Volume

[Chris Baird]

The field of vibration and modal analysis is a fairly mature engineering field. There are many complex manufactured products which have undergone an enormous amount of vibrational and modal research. Musical instruments could easily be likewise researched and understood, IF, there was the funding. The technology certainly exists as does an understanding of what research would have to be done. It all comes down to there not being any financing for such "scientific" projects.
Many people refer to a process as being scientific if it employs a dogmatic empirical process. However, true science goes beyond carefully controlled empirical observations and experiments and submitts the results to a group of peers for review. I believe that many good luthiers engage in a very well controlled empirical process not unlike a scientist, however, they are generally not involved in peer review etc. and so you can't really call it "scientific".
Many of the accounts I've read on the practices and personalities of succesful luthiers indicates to me that they are dogmatic and empirical in their building process, they carefully controll as many variables as possible and observe specific experiments in a controlled way. It's not science but it is intelligent empiricism.

[labraid]

Thinking of adding that to my business card now, "intelligently empiric since 2001."

Good thoughts, plyr..

[Dave Cohen]

With regard to the many "aces" served by luthiers for hundreds of years without the benefit of Cohen, Rossing, Caldersmith, Richardson, etc., etc.: First, they are not necessarily serving with the net either up or down. I will have more to say about that in a few lines. Second, they also occasionally serve up some double faults. I played Butch Baldassari's Gilchrist and thought that it was a wonderful instrument. Less than a year later, I played another Gilchrist in Bozeman, Mt that I thought was off the mark. It wasn't too bad, but had very quick decay and as a consequence, it was very hard to get much sound out of it without a great deal of effort. I have encountered many more comparisons similar to those before and since that time. If you watch Roger Federer on a good day, he easily gets 70%-80% of his first serves in. But even he can't get 100% in, and even he occasionally serves up a double fault or a few. I had two mandolins in the 2006 CMSA survey that really had it, and I chose them for that reason. I have made other mandolins that I thought were off that mark, which of course is why I didn't put those in the survey. Can the rest of you luthiers admit to making some mandolins that are off the mark? I have met a number of you personally, and I know that you have. Which gets around to my point. We don't know everything about making excellent mandolins, at least in part because we don't understand them too well. That's why I do the science. I want to contribute to the understanding of the things, and I think that I have done so. I will never satisfy Mario, b/c what I have contributed is not "complete", nor will it ever be. There's nothing in it for me, and it costs me money. I neither said nor implied that you need Cohen & Rossing to build good mandolins, but my results can and might help you. Rolfe Gerhardt has thanked me for publishing the first (CASJ) paper on more than one occasion, claiming that it helped him a great deal in improving the bass response of his mandolins.

Back to the Daniel Dennett tennis analogy: The analogy was not about products, but about arguments. If Mario were to say to me "I believe that forest sprites and tone fairies, along with a little bit of spicy picante sauce, are responsible for the volume and tone quality of mandolins and guitars", I might respond with "OK, I can find the picante sauce for you, but where do you think I should start looking for the sprites and fairies?". Say that Mario then responds with something like "Oh, you won't be able to find them; they are everywhere and they are invisible, and they have a way around any electromechanical transducer." Mario would be hitting the ball with the net down, while expecting me to return it with the net up. So when Mario says that science, or current technology, for that matter, is not yet up to the task, I expect him to keep the net up. He can't just say something like "I say that it is so because I am Mario Proulx." I can't (and shouldn't be able to) get away with that, even though I am the one with the Ph.D and the peer-reviewed publications and all of the classroom and laboratory experience. I am expected to justify what I say. So Mario, too, should have to justify what he says with an argument that is rational, causal, and deterministic.

All real world scientific problems are complex. That's why we build simple models do deal with those complexities. If we waited for a rigorous, closed-form mathematical solution to the problems, we would never get there. That is typified by atoms and molecules. We have an exact differential equation of motion (the Schroedinger equation), but we can't solve it exactly for anything more complex than an isolated hydrogen atom, since the mathematicians haven't been able to provide uus with multi-center integrals. Doesn't that mean that the science is not yet up to the task, and is therefore tenuous at best? No way in ____! We sidestep the mathematical difficulties by using expansions, perturbation and variation theories, etc., and the resulting "approximate" solutions turn out to be in extremely good agreement with experiment. Same thing with musical acoustics. The simplistic two-mass and three-mass models are still around because they approximate the actual behavior of guitars, and also of mandolins. Also, Bernard Richardson's work points to some interesting new directions. Some guitar luthiers have already started experimenting with that, and the results are encouraging. Your serve, Mario.

[Mario Proulx]

Uncle!

[Michael Lewis]

This is great! I know that Mario is a very clever and talented luthier who pays attention and gets results. He works from his intuition and experience, as most of us do.

Mario, thanks for being the grit that caused Dr. Dave to cast the pearls of wisdom to all of us.

Dave, please keep after us. We are like most kids and need a bit of goading from time to time to advance our understanding. We need to know how it really is, not how to force reality into our preconceived patterns of thought, which is all too often what we tend to do.

[John Bertotti]

"Also, Bernard Richardson's work points to some interesting new directions."
Where can we read about this Dr. Dave?

[Dave Cohen]

A short intro to Richardson's work:

Richardson, B.E.; "Simple Models as a Basis for Guitar Design", Catgut Acoustical Society Journal, 4, No. 5 (Series II), pp 30-36 (May, 2002).

There are a lot more details in Howard Wright's (one of Richardson's grad students) thesis. Unfortunately, I don't have the reference to that at the moment.

I hope that my post was not percieved as an attack on Mario, but rather as the challenge which it was.

[Bill Halsey]

Thank you Dave Cohen et al for the rich, stimulating exchanges that make this forum so vital, and help it to be the great resource that it is.

[Big Joe]

My only problem with "science" is that it assumes it provides the only answers to a problem. First, take the first Cohen example. The sun. We know its makeup because someone built a machine we ASSUME is going to give us accurate information about something millions of miles away. That is a pretty big assumption. Too much science is based upon theory that may or may not hold water over time. It seems there is constant revision of scientific theory all the time. Which leads to another thought. If it is truly scientific can it be theory. I guess even the so called "experts" are just guessing. They can set up a set of parameters and tell us these are the ways it works and nothing else can be true. Amazingly, years later we find there were other ways to make it work.

Science can only take you so far. It certainly will not build the best mandolin. It is the application of known scienctific theory (?) with the artistry and experience of a gifted luthier that makes the difference. If I had to chose between science and a gifted and experienced luthier, I chose the gifted and talented luthier anytime!

[sunburst]

It is only a theory that gravity holds us down on the surface of the earth, that atoms and molecules make up matter, that matter exists at all, etc. etc.. Science never proves anything, as Dave has already said. Science is not based on theory, science creates theories. Science never assumes to provide the only answer to a problem, it can only disprove, never prove.
All one has to do is understand science and the scientific method to understand that science only seeks to learn and understand. I can't remember who it was who said "No theory changes what it is a theory about.". The sun was the same before scientists theorized it's makeup and didn't change when they did, and mandolins were what they were before scientists started trying to figure out how they work. Why not learn from what they find? The knowledge might lead to better mandolins.

[Dave Cohen]

"Too much science is based upon theory that may or may not hold water over time."

Scientific constructs do not get elevated to the status of theory unless they have been supported by a substantial amount of experiment. Prior to that, they are called hypotheses, or sometimes, models. We don't proclaim to know the composition of the Sun based on the result of one experiment, or even upon the result of one series of experiments. It takes several different kinds of experiments, all subject to the razor of peer review, to bring about a scientific consensus. Fraunhofer's spectroscopic analysis was only the first of many independent measurements, all of which produced similar, if not the same, results. We don't claim to know a molecule's structure on the basis on one instrumental measurement, even though the instrument may be a very powerful one. To know a molecule's structure with any confidence, we analyze with nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry, infrared and/or UV/visible spectroscopy, and yes, classical qualitative chemical analysis. We take a melting point, and so on. Only if all of those analyses converge upon the same structure do we state with any confidence what we think the structure is.

Theory and experiment interact with each other continually. Theory is guided by experiment, and experiment constantly perturbs theory. Yes, theory is amended as necessary. If it weren't, it would not be theory, but dogma. To sum up; "Theory guides, but experiment decides" (H.A. Laitinen).

"It (science) assumes it provides the only answer to a problem."

That is just not true. Even within specific areas of research, there are dynamic controversies. Science avoids certainty when certainty is not in the offing. It is usually science's detractors who don't like it when they fear that science casts doubt on their pet explanations.

[Mario Proulx]

thanks for being the grit that caused Dr. Dave to cast the pearls of wisdom to all of us

You're welcome, Michael! Problem is, I wasn't trying to be abrasive... I was trying to support Dave's view. The internet is often a poor medium for communicating thoughts.... at least for me 'n the good Dr., here.

[Dave Cohen]

Mario, I didn't think you were the least bit abrasive. I just disagreed with you, and I wanted your argument to be up to the level of your considerable capabilities.

[Big Joe]

"Only if all of those analyses converge upon the same structure do we state with any confidence what we think the structure is."

So the best we can come up with is that science is just a good guess. That is exactly my point. Whether evidence is subjective or empirical it still results in the same degree of uncertainty. The scientist is certain he is correct by what he considers to be empirical evidence and the backup of a peer group (other persons who are in agreement with the scientist). The other person looks at it from his subjective evidence. This is often disregarded by the first group because it does not fit in their guess...er..theory.

All too often the real truth is found in a mix of the two. Yes, it is important to have some empirical evidence and some subjective evidence to find where the water hits the wheel. If we completely disregard one for the other we most often end up with an unbalanced view that cannot work in the real world.

When it comes to mandolins, the same applies. One can build a very nice mandolin from subjective experimentation without ever having a peer group or having read anything about plate resonance or knowing the components of the sun. With a good blend of the two we may be able to make the mandolin better. Still, if I had to choose just one in this case, it would be the subjective. Theory is important, but a theorist may have a hard time doing a good dovetail neck joint. A good luthier may never have heard of spectrum theory much less care.

It is the blending of all voices on this forum that brings us the quality of mandolin so readily avialable today from so many sources. I hope we continue to grow in that direction rather than leaning too heavily in one direction or the other. These are just my opinions and I am thankful to have a place to post them!

[markishandsome]

Joe - I think if you met a few scientists you'd find they're a lot less arrogant and presumptuous as you seem to think they are. They're regular folks who plop down on the sofa and have a beer after a 9-5 day at work, they just happen to work in a place with lots of computers and lasers etc. Any scientist who claimed to have "the answer" to any problem and that everyone else was wrong would be politely asked to leave thru the back door. No one is saying that hands-on experience should be replaced by scientific theories, or that Dr Dave's research should be pasted into the Bible. But if you can understand his and others' results you may be able to use their insights to improve your own instruments. No one's cramming science down your throat and you're perfectly welcome to go it alone if you like.

[David Catalfamo]

I am curious if any experienced luthiers out there have built two mandolins, that sound exactly the same. Or maybe the question would be have you built one that you and everyone else that you let play have been so satisfied with, that you didn't try to change the way you built the next one and did it turn out the exact same. Are mandolins like people? same species, but all a little different? can they be cloned?

[Hans]

Exactly...no. Very close...yes. Close enough to be very predictable.

[David Catalfamo]

So would you be saying that you know what works for you as far as tone and volume goes and try to duplicate that process with all the mandos you build? Or are you constantly trying to tweak something on the next one to get it better than the last one?

[sunburst]

If you go here, and scroll down, you'll find this:

Quote starts here:

Quote (LKN2MYIS @ Aug. 22 2007, 11:05)
...we found the exact guitar, however the difference between his and this new one was that the new one had an Adirondack spruce top. All the other specs were the same, even down to the sunburst. The difference between the two was simply phenomenal, and the only difference was the Adi top.

As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, that is an anecdote, not a scientific experiment, and certainly far from a representative sample. I'd say any conclusion drawn from it is "jumped to".

Here, then is my own anecdote.

Quite a few years ago, after hearing it proclaimed many times as fact that 'you can't build two instruments the same even from the same wood', I decided to test the hypothesis and built two mandolins from the same wood. I cut the tops, backs, sides, fingerboards, head blocks, tail blocks, point blocks, linings, everything from the same wood as close as possible from the same stock. I carved the arches the same, graduated them the same, stained them the same, finished them the same, etc.. In short, built them as nearly identical as I could. When they were done, they sounded the same. I couldn't hear a difference when I played them, I couldn't hear a difference when someone else played them, and nobody that listened to them or played them while I still had them could reliably tell them apart by sound (it wasn't easy to tell them apart by sight!).

I learned that, in fact, you can build two instruments that sound the same.

A few years ago, I did the "experiment" again, but this time I did everything the same except for the top wood. I built one with sitka spruce and one with red spruce. The sitka came from some very old "aircraft spruce" that I bought from a friend many years ago, and had probably been cut for close to 50 years, and the red spruce came from a tree I cut in West Virginia in 1989.
When the mandolins were done, they sounded almost the same. There were only subtle differences in the tone and both were about the same in terms of loudness. I took them to the Galax fiddlers convention when they were newly completed and got lots of mandolin players to play them, without telling them that they were different at all, let alone what the difference was, and asked them which one they preferred. They were divided in which they preferred, but slightly more preferred the sitka topped one.
Anyway, when I hear the properties of one species or another of top wood touted as amazingly better than some other, I'm skeptical because that has not been my experience, and I tend to assume that it is a conclusion drawn from limited evidence (just like my own conclusions from my own limited "experiments").

Quote ends here.


Those two were, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same. Would I be able to build another that sounded exactly like them now? Probably not, but I'm building mandolins now that I think sound much better than those two did, so I wouldn't really want to.

If I build one that I and everyone else is so satisfied with that there's no need to change anything it will have teh biggest chop, the clearest sparkling trebles, the strongest G-strings the best balance from fret to fret and string to string, etc., etc, of any mandolin. Obviously, that will never happen. There will always be room for improvement, and I assume I'll always strive to improve.
BTW, even if I did build a mandolin that I thought was the "beat all end all" you can rest assured that there would be those who thought otherwise. No one mandolin will ever satisfy every mandolin player.

[peter.coombe]

Maybe not absolutely exactly the same, but I have deliberately managed to build a pair of mandolins that sound so close that I fooled myself in a darkened room, and consistently managed to fool my other half. On the other hand I have also deliberately built a pair that sounded completely differnet. When I say deliberate, I mean that I could predict from the free plate modes which pair would sound the same and which pair would be different before the instruments were glued together.

[Big Joe]

Guys...I have no problem with science or scientists, and yes I do know quite a few. #I am pleased they do the work they do...including Dr. Cohen. #I was only laying an argument in another direction. #I think the most important question man ever asked was "what if?". #That question is what turns the world upside down. #Any good researcher will find that question the start of an incredible journey. #I just have days when my muse enjoys a good argument .

[jasona]

"Theory" =/= "guess". Theory is best available explanation of the data at hand. There is always the possibility of coming up with a better explanation, or deriving new data from different analytical techniques, forcing us to consider the situation from a new perspective. "Guess" isn't constrained by data. What is important to realize is that our perceptions are subjective and will vary from day to day. Science tries to get things to an even, repeatable, level by removing that subjectivity.

Some would argue that will also remove the artistic spirit, but to that I cannot respond beyond asking whether Thile is the best or worst thing to happen to the mandolin. You I think will get my point.

[Hans]

David, I'm always intuitively tweeking...the trick is to only change one thing at a time and make those tweeks very small. Also have gained the experience to know what works best for me to give the customer what they want, or duplicate the Loar tone, F4 tone, Gil tone, etc... or to be able go out there a ways and know what German spruce and Bosnian maple are going to sound like compared to German and Bigleaf, etc.

[Jim Hilburn]

Steve Gilchrist told a friend of mine that after you've built a hundred or so, you start to understand what's going on.
I guess I've still got a ways to go.

[markishandsome]

My only problem with "science" is that it assumes it provides the only answers to a problem.

Guys...I have no problem with science or scientists, and yes I do know quite a few.

Maybe you should make up your mind before maligning the life's work of millions of scientists over the last few thousand years and chalking up the success of the scientific method to lucky guessing.

Is there a smileyface that says "I'm not actually upset with you nor am I trying to put you down or be rude, I'm just pointing out the misinformation and inconsistency of your posts"?