Thinking of getting a Northfield Big Mon and I have questions....

[Deblues]

regarding what is the better top for a mandolin like that, the Engleman Spruce or the Adirondack Spruce? I currently have a Northfield NF5S with an adirondack top but thought I'd like to get something with a fuller sound so I've been looking at the Big Mon. Also trying to figure out if I'd rather have the wider nut on the mandolin, my current mandolin has the standard size width.

Has anyone here had both these models, the Big Mon and the NF5S and how did they compare?

thanks,

Debbie

[Bill McCall]

People sometimes hear what they want to hear. I don't hear a difference, nor with a Sitka top. Fingerboard width is very personal, if you're more comfortable, then that's the right choice for you.

Sometimes a richer sound is available to a player with a pick or string change, and even sometimes with better technique.

Have a good time hunting.

[Marcus CA]

From what I've gathered, Sitka is better if you want more attack in your tone, and Adi is better if you want more resonance. I'm not sure where Engleman fits on that spectrum. I haven't played an NF5S or a Big Mon in a few years, but I played them side-by-side at Gryphon back then, and the Big Mon definitely had a fuller sound. I'm not sure which spruce was used on either instrument's top, though. So, the additional fullness in tone could have come from different types of spruce, different qualities of the same spruce, and/or different bracing.

I agree with Bill that nut width is a matter of personal preference, so it would be great if you could play any mando with the extra 1/16" of nut width just to get a sense of how that feels. One advantage of the standard width is that it's easier to do a mini-bar for chords. One advantage of the wider nut is that your fingers are less likely to bump into each other when you're playing on the first five frets.

[multidon]

Sitka vs Adirondack is a debate that has been hashed over many times, with no real resolution. There are so many variables when it comes to individual tops that is is close to impossible to make tonal generalizations about the two species. Spec wise, they are very similar in all the ways wood is measured for hardness, density, strength, and so on. The differences if any are small enough to be of little consequence. If you search the internet you will find impassioned advocates of both, discussing headroom, volume, how long it takes to open up, and so forth. Many of these discussions are about guitars though. And being personal perceptions, YMMV is an understatement. If you stick to the facts, here are some to consider:

1. During the 20’s, 30’s and ‘40’s, when many legendary instruments were made, Adirondack was used. But the reason for this was not tonal considerations but availability. Eastern factories had no easy access to Sitka, which grows mostly in Alaska.

2. As a result of focusing on using Adirondack, it was over-harvested to the brink of extinction. When large quantities of Sitka became available that took the pressure off of the harvesting of Adi.

3. As a result of the past over-harvesting, many of the Adirondack trees available now are younger, smaller trees than they used decades ago. When you can find ones big enough to use for tops, they are often wide grained, sometimes with only 4 or 5 grain lines per inch.

4. Sitka, on the other hand, is plentiful and lots of trees are still old growth, with very fine, straight, narrow grain.

5. There is often an up charge for a maker to use Adirondack rather than Sitka because of the addition difficulty in securing a usable piece of wood.

6. Many, many very fine instruments have been made using both types of wood. It would be fair to say that the skill of the instrument maker is at least as important if not more important than the choice of materials.

Food for thought.