the last 1%...

[Matthew Gaunt]

I'd like to see comparison on the effects of heavy weight mouthpieces and heavyweight valve caps on thin vs thick walled tubas.

For my $.02, the best mouthpiece by far when I was/am playing the rudy 3/4 cc (thin-ish) was the monette 94 (heavy). However when I use that mouthpiece on my mw 2145 (heavy) it feels like I am blowing into a concrete wall. For me, heavy horn needs light mouthpiece and vice versa for opposite reasons (help response vs help hold the sound together)

am sure there are exceptions...
matt

[glangfur]

Great post Harold.

Here's a contribution on the subject from your friends to the right...

http://www.yeodoug.com/articles/text/teamplayer.html

Given the choice of a tuba player with a focused sound lively with overtones, and one with a huge, diffuse sound with almost nothing but fundamental, I will always choose to play with the former. I don't care what instrument the sound comes from. I get that with Matt Gaunt and John Manning, who tend to play smaller horns (actually, I've played with Matt with him playing at least four different tubas, and he's had that focus on all of them), and I get it with Mike Roylance and Randy Montgomery, who play 6/4 Nirschls. I also get it with Greg Fritze in the RI Phil on a PT-6P, and I always loved playing with Steve Campbell when he was in Boston playing a PT-6 as well.

The player and the concept matter more than the instrument, and it's up to each player to find the instrument that most readily helps to produce that concept.

[Chuck(G)]

All I know is that after spending $5200 on a tuba and a gigbag to put it in, I'll be switched if I'm gonna mess with it by removing the laquer now. I like my horns to be sparkly and shiney, it intimidates the trumpets (as it should).

Hmmm--how about painting your horn with metallic gold-flake Imron, Wayne? That'd be pretty sparkly!

I've got an old Henry Distin eefer that's made pretty thin and it's one of the most responsive horns I've ever played--it comes alive with very little effort at all.

[CJ Krause]

***

[TubaKen]

Very interesting discussion. I second Harold's observation (based on Jacobs) that the mental "image" of the sound one is trying to create is more important than any small variance do to lacquer, thickness of material, etc. The second most important factor has got to be the sound the performer hears himself, which doesn't necessarily correspond to what gets out into the hall. A thin-walled bell is going to feel more responsive and "alive" than a thick-walled because it is vibating slightly more and thus gives the player more feedback. This may be audible as well to players immediately around the tubist (say in a quintet), but I don't buy that any of this makes a differnce to the audience. What is primarily vibrating in a wind instrument is the air-column, not the bell or the tubing. And the interior shape and volume of the horn (and thus of the air-column) is 100 times more important than if the istrument is thin-walled or lacqured or silver or titanium or made of cheese for that matter. Same goes for mouthpieces. The interior shape is all that matters. Having a 3 pound hunk of brass stuck on the end of your leadpipe is just a mental pacifier (oops, that was kinda harsh; sorry).
As to the practice of open-wrapping trombones, or using special water keys which "don't impede the air flow" in brass instruments, that is total B.S. There isn't enough air coming out of a trombone bell (even at FFF) to deflect the flight-path of a mosquito. Again, it's the air-column vibrating, not "wind" going through the horn.
My $.02,
Ken

[Jeff Miller]

As to the practice of open-wrapping trombones, or using special water keys which "don't impede the air flow" in brass instruments, that is total B.S. There isn't enough air coming out of a trombone bell (even at FFF) to deflect the flight-path of a mosquito. Again, it's the air-column vibrating, not "wind" going through the horn.
My $.02,
Ken

Although I agree with the points about the importance of concept, I have to disagree with the point about open-wrapping trombones. When I had my bass trombone open-wrapped, it made a very noticable difference in the way the instrument responded and centered.

I think a lot of these acoustics arguments are mis-directed. I think we often use a bit of physics to justify or dismiss something, when the physics we are referring to are misapplied to the phenomenom under discussion.

There is a very substantial difference in the physics of linear fluid flow (i.e. blowing air through a tuba without buzzing) vs. the physics of vibrating air columns. In one instance, you're only measuring 2 or 3 variables; in the other, you're dealing with a much more complex system requiring many times as many variables to describe. For instance, open-wrapping trombones. I don't think that the impedence of a free-flowing, non-vibrating stream of air will be greatly affected by the difference between an open or closed wrap. However, every bend in a tube has the same effect as a dent or bulge to a vibrating air mass. This in turn can greatly affect the acoustical properties of the instrument, whereas the fluid flow properties may be relatively unchanged.

Once again, my $.02.

Jeff

[TubaKen]

I think we often use a bit of physics to justify or dismiss something, when the physics we are referring to are misapplied to the phenomenom under discussion...

...I don't think that the impedence of a free-flowing, non-vibrating stream of air will be greatly affected by the difference between an open or closed wrap. However, every bend in a tube has the same effect as a dent or bulge to a vibrating air mass. This in turn can greatly affect the acoustical properties of the instrument, whereas the fluid flow properties may be relatively unchanged.

O.K., I buy the acoustical argument that the shape of the tubing can affect the vibrating air column, in the way that a bad dent can affect a certain note or notes depending on the frequency of the wave form. But, every trombonist I've spoken to regarding the reasons for doing an open wrap speaks in terms of "it's more free-blowing" which "opens up the sound". I don't like to point out the error in their thinking, as they tend to be an argumentative bunch
But, seriously, a "bit of physics" is about all I can muster. If someone here can enlighten me as to the acoustic reasons for doing open wrap trombones, and why it's better (and not just different), please do so.
Thanks

[Mudman]

Many trombonists claim that the closed-wrap Bach 42 plays better than an open-wrap 42. (Usually older players who took the time to learn how to make the older style work.) The weak point in that design is as Bloke points out, at the stuffy valve body.

Bigger differences are noticeable on bass trombones where you are forced to route the air through two sets of valves. A closed-wrap Bach 50 (bass trombone) does not play as well as an open-wrap Bach 50. You have to move much more air using the closed wrap system to get the same sound as on the open-wrap horn. (From personal experience.) Fast technical passages that use the valves are more difficult on a closed-wrap Bach 50.

As with any horn, you can learn how to compensate for any trigger notes. But why make it more difficult than it needs to be.

Bass trombone has been my professional axe for about ten years. When thayer valves came out, they dramatically changed the possibilities on a bass trombone. These valves were produced with open-wrap tubing attached. Nowdays just about anybody can get a huge sound in the trigger register. Sometimes, this system can be too open and diffuse sounding. (One attack sound is possible instead of the many colors available on a less leaky horn with more resistance.)

In conclusion, I would say that the valve design itself makes a bigger difference than the wrap. Yamaha's very nice rotor (on the 682 series) will improve a Bach's freeness in the trigger register. The stuffy valves on Bach horns do not maintain a circular path for the air. Greenhoe valves are an improvement over traditional rotors in that the air flows through actual brass tubes in the valve body. The horn blows as freely wether you are on the trigger side of the horn or not. Thayer valves allow you to blow with the least possible resistance, but they are leaky by design. It seems like the biggest name players use Thayer's, but when most people use them, there is a certain lack of excitement and variety in articulation. (The American school of trombone playing.)

[MartyNeilan]

Many trombonists claim that the closed-wrap Bach 42 plays better than an open-wrap 42.

I have talked to tenor trombonists about this and observed many copies of both closed wrap and open wrap 42's. The biggest problem with the open wrap 42 is that Bach soldered a huge brace right on the middle of the bell to support the open wrap tubing. I have been told that when this brace is removed and relocated the open wraps play with a much more open sound and better response.

I am sure the decline (or inconsistency?) in Bach quality also has something to do with the older closed wrap models playing better.

[Jonathan Fowler]

I think that substantial dents in the bell, not the bottom bow, do indeed cause playing changes in the horn. Since the bell is the one item on the horn itself that can be changed to drastically alter the sound/feel of an instrument(other than the leadpipe) Likewise, any modifications done inside of the istrument, particularly to the slides is magnified (such as ill-fitted ferrels (sp?) or beveled slide ends) significantly because this is the first place (other than the leadpipe) that the airstream hits.

[glangfur]

What many of us don't seem to realize is that most of what we are doing is ruled by the laws of physics. As such, we should be able to show scientifically that a change has taken place.

We've had this discussion so many times on the various trombone forums, I don't know if I can stand to do it again, but here goes.

The laws of physics are nothing more than descriptions of what actually happens. Physicists get better and better at describing and predicting, but their knowledge always reaches a limit. In the case of brass instruments, they really don't understand the entire system, and any physycist who has really studied it will admit that.

The fact, supported by an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence, is simply that changing aspects of a brass instrument, interior or exterior dimensions or weight or properties of materials, changes aspects of how the instrument sounds and responds to the player. That physicists don't completely understand why doesn't change that overwhelming evidence.

Bloke, in the case of the Bach open-wrap, we're not talking about a tiny brace, we're talking about the biggest brace on the instrument. It makes a BIG difference...and furthermore, small braces make a difference too.

One of the smartest people I know is a very good amateur horn player and a leading MIT physicist, who is devoting his retirement to studying the physics of brass instruments. His working theory at this point boils down to this: changes in materials and the distribution and amount of mass on an instrument of course don't change much about the vibrating air column inside the horn, but they have profound effects on the feedback loop that involves the source of the vibration itself, the buzz.

In other words, the differences we're talking about in instrument design directly affect the way your lips buzz. You have to be starting with good input from your brain and body, but the instrument itself, including how much mass there is at the mouthpiece and at other important parts of the instrument, and where and how heavy the braces are, and every other aspect of the physical properties of the instrument, contribute feedback to the input you are producing at your lips.

This rings true with my experience, and I think ultimately he will be proven correct.

[TubaKen]

Once again Harold has hit the nail on the head. Any of these changes to the instrument (open wrapping a trombone, using a gigantic machined cylinder of brass as a mouthpiece, etc.) are going to make a difference. The question is whether this difference is mostly in the mind of the player, or if there is some objective way to measure exactly what has changed, and why this produces a better (or worse) result. As has been pointed out, the science isn't mature enough to describe all the variables in musical instruments, and we are thus left with the subjective impressions of the musician as the final arbiter.

This leads (at least in my mind) to a lot of questionable things being done to brass instruments, like modifications to make the air-flow less restrictive (open wrapping 'bones, changing tuba rotors so they don't turn against the "wind"), cryogenic freezing, etc. (If a player has shelled out several hundred dollars to deep-freeze his axe, he has a strong motivation to hear a positive result.)

My statement of a few posts back that open wrapping trombones was "total b.s." was obviously over the top. Of course it makes a difference. What I was trying to communicate was that the reasons usually given for doing so are entirely wrong-headed; there is very, very little air going through the horn, and sharp hairpin turns, etc. are entirely irrelavent. Why an open wrapped 'bone plays better (and not just different) is still a mystery to me, and to the readers of this forum, as far as I can tell.
Ken

[glangfur]

The change is in the psychology of the player - arguably the endpoint of the feedback loop - where there is a difference that is thus far not measurable.

The question to be answered at this point isn't "What can I do to change my horn to change my sound?" it is "What can I do to change my perception of my playing to find the sound that I want?"

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I think you're taking an extreme viewpoint. If what you say is true, then the carbon fiber tuba bells really should sound just as good as brass ones, and I think it's clear that's not the case. Equipment matters, and so does the player. Which matters more? Certainly the player, ultimately, but a great player playing equipment that really suits him or her (or that they know intimately) will always sound better and be more comfortable than the same player playing a cheap, badly constructed student instrument.

This gets directly back to my quote from Jacobs - that you have to hear what you want in your sound and then find a way to create it. Would Mr. Jacobs approve of someone altering their horn in order to improve their sound? I would guess that he would - if it gave you the results you were looking for.

Look at a collection of photos of Arnold Jacobs, and I'll bet you that in at least a third of them he has an adjustable cup mouthpiece.

My point being that we traditionally look to change the horn which is responsible for probably only 15% of our sound instead of changing our perception which is responsible for the other 85%.

I think your percentages are off, on something that's essentially unquantifiable anyway. And the percentage will vary in any comparison depending on how radical a difference there is between the equipment you are comparing. A 6/4 Nirschl will sound radically different than a 3/4 Yamaha for any player. Maybe not so much on one middle-register, middle-dynamic note, but as soon as you start doing anything musical with different ranges and different dynamics, there will be big differences, and you won't even have to be a musician to hear them.

[ken k]

Reading the other post on the tubenet asking about the Kelly mouthpieces got me thinking about this thread a little bit.

When I play the Kellyberg mouthpiece, which is supposed to be close to the Helleberg in dimension, it feels totally different than the metal version and the sound is different (to me at least). According to Joe's original post of this thread. It shouldn't make any difference what material it is made of, but in the case of the Kelly mouthpieces, I would have to disagree. Now how different the sound is out front I do not know. It would be interesting to have a "blind taste tester" out front to hear if there is a difference between number 1 and number 2.

I also have the R& S heavyweight. Now that plays much differently to me. Is it the extra mass or the slight difference in dimension that make it play differently?

I would think the different material has to affect the sound, just as the extra mass of the heavyweight would have a definite effect on the way the mouthpiece works. Again they sure feel alot different, sdo they sound different out front? Only my hairdresser knows I guess.

ken k

[glangfur]

I've tried to respond to this twice now, and each time something weird has happened. Yesterday the computer I was on was completely crippled by spyware, and I couldn't turn the caps off. I didn't want to be shouting at you, so I gave up.

I think you are missing the point that I am making.

Actually, I think we're talking about different things.

From a listener standpoint, sure, I'll buy your 85/15 ratio. Mike Roylance won the BSO job because of the way he plays, not because of his equipment...but...I have it on good authority that they were looking for a very specific type of sound at that audition, a sound that simply wasn't going to come from anything smaller than a 6/4 tuba. Even if the equipment was only 15%, it was a crucial 15%.

Just because you own a Ferrari doesn't mean that you are a great driver. In fact, it could be argued that purchasing a Ferrari will do nothing to enhance your driving ability.

No, but a Ferrari might teach you a few things. I would argue that great equipment teaches you to play it in a way that inferior equipment doesn't. A couple of comments from the Shires trombones website:

"This horn is waiting for me to do something with it—not simply responding. It beckons me to become a better player." - Jim Finlayson

“Easier, faster, higher, lower—just flat out better than the best horn (for my purposes) I had previously ever been able to find. If these horns had been available 30 years ago, I know I would have been a better player earlier in my life. The things I am learning how to do on my Shires .525 just never really OCCURRED to me before I got the horn. Well, they did occur to me, but when I tried to do them on other instruments it also occurred to me that I couldn't do them.â€

[Rick Denney]

Here are some points of this discussion that I agree with:

1. Physicists don't understand the complete system of brass instruments. But I would go further and suggest that nearly all musicians don't (or won't) understand what physicists do understand.

2. There is definitely, positively, unreservedly a relationship between the impedance of the of the horn, the impedance of the mouthpiece, and the impedance of the embouchure. The horn has resonance peaks in its impedance curve, and the mouthpiece has one broad peak. The lips focus around a particular frequency, but with a lot of noise in other frequencies. The impedance of the instrument and mouthpiece filter out that noise. Thus, those who say the musician is most important are right, but when they say they are the only thing that is important they are wrong. The result sound comes from a system where all elements are important, and must contribute to the objectives of the artist.

3. The vibration of the brass does affect the vibrations of the sound in the upper harmonics. My own tests have confirmed in my mind that tuba sound is mostly defined by those upper harmonics. Thus, I have expunged the phrase "rich in fundamental" from my descriptions. It is an oxymoron. Richness comes from a wide range of well-tuned harmonics. A pure fundamental tone sounds thin and weak--anything but rich.

4. The addition or subtraction of mass at certain points has an effect on the resonance of the brass, which has an effect on the vibration of the brass, which has an effect on the vibration of the air within the brass. That, in turn, affects the feedback loop between the impedance of the instrument and the impedance of the embouchure. So, whoever said that the horn affects the way lips buzz is right on the mark. This is something that physicists know, though not all musicians realize that they know it. Now, how much is that effect? That is another discussion, and I think it is extremely subtle at best.

5. But subtle effects can cascade into profound effects in a feedback system. This is something I've been thinking about recently. One of the concepts to emerge from chaos theory is that a feedback system is extremely sensitive to subtle effects at critical points. They call it "extreme sensitivity to initial conditions". Journalists call it the Butterfly Effect. A small change can move a small process into a different regime, which, in turn, affects a larger process and moves it into a different regime. These effects can cascade into a large difference in the final product.

6. My 6/4 Holton tuba, which is substantially lighter than my 4/4ish York Master, is much more responsive. I can feel what it is doing as easily as I can hear what it is doing. The sound has a rich mixture of overtones compared with my other tubas. The result of this responsiveness is that I can play with a clear tone much softer than I can play on, say, my Miraphone. I do not know how thin the brass is on the Holton, and I'm not sure that thickness is the critical element. I've played on many Holtons (and 2165's) that did not have that resonance, and they played like Mack trucks. They would do what you wanted, but you had to make it happen through sheer physical will. I have always felt the same way about the big Willsons. I don't have the forearms for such tubas, heh, heh.

7. I think that the resonance and liveliness of the instrument has partly to do with the construction. An instrument that is highly stressed to make the parts fit together requires a higher excitation force to overcome the preload and set it to vibrating. I think this is one of the main reasons the Meinl-Weston 2000 is so noticeably better than any of the 2155's I've played. Being hand-made, the bows are hand-hammered and built with very low internal stresses. (It's also lighter than the 2155.)

8. I agree with Jay Bertolet and our bass trombone contributor that a lively sound is one rich in harmonic content. When I think back to Mike Sanders when he first got his Yorkbrunner (an early hand-made model), the characteristic that most struck me was the friendliness of the sound. This is what orchestral tuba players call character. The Alex had been brooding, but the Yorkbrunner was inviting. Loudness had nothing to do with it. The sound I get from my Holton has a hint of those characteristics compared to my other tubas (constrained by my limited ability, of course). This example refutes the notion that it is ALL about the sound in the player's head. Mike was a top orchestral tubist before he got the Yorkbrunner. He clearly had a well-developed sound concept, and one that many others can only dream of having. Yet changing from the Alex to the Yorkbrunner made an immediate, glow-in-the-dark change in his sound. As I recall, it took him a while to get used to it.

9. I suspect that the reason Bloke's ______ has the liveliness he describes has as much to do with it being handmade with minimal internal stresses as with wall thickness, but I think both contribute. My Holton was definitely not hand-made in the same way (and absolutely not to the same standard of quality), but it seemed to be one of the lucky ones where it all came together.

Rick "finding it easy to miss fun threads like this one in the new forum" Denney

[glangfur]

Thank you Rick. I think you put it all together.