Quality sound, or volume

In an attempt to piggyback on another thread (and not hijack), I think this is a growth opportunity for sharing amongst the UU. I've seen glimmers of this in recent posts (especially the string ones), so lets see if its a topic ready to come out of the closet -

Comment on theoretically or from experience (or add in your own thoughts), the following:
I used to have concerns that my instrument didn't have enough volume, so I've changes strings/instruments/etc (what you had/what you did). . .I've found that volume isn't everything, and its the quality sound of the instrument that is more important now, and here's what I have (or what I've done, or acquired) to accomplish this. . .

Aaron

I do think that tone is important. However, for me, even more important than the sparkling tone is the instrument's playability and feel. And to improve on both tone and feel, I switched from Aquilas (which I used for projection at the expense of tension that was a bit hard for my fingers) to Worth clears. But really, I think that I really enjoy even the lower-end ukes as long as I set them up and put a good set of strings on them (like Worths or Aquilas, depending on the uke.) I tend not to have to mess with high end ukes since their factory setups tend to be pretty good. But with the imports, a little bit of sandpaper and a few minutes of my time goes a long way in improving playability. And if I can pick it up and enjoy strumming it, I think that the instrument is awesometastic.

But the thing about ukuleles and acoustic instruments in general is that there are very limited options to improving tone after you've purchased the instrument. I feel like you need to buy a whole new package if you want that high level of tone and playability. With electric guitars, it's different. Pickups and electronics are all swappable, and if you're using bolt on necks like with Fender guitars, you can even swap necks. With electric guitars, you can basically find a neck that you love, then mod your electronics. And after that, you can tweak even further with your pedalboard and amp setup to dial in your signature tone.

With ukes, I feel like all you can really do at home to improve the tone is change strings, swap the sadlle, and maybe the nut if you're feeling ambitious. And other than that, you're in UAS territory. For me personally, the tone that KoAloha, Kanilea, and Kamakas, and those other "rack" instruments make is already excellent, and the limiting factor is really just my own skill.

I have played many different ukuleles over the years, but recently, due to Ukulele Player Magazine, I have been fortunate to have many instruments in my hands. Some instruments are loud to the point or harsh. Some are loud, but still sweet. Some are mellow and sweet with low volume. Some are just perfect to me. It is mostly a personal thing, but writing a review that is valuable to others, I have to articulate what it is about a particular instrument that might compel someone to like it or not.

Some ukuleles were surprisingly good plugged into an amp and not that great acoustically. Some were the opposite.

I prefer ukuleles that are audible with no harshness. I prefer a top that is lively without being too punchy. I prefer a more sweet and mellow tone, even if the volume is not really high, but high enough to mic it and get a clean sound.

I had a Lanikai that sounded nice acoustically, but recordings were muddy. The top was dampened too much.

In electronics, a good result for low investment is the UK-2000 pickup. Several manufacturers are using it. I like the tone controls and the pickup is not too hot. There is a battery box that is reachable from the outside (absolutely a must). Put a UK-2000 in a well-dampened uke and you get a good stage performer with no feedback problems.

Sorry about the length of this post.

as I try more ukes, I find two types, first type is loud and sensitive, gives you all the volume it's got with the lightest touch. If you hit it harder it gives out.

The second type is quieter, but the harder you pluck or strum the more it gives you.

I think the second type is preferable, it's more musical and expressive to be able to play quietly, then dig in and play louder.

The first type seem more satisfying initially, and have great tone and character, but after playing for a while I get tired of it. The second type sound more generic in tone, but once I start playing I don't want to put them down.

I think the first type work better as strummers and the second type work better as melody instruments. I'm starting to divide mine up into those camps.

Examples of first type: Pono, Koaloha

Examples of second type: Kanilea, Loprinzi

I like my ukes loud AND balanced and all my different ukes serve this purpose in their own way. My most "quiet" uke is a flea, the loudest is a koaloha, the other ukes volume is somewhere in between those two. IMO, quality sound and volume are no antagonisms and there is no need to sacrifice one factor in favor of the other. To put it in an abbreviated way: A good volume is essential to transport the individual instruments sound characteristics -a low volume conceals them. So, if some brands go for the low volume I -personally- don´t think of it as a necessity, but of poor instrument design.

Regarding to your question: whenever I was dissapointed with a ukes overall sound, I went with a method that improved tone AND volume (e.g. changing strings from Koolau Golds to worth BTM, switching from laminated to a solid uke). I never experienced an approach that lowered volume AND improved tone simultaneously.

Horses for courses.

A number of things have to be considered. For example, with a uke played acoustically in a intimate setting I would put tone very high on the list of important points.

As situations become less intimate, and the problems of being heard in bigger or nosier venues become more relevant, then volume (to me) becomes necessarily more important. Your beautiful tone isn't worth much if no one can hear you.

When I used to play into a mic on stage I needed projection and volume that could be picked up by my mic without having to turn the gain so high that feedback and noise from other sources made things impossible. In those days I used Aquila strings as they were the loudest and clearest I could find. It was a compromise, as the tone was a tad harsh, but the mic did come close to capturing the real voice of the uke.

These days I play mostly plugged in with an undersaddle piezo. Volume is still important for unplugged pub sessions, but for onstage use I know that the pickup will "hear" whatever strings I use. That being the case I go for what gives me the best balance of volume and tone for unplugged use. The piezo isn't going to give a true representation of the uke's natural tone anyway, so it's pretty much out of the equation when it comes to considerations of tone, strings, etc.

Pippin said:

In electronics, a good result for low investment is the UK-2000 pickup. Several manufacturers are using it. I like the tone controls and the pickup is not too hot. There is a battery box that is reachable from the outside (absolutely a must). Put a UK-2000 in a well-dampened uke and you get a good stage performer with no feedback problems.

Click to expand...

Noob seeks clarity: is "well-dampened" something with less resonance, like a laminate?
Great information!

This thread is interesting to me because I have been thinking about this issue. For my next purchase, I have decided that I want something mellow (and quiet) for practicing but will sound great if I install a pickup(I have a misi w/ LR baggs element sitting here)
I am thinking mahogany should suit my needs.

I dont think manufacturers aim for low volume, and so I am inclined to agree that its poor design...I openly admit that I could be wrong.

I dont need loud or abrasive ukes...honestly I think a medium/medium-high volume uke with really good tone is optimal. I prefer something that will allow the subtlety of the ranges...from melodic fingerpicking to all-out strumming. Volume wise, I look for instruments that have the potential to be a little too loud for a medium sized room, but only if you're trying to be loud. Anything beyond a medium room is where a good pickup is prefered. Regardless of all that...if the tone is bad, the level of volume becomes inconsequential.

cornfedgroove said:

I dont think manufacturers aim for low volume

Click to expand...

I think this is important. Personally, I try to build as loud as possible, but the mere fact that I have tone bars suppresses some of that.

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that they now look for a specific instrument, rather than just changing strings (or something like that), and it was mentioned.

I have to say, there are instruments out there that has volume in spades, and yet have the ability to be ever so subtle at lower levels (KoAloha and Compass Rose come to mind).

Volume can be useful, busking, for instance. quality of tone is key, especially if you care about it.

There are aspects of tone of an instrument that come from the instrument, type of wood, bracing, construction, knowledge and ability of the builder and stuff.

On the other hand, a very large part of the tone is dependent on how you strike or pluck the strings, how well you fret, basically however you touch, strike, pluck and stop the strings which will be dependent upon how playable the instrument is and how developed you technique is. . . all basically functions of how much time you're willing to devote to the mystical, oft overlooked and/or misunderstood art of tone production.

My laminated tenor Lanikai sounds pretty darned good for what it is, but much of that is dependent upon how I manipulate the instrument. Ukes are like guitars, they're deceptively simple and take significant work and skill to make. You can only get so much at a given price point.

That said, I think you can get quality sound out of a humble instrument, depending on how much you're willing to practice basic tone production which can get boring if you can't find a way to make practicing fundamentals fun and interesting.

I want it all!

Sambient said:

Noob seeks clarity: is "well-dampened" something with less resonance, like a laminate?
Great information!

Click to expand...

Some ukuleles have a tendency to be harsh if they are too loud. An instrument with a little heavier bracing that is made with the gigging musician in mind some better-made laminated tops with good electronics can make for a good performing instrument and there are fewer feedback problems.

To me, the most important thing, loud or soft, is clarity.

To "dampen", in the case or musical instrument building, would be to control the amount of volume and vibration that is produced to prevent the instrument from being too hot amplified.

I prefer all around performance sound quality and Volume. Also the feel and playability, consistency of the instruments in its whole operational range is important as well. I played and owned many ukuleles and I find only two brands that suite me but my favorite is Sonny D.

Also like some members mentioned the right striking and picking also is a factor and strings are important but many people have there own taste and feel.

I also think the finish has something to do with it. Satin instruments sound louder with less subtlety and lacquer sounds a little dampened. I once refinished a mandolin and two guitars, I stripped off the lacquer and applied brush shellac. You could hear a huge difference - after the shellacking they sounded louder, with more overtones, but also lacking some subtlety. Makes sense, there was a lot of gummy lacquer on those guitars, for protection, and it dampened the vibrations.

Violin masters say it's the varnish that makes the difference.

I like an uke that has volume acoustically. To get good volume, you need a quality top wood that vibrates well. Of course there are other factors like the bracing, thickness, finish, and even rigidity of the back and sides that all contribute towards the volume of the instrument.

I like an uke that has the potential to play both, loud and soft and still sound good. I think guitar guys refer to this as presence. For example, I'd like the uke to sound good when strumming hard, yet still sound balanced even when strumming very soft, that's presence.

Like others mentioned, clarity of notes picked and strummed is important. A test would be to pick every note on the fretboard and listen how clear each note is picked. Then, do a chord like a barre chord, and work up the fretboard, is the chords clear all the way up? That's clarity.

I also like separation. As you chord, do you hear the separate notes that make up the chord, or just a glob of sound. When you have separation, it allows the player to emphasize certain notes and shows off the players touch.

I also like sustain. An uke that has many of the above characteristics will also have very good sustain. For an uke to have good sustain, the top has to keep vibrating. You won't find "good" sustain in an uke that has too thick a top and too heavy bracing.

Strings tend to allow the player to tune the uke bringing out certain characteristics like volume, clarity, and sustain, but only to the degree of how well the uke is built.

To add to the discussion on sound, it's also important that the uke be durable. An uke that does not hold up well, will not sound well. A thin, minimally braced top may sound great initially, but in time, it may bow or even pull off and separate. I've seen this in even the most popular ukuleles. When the top starts bowing, the scale length is affected and not only do you have an uke that looks pregnant, you got intonation problems.

Finish also adds to the durability of an instrument, however too much finish could possibly restrict the top movement, and therefore affect sound. Some will say, Nitro will kill the sound and the only good sounding uke or guitar is one with hand rubbed oil. Others say that the experienced builder is able to build a very good sounding instrument, whether it be uke or guitar, even with nitro as the finish. I tend to believe the later statement. I like a nitro finish, it protects the instrument, it brings out the richness in the wood, and it's easy to clean up.

A good way to experience the differences in sound, is to play and compare many instruments.

Like Aaron, I feel topics like this can be very educational but I'm sure he's been "in the closet" because the information shared is not always well accepted. With more players having had the experience of playing a well made instrument, perhaps there will be constructive discussion. My best advice to those who haven't had a chance to even play an instrument like a Kamaka, Kanilea, or Koaloha, try it. But don't stop there, try a King, a Glyph, Moore Bettah, Kawika, Howlett, Aaron Oya, etc. To me, playing ukes like this is like traveling the world, it will expand your thinking and give you a better appreciation of this little instrument.

Whew, been holding that in for awhile

Bracing on a soprano uke should be just sturdy enough to do the job, but not too stiff. In an effort to find out how light you can make the bracing, I made a uke with no bracing at all. It sounded very good when picked or strummed gently. Play it with a bit more brio, and the sound started to get confused and buzzy. Not buzzy as in strings buzzing, just too many conflicting vibrations in the body of the uke. It became a muddy, poorly defined sound.

An overbraced uke just sounds dead. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a region bathed in a spectrum of sweet sounds, with a whole lot of other factors joining in the mix, to produce the essential character of the instrument.

They are all different, we all hear them differently, and in varying circumstances they are more or less suitable for the type of playing you want to do. One uke will not do everything. That's my excuse for owning more than a dozen!

Ukantor.

Ain't that the truth? I'm devouring this knowledge.

Since I don't have the luxury of going somewhere to try out a bunch of ukes, I buy with my eyes. If it looks cool, it's on its way to me. Once it gets here and I can hear it, I decide how I will use the uke.

Some of my best sounding ukes, I've had no use for and gave them away. I can't play, nor do I have the desire to play, delicate finger-style pieces and really take advantage of a nice, well-balanced, blah blah blah uke.

I like ballsy ukes, not necessarily loud, but something that just makes me want to kick some ass. For me, the mojo that comes from a uke is more important than the sound or volume.

I think discussions like this are more helpful when people start sharing what they hear with their particular instrument compared to others they've played - and name names! It's not a "this is better than that" contest, it's a conversation about what you've learned, hear, etc. Makes and models are an important part of that discussion.

It's also a discussion about how an instrument fits someone. Different makes and models are shaped differently, and they fit people differently. This has some impact on the tone one can get out of the instrument.

The other day I had a chance to compare a full laminate Kala soprano (Aquila strings, a satin finish, and setup by MGM), to my soprano Flea with Worth Clear Mediums.

I was blown away by the full laminate Kala for the price. It had plenty of volume, it was lively, it had a ring to it that was bright. I thought the fit and finish were extremely good for the price. The final fret and fingerboard dressing were great - smooth, no rough edges or high spots. I was surprised by how much sustain this had. For the price it is a good sounding instrument and plays well. To me the combination of construction and strings make this an instrument that favors volume over delicate subtlety of tone, but it's still a good instrument and works well for strumming and picking.

In comparison the Flea sounded more mellow and was softer. It sounded like it had less volume. It still projects well, but it is not an in your face sound. This was a surprise to me because everyone comments that the Flea is loud because of the poly back. I was expecting the Flea to be loud and plasticky sounding compared to the Kala, but that was not the case at all. It still has volume and sustain, but it was more subdued souding than the Kala.

As strung, these are two very different sounding ukes when played solo. When played together they still compliment each other and bring out different tones. The Aquila strings are more stiff than the Worth's. It's the first time I've played Aquila's and liked the feel quite a bit.

The instruments have different physical shapes and dimensions. This affects the playability, and the playability has an impact upon the quality of the sound. Both were soprano ukes.

The neck and fretboard of the Flea are wider, and the fretboard is flat flat flat. The back of the neck is sort of C shaped, but it has a flat spot going down the center for the full length of the neck.

The Kala's neck and fretboard are more narrow, and the top of the fretboard has a slight arch to it. The back of the neck is curved in the shape of a C the full length of the nect.

I have thinner fingers and smaller hands than a lot of men. I found that I have an easier time forming chords on the Kala than I do on the Flea. For example I have a difficult time playing the E chord on the Flea, but it's very easy for me to play this chord on the Kala. On the Flea I have to use my middle finger to barre a D chord. When I use my index finger do barre the D chord, the E string hits the joint on the first nuckle and doesn't virbrate correctly. On the Kala I can use my index finger to barre the D chord. The string spacing is more narrow so the E string falls under the finger pad forward of that first joint and vibrates correctly.

Because the neck on the Kala is more narrow, and because I can form the chords better, the overall sound is more clean. The strings are vibrating more freely. It is less of a struggle to play certain songs.