# Music by Genre > Orchestral, Classical, Italian, Medieval, Renaissance >  What makes a classical mandolin?

## Tavy

I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?

I've been contemplating this because I'm thinking of taking a break from e-mandos and vintage instruments and building a few more acoustics.  I'm naturally drawn to the designs of Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini, and am sorely tempted to build a Kerman clone just to see what they're like.  On the other hand, perhaps folks just want a decent sounding instrument and all this extra stuff is superfluous?

So... leaving aside the whole debate over German/Italian/US traditions, what are the main factors you look for?  13" scale and light strings?  Anything else?  BTW scrolls or bowls are out of the question for the moment... as are Franken-mandos with bowls _and_ scrolls!  :Wink:

----------

CHASAX, 

DavidKOS

----------


## plinkey

> I've been contemplating this because I'm thinking of taking a break from e-mandos and vintage instruments and building a few more acoustics.


Now you've got me worried, since we have one e-thingy on the go now which might end up in your workshop. :Disbelief:

----------


## DavidKOS

> I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?
> ......
>  I'm naturally drawn to the designs of Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini, and am sorely tempted to build a Kerman clone just to see what they're like. )


OK, let's assume you can make a non-bowl scroll-less classical mandolin.

I want the following features:

Typical shorter Italian bowlback scale length; I assume that is for "13" scale and light strings"

At least 27 frets

A neck not too wide but wide enough to play 4 note chords

VOLUME!  first and foremost it needs to be a loud instrument. 

simple but high quality wood and construction

and if you have found out more about those Kerman mandolins, please share what you know with the rest of us.

I have a friend building a flat back classical mandolin for me right now:

this was it several months ago, it will be ready soon

----------


## Martin Jonas

There is an old thread started by Robert Margo here on his custom Mid-Mo designed to approximate the tone and playability of modern German bowlbacks: he decided on a combination of wide nut, violin scale and light strings.

Of course, wide nuts are the opposite of what a classical player of Italian bowlbacks is used to -- the nut of my Embergher is well below an inch.

Martin

----------

billkilpatrick, 

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> There is an old thread started by Robert Margo here on his custom Mid-Mo designed to approximate the tone and playability of modern German bowlbacks: he decided on a combination of wide nut, violin scale and light strings.
> 
> Of course, wide nuts are the opposite of what a classical player of Italian bowlbacks is used to -- the nut of my Embergher is well below an inch.
> 
> Martin


The nut width thing is a real issue - and those Roman fingerboards get very narrow indeed!

I measured a lot of mandolins that I like, and averaged them.

----------


## Jim Garber

The question, John, is not "What makes a classical mandolin?" IMHO, you make the mandolin to what you hear as a good voicing for the music it will play.

As a companion to the recent Jazz mandolin question there is a fairly wide range of answers. David does list specs for his ideal and my specs would fall into the some of those same specs for playing classical music. However, like any other music it seems like it does depend on the player. 

I have gone through a number of mandolins that I have played for classical music. Over the years, playing in the NY Mandolin Orchestra, then attending Carlo Aonzo workshops and a few CMSA conventions, let's see. My evolution was 1923 A2 snakehead with standard phosphor bronze strings-->long scale Lyon and Healy A-->Pandini bowlback with Dogal Calace medium strings-->Embergher N.3-->L&H Washburn short-scale with T-I strings. These last two are my go-to instruments for classical and they could not be more different in terms of sound.

I find it a bit confusing when you mention Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini. I guess all three makers have used double soundboards for some of their instruments. Is that what you are asking? Do you want to make a double soundboard or internal chamber mandolin.

Since few of us live in Israel it is hard to get a sense of Kerman's mandolin but I know that JeffD has actually played one and is in love to the point of saying that it is the best mandolin in the world. I reserve any critique until I actually have a chance to play one or at least hear one in person but from the recordings it sounds wonderful in the hands of Avi and Jacob and other Israeli players. However, I am not so sure that the voicing is so unique. I believe that the voicing is similar to the German-style bowlbacks like *Knorr* or *Woll*. These were voiced to be played with T-I strings as were (I believe) the Kerman mandolins. 

Kermans have an internal chamber but I am not sure what that contributes to the sound. Perhaps if you have the energy and resources to try building one with and one without an internal chamber you can get a sense of what difference it makes. Double soundboards have been tried for quite some time. I had a violin with one that was nothing to brag about. And then there was the Virzi tone enhancer thing, Selmer Maccaferri guitars, Gelas oddball instruments and probably a few others.

Avi plays his Kerman mandolin in this video and he talks about it here around 6:45: 




Here is my overall take on all this. The most impressive makers get the tone in their heads first and try to voice their instruments to achieve that. I don't know if it is necessary to bother with the double soundboard to get to that. In the US I look to the work of Rolfe Gerhardt and his Phoenix mandolins. Rolfe makes basically the same design for all but they all sound different. They are carved top instruments and the *Neo-Classical* is a fine-sounding one voiced to be strung with T-I strings. *Marty Jacobson* is another maker who works similarly.

As far as what I would like in a classical mandolin, I do agree with David on short scale, fretboard extension. I would not characterize the need for volume (and certainly not at the expense of tone) but more the ability of the mandolin to project. I know that many carved top players characterize bowlbacks as low in volume but I really think that the best made of the bowl back mandolins do have that projection and I know that is what Emberghers are know for. 

One other aspect of a fine-toned instrument to me is that it has excellent tone as well as evenness through its range. Easy to do in the lower positions but hard to do in the stratosphere. The best Embergher has that sweetness up the neck but I also find that in the Lyon & Healy and (yes!) the few Loar F-5s I have played. 

BTW I know that you don't want to build a bowlback but one other possibility is to build a _boatback_, essentially a deeper flatback. Mozzani made some excellent and sweet-sounding ones. (see below)

Anyway, it is an interesting question, John. I look forward to hearing what other have to say.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

Here are a couple more players with videos to get a sense of tone (Caterina Lichtenberg, Marisa Carroll, Carlo Aonzo):

----------

BCVegas, 

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Since few of us live in Israel it is hard to get a sense of Kerman's mandolin but I know that JeffD has actually played one and is in love to the point of saying that it is the best mandolin in the world. 
> .....
> 
> ....
> As far as what I would like in a classical mandolin, I do agree with David on short scale, fretboard extension. I would not characterize the need for volume (and certainly not at the expense of tone) but more the ability of the mandolin to project.


I have not yet played a Kerman....I sure want to!

Perhaps "ability to project" is what I mean by "volume". Unless I'd play unaccompanied solo only, I would want a mandolin that be heard in an ensemble - or even better, be heard over an ensemble if I was the soloist.

I guess it is a combination of tone color, volume and such that allows an instrument to project well.

----------


## Tavy

> Now you've got me worried, since we have one e-thingy on the go now which might end up in your workshop.


Don't worry, my "for hire" sign is still firmly planted, just looking to move some time away from:



and even from:




And towards something more classical mandolin oriented.




> VOLUME! first and foremost it needs to be a loud instrument.


Volume is an interesting subject in it's own right - I'm not sure that most bowl backs (for example) are loud in the absolute sense, but like all mandolins they do "cut through" very well.  There's also the whole subject of what I would describe as "volume profile", of two folks who tried out my main goto mandolin recently, one complained it was too quiet, the other too loud.  The difference between the two players was their picking technique and what they were used to in terms of volume for given level of attack - some mandolins are very loud very quickly but then "max out", others need thumping rather hard to achieve anything much... of course the best let you express yourself without running out of volume headroom _or_ being difficult to play quietly and with subtlety.




> Here is my overall take on all this. The most impressive makers get the tone in their heads first and try to voice their instruments to achieve that. I don't know if it is necessary to bother with the double soundboard to get to that.


Now, this is actually the heart of my question: and yes I do have a sound in my head, and it's a lot like the Kerman's, but also some of the US made bowls (Vega et al) are an inspiration (in point of fact I do have a most of a set of plans drawn up for a bowlback, I'm just not convinced I can afford the time for something that complex).

Still cogitating yours...

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Volume is an interesting subject in it's own right - I'm not sure that most bowl backs (for example) are loud in the absolute sense, but like all mandolins they do "cut through" very well.  There's also the whole subject of what I would describe as "volume profile", of two folks who tried out my main goto mandolin recently, one complained it was too quiet, the other too loud.  The difference between the two players was their picking technique and what they were used to in terms of volume for given level of attack - some mandolins are very loud very quickly but then "max out", others need thumping rather hard to achieve anything much... of course the best let you express yourself without running out of volume headroom _or_ being difficult to play quietly and with subtlety.


That's an interesting experience - the same instrument is both "too loud" and "too quiet".

Personally I prefer a mandolin that is responsive to a range of dynamics but as you put it does not "top out" by running out of volume headroom. 

I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

The mandolin in the picture in my earlier post is based on these smallish flatbacks that have great projection but a sweet overall tone.

----------


## margora

"There is an old thread started by Robert Margo here on his custom Mid-Mo designed to approximate the tone and playability of modern German bowlbacks: he decided on a combination of wide nut, violin scale and light strings."

I thank Martin for revisiting this old thread.  As it happens, I sold the mandolin in question (a custom Mid-Mo, violin scale, wide neck) a few years later.   Subsequently I was able to acquire a 1984 Reinhold Seiffert flatback, one of maybe a dozen that he made for the US market and sold through Norman Levine (of CMSA).   It is essentially the same as a regular Seiffert except for having a flat back.  These are superb instruments.  The Seiffert has a 330mm scale and a wide neck.

My other main instrument is a 2015 Dave Cohen oval hole, with a 13.75 scale and a 1.25 inch neck.   Both instruments are strung with TI.    I can use either for anything (see below) but tend to prefer the Cohen for contemporary music (e.g. a Kioulaphides piece for solo mandolin) and the Seiffert for baroque (e.g. Vivaldi, Bach).  Early 20th century sounds fine on either.

In the near future (next 1-2 years) I anticipate purchasing or placing an order for a professional quality modern German, assuming I can find what I want without a 10 year waiting list (e.g. Woll).

"I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?"

I would say that 95-98 percent of the variance is explained by the player's technique, not the instrument -- give a weak player a good instrument, and the player will still sound weak.  I can make a Calace prelude sound like I want (conceptually) on virtually anything.  What is truly crucial is the setup -- I prefer a setup that makes playing the most difficult passages effortless, whatever those might be.  If I have to struggle in the slightest in a difficult passage I move on to the next instrument.  The setup interacts with the design (see below) but is a separate issue

That said, of course, I have preferences on sound and so forth like anyone else.  I can make my Calace prelude sound like I want it to an Embergher style instrument, but doing so is normally a pain in the a-- which has everything to do with the way Emberghers are constructed (and sound).  It is a pain in the a-- for some of the reasons David mentioned -- the very narrow fingerboard, for example.  I would add the excessive V-neck, the excessive radius of the fretboard, the deliberate sharpening of notes up the neck.   Life being short, why bother?  I can also make it sound like I want on a Gibson F-5 but I find these uncomfortable to play for other reasons so again, why bother? If I decide to play said piece on modern American instrument, I'll choose my Cohen or a Collings MT2, which is perfectly adequate to the task (and which I have used for said purpose in concert). 

The number of frets is also far less important than people generally think.  The reason for this is the sound that high up the neck is rarely good in an absolute sense (that said, some makers are better at this than others.  My Cohen has 29 frets on the E string, and 25 or so on the A string).  Having a lot of frets is a vestige of thinking that the mandolin is supposed to be a plucked violin.  If the notes are off the fingerboard it is, again, a matter of technique -- one can make them sound more or less correct.  Having a lot of frets can interfere, as we all know, with right hand technique, so there is a trade off involved.

As far as what I like (or what makes an instrument easy to play for me, assuming the setup I want) is a rounded neck, not a sharp V; a slight radius to the fingerboard; and a somewhat wider fingerboard.  The sound concept I am looking for emphasizes clarity and evenness across the registers (which is why I generally do not play Italian instruments, because I have yet to find one with this particular characteristic).  Perhaps because I come to the instrument from the classical guitar, I am personally drawn to the sound of German instruments, but that concerts taste, not a design essential.

I don't have strong preferences on bracing, or wood for the top or back. I do think that classical guitar construction has evolved considerably over the past 100 years or so and there are various experiments in classical guitar construction that might be profitably explored on the mandolin.

"Since few of us live in Israel it is hard to get a sense of Kerman's mandolin but I know that JeffD has actually played one and is in love to the point of saying that it is the best mandolin in the world. I reserve any critique until I actually have a chance to play one or at least hear one in person but from the recordings it sounds wonderful in the hands of Avi and Jacob and other Israeli players."

I have not personally played a Kerman but I have heard them up close and personal -- i.e. sitting about 4-5 feet away.  In this particular case, I thought the instrument was certainly of professional quality but, overall, nothing special.  It worked fine musically in baroque (Vivaldi, Bach) but not so much in contemporary music (Kuwahara).  Again, to say this is due to the mandolin's design characterstics versus the player that I heard (Avi Avital) would be highly questionable as a conclusion.  Modern Israeli classical mandolin technique is highly idiosyncratic compared with other mandolin cultures and it is unclear to me how much of what is being heard is the mandolin versus the style (at least, I have not seen this discussed in any depth).

----------

DavidKOS, 

Hany Hayek, 

Jim Garber

----------


## DavidKOS

> "I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?"
> 
> I would say that 95-98 percent of the variance is explained by the *player's technique,* not the instrument -- give a weak player a good instrument, and the player will still sound weak. ....
> 
> ..... It is a pain in the a-- for some of the reasons David mentioned -- *the very narrow fingerboard*, for example.  I would add the* excessive V-neck, the excessive radius of the fretboard*,
> .......
> 
> 
> I have not personally played a* Kerman* but I have heard them up close and personal -- i.e. sitting about 4-5 feet away.  In this particular case, I thought the instrument was certainly of professional quality but, overall, nothing special.  It worked fine musically in baroque (Vivaldi, Bach) but not so much in contemporary music (Kuwahara).  Again, to say this is due to the mandolin's design characterstics versus the player that I heard (Avi Avital) would be highly questionable as a conclusion.  Modern Israeli classical mandolin technique is highly idiosyncratic compared with other mandolin cultures and it is unclear to me how much of what is being heard is the mandolin versus the style (at least, I have not seen this discussed in any depth).


Interesting. I'd like to learn more about both the Israeli instruments and the modern school of technique.

----------


## margora

"Interesting. I'd like to learn more about both the Israeli instruments and the modern school of technique"

I cannot help on the instruments, as I have not found them of sufficient interest to investigate personally.   I did not call the techniques used by the various Israeli players "modern" -- the word I used was "idiosyncratic".   This is evident by paying close attention to any of the (hundreds) of available videos and compare with, say, any of Gertrud Weyhofen from, ca. 20 years ago (not on YouTube, but available.  There are a few recent videos of Gertrud on YouTube which are useful in this regard but her instructional video from Plucked String is much more important, as is a video that she made with her then husband Michael Troester of an in-studio concert in Japan).

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> I did not call the techniques used by the various Israeli players "modern" -- the word I used was "idiosyncratic".


I stand corrected.

----------


## Charlieshafer

Well, one of the foremost classical (and jazz players in the world right now is Joe Brent, and he plays a custom Dean (Labraid). You can catch him occasionally with the San Fransisco orchestra among others, or with is current project, 9 Horses. Here's his:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

> I would say that 95-98 percent of the variance is explained by the player's technique, not the instrument -- give a weak player a good instrument, and the player will still sound weak.  I can make a Calace prelude sound like I want (conceptually) on virtually anything.  What is truly crucial is the setup -- I prefer a setup that makes playing the most difficult passages effortless, whatever those might be.  If I have to struggle in the slightest in a difficult passage I move on to the next instrument.  The setup interacts with the design (see below) but is a separate issue.


As Bob Margo so ably noted above, the player's technique is of utmost importance. I played Joe's first Dean/LaBraid Grand Concert model pretty soon after he got it but I only played it briefly. Joe can evoke whatever music he needs from it and does it quite expertly. That design is certainly not for me but I am not virtuoso. The design is very eccentric:

(From Joe's web site)



> She has a walnut top, maple sides and false back, and a resonating interior true back made of Carpathian spruce. Besides her intriguing mix of tonewoods, she also features such unique aspects as an inlaid pickguard, overhanging f-holes (to facilitate some sound projection upwards towards the player's ears), and a zero fret.


Of course, the Grand Concert in Joe's hands sounds very nice and he is an amazing player. I believe, IIRC, that this mandolin has a longer scale possibly close to 15 inches. 

BTW tho of no comparison at all to Joe's instruments, Lloyd Loar's ViViTone mandolins have a spruce back with f-holes but I don't think they have a double soundboard like any of the ones discussed here.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## JeffD

> One other aspect of a fine-toned instrument to me is that it has excellent tone as well as evenness through its range. Easy to do in the lower positions but hard to do in the stratosphere.



I agree exactly. 



> ... but I also find that in the Lyon & Healy ... .


Yes I have a Lyon and Healy, strung with Thomastiks, and it is wonderfully even up and down the neck.

----------

Jim Garber

----------


## crisscross

> Yes I have a Lyon and Healy, strung with Thomastiks, and it is wonderfully even up and down the neck.


That's what I was thinking spontaneously: there are already lots of bowlbacks out there, but a nice mandolin with the essential features of a L&H at an affordable price would surely find its followers.

----------


## Tavy

Very interesting discussion, many thanks to everyone who's contributed!  A few factors stand out:

Nut Width: several of you have expressed a preference for a wider nut, which somewhat surprised me.  Now in the interests of full disclosure, I like a wide nut myself, in fact my main mandolin has a 34mm nut which is about as wide as you can go and still be a mandolin I suspect?  Hard to tell from photo's but Woll's instruments seem to have fairly wide nuts, and even L&H at ~30mm are a little wider than the usual 28mm or less.

Higher register: despite the requirement for a decent number of frets, I always find most bowlbacks (for example) less than easy to play in the higher registers due to the 10th fret body join.  The Kerman design has the same issue, maybe even exaggerated due to the bulbous body?

Technique: you are all of course dead right on that being primary.  It is of great regret that I always sound like me, no matter what I'm playing on  :Wink: 

Neck profile: Like others I also find a very sharp V rather painful to play on, I can do it, but a broader rounder neck is just more comfortable for me.  That said, there are only really two mandolin neck profiles: V or club, it's just a question of how sharp the V is!

Thanks again, John.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Martin Jonas

> Nut Width: several of you have expressed a preference for a wider nut, which somewhat surprised me.  Now in the interests of full disclosure, I like a wide nut myself, in fact my main mandolin has a 34mm nut which is about as wide as you can go and still be a mandolin I suspect?  Hard to tell from photo's but Woll's instruments seem to have fairly wide nuts, and even L&H at ~30mm are a little wider than the usual 28mm or less.
> [...]
> 
> Neck profile: Like others I also find a very sharp V rather painful to play on, I can do it, but a broader rounder neck is just more comfortable for me.  That said, there are only really two mandolin neck profiles: V or club, it's just a question of how sharp the V is!


"Wide" nut is all relative.  I have a Mid-Mo with the wide nut option, and the width is 31mm.  I presume Robert's custom Mid-Mo was the same.  On the other end of the range, my Embergher has a nut width of 24mm.  So, the range between a distinctly wide nut and a distinctly narrow one is only about 7mm and these differences don't necessarily follow through into string spacing, depending on how the nut is cut.

I have instruments with a shallow U-shape neck (Ceccherini), deep club neck (Mid-Mo, Gibson Ajr) and distinct V neck (Embergher) and the differences don't particularly affect my technique or playing comfort -- probably a reflection of my non-virtuoso level of playing.  The V-neck is probably the most comfortable for me as it follows my hand shape the best, but it's no biggie.

Martin

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## crisscross

> "Wide" nut is all relative. I have a Mid-Mo with the wide nut option, and the width is 31mm. I presume Robert's custom Mid-Mo was the same. On the other end of the range, my Embergher has a nut width of 24mm. So, the range between a distinctly wide nut and a distinctly narrow one is only about 7mm and these differences don't necessarily follow through into string spacing, depending on how the nut is cut.


But 3mm can make a huge difference, at least to me. On my Suzuki, the nut width is 28 mm, on my new Jacob it is 31 mm.
I always liked the Milonga by Marlo Strauss, which consists of a crosspicking pattern with broken chords.
There's one chord d(0)-b flat(1)-e(0) that I never got right on my Suzuki. No matter how I put the first finger, it either muted the D-string or the e-string.
With my new Jacob mandolin, it's no problem to play the b flat on the a-string and have the two adjacent open strings ring.
So I guess it's a matter of what you intend to play on your mandolin:
-if it's mostly melodic stuff, a narrow nut will do
-if there are broken chords included, where every note is supposed to ring out, something like 3mm fits nicely
Something like that, that's why most German Bowlbacks have a wider nut.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Jim Garber

----------


## Jim Garber

> Nut Width: several of you have expressed a preference for a wider nut, which somewhat surprised me.  Now in the interests of full disclosure, I like a wide nut myself, in fact my main mandolin has a 34mm nut which is about as wide as you can go and still be a mandolin I suspect?  Hard to tell from photo's but Woll's instruments seem to have fairly wide nuts, and even L&H at ~30mm are a little wider than the usual 28mm or less.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Neck profile: Like others I also find a very sharp V rather painful to play on, I can do it, but a broader rounder neck is just more comfortable for me.  That said, there are only really two mandolin neck profiles: V or club, it's just a question of how sharp the V is!


Just to address a couple of things. Personally, I prefer the average neck width 1-1/8" (28.5mm) and can deal with 1-1/4" (31.75mm) if I have to. Of course my Embergher is even narrower but that is all right. I adjust to that. I think the German approach stems from its relation to guitar playing and a different technique vs. the Roman more from violin playing hence the more triangular and narrow neck (tho of course violins do not have a sharply triangular neck).

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Martin Jonas

> But 3mm can make a huge difference, at least to me. On my Suzuki, the nut width is 28 mm, on my new Jacob it is 31 mm.
> I always liked the Milonga by Marlo Strauss, which consists of a crosspicking pattern with broken chords.
> There's one chord d(0)-b flat(1)-e(0) that I never got right on my Suzuki. No matter how I put the first finger, it either muted the D-string or the e-string.
> With my new Jacob mandolin, it's no problem to play the b flat on the a-string and have the two adjacent open strings ring.
> So I guess it's a matter of what you intend to play on your mandolin:
> -if it's mostly melodic stuff, a narrow nut will do
> -if there are broken chords included, where every note is supposed to ring out, something like 3mm fits nicely
> Something like that, that's why most German Bowlbacks have a wider nut.


I find that I play double stops and chords differently on the Embergher compared to the Mid-Mo.  The Embergher is so narrow that it's entirely possible to cleanly stop two adjacent courses with one fingertip with a minimum of flattening out or changing attitude.  On the Mid-Mo, there is enough space to play the same chord with two separate fingers, with neither muting the adjacent strings.

The "standard" nut width is somewhere in between, and to some extent that's the least favourable compromise for adjacent fifths and chords: you can't cleanly stop two courses with one finger and don't have enough space to fit two fingers next to each other.

All depends on the width of your fingertips and the angle of your fingers to fretboard, of course -- the violinistic hold has fingers at 45 deg angle to the frets, and the Embergher is optimised for that, whereas the guitaristic hold has the fingers more or less parallel to the frets which is impossible with an Embergher.

Martin

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> But 3mm can make a huge difference, at least to me........
> With my new Jacob mandolin, it's no problem to play the b flat on the a-string and have the two adjacent open strings ring.
> So I guess it's a matter of what you intend to play on your mandolin:
> -if it's mostly melodic stuff, a narrow nut will do
> -if there are broken chords included, *where every note is supposed to ring out,* something like 3mm fits nicely
> Something like that, that's why most German Bowlbacks have a wider nut.


That's the compromise - good neck feel and nut width for melodic lines but wide enough to play chords cleanly.




> I think the German approach stems from its relation to guitar playing and a different technique vs. the Roman more from violin playing hence the more triangular and narrow neck (tho of course violins do not have a sharply triangular neck).


Good point about violin-based technique and guitar-based technique. I feel I use a mixture, being a pro guitarist and a barely-competent violinist.

On mandolin I may favor a slightly more violinistic approach.

The deep-V Roman necks seem to really want you to use a left hand position closer to violin than guitar.




> All depends on the width of your fingertips and the angle of your fingers to fretboard, of course -- *the violinistic hold has fingers at 45 deg angle to the frets, and the Embergher is optimised* for that, whereas the* guitaristic hold* has the fingers more or less parallel to the frets which is impossible with an Embergher.
> 
> Martin


Good way of expressing it.

I find myself mixing it - melodic stuff I tend to play more like violin position, chords more guitar fashion.

This is a great thread, thanks everyone.

----------


## Hany Hayek

Wow this discussion is great. 
I have to agree the world you are coming from will make all the difference. If you played violin you'll like everything smaller  :Smile: 
I come from the violin world and I too find the narrow neck of my Italian bowl backs very comfortable. I have a Vincenzo Miroglio e figli with approx 26 mm nut width, a round neck, and found it very comfortable to play. My second bowl back a Cramelo Catania with a nut of 28 is the max my small hands can handle. both have 33 cm scale.
Then I got my flat back Egildo, and he copies the Embergher although mine is a flat back, but from description I read here, I have a V neck and 26 mm nut and that is really comfortable for meto play. The 34 cm scale bothers me a little. 
With only 33 cm scale the Vincenzo has a very clear sound all the way up to the 17th fret as it does not have an extended finger board. So far the Munier books I used never got me beyond the LA at fret 17  :Smile: 
Although it's clear to me after 5 years of playing that it is not a violin, I will always think of my mandolin as a fretted violin played with a pick. I even got myself a violin teacher  :Smile:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Charlieshafer

> BTW tho of no comparison at all to Joe's instruments, Lloyd Loar's ViViTone mandolins have a spruce back with f-holes but I don't think they have a double soundboard like any of the ones discussed here.


Joe mentions that the double soundboard really isn;t that at all. The interior soundboard is a full plate, not like a Virzi, and does all the work. The true back of the instrument is there just to hold the thing together, and functions more like a toneguard, so when he holds the instrument, the interior soundboard can vibrate freely. An interesting concept.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## crisscross

Just played my Bruni Jacobs Orchestra model and here's a few points I lke about  it:

-wide nut(31mm)
-round neck profile
-a little larger shape than an Italian mando
-zero fret( no need to see a luthier to get rid of intonation problems on the lower frets)
-21 frets (no extension getting in the way of the pick)
-Short scale lenght (33mm)

It has a maple bowl and should I ever decide to add one with a rosewood bowl, it will have most of the criteria mentioned, especially the wide fingerboard and the round neck profile. I come from a guitar background, and being able to play ringing open chords is one of the assets of a stringed instrument, at least for me...

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

> Joe mentions that the double soundboard really isn;t that at all. The interior soundboard is a full plate, not like a Virzi, and does all the work. The true back of the instrument is there just to hold the thing together, and functions more like a toneguard, so when he holds the instrument, the interior soundboard can vibrate freely. An interesting concept.


The oddity of Joe and Brian's design is that the top is walnut and the soundboard that does all the work would be the backboard of most instruments. I would like to know how and why the spruce interior soundboard "does all the work" when the bridge is still situated on the walnut top. We would need an acoustic engineer (paging Dr. Cohen!!) to explain what the difference is and what the effect soundwise is.  I agree that a Virzi would not be considered a double soundboard since it is not a full plate. I am not sure why Joe would say that the mandolin does not have a double soundboard. Generally a stringed instrument soundboard should have some direct connection to the vibrations cause by exciting the strings. In that case the top, whatever substance it is made from, would be the primary soundboard and any other plate would be a secondary soundboard (esp if it were connected, say, by a soundpost of some sort). So this mandolin is set up with a hardwood primary soundboard and a spruce secondary one, the opposite of most standard mandolins,

It would be great if we could get Joe or Brian to comment on the design of this instrument and what their collaborative aim was in designing it.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## crisscross

> I have to agree the world you are coming from will make all the difference. If you played violin you'll like everything smaller


I would add that, if the music you play was conceived for the violin, a narrow nut works fine, even if you have absolutely no violin background, In the Ranieri method, there are a lot of violin duets by F.Mazas, and I enjoy playing them on my Suzuki. I can even imagine playing them on a smaller nut mandolin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnhznYaMAAQ

On the other hand, there are those mandolin solo pieces by Marlo Straus or Hugh Boyde (Astute music) where the mandolin is treated more like classical guitar, with open strings and fretted notes ringing into each other, and for that kind of music, my Jacob bowlback with a wider nut opened up a whole new world of possibilities.
OK, before I got it, I played this kind of pieces on my mando-tuned uke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7NhpJ4jCrA

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Martin Jonas

> The oddity of Joe and Brian's design is that the top is walnut and the soundboard that does all the work would be the backboard of most instruments. I would like to know how and why the spruce interior soundboard "does all the work" when the bridge is still situated on the walnut top. We would need an acoustic engineer (paging Dr. Cohen!!) to explain what the difference is and what the effect soundwise is.  I agree that a Virzi would not be considered a double soundboard since it is not a full plate. I am not sure why Joe would say that the mandolin does not have a double soundboard. Generally a stringed instrument soundboard should have some direct connection to the vibrations cause by exciting the strings. In that case the top, whatever substance it is made from, would be the primary soundboard and any other plate would be a secondary soundboard (esp if it were connected, say, by a soundpost of some sort). So this mandolin is set up with a hardwood primary soundboard and a spruce secondary one, the opposite of most standard mandolins,
> 
> It would be great if we could get Joe or Brian to comment on the design of this instrument and what their collaborative aim was in designing it.


I wonder whether Brian may have been influenced by the Harry Garmont mandolin from 1951 -- see the plans and descriptions in this old thread:

Link

Garmont's design also had a carved second soundboard in the middle of the sound chamber.  In that case, the second soundboard was connected to the top and the bridge by a soundpost, presumably for the very reason you have mentioned.  It also had f-holes in the top and the back (Vivitone style).

Martin

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

> I wonder whether Brian may have been influenced by the Harry Garmont mandolin from 1951 -- see the plans and descriptions in this old thread:
> 
> Link
> 
> Garmont's design also had a carved second soundboard in the middle of the sound chamber.  In that case, the second soundboard was connected to the top and the bridge by a soundpost, presumably for the very reason you have mentioned.  It also had f-holes in the top and the back (Vivitone style).
> 
> Martin


Hah! Watch it, Martin. I got into a bit of hot water years ago after suggesting that there were precursors to Mr Dean's creations. BTW another interesting multiple soundboarded instrument was the 1906 Martin Model America. 

From Eric Schoenberg's web site:



> A museum quality example of possibly the most unique and exotic guitar ever made by Martin. There was a second one made, of which very little of the original instrument remains, while this one is fully original and in excellent condition. It is an 0-28 with a second, thinner body attached with fancy ebony pins behind the first, complete with soundhole and herringbone binding. There had been a soundpost linking the two bodies which has been removed, assumably by the original owner soon after receiving the guitar in 1906. The bridge is unique and quite different. Not playable at the moment.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Beanzy

I'll have to admit to being a bit bemused by the swerve into the obscure and rare sidings of mandolin experiments in a thread about what makes a classical mandolin. By the very nature of their obscurity and relative rarity I would have thought they would be more curios rather than defining designs.

However they possibly indicate that the world of the classical mandolin is not a conservative one from either a design or an acoustic perspective in the same way as something like Bluegrass would be. Maybe by the very nature of our presence in the "classical" genres we are already revealed as being outré in our musical tastes. From what I have observed on the Cafe and in the UK, we like to explore and experiment with different sounds depending on the sub-set of music we are exploring. This is definitely not the case in the more established German & Italian 'schools'. There is a continuing tension between conformity and experimentation in those areas; I observe a hunger to be taken into the larger classical music framework, by codifying and formalising approaches to give coherence and a well defined identifiable sound, in the two main 'schools' and on the other hand there are the more anarchic individualists who pursue the interesting and experimental innovations with crossover from anywhere interesting. 

Here in the UK we are a bit of a rabble in this respect, just getting us together is an achievement in itself, to try to define a form or style for our mandolins would be to guarantee failure. Even on a personal basis I still find it impossible to decide which mandolin would be definable as my "classical" one. I move between them depending on which factors I need for the given pieces I am playing. Even then I get further tonal changes with different plectra & strings, which is a whole other game in itself. The advantage of the formalised approach in an ensemble situation is that you no longer have that problem to resolve, you take your sound to the pieces and focus on the perfection of the ensemble. In an orchestral setting I would opt to be a mandoloncellist or mandolist as physically that would be my place, even if technically I would enjoy the mandolin parts.

My only needs in a mandolin spec are; 
Enough room at the nut(33mm) for enabling proper duo-style and chord arpeggios without inadvertent muting of strings. (I currently also play a Calace with a 1" nut that I would find hard to part with, unless it were a similar sounding one with a wide nut. I am very unimpressed with the sound of many wide nut bowlback offerings)
A deep enough body to give a resonsence and some complexity to the tone.
A V shaped neck to give a comfortable surface for the side of my thumb to rest on.
I'm not too fussed about scale length as for me whatever scale chosen becomes normal after proper a warm-up.
Aesthetics are vital. I don't need nor would I want to play an instrument that was not aesthetically beautiful.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Tavy

Many thanks for all thoughts, still very interested/surprised in the nut width question, and I think crisscross and others have it spot on: a wider board makes open ringing chords so much easier.  As I actually spend most of my time playing folky stuff with, yes, open chords, it makes perfect sense why I have come to prefer a wider neck, even though I'm perfectly happy playing single note lines on "standard" neck widths.

With regard to the Dean/Kerman second sound boards, I have always believed these to function much the same, more like an "inner back" than a true second soundboard (Ceccherini) or a soundboard modifier (Virzi).

Consider: when it come to trebles, the material used for the top is probably far less important than folks realise, and the sound is generated by direct radiation from the top with only a little contribution from the body.  If you want to know what a mandolin sounds like with all the contribution from the body taken out, and a distinctly non-standard top material, listen to this electric mandolin from _9:20 onwards_, there's a pretty chunky block of wood joining top to back under the bridge to make sure all the body modes are killed dead (for feedback suppression):




Then consider that all parts of the body will "feel" the vibrations from the strings, normally the back is:

a) Heavier than the top.
b) Pressed against the owners body.

And so it's ability to resonate compared to the top is reduced.

But, if you have an "internal back" that's non-structural, then you can make it super-lightweight with hardly any bracing at all, and now if anything, most of the vibrational energy will tend to propagate to the "thing that's easiest to move" - the internal back.  I can't help but wonder what would happen if a synthetic membrane was used in that location... OK bad idea for maintenance... and would probably sound like some kind of banjo-mandolin hybrid, but you get the idea.

----------

Beanzy, 

DavidKOS

----------


## Beanzy

If you're a mando-hugger maybe you should experiment with a hinged version of the grand piano lid to integrate your own tone preserver? It could be made very light and of just enough material to do the job for you while being collapsable enough to fit a standard case.  I prefer to do the high/45 deg hold which keeps it free and the back clear so not an issue.

----------


## Charlieshafer

In answer to Tavy, Beanzy and Jim's comments, I'll be seeing Joe in a couple of weeks, and make sure to ask him what they were all thinking. The volume and tone coming from it are both excellent, so whatever is happening works. 

In general, the whole lutherie world tends to perhaps get a little too carried away with tradition. The proven ideas absolutely do work, but do others work better? Remember the Balsa violins?

----------


## Tavy

> If you're a mando-hugger maybe you should experiment with a hinged version of the grand piano lid to integrate your own tone preserver? It could be made very light and of just enough material to do the job for you while being collapsable enough to fit a standard case.  I prefer to do the high/45 deg hold which keeps it free and the back clear so not an issue.


I'm not a mando-hugger myself - although some can be quite cute  :Wink:  - but in any case the tone-guard has already been invented.  The aim of an internal back goes beyond that: to completely separate structural integrity from sound production.

----------


## Jim Garber

> I'll have to admit to being a bit bemused by the swerve into the obscure and rare sidings of mandolin experiments in a thread about what makes a classical mandolin. By the very nature of their obscurity and relative rarity I would have thought they would be more curios rather than defining designs.
> 
> However they possibly indicate that the world of the classical mandolin is not a conservative one from either a design or an acoustic perspective in the same way as something like Bluegrass would be.


Eoin: the swerve you mention derives from John's initial mention here:



> I'm naturally drawn to the designs of Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini, and am sorely tempted to build a Kerman clone just to see what they're like.  On the other hand, perhaps folks just want a decent sounding instrument and all this extra stuff is superfluous?


As for the conservative question, if you look at the different schools of classical playing, within those groups you have a general same choice which has to do with certain tonal requirements and differing playing techniques. Thus, the mandolins that the German school players prefer are wide bodied, wide necked and using T-I strings. The top Israeli players all seem to gravitate to the Kerman instruments. Please let me know if there are some Israeli classical players who do not other than those who cannot afford them. The Ranieri-derived players like Emberghers, playing with light round-wound strings and often using the long pointed Ranieri/Roman picks and other Italians like Calace, Vinaccia or similar Italian instruments. American classical players seem to use almost anything but Lyon & Healy are considered to be mainly for classical music. The Japanese used to prefer Calace since Raffaele visited there about 1905 and started an interest in classical mandolin paying that survives to this day.I can't speak for other areas tho I know at least one Australian, Marisa Carroll who prefers Lyon & Healy.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

> If you're a mando-hugger maybe you should experiment with a hinged version of the grand piano lid to integrate your own tone preserver? It could be made very light and of just enough material to do the job for you while being collapsable enough to fit a standard case.  I prefer to do the high/45 deg hold which keeps it free and the back clear so not an issue.





> I'm not a mando-hugger myself - although some can be quite cute  - but in any case the tone-guard has already been invented.  The aim of an internal back goes beyond that: to completely separate structural integrity from sound production.


I have not tried this, but I would imagine that if you could clip a violin shoulder rest to the back of your flatback, you could keep it away from your sound-reducing abdomen.

Not to get too far off the beaten track but here is the circa 1890 version of the Tone-Guard. This is on a Romito & Carbone mandolin and marked patented by G. B. Marchisio.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Not to get too far off the beaten track but here is the circa 1890 version of the Tone-Guard. This is on a Romito & Carbone mandolin and marked patented by G. B. Marchisio.


That looks like a mandolin chastity belt. Ouch.

----------


## Beanzy

> That looks like a mandolin chastity belt. Ouch.


Keeping a pure tone, faithful to the original.

----------

Charlieshafer, 

DavidKOS

----------


## Tavy

> I have not tried this, but I would imagine that if you could clip a violin shoulder rest to the back of your flatback, you could keep it away from your sound-reducing abdomen.
> 
> Not to get too far off the beaten track but here is the circa 1890 version of the Tone-Guard. This is on a Romito & Carbone mandolin and marked patented by G. B. Marchisio.


Kind of steam-punk actually, or may be the Borg visited Earth in a past epoch?

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

Just another example of how inventive minds try to find solutions to chastity or extended tummies.  :Smile:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## brunello97

> Hah! Watch it, Martin. I got into a bit of hot water years ago after suggesting that there were precursors to Mr Dean's creations....


Really....?  :Whistling: 

Mick

----------


## DougC

Brian Dean has made a Lyon & Healy style mandolin. Some here have played it at the CMSA conferences. 

http://www.labraid.ca/lyon-healy/

----------


## Charlieshafer

> Brian Dean has made a Lyon & Healy style mandolin. Some here have played it at the CMSA conferences. 
> 
> http://www.labraid.ca/lyon-healy/


That one ups Lyon and Healy, for sure

----------


## Jim Garber

> Brian Dean has made a Lyon & Healy style mandolin. Some here have played it at the CMSA conferences. 
> 
> http://www.labraid.ca/lyon-healy/


What was your opinion of that, say compared to L&H original mandolins.

----------


## DougC

> What was your opinion of that, say compared to L&H original mandolins.


Jim,
I'm sorry I can't answer the question because I have not played an original. I mentioned that others have played it at CMSA so they might comment.

----------


## crisscross

Peter Coombe also builds a nice Lyon& Healy style mandolin, but with a more basic headstock design.

You have the choice between 33cm and 35cm scale length.
I guess for me, the shorter scale length is one of the essential factors of a classical mandolin.
Whether it's a bowlback, flattop or an archtop. that's the builder's busines.

I'm still waiting for a L&H Copy with a shorter scale by Collings. :Wink:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## mrmando2015

I'll second, or maybe fifth lol, the desire for a wide fingerboard. I would also like a built in pick up, that would be classier than a mic. Personally, I'm not fond of the shorter scale though. Flatbacks are great too. I'm excited to see what you come up with.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

Can I make a comment here that the soundboard on the Labraid is actually at the back. It functions as a back. It is different than some of the Italian bowlbacks which had a separate soundboard at the top which were  mechanically coupled to the top. So Ceccherinis therefore have a second soundboard (which is usually defined as being mechanically joined to the bridge in some way, and not driven just by air movement and the movement of the sides, which I would call a "back"). Of course for marketing purposes it's been acceptable, or at least tolerated, to call any internal spruce plate a sound board, but that can get confusing.
No idea how the Kerman functions, or where the internal "sound board" is located on those.

----------

Jim Garber

----------


## derbex

So we're all agreed then, a classical mandolin is a mandolin one plays classical music on  :Smile: 

For me it would be about the tone, it should be bright and clear -volume is nice too. Of my mandolins the bowlbacks and the flattops have it and the carved top doesn't. So although it's perfectly possible and even pleasant to play classical music on the Flatiron, it doesn't sound right, not bright and the mid range is too strong.

----------

crisscross, 

DavidKOS, 

Jim Garber

----------


## Jim Garber

> So we're all agreed then, a classical mandolin is a mandolin one plays classical music on


It seems that this is the same conclusion for the jazz mandolin thread.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Tavy

> Can I make a comment here that the soundboard on the Labraid is actually at the back. It functions as a back. It is different than some of the Italian bowlbacks which had a separate soundboard at the top which were  mechanically coupled to the top. So Ceccherinis therefore have a second soundboard (which is usually defined as being mechanically joined to the bridge in some way, and not driven just by air movement and the movement of the sides, which I would call a "back"). Of course for marketing purposes it's been acceptable, or at least tolerated, to call any internal spruce plate a sound board, but that can get confusing.
> No idea how the Kerman functions, or where the internal "sound board" is located on those.


I think we're all in more or less violent agreement here, we basically have:

* Virzi's: directly attached to the soundboard, some sort of "tone modifier".
* Ceccherini: located just below the top, but attached to the sides.  Additional sound board shouldn't effect the resonance of the top (like a Virzi) as such, except that it's so close to it that there must be some loose coupling via air movement as well as it "feeling" the vibrations directly.
* Dean: really an internal back, and functions as such, albeit made from spruce and much lighter/thinner than a conventional back.
* Kerman: more or less an internal back like the Dean, but has a soundhole linking the two chambers (I think Dean experimented with this at least once?) and uniquely, the rear chamber has vents to the front (again I think Dean built at least one like this, but that vented to the back?).

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Martin Jonas

> * Ceccherini: located just below the top, but attached to the sides.  Additional sound board shouldn't effect the resonance of the top (like a Virzi) as such, except that it's so close to it that there must be some loose coupling via air movement as well as it "feeling" the vibrations directly.


A bit more complex than that, from what I can see on mine (without taking it apart): Ceccherini has a thin internal spruce soundboard which is almost (but not quite) the entire width of the bowl and is suspended about a centimetre below the external soundboard.  It attaches with wooden tags to the very ends of the transverse braces, but not actually to the sides.  There is also a small circular soundhole linking the main chamber to the narrow chamber between the two soundboard.

There is also Gelas who has two soundboards at an angle to each other so that the rear board is part-external and part-internal and in its internal part forms the separation between the two chambers.  The bridge attaches to the reard board in a way that the string tension pulls the soundboard up rather than presses it down.  The bridge also exerts a torque on the board.  The forward soundboard is external but has no connection to the strings.  Both soundboards have aligned oval soundholes and both are made of spruce.  It's not clear to me whether the forward soundboard is at all acoustically active.

Martin

----------


## Sevelos

The mandolin of Caterina Lichtenberg (in the video posted above), completely knocked me out! Such an amazing instrument.
Does anybody know who built it for her, or what make it is?

----------


## crisscross

Do you mean this one?



According to the comments to this video, it's a Seiffert model built by Alfred Woll.
I read somewhere that he currently has a waiting list of seven years.
I'm also thinking of adding a Seiffert model to my collection, but seven years, come on, that'll be the last year of...

----------

DavidKOS, 

Sevelos

----------


## Sevelos

Thanks Crisscross, actually, I meant that one:




They are probably by the same maker, they look similar.
Yes, 7 years... pity. Such wonderful instruments, in the same price range as good, mid-range American mandolins.

----------


## crisscross

> For me it would be about the tone, it should be bright and clear -volume is nice too. Of my mandolins the bowlbacks and the flattops have it and the carved top doesn't. So although it's perfectly possible and even pleasant to play classical music on the Flatiron, it doesn't sound right, not bright and the mid range is too strong.


That kind od nails it, you rather want a kind of a delicate sound to play classical music than a rustic midrangy one. (OK, I'm not good at describing sound qualities...)
But it doesn't depend on the mandolin only, but also on the strings used, the pick, the way you attack the strings.

On my Breedlove FF, I have my favorite Fisoma strings and picked it with the pointed edge of a small teardrop pick.


Sounds kind of classical? OK,the Breedlove in itself probably doesn't sound as mid-rangy as a Gibson.

For comparison: My newest acquisition, a Japanese Torella bowlback.
To me, it feels more classical because of the shorter scale length, but the Sound?
OK, it's no Calace, Embergher or De Meglio. :Wink:

----------

DavidKOS, 

derbex, 

Jess L.

----------


## derbex

Well played on those two, I had forgotten how pretty that Waltz is. I slightly prefer the Torella but I  would find the Breedlove perfectly acceptable.

I am not sure delicacy is exactly the word, I had an expensive trip to the luthiers the other day -it was meant to be a cheap repair to the Flatiron but I walked out with a 1916 Calace. Delicate it isn't, maybe precise, but it shouts.

I use the same model of plectrum across all my mandolins now, but they do have different strings. The Flatiron currently has Daddario flatwounds on it but I put in an order to Thomann and have some Dogal Calace and Fisomas to try out. The Fisomas were for the Calace but I seem to have got medium weight strings and I daren't put them on it.

----------


## Martin Jonas

> The Fisomas were for the Calace but I seem to have got medium weight strings and I daren't put them on it.


At least in their bronzewound strings, what Fisoma call "medium" is the same gauge as their "Consort" set which is specifically intended for vintage bowlbacks.  The difference is that the "medium" set has a plain A string and the Consort has a wound A string.  They'll be perfectly fine for your Calace -- I use them on my Ceccherini and Embergher.

Martin

----------


## derbex

Thanks Martin, the packaging is rather confusing, They call themselves Fisoma Consort 80/20 Bronze FR3020, and then list two sets of gauges Light .009 .013 .022 .032 and Medium .010 .014 .025 .035 -my set have nothing to indicate which it is, but comparing e strings with other makers I'd guess they are .10s rather than .009s, which would make them medium. They do say they are made for historic instruments. 

The idea was to compare a few different sets and see which I preferred. When I bought it, it had Martins on it which were dramatic but the tuning and intonation were all over the place yesterday. I have put GHS Ultra Lights on it today which seem a bit calmer I'll give it a couple of days and maybe try Dogol Calace and possibly the Fisomas after that.

----------


## Martin Jonas

> Thanks Martin, the packaging is rather confusing, They call themselves Fisoma Consort 80/20 Bronze FR3020, and then list two sets of gauges Light .009 .013 .022 .032 and Medium .010 .014 .025 .035 -my set have nothing to indicate which it is, but comparing e strings with other makers I'd guess they are .10s rather than .009s, which would make them medium. They do say they are made for historic instruments.


They're the mediums.  The packaging is indeed rather confusing -- the Consorts are made ONLY in medium, and have slightly different string gauges than the medium gauges given on the back of the pack.  

The confusion arises because this is a custom set made in small volumes, originally specifically for Alex Timmermann's Het Consort (hence the name), but now also sold through Trekel and Schneider.  It's not listed on Fisoma's own webpage, which shows only the light and medium.  For the Consort, they use the same pack as for the standard light/medium sets, but do not tick either of the boxes on the front showing which gauge it is.  Instead, they overprint the pack with "Consort Saiten fuer historische Qualitaets-Mandolinen" ("strings for high-end vintage mandolins").

As I said, these are the gauges Alex specified for Embergher mandolins.  I've been using them a lot for my own bowlbacks, without any problems.  The gauges will be fine for your Calace.  When you try them, be aware that they take some settling in and will change in character during the first week or so of playing (and possibly longer).

The Consort set has the wound A string, which sounds very nice indeed and also improves intonation if your Calace has a straight non-compensated bridge.

Martin

----------


## derbex

Thanks again Martin, I think I've got it now  :Smile: 

FWIW mine came from Thomann

----------


## Charlieshafer

Last night I had the opportunity to talk with Joe Brent before his show. We looked it over (not like he doesn't do that every day, but it was my first chance), he explained some of the hidden details, and i got to play it a bit. Overall, the only thing that seems to cause some confusion are the internal soundboard and the choice of top material. Joe chose walnut as he wanted to have a slightly darker sound than a conventional top. It does have that tone, but also is incredibly bright and clear when playing up the fretboard. The longer scale length, by just a little, accommodates the zero fret and the fact that Joe wants to be able to play any and all styles of music, and wants the slight bit of extra space, especially when considering the low c string on the ten string.

As to the internal soundboard, it's more like an internal sealed chamber. In the first version, Brian thought a small vent hole in the true back was necessary, as the vibrations could break the thing apart. In the later version, the one I saw, the space between the inner spruce soundboard and the back was sealed tight. I'm guessing the depth of the main interior space is about 3", and the second sealed chamber at about 1 inch. I'm sure more accurate dimensions are available. Regardless of theory, the Dean is very loud, very clear and precise, and the sustain was the same as on a much larger-bodied instrument, more on par with my mandocello. It was a pretty stunning result. And, you can play any style of music on it you'd want. The results are strictly up to the player. Pretty impressive beast.

----------

Jim Garber

----------


## Bob A

> The mandolin of Caterina Lichtenberg (in the video posted above), completely knocked me out! Such an amazing instrument.
> Does anybody know who built it for her, or what make it is?


Looks like Alfred Woll. You can see is label, with letters gradually revealed as the instrument moves about, thru the soundhole.

----------

Sevelos

----------


## JeffD

I was lucky enough at FMCM, while test driving Jacob Reuven's Kerman, to have him try my Lyon and Healy Style A. I have it strung with Thomastik Infeld Mittel Flatwound strings. After giving it a blistering workout, he spontaneously offered very nice things to say about it and played it for a little while. I thought he was genuine.

A few days later he tried my Stiver two point, (with ff holes). I string it with D'Addario J75s. It is very bluegrassy, thick and rich, very focused. Jacob did not care for it. He played a few scales and said something to the effect that "you can't play brightly on this" as he handed it back to me.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> I was lucky enough at FMCM, while test driving Jacob Reuven's Kerman,


and what about the Kerman?

please

----------


## JeffD

> and what about the Kerman?


http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/en...the-end-of-MAS

Take this with a grain of salt. Not that I didn't mean it, all of it, but I am a fanboy and prone to fits of enthusiasm and dare I say hyperbole.

Just sayin...

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/en...the-end-of-MAS
> 
> Take this with a grain of salt. Not that I didn't mean it, all of it, but I am a fanboy and prone to fits of enthusiasm and dare I say hyperbole.
> 
> Just sayin...


How did I miss that before?

I appreciate the review.

BTW, how did it compare with a high-end Italian bowlback?

----------


## JeffD

I haven't played a lot of high end Italian bowls. Many years ago I played an old Embergher. Many variables different, the age of the instrument, its condition, etc. Also comparing a recent memory with an old memory is dicey. 

I can make a few general comments. My bowls are all American made turn of the last century. Good condition most of them and I play them often. And they can be loud. My experience, in general, with bowls is that they often have a different character at different volumes. Even my best bowl, a Martin Style 3, has a different kind of tone when played loud, or very soft. 

I remember being surprised how great Yaki's Kerman sounded at low volume. It was the same mandolin at low volume as high. Which would be, of course, important when using the full dynamic range of the instrument in an expressive way.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## InvisibleWaa

I am just wrote this 70th reply for to take off subliminality of 69 number from front of people's eyes.

----------


## astein2006

> OK, let's assume you can make a non-bowl scroll-less classical mandolin.
> 
> I want the following features:
> 
> Typical shorter Italian bowlback scale length; I assume that is for "13" scale and light strings"
> 
> At least 27 frets
> 
> A neck not too wide but wide enough to play 4 note chords
> ...


Thinking of having one built also. What wood did he use for back, sides and top? Also neck wood?

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Thinking of having one built also. What wood did he use for back, sides and top? Also neck wood?


Neck was figured maple, ebony fingerboard, aged redwood top, and rosewood back and sides.

It came out quite nice!

https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/s...=1#post1603492

----------


## Jim Garber

Any soundclips of you playing this mandolin, David? What strings do you have on it?

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Any soundclips of you playing this mandolin, David? What strings do you have on it?


No sound clips yet, sorry.

It has roundwound 10's, and that's as heavy as I would want on this instrument.

----------


## Jim Garber

You might want to try my favorite strings which are the Dogal Calace RW92b Dolce. Unfortunately, I see that Bernunzio is out of stock. I just emailed them to see if they are still carrying them.

Was this instrument designed to work with the lighter strings?

----------


## August Watters

Strings by Mail is carrying the Dogal Calace strings now. And they have the Dogal picks too!

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

Thanks, August.

I just heard from Bernunzio's:




> Yes, they are on back order and should by here is a few weeks.

----------

August Watters

----------


## Hany Hayek

> Neck was figured maple, ebony fingerboard, aged redwood top, and rosewood back and sides.
> 
> It came out quite nice!


Congrats. We'll be waiting for that sound clip

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Tavy

Wow, I can't believe it's been over a year since I started this discussion!

After several false starts and one scrapped prototype (don't ask!), I now have a pair of prototypes: one conventional mandolin, and one with a deeper body and internal Kerman-style second soundboard (or internal back if you prefer).  No sound clips yet, but in the mean time here's some eye candy.  What I can tell you though is that they're chalk-and-cheese in terms of sound, completely different, despite building them as similar as I could except for the internal thingamajig.  Scale length is 34cm, slightly longer than most bowlbacks, but the same as most Ceccherini's though.... I personally find that a better compromise between increased reach vs cramped frets.

----------


## Jim Garber

John:Nice work. It looks like the back and sides (of at least one or both?) are mahogany and one (I am guessing) has a cedar top and one spruce? And these are induced arched flattops?

I wonder tho, esp if they are aimed to classical players, the neck access at fret 13. The Kerman instruments have an oval profile vs. your guitar-shape and I would think it necessary to at least provide easy access to the upper frets. Of course, that may be the case, however I cannot play one in person to affirm that. Was there a reason to go with that shape of body over any other and not include a cutaway (like Lyon and Healy)?

I didn't read through the whole thread again, but I also was wondering why the choice of mahogany over maple or rosewood.

----------


## Tavy

> John:Nice work. It looks like the back and sides (of at least one or both?) are mahogany and one (I am guessing) has a cedar top and one spruce? And these are induced arched flattops?


All good questions Jim!

Both Mahogany back and sides, both sitka spruce tops, one dyed a "pumpkin" colour.  Originally these would have had tops off the same piece of spruce, but as I said, one body got scrapped  :Frown:   And yes, induced arch (unlike the Kerman which is sort of necessarily dead flat).




> I wonder tho, esp if they are aimed to classical players, the neck access at fret 13. The Kerman instruments have an oval profile vs. your guitar-shape and I would think it necessary to at least provide easy access to the upper frets. Of course, that may be the case, however I cannot play one in person to affirm that. Was there a reason to go with that shape of body over any other and not include a cutaway (like Lyon and Healy)?


When I sketched out the Kerman shape, they're actually pretty bulbous instruments - much wider than they first appear, heres an overlay of the Kerman geometry against mine:



The shape was of course inspired by these:



Which I've always thought sounded way better than they deserved to, so I wanted to see if the shape played any part in that (answer is probably yes, some: the extra surface area of the top helps IMO).




> I didn't read through the whole thread again, but I also was wondering why the choice of mahogany over maple or rosewood.


Simple: they're prototypes, and the hog is cheap, great sounding, and easy to work.  A year ago I would have made an exception for rosewood and used that instead, but with the changes to CITES I just don't see how I can anymore.... it really is a tremendous shame.  On the plus side, the hog is nice and lightweight which probably helps generate that sparkly sound.  It sure would be interesting to compare to a rosewood model with moderately hefty "reflective"/"immovable object" back and sides...

----------

DavidKOS, 

tom.gibson

----------


## tom.gibson

A very interesting experiment, and a lovely looking result. I can't wait to hear the difference between these two instruments. Which do you prefer? Does the internal soundboard model have the same volume as the other? How much deeper is the deeper body? How did you arrive at the soundhole size, which appears quite large?

----------


## Tavy

> A very interesting experiment, and a lovely looking result. I can't wait to hear the difference between these two instruments. Which do you prefer?


I can't decide: "without" has a more traditional/darker sound that I like, "with" seems to be more precise and give a really nice player experience.




> Does the internal soundboard model have the same volume as the other?


From the players point of view, "with" is noticeably louder than "without".  However, I've checked their volume reasonably scientifically, and a microphone placed roughly where the audience front-row would be, doesn't register much if any difference in volume between them.




> How much deeper is the deeper body? How did you arrive at the soundhole size, which appears quite large?


The body is just deep enough to accommodate a "normal" sized front chamber, plus the internal soundboard and the braces on the back without clashing.  The soundholes were chosen largely because I like the sound you get when the body resonance is not too close to the bottom G: not too tubby in other words.

One thing I have noticed, particularly the "with" instrument, is that the sound builds/swells the more you play, particularly when playing open chords.  Something I've only really encountered with CBOM type instruments before.

Sound clips (good grief, how do I make these smaller??):

----------

DavidKOS, 

tom.gibson

----------


## vic-victor

Nice work, John! And very interesting to compare the two. No.2 is my preference, based on your sound clips, is this one with or without double top?

It potentially opens endless possibilities to experiment with a guitar-like builds with a sandwich top, double back, arched back, lattice braced top and all the combinations.  :Smile:

----------


## derbex

> Nice work, John! And very interesting to compare the two. No.2 is my preference, based on your sound clips, is this one with or without double top?
> 
> It potentially opens endless possibilities to experiment with a guitar-like builds with a sandwich top, double back, arched back, lattice braced top and all the combinations.


I like number 2 as well, and if you could get Victor's list built by Xmas that would be appreciated  :Wink:

----------


## tom.gibson

Thanks for the answers and sound clips, John. I understand your indecision - they both sound great. Number 2 (which I assume is the double backed one) does have a more typically 'classical mandolin' sound, with a more precise and less bassy character. But the other one has a pleasing fullness/warmth/darkness or however we describe it.  

So am I right in thinking that the internal thingamijig is in pretty much the same position as the back of the other one? And that it has a soundhole like the top, opening into the small chamber below? I'll stop before I ask more questions...

----------


## Tavy

Interesting that there are two votes for #2: as Tom correctly surmised, that's the double top one.

Before answering Tom's specific questions, let me try and explain what I was aiming to do:

At least in theory, internal thingamajigs make no sound, all they do is suck out vibrations, and maybe change them a bit before giving them back to something that might produce sound.  Tone modifiers in other words.  What I really wanted to try and do was create more sound-producing resonances: At least in theory, with two chambers, we can have:

* Resonance of top chamber
* Resonance of rear chamber.
* Resonance of both chambers together.

All producing sound, assuming of course that the rear chamber has an external sound hole (which Kerman's design does).

In addition, it's been known for a good couple hundred years, that asymmetry in instrument construction can often be a good thing, that starts with bracing, typified by the Vinaccia style:



But then leads on to the decision to have a single sound port for the rear chamber, rather than the symmetrical pair that the Kerman's have.  The port is on the side, purely because I couldn't bare to cut into the top there.

There's one other thing we might be able to do to generate sound: if we're going to add an internal sound hole, then lets turn the 2 chambers into a tube open at both ends: potentially, we now have a woodwind instrument, with a standing wave along the length of the tube.  I think this should answer Tom's questions:



It's difficult to say, which of those aims have been achieved, but "bonk testing" the top certainly shows a non-typical response:



The "double-hump" of the blue curve of the reference instrument is fairly typical for a top and body resonance.  The multiple humps on the double top instrument is not so typical at all.

So... on the one hand, all aims accomplished, must be time to retire now?  Except, looking at those tap tones, I can immediately see how things could be improved... so I guess I should turn Victors ideas into a test matrix, build say... 10 of each to get a representative sample... hmmm, might take a while do you think  :Wink:

----------

tom.gibson, 

vic-victor

----------


## vic-victor

I guess positioning of a double top within the instrument has a lot to do with the resulting sound (leaving all the other variables and build types aside) and just tweaking it's position will provide a number of very different sounding instruments.The question is how to find that perfect spot so both tops resonate at their best together and do not have those overtone clashes?

I am not sure whether a sound pole between two tops is a viable idea in case of a double top instrument, but it is another exciting area for experiments. At last it works well in violins...

----------


## Tavy

> I guess positioning of a double top within the instrument has a lot to do with the resulting sound (leaving all the other variables and build types aside) and just tweaking it's position will provide a number of very different sounding instruments.The question is how to find that perfect spot so both tops resonate at their best together and do not have those overtone clashes?


If you pay attention to the tap tone graphs I posted, you'll see that the dominant resonance is actually the whole body together rather than one chamber or the other.




> I am not sure whether a sound pole between two tops is a viable idea in case of a double top instrument, but it is another exciting area for experiments. At last it works well in violins...


I think it's fairly well known that sound posts in mandolins or guitars completely kill the sound.

----------


## vic-victor

> If you pay attention to the tap tone graphs I posted, you'll see that the dominant resonance is actually the whole body together rather than one chamber or the other.


So you think positioning of the inner top won't change the sound that much? 


>>I think it's fairly well known that sound posts in mandolins or guitars completely kill the sound.

I once had a guitar that had side braces that sort of worked as sound posts in a way. It was a very impressive instrument soundwise.

Also I am not sure that the sound post that was placed in a violin fashion between the top and the back in a mandolin is the same idea as the sound post placed between two tops. It might work differently, but it could be a flop, of course. Not too difficult to try, actually.

----------


## tom.gibson

[QUOTE
But then leads on to the decision to have a single sound port for the rear chamber, rather than the symmetrical pair that the Kerman's have.  The port is on the side, purely because I couldn't bare to cut into the top there.
[/QUOTE]

As I understand the Kerman instruments (which I've never held) there is:
- the soundboard, with its central sound hole plus the two lace side holes
- some way below that, an internal board with a central hole
- and below that, a carved back (with no opening).

I don't see how there is any 'sound port for the rear chamber', other than the hole in the internal sound board. I certainly don't see how the two lace side holes could fill that function. Am is missing something?

----------


## Tavy

> [QUOTE
> But then leads on to the decision to have a single sound port for the rear chamber, rather than the symmetrical pair that the Kerman's have.  The port is on the side, purely because I couldn't bare to cut into the top there.


Yes: the rear soundboard doesn't extent to the sides where the side holes are, rather there are "internal sides" supporting it and forming two "chimneys" which connect the rear chamber to the top.  Look closely at some of the early ones, and there's even a mark/join visible where the internal and external sides meet.  See for example https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/s...=1#post1244680

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## tom.gibson

Ah, I see! That makes much more sense of the side holes, which seemed quite redundant to me, though decorative. So those 'chimneys' must reduce the internal volume of the main chamber quite a bit. Thanks.

----------

