oudman71
Oud Lover
Posts: 20
Registered: 3-24-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ghadban Fan
|
|
The best Ouds Ever....?
Hello Everyone. I hope you all are well.
Looking forward to picking up my new Ghadban from a friend this coming week. It will require a bit of a road trip, which just makes it that much more
fun. But looking around at Ustadh Nazih Ghadban's work, at Fadi Matta's Ouds, and many others, I wonder to myself: Are the best Ouds ever built being
built right now?
Don't get me wrong. I revere the sound of a Nahat in good condition. There's no question in my mind that the Nahat is a pillar of the Arab Oud art.
I'm sure the same can be said for Manol (for Greek Ouds) and the other great oud makers of the 19th and 20th Century. But when I look at some of these
old instruments, and hear about failed necks and weak dowel joints, etc, it occurs to me that perhaps people are putting more effort into the actual
construction of the Oud today, than they used to; that, however these old masterpieces sound, perhaps the instruments being constructed right
now are in fact of a higher quality, and might even, in time (say 60-100 years) be the equal of some of these great antique ouds we all prize so
highly today.
I remember talking with a particular oud player of the older generation in New York one time about how much I loved the sound of the Nahat, and he was
quite dismissive of them. He said: 'Of course they sound great, they're Old... When something has been around that long, has been played that
long with wood that old it's going to sound terrific, if it's in good shape.' He seemed to be implying that at least part of the reason the Nahats
were such great ouds is because they've been around so long.
Now I don't think you can reduce the Nahat mystique to mere staying power, (and I don't think that's what he thought) but it does make me
wonder what a Ghadban or a Fadi Matta will sound like in a century. Thoughts?
As a corollary, who do you consider to be the best oud maker out there today? Why do you chose that particular maker, and how do you imagine their
ouds will sound in fifty or a hundred years? I look forward to your replies. Cheers!
|
|
|
DavidJE
Oud Junkie
Posts: 265
Registered: 7-14-2013
Location: Vienna, Austria
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Are the best Ouds ever built being built right now? |
That's a really interesting question, and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten any responses yet. I'm not qualified to give a good answer as I haven't
heard enough ouds by enough makers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case.
I posted a review of a Faruk Türünz oud a few days ago, and as I wrote in the post, one of the most fascinating things about my experience at
Faruk's shop (I was there for ~5 hours), was the degree of precision he and his people use, and the testing they do. Did older oud makers make as
many ouds and do as much testing?
On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to have a "perfect sound", as it really is subjective. On this forum I've read enough posts where
people disagree about what makes an oud sound Turkish or Arabic, even. And, obviously, different people like different sounding ouds.
So I don't know that there is a such thing as "the best ouds". But I wouldn't be at all surprised if today's ouds were at least as good as anything
from the past.
How much difference does age make? That's another interesting and relevant question. And there is also the "survival bias". Old ouds that have
survived are likely to be the best of the bunch.
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1354
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
I don't think that climate, war, accidents, and termites discriminate between the best and the rest when it comes to ouds. And the damage done to
ouds by badly done repair seems to have been equally blind and random.
Quote: Originally posted by DavidJE  | | Quote: | | Are the best Ouds ever built being built right now? |
And there is also the "survival bias". Old ouds that have survived are likely to be the best of the bunch. |
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by oudman71 | | looking around at Ustadh Nazih Ghadban's work, at Fadi Matta's Ouds, and many others, I wonder to myself: Are the best Ouds ever built being built
right now? |
I don't think so, at least generally speaking. In the 1880s through the 1950s, you had many good and great makers besides the Nahats (who were not
all equally great): Leon Stambouli, Gamil Georges, Shukri Al-Moulki, Manol, Karibyan, and many more who were less prolific. Some of the best ouds are
Mohamed Fadel ouds, mostly made in the 1970s and and 80s.
There are some great Turkish-style makers who consistently turn out excellent instruments, like Turunz. But regarding Arabic ouds, I can't think of
anyone producing consistently good instruments in any quantity. Possibly Khalid Belhaiba.
John Vergara, who is frequently on the forum (Bulerias), has made a couple of great ouds, but that is hardly enough to meet the demand for
professional instruments. Najib Shaheen does some amazing work, but he is generally modifying existing ouds rather than building from scratch
(though he often might as well be, after replacing soundboard, bracing, fingerboard and pegs, the oud is more his than the original maker). Who is
making great Arabic ouds on a regular basis? I can't really think of anyone.
|
|
|
DavidJE
Oud Junkie
Posts: 265
Registered: 7-14-2013
Location: Vienna, Austria
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't think that climate, war, accidents, and termites discriminate between the best and the rest when it comes to ouds. And the damage done to ouds
by badly done repair seems to have been equally blind and random. |
Good point. What I meant though is that the best of the ouds were more likely to have been taking care of and preserved, barring war, accidents, etc.
But, then you do have bad repairs to add on top of that.
| Quote: | | There are some great Turkish-style makers who consistently turn out excellent instruments, like Turunz. But regarding Arabic ouds, I can't think of
anyone producing consistently good instruments in any quantity. Possibly Khalid Belhaiba. |
Interesting. I wonder why that is...
|
|
|
jack
Oud Junkie
Posts: 116
Registered: 4-5-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Really! I suppose everyone experiences things differently, but I can quickly list a handful of contemporary Arabic oud luthiers who, to me, have
regularly made masterpieces: Abu El Alaa, Kamil Mowais, Nazih Ghadban, Fadi Matta, as well as some others. Of course, Brian, I respect your level of
knowledge and oudmanship, which is far greater than mine. But there are definitely divine instruments being made right now. I know that for certain.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
An oud (or lute) that is subject to the usual wear and tear of being regularly played under high structural strains and stresses imposed by string
tension as well as climatic variations of humidity and temperature - has a finite life span. The useful life - the point at which an instrument
becomes acoustically challenged and at best a decorative 'wall hanger' - will also depend upon materials of construction and their durability over
time. For example, we know nothing about the longevity (or otherwise) of modern synthetic glues (1960's and later) that are now widely being used for
instrument construction. For example, we do know (for guitar construction at least) that Western Red Cedar soundboards have a relatively short useful
life (40 years?) compared other more traditional sound board materials. So some 'good' sounding ouds built today (since the 1960's) may not even last
for a century as viable instruments.
The oldest surviving oud is likely to be the Egyptian oud #0164 in the Brussels Musical Instrument Museum dated to around the late 18th C/early 19th
C. The reason it survives is that it was purchased by an instrument collector at the time and has spent its life, unplayed, preserved in a museum. The
reason it was sold to the collector in the first place? - perhaps it was judged to be a 'dud' by the seller?
It doesn't follow that an instrument survives because it is acoustically 'good' - it could just as well be because it is a mediocre instrument that
spent most of its life stuck in a cupboard gathering dust, unplayed.
Also many of the old European lutes have survived over the centuries because they were originally costly presentation pieces and have been preserved
(unplayed) more for their value as works of art and having been made by renowned luthiers of their time.
Of course, what is judged to be a good sounding instrument today by some may be considered by others to be lacking acoustically - be it judged by
sound volume, projection, sustain, tone colour, sound quality etc. etc. This situation will also be true 100 years from now. Perhaps tastes will have
changed so much that in a hundred years from now acoustic ouds will no longer be in vogue or even obsolete?
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1354
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by jdowning | | Perhaps tastes will have changed so much that in a hundred years from now acoustic ouds will no longer be in vogue or even obsolete?
|
Or maybe electricity will be obsolete :-)
Maybe this will be obsolete: "Am I too loud enough"?
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by jack |
Really! I suppose everyone experiences things differently, but I can quickly list a handful of contemporary Arabic oud luthiers who, to me, have
regularly made masterpieces: Abu El Alaa, Kamil Mowais, Nazih Ghadban, Fadi Matta, as well as some others. Of course, Brian, I respect your level of
knowledge and oudmanship, which is far greater than mine. But there are definitely divine instruments being made right now. I know that for certain.
|
I don't lay claim to any special knowledge or anything, but having played quite a few ouds that are the works of true masters, as well as several ouds
by all of the makers in your list, I can't say that I think that anyone on your list is in the same category as a Fadel, Nahat, or Georges, with the
exception of Kamil Mowais (he had truthfully slipped my mind), who has produced quite a few superb instruments.
I intend no disrespect to Matta, Ghadban or El Alaa, who are all excellent craftsmen doing meticulous and beautiful work, and who produce ouds that
are usually good and occasionally exceptional. They are indeed some of the better luthiers alive today. And it is true that we don't know how many
"duds" produced by the makers of the past have been lost to history, possibly skewing our perceptions. But it seems unlikely to me that the random
actions of history would have skewed so consistently toward preserving the great instruments; even the no-frills, economically simple ouds by makers
like the Nahats tend to be far superior to most modern ouds. Rather more likely to me seems that much of the empirical trade secrets of oud luthiery
discovered over generations have been lost with the passing of the masters who did not manage to pass their knowledge on to any disciples, leaving
modern luthiers attempting to rediscover them on their own.
So yes, some fine instruments are being produced right now, but to say "the best Ouds ever built [are] being built right now" is not anywhere near
close to reality, at least with respect to Arabic ouds.
That said, there are a number of luthiers whose work I haven't had the opportunity to try, such as Yaroub Fadel and Faik Fadel, so there may well be
some really great ouds being made now that I don't know about; I certainly hope that this is the case. But keep in mind that the "great makers of the
past" that we all know are even only a portion of the great makers of the past; there are many less well-known great makers who didn't make as many
ouds and are consequently less visible. Also, as John notes, conceptions of sound are variable and subjective, so I willingly concede that this is
just my taste and opinion.
|
|
|
jack
Oud Junkie
Posts: 116
Registered: 4-5-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well, I didn't say that. I think that statement was from the original post. But I appreciate your wisdom and candor, as ever, Brian. Nevertheless, it
seems that if all the greatest ouds are all older, then perhaps age is one of the absolute factors in an oud's brilliance. Since we all know that an
instrument sounds better as it ages, perhaps such a process continues, and an exceptionally well crafted instrument becomes better and better. Which
would make it impossible for a recent creation to be as good as a predecesser. I'd also add in that, if you believe in such things, the past player's
energies also have an effect on an instrument. If you agree with the researches of such folks as Masaru Emoto, all of our personal vibrations effect
what is around us. So a masterfully built instrument, created with the best of woods, which survives the ravages of time, and is played or at least in
the presence of good energy individuals, might end up as one of the quintessential 'best ouds ever'. Maybe.
|
|
|
oudman71
Oud Lover
Posts: 20
Registered: 3-24-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ghadban Fan
|
|
Good discussion from all. Thanks for your comments. FYI for all concerned, the Oudist in question whom I quoted in my original post was Najib Shaheen,
for those of you who know him.
I have now returned with my new Ghadban, and am able to more directly compare it to my other ouds, a Shehata (Maurice), a Sukkar, and several 'no
name' ouds of 'budget quality.' There's no question that the Ghadban _talks_. It has a beautiful response to even the softest stroke of the Risha.
Just lovely to play. Great care has been taken by Mr. Ghadban in regards to action. It is very easy and comfortable right through all playing ranges.
I was surprised however by the resemblance to the basic tone to some of the lesser ouds in my collection. It has a 'New Oud' sound, if that makes
sense. Not in any way objectionable, but one does get the sense that the tone will change quite a lot over the first year of playing (it was completed
in February, so it is very much new.) I play my Ouds a LOT, both at home and in public, and am currently in the midst of a recording project, so I
feel certain the sound of this instrument will develop significantly, which brings me back to the original thought that Najib initiated, that the
sound of an instrument does indeed progress and improve over time, given that the basic construction is sound.
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
I agree good discussion,
I personally think that we have entered a new period in the oud world. Through the internet and forums like this one which have enabled many people to
share information. It is becoming easier to know what is good oud and students and players are more informed and discerning about ordering an
instrument. Also it is possible for oud makers to exchange information which has contributed to the evolution of the instrument in many ways, this
didnt exist in this fashion long ago, in fact there was much secrecy as oposed to the openess of the knowlege today. Some may say there has been no
evolution and that the instrument remains the same as the last 100 years.
However, I will say that the evolution in terms of construction is really amazing. From the different neck joints, the methods of joining braces, the
kerfing, the new construction methods and jigs develped for oud making, it has seen impressive construction evolution. Especially attention to seting
up and ensuiring good playability is much more important now it appears than say even 20 years ago. This may also be brought on by boutique style
luthiers which are not focused on quantity but on the quality of their production.
I think we have entered a period in the last 10 years where ouds custom ordered from specialized boutique luthieries will eventually be the best ouds
ever. However, I think we have diminished in the quantity of ouds of this quality produced vs a 100-60 years ago. There are many reasons, social and
economical, which can explain this trend.
The hardest thing will be to evaluate is if there has been a great evolution in terms of sound and tonality given the recordings we have from the past
v.s. brand new manufactured ouds is not an aples to aples comparaison.
I think that the majority of makers metioned in this thread can expect their ouds (if the ouds survive that long) to be the best sounding ouds around
in 50-100 years from now.
@samiroud Instagram
samiroudmaker@gmail.com
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well said Samir
Concerning the greater exchange of information about the oud today - its history and future development - much credit must go to Mike Malek for his
foresight in establishing and hosting this important web site with its unique format that encourages free and open exchange about all aspects of the
oud and related instruments (Eastern and Western).
If a new oud sounds good today then it certainly will improve as the initial internal stresses are relieved over time.
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Also, what are the chances those fabulous Nahat's will be in working order in 50-100 years?? I wonder.
@samiroud Instagram
samiroudmaker@gmail.com
|
|
|
oudman71
Oud Lover
Posts: 20
Registered: 3-24-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ghadban Fan
|
|
In regards to whether a Nahat could work 100 years from now, I'd say 'absolutely.' The USS Constitution is more than two hundred years old and can
still both float and sail... of course many of her timbers have been replaced. The same would be true of a perpetually preserved Nahat. It reminds me
of the philosophical question of the 'Ship of Themistocles' if memory serves, a trireme which was preserved in honor of the battle of Salamis, but was
repaired to such great extent that the Athenian philosophers eventually concluded that the ship both was and was not the Ship of Themistocles.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Once the original sound board has been removed for repair and then refitted the instrument might still sound 'good' but is unlikely to sound exactly
the same as the oud did before repair the balance of the instrument's internal stresses having been disturbed.
Once an oud sound board (that of a Nahat say) is worn out through regular use and is replaced with a new sound board - then it is no longer a Nahat,
the sound board being the heart and soul of any oud. It might still sound 'good' (or even better than the original!) and outwardly look like an
original Nahat but it is no longer the genuine article.
I have to wonder, even today, how many of the older Nahat ouds survive with their original sound boards unrepaired and intact.
Even if an oud is kept unstrung and secure in a dark, climate controlled environment and never played it may eventually still decompose due to
microscopic bacterial activity attacking the wood cell structures and glue.
Dust to dust - ashes to ashes.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
I am not sure that time alone will improve an oud, but I am convinced that an oud that is played frequently, especially by an accomplished musician,
will have its sound improve over time.
Otherwise, the question of historical authenticity and longevity is somewhat removed from the initial question of whether we are living in a sort of
"Golden Age" of oud making.
I agree that the modern trend toward openness has potentially positive long-term benefits, in comparison to the closed attitude toward knowledge
that existed during the time most of the great older ouds were being made. I wouldn't be surprised if 10-20 years from now, we do indeed enter a new
golden age of oud making, but I don't think we're there yet.
|
|
|
oudman71
Oud Lover
Posts: 20
Registered: 3-24-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ghadban Fan
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brian Prunka | I am not sure that time alone will improve an oud, but I am convinced that an oud that is played frequently, especially by an accomplished musician,
will have its sound improve over time.
|
See, I sometimes wonder whether simply being played improves the sound, i.e. repeated vibrations in the soundboard loosen the joining of the
braces and face to the bowl, allowing for more movement over time, resulting in greater resonance and sustain as it is played more. I even had a
luthier suggest hooking an Oud up to some sort of repetitive vibration to achieve the same effect. Haven't tried it though.
There is also the self-fulfilling prophecy dynamic to be considered. I mean, how often do you hear a Nahat being played by a truly terrible Oud
player? I've heard several up close and in person, but I've never heard one played badly. All the ones I've seen were owned by great players.
And the one time I had an opportunity to actually play a Nahat... I played better than usual, because I was excited to be doing it... So when I hear a
Nahat, it generally sounds good. Not that they're not good to begin with (assuming it was made by the right Nahat, of course, I've seen some of the
bad ones too.)
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1354
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
I have verified again and again with various string instruments, that an instrument played repeatedly in tune improves in its response and with
instruments played repeatedly out of tune the sound is "off", although it can be put right. One explanation I heard has something to do with the
alignment of molecules in harmonious patterns but I lack the knowledge to say whether this is science or nonsense.
Some luthiers have hung violins or guitars in a barrel in which a radio or CD player is playing and kept it there for weeks, claiming the vibration
helps the response of the instrument. From what I have seen I would wager that the response of these instruments improves for playing the repertoire
that the radio played, but maybe not for everything.
| Quote: Originally posted by oudman71 |
See, I sometimes wonder whether simply being played improves the sound, i.e. repeated vibrations in the soundboard loosen the joining of the
braces and face to the bowl, allowing for more movement over time, resulting in greater resonance and sustain as it is played more. I even had a
luthier suggest hooking an Oud up to some sort of repetitive vibration to achieve the same effect. Haven't tried it though.
|
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
I have the same experience as Jody; an oud kept in tune and played repeatedly will improve its response.
I also think that a good player is able to get a more focused, projecting tone out of the oud, which presumably is getting the most ideal vibration of
the top.
Najib had done some work on an oud of mine, and when I went to pick it up it sounded amazing, better then usual. When I said so, Najib told me that
Simon had been playing it all day the day before.
|
|
|
michoud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 383
Registered: 6-2-2006
Location: Spain
Member Is Offline
Mood: in the mooud again..
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brian Prunka | | Quote: Originally posted by oudman71 | | looking around at Ustadh Nazih Ghadban's work, at Fadi Matta's Ouds, and many others, I wonder to myself: Are the best Ouds ever built being built
right now? |
I don't think so, at least generally speaking. In the 1880s through the 1950s, you had many good and great makers besides the Nahats (who were not
all equally great): Leon Stambouli, Gamil Georges, Shukri Al-Moulki, Manol, Karibyan, and many more who were less prolific. Some of the best ouds are
Mohamed Fadel ouds, mostly made in the 1970s and and 80s.
There are some great Turkish-style makers who consistently turn out excellent instruments, like Turunz. But regarding Arabic ouds, I can't think of
anyone producing consistently good instruments in any quantity. Possibly Khalid Belhaiba.
John Vergara, who is frequently on the forum (Bulerias), has made a couple of great ouds, but that is hardly enough to meet the demand for
professional instruments. Najib Shaheen does some amazing work, but he is generally modifying existing ouds rather than building from scratch
(though he often might as well be, after replacing soundboard, bracing, fingerboard and pegs, the oud is more his than the original maker). Who is
making great Arabic ouds on a regular basis? I can't really think of anyone. |
I really think that one thing is to make great ouds and another is to meet the demand of buyers, and oud maker who build 6 great oud in a year, he is
still building 6 great ouds...
for example, there is a great maker (but non famous) from Aleppo, and also a great great player, his name is Ayman Jesry, he made great ouds, but he
was building not much instruments. Of course nowadays he stopped building ouds due to the war in Syria.
So for me demand and quality are different things
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
If you're going to separate demand/supply from quality, then it seems even more of a drastic difference: if you compare only the
best ouds from the past with the best ouds being made right now, I don't think that the modern ouds would compare
with say, Farid's Nahat that Simon Shaheen has, or the one that used to belong to Hamza el-Din, or many other famous old instruments.
A question like "are the best ouds ever being made right now" to me only makes sense if you are talking about the overall supply of new ouds. There
are clearly not enough great ouds being made to meet the demand, and the average oud available (even from well-known luthiers) is, IMO, far from
great.
I won't order a custom oud because I do not know of any luthier who is consistent enough that I will buy an oud I haven't played.
Of course there is a problem of borders, communication, distance, etc. —there may be some great luthiers that are largely unknown, as you suggest.
|
|
|
majnuunNavid
Oud Junkie
Posts: 622
Registered: 7-22-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dude, where's my Oud?
|
|
I have owned a Rapakousios Oud for 7 years now, and since that time, the sound has changed a lot! All for the better. This tends to be the case for
all the instruments I have owned. In my experience, instruments tend to get worked in just like anything else.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The violin fraternity also claim that older, frequently played instruments sound 'better' with passing time. The attached paper - part of a long term
project - sets out to investigate the validity of this subjective assumption comparing the sound of two violins made from the same materials - as
equivalent as possible - one regularly played the other stored unplayed. The violins were subject to blind testing. After three years no acoustic
improvement of the regulary played violin was detected compared to the unplayed instrument.
Of course three years is not a long time so it will be interesting to see if there are any changes as time advances.
The lute that I regularly play is now over 35 years old with sound board replaced after about 5 years. I am convinced that the instrument has
acoustically improved with time - or is it just that my technique has improved to optimise the sound quality, volume and response of the instrument?
So many variables!
[file]27297[/file]
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1354
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
The paper goes into some detail about who evaluated the differences after 3 years but very little about who did the playing during the 3 years. "A
professional musician" doesn't tell us much, not even if the musician was a violinist. The decisive factor, I believe, is not frequent random
vibration of the instrument but tuneful, masterful and mindful playing with the intention of bringing out the best sound possible from the instrument.
| Quote: Originally posted by jdowning | The violin fraternity also claim that older, frequently played instruments sound 'better' with passing time. The attached paper - part of a long term
project - sets out to investigate the validity of this subjective assumption comparing the sound of two violins made from the same materials - as
equivalent as possible - one regularly played the other stored unplayed. The violins were subject to blind testing. After three years no acoustic
improvement of the regulary played violin was detected compared to the unplayed instrument.
Of course three years is not a long time so it will be interesting to see if there are any changes as time advances.
The lute that I regularly play is now over 35 years old with sound board replaced after about 5 years. I am convinced that the instrument has
acoustically improved with time - or is it just that my technique has improved to optimise the sound quality, volume and response of the instrument?
So many variables!
|
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
