Opening up and breaking in

[vegas]

I think most people agree the older, vintage instruments sound better than brand new ones. There is something that happens to an acoustic instrument over time which improvers its sound. Lots of people have used quasi-scientific ways of explaining it which have caused people to experiment and a company like ToneRite to make a lot of money. I have a solid background in Biology and the theories of resins evaporating inside the wood cells to make them all little hollow echo chambers over time has sound reasoning but no proof other than my ear to tell me my older instruments have a tone which is fuller, more pleasing and unique.

If you've never been in New England during the Fall leaf change referred to as "leaf season" when all the tourists arrive, you have not seen Fall colors. I know. I lived there long ago. There is no film made which accurately captures the iridescence of those colors nor can capture and present the full spectra in a photo, digital or not which in any way compares to seeing them with the eye. Perhaps the ear can detect subtleties of sound scientific instruments do not. Our hearing is party responsible for our being able to eat and avoid being eaten so I think the millions of years hearing has been developing in mammals, it has been fairly finely tuned. It's also clear humans react to music and respond to it in much more complex ways that other animals, even other primates, so I'm going with a musician's ear is more tuned to the broad range of sounds and their mixture than any instruments which have been developed to measure sound. If somebody can show me that is not true with scientific results I will gladly accept it because I'm a believer in science over superstition every day, all day. I'm not going to be offended if somebody proves to me my brain is playing tricks to make me think I hear something that isn't there because I know that also happens and is part of the wonderful human experience which makes us able to enjoy music in the first place.

This is one of those myths I think would be hard to bust because it would be so very difficult to control all factors which physically make sound in complex acoustic wooden instruments and that you could produce two instruments that would be exactly the same. They are, after all, like snow flakes which is why nobody here questions you need to play something as quirky as a mandolin instead of just ordering it in the mail since all models of a particular builder will be built exactly alike and sound the same.

Visit New England in Leaf Season for at least a few days making sure you get there at it's peak which is different by latitude and elevation but if you go there and snap photos of the very best leaf displays, you will be amazed at how much color is lost when you see the pictures. I'm sure digital will improve the results but you will finally see what I am talking about how the eye sees things even digital film can't capture.

Yes, humans are remarkably silly creatures willing to believe all sorts of ludicrous ideas such as sharping razor blades using pyramids. The willingness to believe that particular superstition was a better measure of how much weed you smoked back then than anything else. At least there are rational explanations for how and why a wooden instrument would change over time and if you can't hear a difference between an aged instrument and a brand new one, well I think you may not have the best musical ear.

How about hearing from the people who know more about what makes good sound in instruments than anybody else, our builders? Do you guys think instruments improve over time and if so, why?

Anyway, my little experiment only cost me $12.00 and was fun to do, so if nothing else, it provided cheap and harmless entertainment.

[M.Marmot]

What exactly is it? How does it happen? How does one notice any changes? Is it like when we used to get a new pair of jeans and they were stiff as a board until they had been worn and washed about a hundred times and then they felt comfortable?
Ben

I'm not going or trying to take up a position against those who have had many more mandolins than me or more time to experience them opening, but i'll tell you what makes sense to me in my own experience.

Each mandolin will have its own peculiarities and it will take their owner: player an amount of time to adjust themselves and their playing technique to better suit and draw on these peculiarities.

For instance, if you start playing a mandolin with a different neck width, or bridge height, a deeper body than you are used to, it will need time to adjust until you are truely comfortable playing it. For instance, if you start to play a different style mandolin than you are used to, a bowlback, a flatback round hole, an f-hole mandolin, it will need until you are truely comfortable playing it.

For me the key is being comfortable and familiar with your instrument - which may or may not coincide with the amount of time it takes for a mandolin to open up - the more comfortable you are the more intuitive the sound.

Back to the jeans analogy - have you ever bought or been gifted an item of clothing that might have, at first, gone against your usual fashion sense?

If so, do you remember how uncomfortable and self concious you were at first when you were wearing said item?

Then maybe you got some compliments on your new sartorial excellence

or maybe you just had to wear that outfit so often that you started to forget about it - you lost the self-concious feeling and became comfortable in this outfit - heck, you even started to buy more clothes just like it - a compliment is a compliment after all.

Then, one day you go to pull one of your old former favorite pairs of trousers out of the closet and you find - 'hey - those pants legs aint flared enough, that denim blend just aint as comfortable as polyester, and who wants to wear a sensible navy blue when theres something with a bit of character'

Maybe mandolins, maybe even with the constant change of strings and plectrums, maybe they do open up - i can't prove otherwise - or maybe with time and practice you just grow into them.

[Stephen Perry]

The first few minutes on a good violin are really amazing, first time it's up to tension. The next week or so are blazingly obvious. Goes back to sleep, then wakes up a bit faster every day. When the client brings the thing back after six months, the change is generally striking.

Now on a $400 trade fiddle I'm not getting that kind of feedback from the instrument.

There's no great secret here - I know several makers who like to have a friend borrow a new instrument for a few weeks before they start shopping it around just to get the raw edge off. I had one that was really stiff I loaned out for a year - made all the difference.

But cheap instruments usually don't change much. And experienced ears used to calibrating instruments likely help.

It's like my mandovoodoo work - if someone can't hear the things one needs to hear to do the work, then one cannot do the work. Gianna can hear and manipulate wood just fine, as can most (all?) piano tuners. I have a piano maker friend who can hear everything I can and then some - we're going to do a piano after a while, when he makes his next one. But most people can't. So there's some educated listening perhaps required, and a certain detached objectivity.

I can actually design the science to test all this, I'm just busy and don't see the need. It's pretty obvious, the initial and subsequent break in of good instruments.

One finds this with engines, transmissions, tires, suspensions. I also have encountered instruments that seem soggy and less than they were, as if they are no longer stiff enough. Like a damper in a motorcycle suspension that's no longer doing its job well enough. Something I seem to have going on at the moment.

[katygrasslady]

Considering the sophistication of audio recording equipment available, I don't understand why someone hasn't studied this scientifically. Record an instrument out of the box, then monthly and annually record it again with all the exact same equipment. I really don't know much about what professional recording equipment can measure, but wouldn't there be some measurable, objective differences?
Sounds like a good project for one of you pro's. Maybe write off the expense of a new instrument for 'business-research'?
Katy

[Tobin]

I agree that the 'opening up' phenomenon is likely a combination of a lot of factors, including physical factors in the instrument as well as the player's technique changing over time to suit that instrument. I've noticed a huge change in my mandolin since it was new. And it can't be explained by technique alone. Simply playing a chord with open and fretted notes sounds completely different now than it did 4 years ago when I bought it.

But you know what's weird? I notice my mandolin's tone changing every day when I play it. It usually starts to become obvious about 30 to 45 minutes after I start playing. I rather tend to think that this daily change is more related to my fingers and wrists getting warmed up and loose, and not a physical change in the instrument. But it has become very obvious to me that my mandolin playing starts to sound a lot better after 30 to 45 minutes of playing, and really gets into the 'sweet spot', tone-wise.

[Stephen Perry]

I had spectrograms (or whatever they are called) showing break in and mandovoodoo effects at one point. Someone hassled me about them not showing this or that. I'm not convinced that science will do anything useful in this debate. It's such a well-known and relied upon effect, not really worth the effort. Now using analysis to figure out how we prefer things to break in would be nice.

Most people in small business are horribly busy. I'm juggling a professional practice that is out of control with still getting into my new workshop, sorting out old supplies, putting in a dishwasher, etc. Adding a completely non-paying task that requires some rigor and will do nothing but get me grief is a low priority. Now if I had a grant from the National Mandolin Foundation . . . .

[OldSausage]

Considering the sophistication of audio recording equipment available, I don't understand why someone hasn't studied this scientifically. Record an instrument out of the box, then monthly and annually record it again with all the exact same equipment. I really don't know much about what professional recording equipment can measure, but wouldn't there be some measurable, objective differences?
Sounds like a good project for one of you pro's. Maybe write off the expense of a new instrument for 'business-research'?
Katy

I record my mandolins with monotonous regularity, but without scientific precision or scrutiny. All I can say from doing this is that, if there is a change, it is not so big that you would notice over a period of a few years. With a brand new mandolin, with two recordings made after I first got it and a few weeks later, on a blind test I couldn't tell you which was which. On the other hand, your playing and the tone you as a player produce will likely improve dramatically over that time if you work at it diligently. And also, a mandolin sounds great with a polish and a nice new set of strings.

I'm well aware that psychologically it feels like big changes happen, but the recordings tell a different tale.

[Dobe]

There's an absolute physical and chemical change that happens on the sub-atomic scale, over time. Not to get too technical, there's a chemical reaction that takes place from the percussive strikes. This enables trace atmosphereic Molybdenum to combine with a recently discovered oxygen isotope, (see research of particle physicist Raghavan Jayakumar) , referred to as 'JO'. Since it's such a minute amount of these elements naturally occurring in the atmosphere, it takes decades of play before the buildup of MO-JO imparts a noticeable effect. But as anyone whose played a vintage instrument from the golden era can tell you, there is a significant difference, The older instruments tend to have tons of MO JO !

[vegas]

I had spectrograms (or whatever they are called) showing break in and mandovoodoo effects at one point. Someone hassled me about them not showing this or that. I'm not convinced that science will do anything useful in this debate. It's such a well-known and relied upon effect, not really worth the effort. Now using analysis to figure out how we prefer things to break in would be nice.

Most people in small business are horribly busy. I'm juggling a professional practice that is out of control with still getting into my new workshop, sorting out old supplies, putting in a dishwasher, etc. Adding a completely non-paying task that requires some rigor and will do nothing but get me grief is a low priority. Now if I had a grant from the National Mandolin Foundation . . . .

...and even if you got that grant and produced a study which supported a side in this debate, I bet you would get all sorts of grief and criticism from the side the study disproved. Like you said, it would "bring nothing but grief."

In reading all the posts on various boards on this topic, I've concluded it has many similarities to religious belief. Many people are very passionate about what they believe they've observed and will become extremely cranky if you offer any opinion which contradicts it. It's the old "I know what I know" attitude people seem willing to battle one over because it involves feelings and experiences that are very personal and arguing against the belief is actually perceived by many as arguing against the person.

Like I said, I would welcome a scientific study on this topic and willingly accept the results but even that is unlikely to happen for many of the reasons Mr. Perry suggested. Who knows? Maybe the ToneRite people have one in progress right now and will dazzle us with the spectacular results requiring each of us to run out and buy their product........or not.

[OldSausage]

Point is, if a scientific study is even required, the effect must be pretty small. I'm interested in changes in my instrument that I can hear with my own actual ears - anything else will not benefit me at all.

[foldedpath]

Considering the sophistication of audio recording equipment available, I don't understand why someone hasn't studied this scientifically. Record an instrument out of the box, then monthly and annually record it again with all the exact same equipment. I really don't know much about what professional recording equipment can measure, but wouldn't there be some measurable, objective differences?
Sounds like a good project for one of you pro's. Maybe write off the expense of a new instrument for 'business-research'?
Katy

It depends on what you want to test for. Of the various descriptions people use for improvement after opening up or being played-in, some are subjective and difficult to test. Words like "warmth," "sweetness," "clarity" can be loosely correlated to different parts of the frequency range, but you'd need a bunch of people doing double blind listening tests to figure out if everyone means the same thing by "warmth."

However, there is one thing that can be tested scientifically and fairly easily, and that's increase in volume. It's the one consistent claim made by people when they talk about instruments opening up. To eliminate the human factor, you just put a mandolin in a jig, set up a microphone as part of the jig, and make a simple mechanical plucker gadget for the strings. It could be anything from a pendulum swing from a fixed starting point, to a slowed-down version of Eddie Van Halen's "picks on a drill." Make a recording when the instrument is new. The resulting .WAV file won't sound very musical, but we're not looking for musicality here. We just want a waveform with a measurable peak amplitude.

Then, do whatever you want to break it in. Set it in a vibrator gadget, place it in front of your speakers playing Monroe full blast, or just play the snot out of it. Do that for however long you want -- a few weeks, months, or years. Then put it back in the recording/plucking jig, and make another recording. If the instrument is now louder, the waveform won't lie. It will show up as increased amplitude, or it won't. This method could measure any increase in note sustain too.

Do a test like this once and publish the results, and it's the bare beginning of finding out something. Have several people repeat the test with similar results, and then we'll really start to know what's going on (or not). It would take tests on a variety of instruments at different quality levels and price points to establish a trend, or threshold, but it's not impossible to do over a period of years.

Now, I understand why small shop luthiers and stores aren't going to go to this trouble to prove a point. I do think it's interesting that people who sell gadgets or services that supposedly advance the break-in process -- those who have the most financial incentive in proving results -- never offer this kind of test result.

My personal belief is that some small changes occur over time due to the structural/chemical changes in wood as it ages over a period of years (and for a brief time, more quickly after it's first built into an instrument). I'm much more skeptical about improvement due to vibration or player involvement. When people say it takes time for an instrument to wake up after not being played for a while, I'm more likely to believe it's the player waking up and not the instrument. I think it's also telling that every claim for changes over time is always in the direction of improvement. It never gets worse, or sounds just different in a neutral way. Always "mo better." I don't know how you separate normal human wish fulfillment and the bias of ownership out of claims like that. But a simple mechanical test for volume increase over time could be done, and nobody ever does it. I'm not going to do it, because I'm not the one making the claims.

The one thing I think everyone here can agree on, was said earlier in the thread: Never buy an instrument with a mediocre tone, with the expectation that you'll like the tone much better after a few years of being played-in. Find an instrument that sounds good now, and anything that happens down the road is gravy.

[bratsche]

It depends on what you want to test for. Of the various descriptions people use for improvement after opening up or being played-in, some are subjective and difficult to test. Words like "warmth," "sweetness," "clarity" can be loosely correlated to different parts of the frequency range, but you'd need a bunch of people doing double blind listening tests to figure out if everyone means the same thing by "warmth."

However, there is one thing that can be tested scientifically and fairly easily, and that's increase in volume. It's the one consistent claim made by people when they talk about instruments opening up.

As for me, I never even thought about volume. I know that's a big deal to a lot of people (who jam with others and/or play in acoustic bands) but I only play by myself. I was thinking of the "pleasantness", or lack thereof, in the actual tone quality. A new or never-played instrument can sound tight and constricted in quality (I know those are subjective terms, too) but still have the same volume (or not noticeably different) than it has after the sound is has opened and is no longer tight and constricted and "new-sounding"

I guess you really do have to be there throughout the process to notice it. While I agree in principle about not buying a "mediocre" toned instrument expecting you will like it better in time, I wouldn't really advise one to let such attributes of "newness" dissuade one from an instrument, either, as those do go away with the playing. It's sort of like getting a new pair of leather shoes. They won't feel so great right away while you're walking in them, and they have to break in and mold themselves to your particular feet before they feel really nice. But you should be able to tell by how they feel when you try them on, standing still and wiggling your toes around, whether they'll be a good fit for you, or not.

bratsche

[Tobin]

My personal belief is that some small changes occur over time due to the structural/chemical changes in wood as it ages over a period of years (and for a brief time, more quickly after it's first built into an instrument). I'm much more skeptical about improvement due to vibration or player involvement.

I'd like to think so too, but I've heard plenty of stories of people purchasing old instruments (like the proverbial Loar that's been under someone's bed for the last 50 years) and still hearing it "open up" as they play it. So to me, that suggests there's more to it than simply age. Age will indeed change the tone, but it's not the entire equation.

I personally think that part of the physical "opening up" is just a long-term continuation of the mandolin getting "broken in". There's an initial phase where the vibration of playing will change the tone of a new mandolin, but it doesn't end after the first few weeks. The majority of breaking in happens then, but will continue for a long time as the parts (even down to the molecular level) seat themselves. And it's a function not only of vibration, but string tension on the instrument. The bridge, for example, will most definitely change shape under constant compression, and more firmly seat itself onto the sound board. Likewise, the sound board itself will change shape under constant pressure from the bridge (which is evidenced by the bulging you see on older instruments). The phenomenon of "opening up" is certainly related to these slow-motion changes in physical shape of the instrument, which are perhaps hastened by aggressive playing.

But yeah, I've never heard anyone say their instrument sounded worse the more they played it. So I think we can all agree that no matter what the cause, and no matter whether you believe in "opening up" or not, the best thing to do is PLAY THE FIRE OUT OF YOUR MANDOLIN!

[JeffD]

Point is, if a scientific study is even required, the effect must be pretty small. I'm interested in changes in my instrument that I can hear with my own actual ears - anything else will not benefit me at all.

Your not hearing confirms only that you haven't heard it, yet, or that the mandolins you have experience with haven't gone through the particular transition.

I don't mean you David, of course.

I mean that so many otherwise sane and sober people do claim to have heard it and experienced it that any particular individual's claims, for or against, have less to do with it. There is so much strong circumstantial evidence that the claim that nothing is going on besides a change in perception needs to be at least investigated.

Whether the research results will benefit you, or me, or anyone at all, well that's a second question. Certainly if one believes nothing is going on, then one believes there is no benefit in studying what that nothing is that is, or umm.. isn't going on.

This is harder to say than playing Devils Dream in E.

[OldSausage]

Your not hearing confirms only that you haven't heard it, yet, or that the mandolins you have experience with haven't gone through the particular transition.

I don't mean you David, of course.

I mean that so many otherwise sane and sober people do claim to have heard it and experienced it that any particular individual's claims, for or against, have less to do with it. There is so much strong circumstantial evidence that the claim that nothing is going on besides a change in perception needs to be at least investigated.

Whether the research results will benefit you, or me, or anyone at all, well that's a second question. Certainly if one believes nothing is going on, then one believes there is no benefit in studying what that nothing is that is, or umm.. isn't going on.

This is harder to say than playing Devils Dream in E.

No, my point is really that, while small changes may occur on some instruments, if it was a useful, repeatable, or interesting change, it would be extremely easy to experience and to demonstrate without needing an experimental rig and double blinds. The fact that it isn't tells me that, while it's entirely plausible that something is going on there, that something ain't much.

[wsugai]

Does a carbon fibre mando also "open up" ?

[greg_tsam]

Does a carbon fibre mando also "open up" ?

I believe it does..When you hit it with a 9# Hammer!

[stevedenver]

Do you know how ironic it is reading this thread, versus the blue chip thread?

[bratsche]

Do Blue Chip picks open up and break in?

I know carbon fiber cases open up, and close again, and open up again ... unless you've accidentally locked them, that is.

bratsche

[Russ Donahue]

Leave it under a steel pyramid for 3 days, and I guarantee it will sound better. If anyone's interested, I have a few steel pyramids left over from my old razor-blade sharpening days, only $39.99.




[Note: Joke. I do not really have these items available, and am not really asking for money].

Dang!

[OldSausage]

Do Blue Chip picks open up and break in?

I know carbon fiber cases open up, and close again, and open up again ... unless you've accidentally locked them, that is.

bratsche

My TAD 60 sounds much better now than when I first got it. Obviously I've upgraded the mandolin a few times, which has helped, but probably vibrations that have been stored in the pick are now releasing themselves into any mandolin I play.

[Dale Ludewig]

I have a customer who picked up an OM guitar I'd just built for him a couple weeks ago. He'd had it a couple of days and he called me up to tell me how much better it sounded than just even a few minutes before! I was curious. He said he'd just noticed something white inside the body. He proceeded to pull about 10-12 paper towels out of the body, ones I'd forgotten to take out. I stuffed them in there to keep lacquer from blowing in there while spraying. Oops.... I've never done that before. And that is scientifically verifiable!

[Rodney Riley]

Do Blue Chip picks open up and break in?

Remember one member that broke his Blue Chip "in", (or was it "in half"???) trying to put holes in it with a hammer and nail!!! So I guess they can "open up"!

[Ron McMillan]

My number one instrument sounds SO much better than it did when I first bought it, new, about 18 months ago. But since it's a carbon fibre Mix A4, that might be all about a different element in the equation. Can I claim that all the improvements are in the player? Heck, I can claim anything I want, since it's entirely subjective.

[almeriastrings]

I think it's also telling that every claim for changes over time is always in the direction of improvement. It never gets worse, or sounds just different in a neutral way. Always "mo better."

One exception I can think of. Some claim that Western Red cedar-topped guitars (not carved top mandolins) get "tired" over time and lose sparkle, becoming more "wooly" or "played out". I stress this is (to use that lawyer's favorite phrase) an "allegation"! It is quite a common belief, however, in acoustic guitar circles.