> From: rhodes@foxtail.com (Robbie Rhodes)
> To: rolls@foxtail.com
>
> To Larry Smith and Peter Smakula.  I'm a bit perplexed --  what is
> really your goal: to make a cylinder of music or to develop brand-new
> techniques?

=)  I've been thinking about this stuff for so long, I may be
jumping around a bit.  Let me explain my personal objective.

I like automatic instruments of all kinds - and I aspire to
build them, particularly musical boxes.  For all intents and
purposes, the media for these machines will be rolls, perfor-
ated disks, or pinned cylinders.  I expect to be working with
relatively small numbers - building these things will be a
hobby, unless people start offering me outrageous amounts of
money for them or something.  So anything I try needs to be
aimed at small-scale production.  I'm under the impression
that NC machinery is going to be too expensive for this level
of production, but if NC machines are farther down the curve
than I think they are, they _would_ be the ideal solution.

If I had my druthers, I would like to produce exact replicas
of the cylinders used in antique boxes - metal, drilled and
pinned, resin-filled.  My impression is that this will be
difficult and _very_ time-consuming at these production levels.
Hence, the interest in alternative techniques.  If I can make
a reasonable clay cylinder in, say, a tenth the time of making
a traditional one, then I'm inclined to go that way.

> In digest 950802 Larry says, "this is the 90's and we can do better
> [than a hand-made instrument]."

Hmmm.  Context problem.  A handmade drilled and pinned metal
cylinder is probably pretty close to perfect as far as the
quality of the music is concerned.  However, it is not good
from the _labor_ point of view, not without some fancy mach-
inery to help, which may not be cost-effective.

>   But in digest 950807 you say you
> want to build the music box by hand, and hint that you don't want to
> address the costs of doing the job with minimum labor and commonplace
> machine tools.  Why not?  There are capable and modern machine shops
> in every community;  you just pay for their services and get the job
> done.

I'm not sure I understand this part.  I am trying to balance the
amount of labor involved against the cost of producing a nice-
sounding music box.  Both need to be minimized.  Farming stuff out
to a machine shop certainly reduces _my_ labor, but does so at the
cost of increasing the overall price.  Also, there is the personal
factor: I want to try to do this _myself_.  At present, my skills
are certainly not up to producing a replica of a classic antique.
I'm interesting in short cuts that won't affect the quality of the
music, but which will help me learn by doing.  Does that clarify
things?  This is something I do for myself, and maybe for my pos-
terity.  I doubt my grandchildren will be impressed with a memento
of the local machine shop.

> The experienced engineers I spoke with agree that numerical
> controlled (NC) machining is the most economical way to produce a
> music cylinder, and for a single (custom) job the pins can be
> installed by hand.  These same engineers also enjoy old cars, old
> clocks and old-tyme music machines, and they all agree that music box
> collectors aren't likely to accept a music cylinder that isn't made
> of brass with steel pins.

=) You are undoubtedly correct as to that last point.  But this
isn't really for collectors, it's for me.  If and when I get good
enough at making any kind of cylinder, perhaps I'll be inspired
try a reproduction of a classic, and that would certainly require
a metal cylinder, without question.  But one must crawl before one
can walk.

You see, there are a lot more issues here than just mechanical
ones, and all of these add up in terms of labor to produce a new
box.  First of all is the question of the music.  Music boxes
sound good for a number of reasons, and mechanical sophistication
is just one factor.  Another is the quality of the arrangements,
something I have even less experience with than cabinet-making
or mechanical devices.  The amount of labor involved in making
a new musical box, from scratch, with custom music, for a total
beginner, is awesome.  It would be nice to avoid the hand pin-
ning, if possible, especially given that it won't be just _one_
cylinder.  Peter may only need one - but I expect to build a
couple of poor imitations of music boxes, then maybe a passable
box or two, then perhaps something more impressive, someday maybe
even something worthy of heirloom status, possibly even of interest
to collectors.  But I'd like to reach the exalted stage _before_ I
reach retirement age.  =)  To a certain extent, the first steps will
be little more than a toy.

The above paragraph reminds me to ask: does anyone here have any
experience in _arranging_ music for mechanical instruments?  Since
they have very different limitations than human players do, I think
this is quite a challenge all by itself.  I recall some discussion
of Nancarrow (is that the correct spelling) in this list, but aside
from that, there was little.  It would seem to me that with midi
control and ever-more-sophisticated computers that composers and
arrangers would be getting more and more interested in mechanical
music simply because it _doesn't_ have just ten fingers, with this
or that span and so on.  Yet, virtually all the music I can find is
always arranged for ten fingers and two hands.  It surprises me.

> Your original topic -- using computer technology to make new music
> cylinders -- has indeed aroused interest, and I'm sure that Danilo
> Konvalinka and others performing serious restorations will be very
> interested in a cost-effective method.

This is where the potential for NC machining lies, and why am still
trying to learn about it.  If I could set up an NC machine shop that
could create a pinned metal cylinder from a midi file for - oh, say,
$3000 - that's what I'd do.  But if that same shop cost $10,000 or
$20,000 - I can't afford that.  And if it can adapted into a self-
financing sideline, then it becomes more attractive and more afford-
able.

> If  you will provide the information (dimensions & tolerences, etc.)
> to completely describe a typical music cylinder, then I can get you
> the cost of making it.  The finished product should satisfy the most
> critical customer, and the cost of producing the music cylinder will
> easily be recovered in the increased value of the restored music box.

This is information I am still learning.  To be perfectly frank,
I don't _know_ the tolerances - I'm expecting to have to experiment.
Perhaps you could talk a bit about what you have in mind?

Building new music boxes is a dream of mine, but a music box won't
be my first step.  In going over vol 2 of the Music Box Society
book, I found a very intriguing mechanical zither that used card-
board disks.  The case is rather more elaborate than I care to
attempt for the moment, and I'm am quite unfamiliar with zithers
of that sort, but I've some experience with, and fondness for, a
close cousin of the zither, the hammered dulcimer.  I have plans
for a hammered dulcimer, a nice-sounding one would not be difficult
to build, and the mechanism of that mechanical zither could be
adapted to a hammered dulcimer.  A bit of trig added to Jody's
program would make it fairly simple to convert a midi file to a
disk template for cutting, and I have collected a fair amount of
music arranged for the hammered dulcimer.  I think the device would
be visually interesting, as well.  This would likely be my first
attempt at mechanical music.  Anyone have any comments on this
idea?

regards,¶
Larry