john (beloved) habib
Oud Junkie
Posts: 104
Registered: 2-5-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: love my new oud
|
|
sound holes & sound
Do you find that one sound hole on an oud makes the oud sound different from an oud with 3 sound holes?
Which set up gives a DEEPER sound... more BASE... 1 or 3 sound holes?
What attributes to make an oud sound very basey/deeper, rather than bright?
thanks
|
|
|
john (beloved) habib
Oud Junkie
Posts: 104
Registered: 2-5-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: love my new oud
|
|
haha.. i found my own reply from the forums:
The hole or holes in the face are traditional esthetic affectations and have little to no affect on the sound. The reflection of the lower frequencies
from the volume of the body requires only a very small hole to be released to the listener. Take a look at your headphones or ear canal pretty small
holes, what? The physics of wave propagation are such that the higher frequencies are dispersed or broken up when they hit any object, but low
frequencies are reflected. Speaker size is a factor of the materials used in the speaker construction rather than soundwave characteristics (look at
Bose speaker systems).
The sound of any stringed instrument is 80% produced by the string alone (re: harp). The soundboard adds overtones determined by it's structural
characeristics and bass resonance is added by any cavity or relective suface (oud or guitar body, grand piano top).
So my opinion is that the holes are not a factor in sound production. The longer and bigger the string, the lower the pitch capability. The higher the
tension, the stronger the soundwave or volume. The bracing placement, size and shape determine the overtones or tone color of the sound. The size or
volume of the body provides more or less bass resonance.
An interresting approach to string instrument design was developed by Dr. Michael Kasha
http://www.cybozone.com/fg/kasha.html
and first constructed by Richard Scjnieder.
http://www.cybozone.com/fg/schneider.html
This design is the result of a mathmatical analysis of acoustic properties rather than purely structural elements in traditional designs.
http://www.jthbass.com/kasha.html
How about a Kasha oud? hmmmm?
|
|
|
john (beloved) habib
Oud Junkie
Posts: 104
Registered: 2-5-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: love my new oud
|
|
BUT, I am still curious... specifically what characteristics of an oud tend to give it a basier tone?
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Who am I to argue with science, but that figure of 80% of the string sound coming directly from the string comes as a bit of a surprise to me....
My own "aha..." moment about the fundamental effect of bridge, soundpost, etc., and the strong effect of vibration spread through the body of the
instrument, came in connection with my purchase of a Cretan lyra (a bowed rather than plucked instrument, but I think the acoustical questions are
fundamentally the same). When the instrument arrived in the mail (I live in a community that is too small for having a store that would stock
instruments of this type, so I bought it based on internet pictures), both the bridge and soundpost were down. Now, having some violin background, I
knew enough to quickly right the bridge and get some preliminary playability out of the instrument. Mistakenly, however, I assumed that, as in the
case of a violin, one would needed special tools and knowledge in setting the soundpost, so I initially left this for later, intending to rectify it
on my next trip to a larger center. However, a few days later, close examination of pictures on the internet made me realize that one end of the
bridge of your typical lyra or kemence stands directly on the soundpost, which extends out of one of the very large (in comparison to a violin) twin
soundholes on the instrument. It's so easy to get to, even a neophyte like me can set it readily...
The point of this is, that once the soundpost was in its proper position, the instrument was a completely different animal - not only was it quite a
bit louder (it certainly felt like more than the 20% referred to above, though I couldn't confirm this with a decibel meter), but the strings actually
responded differently to the bow - with a bowed instrument, there are sometimes "catch" points or theshholds beyond which a scratch is produced,
rather than a musical tone, and these levels changed completely once the soundpost was in, basically making the instrument less finicky and much
easier to play. The tone quality changed a lot too, of course. I have to admit that I played it without the soundpost long enough to grow a
little fond of the woody, sort of archaic sound it produced while in that state, but, on balance, the soundpost had to be acknowledged as an
improvement....
Having once experienced this dramatic effect, I've since experimented with modifying or creating new bridges for instruments I have at home, and it's
quite interesting the sort of changes in sound quality and volume you can broker in this way... By and large, I've not had the same temerity to
experiment with changing soundholes (floating bridge modifications can always be reversed in the event of an unsuccessful experiment, whereas the same
would not be true in the case of a sound hole), so I'm not in a position to make any grand statements on this question, but I do note that a couple of
my bowed instruments (my coconut rebab, and my Chinese Erhu fiddle) have got soundholes on the back, rather than the face, and that the angle on which
I play them seems to make a pronounced (to me, at least) difference in volume. This seems to be at least partly based on how much of the sound hole
area (both have multiple soundholes) is left exposed or covered, though I suppose direction probably has a lot to do with it too (when the soundhole
faces the back, it's pumping the sound in the direction of my abdomen, which may well have a muffling effect).
I stand to be corrected by the acousticians out there, but, intuitively, my guess based on my limited, and only partially applicable experience is
that the number and placement of soundholes may have some effect, although perhaps it should be considered a quite minor one in the broad scheme of
things....
I note that it's common for instruments in the saz family to have a soundhole on the bottom, rather than the face of the instrument, and that in some
cases, it seems there's virtually no soundhole at all. Perhaps someone with direct experience with saz's or similar instruments could share their
experiences and observations regard the effect of soundhole placement and size on the sound of those instruments?.....
Take care, Mark
|
|
|
Jonathan
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1582
Registered: 7-27-2004
Location: Los Angeles
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Kasos, I was struck by your statement about the "strong effect of vibration spread through the body of the instrument".
I am a neophyte, here, and I know that this does not answer John's question. But it seems like that on the truly great ouds, you feel that vibration.
I don't want to be dramatic, but they vibrate throughout the body with every note, and almost come alive. You feel that vibration everywhere--your
hand on the neck, the bowl of the oud on your abdomen. Is this a given, or is it just a fluke thing that I have noticed with my little experience?
Whereas other ouds where you don't sense that vibration also tend to have a dead sound.
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Jonathan:
I agree completely. If there's a magic to certain instruments, I think that's the closest we've got to an explanation for it...Mark
|
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
The holes are a factor for a variety of reasons. Their location disrupts the continuity of the soundboard and affects how much of the face is actually
in vibration. Their location on a 3 hole oud determines the bracing pattern in the lower bout, where the majority of vibration is occuring. Thie
placement of the brace on each side of the bridge as well as the next one up under the eyun (small holes) are critical to the frequency response of
the soundboard. Their size affects the Helmholtz resonance which is how the sound wave reflecting from the body is affected by the physical pumping of
air in and out by the vibrating soundboard. Some modern guitar makers have added more holes and find the overall volume increasing due to the
reduction in the Helmholtz affect with more than one soundhole. I used to think that the thnnest ouds sound the loudest, but recent experience has
proven me wrong. I reworked the braces on a 1979 Anwar Kibeh, which is encrusted with a mosaic pattern back, very heavy and certainly not vibrating,
but it has a huge sound. All I did was shave down the 2 braces foward of the bridge similar to the Manol design, and oila! Big oud sound!
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
Setar is a traditional instrument of Iran and I play one. I have read two books about setar making.
The top of the soundboards in setars usually have small holes on them (sometimes in beautiful patterns). The way these holes are made is by using a
tuning fork (A note; 440 htz I believe). Prior to getting stained, one string is strung with the bridge in place and it is strummed. Immediately the
fork is placed in the middle of the soundboard and moved towards the neck. Wherever it vibrates the most, a small hole is punctured (with a hot ice
pick) into the board. This is the main sound hole, probably 5 mm in diameter. Several smaller holes are punctured around this hole depending on the
maker's creativity or tradition.
I also have two saz's with the sound holes on the bottom and they don't have the sharp vibrant sound of the setar, even though the setar body is half
the size. Some setars also carry 2 holes on the side of where the neck meets the body. This area tends to be left hollow. These holes are created for
the bass string. Some setar makers don't put any holes on the board or only put them on the neck area as mentioned and they think that their setars
are fine this way. Same tradition is true for the tanbur and dotar.
Interestingly, one of the books suggests that the larger grains of the sound board (if they are there) should be under the same side as the bass
string and the thinner ones under the treble. And that the grains of the neck should follow the directions of the grains of the sound board and not be
prependicular to them. I can always feel the neck of the setar vibrating as I play. The whole instrument vibrates.
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Many thanks to the Doc and Peyman...I'm fascinated with the contributions of both science and tradition....I'm hoping to build an instrument soon, not
an oud for now, but a rather simpler skin topped spike fiddle, and you've both given me a lot to think about in terms of the location of the sound
holes...
All the best, Mark
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
I forgot to mention that there are two types of Kamancheh in Iran as well (since you like bowed instruments). The most often used Kamanche has a solid
sphere body covered with lamb skin, often seen in persian classical music.
The other type is a Lori Kamancheh with a more cylindrical body with an open back (still covered with lamb skin on the face). This kind of Kamancheh
is dubbed "Harraf" (talkative) because it's a lot more noisier than it's counter part... It comes from the Lori people of eastern Iran and only used
in folk music. I guess because of its loudness.
Guild of American Luthiers has good books with regards to acoustics and its science, mostly about western instruments but the principals still apply.
Not to mention plans and building information.
|
|
|
Jonathan
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1582
Registered: 7-27-2004
Location: Los Angeles
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I guess, while mentioning number and position of the sound holes, the material that the rosettes are made of is important. I know we are going off on
a tangent, here, but I love this type of stuff.
There was an incredible thread on this board a while back that just touched on this, with Daniel Donnel hypothesizing that the very fact that Hamza's
Nahat had such a heavy rosette that it caused its singularly beautiful tone.
By the way, here is that thread:
http://mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=2009&page=2
I know that it has little to do with the subject at hand, but I was just re-reading it earlier today, and was amazed at how much incredible material
is there. Probably my favorite thread on this board. It shows how much this board is capable of when knowledgable people give their input, and the
rest of us are happy to soak up their knowledge.
I guess I am hoping that by referencing the thread, it might be picked up again.
Some incredible ouds, though, like a lot of Karibyans, used a light plastic for the rosettes.
I also really wish that there was more material available on brace frequencies. Faruk Turunz goes into this a bit on his website, but I do wish that
there was more there.
It all kind of calls to mind how people have for centuries searched for that Stradivarius sound, and nobody has yet been able to figure it out. The
varnish? The wood? I suppose that it is the same with ouds, and all musical instruments.
|
|
|
bcearthtones
Oud Addict
Posts: 35
Registered: 8-19-2005
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by john (beloved) habib
BUT, I am still curious... specifically what characteristics of an oud tend to give it a basier tone? |
At the risk of stating the obvious:
One other thing that contributes to bassy tone is the size of the body itself, the more space contained by the body the deeper the tone.
Peyman, vey interesting about the construction of the setar, that must be very hair-raising; to piece sound holes in a finished top when it is already
attached to the instrument!
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi Peyman
I'm generally familiar with the features of the "standard" Iranian kamencheh, with the solid spherical body (if I'm not mistaken, there are examples
of staved construction for the body of this type of instrument). If you're able, though, I'd like a closer description, or some pictures, if you
can find them, of the Lori Kamencheh.
It sounds to me like you might be describing an instrument I've seen pictures of, though they appeared with different names than you've indicated.
It has a skin head, a partially open face (the open part is closest to the neck) and usually a very short neck.
I've seen it referred to as a "Sarangi" when referring to the version played in Nepal, while one website selling Iranian instruments in Britain also
attributes it to Iran, and refers to it as a "Ghayjek", indicating, much as you have, that it has more of a rustic, folk sound. There's also an
instrument played in Kirghizistan called a Kil Kyak which was long associated with the nomadic groups there, which has a longer neck, but the same
half open face on the soundboard side. Other than the longer string length, the similarity in construction leads me to guess that the sound is
probably quite similar.
Functionally, one way to interpret this instrument (if we are indeed talking about the same thing) in the context of our discussion of sound holes is
to consider it to be an example of the use of a very large sound hole (amounting to almost half the instrument's size)....
Mark
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
| Quote: | | Peyman, vey interesting about the construction of the setar, that must be very hair-raising; to piece sound holes in a finished top when it is already
attached to the instrument! |
I forgot to mention that the sound holes are made in an angle not straigth through. So they are directional, and depending on who makes them, some
face the neck, some face the bottom. This is thought to cause a change the sound as well.
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
Kasos,
Persian Kamanches are very often staved as the carved sound boxes don't sound quiet as well as the staved ones. In Azerbayjan, and the Causcas area,
the Kamanches are carved and they tend to be much heavier and are not as bright sounding. They are more violin like. Persian Kamancheh has a very
nasal sound and that's a prominent property that is sought after in this instrument. Mullberry or Persian Walnut are used to build the body.
After the neck is connected to the body, a steel rod (spike) is run through the bottom of the body going to the neck. Therefore, the kamancheh is
termed a spike fiddle. The spike is used to rotate the kamanche, usually on the knee or on the floor while playing. It also serves as the string
holder (usually there are fine tuners attached here), as direct string tension on the sound box is considered destructive over time. The old kamancheh
had 3 strings, but after violin entered Iran, they added a 4th. There was also a 6 string version, tuned in pairs, but that is rare to find. Tuning is
varied too, depending on the Dastgah being played.
The bow is horse hair (more like a double bass bow) and is loose. Tension is applied by the fingers and therefore different tonal qualities can be
reached. The way they bowed the instrument in the old days is very different from what it is now. But that's a long discussion on its own.
There are Kamanche in Turkey too, sometimes they use gourds and they refer to them as "kabak Kemane" or Iklig. They are used in folk music and have
somewhat smaller bodies. They sound interesting too. They use fish skin or goat skin instead of lamb to cover the sound box. I have seen some that use
mechanical tuners so they don't need fine tuners anymore. The spikes are usually wooden too and an extension of the neck.
This website has pictures of Persian kamancheh, including Lori and the ghaychak: http://www.pars-bazar.com/kamancheh.htm
I have a picture of an old Lori Kamanche being played by a woman but I don't know how to upload pictures here.
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
More on the topic:
The term ghaychak or ghijak is used for the bowed instruments that are played in eastern Iran. By the way the Lori people live in the West of Iran. I
mistakenly wrote East. The modern Iranian ghaychak is carved and has 3 sound holes. Recently, they have also come up with other types of ghaychak,
like alto and tenor (even a cello version) to use in the ensmbles and replacing violin.
The Sarangi is a very different instrument and played in India and the general area there. It's a cube and hollow in the neck with a lot of
sympathetic strings. The players use their nails to touch the strings while playing.
Sorry Habib, this is way out of the discussion you started...
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
Interesting links:
Here is my friend's website with some history:
http://nasehpour.tripod.com/peyman/id51.html
http://www.o-hum.com/Video/O-Hum%20Live%20on%20BBC.wmv
This is a rock band that uses the ghaychak in this unplugged song.
You can see more pictures of different instruments in Iran here:
http://www.sazmuseum.ir/english/class.asp?id=390
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks very much, Peyman, for your posts (and my apologies too, to Habib for diverting the discussion temporarily). I do recognize the instrument
shown in the sazmuseum site as "ghichak" as being the instrument called "sarangi" in Nepal, which I was referring to earlier... You are absolutely
right, of course, about the (East) Indian Sarangi being a completely different instrument, with sympathetic strings and box like shape. Only the
name seems to be the same in this case.
To add to the irony, it also seems that you could make the same comment about "ghichak", because there's an instrument very much like the Iranian
kamancheh they make in Western China (the Uyghur people, along the old silk road) except they call it a "ghijek" there....go figure?
I haven't heard the recording yet - that will come presently - I've been listening to a number of kamencheh recordings made by Kayhan Kalhor, which I
quite like, so I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy this too. Thanks for all your trouble, Mark.
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just heard the song - enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the closeups of the ghaychak - this one seems luthier made, and very violin like, doesn't it?
The Nepalese instruments I've seen pictures of look very folk-made by comparison, with copious though rather rough carving. Thanks again, Mark
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
I have seen Keyhan Kalhor play live twice. I like his style but most traditional musicians think he plays too much to the liking of westerners,
playing more like a violinist. Still, I think he is pretty refreshing in his approach.
About the napalese instrument, I know what you're talking about. 'Saarang' is an old word, probably of ancient Persio-Indian origin. It's a type of a
song bird. It's used in Iran too to refer to a beautiful soud. Saarang is also a small scale in the dastgah music system.
The Nepalese sarangi version is actually quite small, probably half the size of the Persian gheychak, with a very thick fingerboard, probably all
carved from one single piece of wood. I haven't seen one up close but have seen them sold on the net. The Gheychak in the video is rather a refined
modern instrument.
The word gheychak, gheyjek, ghijak, is an old word, probably turkic (or central Asian), used to mean instrument.
The word robab follows the same pattern. Robab, rebab, rabab, rubab, etc, mean different instruments. In Afghanistan, it's a rather big plucked
instrument, while in other places it's a fiddle. The original kamancheh was probably called a robab too. Refernces to Kamancheh can be seen in works
of poets from 800 years ago.
The word 'kamaan' means bow, and the -che at the end refers to it being miniscule, therefore kamancheh is little bow, perhaps refering to the bow and
not the instrument.
The Uyghur people I believe are Turkic too. They have many instruments that are from other nationalities (like setar, tanbur, robab). They have a
bowed instrument named Khushtar... I was under the impression that it came from the persian words Khosh (beautiful, good) and Taar (string). Later I
realized that the Khush is the turkic Koosh, ghoosh meaning Bird and Taar (string). That's why a carved bird is on the peg box.
Sorry for the unrelated discussion again Habib, but its a very interesting disscussion...
|
|
|
john (beloved) habib
Oud Junkie
Posts: 104
Registered: 2-5-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: love my new oud
|
|
haha... no sorries needed at all... i'm honored to have all this discussion incited by my simple question... keep it going 
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Habib, you're certainly a good sport about this.... Thanks so much for getting the thread started.
I suppose then, I might be bold enough to trouble Peyman with just one more kamencheh related question (by the way, I'm just thrilled to be able to
correspond with someone who knows Iranian instruments and players so well!). Paraphrasing somewhat, you referred earlier to Kayhan Kalhor as being
something of an ambivalent figure in terms of his relation to traditional kamancheh playing style. I had already encountered some comments to this
effect elsewhere on the web, but really wasn't too sure what to make of them, given that I didn't have much to compare his playing to at the time.
Could you recommend me any other players, or groups, which are viewed as a better example of traditional playing on this instrument? Wishing you
the best, Mark
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
Well, I am not knowledgeable Kasos. It's sort of a hobby. Most knowedge about Persian music has been lost due to neglect. As soon as the violin
entered Iran, Kamancheh players started to play the violin. And they were actually the first people to teach violin in Iran. Kamanche was revived
about 50 years ago. Same with the Oud.
Anyway, Kalhor plays a lot of arpeggios, something not done with traditional kamancheh. Old school masters also didn't use the whole length of the bow
hair, only the tip, sort of like a plectrum, playing very quick. Kalhor uses all of it (which not a bad thing but just not traditional). Also they
didn't use 'tekyeh', which is sort of like hammer on hammer off effect used in most instruments to connect pieces. His kamancheh is also very
different. It has a bone fingerboard which has a flat surface, and that actually allwos him to do the arppegios and all the other techniques with
ease. The traditional kamancheh has a rounder neck, with no fingerboard on the neck. The modern technique is a cross between old school tradition and
violin playing technique.
If you want to compare his style, try listening to recordings from Aliasghar Bahari one of the people who revived the Kamancheh. Kalhor also took
lessons from Master Bahari. http://musicboxla.com/kamancheh.html This site has many recordings. Also there is a DVD with kalhor (http://musicboxla.com/shhabaabamdv.html). It's a very nice DVD. Anything with the Kamkar ensemble should have a kamancheh recording.
We've gone way off topic with this one... 
|
|
|
Peyman
Oud Junkie
Posts: 496
Registered: 7-22-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mahoor
|
|
I found a picture of Bagher-khan Rameshgar showing his 6 string kamanche:
|
|
|
kasos
Oud Junkie
Posts: 148
Registered: 4-21-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for everything, Peyman. You've given me a lot of information that I would have had a great deal of trouble finding elsewhere. God bless
you....Mark
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
