I'm on the cusp of commissioning a new octave mandolin (a bouzouki tuned like a fiddle or tenor banjo), and I'm trying to make up my mind as to whether to order a carved top or a flat top. (I'll leave the makers' name out of the discussion, but he's a good one, although not one of the most well-known names.) A carved top is more expensive, but supposedly you get a more refined tone out of it, although at the expense of some reduction in volume. A flat top is standard in most stringed folk instruments, and a good one can have a nice tone and be loud too.
Does anyone have any experience with carved vs. flat top instruments and how they work in a session? Would the added expense and craftsmanship be somewhat lost in a group of pub musicians, or would the loss in volume (supposedly not that significant) be offset by a more tighter tone? A relative subject, granted, but there is no lack of opinions here!
If cost is not a major factor, I’d definitely opt for a carved top. Totally subjective here, but I find the tone of carved tops far more pleasing and the volume is not significantly less. Mind, I’m extrapolating from familiarity with mandolins but supported by more limited experience playing octave mandos and bouzoukis. I guess it depends on how much you play in smaller, intimate groups as opposed to louder sessions.
From your bio I can tell you probably know all the above, but I just thought I’d add my 2 pennies.
And as long as I’m being subjective, I think carved tops make for a more elegant looking instrument. Either way, the prospect of a custom built instrument has got to be exciting! Good luck!
I have 3 zooks-two flattops and an archtop. My dreadnought flattop with a 4 and half inch soundbox booms- it can produce volume like you weouldn't believe, and is great for crashing power chords, etc. It is quite a bit more floppy and less responsive stringwise, making it slower to put out a melody line. Lately I've been playing my archtop almost exclusively, and I've received a lot of compliments on its sound. It's a little more delicate sounding, much faster and responsive on fingering (the arched fingerboard really helps!) and very clear. It tends to compliment a good guitarist, rather than compete. I went through the same decision making process you are going through, and am glad I have the archtop.
That's quite helpful--thank you both. The carved top is an extra cost, but it's not huge. I'm attracted by the refinement in sound and looks, but I'm concerned about volume. When I play my current octave mandolin, I'm usually either the sole accompanist or I'm leading the accompaniment. So I while I desire a tighter, more distinct tonality, I don't want to lose at least a minimum of volume. But sometimes too much of a good thing can be not so wonderful.
I have an expensive, handmade, small-bodied guitar that is balanced but somewhat loud for its size. It works well for everything from fingerpicking to small acoustic ensembles to sessions. It doesn't boom like a dreadnaught guitar, and that's good. Loud is not always better. I played a session at a well-known music camp a few years back where a guitar player was thrashing a dreadnaught guitar strung to mimic a bouzouki, and it buried everything around it. My Santa Cruz OM (Hazel Wrigley plays one) seems to perfectly accompany ITM players w/o burying them, but I can also drive the tune and the dynamics if so desired. And if I play a melody line, it's not only heard, but it's got a great tone. (It's taken me years to learn how to wring a good tone out of a great instrument, and I'm still learning.)
I have both a carved top OM and a flat topped Zouk, the difference being the scale length. My carved top is on a 22 1/2" scale (similar to a tenor banjo of 19 frets) while the flat top has a 23 1/2" scale. The flat top is louder and much better for chording behind a soloist while the carved top instrument is better at solo work. On the other hand, the carved top OM is no slouch as a backup instrument, esp if I combine counterpoint and chords which I tend to do. The flat topped instrument is a bear to play as a solo because of the stretch needed.
If I used heavier strings on the carved top it sounds a little better as a chorded instrument.
The bottom line is that scale length does matter, I can get a good loud sound from my carved top (and I use it more than the other) and it is more versatile depending on setup. My carved top OM also does not have a point at which it stops getting louder the harder you play it while the flat top one does (although it is very loud at that point.)
I prefer the shorter scale length for what I do and like the sound of the carved top.
You da man, Mike. My goal is to mix up chording, melodies, and the occasional counterpoint, and it sounds like your instrument allows that for you. I like the shorter scale length too of the OM. Many 'zouk instrumentalists seem to capo in order to play in certain keys, and I guess I'm just too lazy to futz with all that.
I listened last night to a TV rebroadcast of a concert given this past year by three well-known ITM musicians from Chicago, and I was struck by how loud the bouzouki player seemed to be relative to the other players. He was playing a flat top, and playing it hard. It seemed to drown out the other two.
I'm a little confused . . . when you talk about a carved top, are you talking about a top made from one piece of wood, which is curved and not flat? Are most flat top mandolins made from plywood and so have an inferior tone? Or are there flat tops available carved from one piece of wood ? A lot of question marks sorry.
Doesn't it depend more on the player's sensitivity to the music than the instrument itself.Of course it's important to select the best and most suitable sounding one possible but i suspect that a carved top aint gonna sound much better in the hands of an insensitive player
My preference would be for flat top. Why?
I had an old Gibson A1 mandolin (c1914) which had been repaired -due to the partial collapse of the top. It had a beautiful tone, but was poor on the volume front.
I've also owned an arch-top Bouzouki, and an arch-top Mandola, which had excellent volume, but both instruments had started to collapse. These were hand made instruments.
On doing some research, and speaking to various people, I discovered that the mechanical strength of a carved top is sometimes not suficiently robust to carry the pressure of 8 strings at tension over a protracted period of time (ie. many years).
I'm not a luthier or an "Expert", but I would suggest you mention this to your luthier and discuss the bracing arrangement etc. with him/her. I do know that the use of f-holes as opposed to round or oval holes is common in archtop instruments such as Guitars, mandolins etc.as it allows the top to be braced in a more robust way. I would hazzard a guess and say that carved-top instruments have originated, in design terms, in the instruments of the fiddle family, all of which have only 4 strings, and are played in a manner which does'nt have the extra pressure of a hand resting on the top while playing, or suffer the "trauma" of strumming.
BTW I now play Flat top mandolin and bouzouki (both Joe Foley instruments) and I think you would travel a long way to beat them either tonaly, or in terms of projection or volume. They are'nt actually completely flat like a guitar top, they are best described as slightly curved.
I know this does'nt clarify the issue for you, in fact it might do the opposite, but it might help in some way to tease out the various issues, or get some more input from members with technical knowledge. I know that one of the members here worked in an instrument factory, and if he's about he might be able to help.
Hmmm, there's always an exception, isn't there? I've heard that flat top mandos are actually more susceptible to deformation and collapse than archtop mandos because of the stresses inherent in the double courses of strings and their tunings. There are of course other variables, including construction quality and techniques, design, care and maintenance, age, and string gauges. I've seen bridges on top name brand steel string guitars deform and pull off from tension, necks deform, and tops split. However, the bridge on my Santa Cruz OM, which is now 13 years old and has been played on hundreds of gigs, sessions, and rehearsals, as well as traveled across the U.S. and to Ireland and back, is absolutely flat, and it plays wonderfully still.
I think that it is tricky to mix up correlation, especially based on a relatively small sample, with causation. But the advice to ask about bracing is certainly good, as well as checking on string gauges. For instance, I like small-bodied Taylor guitars, but they're built for light gauge strings only, which rules out their use by me.
The top of a quality, handmade, flat-top mandolin is made of two pieces of bookmatched, select, solid wood, usually some species of spruce or cedar. The sides are usually mahogany or maple. Zouks and OMs are similar, but they can have sides made of mahogany, maple, rosewood, or other similar wood. These mandolins can sound really good and loud. They are considered "folk" mandolins probably mostly because they're cheaper than a quality carved-top mando.
Quality, handmade, carved instruments are made of the same materials, but the tops and bottoms are either steam-bent and shaped, or carved out of solid wood. You can also obtain carved tops and flat bottoms. There are machine-pressed instruments, flat and "carved," but they will collapse eventually. A quality instrument will not only sound better, but will hold up to the rigors of reasonable playing longer.
There are a variety of opinions as to the tonal characteristics of round holes vs. f-holes on mandolins. There may some qualititative or quantitative differences, but they are beyond my knowledge. There's also some degree of myth as well. I have a friend who owns a $30,000 Lloyd Loar F-5 made in 1924. It's a beautiful instrument, but I'd be a bit hard-pressed to say that it sounds $27,000 better than my Flatiron A-5 Artist mandolin, which is virtually identical in construction and finish (except for the points and the scroll).
The octave I'm negotiating would be built with a relatively slightly-curved top, rather than the elaborately curved top of my Flatiron. It would also have a relatively flat bottom as well, which is supposed to contribute to its volume. It would be made of select solid woods by an experienced luthier, and he/she will even dry the woods out to match my climate. I trust that it will last a long time, and that I'll hand it down to my daughter one day.
StevieG-I might add to my earlier response, that my flattops and archtop play way different. I am still in a process of relearning different right hand technique for the archtop, it was frustrating at first. It's hard to describe, sort of like the instrument is so fast that the right hand trips over itself relearning the instrument. I guess an analogy would be my flattop is like an old chevy malibu with big tires and a 327-bags of horsepower, but lots of inertia in the curves. The archtop is more like a responsive sports car, say a triumph or mg, you don't have to wrestle the car while it's trying to go sideways in the turn, it's more deft, but it won't outmuscle the chevy malibu. Talk to your luthier about arched fingerboards-I think it is important. Be patient with yourself if at first it feels almost too quick. A good instrument will tell you how it wants to be played.
The luthier I'm talking to does offer a radiused fingerboard as a standard feature, so I think I'm covered there. However, my Cruz and my banjo (a custom Deering Sierra) both have flat fingerboards. (I honestly don't remember if my Flatiron mando has a flat or radiused fingerboard.) But anything that makes the instrument more playable, or easy to play, is good. And I"m definitely a sports car guy, preferably Italian, although the people who designed the Miata definitely got it right.
The Wal-Mart mandolin--you don't really want to support this enterprise, do you?--is probably Chinese-made pressed wood. However, a friend of mine who deals in new and used instruments said the other evening that Chinese-made instruments are coming on strong, and that they may eventually meet the quality of the best manufactured instruments.
Nevertheless, even though many good musicians play manufactured instruments, I think that serious musicians should seek out, obtain, and play handmade instruments when possible. They're not necessarily cheap, but we live in a Golden Age of handmade instruments, including guitars, mandolins, concertinas, pipes, flutes, fiddles, bows, and others. A hundred years from now, you will still be able to obtain such instruments, but their price will be exorbitant, and the woods will be much more expensive and rare than available now.
According to my dad, flat tops are louder (speaking from experience, he has owned both) and carved tops do deform with age because he says his did so unrepairably. He now has a flat top. Also what instruments are in your session? In my experience you need something loud for sessions.
A quality made archtop will not deform - it is carved out out a bookmatched set of spruce plates and the back carved from another material, usually maple - because the carving is strong enough to handle any reasonable string tension. Bracing then adds strength (which it usually does not need) but more importantly tone and sound. Oval hole and F hole add to the sound/tone mix with an oval hole being a little sweeter usually.
The older Gibson A mandolins do collapse on occasion, but this is usually a result of neglect and abuse. Some of those older instruments had tops that were too thin and then the braces (usually transverse) dehiss and the top collapses. But if you look at the F models (BTW, a 1924 Loar is worth $130,000, not $30,000 unless he wants to sell it for that and then it is worth it to me) they are not only very loud, but their tops are almost bullet proof. In fact Bill Monroe's Loars (two of them) were vandalized until they were pieces and then restored to 90% by a brilliant luthier named Charlie Derrington. But the tops never collapsed.
My OM (by Dave Dart, by the way http://www.luthier.com) can be very loud esp if I take the TI strings off and put on a set of phosphor bronze .048-.013.
Not everybody prefers a radiused fingerboard. You should find some and try them before you order one. Also you have to decide on how much radius you want and if you want a compound radius. Compound radius being full radius at the nut and tapering to flat or allmost flat at the bridge.
In 2002, a signed and dated 1924 LL sold at the Skinner auction house for $65K U.S. Steve Swan Guitars has one that has quite a history for $115K U.S. I think the appraised value I originally quoted was from a number of years ago, and needs to be adjusted upwards.
A quality carved top mando is plenty loud enough for sessions. If the session is so crowded and loud that I can't hear myself, then I won't play. Loudness is important, but so is tone.
A flat top can be louder than a carved top, but the tradeoff is that a flat top often won't have the sweetness and tightness of tone a carved top can inherently have. It really depends on what your intended use is.
Either top can deform over time if the construction and/or maintenance is inadequate. In fact, any instrument can.
I think any mandolin enthusiast will appreciate both types of instrument (so long as they are properly built and not made of laminates). As well as a flat-top I have a beautifully-made Suzuki oval-holed archtop which probably is 25 years old or so (I expect it's a Gibson copy), and it is a lovely sweet-toned instrument, a dream to play - spruce top etc. It has a truss rod which is still adjustable if necessary, and a compensated height-adjustable bridge. Flat top instruments tend not to have adjustable bridges, though they are just a little louder - maybe it's because the strings are higher from the soundboard on an archtop? I prefer the higher strings, and I like an instrument where the fingerboard when you squint down it, slopes up towards the top of the bridge rather than down towards the soundboard. I like a compensated adjustable bridge because you can ping the harmonic at the 12th fret and adjust the bridge so that the fretted note at that point is perfectly accurate. Some flat tops have fixed bridges (ball end strings) and you can't adjust them - and there may well be slight movement over time. I tried some cheaper archtop-type mandos in a shop the other day - an Aria and some others (they all had f holes) and they were so dull-sounding it was dispiriting - absolutely no resonance. They would have been hopeless for Irish music - avoid like the plague. They had laminate soundboards of course.
Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I'm on the cusp of commissioning a new octave mandolin (a bouzouki tuned like a fiddle or tenor banjo), and I'm trying to make up my mind as to whether to order a carved top or a flat top. (I'll leave the makers' name out of the discussion, but he's a good one, although not one of the most well-known names.) A carved top is more expensive, but supposedly you get a more refined tone out of it, although at the expense of some reduction in volume. A flat top is standard in most stringed folk instruments, and a good one can have a nice tone and be loud too.
Does anyone have any experience with carved vs. flat top instruments and how they work in a session? Would the added expense and craftsmanship be somewhat lost in a group of pub musicians, or would the loss in volume (supposedly not that significant) be offset by a more tighter tone? A relative subject, granted, but there is no lack of opinions here!
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by Audeamus
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
If cost is not a major factor, I’d definitely opt for a carved top. Totally subjective here, but I find the tone of carved tops far more pleasing and the volume is not significantly less. Mind, I’m extrapolating from familiarity with mandolins but supported by more limited experience playing octave mandos and bouzoukis. I guess it depends on how much you play in smaller, intimate groups as opposed to louder sessions.
From your bio I can tell you probably know all the above, but I just thought I’d add my 2 pennies.
And as long as I’m being subjective, I think carved tops make for a more elegant looking instrument. Either way, the prospect of a custom built instrument has got to be exciting! Good luck!
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by fidkid
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I have 3 zooks-two flattops and an archtop. My dreadnought flattop with a 4 and half inch soundbox booms- it can produce volume like you weouldn't believe, and is great for crashing power chords, etc. It is quite a bit more floppy and less responsive stringwise, making it slower to put out a melody line. Lately I've been playing my archtop almost exclusively, and I've received a lot of compliments on its sound. It's a little more delicate sounding, much faster and responsive on fingering (the arched fingerboard really helps!) and very clear. It tends to compliment a good guitarist, rather than compete. I went through the same decision making process you are going through, and am glad I have the archtop.
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by rainog
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
That's quite helpful--thank you both. The carved top is an extra cost, but it's not huge. I'm attracted by the refinement in sound and looks, but I'm concerned about volume. When I play my current octave mandolin, I'm usually either the sole accompanist or I'm leading the accompaniment. So I while I desire a tighter, more distinct tonality, I don't want to lose at least a minimum of volume. But sometimes too much of a good thing can be not so wonderful.
I have an expensive, handmade, small-bodied guitar that is balanced but somewhat loud for its size. It works well for everything from fingerpicking to small acoustic ensembles to sessions. It doesn't boom like a dreadnaught guitar, and that's good. Loud is not always better. I played a session at a well-known music camp a few years back where a guitar player was thrashing a dreadnaught guitar strung to mimic a bouzouki, and it buried everything around it. My Santa Cruz OM (Hazel Wrigley plays one) seems to perfectly accompany ITM players w/o burying them, but I can also drive the tune and the dynamics if so desired. And if I play a melody line, it's not only heard, but it's got a great tone. (It's taken me years to learn how to wring a good tone out of a great instrument, and I'm still learning.)
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by Audeamus
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I have both a carved top OM and a flat topped Zouk, the difference being the scale length. My carved top is on a 22 1/2" scale (similar to a tenor banjo of 19 frets) while the flat top has a 23 1/2" scale. The flat top is louder and much better for chording behind a soloist while the carved top instrument is better at solo work. On the other hand, the carved top OM is no slouch as a backup instrument, esp if I combine counterpoint and chords which I tend to do. The flat topped instrument is a bear to play as a solo because of the stretch needed.
If I used heavier strings on the carved top it sounds a little better as a chorded instrument.
The bottom line is that scale length does matter, I can get a good loud sound from my carved top (and I use it more than the other) and it is more versatile depending on setup. My carved top OM also does not have a point at which it stops getting louder the harder you play it while the flat top one does (although it is very loud at that point.)
I prefer the shorter scale length for what I do and like the sound of the carved top.
MIke Keyes
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by mikeyes
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
You da man, Mike. My goal is to mix up chording, melodies, and the occasional counterpoint, and it sounds like your instrument allows that for you. I like the shorter scale length too of the OM. Many 'zouk instrumentalists seem to capo in order to play in certain keys, and I guess I'm just too lazy to futz with all that.
I listened last night to a TV rebroadcast of a concert given this past year by three well-known ITM musicians from Chicago, and I was struck by how loud the bouzouki player seemed to be relative to the other players. He was playing a flat top, and playing it hard. It seemed to drown out the other two.
I think I"ll order the carved top!
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by Audeamus
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I'm a little confused . . . when you talk about a carved top, are you talking about a top made from one piece of wood, which is curved and not flat? Are most flat top mandolins made from plywood and so have an inferior tone? Or are there flat tops available carved from one piece of wood ? A lot of question marks sorry.
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by Justintime
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
Doesn't it depend more on the player's sensitivity to the music than the instrument itself.Of course it's important to select the best and most suitable sounding one possible but i suspect that a carved top aint gonna sound much better in the hands of an insensitive player
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by cunnla
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
You may want to go to the mandolincafe.com website in the "Links" section look under John McGann and his discussion of OM's, scale length, etc.
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by griffith
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
My preference would be for flat top. Why?
I had an old Gibson A1 mandolin (c1914) which had been repaired -due to the partial collapse of the top. It had a beautiful tone, but was poor on the volume front.
I've also owned an arch-top Bouzouki, and an arch-top Mandola, which had excellent volume, but both instruments had started to collapse. These were hand made instruments.
On doing some research, and speaking to various people, I discovered that the mechanical strength of a carved top is sometimes not suficiently robust to carry the pressure of 8 strings at tension over a protracted period of time (ie. many years).
I'm not a luthier or an "Expert", but I would suggest you mention this to your luthier and discuss the bracing arrangement etc. with him/her. I do know that the use of f-holes as opposed to round or oval holes is common in archtop instruments such as Guitars, mandolins etc.as it allows the top to be braced in a more robust way. I would hazzard a guess and say that carved-top instruments have originated, in design terms, in the instruments of the fiddle family, all of which have only 4 strings, and are played in a manner which does'nt have the extra pressure of a hand resting on the top while playing, or suffer the "trauma" of strumming.
BTW I now play Flat top mandolin and bouzouki (both Joe Foley instruments) and I think you would travel a long way to beat them either tonaly, or in terms of projection or volume. They are'nt actually completely flat like a guitar top, they are best described as slightly curved.
I know this does'nt clarify the issue for you, in fact it might do the opposite, but it might help in some way to tease out the various issues, or get some more input from members with technical knowledge. I know that one of the members here worked in an instrument factory, and if he's about he might be able to help.
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by Backer
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
Hmmm, there's always an exception, isn't there? I've heard that flat top mandos are actually more susceptible to deformation and collapse than archtop mandos because of the stresses inherent in the double courses of strings and their tunings. There are of course other variables, including construction quality and techniques, design, care and maintenance, age, and string gauges. I've seen bridges on top name brand steel string guitars deform and pull off from tension, necks deform, and tops split. However, the bridge on my Santa Cruz OM, which is now 13 years old and has been played on hundreds of gigs, sessions, and rehearsals, as well as traveled across the U.S. and to Ireland and back, is absolutely flat, and it plays wonderfully still.
I think that it is tricky to mix up correlation, especially based on a relatively small sample, with causation. But the advice to ask about bracing is certainly good, as well as checking on string gauges. For instance, I like small-bodied Taylor guitars, but they're built for light gauge strings only, which rules out their use by me.
The top of a quality, handmade, flat-top mandolin is made of two pieces of bookmatched, select, solid wood, usually some species of spruce or cedar. The sides are usually mahogany or maple. Zouks and OMs are similar, but they can have sides made of mahogany, maple, rosewood, or other similar wood. These mandolins can sound really good and loud. They are considered "folk" mandolins probably mostly because they're cheaper than a quality carved-top mando.
Quality, handmade, carved instruments are made of the same materials, but the tops and bottoms are either steam-bent and shaped, or carved out of solid wood. You can also obtain carved tops and flat bottoms. There are machine-pressed instruments, flat and "carved," but they will collapse eventually. A quality instrument will not only sound better, but will hold up to the rigors of reasonable playing longer.
There are a variety of opinions as to the tonal characteristics of round holes vs. f-holes on mandolins. There may some qualititative or quantitative differences, but they are beyond my knowledge. There's also some degree of myth as well. I have a friend who owns a $30,000 Lloyd Loar F-5 made in 1924. It's a beautiful instrument, but I'd be a bit hard-pressed to say that it sounds $27,000 better than my Flatiron A-5 Artist mandolin, which is virtually identical in construction and finish (except for the points and the scroll).
The octave I'm negotiating would be built with a relatively slightly-curved top, rather than the elaborately curved top of my Flatiron. It would also have a relatively flat bottom as well, which is supposed to contribute to its volume. It would be made of select solid woods by an experienced luthier, and he/she will even dry the woods out to match my climate. I trust that it will last a long time, and that I'll hand it down to my daughter one day.
# Posted on December 14th 2004 by Audeamus
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
StevieG-I might add to my earlier response, that my flattops and archtop play way different. I am still in a process of relearning different right hand technique for the archtop, it was frustrating at first. It's hard to describe, sort of like the instrument is so fast that the right hand trips over itself relearning the instrument. I guess an analogy would be my flattop is like an old chevy malibu with big tires and a 327-bags of horsepower, but lots of inertia in the curves. The archtop is more like a responsive sports car, say a triumph or mg, you don't have to wrestle the car while it's trying to go sideways in the turn, it's more deft, but it won't outmuscle the chevy malibu. Talk to your luthier about arched fingerboards-I think it is important. Be patient with yourself if at first it feels almost too quick. A good instrument will tell you how it wants to be played.
# Posted on December 15th 2004 by rainog
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I saw a mandolin today at Wal-Mart. No kidding. I couldn't find the price, though.
# Posted on December 15th 2004 by MC2
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
Rainog,
The luthier I'm talking to does offer a radiused fingerboard as a standard feature, so I think I'm covered there. However, my Cruz and my banjo (a custom Deering Sierra) both have flat fingerboards. (I honestly don't remember if my Flatiron mando has a flat or radiused fingerboard.) But anything that makes the instrument more playable, or easy to play, is good. And I"m definitely a sports car guy, preferably Italian, although the people who designed the Miata definitely got it right.
The Wal-Mart mandolin--you don't really want to support this enterprise, do you?--is probably Chinese-made pressed wood. However, a friend of mine who deals in new and used instruments said the other evening that Chinese-made instruments are coming on strong, and that they may eventually meet the quality of the best manufactured instruments.
Nevertheless, even though many good musicians play manufactured instruments, I think that serious musicians should seek out, obtain, and play handmade instruments when possible. They're not necessarily cheap, but we live in a Golden Age of handmade instruments, including guitars, mandolins, concertinas, pipes, flutes, fiddles, bows, and others. A hundred years from now, you will still be able to obtain such instruments, but their price will be exorbitant, and the woods will be much more expensive and rare than available now.
# Posted on December 15th 2004 by Audeamus
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
According to my dad, flat tops are louder (speaking from experience, he has owned both) and carved tops do deform with age because he says his did so unrepairably. He now has a flat top. Also what instruments are in your session? In my experience you need something loud for sessions.
# Posted on December 15th 2004 by snowyowl
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
A quality made archtop will not deform - it is carved out out a bookmatched set of spruce plates and the back carved from another material, usually maple - because the carving is strong enough to handle any reasonable string tension. Bracing then adds strength (which it usually does not need) but more importantly tone and sound. Oval hole and F hole add to the sound/tone mix with an oval hole being a little sweeter usually.
The older Gibson A mandolins do collapse on occasion, but this is usually a result of neglect and abuse. Some of those older instruments had tops that were too thin and then the braces (usually transverse) dehiss and the top collapses. But if you look at the F models (BTW, a 1924 Loar is worth $130,000, not $30,000 unless he wants to sell it for that and then it is worth it to me) they are not only very loud, but their tops are almost bullet proof. In fact Bill Monroe's Loars (two of them) were vandalized until they were pieces and then restored to 90% by a brilliant luthier named Charlie Derrington. But the tops never collapsed.
My OM (by Dave Dart, by the way http://www.luthier.com) can be very loud esp if I take the TI strings off and put on a set of phosphor bronze .048-.013.
Mike Keyes
# Posted on December 15th 2004 by mikeyes
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
Not everybody prefers a radiused fingerboard. You should find some and try them before you order one. Also you have to decide on how much radius you want and if you want a compound radius. Compound radius being full radius at the nut and tapering to flat or allmost flat at the bridge.
# Posted on December 16th 2004 by Don
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
In 2002, a signed and dated 1924 LL sold at the Skinner auction house for $65K U.S. Steve Swan Guitars has one that has quite a history for $115K U.S. I think the appraised value I originally quoted was from a number of years ago, and needs to be adjusted upwards.
A quality carved top mando is plenty loud enough for sessions. If the session is so crowded and loud that I can't hear myself, then I won't play. Loudness is important, but so is tone.
A flat top can be louder than a carved top, but the tradeoff is that a flat top often won't have the sweetness and tightness of tone a carved top can inherently have. It really depends on what your intended use is.
Either top can deform over time if the construction and/or maintenance is inadequate. In fact, any instrument can.
# Posted on December 16th 2004 by Audeamus
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I think you just answered your own question :-0
# Posted on December 16th 2004 by Backer
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
I think any mandolin enthusiast will appreciate both types of instrument (so long as they are properly built and not made of laminates). As well as a flat-top I have a beautifully-made Suzuki oval-holed archtop which probably is 25 years old or so (I expect it's a Gibson copy), and it is a lovely sweet-toned instrument, a dream to play - spruce top etc. It has a truss rod which is still adjustable if necessary, and a compensated height-adjustable bridge. Flat top instruments tend not to have adjustable bridges, though they are just a little louder - maybe it's because the strings are higher from the soundboard on an archtop? I prefer the higher strings, and I like an instrument where the fingerboard when you squint down it, slopes up towards the top of the bridge rather than down towards the soundboard. I like a compensated adjustable bridge because you can ping the harmonic at the 12th fret and adjust the bridge so that the fretted note at that point is perfectly accurate. Some flat tops have fixed bridges (ball end strings) and you can't adjust them - and there may well be slight movement over time. I tried some cheaper archtop-type mandos in a shop the other day - an Aria and some others (they all had f holes) and they were so dull-sounding it was dispiriting - absolutely no resonance. They would have been hopeless for Irish music - avoid like the plague. They had laminate soundboards of course.
# Posted on December 16th 2004 by RichardB
Re: Carved vs. Flat Top Mandolins
Yeah, I answered it using the brain trust of the Session! Thanks to all.
# Posted on December 16th 2004 by Audeamus