[Harp-L] Re: Question for Michael from Seydel

[Bobbie Giordano <bogio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Welcome to Harp-L, Michael.  I've been around here since early 1995, and 
it's the premier harmonica forum on the Net... hands down, IMO.

At 03:41 AM 12/2/2005, Michael Timler wrote:
> > From: Chris <s5gv2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I understand Seydel make a 12 hole chromatic harp without
> > windsavers. Can you tell me which models do and don't have
> > windsavers?
>
> indeed, we made a Chromatic without windsavers.
> To be correct, we still make it, and it's available on demand.
> However, valveless Chromatics have two remarkable disadvantages:
> 1. The missing valves make the instrument less airtight.
> 2. You must limit the airflow through the hole to compensate this
> fact, and therefore the instrument isn't really loud.

Are you saying limited airflow by design or by technique?  Either way 
doesn't make sense to me.  Reducing the airflow, whether by volume or 
velocity, only means more difficulty activating the reeds.  Loudness is 
another matter.  Yes, all valveless harmonicas have more leakage.  Much 
of the airflow goes through the slot of the closing reed being sounded, 
but a lot also goes past the opening reed, which responds less easily 
[with customary reed gapping; that is, not set up for overbends, which 
improves opening reed response intentionally.]

The main point is that, with more leakage in a valveless chromatic, and 
*IF* the chamber sizes are the same as used in a valved chromatic, the 
needed airflow will actually be greater, not less.  Smaller mouthpiece 
holes may help some, but such chromatics would benefit more from a 
reduction in chamber sizes in order to reduce undesirable effects of air 
leakage by constricting the airflow, thereby increasing the velocity of 
the airstream aimed at the reeds; however, you still have the primary 
problem of most chromatics... slide air leaks.

One can notice that most valveless harmonicas, diatonics, tremolos, etc., 
tend to have smaller holes or chambers.  This is logical because the 
smaller aperture decreases the 'volume' of air such that the same airflow 
[or 'breath power'] used for valved instruments increases the 'velocity' 
of the air in a valveless instrument, providing the necessary added force 
to activate a reed, even while a lot of the airflow is also being wasted 
out the slot of the opposing reed in the chamber.

But, this is not what makes valveless instruments 'quieter' than valved 
instruments.  A more important reason is the difference between a dual 
reed system and an isolated, or single reed system of sound production.

In a dual reed system, part of the vibratory energy is 'always' absorbed, 
or even converted, [as in bends,] by the opposing reed into additional 
production of tones, but the effect is also to dampen the sounding reed 
somewhat.  Actually, they dampen each other.  The interplay of two reeds 
vibrating, being driven by a relatively unstable human airstream, results 
in a lot of erratic energy give and take.

By contrast, the sounding of an single reed, isolated by being alone in 
its chamber, or paired with a valved reed in the same chamber, is able to 
vibrate without any interference from an opposing reed.  It is therefore 
easier to maintain a stable tonal output, and likewise, to more easily 
focus on the produced tone's fundamental resonant frequency.  The last 
aspect is how 'isolated reeds' can be louder than 'dual reeds' because of 
their more efficient production of resonance.  The best loudness depends 
on getting the best resonance.

> Knowing that, we decided not to promote this instrument within
> our regular distribution line, because we want to avoid to
> promote toys instead of high class instruments.

How is a valveless chromatic automatically considered a "toy"?  The sonic 
qualities of such an instrument, the distinct timbre of a dual reed, 
unvalved harmonica, is certainly as valid as any other, and, in fact, is 
probably the most preferred sound for 'harmonica' in the world.  There's 
no reason I know not to produce a chromatic version of such an instrument 
if desirable and as useful to players as other harmonicas are.

> However, the demand for our valveless Chromatic is always there,

With Chris as a perfect example.  Perhaps the option is always to just 
rip off the windsavers of a standard chromatic, but that's hardly the 
ultimate solution, as I alluded to above.

> and I personally do not know, if we should return this construction
> into our regular sales program again.
>
> What would you out there advice ?
> That would be really interesting !

Yes, of course, but not IF it's as inferior as you describe it to be, 
obviously.  That serves no one.

> We are up to produce Douglas Tates 'Renaissance' which is a
> challenge, that will keep us busy for the next months, just
> in retooling (So, please don't ask for delivery times and
> prices at the moment).
> We take that very very serious.

Same here.  For another post, tho'.

Again, welcome to Harp-L, Michael.

Bobbie
CO-Designer ~ Renaissance
ILUS HARMONICAS