comment that there's no membership fee.  Well, yes and no.  Joining a forum has always led to some serious purchases, so in my case, joining forums has always been expensive. (!)

----------


## John Bertotti

Interesting and funny to read this thread and the past ones like it and once again the only thing I really take from it is, never buy an instrument counting on it braking in and sounding better if it doesn’t sound good at first walk away.

----------


## Kevin Briggs

Hi, Everyone:

I know the topic of this thread gets recycled every so often, but I really enjoy it each and every time. It's a fun topic. :-) 

I'll chime in to offer a qualitative perspective that has it's roots in naturalistic inquiry, which is a non-empirical style of research: phenomenology. This approach to studying something aims to determine the essence of an experience, such as the experience of hearing wood change over time. Scientific experimentation can show us things, often in very clear ways, but it is not so well-equipped to take an open-ended approach to understanding people's experiences, which then opens the door for naturalistic inquiry. 

In phenomenology, there are two assumptions: every experience has an essence, and every experiencer has an essence. What is experienced is then a combination of the two things. In it's deepest philosophical sense, there is no experience unless both essences are present. So, whatever may be physically happening to an instrument's wood over time, due to playing, or due to an aging process, while certainly relevant, isn't and won't ever be the whole reason why an instrument sounds and plays the way it does. Like, Doug alluded to, the person having the experience is a non-negotiable component of the experience, because it's that person's ears, hands, technical proficiency, memories, diet, or whatever else that influences his or her perception. The variables that impact the experience are arguably infinite, but phenomenology maintains - in this scenario - the variables are situated in the constitution of the mandolin, as well as the constitution of the perceiver. So, with this in mind, all the science is relevant, and like NursingDaBlues and Montana Matt imply, what the player or artist perceives is relevant, with or without the science. 

On a more personal note, I'd lay money on the fact that my MT2 has changed a whole lot since I got it in August. I'd argue that I play it a ton and every string change it's more crisp and more resonant, not to mention increasingly louder. Phenomenology would say I'm not wrong, and would perhaps attempt to get closer to the structure of my experience, as well as 10 other people with new mandolins, to come to a common, describable experience. It would then, at least in that moment in time, be a reliable generalization. Of course, the person doing the analysis of my experience and the other peoples' experiences is an experiencer as well, which factors into the results. 

_Disclaimer: I'm currently writing a dissertation and am in the midst of analyzing the data using a phenomenological approach. Please forgive me for everything I just wrote, haha!_

----------

NursingDaBlues

----------


## Br1ck

Years ago Frank Ford told me to always buy an instrument for what it is, never for what it might become. Sage advise.

----------


## ralph johansson

> There has been at least one rigorous study showing that guitars played frequently (for a long period with a mechanical device, versus by real players, versus by not played at all) and substantially equivalent guitars not played were identical ("scientifically irrelevant"). 
> 
> Here you go: https://www.savartjournal.org/index....rticle/view/22



I must be a careless reader because I didn't find anything about the effects of playing the instrument. Seems to me the guitars were mecahnically vibrated at 60 Hz, approximately contra B, a fourth below the lowest note on the guitar (in classical tuning). Perhaps the most common issue in larger guitars, Dreadnoughts in particular, is a tight treble response. Most believers would say that you got to play all over the range of the instrument in order to improve response.

There used to be a somewhat comical video on YouTube, where the enthusiastic poster hoped to demonstrate the effects of a Tonerite treatment on a somewhat darksounding Martin Dreadnought. The player stayed in open position most of the time, and I got pretty drowsy from listening. Of course I didn't hear any difference, you can't really infer anything from a recording. Except for one thing: before the treatment there was a prominent resonance on the open A string, and afterwards it seemed to have moved to the d string, a very puzzling effect, not compatible with any fashionable theory on the subject.

----------


## ralph johansson

> My distrust of the concept of "opening up" comes down to the fact that it only ever seems to operate in one direction - you never hear of instruments sounding worse over time, only better.  As Adrian noted, worsening of sound is typically seen as a function of environmental factors and upkeep (strings, frets, etc).  Improvements are attributed to "opening up".  For me personally, I can't claim to have a fine enough ear or memory to say whether an instrument has changed significantly, or whether I've just learned how to pull a tone with it that I enjoy even more.


The general assumption is that material that has been vibrated a lot  at certain frequencies tends to vibrate more readily at these frequencies. In the case of musical instruments we speak of improved respons.  Sometimes this phenomen is described as, or attributed to,  a mild  case of material fatigue. 

Responsivity, at any rate, is very real to the player, he/she feels it. "Sound" or "tone", on the other hand, is a very elusive concept. An instrument is not a tone generator, it's a tool for making music, and much of what we describe as "tone" or a musiclan's ability to "pull tone" usually is something else. My impression of "tone" in my own instruments is largely determined by subjective factors. Just one example: if I've been away from my instruments for some time, I note an improved depth and complexity to their sounds; but the effect wears off in an hour or two. Familiarity blunts the senses. 

As for responsivity, I'v e never noted such improvement in my mandolins, possibly because that's not as big a deal as it is in guitars. Guitars have very pronounced resonance patterns, some notes stand out, whereas others decay very rapidly. My impression in at least two of my guitars is that these patterns became less pronounced after a year or so of playing. Also I noted a tempering of overtones - overtone resonances can be pretty annoying in bigger guitars, especially rosewood dreadnoughts.

Al Carruth attempted several years ago to chart these phenomena in a small sample of guitars (I don't know the practical details), by measuring their frequency response patterns. What he found was "broader and taller peaks", also a lowering of the fundamental top frequency. The latter observation may very well acount for the impression of looser, more ready, response. And that certainly does not come from increased familiarity or improved technique; whatever adaption takes place when switching from one instrument to another is almost instant to an experienced player.  Inert is inert, loose is loose.

Of course I've never let such considerations or expectations guide my choice of axe. All my six instruments were bought by mail order, and all but two were custom built.

----------


## dhergert

> How much of this is change is actually just cells vibrating and opening up enough to let the remaining moisture escape? I have always figured torrefication was just a bit more extreme way to eek some trapped moisture out of the woods cells.


John, not to discount this completely, but almost exactly the same discussion occurs frequently regarding METAL PARTS among pre-war banjo enthusiasts  (tone rings, tension hoops and flanges) and among pre-war Dobro enthusiasts (cones, spiders, cover plates), except it's not about moisture for them, it's about crystallization.

Personally, I've played and heard a lot of great old and new mandolins, guitars, double basses, banjos and Dobros (not to mention pianos, horns and woodwinds), and I'm not convinced that age and/or playing time makes a huge difference in tone or volume.  

My opinion is that given instruments that are properly designed and setup for the task, the player's touch is what makes the biggest difference.

----------


## Br1ck

The absence of a uniform base line sample group pretty much negates the possibility of a true scientific experiment. Each piece of wood is unique, and if one mandolin sounds different than another of the exact model when new, it is not far fetched to suggest a non uniform aging pattern too. So that leaves us with our own perception, a shaky premise at best. Here I sit with a mandolin that is a year old. My memory recollection tells me it is a warmer more resonant mandolin now. But there has been real science done on how fleeting auditory memory is.

So I remember being slightly disappointed in the low end a year ago, and not now, but self delusion is another subject entirely.

----------


## Martian

really not sure, can't prove or disprove, but , I do believe a guitar gets batter with timeand I am sure a new banjo soumds like a new banjo

----------

