Alan Baer's PVAK...

[Steve Inman]

[ ... numerous good observations made, see above ....]

1. I should have read Klaus' post a bit more slowly and carefully. I could have simply said, "I agree with Klaus."

2. "I agree with Klaus."

Cheers,

[jtuba]

I guess my only practical question would be: Does Mr. Baer offer a "money back if not delighted guarantee" for his "standard" kits? That would be important to me were I to consider such a product.

Asked, but not yet answered here. We should just write and ask him I suppose.

[Rick Denney]

The way to confirm is to find a mechanical engineer with access to software to perform a finite element analysis based on the material properties and physical sizes of the O-ring vs. the felt washer.

No. Finite elements analysis does not live in the frequency domain, but rather analyzes how loads are distributed through structures.

A little common sense here: Any significant vibration lateral to the motion of the piston will transfer quite efficiently through the film of lubricant. Fluid is incompressible, and at the frequencies in question, moves too slowly to get out of the way. Any significant vibration that is axial to the piston may be damped to some extend by the felt. Is that damping significant? That would require spectrum analysis on a vibration table. But, again, common sense would suggest that even if the piston moves axially with respect to the casing as a result of vibration, that movement would at least be less than the vibration of the casing. Damping attenuates vibration; it does not amplify it.

Changing the damping characteristics of the washer might change the degree to which the piston will vibrate axially with respect to the casing. The shape of the O-ring versus a washer will change the damping--it will increase it. The smaller the contact area, the greater the stress for a given load (and the load is established by the spring). The greater the stress, the more the deflection for a given material. The greater the deflection, the greater the hysteresis. And damping results from hysteresis--the energy is not returned at the same rate that it is stored. The O-ring will be variable, because as it compresses, the cross-section increases. These effects can be compensated by choosing material of different hardness and hysteresis.

I cannot for the life of me imagine that this would have a significant effect on the sound or response of the instrument. But I learned a long time ago that high-end performers sense things I don't, and even if it's a placebo effect, the results may still be useful.

Achieving and maintaining proper alignment is another matter, and worth some effort to achieve, within the constraints permitted by the accuracy of the instrument's construction. I suspect any anecdotes describing how other musicians noticed a difference result from improving the valve alignment.

For me, any benefit from fiddling with the material is finding the balance between noise, feel, and maintenance of proper alignment.

By the way, I have carefully measured the ports on my Holton. The incoming ports don't measure the same as the outgoing ports on most of the valves, such that no matter what size felt I might use, there will be misalignments on one port or another. Said another way, one side of the valve doesn't measure the same as the other side, but both sides, of course, move the same distance. And the pair of ports in use when the valves are up don't measure the same as the pair in use when the valves are down. Even the diameter of the ports varies. These errors are noticeable when measuring to the nearest couple of thousandths of an inch. This isn't even considering that the fourth valve is very significantly different than the other three, requiring a different thickness of bumpers.

I have no intention of challenging someone's perception, especially the perception of someone with demonstrably better perception abilities than I have. But from a physical perspective, that's how I see it.

Rick "hoping to damp speculation about the physics involved" Denney

[Mikelynch]

OH SURE, Rick--just go bringing physics and rationality into the question! Now this thread probably won't continue for more than another 40 posts or so.

Thanks Heavens we can count on a future "PVAK Update" thread to move us away from all this science and analytical stuff . . .

[iiipopes]

I agree with Rick completely. If I had gone to engineering school instead of pursuing another profession, then I could have been as erudite in posting.

That imperceptible "feel" is what makes the difference in musicians, and what makes one way of doing things best for one musician, but not necessarily for another. Sometimes in spite of the physics involved.

I completely agree about the porting, as well. A couple of years ago I took a souzy (not the one I play now) to a tech for cleanup and alignment, and the horn came back playing worse. This in spite of his claim he "scoped" the ports. So, I demonstrated, got my money back, showed him the factory engraved lines on the valve stems, purchased an assortment of felts and corks from him, and set them myself. Everything theoretical about porting and alignment issues assumes perfect manufacture, which with valve porting is anything but "perfect." Best guess and compromise is usually all that can be achieved, with all due respect to Bob Reeves.

[james]

I find it interesting that the "pros" generally tend to praise the PVAK and the skeptics/critics are generally those who do not make a living playing their horn.

Am I implying that the "pros" know more about physics? No.
Am I implying that the pros have better aural senses? No.
Am I implying either group is a better "person"? No.

What I am implying is that pros (who play their horns everyday) have a GREAT appreciation for a product which aids in consistency. (Duh)

The Baer PVAK does that. As Alan has stated himself, "it ain't rocket science". This product was designed to eliminate the variance of felts experienced by those who play their horn everyday and compress felts within a week of use.

Now, I understand the issue is with the statement "frees the weight of the piston from the rest of the instrument." on Alan's site, and not the claim that the PVAK leads to a stable and long-lasting alignment.

However, non-pros have also stated on this board that there is negligible frequency difference between plastic, brass, and stainless mouthpieces possessing identical shape. This may also be a proven fact in the science of physics.....but I would bet that a lot of pros would disagree. I know the brass colleagues I perform in ensembles with would disagree that I sound the same on a Kellyburg as I do a Conn Helleburg.

Is it any different than playing 10 "identical" machine-made mouthpieces to find the one that works best? Or playing a dozen machine-made tubas to find the best one. In theory they would be identical with negligible difference. Same brass, same machine mold, same equipment, same factory, etc.(I'm not talking about hand-made here)

A non-pro may scoff at these subtle differences and conclude that we should "just pick one" b/c science proves they sound/feel/resonate the same way. A pro would come to a different conclusion.

(The top pros in just about any job will go through a similar selection process with their equipment. Ever heard how many footballs a kicker selects from and what they do to "tweak" it? Now tell me, how could 20 footballs with exact same shape, same weight, and same leather have a different "feel" to a kicker? Physics says they'll all react the same. That's why the NFL places the regulations it does)

All that said, when I had the PVAK installed on my tuba I immediately noticed a better response from my instrument. I noticed more resonance not only in the body of the main branch but IN THE VALVE CAPS as well (on the tips of my fingers). Is this is a placebo effect? Maybe. But, I know I wasn't expecting to feel the sensation in my fingertips. No one pointed it out to me.

In my opinion, I believe this is due to the TYPE of contact an O-ring makes as opposed to large felts. I know it's been explained, but I'm still not sure how this differs from using a tuba stand as Alan suggests. In the case of a tuba stand, the tuba doesn't WEIGH less either......so if using the same arguments as used with the PVAK, why does the tuba resonate more with a stand? Because it's less dampened and has less contact surface area. I believe the same effect occurs with the PVAK.

James (who has a lot of pro friends who are envious of what they deem a "simple but genious" product by Alan)

***Edited for spelling and to insert the correct quote from Alan's site***

[Alan Baer]

Ok boys,
You want it, you got it... If you don't like the PVAK, you send it back and I'll refund the money. Minus the amount that Paypal gouges me for each transaction. In regards to the question about taking a horn that is in line and realigning with the o rings. Been there done it.. My 6450 as well as another one in NYC, were aligned using my old method. ( stacked rubber washers) Using this method the horns played VERY close to the same, obviously with their own subtle differences. I then aligned my 6450 with the current PVAK. There was a major difference in the response and sound between the two instruments.. The second horn was then aligned using the PVAK, the same thing was noted, improved resonance and response. I've tried many methods of aligning valves and this is the method that works best for me, as well and may others who have tried it.
Have a Great Holiday!
Baer

[GC]

Rick,

I know that your Holton shows the inconsistency in manufacture that the 345's are famous for, and that it transcends the horrors of its mismatched valve and casing ports. I also understand that the vast majority of tubas everywere built before computer controlled manufacturing methods.

My question is this: are modern valve sets built by hand (most of which sets used in European factories are made by the Meinl consortium, aren't they?), or are they made by CNC machines? If they are, then an alignment kit made for the CNC-made valves would be much more likely to have a predictable and consistent effect than hand-made inconsistencies would allow, and the whole process would make a bit more sense. If the valves in the list of horns on the Baer web site were inconsistent because of sloppy hand-manufacture, then it would make less sense.

I know that you keep up with technical details, so I'm curious if you know the manufacturing methods behind the Meinl-made valve sets? Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree?

[iiipopes]

Thanks. A friend of mine is getting the PVAK on his tuba that has, admittedly, been hot-rodded so that if any tuba can take advantage of the PVAK, it is his. I'll have to try it and see what I think.

Again, Just like heavy valve caps or mouthpieces, it's not the PVAK so much as it is a combination of amateur playing that can't tell the difference combined with a lot of inherently not-able-to-be-perfectly-aligned tubas on which it can't make a difference, which will make for a lot of skepticism from the TNFJ.

So, getting the chance to spend some time with a tuba on which it has the potential to make a difference along with a guy who can tell the difference, give me a month or so, when our schedules can find some time to sit down for a reasonable amount of time, not just a quick blow, and I'll get back with what I think.

[Roger Lewis]

The comparison to Tiger Woods is not quite as accurate as I would like to see. You can practice all you want but if you have never had any guidance as to embouchure positioning or air flow or HOW to do lip slurs, or WHY scales are necessary, then your "improvements" will be very limited. However, if you can get lessons with Tiger Woods, and grasp the concepts and then apply them correctly, yes, you will get better. Will you be the next Tiger Woods? Unlikely, because talent is an issue as is perseverence and hand/eye coordination. Are you willing to make the sacrifices that Tiger Woods has made to become the greatest player on the planet?

Just my $0.02.

Roger

[Uncle Buck]

I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that the product does not produce good results. It seems to me that Klaus, Rick, et al. are simply noting the possibility that the product's results are attributable to its valve port alignment, and nothing else.

If the product provides superior alignment, that alone is worth the reasonable price, regardless of whether the other claims are legitimate or voodoo.

[imperialbari]

I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that the product does not produce good results. It seems to me that Klaus, Rick, et al. are simply noting the possibility that the product's results are attributable to its valve port alignment, and nothing else.

If the product provides superior alignment, that alone is worth the reasonable price, regardless of whether the other claims are legitimate or voodoo.

Good reading!

Only I still don’t like the element of uncertainty about the sales’ hype: is it based on a lack of knowledge about the physical phenomenons involved or is it intended to create a mystic aura for those understanding nothing anyway?

I also wonder why trumpets are made to a so low level consistency, that they have to be shipped for proper alignment, whereas tubas can be helped out without the very costly and risky element of shipping.

Or really I know exactly why: No tubist would ship his/hers instrument just to have its valves aligned. Hence there would be no sales of this product, which can be made by any competent repairman and even by some players well acquainted with instrument maintenance. And at a price more relevant to the product than to the orchestral seat of the maker.

Of course customers have to hype the product after having burned a lot of $$. This effect is well known in all sorts of markets.

Klaus

[Rick Denney]

I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that the product does not produce good results. It seems to me that Klaus, Rick, et al. are simply noting the possibility that the product's results are attributable to its valve port alignment, and nothing else.

If the product provides superior alignment, that alone is worth the reasonable price, regardless of whether the other claims are legitimate or voodoo.

A post that came after mine noted the difference in feel at the fingertips. I actually did explain this and certainly did not refute it. Furthermore, I have made changes to my tubas at various times to improve the feel of the valve motion, and I believe that this provides some advantage in my playing, however subtle that might be. I am quite sure it would be too subtle to matter to anyone but me, but I play for my own satisfaction, despite the universal Jacobsean recommendation to "play by sound and not by feel."

Once again, it should be said that Klaus's complaint is not with the product, but rather with some of the words used to explain the potential advantages of the product. My complaint was not even about the words, but rather about the discussion that has developed in the thread, some of which quoted those words and expanded on them. I am not a professional tuba player, but I am a professional engineer, and while I do not presume to tell a high-end performer what they feel or sense (and, in fact, I go to great lengths to avoid that), or even whether that feeling or sensing is important, I do feel qualified to comment on the physics.

I presented the variations in the ports of my Holton to suggest that some tubas, at least, require careful compromise in valve alignments, and that a compromise is the best that can be achieved. While that may undermine the argument that a thousandth of an inch is important or even significant on some instruments, it reinforces the argument that It is wholly advantageous to use an approach that maintains that careful compromise reliably. Were I a professional, I would think nothing of spending a couple of hundred bucks to achieve that, especially in the absence of good alternatives.

Rick "no stranger to the frequency domain" Denney

[MaryAnn]

James wrote:

"However, non-pros have also stated on this board that there is negligible frequency difference between plastic, brass, and stainless mouthpieces possessing identical shape. This may also be a proven fact in the science of physics.....but I would bet that a lot of pros would disagree. I know the brass colleagues I perform in ensembles with would disagree that I sound the same on a Kellyburg as I do a Conn Helleburg."

I think we're starting to zero in on what the above is about; to me, it may very well be about sub-conscious feedback to the player. Like, why wouldn't someone sound the same on a Kellyburg as they do on a Helleburg if the dimensions are the same? Because of user feedback, and unconcious adjustments based on the feedback.

I am once again heading into my masochistic hobby of learning a new instrument, and I'm aware "in spades" that I simply don't have the embouchure maturity on oboe to know from the broad side of a barn what to do with feedback from the reed; but give me a violin, and to a lesser extent a horn, and I have a full set of unconscious adjustments that I make to get the sound I want. If a device gives subtle feedback that allows a player to more easily get the sound/response/whatever they want....then that device is worthwhile, and the technical explanations, especially from non-technical people, may lack the succinctness (is that a word?) that the technical people among us would demand.

Mary "one foot in both worlds" Ann

[Uncle Buck]

I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that the product does not produce good results. It seems to me that Klaus, Rick, et al. are simply noting the possibility that the product's results are attributable to its valve port alignment, and nothing else.

If the product provides superior alignment, that alone is worth the reasonable price, regardless of whether the other claims are legitimate or voodoo.

A post that came after mine noted the difference in feel at the fingertips. I actually did explain this and certainly did not refute it. Furthermore, I have made changes to my tubas at various times to improve the feel of the valve motion, and I believe that this provides some advantage in my playing, however subtle that might be. I am quite sure it would be too subtle to matter to anyone but me, but I play for my own satisfaction, despite the universal Jacobsean recommendation to "play by sound and not by feel."

Once again, it should be said that Klaus's complaint is not with the product, but rather with some of the words used to explain the potential advantages of the product. My complaint was not even about the words, but rather about the discussion that has developed in the thread, some of which quoted those words and expanded on them. I am not a professional tuba player, but I am a professional engineer, and while I do not presume to tell a high-end performer what they feel or sense (and, in fact, I go to great lengths to avoid that), or even whether that feeling or sensing is important, I do feel qualified to comment on the physics.

I presented the variations in the ports of my Holton to suggest that some tubas, at least, require careful compromise in valve alignments, and that a compromise is the best that can be achieved. While that may undermine the argument that a thousandth of an inch is important or even significant on some instruments, it reinforces the argument that It is wholly advantageous to use an approach that maintains that careful compromise reliably. Were I a professional, I would think nothing of spending a couple of hundred bucks to achieve that, especially in the absence of good alternatives.

Rick "no stranger to the frequency domain" Denney

Sorry - I should have known better than to try to summarize/simplify a discussion of a topic on which I am not knowledgeable.

[Rick Denney]

Sorry - I should have known better than to try to summarize/simplify a discussion of a topic on which I am not knowledgeable.

Yes, I quoted your message, but I was not arguing with it. Rather, I was expanding on it. I really, really don't want to be misunderstood in this thread. You didn't, but others might have.

Rick "no offense intended at all" Denney

[Uncle Buck]

Sorry - I should have known better than to try to summarize/simplify a discussion of a topic on which I am not knowledgeable.

Yes, I quoted your message, but I was not arguing with it. Rather, I was expanding on it. I really, really don't want to be misunderstood in this thread. You didn't, but others might have.

Rick "no offense intended at all" Denney

The emotions (from others, not from you) seem to be running unusually high on this topic. I'm not sure the motivation for that (although I suspect others have guessed close to the mark), but I've got a PM sitting in my inbox that is certainly nothing I would have ever expected.

(I didn't think you were offended. I just thought, on second reading, that I had over-simplified things.)

[Tubadork]

Hey,
it's not one size fits all, different ones for different tubas.

Seems to work, the only thing I wonder about is that I've heard that it makes the valves pretty loud. For a large orchestra, no problem, but I wonder if it would be too loud for chamber music and solo settings?

Bill

[MikeMason]

Bill,that could very well be an issue.They are pretty loud.My solo horn is rotary,so,no problem for me.