Column Theory

[Saul Davis Zlatkovski]

Carl and others, what do you think? I have a new theory: the carving and fluting of the harp’s column helps disperse the soundwaves and make for a more roundedly projected tone.

[jessica-wolff]

Saul, going by the lack of replies, I have to assume nobody’s ever thought about it.

[Philippa mcauliffe]

I’ve thought about how little the makers mention the physics of the sound in their blurb.

[steven-todd-miller]

As I’ve posted a zillion times, (but maybe I’ve been using the wrong terminology: loudness vs. projection), my Apollo has so much projection it gets me into trouble; even when I’m trying to play softly. Is the column design the culprit? Saul, are you thinking that irregular surfaces (carving depth) diminish projection? Mathematically speaking, would there be enough surface area in the carved regions to make a difference? Fascinating hypothesis!

[kreig-kitts]

I think of all the things that affect a harp’s sound, carving would be so low on the list to have an imperceptible effect if any at all. I think there might be other differences or subjective factors.

There might be a perceived effect, where we expect a harp with a certain appearance to sound a certain way, and that changes how perceive the sound and/or play the instrument. People might tend to play Salzedos, style 30s, etc. differently than they would play a style 23, a Venus classic, or one of those scroll-top baroque harps. Or, as has been demonstrated with things from instruments to wine, what we see and expect has a huge influence on what we hear/taste/perceive.

It could also be that if there is an expectation that a “modern-looking” harp should have a certain sound, then builders might build it to sound that way.

Also, since many of the highly carved harps out there are older, it’s possible that general differences people here are due to either the age of harps (i.e., maybe harps mellow with age).

Or perhaps there is a preference over time for harps to have a certain (brighter, louder, etc.) sound. So it could be that during the mid-20th century, when many of the sleeker-looking harp models were being built, there was a changing taste for what a harp should sound like and how they were being built.

If someone wanted to test this, they would need to come up with a way that the person playing the harp would not know which they were playing. For example, they might be blindfolded. Furthermore, anybody evaluating the sound would have to have no idea which they’re listening to. Finally, something more objective, like measuring frequencies etc. could be helpful to reduce human error or at least add a more objective way of evaluating the sound.

Ideally, it would be the same harp except for the column. As in the exact same instrument. This would be far from practical (I don’t really know if it’s possible without ruining the harp – maybe someone could temporarily attach some raised surfaces to simulate carving). So at least the harps should be identical in every way possible except for the column/carving. Exact same measurements for string lengths/gauges, soundbox, soundboard, as close to the same wood as possible, same age, etc. And there’s the big difficulty – a gazillion things go into a harp’s sound, including the performer and the audience. But I have major doubts the carving has any noticeable effect on the sound, beyond what we expect it to sound like when we play or hear it.

[Tacye]

The other experimental method would be to have a harpist playing one harp and support alternative columns next to the harp’s- first seeing if people could hear any difference when a column was added as this should nearly double the effect.

Or use a contact microphone on the soundboard to remove the effect of the soundwaves in the air and see if the sound differences are as prominent.

I have a tendency to play my harp with the column guard still on in rehearsals and have not noticed a change in tone – but maybe I wouldn’t as I am behind the harp.

[holly-kemble]

I would think that the inside of the column is smooth in all models…..(I can’t imagine that anyone would spend the time to carve something no one can see).

Since the inside is smooth on all (most??) models,

[kreig-kitts]

The original question wasn’t about sound resondating inside the column, but about sound coming off the soundboard and hitting/passing

[carl-swanson]

Kreig- I have to agree with you. I know from first hand experience of building harps from scratch that many things other than the soundboard have an effect on the tone and projection of the harp. The shape and size of the body(to which the soundboard is attached), the shape and size of the pedal box. The size of the holes on the back of the body. The thickness and weight of the neck, the weight of the column. But I can’t see the surface area or the carving or smooth surface having any effect on the sound.

I know that what people hear, and what they THINK they are hearing can be very different, and in blind tests, where they don’t know what they are listening to, there are many variations in all of the above mentioned factors that in the end the listener can’t hear. I know this from a workshop I led in 1994 at the Boston harp conference. I had four harps of different sizes behind a scrim, so that the audience couldn’t see what they were listening to. I didn’t tell them if they were listening to different size harps, different makes, etc. I had 2 harpists play each instrument in 7 or 8 ‘sound tests.’

What I had behind the scrim was a 1940 concert grand strung completely in nylon, a semi-grand with extended soundboard, a semi-grand with straight board, and a small style 14 with straight board.

Absolutely no one could pick out the harp strung completely in nylon. They couldn’t tell which harp was the concert grand, nor which had a straight board and which an extended board.

My friends at Vanderbilt have run blind tests numerous times trying to figure out if there is an audible difference between silver and tarnish resistant wire strings, and no one has ever been able to tell the difference in a blind test. So in the end, there are too many variables to attribute the sound or projection of a particular harp of model of harp to any one set of factors.

[Saul Davis Zlatkovski]

It would not be that hard to test. I would think if you built two identical harps, but gave them two vastly different columns, whether or not there is a clearly measurable difference would prove or disprove the point.

It seems to me as a matter of pure acoustics, that soundwaves coming from the sounding board are going to be more dispersed by a carved column than by a smooth one. It may be less than 10% of the total sound, but it seems to me that there would be some difference. Whether the dispersal is in the direction you want is another question.

I am certain I can tell the difference between silver and tarnish-resistant strings. I can certainly tell the difference between gut and nylon on recordings. It all depends on who is listening.

[jessica-wolff]

It was your word as well as that of my harp technician that made me stick to the non-tarnish-resistant and copperwound strings, Saul.

[shannon-schumann]

Well, it’s testable, to some extent. You could alter the column of a harp by wrapping something (soft, or lined with something soft) around it, and compare the difference of sound with no wrap, and with differently arranged wraps. Then all other variables would be held constant.

[unknown-user]

As to wire strings, Bow Brand Tarnish resistant strings are a different

[Saul Davis Zlatkovski]

Why do you think that only thickness would affect the sound? The difference between silver and an alloy with nickel would be elemental, so to speak.

[unknown-user]

No, I don’t think that only gauge affects sound. But gauge is significant and would be most noticeable.

Especially in the context of

[Author]

Posts