Side Ports

[Jon]

Has anyone tried side ports with MDs? They're being used in guitars, supposedly to allow the player to better hear what is being projected (from the sound hole). They're placed in the side facing the player. It would seem to me that the reverse situation might exist with MDs, since the typical sound hole faces the player and not the audience. Would a side port facing the audience be of benefit?

[Karl O]

Jon,
That would be a very interesting experiment to try. You are right, it is a growing trend in the guitar world to use sound ports, apparently with much success from what I have read. The only real way to know what effect it would have on a dulcimer's sound would be to build one and find out. I am interested to hear whether any of our builders has already made a dulcimer with a soundport.

[carebear]

Modern Mountain Dulcimers by Dave McKinney, has a model called the "Dream" that has side holes only, no soundboard holes. The dulcimer has a double back and the holes are between the two bottoms.
Echo Hollow dulcimers has sound holes on both the sides and top. My son has one of their 23"scale small box dulcimers. Flame shaped holes on the top and a vine design on the side facing out, away from the player. www.echohollowdulcimers.com
Both dulcimers seem to project more sound towards the "audience". People are always surprised at the volume that my son's small modified "TMB" produces.
We also get alot of complements on the design of the Echo Hollow dulcimer.
carebear

[Jon]

Sounds like you may have answered my question. Not able to find the Dream on MMD, but I will query. WRT Echo Hollow, I could not find any pics, but again, I'll query. Thanks.

[KenH]

A number of years ago I built a couple dulcimers with side holes on the audience side. They worked really well, but the players where I was at the time (nearly 10 years ago) just couldn't get past the "no sound holes on top" which they expected...

[carebear]

Jon,
Check Echo Hollow gallery of photos. I'm pretty sure that they have some side ports shown. The carvings look like delicate vines with leaf shaped holes. They are really quite pretty and well done.
The new MMD site doesn't appear to have the dream listed in their product section, again check in the gallery section.
carebear

[Karl O]

This seems like another good experiment for our friend Richard (rtroughear) to add to his continuing dulcimer experiments. It would be quite interesting to have some objective scientific measurements of how side soundports affect the sound. Side ports with and without top soundholes. Etc.

How about it, Richard? Want to add side soundports to your list of dulcimer experiments?

[Jon]

Thanks carebear. I did find the photo of the Echo Hollow with side ports--not quite the same idea as used on guitars, but perhaps the same effect. Found a MMD pic of Neil Walters playing a Dream model, but no obvious side ports. Karl, I agree it would be a great project for Richard. I was fascinated by his treatise on tops.

[WaterPig Master]

Hi there

It may just be the (homebuilt, ply) dulcimers that I've heard, but as far as I can see, even with holes facing the audience a MD wouldn't be much louder for the audience. Don't most people use a mic or a pickup?

It would still be a great experiment and make for some unique dulcimers. What about a soundhole that starts on the top and spreads down the side too?

Thanks,
Barnaby

[rtroughear]

Karl: This is something I've thought about doing to my own dulcimer, just to see...
I already put a side port (19mm hole) in the upper side of my carved body ukes, and it makes a heck of a difference. It works in two ways. First it provides direct additional audio feedback to the player, and second it moves the main cavity resonance from the third string to the 1st/2nd strings, giving them a fair bit more punch (but at the expense of the 3rd, bass, string)(we are talking ukes here). In addition the sound is markedly more "open". I haven't met anyone, player or listener, who prefers the sound without the port. I used to give away a bung so people could change back, but now I don't bother, no-one used them. Now I just tell them to stick a Champagne cork in the hole if they want the port-less sound.

I've heard similar stories from the guitar world. However there's conflict in the air... R.M.Mottola and Al Carruth, both highly regarded guitar makers, have shown by careful experiment that ports only make marginal acoustic difference in guitars, and that neither players nor listeners can tell the difference between port or no port if they are blinded to the playing. On the other hand, Kenny Hill, also very highly regarded, has tons of practical evidence that players and listeners DO prefer the sound of his ported guitars over un-ported. Experiments are by nature narrowly focused, and players and listeners are always biased by what they see as well as hear. Why can't everything just be simple?

I wasn't aware that some dulcimer makers were already putting side ports in, as Kerry reports, and KenH, but I would think the effect of a port should be in addition to the existing top sound holes, not in place of. Otherwise the player loses the normal feedback from the top soundholes, which is not negligible. The main air resonance would also be raised in frequency with a port, but sound holes are so variable in size anyway that the effect would probably be wearable. Or else reduce the top hole area to compensate.

As for doing sound port experiments .... in the guitar world it's almost erupted into fist fights - we don't want that here, do we? But mainly, for the past four days, and in a feeble excuse not to continue with the wolf note data I've been meaning to finish off, I've been looking at the effect of selectively amplifying or reducing the area of the sound spectrum around the first three resonances of my own dulcimer, to see if there was any clear effect on the sound. I should have posted something yesterday, but thought I'd first just have a quick look at the effect on the first bar resonance (which falls in the area of interest) of weighting the ends of the dulcimer. Just more confusion, and nothing black and white. I'm feeling a bit disillusioned about finding anything useful, but I'll write something up anyway.

Ah! what the heck - wait a minute, I'll get the drill.


I've just drilled a 1 1/4" hole in the audience side of my dulcimer, half way between the narrowest and widest points. It doesn't look too bad. The 30-second reasoning that lead to selecting that point was to separate the hole a reasonable distance from the top holes; to take advantage of any (possible) air resonances that didn't already radiate from the top holes; and to be on the lower bout where most of the action is.

My initial impression is that it's not for the better, and definitely not the dramatic difference compared to porting my ukes. There is more treble sound coming from the side, towards a listener, but that might not be a good thing in a treble instrument anyway. It's a big hole, but it doesn't really seem any louder from the side. The main air resonance has been raised by about a tone, from the open middle string to the first fret, middle string (DAdd tuning). Listening from the top there is a slight loss in overall bass effect, but not much in it. The effect to the player seems restricted to the lower fretboard. Overall, other than allowing the general public to see the fine workmanship inside the instrument, I doesn't seem to offer a lot, and I doubt that I'll do it routinely. That's not to say that other locations and hole sizes won't give better results, but I'd be skeptical. I'll leave it to others to experiment further.

I'm not going to do any proper measurements on the sound.

Richard T

[Karl O]

Thanks for the insight, Richard. You just can't resist a challenge can you? I just did not have the heart to run off and drill a hole in the side of one of my dulcimers. But I see the lure of the question was too much for you to bear and you just had to know. Your continued research is much appreciated.

[Jon]

Thanks Richard. I would be interested in the particulars of the instrument that you used for your experiment--shape, depth, etc. Since you saw no improvement, is it fair to say you saw no significant degradation? (Can I leave the knot hole, or should I fill it?)