# General Mandolin Topics > Looking for Information About Mandolins >  Loar Sounding mandolins found?
As many of you already know, I have been looking for an upgrade mandolin for some time now. #I just recently started building as a hobby with little success. #So little in fact, pictures are unavailable. (LOL!) #I have spoken with several different builders as of late (including a luthier from the field who builds $20,000 mandolins). #Many of them recommended a specific someone for the mandolin of tomorrow with the sound of yesteryear. # Is someone actually building THE mandolin. #What do yall think? #Has anyone played a mandolin or mandolins that stand out above the rest?

----------


## Ken Sager

If you're trolling, I'll bite. Who was that specific someone recommended by the many?

I'll give my 2-bits worth and suggest Mike Kemnitzer, but Nugget has been building fantastic sounding mandolins for 20+ years so he's not really the mandolin of tomorrow, now is he.

Happy it's Tuesday,
Ken

----------


## Spruce

OK, I'll bite and burst the bubble...

I've played lots of Loars for hours on end and they have a very distinctive mid-rangy sound that projects very well...
Great sounding instruments...

But there are many makers today who are building mandolins that folks always compare to Loars, but I'll go a step further...

They sound better.

There, I said it... #

There is a very distinctive modern mandolin sound that is being established these days by many well-known makers and some not-so-well-known, and I prefer it. #

The "modern sound" tends to accentuate the bass more than a good sounding Loar, yet still sounds very balanced to these ears.
And they record like a dream...(as does a Loar).

Now all that I need is a "ducking for cover" icon... #

----------


## GBG

For what little it's worth, I agree.

----------


## PlayerOf8

Bruce,
I pissed, I was going to say that!!!!

George

----------


## Ken Sager

I'm not going to disagree with Spruce. I do, however, think the best example of the beautiful marriage of Man (read human) and Mandolin happens to be John Reischman and his Loar. But that's more about JR than LL.

Is it still Tuesday?
Ken

----------


## Moose

This is gett'n GOOOOOOD!! - Carry on!

----------


## Charlie Derrington

I'll just stay out of this one.  

Charlie

----------


## Brian Aldridge

quote- The "modern sound" tends to accentuate the bass more than a good sounding Loar, yet still sounds very balanced to these ears. -end quote
 Funny, that is exactly what I don't like about the "modern sound" some builders are going for. Fortunately Nuggets, Dudes, Monteleones, and my favorite Gils do not go in this "modern" direction. But, having said that, my Christmas wish is that everyone has a mandolin that sounds like what they like to hear, whatever that is.

----------


## JimW

When it comes to the tone or sound of a mandolin, it varies from individual to individual as to their preference. Some like that low end bass and some like the treble to be the main focus. I'm more of a traditionalist, and I prefer the Gibson tone. I think it has the right blend of low end growl and enough highs to cut. My current mandolin isn't a Gibson, but it has plenty of dry, woody, throaty growling Loar tone, to my ears anyway.  
From the Collings I've heard, I think they are maybe trending toward the "modern" sound that we're talking about here, accentuating the lows more than say a Gibson. That being said, I know most Collings owners are pretty happy with their axes also. So again, I think this tone and sound thing ultimately boils down to what the owner likes in that regard. 

Isn't it great to be a musician who plays mandolin with so many fine builders and so many choices. 

Jim Watts

----------


## fatt-dad

I would like to know what the Cafe folks that have the experience with Loar mandolins think of the efforts of Jamie Wiens (I think I got that right). I read about him, likely right here. I seem to recall that he is building toward the Loar tone. Is he having much success (I'm pretty sure that his mandolins have good sound, I'm wondering if they replicate Loars)?

----------


## Mando Dan

Alright I will chime in as wellI am interested in the recommended mandolin of tomorrow

	I have played several Loars as well as several Nuggets, Gils, Wiens, Kimble and even a couple of Dudes to mention a few. #All great but different. #I noticed the same thing as Spruce. #The Loars definitely have a very strong mid- range that carries. #Their tone seemed to envelope my body as I played. #Whereas some others that I have played are very aggressive in nature. #The tone seems to jump out of the mandolin. #Leaving a punch in the gut. #Very sensitive. #

	Fortunately, I found a fabulous all around mandolin. #Plenty of bottom, a mid that penetrates through any jam with crisp clear highs. #Lots of resonant tone and aggression. #And the PLAYABILITY..I had to learn how to play softer when I first got it.

----------


## Brian Aldridge

I think it is a wonderful mandolin time we are living in. There are so many nice mandolins being made that it is reasonably easy to find a mandolin that suits your ear and/or your playing needs. There really is no one mandolin of tomorrow, or for that matter, today either. I have owned at least 100 mandolins, and I hope to own another 100 before I am through. Of all those, I have one life long keeper, but I have loved many. They are like fine race cars- a lot of it is the driver in the final analysis.

----------

Keeping neutral in my decision making, I wish to keep the anonymous builder a secret for the time being. #He has yet to be noted although some of the builders that gave me the recommendations have.

I Like the way Jim puts it. #Let us know which "one" is for you. #I played a recent Gilchrist F model last week that was very close to a dream sound. #In fact, the only mandolin that even came close to the sound of it was "THE MANDOLIN". #Oddly enough the one I played wasn't even an F-Style. #But it did take my breath away.

----------


## wallflower

I've got a 2003 Master Model that is my dream mandolin. #It's got everything I want in a mandolin. #It's throaty, woody, well balanced and it's got a great chop. #You can play it hard or play it pretty and it excels either way. #And it's definitely got the Loar tone. #I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Thanks Charlie, Big Joe and Danny and the rest of the gang at Gibson! #I'm a happy customer!!

Jeff Bredthauer

----------


## PlayerOf8

Where do Monteleone's instruments fit into this mix?


George

----------


## Tim

So this thread is "I know a really good builder but I won't tell you who it is - but I want you to tell me the good builders you know".

----------


## Brian Aldridge

Jim, yes, my life long keeper is a Loar. It does everything "I" want from a mandolin best. PM me if you want more detail about why.

----------


## JGWoods

> I'll just stay out of this one. # 
> 
> Charlie


Charlie- even your silence speaks- and we know what it says...

Merry Christmas
jgwoods

----------


## fatt-dad

Can we please have more than one life-long keeper? If so, I'm keeping my Flatiron A5-1, my Stiver A and my Gibson A3. O.K., I also like my distressed Ibanez (you've never seen anything like this) and my Alvarez oval-hole 2-point. That said, I really would like to go somewhere where I can play some of the "high-end" mandolins of today and yesteryear.

f-d

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I'll bite...and may have to run and hide..but here is my input (with no offense to anyone)

1.) Mr. Watts, I'll use your comment as an example "My current mandolin isn't a Gibson, but it has plenty of dry, woody, throaty growling Loar tone". #This folks is NOT what Loars sound like. #If it does, it's been regraduated or it has been played to death and the top plate has lost all of it's resiliency.

2.) There is definitely a Modern sound. #This is because most builders of today (excluding Gibson) build for instant gratification. #Several $15,000-$20,000 builders are making disposable/consumable mandolins that will not last even a partial lifetime, much less several lifetimes. #Do you know anyone who has played the same modern expensive mandolin for more than 5-6 years...go figure!!

3.) #Several of the most "visable" Loar mandolins being played today have been "secretely" regraduated. #I can only assume that they now possess a convoluted crossbred aspect between the Loar sound and the so-called "Modern" sound. #At any rate...we are not comparing apples and oranges as it relates to these "well known" Loars.

4.) "Loar Sound/tone" is instantly recognizable to the experience ear. #There are several qualities to the Loar response, volume and tone that are extremely deceiving...so much in fact that many "newbies" or "never played a Loar" mandolinists will choose the "Modern" sound virtually every time.

5.) #The Loar sound can only be reproduced through a combination of materials and consistency of dimension. #It is not an accident when someone (Gibson in this case)can build a mandolin that results in a very comparitive response and tone. #The "looks" are a byproduct of materials and consistency of dimension.

----------

I also have a few life long keepers. #Or at least a few mandolins that I plan on passing on to my children. #A Lyon Healy, a 2002 Gilchrist F, and a few Gibsons (1918 A, 1952 Fern, 1994 F5L, 2003 Master Model). #All of these are great mandolins, ....but dare I say it.....my favorite isI hate to cause more controversy. #OK here it goes..If I had to choose one mandolin for my keeper, it would definitely be my new Moon Beam. #There I have said it. #

Spruce--where did you find that Duckin for cover #button?

----------


## Spruce

_"Fortunately Nuggets, Dudes, Monteleones, and my favorite Gils do not go in this "modern" direction."_

I've owned the latter two, and played plenty of Nuggets (can't speak for the Dudes), but my observation would be:

Sure they do....

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> _"Fortunately Nuggets, Dudes, Monteleones, and my favorite Gils do not go in this "modern" direction."_
> 
> I've owned the latter two, and played plenty of Nuggets (can't speak for the Dudes), but my observation would be:
> 
> Sure they do....


It appears that Spruce and I share a common understanding of what the "Modern Sound" really is...and we are not talking just about builders such as Rigel. #

----------


## JimW

Darryl, while I've only had the opportunity to play one Loar, a Feb. 18, 1924, without virzi, and it's noramlly strung with Sam Bush strings, it very much had a tone that I would describe as woody, dry with a throaty growling "pop" to the G and D strings. While my ear is not nearly as trained as yours when it comes to a Loar, it's really hard to translate what one hears into words. That being said, I went back and listened to some of the 1999 mandolin samples that all were compared to John R's Loar, but if I were to describe that tone, it would be very D and A sting dominant, with a ring that has more sustain than say a fast note decay woodiness, although the complexity of that attribute is there in the Loar, just not dominate. 

I had never played a musical instrument until mid-2001 and I'm sure my ear is still developing, or NOT developing, whichever the case may be. But going back and listening to some recordings of Loar's, Bill's included, my description probably inaccurately describes the perceived Loar tone. Hell, I'm probabaly trending more toward the modern sound then, and as far as my current mandolin's sound goes, it's probably somewhere in between but that doesn't matter, I'm very happy with it.  

Jim

----------


## Brian Aldridge

well, I did say my favotite Gils didn't. Certainly there are a ton of Gils that go to the modern sound. My Monteleone experience is somewhat limted; I own a GA 10 string (near mandola sized body, mandolin scale) that is a whole different animal, but it isn't that bass accentuated sound, and neither was the late Tommy Comeaux's GA. But perhaps those are the exceptions. I still stand by what I said about Nuggets. I have Gary Hedrick's Nugget here, and it sound so much like an old F5, it will scare you. It can't be buried by banjos and guitars like those bassy mandolins can. The Nugget is for sale, by the way. roaring20sf5@hotmail.com

----------


## Flowerpot

"2.) There is definitely a Modern sound. This is because most builders of today (excluding Gibson) build for instant gratification. Several $15,000-$20,000 builders are making disposable/consumable mandolins that will not last even a partial lifetime, much less several lifetimes. Do you know anyone who has played the same modern expensive mandolin for more than 5-6 years...go figure!!"

I agree there is a modern sound. The Loars I've played (though few in number) have struck me as having a subdued bass response and tremendous midrange projection, and they seem to come alive past the 7th fret with startlingly clear highs. But they don't have the "woof" in the chop that you can feel in the gut.

but I'm not sure how you can call the $15-$20k instruments disposable -- just how many have had tops cave in or other structural problems? Sure, they get traded a lot, as you would expect from an item which has appreciated in value by 300% in 5 years. But how many Gils have gone dead or have needed re-building? How many Nuggets are falling apart? If that is happening, nobody is talking about it. Will an x-braced high end mandolin sound good in 80 years? Who cares? I don't. I won't be around.

----------


## cutbait2

Darryl,

about a couple of your comments

"excluding Gibson". are not the master models built for the "modern" sound out of the box?

"several builders in the 15-20000 range? are there more than 3?

----------

I would have to say....WELL SAID!!!!!!

----------


## AlanN

quote from Brian above...the late Tommy Comeaux's GA. 

That was my mandolin I had John build for me, waited 4 years for it, and sold it 2 months after I got it. It didn't have the tone I was looking for.

----------


## Scotti Adams

Alan..Im waiting on your Gil info...

----------


## Ken Waltham

I got to agree fully with all that Darryl has said.
I have tried to explain that Loar tone a lot of times, but, it's hard to articulate. I will say, in a most general comment, that I hear more midrange than modern mandolins. To me, that's the register that makes it so good in any ensemble playing.
"sure they do"... I agree completely, as well.Ken

----------


## uncle ken

I agree with Ken W. about ensemble playing. The bassy mandos sound great when played alone but can get lost in a group. What makes the Nugget sound great to my ear is the high end content, not the bass. The highs are bright, almost brittle and they cut through. I have played Reichman's Loar by the way and it seemed to have it all, highs, mids and lows.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I'll quote myself..."Several of the most "visable" Loar mandolins being played today have been "secretly" regraduated. #I can only assume that they now possess a convoluted crossbred aspect between the Loar sound and the so-called "Modern" sound. #At any rate...we are not comparing apples and oranges as it relates to these "well known" Loars."

We are talking about more than one Loar mandolin

----------

> So this thread is "I know a really good builder but I won't tell you who it is - but I want you to tell me the good builders you know".


I did not mean to offend anyone by not posting the builders name. #Nor do I want to cause contrevesy by "advertising". #I have no personal gain other than I am looking for the best new mandolin available.

Uncle Ken hit it on the nose. #A mandolin that has it ALL!

----------


## Brian Aldridge

Alan, that GA was not an exceptional mandolin at all, I agree. What I was saying about it was that it certainly wasn't the bass accentuated "modern" sound that the thread was talking about at one point. Would that it had been, at least it would have had that going for it. I don't blame you for dumping that one. It couldn't hold a candle to a new Smith Creek. But visually it was a work of art. I can just imagine the disappointment you must have felt after waiting four years for it.

----------


## Mando Dan

> Originally Posted by  (Spruce @ Dec. 15 2004, 11:13)
> 
> _"Fortunately Nuggets, Dudes, Monteleones, and my favorite Gils do not go in this "modern" direction."_
> 
> I've owned the latter two, and played plenty of Nuggets (can't speak for the Dudes), but my observation would be:
> 
> Sure they do....
> 
> 
> It appears that Spruce and I share a common understanding of what the "Modern Sound" really is...and we are not talking just about builders such as Rigel. #


I definitely agree the modern sound of tomorrow is apparent in the Gils, Nuggets, and few elite others. #I also think on very rare occasions an unknown builder discovers the "secret recipe". #I for one would like to know who the anonymous builder is. #You dont have to be shy. #You can tell us. #Someone else may want one. 

My life long mandolin is my Prototype Moon Beam! It has it ALL with plenty left over.

----------


## Chris Baird

I think the modern mandolin tone is a result of evolution. Builders build what players want. There are many folks that judge a mandolin largely on volume and chop. This has certainly led to some thinner mandolins. Nearly every mandolin I came across for years was of the newer design, big chop and very bassy presence. 
 I've not played a Loar but I have played a number of master models. From my background of modern mandolin tone I wasn't impressed immediately. But while driving home one night from having sampled a MM it struck me that that thing did have something special about it. It is hard to describe but it was a tone like some fine old scotch. A tone that one has to be exposed to for awhile before getting hooked. I am certainly coming to appreciate that tone, but I also appreciate the deeper more percussive tone of the modern design. I don't hear of many structural problems with the modern designs. I just don't think that there are enough around that are old enough to say that they won't sound good 80 years from now. Maybe some of these mandolins that come out of the box kickin are going to sound better than a Loar 80 years from now. 
 My own modern design incorporates Loar thicknesses in the structural areas but is thinner in the less vital areas. Seems to bring out the best in the old and modern tones.

----------


## AlanN

Brian

It was a huge disappointment, and it wasn't just me who felt that that mandolin missed the mark. It seems to have been an anomaly, as most GA owners just love them. Wasn't for me, though, and I shortly thereafter began my love affair with Gilchrist mandolins.

Scotti - pix a comin...

----------


## mandopete

> Keeping neutral in my decision making, I wish to keep the anonymous builder a secret for the time being. #He has yet to be noted although some of the builders that gave me the recommendations have.


Oh no, here we go again!

----------


## Crowder

I know it's been beat to death here and needs no more promotion, but my BRW definitely "has it all" in my opinion (and I've played lots of more expensive ones if it helps my credibility any). I'd call it "the modern sound", if that means crisp, clear and balanced in every register without a lot of harshness.

Maybe the guys going for the "modern" sound are just frustrated. I mean, everyone knows exactly how to get the Loar sound....."same graduations, wood, dimensions, glue, finish" etc. and voila! instant Loar tone.

----------


## Old Red

I've been lucky enough to play about a dozen Loars over the years and to have them played in my ear by others for extended periods of time. I think that they have a sound unlike anything being made today, although some of the Master Models I've heard come close. #They just sound "old." #That helps a lot, I know. #A recent recording that I believe captures the Loar sound very well is Skip Gorman's Old Style Mandolin Volume 2, which consists of beautifully played obscure Monroe instrumentals. #On several of the cuts, Skip plays a Loar that sounds very much like many of the Loars I've played (in fact, I think it may be one of the Loars I played when it belonged to a prior owner). #I'm not criticizing the other modern mandolins--I play one. #But I love that old Gibson sound. #

Andy

----------


## Spruce

_"A recent recording that I believe captures the Loar sound very well is Skip Gorman's Old Style Mandolin Volume 2"_

Seconded...

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Chris Baird .................excellent commentary

----------


## mandopete

> _"A recent recording that I believe captures the Loar sound very well is Skip Gorman's Old Style Mandolin Volume 2"_
> 
> Seconded...


That's an interesting observation as I believe that Skip usually plays a non Loar mandolin. #While he credits a July 9 Lloyd Loar on cuts 13, 14, 15 and 16, I believe his "regular" mandolin is a Ventura (at least that is what he had at Wintergrass several years ago).

And with that being said, I still think most of this tone/sound perception comes from the player more than the instrument.

----------


## Spruce

_"And with that being said, I still think most of this tone/sound perception comes from the player more than the instrument. "_

And also the recording techniques...
That Gorman recording and his playing (regardless of what the instrument is) just reeks of "Loar"...

_"Keeping neutral in my decision making, I wish to keep the anonymous builder a secret for the time being. "_

OK...
Two can play this little game... # 

I recently ran into a friend of mine, a very accomplished instrument maker, who had just finished a Loar copy. #This mandolin is the closest that you'll ever come to hearing the Loar sound in a modern instrument, or at least the closest I've ever run into.. #

Under the fingers and to the ear, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, although I didn't have a Loar on hand to compare it to.

It had that distinctive mid-range honk that Ken was referring to, and played like (that old cliche) butter...

I won't be disclosing his name (in Pickin' Bob fashion), because the maker merely wanted a Loar and didn't want to buy one...
So he built one for himself...
He won't be making more, unless he gets hounded into doing so...  

It's distressed, well made and authentic in every way shape and form right down to the mitered points, and is a howler...

And his name has never been mentioned in these pages...

So-oooo, Pickin' Bob...
We're even.... #

----------


## mandopete

> And also the recording techniques...
> That Gorman recording and his playing (regardless of what the instrument is) just reeks of "Loar"...


Bruce - can you elaborate on the recording technique you're referring to here? #I mean, is there something dramatically different in the way that Skip has recorded the mandolin sound that contributes to this perception?

While I agree to some extent, I would really say the Skip's playing "just reeks of *Bill Monroe*" and in that sense, a Lloyd-Loar mandolin sound. #

And that gets me back to my orignal premise of the player as opposed to the instrument. #I'm curious though...do you think someone like Mike Compton (who plays a Gilchrist I think) has a Loar sound? #To my somewhat unrefined ear I would say yes.

----------


## Spruce

_"Bruce - can you elaborate on the recording technique you're referring to here? #I mean, is there something dramatically different in the way that Skip has recorded the mandolin sound that contributes to this perception?"_

Well, I don't know if it's dramatically different, but there is no attempt whatsover on those recordings to "pretty up" the sound of the instruments. #No reverb, no compression, nothing.

Which is kinda rare these days...

Listen to "Travellers", for example, for something that's on the other end of the spectrum. #Tons of reverb obscure (or, one could argue, enhance) the infamous tone of a great sounding Loar.

To me, one aspect of the Loar tone that is a joy to hear, is the "dry" tone of the instrument, and Gorman's recording really highlights this trait...

----------


## wallflower

To my ear, Compton's playing sounds very much like a Gilchrist and not a Gibson.

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

I have never played a Loar, have only been in the presence of a few. Rieschman's included. My Varnished Fern to my ears sounds more like a Loar with each passing month of play. Every time I hear this mandolin recorded it's getting closer.

I do like some of the modern sound too. I am eagerly awaiting my new Varnished Collings. Should be a nice compliment to my traditional sounding Gibson. 

AlanN; I, too, waited many years for a GA, only to be disappointed. I even beat the thing in a band for two years hoping it would open up. It didn't. I think the GA is designed to be something else. Not Loar, not bluegrass at all.

----------


## cutbait2

having been a "member of the board" for about three or four years now i've always appreciated the occassional but rare input of the most knowledgable members of the mando community. this thread contains some admissions/conclussions that are interesting; 1) there is a "modern mando sound" 2) currently the most valued sound in terms of price paid for new instrument (ie not collectables) is the "modern sound" 3) the quest for the "Loar sound" has been over the past several? years diverted to the quest for "that sound", (can we say the Gil sound? if we acknowledge that not even all gils have it?)"

----------


## mandopete

Fred, since you bring up John Reischman, that's where this "Loar sound" discussion leads me back to my instrument vs. player theory. #I guess I'm of the opinion that John's sound is more in the "modern" sound, but as many state here in this thread, that's is not what the Loar sound is all about. #I guess I'm just confused.

BTW, I agree with you on your Fern. #When I heard you playing on the mic at Darrington last year, I thought the tone was superb. #But as I have said before as well, I think that is at least 50% (or more) comming from you.

----------


## Professor PT

I think it has a lot to do with the player. I recently played Mike Compton's Gilchrist( F-hole variety ), and to me, it sounded sort of flat. When he played, it certainly sounded great. He could make just about anything sound good.

----------


## mandopete

Yup, that's my point.

----------


## KenR

I have to weigh in on this one. A mandolin sounds very different when you are playing it as opposed listening to someone else play it from several feet away. I think this may be especially true of Gilchrists which have tremendous projection. Certainly, a great player like Compton can make a good instrument sound better but the perceived difference in tone may not lie entirely with the player. When judging a mandolin's sound, I always try to get a good player to give it a workout while I listen from 10 or 12 feet away. - Ken

----------


## Crowder

> I have to weigh in on this one. A mandolin sounds very different when you are playing it as opposed listening to someone else play it from several feet away. I think this may be especially true of Gilchrists which have tremendous projection. Certainly, a great player like Compton can make a good instrument sound better but the perceived difference in tone may not lie entirely with the player. When judging a mandolin's sound, I always try to get a good player to give it a workout while I listen from 10 or 12 feet away. - Ken


That is a shame too. It's why I find myself playing in the bathroom all the time

----------


## Jim Rowland

I've been playing in the bathroom for sixty years,and am not getting any better at it....Wait!..no...you meant mandolin...
Jim

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

> Fred, since you bring up John Reischman, that's where this "Loar sound" discussion leads me back to my instrument vs. player theory. #I guess I'm of the opinion that John's sound is more in the "modern" sound, but as many state here in this thread, that's is not what the Loar sound is all about. #
> 
> BTW, I agree with you on your Fern. #When I heard you playing on the mic at Darrington last year, I thought the tone was superb. #But as I have said before as well, I think that is at least 50% (or more) coming from you.


I think when I refer to the "Loar sound", I don't neccessarily mean the style of the player, but more the actual sound of the mandolin. I believe most of us have a perception of what the Loar sound is, and most of us would identify it differently if it could be laid out before us in a definite way.

I would agree that different players make an instrument sound different, but my Fern sounds more like what I think a Loar sounds like as it gains playing time.

----------


## jlb

Is there a Loar sound? When I listen to Mandolin Extravaganze, or a variety of recordings with old F-5 mandos, I hear lots of Loars, and they all sound incredibly different.

Are we talking about the Loar sound, or Bill Monroe's Loar sound?

----------


## mandodon

_Is there a Loar sound? When I listen to Mandolin Extravaganze, or a variety of recordings with old F-5 mandos, I hear lots of Loars, and they all sound incredibly different._

I think that's a bit much to say...so many Loars have been removed from the music scene to wealthy collectors, that you're probably hearing a small sample of Loar's work.

----------


## Spruce

_"Is there a Loar sound?"_

There is when I'm the one doing the playing/listening....   

We had a fun taste test at this past IBMA, with a good-sounding Loar mixed in with 4 Fletcher Brocks in a nice and quiet hotel room...

Three listeners, including Fletcher, couldn't pin down the Loar, and yet it was totally obvious (obviously!) to the player... 

Go figure...

----------


## mandopete

Yeah, that is a little difficult to figure out, especially when this very thread has centered on the notion of a Loar mandolin having a very definable sound. #I guess that bodes well for Fletcher, eh?

Here's my other observation...many of the bluegrass players that I've come to associate with a "Loar" sound have a pretty heavy attack, Bill Monroe and Mike Compton amongst others. #Then are some practioners with a less heavy attack, say John Reischman, who get (IMHO) a different sound (modern?) out the mandolin. #My own thinking is that it is this attack (read right-hand technique) that is the chief component of the player's end of tone creation. #In that way there will be quite a variation in tone produced from player to player.

Now from what I gather, the Lloyd Loar mandolin is very, very responsive, thus making it more sensitive to the attack. I'm also guessing that it holds up well when hit pretty hard. #This is an aspect that is missing in some lesser mandolins. They really don't sound too good when played hard.

Anyway, I'm far from an expert on any of this. #I only know as a listener I like what I hear and as a player I like what I feel.

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

> Anyway, I'm far from an expert on any of this. #I only know as a listener I like what I hear and as a player I like what I feel.


I don't know, Pete, anyone who says my mando sounds great, and claims it's me that is responsible for that sound, must be an expert!!!!!

----------


## KenR

To throw another variable in the pot, a number of Loars, including Reischman's I believe, have had extensive modifications. Is his "modern sound" related more to these modifications or to technique? - Ken

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

I think the Loar sound for many of us is a result of the ones we've played or been around, or even recorded references. In my part of the country, I don't encounter many Loar mandolins, and as a result, my idea is somewhat limited by those few I've heard live and recorded versions where I knew the artist was playing one. 

The recorded references are also subject to the quality of the recording. I would never try to emulate most of Bill Monroe's work in his early recordings even though it was done with his famous Loar. The recording quality just doesn't do it justice. As a result, the tone just isn't "loar-like". Clear as mud?

----------


## string_8

I visited Don MacRostie recently to audition some of his Red Diamonds and he said his 'vintage' model has a different arch than his 'regular' model. Most people now-a-days seem to prefer his regular model which he described as more woody (and y'all would describe as 'modern'). It has a flatter arch. The vintage model has a more pronounced arch that more closely mimics the Loar. It has a less woody but more pronounced tone with more 'bite' to it. Frankly, I could make either one sound like the other depending on which pick I used and how I plucked it. I could be happy with either one, but I must say that generally the vintage sound would cut through a mix better while the modern sound was more pleasant in a more intimate setting.

----------


## GTison

HOW many of you (us, me) can identify the sound of a loar on the mandoin tasting CDs? Blindfolded! I've done it sometimes. I know recording techniques etc. may make the sound a little different. But still all the talk about Loars vs. Brocks vs. Gil vs.Kentucky goes on and on with out a reference point. How do you make sense of it?
 I do like the midrange explanation, myself though.

----------


## futrconslr

There may be something to the heavy attack pointed out by mandopete. #I see Compton often. #Its one of the perks of living in Nashville....He hits it HARD #There are some licks he pulls that you feel them in your teeth. #I thought that it was his Gil #but I think its his picking.....this will I am sure will get eyerolls BUT he gets the same type effect out of #an ajr I saw him playing a month or so ago.

Also, the only non-loar, loar sounding instrument I have played recently was a 20's fern and #FRED FRANK are you listening...a new varnished fern down at #Valley Arts that is out of this world.

----------

> I've been playing in the bathroom for sixty years,and am not getting any better at it....Wait!..no...you meant mandolin...
> Jim


That is funny.I think we all started in the Bathroom or bedroom or closet of some sort.  

The more I hear about the vintage vs. modern sound, the more confused I get. #Are we not on a quest for the best of both? #I know I am. #After hearing what many of you have to say, I ordered my mandolin yesterday. #I am 100%confident that I have made the correct decision thanks to all of you. # # # 

With that said, in all fairness to those who have taken the time to help me out. #There were several referrals but the one that really made the difference to me, and some of you probably guessed already, Steven Gilchrist

Dare I say he knows both modern and Loar mandolins. #He recommended Moon Beam and said it was some of the nicest instruments he had seen in some time. #Especially for the low numbers. #Really great mandolins!

Since I was looking for "THE" sound with a not so traditional look, it was perfect for me. # Thanks Again!

----------


## mike_c

i am sure enjoying this discussion..it is one of the best i have read in a while..i would like to make a couple comments about the loar tone..first off, didn't i read several years ago that john reichman's loar had internal work done to it by john monteleone? #i have had the opportunity to play maybe 5-6 loars, and certainly enjoyed them all, although 2 of them needed a bunch of serious setup work. my observations were that they seemed to have tremendous power and punch when i dug in to them..the tone was very un-sexy as compared to many top modern mandos-- meaning a very clean bell-like note that jumped from the top (when played cleanly.) #i don't say this as a slam, it's actually a great compliment..loars strike me simply as well-made, well graduated mandolins that now have great power and punch because of their age..i think the modern sounding mandos are made to sound big and powerful when they are new- like my collings mf-5..i think the loars are made with more wood in the tops and backs, so that it took years for them to become the powerhouses that they can be..it makes one wonder if the new modern tone mandos will retain punch and clarity when they are 80 years old..

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

> it makes one wonder if the new modern tone mandos will retain punch and clarity when they are 80 years old..


Or maybe they'll just cave in . . . we won't be around to have to deal with it!

I find it interesting that this thread started with the Loar sound builder guessing game, mutated into what the Loar sound is, and ended up on a Moon Beam.

----------


## Chris Baird

Yes, quite peculiar.

----------


## jmkatcher

I was just using my Ouija board and Lloyd Loar stopped by to recommend Moon Beam too.

----------


## Mando Dan

Here's one now It is one of the three in that photo of #Gil with the Beam. #They do make a traditional F5.

----------


## Bob Sayers

To throw a new wrinkle in this, I think of the "modern sound" as that promulgated by Adam Steffey when he was with AKUS: sweet, gentle, melodic, unbluesy. A nice lacquer-finished mandolin seems to be perfect for achieving that sound. By contrast, to me the "traditional" sound is that associated with Bill Monroe and most of his disciples: angular, hard-edged, very bluesy. His Loar seems to define that sound and serves as a model for what most contemporary luthiers are trying to emulate. Right?

Bob

----------


## Brookside

> It is one of the three in that photo of #Gil with the Beam. #They do make a traditional F5.


When Gil agreed to stop by he probably thought y'all said Jim Beam.

----------


## futrconslr

That would have made me stop by....lol  Good one Brookside.

----------


## neal

So, this thread has been a shill for moonbeam all along? Not that I mind. It's just curious.

----------

I think this thread has been very informative. #Would you say that the Loar mandolins could be better in some areas. #Thus being inferior? #Or are they perfectly imperfect? #Does the inconsistency #make them better?

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

It definitely makes them interesting. Last summer I saw no less than four Loars at different venues. None of them sounded exactly the same, as you might expect from 80 year old instruments. But they all sounded pretty good.

And, no, I have not seen your teeth.:D

----------

I appreciate it Fred..Frank. #I did not find my teeth, but I don't really need em' anyhow. #Thanks for the reminder, I needed to change my signature.

----------


## Nick Triesch

I think it all comes down to this. Americans love bass. We always have. Many of us have grown up with extra bass in our sound systems. Sony walkmans have super bass built in. That's how we love our guitars and mandolins. I remember 30 years ago I had a friend who had a cool old Martin D28 that sounded fantastic. He told me he just had it sanded for bass!  He asked me if I had my 000-21 sanded for bass and I said no.  It was the normal thing to do back then in the 60,s. It's the same with mandolins. I had a terrific flatiron but to me it was thin in the low end. Then I played a friends new Apitius F5 and man! It had the huge full sound I was looking for......Bass. Yes I think that builders today are making mandos the way players want them to sound. There is nothing wrong with it, it's just what players want today (most I think). I think Martin responded years ago by the re issue of the HD 28 with it's lighter braceing. For more bass. Look at the other guitars today, Taylor, Goodall to name a few. These guitars have a full sound that just fills a room with sound. That's what people want. The modern sound. Just think of all the old D28,s out there that have been messed with.......many more than you think! IMHO  Nick

----------


## Jeff Hoelter

> first off, didn't i read several years ago that john reichman's loar had internal work done to it by john monteleone?


You may be thinking of Mike Marshall's Loar. #I saw an interview with Reischman and he said the work done to his Loar was this:
1. #New fretboard put on because the old one had poor intonation (new fingerboard is radiused).
2. #Gilchrist refinished a small part of the top where Reischman planted his finger.
3. #Pickguard was removed because Reischman thought it sounded better with it off.

You can read John Reischman talking about it himself (Q3):
http://mandozine.com/resources/CGOW/reischman.php

To read John Monteleone writing about regraduating Mike Marshall's Loar, go here (Q14): 
http://www.mandozine.com/resources/CGOW/monteleone.php






> To throw a new wrinkle in this, I think of the "modern sound" as that promulgated by Adam Steffey when he was with AKUS: #sweet, gentle, melodic, unbluesy. #A nice lacquer-finished mandolin seems to be perfect for achieving that sound.


That style of mandolin playing has absolutely nothing to do with the mandolin being finished in lacquer.


Jeff

----------


## mike_c

i looked back through my mandolin magazines and finally found it..it's in the winter 1999 issue (volume 1-number 3)..in --the bridge-a followup, ken states "i have played 14 different f-5 Lloyd Loars and only one had "the tone" i wanted. that mandolin is the one owned by john reischman. it is not a stock instrument. it has had some tuning and alterations of brace and top work done by john monteleone of islip N.Y. and reichman had the fingerboard radiused and had larger frets installed"......

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Told 'ya so   there's another very visual one out there too.

----------


## Michael Lewis

I wonder if it will ever be known for certain whether John's Loar was altered. I have carefully measured the thickness of the top and back with a Hacklinger gauge, and find the top to be very similar to other Loars I have measured. The back is somewhat thinner than some Loars but also very similar to others. It is in the ball park for Loar graduations as it is, nothing really unusual. My feeling is that if it was modified it wasn't changed very much. John had a full contact bridge put on, and I think that is a good idea.

----------


## mandopete

> John had a full contact bridge put on, and I think that is a good idea.


Are you referring to a bridge that has no gap underneath? I've always wondered about this as I thought that gap would allow the top to move more (sort of like a violin).

----------


## Spruce

Moonbeam (?) sez:

_"#There were several referrals but the one that really made the difference to me, and some of you probably guessed already, Steven Gilchrist.
Dare I say he knows both modern and Loar mandolins. #He recommended Moon Beam and said it was some of the nicest instruments he had seen in some time. #Especially for the low numbers. #Really great mandolins!"_

_"So, this thread has been a shill for moonbeam all along?"_

So, am I reading this right??
This thread was started by Moonbeam as a shill?
Man, am I slow or what??

OK, should I email Steve G. and see what he has to say about the ol' Moonbeams??

Looks like a classic case of Luthiercide to me...

----------


## racuda

> So, am I reading this right??
> This thread was started by Moonbeam as a shill?
> Man, am I slow or what??


I believe that there were three usernames created about six months ago for the purpose of "talking up" Moon Beam. Two of them have recently been banished from the forum.

----------


## GBG

Is a moonbeam kinda like moonshine ?

----------


## neal

"I believe that there were three usernames created about six months ago for the purpose of "talking up" Moon Beam. Two of them have recently been banished from the forum."


Bet the builder isn't happy with those 2.  Or am I being naive?

----------


## racuda

> Bet the builder isn't happy with those 2. # Or am I being naive?


I think the builder _IS_ those 2.

----------


## Brian Aldridge

hold on a second... I am just starting to wonder if maybe Moonbeams are better than Loars, Gilchrists and Nuggets... all I have been able to think of all day is moonbeam moonbeam moonbeam. I wonder if I cam get my old F5 regrauduated to Moonbeam specs? Then by god it would have a chance to sound like a modern mandolin! I knew I should have taken up the ####### banjo...

----------


## jmkatcher

Hey man, don't insult modern mandolins. I'm not about to get my beloved Rigel regraduated to eBeam specs either.

----------


## Michael Lewis

Brian, don't touch that mandolin except to play it! I know you're just funnin' us when you said that, but don't change that mandolin.

----------


## John Ritchhart

uh, what's a shill?

----------


## Brian Aldridge

I'm snowed in, so... a shill is someone starts a topic, not for discussion sake, but because they have an agenda. Like someone wants to generate interest in something they have for sale, or they are getting something free from say a builder in exchange for promoting a product. It's just a form of sales and advertising. This kind of stuff hurts discussion boards, because it can mislead people. One of the finest builders on the planet is here among us all the time, and he is here to help and to contribute in a positve way. He never trys any of this false self promotion ####. He stays busy enough, because he is so good. He is here because he loves mandolins and people. Michael Lewis is his name. I know a lot of good things has been said about him, but not nearly enough. That's because people who know him knows he wouldn't want a bunch of this. But I will say, if you want a mandolin that sounds like a Loar, or like a modern mandolin or whatever, go see Michael Lewis or Don MacRostie. I know they both have done their homework and can build you what you want. An up and comer is Chris Stanley. Catch him early, and get a deal. These guys are straight shooters, honest as the day is long.

----------


## Spruce

_"a shill is someone starts a topic, not for discussion sake, but because they have an agenda."_

Yeah...
Like getting someone like Steve Gilchrist to say that "he recommends Moon Beam and said it was some of the nicest instruments he had seen in some time"...
Sheech....

Hey Moonbeam...
If you indeed started this thread, are you aware of the fact that you just doomed your mando-making business to laughing-stock status?

No big deal though..
I just went and read some old Moonbeam threads, and it looks like you were already there...  

Next time let the mandos do the talking, OK?
We'll let you know if your instruments are "some of the nicest instruments we've seen in some time", 'cause we just can't help it, ya know?

Meanwhile, whenever the topic of Moonbeam mandos comes up around here (and it _will_, believe me), I'll just remember this little blurb that you wrote about your mandolin building skills:

_"I just recently started building as a hobby with little success. #So little in fact, pictures are unavailable. (LOL!)"_

I vowed to use this this icon sparingly, but it just seems so right for this thread....
Moonbeam, you get the BS award for 2004...
Enjoy....

----------


## peter.coombe

Gotta agree with Spruce on this. I really don't like the way Moonbeam is using Steve Gilchrist's name. Steve played one of my A5 mandolins for around a hour about 2 or 3 years ago, but I don't shout from the rooftops about what he said. IMHO it is unprofessional and Moonbeam should take it down from his website.

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

David Grisman played about 14 notes on my mandolin one time and raised one of his eyebrows . . .not sure that counts as an endorsement, or maybe he just had an itch.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Grisman played my mandolin a while back too. He agreed that it was the best Loar copy ever made. I told him that I had done all of the work (including the label and signature)the parts with patent stamps....everything except for the smell and the original case. Charlie provided the smell so that the mando would be undetectable from the real thing. If anybody wants one, they are for sale. My prices start are $125,000. Have a merry Holiday everyone

----------


## cutbait2

i don't understand why this is a sudden concern, given all the hype that floats around here sometimes? i can think of a quite a number of similar threads over the years. given that SG is actually in the picture and hasn't demanded the quote be retracted (unless i've missed something) i don't see much different from the usual......lets see. who printed that picture of Compton playing a certain new builders mando. wasn't there a quote with that one too? something like "this is a mando" was turned into a major press release

----------


## fatt-dad

What I want is a service where I can mail my mandolins to David Grisman (or some other lumenary) and get a video of them playing 14 notes. You know, I could then have that endorsement (well I hope) for later resell or some other worthwhile purpose.

Just an idea. . . . . 

f-d

----------


## JimW

If those two were actually the maker of Moonbeam mandolins and was trying to get interest going on his mandolins through discussion under false pretenses, I personally find this appalling. I, for one, wouldn't touch one of his mandolins with a ten foot pole. Anyone that resorts to these tactics for sales has to have a flawed product, or even if it's a good product, the character of the builder is enough for me not to purchase one. I happened to look at some old eBay auctions of his mandolins and back in September he advertised one saying this would be the final mandolin auction of 2004, but miraculously, about 4 others have appeared. Hmmm, these are truly shady characters in my opinion.

Jim

----------


## cutbait2

Jim, are you saying that you actually believe that posting positive (and sometimes anonymous)reviews of a mandolin you are: trying to sell, have a friend trying to sell, own and want to maintain the value of, or using a picture of a pro holding your mando as advertising is something rare on MC? i don't know moonbeam mando's from adam but what causes this to differ from 400 post brw threads or any of the other non conicidental "info posts". (last comment on subject from me as I will now assume Christmas spirit)

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Let's all assume a bit of the Christmas spirit..my last post was in simple fun...but by far and large this thread has been informative and hasn't had a whole lot to do with Moonbeams..whether it was started that way or not. #(somebody buy my case in the classifieds)

----------


## Flowerpot

I think the problem many have with this thread... and it irks me too... is that the original poster (Guest) started it by asking about Loar-sounding modern mandolins and ended by saying "Thanks for the inputs, I've decided to get a Moonbeam. Gil says Moonbeams are great. Everybody should have a Moonbean. Have a nice day." So the whole thread, coincidently useful and interesting for the most part, was a sham, an attempt to stir up readership and then shill for a particular maker. If the original subject header was "Thinking about a Moonbeam", I don't think anybody would be upset.

----------


## mandopete

Whatsa Moonbeam ?

----------


## JimW

cutbait2, I have no problem with someone saying they build a great mandolin. Advertise to your hearts content, but what I do have a problem with are the tactics used here. Let the world know how great of a builder you are, but, by god let me know you are the builder when you're hyping your product and not pretend to be someone else.

Jim

----------


## Brookside

The problem was that this moonbeam thing went well beyond this thread. As soon as the Gil photo appeared on their website it was plugged with a link in at least 4 threads. One of them said, "I was just surfing the internet and noticed this." In another, one of the "removed" members was trashing another builder calling his instruments "poorly made". A moonbeam plug followed two posts later. A "golly, look at this moonbeam on ebay" thread appeared.  

Even all that would not bother me had these been genuine people having a discussion. It bothers me that characters were invented who clearly had an agenda that was promoted by having conversations with each other. 

There are builders who plug their work here. I love them. I love to see photos of their work in progress and their newly completed instruments. They are open and honest about their identities. There are owners and players who brag about these builders. I love them. They offer a depth of discussion that the builder can't or won't. In most cases they simply appear to be an enthusiastic owner, not an invented character. These are the differences.

I would be curious to know what the generous builder pictured on their website thinks of all this. He must be a good-hearted guy to take the time to stop by a fellow builders shop. Then he gets ambushed with a camera and a notepad which results in a marketing blitz that uses his face and kind words. I could be wrong but that is the way it looks. It would make me hesitant to stop by another shop for awhile and that is a shame. 

Still, I am reserving judgement that the builder is personally responsible for everything above. It could have been an overzealous helper who did all the plugging. I'm just glad to see it stop.

----------


## neal

I would like to add to this thread that one of the banned posters had a very similar name to one of the regs here, pickinBob. At first I thought it was Bob T, and am happy to find out it was not. #Others may have thought that, too. #Or not. #

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

> I, for one, wouldn't touch one of his mandolins with a ten foot pole.


Do you use medium guage or heavy guage poles? And I wondered if you like the pointed kind or slightly rounded on the end. I found that I get too much pole noise with the pointy ones. And I personally prefer Adirondak over tortise poles!



Actually, I enjoyed this thread for the most part. Except for the fact that it wasn't what we all thought it was, it turned into a great discussion of Loars. Fun!

----------


## Crowder

> i don't know moonbeam mando's from adam but what causes this to differ from 400 post brw threads or any of the other non conicidental "info posts". (last comment on subject from me as I will now assume Christmas spirit)


None of the people who posted on those long BRW threads are anything other than happy owners or curious observers. I'm sure it's somewhat embarassing to Ben Wilcox. But when you build a mandolin that looks, sounds and plays like a $7500 mandolin and sell it for $3800, you're going to get some attention.

----------


## mandopete

Dang, I thought this was going to turn into another Brunkzilla thread. Dang!

----------


## mandoJeremy



----------


## atetone

I enjoyed following this thread and reading posts from people who obviously knew their stuff and have a great passion for it.
The discussion was completely out of my range of knowledge but very interesting.
Most of the posters enjoyed it, the lurkers (like me) enjoyed it and best of all,,,,,, We all now know Mr Moonbeams' scummy game.
Everyone wins except Moonbeam. # Just the way it should be!
Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
 Merry Christmas!

----------

Brunkzilla?

----------

David Grisman played a few notes on mine too, then he asked if I had the builders business card. And said intruiging, extremely intruiging. Then again maybe he just liked the builders last name and wanted to ask him what nationaltity it was.

----------


## Lee

Whoa, I don't believe Mandopete dissed the Brunk!

----------


## neal

Hey, maybe it's someone mad at Moonbeam..........

----------


## mandopete

Moonzillabeamala!

----------


## Yonkle

Hey SPRUCE.... "That B.S. Meter" made reading this whole thread worth it! Funny and called for. BACK to the LOAR talk, just wondering..... I have built 3 mandolins and have tried 6 or 7 different brands of strings on them. Each string (brand) sounds different ie. Thomastiks compared to j74 = totally different mandolin. Therefore my question is.... When sampling and listening to Loars or any other vintage Mandolin would not the stings that are on it have a lot to do with the tone/volume ect? OR is there ONE string brand/size that is used on most Loars? Or when sampling do "experts" use the same strings on each mandolin when comparing instruments? Thanks JD

----------


## fatt-dad

Yonkle - Great question! I posted a thread at one point asking what strings did Bill Monroe use on his mandolin. The reply (from Gibson) was "the Bill Monroe String" - who'd a thunk it? Apparently, Gibson made the set to best replicate what Bill Monroe used. Makes me wonder whether this or the J-75 is the type of string that is widely used on the Loar mandolins?

f-d

----------


## KevinM

FWIW I noticed Scott shut down a "Moonbeam" thread elsewhere within this topic. Methinks Elvish folk are at work in the cyber-forest making mischief.

----------


## goose 2

I just want to make a comment about the "Modern Sound." A few nights ago a fellow cafe member had me over to sample three Gilchrists with tone bar bracing and red spruce tops. He did this to help me decide how to order my Gil which is due this summer. I had never played a tone bar braced Gil (except a few notes on M Comptons in a loud room) though have played extensively several x braced models. I have played a few Loars and I compared these Gils with my well played in '02 Master Model. First, My Master Model sounds very, very similar to the Loars I have played. I even like it better than the Loars that I have played.  After A/B comparing the MM with the Gils, there is no doubt that the Gils have a very different sound than the Loar. I know that it is not a direct comparison with a Loar, but my MM is as close as it gets. The Gils are dryer with perhaps more sustain, great clarity. The Gibson is more focused with a bit of a growl, great clarity as well. Both sound absolutely fantastic, but definitely different.  Prior to this, I kinda thought that all that was needed to reproduce that Loar tone was a tone bar braced, red topped, varnish finished mandolin made by a master luthier. This is aparently not all that is in the formula. The differences in tone must be related to top thickness or other differences in graduation or perhaps the varnish formula. 
Anyway, if the Loar lights you up and you want one of the finest mandolins ever made, get a Master Model.
If the "modern sound" lights you up and you want one of the finest mandolins ever made, get a Gilchrist.

If you like both sounds, then do like me and get one of each.

Don't hate me . . .

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Very nicely stated Goose....you are officially a member of the club...you have seen the light....it's not what sounds "best"..it is the simple fact that they do sound different

----------


## kudzugypsy

very interesting thread, made me late for work!!

i sincerely hope that every musician (and luthier) finds their "own" sound. there are far too many going after someone else's.

----------


## Lee

Well let's not limit ourselves to just two types of excellent tone. That would be analogous to liking all kinds of music; country and western. There are many pinnacles of excellence. Some are under-appreciated and some have not yet been explored.

----------


## Eric F.

That's a good point Lee957, and we're on a mission from God to explore them all. ...

----------


## EasyEd

Hey All,

First Lee are you suggesting that the world of music isn't flat? Is there something other than C&W? (note in my world country includes folk, blues, bluegrass, celtic and mountain)  If there is my radio must be broke! 

Second This whole discussion of the Loar sound and/versus the modern sound is interesting. When I listen to old bluegrass mainly what I often hear is the mandolin cuttin through the music in the mids almost as if the mando doesn't have G strings. To me this seems to be the designated "musical space" within the music that older mando occupies. Modern mando is all over the place occupying different "musical spaces" at different times - definitely more bassey and perhaps more highs. 

To me this begs the question - Is the loar sound perfect for all musical types or is it limited - is the Loar the mando at home on an Arkansas front porch with banjo boy and in a Chicago blues joint and in an Irish Pub and in a Greek restaurant or not. 

I wonder how many highend Gibson owners use their Loars and MMs and the like for all music types or do they basically play music suited to their mandos? A rifle analogy. I use a 30-06 for virtually all my hunting except birds and 22 cal suited game. I know other guys who have their antelope rifle, their deer rifle, their elk rifle, their moose rifle, etc while I hunt em all with one gun varying my bullet ballistics, weight and powder. I could just hunt deer.

I tend to be a one gun/instrument for all types of game/music kinda guy so what I'd like to find is the one or two mandolins upon which I can vary strings, pick, bridge, tailpiece and attack and basically knock any piece of music dead (well not literally although some might say I'm very successful at doing just that  - you know what I mean). 

To what extent can you realistically "change" a mandolin's "sound" with different strings, pick, bridge and tailpiece? Can a Brentrup sound like a Gil or a Wiens assuming the same music piece, player and recording setup? Lets assume reasonably similar construction (hole shape, woods, bracing, carving, etc). What I'm getting at is what are the characteristics that greatly influence the sound of a mandolin versus which characteristics have a lesser impact. 

For example I often see people talk about A/B-ing two mandos and I'm not sure if they are comparing mandos or strings or picks or bridges or what. I wonder if it ever happens that someone A/Bs two mandos buys one and takes it home puts on their favorite strings and is dissappointed in the sound and then goes back to the store to ask what kind of strings were on the mando.

Getting back to the Loar a few who have posted say they can pick out a Loar over other mandos. I'm curious can you pick out a Loar even if single noting something like row row row your boat or is it distinctive only when chording or playing arpeggios? And can you pick it out when being played in the low versus mid or high registers or does it matter?

Anyway interesting topic with lots of ramifications. I'd like to see the discussion continue and I've tried to suggest a few possibilities.

Take Care! -Ed-

----------


## goose 2

Easy Ed,

Listen to Grisman. He plays straight up bluegrass, jass, dawg, and even some tunes that are kinda classical --all on a Loar. To be sure he has an axe for every occasion but he has recorded these different genres with the same mandolin. Same for Bush and others. I think a great musician can make all genres sound great on the same instrument. 

I met John Monteleone at the Dallas guitar show a few years ago and played his newest Grand Artist at the time. I asked what kind of music he thought the instrument was best suited for and he basically said: "You name it. Hopefully this instrument is of high enough quality to play anything and sound great."

----------


## AlanN

Couldn't agree more. A fine mandolinist playing the same fine mandolin can play any style and make it sound good. Look at Dave Apollon, very versatile musician - jazz, gypsy, classical, show tunes, popular. Didn't play "Rawhide" but you can hear in his playing that had that sound/style been around then, he would've have played it, and played it well. And all on a Gibson F-5.

----------


## 250sc

Quote:"A fine mandolinist playing the same fine mandolin can play any style and make it sound good."

I'd like to take this thought one step further and say A fine mandolinist playing any half way decent mandolin can play any style and make it sound good. 

It is my opinion that a good player will make any playable instrument sound good. Listen to Grisman's Tone Poems CDs where he plays lots of mandos but they all sound extremely simular in his hands.

Just my 2 cents.

----------


## AlanN

Agreed on that one.

Hey, my offer still stands - CD burn oldstrings@hotmail.com

----------


## Hans

I don't usually get into these kinds of topics, but it seems to me that a comparison of the toal qualities of instruments cannot be made unless we are talking apples to apples. So, what would apples to apples be?
Most will agree that the F-5 "Loar" sound generally involves four particulars: West Virginia red spruce (Lloyd's preference), a hard maple back that may or may not be flatsawn., and a varnish finish.
This combination will give that dry sound with few overtones...that sort of thuddy bass and clear bell like treble. To begin to compare a modern F-5 to a Loar, the tonewoods must be the same.
Any other combination of top and back tonewoods will give a completely different tone. For instance, a combination of German spruce and European quartersawn maple will result in a very rich, complex sound with lots of overtones...the other end of the scale. Change the back out to a harder maple, and the tone will change. 
Such manipulations of top and back woods provide the tonal diversity of the instruments that we see today by builders willing to step out of the box. They are able to customize the tone of their instruments for players that either prefer, or might be looking for something other than, "the Loar tone".
That fourth particular is 80 years...something that cannot be built into a new instrument. #

----------


## Brian Aldridge

I don't think that there are very many builders that really try to reproduce the Loar sounding mandolin in sincere earnest. They may try to get certain qualities of a Loar, and do in depth studies of Loars, but what Hans calls the fourth particular, 80 years, cannot be built into an instrument. This is the microwave, immediate gratification generation. Even beyond that, who has 80 years to wait? Another point is from an artistic perspective. Who wants to hear "yeah, they sound pretty close to the Stanley Brothers" or "man, he builds a pretty good Loar copy". Monteleone is maybe the best example of an artist/builder who didn't want to constantly be compared to something else and wanted to make his own mark. It has truely been said before that Charlie D could go out on his own and have all the work he would want, and make a good living. But I think he is where he wants to be, and has the best of both worlds. He can pursue his Loar passion, building not only Loar-like mandolins, but authentic Gibsons.

----------


## mandopete

Still an interesting thread none the less, although we've never really discussed the difference between Loar tone and Moonbeam tone.

----------


## Spruce

Yeah, where is Moonbean, anyway??

If I were him, I'd be here in a big hurry defending my honor...

Unless...
Ahhh, forget it.


_"It is my opinion that a good player will make any playable instrument sound good"_

I just transferred from my old reel-to-reels to CD a great recording of Bill Monroe and the Bluegrass Boys at the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco from September, 1977, and there's a very interesting little exercise in what tone is all about on there, for all to hear...

Bill breaks a string on "My Little Georgia Rose", and is handed a mandolin by the mando player from the opening band. #
For the life of me, I can't remember who this was, but I remember that it was a big thrill for him to have Mr. Bill rip on his mandolin...
(Anyone out there remember who this was? Arthur?)

Anyway, Bill says something like "my mandolin is an antique and hardly plays anymore" to audience laughter, then launches into "Kentucky Mandolin" on the borrowed mandolin. #
He plays _that_ intro really slow and soulful to try out the instrument, and then just flat out rips it.

Now, that mandolin could have been Butch Waller's Loar or it could have been an Ibanez (we'll find out soon), but the whole tone just reeks of Monroe and Loar...

So-ooo, the player's got a _little bit_ to do with what's coming out of the box... #

PS...
Great post, Hans...

----------


## EasyEd

Hey All,

First and foremost I really want to Thank everyone for really "stepping up to the plate" on this subject. These are issues about which I've been curious for some time.

Hans has given us some understanding of the relationships between tone and wood types and finish. I suspect that volume and shape of the sound chamber are also important but perhaps more from a decibel level than tone? Any comments? Hans - any other luthiers? I guess I'm still wondering - is the effect of strings, tailpiece, bridge and pick more on tone or volume - and how big is this effect? Several have pointed out that the player is critical and I suspect that most of us know that - and if your like me you hope that having a better mando will translate into greater musical ability - somehow someway someday.  

In my day job I often use statistics and one of the analyses I often do seeks to partition variability among different variables. If I use this concept in this discussion about mando tone (and volume?) I would ask How much does each of the following contribute to mandolin tone and volume? It might look something like this:

Player - 50%
Instrument - 25%
Strings - 10%
Bridge - 5%
Tailpiece - 5%
Pick - 5%

Or maybe it should be like this:

Player - 40%
Instrument - 40%
Strings - 5%
Bridge - 5%
Tailpiece - 5%
Pick - 5%

Note that the totals are always 100%.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are. 

Note also that we could use this concept to discuss each item on the list above for example - if we were to look at instrument tone and volume alone.

For a particular instrument tone and volume are affected by:

Woods Used - 30%
Sound Chamber (size and shape) - 10%
Hole Shape (oval or f) - 10%
Finish - 5%
Strings - 2%
Bridge - 1%
Tailpiece - 1%
Pick - 1%
Luthier Experience in combining the above to achieve a desired tone and volume - 40%

Likewise to the above I'm wondering what people's perceptions are about this.

If folks go ahead and express their opinions on either or both of these I'll do the math and post some kind of summary.

I suspect the results would be both interesting and enlightening - especially perhaps for beginners like me.

Thanks Again All! Take Care! -Ed-

----------


## Lee

EasyEd, you having a slow day at work?

----------


## EasyEd

Hey All,

Good One Lee! 

Actually I'm working on a manuscript/report that is driving me nuts (too many ANOVAS with interactions) - so occasional asides are welcome. The fact is that these are issues that I've been wondering about for a long time so they don't take long to type. For whatever reason the way I work I can type things like this while thinking about something else - in fact I usually get as much or more done and it is better if I'm "multitasking" than when trying to sit still and be single-mindedly focused. I don't know why. However I know "multitasking" is a bad idea when I'm pounding nails or running power tools! 

Take Care! -Ed-

----------


## Lee

Well Ed, I'd say those categories are tough to quantify. It's kinda like the old story about the different parts of the body arguing about which one's most important. (PM if you're not familiar with this.) 
But personally, if we're comparing mandolins I'd remove the player completely from the equation. The player coaxes the instrument's potential, he/she doesn't create the instrument's potential. Similarly, no one'suggested adding room acoustics into the equation although someone's mentioned how good his mandolin sounds while playing in the bathroom.
(4:23PM and counting...)

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Ah....Lee has struck a new chord here.  "The player coaxes the instrument's potential, he/she doesn't create the instrument's potential" 

I mostly agree, but let's not forget that some players can take YOUR instrument and play it for a while/ a week/ a month..and it DOES come back sounding better. What I hate is people that play the sound OUT of an instrument...it all has to do with technique and your ability to do the COAXING that LEE is referring too.

Too often I've loaned out instruments and they've come back "killed". It sometimes takes weeks to get them to respond right again.

This "ain't not opinion"..I've seen it way too many times.

----------


## EasyEd

Hey All,

Lee I suspect I get what your saying. Let me use the analogy I usually use - water. One scientist studies oxygen in isolation for 50 years while another does the same for hydrogen. One day they get together with the assignment to predict all the properties of water. Can they - absolutely not because the "whole" is greater than the "sum of it's parts" and both parts are necessary for the whole to exist. Even if they can predict some fundamental properties they can't predict that it is a near universal solvent or the beauty of waves rolling in on a shore at sunset (lets leave out the Indian Ocean Basin for now). Am I close?

This kind of thinking suggests that the reductionist science that has been done for centuries is a waste of time and we know that just ain't so. I was suggesting that we organize and quantify our opinions as best we can given our own experience. I still think that the results would be interesting. As you can see the second question does take the player out and I've assummed constant acoustics/recording (although I didn't say it. Take a stab - all the elements contribute but if you change one you'll likely hear a big difference in tone/volume whereas if you change another the tone/volume won't change much. It is these differences that I'm interested in.

Darryl - Interesting! I'd not doubt it - either way. Probably has to do with changes in frequency, amplitude, etc of the sounds created. Your mando may have been played in such a way as to "settle" into the sound you make thus "maximizing" (tone, volume) it while another player makes it "settle" into a different sound. It is likely that he/she didn't like your mando when he/she started playing it. And of course if your mandolin is truly loyal to you it won't like the same music you don't like!  If it does  

Take Care! -Ed-

----------


## mandoman4807

> Hey All,
> 
> 
> Second This whole discussion of the Loar sound and/versus the modern sound is interesting. When I listen to old bluegrass mainly what I often hear is the mandolin cuttin through the music in the mids almost as if the mando doesn't have G strings. To me this seems to be the designated "musical space" within the music that older mando occupies. Modern mando is all over the place occupying different "musical spaces" at different times - definitely more bassey and perhaps more highs. 
> 
> To me this begs the question - Is the loar sound perfect for all musical types or is it limited -
> Take Care! -Ed-




Well, we do know one thing is for sure. When Loyd Loar designed and built the F style mandolin, It wasn`t for the bluegrass sound. 
So the question is, what type of music would it have been suited for??


Darrell

----------


## jasona

AFAIK it was designed for ensemble, classical playing. It was designed to blend well with other instrments, and be albe to project to fill an orchestra hall. As I recall, the Virzi was designed to improve the tonal blending.

----------


## mandoman4807

This is whats so great about these F style mandolins we love. You can play everything from classical to bluegrass, it doesn't really matter. I is well suited for everything IMHO  Thanks to Mr Loar


Darrell

----------


## Nick Triesch

Darryl. #Never lend out your insturments! #Also I think you may be starting to fall off the deep end....Play the sound out of a mandolin? # I bet the strings are full of dirt. #This thread is starting to get a little strange. #Sometimes I take a little mando break. #I play my guitar for a few weeks!

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I've heard it said that jazz killed the mandolin market. Remember ,the mandolin orchestra craze wasn't just a musical fad. It was created and Gibson had a big hand in it's creation, with the goal of selling mandolins. Things changed both socially and musically after WW1, and the new technologies of recording and radio had a lot to do with it.
 I think Gibson wanted to try to counter the waning market for mandolins with a superior instrument, but the writing was on the wall.

----------


## Mandobar

believe it or not a lot of the sound comes from technique. much of the sound comes from your hands. clarinetists and other wind players will tell you that their sound comes from their embrochure- the mouth. if 12 of us sat around in a circle and passed the same mandolin around and played the same 8 bars each time you'd get 12 different phrasings and 12 different sounding interpretations of the same 8 bars of music.

as for mandolin orchestras, before wwii, this was an acceptable way that young ladies socialized with young men.

----------


## Hans

Most will agree that building mandolins is a very intuitive process. Attempting to quantify that process will get you a bunch of numbers. I guess it is in our nature to try to reduce anything to its elements. 
In discussing mandolin tone, many of these elements only serve to color the outcome. They include: strings, bridge, picks, tailpiece, and the player. This is why Ken's mandolin tasting CD's work so well. Ken has attemped to reduce the number of variables by having one player, one pick, and the same set of strings on all instruments.
I would venture a guess that most all builders will tend to eliminate as many of those variables as possible by using the same bridge, T/P, strings, bracing patterns, etc. on all their instuments. Complicating matters does not bring clarity.
For me, the question has always been "If I use these tonewoods and carve the plates like this, what will the outcome be tonewise compared to everything that I have done before."
Comparing different shaped instruments or instruments with F-holes and oval holes brings us back to comparing apples with oranges.

----------


## kudzugypsy

on the thread of "modern" sound:
its a shame we dont have a record of what mandolinist at the time (20's) *really* thought about the new F5. its no mystery that these were used mainly in mandolin orchestras, which were composed of various makes of instruments that blended so nicely together. now we have this completely different sound coming in overpowering everything else. i can just imagine some 3rd chair mandolinist doctor with his F5 blowing away to the horror of everyone else.

we seem to forget that there is always going to be some new sound that becomes the standard, as it was in the 20's and as it is today with the music changing and players wanting more "bass and power". remember, we are no longer competing with 20 other mandolins, but with one loud banjo.

to me, i think the loars are very well balanced. i dont hear the "they lack in bass" thing at all. remember, the mandolin carried the high end of the composition and the mandola and mandocello, etc would carry the counterpoint lines and provide the bass end. loar didnt need to muddy up the balance of the F5 with unneccessary woof. it was clarity and balance (mid range) that was important. it is only now, with the classic F5 removed from its "intended" purpose that modern players want that bass sound back into the design. it seems that the first thing a player will do is chop a chord to see how much balls the instrument has and base their decision on that alone. a complete tonal balance across the range of the instrument is of little importance to them, its that G and A chop they're really after. 

it is quite logical to reason that was the great appeal of the x braced gilchrist mandolins, they were sort of a *best* of both worlds. funny how now he (and many players) have abandoned that method and gone back to tone bars and loar specs.

----------


## AlanN

Hear, Hear! to you, Kudzu.

I can't stand it when someone chops my Loar and then proclaims "My mandolin is louder". Go fish...

----------


## Bob DeVellis

Lots of interesting ideas in this thread. Regarding the reception of the F-5, we know that at least some established mandolinists of the day detested the things. Walter K. Bauer was very vocal in his criticism of the F-5, once referring to it as " a pile of lumber dressed up as a harlot." (ouch!)

It might be fairer to say that, rather than creating the mando craze, Gibson grabbed onto it and pumped it up through its marketing strategy. The craze goes back to the appearance of the Figaro Spanish Students in the 1870s. Although they didn't actually play mandolins, everyone thought that their instruments (bandurrias) were mandolins. Several later groups, often founded by Italian-American mandolinists, copied their style but used the instrument with which they were more familiar, the Neapolitan mandolin. Following the proliferation of professional mandolin ensembles, local amateur groups began springing up. Here's where Gibson really displayed its marketing genius. Unlike other manufactures such as Lyon & Healy (a marketing giant in its own right), Gibson had a model of vertical integration, with sales through agents who dealt pretty much exclusively in Gibson instruments and who also taught mandolin and organized mandoloin clubs, with Gibson ownership as a prerequisite for joining. 

I think a reasonable guess as to the repertoire Loar played can be based on the popular music of the day. It included some light classical pieces but also (and perhaps to a greater degree) contemporary music for listening and dancing. String-band jazz really didn't take hold until the 1930s in Paris (Django et al.). Although there may have been some innovators around in the U.S. prior to that, I don't think there really was much in the way of string jazz in the early 1920s when the F-5 was designed. Although jazz's antecedents, blues and ragtime, were pretty well established prior to the 1920s, and some jazzy ragtime was around before 1920, I doubt it was getting much play on mandolin. Gavottes, jigs, minuets, gallops, waltzes, and other dance music were all big at the turn of the century and probably carried over to the late teens and early '20s. Of course, as the new century unfolded, more up-tempo music also became increasingly popular. Tin-Pan Alley style popular music, like Jolsen's "Swanee." Paul Whiteman was making acoustical (i.e., pre-microphone) recordings back then, but I wouldn't yet call what he was doing jazz. The Charlston was around, too but again, more up-tempo dance music than what I think of as jazz. Some tunes we now associate with jazz (e.g., "Stumbling") were around but were really ballroom music when originally composed. The jazziest of this stuff, again, probably wasn't making its way to mandolin just yet. So, I doubt Loar played much that resembled jazz as many of us think of it today.

Jazz may fairly be said to have helped the demise of mandolin, though. As the twenties unfolded, more ensembles incorporated horns, and mandolins had a hard time being heard. Tenor banjo came into its ascendency.

As for the "man vs machine" issue as it applies to mandolin, it occurs to me that the mix of what contributes to the "overall sound" varies with skill level. I find, for example, that changing picks makes a huge difference when I play. I suspect that a better player would notice a smaller difference because he or she would compensate for the pick and still get close to the desired tone no matter what pick was used. This might also pertain to strings, with a really good player altering attack, picking position, and other factors to get close to the tone they were after even with different strings. Of course, if we're measuring people's *opinions* about what goes into the mix, then that wouldn't matter directly. It's worth remembering, EasyEd, that when we develop a measure and look at it's constitutent parts, it what makes up the *measure*, not what makes up the concept we're measuring, that gets revealed. Making sure the two are one and the same can get tricky.

Sorry for the long-winded posting.

----------


## Old Red

I certainly believe that a lot of a player's sound is in his or her hands. #However, different mandolins in the same hands do sound different. #On Skip Gorman's Monroe cd, the mandolin he uses on the Loar cuts sounds a lot different, to my ears at least, than the mandolin he uses on the rest of the cd. #Not better or worse, just different. #The Loar tracks on that cd capture what I think of as the the Loar sound very well, I believe. #At least, they sound to me like a very faithful reproduction of the sound produced by the dozen or so Loars that I have had the good fortune to play. #I definitely recommend the entire cd to anyone who wants to hear some of the lesser known Monroe instrumentals beautifully played. # 

Andy

----------


## Russ Jordan

what does Gorman play on the other tracks?

----------


## futrconslr

I have a story that will support Spruce and Daryll's statements on the players hands. My first Mando was a Mk LAMINATED top f-5 copy. Not a bad little instrument to learn on but definately not a loar! lol Anyway, I took a few lessons from Roland White and I show up on the first day nervous not only to be taken lessons from one of what I consider to be one of the legends of BG music but also because I dont think my instrument is up to snuff. As soon as we sit down, he wants to see my mando, to check setup etc. He tremelos a couple of double stops, does a bluesy run, hammers a couple of chop chords and says it ok for a starter. What is important is that the freaking thing never sounded that good before or has never sounded that way again!  I think the player is the biggest part of the equation. 

Roland is such a nice guy his kind comments were what I really needed at that particular time.

----------


## mandopete

> what does Gorman play on the other tracks?


I believe it is either an Ibanez or a Ventura, I can't recall which. #Skip was out at Wintergrass a couple of years ago and he talked about how he had "modified" it. #I was shocked when I heard that it was not a Gibson as I had always thought his sound was very much like like Mr. Bill (and I assumed it was a Loar or some such mandolin). He described the tone as an "underwater" sound.

Just goes to show you, eh?

----------


## mandopete

=&gt; Left turn.....

I always though the advent of the "mandolin orchestra" was a way in which people who did not want to take the time to learn classical instruments such as the violin, viola and cello could play music written for those instruments. The addition of frets removed the need to learn intonation and a pick replaced the need to learn to use a bow. I suspect that in their day these mandolins, mandolas and mandocellos were a bit less expensive too.

----------


## Michael Gowell

Re Skip Gorman's other mandos; the cover of his CD 'Monroesque', which is vol 2 of his most recent release 'The Old-Style Mandolin' shows him kneeling with two
instruments.

One is an F-5 style with a circa 1930's fingerboard. #It appears to be a Gibson, but the photo isn't clear enough to read the peghead. #Maybe the Loar, with a newer fingerboard, or maybe not. #In any case he was still playing an identical Gibson when I saw him in concert 2 years ago.

More to the point about it being the player who makes the sound rather than the instrument, the other mando on the CD cover is an OVAL HOLE circa 1910 3-point F-2 Gibson. Incidentally, he used that same 3-pointer on an earlier recording, 'Feast Here Tonight' (1988, Marimac #9600, casette.) #I talked to him after that concert 2 years ago and told him that I'd been lucky enough to buy it from the shop he sold it to. #Quick as a wink he said "Don't tell me where you live!"

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> #Also I think you may be starting to fall off the deep end....Play the sound out of a mandolin? # I bet the strings are full of dirt. #This thread is starting to get a little strange. #Sometimes I take a little mando break. #I play my guitar for a few weeks!


Thanks for the thought, but no I'm not. Put a bit more simply, an instrument that is vibrant and responsive (even with new strings) can "have the sound played out of it" when placed in the hands of someone with poor technique, or radically differnt technique. This is most apparent with Martin guitars. I've seen people play an excellent older D-28 for 15-20 minutes and hand it back to the owner dead. It wasn't that they got the string dirty or any thing like that. They simply played against the way the guitar was used to being attacked and it "locked up"

dgw

----------


## Chris Baird

I've read a bit of violin literature from some famous soloist. #They say that they can get the same tone from all "good" violins. #When they choose a violin, tone is not the factor to consider because they can coax good tone from most any violin using a variety of expert skills. #What does matter is how easily the tone comes for them. #I'd wager that it is much the same for a good mandolin player. #Playability and proper responsiveness are at least as important as the tone. #I'd imagine that someone like Thile would want a more responsive instrument because he doesn't have a severe attack but, someone like Compton would prefer a mandolin that needed to be hit harder to get the tone out because he likes to hit hard. #I'll bet Compton and Thile could switch mandolins and sound just as good but, they would have to play differently than is natural to them. This is all speculation of course. I wouldn't know as I think I am one of those who plays the tone out of an instrument.

----------


## BluegrassPhilfromFrance

*JOHN MONTELEONE IS THE BEST !!!*

----------


## Bluegrass Boy

That F-5 with the parallelagram fret markers (like Bush's) on Skip's Monroesque CD is a Japanese copy. Very good, dry sounding instrument.

----------


## Nick Triesch

Darryl, I know that you are an expert on guitars and mandolins but could you explain what happens to a guitar or a mandolin when the tone is played out of it? Is it from hot, cold hands? Warm body or what. I've been playing good quality instruments for a very long time and I know that weather or new or old strings can play a big part in how an instrument will sound. Are you talking about a person playing your mandolin on loan and in his playing the strings were removed a little bit from their grooves? How can a guitar be played out? Not trying to ping on you but I have never heard of this condition. Some folks have a lot of oil in their hands. I've had friends over the years play my martin after they ate and the strings just did not sound the same. They sounded dull. Nick

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

mandocat 
"Darryl, I know.."

Here's an example that may shed some light...My guitar style for rhythm and lead consists of right hand technique with nothing touching the top or strings other than the pick. I play all the way across the strings hitting them all at the same angle and intensity. I can generally get a guitar top to wake up well and start really pumping within an hour of playing. I can play someone else's guitar, hand it back and invariably, they comment that it never sounded better.."what did you do". On the other hand I can let someone play my guitar/mandolin whatever for an hour..and many time it is handed back to me thuddy and essentially sounding like the strings are dead. I can then play it for a while and it returns to life..but with some difficulty. Generally speaking the culprits who "killed it" have technique that rests the palm on the bridge or fingers on the top and they beat on individual strings instead of "doing the big wide strum"..None of the folks just ate, nor are they unsanitary...but they do change strings more often than anyone else I have ever heard of ..so that their instrument has some semblance of brightness. These particular pickers that I have in mind are not beginners..they are professional people that I have played in bands with..many of whom you may recognize their names.

dgw

----------


## mandopete

> That F-5 with the parallelagram fret markers (like Bush's) on Skip's Monroesque CD is a Japanese copy. Very good, dry sounding instrument.


...and the same one that is pictured on his first recording. I recall now that he said it was a Ventura.

Hey Darryl - that's very interesting information. I had never heard that before, but it makes sense. Are you using a closed pick-grip to keep the fingers (and hand) from touching the top of the instrument?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

No actually just a two finger pick grip..but I dont let the rest of my hand do anything other that an occasional slight brush (on the guitar) (nothing touches on the mando)

----------


## Kevin K

Daryl, Interesting and I've witnessed the same thing. Just thought it was the strings and never thought it more. So explain a little more on your thoughts of these professional players. Why is it that they have a problem if they are the only ones playing their instruments? ..due to the fleshy resty here and there? Does your right hand plam touch/brush the bridge?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I've never really figured out their problem..but in two cases the player rested the base of their hand (just behind the palm) on the bridge (guitar and mando, but mostly guitar). I think there was some moderate pressure exerted too. The pick angle along with hindered ability to adjust the pick while in motion created some odd combinations of which string was getting plucked cleanly and how hard to hit each one to make it even. Combined with this...the instrument is hardly ever getting played away from the bridge where the instrument can get used to a variety of tonal responses. I like to make the entire instrument work for me

----------


## Brian Aldridge

On this subject, I would like to bear witness and testify to atributes of the Tone Gards. They contribute mightily in allowing the whole instrument to work. As one who always made a conscience effort not to impede the vibration of back of the mandolin with my body, I assumed I would have no use from a Tone Gard, but after trying one out, I have become a true believer. I would have bet the farm they wouldn't help me, but I was mistaken. No finacial interest, just like to help. Money well spent indeed.

----------


## diamond ace

Hogan mandolins!!! Best I've ever seen period! It is Very, Very scary that this guy is only like 28 years old and the mandolin that I played was only the 2nd one he has ever built. I't has "THE LOAR" sound for sure. Playes and sounds and looks great. The only thing wrong with it is I can't get one right now. :Frown:

----------


## Spruce

If I was Moonbeam I woulda changed my name to Hogan too....

----------


## diamond ace

what are you syaing? is hogan a new name for an old builder?

----------


## Professor PT

Sorry to take this thread back to the original question, but...I have an F-9, and according to Gibson, it is made to Loar specs. It has tremendous bass response, and yet many on this thread have said that Loars have more mid-range and that "modern" mandolins have more bass. If the Gibsons are made to Loar specs, how can they still have a "modern" sound? Or, does this all depend on who is defining these terms and categorizing the mandolins in question? It all seems very subjective to a great degree, no?

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

Huh?

----------


## Harry H

Professor PT,

Forgive me for not going through all 8 pages of this topic again,
but if an F-9 is made to 'Loar specs', does that mean that it is 
made with the identical woods that are used in construction of 
Loars?

Would an F-9 be made with a different kind of spruce (say, Sitka instead of Adirondack) and a different kind of maple that would go better with whatever topwood F-9s are constructed with? 

Wouldn't different woods make for a different sound, or am
I missing something, again??!!??!!

----------


## Professor PT

Well, there are different varities of spruce and maple, but I figured that the bass and mid-range differences would come from the way the wood is carved. But then again, I don't know nuthin' 'bout makin' mandolins! (That's why I asked!)

----------


## 250sc

There are so many variables with two mandos that were built within the same year I would think that coming to any concensus comparing any two instruments built over an 80 year period of time would be difficult at best.

Verbal discriptions of sound are always subjective.

----------


## fatt-dad

> Verbal discriptions of sound are always subjective.


Yeah, like what's the opposite of "dry and woody"?

f-d

----------


## onlyagibsonisgoodenuff

Wet and Plastic.

----------


## Mandobar

ever see those pacrim mandolins designed to loar specs? amazing.

----------


## GBG

And everyone knows all them Loars sound just alike.

----------


## mandopete

> If I was Moonbeam I woulda changed my name to Hogan too....

----------


## Strado Len

Sitka spruce is generally not as stiff as adirondack. #If it were carved to exactly the same dimensions as an adirondack Loar top, it would most likely give a bassier sound, with less emphasis on the mids and high end.

The type and thickness of the finish used can also affect the tone qualities of an instrument. #The finish used on the F-9 is thin, but not the same type as used on a Loar.

In addition, let's not forget the contributions of the bridge to the tone of the instrument. I have found that just swapping one ebony bridge saddle for another can make substantial differences in tone, sustain, etc.

Finally, if it were possible to make a clone of the Loar tone (if there is a typical Loar tone) just by using Loar specs, you can bet Gibson would have done it by now. #They have certainly tried, and many folks think they have come a lot closer with their Master Model F-5.

----------


## KevinM

We've had a version of this Loar specs discussion before, and I think the basic answer is that the F-9s and other current Gibsons are reputedly constructed to exacting Loar "dimensional" specs, but differ as to woods, finishes etc. Obviously the dimensional specs are a significant factor, but not the only determinant, in the overall "Loar/Gibson" sound. Personally I think the overall business of deifying the Loar is kind of silly, sort of an asymptotic goal. Maybe that's sour grapes since I don't own one and never will. But I reckon it's fun to talk about. (all of the above IMHO/YMMV)

:^)

----------


## fatt-dad

> Maybe that's sour grapes since I don't own one and never will.


Huh? Don't you go to garage sales?

f-d

----------


## jim simpson

I wear my hair really short so I have to go to the barber frequently. I figure this will increase my chances of finding a Loar at a barbershop.

----------


## Mando Dan

After reading I find it odd that some would discredit such proven fine instruments. #Especially coming from a wood supplier who has so much to gain from the success of all luthiers. #I can understand the ridicule coming from aspiring builders or even the easily influenced, but a wood supplier? #HMMM??  #

Being a Chrysler employee I will have to go with the age old Jeep motto.  ##

Its a ------- thing, You wouldnt understand! #

----------


## neal

Dan, I don't think that the instruments are in question, it's the "marketing" of them.

----------


## HoGo

> Originally Posted by  (Spruce @ Jan. 04 2005, 16:32)
> 
> If I was Moonbeam I woulda changed my name to Hogan too....


Please do not compare me to Moonbeam. I do not build that good mandolins, yet. 
Adrian 'Hogan' Minarovic

----------


## cutbait2

there's a 200 plus post thread on the latest pac-rim yet a discussion of a builder like Don McRostie or Randy Wood will get about 6 to 8 posts tops and somebody is complaining about marketing?

----------


## futrconslr

> what are you syaing? #is hogan a new name for an old builder?


I think Spruce just called Diamond Ace a...what was that word?? #Letmeee see oh yeah....a Schill.

----------

