# Instruments and Equipment > Builders and Repair >  Artificial Strumming machine

## jody_cruzan

Hi All,
I've been strumming in some nice mandolins with a strumming machine I built.
The Results have been fairly dramatic and I wondering if you guys have any
idea what is actually happening to the sound boards to realize these dramatic
improvements. I'm especially interested in the opinions of people that have 
actually done some break in / de-damping procedures. 

Reference:  30 rpm gear drive is producing 1 strum per second and strum times
range from 160 to 300 hours. We're talking a lot of strumming.  

Thank you all for your time and consideration

Regards,
Jody

----------


## Barry Platnick

can you post a picture of the MandoBot?

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi Barry,
I have some pics. Let me see if I can figure out how .....

I don't see how to attach a picture. If I email you a couple of pics, would
that help?  and/or can you post them???   Sorry, this is my first time to
post. Hopefully I can figure some of this out

Thanks
Jody

----------


## jody_cruzan

OK Barry, 

Here we go. I hope they are attached.

Thanks
Jody

----------


## Larry S Sherman

That's pretty impressive. I especially like how your clamps adjust.

I'm actually in the middle of building one of these myself. I got the motor, voltage regulator/speed changer, and I've built the clamps. My next step is the base and pendulum arm.

I was wondering what you're using as a pick? Are you using an actual pick, or a credit card or something similar?

Thanks, Larry

----------


## charlesa46741

Very nice--are your plans available?

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi Larry,
I'll try to attach a picture of the pics I've been using.  It seems that regular
old pics work the best, but I have to glue them between some maple veneer
so the clamp can grab them solid. It also gives us a little wiggle room and
safety room for the slight differences in mandolin thickness, bridge height etc.

This is the 5th one I've built and they are getting a little better. By the way,
credit cards and motel room key cards seem to break real easy. 

Thanks
Jody

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi Charles,
I don't have any plans.  On this one, I just sketched it out, full scale on the
floor of my garage. I wasn't having any luck trying to calculate anything. I'm
pretty sure that I shouldn't be admitting to my un-intelligence.  If it would help,
I might could take some pics with some rulers or yard sticks in the picture for
some reference.  These things are kind of troublesome to make and I haven't 
really made one good enough to sell, but I do like having them around. Many
people ask me to strum their mandolins for them, but it's easier and safer to
loan them a $400 strummer in stead of me worrying about their "trillion dollar"
mandolin. It will also drive a person nuts after 3 or 4 weeks of one strum per
second.

----------


## Larry S Sherman

Can you tell me how long the pendulum arm is?

Do you find that you are getting a uniform strike pattern against the strings with your current design? I'd like to benefit from your experience if I can.

Larry

PS: I'm excited that there are other geeks out there playing with these machines!

----------


## martinedwards

why?

what's the point?

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi Larry,
I don't have the machine here right now, but I'll get over and try to measure
it.  It seems that to hit the strings the best, the pendulum needs to be centered
over the E strings.  I guess because these strings are usually the lowest on
flat and radius fret boards.  


Mr. Edwards,
I'm not sure I understand your question(s). Sorry about that.

Regards,
Jody

----------


## Larry S Sherman

> why?
> 
> what's the point?


Are you asking the point of de-damping?

I think it's an interesting topic.

----------


## Larry S Sherman

> Hi Larry, I'll get over and try to measure
> it.  Regards, Jody


Hi Jody,

Thanks. I hope I haven't hijacked your thread too much. I hope that people who have more experience answer your original question.

Thank you, Larry

----------


## Steve Davis

How would you describe the difference in sound before/after?

----------


## foldedpath

> I've been strumming in some nice mandolins with a strumming machine I built.
> The Results have been fairly dramatic and I wondering if you guys have any
> idea what is actually happening to the sound boards to realize these dramatic
> improvements.


Before theorizing about how this is causing "dramatic improvements" it would be nice to verify that it's happening. Human memory of sound isn't all that reliable. That gadget is ideal for hooking up a good quality microphone at a fixed distance, and making a recording before and after the process. Make the first recording with a new set of strings after a few hours of auto-strumming to break them in. Then after a period of de-damping, put on another set of strings, break them in for the same period, and then make another recording with the same mic, same mic distance and angle, same preamp levels, etc. 

Then post the recordings online as uncompressed .wav files (or FLAC) and use randomized file names with the file creation dates reset. Post a separate text file that identifies the files. Then people can do a blind, ABX comparison to see if any difference can be heard. 

The same process can be used to test other ideas like blasting an instrument with a speaker playing music at close range and high volume, or physical vibration. An auto-strum gadget like this is ideal to remove the variable of the human player when making a test recording, so you're already most of the way there. Aside from demonstrating that it does something positive, ABX listening tests could also help pin down the amount of time needed for best results.

If a majority of people do hear a significant tonal improvement in a blind listening test, then I think we could all agree that this process is worth doing. Otherwise we're back to anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias (i.e. it's natural to want to believe that a process works, when you're spending time and money on it).

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi Steve,
I would describe the instruments as louder, more responsive, improved overall
tone.  All 16 instruments I've been involved with where described this way by
all parties involved.  I'll touch on Mr. FoldedPath's, great response in a minute.
The oddest thing everyone (all 16 without exception) reports is that the 
mandolins are easier to play.  I understand this one the least. 

I've been pursuing this for about 4 years now. What started me on this road
was being told that all instruments open up (?) and improve when have been
played for a couple of years.  I assumed that this was universally accepted, 
but I may be mistaken. I may be wrong, but I think what was implied was that
they had to be played and not just sitting in the case for two years.  I may
be wrong about that.

Now, I like Mr. Foldedpaths response very much. Maybe my question should
have been do instruments open up, can we prove this, and if they open up
and "sound better" (we would have to define this),  Then maybe I can ask
what is happening to the sound boards to realize this improvement.  

It's kind of late now, but I was inquiring about this information so I could 
maybe assist or amplify the improvements I'm hearing. I thought maybe it
might help to warm or cool the room, lower or higher humidity, etc... just
trying to gain understanding.  I haven't really understood anything since
about 1977, but I thought I would give this a try.

Thanks Mr. Foldedpaths for your great response.  (And the other responses
as well)

Regards,
Jody

----------


## SternART

I've had good success with Roger Siminoff dedamping some of my instruments.  I have a good ear and it has worked!!!! especially to balance out the pairs of strings.  One mando had killer bass, but a weaker E string.  I got it back much improved from Roger, but intuitively felt it still had more......sent it back a second time.......now the E string rocks, is in balance with the other courses, and I'm so glad I didn't sell this instrument.  Roger does more than just strumming, he measures resonant frequencies of top, back, tone bars, and blasts the specific frequency to excite various parts of the instrument.  You can read more on his web page.  

I bought a book titled "How to Improve the Resonance Conditions of Musical Instruments by Vibration-Dedamping" written by Prof. Gerhard A. v. Reumont.  I learned that this dedamping is more common in Europe and with violin family instruments.  I thought it was interesting to read of its use after repair of cracks to the really vintage instruments where wood has been added to reinforce.....to vibrate & break in the repair.  I think it is an interesting technique, and after doing 4 instruments myself as experiments, I "know" it makes improvements.  It has been significant on 2 of the 4 examples I have done, with more moderate improvement on the others. I think some instruments are just tight, and possibly just whuppin' on them for 20 years will loosen them up. BUT...... I can appreciate speeding up the process, especially if you have a coupla instruments to play in.   :Mandosmiley:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

It should also be noted that Roger Siminoff's de-damping service does not simply strum the instrument, it is but one part of the process. It should also be noted that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

----------

Dobe

----------


## jody_cruzan

Thanks Mr. SternART,
I agree with you on Mr. Siminoff's process.  I think the "sonic blasting" he does
is an awesome process since he can tune to the exact frequency of specific
parts of the instrument. I'm surprised how affordable this service is. I would
also like to point out 300 hours of continous strumming should knock the "new"
off of any instrument. I'm not sure I would pay for a "de-damping" service, but
I think a few guys could go in on building them a strummer and not be dis-appointed with the results.


Mr. Mike,
You are right about that. I've built 14 mandolins and none of them sounded
as good as a sow's ear. LOL  I've noticed on low end mandolins (and especially
low end guitars)  this strumming business really helps these instruments.  I'm
wondering if they are a little over built just to minimize warranty issues and
for some reason there is just more wood to loosen up???? Not sure.

Thanks All.

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi Mr. FoldedPath

I've been reading your response again and while I'm not going to completely
dismiss my own experience and the opinions of many others I respect on the
results of strumming, You really have me thinking now about the process you
are describing.

I'm not sure if it's OK to ask you this on this thread, but do you think with a
strumming machine, could we evaluate strings, bridges, bridge height / string
loading?   Even though we would still be using human beings to evaluate the
sound/tone,  the "blind" part of testing really appeals to me. The mandolins
don't really sound very pretty, but with some clever capo's we could generate
chords and such.  What do you think???

Thanks again
Jody

----------


## mandopete

Can this be far behind?

----------


## mandopete

...and I got scared when I saw the banjo!

----------


## mandopete

...and this one (though it's not real) reminds of the Pikasso guitar built by Linda Manzer that's played by Pat Metheny.

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hi MandoPete,
I'm not sure what your trying to say or ask.  Are these some machines you've
built or use?  If so, are you having any positive or negative results?  They look very cool but kind of complicated.

Thanks
Jody

----------


## EdSherry

Jody -- The first is listed on the Web (YouTube) as a device at MIT.  The second is identified as a "robot guitar" -- a "musical machine" that mechanically plays various instruments, plucking the strings and fretting the neck to make music.   

The YouTube listing for the second video says:

"ragtimewest.com designs, builds and sells robotic musical instruments of all types. Check out this video of an automated guitar playing with a banjo!"

Back around the turn of the (last) century, they used to make quite a few such "mechanical jukeboxes," though not as sophisticated as the second one shown.  

The last video, marked "not real", is a computer animation.

----------


## jody_cruzan

OK EdSherry,
Thanks for the info. I think I understand.

Jody

----------


## TomTyrrell

The problem with the "blind" listening tests is they rely on purely subjective opinions. There are no scientific _repeatable_ results so any conclusions that may be drawn are not significant. "Tests" have been conducted where the audience was provided several sound clips to rate and there was a vast difference of opinion as to which clip was "better." Very few of the raters were able to distinguish the fact that all of the clips were the same. 

The technology to perform waveform analysis is available and would result in factual _repeatable_ results.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> The technology to perform waveform analysis is available and would result in factual _repeatable_ results.


That might show that a change has occurred but there really isn't anyway to quantify improvement with a test like that. My problem with this and the whole stereo speaker thing is that it gives people the opinion that they can take a second rate mandolin and somehow convert it into a gem. My advice is to start out with something that sounds good to begin with.

----------


## Larry S Sherman

> My advice is to start out with something that sounds good to begin with.


Of course, that's the optimal situation. If you start out with a bluegrass cannon then you don't need to de-damp. 

But if you have a decent mandolin that sounds tighter than you think it might in the future with playing-in, or a mando that has been sleeping under the bed for years, etc than de-damping might be a viable option.

----------


## TomTyrrell

> That might show that a change has occurred but there really isn't anyway to quantify improvement with a test like that.


In fact there is no way at all to quantify "improvement." To say something sounds "better" is to express an _opinion_. Opinions cannot be quantified.

All that can be done is to establish that the sound is different and to analyze and quantify exactly _what_ is different.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> In fact there is no way at all to quantify "improvement." To say something sounds "better" is to express an _opinion_. Opinions cannot be quantified.
> 
> All that can be done is to establish that the sound is different and to analyze and quantify exactly _what_ is different.


Exactly.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Of course, that's the optimal situation. If you start out with a bluegrass cannon then you don't need to de-damp. 
> 
> But if you have a decent mandolin that sounds tighter than you think it might in the future with playing-in, or a mando that has been sleeping under the bed for years, etc than de-damping might be a viable option.



That is true, however we seem to imply at times that if someone buys that $50.00 Rogue it is going to somehow magically transform into a Nugget with days of exposure to a sub-woofer or hundreds of hours of strumming on a machine. I do believe that wood will become altered by circumstance, be that strumming, sound waves, flexing in another manner, humidity, temperature, whatever. I just don't think the results will be a huge turn around in the overall sound. I believe you may hear a refinement that may or may not be noticeable to anyone but you. These are obviously my opinions and certainly not meant to discourage anyone from their experiments but we shouldn't take it as a given that any great difference will be achieved.  A well built, well sounding mandolin needs to be there from the start.

----------


## Larry S Sherman

> That is true, however we seem to imply at times that if someone buys that $50.00 Rogue it is going to somehow magically transform into a Nugget with days of exposure to a sub-woofer or hundreds of hours of strumming on a machine.


I agree totally with your whole post, but I also don't see those implications in this particular thread. The OP is sharing his de-damping design, and trying to engage others with experience in the subject-specifically _"opinions of people that have actually done some break in / de-damping procedures."_ He states at the top that he was using "nice mandolins", not poor quality instruments.

Unlike some previous threads, this one involves someone who has built several de-damping machines and actually experimented with 16 instruments involving hundreds of hours of "strum time". This is interesting information that I think we could all benefit from, and I wish we could stay on the original topic rather than getting sidetracked on philosophy, ethics, etc.

Larry

----------


## jody_cruzan

Thanks guys,

I fear I've started us off on the wrong foot. In stead of thinking about the strumming machine, I think most of us agree that many mandolins do open
up some after they've been played for a while, so with this in mind, regardless
of how it gets broke in /opened up  (playing, strumming, sonic,etc),:

Do you guys have some ideas on what is happening or changing in the
sound and back boards to produce the "change" in tone? We'll leave the
"improved" out of the question for now.

Thanks
Jody

----------


## jimbob

just play the dang thing and be done with it. a good mandolin will devlop its sound....a bad one won't.

----------


## jody_cruzan

Thanks for the advice Mr. jimbob,
I think I will yield. I'll be more careful how I ask a question, if I do ask anymore.
This is my first post and it's been interesting. I've learned a good deal and Thank all of you for your sincere and thought provoking replies. I have a couple of
other threads I would like you guys to look at, but I'll have to recover a little
bit and think my questions out a little better.

Thanks Again,
Regards,
Jody

----------


## Timbofood

What ever any one says Jody, you have made something that works for you.  I think you deserve a round of applause for actually building the thing and not just "thinking about it"  If YOU hear an improvement that your time was well spent in the construction.  I think it's a really fine idea, Go  buddy, GO!

----------


## jimbob

:Smile: if someone wants to build a strumming machine, that's great, but it's not going to make a much difference in the mandolin. I guess it takes the place of an erector set or something...do they even make those any more ? Anyhow, to each his own.  Be happy and keep pickin' ! Tis the season to be jolly !

----------


## TomTyrrell

> Thanks for the advice Mr. jimbob,
> I think I will yield. I'll be more careful how I ask a question, if I do ask anymore.
> This is my first post and it's been interesting. I've learned a good deal and Thank all of you for your sincere and thought provoking replies. I have a couple of
> other threads I would like you guys to look at, but I'll have to recover a little
> bit and think my questions out a little better.
> 
> Thanks Again,
> Regards,
> Jody


Don't let the doubters get to you. Lots of people don't want to believe anything that is over their heads. I've learned that "different" is something that can be proved but "better" only proves "different" since nothing can be "better" without being "different."

I'm just surprised we haven't been hit with that good ole "It's all in the right hand, a great player can make any mandolin sound great" nonsense.

----------


## Sean Greer

Jody, I commend you for taking the time to engineer and construct your strumming machine.  I was quite impressed with your design and clean execution.  If I lived near you, I'd love to throw my mandolin on there for a few hours just to see the effect.  

Anyway, don't let the resistance you've met in this thread deter you from posting more on this topic (or any other topic).  Just realize that de-damping has been a rather touchy subject on the Cafe, and it seems to elicit strong responses from each side.  Some will demand scientific rigor and others are happy with anecdotal evidence, and still others will never be convinced that de-damping has any benefits.  

Shrug.  Keep tinkering and having fun!

----------


## foldedpath

> do you think with a
> strumming machine, could we evaluate strings, bridges, bridge height / string
> loading?   Even though we would still be using human beings to evaluate the
> sound/tone,  the "blind" part of testing really appeals to me. The mandolins
> don't really sound very pretty, but with some clever capo's we could generate
> chords and such.


Sure, if the conditions are carefully controlled and repeatable, a good before and after recording might help showcase the differences between string brands, different types of bridges (solid vs. adjustable), and so on. The key would be consistency, repeatablity, and a large enough sample of blind ABX listening tests among many different players, so some kind of concensus opinion might be reached. Or it might just reveal that some things are so subtle, if they're there at all, that a large percentage of people can't hear a difference. 

The quality of hearing will vary, the quality of playback equipment in that sort of test will vary too. Some people will be listening on cheap computer speakers or ear buds, others might have better playback gear. About all you can hope to do is get a large enough sample so the variables average out. The methodology isn't perfect, but in the spirit of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," I think it beats individual, subjective anecdotes based on memory.




> The problem with the "blind" listening tests is they rely on purely subjective opinions. There are no scientific _repeatable_ results so any conclusions that may be drawn are not significant. "Tests" have been conducted where the audience was provided several sound clips to rate and there was a vast difference of opinion as to which clip was "better." Very few of the raters were able to distinguish the fact that all of the clips were the same.


But see, that's the benefit of blind testing. It can demonstrate that some differences are too small to matter, for a large portion of a sample group. That's how you can find out that we might as well be using coat hanger wire for speaker cables, instead of $5,000 audiophile speaker cables with our home stereos. Yes, it's based on subjective opinion, but it can really cut through over-hyped claims. And if there's really something there, something that improves the sound, it should be apparent to a statistically significant portion of the test group.




> The technology to perform waveform analysis is available and would result in factual _repeatable_ results.


There have been tests done that show a change of some kind in wood when it's vibrated over a period of time. I'm aware of those. But what does that tell us? Is it an improvement for the better in the *musical* tone of an instrument? Or did it change in some other, possibly undesirable direction? A change in acoustic response isn't necessarily a change for the better. It's only a change in some direction or other away from the starting condition. How do we know that an artifically "de damped" instrument sounds better when vibrated for 100 hours instead of a person playing music on the same instrument for 100 hours? 

Numbers can't tell you if it's a musical or desirable change. That's why I think a large enough sample of subjective opinion, via true blind ABX testing, is the closest we can get to knowing if any of this stuff "works" or not. 

Or we can just play and enjoy our instruments, instead of worrying about external, artificial methods of gilding the lily.  :Smile:

----------


## EdSherry

Jody -- (Nearly) anything that can improve how an instrument sounds is worth pursuing.  It looks like you've found something that (at least subjectively) works for you.  Congratulations.

It's commonly believed that instruments tend to sound better if they're "played in" over time -- though, obviously, one can't turn a poor instrument into a great one.  Accelerating the process mechanically (60 strums a minute times 60 minutes an hour times 160 hours = 576,000 strums, which translates into a LOT of "ordinary" playing) makes sense to me, though I agree that it may be difficult to find "scientific" evidence to support the difference.

TomTyrell says "There are no scientific repeatable results so any conclusions that may be drawn are not significant."  I'm sorry, but I disagree.  Any two instruments will be different (given the differences in wood, construction, etc.), so _any_ testing will not be "repeatable."  That is not the same thing as saying that the results are not "significant."   

I agree that people can be fooled into thinking they hear things that aren't there, and "beauty is in the ear of the beholder" -- it is difficult to put a "scientific" metric on what sounds good.   But I've known Roger Siminoff for years, and he's no fool.  If he's willing to put the effort into his de-damping process, it must be because he thinks that the process yields some improvement.  

As to "why" a breaking-in process helps the instrument sound different/better, theories abound.  The issue has been most closely studied for the violin.  One publisher describes it this way:  

"The specific physical changes in the instrument are still unclear, but are probably in areas such as glue joints, coatings, construction, repair and humidity induced stresses, and in particular the accelerated completion of creep, rather than in the character of the wood as such." 

See http://www.henrystrobel.com/vibrate.htm

I echo Sean's comments.  Have at it!

----------


## jody_cruzan

Hey Guys,
This is very interesting and educational. I'm not interested in selling strummers
or offering de-damping services, but I think I'll continue my efforts and try to
be more aware of the human element.  If any of you guys try to do some
de-damping, I would like to hear of any good or bad results you find. 

Thank you all. This has been great fun.

Regards,
Jody

----------


## JEStanek

Good luck and keep experimenting.

Jamie

----------


## David Houchens

I know next to nuthin about science.  That being said, a mandolin can be built under stress. On my early mandolins, If the sides didn't stay put right after bending I'd just align them as I glued them to the top. While this took very little effort or pressure, it seems to me it would put a little tension into the mandolin. Its my theory the vibrations will relieve such tension. When first built a mandolin may not have any tension built in; then you put the strings on. You now have something like 80lbs of pressure on the top. I would think theres a lot more pressure at the tailpiece trying to pull itself toward the peghead. This would seem to me to be pulling the back from end to end and trying to fold it in the middle. Lots of tension from different directions.
Please excuse all these scientific terms I'm using.
But in my mind there is a lot of stress in any stringed instrument that could settle. The string tension will always be there when tuned to pitch. What I think changes is how the wood responds to this tension. I believe it (for lack of a better term) relaxes after time. Not in strength or shape but tension.
Now this may get the scientists heated, but MY FEELING is that vibrations or waves or whatever your term, can move easier and farther in wood that is settled or relaxed in its present shape or form.
Then again........



      David

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> ...That being said, a mandolin can be built under stress...


The Larson Brother's built their instruments that way on purpose as do others.

----------


## Chris Wofford

Starting with the assumption that there is a change that takes place.  Would there be a difference between a mandolin that is played in by a human or played in by a machine?  A human will transmit heat, oils and different pressures to the instrument.  Would even the left hand pressure cause a change in whatever is happening?

----------


## fatt-dad

I'm a complete skeptic on this whole de-damping topic.  I have nothing to base my thoughts on however.  Now that I've said that, I think Jody is the perfect researcher.  From some idea of need (or a desire for knowledge), s/he set up this experiment and put initial findings out to an audience for peer review.  From this review, there have been thoughts on the human element (v. the "machine"), and to what extent the machine should be adjusted or such.  That's a great thing!

I hope that the nature of some of the replies do not "dampen" Jody's desire for research.  This is the American way afterall!

Here, Here!

f-d

----------


## jody_cruzan

Chris, 
These are good points. I wonder about this myself.  One of the things I can't
make up my mind about is if I should clamp the peg head still.  When the 
mandolin is clamped at the body on the strummer, the peg head vibrates so
much, all the screws on the tuner buttons back out and fall out. In fact the
peg head / neck is the most active parts of the instrument.  When I hold the
peghead with my hand during strumming, the back doesn't vibrate nearly as
much and I don't know if it should.  I'm pretty sure the back plays a role in
the overall sound of the instrument and maybe this helps the back. Maybe I
need to clamp for a few days and leave free for a few, etc...

Thanks all. This has been interesting and delightful. The one thing my dad
taught me is that "One test is worth a  thousand opinions", but I still value
all your opinions. 

Regards,
Jody

----------


## TomTyrrell

> TomTyrell says "There are no scientific repeatable results so any conclusions that may be drawn are not significant."  I'm sorry, but I disagree.  Any two instruments will be different (given the differences in wood, construction, etc.), so _any_ testing will not be "repeatable."  That is not the same thing as saying that the results are not "significant."


You do not test one instrument against another instrument. You test one instrument against _itself_! You run the "before" test several times in order to prove your method. All those results should be the "same" since it is the same instrument at the same time under the same conditions. Your results are *repeatable*. Then you run the "after" test several times to again prove your method and when those results are the "same" you have something to analyze.

All of this "no two instruments are alike" stuff is nothing more than smoke. Ideally one would have a sample of several _similar_ instruments. Test them all then set some aside as controls and treat the others. Run the tests again and analyze each instrument to itself. Compare each instrument's "before" with that instrument's "after." Then you can compare those analyses in order to determine whether the treatment has any effect and what that effect is. You are looking for a significant _trend_.

I think a great test would be to set 5 aside, send 5 to be mechanically strummed, send 5 to Siminoff, send 5 for Voodoo, send 5 to players who will pound the daylights out of them, send 5 to beginning players who will play them for 1/2 hour per day, put 5 in front of loud speakers, put 5 in one of those cars that bounces down the road and put 5 on the walls of acoustic music shops to see if "shop wear" might really have value.

Anybody happen to have 45 similar mandolins available?

----------


## jody_cruzan

LOL Tom,
I built one mandolin that sounds like a fish. I was hoping it would sound like
a piano. 44 to go. I tried to strum it out, but I can't keep it in the clamps.

Jody

----------


## aphillips

You're machine rocks Jody!- cheers!

----------


## David Houchens

If the one that sounds like a fish will call the crappie to my boat, I'll buy it.
david

----------


## jody_cruzan

LOL David,
My wife told me this mandolin sounds like a fish. I've never asked her what that even means. I don't think it was a compliment. A couple of days before
she told me this, I had used her sewing scissors to cut some paper. She became
deranged and suffered from terrets syndrome for a couple of weeks. This was a
couple of years ago and I'm still afraid of her. 

Regards,
Jody

----------


## Skip Kelley

> My wife told me this mandolin sounds like a fish. I've never asked her what that even means. I don't think it was a compliment. A couple of days before
> she told me this, I had used her sewing scissors to cut some paper. She became
> deranged and suffered from terrets syndrome for a couple of weeks. This was a
> couple of years ago and I'm still afraid of her. 
> 
> Regards,
> Jody


 :Grin:  I love it!

----------


## SternART

For the record the mandolin that I had dedamped twice by Siminoff was a Gilchrist.  I am confident that the improvement could have been heard by any mandolin player with good ears.   The improved focus and balance made for easily audible improvements.  I'm not however saying this would work with any instrument. YMMV.

----------


## Steve Cantrell

Good work, Jody, Looks like a trim job. I've experienced that kind of mandolin "sleeping" even after doing some bridge movement and basic setup. I really had to play the sound back into her. An intriguing idea--and great execution.

----------


## jody_cruzan

Mr. SternART,
My initial effort was to try and help out the lower end instruments. Kind of a
free upgrade from a $400 mandolin to an $800 mandolin, but we never really
strummed any starter mandolins.  We've only strummed fairly expensive mando's
and some very expensive mandolins.  The guys providing these instruments 
couldn't wait to get their good stuff on this thing. I was horrified by this, but
we do what we can. It's been mentioned, and I believe it's true, with this process, the better the mandolin, the better the results. And long, strumming
durations seems to be a big part of it. I would still like to do some lower end
mandolins. I think many of the Chinese instruments we are getting now days
are very respectable.

Mr. SternART, the Gilchrists seem to be great instruments and I applaud you 
for trying this process. 

Hi Steve,
I've heard the guitar guys complain about their red spruce tops going to sleep
if they don't play them fairly often.  This intrigues me and I think I understand
what they mean. I've strummed in about 30  guitars and as usual, the guitars
seem to respond much better to this process. These large dreadnaughts will
run you out of the house.  It seems that everything about mandolins is hard.
Interesting on set up or bridge changes.  I'm starting to respect good set-up
people as much as I do our great builders.

Thanks
Jody

----------


## EdSherry

Tom -- your suggestion that "you test one instrument against itself" strikes me as scientifically meaningless.  Ideally, in evaluating whether a treatment had any effect, one would make a series of comparisons across a series of instruments:  Instrument A with and without the treatment, instrument B with and without the treatment, instrument C with and without the treatment, etc.  Only with a large number of such comparisons could one determine whether the treatment had an effect, as measured across a large number of instruments.   

In theory, the way to do that is to evaluate a particular instrument (on whatever basis), then subject that instrument to some process (such as the strumming process that the OP proposes), then evaluate the sound of that particular instrument on a before-and-after basis.  

As I see it, it is simply impossible to (as you propose) "run the 'before' test several times in order to prove your method."  The reason is that "running the 'before' test several times" is not what's at issue.  Suppose that someone runs a "strum-in" test several times on a given instrument.  Then the test measures "instrument A with no strum-in test" vs. "instrument A with one strum-in test" vs. "instrument A with two strum-in tests" vs. "instrument A with three strum-in tests" vs. ...  In other words, what's being compared is a particular instrument with N strum-in tests vs. N+1 tests.  That says nothing about comparing two instruments -- one with N strum-in tests vs. another with the same number (or a different number) of strum-in tests -- to see whether the treatment had an effect.

Your contention that "All those results should be the 'same' since it is the same instrument at the same time under the same conditions" strikes me as logically invalid, given that running "the same" test multiple times on a given instrument does not involve "the same conditions" each time -  unless you're contending that all the "before" tests should yield "the same" results.  That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with your argument.

----------


## kestrel

"sounds like a fish"

This may add totally new dimension to evaluating sound. "Hey, Mr. Luthier, the mandolin you built for me is all wrong. I asked for a more trouty sound, and it sounds way too pikey."

I know it's given me a whole new way of looking at practicing scales. :Whistling: 

Gene

----------


## TomTyrrell

Ed, please go ahead and read my _entire_ post. That's what I SAID!

If you really think an instrument would change significantly after ONE strum then obviously you are a whole-hearted supporter of any and all of the de-damping processes. If it changes so much after only ONE strum imagine how much it would change after 288,000 strums!

----------


## man dough nollij

> "sounds like a fish"
> 
> This may add totally new dimension to evaluating sound. "Hey, Mr. Luthier, the mandolin you built for me is all wrong. I asked for a more trouty sound, and it sounds way too pikey."
> 
> I know it's given me a whole new way of looking at practicing scales.
> 
> Gene


Just for the halibut, I've started trolling with a treble hook...

----------


## Bill Snyder

Tom when I read Ed's response to your post I thought that he was basically agreeing with your post as he told you you were all wet.  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## jody_cruzan

LOL Gene,
I'm with you.  You wouldn't think you could spend $600 on parts and then
spend 3 months making something and turns out sounding like a fish. I want
to ask her what kind of fish this mandolin sounds like, but I'm afraid she will
stab me in the heart with her dull scissors. I've noticed these scissors are 
still pretty sharp on the ends. I even caught her sharpening the ends from time
to time. This can't be a good sign. 

Jody

----------


## TomTyrrell

My wife has a Lorena Bobbit autographed kitchen knife set. I'm _always_ a good boy!

----------


## John McGann

Andy Statman pointed out to me decades ago that an instrument's tonal response grows according to how the instrument is played- i.e. if you play near the fingerboard all the time, the treble response 'goes to sleep' or never gets developed...the idea is that *you* _play the sound_ into the instrument- i.e. the human touch; the instrument's tone becomes a response to how you play it.

I wasn't sure that I agreed until I played more in the 'underdeveloped areas' and noticed those areas warming up over time. I think there is a lot to this, and it further strengthens the human/mando bond  :Wink:

----------


## jody_cruzan

Thanks Mr. McGann.

When you say "play near the fingerboard and/or underdeveloped areas", Do you mean where you are attacking the strings with your pick?  closer to the bridge vs. closer to fret/finger board etc?  If so, I can experiment with where
the strummer strikes the strings, and will move it around. Between the arm
and the clamps I can usually move the strumming zone up or down about 
an inch.

I've been running a percentage of strum hours  with these instruments capo'd
at the 3rd and 7th frets, just trying things. Strumming them  under regular, standard tuning creates a lot of activity in the sound and back boards.  Lowering the tuning, tension a half or full step seems to create the most vibration. Any lower on tension seems to reduce the activity or vibration of the plates. I guess, since I don't know what I'm doing, it allows me to try things that smarter people might not get to try.

Thanks for your time and the idea. Not to imply that you think machine strumming is helpful, this is still useful information and I will act on it. Like 
always, it will be hard to know if it is better one way than the other. But
I think every 100 hours on a strumming machine is better than 100 hours
sitting in a closet, inside a case.

Regards,
Jody

PS EDIT: I only mean that instruments sound better to me (only my unprovable opinion) after
they have been strummed or "opened up" by any means. I think an equal amount of human play time would help an instrument more than a strumming machine, not least of all from the mando/man connection that you've mentioned.. It' probably a little easier to let
the machine perform 300 hours of strum time vs. a human being blocking out 300 hours. You 
would think I would have learned my lesson by now.

----------


## Skip Kelley

[QUOTE=paloduro88;609208]
I think every 100 hours on a strumming machine is better than 100 hours
sitting in a closet, inside a case.

Regards,
Jody

Jody, I whole heartedly agree! Any strumming/vibration has got to be an improvement over sitting in a case. :Smile:

----------


## John McGann

> Thanks Mr. McGann.
> 
> When you say "play near the fingerboard and/or underdeveloped areas", Do you mean where you are attacking the strings with your pick?  closer to the bridge vs. closer to fret/finger board etc?  If so, I can experiment with where
> the strummer strikes the strings, and will move it around. Between the arm
> and the clamps I can usually move the strumming zone up or down about 
> an inch.
> Thanks for your time and the idea. Not to imply that you think machine strumming is helpful, this is still useful information and I will act on it. Like 
> always, it will be hard to know if it is better one way than the other. But
> I think every 100 hours on a strumming machine is better than 100 hours
> sitting in a closet, inside a case.


Hi Jody-

I think this idea falls under the 'first, do no harm' ethic- it surely can't hurt an instrument to be strummed, so I'm all for the idea.

Yes, I was talking about the point of attack as you mentioned. I have a few thoughts:

• Being able to simulate rest strokes (where the most projection and volume can be milked from the instrument) on individual or groups of strings would possibly yield different results, as well as where along the path between the bridge and fingerboard the pick attacks occur.

• Under real player conditions, we'd play a variety of note combinations other than capoing to get straight across 5ths- there'd be single notes, double stops, full chordal triads, seventh chords, voicings in 4ths etc. which also might add up to the instrument developing a more responsive voice (which at the end of the day still requires a decent human technique to optimize). It seems intuitive (to me) that the instrument resonating at all the frequencies available on the fingerboard would be optimal- maybe even some "off the horn" notes like bass frequencies available from a stereo system would get the box resonating in a beneficial way.

I like your idea and anything that leads to better  :Mandosmiley:  !  :Wink:

----------


## jody_cruzan

Thanks Mr. McGann,
This will give me some things to try.  Interesting about your "rest / pause" thought. We have slowed these things down to let the strum ring out a little
longer. Even thinking about going to 20 RPM or 40 strokes per minute.  We
started at 60 rpm since I had mistakenly thought this would be 60 strokes per
minute, but it was scary fast.   I think speed drives for these little motors are
fairly inexpensive, might have to consider it.

Good point on "do no harm". I would hate to saw a Henderson in half. LOL.

Thanks again. I think I will continue to pursue this inquiry. The more I read these
replies about testing, the more impossible it seems to scientifically prove
results or change after these things open up.  Since I have never, nor will I ever
accept any money for doing this, at least I don't have to worry about money
contaminating my learning experience. It's been fun, hopefully we can make a
contribution to mandolin knowledge.

Jody

----------


## ManlyMandolinist

Provide me with shelter & food and I will strum your mandolin for 12 hours a day.  Deal?

People prefer it when you do things "by hand" as opposed to using machines anyways.

----------


## GTG

Interesting thread. Regarding the 'scientific validity' of opinions, surveys are used for all sorts of social research. Election polling, product design, marketing, or in a field closer to mine, natural resources management all use surveys. There are well-known statistical methods for analyzing these data. 

A common type of experimental design that might work here is known as 'BACI', or Before-After-Control-impact. The idea is that one sample of mandos would be the treatment impact sample that would be dedamped. The other sample would be the (non-dedamped) control sample. Mandos could be selected at random from the world of mandos (whatever was available), with treatments randomly selected, or they could be chosen to all be as similar as possible. The latter might reduce variability, but might also reduce the scope of inference of the experiment. So if you do the experiment on 20 Weber Yellowstones from 2004, you might have less variable results than samples containing various brands, F's, A's and weird shapes, F-holes and ovals, etc. But you would only be able to really say that the results apply to Yellowstones from 2004. 

In any case, one way to set it all up would be to have a skilled player record a set repetoire (scales, tunes, etc.) on all the instruments, then apply the dedamping or strumming treatments to the randomly selected mandos. The control group would have nothing done to them. After dedamping/strumming, the same player would then play and record the same music on all the mandos. The player would not know which mandos were treated and which were controls. A panel of judges (listeners) could then be told the description of the experiment, and told to rate each pair of sound clips (before/after) as 'one of the two sounds better' or 'they sound the same'. And finally, there are statistical tests (variations on a linear model or analysis of variance design, or non-parametric equivalents) available to evaluate whether the dedamped mandos sounded significantly better than the control group, according to the listener panel. Obviously, if many of the dedamped mandos sounded the same after treatment, or if for some reason people thought the untreated mandos sounded better (or worse) after 'treatment' (recall that nothing would have been done to these), then differences would not be significant. The power of the test would depend on the number of mandos (degrees of freedom, in statistical parlance) and the variability between mandos, as mentioned above. 

In short, there are many ways this could be set up with scientific rigor. Tom basically was on the right track with his post above, but I thought I'd add a bit more detail about a realistic experimental design.

----------


## John Flynn

I've had my rhythm playing likened to an "artificial strumming machine," so I guess I've been replaced by automation!  :Laughing: 

I'm also skeptical about de-damping, but I also think it has possibilities. It makes logical sense to me, and I have seen some quasi-scientific reports and a lot of anecdotal stuff that seems to support it. That doesn't prove it out, but it should at least make most people want to see more study and experience on it.

Also, I'm not sure how much this is appropriately a scientific argument anyway. It seems to me that luthiery is more an art than a science and great instruments like Loars and others were created more from the subjective judgements of great builders, than through scientific proofs. If I am wrong about that, it would seem to me that the people who designed and built the Loars must have done so by complete accident, because they didn't have the scientific measuring techniques we do today. Also if I'm wrong, now anyone should be able to build a Loar-quality instrument, just by taking measurements and applying them. For instance, can you scientifically prove that tap tuning works? Even if you can prove it, do you need to?

I see de-damping as just one more luthiery tool, a newer tool that deserves more study. If, in the subjective opinions of experts, it improves the sound of instruments, it follows the long tradition of techniques based on subjective evaluations that got us to the state of luthiery we are at today. Science can help, but in the end it is only the subjective judgement of expert ears that will count.

----------


## HddnKat

Five years ago my husband used my best sewing shears to cut plastic - I'm still swearing.  You should still be afraid........
LOL :Laughing: 





> LOL David,
> My wife told me this mandolin sounds like a fish. I've never asked her what that even means. I don't think it was a compliment. A couple of days before
> she told me this, I had used her sewing scissors to cut some paper. She became
> deranged and suffered from terrets syndrome for a couple of weeks. This was a
> couple of years ago and I'm still afraid of her. 
> 
> Regards,
> Jody

----------


## theBlood

Relative to the problem of subjectivity and what one hears when they're talking about a broken-in instrument: I'm reminded of the discussions about varnished as versus lacquer finishes. In that case, people are spending at least 1g more for the varnished examples, without any scientific proof of it being better sounding finish as far as I know. Yes, there are some important testimonials, but there's still a possibility of subjectivity. 

I happen to be among those who think that playing an instrument does amazing things. I've had a lot of instruments that seem to come to life after use. 

Come to think of it, this is a good subject for one of those mythbuster shows...

----------


## TomTyrrell

Dan, good post but, as soon as you bring "better" into the experiment you move into the purely subjective world. There is no definition of a "better" sounding mandolin. People have different preferences so "better" to one person might be "worse" to another. 

We already know the results of any subjective testing that might be done. Some folks think de-damping is great, some think it is bunk and many don't know for sure.

----------


## fredfrank

Just because something can't be scientifically proven, doesn't mean it isn't possible. As I posted in another thread on this subject, my BRW benefited greatly by the Siminoff de-damping process. No scientific proof, but when I compared it to my two other mandolins after the process, it definitely moved up a notch in the pecking order around here.

Sometimes I wonder why the naysayers won't try something before attempting to shoot down a process like this as balderdash. If this process hasn't been scientifically proven, I'd have to say it hasn't been scientifically dis-proven either.

----------


## TomTyrrell

> Just because something can't be scientifically proven, doesn't mean it isn't possible. As I posted in another thread on this subject, my BRW benefited greatly by the Siminoff de-damping process. No scientific proof, but when I compared it to my two other mandolins after the process, it definitely moved up a notch in the pecking order around here.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder why the naysayers won't try something before attempting to shoot down a process like this as balderdash. If this process hasn't been scientifically proven, I'd have to say it hasn't been scientifically dis-proven either.


The "you can't prove it scientifically" argument may be the most popular among those who do not wish to accept anything new. It is best to ignore those people because they will always find some reason to refuse to accept any scientific evidence contrary to their own beliefs.

In this case, I'm not aware of anyone ever posting to inform us that they did indeed have a treatment done to their mandolin and it did nothing at all. The disbelievers don't have a treatment done because they _know_ it won't work.

----------


## Larry S Sherman

I certainly do not want to hijack this thread, but I just completed my own de-damping machine. I posted details in my Cafe blog.

Here's a quick video:



Thanks to Jody for guidance on some measurements and pick adjustment. My Gibson A is being strummed right now. For me it was just a fun project, and if it also wakes up my mandolins I'll be strumming them all the time!

Larry

----------


## GTG

> Dan, good post but, as soon as you bring "better" into the experiment you move into the purely subjective world. There is no definition of a "better" sounding mandolin. People have different preferences so "better" to one person might be "worse" to another. 
> 
> We already know the results of any subjective testing that might be done. Some folks think de-damping is great, some think it is bunk and many don't know for sure.


True, what I described was more social science than hard science. But that's because there are no objective ways to describe 'better tone'. I still think it would be acceptable. Pretty much across the board, people prefer a deep, full-spectrum sound to a 'tinny' sound, so the question could be posed that way: "does one of the two mandolins have a 'tinnier', or 'thinner' sound than the other? Or do they sound the same?". 

Perhaps the best question that could be answered this way is 'is the mandolin louder?'. In that case, some sort of signal strength meter would be able to provide a much more scientific answer. The only problem with that is that I'm not sure that I've heard it said that dedamping makes mandos louder; just that it makes them sound better...

----------


## John Flynn

Obviously some of the people who have posted on this thread have some strong knowledge of acoustics as it applies to mandolins, but there are also some well-know acoustic "heavy hitters" on the Cafe' that have not weighed yet. They know who they are, and I hope we do hear from them before this thread goes dormant. It is an interesting subject.

One thing that occured to my non-scientific mind regards the idea that there is no way to define good tone in scientific terms. My question is: What about the latest-generation "sampling" techniques now used for synthesizer work? My understanding is that unlike the earlier generations of synthesizers, the later ones analyze actual playing of top-notch instruments and create digital models from that. That would not be perfect definition, but it seems to me it could come close. So you could say, here are the characteristics of each of the chords and each of the notes on one of the best Loars, played with some sort of picking machine that does everything repeatably. Each one would have a certain volume, a certain pattern of fundamentals and overtones that would change in a certain way as the chord or note decays. There would probably be other characteristics that acoustic experts could decide on. Once the digital models were built, you could test which of those characteristics, if diminished one at a time, made an important difference to a panel of trained ears. That would seem to be a start, at least, toward a set of metrics that defined good tone. Probably not perfect, but more than we have today. Every mandolin, both before and after whatever kind of break-in could be measured against that.

Of course, I have no idea who would have the financial means to fund such a study! But it is interesting to think about.

----------


## TomTyrrell

John, a good idea but what about those folks who don't think Loar-signed Gibson mandolins are the "best" sounding mandolins? That's where the problem with "better" is.

As far as the scientific measurements. Not all that hard to do. Sound pressure levels across the frequency range will show the differences between before and after. If you have the data from a mandolin with the desired target sound you can compare the before and after of the test mandolin to see whether the after results moved towards the desired parameters. No human ears required. If you don't have target data you can compare the before and after to see what changed and start to understand what is happening.

Those who know the de-damping processes work don't need all this scientific proof and those who know the de-damping processes don't work won't believe the proof anyway.

It works and nothing anyone can say will change that. If they don't want to believe there isn't anything that can be done to make them believe.

----------


## John Flynn

Tom:

All good points. As to the Loar thing, that was just an example. Different models could be built for different standards. You could have models for Loars, Gilchrists, Lyone and Healys, Calace, whatever. Any definition of "better" could be created that would make sense to a large enough audience to support the effort involved.

As to the need, or lack of a need, to convince people, that is a good point, but I was not exactly going in that direction. For those who "believe" in de-damping, this could be a method to refine what works and what doesn't. Does strumming get the best results? Or directed sound, like a speaker? Or direct contact vibration? And within those, what frequencies and what intensities? Does de-damping work better with some woods and/or construction techniques? It would certainly be discovered that some techniques are better than others in some situations and some might even be detrimental. That was where I was going.

As to your very apt point about the "skeptics," I don't see that as being as black and white as what you expressed. An audience, for instance the audience of mandolin players and luthiers, can be plotted on a bell curve as far as being open to new ideas. The leading tail, say 10%, will believe any new thing that comes out, just because they want to. They are wrong a lot of the time. The trailing 10% will not believe a new thing until it has been scientifically proven beyond all doubt, for several years running. They are wrong a lot also. Unfortunately, it is those two 10% groups that get over-represented in discussions like this, resulting in "Is not...is so" discussions that have no conclusion.

An approach like I'm suggesting is aimed at the 80% in the middle. People who will try new things if presented with some evidence and will accept reasonable proof, even if falls short of a scientific law. These are generally the folks that move things forward. They tend to pull the 10% groups along with them, despite themselves.

----------


## John McGann

Here's a nice, simple empirical experiment:

Get a brand new mandolin of reasonable to good quality (or better). Record yourself playing it the day you get it.

Play it a lot for six months. Record yourself again- same rig (pick, string brand, microphone and mic placement and recording device) and room, of course.

Do it again after a year.

Listen to them back to back. If you don't hear a more refined sound over that amount of time, I'd be mighty surprised. Some of that refined sound might be that you are a better player after a year's playing of the new mandolin- but I think the _responsiveness_ of the instrument changes over time, according to how you play it in. If you go for maximum volume (without the strings breaking up) and play across the tonal spectrum from near the bridge to near the fingerboard, the instrument should open up nicely for you.

Almost any decent instrument will 'open up' over time, even if your technique is in a state of 'modest development'. Players who can really draw the sound from an instrument will open up that instrument more deeply. 

I've seen students change their technique and in essence have a new and better instrument, as they can get so much more from it through their playing- which leads to the instrument itself sounding better (in different hands) as it 'learns' to become more responsive.

I've experienced it as the sound becoming more burnished and rounded over time, warmer in the low end and the highs become less brittle.

It's simple, really.

*The Mandolin Whisperer.*

 :Mandosmiley:  :Popcorn:

----------


## bobby bill

Mr. McGann makes a point similar to one I wanted to make but comes from a different direction.  Rather than a new instrument, several years ago I began playing a 1911 Gibson A.  I was not all that impressed with the sound when I began.  But two or three (or four or five) years later I would sometimes surprise myself with the deep rich sound I could get from this mandolin.  I don't think the mandolin waited ninety years to "open up."  I think I became a better player and (McGann's point) particularly with respect to this specific mandolin.

I am intrigued and try to stay open-minded with the notion of mandolins "opening up" over time and I would love to see some actual controlled experiments.  But when I hear personal testimonials I always wonder, "how can they tell?"

----------


## John McGann

> I am intrigued and try to stay open-minded with the notion of mandolins "opening up" over time and I would love to see some actual controlled experiments.  But when I hear personal testimonials I always wonder, "how can they tell?"


I can tell because I can hear the development over time. I have been incredibly lucky to have been pals with John Zeidler (RIP) one of our finest luthiers. I went through 3 acoustic guitars and 3 mandolins of his. All began brand new, and sounded great, but each developed a maturity and warmth over time.

Same with the Sobell OM and the Aylward Django guitar...there is a sound after being played for a year that is different from the first playing, and it always seems to be better a few months down the road.

Not sure of the scientific ramifications, but I thought this sort of thing was common knowledge...

As has been observed in this thread, one person's "great tone" is another's "sounds like dog meat". So, the "different strokes" would certainly throw the curve somewhat, but it does seem logical that a new instrument, left unplayed, is not going to warm up the way one that is played (and loved) will.

I think if you ask any pro level player, you'll hear something similar. Every luthier I've spoken to about this would say "of course they open up over time". 

I've also noticed a difference in response if an instrument goes unplayed for a period of several months- it takes a little while to warm up, response-wise.

An old Irish saying: " 'tis true for you". Again, I don't know about scientific proof, but these things have been true for me. 

Zeidler believed that an instrument should sound great from the git-go and get better over time- that there shouldn't be a long waiting period for the 'bloom'.

----------


## fredfrank

> I am intrigued and try to stay open-minded with the notion of mandolins "opening up" over time and I would love to see some actual controlled experiments.  But when I hear personal testimonials I always wonder, "how can they tell?"



I'd like to say that in my case, I have a tendency to get out all three of my mandolins on a pretty regular basis. When I'm switching back and forth, I form a certain 'pecking order' with them and it stays the same most every time I do this.

After getting my BRW back from Siminoff, the first thing I noticed is that it had no tightness to the sound, but mostly, it has changed positions in the 'pecking order' of my mandolins. It has gained a lot of ground against my Red Diamond, and has zipped past the Collings MT2V in the maturing category.

I know that my experience is in no way scientific, but when I compare this mandolin to two others which have not been changed, there is a noticeable difference. Before I had Siminoff do this, I was as big a skeptic as anyone. Not of the opening-up process, but of the ability to do this by artificial means. I put up my money not expecting any significant results, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Having viewed the strumming machines in this thread, I'd have to guess that it would take a lot of time on one of those to achieve any significant change. Roger Siminoff told me they didn't see any noticeable difference in my mandolin until some 20 hours into the process. And I believe he uses a number of different treatments besides the strumming.

----------


## TomTyrrell

> Having viewed the strumming machines in this thread, I'd have to guess that it would take a lot of time on one of those to achieve any significant change. Roger Siminoff told me they didn't see any noticeable difference in my mandolin until some 20 hours into the process. And I believe he uses a number of different treatments besides the strumming.


Yup, the OP noted he used strum times of 160 hours and up.

----------


## jody_cruzan

WOW Guys,
My head is spinning.  Very good information.  I think the tone question is the real problem. We all hear things a little different and I expect we hear things differently on different days.

I've noticed when I'm using the strobosoft software, I can see the tone. Do you
guys know of any software that will actually "capture" sound wave forms & data.
I'm thinking of maybe just capturing an open "D" string note with it's octaves and partials.  Then overlay the wave form from another instrument, i.e., open
"D" string and see how they compare.  We might could take  our "ears" out of the argument and use our eyes and brains.  There may even be a theoretical wave form for a perfect "D" note at whatever frequency it is.

Thanks for this info.  I'm pretty sure I'm not smart enough to participate in this thread, but I am enjoying it.

Jody

----------


## PhilTod

John M.- I had the pleasure of playing (and gawking at!) a Zeidler Mandolin a few years back. One of the most aesthetically pleasing instruments I have ever seen, and though I only played it for a matter of minutes, they were magical minutes! Such a gifted luthier, and so sad that he is gone. The stringed instrument world lost one of its best with his passing.

----------


## SternART

> John M.- I had the pleasure of playing (and gawking at!) a Zeidler Mandolin a few years back. One of the most aesthetically pleasing instruments I have ever seen, and though I only played it for a matter of minutes, they were magical minutes! Such a gifted luthier, and so sad that he is gone. The stringed instrument world lost one of its best with his passing.


Well said!

----------


## jasona

> Andy Statman pointed out to me decades ago that an instrument's tonal response grows according to how the instrument is played- i.e. if you play near the fingerboard all the time, the treble response 'goes to sleep' or never gets developed...the idea is that *you* _play the sound_ into the instrument- i.e. the human touch; the instrument's tone becomes a response to how you play it.
> 
> I wasn't sure that I agreed until I played more in the 'underdeveloped areas' and noticed those areas warming up over time. I think there is a lot to this, and it further strengthens the human/mando bond


I've heard John Reischman say the same thing. It makes sense to me intuitively.

----------


## Rick Turner

I wrote the article for Acoustic Guitar Magazine on the Timbre Tech process which is no longer available from the guys who started it, Michael Tobias and Steve Rabe.   It worked and it was under strict "scientific" control with four separate transducers reading the instrument and being fed into a computer monitoring system.  There were both audible and visible (in the charts) changes to the instruments with certain resonances becoming stronger after treatement.  The machine was a surplus military gear shaker table with a 5,000 watt tube amp the size of a porta-pottie, as seen at all our favorite festivals.  But this sh.. really worked.  

I do a version of it using a couple of ConAire suction cup vibrators (no jokes now...) on my guitar tops when I build acoustics, and I let them rip for 48 hours.  Major improvement on brand new guitars.

----------


## charlesa46741

> Do you guys know of any software that will actually "capture" sound wave forms & data.
>  I'm thinking of maybe just capturing an open "D" string note with it's octaves and


I've been searching for PC compatible software on the web and found this site http://www.ymec.com/eg.htm --I wonder if anyone knows of anything else, or better yet has some experience with sound analysis software. Some of the testimonials from this site state it is being used to examine musical instruments.

----------


## John Flynn

> I wrote the article for Acoustic Guitar Magazine on the Timbre Tech process which is no longer available from the guys who started it, Michael Tobias and Steve Rabe.   It worked and it was under strict "scientific" control with four separate transducers reading the instrument and being fed into a computer monitoring system.  There were both audible and visible (in the charts) changes to the instruments with certain resonances becoming stronger after treatement.  The machine was a surplus military gear shaker table with a 5,000 watt tube amp the size of a porta-pottie, as seen at all our favorite festivals.  But this sh.. really worked.  
> 
> I do a version of it using a couple of ConAire suction cup vibrators (no jokes now...) on my guitar tops when I build acoustics, and I let them rip for 48 hours.  Major improvement on brand new guitars.


Rick, that was a great experiment and a great article. I don't know why it is not more convincing to more people. What I liked about it is that it had parallel objective measurement AND subject expert evaluations on each guitar. Anytime you're trying to objectively define a subjective value like tonal quality, I think you have to have both. So when measures of frequency response measurements improved AND a bunch of expert guitarists reported improvement, something good obviously happened. Could you make a "scientific law" out of it? No. Is it enough proof that 80% of the fretted instrument players out there should be thinking that it might work? I think so.

----------


## Larry S Sherman

> I wrote the article for Acoustic Guitar Magazine on the Timbre Tech process


I think this is the article.

Larry

----------


## Rick Turner

Yes, that's it.   I don't like the caption on the frequency response chart, though.  There will never be flat response in a before or after plot.  I don't know how that snuck in.   Looks like an averaged response based on total energy or the response of the driver which should indeed be flat.  

In discussions with Steve Rabe, we speculated that one could attempt to intentionally shift resonant peaks in an instrument by deliberately driving the shaker table with a non-flat response signal.   For instance, if you had a strong wolf tone at, say, a "G", you could perhaps drive the instrument hard at F, F#, G#, or A, and make the instrument more flexible at a different frequency than the G wolf tone.   More generally, you could perhaps affect the bass to treble response by feeding in more low frequency vibrations or more high frequency tone.   Never got a chance to try that.   I have heard musicians claim that guitars open up according to how they're played and in what keys they're most often used.   It makes sense to me, but it's not easy to prove.

Given that nobody disagrees with the concept of metal fatigue...yeah, wings falling off of airplanes, etc...I don't see why anyone would not believe that wood can become more flexible with repeated vibration.  From there, it's a short hop to knowing that the frequencies at which the material is vibrated will affect the nodal response and therefore affect changes in frequency response and the power in resonances.

----------


## Paul Kotapish

I'd be very curious to see additional variable-controlled experiments to confirm my anecdotal experiences, but based on those experiences I'm a believer in the basic notion that acoustic stringed instruments open up and become louder, warmer, and more responsive through playing. The one area where I have never heard any particular improvement through playing is in the basic treble (upper mids and highs) response and (for lack of a better word) "crispness" of a mandolin or guitar. In fact, in a couple of instances, I experienced instruments losing some of their clarity and focus in the high end as the bottom end got richer and fatter. This was particularly noticable in an F-5 by a pretty well-known maker that was built with a very thin top. It sounded great when it was new, got better for another couple of years--with a pronounced improvement in the bottom end--and then got a bit dull and muddy in the high end. No charts or graphs to support this experience, but I'm convinced. 

And FWIW, I know Art Stern to be a discerning audiophile--maybe audiofanatic is more accurate--with great ears, and if he says he got great results with the Simonoff method, I believe him. 

Here's the Timbre Tech vibe machine Rick mentioned. Very different approach from strum-o-matic devices discussed above.

----------


## Dave Cohen

All of you who are talking about "scientific proof" are gonna get an F on my quiz.  I musta posted a zillion times on this forum about the fact that we dont 'prove' things in science.  We can corroborate, we can support, we can verify, and we can even disprove (as long as we don't set out to disprove), but we can never prove.  If we proved something, it wouldn't be falsifiable, and we _do_ insist that scientific constructs be falsifiable.  'Proof' lies entirely in the domain of mathematics, logic, and (crudely) courts of law - never in science.

What seems to have been glossed over in this thread is how consistency of conditions and excitation strength is going to be carried over from "before" to "after".  Some reading might be in order.  Carolyn and Frank Field did a paper in _Catgut_ some time ago about simple loudness measurements (_CASJ_ Vol. *3*, No. 3 (Series II), pp 29-36, May 1997).  Carleen Hutchins did a paper on before and after measurements seven years apart on one of her violas before and after it was played by its owner for seven years.  Don't remember the reference at the moment, will look it up if I have time.  

At one point, people were putting a lot of thought into developing a consistent strength "mechanical plucker".  But an easier way to do that is to use some fine coil winding wire.  Its' breaking strength is pretty consistent.  You just pass a length of it behind the string to be plucked, and pull both ends of the coil wire until it breaks.  That will give you a consistent "pluck" strength.  Then you are faced with room geometries, mic position, etc., etc.  An alternative would be to use an accelerometer and drive the instrument body with a "stinger".  But coil-driven magnet stingers are notoriously nonlinear.  To get good linearity, you need an accelerometer-based "shaker", but then you are talking $$$$.  And in any case, you will have to calibrate carefully.  Good luck!

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Rick Turner

If I were to use an auto strumming machine, I'd run it a while, and then put a capo on at the first fret, then the second, etc. to give all frequencies a shot at it.   

As for the thin top thing...that is the danger of trying to build old sounding instruments that impress right out of the chute.   There are several guitar makers who do this with their vintage-voiced dreads, and in ten or fifteen years, all you have is boom, boom, boom.    Because the excursions are much greater with soundboards producing bass and low mids, those nodal patterns are going to age faster.   Just my opinion, by the way...

----------


## Amandalyn

Hope I'm not horning in too much on your invention- but heres something you all might be interested in- I helped develop theTonerite for mandolin,and it's a much easier process-I'll refer you to the thread:
http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...d.php?p=618462

----------

Dobe

----------


## kesslari

Hello all,

I'm looking for some sort of auto-strumming machine.
My guitarist and good friend suffered a massive stroke in Oct 2014, leaving him paralyzed on his right side.
At this point he can successfully finger chords with his left hand, but nothing with the right.
I'd love to find something (preferrably with a way to adjust the strum rate, e.g. tempo) so that he could resume playing to some degree - it is incredibly healing for him.
I tried sending a pm to jody_cruz, with no reply, so I'm reviving this old thread with the hope that one of you can provide some ideas, plans, or even a prototype that you'd be willing to sell cheaply.  Please PM me here.
BTW, some of our music (I'm a bass player) is at http://soundcloud.com/folkina/ and www.folkina.com if you want to give a listen.

Thank you.

----------


## Bill Snyder

Looking a jody_cruzan's profile shows that he has not logged into the Mandolin Cafe in over six years.

----------


## Barry Wilson



----------

Dobe

----------


## Michael Lewis

You might check out the E-bow.  It makes magnetic vibrations to drive strings, you just hold it over the strings.

http://www.ebow.com/home.php

----------


## Barry Wilson

I played with an e bow. buddy had one. interesting unit

----------

