[Harp-L] New Tool and Method for Improving Harmonica Reed Response

Tue Jan 15 08:59:40 EST 2019

Since we know each other well, I’ll address you in the first person Vern. 

Thanks for the spirited riposte! Whatever our differences, one thing we have in common is that we enjoy a good argument 😊

Like you, before going on the counter-attack I want to preface my reply by saying I have a lot of respect (and indeed affection!) for you. As for Dillpickle Rag: I only had to play the harmonica, held in my hands, whereas you are playing guitar and chromatic harmonica in a neck rack at the same time. It’s a very impressive example of coordination, way beyond my skills! It’s also a good advert for your clever invention, the Hands-free Chromatic. 

Right, enough of the niceties, to the business in hand. I know you won’t mind me being honest and direct – we are both of that nature, and I expect no different back!

As a general point, having known you for a long while and worked together with you on a project, my assessment of your ability to cast credible judgement in harmonica matters varies. On the one hand you are extremely knowledgeable about the theory side, specifically scientific and engineering aspects of the instrument. When it comes to knowledge of materials and their properties etc I’d generally defer to you at all times. 

However, when you try to pontificate from your ivory tower to tell us all how a harmonica will actually PLAY, purely based on your theoretical analysis, then my respect evaporates and I’m afraid turns to scorn. As a chromatic player, when it comes to knowledge of what makes a diatonic harmonica work well, the truth is that you are woefully ignorant. 

That was brought home to me when we cooperated together in our ill-fated Comb Test at SPAH 2010. After months of email discussion about procedures and how best to make the test Marine Band harp so it disguised the various materials’ varying weights, you took it upon yourself to make the thing. In theory your design seemed good, since it combined quick-change abilities with material-masking weights. 

But in practice a fatal flaw was discovered: you could see daylight between the reedplates and comb! Any good diatonic player knows that a perfect comb-to-reedplate seal is a basic requirement of good harmonica performance. Especially for a test that was supposed to measure the effect (or otherwise) of different materials on the tone, the fact the comb was not in good contact with the reedplates (so the harp sounded very airy) completely invalidated any results. As it was, Chris Michalek and the other test players, rightly disgusted with the test harp, proceeded to put down nonsense scores. The whole exercise turned out to be a complete waste of time, and I felt very embarrassed.

My point here is that it was your ignorance of what makes a diatonic harmonica play well that let to this fiasco. So now, when you make the various ‘logical’ points in your reply below, I’m afraid they just make me smile. In answer, I have a simple question for you:

“Have you every tried playing a well-customised diatonic harp and compared it with a stock model of the same type?” 

I’m talking about harps customised by the likes of Rick Epping (the pioneer of reed-slot embossing and many of the customisation techniques used today), and well-known professionals who learned directly or indirectly from Rick (like Joe Filisko, Richard Sleigh, Joe Spiers, Joel Andersson).

Judging by your remarks below, I’m sure the answer has to be a resounding “No”. If you actually put one of these guys’ harps in your mouth directly after playing a stock one, you would feel in the first microsecond that the difference is like between night and day. There is simply no comparison! That’s where direct experience trumps any amount of ivory tower theorising, of which you are rather prone. 

You can call it a ‘subjective impression’ – but I think if you actually tried this before talking about it your words would quickly dry up. You would feel what all the happy customers who pay big bucks for these custom harps feel: they play amazingly well. And much of that vastly improved performance happens at the source of the sound: the reeds/slot interaction. 

Certainly, as you say, the reed gaps are important –everyone knows that, and it’s one area that customisation attends to! But so is minimising the reed/slot tolerances to the absolute minimum - all along the reed length, including the base area. Whether the gap reduction there is done by bending down and re-shaping the reed, or with my opposite approach of building up the sides of the slot with nail polish, they both have a big effect on improving reed response. People simply wouldn’t go to all this trouble otherwise….

Respectfully Vern, I suggest that before exposing your ignorance of diatonic harmonica performance further, you actually do the side-by-side playing test of a stock Marine Band compared to one customised by the likes of Epping/Filisko/Sleight/Spiers/Andersson yourself. Then come back and tell us what you think... 

After having this ‘subjective experience’ I believe you will be rather less quick to preach to us all on these matters.

In short, ‘play before you say’.

Warm Regards,

Brendan Power

 <http://www.x-reed.com> www.x-reed.com

 <http://www.brendan-power.com/> www.brendan-power.com

 <http://www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic> www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic

From: Vern <jevern at xxxxx> 
Sent: 15 January 2019 00:28
To: Brendan Power <bren at xxxxx>
Cc: harp-l at xxxxx
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] New Tool and Method for Improving Harmonica Reed Response

On Jan 14, 2019, at 6:43 AM, <bren at xxxxx <mailto:bren at xxxxx> > <bren at xxxxx <mailto:bren at xxxxx> > wrote:

Ah, Vern! Everyone else has been very positive about this idea, but it's nice to know you are remaining true to your rigorously sceptical self 😊

My occasional disagreements with Brendan over a few technical matters does nothing to diminish my profound respect for his abilities as performer and harmonica innovator.  My rendition of “Dill Pickle Rag” https://youtu.be/DnZsKpS9DRk

 is pitiful compared to his.  https://youtu.be/86En96jyISE.

You make a good point about the opposing reed being a significant area of air leakage. However, you seem to forget something rather crucial in this regard: the opposing reed will have had the same gap reduction treatment…

The leakage occurs through the opposing reed's gap near the tip that is required for vibration.  It is much larger than the gaps near the base of the reed to which you apply the nail polish. Not only that but it opens even more when pressure is applied to start the active reed.

With both the active and opposing reed having smaller gaps, air loss with my method (and the traditional reed lowering/re-curving approach), plus slot embossing on the lower 2/3 of the reed sides and tip, is greatly reduced. The result is that the reeds play far better than on a stock reedplate.

While finite, the reduction in gap size and leakage is too small to have a perceptible effect.

This is not subjective, it is obvious to anyone who compares a stock reedplate with a well customised one. If it were not happening, there would not be the market for $300-$500 Marine Bands that has been in existence for the past 20 years…

The custom voicing of reeds with optimum gap may be worth the money.  However there are also many professionals who play ‘em “right out of the box.”  Reducing the tiny gaps near the base of the reed is another thing entirely. When you report your own experience when you know the whether or not the alteration is present, then it must be subjective.

If you insist on proving it scientifically, then by all means do your bubble test on a stock vs. well customised reedplate to confirm it to yourself. I'm sure you will find there is a measurable difference in the bubble factor.

I have already done the bubble test and have seen the huge difference between the leakage through the opening reed and the leakage through the clearance on the sides of the closing reed.  Even if you could entirely close the clearances along the bottom third of the reed, the change in overall leakage would be a tiny part of the total leakage.

Like the vast majority of players, I don't need to do such tests - I can feel the difference as soon as I play a single note. The vast improvement in reed response is what makes it worthwhile to do this extra work.

I believe that this is an example of the very human tendency to attribute strong effects to weak causes.

Vern

Brendan Power
www.x-reed.com <http://www.x-reed.com> 
www.brendan-power.com <http://www.brendan-power.com> 
www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic <http://www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vern <jevern at xxxxx <mailto:jevern at xxxxx> > 
Sent: 14 January 2019 07:49
To: Brendan Power <bren at xxxxx <mailto:bren at xxxxx> >
Cc: harp-l at xxxxx <mailto:harp-l at xxxxx> 
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] New Tool and Method for Improving Harmonica Reed Response

I question this method based on the following:

The reduction in leakage achieved by embossing or nail polish is minuscule with respect to other sources of leakage.

The rationales for embossing are to narrow the slot clearances to reduce breath leakage and possibly to make the pressure cutoff more sudden as the reed enters the slot...thus altering the tone. I question both rationales, but will argue to refute only leakage.

In a diatonic, the leakage through the opening reed in the same chamber is vastly greater than any leakage reduction achieved by narrowing the reed clearances.  In a chromatic, the leakage through the slide clearance is vastly greater than the leakage reduction achieved from narrowing the reed clearance.  In either case, it is like weatherstripping the window while the door stands open.  The reduction in leakage is an imperceptibly small part of the total.

The disadvantage is that the reed can be jammed by smaller particles.

To demonstrate this, I glued a straw to one hole of a diatonic and placed tape over the tip of the blow reed.  This left the areas under discussion along the sides of the reed open.  Then I submerged the instrument without covers in water and blew through the straw.  The stream of bubbles from the draw reed was very much larger than the stream coming through the blow reed clearances.  I concluded that  reduction  (not elimination) of the leakage around the base of a reed has a negligible effect on the total leakage. This isn’t difficult to do if you wish to check my results.

After a person goes to the trouble of embossing and/or applying nail polish, he wishes to and expects to experience an improvement in responsiveness…and he subjectively will.  A valid blind test would involve several harmonicas some modified and some not.  Then the player or listener would be required to record his impressions of responsiveness for many playings of randomly selected  instruments.  

Harmonica players can be completely confident of being able to discern effects from small differences (e.g. comb materials) but unable to demonstrate that ability under controlled conditions.

Vern

On Jan 13, 2019, at 2:22 AM, <bren at xxxxx <mailto:bren at xxxxx> > <bren at xxxxx <mailto:bren at xxxxx> > wrote:

Here's a video to accompany an upcoming article in the UK 'Harmonica World'
magazine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQP6tZRXbTU

It works for chromatics too. However, when breaking the seal, be 
careful not to damage the valves underneath - go slowly and more shallow with the shim.

Brendan Power

www.x-reed.com <http://www.x-reed.com>  <http://www.x-reed.com>

www.brendan-power.com <http://www.brendan-power.com>  <http://www.brendan-power.com/>

www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic <http://www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic>  
<http://www.youtube.com/brendanpowermusic>