TubeNet

I am looking for some input about this product from anyone who has played a horn before and after the use of the product. What does it help, what happens, those type things.

This has been covered previously. Type in "acousticoil" in the Search old TubeNet field at upper left. I have not used one myself, but the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook on the makers website does not inspire confidence that it can deliver on the hype.

Don S.

I've used one for years and feel that is does help my sound and responce a bit. It is not a cure all. It also comes with a money back gaurantee so if you don't like it you can get your money back. I know the man that designed these and you won't have any problems if you don't like it. Give it a try, you might be one of the people who believe that it helps them.
Phil

Let me get this straight. You were told a story by someone who said that someone else did something that did not make a difference in his playing. From this you then assume that someone else doing something entirely different that you have also not observed can not work either. It must be great to be so all knowing of things one has no personal knowledge. The greatest display of ignorance to not be willing to try new things because you know they couldn't work when your assumption is not based on any fact. You might consider giving something a try before you assume that the results are all in someone's head.
Phil

The most appropriate response I saw to the original post was the cel from the movie Dumbo with Dumbo holding the feather. This device has the same impact as the feather had for Dumbo. Why would something not any way connected to your instrument impact the way it sounds at all? Total nonsense!

Have you tried it or are you all kowing also?
Phil

I thought I should explain myself in a little more detail. I currently play a Willson 3050S, which, in case you didn't know, is a copy of the old Holton, which, most people know, is a copy of one of the CSO Yorks. Like the game telephone the copying of these instruments has differred from the theme to the variation I own now.

I have read about the Yorks having something similar to the acousticoil in place in the horn. I have always been unsatisfied with my fourth valve d just below the staff, and reallly any note using 4th valve. Knowing that there is a history of people adding these type of devices to horns very similar to mine makes me think I might need to give it a shot.

That is my logic in the matter if the historical background on anything is flawed please inform me, I don't want false information.

I bit on the gobbledegook a few years ago (because of the refund promise) bought one, tried, it, found ZERO difference, and got my money back.

MA

I pose another question. I see a resemblance, do you see one as well bloke?

I'm sorry if I came across as believing the 3050 is a copy of the CSO York. I know it's not. I do however believe that the resemblance to the old Holton (like the one shown) is the basis for the 3050. Not long after I purchased my horn I visited an old teacher. I pulled the horn out showed it to him, played a little bit, and he then told me to go back in a closet and get the horn standing up in there. I brought it out and was surprised as the resemblance. It was the first time he saw a Willson 3050 and it reminded him of the instrument in the closet. It was an old Holton BBb. I later had discussions with Lee Stofer about the resemblance of the 3050 to old Holtons, even so far as the design of the braces.

I did not have a clue until recently that the Holton was a copy of the CSO York. The 3050 barely resembles it, the only resemblance I notice is the valve tubings.

As to an Acousticoil being present in a CSO York, I am talking of something added at the factory resembling what the acousticoil accomplishs as found here viewtopic.php?t=2182&highlight=acousticoil (post by Mike Johnson). I realize going by information discovered on this BBS which es not as scholarly as some might think, but it's always cause for curiousity. I also dug up this information on the old tubenet http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/oct2003 ... 51523.html

My synopsis of the lineage of the Willson 3050S:
First: The CSO York
Second: Holton copied this for Arnold Jacobs to use with the Chicago Brass Quintet
Third Kurath (which I believe is the designer of the horn) took the basic design of the Holton and made what he saw were improvements in the design.

disclaimer....I'm not trying to stoke any kind of fire, I am actuallly finding all of this very informative and helpful.

Phil Dawson wrote:Have you tried it or are you all kowing also?
Phil

Phil, rather than get defensive, why don't you explain why it works, using actual physics instead of stuff that says nothing but is designed to sound scientific.

In the world where products are expected to work (i.e., stuff sold to the people who make things and not so much to the people who use them), explanations that do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny attract instant and well-deserved skepticism. This product is so described by those who make it, so we have nothing but foolishness to go on. I'm hoping you can explain it to us so we have more.

Two points, though:

1.) I will not buy it or recommend it to others unless you can persuade me how and and why it works, and

2.) I know enough science not to be easily fooled.

Those two points have nothing to do with the success you have observed in your own playing. Call them my own weaknesses.

Rick "for whom a money-back guarantee is not a reasoned or rigorous explanation" Denney

I have tried the Acousticoil on a couple of horns for several reputable players who heard NO difference in sound(at least for the good). On certain instruments, the response may feel slightly better but it seems to have adverse effects in other registers(i.e. low register is clearer but high register is to thin and bright).

bloke wrote:Now that you've gotten me all worked up , I've had to commission a very famous graphic designer, Mssr. Pierre Blokerette, to demonstrate the drastic basic difference in the design of the Willson 3050 and the design of the CSO York and it's "copies" (Holton, HB, Nirschl).

<img src="http://tinypic.com/4q320w">

My compliments to M. Bokerette, clearly an accomplished artist, as all will be forced to admit.

I have played large Willsons, in particular the 3100 BBb, and I own a Holton BB-345. I have also play-tested a variety of large tubas, including a couple of converted Yorks, two or three converted Holtons, two 2165's, a Neptune, an early Yorkbrunner, and even a few toots on a Nirschl. I would put my Holton on the same end of the scale with the converted Yorks and the Yorkbrunner: easy-speaking, reasonably agile, fun to play, highly resonant, colorful, and able to play softly. I put the 2165's, Neptune, and the converted Holtons in another group: More demanding of air, commanding sound with more focus, not as fun to play, dark, not as friendly (both of the player and the listener). The Willson was in a class by itself: Distant, hard to understand, difficult to play, dark and unforgiving of my amateur incompetence. I know it will put out the sound, but I sure couldn't tell it from my side of the mouthpiece. You bet it could have been and probably was me. The Willson requires the player to be in total command, like what I've heard of Alexanders, without the player-favoring characteristics of the early Yorkbrunner I tried, the converted Yorks, and my Holton.

I've never played the CSO York, obviously, but the descriptions I've heard put it more toward the first part of my list. And my Holton is more like what I've heard of the York than it is like most Holtons I've tried in terms of ease of play, resonance, and character in the sound. I suspect that is the hallmark of the good Holtons (and we all know that not all are).

So, if the Willson was intended to be a copy of the original Holton, either in appearance or playing characteristics, it seems to me that it missed. Maybe if the brass was thinner and less solidly braced, with a different bell and taper design, heh, heh.

But the fourth valve on the Holton feels to me just like the descriptions in this thread of the 3050, heh, heh.

Rick "who has felt invited by good Holtons and Yorks, and humbled by big Willsons and 2165's" Denney

Phil Dawson wrote:Have you tried it or are you all kowing also?
Phil

Actually, I was thinking of a different device, which supposedly worked through an even less likely method, although I have my doubts as to the efficacy of this one. However, as a scientist I have to admit to the possibility that sticking a plastic sleeve in one of your tuning slides may have some impact on how your horn plays. I would not believe that it has an impact merely through anectdotal accounts, or supposedly scientific diagrams explaining why it works acoustically. For $35 you could try it and perform a blind test to see if it has an impact.

Here's a procedure I propose for testing it. Have a friend give you your tuba to play both with and without the device, without your knowing which it is. Play the same pieces each way and have them note your observations regarding any difference in playing. Again this should be done without your knowing when the device was in the tuba. You could also have a different friend, or friends listen and rate the playing of each piece, again while they don't know whether the device in in place. Perform an analysis of variance against the ratings of playability vs a categorical variable representing whether the device was in use or not. If there is a consistent, statistically significant difference in playing characteristics that can be explained by the acousticoil device, then there is a possibility that it actually had an impact.

This is way too much work for me. I think I'll go practice instead.

In my defense I wasn't looking for the magical fix all end all. I was just simply looking for some assistance. The same reason you play certain mouthpieces, and I'm sure most people on this board have spent more than $35 on at least one mouthpiece.

Yes I am aware in the changes caused by extra tubing added onto the open horn, which brings me to my next point. You are able to know from my profile on here that I reside in Hattiesburg, MS and that I'm a student here. Nothing in the profile that I view saying anything about my playing ability. I think a common problem on this board is to offer assistance, as you have james, without knowing the level of the player. You don't know if I'm in 6th grade(eventhough I don't know of a 6th grader playing a 3050) or if I am a first call player in the area, and I'm going to keep that to myself for now, it's simply not applicable. Yes I might be playing improperly, I might not have the mastery of air that I need to, but you haven't heard me play. Also take note that the BBS's "veterans" have for the most part stayed on topic and haven't addressed me as a player.

Bloke, when you speak three loops in the bugle you're speaking of no diffference in the length but simply how many times the manufacturer looped the tubing around? It is my understanding that Willson tubas are of an "open wrap" design which perhaps might explain the reasoning in one less loop in the bugle. I have previously noticed this and just thought of it as Kurath's Variation on the Theme of York. Some of my information on the lineage of the Willson has come from my time spent at Lee Stofer's shop, I don't know if he frequents this board enough to comment on this or not.

Rick Denney, I like to think of the Willson in an entirely different class as well. I haven't played a tuba that got as dark a sound as the 3050. When I first played a 3050 I didn't like it, but I gave it another shot and I'm an owner of one now. Your view of the Willson sounds like my view of a 2165. I often wonder if some things would be helped from a thinner bell, but then I would think that would eliminate the dark sound that the horn has.

Actually I assumed you were at the University of Southern Mississippi and not a sixth grader. I did not mean to attack your playing and if you feel that way I apologize.

I have had some positve experiences with the acousticoil on my 3050. I have a very early 3050 and the biggest positves are in the low register centering and intonation.

Last year, one of my students was preparing to perform the VW with his orchestra and was having difficulties on his MW 45. I should mention he is a very good player. To experiment, I took the acousticoil out of my CC and put in his F. The effect was positve and instantaneous. He found centering easier and less fatigue in his high register. The performance was excellent.

Another college student of mine has an Alex 163, late '70s vintage. This is a very typical Alex. Good sound, questionable intonation. This student already plays this horn pretty well and has figued out its quirks. When he tried the acousticoil he felt he had to do less compensating.

I use them on my 3050, Mirafone euphonium (5RV), and MW35CC. My PT10 works better without it.

If it works for you great. If not great. The goal is to make the best music we can.

TG

There was no damage done james. I was simply stating that all to often members of this board offer "lessons" although ill informed. I believe I've passed the search of the "quick" fix. But I see no problem in abiding by Aristole's words. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"

If the marketers of the acousticoil could have told me WHERE to put it in my F tuba to make that low C easier to play.....maybe I wouldn't have had to send it back. If someone would just tell me WHERE to put a dent in my leadpipe, or in my bell, for the same problem, by golly I just might stick a wad of chewing gum in there and see what happens. Where ARE the damn nodes, anyway?
MA, who is not an acoustical engineer