Quint tuning should make a big difference to a Xylophone compared to a Marimba with its double-octave. The quint is also a resonant frequency of the resonator tube, so its radiation into the air is effectively amplified as well as the fundamental. The double-octave on the Marimba is not a resonant frequency of the resonator tube so it is not amplified. Less of a difference with the keys by themselves, but more of a difference when placed over the resonators.

At least that is the theory. The actual effect might not be that strong as the first overtone vibration has a node in the centre of the bar over the resonator, so you'll have equal amounts of positive and negative vibration (either side) over the resonator. It would be interesting to try a slightly off-centre resonator position that would catch both the fundamental and the quint to hear what that does to the sound. Perhaps slighty towards the centre from halfway between the cord hole and the centre of the key. Striking the key in this location will also bring out more of that quint.

Cheers,
Matt.

It seems we don't disagree on much at all. Except -- I really wouldn't prefer padouk to rosewood for a marimba keyboard, and I haven't (yet?) met a professional player who would agree with you. But I see where you are coming from.

I will happily join your xylophone independence movement, but like you I am not very hopeful. The marimba is doing well: -- composers want to write for it, musicians like playing it, audiences seem to enjoy hearing it. The xylophone -- not so much. Even if it regains its distinctive old-school character that you describe so well, will there be music for it that people want to hear? There is an existing orchestral repertoire that xylophonists will (presumably) still be wanted for, but as a solo instrument in its own right? I fear that it has shot its bolt. I can't see musical history returning to the world of Teddy Brown or Grant Hamilton Green.

With any luck I am wrong.

But the issues are quite complicated, perhaps I need to write another post to understand them a little better.

My name is Paul Jefferies and I am furious!

Not really, these are good articles, make a fascinating read and discussion is positive. After all I do make my views publicly, because I resist the natural inclimination towards having a protectionist attitude that stymies progress. However I will expand on some of the points and explain my point of view, but I will compress the first three into one and take the fourth first.

4) must not be "piccolo marimbas".

Your conclusion hits the nail on the head. Marimbas are becoming more and more “tonal” with wider and wider note bars making instruments that are ridiculously big (more controversy for you to rip apart!) This is a trend of the moment (20 years or so) and it looks like it will stay. Marimbas are being heavily developed, and the market must be there. Marimbas are cool. In contrast xylophones are neglected and uncool.

Indepedence for Xylophones! Fist in the air, we need revolution!

Xylophones will become extinct. What is the point of owning one if as a player all you have to do is play your marimba with hard mallets? Why not just buy a xylorimba - Premier used to sell a lot of them. The problem with the Premier xylorimbas was they were too “xylo” not very “imbarry”. There needs to be a difference in the tonal and tinbral character between the instruments. I am not alone, this is what I hear all the time from my customers which goes a long way towards forming my views.

So to achieve the difference in sound we need:

1-3) Thick bars and quint tuning to give a jarring staccato sound with note bars made from rosewood not cheaper alternatives like padouk.

Padouk is my preferred choice for marimbas, I think it sounds better, but it just doesn’t last on xylophones which are being continuously struck with small, round, hard, rosewood mallets. Beech would be better than padouk, or if it is ok to have notes that fall apart after a couple of years, why not just use a softwood and save us all the hassle of tuning issues and save the planet to boot?

Thicker bars give a brighter sound, mainly because of the hard beaters, but these beaters emphasize lateral and torsional overtones. Having thicker bars helps to push upwards and and out of the human range of hearing those inharmonic overtones, as well as pulling other overtones down and into tune. Surely becoming better must be the target? But let us get real, about note bar dimensions, the discovery of a better sound was most likely a happy accident - the size of the tube available to make the resonators probably dicatated the width of the bar, and the depth was the standard plank size,etc As opposed to finite element analysis and/or experimentation. Either way, marimbas are becoming wider and thinner because they work better acoustically to emphasise the desired overtones, moving away from the xylphone sound, ergo xylophones should go towards the opposite direction.

Finally, what I see when I look at a lot of xylophones are picolo marimbas. Literally. I could take the bottom octaves off a xylo and put them onto a marimba and they would be identical. This is because making the notes the same dimensions and tuning saves money during the manufacturing process. I for one will resist money grabbing, work shy, big business dictating to me the timbre of the instruments I use to artistically express myself musically. However back in the real world, because they are readily available and comparitively cheap (and nasty (and don’t last)) they are popular. A lot of schools have them (and I mean a lot), so over time because kids are learning on these instruments, their sound will become the sound of a xylophone. If we get there the xylophone will become uneeded, unwanted, unloved will die and become extint.

Save our xylophones! (Just make 6 octave marimbas)

Paul Jefferies