TubeNet

Pull for tone? That doesn't make any sense.

Who is the quote attributed to?

bloke is the unchallenged TN Champion in feigning idiocy. Actually so good that one sometimes has to doubt the feigning element.

This problem has been discussed recently, maybe from a slightly different point of view, in the thread on optimizing the low range of the euphonium.

Some refuse to modify their embouchure away from its ideal (for any given note at any given dynamic) configuration. If they honk a note on an instrument which with the given fingering has the wrong length of tubing to provide good resonance, then there will be no note beyond a wrecked attack. These players say they pull for tuning.

Some players can play just just about any note on any fingering. Only their sound is bad, if there isn’t an ideal length of tubing to provide good resonance. These players say they pull for sound.

bloke surely is able to apply both approaches, whereas the former way of thinking likely is his main approach.

Klaus

Hmmm....

This discussion definitely give me much to think about. It does make sense to adjust for pitch, but I am having a hard time understanding how changing the length of the instrument (where it is cylindrical), how that alone changes the sound, not pitch but sound.

Klaus, can you help me out?

I guess what I mean is how does pulling your first slide to tune a wonky in the staff C (assuming BBb Tuba here) have an effect on resonance? Is this only something very advanced players can do?

This is an earnest question.

Coming back after tennis.

imperialbari wrote:Coming back after tennis.

Much appreciated sir.

No regrets that Caro lost. Serena simply is phantastic.

bloke’s original quote has been ascribed to TN member Northern, who holds a very prestigious chair well into the third decade.

Basically your question represents a misunderstanding of my first posting and of Northern’s concept.

If a note with a bad resonance for the given note in the given instrument still is made to sound in pitch, then because the player is able to modify his/hers embouchure and air supply to hold the right pitch steadily. But as the resonance lacks the sound will be less than ideal. If the length of tubing is corrected it becomes possible to play the right pitch without skewing ones embouchure and air supply. Hence the pitch stays right, but the sound improves.

This is the short version. The long version is a book. Not to be written by me.

Klaus

You can pull my finger for tone.

SplatterTone wrote:You can pull my finger for tone.

Certainly! All muscles have tone.

Well ... it is called inton(e)ation.
...I dunno

I haven't played a tuba yet that I couldn't bend any pitch by a whole step in either direction. An inch or so on a tuning slide wouldn't do crap for me, since I use my ears and lips to play in tune. So, if you can't do that, maybe that's on you.

The quote was attributed to Gene Pokorny. I don't know why people are reluctant to say that.

And the sense of it is that one adjusts the length of the bugle to properly resonant the pitch being buzzed. A good player buzzes the correct pitch no matter whether the instrument is tuned to it or not. Thus, they play in tune. But buzzing a frequency not in the center of the resonance of the bugle will cause some loss of resonance in the sound. Some untuned overtones will be damped and the tone will suffer.

So, a good player will play in tune anyway, but doing so may cause a loss of tone quality if the bugle is out of tune on that pitch. So, a good player adjusts the bugle length to provide a resonant tone when the instrument is buzzed at the correct pitch.

Gene certainly adjusts his slides as he plays. There are many things said by high-end players I'm prepared to refute on scientific grounds. This is not one of them.

Rick "slow in the shop this week, Joe? Feeling the need to play the troll?" Denney

ginnboonmiller wrote:I haven't played a tuba yet that I couldn't bend any pitch by a whole step in either direction.

Same here. I'll bet you can play it in tune, too. I can play the first part of the Meow Mix song on trumpet without any valves. (C-B-A-G C-B-A-G) But my tone is better when I make the horn exactly the right length for a given pitch. Usually that just means pushing the right button and maybe lipping it a little - surely we all lip a little without thinking about it - but sometimes (on some horns) it requires me pulling a slide a bit as well.



Oh, and +1 to what Rick said, as usual.

Rick Denney wrote:... A good player buzzes the correct pitch no matter whether the instrument is tuned to it or not. Thus, they play in tune. But buzzing a frequency not in the center of the resonance of the bugle will cause some loss of resonance in the sound. Some untuned overtones will be damped and the tone will suffer.....

....So, a good player will play in tune anyway, but doing so may cause a loss of tone quality if the bugle is out of tune on that pitch.

Joe just about sucked me into this one until I read your post, Rick. You have a way of putting words together like no other.

Playing an out-of-tune horns is a lot of work. So is playing along side of others who play out-of-tune.

imperialbari wrote: If a note with a bad resonance for the given note in the given instrument still is made to sound in pitch, then because the player is able to modify his/hers embouchure and air supply to hold the right pitch steadily. But as the resonance lacks the sound will be less than ideal. If the length of tubing is corrected it becomes possible to play the right pitch without skewing ones embouchure and air supply. Hence the pitch stays right, but the sound improves.

This is the short version. The long version is a book. Not to be written by me.

Klaus

Klaus - Thank you for that. That makes perfect sense now. I just never thought about it THAT way, if that makes any sense. If I understand correctly, you give tone quality a back seat to PHYSICALLY MAKE THE NOTE in tune. To have to physically fudge the note so much that your tone suffers. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for helping me out!

bloke wrote:If I could pull slides and get a better TONE, I'd be pullin' the sumbichs ALL THE WAY OUT.

Some folks do have better tone with all of their slides pulled out.

I am the end user of one of bloke's point and shoot horns. Well it's really not fully point and shoot 'cause all he did for mine was make the slides the correct legnth. He didn't add any special valves or change the bore in places or anything like that. I played a VMI 3301 all day today. I truely love the horn, especially the pp and ff response. I did, however, become frustrated with the intonation half way through my afternoon quintet rehearsal and was longing for my ancient blokerized Olds. The combination of wide slots and precise slide lenths makes it a joy to tune, much less work than the VMI. I am an advocate of less work, leaving me more brain space to play and appreciate the music.

' new welcome mat!

No doubt that bloke is very interested in avoiding slide pulling. He hinted towards a solution, which he since has half way completed in his almost-BAT:

viewtopic.php?p=268717#p268717

In my opinion there are some designs coming close to the ideal, pitchwise at least: the compensating euphonium with a main tuning slide trigger. And bloke’s B&S tuba with the 5th valve trigger added.

Had I know about the latter option, I maybe had taken that road, when going tuba for real, at least beyond the Conn 26K. I calculated the pitch discrepancies of various valve configurations. Cannot be done with accuracy due to partials acting differently to addition of valve tubing. Still one can get a good idea, which tells that with no triggers the 3+1compensating system wins.

It fails with the two chromatic steps right over the open pedal, but there are strategies to overcome that problem.

The most common is about pulling the 3rd slide a bit. I never use that approach because it skews even chromatics over the full range. And it flattens some important leading notes in minor keys closely related to the key of the open bugle.

There is the main tuning slide trigger. Good on euphs, but sadly most compensating tubas have too short main tuning slide to make this approach worthwhile.

If the low notes in question are part of a not too technically complicated musical context much of that pitch problem is solved by pulling the 3rd slide a semitone to a major third (and adjusting the comp loop accordingly). It takes a relearning of specific fingerings, so I don’t use it as my general set-up, where I want to be able to sight read.

It may be discussed whether the 19" bell on the Besson 981 is really a good idea, as the sound goes too fat for many applications. Yet the very open bell and throat allow for good pitch flexibility right over the open pedal Eb. The low F and E natural can be played in tune without too much loss in sound quality. The problem remaining is, that it takes a Steve Sykes to play these notes loud.

Klaus

I pull slides to tune in order to sound my best. Without pulling, intonation and tone suffers, but I do think intonation suffers more. I barely have to pull at all on the Bruckner, but the Yorkbrunner needs careful attention paid to the slide pulling, although once one gets used to it it becomes second nature and shouldn't take any extra concentration. I get used to a horn's quirks pretty quickly, and try to make adjustments a thoughtless process, in order to better concentrate on the music making.

imperialbari wrote:Had I know about the latter option, I maybe had taken that road, when going tuba for real, at least beyond the Conn 26K. I calculated the pitch discrepancies of various valve configurations. Cannot be done with accuracy due to partials acting differently to addition of valve tubing. Still one can get a good idea, which tells that with no triggers the 3+1compensating system wins.

I seem to recall an analysis done by Fred Young back in the day that shows that a 3-valve compensator wins. That makes me think a 3-valve compensator (i.e., third valve switches in the compensating loops on 1 and 2) plus an uncompensated fourth valve might be closer to that mathematical ideal.

But then reality sets in. I have a compensating euphonium of good quality despite its condition, but it is certainly not as in tune (at least when I'm playing it) as Dr. Young's spreadsheet would suggest. Makes me thing your next-to-last statement is the one people should take from the paragraph.

When we choose an instrument, we have to take each choice on its own merits. No tuba is perfectly in tune. Even Joe uses a few alternative fingerings on his F tuba, about which he has bragged of "point-n-shoot" intonation many times. And no ensemble plays the same pitch at all times, given that, for example, a D has a different pitch when it's the third of a Bb chord, the 5th of a A chord, or the root of a D chord. Tuning is something we listen for and adjust. Some of that adjustment is done by compensating with the instrument (either using an automatic system as with Blaikley, a tuning trigger, a 25-cent valve, or pulling the slides), or by adjusting the pitch using the embouchure. The outcome can only be measured using the ears.

It is true that some instruments maintain a consistent sound over a wider range of pitches at each bugle length. And some have such narrow slots that buzzing a pitch even a little off center causes the sound to degrade significantly. Pitch problems are more noticeable on the second instrument.

I played under a guest band director once who judged intonation not buy how the ensemble's chords resonated, but rather by how whether the instrument was fully resonant. He obviously assumed that all bugles resonate accurately. But then he was a trombone player.

Rick "whose ears are the problem" Denney