Mike's Oud Forums

is this ridiculous?

Edward Powell - 6-28-2010 at 01:06 PM

side port???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy99XTIqHjo&NR=1

Aymara - 6-28-2010 at 11:32 PM

Hi Edward,

I already was thinking about a similar unusual design ... if it might be an advantage for ouds ... I got inspired and I bet this Turkish luthier too by some acoustic guitars and basses like the Warwick Alien or the Boulder Creek models.

I did some research about such designs, where the soundhole is moved away from the center of the soundboard. These builders and some players too say, that this improves the sound in a positive way, because the soundboards most important resonance area is located directly below the strings. They also seem to use bracings, that are more parallel to the strings (Boulder Creek being very extrem by using aluminium), so this turkish oud bracing being designed like a tree seems to be suboptimal.

I don't know, I'm no luthier, so I only can tell, what I read about it.

Edward Powell - 6-28-2010 at 11:59 PM

I am very hesitant to believe all of the new ideas. I especially don't agree with the idea about the soundboard "the thinning and more flexible the better" - this seems to be promoting a myth (to promote sales). I have made instruments that had tops and bracing sooooo thin that there was TONS of resonance (and still the top never collapsed), but found that the tone was not good. Very hollow and no highs and no projection. When I beefed up the bracing inside, the tone improved majorly! So I don't believe in this goal of trying to make the top as thin and flexible as possible - I think it is more important to get the correct resonances (top, back, air) and coordinated... and I think that soundhole placement can be extremely important in this.

So much in luthiery seems counter-logical. Like adding heavy braces can improve the bass!.......and although logically one would assume that the traditional soundhole placement steals prime soundboard real estate, I personally suspect there may be something else going on here, and some other reason for it being there....

Aymara - 6-29-2010 at 12:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell  
I think it is more important to get the correct resonances (top, back, air) and coordinated...


I think, the whole concept must "fit", soundboard and body design, incl. soundhole placement and bracing.

I think, a scientific approach might lead to further insight. Do you remember Faruk Türünz frequency responce diagrams of the soundboard? Such analysis for the bowl and different bracing and soundhole placements might be interesting.

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 02:08 AM

Faruk takes the oud body, neck, bridge, and even pick guard etc, all as standard "fixed" features not to be changed (simply made as perfectly as possible, which he does)- then, assuming that all these things would not change he did all his experimenting around that.

I asked him once, when he was explaining that he sometimes has to sand micro amounts off the spruce here and there, to reach the tone he wants - I asked him "what about the pick guard" (meaning why worry about micro sanding when the pickguard is pretty bulky?) He said he took all the standard features and fixed and unchangable, and he then worked around everything else --- my assumption is that he respects the traditional lay-out and look of a traditional oud, and does not want to mess with this.

So I would be really curious to see what Faruk would discover if he would expand his genius into figuring out what is really happening with the air resonance in relation to the back. But I think that over the centuries the ouds back and shape have evolved into a kind of ultimate that Faruk respects as not needing to be improved upon.

Just some of my guess work here.

Aymara - 6-29-2010 at 02:16 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell  
my assumption is that he respects the traditional lay-out and look of a traditional oud, and does not want to mess with this.


Yes, shure ... no problem, but it might be interesting to research, how a scientifically ideal oud should look like.

Do you remember the "golden means project", where Fadi Matta was asked to build an oud that had the shape of a water drop?

Benjamin - 6-29-2010 at 03:55 AM

The problem may be that the sound is not projected toward the front and the public, but to the player. On the other hand it could maybe solve many feedback problems as the hole is directed up so that the bass of the speakers will not penetrate easily into the oud..

oudtab - 6-29-2010 at 10:01 AM

Bonjour Edward,

I don't think that all these guys are ridiculous, they are all great luthiers. These luthiers have tried to improve the sound, the comfort...etc of the instrument. And to improve you have to experiment :

- Jimmy d'Aquisto (oval sound hole instead of f-holes) : http://www.luthierscollection.com/montequisto.html

- Ken Parker : http://www.kenparkerarchtops.com/photos.html
A great french jazzman experiment this new design in front of the luthier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6btJJEU8Is

- Thomas Humphrey (classical guitar with a particular fingerboard) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5U6RRF8IE

And this guy has made an interesting instrument : http://www.edwardpowell.com/rmtar.html

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 10:27 AM

Thanks for all of this great feedback - and every piece of info and opinion is really valuable... you never know what piece of knowledge might come in handy, and at least for sure add to the general knowledge which ultimately forms one's intuition.

On the other hand, I have been intellictualizing so much about this in the past while that I have to ask myself, on a gut level, what is really going on here.

The main answer I get is that on the instruments that I feel as being "good" compared to the "bad" ones, the one main difference is that on the "good" ones... there is a LOT more "movement" happening in the instrument. Put another way, there is a LOT more resonance.

So I am building a new ragmakamtar, and this time I will make it with a light and resonant back as opposed to the heavy non-resonant papier-mache back. I am sure that this will add tons of resonance - but I am also sure that once that is done, then will come the challenge of fine tuning that resonance somehow in order to direct the resonance to give the desired sound.

- - -

I think/know that there is no such thing as the ideal oud. Simply because I have at least two ouds which would both give completely different frequency reading, and in fact sound totally different. But each is great for totally different types of playing. BUT all ouds need to have certain things working properly, and perhaps there might be some way to graph this?

- - -

I often play gigs totally acoustically, so I wonder if I need a soundhole in the front - BUT I am told again and again that the SOUND DOES NOT COME OUT OF THE SOUNDHOLE!

- - -

I find all these new luthiers and new ideas extremely inspiring!!! ...and when we can weed out what are gimmicks and what are true advances then we really have something. BUT I feel that every single experiment has tremendous value. Yes, "to improve you have to experiment!" [unfortunately this take sooooo much time!]



esteso - 6-29-2010 at 11:07 AM

The side port is simply so that a truer sound is heard by the player, closer to how the oud sounds while in front of it. (i.e. the audience) Been used successfully on high end boutique guitars for quite a few years now. Many players swear by them. Why not?

Cheers

PS, sound clearly does come from the soundhole, which is why most engineers, including me, will not put a mic in front of the soundhole as it is too boomy for most uses.

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 11:12 AM

Quote: Originally posted by esteso  
The side port is simply so that a truer sound is heard by the player, closer to how the oud sounds while in front of it. (i.e. the audience) Been used successfully on high end boutique guitars for quite a few years now. Many players swear by them. Why not?

Cheers

PS, sound clearly does come from the soundhole, which is why most engineers, including me, will not put a mic in front of the soundhole as it is too boomy for most uses.



Yes, I think everyone agrees that at least a small sound port is an excellent idea - but my question is it a good idea to have an enormous soundport and completely do away with the soundboard soundhole. . . . .?

fernandraynaud - 6-29-2010 at 11:46 AM

In these experiments there is often lack of specifics, lack of measurements, too many guesses, too many fairy tales, too many marketing driven mystery circus tricks. People like the idea of secrets, the more ancient the better, but that's no help in understanding what does what.

One tool that's a must is a spectrum analyzer, but that fails to show how the sound changes over time. It's definitely worth learning to use something like this, even the free edition is powerful. You can e.g. see how a tap resonates and evolves.

http://www.sygyt.com/en/overtone-analyzer

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 11:53 AM

I agree!
...however I find my own sense of hearing is pretty good. I can, with my ears, pretty much tell you what you are going to find --- in a general way of course. For me, the analyzer would come in handy I think once I would get myself more in the "ball park", and onto very very fine tuning . . . hey, hopefully I will be there with this new instrument I am now making. I intend to try to match the back and the soundboard's frequencies (to be probably one fifth apart) before even gluing the necks... probably I should try out this analyzer for this task! Thanks for the reminder.

fernandraynaud - 6-29-2010 at 12:00 PM

It's rewarding and helpful to confirm some of the things we hear and question others. For instance one of the things I hear in the evolution of the classical Arabic oud timbre is an echo some 50mS into the note. What the analyzer showed me is that this echo is indeed there, but on the octave harmonic and not the fundamental!

Aymara - 6-29-2010 at 12:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell  
... is it a good idea to have an enormous soundport and completely do away with the soundboard soundhole. . . . .?


That design might be a bit problematic for recordings. I read that you could place the mic above the player's shoulder, but I fear that in this case you might record his/her breathing too.

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 12:05 PM

this is interesting, because on my arabic oud, I get also an octave echo, but it is AN OCTAVE BELOW the fundamental!! It is totally weird!

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 12:09 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara  


That design might be a bit problematic for recordings. .


maybe it would work BETTER for recordings. I always avoid soundholes when recording.

Aymara - 6-29-2010 at 12:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell  
I always avoid soundholes when recording.


Me too ... I got best results, when the mic is positioned about 20-30cm in front of the neck body junction.

But even in my case I have to be careful not to record my breathing too, because I use a large condenser. If the soundhole is directed to the players head, different mic positions might be needed, which might become even more tricky regarding unwanted "noise".

Edward Powell - 6-29-2010 at 12:39 PM

"distance = depth"... I find even more than 30cm even better. One meter is very nice!

esteso - 6-29-2010 at 01:47 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell  

Yes, I think everyone agrees that at least a small sound port is an excellent idea - but my question is it a good idea to have an enormous soundport and completely do away with the soundboard soundhole. . . . .?


Aah, I see. I read through your original post too quickly perhaps. At any rate I don't know the answer to that question although it seems a bit risky on the face of it. (pun intended)

Cheers

Abo Zaina - 8-8-2010 at 12:48 PM

Dear Edward

It is good to think out of the box trying to bring up an excellent instrument but we have to keep in mind not to affect the distinguish sound of oud.

i mean what we look for is a better or laoder voice with an impressive reverb and a good sound quality for both low and high tones

most succeful trials was to develop bracing, bowel size and shape, materials and measurments and u can notice the famous oud makers almost all tried to develope only those parameters.
bowel measurments and material will affect the revervb, sound board material, thickness and bracing is the key for good vibration and to obtain a balanced quality of low and high tones some made the thickness of the sound board not even , some changes the hight or length of bracing some don't make them straight but overall these were the areas of develpments not beacuse of tradition only but also beacuse other parameters will affect the taste of the instrument and u will end up with an instrument that is a mixture between oud and guitar or mandolin or bozoq
so what I think about the attached model this will reduce the ability of the bowel to reflex the sound back to the sound board with some delay and that will be of a less echo and reverb so it will be shaped like a classical oud but sounds like an electric oud

regards to all

Edward Powell - 8-9-2010 at 03:14 AM

Hi Abo,

It is nice to hear someone finally giving some support for the concept of a soundhole in the middle of the soundboard.... there must be some reason for it - but most people here and guitar builders on the luthiercom.org forum don't seem to think there is any reason for the big soundhole in the center.

However, I doubt that the oud in question will end up sounding like an electric oud ---