Mandocello Plans

[Wudwerkr]

Does Anyone have a Set they would be willing to sell , trade , give away , share . Etc: Or a Link Where they Cold Be Purchased ?

[Lefty Luthier]

It may sound simplistic but my first mandocello plans were created by blowing up F5 mandolin plans by 1.60. I have made a few tweaks here and there (increasing the fret scale to 25 inches and adjusting the nut and bridge dimensions) but that method gets you pretty close.

[Bernie Daniel]

Lefty Luthier: It may sound simplistic but my first mandocello plans were created by blowing up F5 mandolin plans by 1.60. I have made a few tweaks here and there (increasing the fret scale to 25 inches and adjusting the nut and bridge dimensions) but that method gets you pretty close.

Very cool. Would you please post an image or two of your final product if you have one handy. I'd love to see it! Thanks.

[Lefty Luthier]

I currently have one under construction, will post a shot of the half finished instrument tomorrow.

[dan in va]

Are you using the L5 or K4 body shape? The F shape looks good, but it's not big enough for the low notes IMHO. Consider the Loar K5 used the L5 body.

Now, I love a big sound with low overtones, and even in the guitar range, the L5 is lacking when compared to the Super 400 or the biggest Stromberg. With the low C of the mandocello being 2 whole steps lower than guitar, my ears tell me the power just won't be there with a small body. Even Mike Marshall's Monteleone 'cello sounds anemic to me.

So....are you building for looks or tone? For tone, I'd vote to go bigger than the L5, and for looks there's the K4.

However, there may be a solution in making something in shape and size like the U harp guitar. Quite a massive project, but consider how big the classical cello has to be to deliver the tonal range.

Whatever you do, I hope it exceeds your expectations.....dan

[Bernie Daniel]

dan in va: So....are you building for looks or tone? For tone, I'd vote to go bigger than the L5, and for looks there's the K4.

Dan, I think you might definitely have something there!

I have had a chance to pick on an S-400 and an L-5 at the same shop on the same day (if fact I think they are both still there) and what you say is very true there really is a difference. The S-400 (or S-300) is a true monster for sound.

So for the ideal mandocello - -if we can take Paul Hostetter's comments from the other thread on Sunday should have a 27" scale, 1.5" nut, and an 18" lower bout! This would be a monster axe!

Do you think we should call for a 400C instead of the straight 400?

Lefty how much to build one?!!

[j. condino]

If you're really going at it strictly for voice and tone, I'd be inclined to go with a larger flat top with a big box- like a j200 sized body with Adirondack top and Brazilian back / sides with a Honduras mahogany neck- similar to a baritone guitar. Have you played the Santa Cruz? I'll take it any day over an archtop instrument.

As much as I like the visual flow of carved / archtop instruments, in a guitar sized body, I rarely like the voice that comes out. A couple of weeks ago, I went to a very nice private jam session hosted by a fellow who had most of his retirement money into a great guitar collection. He brought about 35 of them, mostly archtops, out for everyone to play on for the evening- some of the finest archtops of the 20s, 30s, 40s all out and open to playing away. Super 400s, '300s, L5s, Strombergs, early Epiphone New York years, both the big Ds.

I've got a couple of octaves and a 'cello on the books for later this year, so I went there hunting for the right box for what I was after. As much as many of them did fantastic for a particular area or style, none of them made me want to go to all that trouble and have that voice as the end result. I'd much rather have a mandocello scale, tuning, and intervals on a prewar herringbone D28 body. One small thing to change- everything else being equal, I think I'd rather ( just slightly) have Madagascar rosewood over Brazilian....


j.
www.condino.com

[Wudwerkr]

All really interesting comments and advice , I appreciate the inputt etc: but I have yet to see an answer to my question in the beginning ?

[dan in va]

I'm glad the very point I was leaving out has been brought up: size being equal, the flat top will likely yield a warmer bass. For example, the L5 is wider (but narrower middle bout) than a D28, but the tone difference is substantial. Could it be possible to build a bigger sounding but smaller flat top to better cover the cello tonal range?

I seem to remember Dan Crary had a longer necked signature Taylor built for him that never went into production.

...dan

[Bernie Daniel]

grandcanyonminstrel: If you're really going at it strictly for voice and tone, I'd be inclined to go with a larger flat top with a big box- like a j200 sized body with Adirondack top and Brazilian back / sides with a Honduras mahogany neck- similar to a baritone guitar. Have you played the Santa Cruz? I'll take it any day over an archtop instrument.

That must have been an amazing experience to see all those guitars at one time. I certainly agree that flat tops guitars produce a lot of volume. Same in mandolins I guess. I have played a few flat top (spruce) mandolins with maple or rosewood backs and they certainly produce a very loud sound volume.

However, it was my impression that the reason the arch top became the guitar of choice for jazz because it makes a "sharper" more penetration sound that is more abrupt(less sustain)?

And I guess that is also why the bluegrass mandolin is the F5.

But I guess your argument is that for a mandocello you might be wise to favor the sound volume and richness of the flat top over the more penetrating sound of the arch top. Considering the role of the mandocello as a "bass" in a quartet maybe that makes good sense.

I've never played the Santa Cruz -- I'd like to do so. I'd also like to play one of the Eastmans MDC805's or one of the Weber offerings.

I do know that the old dreadnought guitar that I converted to a mandocello has a huge voice -- bu the guitar neck is not ideal for playing.

[j. condino]

That must have been an amazing experience to see all those guitars at one time.

That was a great night- a little hard to describe- not just seeing all of those guitars, but actually getting to play them in a real setting with other musicians- sort of like Mandolin Brothers hosting a jam session while everyone was drinking beers in the showroom.... I actually get a lot of invites to sessions like that one. The trick is pretty simple- just tell them that you play the upright bass....

As for the mandocello ideas, I think that the reaon a flat top instrument works so well is that it doesn't have such a strong punch to it when it is laying down the low end. I never like a bright punchy low end sound unless I'm pushing hard a avant garde sound. Most of the time I prefer it to be deep and lazy with a lot of overtones. I've played a couple of the Weber full scroll models and the archtop Eastmans- both live here in town. They are nice, but the Santa Cruz.....

One of the arch top instruments that I think makes a fairly good conversion is the old Gibson L-48s. They had a mahogany laminate body that had nice overtones. You'll see a few in the classifieds here now and then. I think that Matt Flinner sold a nice one here last year or so. Tenor guitars work great for conversions ( unless you are a tenor guitar collector) . The old Vega flat tops with the breakover behind the bridge are great instruments- the last one I played I could hardly put down.

I don't know of any commercial mandocello plans or blueprints available. I know that myself and several other builders here have one in the works, but nothing currently available. Mine will use a friend's 1914 Lyon and Healey two point as the basic reference point. Add that to the list of things to finish up....

j.
www.condino.com

[Bernie Daniel]

One of the arch top instruments that I think makes a fairly good conversion is the old Gibson L-48s. They had a mahogany laminate body that had nice overtones. You'll see a few in the classifieds here now and then.

Yeah I hear you! I'm "kicking" myself right now --about a year ago or so I had a chance to buy for pretty cheap an L-48 that had a smashed headstock and a little bit of repairable body damage. I passed on it. Now I REALLY want it but its no longer available -- rats!

As to tenor guitar conversions? Hmmmm. I have a '36 TG-1 that I'd never convert -- but I think that I would have two concerns about that:

1) the 1 3/16" nut -- pretty narrow and, 2) a neck designed for 4 strings now taking 8?

I do not have any mandocello plans either unless you count my conversion!

[Lefty Luthier]

Attached are photos of a mandocello I have under construction. It is based on a 1.61X scaled F5 with the fret scale extended to 25 inches. Note in the interior shot of the soundboard that there is a center tone bar covered by the
Virzi. That center tone bar is used to get a basic resonance of 85 Hz and then the treble and bass bars were used to home in on exact resonances of 104 and 93 Hz respectively. Note that the Virzi is slightly off center in favor of the bass side, which experimentation indicated would give a flatter frequency response. I threw in the shot of the fretboard and Custom Lefty tailpiece just because I think they are pretty.

[Wudwerkr]

I have an Old Kay 4 string Tenor Guitar I got off ebay and repaired for practice . I wonder how that would sound converted to a Mandacello Or Octave Mandolin .

The Unit Measures 13 - 1/4" Lower Bout
9 - 1/2" Upper
17 - 1/2" Body Length
3-1/2" Body Thickness
16" Fret Board
23-1/2" Nut To Bridge

[Bernie Daniel]

Don't you think the nut might be too narrow?

My Gibson TG-1 tenor is only 1/3/16" almost the same as an F-2 mandolin.

Also putting 8 strings on a neck designed for 4? Would it stand up?

[Wudwerkr]

Don't you think the nut might be too narrow?

My Gibson TG-1 tenor is only 1/3/16" almost the same as an F-2 mandolin.

Also putting 8 strings on a neck designed for 4? Would it stand up?

Didnt think about nut width , thats a great question . I will check that today . As for the neck , I would have to do a neck Reset anyway , The angle would have to be greater , and a Carbon Stiffiner put in .

One Question though , how would that "size" dimensions I gave earlier work as a model to work from If I decided to build from scratch ?

[Bernie Daniel]

Carbon fiber would certainly be the thing.

You mean the dimensions of the tenor guitar?

My instinct (which is based on not much really) is that I would rather have a much large body cavity on a mandocello and also a longer scale.

But if you are going to use that box I wonder if it would not be good for a octave-mandolin instead? In some ways (IMO) the octave makes the "most sense" of all the mando family instruments.

You still have the mandolin sound (double string courses), you retain your fingering patterns (mandolin to octave), and, at the same time, remain in the same key (but you are down an octave and closer to your voice range?) and with the octave (compared to the mandolin) you have some sustain in the sound due to the bigger box.

[Wudwerkr]

Carbon fiber would certainly be the thing.

You mean the dimensions of the tenor guitar?

My instinct (which is based on not much really) is that I would rather have a much large body cavity on a mandocello and also a longer scale.

But if you are going to use that box I wonder if it would not be good for a octave-mandolin instead? In some ways (IMO) the octave makes the "most sense" of all the mando family instruments.

You still have the mandolin sound (double string courses), you retain your fingering patterns (mandolin to octave), and, at the same time, remain in the same key (but you are down an octave and closer to your voice range?) and with the octave (compared to the mandolin) you have some sustain in the sound due to the bigger box.

I suspect your right about the Octave Mandolin , Kinda was leaning that way myself . Always good to hear someone else say though . BTW Nut WIdth Is 1-5/16" So I Think It Would Be Wide Enough .