TubeNet

Thanks for sharing!

Very cool. Thanks!

Excellent read. Thanks for posting.

"No difference in Trombone materials detected" cound have several meanings...

The trombone bell science (Richard Smith, The effect of material in brass instruments: a review.) is not unknown to trombone players. They still argue a lot about this anyway.

I was excited to read this part:

Richard Smith wrote:At a later stage in the testing an electroformed pure copper bell (made on a similar - but not the same mandrel) was added into the playing sequence. Under test conditions this was not noticeably any different to the brass bells but when subsequently played in non-blind tests it gained magical properties!

... which is personally interesting because my trombone bell is copper! And of course non-blind, since I have only the one trombone anyway. I could sure use some magical properties, so it's great to read that this has been scientifically verified.

I read this article with great interest. In that some of the results of sound quality are based on the opinion of human beings, I would like to know the laboratory results of osilloscopic spectrum analysis of the sounds using different materials and thicknesses and compare them to a spectrum analysis of the sound at the play tests that were heard by the test subjects to make sure that the comparisons of the sounds had consistant accoustical properties.

Also, no research is mentioned as to the affects of different materials and thicknesses on the projection of sound into a concert hall. I believe that horn maker, Walter Lawson did controlled research on the projection aspect and found that different materials and thicknesses had an effect on the efficiency of projecting a sound. If my memory serves me correctly, an outdoor test was done with a world reknown soloist playing the same horn with interchangeable bell flares of different metal alloys. A decibel meter was at the player's bell to insure a constant loudness with each test. Another decibel meter was used to read the loudness at a constant distance away. Mr. Lawson did find that bell flare material did affect the preservation of sound volume at a distance.

hbcrandy wrote:I read this article with great interest. In that some of the results of sound quality are based on the opinion of human beings, I would like to know the laboratory results of osilloscopic spectrum analysis of the sounds using different materials and thicknesses and compare them to a spectrum analysis of the sound at the play tests that were heard by the test subjects to make sure that the comparisons of the sounds had consistant accoustical properties.
.

If only it were that simple.

Nobody ever plays the same note the same way twice, which has made it exceedingly difficult to do the type of spectral comparisons you'd like. Rubber lips work, but no musician will accept those results. <g>

This argument dates back centuries and I suspect will never be resolved. (it might be more accurate to say that both sides feel it has been definitively resolved in their favor) One thing that is clear is that the more carefully you design an experiment to reduce the human variable, the more the differences disappear. That suggests to the skeptics (I'm one) that the effects of materials is far, far less than alleged; however no believer has moved from their position in the slightest over all that time. In particular flute and oboe experiments using the triangle test (present three samples, choose the one that's different) are pretty solid, showing no material differences, yet no flute player I know has changed his/her mind.

There are now a number of informal tests in which trombone players have not been able to distinguish the sound of the plastic pBone from the classic brass King 3B on a recording. That would suggest something. But nobody is convinced.