Interesting Test...Going from what I found on Kinya Pollards
Mel Bay’s HarmonicaSessions® eZine April 2011...It states below....
Hidden from view, is the all-important “Zero Point”—to coin a Dick Sjoeberg term. Zero Point refers to the gap, the distance between the bottom of the rivet end of the reed and top of reed plate. The optimum is .002” (0.05mm).
I figured I'd give it a shot on an old harp...Using "D" Sp 20 reed plates.
On these plates I was only able to slide a .001 shim up to the rivet pads.
The .002 stopped at about 1/8 before the rivet pad and would not go any further.
So, I Took a brass shim (that I think is .004 or .005) the numbers are worn off--- and pushed it all the up to the rivet pad on all 20 reeds, which lifted them all slightly.
Then I pushed them all back down almost flush with the reed plate and plunked them - then set the standard gap on all the reeds, (which is the thickness of the reed end)...and then did a tuning job!
Now, a .002 shim has the ability to be slid all the way up to the rivet pad with a snug fit...The harp seems to be responding well, the reeds appear to feel more chewable...
1- Find a harp that plays really well. Actually it can simply be one note on a harp that you find plays really well. However, the best situation would be to find one hole that plays really well (draw and blow as well as whatever bends and overbends)
2- Obtain a harp in the same key. Take all four plates off the combs.
3- Put the back of the blow plate of the test harp to your lips, with the reed on the other side and the rivet at the bottom. Shape your lips to seal the slot. Draw in air to sound the note. Reverse airflow and sound the overbent note (you will need to practice shaping your mouth.) Play the note/overbend at different volumes and attacks.
Notice how smooth the transition between notes is. Notice how you can choke the reed when you OB. Notice if it squeals when you do this. How little breath does it take to get the reed started. How easy is it to play, etc...
4- Now look at the reed from the side. Look at its shape as you push it through the slot.
5- Look at the same reed on the good harp. Take a toothpick and try to reshape the reed on the test harp to look like the reed on the good harp. One of the parameters you are looking at is the topic of this thread. I consider about ten such parameters, some more important than others all depending on what you want the reed to do. And I am discovering more parameters all the time. I think Joe Spiers once said (implied) that he used about 30 objective measurements of a reed in this sort of context. Objective in the sense that it's not just appearance but that he can actually put a number to the measurement. But that's Joe Spiers....
6- Repeat step 3, 4 and 5 until you are dizzy.
7- Do the same with the draw reed. You need to set both reeds.
Remember that the reed should be perfectly straight from the ZP to the end of the reed. That is how master Sjoeberg does it. When you push the reed down in the slot it should close the gap through out the whole length of the reed at the same time. If you have a curve on the reed it will start to close at the rivet end and keep on closing it al the way when it pass through and that is not optimal.
Thank you Gents for chiming in...I should of mentioned that the "reed profile" is straight before I start the process...
I don't quite understand the "zero point" regarding the (.002) clearance being "optimal" as Kinya pointed out.
The reason I say that is because it seems that most every reed I have checked with a shim is at the height of (.001)
So the only way to get the reed raised to (.002) is to push a slightly thicker shim to the rivet pad, then re-gap the reed and that seems to do the trick of giving it that (.002) clearance that Kinya talks about.
Interesting tweak though (the zero-point clearance )- it has me rather curious and there is little written about it on the net as far I can tell?
Frank - So am I right in thinking that, when you slide the .002 shim under and re-gap you find that the reed plays better (the reed is more responsive) than with a .001 shim?
Have you tried doing an A/B comparsion of two harps in the same key with the reed set to each respective shim?
Last Edited by on Jan 01, 2013 12:26 PM
I am still experimenting, but, "perfectly straight from the ZP to the end of the reed", seems to be in contradiction to overblow.com's, "I have found that I get the best result when the reed is dipped slightly at the point where it leaves the plate, near the rivet, and comes up straight after that", theory on arc'ing.
Note, that is a partial quote from overblow.com, and they also promote straight reeds elsewhere. It all sounds very delicate.
Last Edited by on Jan 01, 2013 1:41 PM
Yes and No...That's were I'm confused...In other words - what I am finding is that IF a harmonica is already playing and responding well the difference with the tweak from .001 to .002 at least to me is not a drastic night and day difference!
It's a fairly quick process and I have now done the tweak to an "A" crossover and a "F" Deluxe...
I should do a little video of the process?
And when comparing the .002 "A" harp to a .001 "A" harp, I'd say the biggest difference I'm noticing is at the low end -the first 3 holes seem more pliable - not particularly a better response, just a different feeling but not better or worse!
On the "F" harp the tweak does seem to give it a better feel and response...compared to an "F" harp at the .001 clearance. But again, it's not that big of a change to my style and attack of playing.
But from this little bit of messing around - I'd say that I'd be more prone to do the clearance tweak on my higher keyed Harps and maybe the higher register of the lower keyed harps.
Just finished playing some and the higher key harps the "D" and the "F" have a looser feel which does make sense since the zero-point clearance was raised slightly :)
Last Edited by on Jan 01, 2013 2:48 PM
Your welcome Kingley...If someone is comfortable working harps - the tweak will be relatively easy to do...If a beginner tries the tweak - it may not be as straight forward a project, but it is doable :) It is worth trying out and the harps I did it to, the results are interesting! I'm sure the more I play the tweaked harps against other harps, I'll have a better understanding of the differences.
Last Edited by on Jan 02, 2013 4:44 AM
@Frank: "And when comparing the .002 "A" harp to a .001 "A" harp, I'd say the biggest difference I'm noticing is at the low end -the first 3 holes seem more pliable - not particularly a better response, just a different feeling but not better or worse! "
I'd not heard the term "zero point" before, but adjusting the gap all the way down the reed--from tip to rivet pad--is something I learned from Chris M back in the day. I'm not at all sure about this 0.002" "standard" gap idea, though, and I think you are finding that it's hard to put exact numbers to these things. I've never bought into the idea that there were exact measurements for gaps in the sense that once you know the "right" gap, you can just set it up exactly that way on every harp, and they'll all play exactly the way. I think there's a little bit of craftsmanship involved. Are there rules of thumb? Sure! But that only gets you to a base line (let use the terms from that other thread: it gets you "optimized", not "customized"). In regards to the "zero point" gap, I think it's much more important that you just have a gap there than that it's specifically 0.002".
@Theivin' Heaven: Although tinus's site was really the first source of information about overblow setup available on the web, I think that he's unfortunately responsible for perpetuating a few "myths" about harp setup. I don't think he did it on purpose or anything like that, I think he just put information up on his site that wasn't really confirmed or established, and that info got accepted by folks as "gospel". The "reed-arcing" idea is one of these. So is the "tip scoop". Tinus has done the harp community a tremendous service with his site, so I don't want to sound negative against him! On the contrary, I learned a lot from his site. But I think that there are a couple of mistakes on it, and of course, the motto to live by is "caveat emptor" in all things, including websites about harmonica geekiness!:)
Isaac...I'm not at all surprised that you haven't heard of the "zero point" ...There doesn't seem to be an information trail to follow on it like there is for other optimization techniques. The "Customizers" or "Optimizers" other then Andrew have been completely silent on the subject so far - seems it may be news to them too, who knows?
Last Edited by on Jan 02, 2013 7:10 AM
Still trying to figure out why this “Zero Point” Phenomena is so important - there must be an explanation to it's significance - Could Master Customizer Kinya Pollards calculations be unexplainable?
Last Edited by on Jan 02, 2013 5:31 PM
It's a well known principle. It's an important parameter, but it's one of several important parameters. You're best to use it as you need it; don't change the zero point on all your reeds for the sake of changing the zero point.
Rather, identify a reed (or a pair of reeds) that is not playing to your liking. Change the shape of the reed(s) and see if that helps. Change the gap(s) and see if that helps. If you have gone down your list and are still not happy with the reed, try changing the zero point.
I learned a lot about the zero point from Mike Fugazzi.
He touches on it here:
EDIT: YouTube keeps switching to Mike's most recent video instead of embedding the one I am talking about... "Custom Harmonica - Checking and Changing Reed Profiles on a Hohner Marine Band"
Thanks Andrew for your thoughts and advice, I'll be able to look at that vid come morning :) I figured it must have been well known amongst the guys who make money setting up harps - Kinya seems to be sold on the importance of it, unless he has changed his views since he wrote that article?
Okay - so what I've gathered is, so long as your reed profile is flat (straight), the reed is entering the slot all at the same time and the gap is correct...
Then Richard Sleigh recommends the rivet pad end of the reed to have a snug clearance of (.001) ...While Kinya Pollard suggests a (.002) snug clearance for his preference.
What does snug mean? Exactly how much resistance should you feel for it to be "snug"? The difference between the two measures is very slight, you could set the reed to be "snug" using a 0.002 shim and still feel resistance (less snug but still snug) with a 0.001 shim.
I suggest you adjust it to effect rather than a set value which is not so easy to measure with precision anyway.
Snug would mean a little resistance as you reached the end of the reed at the rivet pad with your shim, the fit would be relativity snug as opposed to absolutely no resistance at all when you pull the shim back. I'm finding that most reeds already have a set value of .001, it seems that Kinya thinks .002 is a more optimal clearance, at least for him.
As already mentioned, the played reed should, when passing through the plate, enter the slot at the same time lenghtwise. Not with the tip or the base first. Now, lets look at the reed when activated. The reed isn't stiff and only moves around its axel ... of course. In the movements endpoints the reed have a curve. Let's take a low key harp, draw 1, wich needs a more generous gapping, to make things more clear. If the reed is perfectly flat from point zero and forward, this means that the tip will enter the slot first and the end will enter last. So, I'm saying that the reed should have a slight curve in it's resting position. To check that the reed enters the slot at exactly the same time the reed should be pushed down in the same mannor the reed moves when activated, meaning pushing the reed down closer to the tip rather than the base. Maybe it sound like a detail that wouldn't make much of a difference, but I think it does ( like the slightest difference in gapping can make a big difference). I find that it increases volume.
@isaacullah ... " ... adjusting the gap all the way down the reed--from tip to rivet pad ... " Interresting. What is the reason for this approach? ---------- The tone, the tone ... and the Tone
@S-Harp: For the same reason you have posted: to make sure that the reed enters the slot at the same time all along it's length.
For what it's worth, I think that we are all talking here about the same idea, but just coming at from different viewpoints/vocabularies.... the point I'd very much like to make is what arzajack has said in his last post: as much as we would like to do so, it is very very difficult/nearly impossible to create a set of objective measurements that ALWAYS equal a perfect harp. That's not to say that we can't KNOW what a "perfect harp" should be, that's just to say that the measurements of anything (gap, profile, clearance, etc.) on that perfect harp WILL NOT translate directly to another harp, because no two harps are identical in manufacture (right down to the molecular structure of the reeds). Thus, the best thing to do is get a really really good mental picture of what that perfect harp should SOUND like, and then apply all your customizing skills on other harps to get them there, NO MATTER what exact measurements you put them at. ----------
I belive that s-harp has a point but sjoberg says that´s not the case. The reed should be flat. I´m not a customizer but i´ve had the chanse to stand and look over sjobergs shoulder when he is doing his thing and his harps play incredeble well. I should mention that i set up my own harps and emboss them to.
The "old" way of gapping was to have ZERO zero point gap so the reed seals shut in the slot and then have a slight upwards curve at the top to "start" the reed so it doesn´t stall. Another way to start the reed are to file the corners of the reed plate were the top of the reed are(don´t know what it´s called thou). I belive that many of the top customizers do this today and make incredeble harps but if you are going to use the zero point aka sjoberg method than the reed should be straight. I´ll buy s-harps argument when you have a weighted reed in full swing but when you are doing an overblow you realy want the reed to stall in the slot and seal trough out the whole lenght of the, perfectly flat, reed.
The zero point should be thighter on higher harps due to the short slot reeds i belive.
@Milsson ... I think Sjoeberg refers to the reeds "straight curve" as optimal? However, a reed beeing perfectly flat in its resting position will not be perfectly flat when it enters the slot. The reed is then, even so little, in swing and has changed it's profile. It's when the reed enters the slot it should be flat. Small parameters ... yes. Do I need my light table to help ser the difference? Yes. If I just eye ball the reed it looks flat. The profile is subtle, but present. A perfectly flat reed in it's resting position works fine, yes, also when OB-ing... better than too much curvature. ---------- The tone, the tone ... and the Tone
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2013 7:21 AM
Kinyas .002 clearance preference has me curious, since it seems that most all reeds are already relatively set at .001 clearance at the rivet pad end of the reed - it would seem that he is suggesting to us that the .001 clearance should be raised to .002? I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth but that is what I'm comprehending from his article comment. I agree that if a reed is working superbly, only mess with it if your on a mission from God :)
Great discussion. Without being a technician really, I am still always looking to increase practical knowledge of improving response of the instrument. Even last night, gigging with harps I had recently done a once- over on, and tested, I noticed response was not where it should be. These discussions, and all the vids produced by everyone have been incredibly helpful. Thanks.
Robbert…I was hoping that some info gathered in this thread would be beneficial to the player who is on the look out for knowledge that may help him/her make a little more sense of what’s making the harp tick. Every little bit adds up to bringing the big picture in to better focus. I just tinker for my own satisfaction, and it is satisfying to at least try and understand a little more about the harp as a lean mean playing machine ?
Almost nothing beats having an instrument be just right for you. I don't think anything trumps a well customized harp, but its great to not have to depend on anyone but yourself to come close to what you're after.
Also, you're never stuck when you have the skill to tune, adjust and repair your own instruments.
I played for several years before I reached the point of feeling it was necessary to be able to do my own tinkering. It's been a worthwhile investment of time, and there is a lot of online help out there.
It's not often I have the time to participate in the interesting discussions going on. I was told by a good friend of mine about this thread.
I would add that what I write and say in the following is entirely based on my own knowledge, experience, findings and thoughts over the years. There are of course more than one "truth" about reed profiles where each customizer sits on his own truth. My way is my way and these are briefly the methods I use for this part of the harmonica.
ZP is considered as a starting point for the reed. In reality, one can regard the ZP to be an imaginary point located in front of the rivet pad fillet. This point "must be set to 0" in relation to the reed plate. From ZP the "straight reed" rises at a certain angle relative to the reed plate.
There is an optimum angle to check for, where the reed closes simultaneously from ZP to the reed tip- given that the reed is straight and correctly profiled (straight). One way of studying the reed closing movement, is to put a white sheet of white paper on the desk and point a normal desk light to the paper. So called indirect light
Held the reed plate in upright position having the reeds pointing against you (rivet pad to your left). Now you will see a thin light stream between the reed and the reed plate. If you held it correctly an thin light stream is visible on all ten reeds.
In this position, the closing movement can be studied by placing the very tip of your index finger, or tip of thumb on the reed tip and slowly and gently press the reed down towards the reed slot, at the same time observe how it close - optimum is that it close the entire reed slot at the very same time from the ZP to the reed tip. You will probably find that this is not the case for most of the reeds on a out of box harmonica. The light spot in front of rivet pad becomes visible when holding the reed tip flush to the reed slot and tells us that it a “leakage source”. We do want to minimize it - so the ZP has to be set lower. This can be carried out with different methods, i.e using the UST or Seydel Setup Tool. http://harmonicasessions.com/?p=179 and/or ~4 minutes in Seydel Set Up Tool video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0igW06SnoLo. I do use other methods for straighten the the reed itself. What is shown is only a part of the work.
Tip : Try lowering the ZP as shown in the video (~4 minutes into the clip) - punch the reed three four times on any harmonica and see if makes a difference in response... Make sure that you do not overdo the punching of it - keep your eye on the very reed tip and use enough punching pressure that so that the reed tip dips roughly half way into the reed slot. Check if this makes any difference - try overbends...
Now - "Sizing" the last third of the reed slot with the Seydel Set Up Tool - check the reed response again ...
Each customizer has their own tools, homemade and/or purchased. Personally i use a small minimum mix of homemade tools and partly the new version of Richard Sleigh Tool Set, which i find to be excellent for my work.
Plink Reed closely in between any change in the reed profile to ensure its shape and stability
When the goal is reached - that is correct setup ZP and straight reed profile and gapping it to your own taste, perfect and easy response, the height in the ZP becomes irrelevant, it will be optimal if all criteria are met. It will be possible to gently slide a 0.005” shim towards the rivet pad and find that it is coming close to the "imaginary" ZP but not all the way into the rivet pad. This tells us that almost the entire length of the reed is involved in the clos
I do understand that my post probably raise a “bunch” of questions. I can not promise I’ll have the time to answer as my work schedule is “filled”. At least - hope this explanation helps,
Thank you Mr.Sjoeberg,… very kind of you to intervene with superb instruction :) I was praying either you or Mr. Spiers would step in and save us from ourselves…
Nice to hear from Dick Sjoeberg here! Dick's UST is a great tool, and his principle of getting the whole reed closing at the same time from base (the zero point) to tip is an important one.
Since on OTB harps there is a gap at the very base of the reed when it is closes, this clearly needs to be addressed.
The standard way is as Dick and other respected customisers like Richard Sleigh recommend: carefully push the base of the reed down, and then reshape the whole reed. Subsequently do the resizing or embossing with the UST or some other tool.
This does work, but it has these disadvantages:
1. It changes the tuning of the reed. It makes the pitch flat, so it has to be retuned up to pitch.
2. Bending the reed in this way slightly weakens it. The reed is a spring. If you bend any spring it has effects, due to deformation of the crystalline structure of the metal. This is called the Bauschinger Effect (click 'Look Inside' on this link:)
Whether the Bauschinger Effect is significant enough to perceptibly affect harmonica reed life and performance is a moot point, but it's worth noting that bending the reed causes real changes in its microscopic structure. I'd say on balance that's not desirable if it can be avoided.
3. It's time-consuming. Trying to judge the right amount of bend at the reed base is a matter of judgement and trial and error. It's easy to bend too far, then have to reverse the bend. This can happen several times. Then the straightening process involves more bending. Aside from the Bauschinger Effect, it's very time and labour intensive.
This has led me and my X-Reed partner Zombor Kovaks to examine the problem from first principles, and try other ways of getting the whole reed closing evenly along its length without bending it down into the slot.
One obvious alternate solution is to raise the reedplate to the reed at the critical base point. Another is to lower the whole reed by countersinking the rivet pad in the reedplate.
The second of those solutions is also time consuming, as each reed needs to be removed, the countersinking done, then the reed replaced. It's not a practical solution right now.
But the first can be achieved much more quickly.
One way is to add material to the reedplate. Jim Antaki's TurboLiner is an example of this approach. It's great in principle, but due to the inaccuracies in reed position from one slot to the next, the tolerances for a 'one size fits all' product like the TurboLiner can't be close enough to do the job properly.
Zombor experimented by glueing tiny pieces of shim to the reedplate around the base of the reed. This does give good results in closing the gap, but is tricky, time consuming and also gives a stepped effect to the side of the reedslot.
Currently I am using a different approach: Deforming the metal of the reedplate itself to close the gap at the base. I use a chiselling action, moving a small, hard sharp metal face with pressure in towards the reed at 90 degrees.
With the right force and angle it creates a shaving of brass in front of the tool, that rises up about 0.2-0.5mm. If this is carefully pushed in towards the reed the shaving rests against the side of the reed and closes the gap at the base. When the reed vibrates it clears its own infinitesimal gap between it and the thin brass shaving.
I do lower-height shavings for another 2-3mm down the reed until its natural curvature meets the reedplate when the reed is held down. This gives you the desired effect: closing the air gap at the base of the reed and giving it a uniform reed closing profile.
With practice this process becomes pretty fast. You can actually use the end of the UST as a chisel to do this job if you want. Since its bottom surface is rounded, it makes small scallop-shaped marks at 90 degrees to the reed. Try it!
The trick is use the right angle (about 20 degrees) and not to overshoot the edge of the reedslot in bending the small shaving up. If you do that it breaks off, and you are left with an even bigger gap to fill - not good! Zombor also worries that the shavings might break off in time, but if they are well formed this will not happen in my opinion.
I'm still perfecting this method and experimenting with different tools to get predictable consistency, but I'm very happy with the results when it's done right.
It really works, and you don't have all that time/hassle of bending the reed into a new shape and then retuning it. In addition you also avoid the dreaded Bauschinger Effect! When done properly it's a win-win in my opinion.
As the gruesome old saying goes, there's more than one way to kill a cat...
Last Edited by on Jan 05, 2013 10:39 AM
Thank you for adding you voice and EXPERTise to the ZP story line Brendon :)
You bring up the Bauschinger Effect and it is ironic that I read this today…I was told ( and the fellow gives Kinya Pollard the credit for this ideal ) that you can stick a “Whole Reed Plate” in a vise and squeeze all the reeds evenly at the same time, bringing them all essentially to the ZP starting parameter.
Brendan - Thanks for the welcome! This interesting thread will keep me alert for a while I think. I want to briefly interpose to set ZP using Setup Tool, or otherwise, does not deform the material plastically, it regains its shape after conversion of ZP. I have not noticed that the tuning would be lost. The whole thing is based on using "momentum equation" and the material's resilience properties, hence it must be that I describe in my previous post. I agree that it is sensitive and therefore requires accuracy in the execution to avoid material plastically deformed as described by Bauchinger.
Frank - I was just writing about "vise technique" when I logged in and saw that you brought it up. This technique, which I transferred to some people for some years ago, is based on the fact that the metal surfaces are not flat when riveting reeds, They do not have the same "height" due to differences in surface roughness, which is easily seen if one studies the "light gap" or difference in height between the reeds. The technique is very fast but requires accuracy. It is not so that it works on all reeds depending on the deviation between the reed plate and rivet plate differ. But if we are lucky it sets all reeds to ZP.
It is important to remember that vice should have flat brackets (jaws)so that the force is distributed evenly over the front edge of the reed pad when the vice is tightened. One take advantage of the fact that there is a height difference between the reed and reed pad and "hangs" simply the rivets on the top of the jaws and "squeeze" the rivet pad in order to even out the surface aberrations.
I invested in the Ust tool about a year ago.......great tool.from mr sjoeburg ....it's crazy reading Brendans explanation of deforming metal at the base first before I attempt to push on the reed itself.......I accidentally discovered this process through trail and error and I have found it to be very effective . I can now consistently set my overblows and overdraws. The 7 overdraw was where I got frustrated most and screwed up a lot of reeds until I stopped so much with the pushing of reed down verses deforming and moving metal towards the base to fill any places where air escapes....you can over do it as you can when you emboss so you have to do a little at a time.....I use a light table, Ust tool and a magnifying glass as I do this process....I usually deform metal at the base, emboss...test and then move on with gapping until I find my place of satisfaction with each reed...just my humble info to share.......forever learning!.....see clip to hear a harp I completed using this method
http://youtu.be/o_nl0doMltA
Last Edited by on Jan 06, 2013 4:37 AM
Dick, Thank you for The explanation of why the vise method is used and how to position the reed plates into it...I need to purchase the UST from Hetrick and begin embossing, I have a lot of old scrap plates to practice on.
I used the R. Sleigh method recently to lower the ZP, and the tuning did not go flat - ( though I assumed it would) ..... The reeds did go flat when I did the reverse of raising the ZP from .001 to .002
The way I lowered the ZP was...I started the lowering process were I saw that the ZP gap began, some gaps were longer then others, so I started at different spots on a reed according to were the gap began -then using a brass tool I pushed down and towards the rivet, while watching the free end of the reed to see how it was being effected and I would stop the process when I saw it begin lowering into the end of the slot, then I stopped and checked the ZP gap again with light.
Doing it that way I was able to keep the ZP lowering from going beyond what was necessary. I did need to straighten the reeds and set gaps but that seems to be a a fairly quick process too, and again - the tuning was not flattened in the process of lowering the ZP, profiling and gapping (why it wasn't I don't know)...
Bdawg...It's amazing how you and Brendan are closing the ZP gap, can't wait to view a video of that process someday. Also the video you have showing how your reed work sounds is a Pro demonstration for sure - thanks for that little taste of your harp world.
Thanks so much Frank.....be glad to share any info I can.....it's very gratifying to finally complete a few harps that perform the way you want.....I've bought several harps from joe Spiers over the years and my curiosity starting getting the best of me as how he got them to play and perform so great..... so a few years back I started tearing up harps to try to figure out something better than adding to my harp graveyard!.....by no means no where close to the Spiers league but I'm ahead of where I was personally 2 yrs back...one quote that I remember from r sleigh.......get a harp to play somewhere between good and great and leave it alone......I had to learn that the hard way....
Last Edited by on Jan 06, 2013 3:09 PM
one quote that I remember from r sleigh.......get a harp to play somewhere between good and great and leave it alone......I had to learn that the hard way
Don't know bout that bdawg - sounds like the harp you did was somewhere between great and awesome! I'd say you went a bit above and beyond on that harp?
What are a few things you had to learn the hard way?
Cool to hear Bluedawg is doing the same as me at the reed base... :-) Your harps are sounding great Bdawg!
In a sense what we're doing is just a form of extreme slot embossing: taking the same principle of burring the slot lower down the reed and applying it to the bigger gap at the reed base with a chiselling action.
I know it would be impractical for replacement purposes, and probably on the manufacturing end too, but has there ever been a harp where the reeds are stamped from the same piece as the reed plates? (I've got some plastic harps where the reeds are part of the reed plate, but they are glued together so I can't get a great look at what's going on inside. I seem to remember something on Pat Misin's site about free reed instruments and their height settings, but I don't remember the conclusions (I do remember some wooden instruments carve the reed out of what amounts to the 'plate'.) I also remember David Payne mentioning a Seydel (or whatever the conglomerate was called) that put their bottom reeds on differently to prevent choking.
Again, it's probably not practical stuff, but sometimes when you take an experiment beyond functionality you discover the underlying principle.
After a little searching, idioglottal.
http://www.patmissin.com/history/whatis.html
---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
Last Edited by on Jan 07, 2013 7:21 PM
Bluedawg: what tool are you using to do the chiselling?
I've made some of my own small chisels, but right now am using a modified UST. I cut it about 2.5cm in from the business end, shaped the base into a narrow strip about 5mm wide and inserted it into a round tool holder. It comes out at an oblique angle that I find more comfortable to hold than the stock UST.
I also thinned and narrowed down the other side of the business face of the UST to make a plinker. So now I just flip the tool horizontally to plink.
I push the end of the UST in at 90 degrees to do the chiselling of the reedplate at the reed root. It creates tiny scallop-shaped depressions as it drives the brass shaving before it, which ends up resting on the reed.
There is no need to support the reed with shim when doing this, as I only work on the final 2-3mm at the base, and the reed itself halts the tool. If you have it at the right angle the shaving is sturdy and secure.
This process is really fast now, and the tuning and profile of the reed remain unchanged. The slot rises to meet the reed, rather than the reed being depressed down to the slot. In effect, the shaving is just a big burr curling in to meet the reed - in principle the same as you create further down the length of the reed.
is this what you're doing as well? I'd welcome any thoughts on your methods.
Last Edited by on Jan 08, 2013 6:58 AM
@BrendanPower: That's a very interesting technique! I have two questions, though:
1) If I'm imagining it correctly, the little "shavings" form a kind of "dam" all along the edge of the reedslot, effectively thickening the reedplate in terms of what the reed "sees" as it crosses the plane of the reedslot. Do you find that that has any effects, negative or positive on reed response? Is it similar to the effect of doubling up reedplates?
2) Also, as I imagine it, the "chiseling" pushes the brass closer to the reed, which should close the gap around the edge. That is, it should be doing the same thing as "normal" embossing/sizing. Is that so? If you do this technique does it negate the need to also emboss the slot?
@Brendon I'm using the Ust tool as is.....also have a small. Deburring tool I made in some instances that works in a more pointed area of the base of reed...I'm basically do the same thing....scrapping the first 10 % of the base of the reed So the metal meets the reed without having to Push on it...some customs i own from other customizers it looked as though they had removed the reed a filed the base to make reed sit lower to get same result....i think what you and i are doing is lot less hassle and as you said a faster process...I've found it not to affect the tuning much if any......I accidentally figured it out because I was having so much trouble with the 7 overdraw.....it was all about closing the air leakage at he bottom of the reed ....before that I was super embossing....pushing the reed deep in the plate.and then trying to arc ....sometimes desperatly using fingernail polish as sealant to close leakage.....moslty was a disaster ...it wasn't consistent....the deforming / scraping solved my mystery in how to get a consistant overdraw result without compromising the integrity of the reed and stopping leakage.where it counts...I'm seeing now that its just as important if not more to deform as well as embossing the whole slot if your an overblow overdraw player...plus the loudness of the harp drastically improves.....I know with your experience your probably in a more technical advance stage but it made me feel like I was on the right track when i read your posting about what you were doing
@Frank....in deforming the metal along with embossing I used to start on bottom reeds first. And finish then go to top reed plate.....I actually got the tolerances too tight in a lot of instances and my diatonic starting sounding almost like a valved harp.....now I go with top reeds first and get a feel of where my ob set ups are then I work a little at a time on bottom reeds not to over deform or emboss.....my experience is mostly with brass reed hohner gm, sp 20, mb deluxe and crossover.....I've not worked with steel reeds as much....I do have a few Suzuki manjis and olives.....I think they are very good otb....maybe I'll tackle those next
Last Edited by on Jan 08, 2013 8:36 PM
@ Isaacullah: Pretty much 'yes' to both questions, except it's not the same effect as doubling the reedplate. That increases the mass that the reed is attached to but the reed gap at the base remains the same; the chiselling merely closes the gap at the base of the reed.
@ Bluedawg: Thanks for the description of your method. It sounds like we've arrived at the same process with the same tool. I'm still experimenting with making tiny chisels, and have ordered some jewellers engraving tools to try. But the rounded chisel face that the front edge of the UST forms is the easiest to use so far. A happy unintended consequence of Dick's creation, since it can be used for the rest of the reed as well.
Saying that, I'm still searching for a way to make the process more clinically controllable. Right now it depends a lot on 'feel' and 'knack' and it's still possible to get it wrong. Maybe the jewellers tools will give that extra control - I'll let you know.
That was an interesting observation about how you felt some customisers remove the reed and thin or shape the reed base before re-attaching, in order to lower the reed in the slot. Zombor has tried countersinking the reedslot too, which gives the same effect. Neither is a practical option for Suzukis though.
The idea of moving metal to raise a wall at the root of the reed reminds me of an experiment I did years ago with a turret punch press. I wanted to put blind holes for PEMserts in sheet aluminum. I designed and had built a tool that would force a pin into the aluminum and had a recess for the metal the pin was pushing up to flow into, kind of like the way an aluminum can is extruded. The idea worked and created a blind hole with a rim around it so that the hole was about as deep as the metal was thick but yet did not go all the way though the material.
I could envision using a hand toggle press with the appropriate fixturing and tooling to press a rectangular blind hole in between the reed slots and raise up matierial on either side. It would probably take a lot of iterations of the punch shape before you got it to work correctly without warping the reed plate, but once done it would be easy and consistant.
I think a tool could be made to work locally on one space between reed plates at a time. Any more than this would probably require more force than a hand press can provide. I have a model of a Golden Melody reed plate in CAD. I will mock up a first pass of what I am thinking and post images.
I took a model of a Seydel lo D 4 blow reed that I had made from measurements of the reed and looked at what would happen if you pushed a .001 shim under it. THis model assumes the shim and the reedplate are perfectly rigid and that the rivet holds tight. The tip of the reed comes up about 0.15" from the reed plate. Peak stress (orange area) is around 200MPa. That would not cause a stainless reed to take a set but it is right around the yeild stress of brass. (I'll change the material in the analysis to brass and see what happens.)
Do brass reeds bend when you shove a shim under them like this? The next thing I want to do with this model is reshape the reed in CAD to the bend it took from shoving the shim under it and simulate air presure on the reed to see if the whole reed closes at once. The way a reed bends under air pressure is different from the shape it takes when you press down the free end with a finger. I can model the reed both ways as well as looking at what shape the reed takes at its resonant frequency. I will post the results when I get them. I will also do the afore mentioned model of a potential punch to make the reed plate opening match the reed shape so it closes along the whole length at once.
Last Edited by on Jan 09, 2013 11:31 PM
