Heavy bracing on tuba?

[Dylan King]

I'm sure you have all seen the Monette and Taylor trumpets with the heavy bracing. I've read that the heavy bracing puts more energy from the sound (or vibration) into the actual output from the bell. I also hear that it helps with articulation, projection, and many other claims. Many pro trumpets like them in the jazz world, but not so much in orchestras and recording situations.

I wonder what effect heavy sheet bracing would have on a tuba. There is a dude on ebay who could probably do it, but I bet it would be expensive. Check this fluglehorn out. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... RK:MEWA:IT

Has anybody heard of a tuba modified in a similar way? Could you imagine the kind of work it would take to do this?

Would you fellow tubists do it to your own horn? Let's for arguments sake say that it was offered to you for free. I have thought about this way too much. Part of me thinks that it could be an great experiment, but the other side of my brain says it could mess up the horn forever.

I wonder what would happen...

[Roger Lewis]

from what I've seen it doesn't do much except give you more exercise trying to hold up something that requires a bigger bell to get the same amount of sound out as a regular trumpet. I refer to the Taylor horns as "boomerang horns" they go out...and come back...out....and back. Why would they have to put a much bigger bell on something that is supposed to project better? I think that this is just smoke and mirrors more than anything else.

Just my $0.02

[Daryl Fletcher]

I think it would be an interesting experiment, but for what I'm doing these days, the last thing I would want is something even heavier to carry to gigs.

[Dan Schultz]

Hmmm.... $761 for a $3,000 horn?? Personally, I think the thing looks really stupid! We need Rick Denny to work this topic over, but my feeling is that adding anything to a tuba would detract from the energy output.... doesn't matter if it's heavy lacquer or extra metal.

[Matt G]

I'm sure there is plenty of empirical proof that this extra sheet metal will improve the performance of any horn.

Just like the way the '57 Chevy's Fins made it faster than the '56 Chevy!

Or was it just the increase from 265ci to 283ci?

Musta been the fins!

Many pro trumpets like them in the jazz world, but not so much in orchestras and recording situations.

There is your answer. In "real", unamplified situations, players will tend to go with the lightest horn possible. What heavy horns seem to do is rob the instrument of upper overtones at louder volumes, which makes it sound "darker". The trade off seems to be loss of projection at all other dynamic levels along with loss of tonal and intonation flexibility (Monette's tend to have very definite slots from what I've been told).

Even in recording situations, players want to have a horn that "sizzles". Our trumpet friends call this a lead horn or some other nonsense, but it tends to be a lightweight Bb ala the Claude Gordon models.

Jazz guys can wrap the bell of their Monette around a microphone and get that quasi Flugel sound and then bring it off and sound more trumpet-ish when they want. Overall, I bet there is much more money made on lightweight equipment than sheet metal laden average horns.

[Rick Denney]

We need Rick Denny to work this topic over, but my feeling is that adding anything to a tuba would detract from the energy output.... doesn't matter if it's heavy lacquer or extra metal.

No, we don't need me expounding on the subject, but since I do it for fun, you'll have to put up with it anyway.

We buzz our lips, creating a wide range of frequencies of sound. The vibration of that buzz resonates in the cavity of the mouthpiece, which filters some frequencies and amplifies others. Those that leak into the horn through the mouthpiece shank resonate in the cavity of the instrument. Some frequences are filtered, some cancel out, and some are amplified. Those that are amplified escape out the bell.

If we were to describe the frequencies damped and amplified by either our lips, the mouthpiece cavity, or the tuba cavity, we would describe the resistance of the isntrument to amplifiying certain frequencies, and the eagerness of the instrument to allow others to resonate sympathetically so that they are amplified. That description is called the impedance (okay, EE nitpickers keep to yourself, heh, heh).

The brass vibrates as a result of the air within it vibrating. The amplitude of that vibration is quite small, otherwise we'd get a noticeable hand massage every time we blew a note. Also, we damped such vibration by putting the instrument in our fleshy laps and by holding it with our fleshy hands.

As with the lips and the cavities in the mouthpiece and tuba, the brass itself has an impedance, which describes the frequences that it weakens versus those that it strengthens. The effect is not strong--tubas tend to vibrate at frequences well above those that are audible in tuba sound. And the vibration is usually spread over such a wide range of frequencies that it can't have a big effect on any one frequency. For example, hold your instrument in its normal position, and tap it with a fingernail at various places to exite vibration in the brass. You'll almost always just hear a thud, or at most a clang. Rarely will you hear a ring, which identifies a resonant frequency and the ability to filter out all the other frequencies.

The impedance of the tuba brass is controlled by the mass and stiffness of the brass, plus any external damping. Additional mass lowers the resonant frequency (if there is any discernable resonance) while increasing the required excitation force. Additional mass often means additional stiffness, if the mass is added to the general structure (as by making the brass thicker). This increases the stiffness. But you can also increase the stiffness without adding much mass, by adding more bracing. Increase stiffness (with mass held the same) increases the frequency of whatever resonance might be there, while also increasing the required excitation force.

You can demonstrate both principles with this example. I own a Subaru and a motorhome. Both rest on springs. I can stand on the bumper of the Subaru and jump up and down. If I do so at the right frequency and if I remove the damping effect of the shocks (and if I can hang on), I can make the car hop off the ground. If I jump on the bumper of my motorhome, I can hardly make it move, because the extra mass and stiffer springs need higher excitation force than the weight of my body can provide. If I hang a small weight on a spring, I can make it bounce up and down with the smallest input of energy, if I do it at the right frequency. If I make the weight much heavier, it will require more energy, and it will hop up and down at a slower frequency. If I stiffen the spring, it will require more energy, and hop up and down at a faster frequency. You get the idea.

We damp the vibration of the tuba by holding it against our soft, plastic bodies as we play. Some people try to damp vibration by, say, putting a belt around the bell throat. This has a small damping effect, but it also preloads the brass, which increases the force needed to excite vibration.

Okay, what does this all mean?

Massively bracing a tuba adds considerable mass, but even more stiffness. Thus, the net effect on resonant frequencies is to go up, further away from the frequencies where tubas produce sound. This lowers the effect of the brass vibration on that sound. But the vast increas in stiffness also dramatically increases the energy required to excite vibration. Thus, the instrument vibrates much less for a given amount of vibration of the air within it.

Does the vibration of the brass of a tuba affect the vibration of the air? Probably a little, but probably not enough in the frequencies of tuba sound to be audible. The impedance is wrong. But it will reduce the felt vibration in your hands, and for me that is undesirable.

The energy required to set brass to vibration (if it is resonant) is so little that it pulls nothing noticeable from the sound. It's a tiny influence on an effect that most would find negligible in the first place.

Trumpets are likely different. Characteristic trumpet sound includes considerable edge, which sounds like edge because of the very high frequencies that are part of the sound. Massively bracing a trumpet minimizes the effect of the brass on those frequencies. That's a little closer to the frequencies at which the brass clangs, so there's a greater chance of having an audible effect. But I still think the effect is pretty small, and not always desireable.

Rick "who likes his Holton in particular because the brass vibrates a little" Denney

[Dan Schultz]

We need Rick Denny to work this topic over, but my feeling is that adding anything to a tuba would detract from the energy output.... doesn't matter if it's heavy lacquer or extra metal.

No, we don't need me expounding on the subject, but since I do it for fun, you'll have to put up with it anyway.

We buzz our lips, ..... etc. etc....

Rick "who likes his Holton in particular because the brass vibrates a little" Denney

Thanks, Rick! I knew you would have a simple explanation. Tubas are a little different from the automobile horns I worked with a few years back. With car horns, mass and resistance are very important factors in acheiving effeciency. On a car horn the bracket design is as important as the horn itself. Too little or too much mass it doesn't work. Too little or too much resistance it doesn't work either.

[Dylan King]

Rick is all rock and roll. We are blessed here on tubenet to get such wise answers to day-dream ideas like sheet bracing. It sounds like Monette won't be building an art-deco tuba anytime soon.

[Dylan King]

This dude is crazy!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 47276&rd=1

[MartyNeilan]

Hmmmmmmmmmm doesn't that two foot long bell sticking out unbraced into the thin air kind of nullify any effect of all the bracing on the other end?

[Matt G]

This dude is crazy!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 47276&rd=1

Ya got that right, Dylan.
That horn's not even remotely attractive.

And it is a P.O.S. to boot.

The fact that the guy is wasting time and sheet metal on Jupiter Flugelhorns and Conn "Victor" Trumpets should allude to the fact that he is playing with far less than a full deck.

I wonder how many trumpet players are foolish enough to buy that stuff.

[ThomasDodd]

I wonder how many trumpet players are foolish enough to buy that stuff.

If his feedback is any indication, a lot. I see one buyer that has 5 now (thent, Mar-16-04, Mar-04-04, Dec-30-03, Dec-19-03 at least).

[Chuck(G)]

Some of this stuff is interesting.

For example, his use of Saturn waterkeys, described here.

http://www.deniswedgwood.com/index.html

(Only a trumpet player could appreciate a $35 waterkey).

On the bracing thing, I can only speak from my own experience. when assembling one of my own project horns.

Braces are a necessary evil--they're time consuming to fit correctly and clean up after, so from the standpoint of labor, the fewer the better. And so, when I assemble an instrument, I first place the braces necessary for mechanical support of components and give the horn a test play.

If it plays well--okay, I'm done except for cleanup.

However, it's more often the case that a note will seem "fuzzy" or less responsive than others. For me, the best way to identify where an additional brace is ncessary is to play the note over and over and feel around with my fingers for vibration. When I find a component that seems to be vibrating more than its surroundings, I add a brace. Usually, this improves things--from the viewpoint of the guy behind the mouthpiece.

But if I ask my wife to do a before-and-after listening test, she can't tell the difference. It seems to be purely a matter of feedback to the player.

Would I want another 5 pounds of sheet metal bracing added to my tuba? I don't think so--if the horn had to be disassembled for servicing, it'd be very difficult to reassemble with the same fit. If I need more bracing, I think I'll stick with the old rod-and-flange system.