The finished instrument

Photo is by my colleague, photographer and professional wind player Colin Savage:



Sorry I blurred the name, but I'm not giving the game away at this late stage :-)

Audio examples

Here, at last, are three sample tracks demonstrating the three possible stop combinations of this harpsichord. Files are high-bitrate MP3s; you may be prompted by your web browser to permit your default media player to play these tracks. The examples need a moment before they're ready to play.

Dietrich Buxtehude (c.1637-1707)
Excerpts from Suite in C Major, BuxWV 230

Allemande (back 8' register):


Courante (both registers):


Sarabande (front 8' register):



Notice that there isn't a huge difference in the sound between the two individual 8's: this is because their plucking points are quite similar. Instruments that have a 4' stop usually place the 4' jacks between the two 8's, and this extra separation of the plucking points alters the sound of the 8's more noticeably.

Slideshow

Here's a slideshow of every picture posted on this blog since the beginning. You'll need Adobe Flash to see these pictures.



To see any slide as a still picture, just click the slideshow. You'll see the current picture on its own in a new window; an album of all pictures can be seen by clicking View All at upper left in that window.

Final thoughts

In no particular order:

• Although the woodworking part of this project was complete back in late August, I already had a hunch that there would be no definitive conclusion to my labours, in the sense of putting down the final tool and proclaiming "Done!" Instead, the inevitable tweaking that was necessary to coax the best out of the sound and action continued on until late November, gradually tapering off until there seemed to be nothing left to do. So, after more than two years of work, things ended not with a triumphant bang, but a whimper of sorts—an enjoyable one, of course. In any case, I understand that professional makers also go through a period of tweaking after the major part of the work is done, until such time as they at last release the finished instrument to its new owner.
• From a woodworking standpoint, I learned (and here I can imagine the seasoned woodworker saying "Well, duh!") never to cut anything to its final dimension until as late in the game as possible. Eventually I clued in to the fact that I could cut something a whisker on the long side and sneak up on the correct fit by planing or sanding. But until then, I was forced to discard a couple of pieces of otherwise-good lumber because I had cut them a bit short during an attempt to nail the correct final dimension with just one cut. I did actually manage a correct cut in several crucial circumstances, and now I'm amazed I pulled that off, given that failure would have severely inconvenienced me. Beginner's luck, I suppose.
• The previous point has taught me great respect for the hand plane, which can easily nick off a thousandth of an inch when it's well sharpened and properly tuned up. I expect to spend time improving my hand-planing skills.
• It should be clear that this instrument is by no means a faithful copy of the original Trasuntino, for several reasons. Firstly, it doesn't use exactly the same materials, which should have been cypress for the case, soundboard and bridge, to name just one departure, or the same building techniques; secondly, most of the decorative details are different on my version; and thirdly, the process by which I laid out my instrument does not entirely replicate the methods used by the old builders, who designed their instruments using geometric constructions, deriving the dimensions from simple ratios of some basic quantity. The width of the keyboard, for example, was often used to determine the length of the cheek and the overall length of the instrument. String spacing between consecutive notes was typically 1/2" (the old Italian inch was a little larger than today's inch, being a bit over 26 mm, and varied slightly from town to town). But one aspect of this project that is in accord with the old way of working is the idea that whatever materials are easy to obtain are the ones used in making the instrument. In Italy, woods like cypress, pine, maple, chestnut and beech were widely available, so that's what they used. I went with cedar, poplar and walnut because I could get those easily: they have a track record in various schools of harpsichord-building, even if some of them weren't used in making the original Trasuntino.
• I've been keeping track of how much I've spent on tools and supplies, but out of respect for professional makers, I won't release any figures for the material costs of the supplies that go into making a harpsichord. The professionals deserve compensation for their time and experience, and the difference between the materials and the final price might look too much like a straight mark-up to an unsympathetic reader.

FINISHED

The instrument works. It's playable, the action is reliable, and it even sounds pretty good for a first attempt.

So, with that said, I declare this blog finished, apart from a few final posts to summarize things I've learned, present a few concluding thoughts, display a slideshow of all photos of the construction process, plus (soon) a few audio tracks of the instrument being played.

Final adjustments

In the past two months, I've continued along the lines suggested by the previous post, partly restringing the back 8' register in the lower regions and voicing the whole instrument down a bit. As was the case for the front 8', this has changed things for the better. Both rows of jacks now play well and repeat reliably.

With the overall strength of voicing altered, I tweaked the separation between both rows of jacks by revisiting the jack end screws. I ended up giving each another half-turn, so the back 8' now sits beneath the strings by the equivalent of 4 half-turns, and the front 8' by 8 half-turns. This gives a tiny bit more slack to the mechanism.

It's important to recognize that the primary means of controlling the interaction of the two registers when both are turned on is by means of consistent voicing, and not indiscriminate cranking of these end screws. The screws are meant to adjust how long it takes for the plectrum to rise up and contact the string from beneath. There may be small differences here and there due to the quill angle in the tongue, which are a result of the quill mortise punching process, and an extra half-turn or two of the end screws can correct for this, but that's the extent of their usefulness.

More debugging

I've been working on and off with the Trasuntino for the past two months, trying to get a handle on the troublesome repetition in the tenor and bass regions. What stymies me is that the jacks work perfectly well in the upper two-thirds of the instrument, yet they become troublesome about an octave below middle c'. No harpsichord will repeat perfectly right down to the bottom of the keyboard, but my problem areas are much too high up for me to feel completely comfortable playing the instrument.

After soliciting suggestions from the harpsichord list, I learned something very interesting that pertains to my difficulties. In a nutshell, the longer a string is, the thicker it must be in order to maintain a reasonable amplitude of vibration. "Reasonable" in this case means an amplitude that is not difficult to damp out when the jack comes back down. If the amplitude can't be controlled, repetition will be compromised.

The list experts reviewed my stringing schedule and a consensus developed that the schedule was too light in the lower regions by at least one, if not two, gauges. Several suggestions were offered that advised me to end with gauge #1 in the lowest regions (0.020"). One maker said that anything less than this would behave like a "loose clothesline". Since heavier wire must be under greater tension to reach the correct pitch, the resulting increase in stiffness means the wire won't flap around as much when vibrating.

Part of my stringing problems stemmed from a slight misunderstanding of mine regarding how stringing by numeric progression works. The original instruments on which this was practiced had keyboards extending up to d''', and starting higher by those extra two notes would allow heavier gauges to be used by the time one reached E in the bass. The Trasuntino only goes up to c''', which means I finished with gauge #3. I should have started with 9 strings of #9, and not 10, in order to get the correct results.

The new schedule has the crossover points between gauges occurring on higher notes than the current schedule. In adjusting the stringing to conform to the new schedule, there will be minor changes in the alto and treble, while the lower part of the instrument will require extensive restringing.

The changes higher up are so minor that I decided not to bother with them: besides, this isn't the problem area. So I applied the new schedule only from c' downwards. Because the crossovers occur higher up in this region, I was able to recycle a lot of existing wire by removing strings and tuning pins together, shortening each string slightly, and reinstalling it about a fourth higher. By reusing wire, I saved myself the trouble of depleting my wire supply, and also gained the advantage of using wire that has already stretched out over many months and developed its tone.

From F# downwards, new wire in gauges #2 and #1 was required. Since the numeric progression rule dictates that 2 wires of #2 and 1 of #1 are called for, there wouldn't be enough to reach C unless I wanted to use even thicker gauges , and excessively thick wire has its own problems (it can sound dull or otherwise strange). So I bent the rule by using 3 of #2 and 4 of #1. The short-octave note GG/BB was left unaltered, as it was originally strung quite heavily (.022" red brass).

I tried this schedule out on the front 8' at the beginning of October, and found that the stiffer wire did indeed improve repetition noticeably, without completely curing the problem. I decided to give the new wire several weeks to settle down and develop its tone.

Now, at the end of October, I've concluded the new wire sounds good, so I'll keep the changed schedule. Recently I've been revoicing the plectra in the restrung region, as they are not so well matched to the new wire. My sense of the register as a whole is that my initial voicing back in August was too heavy, so I went ahead and thinned all the quills in the entire register. With a lighter touch, the repetition has improved even more, to the point that I think the problem is almost cured. Next, I'll do the same to the back 8'.

Amplitude and string vibration have a more crucial effect on the playability of a harpsichord than I initially suspected. Originally I thought that, provided the scale was correct for the intended pitch level, one could string a harpsichord with purely sonic considerations in mind, but I now see that the mechanical reliability of the action is impacted by the string schedule too.