Re: [Harp-L] Fatigue and Reed Life: An Objective Test?

[Philharpn@xxxxxxx]

This sounds like something that would be more feasible in a Consumer Reports 
type of laboratory setting than on a public stage, even at a harmonica 
convention or festival.

 I say Consumer Reports (which lab and road tests consumer goods) because the 
test should test for things a harmonica player would likely do to a harmonica 
while actually playing one, not some abstract test of the supersonic 
capabilities of a high reed before it "fails."

Not only should the goal be to determine how long a reed made of a given 
material lasts but to set up a test that can be replicated and validated. 
Otherwise, what's the point? 

Continuing to collect anecdotes about reed failure or longevity may -- or may 
not -- provide the possible range of experience. But collecting personal 
stories may miss the example that happened to a player without a computer or 
Internet connection. Lab tests -- with proper scientific controls -- with every 
reed material subjected to identical stress tests would reveal the complete range 
of experience without bias or favoritism.

At the same time -- or another time -- some kind of a graphic sound spectrum 
test (mmm good) might show any relationship between the quality of sound 
produced (as opposed to simple noise) and level of reed stress/failure. 

This in turn could provide useful information about how playing styles/air 
pressure could affect not only reed longevity but sound production -- how the 
player can get the best sound out of a harmonica without destroying the reeds.

Now this would be news everyone could use.

Conventional Wisdom -- which is frequently wrong -- says that the more costly 
a harmonica, the better the reeds and the longer the reeds will last. But 
sometimes -- and industry insiders such as Mr. Brendan (and others) could bear 
this out -- the reason some harmonicas cost more than others even by the same 
company is because of the materials used in the combs, reed plates, covers, 
screws, welds and craftsmanship in assembly -- not just the materials used in the 
reeds and THEIR manufacture.

This is not to say all reeds are created equal by the same firm, but perhaps 
the midline reeds are very similar to topline reeds. As I recall, MS reed 
plates by Hohner fit a variety of models ranging from the Big River on up.   (Not 
to single out Hohner, I personally own several brands -- most recent 
acquisitions: Seydel chromes and diatonics.)

Are stainless steel reeds longer lasting? Better sounding? Or do other brand 
reeds compare favorably? There may indeed be differences in the lab -- that 
may or may not affect a buyer's choice.

It's like that materials test at SPAH several years ago: Nobody could tell 
the difference between comb materials.

But one player later said: "I don't care what the tests showed; I still like 
the taste of wood."

Phil Lloyd


 


In a message dated 4/18/08 5:34:11 PM, bren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


> The recent posts on reed materials, profiles, surface finish etc has
> been interesting, with some fascinating contributions by knowledgeable
> people such as Vern Smith.
> 
> One thing that several are asserting is that stainless steel reeds (as
> recently introduced by Seydel) have greater longevity than brass reeds.
> Others report reed breakages with SS reeds that were repaired at the
> Seydel factory. It's hard to know whether they really do last longer or
> not or not.
> 
> It seems there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (but an equal amount of
> factual uncertainty) about the reed longevity of different harmonica
> brands that reminds me of another Great Harmonica Debate: the one over
> comb materials. That one was put to a couple of pretty decisive
> blindfold tests a few years ago.
> 
> If reedplate thickness could be eliminated as a factor, I wonder if an
> objective test could be devised for reed life? The reeds that break on
> diatonics depend on peoples' different playing styles, but there are
> certain well-known ones that commonly fail before others: 5 draw and 7
> blow (just a semitone above their respective opposite reeds, which don't
> respond well to bending pressure), and 4 draw, which is bent a lot in
> cross harp.
> 
> Maybe a test could concentrate on just a couple of these reeds, mounted
> on reedplates of the same thickness. To allow the test to be completed
> in a short enough time, they would have to be subjected to some quite
> brutal bending pressure.
> 
> Getting a single player to do all the tests would be a bit tricky, as
> there would be tiny variations in his/her embouchure and breath pressure
> over time that would invalidate the results. You could use several
> testers and get an average, which would be quite a good way to get
> convincing results under real conditions. Or maybe a mechanical bending
> machine could be devised which subjected reeds to consistent heavy
> repeated bending.
> 
> However it were done, it would be very interesting to get the results of
> such a test. If the reeds of a certain brand came out a lot better or
> worse, the factors that contribute to their superior longevity (or lack
> of it) could be analysed more easily, and some of the confusion that
> surrounds this topic would be dispelled.
> 
> Maybe SPAH or one of the other big festivals (Asia Pacific?) could
> sponsor such a test? It would certainly get a lot of interest from
> players around the world. Obviously all the participating manufacturers
> (assuming they play the game!) would have to be absolutely satisfied
> that the conditions were equal for all brands.
> 
> It's complicated, but not impossible. Any thoughts on the best way to go
> about it?
> 
> Brendan
> WEB: http://www.brendan-power.com <http://www.brendan-power.com/> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
> 
> 




**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.
      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)