Has the Secret Been Discovered to Surpass the Stradivarius?

[foldedpath]

Again, the OP is, in my opinion, a good guy just trying to provide a service to the public.

Let's be clear about this. He's providing a service for money, and he's using this forum thread as a free advertisement. Take another look at the thread title and the original post. It's an ad disguised as a "discussion," an old trick for online product promotion.

I think it's great that we have some interaction here with luthiers, repair techs, and instrument dealers. But my personal definition of a "good guy" is someone who participates in the forum in ways other than just hyping what they sell, and using the forum for free advertising. The posting guidelines seem pretty clear about this, although the moderators don't seem to care in this case.

[Dave Cohen]

"Where's Dave Cohen when you need hiim....?"

Uhhh, he's grown wary of threads llike this. Science is pretty good at saying what isn't, and sometimes when you say what isn't, someone who believes something strongly will take things personally, identify the scientist with science in general, and initiate ad hominem attacks.

The OP visited me earlier this year for some advice on his process. He viewed his process as proprietary, so wouldn't reveal what the process actually was. That made it difficult for me to help him as much as I would have liked. Additionally, he made some claims which were scientific non sequiturs. Specifically, he was convinced that his process had simultaneously increased both the sustain and the acoustic volume of the guitars on which he had applied the process. He brought one Martin dreadnought and played it for me. Of course, I had no "before" to compare with, nor was there any recorded data. The guitar, like many of its' genre, sounded good but unremarkable. I tried to convince him that it is not physically possible to simultaneously increase the sustain (i.e., increase the characteristic decay times) and the acoustic volume in a plucked string instrument, as one comes at the expense of the other, but didn't seem to want me to get through on that one. I put him onto the freeware audio editors, Wavesurfer, Audacity, and Visual Analyzer so that he could at least record some audio spectra. He eventually did e-mail me a single (presumably a sample)spectrum taken w/ Audacity, which didn't convince me of anything.

I don't think that the OP is in any way disingenuous; I am convinced from meeting him that he was sincere in his intent. But, I do think that he neither understands much, if anything, of physical formalism, nor has he surveyed the extant scientific literature on either plucked or bowed string instruments. It is certainly possible for someone like him to come up w/ an interesting process, but to be convincing, he had better have explanations which are not in conflict with physical law, or if they are, he had better have a pretty thorough and good explanation of why his observations are in conflict w/ existing physical law.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[mrmando]

I'm starting to be reminded of the "Ever-So-Much-More-So" chapter from Robert McCloskey's Centerburg Tales.

[Manfred Hacker]

Stradivari made good fiddles, no doubt, but so do hundreds of other luthiers. The difference, IMO, is that the Stads have been hyped by the big antique instrument dealers and auction houses to drive the collector prices up into the stratosphere.

One of the world's foremost violinists, Anne-Sophie Mutter, plays a Stradivari. Certainly not because of the hype created by antique dealers. I am sure she plays the violin that gives her the very best sound. She could get any other great violin if she thought it would give her a better sound.

[Tom Wright]

I hear Strads at close range regularly--our concertmaster has a good one. Guarneris are also fabulous, as is the Gaspar de Salo viola that Zuckerman uses. I've tried Paganini's Strad viola. Good old instruments are in fact good, more than they're old.

It's not so much that they are powerful but that it's a beautiful sound. It is not hype, but the prices reflect the cachet that comes with performing using an instrument with pedigree, that was in active use when Mozart was touring.

[mtucker]

It's not so much that they are powerful but that it's a beautiful sound. It is not hype, but the prices reflect the cachet that comes with performing using an instrument with pedigree, that was in active use when Mozart was touring.

Why, of course!

[Markus]

It's not so much that they are powerful but that it's a beautiful sound. It is not hype, but the prices reflect the cachet that comes with performing using an instrument with pedigree, that was in active use when Mozart was touring.

I'd be more willing to go along with this comparison for mandolins if Loar made them in the 1720's or 1820's ... but 1920's instruments lack a couple centuries of aging and playing that certainly is part of their mystique if not sound.

If we assume OP's process makes the instrument sound like a couple century old instrument ... the idealized Loar mandolin sound doesn't have that age.

Is it going to sound like a Loar, if the Loar sound isn't based on being played for 200+ years?

--

While I can see the OP's idea having great appicability elsewhere - unless it is a variant on the `play in' devices currently out there for home use at much cheaper price - it is only trying to make it sound like an 85 year old instrument. To me, age is a far less critical component as the F5 style is all of a century old.

If we were talking about Loar mandolins in 2200, I wouldn't argue this point.

[Ted Eschliman]

Two points if I may, since the issue of Moderation on this thread has been called into question. First, our silence in this should topic not be interpreted as an endorsement of the product or provider. That is not our job. Second, the guidelines are specific about self-promotion. Peripheral discussion (allowed) is not the same as overt selling (not allowed). Should it come to that point, or leave its thin disguise, we will intervene.

Until then, if any have an issue as to whether or not the thread needs policing, we suggest you take this up privately with us. Calling us out publicly for our actions, or inactions is against posting guidelines.

[mtucker]

Based on the '20's price of gold, an F5 Loar would cost you approx $20k today - they were about $250 dollars then and hover today at $200-250 thou ... in a 100 or so years its easy to conceive a F5 Loar will be 10x what it is today - $2.5 million U.S., or $17.5 million Chinese dollars ...

[sunburst]

I, for one, am just a little surprised that this thread has lasted this long, especially with complaints of lack of moderation included, and I am thankful for the moderators letting this thread run because I see it as an opportunity for those who are interested to learn from this discussion. That includes the OP as well as the rest of us.
I still wouldn't be surprised to see the plug pulled on this one, but so far there is insight to be gained from some of what's been said here.
Thanks, moderators, for allowing us the opportunity!

[mmasters]

The idea of the challenge is to target the best out there. Stradivarius is often is associated with the best and has good name recognition hence why I chose him. Not everyone knows what a Guarani is. If the challenge were applied to steel string guitars then the benchmark would be 1930's Martins, here it happens to be a Loar from around the same time period. I don't believe there are any examples of instrument wood anywhere that approximate the treated wood sample I show on my website. Not all wood is created equal and some of these guitars from the 20s and 30s may have been built with wood that was exceptional with regards to an open and closed pore ratio. Nobody to my knowledge has ever done any studies along these lines or to trace the effect of the instrument being played for long periods of time.

I met with Dave Cohen early on, before the process was perfected and he helped me with some ideas for how to present a case for the process being valid. With all the guitars I have treated there has been a significant increase in both volume and sustain. The volume increases have been in the 6-10db range in all instances and the power of the sustain has doubled or tripled in every case. He didn't seem to think this was possible and didn't seem to be open to accepting it could being possible. I've learned once people are convinced of something it's usually a losing battle to convince them otherwise, regardless of the truth of the matter. Although, since then, I'm not aware if he's seen at the spectra or electron microscope images on the site, or analyzed the audio files. I have had some spectrograms done independently in a studio for TGP's webzine which can be seen here: http://www.tgpwebzine.com/?page_id=2606 I do thank Dave for his input though, I think I have built a decent case for what I have in good part with his help.

I've definately run up against a lot of skepticism with this, more than I expected though I've gotten used to it at this point. I also know this goes against the status quo of the industry to an extent. So, in that regard I have also come to expect a certain amount of resistance from people that don't want to let go of that. It hasn't been easy but I know I've found something special and if it takes a while for certain folks to warm up to it then I'm ok with that. If some cannot accept it then that's ok too. The opinions are so diverse on the subject matter I know I could never please everyone. I think ultimately it will just take time and people with reputations jumping on board with it for it to become accepted. Then again maybe it will always be controversial.

Lastly, I think it's a subject worth discussing here as I do have some interesting evidence to show for it and believe there is some serious potential for it to be adopted within the community over time.

[Manfred Hacker]

Stradivarius is often is associated with the best and has good name recognition hence why I chose him.

The name of 'him' was (Antonio) Stradivari.

[sunburst]

...The volume increases have been in the 6-10db range in all instances and the power of the sustain has doubled or tripled in every case. He didn't seem to think this was possible and didn't seem to be open to accepting it could being possible. I've learned once people are convinced of something it's usually a losing battle to convince them otherwise...

As usual, I don't want to speak for Dave, but he has already posted exactly why it is not considered possible, and it has to do with the laws of physics, something you would do well to learn about if you are to convince anyone, including yourself, of such claims.
...or, as Dave said, you'd better show a darned good reason why the laws of physics are wrong.

[Charlieshafer]

It's funny, but whether or not the process works almost seemed irrelevant to most of the debate here. If it wasn't called the "Stradivarius Process" it would simply be a matter of assessing the physics, which do seem a little vague, based on the information given. By invoking the Stradivarius name, and all the old vs. new violin debate, it totally sucked everyone away from what this stuff is. And that's the only thing bothering me: would I send off one of my precious babies to some place where something unknown will be done to it?

[mandolin tony]

Hi,that old growth wood from FQMS really sounds sweet,but I guess at 25k it should/go to there web site & listen.

[mmasters]

As usual, I don't want to speak for Dave, but he has already posted exactly why it is not considered possible, and it has to do with the laws of physics, something you would do well to learn about if you are to convince anyone, including yourself, of such claims.
...or, as Dave said, you'd better show a darned good reason why the laws of physics are wrong.

Obviously, if it's happening it's not violating the laws of physics, there's something not accounted for in the equations or understanding of it is my guess. I am open to having a University study done to try to connect the observed physical changes to the acoustic results. They have been quite consistent in every case.

[Rick Cadger]

If I were you, I'd come back when you have independent, impartial, scientific trial evidence to support your claims. Perhaps after a university has been permitted to observe the process and compare before/after figures.

I look forward to seeing that evidence when you have it and decide to share it. Without such evidence, I'm immeasurably more inclined to give credence to Dr Dave Cohen's assessment that the simultaneous increase in sustain and volume is a non-starter.

No disrespect intended, but... evidence, please, or it didn't happen. Anecdotes, figures given by you, or the presentation of a good-sounding instrument, are not evidence.

Currently you're challenging experienced people who are immensely respected here, with nothing to back up what you say.

[Dave Cohen]

In order to demonstrate that both sustain and volume are increased, one would have to simultaneously measure amplitude and characteristic decay times. Additionally, those characteristic times are strongly frequency dependent. In order to talk about "sustain, one needs to be clear about "sustain for which note(s)?" I described the characteristic time measurements to Mr. Masterson, but saw nothing to indicate that he has done them, properly or otherwise. One also needs to specify exactly where on the string the pluck is made, what the force of the pluck is, and several other factors. I'm still waiting for all of that. As to my lack of openness, I was not the one withholding any information for proprietary reasons.

For the benefit of those who are not sure about this, the problem with simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume is that it violates one of the most basic of physical laws, namely, conservation of energy. Conservation laws are about as basic and fundamental as you can get. When a string is plucked, it is given potential energy by virtue of its' displacement from its' equilibrium position. When it is released, or the pick passes over it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy associated with its' vibrational motion. Since a string moves very little air by itself, the way to get acoustic volume in a guitar or mandolin is for the string to give up some of its' energy to the body of the instrument, which in turn gives up some of that energy to the vibration of air mases in the body cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s). And, if the string loses some of its' energy to another such vibrating system, it has to have less energy than it did (remember conservation of energy?). Consequently, its' amplitude will decrease, which means that the characteristic time, and consequently sustain, will also decrease. And, in order to get more acoustic volume, one has to have a greater loss in sustain.

Conservation of energy is not just something in the abstract. You can't just handwave it away by dismissing the existing laws and/or formalism as incomplete. Mr. Masterson will have to come up with a satisfactory explanation of how he can simultaneously increase both acoustic volume and sustain.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Rick Cadger]

[...]
For the benefit of those who are not sure about this, the problem with simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume is that it violates one of the most basic of physical laws, namely, conservation of energy. Conservation laws are about as basic and fundamental as you can get. When a string is plucked, it is given potential energy by virtue of its' displacement from its' equilibrium position. When it is released, or the pick passes over it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy associated with its' vibrational motion. Since a string moves very little air by itself, the way to get acoustic volume in a guitar or mandolin is for the string to give up some of its' energy to the body of the instrument, which in turn gives up some of that energy to the vibration of air mases in the body cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s). And, if the string loses some of its' energy to another such vibrating system, it has to have less energy than it did (remember conservation of energy?). Consequently, its' amplitude will decrease, which means that the characteristic time, and consequently sustain, will also decrease. And, in order to get more acoustic volume, one has to have a greater loss in sustain. [...]

Now that is absolutely clear, and actually pretty obvious when explained and thought about.

Thanks for that, Dave.

[Josh Kaplan]

One of my New Year’s resolutions for the coming year is to be nicer on the internet and resist the temptation to write negative posts. I still have a month to go before that kicks in, though, and there is something about extravagant claims that invoke Stradivari that sets me off. So, sorry, OP. I am actually really interested in old and new instrument designs, sounds, and processes, but the Stradivarius name/claim is a turn-off for me.

National Publc Radio once had an interesting piece about a contemporary violin maker. What I took from it was the idea that violin makers today can in fact make very good to super great violins, in part because of computers, but if you are going to sell a $30.000-$50,000 instrument to a concert violinist today, there is some pressure to make one that sounds like a Stradivarius or Guarnerius, etc. In fact, there are all sorts of different ways a violin can sound great and beautiful, but most musicians in the market for super (and super expensive) instruments are looking for a particular sound, perhaps to duplicate a Stradivarius that they already own. A new violin may sound “better” in some ways, and different instruments may sound better in different concert halls. But if an instrument is too different, then the potential buyer may be reluctant to buy it, simply because it is different, not because it is worse. So "the standard" may not be the same as "the best."

Josh

[mmasters]

In order to demonstrate that both sustain and volume are increased, one would have to simultaneously measure amplitude and characteristic decay times. Additionally, those characteristic times are strongly frequency dependent. In order to talk about "sustain, one needs to be clear about "sustain for which note(s)?" I described the characteristic time measurements to Mr. Masterson, but saw nothing to indicate that he has done them, properly or otherwise. One also needs to specify exactly where on the string the pluck is made, what the force of the pluck is, and several other factors. I'm still waiting for all of that. As to my lack of openness, I was not the one withholding any information for proprietary reasons.

For the benefit of those who are not sure about this, the problem with simultaneously increasing both sustain and acoustic volume is that it violates one of the most basic of physical laws, namely, conservation of energy. Conservation laws are about as basic and fundamental as you can get. When a string is plucked, it is given potential energy by virtue of its' displacement from its' equilibrium position. When it is released, or the pick passes over it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy associated with its' vibrational motion. Since a string moves very little air by itself, the way to get acoustic volume in a guitar or mandolin is for the string to give up some of its' energy to the body of the instrument, which in turn gives up some of that energy to the vibration of air mases in the body cavity and in the region of the soundhole(s). And, if the string loses some of its' energy to another such vibrating system, it has to have less energy than it did (remember conservation of energy?). Consequently, its' amplitude will decrease, which means that the characteristic time, and consequently sustain, will also decrease. And, in order to get more acoustic volume, one has to have a greater loss in sustain.

Conservation of energy is not just something in the abstract. You can't just handwave it away by dismissing the existing laws and/or formalism as incomplete. Mr. Masterson will have to come up with a satisfactory explanation of how he can simultaneously increase both acoustic volume and sustain.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

No, I don't think its violating conservation of energy; I think there's an aspect being unaccounted for. The volume increase is very evident but with regards to sustain I think there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain.

When I do the process it treats the entire instrument, including the neck and neck joint which changes the interaction of the instrument in a way such that I believe these counterproductive vibrations are being substantially mitigated.

I could test this myself by only treating the box and not the neck or neck joint and observing if the sustain responds differently.

I think even more fun would be to have Dr. Cohen perform the testing on an instrument before and after. Do you still have that inexpensive kit guitar? If you're up for it and since I'm local I would be willing to pick up the guitar, treat it and deliver it back in a few weeks time. I'd be happy to pay for the string changes as well and even dinner (if desired). All in exchange for some basic before and after testing and to publish the results here for everyone. I think it would be a fun experiment.

[sunburst]

...I think there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain. ...the process...changes the interaction of the instrument in a way such that I believe these counterproductive vibrations are being substantially mitigated.

That can be tested and demonstrated with FFT, but the first bending mode of a guitar (involving the neck and body) and other bending modes are dependent on mass and stiffness, and those are the only things that could change to affect those modes, and that would only change the frequency of those modes, not whether or not they "rob sustain". Furthermore, the first bending modes in guitars and mandolins are of lower frequencies than any that the strings can produce, so they don't "steal" much energy from the strings. Keep in mind that the wooden body of the instrument "robing" vibrations from the strings is the instruments way of converting string energy to sound.

In order to increase sustain and acoustic volume, you have to increase the efficiency of the system (the system of converting string movement to air movement), and there is an obvious limit to that, so when the limit of efficiency is approached (what luthiers do, partly, to make "loud" instruments), there can be no more increase in one without there being a decrease in the other because the plucked string has a limited amount of energy to impart.

[Charley wild]

My take on this whole thing is the idea seems to be that increasing volume and sustain automatically makes an instrument better. My mandolin is loud enough and has enough sustain already. I don't think increasing either is going to make it better. It would just make it louder longer!

[Dave Cohen]

"I think that there are typically counterproductive vibrations in the neck that rob the sustain...."

That is entirely conjecture, and mostly wrong. As it happens, I was doing some more interferometry last month, and included neck motions this time. I had looked at just a few of those early in this century in Rossing's lab, both in mandolins and in two guitars. Rossing kept admonishing me to ignore those things as "just physicists' curiousities". Back in 2004 and 2005, I ran into some mode splittings and day-to-day frequency shifts in the 400 - 800 Hz range which neither Rossing nor I could explain at the time. They varied quite a lot from instrument to instrument. Gradually, it dawned on me that I was extinguishing some neck motions which could account for the splitting by rigidly clamping the instrument at the endpin and the hyoid of the neck/headstock. So this time, the instrument was simply supported instead of rigidly clamped, and was excited with a speaker instead of a magnet & coil "stinger". The speaker is fine for excitation as long as you have good earplugs.

I'm still looking at the data, but I can offer som early insights into the neck motion question. The first bending motion in mandolins occurs at about 45 Hz. Recall that the lowest open note on a mandolin is the G at 196 Hz. The bending motion corresponding to the first mode of a simply-supported bar or beam occurs at around 140 Hz. Yes, there are higher bending motions associated with some of the body modes, but they are much lower in amplitude compared to the plate motions at the same frequencies. In most cases except for the lowest frequencies, I had to record two interferograms; one at lower amplitude to image the motion in the body, and one at considerably higher amplitude to image the motion in the neck & headstock.

About three years ago, I did characteristic time measurements for an ff-hole mandolin vs frequency for every note from the G at 196 Hz up to the 12th fret E (1st string) at about 1318 Hz. I had done the same thing back in 2001 for a Neapolitan mandolin. The charactersitic times for notes in the frequency vicinity of active body modes were shorter by a factor of 3x or 4x, and longer in the frequency regions between those of body modes. So strings will lose a little bit of energy to the neck motions, but will lose much more to the body motions, as it needs to be. From what I saw in Rossing's lab, it is similar for guitars, only all of the frequencies are lower. I'll have more to say about this after looking more at the data, but for now, I think that the OP should do himself the favors of learning some physics and surveying the by now fairly rich literature on the physics of both plucked and bowed string instruments.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[yankees1]

And could it be applied to achieve the holy grail mandolin tone?

I can say I am the discoverer of this and my research has largely been applied to acoustic guitars. But I have thought what about mandolins.

http://www.acousticbreakthrough.com/the-process

The question I wanted to ask is what qualities make for the holy-grail mandolin in your opinion? And does anybody have any video or audio clips they could reference that they believe capture the ultimate mandolin tone?

No such thing as the ultimate mandolin tone, too subjective. And to say you are the discoverer of the Stradivarius secret is rediculous!