Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic conduit marimba

GZ,

{you wrote...}
>A) why do so many people refer to metallophones and metal instruments of this
>ilk as a wood instrument?

Hmmm. You mean by calling them "marimbas"? Well, there is nothing about the word marimba that is intrinsically about wood, and Deagan themselves made, for a short period in the 1920's, what they called a "Steel Marimba". This eventually paralleled and morphed into the vibraphone (if I correctly remember my percussion instrument history, that is). Percy Grainger has some exquisite arrangements for large groups of mallet instruments done in the early part of the century (a great recording with Simon Rattle and the Birmingham SO came out a couple of years ago), and there are a couple of parts for the steel marimba.

>I can't tell you how many times people ask me about my "xylophone".

I'd say that has to do with the toy instruments that are all called xylophone. I get it all the time in the orchestra world, and you can always tell when we have a new stage hand, because to them the marimba, vibes, bells, and chimes are all the same thing: "a xylophone".

>B) for those making or considering making aluminum tubed things, 6061-T6 is
>the best alloy I have found. Works easy, but stays in tune.

Good info. Do I remember correctly: the "T" number is the degree of hardness or tempering, and the higher the "T" the better the alloy (for our purposes)?

>C) Contrary to Jon's experience, I feel these tube/ chimes are capable of
>great dynamic shifts. They can scream or whisper, and all in betwixt. Even
>conduit, but not as much.

Yes, I referred to mainly conduit for the more limited range of sound. And I could be wrong, but is conduit getting thinner and wimpier than in the old days? (what a weird question, Jon...)

Nice points, GZ,
Cheers,
Jon

🔗Vsyevolod <vsyevolod@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., George Zelenz <ploo@m...> wrote:

> A) why do so many people refer to metallophones and metal
>instruments of this ilk as a wood instrument?

Marimba is an African word. The root is "Rimba", which
means "note". Ma- is plural. Thus, "many notes". Same goes for
other instruments like Timbila (plural of Mbila) etc. etc. At one
point in time in Zimbabwe's past, the word marimba was used for the
instrument now referred to as Mbira or kalimba (plural of Limba),
which as we all know is a lamellophone.

Xylophone is a greek word, Xylo = wood, Phone = sound.

Marimbas can be made of wood, metal, glass, stone, or whatever.

Xylophones are made of wood.

Metallophones are made of metal.

Around 100 years ago, the words xylophone and marimba started to
depart from one another in orchestral usage. Marimba became known as
the lower of the two instruments, always with resonators, the tuning
of the second partial eventually evolving to two octaves above the
fundamental (4/1), and the third partial, three octaves and a major
third (10/1). Xylophones became known as the higher of the two,
almost always overlapping in register, sometimes having resonators,
sometimes not. The second partial eventually became standardized at
the octave and a fifth (3/1). I don't know about the third partial,
or if it was just too high a pitch to worry about. Tuning of the
third partial on a marimba is abandoned at the upper end.

This is all Western usage.

> I can't tell you how many times people ask me about my "xylophone".

I play traditional Zimbabwean mbira. I can't tell you how many
times people ask me about my "thumb piano". Do I care?

> B) for those making or considering making aluminum tubed things,
>6061-T6 is the best alloy I have found. Works easy, but stays in
>tune.

I have yet to hear aluminum tubing sound as nicely (to my ear)
as steel. What is this tubing you mention and where can I obtain it?

Jon again:
(SVG)>The ideal striking point is the anitinode, which the ends
>come just a bit short of reaching.

>Is this a typo, and it should read "antinode"? I haven't heard of
>the term (in either spelling), and the concept of 'mystery points'
>of striking are fascinating. Is there a source on this somewhere?

Yes, antinode. This is the term used to refer to "the point of
maximal vibration" for the particular mode in question. Here we are
trying to coax out the fundamental mode, as opposed to the upper
partials. On a stringed instrument, the antinode is the center of
the open string. A piece of conduit will have its nodes roughly
around 2/9ths of the length. The antinode is then "two-and-a-half
ninths" away from the nodes (meaning the center of the bar), while
the ends fall short of the antinodes by half of 1/9th. I am using
lay persons math here so as not to confuse any but the mathemeticians
in the crowd :)

SVG>Fortunately, conduit does respond well to being struck on
>the ends, though less so in the lower regions.

>>Good to know; how low in pitch can conduit instruments be effective?

My work was mostly with 3/4" conduit. I found it to be more
musically useful (again, to my ear) than either 1/2" or 1". Middle C
is a great stopping point, and I have gone down as far as F below
that (as in the 53 ET instrument). This low F is beginning to sound
too weak on its own. Softer mallets are useful in bringing out the
fundamental, as is striking the center. Still I wouldn't want to go
much lower.

Jon again: >>as well as the tubes being open on both ends -
>solid bars are definitely helped by resonators.

Yes, solid bars are helped by resonators. Though the open ends
of the conduit neither add to nor detract from anything. The fact
that they are round is the main reason that resonators don't help
much. A square tube of the same size will respond much more readily
to a resonator than a round tube.

>>.....Hmmm. You mean by calling them "marimbas"? Well, there is
>nothing about the word marimba that is intrinsically about wood,

Correct.

...and
>Deagan themselves made, for a short period in the 1920's, what they
>called a "Steel Marimba". This eventually paralleled and morphed
>into the vibraphone (if I correctly remember my percussion
>instrument history, that is). Percy Grainger has some exquisite
>arrangements for large groups of mallet instruments done in
>the early part of the century (a great recording with Simon Rattle
>and the Birmingham SO came out a couple of years ago), and there are
>a couple of parts for the steel marimba.

Careful here. Just because Deagan used the word, doesn't mean
they were using it correctly. They *were* using it correctly, I'm
just trying to undermine the logic that "just because so-and-so calls
it that..."

I call it a conduit marimba in part because of my African roots,
and in part because I can't stand the term tubalong (merrily we
tubalong...) or even tubulong, as Erv calls it. (With due respect to
EW.)

One last point is this whole discussion... Adding reflectors or
resonators to a conduit marimba gives it more amplitude. And this
increase in amplitude comes at the expense of sustain (robbing Peter
to pay Paul). This is a good thing in my book. Also, any conduit
marimba can be played with a damping technique, either devoting an
entire hand to the task (as with most Javanese and Balinese
metallophones), or developing damping techniques with both playing
hands. This is done with the Gender type of Balinese and Javanese
instrument (not for the timid).

SVG

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

SVG,

Boy, are you a font or fountain of information - thanks! Just some brief items...

One thing I noted in general from Jeff's questions (about marimba and xylophone) was the "why" part of it, and I thought about the ways the two terms could have become used in the vernacular that would blur their true identities. Thus, many people refer to any instrument with bars on it as a 'xylophone' because so many kids (I'm thinking Western/American upbringing) had "toy xylophones".

And I'm like you: I don't care. Bemused, but not upset at all.

{you wrote...}
>Yes, antinode. This is the term used to refer to "the point of maximal >vibration" for the particular mode in question. Here we are trying to >coax out the fundamental mode, as opposed to the upper partials. On a >stringed instrument, the antinode is the center of the open string. A >piece of conduit will have its nodes roughly around 2/9ths of the >length. The antinode is then "two-and-a-half ninths" away from the nodes >(meaning the center of the bar), while the ends fall short of the >antinodes by half of 1/9th.

I can now safely tell people when I miss a note that in reality I was simply going for the beautiful tone of the antinode past the end of the bar! :)

>I am using lay persons math here so as not to confuse any but the >mathemeticians
>in the crowd :)

And I thank you.

>My work was mostly with 3/4" conduit. I found it to be more musically >useful (again, to my ear) than either 1/2" or 1". Middle C is a great >stopping point, and I have gone down as far as F below that (as in the 53 >ET instrument). This low F is beginning to sound too weak on its own.

Ah, yes, would that we could have good sounding and (relatively inexpensive) bass instruments. Some of the most beautiful low metal sounds are Kraig Grady's Meru Bars (I hope I remembered the name right...)

>A square tube of the same size will respond much more readily to a >resonator than a round tube.

Interesting. Empirical/experimental testing, or is this a standard physical/acoustic phenomenon? I've seemed to find that rounded objects, both tubes and circular plates, have fewer harmonics, and wonder how square bars would sound... Definitely something worth looking into, someday.

>Careful here. Just because Deagan used the word, doesn't mean they were >using it correctly.

No, but use it they did, instruments got built, music was written/arranged and performed, and you can't go back. A 'boot' is the trunk of the car in the UK, but try to tell that to John Wayne. Then again, try to tell *anything* to John Wayne these days...

>I call it a conduit marimba in part because of my African roots, and in >part because I can't stand the term tubalong (merrily we tubalong...) or >even tubulong, as Erv calls it. (With due respect to EW.)

Good for you.

>One last point is this whole discussion... Adding reflectors or >resonators to a conduit marimba gives it more amplitude. And this >increase in amplitude comes at the expense of sustain (robbing Peter to >pay Paul). This is a good thing in my book.

Since I brought up the point about an instrument with a lot of notes that ring too much, this sounds like a good compromise! Again, as always with music, the context is important as well; I'm sure anyone who would take the time to make such an instrument would be making music they felt was 'at home' with it's intrinsic characteristics. But they could just as easily have bad taste...

>Also, any conduit marimba can be played with a damping technique, either >devoting an entire hand to the task (as with most Javanese and Balinese >metallophones), or developing damping techniques with both playing >hands. This is done with the Gender type of Balinese and Javanese >instrument (not for the timid).

An important technique for anyone who plays ringing (bar) instruments. Imagine what gamelans would sound like without the technique! (Different, Jon, different...)

Good chat, S.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

"Jonathan M. Szanto" wrote:

> SVG,
> Ah, yes, would that we could have good sounding and (relatively
> inexpensive) bass instruments. Some of the most beautiful low metal
> sounds
> are Kraig Grady's Meru Bars (I hope I remembered the name right...)

I've just built 4 bass instruments, called "long gongs" (don't know
about the name - people snigger behind their hands when you mention them
in polite company over here) similar to the Meru bars. They are
straight out of the Banek/Scoville book, "Sound Designs".

All in they cost about ï¿½30.00 (sterling) for the plywood, ï¿½15.00 for the
aluminium, zilch for the plastic resonators and coppers (transl. -
dimes) for the nails and bolts.

Add in a tin of varnish and some labour at slave rates and you have an
excellent sounding and low bass instrument at about ï¿½15.00 each. I
recommend them for sound and looks. I think that professionally
constructed boxes with dovetailed joints and good decorative hardwoods
would produce instruments of stunning visual quality. The aluminium was
easy to cut and to tune - just don't mix the filings with your coffee.

They are tuned 4/3 , 3/2, 1/1 , 7/6 where 4/3 is at 73.4 Hz or D below A
at 110Hz. Very low. One more gives me a slendro, three more and I'll
have a pelog. I'm trying to make the tones compatible with my
slendro/pelog tuning system and with the Eikosany system.

>
> >A square tube of the same size will respond much more readily to a
> >resonator than a round tube.
>
> Interesting. Empirical/experimental testing, or is this a standard
> physical/acoustic phenomenon? I've seemed to find that rounded
> objects,
> both tubes and circular plates, have fewer harmonics, and wonder how
> square
> bars would sound... Definitely something worth looking into, someday.

I read somewhere that square section tubes have tuning problems. I took
this to mean uncertainty or a wavering in their pitch above and beyond
the usual inharmonic partials when played. Anybody experienced this?

Good discussion. It's encouraging to be talking about the nitty gritty -
not that I've anything against theory you understand.............. : - )

Best Wishes

🔗Vsyevolod <vsyevolod@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic, Alison Monteith wrote:
> >
> > >(SVG) A square tube of the same size will respond much more
> > >readily to a resonator than a round tube.
> >
> > Interesting. Empirical/experimental testing, or is this a standard
> > physical/acoustic phenomenon?

The latter. A resonator responds to air being displaced near
the proximity of the opening. A round tube tends to vibrate not only
in the direction it was struck, but in all directions. Thus it is
not directing the displaced air in two directions (towards the
resonator and away from it), but rather in all directions equally. A
square tube will also have that tendency, though it will displace air
in four directions, one for each surface.

I have made several mentions recently of two issues of
Experimental Musical Instruments which contained a wealth of
information about all things conduit. (Vol. 10 #2 and Vol. 10 #3)
Also Vol. 2 #2, and various mentions interspersed from issue to
issue. One of the suggestions that came forth about using resonators
with conduit, was to attach a small slightly concave piece of sheet
metal, about the size of a half dollar, to the center of the note,
just over the resonator. This effectively transfers some of the
vibration of the bar into air moving in the direction of the
resonator. This is similar to using square tubing.

> > I've seemed to find that rounded
> > objects, both tubes and circular plates, have fewer harmonics,
> > and wonder how square bars would sound...
> > Definitely something worth looking into, someday.

I believe "partial" is the word you're looking for
here. "Harmonic" refers to partials that are contained within the
harmonic series. Usually though not always, contained in wind and
string sounds.

I have never made this observation (of lower partial content) in
rounded vs. non-rounded objects, and my experience does not support
it. Perhaps you have some clear examples? Conduit tubes have an
extreme amount of high partial content, it just depends on what you
hit it with. (I know some neighborhood cats with high partial
content, but that's another story...)

> I read somewhere that square section tubes have tuning problems. I
> took this to mean uncertainty or a wavering in their pitch above
> and beyond the usual inharmonic partials when played. Anybody
> experienced this?
>
Many years ago, Erv Wilson made an instrument using brass square
tubes. With this relatively soft metal, and the fact that the
playing surface was flat, the notes eventually became dented and
dropped in pitch because of that. Perhaps this story has trickled
down to you in some form? The same thing would have happened with
round brass tubing, though the flat surface was especially vulnerable.

I made mention in a previous posting of using a reflector under
the notes to bounce back some of the sound. I forgot to mention
another quality that a reflector can have. If the material is thin,
like 1/8" masonite (hardboard) or plywood, and the reflector is not
sitting on the floor, it has a chance to vibrate as well, becoming a
radiator in the process. This is the concept that applies to the
back of an acoustic guitar. If the guitar is not held tight to the
body, the back has a chance to radiate the sound as well as reflect
it and the sound it noticeably improved. Even lifting it an inch off
the floor can have dramatic results.

SVG

conduit marimba

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Vsyevolod <vsyevolod@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

🔗Vsyevolod <vsyevolod@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>