# Instruments and Equipment > Videos, Pictures & Sound Files >  Loar, gilchrist, arches

## Chris Baird

Hi all, I had a nice pickin' session with some friends up in Salt Lake City last night. Thanks to those who came. It was fun.

The next day a friend loaned me his Loar F5 as well as his Gilchrist A5 for some recordings. Here are a couple photos:

Left to right: Arches A, Loar, Arches F, Gilchrist A

----------


## Chris Baird

Backs.

----------


## NoNickel

Soundclips?

----------


## NoNickel

Did I post too soon? Looks like you are still posting. Sorry. That Arches F sure has a pretty back.

----------


## Chris Baird

Ken Sager was kind enough to do some picking for these recordings. It was his recording setup as well. These were all recorded in exactly the same circumstances. I'm going to have a little fun with this. 

Which recording is which? #There is one from each mandolin. 

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Feel free to post your preference as well.

A listening hint: if you download the files and line them up for play in a media player (winamp etc.) the comparison is much easier.

Note: I've given the answer somewhere on page 3. So, if you want to play pick em' before you read pg. 3.

----------


## carteru93

I couldn't get the recordings to work. I get the 404 Not Found

I just pasted this into the address bar, did I do it wrong? http://www.archesmusic.com/083007/instrument1.mp3

----------


## Chris Baird

You guys are frothing at the mouth..give me a minute.

----------


## carteru93

I still can't get em to work.

----------


## NoNickel

froth froth drool drool:p

----------


## mandomick

Carter, go bandage yer bleedin' fingers. When you get back, he'll probably have 'em up and running!  I want to hear them too.

----------


## Chris Baird

Ok, there ya go. they work.

----------


## carteru93

I only posted twice cause he had edited his post, and I thought maybe that he had fixed the link. I'm not THAT impatient:D

----------


## carteru93

There we go:D 

They all sound amazing! I can't tell em apart!...but big surprise there a complete noob can't tell em apart

----------


## NoNickel

Arches
Gil
Arches
Loar

Is there a prize? #Did I win. #I will settle for any of the instruments. #How about just getting on the waiting list?

----------


## stevem

#1: Arches A5
#2: Loar
#3: Gil
#4: Arches F5

Nice picking Ken! They all sound excellent. #2 sounds old-world, other-worldly and haunting--it was my favorite. If I get none right, I'll never give my opinion on tone again.

----------


## NoNickel

To me 1 and 3 sounded closest in tone. My favorite was #1 followed by #3. As they sounded the most alike, and the most new/bright/midrangey, I would guess them to be the Arches. 2 and 4 were similar older/drier sounds. I would think that is the Gil and Loar.

----------


## NoNickel

I am assuming the same pick each time. What is the difference in the strings?

----------


## fwoompf

These mini tone poems type posts are so cool. 

I will listen to them tomorrow at work.

----------


## Chris Baird

Same pick, I made no attempt to figure out what strings were on the instruments. They probably all have different strings.

----------


## wayfaringstranger

Wow; they all sound great. I couldn't begin to guess which of the other four was which, though.

I like the really dark tone of #2, but #1 and #4 sound closest in tone to me; they both have that great hollow midrange that sounds like a wooden bell. So, in order of preference: 2-1-4-3. Guess we'll see just how expensive my tastes are.

----------


## sunburst

This is just a guess, because I've never heard an Arches in "real life", but I'll say:

1.Gilchrist
2.Arches A
3.Arches F
4.Loar

----------


## wayfaringstranger

My first guess was going to be "whichever cut had the best performance is probably Ken's mandolin." (the theory being that it's probably easier to play well on an instrument that feels familiar in your hands). But I couldn't figure out which one that was. 

Well played, Ken.

----------


## pjlama

Too hard but I like them like this 
4
1
3
2
Can't wait to hear the results.

----------


## Antlurz

#1 very nice but a bit bright for my tastes. Still, I'd take it home to Momma.

#2 Love the complexities, and if the volume was a bit stronger and the trebles hadn't' fallen off, I'd choose it hands down. 

#3 Tossup between it and #2. More authority, but less complex than #2

#4 Hey! Ain't no slouch, and cracker crumbs on the sheets wouldn't be a problem.  

Ron

----------


## Fuzzyway

Too lazy to load these files on my large system, but listening to the computer speakers, I agree with Sunburst. I would love to hear 16 bit uncompressed versions of these clips through my studio monitors.

1.Gilchrist
2.Arches A
3.Arches F
4.Loar

Best, Fuzzy

----------


## mrmando

I'm with stevem.

----------


## AlanN

Is the Gil #418?

----------


## BlueMountain

1=Arches A5
2=Arches F5
3=Gilchrist A5
4=Gibson Loar
All wonderful. Thanks

----------


## coolwood

I like 1, 3, 2, 4, in that order.
I can't wait to hear which is which.

This is a great experiment.  It's similar to the blind taste test. 

I would love to have other comparisons, of perhaps lesser known mandos with the more popular and well known. That kind of comparison might defy conventional wisdom.

Excellent post.

Thanks

----------


## Don Christy

Here's my take and I like #1 the best (but would love to have any of these mandolins and Ken's talent).
To me, 1 and 3 sounded alike as did 2 and 4. So I think either 1/3 are Gil/Loar and 2/4 are Arches or vice versa  

I thought 1 and 3 had a lot more string noise and the playing was less clean (not a criticism - I love this style). While 2 and 4 seemed slightly quieter and cleaner. I wonder if 1/3 have flat fingerboards and 2/4 have radiused. Anyway, I'm probably way overthinking it ...

So my first guess is:
1. Gil
2. Arches A
3. Loar 
4. Arches F

and my second guess is:
1. Arches F
2. Loar 
3. Arches A
4. Gil

Don

----------


## Brad Weiss

What's not to like? My preference right now (and I could easily change in 5 minutes) is:

2
4
3
1

I like the way Don's first and second guesses have nothing in common! That's reassuring.

----------


## James O'Brien

Beautiful instruments, beautiful playing. Might I ask what the recording setup was? I really thought the sound was terrific on all 4 samples...
Jim O'Brien

----------


## Steve Davis

3
4
1
2

----------


## TigerMal

I loved them all, as in - what's NOT to like? It reminds me of something I've read here several times that seems very true. A master can make all quality instruments sound beautiful regardless of their individual tone qualities.

----------


## Windflite

1) Gil.
2) One of the Arches
3) The other Arches!
4) Gibby.

Whatever it is, I prefer the tone of #1 over all of the rest.

----------


## Ken Sager

A setup question was asked so I'll answer. 

I used my new Studio Projects C3 mic (cardiod setting) with Mackie Onyx preamp to Dell laptop running Tracktion software. No EQ, compression, or effects. One clip has some traffic noise and that's uncontrollable where I live... 

This was a very fun project. How often does one get to play such fine instruments before lunch? 

Apologies for the sloppy picking... 

Best,
Ken

----------


## bradeinhorn

first off killer versions of temperance real. i need some new ideas on that so i will be listening to those...

if i had to guess i'd say:
1)arches a
2) gil
3) loar
4) arches f

----------


## AlanN

I think it is supposed to St. Anne's Reel.

----------


## mingusb1

"I think it is supposed to St. Anne's Reel."

That's what I heard.
Z

----------


## Brad Weiss

> "I think it is supposed to St. Anne's Reel."
> 
> That's what I heard.
> Z


Is Saint Anne the patron of Temperance?

----------


## Mark Walker

> Too lazy to load these files on my large system, but listening to the computer speakers, I agree with Sunburst. #I would love to hear 16 bit uncompressed versions of these clips through my studio monitors.
> 
> 1.Gilchrist
> 2.Arches A
> 3.Arches F
> 4.Loar
> 
> Best, Fuzzy


I've done 'A-B' comparisons before, but not 'A, B, C, and D!' #After listening to St. Anne's Reel on them all a few times, I agree with Fuzzy and Sunburst:

Gilchrist
Arches A
Arches F
Loar

JMHO, YMMV. #(I'm sure your mileage WILL vary!)

Great thread! #(Great picking too!)

Cheers,

Mark

----------


## bradeinhorn

doh- yes-meant st. anne's of course! big hangover after LSU game last night must have me still on the subject of alcohol and not doing that again.

----------


## mandolooter

3412

----------


## sunburst

> One clip has some traffic noise and that's uncontrollable where I live...


Yep. Sent me out on the porch to see who was in my driveway that late at night! (Obviously, there's usually not much traffic noise out here on "the mannor".)

----------


## salleyann

Sorry, haven't listened to them yet, but I have a question. How does one aquire (or cultivate) a friend that will lend you his quarter-million dollar mandolin?

----------


## Chris Baird

Same way you make friends with anyone. Loar owners are people too.

----------


## Eric F.

I'm going to guess 1. Gil 2. Arches 3. Loar 4. Arches.

Hard to tell major differences on my Powerbook's speakers, but 1 sounds much like a friend's Gil, 2 sounds much like my Arches, 3 just sounds older somehow and that leaves 4 as the other Arches. I would not be surprised to find out I'm wrong on each one.

----------


## Tom Smart

Listening through cheap headphones at work, my guess is:

1. Gilchrist
2. Arches A
3. Loar
4. Arches F

But what I really want to know is, how come I don't get invited to these tastings? On second thought, don't answer that; maybe I don't want to know after all.

----------


## Don Grieser

1&3 sound somewhat similar in the upper range to my tin ear. 2&4 seem related as well. I prefer the sound of 2&4 and would guess them to be the Gilchrist and Loar. Is there more than one Artist A Gilchrist in SLC?

This test may show more about how one person sounds the same on different mandolins than how different mandolins sound.

----------


## Chris Baird

Hey Tom, We tried to find your number at the last minute but couldn't.. I don't think you are listed in the book. I would have loved to have you there.

----------


## Tom Smart

Whew, good answer Chris. It's actually "T Smart" in the book--I did it that way years ago to distinguish myself from the 6 other Tom and Thomas Smarts that were in the book at the time.

All four of those mandos sound really good...when are you going to post the results?

----------


## swinginmandolins

Thanks for posting the comparison clips, and great picking Ken. I'm not going to attempt to put a name with the tone but my preference order is:
2
1
3
4

----------


## JGWoods

I like 
#1 and #3 best -pretty similar to me- send me #1.
#2 and #4 sound a little mellower, also very nice.

Name the brands?- no way, I haven't played any of'em before.

----------


## Chris Baird

I'll post the results tonight. I want to leave this open for at least 24 hours.

----------


## mandomick

Never heard or played any Arches, Gils or Loars but at Ken's level of playing they all sounded great to me. Would've been nice to have tossed a $500 mando in there just to see if it would've been consistantly picked out of the line up.

----------


## KNP String Band Mando

Lucky Lucky Man

----------


## Paul Kotapish

They all sound great to me--and very, very similar--and I think that says more about the skill of the player than about the minor differences in the tonal characteristics of the fine instruments themselves.

----------


## Ken Sager

> Whew, good answer Chris. It's actually "T Smart" in the book--I did it that way years ago to distinguish myself from the 6 other Tom and Thomas Smarts that were in the book at the time.
> 
> All four of those mandos sound really good...when are you going to post the results?


Tom,

I forgot to tell you earlier and searched my email for your number after not finding Tom Smart in the online phone book. All I had was your work number.

I had meant to mention it at our Gallivan Center gig last week, too. 

I'm sorry. It won't happen again.

Ken

----------


## Ken Sager

> They all sound great to me--and very, very similar--and I think that says more about the skill of the player than about the minor differences in the tonal characteristics of the fine instruments themselves.


You're too kind. (EDIT: after re-reading I'm not sure that I should have assumed this was a compliment... )

They were all so very different sounding and feeling to me. I tried to play them the same, but certainly didn't try to make them sound the same, and they really didn't sound the same listening to Chris pick them, either.

They have some similarities, but listening to even the mp3's they are each quite distinct. They are all very much on par, though.

One more thing -- I'd put Chris' finish and detail work with the best in the world. What the photos don't show is his unbelievable attention to detail. Arches mandolins are stunning to look at and play.

Ken

----------


## Chris Baird

Ken, #you could, if you wanted (or had time) add more instrument cuts to this disscussion. I would be interested in hearing other mandolins thrown in. 

It is undoubtable that a great musician like Ken can make any mandolin sound good. However, as I'll explain later, there may be other reasons why these all sound so similiar. I think there is only 1 cut which sticks out, I'm pretty sure I know why....explanations later.

----------


## sunburst

Interesting.
I thought they all sounded very different, as carved top f-hole mandolins go anyway. I'm surprised to see so many people saying they sound similar. 
I'm not surprised by the different preferences, however. That's one thing I've learned as a builder; different people like different sounds. Perhaps I've also learned to listen for the differences in sound too, and that's why I hear more difference that some other people do.

----------


## sgarrity

They all sound more similar than they do different to me. However, you lose a lot in recording. It just doesn't pick up the "nuances" of the individual sound. I say this because this same experiment was done with some Martin guitars by a friend of mine.

He recorded a '39 D-18, a D-18GE and a D-18 Authentic. I had personally played the '39 and the GE. On the recording they sounded very very very similar. But in person there was quite a bit of difference. The '39 is one of the most magical sounding guitars I've ever played. And that "magical" quality just didn't come across on the recording.

Cool experiment though. Wish I'd been there for it!!

----------


## PaulD

> You're too kind. (EDIT: after re-reading I'm not sure that I should have assumed this was a compliment... )
> 
> They have some similarities, but listening to even the mp3's they are each quite distinct. They are all very much on par, though.
> 
> One more thing -- I'd put Chris' finish and detail work with the best in the world. What the photos don't show is his unbelievable attention to detail. Arches mandolins are stunning to look at and play.
> 
> Ken


Yes, Ken, I'm _sure_ it was a compliment... you make reference to making some mistakes in the recording in a previous post and all I can say is that I wish I could play as well as what you consider mistakes! 

I wish you guys could have had the Loar and Gil at Ken's the other night. It would have been interesting to hear the differences in the room. Even listening to the 4 Arches I could hear the tonal differences, and I don't have a very good ear for those things. From what I can hear through my tinny little headphones I wouldn't try to guess which mando is which, although I can hear the differences. Maybe I'll try to guess when I can listen to them at home on some decent speakers.

[gush]I know I've said it before, but I wanted to second Ken's comments about the detail, fit, and finish work on Chris' mandos. I used to do woodworking professionally, now it's only a hobby, but I've always been very critical of the shortcuts I see in even high end woodwork. Having looked these new A style mandos over up close and personal the other night I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for both Chris' woodworking and finishing skills! Every one of these mandos just sounds outstanding too... the Pomeroy that was there was not a bad mando either but it really didn't hold a candle tonally to the 4 Arches to my ear. Chris says he wants to establish himself as a world class builder... I think he's already raised the bar![/gush]

Paul

----------


## Antlurz

Like Sunburst, I'm very surprised at the comments about the similarities, when from _my_ personal view, they are as different as night and day. All four great sounding mandolins, but very very different from each other. 

Would love to own, let alone even play any of the four.

Ron

----------


## Tom Smart

Ken and Chris: No worries, I'm just sorry I missed the opportunity. It's so unusual for good picking to happen on a Wednesday night in these parts, if you catch my drift...

I've still only seen and heard one of Chris's mandolins in person (the one Ken owns) and it certainly deserves to be on the taste-test menu next to world-class instruments like a Gil or a Loar. And to think only a couple of years ago I was wondering, "Some guy in Moab is building mandolins? What's up with that?"

To my ears, there are noticeable differences between the four samples, with one in particular standing out as very different. Ken's playing sounds consistently like Ken though--and yes, that's a compliment.

----------


## Lefty&French

"Ma préférée" : 2

----------


## croonerexpress

> Hi all, I had a nice pickin' session with some friends up in Salt Lake City last night. Thanks to those who came. It was fun.
> 
> The next day a friend loaned me his Loar F5 as well as his Gilchrist A5 for some recordings. Here are a couple photos:
> 
> Left to right: Arches A, Loar, Arches F, Gilchrist A


yeah those are all pretty nice ... i mean if your "into" tat sort of thing.

----------


## NoNickel

I think they sound very different. 1 and 3 are similar but not the same (I like 1 the best). 2 and 4, likewise sound similar but not the same. (I like 4 the best of that group).

----------


## earthsave

1. Gil
2. Arches A
3. Loar 
4. Arches F

----------


## jasona

1 Arches A
2 Gilchrist A
3 Loar F
4 Arches F

----------


## PaulD

Okay... I'll take a stab and see how I fare:

1. Arches A5
2. Arches F5
3. Gil
4. Loar

I skimmed back through other folks guesstimations and I suspect I'm way off, but it's a fun game anyway! 

pd

----------


## Walter Newton

I agree with those who found 1&3 and 2&4 similar....my order of preference is 1, 3, 4, 2.

These kind of comparisons are a lot of fun...there was one on the UMGF a while back comparing 2 guitars and inviting guesses as to what they were. Predictions were all over the map with regards to body size, mahogany vs. rosewood, some even confidently specified the top wood species! Prefrence was almost evenly split 50/50, in the end as I recall one was a (vintage?) D-28 and one was a Blueridge copy.

----------


## Chris Baird

Ok, Here are the results:

1. Arches A
2. Gilchrist A
3. Loar
4. Arches F

Here are the stats as of Walter's post. The number next to the instrument name (i.e. Arches A) is the number of people who guessed. This may be hard to figure out. I'll try and do an executive summary in a bit. #

Instrument # # 1,2,3,4

Arches A # # # 9,7,0,0
Gilchrist # # #7,5,4,0
Loar # # # # # 0,2,6,8
Arches F # # # 0,2,6,8

Preference # # 1,2,3,4 (1 most favorite 4 least)

Arches A # # # 7,2,2,1
Gilchrist # # #7,0,2,4
Loar # # # # # 2,5,2,1
Arches F # # # 1,4,3,3

----------


## Chris Baird

Ok. 

9 out of 16 guessed the Arches A right. 
5 out of 16 guessed the Gilchrist A right. 
6 out of 16 guessed the Loar F5 right. 
8 out of 16 guessed the Arches F5 right. 

The Arches A and the Gilchrist tied for favorite at 7 votes each. 
The Loar was next with only 2 votes. 
Ken's Arches F only got 1 favorite although it was mistaken for the loar 8 times and 6 people mistook the Loar for Ken's Arches F.

----------


## sunburst

Hmmm...0 for 4...oh well...

----------


## Walter Newton

Brad and Jason nailed it!

----------


## PaulD

> Hmmm...0 for 4...oh well...


Well, John, I played that Arches A5 the other night and I was 0 for 4... I'm glad I didn't have to pay much to play! 

pd

----------


## Chris Baird

Paul, you picked the Arches A5 right.

----------


## Don Grieser

Hey Chris, 

I'm going to have to pay you a visit sometime. I sure liked the tone on your F. I picked it for the Loar, but I did get the Gilchrist right (whew). It's great to see/hear your work--I still remember that F-4 you had at RockyGrass a couple years ago. Keep up the outstanding work and keep posting the pictures--it's always a treat to see what you're building. I'd just like to see more of them in person!

Don

----------


## Chris Baird

Here are my thoughts. 

Arches A. #This mandolin is the result of a total overhaul of my A-styles. The inspiration was the Loar featured in these clips. I had the opportunity to study this Loar and tried hard to design an instrument that sounded like it. I think I've come pretty close. This instrument has sugar(hard) maple back and sides, a slightly deeper body (to give the same volume as an F), and red spruce top (moderately dense). The shape is essentially an F without point and scroll. The arching is very traditional. 

Gilchrist A. #This mandolin has the most stand out tone of the bunch, imo. It is designed completely differently from the rest. It has soft maple back and sides (I think?) and smaller F-holes. The shape and arching are not Loar-like. The instrument is much darker than the rest and has a hint of oval hole tone. The owner likes dark mandolins and I'm sure Steven built to suit him. Its funny, the owner changed the strings 30 mins before we recorded it; it still had the darkest tone even with brand new strings. 

Gibson Loar F5. #This a very strong instrument and the easiest to record (most even across the strings). Ken also seemed to be able to pick this one better. It has a very strong even tonal range and lots of overhead. The Loar tone is mostly found on the a and e strings (imo). This mandolin has a very clear yet lush mid and treble range. My A-style was similiar but not quite as complex or "lush". I would guess that the back/sides are hard maple and the top red spruce (just a guess). 

Arches F5. This mandolin is made from the most dense type of maple; sugar maple with birdseye figure. When it was new it had a very clear and powerful mid and high end. The bass was tight and not too impressive. Ken has played the heck out of it since I last saw it. It has really opened up in the bass range. The bass is still kind of tight (it doesn't really ring like the others) but it is strong. The chop used to have little "woof" and now it has a lot. 


This test only really gives an indication of how these instruments sound played by Ken in his quiet kitchen. A better test would be to do the same experiments in a band context. However, I think I'd have a harder time finding a Loar donor for that.

----------


## NoNickel

Wow, I am stunned. #Not only was I completely wrong, but my clear favorite was probably the least expensive of the group. #In fact my preferences were the Arches A5 and then the Loar followed by the Arches F5. #If you were trying to emulate the Loar with the A5, you came very close. #Although, I preferred the A5 over the Loar. #Any chance on getting on the list???

----------


## swinginmandolins

Not that I could ever afford any of these mandolins, at least my top 2 were A's  
Going back over my selection order and relistening the A's were comparable to each other and the F's were comparable. At least in MHO. Great work Chris.

----------


## NoNickel

I would love to see close up pix of the Arches A5. Are there any on the website of this instrument?

----------


## Ken Sager

The stats are quite interesting and I must say I'm pleased that my F5 was picked for the Loar more than the Loar was.

One comment about the recording, the Arches A5 needed the gain reduced a bit because it was overdriving the levels. It wasn't louder to me, but it was certainly louder to the microphone. I did my best to sit in exactly the same place with each mandolin and pick with the same right hand force. I didn't move the mike between takes and I didn't wear headphones, I just sat down and played. That A5 is amazing and was really a favorite at the little tasting we had of 4 Arches the night before. All of the Arches I've played have been terrific instruments.

I have to agree with the comments that recording somehow makes them sound more similar than they do live. These were extremely different instruments to my ear while playing them. The recordings capture a lot of those differences, but can't duplicate what each instrument sounds like to the player.

Best,
Ken

----------


## Jeff Hoelter

Cool experiment! #The only one I knew for sure was #2...

Jeff

----------


## bradeinhorn

> Brad and Jason nailed it!


thank you...thank you  

1 and 4 sounded most similar to me. i heard this really interesting tone/sustain just before the B section in both of those that really rang similarly in both - go back and you'll see what i mean.

as to two and three, i found them to share a lot of the same qualities as well, with the gil shimmering a bit more on the highs and sounding a bit fuller in the lower and midrange. it reminded me of a friend's gil. the giveaway on the loar was the final strum. much drier than than the others.

i have to say I think of all i preferred 4 most. great combination of power and sweetness. cool thread.

-b

----------


## jasona

> Brad and Jason nailed it!


What do I win?!? 

I listened to them on a bar speaker under my monitor, and here is why I decided what I did. The Arches A had a bright tone that is very typical for As built these days. The Gil...just sounded like a Gil to me. Its a full tone palate, with a jangly, loose, openness that seems to my ear to be characteristic of Gilchrists--a greater separation between top and bottom tones. The Loar has the same full tone palate, but is more focused. Less jangly, more mids. The Arches F has some of that too, but sounded closed to me, so I deduced it was the new one.

----------


## PaulD

Cool... I _got_ one! Must have been a touch of dyslexia when I compared the results to my guess. 

That was a fun exercise Chris and Ken... good job on the e-tasting!

pd

----------


## Arnt

I did not have a clue, but I enjoyed it anyways! Great sounding instruments, all of them.

----------


## Chip Booth

I just joined this party. I guessed correctly on the Loar and the Gil, but switched the two Arches. I played both of the Arches, and listening to the clips again it is obvious to me now that Ken's F5 sounds more broken in. I can't say enough about how nice those mandolins are. I really wanted to sneak off with that A5!

Well done guys.

Chip

----------


## BlueMountain

I've just listened three more times to the samples. They're all wonderful, and I'd be delighted to have any of them. 

However, I'd swear that there is enough variation between Loars that I've heard at least one that sounds like each one of those mandolins.

I'll say this, Chris, you deserve to be VERY pleased with yourself. Keep up the good work.

And wouldn't it be great to have more of this sort of thing on here?

----------


## Ken Sager

> I've just listened three more times to the samples. They're all wonderful, and I'd be delighted to have any of them. 
> 
> However, I'd swear that there is enough variation between Loars that I've heard at least one that sounds like each once of those mandolins.
> 
> I'll say this, Gavin, you deserve to be VERY pleased with yourself. Keep up the good work.
> 
> And wouldn't it be great to have more of this sort of thing on here?


Chris, not Gavin...

I'd love to get a few more instruments together for something like this. If anybody wants to quickly send me their Loar, Fern, Dude, Monte, Nugget, Smart (Tom?), Duff, Kimble, etc., I'll record them in a few months and post the clips... They'd have to acclimatize to the altitude, don't you know. I live at 4800 feet and sea level mandolins need time to get used to the mountains.



Ken

----------


## NoNickel

I have taken the clips and burned to a cd and played them on giant Infinity stereo speakers and then in my car (which also has Infinity speakers). That made a total difference in the sound and my preferneces. I still would have guessed wrong though.

----------


## Milan Christi

I couldn't have been farther off the mark! Although I thought Ken's F5 was the Loar so at least that should make him feel good! I agree this was a lot of fun and a real brain teaser.

----------


## JEStanek

Thanks for posting the clips.

As I've never played any of those instruments I couldn't guess between them but my preferences were as follows (and all of them sounded great.. nice consistent playing Ken!)

2 Gil
1 Arches A
3 Loar
4 Arches F

I really prefer the oval hole sound and a little less brightness and that's what I liked best in these clips. It was really close between the Loar and the Arches A but the final strum pushed the Arches A over the Loar for me. The Arches F was very nice too and thats where it fell in the group to me. I would love to have the opportunity to play a room of instruments like that.

Chris, you're making great instruments. A good player can make a less well made instrument sound good but not all builders are making instruments that play tonally as rich as the Gil and Loar. Keep up the stellar work!

Jamie

----------


## hendrix2

It would be nice to do something like this with also some cheaper instruments included, just so we could compare the differences. I guess I would not hear the difference  

From the four soundclips you made I definatly enjoyed the most of the first one(arches A). That sounded just so great.

----------


## earthsave

I liked the 1 and 3 and thought they sounded very similar to my ear. Both had the best hi/mid/low range to my ear. A good example of an A-style sounding like or as good as an F.

I just assumed the Gil would sound more Loar-like so picked it as the 1.

Nice sounding A!!

----------


## good_ol_al_61

This was great to watch from afar. My wife and I have been at a bluegrass fesival in central Florida and I checked via a Treo PDA. I couldn't post a comment until now.

Firstly, thanks to all who participated in the "tasting" last week. I hope all enjoyed the evening and the unique opportunity to sample some great Arches instruments from Chris. Thanks also to Ken for taking the time and effort to put together the sound clips for our listening pleasure. I know there was plenty of thought placed into the tune selection and attempting to play the instruments in the same manner for comparisons. Your abilities to do so far exceed my capabilities.

Most importantly please allow me to thank Scott T for the impeccible running of this board. Without it, Chris' paths and mine most likely would have never crossed. To have a "go to" forum at our fingertips is incalcuable.

This test of our opinionated ears lets me know that two years ago when I decided to have a mandolin commissioned, I chose a small builder to make the instrument the way that I wanted it. After a lengthy conversation with Chris, I understood that the look of the mandolin was secondary to the tone quality he was seeking in his instruments. So for me to have some "window dressing" added to the mandolin was simply icing on the cake when he started to choose the tonewoods. Now that the works of his hands has come to fruition and I am the eventual beneficiary but not the final one. You see, I have a heart condition that is incurable and I wanted something special to leave my 2 year old grandson. I am going to play this mandolin every chance I get and I will take every stage opportunity offered me so that my grandson will know that that is my mandolin. I wanted something unique and traditional, i.e. a snakehead look with a fern and vine of life adornements. Now that is has borne a unique and powerful tone - well my pleasure is beyond words. Simply divine.

May I please extend a welcome to Chris and those in his area to play the instrument if your schedules work out and to enjoy it a while longer. Then, as time permits, you can send that Loar-killing, Gil-smothering world class instrument to me so I can pass around to all those here in the North Florida area to enjoy also.

----------


## Don Christy

OK, I was 2 for 4. But I did get the F's right. I just assumed the Gil would sound the most like the Loar I guess. Chris, your A really does sound a lot like that Loar. Fun thread and great mandos all.
Don

----------


## kyblue

My preferences were 1, 3, 4, 2; in that order. 

Thanks!

----------


## labraid

number 1: The bass is nice and complex... _very_ creamy, 5/5. The trebles, personally, hurt my ear and are the lowest scoring, well, for an nice mandolin anyway 2/5. Overall "box" sounds "tinny" = not so good.
number 2: The bass, perty nice but kinda quiet, 3/5. The trebles are nice and creamy, 3/5. That darn "box" sound again, though a bit less, not bad.
number 3: the bass, again, nice and complex.. equal to number one = just gorgeous 5/5. The trebles are soft and yet _entirely_ present. 5/5. This sounds like a flattie, complex "box" sound, nothing overall "cylindrical" -- perty nice. 
number 4: Bass, lacking, but complex and nice for what's there. 3/5. Trebles 4/5, perty darn nice but missing a bit of overall push. "Box" like no 3, nice and complex = I like it.

Just my thoughts.. Real good stuff there.

----------


## Paul Kotapish

> [You're too kind. (EDIT: after re-reading I'm not sure that I should have assumed this was a compliment... )]


That was intended as a compliment.

I'm sure that the instruments would sound--and feel--very different to me if I were playing them, and perhaps it was just my crummy computer sound system, but those four instruments really did strike me as relatively similar sounding--on the big spectrum or possible mandolin sounds, anyway.

----------


## mandopete

#3.

----------


## Tom Smart

> I'd love to get a few more instruments together for something like this. If anybody wants to quickly send me their Loar, Fern, Dude, Monte, Nugget, Smart (Tom?)...


Ken, of course you're welcome to borrow, play, record, play racquetball with, or do anything you want with any of my instruments, any time.

I thought the Loar in the test really stood out. Not that it sounded necessarily "better," but to me it had that quintessential Loar quality--very powerful, cutting, midrangey, dry. I was pretty sure I got that one right; the other three required some deduction (guessing).

I also got the Arches F5 right, but I may have had the benefit of some familiarity with that instrument.

I had the Arches A5 and the Gilchrist reversed. Almost every Gilchrist I've ever heard was a bluegrass instrument, many with sort of a "Loar+" tone, and I think that's why I was fooled. If Chris had said something like "the Arches A5 is my best attempt at replicating the Loar tone, while the Gilchrist isn't one of his typical bluegrass instruments," then I would have guessed right. I suppose the hint I needed was right there in the photos--since the Gilchrist has more of a jazz than a bluegrass look to it--but I didn't pay that much attention to the photos.

Very good sounding mandolins all around, and a fun experiment. Thanks Chris and Ken. (And whoever supplied the Loar and Gil. By the way, what's their address? And when are they typically away from home?)

Tom

----------


## good_ol_al_61

Oh My Goodness!

Now that I have played this monster for a few days, I am just astonished. It sounds every bit a powerful as any F model I have played. Even when picked ever so lightly, the volume just bursts out.

What is this thing gonna be like in a few year? Scary!

Thank you Chris for giving me back double what I paid you.

----------


## DHoffmeyer

My pref is 4, 2, 3, 1 - all are good!

Dean

----------


## c3hammer

Hey Ken/Chris:

I know I'm a little late on this one, but is that Gil x-braced or tone bars?

Cheers,
Pete

----------


## Chris Baird

If I recall correctly the Gil was tone bar braced. I believe Ken checked, I was somewhat surprised as it sounds x-braced.

----------


## Artist3

This is a really interesting thread. Any chance in getting the sound clips back online?

----------


## mandopete

> Ken Sager was kind enough to do some picking for these recordings. It was his recording setup as well. These were all recorded in exactly the same circumstances. I'm going to have a little fun with this. 
> 
> Which recording is which? #There is one from each mandolin. 
> 
> Instrument 1
> 
> Instrument 2
> 
> Instrument 3
> ...


_ The page cannot be found 
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable._

 :Frown:

----------


## good_ol_al_61

Well, it's been 5 years since I received the A-5 from Chris. We have played in over 30 states and went through many string changes. Quite a few IBMA ranked players have played the Arches A-5 and all are simply amazed it is an "A". Secondly, since this purchase, I have not had one instance of MAS! I have never even played another mandolin with an eye to purchase. My Gibson F-5 and my Arches A-5 are all I will ever want. Cured!

All this to say a humble, "thank you" to Chris baird for creating the mandolin of my dreams.

----------

Chris Baird

----------


## Chip Booth

Yep, you got a good one, I remember that mandolin well.  Glad to hear it's still treating you well, though be sure to drop me a line if you change your mind!   :Grin:

----------

