Dingo40
Been here for ages!
One of my vintage PAs (LMMM) has a kind of overall comb and paper buzzing effect across the entire range, which I quite like.
Cassotto voices options & tone
- Thread starter tcabot
- Start date
Not sure whether I understand this correctly. I can follow your reasoning if you have opened up the accordion and then look inside from where the reeds all are. The block deepest inside then actually is the block closest to the exit. It is for the black keys (plus a few white) and the block you can remove directly is for the white keys (minus a few). If you were to remove the grille and then look inside you are actually looking inside the cassotto. The black keys have short levers/arms, going to the block closest to where the sound comes out. The M reeds are always first, the L reeds sit behind that. After that comes the second block, again with the M reeds first and the L reeds all the way in the back.
Because the M reeds for the black keys are very close to the sound exit they are less mellow than the other reeds.
And because the L reeds have a more even mellow sound than the M reeds many player prefer to play the L reeds in 8va over playing M reeds in loco. (You do need high enough notes though.)
When you play chords with very low notes all kinds of things inside the accordion can start resonating, from valves to reeds to even the grille or the register mechanism. Even with single notes you can almost always find one note that causes something in the accordion to vibrate at the same frequency.
Why would he need a support stand? It's only a 5-voice instrument.
The [LM]MMM is intriguing. Was the purpose of this to provide full unbridled musette for popular (at the time) tunes and dry jazz sound in one accordion? Or just to add some extra weight to make the player's life more difficult?
Update: I thought he played a "Jazzmaster", but I now read that it was a "Chromaton V" Was it even an [LM]MMM then? Looking at the register switches it was a [L]MMMH with unknown voice in cassotto. Was it just a button version of "Piano V"?
If anyone has any knowledge on accordiola model ranges I would be grateful for the info.
I kind of gathered that "Piano V" was the piano version of "Chromaton V" with [LH]MMM and "Swingmaster" was the piano version of "Jazzmaster" with [LM]MMM. I might be wrong. Presumably, "Grand luxe" or "De luxe" indicated reed quality a mano vs tipo a mano? It looks like there were other models with similar configurations too though. Cassotto? Cassotto II?
I would try to get in contact with a player like Leen de Keijzer. He plays a Chromaton V, I think.
Wow. A room full of accordions and steel bikes. Plus some power tools? If there's heaven, it must look like this.
He seems to have quite a collection of boxes, but videos are either of the Chromaton or the Morino with a lot of buttons on left hand side.
He seems to have quite a collection of boxes, but videos are either of the Chromaton or the Morino with a lot of buttons on left hand side.
I believe his family runs an accordion repair shop. They also have a street organ that is in a video somewhere.
@debra
You were absolutely right (no surprise there) about high frequencies and cassotto.
It looks like the cassotto effect "switches off" on note C6 in my box. Anything lower has that rich, silky smooth rounded sound, while C6 and higher simply sounds a little less gritty than the one outside cassotto, as if a sordina was closed. Very interesting.
You were absolutely right (no surprise there) about high frequencies and cassotto.
It looks like the cassotto effect "switches off" on note C6 in my box. Anything lower has that rich, silky smooth rounded sound, while C6 and higher simply sounds a little less gritty than the one outside cassotto, as if a sordina was closed. Very interesting.
That is because around C6 reeds stop having valves. That causes them to sound sharper and also a bit less loud. The cassotto still mellows down the sound a bit compared to the same note outside of cassotto, but there is definitely an audible change in sound where the valves stop.
@debra
Thanks.
My first non-valved note is, indeed, C6.
However, I have stuck a valve on a random non-valved plate (just the outside valve) and played through the chromatic scale. I managed to correctly identify the newly valved reed, but the difference was barely noticeable. So I suspect the noticeable cassotto "switching off" effect has mote to do with something else (wavelength for given pitch maybe).
I preferred the valved tone to a non-valved tone in cassotto - should I valve the cassotto reeds from C6 onwards? Or is there a good reason why these are not valved and it should never be done?
Thanks.
My first non-valved note is, indeed, C6.
However, I have stuck a valve on a random non-valved plate (just the outside valve) and played through the chromatic scale. I managed to correctly identify the newly valved reed, but the difference was barely noticeable. So I suspect the noticeable cassotto "switching off" effect has mote to do with something else (wavelength for given pitch maybe).
I preferred the valved tone to a non-valved tone in cassotto - should I valve the cassotto reeds from C6 onwards? Or is there a good reason why these are not valved and it should never be done?
The non-valved reeds do not have a valve because it helps them start. The air that is spilled through the non-playing reed tongue helps the playing one to start. It isn't clear where exactly the valves should stop. Many accordions nowadays still have valves on C6 and C6#. This is especially useful for large piano accordions and for button accordions that have the notes go up to C#. The L reeds then go up to C6#.
Stopping at C6 used to be done almost religiously. I have a small 26-note 40-bass Crucianelli (from around 1965). The notes (all M reed) go from B3 up to and including C6. The C6 no longer had a valve. I added a valve (and then adjusted the pitch) and it plays better now, no longer sharper than all other notes.
If you add valves to even higher notes you will notice that adjusting the voicing so the notes still start becomes increasingly difficult.
The difference in tone between notes with valve and without is larger with cheaper reeds than with high quality a mano reeds, because cheaper reeds have more room between the reed tongue and the side-walls in the reed plate. The tone gets sharper and you start hearing a hissing sound from the wasted air.
@debra
I've been doing a bit of experimenting with reed blocks and valves.
There were ideas floated on a German-speaking accordion forum that reed block chambers are being made way too small. The hypothesis is easily proven by making an adjustable volume chamber jig, plugging in reeds and listening while adjusting volume.
There's certainly a very noticeable effect when enlarging chambers for C6 onwards. For example, for piccolo range (C7-C8) if instead of the traditional <1cm3 you give these reeds 4-6 cm3 breathing space, there is a very significant increase in volume and response when you find the "optimal" volume for each note. Even if the reed height is not set very well!
Unfortunately, once you go lower than A6, the size of "optimal" chambers starts rising rapidly, with C6 requiring closer to 16cm3 (my jig is not very precise, but the reed response is not hugely sensitive to small changes in volume anyway). Of course, 16cm3 for one reed chamber is completely impractical. By the time you're in bassoon range, you probably need more volume than the entire accordion box.
Sub 8cm3 can be accommodated I think, and there's second-best chamber volumes that can be identified (e.g. C6 responded best at 16cm3 but also had better than average performance around 7cm3 in my experiment. Interestingly enough, around 11cm3 the reed wouldn't start at all, no matter how hard I pumped the bellows!).
I did not manage to find any direct relationship between pitch, wavelength and chamber volume performance yet - had to arrive at the chamber size empirically by testing them on the adjustable volume jig.
This got me thinking, that if I can obtain some "free" volume and responsiveness by increasing the chamber, I can valve the C6-C7 octave in cassotto without experiencing any deterioration in reed performance, yet getting a smoother timbre.
It appears that I can valve down to about G6 now while maintaining an even response from all reeds when using light plastic valves and enlarged chambers - I'd call it a success. The reeds become very sensitive to changes in valve stiffness and the gluing surface area though.
Another trick to try out is to place these reed plates deeper in the chamber (i.e. emulate a mini-winkelbass idea of increasing the path from the plate to the soundhole by placing the plate as far from the soundhole as possible, as opposed to just increasing the chamber volume but installing the plate right near the soundhole where they sit traditionally). I haven't had any conclusions on whether this can be achieved and whether there is a significant difference in timbre.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating of course - I've copied the existing rosette pattern and made the bases for new blocks, but haven't built the actual blocks yet. I suspect I might run into serious difficulties trying to get an even response across each reed, but there's only one way to find out.
I've been doing a bit of experimenting with reed blocks and valves.
There were ideas floated on a German-speaking accordion forum that reed block chambers are being made way too small. The hypothesis is easily proven by making an adjustable volume chamber jig, plugging in reeds and listening while adjusting volume.
There's certainly a very noticeable effect when enlarging chambers for C6 onwards. For example, for piccolo range (C7-C8) if instead of the traditional <1cm3 you give these reeds 4-6 cm3 breathing space, there is a very significant increase in volume and response when you find the "optimal" volume for each note. Even if the reed height is not set very well!
Unfortunately, once you go lower than A6, the size of "optimal" chambers starts rising rapidly, with C6 requiring closer to 16cm3 (my jig is not very precise, but the reed response is not hugely sensitive to small changes in volume anyway). Of course, 16cm3 for one reed chamber is completely impractical. By the time you're in bassoon range, you probably need more volume than the entire accordion box.
Sub 8cm3 can be accommodated I think, and there's second-best chamber volumes that can be identified (e.g. C6 responded best at 16cm3 but also had better than average performance around 7cm3 in my experiment. Interestingly enough, around 11cm3 the reed wouldn't start at all, no matter how hard I pumped the bellows!).
I did not manage to find any direct relationship between pitch, wavelength and chamber volume performance yet - had to arrive at the chamber size empirically by testing them on the adjustable volume jig.
This got me thinking, that if I can obtain some "free" volume and responsiveness by increasing the chamber, I can valve the C6-C7 octave in cassotto without experiencing any deterioration in reed performance, yet getting a smoother timbre.
It appears that I can valve down to about G6 now while maintaining an even response from all reeds when using light plastic valves and enlarged chambers - I'd call it a success. The reeds become very sensitive to changes in valve stiffness and the gluing surface area though.
Another trick to try out is to place these reed plates deeper in the chamber (i.e. emulate a mini-winkelbass idea of increasing the path from the plate to the soundhole by placing the plate as far from the soundhole as possible, as opposed to just increasing the chamber volume but installing the plate right near the soundhole where they sit traditionally). I haven't had any conclusions on whether this can be achieved and whether there is a significant difference in timbre.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating of course - I've copied the existing rosette pattern and made the bases for new blocks, but haven't built the actual blocks yet. I suspect I might run into serious difficulties trying to get an even response across each reed, but there's only one way to find out.
That's very interesting! It's especially interesting because many accordion makers tend to make the resonance chamber for high-pitched notes smaller by inserting an extra piece of wood. I never understood why they did that (because it makes it harder to support a reed from the inside while tuning. But what you found out is that instead of making these cavities smaller for high-pitched notes they should actually be larger!
None of this is my idea to be fair - there's a couple German guys on www.musiker-board.de who were doing the work around 2014. I just repeated the experiment (rather crudely) to make sure I don't mess up the chamber sizes for my new blocks.
To my rather inexperienced mind, the chamber reduction practice makes sense only if the piccolo chamber happens to hit the "dead" size for given note. Otherwise, increasing the chambers gives an increase in volume (very substantial, if the "perfect" size is identified - the German guys reported a 10db increase! It sounds quite plausible) and better response.
The problems are that the increase needs to be significant and that the notes need to be somehow balanced between those running in optimal chambers (possible for piccolos), second best chambers and the best that you can fit in the box (as would be the case for lower octaves).
I'm hoping to do a few more experiments before I build the chambers onto my blocks.
As far as the timbre and pitch are concerned, there is almost zero (absolutely negligible) impact from changing the chamber size on the tone, and there is negligible (~0.3hz perhaps) impact on pitch, even from quite significant change in size. That's not to say that placing the reed plate further away from the sound hole won't change the timbre. I think I can hear a reduction in volume and a slight reduction in higher partials is the plate is placed further into the accordion body, but I'm not really certain about it (and I don't think I'd be able to pick this up in a blind test. Could be just placebo effect).
To my rather inexperienced mind, the chamber reduction practice makes sense only if the piccolo chamber happens to hit the "dead" size for given note. Otherwise, increasing the chambers gives an increase in volume (very substantial, if the "perfect" size is identified - the German guys reported a 10db increase! It sounds quite plausible) and better response.
The problems are that the increase needs to be significant and that the notes need to be somehow balanced between those running in optimal chambers (possible for piccolos), second best chambers and the best that you can fit in the box (as would be the case for lower octaves).
I'm hoping to do a few more experiments before I build the chambers onto my blocks.
As far as the timbre and pitch are concerned, there is almost zero (absolutely negligible) impact from changing the chamber size on the tone, and there is negligible (~0.3hz perhaps) impact on pitch, even from quite significant change in size. That's not to say that placing the reed plate further away from the sound hole won't change the timbre. I think I can hear a reduction in volume and a slight reduction in higher partials is the plate is placed further into the accordion body, but I'm not really certain about it (and I don't think I'd be able to pick this up in a blind test. Could be just placebo effect).
Ventura
Been here for ages!
what about timing ?
(not knowing any better but) doesn't the air have to compress slightly
before it reaches the pressure point / velocity a given reed needs to go into motion ?
so could a larger chamber cause a miniscule (but measurable) delay compared
to "normal" and if so what is tolerable before out-of-phasing affects that volume gain
in a negative way ?
everything an experiment suggests as an improvement must of course actually
work in real world situations, where many reeds sound and need to be
balanced and well timed at once in a million different assorted combinations
anyhow, this is an interesting thread
(not knowing any better but) doesn't the air have to compress slightly
before it reaches the pressure point / velocity a given reed needs to go into motion ?
so could a larger chamber cause a miniscule (but measurable) delay compared
to "normal" and if so what is tolerable before out-of-phasing affects that volume gain
in a negative way ?
everything an experiment suggests as an improvement must of course actually
work in real world situations, where many reeds sound and need to be
balanced and well timed at once in a million different assorted combinations
anyhow, this is an interesting thread
Timing (response) seems to actually improve. I.e. the reed starts sounding as soon as you drive it. If you set the chamber at the "dead" point, for some notes the response slows down and the volume decreases. For others it can stop the reed from vibrating completely.
If you think about it, you're pumping so much air that the chamber differences are comparatively small.
I think this would make an interesting topic for some theoretical physics paper, but for all practical purposes I can see 3 uses for it:
1) Improvement of piccolo reeds response
2) Smoothing out the highest octave of clarinet in cassotto (on a flat soundboard (i.e. outside of cassotto) the differences in timbre between valved & non-valved reeds are not as pronounced.
3) Knowing what chamber sizes to avoid when building reed blocks (which is how it started for me).
But in all fairness, I can see how applying this knowledge is of zero interest to anyone, as implementing the gains in a balanced manner would require R&D investment that will never pay for itself given the current new accordion market.
There's no reason why a smart guy with a powerful computer can't design the perfect reed block, where the volume and response is even and maximised. Unfortunately, no powerful computer in my workshop, and no smart guy either
.
If you think about it, you're pumping so much air that the chamber differences are comparatively small.
I think this would make an interesting topic for some theoretical physics paper, but for all practical purposes I can see 3 uses for it:
1) Improvement of piccolo reeds response
2) Smoothing out the highest octave of clarinet in cassotto (on a flat soundboard (i.e. outside of cassotto) the differences in timbre between valved & non-valved reeds are not as pronounced.
3) Knowing what chamber sizes to avoid when building reed blocks (which is how it started for me).
But in all fairness, I can see how applying this knowledge is of zero interest to anyone, as implementing the gains in a balanced manner would require R&D investment that will never pay for itself given the current new accordion market.
There's no reason why a smart guy with a powerful computer can't design the perfect reed block, where the volume and response is even and maximised. Unfortunately, no powerful computer in my workshop, and no smart guy either
.
Last edited:
I bet James Cottingham would be interested.There's no reason why a smart guy with a powerful computer can't design the perfect reed block, where the volume and response is even and maximised. Unfortunately, no powerful computer in my workshop, and no smart guy either
Dingo40
Been here for ages!
When I was a boy, the accepted abbreviation for "cubic centimetres" was "cc", but change is all pervasive.
From the web:
"People also ask
Is cc and cm3 the same?
Otherwise known as cubic centimetres. Symbol: cc / Base data: accepted non-SI units. CC is an abbreviation of cubic centimetre. 1 cc = 1 cm3."
Last edited:
It's only "cc" when you're talking motorbike engines
Unless you're a band and you have 10 of them. Ah, the things we do for love.....
Thanks. Is this coming from Rozenfeld's infamous book?
In regard to the depth - my current findings are exactly the opposite. Deep is good. Too shallow means that the valve may not open fully and that messes up your tuning and maybe even response. I have absolutely no problems running piccolo reeds in a 10-mm deep chamber. They quite like it actually. I'm limited by the size of the box in terms of reed block width, otherwise I'd have gone for even deeper chambers.
In regard to the tuning - if there is a sensible way to calculate this, I would like to see a worked example applicable to real life. Seeing is believing. It's one thing to simplify a theoretical model and approximate the results and its a different thing to calculate something accurately and then repeatedly & consistently prove it in real life.
In regard to dissonance - there is pretty much zero impact on timbre, regardless of the chamber size or shape from what I've done so far (if the plate is placed near the soundhole that is). "Dissonant intervals" sounds like something that will impact timbre, but if that was the case, I'd have heard something by now.
There are definitely "dead" spots and "best" and "second best" spots. But the only way I've managed to arrive at them was empirically. The extent of how much these spots affect the reed is different for different notes (which might have some relation to chamber depth or width - who knows!).
In regard to the depth - my current findings are exactly the opposite. Deep is good. Too shallow means that the valve may not open fully and that messes up your tuning and maybe even response. I have absolutely no problems running piccolo reeds in a 10-mm deep chamber. They quite like it actually. I'm limited by the size of the box in terms of reed block width, otherwise I'd have gone for even deeper chambers.
In regard to the tuning - if there is a sensible way to calculate this, I would like to see a worked example applicable to real life. Seeing is believing. It's one thing to simplify a theoretical model and approximate the results and its a different thing to calculate something accurately and then repeatedly & consistently prove it in real life.
In regard to dissonance - there is pretty much zero impact on timbre, regardless of the chamber size or shape from what I've done so far (if the plate is placed near the soundhole that is). "Dissonant intervals" sounds like something that will impact timbre, but if that was the case, I'd have heard something by now.
There are definitely "dead" spots and "best" and "second best" spots. But the only way I've managed to arrive at them was empirically. The extent of how much these spots affect the reed is different for different notes (which might have some relation to chamber depth or width - who knows!).
Well, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone - it takes half a day in the workshop to build an adjustable reed chamber and test a bunch of reeds to hear the result yourself.
I severely doubt that there were a lot of engineering calculations that went into reed blocks... And even if they did, the blocks are made of wood. Even if they were made to an exceptionally high standard (really they are not), the wood moves and changes shape, so whatever the Moscow factory engineers (if they ever existed) have calculated won't be happening in real life by the time the glue has dried in a reed block.
I have never seen any calculations being published. Ever. Except the pseudo-scientific Rosenfeld book from 1970s that contradicts itself in places and is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. Maybe the true calculations are guarded behind 7 seals and a group of KGB guards in Jupiter factory, in which case I'll never find out how to calculate them chambers properly.
Have they empirically arrived at good sizes that work for them? Probably, considering the long history of bayan making in USSR and the accumulated wealth of knowledge. But complex precise calculations - I find it very hard to believe.
I can compare awful post-WWII machine-stamped Kebrdl reeds (with gaps the size of Grand Canyon) with tipo-a-mano Italian made reeds. With the optimal chamber size, the Kebrdle sounds much louder than tipo-a-mano in a small chamber. Stick it into a wrong chamber, and it dies. So reed quality is irrelevant in this particular test.
I severely doubt that there were a lot of engineering calculations that went into reed blocks... And even if they did, the blocks are made of wood. Even if they were made to an exceptionally high standard (really they are not), the wood moves and changes shape, so whatever the Moscow factory engineers (if they ever existed) have calculated won't be happening in real life by the time the glue has dried in a reed block.
I have never seen any calculations being published. Ever. Except the pseudo-scientific Rosenfeld book from 1970s that contradicts itself in places and is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. Maybe the true calculations are guarded behind 7 seals and a group of KGB guards in Jupiter factory, in which case I'll never find out how to calculate them chambers properly.
Have they empirically arrived at good sizes that work for them? Probably, considering the long history of bayan making in USSR and the accumulated wealth of knowledge. But complex precise calculations - I find it very hard to believe.
