Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 122

Thread: Good enough vs overkill

  1. #91
    Edwin, it at least an interesting story,and it's well known that Ford and his friend Edison never tired of talking possibilities
    and tweaking stuff that already worked just fine.

  2. #92
    I do get the outlined concept.

    However it seems at least to me that organs are extremely ornamental decorative.

    I get I was pointing out the insides not the outsides.

    I have been thinking/figuring out all along with this new position that organ makers are most concerned with the sound. Makes sense and is obvious.

    I guess I as a cabinet maker look at a grand cathedral organ and I see inspiring beautiful intricate woodwork as a musician just wants to hear it.

    It was suggested to me today by another organ builder/restore I’m doing some side work for that “most organ builders” are generalists.

    I will always yearn to be a specialist. My response to his comment was I hope I can find a place within the community to be a specialist. His response was “I think you already have”.. let’s hope he is right.
    ‘’’
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Seemann View Post
    Funny you bring up musical instruments. The Ruckers family built some of what are considered the greatest sounding harpsichords ever created. Some of them are still playing despite being over 400 years old. Yet they are rampant with exactly the things you describe above. In fact one of their noted characteristics and methods of authentication is basically how sh!tty the construction is.

    Butt joints. Tear out. Split wood straight from the hatchet; no planing. Stuff held together with glue and nails or pegs (screws were way to expensive for them in the 1600s). Knots hidden by decoration. Poor quality wood.

    And yet, the action on the instruments is superb, even if somewhat crudely made. The sound is glorious. As noted many have survived for centuries. Their goal was to build beautiful sounding instruments; they did what they needed to and no more. They didn't waste time with better joinery because it did not improve the instrument, it just made it take more time to make. In fact, it is speculated that some things were done to deliberately weaken the instrument because it improved the sound.

    On that organ, did the "sloppy" construction fail prior to being flooded? Does the tear out harm the tone? If not, don't be too judgmental on its builders. They built it to make music, not impress cabinet makers. If anything, what about the roof that leaked? That seems to be the main issue of poor construction

    Back to harpsichords, many were built with absolutely flawless cabinetry by builders in the early to mid 20th century. Unfortunately, they also didn't understand what was important musically on the instruments. They were very overbuilt, with much stronger cases than historically (those fool historical builders didn't even bother to build a decent case), some even had iron frames. Modern musical wire was used, rather than pathetic low carbon wire of yore. Good plywood was used for stability. And so on, so on.

    The net result were instruments that were of obvious high construction quality, and often very poor musical quality. The heavy cases sucked up the limited input energy of the plucks. The plywood had poor resonance further ruining tone. The individual components were superb, but the overall system was poor.

    When people started buiiding instruments similar to the "hopelessly weak" old designs, they found they were much louder, clearer, and more stable than the new modern, over-designed instruments. Overkill does not always mean better, and better quality of construction of the parts doesn't always make the whole better.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Butt joints. Tear out. Split wood straight from the hatchet; no planing. Stuff held together with glue and nails or pegs (screws were way to expensive for them in the 1600s). Knots hidden by decoration. Poor quality wood.

    And yet, the action on the instruments is superb, even if somewhat crudely made. The sound is glorious. As noted many have survived for centuries. Their goal was to build beautiful sounding instruments; they did what they needed to and no more.
    Explanations of musical instruments such as this make me wonder if the rough uneven surfaces on the inside created a more resonant tone from the reflection of sound waves than that achieved on a perfectly smoothed piece of wood.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    so... I said that I would provide the sticks next time.
    i constructed some 3’ aluminum tubes with a central shaft. At the back is a motor rotating about 10rpm using a 9v battery. At the front is a brass rod threaded for several attachments.
    That is a great story Roger. It could even have commercial potential.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    If something was designed to last through 90 days of use but ended up being used for 6 months, would that have been overkill?

    Now it is 75 years later and some of them are still in place and serving their original intent.

    For the curious search > phoenix caisson < or Mulberry harbour <

    Hint: Instead of thinking overkill, think overlord.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Explanations of musical instruments such as this make me wonder if the rough uneven surfaces on the inside created a more resonant tone from the reflection of sound waves than that achieved on a perfectly smoothed piece of wood.
    "Back in the day", the methods available for working with the material were "less diverse" than they are today. Everything had to be worked by hand with blades and saws and that takes quite a bit of effort. So there was little incentive to "finish" surfaces and areas that wouldn't be seen. I suspect that a side benefit is as you mention...the un-refined wood's resonance and reflectivity may very well have been a nice side-benefit. To be honest, I don't put a whole lot of effort into areas and surfaces of projects that will go unseen, myself. That leaves more time and effort available for the "show" side.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Inkerman, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,389
    Interesting stuff Jim,

    Seems to have ended up being money well spent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    If something was designed to last through 90 days of use but ended up being used for 6 months, would that have been overkill?

    Now it is 75 years later and some of them are still in place and serving their original intent.

    For the curious search > phoenix caisson < or Mulberry harbour <

    Hint: Instead of thinking overkill, think overlord.

    jtk

  8. #98
    Of course they vary in quality. But a Strad always sounds like a Strad and a Guarnarius always sounds like a Guarnarious.
    Some instruments are quick and others can't amplify it all.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Inkerman, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,389
    I find it quite curious, that they could get the same sound from instruments with what has been described as, somewhat random quality construction.
    It would seem that minute differences would make changes, yet tearout and crudely cut parts etc are quite random in nature.

    I would assume that these days musical instruments are done to extreme tolerances to reproduce the same sound quality in all instruments.

    I have no knowledge of making instruments myself, but i do have several customers that make church organs and Harpsichords they use Maka mortisers for precision joinery and supersurfacers for skimming a few thou from parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Fulks View Post
    Of course they vary in quality. But a Strad always sounds like a Strad and a Guarnarius always sounds like a Guarnarious.
    Some instruments are quick and others can't amplify it all.

  10. #100
    Extreme tolerances ,yes. But the wood is not all the same. This stuff has been studied obsessively for a long time. Clearly
    we know more stuff now than they did ....but it's not "the right stuff". Studying the wood and thicknesses of the "plates "
    has not yielded enough. Some instruments seem loud but can't be heard in the back of the room. While others seem
    quiet close up but can be heard in the back of the hall.

  11. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Explanations of musical instruments such as this make me wonder if the rough uneven surfaces on the inside created a more resonant tone from the reflection of sound waves than that achieved on a perfectly smoothed piece of wood.

    jtk
    It is possible it could have influence on tone. In general, instrument makers tend to be pretty obsessive about their soundboards. Interestingly, when it was noticed that historical soundboards were not a consistent thickness, it was thought that it was because of the "crude" methods they used to make them, i.e. hand tools, and that they obviously would have preferred an even thickness if they could have achieved it (the arrogance of the modern perspective). After realizing that the uneven thicknesses seemed to be very deliberate, when makers began to replicate them, they realized that it did have a positive impact on tone, and that the unevenness was intentional (maybe people brought up in a craft tradition who built instruments all their lives really did know what they were doing).

    The problem lies in that you can infer and copy to excess, and instrument makers tend to be a superstitious lot (and that is from one ), so if copying one thing was good, then copying everything else must be better. Maybe the glue matters (maybe it doesn't), maybe planing vs sanding matters (maybe it doesn't), maybe iron vs brass bridge pins matters (maybe it doesn't). It is wise to keep in mind the story about the daughters and grandchildren who always cut their roast a certain way because "that is how grandma did it and her roasts tasted so good" while losing the history that grandma cut the roast that way to fit her oven, and they would have tasted even better if she didn't have to.

    Some thing change the tone, some don't. Since instruments are very complex systems, they tend to defy simple analysis and easy modeling. A common theme on instrument discussion boards is having some engineer come in and say how they are going to figure out the engineering of an instrument and make it better, while all the makers say to themselves "here we go, yet again" (the engineers invariably give up in a few months, too complex they realize). Since it is very difficult to completely isolate the effects of any one variable of an instrument, you end up with normally mild and friendly instrument makers nearly getting into fist fights over discussions of nitro vs poly, hot hide glue vs titebond, fir vs spruce, and so on.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Inkerman, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,389
    Musical instrument making would seem to be an extremely complex, mystical craft, that originally must have been learned from experience and experimentation, and today I guess that they are still trying to understand all that is at play. There is of course a lot of difference from one piece of wood to another, All quite fascinating!

  13. #103
    Andrew, well done. And unlike some instruments , the shapes of violins vary. The immersed truth seekers can discern an
    Amati pattern ,or Strad pattern from across the room.

  14. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hennebury View Post
    I find it quite curious, that they could get the same sound from instruments with what has been described as, somewhat random quality construction.
    It would seem that minute differences would make changes, yet tearout and crudely cut parts etc are quite random in nature.

    I would assume that these days musical instruments are done to extreme tolerances to reproduce the same sound quality in all instruments.

    I have no knowledge of making instruments myself, but i do have several customers that make church organs and Harpsichords they use Maka mortisers for precision joinery and supersurfacers for skimming a few thou from parts.
    Actually for all the precision in modern instrument mass manufacturing, the instruments often don't sound exactly alike, even for successive instruments off the same assembly line made by the same workers using the same machines with wood from the same tree and hardware from the same batch. Don't get me wrong, in general the quality is much higher, especially for lower cost instruments. It isn't even that they don't necessarily sound good, they just sometimes sound slightly different, and sometimes a lot different. It tends to be more pronounced in acoustic instruments like say a violin, even more so in complex instruments like pianos and non-electronic organs, but even partially or fully electric/electronic instruments like electric guitars, amps, and keyboards can have variance from item to item.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Inkerman, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,389
    It would seem that is one rabbit hole that i would want to steer clear of; I am in enough trouble with basic furniture construction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Seemann View Post
    Actually for all the precision in modern instrument mass manufacturing, the instruments often don't sound exactly alike, even for successive instruments off the same assembly line made by the same workers using the same machines with wood from the same tree and hardware from the same batch. Don't get me wrong, in general the quality is much higher, especially for lower cost instruments. It isn't even that they don't necessarily sound good, they just sometimes sound slightly different, and sometimes a lot different. It tends to be more pronounced in acoustic instruments like say a violin, even more so in complex instruments like pianos and non-electronic organs, but even partially or fully electric/electronic instruments like electric guitars, amps, and keyboards can have variance from item to item.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •