"Modern" vs. Traditional Bluegrass Sound -- What Build Factors?

[Doug Freeman]

If a builder is going for a more "modern" full-range sound in an F-5 style mandolin, what things in particular is he/she likely doing differently than one who is making a more traditional sounding bluegrass instrument?

[fscotte]

By traditional, I assume you mean "loarish". The Loars were generally built fairly stiff. I would make the assumption that a brand new Loar would have sounded fairly tight and non-responsive.

The "standards" today have been based largely on careful study of those old Loar instruments. So, a modern mandolin may be a bit more flexible (deflective) and responsive right out of the gate versus a brand new Loar. Loars have stood the test of time very well, despite many being beaten, literally. The real question is whether these new lighter built mandolins will stand the test of time as well as the old Loars... But, that's why we have luthiers... to keep em busy with repairs.

[HoGo]

By traditional, I assume you mean "loarish". The Loars were generally built fairly stiff. I would make the assumption that a brand new Loar would have sounded fairly tight and non-responsive.

The "standards" today have been based largely on careful study of those old Loar instruments. So, a modern mandolin may be a bit more flexible (deflective) and responsive right out of the gate versus a brand new Loar. Loars have stood the test of time very well, despite many being beaten, literally. The real question is whether these new lighter built mandolins will stand the test of time as well as the old Loars... But, that's why we have luthiers... to keep em busy with repairs.

I would not agree with this.
Loars are quite on the edge of lightly built mandolins. Tops as thin as 4.2mm under bridge are frighteningly thin, choose less stiff wood or remove tiny bit more wood and it may collapse quite soon (I'm just repairing collapsed one like that - not particularly stiff sitka top graduated hair thinner than 4.1 in center)
What is called "modern" is typically result of different tonebars, arching, graduation or combination of these. And I'd guess that more often than not folks don't really know what is modern and what is traditional sound and all their nomenclature is purely incidental. I mysellf struggled to be able to describe sound of mandolins for many years. It requires lots of ear (and playing) training to be able to judge characteristics of tone.
Back to topic. From all I know I 'd give some examples (I won't name anyone except one well known company)...
Modern Gibsons are typically overbuilt and inconsistently graduated that's why they don't sound like best vintage mandolins.
Some makers graduate plates right to the kerfing while originals rise in thickness from the bottom of recurve towards edge. That makes difference.
Some makers graduate backs thin towards neck block, sometimes to the same thickness as recurve all around the back - this results in very different behavior of back and different sound. Loars had slight increase in thickness from center to neckblock.
Some makers carve recurve all around the top (it goes under the f/b extension) while on Loars the recurve vanishes at the "waists". This weakens top under extension and changes sound.
Many makers use shorter tonebars ending 1 to 1 1/2" from edge of plate. Loar tonebars vanish right at the kerfing. Often the height and shaping of the bars is quite different.
Makers often use different shape and size of f-holes which also changes sound.
Some makers use lower archings or graduation that is hair thinner in center but the thick area splays out to wider part of the top.
etc....
I've seen so many "replica" or "vintage style" or similar names on instruments that were clearly made with noticeable differences from Loar specs and of course they all claim to possess the traditional tone....

[fscotte]

Modern Gibsons are typically overbuilt and inconsistently graduated that's why they don't sound like best vintage mandolins.

I have a very hard time comparing 80+ year old instruments tonally with modern instruments. I don't know how we can honestly do that. Time and pressure cause wood to sag, we see this in beams on a barn, floor joists, and instrument bracing.

You have vastly more experience than I, so I'll just throw that out there and digest whatever comes back.

[Nick Gellie]

Adrian, thanks for a very thoughtful and detailed response. It is really interesting that there is so much variation in arch shape and graduations in modern mandolins. Any thoughts as to which of these works that is to produce a good balanced even tone? Graduations of 0.165 or less at the centre appears to be a bit risky for a possible collapse top.

I have an Arches mandolin kit which is graduated to 0.18 at the centre with the graduations radiating out to the recurve like the Loar spec you described. I took the back off because I was not happy with the tone. I am reworking tone bars at the moment to thin them out a bit. The tone bars are not like the Loar spec falling short of the kerfing by an inch or so.

[Jim Hilburn]

Nick, you might consider removing some wood from that back while your at it. Very important piece of the puzzle.

[Nick Gellie]

Thanks Jim, that is a very useful tip. What sort of graduation thickness are you aiming at the centre of the back ?

I plan to do what you suggest.

[Jim Hilburn]

Backs are generally thinner than the top. Maple is a heavier wood and doesn't have to support string tension. Of course which variety of maple has a lot to do with it as well.

[JeffD]

I have a very hard time comparing 80+ year old instruments tonally with modern instruments. I don't know how we can honestly do that. Time and pressure cause wood to sag, we see this in beams on a barn, floor joists, and instrument bracing.

So do you mean -

That if a modern maker wanted to emulate the Loar sound, he might miss the mark by building to the same specs - because the very best he could do would be to replicate how the Loar sounded when new, not how the Loar sounded in the recordings of the 60s and 70s or how that Loar sounds today.

That "modern sound" might be just that, how those Loars sounded when new.

[Michael Lewis]

Generally, the 'modern' tone is anything that is 'not Loar like'. Smoother, mellower, sweeter, less edgy. (Gilchrist, Ellis, Monteleone, etc.) And remember that much of the tone comes from the person driving (dynamics) the mandolin.

One critical aspect to making a thin top hold up under the stresses it is normally subjected to is the arching. The arch, if well crafted, adds strength to the top, but if carved to round and dome like will suffer more deformation under stress. I have had a top collapse many years ago, but since then I have carved my tops with much straighter lines from the blocks to the bridge area, and a small 'blending' section under the bridge. When string tension is applied the top does deform slightly into a very nice and even arch. The stresses tend to flatten the top under the bridge and pooch out between the bridge and tail block. Depending how the arch and graduation is between the bridge and the neck block that area can sink or stay where it started.

[HoGo]

I have a very hard time comparing 80+ year old instruments tonally with modern instruments. I don't know how we can honestly do that. Time and pressure cause wood to sag, we see this in beams on a barn, floor joists, and instrument bracing.

There is some aging in instruments but its effect is vastly exagerrated by folks. Wood will hold pressure for hundreds of years if not too thin. INstruments that were built too thin will show it quite soon (10-20 years or sooner), those that were built sufficiently strong will hold for hundreds of years. There is VERY thin line between strong enough and weak.
I've seen floors and beams in old castles around here built in 13-14th century and they are still giong strong with no more sagging than it had after few months after they were built.

[HoGo]

Agreee with Michael. Very subtle change in arch shape can make is significantly weaker or stronger.

So do you mean -
That if a modern maker wanted to emulate the Loar sound, he might miss the mark by building to the same specs - because the very best he could do would be to replicate how the Loar sounded when new, not how the Loar sounded in the recordings of the 60s and 70s or how that Loar sounds today.

That "modern sound" might be just that, how those Loars sounded when new.

Modern sound is typically considered more (IMO too) bassy with strong chop. As I wrote above the time factor is nowhere near as big as build subtleties so if you build it like Loar it will VERY likely sound like Loar. If you build differently your sound will be likely different. Time will add some finesse to tone but you cannot expect much change after few months of playing time.

[fscotte]

So do you mean -

That if a modern maker wanted to emulate the Loar sound, he might miss the mark by building to the same specs - because the very best he could do would be to replicate how the Loar sounded when new, not how the Loar sounded in the recordings of the 60s and 70s or how that Loar sounds today.

That "modern sound" might be just that, how those Loars sounded when new.

That's kinda what I was thinking, and to go along with the idea that wood stresses over time, one would have to build a tad lighter to get that Loar tone they hear today. More important factors, I'm sure they used some very hard old spruce back then. Folks today typically and often use spruce such as sitka, englemann, and even soft red spruce. You're gonna have to go much thicker today that Loar did then to get the same stiffness.

More importantly than the sound, i would rather see deflection tests of a brand new Loar versus the same mandolin 80 years later. That's impossible, but it's not impossible for anyone who builds their mandolins using deflection, they checked then, and they can check the same mandolin now.

We all see how many mandolin bridges have to be raised as time goes on. That's purely wood fatigue. Unless the mandolin is overbuilt then it may not budge much if at all.

[Pete Jenner]

Thanks Jim, that is a very useful tip. What sort of graduation thickness are you aiming at the centre of the back ?

I plan to do what you suggest.

I'd go by stiffness rather than a specific set of numbers Nick. I stop when I think there will be too much flex if I go further but I'm just learning what that point is myself.

Happily I took notes on the last 3 mandolin back grads.

1. One piece red maple back (slab sawn I think). 4.8 mm in the centre. 2.4 mm in the minimum area. 135 grams.
2. Two piece European maple back. 3.7 mm in the centre. 2 mm in the minimum area. 129 grams.
3. Two piece European maple back. 3.4 mm in the centre. 1.9 in the minimum. 136 grams.

[Jim Hilburn]

Something John Griffin at Old Standard brought to my attention is that while we have a tendency to think the wood used in the Loar era as somehow superior or so much more aged that it becomes a big factor as to why it's hard to nail the same sound as a Loar, the trees John goes out and finds were already standing 90 years ago and 90 years is a relatively short time in tree land. I think of it this way. My Dad was born the same month as the first Loar was shipped and he's still around.

[HoGo]

Something John Griffin at Old Standard brought to my attention is that while we have a tendency to think the wood used in the Loar era as somehow superior or so much more aged that it becomes a big factor as to why it's hard to nail the same sound as a Loar, the trees John goes out and finds were already standing 90 years ago and 90 years is a relatively short time in tree land. I think of it this way. My Dad was born the same month as the first Loar was shipped and he's still around.

That's true, Jim!
And I don't take the argument that they had some special selected wood with superior stiffness juts for Loars. The specs sheets clearly grade the wood according to cosmetics (grain count) which has nothing to do with stiffness.
fscotte: how many Loars with bridges adjusted way up have you seen? Most of them still have original bridges or exact replicas and don't need any extra high bridges. You just need to adjust bridge for seasonal changes up in the winter (dry air) and down in summer (humid).
The arching changes after stringing and after some time it stabilizes with no measurable movement (unless environment changes). I think I described this in my drawings so these things can be accounted for when you want to build Loar replica.

[fscotte]

fscotte: how many Loars with bridges adjusted way up have you seen? Most of them still have original bridges or exact replicas and don't need any extra high bridges. You just need to adjust bridge for seasonal changes up in the winter (dry air) and down in summer (humid).

I've seen many more modern mandolins with bridges adjusted way up, and sinking arches. Thus why it leads me to believe Loars were built very stiff. It doesn't take much additional deflection to go from "too stiff" to "just right". If they achieve an additional .05" deflection in 80 years, that may be "just right".

[Jim Hilburn]

David Grismans Crusher which is a very early Loar has a particularly high bridge (about 7/8") and some visible deformation, a bulge behind the bridge. Not what you would call a sinking top but showing the effects of 92 years.
Early in my building days the McRostie print was one of the only sources for grads so when I saw the numbers of David's mandolin it was shocking how much thinner it was by comparison.

[Tom C]

For Traditional (Loar) type tone, I think "dry" - not a lot of overtones with the emphasis on the mid range.

[JeffD]

I have never played a Loar, and I have not played most of those modern makes folks consider to have "nailed it".

But I can make a comparison - my Gibson 1923 A2 snakehead, which many have told me is very very bluegrassey in the tradional way, and my Stiver, which was made in 2012, and which many have told me is a real grasser.

I dearly love both of these instruments, and both could be considered exemplars in their class.

So to A-B them

- the Stiver is a bit louder, a bit woofier, the chop a little bit more barky, more rabid - than the Gibson. Individual notes on both instruments are comparably creamy and rich, all they way up the neck (lots of BING, as opposed to DING or TING), but the Stiver has more volume.

- the Gibson has that rich creamy Gibson sound, and I have been told over the years by many who would know that it is one heck of an instrument. I have even gotten offers on it, unsolicited, by workshop leaders and featured artists I have jammed with. From this I conclude it is likely really close to sounding like the bluegrass machines of yore. It has a stand out volume, just not as loud as the Stiver (which is a cannon).

The tone quality of the two are very very similar, there is a kinship there. But I think the Gibson tone has the edge on complexity.

For music outside of bluegrass, or even old time, I give the Stiver the edge. Because the Gibson is such an iconic sound, that to me it sounds like a bluegrass instrument playing Irish, or classical or what ever, and distracts me. Where as the Stiver sounds equally great, but to my ear not perhaps as Monroe-ish. Less distracting to me when I try and play a tango. My Stiver is the Charlie Rappaport signed two point design, so it would make sense that it would be more generally applicable.

That is the best I can do by way of a comparison, given the limitations of my playing and listening ability, and the limitations of words to describe sounds.

It would be my absolute pleasure to meet up with any of you folks and have you play them back to back. If that ever becomes convenient or desirable I am all in.