TubeNet

I can look up resonance, resonate, resonating, resonant etc in the dictionary and get a definition of what they mean to a physicist, but I often encounter these terms used to describe sound quality, or instruments. I'm pretty sure that the physicist's definition doesn't fit these usages, but I can't pin down the intended meaning.

Can anyone define what is meant by a "resonant sound", or is this another one of those "you know it when you hear it" things ?

I agree the science does not match the usage.

I use it to describe how "participatory" the instrument is in the process of making the sound. You will hear people tell you their horn "speaks" easily, or is "responsive". I think these are probably referring to a similar idea. One way to measure the dubious concept of resonance is to try and defeat it by introducing tension to the instrument and restrict the ability of the horn to sympathetically vibrate with the sound, or perhaps poke holes in the column to introduce leaks. If your horn is "resonant" perhaps it just is well built and not in need of any maintenance.

Ultimately, the horn may or may not be "resonant" depending on the room you are in, which is more in line with the actual idea of resonance anyway.

Good question. I am sure there are other examples of tuba-speak that we use that would have physicists scratching their heads.

For me, a full-spectrum sound, rich with overtones -- a sound that keeps its quality as it travels throughout the room -- one that can be felt as well as heard.

In other words, something fairly subjective and one of many words to describe the difficult-to-describe. Describing the psychoacoustic quality of music is challenging at best with our language. Not to say we don't do our best!

chronolith wrote:One way to measure the dubious concept of resonance is to try and defeat it by introducing tension to the instrument and restrict the ability of the horn to sympathetically vibrate with the sound, or perhaps poke holes in the column to introduce leaks. If your horn is "resonant" perhaps it just is well built and not in need of any maintenance.

While I take no position on whether "resonant" means anything real at all, what I'm pretty sure it does not mean is the tuba's body vibrating in response to the sound that comes out, the way for example a the top of a 'cello would. Tubas are typically braced up every which way to avoid any such vibration, with the less thoroughly braced designs (sousaphone) tending to be the least prized for their tone.

You can feel it as well as hear it. "Full" is probably a good comparison, and "airy" would be in the opposite direction.

Donn wrote: While I take no position on whether "resonant" means anything real at all, what I'm pretty sure it does not mean is the tuba's body vibrating in response to the sound that comes out, the way for example a the top of a 'cello would. Tubas are typically braced up every which way to avoid any such vibration, with the less thoroughly braced designs (sousaphone) tending to be the least prized for their tone.

I think you speak the truth here. In my experience... a tuba that feels 'alive' is actually wasting energy. I've heard it said that a tuba made of concrete would produce a good sound but would not feel right to the operator.

Hence "dubious". I'm no expert for sure. Although I had a tuba once that every time I played a Eb below the staff I thought my cell phone was vibrating in my pocket.

Just trying to attach as much traction to the idea of actual resonance to an instrument as I could. Not much is sticking though. People are still going to use it to describe it though, and almost as many people will understand what they are trying to say, right or wrong.

Unfortunately, that's the sort of question that if someone gave you a clear answer it wouldn't make any difference in your understanding.

Put another way: If you don't know.. no one can tell you.

If you twisted my arm I would suggest that a more resonant sound has more overtones or 'depth' to the sound. Layers.. like a delicious cake. But focusing on that won't do you much good.

More importantly!!!
To non-tuba players everything we do sounds plenty resonant. What they DO hear is how clear, and consistent your sound is. They can also hear when it sounds like work. IF you focus on build a consistent and clear sound that is 'easy' and 'free'(nope won't define that either) you'll probably be awfully close to also having more resonance than most.

That's what I think anyhow.. subject to change.

chronolith wrote:and almost as many people will understand what they are trying to say, right or wrong.

This is what I hate about words like that. If I speak to you in a foreign language, you'll know you don't understand what I'm saying, but when I say stuff like "resonant" it's all too easy to think you do. It's more a personality trait, the ability to convince yourself against all odds that you and the speaker are on the same page about what that really meant. Though for me it's more like "sure don't know what that means, but it sounds like it must be something good!"

I think resonance as a positive characteristic of sound quality is something the player produces, rather than a characteristic of the instrument.

Of course, in the basic, physicist's sense, it is what the horn does: it resonates in sympathy, etc., but I don't think that's what we're after here.

To me a resonant sound is one that seems to vibrate the room around you without necessarily having to be all that loud. I'm thinking back to a couple of memorable events...

The first was in 1978 at the International T.U.B.A. Conference in L.A. They had a California Salvation Army band there, which featured their own euphonium soloist Wilfred Mountain and also euphoniumist William Himes (Chicago Staff Band). In a fairly large hall I was amazed at how either of those two guys could fill the room with lovely euphonium sound without sounding at all forced. They both employed what I would call the British style and sound.

Then in the 1980's The Coast Guard Band had Roger Bobo appear with us. He soloed on the Barat Introduction and Dance as his first piece. I could not get over how resonant he sounded from the very first note. The entire hall seemed to come alive.

Some players tend for force the air for a loud sound; others seem to work cooperatively with the instrument to get their sound into the hall. The latter achieve resonance, at least by my definition.

The Bobo performance is on my website's forum (but you need to be a logged-in member to get to this section):
http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthread ... -and-Dance

A resonant instrument is an efficient one with no, or at least a minimum of, obstacles towards creating a fully spectered and alive sound filling the room.

Klaus

Well... I plan to play my 48K in a 4th of July concert tomorrow night. Will that be 'resonant'? ... or just a bad case of 'bell ring'?

A useful definition of resonance for my purposes as a teacher: an abundance of vibration.

A slightly different take. People pull slides for particular notes in order to get them to resonate better. My best example was watching Sam Pilafian play along with a horn ensemble at a workshop. He was sitting on a note, and moved the 1st valve slide a good four inches up and down a couple times and then stopped moving it. His pitch did not change, but I assume he found the tubing length that made his instrument the most resonant for that note. To me, that's the major reason for slide pulling, alongside getting a note in tune on an instrument with narrow slots.

If you try to play a note with the wrong fingering (oops this is my Eb tuba not my CC tuba) the pitch may come out but it will not be resonant.

Another example: the notorious low C on rotary F tubas is not resonant by nature. Skilled players get it to sound, but not with the ease that it would if the nodes were in the right place to produce resonance.

Sound with a lot of ring from overtones. Mr. Kaenzig (not my teacher at Michigan, I studied with his grad asst.) explained how, he did an experiment with a gentleman who was a musician and a scientist (don't recall exactly what type) who had extreme high end sound measuring equipment. Mr. Kaenzig played a passage twice, once as loud as he could, the second time as full, round and rich as possible. On a 1 - 10 scale, the as loud as possible registered around 7, and full, round, rich tone hit 9/9+.

His final words were to "play with a beautiful, rich, ringing tone at all dynamic levels".
Adam

tuben wrote: Que?

Sí, es por esto que es notorio.

MaryAnn wrote:People pull slides for particular notes in order to get them to resonate better. My best example was watching Sam Pilafian play along with a horn ensemble at a workshop.

Patrick Sheridan said we pull for tone, not for pitch

Thank you all for taking my question seriously. It seems that "resonant" can be used to describe the playing qualities of an instrument, the sound the instrument makes, the acoustics of a venue, the style of a performer, and probably several other usages. As for knowing what it means, I guess you just have to be there.

talleyrand wrote:I think resonance as a positive characteristic of sound quality is something the player produces, rather than a characteristic of the instrument.

I agree. The instrument extends and amplifies the vibrations of our head, jaws and lips. Sometimes we find a fantastic horn that fits those vibrations and gives us this " full" sound with this split second vibration to our entire head and ears that we can actually feel versus another instrument that doesn't fit us and we call it " dull, stuffy" etc but some other person picks it up and says " wow, this is a great horn". And then there is Getzen that nobody manages to get any vibes out of yet they still make brass instruments.