I have read on the forum that Ibrahim Sukar ouds are not the greatest but they play well and are consistent in their construction. Would anyone
recommend this oud to replace the one I have? I am entertaining an offer from one of the other members as well who has a repaired model 212 and a
brand new model 8 to choose from. This is most likely the direction I will go. however, I am just looking for a general opinion on this particular
oud.
I'm not so sure about Sukar's floating bridge models. The traditional fixed bridge models are generally worthwhile instruments. At present it is
very difficult to get anything out of Syria due to the political situation, so there may be even fewer Sukar ouds available than usual for a while.
There's a decent Moroccan oud for sale in my neighborhood, but it has some serious issues and needs quite a bit of work. fernandraynaud - 1-6-2012 at 06:51 AM
I have owned and own Sukars. This is a big topic, but the short version is they are good ouds. "Not the greatest"? Well, are you including $4500 ones?
A 211 normally is like a 212 but with wider ribs. But not floating bridge. So this is a rare bird. The floating bridge oud is probably not a good
first oud, it has pros and cons, some players love them, but it's a different sound, maybe a little too specialized for a first oud?
Palmyrami seems to have other Sukars in the Us, it looks like they have a 14, those have a big very Arabic very soulful sound, the bowl is generally
ebony. On ones that arent currently listed, forget ebay, just haggle with them directly. They can be a pain but if you have the balls, they come
through. You don't want to buy one that they "have" in Syria, certainly not these days, but for that reason too Sukars are going up in value. So that
floating bridge 211 could be a find. Besides this one looks very nice. Ebony fingerboard long style embedded, ebony pegs, nice woods. I would expect
this to sound quite bright, an oud Nesseer Shamna would like.
I just remembered, be sure to ask Luttgutt, he has at least a half dozen Sukars, and i'm pretty sure it includes floating bridge ones. With the Sukar
neck AND the floating bridge, you have s very adjustable instrument, completely different from a typical fixed bridge oud. NY Oud - 1-6-2012 at 02:08 PM
Thank you indeed for the reply. Much needed useful information. So if I call the US office they will tell me the models that are currently in stock in
the US?NY Oud - 1-6-2012 at 03:04 PM
How do you think the model 14 in oily walnut or black walnut would sound as opposed to the ebony model 14? Palmyrami has what appears to be to walnut
model 14's for 700 and then another one without written description for 714. I find that odd. Brian Prunka - 1-6-2012 at 03:11 PM
Walnut is a classic wood for oud bowls. Honestly, the bowl has a relatively modest influence on the sound. I would expect ebony to be a bit brighter
than walnut, all things being equal, but the difference would be minor. fernandraynaud - 1-7-2012 at 03:39 AM
How do you think the model 14 in oily walnut or black walnut would sound as opposed to the ebony model 14? Palmyrami has what appears to be to walnut
model 14's for 700 and then another one without written description for 714. I find that odd.
-- Odd?
1) Palmyrami don't know much about ouds, and that's being kind. They generally have no idea which one is worth more, only which one cost them more.
Their descriptions are boiler-plate comedy. I would look very carefully at the photos, as they are generally good about showing the exact ouds you are
considering.
2) Sukar does not provide info with the ouds as to what they are made of, just a model number which is a general reference. So, who knows what any one
oud is made of. The Middle Eastern tendency to confabulation is also very strong, and by the time it reaches the legendary merchants of the bazaar, it
is more common to learn e.g. that a given oud was made from the remains of Noah's ark than what exact type of wood was used.
3) The issue of what significantly influences the sound is very hard to test on real world ouds, as each one is very different in so many ways. Common
knowledge has it that the bowl wood has little impact, being largely a reflector. Interestingly, the Sukar instruments, coming from a single proven
design that is applied in series, provides a better opportunity to actually observe the effect of specific variations on the instruments, especially
within a general type, since they are built as similarly as practical from the same template, with as identical a soundboard as possible. So allow me
to digress from your most immediate question.
I have a Model 14 (i.e. a 214) and a Model 212 (i.e. a 12). In dimensions and bracing they are very similar if not identical, a 600 mm scale oud with
an embedded (i.e. not glued on) long ebony fingerboard, with the same unfinished spruce soundboard, pegs, bridge, neck, neck adjust mechanism, etc.
They were made around the same time. The finish is different, the 14 being stained black then Shellac'ed, whereas the 12 is just Shellac'ed ("French
Polished"). I treated both soundboards with raw egg white at the same time, the same way. The same strings were then installed, Daniel Mari basses
with PVF (Seaguar) trebles. The main difference is the bowl, with the 14's ribs being what appears to be ebony (more likely than the advertised "black
oily walnut", though nobody who's looked at it is 100% certain). The 212 uses ribs of a greyish medium dark walnut with very pretty light purfling.
The Model 1 that I no longer have was a little different, being 615mm scale with other woods and differences, but looking at THESE two (on the left)
they seem to be twins in different garb.
When you pick them up, the difference in weight is a surprise, with the black 14 being substantially heavier. I can't measure it, my good scale tops
out at 100 grams ;-) Then the next surprise, is how different they sound. The 212 is bright and sounds great uptuned. It can sound semi-Turkish when
the action is lowered. The upper midrange is very strong, it sparkles. The 212's maqam of choice would be Ajam, and it sounds great playing major
chords. The 14 has a stronger bass and a more Egyptian timbre, with a bit of that percussive "slapback". It invites raising the action and letting it
sound very deep and melancholy, very Saba. I tried adjusting the action to try making the two sound more alike, and couldn't. They are hardly twins,
and I love it like that. Each oud's personality affects what you play/improvise on it. Some moods are more suited to one or the other.
But returning to the belief that the bowl wood has little or no effect on the sound, I just can't see what else is so different about these two ouds;
they share the Sukar sound, but diverge quite a bit. I've scratched my head a lot over this. I just don't see another explanation. And intuitively it
makes sense. As soon as you pick up that 14 you sense it's a "deeper" or "heavier" oud than the 212.
I can't remember who, but one of our oudies here had gotten a 212 and I'd described the timbre he might optimize for. He had tried different strings
and tweaks, only to arrive at the same conclusion.
BTW, the Model 1 I had, although a hair different, having the same sized body but the scale being 15 mm longer, and very different woods, was
otherwise very similar to the other two, yet it was a different animal again, with a specific amazing strength in the midrange, practically capable of
knocking reptiles off the walls. Strongly playing that A Huseini above the second course gg Neva would practically shake the oud out of your hands.
Being to the point and quite loud it's eminently suited to a specific market.
Anyway, until further evidence, I have come to believe that the wood of the bowl surprisingly can have much more effect on the timbre than most oudies
will tell you.
Returning to the two 14s Palmyrami have, they are priced the same on the site and you can haggle anyway. Many dark 14s, not just mine, have a problem
with that dark finish on the bowl. You may not like that. It can scratch easily and is a byatch to touch up, but it's just shellac; I just let it be,
don't pick it, maybe put some more layers of French polish on it some day with that black shellac I've seen. Looks good enough to me. Their OS-13 uses
lighter wood, and the finish is probably more manageable. But although my 212 is incomparably prettier in a bougie sort of way, my wife and dog weep
when I play the 14, and they dance, a bit mindlessly, when I play the 212. Personally I like OS-11, because I would expect it to be more like mine,
and there's "something about it" in the photos. But that's just me. If the wood is really walnut vs. ebony, that light OS-13 Model 14 might be more
like a 211, although without that exquisite 211/212 two tone pegbox. Who knows.
And still, don't dismiss the floating bridge 211, it sure is purdy, look here (from the Tahrir square days), it's a floating bridge Sukar.
And listen to what Naseer Shamma does with floating bridge ouds! Soulful enough fer ya?
Maybe a 14 is too depresso-melancholy? And maybe it's ALL an illusion anyway.
fernandraynaud - 1-8-2012 at 02:27 AM
As I find it puzzling, I've made this point (again) as clearly as I can, partly for NY Oud's benefit, but not only.
Can anyone propose other factors at work in the timbre differences between these two Sukars rather than the bowl wood?
Because if my observation is accurate, then a lot of the oud wood choices that are made strictly on aesthetic grounds, maybe need to be revisited ...
Brian plausibly expects ebony to be more dense and hence reflect better, hence brighter. When I play these two instruments, I feel them vibrate as a
whole, with the bowl being more like a drum component than a reflector. What I'm perceiving is a quite fundamental interaction between the soundboard
and the bowl, more akin to "a string made of a more dense material will resonate at a lower frequency at a given tension", hence the dark heavier wood
bowl tends to make for a "bassier" instrument. Why would this be implausible?
I have a Shehata that is a stiffer built oud than either Sukar. The bowl is finished in poly, and seems a little more more rigid. The instrument has a
great sustain, and the action is low and excellent. It is (BTW) beautiful to behold and very well finished. But the bowl in this case does seem more
like a passive reflector, it doesn't "breathe" as much as you play, and the sound seems to originate from the top. Compared to either Sukar you could
say it sings from the throat, not the lungs. It doesn't have the definition or volume of a Sukar. In such a case I would believe the bowl wood
wouldn't affect the sound much.
SamirCanada - 1-8-2012 at 04:54 PM
As far as I know Sukar doesn't use ebony wood. It's walnut stained black. Brian Prunka - 1-8-2012 at 07:54 PM
The bowl is not a vibrating plate, as it would be in an acoustic guitar, mandolin, etc. It is primarily creating a boundary for a resonating
chamber. Consequently, it's main contribution is in its absorption or lack thereof.
The back of an acoustic guitar accounts for about 10-40% of the sound. I regard the contribution on an oud to 5-15% as a rough estimate. I'm
admittedly not a luthier or acoustical researcher, but I have played more ouds than I can count or recall, most in the over $2000 range.
While the bowl woods can have an impact, it's not one of "better" vs. "worse", just slight variations in character or personality. Using spruce vs.
cedar vs. pine, in contrast, provides predictable and dramatic differences in quality of sound (all other things being equal--a great maker can make
a better oud out of pine than a poor maker can make out of the best spruce).fernandraynaud - 1-9-2012 at 01:36 AM
As far as I know Sukar doesn't use ebony wood. It's walnut stained black.
I too thought it was dark walnut, but it's very heavy, and several knowledgeable people, including Hank Levin, have looked at it and thought it was
ebony. Luttgutt is one of the few who have even visited planet Sukar. In response to my question, someone in Damascus had allegedly called Aleppo and
they identified a specific oud I was asking about (not this one) as being "all ebony". Sukar is not exactly communicative, and the info on his web
site is close to meaningless.
The sound of these two instruments is different, more than one would expect, but neither is better or worse. One is "bright"er, the other "deep"er.
As to the question of the bowl's effect on timbre, I know the standard answer, but empirically it doesn't seem to explain things, which is why I was
wondering. Maybe that 5-15% is more like 9-21%, and maybe that 21% happens to be quite noticeable? Luttgutt - 1-9-2012 at 03:16 AM
Hi Fernandraynaud! and Hi everyone!
Long time... Happy new year!
Well, I have not read all the above.. but I am answering anyway :-)
I have 3 floating bridge ouds make by Sukar (all 3 are costum made). And I think they are even better than my fixed bridge Sukar ouds!
Ny oud, the oud you showed us from palmirami looks very beautiful!
Sukar does not use eboney! The hevy dark wood is what he calls king wood (dark walnut).
Sukar ouds are not the best? Well, it is a matter of taste!!
Isam Rafea uses Sukar oud! Listen to his oud, and tell me what you think!
Best wishes to allNY Oud - 1-9-2012 at 02:41 PM
Well, just to let you all know. This Friday, I am driving up to Montreal to purchase a Sukar Model 8 from one of our fellow members of the board. i
can't wait to play it.Brian Prunka - 1-9-2012 at 04:06 PM
Mabrouk, I am sure you will be happy with your choice.
Have fun in Montreal! SamirCanada - 1-9-2012 at 05:12 PM
oud + Montreal
double whammy
enjoy my home town. fernandraynaud - 1-9-2012 at 06:02 PM
Luttgutt, thanks. So now we know it's a specific very dark walnut. It sure is heavy/hard. Some Walnut, e.g. Brazilian, is more dense than Ebony.
