I agree with your ideas Matt. To clarify, what I meant in terms of the
$30 was not more hand-tweaking, as I realize that would up production
time (including requiring some real training), but as you say, better
mass-production techniques that produce higher quality parts off the
bat (the comb flatness being a main one to me). If a harmonica is
perfectly airtight and no extra reedwork is done, it will play much
better already for the unknowing beginner, and for the customizer or
rest of people who tweak their reeds a little, for the most part
only reed-work would be required to yield a perfectly beautifully
playing harp. If any of these companies invested in such
comb-flattening process, I think it would be immediately apparent that
their harmonicas are superior consistently. Best case scenario, their
sales improve because of that. Even better than best case scenario,
the other companies catch on and we have some real instruments being
produced across the board.
-Sam
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Matthew Smart <matthewsmart@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:matthewsmart@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I agree with many of your points Sam. But keep in mind that 30
dollars is not much when you have a huge production line and
employees. The cost of machining and assembling all those parts is
just crazy. You just can't afford to have guys hand tweaking. Now,
on a harp like an MB deluxe/crossover, I think at that price point
there should be more tweaks done.
Here is my opinion on two somewhat inexpensive things that could
be done to improve harmonica performance significantly.
1) STOP using self tapping screws. The stainless screws when
driven in (instead of cutting a threat in the plate) create this
volcano of metal around the screw hole, cause separation of plates
and combs and causing a leak. Even though you can't always see it,
it is there (even on recessed combs like sp20). I am doing a new
video on this soon. You have to remove this from your reedplates
or even a great perfectly flat custom comb, won't make much
difference. I have spoken to most major harmonica manufacturers,
they don't seem bent on changing their minds to this. Hohner used
to use brass screws and thread the holes. I imagine that the
reason that companies do this is that brass is getting really
expensive and it is cheaper to use stainless screws that are self
tapping. Brass screws are really expensive. Unless they have
another major ore find in Zambia, you are going to see the cost of
brass skyrocket in years to come. Coincidentally, Suzuki threads
their reedplate holes. I believe they may be the only one. Correct
me if I am wrong.
2) Get a lapping machine (for wood/sandwich combs). Almost all
factory combs are NOT flat. I test them, examine them all day.
Terrible. Get a good lapping machine, put a bunch of combs on it,
walk away for an hour or two. Come back and they will be flat as hell.
End result: harmonicas at 30ish dollars would be super airtight.
IMHO, These two simple, relatively inexpensive improvements with
all manufacturers would make a smokin difference in performance
and I think would be the cheapest quality improvements made.
p.s. As a customizer, I must say that Hohner has REALLY improved
their slot tolerances in the last year or two requiring less
embossing on my part.
No offense to anyone intended!
Matthew
www.hetrickharmonica.com <http://www.hetrickharmonica.com>
On 9/11/2012 2:02 AM, Sam Friedman wrote:
I think one thing that is reasonable to push the companies on
is innovation
in manufacturing so that we can expect better OOTB harmonicas
without a
large increase in price. The fact is, Matt, I think that the
guitar analogy
is a little faulty, just because changing a string and tuning
the guitar
don't really compare with the amount of skill (and time)
required to
actually do a relatively-basic customization/improvement to
the play-ability of a harmonica. In any other instrument in
the world, if
it was just "assumed" that after buying it half the notes
didn't work, that
company would be out of business in a week. I realize that
this comparison
is a little faulty because many of the instruments that could
fill that
hypothetical I posed would be much more expensive than a
harmonica.....
however; I think it is for the good of the entire community to
have higher
expectations.
Personally, I am appalled at the state of many OOTB harmonica
quality
consistency. I've bought golden melodies that played (without
exaggerating)
worse than any harmonica I've ever tried, and turned into some
of my best
harmonicas upon customizing. I realize not everyone overblows
or any of
that, but regardless, a well-playing harmonica does something very
important that I think has a longer-term effect on the
community as a
whole. It is easier to learn. When new people pick up the
harmonica, and
don't get the feeling that it's a "real" instrument, and can't
learn the
basics (bending, etc...) simply largely because the instrument
plays
incredibly poorly, then that person shrugs it off and moves on.
If harmonicas uniformly had a certain assumed quality, then
beginners could
actually learn to bend (among any other techniques, as well
as the general
strong connection of self to instrument through breath) quite
easily and
instantly feel connected with the soul of the instrument, and
in turn,
continue playing it. This, in my opinion, is the key to
opening the
instrument up to a larger fan base (aside from getting away
from the pure
fetishization of very specific genres for the instrument to play,
however infinitely beautiful they all are).
While it may seem unreasonable at first for a company to sink
money into R
& D in this capacity, I firmly believe that if the $30-tiered
harmonicas
had an actual consistent quality and airtightness to their
build, in the
long run people would see many more humans sticking with the
instrument in
a real way. The fact is, I wouldn't have learned 90% of what I
did unless I
started working on my harps and making them play better. No
one can learn
technique easily on any broken instrument, and that's what I
consider most
out of the box harmonicas; a broken instrument that needs to
be fixed to be
useful.
People may say that customized harmonicas really only matter
for better
players, and that beginners shouldn't need them, but the
reality is quite
the opposite. Advanced players can make music on worse
harmonicas because
they already know the technique and are in this instance
adapting an
understanding to a poorly-constructed tool/harmonica. It is
crucial for
beginners to have a good instrument, because it is the fastest
way to
actually understand what effect the motions you are doing have
on the
instrument and the sound produced. If you are exploring the
instrument or
trying to achieve a technique, and you make the motion that
should in a
well working harmonica change the sound, but nothing happens
because of a
poorly performing instrument, then two things happen; 1) You miss
the opportunity to learn about a certain embouchure/motion and
how it
relates to the sounds you make, and 2) conversely, you learn
that the given
motion does specifically *not* produce the desired sound, even
if it really
*should* in a working instrument. This works to consistently
actively fight
against anyone's attempt to learn or gain joy from this
instrument. With a
working tool, however, you get feedback on the (no matter how
slight)
effect of every motion you make and every exploration you
embark on. In
this way you learn much faster and more efficiently, and have
real feedback
as to the purpose and creation of the movements and sounds you
make.
For these reasons, while I understand the argument to just be
"fine" with
the progression of mass-produced harmonica quality, I don't
believe enough
has been done yet as of this moment to warrant celebration. So
many of the
new innovations (and I'm not including the sub-30 here,
Brendan, because I *
do* believe it is a cool and respectable active attempt by a
company to
advance the instrument) that we constantly see from companies
have very
little to do with the actual play-ability of the instrument;
color, comb
material, etc.... are things we see change every couple months
with a new
name slapped on. What we rarely see is a new instrument whose
selling point
is actually guaranteed better playability and airtightness.
This is what I
think we should be asking for, expecting, and celebrating
when/if it
arrives.
Sam Friedman
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, mik jagger
<harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Mike, thank you for your review - it confirms my
"suspicion" that it is a
version of the xb40 - better or worse is to be determined
by playing it, of
course. I'd probably like the smaller size, but as a
player of xb40, I got
to tell you that hohner really works great out of the box,
I love my xb40.
Good to know that if rumors of xb40's demise are true, we
have at least a
somewhat passable option, although the price really does
not sit well with
me. BTW, my xb40 in C has years of hard play on it by now
- it became my
main instrument of choice, and no performance issues
whatsoever!
Mike.
________________________________
From: Mike Fugazzi <mikefugazzi@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mikefugazzi@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:harp-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>"
<harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>>; mik jagger <
harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>>;
harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] The Future of Blues Harmonica?
The most noticeable difference is that the it is the size
of a standard
diatonic. I have a SUB30 in A that I removed the valves
on holes 1-4 on
and taped of the extra reeds on 1-4 (draw reeds on the top
plate). It
plays a lot better, but you lose notes on those holes,
then. I was ok with
that as I was more concerned with the middle and top
octaves. The 1 and 4
overblow play well, IMO.
The more I think about it, it plays like a Special 20 from
the 90's...like
right before they switched to stainless steel cover
plates. It is a very
mellow and warm tone (dark), even after heavy tweaking of
the reeds and
slots. The top octave plays well save hole 10, which I
need to tweak more
for the blow bends. I am pleased with how it plays holes
4-9. I think 3
responds well now, but is still a tad stiff. 1 and 2 play
and bend fine,
but feel a little soft for me. I am not sure tweaking
gaps would really
solve that. The new bends on 10 are a lot more like an
overdraw than
you'd think, but are easy than a regular valve bend, IMO.
I like it a lot more than a week ago, lol. The new bends
seem to be void
of any extra noise or issue. I would like to try it with
different valve
material at some point, though. I will totally play it
and gig with it if
given the chance. I should make it clear that I did spend
a good chunk of
time 1-2 hours tweaking it using very advanced techniques
(beyond just
gapping and embossing).
I have tried the XB40, but don't own one. I remember that
harp being
louder and brighter than the SUB30.
Mike
On Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:56:07 AM UTC-5, mik jagger
wrote:
So how's the "sub 30" different (to the better) from the
xb40? XB40 has
all the reeds bending deeper than a halftone (more
available notes), less
expensive, and great out of the box, yet not popular
enough to not be
threatened by the rumors of its demise...