The bulk of the musical talk
thread is derailing. Had a chance to define ambiguous word "core" for once and for all (at least within tubenet). very simple: listen to tuba recording and play with an equalizer to pick out the "core". if you won't do that you can't possibly be interested in this. I think you'll find the 250 octave to fit...maybe maybe not with a touch of the 500 octave.
Oh, I've been sitting down with spectrum analyzer and different microphone setups in concernt halls.(stage, front, back)
I know where I want the majorety of my sound energy to be (relativ to the fundamental)
I know what frequencies my hearing is most sensitive to (as a function to SPL)
But I agree.....what gives character to the sound is far above the fundamental
I'm just not ready to embrace the pertains-to-tuba-sound definition of the word, "core", as anything even close to specific, and certainly not scientific - just because one person is comfortable with their definition. When a whole bunch of "one persons" have definition(s), the word, basically is useless (perhaps, other than to say a tuba has "lots of it" when advertising it for sale)...
...and yeah, the reason I supplied the link (with the specific time index) is to (simply) ask:
Do (??) a plurality of tuba players who use the word "core" (simply) mean that the tuba is capable of being played with a slightly-brassy sound with some "burn" (almost as vague as "core", but less vague than "slightly brassy") in the characteristic of the sound ?
...and yeah, I've often thought that many other threads were "going off their rails", but I then quickly came to the realization that (simply) others who posted didn't agree with me...in spite of my detailed explanations supported with charts and graphs.
bloke "I'd wager that most will agree that - regarding the link previously supplied in this thread - my bass trombone-playing friend and I (again: at the place indexed) do not sound like that online 'fundamental' tone generator."
Completely personally, I experience a lot of brass band BBb players, and I separate their sounds on a scale of core>>>fog. I find core more useful to me in a section.
Core to me is clean, lots of tone/meat, no "fuzz", nimble and accurate. More yolk than white!
But I'm just a band wally.
Andy Cattanach, UK
Fodens Band, Intrada Brass Ensemble.
Yamaha Neo BBb x 2 (2011 and 2016), B+H 3v Imperial BBb.
Yamaha YBL613H Bass Trombone.
Mike Finn 3 and 4, Yeo Signature Mouthpieces.
Since Bloke keeps calling out to me a short reply.
Yes, core/fundamental are rather useless. They are used to try to point out the timbre difference.
You can find more info under 'timbre classification' and 'synthesis of sound' (computer)
Much to complicated for me
Before I disturb the sleeping beasts, I will preface this by saying I had the ultimate experience and honor and good luck in HS to study with members of the CSO. It doesn't make me better or holier than thou, I just had a grandma that was willing to dip into her savings to send me downtown every two weeks...
That said, any time I heard a discussion of 'core' sound, it was, as was just said, an issue of sound quality, not pitch... Crisafulli warned of getting a great core to your sound, but no depth or warmth. The other way I heard it said was, be careful not be a brass technician, but a brass musician. Having core to your sound was essential, but not the end game.
Now, the best discussion I ever heard about this topic (and the word that day was 'fundamental') was the effect (affect?) buzzing has on this idea.... In short, there were no winners that day other than those of us listening....
St. Joseph Symphony Orchestra (MO)
Brat-n-Stein Festival Tuba Quartet
York Eb 66
Who is online