False analogies between accordions and violins/guitars (soundboards, wood, varnish etc)
Ian & Hilda Dedic
same conclusions.
1. The mechanisms of sound generation and propagation are totally
different for free-reed and stringed instruments. Things which affect
one do not necessarily affect the other, and taking factors which affect
the sound of one and assuming that they affect the sound of the other in
the same way or by a similar amount is just plain wrong.
2. The sound of stringed instruments is very strongly affected by the
wood and materials used to build them, because the sound is generated by
string vibrations and coupled to the air through the resonant structure
of the bridge/soundboard/body.
3. The sound of free-reed instruments is very strongly affected by the
shape and size of the various cavities inside them but hardly at all by
the materials that they are made from (unless these are *very* soft and
sound-absorbent), because the sound starts as a series of air pulses
chopped up by the reed and propagates to the outside through the air
cavities inside the instrument, not the "soundboard" (a misnomer because
it doesn't make any).
That's it. No need to attribute any "magic sound" to whether the
"soundboard" on an accordion is made from wood A or wood B (or metal),
any effect on the sound would be due to the size and shape of the holes
in it not the material it's made from.
Varnishing the inside may have a very small effect on very high
frequency overtones by reducing the sound absorption into the wood, but
nothing like the effect it can have on a stringed instrument where it
can completely change the damping of the soundboard.
Ian
whatsanike
"Ian & Hilda Dedic" <news....@dedics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6adgkvF...@mid.individual.net...
In general, about accordions, what you say is exactly true. As I have tried
to point out recently, with some agreement and some disagreement plus
skepticism, there are nuances. "SN" agrees that the quality of the wax and
how it is applied, will affect the sound. Others have pointed out a
difference between leather-mounted and wax mounted reeds, and still others
have mentioned long plates, vs. individual plates, which are all affecting
the sound of accordions.
A rigid connector between the reed carriers in an accordion, willhelp to
carry the sound between the chambers, e.g.., a piece of metal fastened
across the tops of the reed carriers or a rod wedged between them. It also
helps to keep them in position over the valve holes. The way the chambers
are constructed can have an affect on the overtones. Chambers can be plain
box shaped, or recessed under the reed tongues.
Of course numerous ways of making more surface area for reverberation will
be seen by looking at different accordions made over the decades. Ideally
the increased surface area should not add much to the weight of the
instrument, hence the preference for different woods and materials. Strength
and lightness, and machinability are what make one material preferable to
another, as well as logisital considerations relating to availability.
There have been claims based more on superstition than science as to the
qualities of materials.
As to the soundboard theory as it relates to accordions, Iam not ready to
entirely dismiss the possiblility. There is one place in particular that
tension exists, and that is where the key valves press on the fondo (the
place where air goes in and out to the reed carriers) which can be wood or
metal. I would imagine that any soundboard effect is minimal but perhaps
detectable. More important would be the reverberation on the surface area of
that part. Come to think of it, there is also some torsion where the bellows
frame is fastened to the casing. If the escutcheon pins are loose and have
very little friction, this would lessen that tension.
Johann Pascher
> "Ian & Hilda Dedic" <news.nos...@dedics.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:6adgkvF...@mid.individual.net...
Basically everything what Ian & Hilda Dedicis did wirte is true, sill
if you want something special the little differences count!
And it would be wrong to say because we "cant compare" or there is
"not much effect" it does not count in the end!
Johann
David Kastrup
> On Jun 1, 5:05 am, "whatsanike" <ikemilli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Ian & Hilda Dedic" <news.nos...@dedics.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:6adgkvF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > This subject has been discussed to death over the years, always with the
>> > same conclusions.
>>
>> > 1. The mechanisms of sound generation and propagation are totally
>> > different for free-reed and stringed instruments.
Agreed.
>> > Things which affect one do not necessarily affect the other,
Well, _everything_ couples sound. "not" is not the same as "not
significantly".
>> > and taking factors which affect the sound of one and assuming that
>> > they affect the sound of the other in the same way or by a similar
>> > amount is just plain wrong.
For sure. Not even when talking about the same instrument type.
>> > 2. The sound of stringed instruments is very strongly affected by
>> > the wood and materials used to build them, because the sound is
>> > generated by string vibrations and coupled to the air through the
>> > resonant structure of the bridge/soundboard/body.
It is appalling what a "wolf" style mute tacked onto the bridge will do
to the sound of a violin.
>> > Varnishing the inside may have a very small effect on very high
>> > frequency overtones by reducing the sound absorption into the wood,
>> > but nothing like the effect it can have on a stringed instrument
>> > where it can completely change the damping of the soundboard.
>>
>> In general, about accordions, what you say is exactly true. As I have
>> tried to point out recently, with some agreement and some
>> disagreement plus skepticism, there are nuances. "SN" agrees that the
>> quality of the wax and how it is applied, will affect the
>> sound. Others have pointed out a difference between leather-mounted
>> and wax mounted reeds, and still others have mentioned long plates,
>> vs. individual plates, which are all affecting the sound of
>> accordions.
One thing to note is that while the direct mechanical from the casing
may not be very much audible from the instrument construction, it
certainly affects other reeds. For example, a reed responds usually
quite better when alternating push and pull then when sounding the note
"fresh". That is because of sympathetic vibration from its opponent.
Where this effect is also quite obvious is with low bass reeds which
respond better when helped by a reed an octave higher. Also when
playing scales, the reeds tend to respond better than when sounded from
"ground zero". And the mechanical coupling of reeds in my opinion also
makes a difference for tremolo. I find that the tremolo beating in
plastic reed block instruments does not merge into one coherent sound
like it does with wood reed blocks: instead of one beating large sound,
you hear more of two disconnected detuned sounds.
Probably depends on the kind of plastic: my sample size here has been
just one, but it was really conspicuous.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
snavoyosky
wrote:
> This subject has been discussed to death over the years, always with the
> same conclusions.
>
> 1. The mechanisms of sound generation and propagation are totally
> different for free-reed and stringed instruments. Things which affect
> one do not necessarily affect the other, and taking factors which affect
> the sound of one and assuming that they affect the sound of the other in
> the same way or by a similar amount is just plain wrong.
>>
Going one step further, we can include the differences between free-
reed instruments such as concertina versus accordion, etc. as you
aforementioned.
> 2. The sound of stringed instruments is very strongly affected by the
> wood and materials used to build them, because the sound is generated by
> string vibrations and coupled to the air through the resonant structure
> of the bridge/soundboard/body.
>>
This was previously presented.
> 3. The sound of free-reed instruments is very strongly affected by the
> shape and size of the various cavities inside them but hardly at all by
> the materials that they are made from (unless these are *very* soft and
> sound-absorbent), because the sound starts as a series of air pulses
> chopped up by the reed and propagates to the outside through the air
> cavities inside the instrument, not the "soundboard" (a misnomer because
> it doesn't make any).
>>
Unless you have deleved into the making of reedblocks to produce sound
qualities beyond to produce resonance as well as 'soundboard'
characteristics it would seem to be superfluous to be concerned about
woods. However, I brought forth that Gola used Norwegian Spruce with
it's tight grain for good reasons. Dallape' developed their reedblocks
in a manner to produce 'their' quality whereas people believed it to
be their reeds. Cavity within the housing indeed is critical as well
as the woods. If not so then why would spruce and mahogany be used in
the upper quality end while the lower quality end used poplar, pine,
etc...........the latter for polka/waltz accordions, the former for
classical, jazz accordions.
In the beginnings, and say starting from the 1900s, soundboards were
used in both treble and bass sections. I believe I noted this before.
In order to make my (strictly) Bassetti instrument left hand louder, I
designed it with a wooden soundboard and no switches. This was 1987
and I had Zero Sette do the honors. That side is definitely louder
than the right side which was made according to present day standards
at that time.
> That's it. No need to attribute any "magic sound" to whether the
> "soundboard" on an accordion is made from wood A or wood B (or metal),
> any effect on the sound would be due to the size and shape of the holes
> in it not the material it's made from.
>>
And from experience and education, I must disagree for there is a
difference. Otherwise all accordion manufacturers would be doing the
same thing.
whatsanike
"snavoyosky" <SNavo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a379d18-23b1-4b92...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
This was previously presented.
(IM) Whatever "soundboard " there is will vibrate. If it is heavy, it will
not vibrate nearly as much, so that the enhancement will be due solely to
the surface area reflection of sound waves. The type of wood can make a
difference, if it is thin and light enough to significantly vibrate on its
own. But as to the reed chambers, these are small and can't flex enough to
make any difference. Rigidity becomes more important in that instance, to
transmit sympathetic vibrations along the reed carrier. The reed carriers
are sometimes linked together for this same effect. The type of wood in the
reed carrier is chosen for rigidity and lightness in the better accordions,
as well as its stability over time.
From looking at accordions, many different, and listening to (playing) them,
and thinking about why they were made exactly that way and comparing, I can
deduce many things. Discussions like this are helpful, although I doubt if I
will ever make accordions. Indeed why bother, as there are already so many
in existence! Making a good accordion can only be accomplished in a
"manufacturing cluster" of various artisans.
Ian & Hilda Dedic
>
> And from experience and education, I must disagree for there is a
> difference. Otherwise all accordion manufacturers would be doing the
> same thing.
>
> (IM) Whatever "soundboard " there is will vibrate. If it is heavy, it
> will not vibrate nearly as much, so that the enhancement will be due
> solely to the surface area reflection of sound waves. The type of wood
> can make a difference, if it is thin and light enough to significantly
> vibrate on its own. But as to the reed chambers, these are small and
> can't flex enough to make any difference. Rigidity becomes more
> important in that instance, to transmit sympathetic vibrations along the
> reed carrier. The reed carriers are sometimes linked together for this
> same effect. The type of wood in the reed carrier is chosen for rigidity
> and lightness in the better accordions, as well as its stability over time.
>
> From looking at accordions, many different, and listening to (playing)
> them, and thinking about why they were made exactly that way and
> comparing, I can deduce many things. Discussions like this are helpful,
> although I doubt if I will ever make accordions. Indeed why bother, as
> there are already so many in existence! Making a good accordion can only
> be accomplished in a "manufacturing cluster" of various artisans.
>
>
The "soundboard" (a misnomer if ever there is one) in a squeezebox is
small, rigidly fixed at the edges, and clamped to several heavy and
rigid reed blocks to form a quite rigid and non-resonant structure with
almost no opportunity to radiate sound into the air.
Since the reeds anyway couple very little energy into the soundboard --
exactly opposite to a stringed instrument -- it's easy to show (given a
knowledge about the acoustics of musical instruments) that the effect of
the soundboard *material* on the sound will be negligible, certainly in
comparison to the may things that will have a much bigger effect.
I hate to point out the fact, but instrument makers are no more immune
than high-end audiophiles to attributing apparent (or real) differences
in sound to entirely the wrong thing -- just because somebody says "a
spruce soundboard sounds better" doesn't mean they're right, *unless*
they've done a comparison under controlled conditions to show this.
Ian
David Kastrup
> The "soundboard" (a misnomer if ever there is one) in a squeezebox is
> small, rigidly fixed at the edges, and clamped to several heavy and
> rigid reed blocks to form a quite rigid and non-resonant structure
> with almost no opportunity to radiate sound into the air.
>
> Since the reeds anyway couple very little energy into the soundboard
> -- exactly opposite to a stringed instrument -- it's easy to show
> (given a knowledge about the acoustics of musical instruments) that
> the effect of the soundboard *material* on the sound will be
> negligible, certainly in comparison to the may things that will have a
> much bigger effect.
>
> I hate to point out the fact, but instrument makers are no more immune
> than high-end audiophiles to attributing apparent (or real)
> differences in sound to entirely the wrong thing -- just because
> somebody says "a spruce soundboard sounds better" doesn't mean they're
> right, *unless* they've done a comparison under controlled conditions
> to show this.
In my opinion, the soundboard _has_ a function, namely coupling the
reedblocks and thus the reeds acoustically. For example, if you record
two different reeds (identically tuned) separately and merge the
recordings, you can have beatings of 1/4 Hz or so. You don't get that
when they are mounted in one accordion since then forced resonance sets
in at some point of time. It particularly helps against beatings in the
overtones (dissonances there make intervals like octaves, fifths and
fourths sound uglier than necessary, even though the coupling can't
really compensate the effects of equal temper on thirds).
If nothing else, a reed in a run will respond faster than a reed at the
start of a phrase, because in a run the reed will already have started
with sympathetic vibration.
If one thinks that the acoustical features of soundboard and reed blocks
don't matter: would reedblocks of soft plastic sound different? How
about concrete? Marble?
Do you feel you can say "would not make a difference" with a vengeance?
I don't.
whatsanike
"Ian & Hilda Dedic" <news....@dedics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6b01p0F...@mid.individual.net...
I couldn't agree more. Just pointing out factors that you have not
mentioned, whether the effects are miniscule or significant. For instance,
trying to find a way to agree with the soundboard idea: A soundboard in a
piano has a lot of tension on it. It has a "crown" or place in the middle
where it is bowed upward. There are a couple of places in accordions where
there is tension on wide pieces of wood. One is, where the casing is pinned
to the bellows frame. Another is where the collective pressure of the key
valves is countered by the pressure of the reed carriers on the other side.
Another place where torque exists is when a strip of metal is fasted between
the reed carriers. All these things might have some effect on the resonance.
The least likely torsion effect would be the fondo between the carriers and
the valves probably undetectable, but the outer surface area of the fondo
will reflect sound in the chamber under the valve cover and in the cassotto.
The inner surface of the fondo area might have some enhancement if the
bellows frame pins cause tension on the casing.
whatsanike
Johann Pascher
>>>The "soundboard" (a misnomer if ever there is one) in a squeezebox is
small, rigidly fixed at the edges, and clamped to several heavy and
rigid reed blocks to form a quite rigid and non-resonant structure
with
almost no opportunity to radiate sound into the air<<<
true and not true!
>>>Since the reeds anyway couple very little energy into the soundboard --
exactly opposite to a stringed instrument -- it's easy to show (given
a
knowledge about the acoustics of musical instruments) that the effect
of
the soundboard *material* on the sound will be negligible, certainly
in
comparison to the may things that will have a much bigger effect.<<<
Negligible -- so is has an effect, but who make the decision to say it
is really negligible?
>>>I hate to point out the fact, but instrument makers are no more immune
than high-end audiophiles to attributing apparent (or real)
differences
in sound to entirely the wrong thing<<<
Then don't do it, no one is perfect!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- just because somebody says "a
spruce soundboard sounds better" doesn't mean they're right, *unless*
they've done a comparison under controlled conditions to show this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is the major problem!
Way are some people not willing to care about the experience of
instrument makers and musicians!
Is everything in or live "true" if it can be tested and if there are
not est we don't care about it!
So i don't go into the tests i made for me on soundboards, i think i
posted about it before.
I made tests, and it is very difficult to set up controlled conditions
for tests.
First thing what could be proved quite easy that the tension on n the
socalled soundboard has very little effect in forcing the sound boar
not to vibrate.
It is easy to set up test condition to demonstrate that the sound is
effected by the material in use for the soundboard.
But it is true that all effect not only concerning the Martel of the
sound board are rather small and difficult to document.
I have but one accordion without soundboard, where the valves operate
directly onto the roadblocks and the reed blocks roadblocks are made
in a traditional way and sealed with a rubber foam to each other.
sound of the accordion treble side is therefore not affected by a
sound boar because there is no sound board only the reed blocks.
Sounds different!
Sound of single reeds is more like sounds of pipes.
Higher reeds, react better as usual
In average little bit more Volume and a bit unbalanced to the bass
side.
Difference in sound is obvious.
Also made soundboard with fiberglass and other materials, and on cane
effect the sound by using different material, but it is hear to tell
what sounds better different yes!
My subjektiv felling and likes are still natural materiales, but on
the sound board one of the major factor is to keep the boad thin!
So 2mm aluminium and 0,5 mm Fiberglas are a very good compromise in
getting good result also concerning all the other functions of the so
called soundboard.
best regards, Johann
Ian & Hilda Dedic
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- just because somebody says "a
> spruce soundboard sounds better" doesn't mean they're right, *unless*
> they've done a comparison under controlled conditions to show this.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> And this is the major problem!
>
> Way are some people not willing to care about the experience of
> instrument makers and musicians!
>
> Is everything in or live "true" if it can be tested and if there are
> not est we don't care about it!
>
> So i don't go into the tests i made for me on soundboards, i think i
> posted about it before.
> I made tests, and it is very difficult to set up controlled conditions
> for tests.
Of course the experience of instrument makers and musicians matters, but
this doesn't mean their views *necessarily* have any basis in fact --
there's a lot of instrument folklore about with little basis in fact,
but this doesn't stop (too?) many people believing it.
For example, there are many "audiophiles" who swear that expensive
cables -- including mains cables! -- make a big difference to the sound,
and spend lots of money on them. On the few occasions this has been
subjected to controlled double-blind testing, in every single case they
have been unable to tell the difference.
It's a well-known psychological fact that people often hear what they
expect to hear, which is why double-blind testing (can you identify the
difference without knowing what you're listening to?) is used. Of course
it's not easy to do this with accordions because of differences between
reeds; first you'd have to show that you had two sets of reeds which
couldn't be distinguished in double-blind tests...
Given all the misinformation around, I don't think it's unreasonable
that before anyone says "xxx makes a difference to the sound" they
should try and prove that it really does (and preferably be able to show
*why* it does), and that this isn't just wishful thinking.
Knowing how free-reed instruments generate and propagate the sound I can
easily believe that [the reeds, the way they are shaped and fit in the
reed frames, the way the reed frames are mounted, the shape and size of
the holes under the pallets, the shape and size of cavities inside the
reed block, the size and shape of the ends of the box, the volume of air
inside the bellows...] will have a strong effect on the sound.
Conversely, it doesn't make sense to me that the material of the
soundboard (or the wood that the case ends are made from) would have any
*significant* effect on the sound, because -- in contrast to a stringed
instrument -- neither is involved with either generating the sound or
coupling it to the outside world.
If anyone can objectively demonstrate otherwise then I'd also be very
interested in their explanation of what the mechanism for this is :-)
Johann, if you made a box without a soundboard (pallets operating
directly on the reed blocks) you've also changed the size and shape of
the air holes -- to prevent this change you should have used cut-out
sections of soundboard between the reed blocks and pallets. First rule
of any experiment, only change one variable at a time...
Soundboard thickness will make a difference for the same reason, which
is probably one reason people have said that a metal soundboard sounds
brighter -- actually, the fact that it's thinner is very likely to be
the reason, not because it's made of metal.
Cheers
Ian
David Kastrup
> Knowing how free-reed instruments generate and propagate the sound I
> can easily believe that [the reeds, the way they are shaped and fit in
> the reed frames, the way the reed frames are mounted, the shape and
> size of the holes under the pallets, the shape and size of cavities
> inside the reed block, the size and shape of the ends of the box, the
> volume of air inside the bellows...] will have a strong effect on the
> sound.
>
> Conversely, it doesn't make sense to me that the material of the
> soundboard (or the wood that the case ends are made from) would have
> any *significant* effect on the sound, because -- in contrast to a
> stringed instrument -- neither is involved with either generating the
> sound or coupling it to the outside world.
A reed does not vibrate in a vacuum. Oops, worst analogy ever. I mean,
a reed plate is not where vibration stops.
If we venture over to violins, there we have a system where a bow will
cause a string to vibrate between two points and some energy of that
vibrating string is tunneled off to soundbord and so on. Now one not
uncommon problem with violins is a tendency to squeek on the E string.
The E string is usually not wound like the other strings. Now the
noteworthy thing is that this squeekiness is only marginally related to
variations in the string itself and quite more depending on the violin
in question. And that's even though the squeeking occurs between bow
and string, and the basic string vibration should not be affected
significantly by what happens at the bridge. But it does.
A reed plate couples vibrations into the reed block. For every force
that the reed is able to exert on air, a counterforce is exerted on the
the reed block. How much of the mechanical energy is channeled off
and/or reflected back: that makes a difference.
Now the overall sound is characterized by fundamental and overtones. We
have energy delivered by the air, and the reeds basically settle into a
standing wave composed from fundamental and overtones. How the
resonance energy is distributed across the frequencies very much depends
on the dampening at the various frequencies. Now the reed itself is
made more or less from material that is pretty much perfectly elastic
(meaning that it does not transform energy permanently into deformation:
if it did, the reeds would break soon: the deformation stores energy and
almost perfectly returns it). So any siphoning off of the energy occurs
to either air or reed block. And that means that the reed block's
acoustical properties matter for what harmonics survive to what degree.
Ventura
lol
The point i'd like to inject here, is simply that the
Acoustic Accordion is not only a fully developed technology,
but a technology that has been partially lost, and that is
still being lost in increments as we speak.
The days of the Great Empiric Masters in Accordion works and design
are 5 decades behind us at the least... i feel it is safe to say
pretty much everything was tried in their day, and our attempts to
"imagine if we tried this" are pretty futile given the comparison
between our abilities to attempt even minor experiments vs. their
fully fledged factories and intense levels of one-upsmanship and
gamesmanship and passion for the instrument.
truly, about the only legitimate experiments we can bring to bear
will revolve around the use (substitution of) material which
was not available in their day (graphite composite,as an example)
The Accordion does not use a soundboard, or coupled vibrations
through solid materials radiating from a thin, sprung surface
to produce music, but everything in the accordion will have some
affect on the overall tone in some way, the aggregate of this being
the character of a particular model or even brand (excelsior being
a good example... all Excelsiors sound like Excelsiors, from the
Student models to the best AC they ever produced)
but quibbling over the details of how they did it, or how it
might be done today? (and pretty much no-one is or is going to)
at best, you can hope a particular factory will have investors
and a Master who will be dedicated to "known best practices"
coupled with "Repeatable and sustainable Quality level" ...
but the truth is, compared to the old days, Accordions are
pretty much Vanilla now, and that is about the best we're
gonna get from here on out
EVEN IF WE MANAGE NOT TO LOSE ANY MORE CORE KNOWLEDGE
The primary danger seems to me to come from the fact
that the Chinese accordions were built to look like accordions,
but essentially no effort was made to use the proper materials
or any best practices, strong enough plates, acid free cellulose
products, properly tanned leathers, etc. yet they have taken over
a large part of the market... if the people who have the knowledge
go out of business before the Chinese gather and incorporate
that knowledge, a potentially catastrophic loss of the worlds
ABILITY to actually still produce a really, really good Accordion
will become the fact.
You cannot reverse-engineer 60 year old Accordions and gain the
knowledge, as you cannot see the materials as they were sourced
and raw... why did they cut the grain this way and not that?
why is this section plied, what is the material in the middle?
what is the proper humidity level of the wood when being formed?
and you cannot empirically try all the possibilities in todays
Capitalist dominated manufacturing atmosphere.
We are actually in many ways the lucky ones, as there are
still great old accordions to be had, and a few people who
can still fix them up, and we can take a shot at a lot
of the smaller repairs ourselves anyhow... the next generation
will not have much in the way of Choice, to be perfectly honest.
Soundboard technology is also a fully fledged field of manufacturing...
there are no secrets left to be found, no materials left to be tried,
no material that isn't a known factor for quality and properties.
Spruce is by far the best, period. The ways to shape it and crown it
are fully understood and implemented all over the world, and final
costs of Acoustic Instruments bear this out, as well as Sales figures.
There are a lot of nice sounding ways to substitute for Solid Spruce
that cost a lot less (because they don't sound as good) and, other that
the occasional Mahogany or Cedar soundboards of tone specific guitars,
none would ever be considered for a fine instrument
There is next to no Spruce inside an Accordion, and the plate
(if made of wood) is usually plied for strength
Bridges that couple vibrations to soundboards are also pretty
well a mature category, and please note that a Bridge cannot
have anything touching it especially pressing against it that
would draw away the energy before it is delivered to the
soundboard... vibrations that leak into other non-sprung materials
pretty much are deadened and lost
though it does feel nice to have your accordion "Vibrate" in your arms
as you make it sing
Ciao
Ventura
David Kastrup
> EVEN IF WE MANAGE NOT TO LOSE ANY MORE CORE KNOWLEDGE
>
> The primary danger seems to me to come from the fact that the Chinese
> accordions were built to look like accordions, but essentially no
> effort was made to use the proper materials or any best practices,
> strong enough plates, acid free cellulose products, properly tanned
> leathers, etc. yet they have taken over a large part of the
> market... if the people who have the knowledge go out of business
> before the Chinese gather and incorporate that knowledge, a
> potentially catastrophic loss of the worlds ABILITY to actually still
> produce a really, really good Accordion will become the fact.
You are aware that the "really, really good accordions" are invariably
produced in Italy still? Hohner Golas, for example, are neither
produced in Trossingen nor China.
It is more of a problem what happens with good _mass_ production.
Namely _affordable_ instruments.
Ventura
David Kastrup wrote:
> You are aware that the "really, really good accordions" are invariably
> produced in Italy still?
i'll go as far as there are still really good accordions
made in Italy... i'm not sure there are really really, or
any magical level accordions made their anymore at all
> Hohner Golas, for example, are neither
> produced in Trossingen nor China.
there have been varying reports ov4er the last couple
years regarding Hohner, with their website claiming
a production ability and level of expertise both
sudden and suprising to me...
are you able to report for certain that Trossingen is
merely (still) a Museum now made to appear to be a
working factory?
and where are the accordions sourced, since both factories
long contracted with Hohner are dead?
the original SEM factory is crushed, the knowledge dispersed
and retired, the machines gone - so no more Alpines or
Atlantics coming from there, obviously - Atlantics price point
appears to be replaced by Chinese Hohner lines
CEMEX is history, Excelsior is but an owned brand name
of another factory now... the loss of the Hohner contract
likely a major factor... who else in Italy has the
ability and discretion to built passable Morino's or
even attempt a Gola? i seriously doubt there is a
single reed technician left alive today anywhere in
the world who actually knows Gola's trick, or how to
apply it from scratch, or who even has access to the
raw materials needed and machines to work them.
Cemex even had the Gold Anodizing machine on site...
where is it now? i've not noticed a single maker offering
any model of any accordion anywhere in Italy that suggests
a Gola level capability or similar featiured product
Ciao
Ventura
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> You are aware that the "really, really good accordions" are invariably
>> produced in Italy still?
>
> i'll go as far as there are still really good accordions
> made in Italy... i'm not sure there are really really, or
> any magical level accordions made their anymore at all
>
>> Hohner Golas, for example, are neither
>> produced in Trossingen nor China.
>
> there have been varying reports ov4er the last couple
> years regarding Hohner, with their website claiming
> a production ability and level of expertise both
> sudden and suprising to me...
>
> are you able to report for certain that Trossingen is
> merely (still) a Museum now made to appear to be a
> working factory?
According to my accordion maker (who has been approached by Hohner to be
a sales and service representative) there is not much remaining in
Trossingen apart from some parts assembly and minimal maintenance. For
example, any case job has to be sent to Italy.
> and where are the accordions sourced, since both factories long
> contracted with Hohner are dead?
Most is done in China. I don't know about the model line nowadays
called Morino, but the Golas are (and always have been) exclusively an
Italian job. Pretty much like the older Morinos.
> the original SEM factory is crushed, the knowledge dispersed
> and retired, the machines gone - so no more Alpines or
> Atlantics coming from there, obviously - Atlantics price point
> appears to be replaced by Chinese Hohner lines
Yup. I don't know where the China/Italy dividing line in their models
is now. And what models might get a final assembly in Trossingen as
opposed to being completed in China.
> CEMEX is history, Excelsior is but an owned brand name
> of another factory now... the loss of the Hohner contract
> likely a major factor... who else in Italy has the
> ability and discretion to built passable Morino's or
> even attempt a Gola? i seriously doubt there is a
> single reed technician left alive today anywhere in
> the world who actually knows Gola's trick, or how to
> apply it from scratch, or who even has access to the
> raw materials needed and machines to work them.
As far as I know, the Gola production never stopped being in Italy and
there has been continuity in the work. As I said: I am not too sure
about the current Morino lines. As to "Gola's trick": the boxes are
simply hand-made. Hand-made reeds of finest quality, hand-equalized,
all holes for bearings are not drilled, but rather hand-grated so that
there is virtually no tolerance for buzzing and so on. And of course,
using the established materials and workmanship. There is more to the
pricing than just model hype. Those things really _are_ a wagonload of
work.
> Cemex even had the Gold Anodizing machine on site...
> where is it now? i've not noticed a single maker offering
> any model of any accordion anywhere in Italy that suggests
> a Gola level capability or similar featiured product
Huh? Hohner Golas still can be ordered.
--
David Kastrup
Ventura
> According to my accordion maker (who has been approached by Hohner to be
> a sales and service representative) there is not much remaining in
> Trossingen apart from some parts assembly and minimal maintenance. For
> example, any case job has to be sent to Italy.
>
> ........... but the Golas are (and always have been) exclusively an
> Italian job. Pretty much like the older Morinos.
i assume you mean after Morino then Gola had died
> Huh? Hohner Golas still can be ordered.
>
it is entirely possible, given the level of orders,
that there are still about 20 years of bare-bones Gola
bodies and parts in storage (given the minimum amount
of a body "run" for practical purposes and associated
exclusive parts and ornamentations)
that there are still people capable of putting them
together is probable, that they can even follow
the old instructions and somewhat the methods is
possible... that they actually understand the heart of
what they are doing (as opposed to understanding it enough
to merely accomplish it fairly accurately) is unlikely...
and once they run out of assemblies, the notion that they
could be built from scratch and be any more than a very
nice Accordion that looks quite like a Gola is, in my
opinion, all you are going to get...
this level is history, and even this level never
approached the quality of a Gola from the period
during which his reputation was forged.
You can order a Hammond B-3 again, by the way, and
it's awefully nice, but just not quite (and there is a
lot more money in that end of instrument manufacturing
going to R&D and training and research than ours)
Ciao
Ventura
David Kastrup
> this level is history, and even this level never
> approached the quality of a Gola from the period
> during which his reputation was forged.
Well, according to my accordion maker, Gola was more an engineer rather
than a craftsman like Morino. Gola mostly _told_ people what to do
rather than doing it himself. So the Gola quality has never been about
the hands of Gola, but rather his brains, the materials he employed and
the techniques he developed. I suppose that Hohner has been rather
cautious regarding "streamlining" his approach to building accordions
and their quality control. It makes part of their reputation that "if
you want to get the best accordion that can be had for money, you go to
Hohner". It is still mostly true, I guess. Even though not much except
the "Hohner" brand is really related to the Hohner production line. And
of course, there are a lot of accordions that are not the best...
It is sort of amusing that Harmona (Weltmeister brand) nowadays is the
manufacturer you have to go to to get quality "made in Germany".
Basically, at least with Hohner, the "pretty good" class is drying out.
You get "reasonably good", and you get "excellent", but there is less
and less in between.
--
David Kastrup
Ian & Hilda Dedic
>
> A reed does not vibrate in a vacuum. Oops, worst analogy ever. I mean,
> a reed plate is not where vibration stops.
True, but reed vibration *isn't* what makes the sound in accordions.
>
> If we venture over to violins, there we have a system where a bow will
> cause a string to vibrate between two points and some energy of that
> vibrating string is tunneled off to soundbord and so on. Now one not
> uncommon problem with violins is a tendency to squeek on the E string.
> The E string is usually not wound like the other strings. Now the
> noteworthy thing is that this squeekiness is only marginally related to
> variations in the string itself and quite more depending on the violin
> in question. And that's even though the squeeking occurs between bow
> and string, and the basic string vibration should not be affected
> significantly by what happens at the bridge. But it does.
All absolutely true for violins, but irrelevant for accordions :-)
>
> A reed plate couples vibrations into the reed block. For every force
> that the reed is able to exert on air, a counterforce is exerted on the
> the reed block. How much of the mechanical energy is channeled off
> and/or reflected back: that makes a difference.
The reed is very light and weighs at least 100x less than the reed
plate, so the amount of mechanical energy coupled in is very small --
otherwise when you stopped playing a note you'd hear a loud follow-on
sound as the reed continues to vibrate. Since this doesn't happen it
shows that no significant sound is generated by the mechanical movement
of the reed, it all comes from the chopped-up pulses in the air stream.
>
> Now the overall sound is characterized by fundamental and overtones. We
> have energy delivered by the air, and the reeds basically settle into a
> standing wave composed from fundamental and overtones. How the
> resonance energy is distributed across the frequencies very much depends
> on the dampening at the various frequencies. Now the reed itself is
> made more or less from material that is pretty much perfectly elastic
> (meaning that it does not transform energy permanently into deformation:
> if it did, the reeds would break soon: the deformation stores energy and
> almost perfectly returns it). So any siphoning off of the energy occurs
> to either air or reed block. And that means that the reed block's
> acoustical properties matter for what harmonics survive to what degree.
>
The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the
reed swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical vibration
of the reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the frame more
closely will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a brighter sound
due to more high-frequency harmonics.
Any effect of the reed mounting, reed block and "soundboard" will be
limited to dissipation of energy in the reed by reducing its "Q" --
however, the reduction in Q will be small and have little effect on the
sound generated in the air (which is where all the harmonics are), since
the reed is continuously driven by the air stream and it's the pulses in
this that generate the sound.
Even if the mounting of the reed plate (leather, wax etc) does make some
tiny difference to the sound (maybe the edge of the leather under the
reed block absorbs some high frequencies from the air?), the amount of
vibration energy coupled into the "soundboard" is negligible, so this
can't possible generate any significant sound. And since it's braced by
rigid reed blocks it's unlikely to conduct any sound from the air inside
the box, it's like a rigid speaker cabinet.
Cheers
Ian
P.S. Anyone drawing comparisons between stringed instrument and
accordion soundboards should go away and read a good textbook and/or
technical papers on the acoustics of musical instruments, including
free-reed ones. The conclusion is quite obvious... :-)
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> A reed does not vibrate in a vacuum. Oops, worst analogy ever. I mean,
>> a reed plate is not where vibration stops.
>
> True, but reed vibration *isn't* what makes the sound in accordions.
Well, stop the vibration of the reeds and see where this gets you
soundwise.
>> If we venture over to violins, there we have a system where a bow
>> will cause a string to vibrate between two points and some energy of
>> that vibrating string is tunneled off to soundbord and so on. Now
>> one not uncommon problem with violins is a tendency to squeek on the
>> E string. The E string is usually not wound like the other strings.
>> Now the noteworthy thing is that this squeekiness is only marginally
>> related to variations in the string itself and quite more depending
>> on the violin in question. And that's even though the squeeking
>> occurs between bow and string, and the basic string vibration should
>> not be affected significantly by what happens at the bridge. But it
>> does.
>
> All absolutely true for violins, but irrelevant for accordions :-)
Resonance strongly affects how easily you can get something to vibrate.
If your reed does not vibrate, you get no sound.
>> A reed plate couples vibrations into the reed block. For every force
>> that the reed is able to exert on air, a counterforce is exerted on
>> the the reed block. How much of the mechanical energy is channeled
>> off and/or reflected back: that makes a difference.
>
> The reed is very light and weighs at least 100x less than the reed
> plate, so the amount of mechanical energy coupled in is very small --
> otherwise when you stopped playing a note you'd hear a loud follow-on
> sound as the reed continues to vibrate. Since this doesn't happen it
> shows that no significant sound is generated by the mechanical
> movement of the reed, it all comes from the chopped-up pulses in the
> air stream.
Sigh. The amount of vibration vanishing in the reed block is no longer
present in the reed itself. So the resonance question is _not_ as much
about what sounds the rest of the accordion _does_ make, but about what
vibrations the reed sustains and carries, and which of those get
dampened. Because it very much matters how the reed vibrates.
>> Now the overall sound is characterized by fundamental and overtones.
>> We have energy delivered by the air, and the reeds basically settle
>> into a standing wave composed from fundamental and overtones. How
>> the resonance energy is distributed across the frequencies very much
>> depends on the dampening at the various frequencies. Now the reed
>> itself is made more or less from material that is pretty much
>> perfectly elastic (meaning that it does not transform energy
>> permanently into deformation: if it did, the reeds would break soon:
>> the deformation stores energy and almost perfectly returns it). So
>> any siphoning off of the energy occurs to either air or reed block.
>> And that means that the reed block's acoustical properties matter for
>> what harmonics survive to what degree.
>
> The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the
> reed swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical
> vibration of the reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the
> frame more closely will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a
> brighter sound due to more high-frequency harmonics.
No, it is not only that: inharmonicity appears to be also present to
some degree in accordions (inharmonicity is the reason for pianos being
"stretch tuned"). And inharmonicity can really only come about by
higher order vibrations of the reed itself as the air is not resonating
significantly: it just follows the reed.
Johann Pascher
> No, it is not only that: inharmonicity appears to be also present to
> some degree in accordions (inharmonicity is the reason for pianos being
> "stretch tuned"). And inharmonicity can really only come about by
> higher order vibrations of the reed itself as the air is not resonating
> significantly: it just follows the reed.
David Kastrup,
I like your arguments!
Ian may bring up arguments that are common in or days and if we don't
go deeper down in examining and testing.
So in nearly all Ian presents he is quite correct, but not totally and
he gives the impression he has the truth!
Ian do not take this personally, is not directed to you, is more to
the way of thinking!
Bu all this is what i am fighting here, we all i or time depend to
much on FAKTS!
I am a technician and engineer and for me count facts, but there is
more as we can prove with or method's toady!
Ian & Hilda Dedic
> Ian & Hilda Dedic <news....@dedics.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> Now the overall sound is characterized by fundamental and overtones.
>>> We have energy delivered by the air, and the reeds basically settle
>>> into a standing wave composed from fundamental and overtones. How
>>> the resonance energy is distributed across the frequencies very much
>>> depends on the dampening at the various frequencies. Now the reed
>>> itself is made more or less from material that is pretty much
>>> perfectly elastic (meaning that it does not transform energy
>>> permanently into deformation: if it did, the reeds would break soon:
>>> the deformation stores energy and almost perfectly returns it). So
>>> any siphoning off of the energy occurs to either air or reed block.
>>> And that means that the reed block's acoustical properties matter for
>>> what harmonics survive to what degree.
The properties of the reed block matter if they absorb energy from the
air to any significant degree, this is like stuffing a speaker with
wadding. Any reasonably hard smooth wood is a very poor sound absorber,
and reed blocks are quite a rigid non-resonant structure, so the reed
block material will have very little effect unless it's *very* soft.
As I said, the *mechanical* energy generated by a reed is very small
because it's so small and light, whereas a string stores a lot of
mechanical energy which is then translated by the instrument body into
acoustical energy. The mechanical resonance of the reed fixes the
frequency (unlike a beating reed instrument like a sax) but the sound
and the harmonics are due to the shape of the air pulses, not
higher-frequency resonances within the reed or reed block.
>> The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the
>> reed swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical
>> vibration of the reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the
>> frame more closely will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a
>> brighter sound due to more high-frequency harmonics.
>
> No, it is not only that: inharmonicity appears to be also present to
> some degree in accordions (inharmonicity is the reason for pianos being
> "stretch tuned"). And inharmonicity can really only come about by
> higher order vibrations of the reed itself as the air is not resonating
> significantly: it just follows the reed.
>
A free-reed instrument -- unlike a stringed one -- can only generate
exact harmonics (partials) with a single reed.
The inharmonic partials in a stringed instrument are due to the fact
that the string is stiff instead of being freely flexible, so the
frequency of the higher overtones are shifted from being exact multiples
of the fundamental resonance -- the harmonics are increasingly sharp as
they get higher pitched, which is why a piano has stretched tuning. This
is why if you pluck a string you hear slow beating between the
fundamental and the harmonics as the sound dies away.
A single free-reed generates exactly the same waveform on every cycle,
you can easily see this if you look at the waveform on an oscilloscope.
This means that all the harmonics are *exactly* in tune with the
fundamental, otherwise the waveform would change from one cycle to the
next, and it doesn't. A certain Mr. Fourier showed this many years ago,
and nobody's managed to prove he was wrong so far...
If there are multiple reeds and these are detuned by varying amounts up
and down the scale then this may no longer be true, but this is nothing
to do with the partials of a single reed being out of tune with the
fundamental.
A free-reed instrument generates sound in a fundamentally (ho, ho)
different manner to beating reed, woodwind, or plucked/bowed stringed
instruments. It's often (usually?) wrong to take facts which apply to
such instruments and say that these apply to free-reed instruments --
this includes the effect of resonant bodies, air column resonances,
inharmonic partials -- because the sound is neither generated or
propagated in the same way.
When I've time I'll try and dig out some papers on the acoustics of
free-reed instruments which explain all this...
Ian
P.S. It's a bit like saying that it's a well-known (and correct) fact
that turbocharging makes cars go faster -- this is obviously true for
petrol and diesel cars, so it must also be true for electric cars :-)
whatsanike
"Ian & Hilda Dedic" <news....@dedics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6b5m0vF...@mid.individual.net...
But with a really good reed, ou do hear a follw-on. WIth a Chinese reed you
don't hear one. Part of the follow-on is due to small air movements capable
of makeing a fine reed vibrate. Like change of air direction, you hear a
follow-on of the reed that was sounding just before.
>>
>> Now the overall sound is characterized by fundamental and overtones. We
>> have energy delivered by the air, and the reeds basically settle into a
>> standing wave composed from fundamental and overtones. How the
>> resonance energy is distributed across the frequencies very much depends
>> on the dampening at the various frequencies. Now the reed itself is
>> made more or less from material that is pretty much perfectly elastic
>> (meaning that it does not transform energy permanently into deformation:
>> if it did, the reeds would break soon: the deformation stores energy and
>> almost perfectly returns it). So any siphoning off of the energy occurs
>> to either air or reed block. And that means that the reed block's
>> acoustical properties matter for what harmonics survive to what degree.
>>
>
> The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the reed
> swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical vibration of the
> reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the frame more closely
> will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a brighter sound due to
> more high-frequency harmonics.
>
Don't forget the profile of the reed thickness along its length, and the
quality of the steel. and whether the surface ot the steel is polished,
rough, or matte finish. Also the precision with which the plate is machined,
and the depth of the aperture, and the way the reed lies above the aperture.
> Any effect of the reed mounting, reed block and "soundboard" will be
> limited to dissipation of energy in the reed by reducing its "Q" --
> however, the reduction in Q will be small and have little effect on the
> sound generated in the air (which is where all the harmonics are), since
> the reed is continuously driven by the air stream and it's the pulses in
> this that generate the sound.
>
The only sound an inferior reed is capable of producing is from a
contiunous stream of air, but a fine reed is very sensitive to anomalies is
the air flow.
> Even if the mounting of the reed plate (leather, wax etc) does make some
> tiny difference to the sound (maybe the edge of the leather under the reed
> block absorbs some high frequencies from the air?), the amount of
> vibration energy coupled into the "soundboard" is negligible, so this
> can't possible generate any significant sound. And since it's braced by
> rigid reed blocks it's unlikely to conduct any sound from the air inside
> the box, it's like a rigid speaker cabinet.
>
The way the reed is mounted, like th type of wax or other substrate, does
make a lot of difference. I don't claim definitively that the material the
block is made of, or tension on the woods makes a difference, but I suspect
that the more rigidly and uniformly the materials are joined together, will
make a difference in the quality of sound. The type of woods, contributes
mightily to the rigidity while conserving weight. The ability to shape the
chamber and the precision of how the chambers are made is highly dependent
on the type and quality of wood used. The wax has to be solid, and it will
grip the reed plate tightly as it cools. If the wax is too soft or
deteriorates, air will be lost and some motion will be not transmitted. If
the plate is loose even slightly. the sojund will suffer. Some kind of
turbulence or chaotic motion will result. Every part of the casing and reed
carriers should be rigid, but light. The lightness is desirable for
ergonomic reasons alone.
>
> P.S. Anyone drawing comparisons between stringed instrument and accordion
> soundboards should go away and read a good textbook and/or technical
> papers on the acoustics of musical instruments, including free-reed ones.
> The conclusion is quite obvious... :-)
But there are some valid analogies to be drawn, if you accept my thesis.
whatsanike
"Ian & Hilda Dedic" <news....@dedics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6b8dukF...@mid.individual.net...
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Ian & Hilda Dedic <news....@dedics.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>> Now the overall sound is characterized by fundamental and overtones.
>>>> We have energy delivered by the air, and the reeds basically settle
>>>> into a standing wave composed from fundamental and overtones. How
>>>> the resonance energy is distributed across the frequencies very much
>>>> depends on the dampening at the various frequencies. Now the reed
>>>> itself is made more or less from material that is pretty much
>>>> perfectly elastic (meaning that it does not transform energy
>>>> permanently into deformation: if it did, the reeds would break soon:
>>>> the deformation stores energy and almost perfectly returns it). So
>>>> any siphoning off of the energy occurs to either air or reed block.
>>>> And that means that the reed block's acoustical properties matter for
>>>> what harmonics survive to what degree.
>
> The properties of the reed block matter if they absorb energy from the air
> to any significant degree, this is like stuffing a speaker with wadding.
> Any reasonably hard smooth wood is a very poor sound absorber, and reed
> blocks are quite a rigid non-resonant structure, so the reed block
> material will have very little effect unless it's *very* soft.
>
A given type of wood might be more rigid than another relative its
thickness, or mechanical strength coefficient. This means the stronger wood
takes up less space, and this leaves more space between the reed carriers.
This forms a resonant cavity. I posit that the effect of this is not
negligible, though small. As for the earlier statement that a metal fondo
makes a brighter sound, because it is thinner, is true, and so it would be
true of a reed carrier with a thinner base, made of stronger wood. No mntion
has yet been made of the effect of the sizeor shape of the holes where air
goes into the chamber. There are manuy factors which have effects that have
not been mentioned. Just because an effect is very small. doesn't mean it
isn't part of awareness -- "cachet".
> As I said, the *mechanical* energy generated by a reed is very small
> because it's so small and light, whereas a string stores a lot of
> mechanical energy which is then translated by the instrument body into
> acoustical energy. The mechanical resonance of the reed fixes the
> frequency (unlike a beating reed instrument like a sax) but the sound and
> the harmonics are due to the shape of the air pulses, not higher-frequency
> resonances within the reed or reed block.
>
>>> The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the
>>> reed swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical
>>> vibration of the reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the
>>> frame more closely will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a
>>> brighter sound due to more high-frequency harmonics.
>>
>> No, it is not only that: inharmonicity appears to be also present to
>> some degree in accordions (inharmonicity is the reason for pianos being
>> "stretch tuned"). And inharmonicity can really only come about by
>> higher order vibrations of the reed itself as the air is not resonating
>> significantly: it just follows the reed.
>>
>
> A free-reed instrument -- unlike a stringed one -- can only generate exact
> harmonics (partials) with a single reed.
This is true, but there are varying degress of the strength of the harmonics
due to the size and textures of the chambers, etc. That is probably agreed.
>
> The inharmonic partials in a stringed instrument are due to the fact that
> the string is stiff instead of being freely flexible, so the frequency of
> the higher overtones are shifted from being exact multiples of the
> fundamental resonance -- the harmonics are increasingly sharp as they get
> higher pitched, which is why a piano has stretched tuning. This is why if
> you pluck a string you hear slow beating between the fundamental and the
> harmonics as the sound dies away.
>
A string has a node, that is a finite area whre the string divides, so that
say, three partials will be slightly smaller than one-third and therfore
vibrate sharp, and as halves will be less than 50%.
> A single free-reed generates exactly the same waveform on every cycle, you
> can easily see this if you look at the waveform on an oscilloscope. This
> means that all the harmonics are *exactly* in tune with the fundamental,
> otherwise the waveform would change from one cycle to the next, and it
> doesn't. A certain Mr. Fourier showed this many years ago, and nobody's
> managed to prove he was wrong so far...
>
But two different reeds of the same fundamental pitch will have slighlty
different pictures, mainly different strengths of the harmonics.
> If there are multiple reeds and these are detuned by varying amounts up
> and down the scale then this may no longer be true, but this is nothing to
> do with the partials of a single reed being out of tune with the
> fundamental.
>
Agreed. You could detune them a quarter beat and they would lock, but sound
different than if they were tuned exactly the same. Two other reeds detuned
by exactly the same amount would sound different than the first two.
> A free-reed instrument generates sound in a fundamentally (ho, ho)
> different manner to beating reed, woodwind, or plucked/bowed stringed
> instruments. It's often (usually?) wrong to take facts which apply to such
> instruments and say that these apply to free-reed instruments --
> this includes the effect of resonant bodies, air column resonances,
> inharmonic partials -- because the sound is neither generated or
> propagated in the same way.
>
But there are many valid analogies and similarities just the same.
> When I've time I'll try and dig out some papers on the acoustics of
> free-reed instruments which explain all this...
>
I can hardly wait.
Ian & Hilda Dedic
> It will have an effect related to the type of wood in the following
> manner. A given type of wood might be more rigid than another relative
> its thickness, or mechanical strength coefficient. This means the
> stronger wood takes up less space, and this leaves more space between
> the reed carriers. This forms a resonant cavity. I posit that the effect
> of this is not negligible, though small. As for the earlier statement
> that a metal fondo makes a brighter sound, because it is thinner, is
> true, and so it would be true of a reed carrier with a thinner base,
> made of stronger wood. No mntion has yet been made of the effect of the
> sizeor shape of the holes where air goes into the chamber. There are
> manuy factors which have effects that have not been mentioned. Just
> because an effect is very small. doesn't mean it isn't part of awareness
> -- "cachet".
Exactly what I said several posts back -- thickness, shape, size of
holes in soundboard matters, but material (spruce etc) doesn't.
>> A free-reed instrument -- unlike a stringed one -- can only generate
>> exact harmonics (partials) with a single reed.
>
> This is true, but there are varying degress of the strength of the
> harmonics due to the size and textures of the chambers, etc. That is
> probably agreed.
Also exactly what I said -- chambers etc act as acoustic filters which
alter the frequency response spectrum, usually by removing the higher
partials to give a fuller/sweeter sound. A free reed generates a lot of
strong high-frequency harmonics compares to other types of instruments,
which can give a harsh sound -- especially when several reeds are
sounded together and these partials interact. This is one reason why
equal temperament sounds less good (and mean temperament better) on a
concertina than most instruments, the intonation errors are more obvious.
> A string has a node, that is a finite area whre the string divides, so
> that say, three partials will be slightly smaller than one-third and
> therfore vibrate sharp, and as halves will be less than 50%.
Precisely.
>> A single free-reed generates exactly the same waveform on every cycle,
>> you can easily see this if you look at the waveform on an
>> oscilloscope. This means that all the harmonics are *exactly* in tune
>> with the fundamental, otherwise the waveform would change from one
>> cycle to the next, and it doesn't. A certain Mr. Fourier showed this
>> many years ago, and nobody's managed to prove he was wrong so far...
>>
> But two different reeds of the same fundamental pitch will have slighlty
> different pictures, mainly different strengths of the harmonics.
>
>> If there are multiple reeds and these are detuned by varying amounts
>> up and down the scale then this may no longer be true, but this is
>> nothing to do with the partials of a single reed being out of tune
>> with the fundamental.
>>
> Agreed. You could detune them a quarter beat and they would lock, but
> sound different than if they were tuned exactly the same. Two other
> reeds detuned by exactly the same amount would sound different than the
> first two.
Also many tuning schemes (e.g. one reed concert pitch, one sharp) are
not centered on true pitch, which means the octaves don't sound true
unless the tuning is "stretched" like a piano -- but the reason is the
tuning of multiple reeds, not inharmonic partials in one reed.
> But there are many valid analogies and similarities just the same.
Of course there are -- and just as many invalid ones. Which is which?
>> When I've time I'll try and dig out some papers on the acoustics of
>> free-reed instruments which explain all this...
>>
>
> I can hardly wait.
http://www.public.coe.edu/~jcotting/acoustics.html
http://www.concertina.org/pica/index.htm (Tom Tonon's paper 2/2005 issue)
http://tinyurl.com/5f9oal -- books on free-reed instrument physics (you
can read these at the British Library if you live there like I do :-)
The conclusions of all of these are similar:
-- the reed physical vibration is close to a sinewave (no harmonics to
speak of)
-- the reed vibration amplitude is almost independent of air pressure
-- no significant energy is generated by the reed itself or coupled into
its mounting
-- all the sound and harmonic content is due to the shape and size of
the chopped-up air pulses generated as the reed swings in and out of the
frame, plus...
-- the air path from the reed to the outside world (including any
resonant chambers) is the main other factor that affects the sound
Cheers
Ian
Ian & Hilda Dedic
>> The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the
>> reed swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical
>> vibration of the reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the
>> frame more closely will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a
>> brighter sound due to more high-frequency harmonics.
>>
> Don't forget the profile of the reed thickness along its length, and the
> quality of the steel. and whether the surface ot the steel is polished,
> rough, or matte finish. Also the precision with which the plate is
> machined, and the depth of the aperture, and the way the reed lies above
> the aperture.
Completely agreed, which is why high-quality reeds correctly set in the
frames speak and sound much better.
> The way the reed is mounted, like th type of wax or other substrate,
> does make a lot of difference. I don't claim definitively that the
> material the block is made of, or tension on the woods makes a
> difference, but I suspect that the more rigidly and uniformly the
> materials are joined together, will make a difference in the quality of
> sound.
Any wood is rigid enough for this task, even balsa (as Stromy Hyde said
some time ago). If you made the reed blocks out of jelly you might see a
difference..:-)
The type of woods, contributes mightily to the rigidity while
> conserving weight. The ability to shape the chamber and the precision of
> how the chambers are made is highly dependent on the type and quality of
> wood used. The wax has to be solid, and it will grip the reed plate
> tightly as it cools. If the wax is too soft or deteriorates, air will be
> lost and some motion will be not transmitted. If the plate is loose even
> slightly. the sojund will suffer. Some kind of turbulence or chaotic
> motion will result. Every part of the casing and reed carriers should be
> rigid, but light. The lightness is desirable for ergonomic reasons alone.
All true, but this means that what matters is the physical properties of
the wood (how easy it is to work, how light the resulting instrument is)
not the acoustic properties of the wood (resonance etc -- spruce vs.
plywood). Which is precisely where I started this thread off...
>
>>
>> P.S. Anyone drawing comparisons between stringed instrument and
>> accordion soundboards should go away and read a good textbook and/or
>> technical papers on the acoustics of musical instruments, including
>> free-reed ones. The conclusion is quite obvious... :-)
>
> But there are some valid analogies to be drawn, if you accept my thesis.
Indeed, and at least as many invalid ones (e.g. audio cable skin effect
and impedance).
So we have to distinguish which is which. Soundboard resonance in an
accordeon is definitely in the invalid category, as far as I (and
physics) can tell :-)
Cheers
Ian
Johann Pascher
wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
Sorry Ian but this time you lean out to far with your statements!
If you would have made that that go further you definitely would come
to a different conclusion!
I don't have time to explain all this thoroughly at the moment but,
comparing is definitely wrong.
1. First the reed can produce harmonic that are not integer multiples
of the fundamental over tones, but not coursed by the same
circumstances. This can not be seen on the first or second harmonic as
it is with strings.
So comparing a reed wit a string is not possible.
2. The surface of a reed chamber is not the major influence in
changing over ton content, this are the sympathetic resonances
produced by varies surrounding conditions.
main condition cavity volume resonance (helmholtz) then length
section of chamber resonance, then cross section resonance, .. and
many other symptom resonating physical circumstances.
3. all the resonances are especially on rather high relations to the
fundamental and change the timber in a different way as we could
change it with electronic filters, because:
4.this resonance effects do not only influence the amplitude of
certain frequency's, the als modulate other frequency's (pitch change)
to some extent, not constant for all overtones in the same amount.
Johann Pascher
>
> But there are many valid analogies and similarities just the same.
>
> > When I've time I'll try and dig out some papers on the acoustics of
> > free-reed instruments which explain all this...
>
> I can hardly wait.
Now i also o must say all this arguments of "wathsanike" show that he
made his exercise!
and show the he get more and more insight.
Yes there aer papers on the subject but the are far from up to date.
New papers war promised but i still wait to be published, by the IFM
institute.
Johann
Johann Pascher
the last post of Ian!
Still, i keep on saying dot take everything what was written in the
past on this subject as absolute truth!
>>>-- the reed vibration amplitude is almost independent of air pressure
>>>-- no significant energy is generated by the reed itself or coupled into its mounting
By simplifying one can state the above two lines, but it take not in
account that there is always a feed back effect!
As you cant speak a reed without air at all, so all surrounding
condition couple in more less to the reed again.
coupling not only via the mounting of the reed its the acustic
coupling as well.
reed -> air -> (any or some phsical part of the insrument) -> air ->
reed
This are NOT this major effects but the influence timber of the sound.
whatsanike
> whatsanike wrote:
>
>> It will have an effect related to the type of wood in the following
>> manner. A given type of wood might be more rigid than another relative
>> its thickness, or mechanical strength coefficient. This means the
>> stronger wood takes up less space, and this leaves more space between the
>> reed carriers. This forms a resonant cavity. I posit that the effect of
>> this is not negligible, though small. As for the earlier statement that a
>> metal fondo makes a brighter sound, because it is thinner, is true, and
>> so it would be true of a reed carrier with a thinner base, made of
>> stronger wood. No mntion has yet been made of the effect of the sizeor
>> shape of the holes where air goes into the chamber. There are manuy
>> factors which have effects that have not been mentioned. Just because an
>> effect is very small. doesn't mean it isn't part of awareness --
>> "cachet".
>
> Exactly what I said several posts back -- thickness, shape, size of holes
> in soundboard matters, but material (spruce etc) doesn't.
>
was used for several reasons, some of which are what you now seem to agree
about.
Other than the paucity of inharmonicity, stretch tuning is result of the
tendency of weaker reed, that is higher octaves, to "lock" frequency with
the lower octave reed, and not be heard. For the higher reed be heard, there
needs to be wider octave. If the octave is noarrow, the beating of the
partials is doubled, and sounds dissonant. With a wider octave, the slow
beating might not be haerd or noticed in the finite amount of time the reeds
are sounding.
>> But there are many valid analogies and similarities just the same.
>
> Of course there are -- and just as many invalid ones. Which is which?
>
>>> When I've time I'll try and dig out some papers on the acoustics of
>>> free-reed instruments which explain all this...
>>>
>>
>> I can hardly wait.
>
> http://www.public.coe.edu/~jcotting/acoustics.html
>
> http://www.concertina.org/pica/index.htm (Tom Tonon's paper 2/2005 issue)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5f9oal -- books on free-reed instrument physics (you
> can read these at the British Library if you live there like I do :-)
>
> The conclusions of all of these are similar:
>
> -- the reed physical vibration is close to a sinewave (no harmonics to
> speak of)
> -- the reed vibration amplitude is almost independent of air pressure
> -- no significant energy is generated by the reed itself or coupled into
> its mounting
I have not surfed over to these studies yet, but this part I would not agree
with. There might not be detectable coupling to like, the mounting, but if
the mounting is not rigid, there will be a loss of acoustic energy. and
rigidity can be increased, and sympathetic vibrations, by coupling the
multiple reed carriers by means of small metal rods or flat pieces mounted
across them. If this technique is valid, which I say it is, then also the
rigidity of the carriers, and the coupling of the carriers to the fondo,
should also create stronger sympathetic vibrations accross the various
reeds. Note: reeds that are less caplable of sympatheic vibration, e.g.,
Chinese reeds, would not benefit much from better construction practices as
I understand them.
> -- all the sound and harmonic content is due to the shape and size of the
> chopped-up air pulses generated as the reed swings in and out of the
> frame, plus...
> -- the air path from the reed to the outside world (including any resonant
> chambers) is the main other factor that affects the sound
>
Especially for Chinese accordions.
whatsanike
> whatsanike wrote:
>
>>> The harmonics come from the shape of the air pulses generated by the
>>> reed swinging in and out of the reed frame, not the mechanical vibration
>>> of the reed in the frame; a high-quality reed which fits the frame more
>>> closely will generate sharper-edged pulses which means a brighter sound
>>> due to more high-frequency harmonics.
>>>
>> Don't forget the profile of the reed thickness along its length, and the
>> quality of the steel. and whether the surface ot the steel is polished,
>> rough, or matte finish. Also the precision with which the plate is
>> machined, and the depth of the aperture, and the way the reed lies above
>> the aperture.
>
> Completely agreed, which is why high-quality reeds correctly set in the
> frames speak and sound much better.
>
>> The way the reed is mounted, like th type of wax or other substrate, does
>> make a lot of difference. I don't claim definitively that the material
>> the block is made of, or tension on the woods makes a difference, but I
>> suspect that the more rigidly and uniformly the materials are joined
>> together, will make a difference in the quality of sound.
>
> Any wood is rigid enough for this task, even balsa (as Stromy Hyde said
> some time ago). If you made the reed blocks out of jelly you might see a
> difference..:-)
Perhaps, but the implication seemed to be that using the Norway spruce was a
frivolus expense or unnecessary, but the material is based on durability,
workability, weight and availability. Balsa would not qualify without
modification of its properties.
>
> The type of woods, contributes mightily to the rigidity while
>> conserving weight. The ability to shape the chamber and the precision of
>> how the chambers are made is highly dependent on the type and quality of
>> wood used. The wax has to be solid, and it will grip the reed plate
>> tightly as it cools. If the wax is too soft or deteriorates, air will be
>> lost and some motion will be not transmitted. If the plate is loose even
>> slightly. the sojund will suffer. Some kind of turbulence or chaotic
>> motion will result. Every part of the casing and reed carriers should be
>> rigid, but light. The lightness is desirable for ergonomic reasons alone.
>
> All true, but this means that what matters is the physical properties of
> the wood (how easy it is to work, how light the resulting instrument is)
> not the acoustic properties of the wood (resonance etc -- spruce vs.
> plywood). Which is precisely where I started this thread off...
Well, perhaps I misunderstood.
>>
>>>
>>> P.S. Anyone drawing comparisons between stringed instrument and
>>> accordion soundboards should go away and read a good textbook and/or
>>> technical papers on the acoustics of musical instruments, including
>>> free-reed ones. The conclusion is quite obvious... :-)
>>
>> But there are some valid analogies to be drawn, if you accept my thesis.
>
> Indeed, and at least as many invalid ones (e.g. audio cable skin effect
> and impedance).
>
> So we have to distinguish which is which. Soundboard resonance in an
> accordeon is definitely in the invalid category, as far as I (and physics)
> can tell :-)
>
There are more things (and thongs) in the universe than you can shake a
stick at.
whatsanike
"Johann Pascher" <Johann....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7212c9e-709a-4ee5...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Very interesting, and just as I would have said, but of course Ian will say
that it was not part of the original assertions, and probably agree, because
he is never wrong, only incmplete. ;)
Ian & Hilda Dedic
>> said some time ago). If you made the reed blocks out of jelly you
>> might see a difference..:-)
>
> Perhaps, but the implication seemed to be that using the Norway spruce
> was a frivolus expense or unnecessary, but the material is based on
> durability, workability, weight and availability. Balsa would not
> qualify without modification of its properties.
>> of the wood (how easy it is to work, how light the resulting
>> instrument is) not the acoustic properties of the wood (resonance etc
>> -- spruce vs. plywood). Which is precisely where I started this thread
>> off...
>
> Well, perhaps I misunderstood.
Well, *I* thought the original post made this very clear:
> No need to attribute any "magic sound" to whether the "soundboard" on
> an accordion is made from wood A or wood B (or metal), any effect on
> the sound would be due to the size and shape of the holes in it not
> the material it's made from.
I'm glad we seem to agree on this!
Cheers
Ian
Johann Pascher
wrote:
> whatsanike wrote:
>
>
> Well, *I* thought the original post made this very clear:
>
> > No need to attribute any "magic sound" to whether the "soundboard" on
> > an accordion is made from wood A or wood B (or metal), any effect on
> > the sound would be due to the size and shape of the holes in it not
> > the material it's made from.
>
> I'm glad we seem to agree on this!
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian
No i dont agee!
But i don't say there is a traumatic influence, and for a average
customer it may not be really worth thinking about it.
Lets but it that way you mention "the size and shape of the holes"
as opposite factor that would be effecting the sound more as sound
board material type.
first you would need to mention the size what ant tn shape what would
matter.
lets first take the size of the holes:
Size depend much on the air what is needed to drive the reed and this
is not the same for low pitched and high pitches reeds (beside the
quality of the reed).
In reality there is not much possible variation change in size at all
because for construction reason you cant make the size much bigger,
you would nee to increase the tension of the springs at the same time!
There is also low size limit because you would get viselling noise and
wind noise bi side other effects.
So in reality the size for a certain pitched reed is really not
changeable still little variation in size are possible and within the
possible variation the timber and pitch of the reed is effected but
more as by the soundboard material?
Much more effect on pitch, talk reaction and timbre of a reed has the
size of the hole has the thickness of the soundboard!
Now the shape of the hole:
Yes very little effect definitely would say less as the material of
the soundboard.
Still lets compare way are square holes usual today peered when are
the same time test prove that round holes are preferable?
easy to answer with square hols you can but the reeds closer to each
other by at the same time having the same opening size.
Anny change in cross-section form chamber to the opening makes a
change in sound but, it is very little again.
What makes mach more change in sound is the position of the opening in
relation to the reed, so the direction of the reed in relation to the
opening also make a lot of change again.
One reason was Concertinas ans bandoneos sound different,
This is again just some of of what i learned by constructing and
testing.
best regards, Johann
Ian & Hilda Dedic
When the pallet is open the air in the sound hole forms a Helmholtz
resonator with the air inside the reed chamber (like a reflex
loudspeaker box), this acts as a lowpass filter which attenuates the
higher harmonics of the reed.
http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/h/e/helmholtz%20resonator/source.html
The resonant frequency of such a resonator depends on the area and
effective length of the "port" and volume inside the chamber. Smaller
hole area and/or thicker soundboard gives a lower resonant frequency
which makes the sound duller, larger hole area and/or thinner soundboard
gives a higher resonant frequency which makes the sound brighter.
Also the constriction in the air path formed by the hole impedes the
free flow of air through the reed, which together with the position of
the reed inside the chamber affects the sound.
One reason that melodeons without stops can be made to sound brighter is
that the size of the hole possible with stops is limited, the width of
the hole has to be less than half the pitch between the pallets in order
for the stop to be able to close off the air holes.
In my Oakwood (2 reeds, no stops, very bright and clear sound) the air
holes are rectangular, width is about 2/3 of the pallet pitch, height is
about 50% greater than this -- in other words the hole in the soundboard
(which is made from thin plywood) is almost as large as the
cross-section of the reed chamber, which is the best that is possible.
There are many reasons that concertinas and bandoneons sound different;
the reeds and reed frames and the way they are mounted are completely
different, bandoneons have two reeds tuned an octave apart where
concertinas have one, the shape and sizes of the reed chambers are
different, the case construction and size are different -- in fact the
list of ways that the two instruments are similar is much shorter than
the list of ways that they are different... :-)
Cheers
Ian
Johann Pascher
Yes, i agree basically, !
But you give no facts how much the size of the hole counts, the link
of the helmholtz formula yes.
Every one can do his exercise and he will see how the relations are.
But keep in mind this is NOT the only Resonator.
It is one of the main resonant spot for higher pitched reed yes.
Air columns form resonance at other frequency's as well and the can be
related to any reflecting material.
As i mentioned before it is very easy to set up test-condition with
variable chambers to measure the additional resonating frequencies of
a chamber in relation to the rectangular shape of the chamber.
Because the chamber is not shaped like a bottle, it has parallel
reflecting wall as well it develops many more resonance spots as it is
by the typical helmholz situation.
Nothing is absolute independent from the surrounding conditions.
Some wood has the ability to reflect certain frequencies better as
others so here comes the question on wood type in again.
How much the influence the reed again is in most case difficult to
say, yes but we go to far if we say the don't count at all because the
main factors are this and there is nothing else what counts.
Start tests and you will come to the same conclusion if you look out
for it!
best regards, Johann
Ian & Hilda Dedic
> Yes, i agree basically, !
>
> But you give no facts how much the size of the hole counts, the link
> of the helmholtz formula yes.
> Every one can do his exercise and he will see how the relations are.
>
> But keep in mind this is NOT the only Resonator.
>
> It is one of the main resonant spot for higher pitched reed yes.
>
> Air columns form resonance at other frequency's as well and the can be
> related to any reflecting material.
> As i mentioned before it is very easy to set up test-condition with
> variable chambers to measure the additional resonating frequencies of
> a chamber in relation to the rectangular shape of the chamber.
> Because the chamber is not shaped like a bottle, it has parallel
> reflecting wall as well it develops many more resonance spots as it is
> by the typical helmholz situation.
>
> Nothing is absolute independent from the surrounding conditions.
> Some wood has the ability to reflect certain frequencies better as
> others so here comes the question on wood type in again.
> How much the influence the reed again is in most case difficult to
> say, yes but we go to far if we say the don't count at all because the
> main factors are this and there is nothing else what counts.
>
> Start tests and you will come to the same conclusion if you look out
> for it!
>
>
> best regards, Johann
>
I didn't give the equation because it's very easy to find :-)
There are indeed many resonances, but most are at a much higher
frequency -- the lowest resonant frequency inside a chamber is where one
wavelength equals the size, if you take a typical reed chamber which
might be 4cm long the lowest resonance is at 8.5kHz, all the others
(higher order and/or across the width) will be above the audible range,
-- in other words only the lowest length mode resonance of the reed
chamber will be audible, the others can be ignored.
If the instrument has cassotto chambers then maybe there are lower
frequency resonances because the chambers are bigger, but most will
still be above the audible range. The main effect of these chambers is
to reduce the high frequencies by making the sound travel round more
corners, each time this happens there is some loss which increases with
frequency.
However, resonances across and along the enclosed spaces inside the ends
of the instrument will have a stronger effect because the size is much
bigger (tens of cm rather than cm), so the resonances are in the kHz
region (midrange). You can see this if you move a microphone around
inside the end at a resonant frequency, the volume varies with position
-- there will be a pressure maximum at the wall and a velocity maximum
in the middle.
In such a resonant chamber the wood type will have a small effect on the
sound absorption as I said in an earlier post, this basically varies
with the density of the wood (denser wood = lower absorption) -- however
the Q of the resonator won't be very high because a lot of sound is
escaping to the outside. so this will be a small effect (would be bigger
in an enclosed chamber but of course you wouldn't hear anything!)
Varnishing (with a hard varnish) decreases absorption especially at very
high frequencies and when sound is reflected, but again this is a small
effect for the same reasons.
All these facts are well known in the acoustics of musical instruments),
and relatively easy to predict for a free-reed instrument because it is
essentially a much easier and more predictable bit of physics than a
stringed instrument, where the sound depends greatly on the fine
resonant properties of the wood and the exact structure (bracing etc),
and there are a great number of structural resonances within the audible
band -- an interesting summary of this can be seen here:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/696
This is where I started the thread -- many things that strongly affect
the sound of stringed instruments have little or no effect on the sound
of free-reed instruments, and drawing analogies from them (like the
"spruce soundboard" one) is very often wrong.
Cheers
Ian
Johann Pascher
I just would like to give you one more thing to think about.
You mean higher response will not count because it is out of the range
of audit able range of our ears.
i also did think so but it seams to exist an other phenomena, some of
thy higher overtone "modulate" lower frequency and some interference
frequencies are produced again.
And this interference diffenthal tones are auditable again.
Yes l this results are getting Les ans less and we may say that don't
count.
The main problem is that our ear can detect sound totally different as
our electronic systems and tools can!
You don't think so?
Try to tell by looking at a spectrum chart (or with sound analyzing
software) who was the person you did hear talking by and not seeing
the person?
"All these facts are well known in the acoustics of musical
instruments),
and relatively easy to predict for a free-reed instrument because it
is
essentially a much easier and more predictable bit of physics than a
stringed instrument,.. "
No not true how many accordions did you build to make this statement?
"where the sound depends greatly on the fine
resonant properties of the wood and the exact structure (bracing etc),
and there are a great number of structural resonances within the
audible
band -- an interesting summary of this can be seen here:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/696
This is where I started the thread -- many things that strongly affect
the sound of stringed instruments have little or no effect on the
sound
of free-reed instruments, and drawing analogies from them (like the
"spruce soundboard" one) is very often wrong.
Who does her the comparing?
"have little or no effect" yes but you cant says it does not count at
all!
Yes you cant compare i agree some has nearly the opposite effect as on
string instruments.
We have different goals we had of:
Now i do a comparing:
Ideal may be a accordion box and that would not vibrate or build out
"modes" on any part of the box, but unfortunately this is not the
case.
(i am not sure if we would like the sound if it is absolutely the case
that nothing from the body of the accordion would contribute to the
sound quality)
Box's completely made out of alternative materials prove that the
sound different.
Sound board is natural just one of the parts of the box what build up
"modes" as string instruments do yes the mods are totally little
compared to string instrument.
And if we just take the sound board it may be as little that you could
tell the difference.
Again ideal ma b aboard the is absolutely stable and light at the same
time.
So this also my ex plan way plywood is not a bad decision for case
materiel because we are heading for DIFFENT gaols as on String
instruments.
(In Opposite the this i personally like the sound of a a box mad
completely out of spruce even it has a less stronger sound but to me
it sound much more appealing.)
The reed with the air column in motion is the main sound generator!
and we would like that nothing else would vibrate at all to give the
reed the wanted firm attachment to a firm massive counter part. Again
this is never the case, so the some effects result from this this it
is not as we would like it.
Does the material of a flute or a brass instrument contributed to it
sound?
There you also have the air column as main source and modes on or in
the material are little compared to the total resulting sound.
So do build some boxes and you will come to a different conclusion
that my advice!
best regards, Johann
David Kastrup
> The main problem is that our ear can detect sound totally different as
> our electronic systems and tools can!
>
> You don't think so?
>
>
> Try to tell by looking at a spectrum chart (or with sound analyzing
> software) who was the person you did hear talking by and not seeing
> the person?
Now try by listening to a recording who the recorded person is. Look
and behold, easy to do because the electronic system recorded and
reproduced everything that is required. Now try to do this on the phone
which cuts off frequencies at about 3.5kHz (and since we have digital
phone transmission, this cutoff is hard). Again, no problem recognizing
the person speaking, even with much content lost. You can't recognize
the spectrogram? Well that's raw data and you are not used to
processing it. You wouldn't recognize sculptures by sound, but that's
just what bats are used to doing. Sure they operate at higher
frequencies, but then they are able to pick out insects.
Ventura
Johann Pascher wrote:
> (In Opposite the this i personally like the sound of a a box mad
> completely out of spruce even it has a less stronger sound but to me
> it sound much more appealing.)
>
it may interest you to know, Johann, that the
Bosendorfer Piano uses Spruce for the rim,
(outer body, large curved then flat surround that
frames the piano plate/board etc. and supports the lid)
which they build and form in a different way than
all other Grand Piano werks
they do feel it colors the tone overall, though i'd suppose
technically speaking the outer frame on the Piano is no
more relevant sonically than the tightly fixed body
parts of the Accordion in this discussion
Bosendorfer also is one of the last to spend the time and
money to pre-select and fully stabilize the woods they
(intend to) use (which is roughly 3 years in their system)
which adds considerably to the cost, and makes long-term
planning a far more critical element of their production
than other Piano makers, who can ramp up production on
short notice.
again, this is a facet of Accordionmaking i believe now lost,
but one that will show, in time, that todays products are
not long-term stable as were the accordions of the 20th century
Ciao
Ventura
Johann Pascher
Hi David,
" Well that's raw data and you are not used to processing it."
Yes thats the problem we also don't know mathematical constructions to
find special sound phenomena as we can by ear.
One promising way to do i could be to use fractal technique to find
repeating bitterns within row data.
other could be to do a new way of graphic interpretation of the row
data. spectrum analyses as we use it today is not suitable for it.
David Kastrup
> On Jun 16, 1:09 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Johann Pascher <Johann.Pasc...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > The main problem is that our ear can detect sound totally different as
>> > our electronic systems and tools can!
>>
>> > You don't think so?
>>
>> > Try to tell by looking at a spectrum chart (or with sound analyzing
>> > software) who was the person you did hear talking by and not seeing
>> > the person?
>>
>> Now try by listening to a recording who the recorded person is. Look
>> and behold, easy to do because the electronic system recorded and
>> reproduced everything that is required. Now try to do this on the phone
>> which cuts off frequencies at about 3.5kHz (and since we have digital
>> phone transmission, this cutoff is hard). Again, no problem recognizing
>> the person speaking, even with much content lost. You can't recognize
>> the spectrogram? Well that's raw data and you are not used to
>> processing it. You wouldn't recognize sculptures by sound, but that's
>> just what bats are used to doing. Sure they operate at higher
>> frequencies, but then they are able to pick out insects.
>
> " Well that's raw data and you are not used to processing it."
>
> Yes thats the problem we also don't know mathematical constructions to
> find special sound phenomena as we can by ear.
You are changing the topic. Anyway, my point was that there are no high
frequency contents relevant to the sound of the accordion that don't
make it onto recordings. Even if you want to speculate about
intermodular distortion (high frequency content influencing lower
components through nonlinear interaction): the involved sound carriers
are rather linear in their behavior, and the amplitude of the high
frequency components is rather small. It is quite unlikely that there
is sufficient resonance to make them large when compared to the
amplitude of the lower frequency components. And if they are small, the
nonlinear effects are negligible, and thus whether or not such
resonances happen will not be relevant for either recording or direct
hearing.
> One promising way to do i could be to use fractal technique to find
> repeating bitterns within row data.
>
> other could be to do a new way of graphic interpretation of the row
> data. spectrum analyses as we use it today is not suitable for it.
How would you know? Have you spent years of training as a child to pick
spectrograms apart into their relevant parts, like you did with sound?
Ian & Hilda Dedic
> "All these facts are well known in the acoustics of musical
> instruments),
> and relatively easy to predict for a free-reed instrument because it
> is
> essentially a much easier and more predictable bit of physics than a
> stringed instrument,.. "
>
> No not true how many accordions did you build to make this statement?
I don't need to build a car to know that it's a lot more complicated
than a pushbike. A stringed instrument is *acoustically* much more
complex than an accordeon, in terms of what generates and radiates the
sound and the effect or structural resonances, and is much more
sensitive to the material properties used to build it -- I don't believe
that anyone would disagree with this.
>
> Who does her the comparing?
>
> "have little or no effect" yes but you cant says it does not count at
> all!
This is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin --
there's no point worrying about things which can be shown to only have a
very small effect on the sound until you've perfected the things which
have a much bigger effect. Given the amount of actual rigorous research
that has been done into the sound of free-reed instruments -- very
little compared to things like violins and trumpets -- I think there's a
long way to go before the small things matter, because the big things
are not really sorted out.
> Does the material of a flute or a brass instrument contributed to it
> sound?
> There you also have the air column as main source and modes on or in
> the material are little compared to the total resulting sound.
Yes, because unlike a free reed instrument the frequency and tone are
heavily dependent on the resonant air column; anything that affects the
Q of this (which includes the stiffness and damping of the walls) will
strongly influence the sound. With a free reed instrument the effect of
resonances is secondary, not the primary sound source like a wind
instrument.
>
> So do build some boxes and you will come to a different conclusion
> that my advice!
I've played and dismantled many boxes, and the Oakwood that I play had
several modifications to the design which I suggested to improve the
sound. Since many people have said it's one of the best-sounding boxes
(of its type) they've ever heard I can only assume that at least some of
my ideas are correct, as well as being based on scientific principles :-)
Cheers
Ian
David Kastrup
> Johann Pascher wrote:
>
>> "All these facts are well known in the acoustics of musical
>> instruments),
>> and relatively easy to predict for a free-reed instrument because it
>> is
>> essentially a much easier and more predictable bit of physics than a
>> stringed instrument,.. "
>>
>> No not true how many accordions did you build to make this statement?
>
> I don't need to build a car to know that it's a lot more complicated
> than a pushbike. A stringed instrument is *acoustically* much more
> complex than an accordeon, in terms of what generates and radiates the
> sound and the effect or structural resonances, and is much more
> sensitive to the material properties used to build it -- I don't
> believe that anyone would disagree with this.
Well, I'd say that the material properties of the pegs of a violin are
not as important for the sound than the material of the reeds of an
accordion.
In short: it depends on where you look. Parts of a violin are quite
influential for the sound (I am just now returning a freshly acquired
violin I had a violin maker check out because of its nasality, and
basically the bridge is not really properly carved to the curvature of
the top of the violin, the sound post is not fitted properly and the
wrong way round, the string holder is too long/close to the bridge: in
short, somebody prepared this instrument for selling who had materials
and some tools and skills, but no clue). But others are not.
If you take a look at some of the more impressive Stradivaris, they are
chock full of wood inlays, and they still sound great.
Ian & Hilda Dedic
Their are many strongly-held beliefs about what makes a musical
instrument sound good (or bad); some of these are correct, some are
undoubtedly not.
For example, everyone *knows* that the sound of a Stradivarius violin is
impossible to equal in modern instruments, which is why they're worth
millions of dollars each.
As far as I can find out, this has been tested only twice under
double-blind conditions (when the audience -- including violin experts,
players and teachers) didn't know which they were listening to:
http://bayesianheresy.blogspot.com/2007/07/sound-of-10000000-violin-how-do-you.html
http://newagnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/BICH/Sep2203a.htm
So Bosendorfer may or may not be correct -- if they can either show by
measurement or (preferably) by blind testing that the spruce surround
makes a difference then I'll believe them, if not then I'd have to
suggest that they're wrong -- no matter how genuinely they believe
otherwise, and no matter how many years they've been making pianos.
Please note, I'm *not* saying that because we can't explain (or measure)
a difference there isn't one -- we might not be analysing the right
thing or making the right measurement to show the difference, and the
ear is very sensitive to some things (and not others).
I am saying that if you can't hear the difference without biasing the
answer by knowing which is which, there *is* no audible difference no
matter how much you might like to believe it.
Always remember the Emperor's New Clothes fairytale... :-)
Cheers
Ian
Ian & Hilda Dedic
> Ian & Hilda Dedic <news....@dedics.co.uk> writes:
>> I don't need to build a car to know that it's a lot more complicated
>> than a pushbike. A stringed instrument is *acoustically* much more
>> complex than an accordeon, in terms of what generates and radiates the
>> sound and the effect or structural resonances, and is much more
>> sensitive to the material properties used to build it -- I don't
>> believe that anyone would disagree with this.
>
> Well, I'd say that the material properties of the pegs of a violin are
> not as important for the sound than the material of the reeds of an
> accordion.
I agree completely -- but as I think you know very well, I was talking
about effect on the sound of the materials used to build the reed
chambers/soundboard/body of an accordion compared to the body of a
violin, not the reed compared to a tuning peg!
>
> In short: it depends on where you look. Parts of a violin are quite
> influential for the sound (I am just now returning a freshly acquired
> violin I had a violin maker check out because of its nasality, and
> basically the bridge is not really properly carved to the curvature of
> the top of the violin, the sound post is not fitted properly and the
> wrong way round, the string holder is too long/close to the bridge: in
> short, somebody prepared this instrument for selling who had materials
> and some tools and skills, but no clue). But others are not.
>
> If you take a look at some of the more impressive Stradivaris, they are
> chock full of wood inlays, and they still sound great.
>
All true, and the paper I quoted a few posts back explains why things
like the bridge position and shape, sound post position and so on are so
important for the sound of a violin, and why they are so sensitive to
exact set-up.
Cheers
Ian
David Kastrup
> Ventura wrote:
>
>> again, this is a facet of Accordionmaking i believe now lost,
>> but one that will show, in time, that todays products are
>> not long-term stable as were the accordions of the 20th century
>
> So Bosendorfer may or may not be correct -- if they can either show by
> measurement or (preferably) by blind testing that the spruce surround
> makes a difference then I'll believe them, if not then I'd have to
> suggest that they're wrong -- no matter how genuinely they believe
> otherwise, and no matter how many years they've been making pianos.
Blind testing durability and long-term stability? That does not even
make sense.
Johann Pascher
> > Does the material of a flute or a brass instrument contributed to it
> > sound?
> > There you also have the air column as main source and modes on or in
> > the material are little compared to the total resulting sound.
>
Ian wrote:
> Yes, because unlike a free reed instrument the frequency and tone are
> heavily dependent on the resonant air column; [...] With a free reed
> instrument the effect of resonances is secondary,
> not the primary sound source like a wind
> instrument.
>
Again no question that there are major differences!
Still the same principle appliys with different relations to both!
But you are definitely wrong if you, take this, and make the
conclusion
You could neglect the factor with free reed instruments.
Some ida what the differences are my give if you study the different
types of
Asia free red instrument that use free reed in combination with pipes.
Again there major differences and it is difficult to transfer the
results of comparing to modern reed instrument.
This asien reed instrument's us somewhat different free reeds with are
not as stiff as reed in accordion so
the pitch of the instrummt can be varred by one octave or more with a
single reed.
A average accordion reed if used on the same pipe with would change
the pitch by one semitone.
But the sound color is traumatically changed with varying pipe length.
And i say here again because our ear is more sensitive to sound color
as you like to confess we
can distiglish little changes in sound coloration what builds up the
characteristic of a typical
sound as we can recognise individual persons we can recognize
individual instruments.
Ian wrote:
> anything that affects the
> Q of this (which includes the stiffness and damping of the walls) will
> [...] influence the sound.
So you say this is true for reed pipe instruments, then it is also
true for reed instruments
with less effect on pith but with nearly the same effect on sound
color.
Both systems use the air column with some sort of
generator (reed) coupling between is different.
One reason may by that we tend to neglect the factor that the air
column is present with reeds in a accordion
may be because no pipe are present as with other instruments we think
no air column is in actually present,
but if we like it or not it is always the air column that is in motion
and surrounding parts do have an effect on
it sure the are far more difficult to get hold of as it is with a
pipe.
Yes and the reed play a major factor! But with many thing we make a
big mistake if we dont think
global or holistically. You must see the reed with its environment!
So i say again do your tests, all easy to prove, if you don't want to
"build cars"
you could setup test conditions to prove what you say, i for my part
did and some of the tests are available well.
bes regards, Johann
David Kastrup
> Yes, because unlike a free reed instrument the frequency and tone are
> heavily dependent on the resonant air column; anything that affects
> the Q of this (which includes the stiffness and damping of the walls)
> will strongly influence the sound. With a free reed instrument the
> effect of resonances is secondary, not the primary sound source like a
> wind instrument.
With a non-free reed instrument, the primary sound source is the reed.
Still the rest of the instrument is important.
The human voice is essentially a free reed instrument. The glottal air
pulses from the vocal folds are basically just buzz. Much of the sound
characteristics (and speech and stuff) is formed behind. Now we _talk_
with each other by very fast tuning through various resonances in the
mouth and thus shaping the overtones. And in spite of all the
information the listener picks apart in real time, there is still enough
capacity left for prosody: hearing tension, annoyance, anger and
similar.
The human ear is very capable of picking out very subtle shapings of
overtones and connecting them with emotions and information.
So yes, small changes behind the primary sound source have a chance not
to go unnoticed by the listener.
--
David Kastrup
Ventura
> make sense.
the ideal in manufacturing is vertical integration
in other words, you control all or as many of the
different elements as you can possibly manage
raw plastic material is converted into buttons and
keytops, and a company that makes things out of
plastic can be contracted by an accordionmaker to
provide these finished components (according to spec)
the plastic forming factory does not truly understand
the needs or reasoning behind the specs... therefore they
cannot make improvements or resist cost efficiencies that
might positively or negatively impact the accordions that
are built
the Empiric accordion masters of the 20th century did,
and they cared about it, and they tried to control even
this basic level of process in the pursuit of making
better accordions
now this may seem like small potatoes to ya, but the vast
majority of accordion "assembly" houses left don't understand
enough about plastics to even write a good "spec" anymore,
much less spend R&D effort on such things
When you stop and think of all the different vertical levels
similar to this example, and how many of them are lost to
the control of the Accordion Industry (leathers, skins,
kilning your own woods, having a wood buyer on staff that
goes out in the world and competitively bids on raw stock
on the open market) then you should begin to understand why
most accordions are, on average, a few ounces heavier than
their ancestors, why the keys craze, why more shells
warp and crack soon after the warranty period expires
with the destruction of SEM, and shuttering the CEMEX/Excelsior
works, you have eliminated the last of the truly vertically
integrated Accordion factories in the Western World
period
and there are no indications I see, outside of Pigini, where
vertical integration is even ON the managment Agenda, and
obviously if they thought they could have afforded it in
todays economy, they would have kept the Cemex Kiln and
ancient machinery from the New York factory - so one wonders
what level of process control is even remotely possible
in the 21st century
conclusion: the accordions of Today will not last nearly
as long as their 20th century ancestors, nor will they age
as gracefully and playably
and, again, this is why the best chance for Accordionists and
Students 50 years from now to own and play accordions with the touch
and tone of the fine Vintage instruments is in the continued
development and perfection of digital Reedless accordions
Acoustic Accordions being, at best, built as well as possible,
but never improving, and subject to many, many factors outside of
their control
Ciao
Ventura
David Kastrup
>> long-term stability? That does not even
>> make sense.
>
> the ideal in manufacturing is vertical integration
Please, no creative editing in the middle of my sentences. If you can't
make your point without mangling what I said beyond recognition, then
don't pretend to be quoting me. The original sentence was about blind
testing of durability and long-term stability, and it is disingenuous to
pretend otherwise.
There is no way that you can do a blind test on those since the test
objects don't even start out as equal.
--
David Kastrup
Johann Pascher
Very interesting comparing!
With this we would be back to the reinvention of the free reed in
middle europe around 1800 as speaking machine!
http://www.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/kempln.htm
with regards, Johann
Ventura
what was I supposed to think?
you lumped blind test into the sentence, true, but that part
had no bearing on long term stability so i only qouted the
section pertaining to my post, which reduced your original sentence
by exactly 4 words
i made my point, snd though i never got yours actually,
i then elaborated on it at a detailed level
David Kastrup wrote:
> Please, no creative editing in the middle of my sentences. If you can't
> make your point without mangling what I said beyond recognition, then
> don't pretend to be quoting me.
i didn't, i specifically left your name off it since i was
merely using it as a jumping off point
that way it isn't actually specifically directed to you,
as i really didn't see what you questioned in my earlier
point or why upi lumped it into blind testing
> The original sentence was about blind
> testing of durability and long-term stability, and it is disingenuous to
> pretend otherwise.
bull... the only association between the 2 issues
was your use of both in a single sentence with a single
question mark
i have no clue why you tagged them together, and
only addressed the issue i do have a clue about
i tried to share that clue with everyone, even you,
that's all
hardly dis-ingenuous
perhaps you want to blind soundtest two time periods
of a vertically integrated accordion werks that has been
out of existence for a decade or so?
Ciao
Ventura
Ian & Hilda Dedic
There's an essential difference between a free-reed instrument (and the
human voice) and a beating reed or woodwind instrument.
With voice and free reed the frequency is set by either the tension in
the vocal chords or the vibrations of a reed (tone generation), and the
tonal quality is then modified (or not) by the resonant cavities -- in
either case the resonances are a modifier (formants) of the sound, the
generation is separate, and the resonant cavities are not actually
needed to make the sound in the first place but do affect the tonal
quality if they exist. The pitch generation and tonal modification are
essentially separate.
With beating reed and woodwind instruments the pitch and tonal quality
of the sound are very largely determined by the resonant air column,
which is why the pitch changes when air holes are opened -- the reed or
lip sends a pulse of air into the column and then closes, this pulse
reflects back at the open end and causes the next opening. So the
resonant column is critical to both the tone and pitch of the sound, and
the instrument won't play any kind of true note without it.
With these instruments the characteristics of the resonant air column
are absolutely critical to the sound quality, and they are much more
sensitive to this than free-reed instruments. So things like the
material that the walls are made from is much more important than a
free-reed instrument -- in the same way that the soundboard is massively
more important for a stringed instrument than a free-reed one.
Of course the ear is sensitive to small changes in tone, but we have to
distinguish what factors are most important for a particular type of
instrument and which ones are less important (or have no effect) --
which is where drawing analogies falls down...:-)
Cheers
Ian
Ian & Hilda Dedic
So if Bosendorfer can't show that it makes a difference without knowing
how they've built the piano, how do they *know* it makes a difference?
Intuition? Hope? Guesswork? Water-divining? Tarot cards? Divine belief?
Ian
P.S. Of course they can do blind testing -- build two pianos different
ways, wait 20 years, then compare the sound :-)
whatsanike
is convenient to put it in that place in the instrument, as it can be formed
to shape and will easily be fastened into place, and it has the tension
which enhances the crown of the soundboard. If a cheaper alternative would
work as well, and consistently produce the desired result, than the other
material would be used.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Blind testing durability and long-term stability? That does not even
>> make sense.
>>
>
> So if Bosendorfer can't show that it makes a difference without
> knowing how they've built the piano, how do they *know* it makes a
> difference?
>
> Intuition? Hope? Guesswork? Water-divining? Tarot cards? Divine belief?
>
> Ian
>
> P.S. Of course they can do blind testing -- build two pianos different
> ways, wait 20 years, then compare the sound :-)
First you have to make sure that they are indistinguishable when you
start the test. Do you really think with different materials you can
manage that?
Johann Pascher
> There's an essential difference between a free-reed instrument (and the
> human voice) and a beating reed or woodwind instrument.
>
> With voice and free reed the frequency is set by either the tension in
> the vocal chords or the vibrations of a reed (tone generation), and the
> tonal quality is then modified (or not) by the resonant cavities -- in
> either case the resonances are a modifier (formants) of the sound, the
> generation is separate, and the resonant cavities are not actually
> needed to make the sound in the first place but do affect the tonal
> quality if they exist.
It is NOT that much different but natural some defences present so the
amount of influence will be different.
>The pitch generation and tonal modification are
> essentially separate.
And way should that make that big differs if the coupling factor is
different?
> With beating reed and woodwind instruments the pitch and tonal quality
> of the sound are very largely determined by the resonant air column,
> which is why the pitch changes when air holes are opened -- the reed or
> lip sends a pulse of air into the column and then closes, this pulse
> reflects back at the open end and causes the next opening. So the
> resonant column is critical to both the tone and pitch of the sound, and
> the instrument won't play any kind of true note without it.
Again you are miss taken if you think the principal is different
only the amount of influence is different depending on the
relation an physical parameters of the three major parts involved.
resonator one, coupling, resonator two
It is also possible to build mathematical questions for a somewhat
simplified constellation, i am used to calculate such things but it
just could give some clue what happens in such simplified models.
>
> With these instruments the characteristics of the resonant air column
> are absolutely critical to the sound quality, and they are much more
> sensitive to this than free-reed instruments. So things like the
> material that the walls are made from is much more important than a
> free-reed instrument -- in the same way that the soundboard is massively
> more important for a stringed instrument than a free-reed one.
Again is not the question that there are differences,
but you try to say: "forget it - it does not count for free-reed
instruments!"
>
> Of course the ear is sensitive to small changes in tone, but we have to
> distinguish what factors are most important for a particular type of
> instrument and which ones are less important (or have no effect) --
> which is where drawing analogies falls down...:-)
>
Way?
From the instrument builders few point i would like to be ale to set
up
all in advance and sure i would like to taller everything as i would
like it in the end.
From the customers viewpoint, he can make his compares if he has
the chance to test different instruments in a suitable environment.
Who make the disition what is "less important" ?
Who realy can say what has " (or have no effect) " ?
Who want to say it has now effect?
All builders of low price instruments or mass products would like to
have it this way!
There are some good arguments for metal soundboards and switches as
the are
used on many instruments, and there are other good arguments to
stay with a very traditional soundboard.
regards, Johann
whatsanike
"Johann Pascher" <Johann....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9067afb1-e0b2-4e57...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ian seems to be saying that slight differences in construction are not
important, or even negligible in the effect on the finished product, you are
pointing out that even if these differences are not large, you need to
assume that they play asignificant part in the ending quality of the
instrument. He would of course say that he does recognize this, but that is
not his point. If he were an accordion maker, I would not trust him to make
my accordion, but his logic makes sense.
The only part of your statement I am not clear on, is about the soundboard,
which is the part that the reed carriers rest upon. how is wood superior to
metal? I know this is a very general question, because there are many
different qualities of wood. and some are laminate and some are solid. is
the fondo ever a solid piece of wood as opposed to laminated wood like
plywood of aircraft type?
Laminated wood of very high quality would hold its shape very well when used
in other parts of the accordion. The solid wood is not used much except in
small button accordions.
The fact that laminate is mostly used now for the casings is partly because
solid wood of stable qualities is harder to find than before when it could
be gotten from organ builders. So that the solid wood external finished
accordions can not be made in significant quantities and have to be covered
with something like celluloid. The celluloid will eventually cause warping
of the wood parts and stress on the old glue joints. Most of my experience
has been with old acordions, and I can't judge the stability of newer types
of plastic finishes.
A wood soundboard has a risk of warping and making the seating of the valves
difficult or impossible. Metal will not do that, but if leather facings are
used containing salt, the metal will corrode. I have seen this many times
where the white "alum-tanned" leather was used for the key valves.
There are many reasons to use one material instead of others depending on
circumstannces and desired result. There is also some reason to always use
certain materials in some parts, as nothing has been found to be better.
There are always people who want to "re-invent the wheel". If these
geniuses don't know the difference between the result of their innovations
and tradition, that's "progress". We have plenty of progress now.
David Kastrup
> There are many reasons to use one material instead of others depending
> on circumstannces and desired result. There is also some reason to
> always use certain materials in some parts, as nothing has been found
> to be better. There are always people who want to "re-invent the
> wheel". If these geniuses don't know the difference between the result
> of their innovations and tradition, that's "progress". We have plenty
> of progress now.
Well, don't sneer on new materials. Giovanni Gola was one of those who
was on the constant outlook for new material and techniques. It did not
exactly hurt the reputation of the instruments he was in charge of.
What is a bit amusing is that the run-of-the-mill varnish (it is used on
decorative boxes and other stuff from the time) used for violins in the
18th century was something nobody even bothered keeping the recipe
around when new materials came about. By the time makers discovered
that that old recipe had some nice long-term stable desirable acoustical
features, it was entirely too late to find somebody with the handiwork
or ingredient knowledge to resuscitate the old stuff.
One problem with innovation is the belief in science. "Why do we do it
that way?" "Trust me." is not the scientific way of communication. "I
tried some other ways, and was not satisfied" is still too fuzzy to
really make it past company controllers in mass production.
You'll find that for the really expensive instruments, nobody messes
with the builders. Even when they come with a brand name on them. They
do it the way it feels right to them, after everything they have learnt.
There are some people who _can_ improve matters with new materials and
techniques. People that have a _sense_ for what they do, what feels and
sounds right. People who make use of their learning beyond that which
they could classify hard enough to get it through science class.
And it is not all too dissimilar with the players: sounding all the
right notes at the mathematically right time is not what gets people
into the concert halls. You have to tie everything together into one
thing that makes sense.
I have a few different accordions. And there is some music that does
not make sense on some of them. For others, you need to adapt the style
of playing considerably. Of course, in theory you can hit the same
notes at the same time as with a different instrument. But sometimes it
does not fit at all, and sometimes it just feels tiresome.
When you are selling an instrument: a good player can make a large range
of instruments sound great for a moment. But some instruments drag you
down to their level in the long run. You fight, employing your memory
of how things should sound, and your knowledge of how things should
sound make it through the instrument. You fight against the instrument
squashing your ideas.
And then there are instruments that give you ideas instead. And all
that is hard to quantify. In particular not while the fight is still
mostly successful.
--
David Kastrup
whatsanike
"David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:86prqdf...@lola.quinscape.zz...
Absolutely you have to use a different accordion for different types of
music. I mean different piano accordions. And for some types of music, you
would need not a piano accordion, but CBA or other. And like you say, some
accordions will fight you, and some will help you.
By re-inventing the wheel, I can give an example of Hohner and the Atlantic
IV. most of them are now unplayable, as ide for that, on day 1, the wise
guys thought they had made it easy to make a good accordion by making the
bodies out of metal, the bottoms of the carriers out of cardboard, the
low-reed leathers out of paper, etc. It was never really as good as its
price indicated it should have been.
Then there are innovators who will have devloped new materials perhaps
superior, but will never get far with that, because the old way is still
better. The new materials are unproven, and don't lend themselves to
traditional manufacture. The accordion idustry has never really been
vertically integrated, and the cluster of industries has to work together.
The company examples that Ventura gave of vertical integration, perished for
the very reason of being that. They became fat targets for greed.
Johann Pascher
> Ian seems to be saying that slight differences in construction are not
> important, or even negligible in the effect on the finished product, you are
> pointing out that even if these differences are not large, you need to
> assume that they play asignificant part in the ending quality of the
> instrument. He would of course say that he does recognize this, but that is
> not his point.
Yes of course, i am not so far away from Ian statements bat i think it
is the
absolute wrong direction we push people to if we make this pre
decisions.
We don't know enough at present state to do this!
There would be a lot more we could explore if we put time in it.
And the rather subjective judgement of people with much experience
should
be taken in account, because we don't have adequate scientific tools
to prove.
For the basics relations it is good to simplify so we can understand
some of what is
going on, but we must bear in mind there could be much more to it.
> The only part of your statement I am not clear on, is about the soundboard,
> which is the part that the reed carriers rest upon. how is wood superior to
> metal?
I don't say it must be in every case.
If you like the result of aluminium soundboard, OK not my Problem
i only say it make a difference, not much and for some it my be
neglectable.
There are reasons why aluminium is used today beside the effect on the
sound.
We head for absolute different goal, that way naming it soundboard is
not also misleading.
As i did say before casework including sound board is designed to
perform as little as posible own vibrations (modes) so it could be
left out
in respect of effecting the sound, but the truth is this is not the
case completely.
> I know this is a very general question, because there are many
> different qualities of wood. and some are laminate and some are solid. is
> the fondo ever a solid piece of wood as opposed to laminated wood like
> plywood of aircraft type?
With laminate you can get very good and reproducible results, but even
on boxes
with laminate on Helicon bass chambers and construction nobody would
use laminate.
On Swiss oerglys with its treble chamber, it also makes a difference
what the wood type
is on certain parts.
So there is a strong dependency construction and wood in use.
> Laminated wood of very high quality would hold its shape very well when used
> in other parts of the accordion. The solid wood is not used much except in
> small button accordions.
The Problem with soundboards completely from solid wood is that it
must of absolut
high quality in the first place, if it was high quality it is superior
for the long run and would
not course the known problems.
> The fact that laminate is mostly used now for the casings is partly because
> solid wood of stable qualities is harder to find than before when it could
> be gotten from organ builders. So that the solid wood external finished
> accordions can not be made in significant quantities and have to be covered
> with something like celluloid. The celluloid will eventually cause warping
> of the wood parts and stress on the old glue joints. Most of my experience
> has been with old acordions, and I can't judge the stability of newer types
> of plastic finishes.
> A wood soundboard has a risk of warping and making the seating of the valves
> difficult or impossible. Metal will not do that, but if leather facings are
> used containing salt, the metal will corrode. I have seen this many times
> where the white "alum-tanned" leather was used for the key valves.
> There are many reasons to use one material instead of others depending on
> circumstannces and desired result. There is also some reason to always use
> certain materials in some parts, as nothing has been found to be better.
> There are always people who want to "re-invent the wheel". If these
> geniuses don't know the difference between the result of their innovations
> and tradition, that's "progress". We have plenty of progress now.
The Problem with soundboards completely from solid wood is that it
must of absolut
high quality in the first place, if it was high quality it is superior
for the long run and would
not course the known problems.
We did talk all the time about the treble section, wood type comes mor
int play if
lower pitched reeds are in use so it is absolutely not neglectable on
Helicon bass
Instruments.
Johann Pascher
Some more:
I did experiment with different soundboards on the same instrument all
completely the
same, but sound board replaced.
So all variations war usable and the effect on the sound ware small
and nearly neglectable,
some of this differences belong the thickness of the board. So in my
first opinion
the thinner and lighter the better (fiberglass 0,5 or the aluminum 2mm
material would be preferable).
In the end i changed it back to 4mm massive pear wood.
(Massive Spruce on the treble soundboard is to difficult to work
with.)
So the very traditional way was as good or better as my "invention".
Bass section is much more difficult to construct.
If on wants to build his own accordion, the are many other thing to
worry as on the soundboard.
But keep in mind, the result my be surprising, and to tweak special
sound is practically impossible.
(some can be tweaked with a lot of practice)
If you want a box that sounds similar as one you like copy as much
from the original as you can.
Also the things you think the don't count!
One thing is certain the result of a copy will never sound absolut the
same, the soundboard my be
a minor contributor to this differences,
best regards, Johann
IanD
An interesting post from Stormy Hyde (who builds some highly respected
boxes) on this subject can be read here:
http://forum.melodeon.net/index.php?topic=342.msg2626#msg2626
Cheers
Ian
David Kastrup
> An interesting post from Stormy Hyde (who builds some highly respected
> boxes) on this subject can be read here:
>
> http://forum.melodeon.net/index.php?topic=342.msg2626#msg2626
One thing that struck me as not quite correct in that thread:
> No one has mentioned the fact that the only direct passage for the
> soundwave to reach the outside world is the tiny hole that opens to
> let the air actuate the reed! And it's partly blocked by the flapper!
Why does this strike me as inaccurate? Because we have an air _flow_
here _through_ the reed. And the modulation of this air _flow_ is what
causes the sound. It is not like the reed vibration is the main direct
sound source, but rather how it chops up the flow. And whether this
flow goes around the flapper or not does not change the effectiveness of
the pressure changes in the flow.
Indeed, most expensive accordion constructions try to minimize direct
sound and just let the flow "carry the message". That's pretty much the
point of cassotto and déclassement and so on: the flow passes around the
corners along with the pressure changes, but the direct sound gets
weakened.
--
David Kastrup
Johann Pascher
Did read the comment of Stomy Hyde, nothing what i would not go
conform with, he dose not say anything else as i did.
And what he also did point out that he has some different theories in
the past.
Main essence is not one box sounds exactly the same as the other!
And wood has an effect but is less as one would think.
Most builders try to build boxes that don't "vibrate" at all but this
is impossible.
So in the end you can use any wood type and the result is usable but
different.
There are other things that count more.
He mentions the type of felt and leather and the material of the
flap,
yes also important but i would not but the flaps with its different
style in front of the wood.
will do some more comparing in this respect.
Johann Pascher
the don't clam that the present facts.
Still it my be interesting how the see it:
http://www.concertinaconnection.com/concertina%20reeds.htm
"The type of wood used for the ends plays only a small role it the
sound quality of a concertina. The sound produced by the vibration of
the ends is nihil compared to the sound reflection they cause. There
is a difference between instruments with hard and soft wooden ends,
but again, it is the absorbing effect that causes the difference, not
the vibrating of the ends."
It does not matter if we call it absorbing or resonance effects, if i
did give the impression that i did speak of an amplifier effect the i
should put this right.
Most resonance effect noticed by my ware absorbing effects or with
other words serial resonance not a parallel resonance the is some
evidence that the is also some parallel resonance for certain
frequency's where the amplitude of certain frequency's are bigger.
I also point out again that the effects noticed by my in my tests are
NOT only "filter" effects. there is also a modulation effect!
To bring this in relation to the wood "used only for the soundboard"
is difficult, and it could be that it relay does not matter just
seeing the soundboard.
But we should be care full to say it does not matter or it is
neglectable.
Johann