"Opening-up", Myth or Fact?

[G7MOF]

I don't know if this has anything to do with your original question but, I have a Fylde Single Malt which always has a faint smell of whisky. When I've played it for a while the smell becomes greater. I've even tried to play it without resting my fore arm on the body thinking it could be the heat off my arm but again after a while the smell gets greater. (Or could it be the ghosts of the distillery coming to haunt me?)

[Bertram Henze]

I've even tried to play it without resting my fore arm on the body thinking it could be the heat off my arm but again after a while the smell gets greater. (Or could it be the ghosts of the distillery coming to haunt me?)

Your arm would touch the top, which is made from the wood of washbacks, not casks, which never had contact with whisky, and which are thoroughly cleaned after each batch of wort/wash anyway.

Now, your belly warming the back of the mandolin, that's a whole another story, of course

[dang]

I skimmed the 5 pages of this thread so far and have yet to see anyone mention this quote from Thile during the Chris Thile in London interview by Dan Beimborn:

Chris Thile: Right! No, not so much! It's a beautiful action. The more I play it, the more low end comes out. Anyone who tells you that a mandolin doesn't change as you play it has no idea what they are talking about.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

An instrument with an increasing sound output should thereby draw increasing power from the device. This corresponds to the fact that a louder instrument has less sustain, because the pick energy is drained more quickly.

Unfortunately, Bertram, it's not that simple. And, of course, my humble try at summarizing Reumont's studies falls short of a thorough explanation. I should have added that it's not mainly about overall volume, but rather about raising certain frequencies. As Reumont's dedamping is, indeed, scientific, that is on paper and even backed-up by a federal institute, it should be easy to defeat the whole thing. Whether it's "increasing sound" or not, after the treatment, the instrument behaves measurably different. Better, louder? I didn't say that - although, lots of professional musicians seem to think so.

[Bertram Henze]

it's not mainly about overall volume, but rather about raising certain frequencies.

Ok, I read my own goals into the whole matter, apparently (as an ITM session player, overall volume is first to me, because if nobody hears your playing the exact spectrum does not matter either).
It would be too late for me to try any such device on my OM now, because after 10+ years of frequent and hard playing any such changes should be over.

[ralph johansson]

Finally we're getting around to essentials. As long as people discuss "sound" we're getting nowhere; it's not only subejctive but relative. One's impression of sound depends a lot on the circumstances, e.g., what you heard just before. That's one reason I distrust these
blindfold tests. My guitars never sound as deep and complex as when I've been away from them for a couple of weeks. And, of course, the effect wears off after an hour or so.

So it's really about properties, frequency response patterns, rise time, etc.. These things are important to the player - a more responsive instrument inspires better music - but hardly registered by the casual listener.

[Bertram Henze]

This discussion feels a bit like a cooking show on TV - I cant smell or taste anything. Instead, I sit, hearing people talk about fine intricate cuisine and expensive wines, maunching my slice of pizza and guzzling my beer, and wondering what I am missing out on or if I just haven't understood that smell and taste is not really what the show is all about.

[ccravens]

Anyone who tells you that a mandolin doesn't change as you play it has no idea what they are talking about.

Thile? Please, he's no scientist.

Give me scientific-looking charts and graphs any day of the week!

[AlanN]

No scientific data here, but I have had an early 60's A-40 since 1978. Cheap end, mahogany back, but nonetheless, I think the bark has grown over 35 years of playing it. And I always dug the neck on that little feller.

[bjewell]

Here's a novel test. Pretend you are a musician. A m-u-s-i-c-i-a-n... you know people who manipulate sound for a certain effect. They have great ears. Now play the instrument of your choice for a while and notice if anything changes in the sound you are creating. You can also try this with any new instrument you may have purchased. The trick is to listen. That's why you have ears and if someone says they need so-called scientific proof tell them to hire a musician... sheesh.

[dang]

Thile? Please, he's no scientist.

Give me scientific-looking charts and graphs any day of the week!

I have a masters and a doctorate, not to diss charts or graphs (they hold a special place in my heart) but you can make those say anything you want... but a Thile endorsement you can take to the bank. Literally. Even if what he says is wrong, the public will buy it.

[palosfv3]

Well after my last post , maybe a serious question and statement . All the discussion centers around the changes of sound in a mandolin and the theories and studies done about this . Yet no one has mentioned the individual variables of human hearing . Since hearing is what we are using to measure the sound . Why has it been left out of the discussion ? Once hearing is figured in the equation everything becomes more clouded.













I just couldn't help it .

[Tobin]

There is no doubt that there is a change in the physical properties of several materials used in the construction of the mandolin. The real question is whether these changes result in an audible change and if so, whether this change represents an improvement. In most mechanical systems, ageing represents a decrease in performance.....scotch and wine are not mechanical systems.

A "decrease in performance" must necessarily rely upon the definition of performance. In most mechanical systems, performance is related to efficiency, power output, or other measurements. In mandolins, one might look at volume as a measurement, but "tone" is a completely different ball of wax, and may indeed depend upon other facets of performance being reduced. Much like my previous example of a well-fitting hat, or a pair of boots. As the boots are worn repeatedly, the leather and other components will stretch and deform, losing their stiffness (i.e. reduction in "performance" from their initial specifications), and the boots will mold themselves to the wearer's feet. If one were to compare a well-worn boot to a new boot, and judge it solely on "performance", the used boot would likely be viewed as having a decrease in performance. But for the person who wears it, it looks better and feels better than a new boot.

That was probably a crude example, but sometimes a decrease in performance is the key to an increase in desirability to the user. Some products are meant to improve as they get worn-in, if we take the word "improve" to mean that they gain desirable properties for their intended use. I think mandolins fall into this category.

[G7MOF]

Has anyone thought, it could be the strings settling down and not the mandolin woods?

[OldSausage]

Well after my last post , maybe a serious question and statement . All the discussion centers around the changes of sound in a mandolin and the theories and studies done about this . Yet no one has mentioned the individual variables of human hearing . Since hearing is what we are using to measure the sound . Why has it been left out of the discussion ? Once hearing is figured in the equation everything becomes more clouded.



I just couldn't help it .

Because if this discussion is about science, the sciences involved are anthropology and psychology.

[Tobin]

Has anyone thought, it could be the strings settling down and not the mandolin woods?

Strings getting played in does have a huge effect on tone. But that's a regular cyclical change, and doesn't relate to the overall change in tone that lasts beyond each string change.

[ccravens]

Yet no one has mentioned the individual variables of human hearing . Since hearing is what we are using to measure the sound . Why has it been left out of the discussion ? Once hearing is figured in the equation everything becomes more clouded.

Excellent point. Also throw in the fact that hearing changes as we age, esp. in the upper frequency department.

Which could be one explanation for MAS.


Too bad my hearing is not such that a Kentucky sounds like a Loar.

[Pasha Alden]

As for opening up or not, I guess woods can change somewhat due to age. As for the player and the mandolin they also need to find each other. Though I found with my Jbovier it seems to open up as far as tone and volume go. I would imagine that time and change in wood could have an impact on the sound and contribute to some change. As for opening up? Well it seems to be a very widely speculated phenomenon, however, many report this to be true.

Happy playing

Vanillamandolin

[Petrus]

Thanks to every one for their insight. As a newbie I had no idea what a tired subject this was nor the controversy it stirs. I was simply asking if any one knew of any scientific studies to confirm what I so often hear. After reading everyone's take on this subject, I will stick with "myth" since I need everything proven by science to make me a believer. I just have to contribute the increased volume on my Collings to my pick selection or to the fact that I may be playing it differently than when I first got it. So since this is such a tired subject, please let us put it to rest. If it continues it will not be on my behalf.

Entropy and neurons, man ... entropy and neurons.

I didn't realize it was an over-hashed topic either. I find it interesting, especially when you get into the details of specifically how to get the instrument's sound to change over time in a way that you want it to. Controlling it, that is. (Notice that I'm using the phrase "sound change over time" rather than "opening up.") I haven't heard people speak much about specific techniques to deliberately cause this change in a controlled way (other than just playing the hell out of it and mechanical alterations.)

[ccravens]

I haven't heard people speak much about specific techniques to deliberately cause this change in a controlled way (other than just playing the hell out of it and mechanical alterations.)

Also much-hashed topics. Three of the most popular (besides playing the heck out of it):

1. Speakers

2. Tonerite

http://tonerite.com/

http://http://www.mandolincafe.com/f...light=tonerite

3. AO1

http://alchemyacousticlabs.com/tag/ao1-process/

Warning: over 40 pages of posts - http://collingsforum.com/eve/forums/.../148108822/p/1

[MikeEdgerton]

... Yet no one has mentioned the individual variables of human hearing . Since hearing is what we are using to measure the sound . Why has it been left out of the discussion ? Once hearing is figured in the equation everything becomes more clouded.

See message #83.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

[QUOTE=palosfv3;1222555]Well after my last post , maybe a serious question and statement . All the discussion centers around the changes of sound in a mandolin and the theories and studies done about this . Yet no one has mentioned the individual variables of human hearing . Since hearing is what we are using to measure the sound . Why has it been left out of the discussion ? Once hearing is figured in the equation everything becomes more clouded.

I'm not sure, if I understood you. Nobody questioned the individual variables of hearing. The OP questioned the "opening-up" phenomenon in a mandolin. He didn't even question that many people believe that mandolins actually do "open up". If we were able to find hundreds of seasoned players (of an acoustic string instrument), who agree that a well-played instrument is a different instrument, we might as well accept this empirical evidence as "truth"; it would be already scientific. What's wrong with going beyond that, thinking about the physics behind the phenomenon and forming a theory to mimic this "truth"? Dedamping is a logical step from that, and not even a big one, just nuts and bolts. Now "vintage tone" (see Tone Rite website) and aging is a different matter. That's part of the magic in our beloved mandolin...

[mandolirius]

Because if this discussion is about science, the sciences involved are anthropology and psychology.

Niether of which is actually "science".

[Jim Adwell]

If we were able to find hundreds of seasoned players (of an acoustic string instrument), who agree that a well-played instrument is a different instrument, we might as well accept this empirical evidence as "truth"; it would be already scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death

Fan death is death supposedly caused by sleeping in a closed room containing a running electric fan. There are no verified cases of the alleged phenomenon, but it remains a widely believed urban legend in South Korea.

People believe all sorts of things that aren't true. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

Anecdotes are anecdotes and collectively they do not add up to data.

[theCOOP]

I dunno. Lots of reading there.

I'm more apt to believe that any wooden thing is going to be a little different today than it is tomorrow. Even a piece of lumber or some split firewood will be a little different tomorrow than it is today and it esn't under thesame stresses that a stringed instrument is.

As such, any thing you build out of wood is going to be a little different tomorrow than it is today. A typical mandolin is built with what, 2-3 different types of wood? All of which absorb and react to moisture/humidity at different rates and react to hot/cold differently.

So I guess I'd suggest that all in all, the instrument, if anything, would be 'looser'. If this is the case, would one expect this to result in better tonal quality or poorer?