# Instruments and Equipment > Equipment >  Has the Secret Been Discovered to Surpass the Stradivarius?

## mmasters

And could it be applied to achieve the holy grail mandolin tone?

I can say I am the discoverer of this and my research has largely been applied to acoustic guitars. But I have thought what about mandolins.

http://www.acousticbreakthrough.com/the-process

The question I wanted to ask is what qualities make for the holy-grail mandolin in your opinion? And does anybody have any video or audio clips they could reference that they believe capture the ultimate mandolin tone?

----------


## sunburst

Mandolin (or any instrument) tone is purely subjective, there are no "secrets", each person will have his/her own "holy grail" tone, there can be no universal "ultimate".

----------


## Ed Goist

No.

----------


## Tom Wright

New materials are always welcome, since the selection of old-growth wood is smaller than in Strad's day, thus carbon-fiber experiments.

Strad's "secret" is found regularly, (the varnish, the wood soaked in Venice's harbor while waiting the saw, etc.), but somehow no new Strads occur. What does occur is good modern instruments made by careful selection of wood, and careful shaping of tops and braces. Many orchestra players and soloists use modern bowed instruments that use wood treated normally, and it's hard to argue that a Monteleone mandolin is deficient in tone.

From the website:

"an audio spectrogram of the before and after results applied to samples of wood used in the *backs and sides* of instruments. These show an EQ signature emanating from the wood while being held and tapped in the same location, with *approximately* the same force and at the same distance away from the microphone." 

You would have to use a mechanical device to show repeatable differences, and it would be more persuasive if those repeatable results came from the spruce top material. Backs and sides color the tone but don't add power, particularly. (They can lose power if mushy, of course.)  Another difficulty is that the best tone results come from a player spending years becoming familiar with an instrument. This is not really testable in the lab, so we depend on accumulated evidence of years of performances and recordings.

But more to the point, Stradivari was not the ultimate powerhouse violin, and not all Strads are prizewinners. Paganini switched to a Guarneri with its more powerful bass so he could play bigger halls.

Stradivari's "secret" was that he was good at making violins. He was good enough that he was a major name from the beginning, made lots of fiddles, and the best have been selected out, preserved lovingly, played extensively, tinkered with carefully, etc. Let us remember that in Strad's day, wood was the main material for almost everything, from boats to teeth, and many instrument makers made cabinetry. These guys knew wood in way we may not be able to imagine.

----------


## sunburst

I agree with almost all of that, Tom, but in Strad's day there were no chainsaws, no log trucks, no paved roads etc.. The selection of wood is far better now than it was then because it is simply easier to get it to market, and there are still some remaining stands of old growth.

----------


## rico mando

i thought that the strads had that special sound due to a fungus that had eaten into the wood he was using. swear i either read or saw something about that .

----------


## man dough nollij

I started a thread a while back about the holy grail tone. It's a little off topic, having nothing to do with strads or wood, but I took an album featuring Sharon Gilchrist with her Gilchrist mandolin and noted all the places where I said, "There! That's the way I like a mandolin to sound!". Personally, I'm not crazy about the real dry, low-sustain, woody "Loar" sound. I've heard some Loar recordings that sounded awesome (they're not all the same, of course), but a lot of the famous ones like Crusher are just not my favorite tone. I can tell when Dawg is playing his Giacomel or Monteleone, and I like the tone better. "Wetter" is one way to describe it. Same deal with Thile-- I prefer his Dude to his Loar. YMMV.

----------


## mrmando

Once or twice a year there's somebody with a new theory about the "Stradivari secret." These range from plausible to not bloody likely. Dude a few months ago was claiming there was a secret ingredient in the varnish. Had he tested the varnish from an actual Strad? Er, ah, no. 

In the present case, the so-called "Stradivarius process" has evidently not been benchmarked against an actual Stradivarius, and hasn't even been applied to a violin!

----------


## mmasters

> Mandolin (or any instrument) tone is purely subjective, there are no "secrets", each person will have his/her own "holy grail" tone, there can be no universal "ultimate".


I don't agree with this for a large part. You could say the beauty of all women is purely subjective but that doesn't account for the fact that some are universally appealing. I see tone similarly and believe a particular tone can be universally appealing as well.

----------


## GRW3

We should apply a musical 'Turing Test' to this proposition and every other claimant to the 'Strad Secret' Just build the instruments and put them in the market. If they are as good as believed some amount of professional players will adopt them 'in place of a Strad'.

----------


## mmasters

> Once or twice a year there's somebody with a new theory about the "Stradivari secret." These range from plausible to not bloody likely. Dude a few months ago was claiming there was a secret ingredient in the varnish. Had he tested the varnish from an actual Strad? Er, ah, no. 
> 
> In the present case, the so-called "Stradivarius process" has evidently not been benchmarked against an actual Stradivarius, and hasn't even been applied to a violin!


I think some are confusing that I'm saying this is the Stradivarius secret which I'm not. I think it is to some extent as the instruments have been played so long, many of the fibrous pits have opened but I think this really surpasses what even a Stradivarius can do. It's a bigger claim than anyone has made yet and I think it's valid.

Certainly everyone has been skeptical, even the player and studio tech when I took the guitars in to be recorded thought it was a bit crazy making odd faces and saying things like "they'll have to take my word on my claims at this point" but they were really surprised  and impressed seeing the transformation as everyone has been. 

The player is a member here, I'll contact him to see if he's interested in talking about it here.

----------


## mrmando

Hey Michael -- how many Strads have you played?

----------


## foldedpath

Just a question, but aren't posts like this against forum policy? 

_Use of the message board to aggressively market or sell various products and/or services or over-promotion of external web sites is not permitted._
If it's not, then I'm gonna patent a new vibration gadget called the "LoarRiteVibe Process," and spam the forum with posts about it. It seems to work for several vendors of this type of thing here.

----------


## hank

Send it to big Joe.  He's been doing before and after (listening with an educated ear) with two different spins on tone and volume enhancement devices.  I doubt many of us would be willing to have our pride and joy in a chemical bath though.

----------


## JeffD

I strongly suspect there are many modern violin makers that can make a violin every bit as good and perhaps (oh sacriledge) better than a strad, but that there are no really double blind tests that can be done.

Same is true with mandolins I don't doubt.

----------


## NoNickel

Well .. and I had just gotten over my Tonerite/PrimeVibe hangover.

----------


## Markus

> I don't agree with this for a large part. You could say the beauty of all women is purely subjective but that doesn't account for the fact that some are universally appealing. I see tone similarly and believe a particular tone can be universally appealing as well.


That's where it gets funny with mandolins, though.  Some folks care most about the percussive chop, others never use it.  

As part of the tone judgement is based on something part of the playing population focuses on and others don't use ... I'd say there are multiple ideals for mandolin.  While guitars change tonally with different styles, archtops, etc ... the tonal range of a mandolin I would say is greater. [or we analyze it more, consider it wider  :Smile: ]

Many would say that a Loar F5 is the ideal, but many players choose a very different tone.  Some of the most desirable current mandolins to my ear are very different tonally from the Loar standard - at least to my ear. 

It seems like mandolinists tend to own a lot more instruments than acoustic guitar players ... as in my limited experience, sometimes you want a long sustain and sweet tone and other times you've got a banjo wailing away and need a thunderous chop and a tone that sticks out and can be heard.  It sure seems like players who can afford it have instruments tuned to the various settings ... I would, as sometimes I want very different things that one instrument can't provide.

----------


## mrmando

> I strongly suspect there are many modern violin makers that can make a violin every bit as good and perhaps (oh sacriledge) better than a strad, but that there are no really double blind tests that can be done.


Oh, plenty of tests can and have been done ... I suppose they're all somewhat subjective in that they involve human subjects! We talked here about a test in Paris in which several panelists preferred the tone of a Fustier violin to that of a Strad. This page discusses a couple more tests: a recent one in Germany, in which a Rhonheimer fungus-treated violin beat out a Strad, and a BBC test in 1977 where Stern and Zukerman, among others, had trouble picking out a Strad from a group of four violins. In 1921 the _New York Times_ reported on a test where a Strad came in third in order of preference to another panel of listeners. 

But the use of the name "Stradivarius" in the matter under discussion here is entirely for the purpose of hype, as Michael himself admits.

----------


## mrmando

Another problem here is one of the huge differences between the violin market and the plucked-instrument market: the vast majority of the guitars and mandolins usually hailed as the best-sounding are _not_ 300+ years old ... most of them aren't even 100 years old! Can any of us think of a well-known contemporary guitar or mandolin player who regularly performs on an instrument made before the 20th century? 

Taking a modern guitar and treating the wood so that it has properties associated with 300-year-old wood may make that guitar sound _better_ ... but it's not a given that it will then sound like the "holy grail" of guitar tone, whatever that might be. Nobody thinks of a 300-year-old guitar as the holy grail.

----------


## rmartinez

Sorry for the slight tangent but has anyone done this Heiden/ Loar quiz?  Pretty fun little game to see if you can tell which is which and additionally which you prefer.  
http://www.lpb.com/mando/heiden/

----------


## Charlieshafer

This stuff drives me nuts. Tom Wright said it best when he noted that there are a lot of Strads considered "dogs" out there, and that there are a lot of modern makers that are held in very high esteem. The violin dealers up in New England were snickering over a recent purchase at auction of a Strad that went for far more than the ones currently on the market at some dealers. Several folks who had played them all thought the less expensive ones at the dealers were far nicer. Viktoria Mullova never sounded so good as when she chucked her Strad for her Guarneri in her most recent recording of Bach Partitas and Sonatas. So what then exactly is this magic tone? It's the relationship each player has with his/her own instrument, and that's pretty much that.

----------


## mmasters

> As part of the tone judgement is based on something part of the playing population focuses on and others don't use ... I'd say there are multiple ideals for mandolin.  While guitars change tonally with different styles, archtops, etc ... the tonal range of a mandolin I would say is greater. [or we analyze it more, consider it wider ]


That's interesting, I kind of had the opposite perception since it seems almost entirely a high end or treble instrument.




> Many would say that a Loar F5 is the ideal, but many players choose a very different tone.  Some of the most desirable current mandolins to my ear are very different tonally from the Loar standard - at least to my ear.


If that's the ideal I would love to enhance a custom shop recreation of one to go up against the real deal.

----------


## mmasters

> Another problem here is one of the huge differences between the violin market and the plucked-instrument market: the vast majority of the guitars and mandolins usually hailed as the best-sounding are _not_ 300+ years old ... most of them aren't even 100 years old! Can any of us think of a well-known contemporary guitar or mandolin player who regularly performs on an instrument made before the 20th century? 
> 
> Taking a modern guitar and treating the wood so that it has properties associated with 300-year-old wood may make that guitar sound _better_ ... but it's not a given that it will then sound like the "holy grail" of guitar tone, whatever that might be. Nobody thinks of a 300-year-old guitar as the holy grail.


I wouldn't say the 300 year old ones are this way, just that the real old and coveted player instruments are more in this direction than typical instruments. I guess what I'm saying is there's more potential being unlocked with this than I believe is possible through any other avenue - hence my willingness to challenge a percieved ideal like the Stradivarius (or any other instrument held in very high regard). Having played many of the acclaimed best guitars out there (many in the 20-30K range) I know this can transform a really good to great instrument and put it up there in league with the very best if not past it.

----------


## capokid

Build it and they will come.

----------


## Cuba Ridge

The NPR said that it could have been the climate was during a period of cold and damper conditions.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1544179

----------


## Cuba Ridge

> We should apply a musical 'Turing Test' to this proposition


These people are trying to do that:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=96708334

----------


## Ed Goist

Just an observation regarding the determination and measurement of quality over time:

When the wine brokers of France were charged with establishing an official quality classification system for the wines on Bordeaux in 1855, after much debate, they decided that the best way to judge the general quality of any specific estate was to look at its pricing and trading history over time. Those wines which consistently traded for higher prices over an established period of time were judged to be higher in quality. 

IOW, in this system the best determination of the quality of something is its on-going track record with respect its market demand, and its pricing in relation to similar products. Quite the capitalistic concept, no? 

I find this a fascinating philosophy of quality because I believe most people just assume that quality determines price, instead of price determining quality! There is even a rather famous quote to sum-up this philosophy of quality: "When judging a wine's quality, don't look in the glass, look in the exchange."

Hence, it could be argued (and I'm not proposing this, just voicing a point of view) that the tone of a specific mandolin isn't nearly as important in judging its quality as the price it will bring on the open market.

Personal qualitative evaluations (of taste, sound, tone, beauty, etc.) are always subjective...But the pricing and market demand for an object is quantifiable and objective.

By this measure the violins of Stradivari and the mandolins of Loar would seem to be without peers.

----------


## yankees1

> I strongly suspect there are many modern violin makers that can make a violin every bit as good and perhaps (oh sacriledge) better than a strad, but that there are no really double blind tests that can be done.
> 
> Same is true with mandolins I don't doubt.


    Are there any modern violin makers that can make a three hundred year old violin?

----------


## mmasters

> By this measure the violins of Stradivari and the mandolins of Loar would seem to be without peers.


When you get down to it few have really come up with anything compelling to compete with these great vintage instruments. And all the Strad secrets haven't turned up anything compelling or marketable either so it's really got a boy that cried wolf syndrome going. I know what I'm up against and it can be frustrating but I also know I've got a collection of instruments that can go toe to tone with some of the world's top collections and at a tiny fraction of their price. I think it's just going to take time for people to wake up and realize somebody actually found something big after all these years.

----------


## sunburst

Stradivari's "secrets" were good craftsmanship and good understanding of what makes a good instrument, the same "secrets" good luthiers use to this day. It sort of irks me when there periodic "secrets" pop up that make all that craftsmanship and understanding obsolete.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Stradivari's "secrets" were good craftsmanship and good understanding of what makes a good instrument, the same "secrets" good luthiers use to this day...


Pretty much spot on.

----------


## MandoPheel

Where's Dave Cohen when you need him....

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Stradivari came up with what might be considered the modern shape, size and type of arching of the instrument through a lot of experimentation early in his career. The Amati's and Stainer's which were built quite a bit earlier had very high arches and very angular graduations. They produced a very sweet tone but didn't have the power that Strad got from a lower more gradual arch.
  But it's good to keep in mind that nearly every great Strad has had a neck replacement or at least re-set because they had been built in the old style where the neck was parallel to the body and a wedge under the fingerboard gave it the angle. As music was written like Beethoven's string quartet's and ever greater players such as Viotti and Bohm came along they needed a neck which made it easier to play up the neck.
Standard tuning was also raised from A-420 in Strad's time to 435 in Beethovens time. This meant most Strad's were fitted with heavier bass bars and soundposts. And the modern bow had not yet been invented in Strad's time. So they've all been through quite a bit since they were originally built and probably sound quite different as well.
 Whew! Good thing I just happened to be reading Toby Faber's "Stradivari's Genius". I didn't know any of this stuff before this week.

----------


## mrmando

> When you get down to it few have really come up with anything compelling to compete with these great vintage instruments.


Not true. There are a dozen luthiers I could name who are capable of building a mandolin that reproduces, for all practical purposes, the tone of a Loar. And none of them need to do any mysterious treatment to their wood.

And a couple of centuries' worth of Strad tests have turned up plenty of violins, old and new, that were judged equal or superior to a Strad on a given day.

----------


## Fretbear

> Stradivari's "secrets" were good craftsmanship and good understanding of what makes a good instrument, the same "secrets" good luthiers use to this day. It sort of irks me when there periodic "secrets" pop up that make all that craftsmanship and understanding obsolete.


All that, plus this idea that an instrument plays itself, divorced from it's player, who has merged himself with his instrument through practice and time. He becomes so intimate with it's nuances that he works with it's entire unique sound pallet (which he alone knows, as it's his personal instrument) to create music and magic.

----------


## Markus

> Not true. There are a dozen luthiers I could name who are capable of building a mandolin that reproduces, for all practical purposes, the tone of a Loar.


And if you asked me, there are a few builders that I prefer to a Loar - or at least a few of their mandolins.  

Instrument value is partially based on collectors, so `brand names' like Loar will go for more - not because of tone or playability but because it is collectible.  Judging quality based on price would work if the only instruments that were sold were for playing in front of others to make money - but that just isn't the case.

Didn't Ricky Skaggs get his Loar sampled to match wood with Bill Monroe's?  That sure doesn't sound like he's looking at tone ... more like value through association.  Many a famous guitar is hung on a wall or played in private - driving up the price, but not because of perfect tone at all.

Personally, I don't think mandolins and violins can be compared this way at all, as in the mandolin world today's top makers command steep prices and create mandolins that stand with the best of them.

My opinion is my own, as my wife constantly reminds me.  
Others might disagree, my ears are the only judge I trust - they can trust their own.  

I'm not trying to argue that the Loar instruments are anything less than amazing [with exceptions, like every maker] - but that for my ears there are other equally or more desirable instruments that are made quite recently.   Considering that, I'd argue that centuries aged wood does not appear to be a necessary component to create a top mandolin.

I like a played in instrument ... but that's pretty easily achieved if I want to learn a particular instrument's every peculiarity.  Certainly not something I'd send my instrument away for or pay much money to achieve - a little beer money often means many many hours of playing, and is pretty fun too.

----------


## schloss

I am the "inventor" of the  BS sniffing out theory, and when new claims arise as to the secret of strads...I sniffed it and my theory double blind tested this claim as BS. We must be a gullable lot here on the cafe, if someone would believe that we would believe such bunk. Wanna buy some developed Moon building lots, I didnt develope it , but a friend that discovered the "alien secret"  did, well an alien friend of his did anyway. Im just saying

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

One person's 'HolyGrail' Mandolin tone, is another person's 'crock of c**p'. I'm somewhere in between in my preference - "Holy C**p". At least that's what folk hearing me play remark - but not close up & personal like,
                                                                   Ivan :Wink:  :Grin:

----------


## Josh Kaplan

The OP's claims and "questions" don't actually seem to have anything to do with Stradivarius at all, other than the name he's humbly given to this thing he'll do to your guitar if you send him $450. His secret process really is a secret since the website offers no clue as to what he actually does. It must be tough to be a genius and have so many doubters. 

Josh

----------


## Bertram Henze

Many people think the holy grail was a cup to hold blood in (*). Following from that concept, the best approach to a holy grail mandolin so far is the Commodium.  :Grin: 

(*) a concept I don't share, but that belongs elsewhere.

----------


## JonZ

I thought carbon fiber was the technology that would surpass the Stradivarius.

----------


## Big Joe

I think we may be over reacting a bit.  The OP is really a nice guy.  I spent some time with him on the phone the other day.  He called to extend and invitation to send an instrument to see my opinion of his process.  I have no idea what he does in his process, but I do know there are very few secrets in the field of lutherie.  There are many things that can be done to improve an instruments tone and volume.  It all starts with an instrument structurally sound, perfectly set up to give optimal performance for that instrument.  Then add any thing that needs to be done to make the instrument operate at its best... ie, graduations, braces, finish, etc.  Just about anything you do to an instrument will alter its output.  

There are a lot of things that can be done to give a bit of an edge.  UV treatment done in a certain way can be a help.  There are just so many and each type of instrument is different as is each particular instrument.  Whether the OP's system is any better than anything else on the market I really don't know.  I have been testing a couple devices and they do help, though they alone would not give optimal output.  It all starts with an instrument that is prepared to give its best and all its components fully adjusted to give that optimal output.  Then these devices can be an asset but it is the result of all the processes that delivers the best outcome.

I do a LOT of work on instruments, including LOTs of mandolins from all over the US and world.  In all the instruments I've seen, in spite of the numerous ways the builders attempt to deliver the sound they desire, there are not really any secrets.  One builder uses "X" wood and "X" finish and etc to get where he is going.  Another builder uses "Y" wood and "Y" bracing to get where he is going, but in reality the end result is not so much determined by the "X" and "Y" factors alone, but by the way the whole fits together.  In all the years I've been messing with instruments I cannot recall one that I could not help.  Not by some radical or new system or theory, but by observing and listening to the instrument and its owner.  Once I have a clear picture of what is going on and what they are capable of producing, it is not that complicated to get the result that will give optimal output.  Having experience on thousands of instruments certainly helps.  Working with some of the best luthiers on the planet certainly helps.  Having open discussion with other luthiers certainly helps.  Learning to listen carefully to what the owner says... and what he does not say certainly helps.  Watching and listening as the owner plays helps.  It is the product of all these things that give one a path to improving an instrument for the owner. 

Needless to say, there are things we don't discuss on an open forum for many reasons.  Some are because I don't want someone who should not be doing something trying it and then messing something up.  Some of it is because a piece of information out of context can really be misused and do more harm than good.  Then some of it is because we have our way of accomplishing things that we like to keep to ourselves.  After all, it is our business and the way we make a living.  We are usually happy to share information with others, but on our terms and not on an open forum on the internet where everything is disected and often taken out of its natural context.

Again, the OP is, in my opinion, a good guy just trying to provide a service to the public.  Whether it works or not I cannot say.  I did listen to the videos he presented on his website and they were not very convincing to me.  There are too many variables that I cannot know the answer for me to determine whether the system provides the end results claimed.  Video and audio samples on the internet... especially played back through a lap top do not really tell much.  I always hate the concept of audio files to determine the worth of an instrument or a comparison of product or methods.  The sound is too easily altered by the compression method of the computers, the tools used to record, or the output device on the other end.  You certainly would not want to impress me with your sound clip on the speaker of my laptop.  A poorly tuned garbage can sounds about as good as a loar on those speakers  :Smile:  .

----------


## MikeEdgerton

:Chicken:

----------


## mmasters

> Stradivari's "secrets" were good craftsmanship and good understanding of what makes a good instrument, the same "secrets" good luthiers use to this day. It sort of irks me when there periodic "secrets" pop up that make all that craftsmanship and understanding obsolete.


I agree, however there is an "opening up" phenomenon that occurs in older heavily "played in" instruments. And it is that combined with good craftmanship in my opinion that makes for a world-class instrument. So no, I don't think quality building is obsolete, however I do think this could affect the ultra-high end market--guys that charge 20K and up trying to sell the "opened up" holy grail. From my experience, it would be tough for an instrument made from lightly built and hand selected (partly) opened up woods to compete with a well built instrument in the 8-10K range with the Stradivarius process applied to it.

I remember talking with a big dealer on the east coast and he said, if you really got this it's going to get a lot of the builders up in arms. But hey, maybe somebody can come up with something even more spectacular than has already been come up with by building with very open sounding materials to begin with. I truly believe what I have here in combination with excellent craftsmanship will make for the best sounding instruments ever heard.

----------


## sunburst

> ...there is an "opening up" phenomenon that occurs in older heavily "played in" instruments...
> 
>  ...I do think this could affect the ultra-high end market--guys that charge 20K and up trying to sell the "opened up" holy grail...


Studies have not show a large "opening up" or "playing in" "phenomenon". Any of that that does exist is apparently so subtle that there is no consensus among builders or listeners that is exists at all.
...and yes, "high end" guys will pay money for lots of things, P.T. Barnum showed that years ago.

I wouldn't expect builders to be "up in arms" over yet another mysterious process that turns sow's ears into silk purses, but there may be some who bristle at yet another claimed proprietary process to extract their money and promise instant gratification as opposed to their diligence in learning the details of the building process through hard work and study.

There are many mandolins that stand toe to toe with $20,000+ mandolins at lower prices as it is. If sound was the only thing the market used to set prices, there would not be such a price difference, so some mystery process that pours in the "holy grail" sound is not likely to significantly change the market. (It would be more effective to pour in the requisite name.)

----------


## Pete Summers

> Hence, it could be argued (and I'm not proposing this, just voicing a point of view) that the tone of a specific mandolin isn't nearly as important in judging its quality as the price it will bring on the open market.
> 
> Personal qualitative evaluations (of taste, sound, tone, beauty, etc.) are always subjective...But the pricing and market demand for an object is quantifiable and objective.
> 
> By this measure the violins of Stradivari and the mandolins of Loar would seem to be without peers.


Yes, but with regard to Stradivari violins (and a lot of other artwork), the very fact that the artist is dead and hence no more of his work will become available, is often what drives the market. Stradivari made good fiddles, no doubt, but so do hundreds of other luthiers. The difference, IMO, is that the Stads have been hyped by the big antique instrument dealers and auction houses to drive the collector prices up into the stratosphere. 

Price wise, it may not matter how a Strad violin sounds because often they are never even played -- the very fact that it is a Strad and is an irreplaceable antique runs the price up for collectors. And Stradivari was not without peer -- Del Gesu, Amati, Bargonzi and others were very competitive in their day (and still by collectors).

Logic and the law of entropy would seem to me to suggest that a 300 year old violin is likely to have lost some tonal quality over the centuries. Stradivari made new fiddles, not 300 year old ones, and since no living human being has ever experienced the tone of a new Strad, it's impossible to know whether they sound better now than when they were made. I'm guessing they don't, hence the habit of "re-graduating" the plates to (temporarily) improve the tone of those old Cremona instruments.

----------


## Rick Cadger

> Originally Posted by sunburst
> 
> 
> Mandolin (or any instrument) tone is purely subjective, there are no "secrets", each person will have his/her own "holy grail" tone, there can be no universal "ultimate".
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this for a large part [...]


I, on the other hand, entirely agree with it.

The universal tone thing? No.

----------


## Rick Cadger

> Not true. There are a dozen luthiers I could name who are capable of building a mandolin that reproduces, for all practical purposes, the tone of a Loar. And none of them need to do any mysterious treatment to their wood. [...]


I also agree with that, although personally I don't have enough experience to name as many as a dozen. There are certainly modern builders who capture a great deal of the classic Loar thing.

----------


## mtucker

Many of them have permanent residences, but are on careful loan and getting regular play.

http://5magazine.wordpress.com/2010/...s-still-exist/

----------


## Josh Kaplan

> I think we may be over reacting a bit. . . .  
> Again, the OP is, in my opinion, a good guy just trying to provide a service to the public.


That's good to know. He might want to re-think his marketing strategy, though, and re-think how this forum can be helpful to him.

Josh

----------


## foldedpath

> Again, the OP is, in my opinion, a good guy just trying to provide a service to the public.


Let's be clear about this. He's providing a service for money, and he's using this forum thread as a free advertisement. Take another look at the thread title and the original post. It's an ad disguised as a "discussion," an old trick for online product promotion. 

I think it's great that we have some interaction here with luthiers, repair techs, and instrument dealers. But my personal definition of a "good guy" is someone who participates in the forum in ways _other_ than just hyping what they sell, and using the forum for free advertising. The posting guidelines seem pretty clear about this, although the moderators don't seem to care in this case.

----------


## Dave Cohen

"Where's Dave Cohen when you need hiim....?"

Uhhh, he's grown wary of threads llike this.  Science is pretty good at saying what _isn't_, and sometimes when you say what isn't, someone who believes something strongly will take things personally, identify the scientist with science in general, and initiate _ad hominem_ attacks.

The OP visited me earlier this year for some advice on his process.  He viewed his process as proprietary, so wouldn't reveal what the process actually was.  That made it difficult for me to help him as much as I would have liked.  Additionally, he made some claims which were scientific non sequiturs.  Specifically, he was convinced that his process had simultaneously increased both the sustain and the acoustic volume of the guitars on which he had applied the process.  He brought one Martin dreadnought and played it for me.  Of course, I had no "before" to compare with, nor was there any recorded data.  The guitar, like many of its' genre, sounded good but unremarkable.  I tried to convince him that it is not physically possible to simultaneously increase the sustain (i.e., increase the characteristic decay times) and the acoustic volume in a plucked string instrument, as one comes at the expense of the other, but didn't seem to want me to get through on that one.  I put him onto the freeware audio editors, _Wavesurfer_, _Audacity_, and _Visual Analyzer_ so that he could at least record some audio spectra.  He eventually did e-mail me a single (presumably a sample)spectrum taken w/ Audacity, which didn't convince me of anything.

I don't think that the OP is in any way disingenuous; I am convinced from meeting him that he was sincere in his intent.  But, I do think that he neither understands much, if anything, of physical formalism, nor has he surveyed the extant scientific literature on either plucked or bowed string instruments.  It is certainly possible  for someone like him to come up w/ an interesting process, but to be convincing, he had better have explanations which are not in conflict with physical law, or if they are, he had better have a pretty thorough and good explanation of why his observations are in conflict w/ existing physical law.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## mrmando

I'm starting to be reminded of the "Ever-So-Much-More-So" chapter from Robert McCloskey's _Centerburg Tales._

----------


## Manfred Hacker

> Stradivari made good fiddles, no doubt, but so do hundreds of other luthiers. The difference, IMO, is that the Stads have been hyped by the big antique instrument dealers and auction houses to drive the collector prices up into the stratosphere.


One of the world's foremost violinists, Anne-Sophie Mutter, plays a Stradivari. Certainly not because of the hype created by antique dealers. I am sure she plays the violin that gives her the very best sound. She could get any other great violin if she thought it would give her a better sound.

----------


## Tom Wright

I hear Strads at close range regularly--our concertmaster has a good one. Guarneris are also fabulous, as is the Gaspar de Salo viola that Zuckerman uses. I've tried Paganini's Strad viola. Good old instruments are in fact good, more than they're old.

It's not so much that they are powerful but that it's a beautiful sound. It is not hype, but the prices reflect the cachet that comes with performing using an instrument with pedigree, that was in active use when Mozart was touring.

----------


## mtucker

> It's not so much that they are powerful but that it's a beautiful sound. It is not hype, but the prices reflect the cachet that comes with performing using an instrument with pedigree, that was in active use when Mozart was touring.


Why, of course!

----------


## Markus

> It's not so much that they are powerful but that it's a beautiful sound. It is not hype, but the prices reflect the cachet that comes with performing using an instrument with pedigree, that was in active use when Mozart was touring.


I'd be more willing to go along with this comparison for mandolins if Loar made them in the 1720's or 1820's ... but 1920's instruments lack a couple centuries of aging and playing that certainly is part of their mystique if not sound.

If we assume OP's process makes the instrument sound like a couple century old instrument ... the idealized Loar mandolin sound doesn't have that age.

Is it going to sound like a Loar, if the Loar sound isn't based on being played for 200+ years?

--

While I can see the OP's idea having great appicability elsewhere - unless it is a variant on the `play in' devices currently out there for home use at much cheaper price - it is only trying to make it sound like an 85 year old instrument.   To me, age is a far less critical component as the F5 style is all of a century old.

If we were talking about Loar mandolins in 2200, I wouldn't argue this point.

----------


## Ted Eschliman

Two points if I may, since the issue of Moderation on this thread has been called into question. First, our silence in this should topic not be interpreted as an endorsement of the product or provider. That is not our job. Second, the guidelines are specific about self-promotion. Peripheral discussion_ (allowed)_ is not the same as overt selling _(not allowed)_. Should it come to that point, or leave its thin disguise, we will intervene.

Until then, if any have an issue as to whether or not the thread needs policing, we suggest you take this up privately with us. Calling us out publicly for our actions, or _inactions_ is against posting guidelines.

----------


## mtucker

Based on the '20's price of gold, an F5 Loar would cost you approx $20k today - they were about $250 dollars then and hover today at $200-250 thou ...  in a 100 or so years its easy to conceive a F5 Loar will be 10x what it is today - $2.5 million U.S., or $17.5 million Chinese dollars  ...

----------


## sunburst

I, for one, am just a little surprised that this thread has lasted this long, especially with complaints of lack of moderation included, and I am thankful for the moderators letting this thread run because I see it as an opportunity for those who are interested to learn from this discussion. That includes the OP as well as the rest of us.
I still wouldn't be surprised to see the plug pulled on this one, but so far there is insight to be gained from _some of_ what's been said here.
Thanks, moderators, for allowing us the opportunity!

----------


## mmasters

The idea of the challenge is to target the best out there. Stradivarius is often is associated with the best and has good name recognition hence why I chose him. Not everyone knows what a Guarani is. If the challenge were applied to steel string guitars then the benchmark would be 1930's Martins, here it happens to be a Loar from around the same time period. I don't believe there are any examples of instrument wood anywhere that approximate the treated wood sample I show on my website. Not all wood is created equal and some of these guitars from the 20s and 30s may have been built with wood that was exceptional with regards to an open and closed pore ratio. Nobody to my knowledge has ever done any studies along these lines or to trace the effect of the instrument being played for long periods of time.

I met with Dave Cohen early on, before the process was perfected and he helped me with some ideas for how to present a case for the process being valid. With all the guitars I have treated there has been a significant increase in both volume and sustain. The volume increases have been in the 6-10db range in all instances and the power of the sustain has doubled or tripled in every case. He didn't seem to think this was possible and didn't seem to be open to accepting it could being possible. I've learned once people are convinced of something it's usually a losing battle to convince them otherwise, regardless of the truth of the matter. Although, since then, I'm not aware if he's seen at the spectra or electron microscope images on the site, or analyzed the audio files. I have had some spectrograms done independently in a studio for TGP's webzine which can be seen here: http://www.tgpwebzine.com/?page_id=2606 I do thank Dave for his input though, I think I have built a decent case for what I have in good part with his help.

I've definately run up against a lot of skepticism with this, more than I expected though I've gotten used to it at this point. I also know this goes against the status quo of the industry to an extent. So, in that regard I have also come to expect a certain amount of resistance from people that don't want to let go of that. It hasn't been easy but I know I've found something special and if it takes a while for certain folks to warm up to it then I'm ok with that. If some cannot accept it then that's ok too. The opinions are so diverse on the subject matter I know I could never please everyone. I think ultimately it will just take time and people with reputations jumping on board with it for it to become accepted. Then again maybe it will always be controversial.

Lastly, I think it's a subject worth discussing here as I do have some interesting evidence to show for it and believe there is some serious potential for it to be adopted within the community over time.

----------


## Manfred Hacker

> Stradivarius is often is associated with the best and has good name recognition hence why I chose him.


The name of 'him' was (Antonio) *Stradivari*.

----------


## sunburst

> ...The volume increases have been in the 6-10db range in all instances and the power of the sustain has doubled or tripled in every case. He didn't seem to think this was possible and didn't seem to be open to accepting it could being possible. I've learned once people are convinced of something it's usually a losing battle to convince them otherwise...


As usual, I don't want to speak for Dave, but he has already posted exactly why it is not considered possible, and it has to do with the _laws of physics_, something you would do well to learn about if you are to convince anyone, including yourself, of such claims. 
...or, as Dave said, you'd better show a darned good reason why the laws of physics are wrong.

----------


## Charlieshafer

It's funny, but whether or not the process works almost seemed irrelevant to most of the debate here. If it wasn't called the "Stradivarius Process" it would simply be a matter of assessing the physics, which do seem a little vague, based on the information given. By invoking the Stradivarius name, and all the old vs. new violin debate, it totally sucked everyone away from what this stuff is. And that's the only thing bothering me: would I send off one of my precious babies to some place where something unknown will be done to it?

----------


## mandolin tony

Hi,that old growth wood from FQMS really sounds sweet,but I guess at 25k it should/go to there web site & listen.

----------


## mmasters

> As usual, I don't want to speak for Dave, but he has already posted exactly why it is not considered possible, and it has to do with the _laws of physics_, something you would do well to learn about if you are to convince anyone, including yourself, of such claims. 
> ...or, as Dave said, you'd better show a darned good reason why the laws of physics are wrong.


Obviously, if it's happening it's not violating the laws of physics, there's something not accounted for in the equations or understanding of it is my guess. I am open to having a University study done to try to connect the observed physical changes to the acoustic results. They have been quite consistent in every case.

----------


## Rick Cadger

If I were you, I'd come back when you have _independent, impartial, scientific_ trial evidence to support your claims. Perhaps after a university has been permitted to observe the process and compare before/after figures.

I look forward to seeing that evidence when you have it and decide to share it. Without such evidence, I'm immeasurably more inclined to give credence to Dr Dave Cohen's assessment that the simultaneous increase in sustain and volume is a non-starter.

No disrespect intended, but... evidence, please, or it didn't happen. Anecdotes, figures given by you, or the presentation of a good-sounding instrument, are not evidence.

Currently you're challenging experienced people who are immensely respected here, with nothing to back up what you say.

----------


## Dave Cohen

In order to demonstrate that both sustain and volume are increased, one would have to simultaneously measure amplitude and characteristic decay times.  Additionally, those characteristic times are strongly frequency dependent.  In order to talk about "sustain, one needs to be clear about "sustain for which note(s)?"  I described the characteristic time measurements to Mr. Masterson, but saw nothing to indicate that he has done them, properly or otherwise.  One also needs to specify exactly where on the string the pluck is made, what the force of the pluck is, and several other factors.  I'm still waiting for all of that.  As to my lack of openness, I was not the one withholding any information for proprietary reasons.

For the benefit of those who are not sure about this, the problem with simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume is that it violates one of the most basic of physical laws, namely, conservation of energy.  Conservation laws are about as basic and fundamental as you can get.  When a string is plucked, it is given potential energy by virtue of its' displacement from its' equilibrium position.  When it is released, or the pick passes over it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy associated with its' vibrational motion.  Since a string moves very little air by itself, the way to get acoustic volume in a guitar or mandolin is for the string to give up some of its' energy to the body of the instrument, which in turn gives up some of that energy to the vibration of air mases in the body cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s).  And, if the string loses some of its' energy to another such vibrating system, it *has* to have less energy than it did (remember conservation of energy?).  Consequently, its' amplitude will decrease, which means that the characteristic time, and consequently sustain, will also decrease.  And, in order to get _more_ acoustic volume, one has to have a _greater_ loss in sustain.

Conservation of energy is not just something in the abstract.  You can't just handwave it away by dismissing the existing laws and/or formalism as incomplete.  Mr. Masterson will have to come up with a satisfactory explanation of how he can simultaneously increase both acoustic volume and sustain.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------

Sola

----------


## Rick Cadger

> [...]
> For the benefit of those who are not sure about this, the problem with simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume is that it violates one of the most basic of physical laws, namely, conservation of energy.  Conservation laws are about as basic and fundamental as you can get.  When a string is plucked, it is given potential energy by virtue of its' displacement from its' equilibrium position.  When it is released, or the pick passes over it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy associated with its' vibrational motion.  Since a string moves very little air by itself, the way to get acoustic volume in a guitar or mandolin is for the string to give up some of its' energy to the body of the instrument, which in turn gives up some of that energy to the vibration of air mases in the body cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s).  And, if the string loses some of its' energy to another such vibrating system, it *has* to have less energy than it did (remember conservation of energy?).  Consequently, its' amplitude will decrease, which means that the characteristic time, and consequently sustain, will also decrease.  And, in order to get _more_ acoustic volume, one has to have a _greater_ loss in sustain. [...]


Now _that_ is absolutely clear, and actually pretty obvious when explained and thought about.

Thanks for that, Dave.

----------


## Josh Kaplan

One of my New Years resolutions for the coming year is to be nicer on the internet and resist the temptation to write negative posts. I still have a month to go before that kicks in, though, and there is something about extravagant claims that invoke Stradivari that sets me off. So, sorry, OP. I am actually really interested in old and new instrument designs, sounds, and processes, but the Stradivarius name/claim is a turn-off for me.

National Publc Radio once had an interesting piece about a contemporary violin maker. What I took from it was the idea that violin makers today can in fact make very good to super great violins, in part because of computers, but if you are going to sell a $30.000-$50,000 instrument to a concert violinist today, there is some pressure to make one that sounds like a Stradivarius or Guarnerius, etc. In fact, there are all sorts of different ways a violin can sound great and beautiful, but most musicians in the market for super (and super expensive) instruments are looking for a particular sound, perhaps to duplicate a Stradivarius that they already own. A new violin may sound better in some ways, and different instruments may sound better in different concert halls. But if an instrument is too different, then the potential buyer may be reluctant to buy it, simply because it is different, not because it is worse. So "the standard" may not be the same as "the best."

Josh

----------


## mmasters

> In order to demonstrate that both sustain and volume are increased, one would have to simultaneously measure amplitude and characteristic decay times.  Additionally, those characteristic times are strongly frequency dependent.  In order to talk about "sustain, one needs to be clear about "sustain for which note(s)?"  I described the characteristic time measurements to Mr. Masterson, but saw nothing to indicate that he has done them, properly or otherwise.  One also needs to specify exactly where on the string the pluck is made, what the force of the pluck is, and several other factors.  I'm still waiting for all of that.  As to my lack of openness, I was not the one withholding any information for proprietary reasons.
> 
> For the benefit of those who are not sure about this, the problem with simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume is that it violates one of the most basic of physical laws, namely, conservation of energy.  Conservation laws are about as basic and fundamental as you can get.  When a string is plucked, it is given potential energy by virtue of its' displacement from its' equilibrium position.  When it is released, or the pick passes over it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy associated with its' vibrational motion.  Since a string moves very little air by itself, the way to get acoustic volume in a guitar or mandolin is for the string to give up some of its' energy to the body of the instrument, which in turn gives up some of that energy to the vibration of air mases in the body cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s).  And, if the string loses some of its' energy to another such vibrating system, it *has* to have less energy than it did (remember conservation of energy?).  Consequently, its' amplitude will decrease, which means that the characteristic time, and consequently sustain, will also decrease.  And, in order to get _more_ acoustic volume, one has to have a _greater_ loss in sustain.
> 
> Conservation of energy is not just something in the abstract.  You can't just handwave it away by dismissing the existing laws and/or formalism as incomplete.  Mr. Masterson will have to come up with a satisfactory explanation of how he can simultaneously increase both acoustic volume and sustain.
> 
> http://www.Cohenmando.com


No, I don't think its violating conservation of energy; I think there's an aspect being unaccounted for. The volume increase is very evident but with regards to sustain I think there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain. 

When I do the process it treats the entire instrument, including the neck and neck joint which changes the interaction of the instrument in a way such that I believe these counterproductive vibrations are being substantially mitigated.

I could test this myself by only treating the box and not the neck or neck joint and observing if the sustain responds differently.

I think even more fun would be to have Dr. Cohen perform the testing on an instrument before and after. Do you still have that inexpensive kit guitar? If you're up for it and since I'm local I would be willing to pick up the guitar, treat it and deliver it back in a few weeks time. I'd be happy to pay for the string changes as well and even dinner (if desired). All in exchange for some basic before and after testing and to publish the results here for everyone. I think it would be a fun experiment.

----------


## sunburst

> ...I think there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain. ...the process...changes the interaction of the instrument in a way such that I believe these counterproductive vibrations are being substantially mitigated.


That can be tested and demonstrated with FFT, but the first bending mode of a guitar (involving the neck and body) and other bending modes are dependent on mass and stiffness, and those are the only things that could change to affect those modes, and that would only change the frequency of those modes, not whether or not they "rob sustain". Furthermore, the first bending modes in guitars and mandolins are of lower frequencies than any that the strings can produce, so they don't "steal" much energy from the strings. Keep in mind that the wooden body of the instrument "robing" vibrations from the strings is the instruments way of converting string energy to sound.

In order to increase sustain _and_ acoustic volume, you have to increase the efficiency of the system (the system of converting string movement to air movement), and there is an obvious limit to that, so when the limit of efficiency is approached (what luthiers do, partly, to make "loud" instruments), there can be no more increase in one without there being a decrease in the other because the plucked string has a limited amount of energy to impart.

----------


## Charley wild

My take on this whole thing is the idea seems to be that increasing volume and sustain automatically makes an instrument better. My mandolin is loud enough and has enough sustain already. I don't think increasing either is going to make it better. It would just make it louder longer!

----------


## Dave Cohen

"I think that there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain...."

That is entirely conjecture, and mostly wrong.  As it happens, I was doing some more interferometry last month, and included neck motions this time.  I had looked at just a few of those early in this century in Rossing's lab, both in mandolins and in two guitars.  Rossing kept admonishing me to ignore those things as "just physicists' curiousities".  Back in 2004 and 2005, I ran into some mode splittings and day-to-day frequency shifts in the 400 - 800 Hz range which neither Rossing nor I could explain at the time.  They varied quite a lot from instrument to instrument.  Gradually, it dawned on me that I was extinguishing some neck motions which could account for the splitting by rigidly clamping the instrument at the endpin and the hyoid of the neck/headstock.  So this time, the instrument was simply supported instead of rigidly clamped, and was excited with a speaker instead of a magnet & coil "stinger".  The speaker is fine for excitation as long as you have good earplugs.

I'm still looking at the data, but I can offer som early insights into the neck motion question.  The first bending motion in mandolins occurs at about 45 Hz.  Recall that the lowest open note on a mandolin is the G at 196 Hz.  The bending motion corresponding to the first mode of a simply-supported bar or beam occurs at around 140 Hz.  Yes, there are higher bending motions associated with some of the body modes, but they are much lower in amplitude compared to the plate motions at the same frequencies.  In most cases except for the lowest frequencies, I had to record two interferograms; one at lower amplitude to image the motion in the body, and one at considerably higher amplitude to image the motion in the neck & headstock.

About three years ago, I did characteristic time measurements for an ff-hole mandolin vs frequency for every note from the G at 196 Hz up to the 12th fret E (1st string) at about 1318 Hz.  I had done the same thing back in 2001 for a Neapolitan mandolin.  The charactersitic times for notes in the frequency vicinity of active body modes were shorter by a factor of 3x or 4x, and longer in the frequency regions between those of body modes.  So strings will lose a little bit of energy to the neck motions, but will lose much more to the body motions, as it needs to be.  From what I saw in Rossing's lab, it is similar for guitars, only all of the frequencies are lower.  I'll have more to say about this after looking more at the data, but for now, I think that the OP should do himself the favors of learning some physics and surveying the by now fairly rich literature on the physics of both plucked and bowed string instruments.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## yankees1

> And could it be applied to achieve the holy grail mandolin tone?
> 
> I can say I am the discoverer of this and my research has largely been applied to acoustic guitars. But I have thought what about mandolins.
> 
> http://www.acousticbreakthrough.com/the-process
> 
> The question I wanted to ask is what qualities make for the holy-grail mandolin in your opinion? And does anybody have any video or audio clips they could reference that they believe capture the ultimate mandolin tone?


  No such thing as the ultimate mandolin tone, too subjective. And to say you are the discoverer of the Stradivarius secret is rediculous!

----------


## mrmando

> The idea of the challenge is to target the best out there. Stradivarius is often is associated with the best and has good name recognition hence why I chose him.


And ... apparently you didn't know enough about "him" to realize that (a) "Stradivarius" is an _it,_ not a_ him;_ (b) by associating the name with some secret process (one that in point of fact has nothing to do with Stradivari or any of his instruments), you were voluntarily assuming a mantle worn mostly by hucksters, charlatans and opportunists down through the ages. 



> Not everyone knows what a Guarani is.


What the heck does an indigenous Paraguayan ethnic group have to do with better-sounding guitars?

----------


## MandoPheel

> Now _that_ is absolutely clear, and actually pretty obvious when explained and thought about.
> 
> Thanks for that, Dave.


I concur.  Thank you, Dr. Cohen.

----------


## hank

Ok, this brings a question to my understanding.  Snake oil and black matter aside it sounds like the new players in this sustain and volume formula might be the strings themselves and the materials and technology used make them capable of producing more energy.  The recent introduction of crystal frets also sounds like another route to more string energy.  I personally am attracted to a pleasant tone over a piercing long sustaining loud screech that some strong instrument make.  I really am not qualified to appraise tone and performance with my very limited samplings and ability but when I pick up a strong mandolin and start playing it becomes evident very quickly. With an ff hole aperture you may not hear the projected voice but you can feel the power and vibration in the instrument as it truly comes to life.  Building a powerful mandolin is only half of my holy grail though. We talk a lot here about subjective taste and an educated ear vs a uneducated ear especially when doing before and after testing but unless the sustain and volume can be increased without permanently changing the voice of the instrument the end goal is being lost in the numbers.  I know the voice of my mandolins just like I know the voice of wife and children and often find I enjoy any one of them less if their volume is distorting their timbre.

----------


## mmasters

> "I think that there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain...."
> That is entirely conjecture, and mostly wrong.  As it happens, I was doing some more interferometry last month, and included neck motions this time.  I had looked at just a few of those early in this century in Rossing's lab, both in mandolins and in two guitars.  Rossing kept admonishing me to ignore those things as "just physicists' curiousities".  Back in 2004 and 2005, I ran into some mode splittings and day-to-day frequency shifts in the 400 - 800 Hz range which neither Rossing nor I could explain at the time.  They varied quite a lot from instrument to instrument.  Gradually, it dawned on me that I was extinguishing some neck motions which could account for the splitting by rigidly clamping the instrument at the endpin and the hyoid of the neck/headstock.  So this time, the instrument was simply supported instead of rigidly clamped, and was excited with a speaker instead of a magnet & coil "stinger".  The speaker is fine for excitation as long as you have good earplugs. 
> [/url]


What I don’t see is any willingness on your part to look at what I have. Instead you’re dismissing it, hiding behind preconceived notions and attacking my lack of experience with formal study.

I’m not convinced it would matter what I demonstrate, if I performed a methodology to your exact specifications showing what I and many others have seen (including some that are actually in the local community and know both of us), it would mostly likely be dismissed as something having been done improperly on my part or my background would again be attacked as not being an experienced formalist (or some other straw man). I think what’s clearly needed is someone other than me to verify the massive results I have consistently achieved from a scientific standpoint.

I have received third party verification of the spectra through TGP webzine’s testing and am looking to take it further. The testimonials up from those who have tried it have been some of the best testimonials I have ever read for anything (and some of these guys are at the pinnacle of high end instrument buyers on the east coast). I am offering to provide and cater everything you would need to verify this, but I can’t make for your unwillingness to simply look at what I have because it goes outside of your perceptions of what you want to believe based on your experience.

----------


## Charley wild

> Ok, this brings a question to my understanding.  Snake oil and black matter aside it sounds like the new players in this sustain and volume formula might be the strings themselves and the materials and technology used make them capable of producing more energy.  The recent introduction of crystal frets also sounds like another route to more string energy.  I personally am attracted to a pleasant tone over a piercing long sustaining loud screech that some strong instrument make.  I really am not qualified to appraise tone and performance with my very limited samplings and ability but when I pick up a strong mandolin and start playing it becomes evident very quickly. With an ff hole aperture you may not hear the projected voice but you can feel the power and vibration in the instrument as it truly comes to life.  Building a powerful mandolin is only half of my holy grail though. We talk a lot here about subjective taste and an educated ear vs a uneducated ear especially when doing before and after testing but unless the sustain and volume can be increased without permanently changing the voice of the instrument the end goal is being lost in the numbers.  I know the voice of my mandolins just like I know the voice of wife and children and often find I enjoy any one of them less if their volume is distorting their timbre.


Good post, Hank! Kind of what I was trying to say but didn't do it very well!

----------


## mmasters

> We talk a lot here about subjective taste and an educated ear vs a uneducated ear especially when doing before and after testing *but unless the sustain and volume can be increased without permanently changing the voice of the instrument the end goal is being lost in the numbers*.  I know the voice of my mandolins just like I know the voice of wife and children and often find I enjoy any one of them less if their volume is distorting their timbre.


That is exactly what this has achieved. The voice is not altered but enhanced with no sacrifice whatsoever. Everyone that has heard the difference has commented on how incredibly good it sounds.

----------


## Chris Baird

One thing to keep in mind is that loudness is a human perception that is a factor of frequency, amplitude, the human doing the hearing, and the competing environmental noise (or music).  A shift in frequency, without a change in amplitude, could make an instrument louder. The law of conservation of energy gets complicated in a musical instrument due to various modes of vibration which can be, in some limited way, shifted in frequency, amplitude, and decay time. Also, various forms of dampening will have an effect on both amplitude and sustain. A decrease in dampening can deliver more energy toward sound radiation vs. heat. 

Any "acoustic treatment", to be convincing, needs a good quantitative assessment, which in this case, we don't have. The big missing piece is a calibrated and measurable input (and probably a calibrated and repeatable response).  This usually takes the form of an electromagnetic shaker or a force transducer in a small impact hammer measuring the input, and, an accelerometer or calibrated microphone measuring the response. By dividing the absolute response by the absolute input you get (in the case of an fft of both) a frequency response function. The value of such a measurement is that variations in input don't affect the measurement. 

I see no explanation as to how the treatment affects the material properties of the wood (thus either shifting vibrational modes to a "louder" band, or an explanation as to how dampening is decreased).  The measurement system has neither a calibrated nor measurable input or response.  Which leaves the spectral analysis presented useless. The only evidence of improvement is subjective perception.

----------


## Dave Cohen

"What I don't see is any willingness on our part to look at what I have.  Instead, you're dismissing it, hiding behind preconceived notions and attacking my lack of experience with formal study."

That is just nonsense.  I looked at what you offered, and there was nothing there to support your assertion of a simultaneous increase in both sustain and acoustic volume.  You didn't even do experiments to address that issue.

The great conservation laws are not preconceived notions.  We call them "laws" because they are never observed to be violated.  Nevertheless, when valid, repeatable, peer-reviewed experiment does violate a scientific law, the law is either amended or overturned altogether.  That is what I said in an earlier post.  If you have evidence that contradicts a law, present it and it will be evaluated.  To do that, however, you will have to reveal your process.  No peer reviewed journal on Earth would even bother with you if you insist on keeping your process secret.  Picking on conservation of energy, however, is a mighty ambitious target, and as I said earlier, you had better have a mighty good explanation.  Some conjectures about neck motions without any knowledge of what they actually are won't cut it.  Needless to say, you haven't yet addressed my post about my interferometric observation of neck motions.  Which brings me to your earlier assertion about counterproductive neck motions.  You weren't doing yourself any favors there.  What you were describing still violated conservation of energy, but you apparently weren't even aware of you own inconsistency.  Now _that_ is some preconceived notion!

Btw, an example of a conservation law in physics being overturned was the overthrow of conservation parity by Lee & Yang.  Won them the Nobel prize.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## mmasters

> I looked at what you offered, and there was nothing there to support your assertion of a simultaneous increase in both sustain and acoustic volume.  You didn't even do experiments to address that issue.


You have not witnessed both the before and after effects of my process in person. This is vital before any real evaluation can be made. Rather than conjecture I am offering to demonstrate this in person to lay the issue to rest. Nobody that has seen it in person has had any question of the volume and sustain increases because they have _both_ have been substantial. You do appear to have already come to conclusions with regards to what I have (or haven't) discovered without really taking a serious look at it. This is what is referred to as confirmation bias. 




> *Confirmation Bias in Scientific Procedure*
> 
> A distinguishing feature of scientific thinking is the search for falsifying as well as confirming evidence.[100] *However, many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data.[100] Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs.* [101][102][103] However, assuming that the research question is relevant, the experimental design adequate and the data are clearly and comprehensively described, the found results should be of importance to the scientific community and should not be viewed prejudicially—regardless of whether they conform to current theoretical predictions.[104] *Confirmation bias may thus be especially harmful to objective evaluations regarding nonconforming results, since biased individuals may regard opposing evidence to be weak in principle and give little serious thought to revising their beliefs.*[105] Scientific innovators often meet with resistance from the scientific community, and research presenting controversial results frequently receives harsh peer review.[106] In the context of scientific research, confirmation biases can sustain theories or research programs in the face of inadequate or even contradictory evidence;[58][107] the field of parapsychology has been particularly affected.[108] An experimenter's confirmation bias can potentially affect which data are reported. Data that conflict with the experimenter's expectations may be more readily discarded as unreliable, producing the so-called file drawer effect. To combat this tendency, scientific training teaches ways to avoid bias.[109] Experimental designs involving randomization and double blind trials, along with the social process of peer review, are thought to mitigate the effect of individual scientists' biases,[109][110] although it has been argued that such biases can play a role in the peer review process itself.[111]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirm...ific_procedure

----------


## Rick Cadger

I am actually beginning to find the OP's tone offensive.

How can you accuse a scientist of "selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data" when you have presented no substantial data?

It's preposterous. You insult our collective intelligence.

Furthermore, you attempt to pre-emptively discredit any dismissal or negative interpretation of test results (should any real results ever actually emerge) by apparently implying that those here who are unwilling to accept your unproven claims are doing it out of blind faith in current scientific dogma, or some other vested interest.



> [...] Im not convinced it would matter what I demonstrate, if I performed a methodology to your exact specifications showing what I and many others have seen (including some that are actually in the local community and know both of us), it would mostly likely be dismissed as something having been done improperly on my part or my background would again be attacked as not being an experienced formalist (or some other straw man). [...]


Strikes me that the unwillingness to accept your claims has more to do with the spectacular absence of evidence. REAL evidence.

----------


## Chris Baird

Michael, 

There are a few aspects of your website which I would reevaluate if it were mine. 

1. The term "Stradivarius process" implies that your process has something to do with Stradivarius, and I don't think it does. 

2. On your homepage you compare the tone of Stradivarius to your process, which seems to fail logic as it is comparing a tone to a process. I'm not clear on whether you are asserting that your process, applied to a violin, will surpass the tone of a Stradivarius?  The above 2 points seem to be the kind of marketing hyperbole that instantly turns most people off. I'd give your process a more believable name as well as state more precisely what the process does (as opposed to intimating that your process will make an inferior violin superior in tone to a Stradivarius, which would seem to depend on the instrument in question). 

3.  The photos of treated and untreated wood pores are obviously two different groupings of pores.  How are we to know that the treated group of pores was any more or less open by looking at the untreated photo of an entirely different group of pores? I'd suggest a treated and untreated photo of the same grouping of pores. 

4.  Your spectral analysis narrative requires some close reading to determine that they are actually from pieces of wood rather than musical instruments. I'd make this more clear. Also, there is no description of your measurement process which is essential when providing such evidence.  There is a something of a standard testing process for fft analysis which I will attempt to explain. 

The best approach is to use calibrated transducers to measure the excitation and the response. Which as I stated above, gives a quantitative result. But, in the absence of such transducers you can still obtain some useful information if you follow certain steps. 

The first is to figure out some way of repeatedly exciting the material with little variation between untreated and treated measurements.  If you "bonk" the wood with some kind of hammer, you have to ensure that the force is nearly the same and that the hammer is exactly the same.  A harder tip on the hammer will give a lot more high frequency amplitude over a softer tip. And, of course, more force will give a higher amplitude in general.  You also have to calibrate you response measurement. Which is to say, the same microphone, with the same distance and phase relationship, in the same exact position within the same room. The discrepancies in your spectral data from treated to untreated could easily be from variations in any of the above. 

I also see from your fft screenshots that you've violated standards of obtaining ffts. Ideally no window will need to be applied and averaging can be highly suspicious without following the below procedures. 

To setup you data acquisition you need to know two things: the frequency range you are testing for, and the time it takes for your response to go from 0 amplitude (actually your noise floor) before the excitation to 0 after the response.  

For instance, if you want to measure up to about 10khz your sampling rate will need to be at least double that, 20khz. 

Next you need to define your fft block sample. This is done by finding the number of samples that brackets as closely as possible the duration of your response from 0 just before the excitation to 0 after the response. So say this value is .3 seconds. You'd need an fft block of greater than 6000 samples. But, there is a catch to avoid fft errors.  The block sample should be some nth power of 2.  In this case the closest you can get is an fft block of 8192. Which gives a frequency resolution of 2.4 hz.  Which is probably ok. You then need to be sure that your fft block is applied to the response such that it starts at 0 encompasses the response and then ends at 0.  It is all too common for folks inexperienced in fft analysis to set their block such that it only captures part of the response and doesn't begin and end on a noise floor amplitude. This creates errors and inconsistencies from one measurement to the next. 

Hope this helps

Using this process you don't need any smoothing windows and will obtain the best spectrum results.

----------


## Mike Bunting

I don't particularly want my mandolin to sound like a Strad violin.

----------


## Chris Baird

Not to disrespect Dave, but, there is one obvious possibility for increasing both the amplitude and sustain of any oscillating system: by reducing the attenuation (i.e. damping, friction, etc.)  One can plot the differential equations, or, go to this applet and do some experimenting.  http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/resonance.htm. 

First change the angular frequency of the exciter to 0 (this gives the system just one bump then stops exciting), leave the spring constant and mass the same, then test the system using attenuation values of 1 and .1.  You will see that the amplitude increases and the decay time (sustain) increases with lower attenuation values.  This can best be seen using the elongation diagram. 

So, theoretically, if an "acoustic treatment" could lower attenuation it will increase both sustain and amplitude. However, I'd need to see some pretty good evidence to believe it.

----------


## Rick Cadger

Is there a layman's version of that, Chris? Beyond me, I'm afraid.

----------


## devilsbox

OK how about approaching this from a non technical side.... Stradivarius built really good violins. People that played them or heard them could pretty much tell that they were really good. Old Antonio as far as I know didn't brag about any "secrets", he just kept making those really good violins. Then after his death those violins were treasured even more because they were good and there would be no more of them. So basically if something is really good people will find out, and they will seek it out. The cream will rise to the top, no "secrets" needed. If it works it works. If one makes consistantly better instruments then their reputation is gold. Let the instrument sell itself.

----------


## Chris Baird

Rick, attenuation is a techy term for friction (or some other energy expenditure going toward unintended work). The work of a mandolin is to vibrate the air and make sound, so energy that goes toward other things (mostly heat production) is lost with regard to the intended work. Of course, with regard to the law of conservation of energy it is still around... just not for vibrating the air. Less energy lost to friction has the effect of increasing both volume and sustain. 

With regard to devilsbox comments: I agree, and I think most people are suspicious of hyperbolic marketing as it is unnecessary for products/services which really work.

----------


## Rick Cadger

Thank you, Chris. That's clear now.

You're a patient fellow.  :Smile:

----------


## Dave Cohen

Chris, little problem with your analogy/analysis.  In order to increase sustain, the oscillator that would need to be de-damped would be the string itself.  De-damping all of the wood in the instrument would not de-damp the string(s) at all.  In fact, if de-damping the wood should happen to somehow make the instrument body more compliant (which is not necessarily so), then the more compliant instrument body would steal still more energy from the strings, thereby _decreasing_ the sustain rather than increasing it.  With coupled oscillators (i.e., strings + wood + air), conservation of energy still rules the energy transfer between them.  Now, if you could remove the air, that would remove the viscous damping (significant w/ metal strings) for all components.  Unfortunately, there would be no sound.

The OP's 2:05 PM post is very problematic.  When he visited me, I told him that he would have to make characteristic time measurement in order to document sustain.  I described how to make characteristic time measurements and showed him an example.  He took notes.  I have yet to see any such measurements supporting his claim of increased sustain.  I also told him politely at that time that his claim of simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume was violating conservation of energy.  He didn't seem to want to revisit his assertion in light of that.  Now he in initiating an _ad hominem_ attack on me by insinuating (if not stating it directly) that I am biased.  I have implied in several posts that I don't have _any_ beliefs, let alone preconcieved ones.  Conservation of energy was certainly not preconceived by me  Everything, including conservation of energy, is on the table.  I have already stated that if he can corroborate his assertions with repeatable experiments, I will accept them.  However, unrecorded observations before and after a secret process do not constitute repeatable experiments, not in my book, nor in any scientist's book.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Dale Ludewig

I also have a question regarding this 'process'.  Beside being suspicious of so little information granted as to "what" is being done or how, is this a linear type improvement or more like a quantum thing?  If you were to subject an instrument, or any piece of wood for that matter, to this process, does it change it in 15 minutes a bit?  An hour a bit more?  How about 5 days?  Is there a point at which the wood structure changes, which seems to being implied, when suddenly it 'snaps' into the Strad?  Then no more improvement?  What if too much of the process is applied?  How do you know?  Can the process be applied to raw wood to be used in instruments and then machined and the same fine sound come from that?  Or does it have to be applied to a completely constructed instrument wherewith come a whole multitude of more questions?  
It seems that the other instrument vibrating devices basically (I've never used one) work on an analog approach:  Here, vibrate the instrument a lot like you were playing it.  It'll sound different.  At a certain point that's all you're going to get.  Why it works is a mystery to me although I am a believer that an instrument that is played a lot sounds different than when it isn't.

----------


## Chris Baird

Dave, I have to respectfully disagree. The attenuation in an instrument body robs energy from the strings equally to if it were taking energy in oscillation. However, if the energy is instead robbed from the strings for oscillation it will increase both sustain and amplitude.

----------


## Tom Wright

I tend to side with Dave, considering the banjo as an example of high compliance and low total sustain. We can allow some wiggle room by considering that in more-complex systems like wooden resonators with grain and multiple resonant modes there is always some energy lost to heat which might be available for increasing both volume and sustain slightly. I think about a balsa top as an example of high compliance but with some inelastic modes that probably generate heat.

Another way to achieve the otherwise impossible would be if the available energy can be concentrated into bins, high-q resonances, instead of a continuous spectrum. Then you can get a leveraging of the initial vibration acting as pump for the closely-spaced resonant modes. Closely-spaced resonances are why a string instrument is not a loudspeaker, but more like a pipe organ. Precisely for this reason the piezos that listen to the string directly sound boring and dead. Sharply defined resonances also help definition, making it easier to pick out individual notes as well as timbre in a thick mix. This makes an instrument seem louder.

Resonance pumping combined with directionality is why a trumpet turns someone spitting into something ear-splitting.

----------


## Dave Cohen

"The attenuation in an instrument body robs energy from the strings equally to it if it were takeing energy in oscillation.  However, if the energy is instead robbed from the strings for oscillation it will increase both sustain and amplitude."

What????  That sounds llike gobbledegook, but I'm not gonna argue with you.  The string is that oscillator that is doing the "sustaining".  When it loses energy to other oscillators to which it is coupled., it loses amplitude, and the characteristic time is shortened, i.e., "sustain" is shorter.  I don't know where you got that stuff, but you might want to look in Fletcher & Rossing, sections 1.5, 1.8, 2.13, 2.13.1, 2.13.2, and 2.13.3.  I'm done here.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Chris Baird

Ok, it is the law of conservation of energy that gets me to my conclusion:

When a string is plucked it introduces a finite amount of energy into the instrument.  The strings transfer that energy to the whole instrument.  The instrument wants to be in a state of equilibrium, so all that plucked string energy has to dissipate somehow. For examples sake (I know this isn't accurate data) let's say that 2/5 of the total energy goes into making sound and that the other 3/5 is lost to attenuation (viscous drag of strings and body moving against air, friction of wood cells moving against one another, etc.) So, if we reduced the attenuation ratio to 2/5 then, by the law of conservation of energy, the 1/5 has to dissipate somewhere, and the only place we've defined that it can go is to making sound (as attenuation is defined as everything other than energy being made into sound). 

If, Dave, your model is correct; reducing the proportion of attenuation from 3/5 to 2/5 has no effect on the total energy of production of sound (that is, an increase in amplitude would necessitate and decrease in sustain and visa versa) then where did the 1/5 of the total plucked string energy go? 

My point is that, a plucked string has a finite amount of energy and any energy that is taken away in friction comes out of the energy that could go into sound production (amplitude and sustain). We can't reduce viscous drag, but, maybe we can reduce friction within the wood itself?  If we could then I believe that we would proportionately increase the energy which could make sound.

----------


## Chris Baird

I think, in a system where attenuation stayed the same, you would have to sacrifice sustain if the amplitude were to rise as the energy going toward oscillation would be the same. But, when attenuation goes down it actually provides more energy toward oscillation which would increase both sustain and amplitude.

----------


## Dave Cohen

"If, Dave, your model is correct; reducing the proportion of attenuation from 3/5 to 2/5 has no effect on the total energy production of sound...."

That is definitely gobbledegook.  First, it is not _my_ model.  Second, about 96% of the energy put into a string pluck is wasted, i.e., becomes heat.  Third, I didn't say what you claimed.  If a string is plucked harder, it will have more amplitude and energy when let go.  It will transfer more energy to the instrument body and the air in the cavity and soundhole(s) region, and you will hear greater acoustic volume.  What I did imply is that a more compliant body will accept more energy from the string than a less compliant body.  Ergo, the string will lose more energy to the more compliant body than it would to a less compliant body, consequently having less energy itself.  In losing more energy to the more compliant body, it will produce more acoustic volume, but since it has lost more of its' own energy, it will sustain less.

I have also demonstrated this, as I pointed out in an earlier post, with the measurement of characteristic times vs frequency.  At frequencies at which the instrument body is active, i.e., near modal frequencies, the characteristic times (i.e., the "sustain") are shorter, by as much as 3x or 4x.  At frequencies at which the body is not active, i.e., between modal frequencies, the characteristic times are much longer.  In Neapolitans, nothing happens in the body below about 500 Hz.   From the 196 Hz G up to approx the 440 Hz A, the characteristic times are very long.  Above 500 Hz, the characteristic times are shorter by a factor of 10x or more.  In ff-hole type mandolins, the sustain is 3x or 4x shorter in the vicinity of the modal frequencies than it is in frequency regions between the modal frequencies.  There you have it.  It is not my model, or conjecture, or even theoretical predicition without verification; it is experimental fact.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Bill Snyder

> Based on the '20's price of gold, an F5 Loar would cost you approx $20k today - they were about $250 dollars then and hover today at $200-250 thou ...  in a 100 or so years its easy to conceive a F5 Loar will be 10x what it is today - $2.5 million U.S., or $17.5 million Chinese dollars  ...


The price of gold was FIXED by the US government at this time so it can not be used as a basis for comparison.
Using a couple of inflation calculators and using 1923 as a base year what cost $250.00 then would cost about $3,200.00 now.

----------


## Fretbear

This thread reminds me of that line from "Dead Man Walking":
"I'm not going to debate scripture with a nun, because I will lose....."

----------


## Big Joe

While the replies on this post are interesting, they do get a bit beyond the intent of the OP.  We have been a bit harsh on him, and in some cases maybe rightfully so.  We may not be able to agree with all his suppositions,  but he still has the right to post them.  It may well be that he sees certain results from his method but does not know how to describe it in a manner that makes all happy.  In any case, he is making an attempt to reach out to the community and has offered his services for testing.  We have all taken him to task on many issues... some of which are not really helpful to him or many of the readers of this post.  

I am not saying he should think twice before publishing something on a public forum and not expecting there may be some opposition to his proposition.  The desire to keep his procedure private is not a bad thing.  Many of us have proprietary methods that we don't relish sharing with just everyone.  Sometimes it is because we went to the effort to find a method and it is important to our business model.  Sometimes it is because publishing some methods on a public forum could lead unqualified persons to attempt something they should not be doing.  Maybe because it is dangerous or maybe because they could easily do the job wrong and damage the instrument.  In this litigious society it can lead to trouble for one who may have intended good but bad becomes the result from the disclosure on a public forum.  I don't mind that he wishes to keep it to himself, but to make such an issue of the system as being somehow superior to all others and not willing to give any information leads one to be a bit skeptical.

I have not doubt that he may be able to help many instruments.  I can make just about any instrument sound better, but not really by and secret.  Just by careful observation and lots of experience.  Anyone with the right skills and tools can do what we do and with enough experience should be able to do it as well.  Do we have some "secrets"?  Not really, though we probably do some things that many others don't.  It is often in the little details of what we do that, along with everything else, makes the end result what it is.  I am certainly not trying to set us up as above anyone else.  That is not my intent.  I am merely saying that any luthier who specializes in that aspect of lutherie can certainly improve most any instrument that comes his way.  

I would hope we can get a bit of perspective and ease up on Mr. Masters a little.  He is new to our forum and we have not given him a very welcome response.  He may well be trying to sell a service, but I don't think that was his primary idea.  He presented some information, and we found reasons to discount his input by our skepticism or by attempting to put his "science" down.  Granted, he may not have his PhD. in physics or math or any other field.  That, however, does not mean he does not have something valuable to offer.  We really don't know because we have not given ear to his offer to test an instrument.  He has offered to treat an instrument and do so for free to offer proof to his supposition.  

I don't know what his system is, how he does it, or what the outcome would be.  He has called and offered his services to me.  I have not accepted.... or refused.... to take him up on his offer.  I don't know exactly what I might do.  I would certainly need more information before I ship an instrument to a person I don't know to do a service I don't understand.  How long does it take?  Is this a chemical or a vibration or some other treatment that I may not want my instrument subjected to?  I don't know because I have not been able to determine from his website.  I did promise to call him back when he called the other day.  I will do that and see if I can get a better handle on the process without any proprietary information being revealed.

I understand why he called.  I did test the Tone Rite for that company, and am testing the Prime Vibe for that company.  I have tried to be very open about my reaction to both of those methods.  While they both work... at least to some degree.... I do have a personal preference for one method over the other.  Not because it is "better", but more convenient for ME.  He called and offered to treat an instrument if I would report my experience with the method.  I hope he understands I would be very open about my reaction and it would be on a public forum.  The result of that openness may help or hurt him or may not have any effect at all.  I don't have any way to measure that.  I can only report what I see, hear, feel, and understand.  It is certainly subjective, as most everything we experience is.  How scientific?  Only as scientific as my ears and hands could be.  That would not satisfy many, but in any case I can only report the truth as best as I know to do.  That would not satisfy all, and that is fine.

Will I have an instrument treated by him?  I don't know at this point.  Time will tell.  I have doubt that he can improve one any more than I can do in my shop.  Even the treatments I've tested that do offer improvement offer the best results when everything else is right.  If one can improve on what we do, then I would certainly want to know about it and learn as much as I could.  In my mind there are two primary considerations in what I do.  First, make the instrument perform sonically the very best it can.  Second, make it play at its peak performance.  There are third and fourth considerations, but they are a distant consideration compared to the first two.  If I can improve on that, then I am all for that.  I may be an old dog... but I can learn new tricks  :Smile:  .

Ok.  I'm done.  I hope we can continue a good discussion without continuing to beat up on the guy.  I don't think he expected the "welcome" he got, and that is a bit unusual for this forum.  There has been a lot of good information from several and even then not everyone can agree on all things.  That is life.  One thing about "laws" and "science" is that there is always more than one way to interpret or view them.  On most issues scientists seem to be in disagreement depending upon the background they may have.  The same with this forum.  It is not about who is right or who is wrong, but sometimes gets to be about who want to defend their point of view the most enthusiastically.  Fortunately it is usually done in a friendly manner.  Let's extend that same courtesy to our new member and remember his is new to us and our approach to something like he presents.  He will learn as we have.  Thank you.

----------


## Chris Baird

Dave, again, you side step the issue of whether or not less attenuation can increase both amplitude and sustain. You can dismiss my questions and comments as "gobbledegook" (quite an inappropriate scientific retort, btw). But, tell me, clearly, what happens to the amplitude and sustain of a mandolin when the attenuation is reduced? 

I didn't say that a string plucked harder won't equate to more amplitude and energy when let go. I agree there. You, however, seem to think that a more compliant body could come into existence without a change in the attenuation. It is my assertion that a more compliant body will equal a reciprocal decrease in attenuation. Which is to say that, yes, a more compliant body uses more string energy, BUT, it also would receive more string energy as less would go to attenuation. The amount "more" of string energy would equal the amount less lost in attenuation.  

Like always, I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree (or, at least I will).

----------


## mmasters

> Another way to achieve the otherwise impossible would be if the available energy can be concentrated into bins, high-q resonances, instead of a continuous spectrum. Then you can get a leveraging of the initial vibration acting as pump for the closely-spaced resonant modes. Closely-spaced resonances are why a string instrument is not a loudspeaker, but more like a pipe organ. Precisely for this reason the piezos that listen to the string directly sound boring and dead. Sharply defined resonances also help definition, making it easier to pick out individual notes as well as timbre in a thick mix. This makes an instrument seem louder.


Based on everything I've seen this is what I really believe is happening, the process is increasing the q-factor of all the woods that comprise the instrument and the mechanism for it is the opening of the inter-fiber pits I have documented on my web site. With the pit membranes unstuck from the pit channel openings they are essentially floating and act much like a spring which is able to absorb more energy from the string. Better string seperation is also a feature of this process which again points to a higher Q being the cause.

I would attribute the sustain and volume increase to what Chris is proposing by way of what Tom is saying. Along with the fact that the neck and box are now working in harmony to a degree that the modal action in the neck is now working to enhance the sustain rather than getting in the way of it.

And just to clear something up, when I visited Dr. Cohen early this year I showed him a prototype guitar that was partially treated, this was before the process was perfected. I don't think it really proved anything showing it to him as there was no reference for how it sounded beforehand. In any case, having seen only that I don't know how he can have such conclusive views on what I have without having witnessed anything to make any kind of informed determination. This mentality along with an apparent unwillingness to seriously audition the process can only lead me to conclude there is confirmation bias in effect.

----------


## mmasters

> He called and offered to treat an instrument if I would report my experience with the method.  I hope he understands I would be very open about my reaction and it would be on a public forum.  The result of that openness may help or hurt him or may not have any effect at all.


I'm comfortable with it.

Also, I would be willing to treat a mandolin in return for a before and after audio (or video) demonstration to display for everyone here, for whoever's interested.

----------


## Dave Cohen

I didn't sidestep anything.  We must be speaking a different language.  I think you need to be clearer about what you mean by "attenuation".  When a wave motion is damped, its' amplitude is attenuated, meaning the amplitude gets smaller.  We usually refer to attenuation as what we do when we dial back a pot or variable resistor, f'rinstance, in the feedback loop of an op amp.  So to me, less attenuation means that a waveform has greater amplitude.  But at what point in time?  Also, attenuation of what?  The strings? the body motions? the air motion?  If I pluck a string harder, its initial or peak amplitude will be greater.  Is that what you mean by less attenuation?

The bridge and nut are pretty high impedance, as they have to be, so the wave motion in the string is largely reflected between the bridge and the nut.  The energy that is transmitted to the body is in the form of pulses of force at the end of each string period (cf Fletcher & Rossing, section 9.3, pp 241-5).  The force pulses are a multiple-frequency excitation, and they excite most or all of the body normal modes, which are completely different than the string modes.  The body modes are not at all harmonic.  The body modes in turn excite the air modes in the cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s). Again, the air modes are completely different than the string and wood modes.  All of those modes are exchanging energy, though, and energy has to be conserved.  That doesn't mean that all of that energy ends up as sound radiation, though.  Much of it (about 96%) is lost to heat, entropy, etc.  Now, if you want sustain, the string has to keep moving.  But when its' end supports (i.e., bridge and nut) are moving, the string loses energy to those motions.  If there is greater motion of the end supports (is that what you mean by less attenuation?), the string loses more energy to that end support motion, and sustains even less.  That is what my charactersitic time experiments from my last post demonstrated.  More body motion, less sustain of the string.  Btw, I was not the first to do that type of experiment.  You can find other examples in the literature.  So, can an instrument be made to have simultaneously greater acoustic volume and longer characteristic times?  I don't think so.  A string plucked very hard may vibrate for a longer total time than a string plucked less hard, but the characteristic time (time for string amplitude to decay to 1/e of its' peak amplitude) will be the same.  The string will not be heard for a longer time.  Drive the string harder, and you are driving the body harder; greater body mode amplitudes (is that less attenuation?) will steal more energy from the string, attenuating its amplitude to 1/e of peak at the same time or even less.  You can demonstrate this to yourself, as I tried to get the OP to do.  record the plucked string vs time, graphically determine the time for its' amplitude to decay to 1/e of its' peak amplitude, and that is the characteristic time.  For this experiment, you don't need to worry about calibration or Nyquist limits.  Just be sure to do the experiment for many different note/frequencies, so that you can be suitably confused.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## mmasters

> I also have a question regarding this 'process'.  Beside being suspicious of so little information granted as to "what" is being done or how, is this a linear type improvement or more like a quantum thing?


A few of my clients that have used the little vibrator to open up their tops have reported this producing results on the level of 5-10 times greater.




> If you were to subject an instrument, or any piece of wood for that matter, to this process, does it change it in 15 minutes a bit?  An hour a bit more?  How about 5 days?


It takes many hundreds of hours of continuous application.




> Is there a point at which the wood structure changes, which seems to being implied, when suddenly it 'snaps' into the Strad? Then no more improvement?


It's gradual, I notice a successive jump in the instrument's ability every 5-7 days.




> What if too much of the process is applied?  How do you know?


I basically perform it until continuing to do it further has little or no effect. It's typically around about the three week mark where the improvements cease and that's that. From what I can hear there really is no appling "too much" of it. The more the better. I have had some return customers ask to take it past the three week mark a little to make sure the opening up is as good as it gets.




> Can the process be applied to raw wood to be used in instruments and then machined and the same fine sound come from that?  Or does it have to be applied to a completely constructed instrument wherewith come a whole multitude of more questions?


It can be done either way.

----------


## Dave Cohen

RE confirmation bias:  I have stated in several posts in this thread by now that if I am shown valid measurements of charactreristic times that I can repeat with the same results, I will accept them.  Nothing so far, nor any prospect of being able to repeat the measurements.  The _ad hominem_ attack based on "confirmation bias" is a smokescreen for the lack of verifying measurements.  Additionally, did the OP credit his source on "confirmation bias"?

http://www.Cohenmando

----------


## mmasters

> RE confirmation bias:  I have stated in several posts in this thread by now that if I am shown valid measurements of charactreristic times that I can repeat with the same results, I will accept them.  Nothing so far, nor any prospect of being able to repeat the measurements.  The _ad hominem_ attack based on "confirmation bias" is a smokescreen for the lack of verifying measurements.  Additionally, did the OP credit his source on "confirmation bias"?
> 
> http://www.Cohenmando


I can get a piece of wood and do this but it's going to take close to a month.

There's a lot more to observe than a sustain measurement here but if you want to focus in on that and disregard everything else for the time being then so be it.

----------


## Chris Baird

Dave,  I agree, we must not be speaking the same language. Although, I think I've been clear. By attenuation, I mean any energy used from a plucked string that doesn't go into producing sound. (I realize that even energy that goes into making sound can be considered attenuation in the strict sense). But, in this case I'm particularly interested in the internal damping of wood. So let's just forget attenuation and discuss the internal damping of wood (or the attenuation associated with sound waves losing energy to the internal friction of wood).

A question for you:  Is it possible for one mandolin (giving the exact same strings and plucking force) to have both more sustain and amplitude over another mandolin?  Or, are you saying that they must:

1. Be equal in sustain and amplitude, or;
2. If mandolin (a) has more sustain then mandolin (b) must have more amplitude, or;
3. If mandolin (a) has more amplitude then mandolin (b) must have more sustain.

I think if even one instance of a mandolin (again with the same strings and plucking force) could be shown to have both more sustain and amplitude over any other mandolin that your theory is disproved. Because making the inferior mandolin more like the superior mandolin is obviously possible (although to a limited degree). 

My anecdotal experience is that there are definitely some mandolins which have both more sustain and more amplitude over others.

----------


## mrmando

> I think if even one instance of a mandolin (again with the same strings and plucking force) could be shown to have both more sustain and amplitude over any other mandolin that your theory is disproved.


Strings and plucking force aren't the only constants you would need for a valid comparison. The wood in both mandolins would have to have identical properties as well. 



> Because making the inferior mandolin more like the superior mandolin is obviously possible (although to a limited degree).


 Don't the known methods of doing this all involve changing the mass or composition? The process under discussion is purported to increase amplitude and sustain without altering the size or shape of the box. Do you know a way of doing that?

----------


## Chris Baird

mrmando, I think Dave's point is that the wood or composition in both mandolins wouldn't matter, because, according the law of conservation of energy, there is no way to BOTH increase sustain and amplitude. But, if it can be shown that different woods or compositions can, indeed, increase both sustain and amplitude then his theory isn't working. 

And, no, I personally don't know how the process in question could do that, and, as I've stated, I'm quite skeptical.

----------


## mrmando

> mrmando, I think Dave's point is that the wood or composition in both mandolins wouldn't matter, because, according the law of conservation of energy, there is no way to BOTH increase sustain and amplitude.


No, that is not his point. He's making an argument about an instrument as a closed system, subjected to a process that doesn't add or subtract mass or materials. Obviously you could take an overbuilt mandolin with a thick shellac on it, and increase amplitude and sustain by stripping/refinishing, regraduating, shaving or redoing the braces, etc. But that changes the size/shape/composition of the box, which in turn changes the game for the way the system handles energy.

----------


## Chris Baird

That is not how I understand Dave's comments. If your interpretation of Dave's comments is correct then we are all in agreement.

----------


## mmasters

As some added background here is information with regards to inter-fiber pits in old violins
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~jw12/JW%20PDFs/Pits.pdf

Fig. 2 shows what I am talking about with regards to pit membranes being in the open or closed position.

When wood dries these membranes almost entirely move to the closed position as a result of water tension and seal the pit channels shut.

My process frees these membranes from the closed position and in doing so they can act like tiny little drums or springs to capture the string energy. This in turn boosts the resonant properties of the wood significantly.

I should point out there are a few luthiers which exclusively build from highly selected wood samples which exhibit a high Q factor. Ervin Somogyi is one of these builders and his starting price is $26,000. Having played some of his guitars in person the effect I am achieving with this treatment has shown guitars in the few thousand dollar range to sound every bit as good as the ones he is building.

Also, based on the spectrograms (which I followed Dr. Cohen's instructions exactly on how to perform them), one very insteresting aspect that came forth was the appearance of high frequency vibrational modes that were dormant or almost nonexistant before. That is really what has encouraged me to want to try this on a treble based instrument such as a mandolin and understand where the "holy grail" benchmark lies because I wouldn't be surprised to see this match or surpass it.

----------


## John Ritchhart

Dammit, Jim. I'm a Doctor, not a magician. - Bones

----------


## Chris Baird

Michael,  I have an interest in the material properties of wood, and I have conducted several of my own experiments with wood "treatments" (however, with no real positive results).  Thus far my experience is that a piece of wood either "has it" or doesn't.  

But, I have a fairly well controlled setup for measuring ffts. If you are interested (and will do it free of charge), I'd be interested in testing a piece of spruce, sending it to you for your treatment, and then analyzing it again after the treatment; publishing the results here (as well as the testing controls and methods).  

Let me know.

----------


## mmasters

> Michael,  I have an interest in the material properties of wood, and I have conducted several of my own experiments with wood "treatments" (however, with no real positive results).  Thus far my experience is that a piece of wood either "has it" or doesn't.  
> 
> But, I have a fairly well controlled setup for measuring ffts. If you are interested (and will do it free of charge), I'd be interested in testing a piece of spruce, sending it to you for your treatment, and then analyzing it again after the treatment; publishing the results here (as well as the testing controls and methods).  
> 
> Let me know.


I'm up for it. PM sent.

----------


## Charlieshafer

119 posts and we still don't have the secret??

----------


## JonZ

I thought it was carbon fiber.

 :Popcorn:

----------


## Dave Cohen

I really wanted to just stay away from this.

First, I did not give the OP explicit instructions on how to acquire fft spectra.  All I did was show him the freeware programs, where to get them, and I did a sample spectrum or two.  I certainly did not tell him that he could extend the program to loudness measurements, nor did I discuss calibration, Nyquist limits, how to interpret data, etc.  Too much for one day's visit.  That, and I assumed he was on his own, & would do the necessary homework.

Second, I certainly did not generalize to all instruments, nor did I make comments about any materials in particular.  I don't see how Chris interpreted my posts that way.  What I _did_ say was that for any given instrument, If one does something to increase acoustic volume, that volume increase will come at the expense of "sustain", i.e., it will result in shorter characteristic times for that particular instrument.  And that, btw, is what we are dealing with in this thread.  In order to increase acoustic volume, one has to move more air, which means increased plate amplitudes.  It is what the Wales, UK physicist Bernard Richardson refers to as "acoustic merit".  That function is  highly frequency dependent, however.  Now, increased plate amplitudes imply greater energy of the plate motions, and that in turn means a greater energy demand from the strings.  Steal more energy from the strings, and they will decay quicker.  Ergo, less sustain (other things being equal, of course).

I have posted numerous times before about J. Meyer's two 1983 papers, in which he attempted to relate constructional details and physical parameters to blind listing tests by auditioners who were all classical guitarists.  The significant detail for this thread is that all of the auditioners professed a desire for greater sustain, but the guitars which they judged to be of the highest quality had the quickest decay, i.e., the shortest sustain.  The moral in that is that perception of "sustain" is a poor substitute for measurement.  The other thing I seem to need to keep referring to is my characteristic time vs frequency experiments, which I already alluded to in previous posts in this thread.  That is a simple experimental demonstration of the fact that greater plate amplitides (i.e., at and around the frequencies of the body modes) result in significantly quicker decay.  Recall that I cited 3x to 4x quicker decay (i.e., shorter characteristic times).

More.  Yes, there certainly are instruments which have more of everything, but how much more?  Turns out it is not nearly what you think you are hearing.  If you actually do charactersitic time measurements on mandolins, you will find that mandolins as a group have pretty short characteristic times.  Certainly shorter than guitars, though not as short as banjos.  And again, when you cite sustain, you will need to be clear about "sustain of which note?", since characteristic times vary widely (remember the 3x to 4x) within the playing range of a single instrument.  For the benefit of the OP; yes there is much more to the physics of instruments than characteristic times, but you were the one who made the claim of "incredible increases in sustain and volume".

As to the charge of "confirmation bias": (i) it would be interesting to know where that passage came from, (ii) I am certainly an empiricist.  Experiment decides.  Like most scientists, I don't believe anything, including my own work.  By Popperian falsification, anything in science can be overturned, hence it can not be 'believed'.  My work is the basis for my current _opinions_, but not for 'belief'.  If what I do gets overturned, I don't hold that opinion any more.  And that Popperian falsifiability has served science well.

Oh, and I thought all this time that the secret was "42".

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Dave Cohen

And one other thing, Chris.  Please don't refer to what I post as "Dave's theory".  Most of it isn't theory, and that which is theory is someone else's - someone like, say, Hamilton, or LaGrange.  In the great majority of cases, what I am citing is experimental results which happen to be in agreement with theory.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Chris Baird

I knew you were going to get me for using the term "theory" :-). But, in all my acoustic studies, which go back 8 years, I've never heard anyone other than you state that you can't get both more sustain and amplitude due to the law of conservation of energy.  I may not consider it a "theory", but, it does seem like your hypothesis. If I'm wrong I'd certainly like a reference to someone else who has made such an assertion (whether it be hypothesis, theory, or law). 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record.. I believe that if you can reduce the internal friction of the wood you can provide more energy toward increasing both sustain and amplitude. I don't think it matters from a physics standpoint whether one does this by altering the wood in-situ with some kind of "treatment", or if you simply replace one wood (or instrument) for another... as long as the excitation is the same. In short, I believe that it is possible to increase both sustain and amplitude from a set mark by altering the material qualities of the test instrument (again, either by altering the existing materials, or, simply replacing them).

It may be true that amplitude may rise at a greater proportion to sustain, but, I don't think that an amplitude increase necessitates a decrease in sustain (although, in some cases it can).

----------


## Charlieshafer

"Oh, and I thought all this time that the secret was "42"."
Dave Cohen

http://www.Cohenmando.com[/QUOTE]




Hah! I thought that was it!

----------


## Dave Cohen

The problem, Chris, is just that, i.e., that you _believe_ it.

It is not my _hypothesis_ either.  I don't want to be credited with something that is not mine.  And, btw, it has been stated before.

With regard to the specifics of your 'belief'; You should make measurements.  I've already made measurements.  They have passed peer review, and you can see the graphs in my chapter in Rossing's new book, "The Science of String Instruments" (Springer-Verlag).  They are now saying it will be out Jan 15.  Keeps getting pushed back one month every month, since October.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## fscotte

Just a few comments:

1)  The process apparently crystallizes the resins in the wood.
2) $400+ is way too much for treatment - at least at this stage.  If Mr. Masterson wants to get the word out, he needs to lower the price.
3)  The initial high cost could be the result of the fact that once people find out specifically what the process is, they'll treat the wood themselves.  So an early high cost makes a profit.  Get in quick, then get out.
4)  For $400+ of my hard earned money, I'd probably exaggerate the amount of improvement I hear on my treated instrument.  It's human nature.

----------


## hank

Dave thank you for having patience with us and sharing your experiences.  Undoubtedly my understanding in this matter is way below the power curve but to my way of thinking you and Chris are talking about two different aspects of the energy transfered by the string.  If I'm following this correctly your work demonstrates repeatedly this give and take aspect of sustain and volume. On the other hand if Chris built two mandolins (closely identical) one with formally measured great volume and sustain characteristics and one with formally measured poor volume and sustain characteristics.  Each mandolin would still follow the trade of sustain and volume in response to the way the energy is dissipated.  Now if I'm following Chris's thinking he's found some woods that make louder and longer sustaining mandolins.  He see's this as wood that is more easily excited requiring less energy from the string.  This mandolin would still exhibit the loss in sustain caused by increase in volume with the same ratios but with higher initial values.

----------


## sunburst

Dave, I fully understand your reluctance to be here in this thread, and I thank you for your contributions, from which I'm trying to learn.
Just one question;
If an acoustic instrument, say, a mandolin, looses 90%+ of string energy to friction and heat (not sound), if we could change that to, say 80% loss (hypothetically), couldn't loudness and "sustain" both be increased?

..and yes, 42!

----------


## Chris Baird

From both the standpoint of a builder and someone interested in the material properties of wood (and the possibility of enhancing those properties) I want to know what is possible.  So the assumption that I can't, no matter what I do, increase both sustain and amplitude really needs to proven to me, because it would be a significant limit.

----------


## foldedpath

With all due respect to folks here like Dave Cohen who have done very good work in this area, I'd like to point out that many of us on the skeptical side of issues like this, would be interested in tests of _actual instruments_ undergoing whatever process is under discussion, and not planks of wood with FFT analysis. Because, after all, we don't play bare planks of wood.

I've posted this before, but what the heck.... here we go again:

Build a jig to hold the instrument in place, at a fixed distance from a gadget that strums the strings without human intervention (angle arm, drop bar, whatever), and also a holder for a microphone. Instrument, auto-picker, and mic at fixed and repeatable distances.
Record the un-processed instrument.
Apply whatever process you want, for as long as you want.
Make another recording.
Show us the waveform. Is it louder? Is there more sustain? If it's there, it will be in the waveform of the recording.
Now run a bunch of different instruments through this process, and demonstrate that it's applicable to many instruments and not just a one-shot fluke.
Document the rig so others can repeat it, and verify that something is actually taking place.

There are other things we could do with a test like this, for example normalizing for any volume increase and doing a large-scale blind A/B/X test to see if people hear an improvement in "tone quality," but that's the second level. The first level is to show that an increase in volume, or sustain, is actually there when you take humans out of the picture. Something like this would be much more valuable (IMO) than FFT measurements of vibrated chunks of wood.

I've been participating in online forums for years, and nobody who promotes methods of artificial vibration or any other mystery fairy dust process ever does this. One has to wonder why? It's not that hard. 

To forestall the inevitable complaints about "if you're skeptical, then why don't you just try it?," the burden of proof is always on those who claim that something is happening. When the claim is extraordinary, the burden of proof becomes extraordinary also. Nobody in their right mind will spend hundreds of dollars of their hard-earned cash to prove someone else's claims for them.

----------


## Big Joe

I appreciate Foldepath's comments and his desire for someone to build a special jig to test these devices and an method of recording the end results.  My problem with that is the end result is still left to the human ear and the quality of the recording equipment and methodology.  I like the concept of repeatability of an experiment, but the cost and time required to do such a test is really pretty large.  One must have the space, the equipment, the ability to do the work, or the funds to buy and hire those to do the work.  That may not be large in some people's minds, but I certainly could not afford that.  Even if I did, how can I be sure the end results could be interpreted correctly... or even adequately.  Any time one posts sound clips it generates numerous responses all dependent upon the quality of the playback equipment and ear of the listener.  Not everyone hears the same thing the same way and not everyone likes the same sounds.

It would be great if it were easy to do this kind of testing, but then again, why is that any better than trying it for yourself and seeing if it works.  These devices are not terribly expensive and easy to use and the test can be done in person for much less than going through the testing process, which would ultimately raise the cost of the product to the end user.  It may be a bit different when you are talking about a several hundred dollar secret process that you are asked to trust an unknown person to take your personal instrument for a period of weeks and make some suggested alteration.  Even here, the thing is you are out your instrument and your money for a pretty long period of time for a supposed improvement.  The emotional aspect of that alone is hard to swallow for many.  

So often it becomes an argument of science versus non scientific results.  Of course, even scientists disagree about the results of nearly any test.  Do we have global warming induced by man or are we in a normal cycle of our planet?  Scientists certainly do not agree on that by any means.  What about the differing theories of creation?  Everything from God created to an explosion in space from non matter that resulted in an accumulation of matter into what has become the solar system.  The end result of most of these theories requires a degree of faith in whatever scientific end result you chose to accept.  Consider radio.  The electronics theory is a wonderful thing, but the concept of transmitting frequencies across a distance after being altered from one form to another, then returned back to its original form required a LOT more than science.  Someone had to just believe in it and try it.  

I think "science" is important and it is important to document what you do as best you can to get to the point where you can achieve repeatable results from the actions you take.  I know if I do certain things to an instrument it will always give a certain result.  That comes from experience, which is really just experimentation repeated often enough to be able to determine an end result.  Can the results be tested?  Certainly.  Have they been?  Certainly.  Every time we do a process and it produces the expected results the the results show the test results.  Do they need to be heavily documented and run by a peer review?  They are every time another luthier or player picks up one of the instruments.  It may not be written on a piece of paper and circulated, but the peer review is still there and the results have been tested for a very long time by many people.  Lutherie is science in action and whether it is all documented and circulated amongst the luthery community for agreement, it is still an accepted and agreed upon craft that gives results that can be pre determined in nearly all cases.  

Yet, with all that, different luthiers obtain different results by the way they administer the particular details of their craft.  I was talking with a guitar builder yesterday.  He was picking my brain (yes... it was a small pick...  :Smile:  ).  He was curious about a number of things and said he really liked the results he was getting.  Still, he was a bit unsure that he was doing it right.  I simply said that if you like the results you are getting, you don't really need to worry about changing things to get a different result unless you want a different result.  He was worried about some small details in how he did his bracing.  While these are important, if you are getting the results you want, then why change?  Of course experimentation can yield different results and one can then make a decision which way they prefer to go, but still, the end result is that one likes the end result of what they do.

All this comes back to this topic.  We are often asked for "scientific" proof of what one claims.  While it is important to have some degree of information that yields an ability to believe in the product or service enough to invest time, money, or faith to test the result, no one will ever be able to provide enough proof to everyone to overcome skepticism or doubt.  The results of the Tone Rite and preliminary results of the Prime Vibe are reported by numerous individuals who have done testing in a reasonable manner and have reported pretty similar results.  In spite of the repeatability of the test and results in common, there are cries for real "scientific" testing.  What better testing than putting it in the hands of those who will test it and report.... the best they are capable... the results of their tests.  You may discount a particular test or a particular person, but when there is enough true peer review stating similar results the result is a scientific outcome and not just subjective stories.  

The results of expensive testing and designing machines to hold items and strike them in certain manners and recording devices supposedly in a stable environment that will give repeatable results every time requires as much faith as just trusting the word of those I respect and trust.  I have more confidence in the words of Michael Lewis or Paul or many of the other luthiers on this forum than I do in a machine and a tape recorder.  I live in Nashville where everything is recorded all the time, and the one thing I know is how imperfect recording is.  If they cannot seem to please one another with something as simple as recording a song, how much perfection can I expect from a recording of a single instrument on a recording device.  I prefer the word of my real "peers".  I will accept that peer review.

I don't recommend the process the OP presents in any way.  I don't know what it is and I have no idea whether it works or not.  Where we seem to end up is not whether the process has merit or whether one should accept his offer of a free treatment to test his supposition, but whether everything is done by proper science to know what we don't know.  That would not convince most anyway.  Even the discussions of possibilities of results are in question by men with great minds.  My thought is pretty simple.  If you don't want to use his process, then don't.  If you do, then make a careful decision about whether to send your instrument to him.  It is your instrument, your  money, and your life.  Do what you think is best.

As far as the devices that excite the instrument with a certain pre determined outcome that has been claimed and shown possilbe by numerous persons who have tested the device, the same rule applies.  If you don't want to spend the cost of a few picks or sets of strings then don't.  It is your instrument and you get to chose.  If you want to test it for yourself, then go for it.  It is not an insurmountable cost and if you don't like the end results, you have the device you can sell.  Not brain surgery and certainly not worth all the words spent on these issues by any of us... including me.  Yes, I realize I can be a bit verbose, but that's who I am.  Like it or not, use it or not, that is up to you.  I don't know that the world will be better or worse in either case.  It really depends upon what makes you happy.  There.  Done venting  :Smile:  .

----------


## Ron Hale

> With all due respect to folks here like Dave Cohen who have done very good work in this area, I'd like to point out that many of us on the skeptical side of issues like this, would be interested in tests of _actual instruments_ undergoing whatever process is under discussion, and not planks of wood with FFT analysis. Because, after all, we don't play bare planks of wood.
> 
> --snip--
> 
> 
> To forestall the inevitable complaints about "if you're skeptical, then why don't you just try it?," the burden of proof is always on those who claim that something is happening. When the claim is extraordinary, the burden of proof becomes extraordinary also. Nobody in their right mind will spend hundreds of dollars of their hard-earned cash to prove someone else's claims for them.


But, foldedpath, it is you who demand such proof.

----------


## Dave Cohen

Foldedpath, all of my work thus far has been on completed instrument strung up to pitch.  Therre is benefit to luthiers in knowing tonewood properties, though.  The work of Daniel Haines and Voichita Bucur comes to mind.  Haines had a very informative review paper in CASJ, Nov. 2000 (same issue as the first Cohen & Rossing paper).  BC tonewood supplier Larry Stamm has also done some nice measurements on Northwestern softwoods.  I have been trying to get tonewood suppliers to  measure densities or specific gravities of their samples.  So far, only Larry does that consistently, although Bruce Kreps also does a bit of that.

Chris, with regard to 'proven'.  We dont 'prove' in science. Proof lies entirely in the domain of mathematics and logic.  In science, we can verify, corroborate, support, and most importantly, _disprove_, but we don't prove anything, else it would not be falsifiable.  Again, I don't like the terminology "assumption".  What I have been discussing in this thread is mostly experimental fact (mine and others), and predictions from theory.  Calling it 'theory' gives me too much credit (and misplaced at that), and calling it 'assumption' doesn't give me and others enough credit.

John, your if is a big if.  Assuming we could bump up the limit of efficiency, you could achieve simultaneously greater sustain and acoustic volume than we can now.  Once we bumped up against that limit, though, increases in acoustic volume would once again come at the expense of shorter characteristic times.

There are a couple of bigger questions.  One is "do we really want more sustain?"  I have already alluded many times to te results that guitarists all profess to want more sustain, but in blind listening tests, all of the instruments which they judged to be of the highest quality had the shortest characteristic times.  I got that result from Meyer, but it was secondhand there.  Goes back to Jaroszewski (_Arch. Acoustics_, *3*, pp 79-84 (1978)), and verified by other including Caldersmith, Bustamante, Christensen.  It is well known that the sound chartactersitics associated with a particular instrument are mainly associated with the onset or 'attack'.  It's counterintuitive, but I heard that for myself at an ASA meeting. Recordings of an oboe tone and a French horn tone were recognizable as such.  When the same recordings were played back with the the onset edited out, it was almost if not actually impossible to tell them apart!  Now, if you mess with the decay, you are automatically messing with the onset as well; you can't separate em'.  The lesson for me in that was that I want to build mandothingies to be mandothingies.  A mandothingy with very long characteristic times would probably not sound like a good mandothingy.  A lot of the sound quality and warmth that we associate with quality comes from the nature of the onset or attack.  I can recall playing cheap guitars in stores that seemed to sustain forever, but the sound quality was sick and gummy and awful.

Another big question is "How can we bump the limits up?"  That is perhaps the most interesting discussion.  I can't confine that to a single post here, so will defer that to some other time.   I've had enough for this morning.  Gotta get to work.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

http://www.Cohenmando.com

----------


## Chris Baird

"John, your if is a big if. Assuming we could bump up the limit of efficiency, you could achieve simultaneously greater sustain and acoustic volume than we can now. Once we bumped up against that limit, though, increases in acoustic volume would once again come at the expense of shorter characteristic times." - Dave Cohen

That statement is exactly the point I've been trying to make this whole thread.  I guess I'm not so good at explaining myself.

----------


## Chris Baird

foldedpath, 

  You make a good point, a test on some piece of treated wood can only determine if the treatment does something, and that something may not mean anything in a completed instrument. But, it would be a start to determine if further tests on completed instruments is warranted.  In reading about attempts to test violins under real playing conditions I get the impression that it is very difficult.

----------


## Big Joe

I agree with Dave on this question for sure.  Do we really want more sustain?  In a rhythm based instrument sustain can become counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish.  Some instruments may be better with increased sustain.  I know a lot of money goes to building electric devices to increase sustain in electric guitars or pedal boards.  However, in a mandolin, the increased sustain can produce a muddy sound more than a desired sound.  It is designed to decay rather rapidly.  This gives the "tremelo" effect the purpose it has, which is basically to hold the note longer as in bowing with a violin.  We cannot use the bow to excite the strings effectively but we can rapidly strike the string up and down to increase the length of time the note continues.  If the sustain were increased, it would not only alter the way we play, but the sound and tone of what we are attempting currently would not be as easily obtainable. 

There are ways to increase sustain if it is needed, but in most cases sustain is something we are looking to decrease.  Now on a guitar, depending upon the kind of guitar and the intended use, sustain can be a good thing.  The degree of sustain is partially inherent in the design of the instrument itself but the string response and decay certainly determine the maximum amount of sustain you can achieve.  If you were to play an acoustic arch top guitar, you would not want increased sustain for the same reason as you don't in a mandolin.  In a flat top a bit of increased sustain can be desireable.  However, the design of the instrument allows for more sustain in a flat top than you get in an arch top guitar.  However, the volume of the arch top is usually greater than the flat top unless there is an issue with set up or build quality.  However, equal quality arch tops vs equal quality flat tops the arch top will carry farther and be louder, but the flat top can sustain longer.  I think this is what Dave was saying ?  :Smile:  .

----------


## mmasters

Foldedpath, I plan to have some high quality 3rd party before and after demonstrations done and also plan to have a formal study done at a local University or music shop (once my money situation improves).

----------


## Markus

Big Joe, I agree with your point regarding sustain completely.  

What I've failed to see about this product is anything conclusive about what it does to mandolins and whether this is a positive change.  This could be the bees knees for violins, but does that automatically mean it does something we want as mandolin players?

And is that $500 of value in the mandolin market?

I also feel that if I'm spending $500 and sending my instrument away to be `improved' - I'm far more likely to send it to your shop to have some wood removed to fundamentally change the instrument.   Indisputable change to the whole tone and volume - playability tweaked through luthier setup.

When I don't hear how AB is affecting mandolins in a positive way, I guess I wonder why I would be interested in something that is secret, costly, and requires me to be without my mandolin for around a month.  Especially when the results may not be something desirable on the mandolin.

I'd also be wondering why I bought an instrument that needed $500 of improvement in first place.

----------


## Ed Goist

> ...snip...
> I'd also be wondering why I bought an instrument that needed $500 of improvement in first place.


Markus; You've really hit the nail of the head with this observation as far as I'm concerned.

From a purely marketing perspective I'm having trouble identifying the target market for this process...

* If I've spent less than $2,500 on a mandolin, I'm not likely to pay another $450 (18% or more of the purchase price) on something to improve the sound of that mandolin...Why on earth wouldn't I just spend $450 more on the mandolin in the first place?

* If I've spent more than $2,500 on a mandolin, I had better be perfectly happy with the sound of that mandolin. If I'm not, why wouldn't I sell it (likely to recoup much of the original purchase price in this price range) and, again, just invest the extra $450 in an upgraded, new mandolin?

Another way to put this...It's always better to spend $450 on 'more mandolin' than to spend it on elective, after-market treatments to a mandolin.

If I were the salesperson for this service I would not like to have to come-up with responses to these objections.

----------


## barney 59

I've always thought that the search for Stradivari's secret is somewhat an attempt to take something away from the man himself. It's a "magic" piece of wood or a "magic" finish or it was the weather.As if he had some trick that he was getting over on everyone. All you have to do is find the "trick" and you too can do what he did. Maybe he was just better at it than anyone else and to reproduce what he accomplished would mean that one would have to be as skilled and dedicated as he was. It could be that he had a great deal of dexterity and skill, understood wood and a ear that would have made him a Mozart except that circumstances found him taking up a trade instead. People didn't have the scientific understanding of acoustics or materials that they do today but I think they had an innate understanding of wood. They dealt with it in their lives from an early age even if all they ever did was chop the firewood when they were 10. Split rails to get through school and become a Railroad lawyer and eventually a President of the United States. It was a material that anyone could use with a minimum of tools to produce almost anything they needed from kitchen utensils to other tools or the roof over their head.  People understood woods properties pretty well and had a terrific data base of passed on knowledge and you can see it in anything that was made with wood back in the day,furniture,buildings or wagon wheels the craftsmanship was excellent, served it purpose and was built to last. Stradivari was a high point in a tradition of woodworking that was in his time(pre industrial revolution) probably at it's high point.

----------


## mmasters

> Another way to put this...It's always better to spend $450 on 'more mandolin' than to spend it on elective, after-market treatments to a mandolin.


To respond to that I would assert that the process would upgrade the mandolin to a degree significantly greater than would spending thousands more on an upgraded mandolin.

----------


## hank

Does response decrease as sustain is increased?  This seems to be the case demonstrated with the differences in my 1915 A4 and 2006 Goldrush.  The A4 has more sustain with less volume and slower response compared to the Goldrush's quick decay with more volume and very fast response.  The Goldrush almost fires like a cannon compared to the A4's more sluggish mellow disposition slowly pouring out the notes. The power of the F5 seems spring loaded as opposed to the ovals mushiness.

----------


## mrmando

> To respond to that I would assert that the process would upgrade the mandolin to a degree significantly greater than would spending thousands more on an upgraded mandolin.


How can you "assert" anything about what this process would do to a mandolin? You have yet to even _try_ it on a mandolin!!!

----------


## mmasters

> Does response decrease as sustain is increased?  This seems to be the case demonstrated with the differences in my 1915 A4 and 2006 Goldrush.  The A4 has more sustain with less volume and slower response compared to the Goldrush's quick decay with more volume and very fast response.  The Goldrush almost fires like a cannon compared to the A4's more sluggish mellow disposition slowly pouring out the notes. The power of the F5 seems spring loaded as opposed to the ovals mushiness.


It increases the responsiveness of the instrument significantly as well. Same with overtones, projection, etc... It gives more of everything in accordance with the materials used to create the instrument and their inherent potential. It won’t make maple sound like rosewood it will make maple sound like MAPLE and Adirondack spruce sound like ADIRONDACK SPRUCE. It brings out the unique potential in any wood.

----------


## mmasters

> How can you "assert" anything about what this process would do to a mandolin? You have yet to even _try_ it on a mandolin!!!


Having performed it on a multitude of guitars I have no question the results will be every bit as spectacular on a mandolin or any other wooden stringed instrument.

----------


## Ed Goist

> To respond to that I would assert that the process would upgrade the mandolin to a degree significantly greater than would spending thousands more on an upgraded mandolin.


This is quite simply a profoundly bold statement. 

Since you are willing to make a statement like this about your product, I can only assume that you would be willing to guarantee your customers that they will be able to recoup several times their original investment in your process if and when they choose to sell an instrument that has gone through your process.

Do you offer such a guarantee of enhanced resale value to your customers?

----------


## foldedpath

> I'd also be wondering why I bought an instrument that needed $500 of improvement in first place.


Here's another wrinkle on the economics. Could you recover that $500 when selling the mandolin on the used market? Or would mentioning it in the ad, be an admission that the mandolin wasn't that great to begin with, and needed "fixin'"?

Similar issues revolve around the question of luthiers using and promoting enhancement processes, obviously. Is the luthier's skill and experience alone, not enough to deliver a great mandolin? How would one feel about a luthier that said they could deliver the equivalent of a Gilchrist at half the price (or less), not because of their skills, but because they use some gadget or process to make up the slack? 

Some mighty sticky wickets there. Me, I just look for instruments that sound good to begin with, and don't need "fixin'".

----------


## mmasters

> This is quite simply a profoundly bold statement. 
> 
> Since you are willing to make a statement like this about your product, I can only assume that you would be willing to guarantee your customers that they will be able to recoup several times their original investment in your process if and when they choose to sell an instrument that has gone through your process.
> 
> Do you offer such a guarantee of enhanced resale value to your customers?


I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an enhanced resale value of instruments that have gone through the process. I think it is a bit of a stretch for me to guarantee that though. I do have a money back guarantee on my process however I have made it discretionary on my part in order to weed out people looking to get free stuff. So far nobody has asked their money back.  

A few weeks ago I thought I would try a little experiment, I put some of the prototype guitars I treated up for sale at a local music shop (where sales are quite sluggish). I priced them 25% higher than what I paid for them and within a week they were gone. The people in the store acted like I was nuts for selling them.

----------


## mrmando

> Having performed it on a multitude of guitars I have no question the results will be every bit as spectacular on a mandolin or any other wooden stringed instrument.


But this completely ignores the construction differences between guitars, mandolins and violins. Furthermore, it assumes that whatever enhancements you claim to have observed in guitars would be desirable in another type of instrument, even if you were successful in reproducing them. 

Have you at least tried it on archtop guitars as well as flattops?

Regardless, your "assertation" is still nothing more than a hunch. It's easy to see how you might be trying the patience of those who would prefer to see some scientific proof.

----------


## mmasters

> Here's another wrinkle on the economics. Could you recover that $500 when selling the mandolin on the used market? Or would mentioning it in the ad, be an admission that the mandolin wasn't that great to begin with, and needed "fixin'"?
> 
> Similar issues revolve around the question of luthiers using and promoting enhancement processes, obviously. Is the luthier's skill and experience alone, not enough to deliver a great mandolin? How would one feel about a luthier that said they could deliver the equivalent of a Gilchrist at half the price (or less), not because of their skills, but because they use some gadget or process to make up the slack? 
> 
> Some mighty sticky wickets there. Me, I just look for instruments that sound good to begin with, and don't need "fixin'".


It doesn't come off an artificial enhancement in any way, it's very natural sounding because it is unlocking the dormant "it" factor in wood and making it sound spectacular.

I personally am after the holy grail so I look for the best and then enhance it for myself. On the other hand, a lot of what people have sent me have been guitars that were overly tight or lacking in some tonal respect. That is what the testimonals on my site are based on.

----------


## mmasters

> But this completely ignores the construction differences between guitars, mandolins and violins. Furthermore, it assumes that whatever enhancements you claim to have observed in guitars would be desirable in another type of instrument, even if you were successful in reproducing them. 
> 
> Have you at least tried it on archtop guitars as well as flattops?


I've tried it on many different types of steel string acoustics and a few nylon string guitars, all with great success. I've also tried it on a few solidbody electric guitars (though the effect wasn't quite as dramatic with them). One of my clients is looking to send over a Sanzone Carmella archtop soon.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

When you come in my house the first thing you see hanging on the wall are the first 3 mandolins I ever made. The first one is over 30 years old now. I depended very heavily on the first Siminoff book. There were very few resources for wood and parts then. I used viola woods from Vitali's.
The point is even though I played the hell of that mandolin by todays standards it is pretty thin sounding. I primarily attribute that to the back being way too thick. I was pretty unaware of the importance of a responsive back at the time. I'd be interested to know how any process could overcome what I believe could only be improved by making a substantial pile of sawdust.

----------


## mmasters

> When you come in my house the first thing you see hanging on the wall are the first 3 mandolins I ever made. The first one is over 30 years old now. I depended very heavily on the first Siminoff book. There were very few resources for wood and parts then. I used viola woods from Vitali's.
> The point is even though I played the hell of that mandolin by todays standards it is pretty thin sounding. I primarily attribute that to the back being way too thick. I was pretty unaware of the importance of a responsive back at the time. I'd be interested to know how any process could overcome what I believe could only be improved by making a substantial pile of sawdust.


Send it over. I'm offering to do a few free treatments to prove the actuality of this.

----------


## Rick Cadger

> Having performed it on a multitude of guitars I have no question the results will be every bit as spectacular on a mandolin or any other wooden stringed instrument.


This stunningly blatant assumption serves to undermine any claim of respect for science or scientific method.

You have "no question"? Personally I would suggest that a question is exactly what you should have. You should be burning with the desire to PROPERLY, scientifically test this process in which you purport to have such faith.

Let us suspend disbelief and accept, for the sake of argument, that it lies within the realms of possibility that your process may affect wood in such a way that the attenuation mentioned by our technically experienced friends is reduced; so that more of the energy imparted to the string is applied to the production of sound. Let us further suspend disbelief and accept that sustain and volume may both benefit to some small extent from an increase in efficiency, and a reduction in wasted energy.

I absolutely accept Dave Cohen's explanation of why one cannot normally increase both volume and sustain, so it seems that the only _possible_ way your process could work is if it achieves an _absolutely remarkable_ improvement in the efficiency of the way energy applied to the string is made to produce sound, rather than being wasted as heat etc.

Such a process must surely produce measurable changes in the wood. That being the case, posting in a forum frequented by builders and scientists in order to advertise an expensive process, making claims invoking the Stradivari name and claiming that your experiences with guitars (so far no archtops) imply certainty of success with other, untested, very different instruments - all of this before you have proper, independent scientific studies and results - was, Mr Masterson, like walking into a room with a "kick me" sign on your behind.

That being the case, and in light of your ill-considered comments regarding the integrity of respected members, responses have, IMHO, been pretty mild and reasonable.

Also IMHO, a few free treatments will produce no "proof", just more worthless anecdotal "evidence".

Proper tests performed by a university may be more valuable, provided the tests are truly independent and competent, and that the parameters and conditions are verified and published.

Do it right. Prove your process openly and honestly. You'll get a much easier ride and you'll alienate fewer people.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Do it right. Prove your process openly and honestly. You'll get a much easier ride and you'll alienate fewer people.


Second that. Seeing who is supposed to be attracted by this, it should not be sold like a cleaning agent to housewives. If the effect is real, modesty and a slow-at-first but exponentially growing circle of customers (based on results, not words) are keys to success; or, as they say, a good product sells itself.

----------


## hank

:Coffee:  This morning a fresh thought that should be considered here.  The sound plates of carved top instruments have to be made thick and strong enough to prevent sinking or collapse with time.  Some thinner plates have been built more resonate but with short lives due to their top sinking. If this process is capable of making the wood more resonate isn't there also a possibility that it could weaken the plates?

----------


## fscotte

> Instruments are placed in a machine that transforms semi-liquid resins into a solid crystalline form.


I think we should be discussing exactly what this process is - and how one goes about with the transformation.  Instead of attacking Mr. Masterson, perhaps we should engage him on the process.

----------


## mmasters

> Second that. Seeing who is supposed to be attracted by this, it should not be sold like a cleaning agent to housewives. If the effect is real, modesty and a slow-at-first but exponentially growing circle of customers (based on results, not words) are keys to success; or, as they say, a good product sells itself.


 True, I'm just impatient. The majority of business I have at this point is from repeat customers and word of mouth. The last guy that dropped of a guitar found out about it by really liking the way another's Collings sounded at a gig in NC.

----------


## Bertram Henze

"_perhaps we should engage him on the process_"

Ok, my question is: if the material properties of the wood are changed in such a fundamental way...

...is it still wood?
...does it still sound like wood?
...wouldn't those different properties be easier to achieve by using different materials in the first place, such as carbon fiber or metal? Could we follow this development to a logical ultimate end and find - the resonator mandolin?

Some before/after soundclips would be helpful, if not proof.

----------


## mmasters

> This morning a fresh thought that should be considered here.  The sound plates of carved top instruments have to be made thick and strong enough to prevent sinking or collapse with time.  Some thinner plates have been built more resonate but with short lives due to their top sinking. If this process is capable of making the wood more resonate isn't there also a possibility that it could weaken the plates?


Having treated some wood samples and tested breakage of them, I couldn't detect any difference at all. 

With the instruments I've treated I haven't seen any evidence like unusual bow, warpage or stability problems, if it were a potential problem I'm pretty certain it would have shown up by now.

----------


## mmasters

> "_perhaps we should engage him on the process_"
> 
> Ok, my question is: if the material properties of the wood are changed in such a fundamental way...
> 
> ...is it still wood?
> ...does it still sound like wood?


Yes it's still wood, the electron microscope images show that pretty clearly. It makes wood sound better than I've ever heard it (and yes, I've been to boutique shops and played from almost every high end builder out there). The only instruments that have _approached_ sounding as good are a small number of pre-war Martins and instruments made from very highly selected resonant woods from premium stashes, built lightly with from makers like Ervin Somogyi.

The studio clips I have on the website are the best I have up for the time being and I've perfected the process a little more since then. I'm looking to get some better ones done in the future and by an independent 3rd party.

----------


## Darren Kern

> I think we should be discussing exactly what this process is - and how one goes about with the transformation.  Instead of attacking Mr. Masterson, perhaps we should engage him on the process.


+1

----------


## Rick Cadger

> I think we should be discussing exactly what this process is - and how one goes about with the transformation.  Instead of attacking Mr. Masterson, perhaps we should engage him on the process.


Where are these attacks I read about?

----------


## fscotte

For anyone interested, Alchemy Acoustic Labs has a very similar process:   

Alchemy Acoustic Labs’ AO1™ Process
http://alchemyacousticlabs.com/the-process/



edit:  I will say that I've done a little searching on various forums and have found a couple reputable gents who had their guitars sent to Masterson.  The result was their guitars had more sustain, more tone, more volume, etc... you get the subjective picture.

But it appears to be something substantial.  A little searching at umgf and AGF forums can result in some interesting reading.  Masterson keeps the same forum name, mmasters, so he's easy to find.  Seems like an interesting process that yields some improvement - although still subjective and vulnerable to the human factor.

----------


## mrmando

OK, so there are not one but _two_ mysterious processes purported to improve the sound of a guitar. The Alchemy Acoustic folks also claim that their process increases both volume and sustain, although they have some obfuscating language around the sustain claim. 

There's also the ToneRite. What do you suppose would happen if I gave a guitar the ToneRite treatment, then shipped it off for both the Stradivarius and Alchemy Acoustic processes? Would the effect be cumulative -- i.e., would the guitar sound 3 times as good as it would if I did only one of the processes? Or would an already-treated guitar not respond to further treatment? Or would one or more of the processes cancel the other ones out and return my guitar to its original state ... or worse yet, make it sound like ####? Which brings up another question: are any of these processes reversible, should I decide I don't like the results? What sort of guarantee is offered, if it turns out that I liked the sound of the guitar better before it was treated? Would the person(s) applying the process be liable to reimburse me only for the cost of the process, or for the cost of the guitar as well? Or neither?

Whew. Maybe I'll just stick with the O-Port.

----------


## mmasters

Heh, that o-port is ridiculous!

My process is the only one that carries a money back guarantee.

As far as the other guys...I prefer to let the results speak for the matter.

----------


## Bigtuna

> Many of them have permanent residences, but are on careful loan and getting regular play.
> 
> http://5magazine.wordpress.com/2010/...s-still-exist/


It looked like two banks own various ones, my bank doesn't loan mandolins. That goes agains everything a sign a friend of mine had at his fish house, "The bank doesn't loan fish, and I don't loan money."  Pretty interesting read, thanks for posting. Is there such a list for loars?

Sorry to veer off topic...

----------


## Big Joe

I cannot speak for Mr. Masterson process, but the Tone Rite and Prime Vibe are fully reversible by simply not playing the instrument for a period of time.  They do not alter the instrument in any way except to give it the effect of having been played for a very long time.  Just as natural opening will improve an instrument in tone and volume, the artificial exciters do the same.  And, in the same manner, the same thing happens when you don't play a well broken in older instrument that happens if you do the same with the TR or PV and don't play the instrument for a good period of time.  These two devices do not do anything or give your instrument anything that is not already there.  It only accelerates the time it takes to get there.

----------


## Bertram Henze

If I understand the essential objective of those processes correctly, they do what the wood would do on it's own if it were left to dry for, say 100 years? Is that it, in  a nutshell?

Maybe all Mr. Stradivarius had, and we have not, is time?

----------


## mrmando

> Pretty interesting read, thanks for posting.


Hm -- the list does not mention the 1696 Strad stolen from Ms. Kym in London last week. I had been wondering whether that one had a nickname. Well, if it didn't, it does now! They'll be calling it the "ex-Kym," or maybe the "Cheese-and-Pickle Sandwich"!



> Is there such a list for loars?


Indeed there is: the F5 Journal.

----------


## mrmando

> If I understand the essential objective of those processes correctly, they do what the wood would do on it's own if it were left to dry for, say 100 years? Is that it, in  a nutshell?


Either that, or they try to simulate the effect of the instrument being played for a similar period of time. 



> Maybe all Mr. Stradivarius had, and we have not, is time?


Maybe! Of course people in the 1700s also thought Strads were pretty darn good, even though they weren't yet 300 years old. 

No one knows what a Loar will sound like after 300 years of playing. It's possible that they may not sound as good then as they do now. I hear tell that Sam Bush has all but retired Hoss because he believes that Hoss is pretty much played out, and doesn't have the sound it once had.

----------


## mmasters

> If I understand the essential objective of those processes correctly, they do what the wood would do on it's own if it were left to dry for, say 100 years? Is that it, in  a nutshell?
> 
> Maybe all Mr. Stradivarius had, and we have not, is time?


The objective of all these processes has been to recreate the vintage tone in newer instruments; however, in going along this path, I discovered something I believe to be more remarkable.

I can't say it's "the" secret to old violins, however I think it is a key part that has never been understood until now. And by taking it up another level as my process is doing I believe it can make for instruments of a tonal quality that have not been heard before.

----------

