Replicating the Jeffries sound

[Jim Besser]

Over the years I've played many concertinas, and still never played a non-Jeffries that sounded like a Jeffries.

 

I assume some modern makers have tried, and that many variables can be controlled: the steel used in the reeds, the wood, the design of the reed block, etc. Still, that unique sound seems elusive.

 

Any reasonably informed opinions on why that is? What variables might a Suttner, Wakker or Dipper alter to come closer to that sound? I ask as someone who may be forced by the stratospheric prices of Jeffries these days to seek a modern maker who can come closest in a G/D instrument.

[Chris Ghent]

Jim,

 

a couple of thoughts...

 

Until there is no longer a shortage of Jeffries there is no reason to believe a perfect replica would be any cheaper.

 

And I suspect about the same time as you approach the ability to accurately shift the sound around by manipulation of the variables you lose the great drive to replicate someone else's sound and instead start developing and appreciating your own!

 

regs

 

Chris

[MandolinRefugee]

Over the years I've played many concertinas, and still never played a non-Jeffries that sounded like a Jeffries.

 

I assume some modern makers have tried, and that many variables can be controlled: the steel used in the reeds, the wood, the design of the reed block, etc. Still, that unique sound seems elusive.

 

Any reasonably informed opinions on why that is? What variables might a Suttner, Wakker or Dipper alter to come closer to that sound? I ask as someone who may be forced by the stratospheric prices of Jeffries these days to seek a modern maker who can come closest in a G/D instrument.

 

 

In a similar vein, I've been wondering for a long time now why concertina reeds in general can't be made easily. It would seem that with all of our materials technology, manufacturing technology, engineering capabilities, strobe tuners, computerized profiling, stamping technology, etc. we should easily be able to do what was done 100 years ago without any of these cool new tools. Any particular reason(s) why the reeds could be cost effectively made by hand then, but not now?

 

Cheers!

[ragtimer]

In a similar vein, I've been wondering for a long time now why concertina reeds in general can't be made easily. It would seem that with all of our materials technology, manufacturing technology, engineering capabilities, strobe tuners, computerized profiling, stamping technology, etc. we should easily be able to do what was done 100 years ago without any of these cool new tools. Any particular reason(s) why the reeds could be cost effectively made by hand then, but not now?

Cheers!

Probably has to do with quantity, or rather lack of same. If concertina reeds were made in quantities that accordion reeds are (or were), they could be made a lot cheaper. Mass-produced action parts would bring down costs too. If you don't believe it, look at how affordable pianos were in their heyday.

 

But still, numerically computer controleld machining should be cost effective evven in small batches, so I'm not entirely satisfied with my answer. FWIW, Rich Morse was interested in applying modern techniques to making his own high quality reeds, but sadly he didn't live to see it.

--Mike K.

[Rod]

In a similar vein, I've been wondering for a long time now why concertina reeds in general can't be made easily. It would seem that with all of our materials technology, manufacturing technology, engineering capabilities, strobe tuners, computerized profiling, stamping technology, etc. we should easily be able to do what was done 100 years ago without any of these cool new tools. Any particular reason(s) why the reeds could be cost effectively made by hand then, but not now?

Cheers!

Probably has to do with quantity, or rather lack of same. If concertina reeds were made in quantities that accordion reeds are (or were), they could be made a lot cheaper. Mass-produced action parts would bring down costs too. If you don't believe it, look at how affordable pianos were in their heyday.

 

But still, numerically computer controleld machining should be cost effective evven in small batches, so I'm not entirely satisfied with my answer. FWIW, Rich Morse was interested in applying modern techniques to making his own high quality reeds, but sadly he didn't live to see it.

--Mike K.

 

How would you define the overall characteristic(s) of what is described as the 'Jeffries sound' ? Irrespective of precisely what it is which creates it, is it necessarily a superior sound ? Is it an acquired taste ? Is it to do with volume and penetration ? Is it merely a matter of personal preference ?

[TomB-R]

But still, numerically computer controleld machining should be cost effective even in small batches, so I'm not entirely satisfied with my answer.

 

You've seen the pics on the Concertina Connection website? (But they have to charge what they do.)

 

I think Bob Tedrow said that traditional reeds take him an hour each. Perhaps that's the economics of it.

 

Presumably the "old" makers were using presses for the reed shoe blanks. Someone I talked to reckoned the best part of £1,000 for press tooling for each reed size, (and Wim Wakker's site says 17 different sizes....)

 

 

Has anyone done blind tests? How much of the Jeffries sound comes from the knowledge that you're hearing/playing a Jeffries?

(Not sure there's any evidence that it's possible to recognise a Stradivari violin by sound alone!)

Edited July 29, 2009 by TomB-R

[Jim Besser]

How would you define the overall characteristic(s) of what is described as the 'Jeffries sound' ? Irrespective of precisely what it is which creates it, is it necessarily a superior sound ? Is it an acquired taste ? Is it to do with volume and penetration ? Is it merely a matter of personal preference ?

 

Honky. Penetrating.

 

Personal preference, of course; isn't everything about sound?

 

And usefulness for Morris dance musicians. The only G/D's I've heard that are loud/penetrating enough in Morris dance situations are Jeffries.

[michael sam wild]

has anyone done spectrographic analysis of the steel and where did he get it from, Sheffield made quite a bit of spring steel after Benjamin Huntsman invented crucible steel ( they say, stands back from flak))

[MandolinRefugee]

One other point that I was wondering about was the riveted vs. screw-held reeds... Would a reed held in by screws be considerably easier to do the final tuning of? Does the pitch change as you apply pressure to the base of the reed via a screw? I`m curious about this and thousands of other things, too... (some of them are even non-concertina related )

[Anglo-Irishman]

Has anyone done blind tests? How much of the Jeffries sound comes from the knowledge that you're hearing/playing a Jeffries?

(Not sure there's any evidence that it's possible to recognise a Stradivari violin by sound alone!)

If you think about it, neither Stradivaris nor Jeffries' make sounds. Certainly not alone. It's the system of instrument + player that makes sounds.

 

If you heard me playing a Jeffries or a Strad, would you consider the sound exceptional? Probably not! But then I don't get to play Strads or Jeffries'.

 

Given the limited number and therefore high price of genuine Strads, you only get to hear top-notch violinists playing them. What about Jeffries'?

 

Any other thoughts on the matter?

 

Cheers,

John

[Greg Jowaisas]

My experience in repairing and owning Jeffries instruments is that the reed and shoe are not totally responsible for the entire sound. As has been related a number of times in similar posts a decent Lachenal reed assembly takes on a "Jeffries like" sound and shares many of the characteristics of the surrounding Jeffries reeds. At least at first playing.

 

I find that after becoming familiar with an instrument it is often possible to hear and feel the differences of "the cuckoo" hiding in the Jeffries nest. Sometimes we obsess on the Jeffries sound. But one of the reasons Jeffries are so popular is the response and dynamics of good Jeffries reeds. After awhile the Lachenal reeds usually betray their presence in being just a tad slower in response or needing a bit more pressure to match the Jeffries reeds' brilliance or volume. Hidden, good Wheatstone reeds are sometimes more difficult to pick out.

 

Despite all that has been written or repeated about the hardness of Jeffries tongue steel I have not found it to be extraodinarilly harder than say the steel in most Wheatstone tongues*. Certainly harder than typical Lachenal stock but who knows but that the less hard steel and mahogany soundboard don't contribute to that "fruity clarinet" tone that Edeophone lovers revere. (*My observations are casual but garnered from tuning 10 different Jeffries and dozens of Wheatstones and Lachenals; no controlled metalurgical analysis was done.)

 

Dana Johnson has pointed out that Jeffries shoes are 12-15% deeper (thicker) than Wheatstone or Lachenal shoes.

They also have a pronounced broach or vent to their front and side walls. I believe Dana felt that the extra thickness of the shoe and the substantial and often thicker Jeffries reed pan would contribute to volume. The venting could help with response. I think it was maker Chris Ghent who was impressed with their reed making and pointed out to me that Jeffries only used 8 different shoe sizes.

 

Add to all the above that the dozen Jeffries I have had my hands on in the past month have all had different sounds and characteristics. All had a Jeffriesesque nasal bark or chortle but some had it more or less than others. A few sounded sweeter, several more mellow. The two wood end ones had a Jeffries sound but not as crisp an edge as the metal enders.

 

One last caveat to the above. I'm remembering veteran concertina aficionado Goran Rahm's observation that the personal history of each individual instrument including its retuning and maintenance can make a bigger difference in its sound and response than its original company of manufacture!

 

May the Jeffries mystique continue!

 

Greg

Edited July 29, 2009 by Greg Jowaisas

[Jim Besser]

One last caveat to the above. I'm remembering veteran concertina aficionado Goran Rahm's observation that the personal history of each individual instrument including its retuning and maintenance can make a bigger difference in its sound and response than its original company of manufacture!

 

May the Jeffries mystique continue!

 

Helpful response, thanks!

[david_boveri]

personally, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that i am not that into the jeffries sound to begin with. i would say that the reason that we cannot accurately copy the sound is that although we may think we are so advanced, our understanding of what makes acoustical differences between musical instruments is actually very limited.

 

it took some researchers over 30 years to come up to a solution as to why they thought that stradivarius violins sounded different, and they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on research, and isolated particular variables to determine cause and effect. that reserach is still hotly contested, and not everyone agrees that it is the borax and other chemical elements in the wood that makes the difference..

 

no one has ever spent several decades undergone a scientific analysis of the jeffries concertina as an acoustical system. at best, all i have heard is anecdotal evidence, or a simple trial and error approach at trying different solutions for recreating the jeffries sound. true scientific work of this kind can truly take generations, and it hasnt even started on this problem!

 

anyone want to throw a couple million at jump starting the jeffries-sound replication scientific research project? i'll be more than happy to spearhead it, with a modest stipend, of course .

[david_boveri]

Over the years I've played many concertinas, and still never played a non-Jeffries that sounded like a Jeffries.

 

I assume some modern makers have tried, and that many variables can be controlled: the steel used in the reeds, the wood, the design of the reed block, etc. Still, that unique sound seems elusive.

 

Any reasonably informed opinions on why that is? What variables might a Suttner, Wakker or Dipper alter to come closer to that sound? I ask as someone who may be forced by the stratospheric prices of Jeffries these days to seek a modern maker who can come closest in a G/D instrument.

Find the magic recipe then let it cook for a hundred years or so

 

i actually think you may be on to something. i have heard that violins do play better over time, but it is not because they are played. it is because they age. part of me wonders whether or not concertinas get better due to the age of the wood as it settles and loses moisture, rather than the reeds "breaking in" as we often assume.

 

this would actually not be difficult to examine. any maker could make a new concertina, and then swap the reeds out into a concertina that is a year old, two years old, 3 years old, etc, and see how much different the reeds sound in each instrument, making sure to do a fourier analysis of the harmonic series and record the results. then, after recording these results, the maker could then use vacuum tubes/etc to cause the reeds to harmonically vibrate for hours on end, to simulate the reeds "breaking in" due to use. then, the maker could insert the reeds into each concertina again, and see whether or not the measured fourier analyses differ in comparison to the same reeds inside each concertina before being artificially aged. thus, we can look at the data along several dimensions, age of instrument, amount of hours reeds have harmonically vibrated (i.e. age), as well as the age of instrument and age of reeds in relation to eachother.

 

of course, to isolate these variables more, we would have to repeat the study on unplayed instruments, all aged under the same conditions, and to have even more to work with, do the study longitudinally, testing reeds in each instrument as it ages, adding a brand new instrument to the experiment every year. this would allow us to test the concertina in relation to itself, as well as relation to other instruments, so as to account for the confounding variable of unmeasurable differences between individual concertinas, reducing the chance of a type 1 error, i.e. attributing differences in age of each concertina as changing the sound, when it is actually natural variations between concertinas that occur due to chance.

 

the largest limitations to this study are that not every maker has standardized, interchangeable parts (i know of at least one that does, and i suspect another), and that the maker would have to make one full instrument every year that could not be played or sold. if we are less concerned about type 1 errors, one could replicate the study by taking a new set of reeds from a brand new instrument, and taking several different concertinas--either shop owned or customer owned--and doing all the necessary data collection.

[david_boveri]

the above post of mine would be an important study because it would be begin exploring age of the wood in the concertina and hours of harmonic vibration of the reeds as they relate to the sound of the instrument. thus, if we found that age had a huge impact on the sound, it would suggest that it may be impossible to replicate certain aspects of the jeffries sound without using antique wood or antique instruments.

 

so, further avenues of research could be seeing whether or not a maker could manufacture jeffries reeds to work in a jeffries instrument that make the same fourier harmonic patterns as the original reeds, as well as doing the opposite, seeing if they could make an instrument that when you put jeffries reeds inside of it it matches the fourier harmonic pattern of jeffries reeds in their original instrument.

 

so, this all again supports that the reason that no one has been able to recreate the jeffries sound is really not that much of a mystery, because no one has systematically performed these sorts of controlled experiments. these are very simple, actually, and would just begin to scratch the surface... i can think of half a dozen follow up experiments for the above experiment if the experimental hypothesis is true (i.e. vibration hours of reeds change the sound, i.e. cause the reeds to break in), or if the null hypothesis is false (vibration has no effect). the same goes for if the secondary experimental hypothesis of age being the moderating variable behind the "break in" effect being true, and the opposing null hypothesis being ture (that age has no effect).

Edited July 30, 2009 by david_boveri

[david_boveri]

not to talk to myself in the forum, but i would like to point out that the contention that "no one has been able to reproduce the jeffries sound" would need to be tested as well. this would be much easier than the above experiments... this study would just systematically record the sounds of every reed on various, modern-made concertinas, having the primary tone of each reed resonate at the same amplitude for every instrument.

 

by examining jeffries instruments against modern, jeffries copies, we could then figure out whether the sound has ever been replicated by looking at the pattern of the harmonic series, rather than using subjective measures such as "whether or not it sounds the same to my ear."

[TomB-R]

Interesting thoughts David. As Robert Pirsig (almost) says in "ZATAOMM" - "crank up scientific method and the problem can't resist!"

 

On a more casual basis has anyone got a recording of "the real thing" next to a high quality "copy" so that room, microphone, player and other such variables are mostly eliminated?

[JimLucas]

the above post of mine would be an important study because it would be begin exploring age of the wood in the concertina and hours of harmonic vibration of the reeds as they relate to the sound of the instrument. thus, if we found that age had a huge impact on the sound, it would suggest that it may be impossible to replicate certain aspects of the jeffries sound without using antique wood or antique instruments.

Or an "accurate" new copy of the sound of an old Jeffries might become less so over time.

 

I'm reminded of someone who had damage to an antique piece of furniture repaired by a man they were told was the best in the business. When the piece came back, they were apalled, because the repair was obvious, a noticeably different color. When they complained, he said:

It's different now, but in 5 years it won't be. If I had made it match now, in 5 years there would be a glaring difference, and it wouldn't go away.