Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I also suspect, that on modern harps (at least those I examined) the sboard is tapered only longitudinally – from the bass end to the treble, while in Erard’s times sboards were tapered also across the grain – from center to sides. Can anyone confirm this?
Such tapering made sboards significantly lighter and definitely should have contributed to the distrinctive harp sound of that age?
Finally a harp’s soundboard is all about weightstrength ratio. There are just different approaches on how you make a soundboard light and strong. Without excessive mass where you don’t need it, but still stong enough to withstand strings tension.
In this regard it is not clear why at certain point strings tension significantly increased (XX century). Aside from the known shift to A=440Hz, I tend to believe that people wanted to add volume to the instrument, making the harp able to compete with large orchestras. However, the more tension you add, the thicker sboard and entire harp’s construction should be…
I do not see any advantages of current high tension – it is bad for the instrument, bad for the player and bad for the sound too.
Would love to hear contrary opinions on this.
Carl,
You wrote:
>>>But there is something else that happens when the board >>>pulls up. …the string position also moves to the left of >>>center as it passes through the discs. When this >>>misalignment becomes bad enough, the board has to be >>>replaced even though it is not broken.
Looks like Camac has resolved this to certain extent by using an improved stationery nut. Like the one described here:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4696217.pdf
I believe Camac uses similar system on 23 of the strings, not just for those nuts in the bass range.
Camac also claims to have designed individual disks for nearly each string for improved intonation… No simple way to overcome all the bottlenecks of harp’s action:).
Thank you for all the suggestions – very helpful, I incorporated most of them into my design. The action is finished. Now follows the most difficult part – building the actual instrument.
Yes, I found an older thread on harpcolumn about the same.
http://www.harpcolumn.com/forum/message-view?message_id=1629438
The discussion ended with the point that it will drastically impact the sound, so not a good idea at all.
Anyone experimented with horizontal wood bracing?
Hi Carl,
Thank you for such detailed response. I’m pretty sure this thread will be beneficial to many, not just me.
Yes, I’m designing a new action. It will have a different mechanical concept (how many times have you heard this?:)). Less movable parts and in traction only. So I’m using an existing instrument only to have an approximate idea on the diameter of the disks for each string, the amount of rotation, size and placement of adjustable nuts, etc.
Certainly I would like to take into account the pulling up of the sb already when designing the action on paper (in CAD actually).
From what you wrote, it looks like the best way to deal with it, is to place the adjustable nuts in such a way, that once the vib. lengths have shortened you can restore the original length by moving the nut up, until you compensate the bellying. Rather than to move it down and change to a smaller disk. Is this the idea?
If indeed on well built harps the amount of belly is around 15mm max – it is definitely possible to do and way easier.
Carl,
Wurlitzer seemed to use a special metal anchoring of the strings:
http://www.wurlitzerharps.com/Wurlitzer1532patentb.html
Probably it was designed specifically for removing the bellying effect, as with such anchoring the tension was not applied directly to the soundboard. Looks simple and ingenious, but did it work and how did it affect the sound?
It is generally accepted that every good harp has to develop a belly, which contibutes to acoustics of the instrument. Might be this is another myth…
As an expert on Wurlitzer harps what can you say about this invention? Was it successful? I think no pedal harp nowadays has this anchoring system. Or perharps Swanson harps have it?
Thank you
Another thing I’m puzzled with is the detuning factor from added tension on the bass wire strings.
When the string is gripped with forks, additional tension occures, as the length is shortened and the frequency slightly shifts too. On gutnylon strings this factor is insignificant and we don’t hear the difference in intonation.
On wire strings however the detuning would be noticeable. I believe that to compensate this bass forks are placed on some other distance than 118 allowing longer vibrating length? Is there any specific formula for this?
This should not be confound with the added pressure disks can excert on thin&short strings of 1st and 2d octaves.
Carl, that’s indisputable and everybody agrees here, I believe.
At the same time, it doesn’t deny that the angle of the strings at the soundboard affects the tone.
I also got an interesting comment on my question:
“Building a pillar that leans forward brings the center of gravity forward too, so it is more centered between the front and back feet. It makes for a more stable harp, less likely to tip over backwards when it is bumped inadvertently. Doing so also gives the builder a little more room for the structural straps and hardware that bind the string rib and bottom of the sound box to the foot of the pillar. There are a lot of stresses there, so design in this area deserves some careful thought.”
Might be indeed this is the primary reason to have the post angled…
Saul, that’s definitely an interesting observation, but we can’t be sure the difference in sound is ONLY due to that string angle, since those are two different manufacturers. It can be related to multiple issues, as Carl rightly pointed out above. We need at least more stats from harpists to rely on their statements.
Would be interesting to know the opinion of Jakez François on this topic. I know he participated on this forum for some time…
Hi Tacye,
yes, more than that, many harp builders can’t even say what the sting spacing they have is such and what’s the progression of the strings distance from lower to higher octaves. 🙂
As for Piligrim Clarsach, that might be done for easier reach of the upper strings, something to consider as well…
What is special in sound balance of Tyrolean harps? I have heard a few, but did not notice anything significant. Could you please tell us what you know?
In general I see that harpbuilding offers more freedom to the maker, probably due to the nature of the instrument, than it happens with violinmaking for example, where the maker has to follow strict rules and established procedures. It is all about correct angles and dimensions there:)
Bernhard – exactly! We are just talking from different points of view, hence all the dispute:).
As for the theory – we also have string vibration modes and fundamentals theory (which is now the core of scientific guitar building), but I did not see it has helped anyone yet to construct a good sounding instrument. Really. All answers in musical instruments building are still more or less empirical and come from personal or past experience.
And I would be satisfied with that – empirical – kind of answer.
So imagine I’m going to build a pedal harp of my own design, including action, and have many variables, strings angle at the soundboard being one of them. I know folk harps have 60 degrees, on Carl’s harps this angle is significantly more to 90. It means the player doesn’t have the lean the harp so much on his body, as he would with an instrument which has strings at 60 degrees.
Carl, do you think you would be able to provide an exact measure of strings angle at the soundboard on any of your pedal harps? As well as the angle at which the soundbox joins the base. It would be a great contribution to the discussion.
Thank you!
Hi Carl,
Thank you for your input. I know you are always a little harsh when it comes to harpbuilding, so I was prepared:).
Perharps I did not explain myself clearly. However, to me your answer makes perfect sense!
Moreover, it looks from your answer that you don’t manufacture the action for your harps. Is it so?
As I can’t imagine anyone would first develop the mechanic part and only then build the frame of the instrument around it. Sounds like total nonsense.
This approach works only when you already have an action in stock (or copied somewhere along with string lenghts).
If you develop both things from scratch it makes sense to develop a frame first and then the action to accommodate the frame. Isn’t it right?
So in other words, you want to say that there is no difference between significantly angled posts and those which are almost perpendicular to the base. And strings angle at the soundboard doesn’t effect playability at all. All the difference is just because people needed to accommodate the action they have copied somewhere onto their instruments.
Did I understand you correctly?
Thank you
