Receiver/leadpipe dymanics

[Joe Baker]

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

You mean FORTRAN 90, 77, IV? (Altogether now... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.)

I'm actually looking at my FORTRAN manual right....NOW!
________________________________
Joe Baker, who hasn't looked INSIDE his FORTRAN manual in close to 20 years, however.

[Chuck(G)]

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

You mean FORTRAN 90, 77, IV? (Altogether now... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.)

Actually, the goal was supposed to be FORTRAN 88, but there was just too much er, "discussion" to make that deadline (I don't think anyone was really happy with the end result--I'd moved on long before the standard was adopted).

Language standards are a funny kettle of fish. They initially defined the minimum supported subset (e.g. USA BASIC FORTRAN--you'd really have to be a relic to remember that one) and extensions were a free-for-all game.

Well, if you alow extensions, then every vendor has his own extensions--and the vendor's customers will use those extensions--and then you have IBM FORTRAN, CDC FORTRAN, DEC FORTRAN, etc. And you're back where you started without standards.

I think it was the COBOL 75 group that first drew the line and said "if you want to claim to be a standard implementation, then you may not implement extensions to the language without the explicit consent (e.g. a command-line switch) of the user and you must not be silent on nonstandard usages."

For F8x, there was a different question: "Are we here to certify existing practice (e.g. do we call IBM VECTRAN standard) or do we write a new language?" That was a hard one--no vendor wants his implementation of a neat feature to be called "nonstandard". and there were threatened walkouts of major participants. I think much of the discontent came from the committee authoring in essence, a brand new language.

But at the end, I think, while standards evolve, the results are worthwhile.

30 years ago, if you walked into a bicycle shop and asked for a bottom bracket, you'd have to know what kind: BSC, French, Italiian or Swiss, which differed from one another in almost every conceivable way--in diameter, spacing, thread direction, thread pitch and thread profile. Did any offer advantages over the others--sure, but the advantages were slight and, in most cases, of little tangible value.

I think we could do with a standard for mouthpiece shanks--this doesn't preclude a manufacturer of mouthpieces from offering special-order products for some vintage receiver type (so-called "deprecated" usage). But it does provide a strong impetus for new products to conform to the standard.

Forgive the OT rambling.

[Dan Schultz]

I'm not opposed to a move toward standardization; but consider that there are thousands upon thousands of EXTREMELY expensive random-sized "nuts" out there, and standardizing the "bolts" is going to fix everything?

My original intent was for this thread to broaden my own wisdom and also make it known to others that there are flaws in the processes by which tubas (and anything for that matter) are manufactured. I tend to develop my own standards where I feel they are applicable.

[OldBandsman]

This is sort of back to the original question...

Do tuning bits used on sousaphones and helicons have the same problems? Seems to me they might double the chances for trouble.

[Rick Denney]

you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

Not if I can help it.

Rick "who spent years digging around in FORTRAN traffic simulation models" Denney

[Rick Denney]

This is sort of back to the original question...

Do tuning bits used on sousaphones and helicons have the same problems? Seems to me they might double the chances for trouble.

Yes. I always recommend using the tuning bits made by the instrument's manufacturer. King bits have a bit more angle than Conn bits, and some required custom bits to fit a particular leadpipe arrangement.

Rick "who still has a couple of Conn bits lying around" Denney

[Dan Schultz]

This is sort of back to the original question...

Do tuning bits used on sousaphones and helicons have the same problems? Seems to me they might double the chances for trouble.

Yes. I always recommend using the tuning bits made by the instrument's manufacturer. King bits have a bit more angle than Conn bits, and some required custom bits to fit a particular leadpipe arrangement.

Rick "who still has a couple of Conn bits lying around" Denney

Martin and Bundy seemed to taken things a step further... Their bits appear to have been designed to maximize unobstructed flow through their bits.

[Getzeng50s]

I feel a standard would be best in this instance, but it would probably work out something like this:

Draft version of ITEA-666 submitted for industry comment, Japan forms a JITEA committee, the two main Japanese manufacturers don't agree so JITEA-666 and JITEA+666 are created, the European Union creates EUITEA-666 a direct copy the ITEA spec except in two languages, the EUITEA-666 was supposed to take effect in 2006 but is pushed out indefinitely, the EU dumps EUITEA-666 in favor of the new EUITEA-60666-3-2, China markets mouthpieces that claim to meet all of the international specs but doesn't actually meet any of them, the Germans are still on vacation.

I Like this guy!!

[Kevin Hendrick]

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

You mean FORTRAN 90, 77, IV? (Altogether now... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.)

I'm actually looking at my FORTRAN manual right....NOW!
________________________________
Joe Baker, who hasn't looked INSIDE his FORTRAN manual in close to 20 years, however.

Ah, FORTRAN ... the first programming language I *tried* to learn (FORTRAN IV, admittedly) ... prompted me to change my major from aerospace engineering to music performance (didn't touch another computer for 10 years after). F77 was a *lot* better! I've heard good things about F90 and F95, and understand that the 2003 standard was adopted last year -- is anybody on TubeNet using it? Just curious ...