brace location coincides with harmonics...

tuning process

Hello Faruk and the others

Have you ever tried other bracing patterns on ouds such as those found on guitar such as fan bracing or 'X' bracing. I have a very wonderful handmade acoustic guitar by an English luthier called Nick Marchant with a very unusual bracing pattern - somewhere between fan and 'X' but with very shallow thicknesses.

I know the old Gibson mandolins and probably guitars, tuned by Lloyd Loar were tuned using C256 as reference making A to be 430.6 Hz instead of 440 Hz as is concert pitch for A now. Apparently this quarter tone difference created an amazing and unique sound and 'colour' to the instrument when tuned to A440 ... and luthiers still copy this.

There is also the problem of 'wolf' notes that occur as a result of sympathetic frequencies within the air chamber of the instrument. The quarter tone difference was beneficial in the case of these old Gibsons but could potentially be a sonic disaster in other instruments causing interference patterns that set up oscillations throughout the instrument that could be pretty hard on the ears (and possibly even the instrument).

There are some really interesting books on this subject by Roger H. Siminoff.

I don't have the hands-on experience of a luthier but have seriously thought about taking the plunge so I find the subject and your collective expertise fascinating.

Leon

Floating bridge ouds must have the typical sound of its kind, I believe. For any other reasons such as appearance only, for instance, do you want to obtain it? Of course some may want
Sound is characterized and determined by the bracing predominantly.

i think in fact, it is obvious when you think logically about it. As you say, the stiffer something is, the higher it's frequency, so therefore the area around the bridge and behind the bridge are the most stiff - so this is where the high frequencies predominate.

actually it was Faruk who first pointed this out to me --- THANKS FARUK! --- and the obviousness of it was immediately appearant although I had never realised it before on my own.

simple logic also tells us that a high frequency only needs a very small/tiny area (look at a tweeter), midrange needs medium size areas, and deep bass needs LARGE areas.

furthermore, the SOUND IS ROUND theory will apply to the oud --- the bridge being the center of the frequency circle, and therefore the larger and larger the circles going out from the bridge will produce lower and lower frequencies - BUT since the oud's bridge is so close to the rear of the soundboard, that means that the larger frequency "circles" are not complete circles - that are just "arches" from part of the circle - - - but anyway, they go outwards AWAY from the bridge producing deeper and deeper frequencies the further you go out. Again this is logical because the further from the bridge, the looser the soundboard and more space the soundboard has.

Finally to get DEEP bass obviously (!) is NOT concerned with any specific region of the soundboard but can only be produced by the WHOLE THING PUMPING AIR. (look at a bass bin and reflect on that)

I remember one day sitting with Ramazan who was telling me the same thing, the each string has it's brace. We even tested this right there. I played the top nylon and he put a tuning fork where the first brace is (behind the bridge), and tested other areas as well with the tuning fork.... sure enough it was the first brace area that energised the tuning fork the most... same for the second string/second brace etc etc.... all the way to the fourth string, but after that it didn't work because those lowest notes don't correspond to any small locality - obviously.

Again, I am not claiming to KNOW all of this --- they are just my opinions. Acoustics and luthiery are extremely complex subject, and nothing is ever as simple and straightforward as we would like to guess

yes... that's it exactly! When you start with the very high notes you only get very high frequency resonance and this happens near and behind the bridge... then when you play slightly lower notes the resonance area starts to more in front of the bridge - BUT THE HIGH FREQUENCY AREAS WILL STILL BE ACTIVATED BY THE OVERTONES! Then as you play lower and lower notes to FUNDAMENTAL is generated further and further from the bridge (but again, all the mid- and high- frequency areas will still be activated by the overtones of those low notes)

When finally you end with playing the oud's lowest note which excites the WHOLE KIT AND KIBUTL!

- - -

I wanted to share also my opinion about my understanding of Faruk's method:

Personally I have my own opinion about how and why Faruk's brace tuning system works so well. I also struggled for a very long time trying to understand this - and also had many questions in my head, such as: how do these frequencies get 'untuned' by extraneous factors such as gluing on the bridge, pick guard, and soundboard to sides etc.

I think that the main reason why people have a hard time understanding Faruk's method is because of this idea of "tuning" the braces to a specific pitch. This TUNING TO A PITCH concept immediately sets our brains in motion thinking about musical notes and tunings etc and we find ourselves somehow imagining the soundboard that is supposed to be like a xylophone or something and that if you tap one part you will get a C and a little bit higher you will get an F... etc etc and that finally this leads us totally in the wrong direction of thinking - - -

The point is not at all about having specific pitches tuned into the soundboard - the point is about making optimum use of the very limited space available on the soundboard in order to get ALL the desired frequencies represented in the desired proportions. This means that the strength/stiffness of the soundboard must be distributed in the optimum way.

In my opinion Faruk's method offers him a way of measuring strength/stiffness very very accurately and scientifically. Most oud makers simply have wood measurements to guide them - for example 1.8mm thick soundboard - first brace 10X5mm - second brace 12X5mm and so on. The better than average oud maker will use these measurements as a starting point only, and then 'fine tune' using other methods such as flexing and/or voicing the soundboard.

Faruk's tuning (compound tuning to be more accurate) method allows him to guage very precisely the REAL strength properties of the soundboard area around each brace. Because the resulting frequency characterises the REAL CRITERIA we need to know in order to judge that area's strength --- a simply measurement of 5X10mm is a very rough guide because it is assuming that all wood shares the SAME stiffness properties, which is not true.

Faruk's method allows him to overcome and "read-thru" the differences in different wood's stiffnesses. Therefore determining the brace sizes according to their compound frequency when coupled with the soundboard, truly gives you the REAL strength characteristics of a particular soundboard area. After that it is only a question of experimentation to 'get to know' which combinations of "frequencies/strengths" will give WHAT result. Faruk has done so many experiements and made so many ouds - and with each one he has a computer read-out sheet which reminds him of exactly what frequencies were tuned into what areas. . . .

So after a while he knows what will be the result of even a tiny change to one single brace, and he is able to custom tailor the sound of each oud.

Only my opinions by the way.

overtones

Yes! Here is my sincere opinion:

I need to add neither a single period nor one comma to your explanation my friend. Of course there is no need to say that designations such as "brace tuning" and "tuned soundboard" may be misleading in many cases. But if the real desire of someone is "to understand" what it is, truly, there is no harm in it to cause to miss the whole point.

I neither presented my tecnique with some illusory definitions just like in a spot announcement "how to make magic braces" nor called my ouds' soundboards as "incantation soundboards"

I just wanted to share something really working with the "oud world". Solely with a single condition I have always taught all my technique who ever demanded. My single condition is this: To deserve my "secrets" one must be ready to grasp and apply it)

After some little joke I want to felicitate you for your vast apprehention, KURNAZ!!!

Congratulations. I am sure that you can make any wooden musical instrument perfectly) through a few experimental ones. Many may not accept this truth: Even without constructing a corporeal instrument, a "luthier" may be capable to construct at least one insubstantial applicable method which is really perfect... many of the contemporanous theories of the Physiscs was and is made in that way)... why should we put a condition in front of our ability of imagination!
CHEERS!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by farukturunz KURNAZ!!! Congratulations. I am sure that you can make any wooden musical instrument perfectly) through a few experimental ones. CHEERS!!!

now if I could only figure out how to apply this method to my sarod/oud combo double-necks!

Quote:

Originally posted by Edward Powell now if I could only figure out how to apply this method to my sarod/oud combo double-necks!

yes... this is what I have been trying to do this last 9 months, ...the new one sounds completely different than the first two.

I just can't help but wonder if there might be a way to get more scientific as you have done with the oud. The problem with two instruments in one is that it is not DEDICATED to just one sound - - - you must accommodate for BOTH somehow. This can be done to a certain degree, but there is this "cross-over zone" in which the characteristics of both MUST be shared to a certain degree - even though each "instrument" has totally different tonal requirements.

gotta think some more on this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WPzBI4h0l4&feature=channel_page

Quote:

Originally posted by Edward Powell gotta think some more on this one

It will not be in vain. Maybe you had better widen the oud side to be exactly the same width as an oud's soundboard.
Take it easy

Hey Edward

Maybe you are thinking too much I can almost see the steam coming out of your ears ... what would your instinct tell you?? (BTW we have just got a cat)

Leon

Quote:

Originally posted by farukturunz Maybe you had better widen the oud side to be exactly the same width as an oud's soundboard. Take it easy

Yes for sure this would bring out the oud's depth of low-mids... I really tried to do this on my new version, as you see the soundboard shape is no longer symetrical --- it got "pregnant" on the oud side

I used lattice bracing because this way I could 'taper' the strength gradually from the low-tension oud side - to the high-tension sarod side.

Also with the original design I was having serious ergonomic problems because the bridges were so far forward - with the new design the bridges are right at the back and allow for very comfortable "wrist flapping" technique.

I didn't bring this axe with me to Cairo and before leaving Czech had only got thru about 90% of the voicing process. Already the oud part sounds MUCH MUCH deeper and warmer! ...but it is too early to hear exactly the final result of this experiment, and therefore what exactly to do next on the next one.

Here are some pics

Quote:

Originally posted by Ararat66 Hey Edward Maybe you are thinking too much I can almost see the steam coming out of your ears ... what would your instinct tell you?? (BTW we have just got a cat) Leon

This would bring the oud soundboard size about as wide as a regular oud's...
what you think?
Does it make the instrument TOO big and bulky? Ungraceful looking?

or this...

shows a much deeper cutaway for the sarod --- actually when I moved the bridges BACK this created a problem with the sarod of not being able to reach the very very high notes which sound so great on a sarod... with this new cutaway design that problem is solved...

furthermore, as shown on the second pic, the oud side starts to actually take on the shape of an oud...

this extra WIDE body size would not affect oud side ergonomics since the instrument rests on the leg anyway - -

however the sarod side would now be very very high - - - but perhaps an AZERI TAR technique would suffice??