Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 95

Thread: Science of Sound?

  1. #1
    Registered User JKA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Northumberland England
    Posts
    113

    Default Science of Sound?

    Having played my new mandolin every day for the past month I'm noticing a change in the tone, for the better I might add. I'm no science expert but I find it hard to believe this change is due to something other than a number of factors which are mainly down to my improved technique, ability to find the sweet spots and familiarity with the instrument.

    I was just wondering if anybody can explain to me any other proven factors that might be at work here?

    I know for certain that different picks have a marked effect on the sound I'm producing and after experimenting with dozens of different ones the pick that produces the best sound (to my ears) is the Jim Dunlop Nylon .88 which is my regular guitar pick. It makes my mandolin sing and produces a loud and clear tone whilst all the others appear to soften and mute the overall tone. I can understand why different picks and strings will produce a different tone but find it difficult to believe there's some kind of alchemy that takes place to the mandolin itself.

    Any experts out there that can shed some light on this?

    Keith

  2. #2

    Default Re: Science of Sound?


  3. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to lenf12 For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    poor excuse for anything Charlieshafer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Madison, Ct
    Posts
    2,303

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    There are plenty of anecdotal stories about instruments opening up with time as the wood cells compress and gradually lose residual resins and moisture over a 20-40 year period. There are no hard-core really good scientific studies about this. It is known that the natural resins in soft woods, which are the top tone woods, do change over time, but there are no studies. Part of the reason is that each piece of wood is intrinsically different from other pieces of wood. Wood is organic, and just like fingerprints, the grain structure and density of each piece of wood is different, ergo they will all react to aging or "playing in" slightly differently. There are hundreds of thousands of opinions on this expressed across forums here and for violin builders, guitar makers, etc. Opinions based on great skill and experience, yes. Hard-core scientific studies that are comprehensive enough to call "the truth"?: No.
    Last edited by Charlieshafer; Jun-12-2016 at 10:50am.

  5. #4
    Old Guy Mike Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    754

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Quote Originally Posted by lenf12 View Post
    Yeah.....OK?
    Thanks

    Several mandolins of varying quality-any one of which deserves a better player than I am.......

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kernersville, NC
    Posts
    2,593
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Science of Sound?


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mark Wilson For This Useful Post:

    DataNickhank 

  8. #6
    Registered User sblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    2,335

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    +1

    Down the rabbit-hole is right!

    The "opening up" phenomenon is controversial. Read up on it on the many threads previously posted on the MC. No point in re-hashing it all here. Drink the Kool-Aid if you must, but realize that you are slowly getting better about drawing good tone from your mandolin as you familiarize yourself with it. You need to factor that in properly in your assessments.

    Oh, and most mandolinists don't like the tone of nylon picks, preferring a harder plastic (or synthetic) material, such as polyimide, polyetheimide, cassein, shell, etc. Popular names include Blue Chip, Red Bear, Dunlap, Wegen, Clayton, D'Andrea. Keep experimenting with pick materials and picks shapes as you improve, which is what most of us do. PAS is a pretty cheap hobby compared to MAS.

  9. The following members say thank you to sblock for this post:


  10. #7
    Registered User fscotte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Zanesville, Ohio
    Posts
    2,490

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    More interesting than discussing the controversial opening up process, is asking why some people get so offended by others who suggest an instrument opens up with time.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to fscotte For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Registered User JKA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Northumberland England
    Posts
    113

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Quote Originally Posted by fscotte View Post
    More interesting than discussing the controversial opening up process, is asking why some people get so offended by others who suggest an instrument opens up with time.
    Personally I've never come across anyone who gets offended by those who suggest an instrument opens up with time...perhaps I'm just naive but in any case it's not that important a subject that warrants anyone being offended.

  13. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,573

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    I don't know if offended is the right word but there is a bunch of people that will give you a lot of other reasons why an instrument sounds better as it matures and refuse to admit that one reason could be a change in the wood and or construction of the instrument. I say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it just might be a duck, not a dog.

  14. #10
    Registered User sblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    2,335

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Quote Originally Posted by fscotte View Post
    More interesting than discussing the controversial opening up process, is asking why some people get so offended by others who suggest an instrument opens up with time.
    Jeez. I have to say, it strikes me as pretty ridiculous to suggest that some people are "offended." People who disagree with you are not necessarily "offended" in some way by you: we simply disagree! You're certainly entitled to think whatever you like about this subject -- and to write about it here on the MC. But please don't confuse your personal opinions and anecdotal observations on this subject with fact. Believing something doesn't make it so. And an expressed unwillingness to consider alternative explanations is decidedly unscientific. That said, there's no requirement that you have to think scientifically about this topic. (To my way of thinking, there are practically "religious" overtones to some of the beliefs that have been expressed here on the Cafe.) So, believe whatever you like, I say!

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sblock For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kernersville, NC
    Posts
    2,593
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    I like to read the third rail discussions. But in a text only discussion it's sometimes hard to separate the highly offended from simple disagreement. If we could discuss our pov without expecting to change another pickers mind there might be less tension on both sides imo. Then we can all get back to round vs pointy picks!

  17. The following members say thank you to Mark Wilson for this post:


  18. #12
    Scroll Lock Austin Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Austin, Tx - some call it heaven
    Posts
    1,183

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Some folks are passionate about this subject, insisting that it is an absolute fact that instruments open up and sound better over time. I for one am open to the idea, but being somewhat scientific in nature, I like to see facts supporting the theory.

    We can all surmise that in less than a couple of million years or so, most of our mandolins will be piles of dust unless stored very carefully. At some point in that journey from a fresh off the bench mandolin, to said pile of dust, it would seem to be obvious that the tone of the instrument will change. The trick is to measure and plot it from when it starts to go better, when it peaks, and when it begins the downhill slide.
    A quarter tone flat and a half a beat behind.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Austin Bob For This Useful Post:


  20. #13
    Registered User fscotte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Zanesville, Ohio
    Posts
    2,490

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Quote Originally Posted by sblock View Post
    Jeez. I have to say, it strikes me as pretty ridiculous to suggest that some people are "offended." People who disagree with you are not necessarily "offended" in some way by you: we simply disagree! You're certainly entitled to think whatever you like about this subject -- and to write about it here on the MC. But please don't confuse your personal opinions and anecdotal observations on this subject with fact. Believing something doesn't make it so. And an expressed unwillingness to consider alternative explanations is decidedly unscientific. That said, there's no requirement that you have to think scientifically about this topic. (To my way of thinking, there are practically "religious" overtones to some of the beliefs that have been expressed here on the Cafe.) So, believe whatever you like, I say!

    There's a wealth of archival evidence to suggest otherwise. Discussions seem to always degrade into people reacting strongly to those who suggest opening up is a real thing. No need for strong reactions, yet they happen.

  21. #14
    Registered User sblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    2,335

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    I have no idea what you mean by "archival evidence." (A bunch of personal anecdotes and opinions, perhaps?) But I certainly do know what scientific evidence is. A few well-controlled, peer-reviewed scientific studies have been conducted to find out if mechanical vibrators, like the ToneRite (R), can improve the way an instrument sounds, by "breaking it in" more quickly than just playing. These things have been found not to work as claimed, through actual experiments. That said, there have not been many scientific studies on the phenomena popularly known as "breaking in" and "waking up." (And more exist in the violin world than the mandolin world). There are lots of reasons to believe that most of the explanation for these phenomena has more to do with the player, and his/her subjective perception, than any truly quantifiable, objective changes. You feel otherwise, and that's fine. But that is not an example of scientific thinking. In reality, it is extremely hard to separate, in a given player's mind, any small improvement in playing an instrument (which slowly improves over time, and also following each warm-up) from an improvement in the timbre of the instrument itself. BOTH these things contribute to the subjective sound of the instrument, as perceived by the player.

    So, unless you have a well-controlled study that can separate these different things (which is possible to arrange), you do not have reliable evidence. But clearly, you have very strong beliefs that you do not choose to question. And that's your prerogative. But please don't confuse evidence and belief.

    As for strong reactions, well, this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Not only did you initiate this discussion by accusing others of reacting strongly (which, of course, is a strong reaction!), but you've gone so far as to accuse them of taking "offense" at your opinions. Well, we are not offended. But neither are we persuaded!

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sblock For This Useful Post:


  23. #15
    Registered User JKA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Northumberland England
    Posts
    113

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Quote Originally Posted by sblock View Post
    I have no idea what you mean by "archival evidence." (A bunch of personal anecdotes and opinions, perhaps?) But I certainly do know what scientific evidence is. A few well-controlled, peer-reviewed scientific studies have been conducted to find out if mechanical vibrators, like the ToneRite (R), can improve the way an instrument sounds, by "breaking it in" more quickly than just playing. These things have been found not to work as claimed, through actual experiments. That said, there have not been many scientific studies on the phenomena popularly known as "breaking in" and "waking up." (And more exist in the violin world than the mandolin world). There are lots of reasons to believe that most of the explanation for these phenomena has more to do with the player, and his/her subjective perception, than any truly quantifiable, objective changes. You feel otherwise, and that's fine. But that is not an example of scientific thinking. In reality, it is extremely hard to separate, in a given player's mind, any small improvement in playing an instrument (which slowly improves over time, and also following each warm-up) from an improvement in the timbre of the instrument itself. BOTH these things contribute to the subjective sound of the instrument, as perceived by the player.

    So, unless you have a well-controlled study that can separate these different things (which is possible to arrange), you do not have reliable evidence. But clearly, you have very strong beliefs that you do not choose to question. And that's your prerogative. But please don't confuse evidence and belief.

    As for strong reactions, well, this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Not only did you initiate this discussion by accusing others of reacting strongly (which, of course, is a strong reaction!), but you've gone so far as to accuse them of taking "offense" at your opinions. Well, we are not offended. But neither are we persuaded!
    Thanks for taking the time to reply to this post. It's really appreciated and I find the whole subject fascinating. I wonder if "opening up" applies to all instruments of a wooden construction such as piano, harp, glockenspiel, maracas etc etc?

  24. #16
    Registered User fscotte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Zanesville, Ohio
    Posts
    2,490

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    I dunno if they do or not. But a mandolin like a guitar like a lute like a cello like a violin like an etc.... has a soundbox with a top and a back. There is good subjective opinion on my part that the more flexible the back plate becomes, the sweeter and more vibrant the overall tone. I've carved a couple backs thinner and thinner to the point where I don't feel comfortable going any further. The sound simply became better, imho.

    Now if we could suggest that the plates of a mandolin, in particular the back, becomes more flexible with time, then perhaps that is the sweeter tone we hear, for those who hear an opening up. Maybe not all mandolins are carved in a way that would allow a plate to be a bit more flexible with time.

    I'm of the opinion that wood stresses over time and looking at an old barn or house would suggest that. Perhaps these old mandolins do the same. Sweeter with every year that goes by. I dunno but food for thought.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fscotte For This Useful Post:

    hankJess L. 

  26. #17

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    This topic has generated a surprising amount of pushback--surprising because it appears to strike a nerve no one knew existed; also since it is undeniable that wood's physical properties change over time, it would be odd if the sound didn't change.

    While there's no reason the very best luthiers can't be completely wrong about their trade, but I have never encountered a top luthier who DOESN'T notice pronounced changes in their instruments over time, indeed many of the best build in anticipation of those changes.

  27. The following members say thank you to Richard Mott for this post:


  28. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,573

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Sblock says that aN expressed unwillingness to consider other explanation is unscientific and I agree. But it seems that the "science people" are the worst offenders. I know as you play a certain instrument you get to understand it better and you learn what strings and picks it likes and I know our memory can fool us as to exactly how our buddies mandolin sounded a month or a year ago bur I am willing to consider another explanation as part of the reason a new mandolin sounds "new" or tight that in most cases work out after being played awhile.The tone right experiments is always quoted as proof that an instrument don't open up but even if I accept that as gospel a tone rite doesn't "play" the instrument like a picker. Different notes different volumes different attacks. Just remember before Columbus "science" thought you could reach the end of the world and fall off. Science is always changing as new facts are discovered.

  29. The following members say thank you to Mandoplumb for this post:


  30. #19
    Shredded Cheese Authority Emmett Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    735

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Hi Keith. Playing every day for one month and noticing a big change in tone would make "me" suspect the strings if you are still using the same set. It has been said that many strings will have a noticeable change in tone after about 30 hours of playing - some sooner, and some later, but I find this to be a generally true statement with conventional strings. Some people toss them at this point, and others with a very bright tone appreciate a little "deadening" of the strings and march on until intonation becomes an issue. Of course, wood being what it is, there will be shrinking, swelling, warping, and who knows what else? Hopefully very little of all of that! Has the humidity at your location had some recent changes? Is this a brand new mandolin, or an old one that may be more stable? There are lots of possibilities here, and as others have pointed out, one's technique can improve in very subtle ways as well.
    Weber F5 Bitteroot Octave - "...romantic and very complicated."
    My instruments professionally maintained by...RSW
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7UmUX68KtE

  31. The following members say thank you to Emmett Marshall for this post:


  32. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,322

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    And just because something has not been proven "yet" does not mean it isn't true. Example: Many years ago, we nurses noticed that chemotherapy affected our patients' memory, and we called it "chemo brain," which returned (more or less) after treatment was completed. And in just the last couple of years, the scientific community has recognized "chemo brain" as being real! What a shock! We knew it 25 years ago! So just because "opening up" has not been proven does not mean it is not "real." And it is also possible that it is due to a combination of increasing skill with aging strings and changes in the wood.....

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LadysSolo For This Useful Post:


  34. #21

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Wood changes over time, that can easily be proven. Whether those changes based purely on age intrinsically affect tone is something that's in some debate. What is interesting is that many will assert that an instrument created, and left unplayed for 100 years will not develop it's most mature tone. It is the playing, the combination of variable tension and significant vibration, that appears to accelerate the change (the richness and maturity, texture, and complexity) in the tone the instrument produces. This is an important distinction.

    There are theories on what the change in a well-played in instrument are at the cellular, molecular, and atomic level. Nothing conclusive from what I can research in luthier journals, as you'd have to destroy the instrument to confirm; and who is going to do that to a perfectly good D'Angelico, Loar Gibson, or Stradivarius?

    D

  35. #22
    The Amateur Mandolinist Mark Gunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South of Cleburne, North of Hillsboro, Texas
    Posts
    5,089

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Make music not mischief. Give peace a chance

    The cool thing(s) here is:

    1. You've got a new mandolin! Yay
    2. You're getting to play it every day! (At least so for the past month) Yay
    3. You're liking the sound better now than when you got it! Great stuff there

    You like the way the instrument is sounding, and you feel your technique and ability to get that better sound is improving. You are a winner in this thing. Who really gives a #@&& what other people believe about "opening up" and whether or not it can be proven? Make up your own mind and roll with it, and let others just do as they may.
    WWW.THEAMATEURMANDOLINIST.COM
    ----------------------------------
    "Life is short. Play hard." - AlanN

    ----------------------------------
    HEY! The Cafe has Social Groups, check 'em out. I'm in these groups:
    Newbies Social Group | The Song-A-Week Social
    The Woodshed Study Group | Blues Mando
    - Advice For Mandolin Beginners
    - YouTube Stuff

  36. The following members say thank you to Mark Gunter for this post:


  37. #23
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,438

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Mine has been sounding worse and worse over time.... it's really been bugging me... I mean it was getting pretty annoying.

    Then I changed strings... some improvement but not much.

    Then I changed to a new pick... and now I have a whole new instrument that sounds just like it always did!

    There are just so many variables that to suggest tiny changes from the wood are responsible when there are much larger changes at play from strings/pick/player is downright foolish.

    Still.... as long as yours is getting better just sit back and enjoy the ride

  38. #24
    Registered User JKA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Northumberland England
    Posts
    113

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Thanks folks...your replies are incredibly interesting and thought provoking. Mark, mischief making...moi? Well maybe a little but please don't tell anyone as I think it's an area worth discussion and debate.

    Being a guitarist for the past 40+ years and having owned many a fine instrument I can honestly say the only noticeable change I've been able to detect (regarding guitars) is the effect played in strings make. Personally I love the sound of new phosphor bronze strings and have always changed them regularly. I can't say with hand on heart that the tone of my guitars have altered over the years I've owned and played them...and I play them a lot! I appreciate the impact picks and technique have on the overall tone one produces.

  39. #25
    Registered User sblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    2,335

    Default Re: Science of Sound?

    Some of the points that folks have made about science are perfectly true, and YES, you have to keep an open mind. It is almost certainly true that some things change in a mandolin (actually, more than one thing!) after it's built, and there is no reason to believe that such changes might not affect the tone. How much is another question altogether. For example, there are those who seriously doubt the "waking up" phenomenon (claimed improvement tone within a few minutes of being played, every time; this repeats), but nevertheless believe the "opening up" phenomenon (improvement in tone over months to years; this is one-time). There's a whole continuum of thought on this topic, in fact, and people find themselves all over the spectrum on this.

    Here are some things that almost certainly change:
    varnish and lacquer finishes continue to harden for months
    strings age
    certain glue joints settle in (but only slightly)
    ambient humidity affects day-to-day mechanical properties of wood

    But there is little-to-no evidence that:
    wood mass or stiffness changes
    dimensions change (except by fractions of a mm)
    air cavities change
    bridges or nuts change
    etc.

    And trivially, on a sufficiently long time scale, everything falls apart and turns to dust. But this extreme example says nothing about what happens during the useful lifetime of a mandolin!

    Those among us who are skeptical are not saying that "opening/waking up" can't exist. We are saying that the evidence (such as it is) is equivocal at best, and the few properly-controlled tests that have attempted to prove something HAVE FAILED. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So the search goes on. But we reject sloppy thinking and weak evidence, particularly when it's so easy to confuse an improvement on the player's part (learning to draw the best sound from the instrument over time, or simply warming up every day, at the start of playing) with an improvement in the instrument itself. And what care have you taken to control for, and distinguish, these confounding things?

    This is the nuanced message we skeptics have been trying to get across. We are not saying it doesn't exist; we are saying there is little-to-no evidence, and a bit of critical thinking would suggest there is ample reason to believe there are other explanations. But it's probably not possible to convert the true believers: these folks have made up their minds and are well satisfied by their personal conclusions. But the title of this thread is the "SCIENCE of sound", and that's not good science!

    P.S. Why is it always a claimed improvement, and (almost never) a degradation in the mandolin sound over time? This is pretty easy to understand if you think it's due to the player; it is much harder to understand if it's all in the instrument.
    Last edited by sblock; Jun-13-2016 at 11:08am.

  40. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sblock For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •