the last 1%...

[ken k]

You are of course correct in that the lighter weight tubas do respond quicker and tend to be a bit more flexible in their character. I think of some of the old Czervenys I have played over the years which are very easy to play and very flexible. They also tend to get more edgy at louder dynamics quicker than heavier instruments. Which is what I think the big sell is with heavy weight horns recently. You may remember back in the day when guys would put leather straps around their bells to make them "hold-up" to loud playing better. This of course defeated the light and flexible sound.

When I had the lead pipe on my Boosey mounted off the bell it made a huge difference in the response of the bell. the old pipe was soldered right on the bell and wrapped half way around it. Now the horn just rings in my hands now when I play it, which I think is very cool. That modification was in vogue back in the day also, but you don't see much of it anymore.

I also play trombone and the big thing in the custom trombone world right now is custom bell weights. The heavyweight or orchestral set up is a 20 guage bell vs. most standard bells, which are more along the line of 22 or 23 guage from what I understand. I set my bass bone up for big band with a light weight bell to get that edgy rasp a bit more easily. Surprisingly too however the bell material does respoind differently also. Gold brass bells have a warmer sound at lower dynamics, but they tend to "edge-out" quicker also. So I guess it is just a matter of what kind of sound or feel you prefer. At least this is the feel to the player. How much of a difference there is out in the audience one can not tell while playing.

ken k

[Jay Bertolet]

A topic we've debated many a time Joe!

I think Ken K. has hit the proverbial nail on the head: We need a horn that stands up to more volume to play in the orchestra today. Halls are larger. Instruments are bigger. And look at the number of Focal Dystonia incidents recently. While nobody is publicly correlating the recent trends in playing (bigger and louder is better) and these "incidents", you can bet that I am aware of it. I think we're seeing a very predictable series of design changes that are leading us down a path.

But let's examine your assertion again.

"All of that being said, I have just about come to the conclusion that thin-walled instruments are more responsive (most often to my taste in a positive way) than (the vogue since the mid-late 80's) "heavy-wall" instruments."

I agree! I know, that breaks your heart. But this is a rather obvious point, eh? Where we may disagree is in the application of that equipment. If you look at soloists, I think you'll see that most are using a thinner walled horn. I can name a few soloists that are using horns that are relatively thin walled. I think this is because they are more responsive. But I don't think these horns are used to their best effect in larger ensembles where you'll usually find what you term as the "in vogue instruments".

What I find ironic is that the combination of the two approaches, making a very large 6/4 tuba with a relatively thin wall construction, yields a horn that can produce a surprising amount and depth of sound. I can also name several examples of such horns that are currently in the hands of professional orchestral tubists.

I have no desire to buzz my lips into the orifices of a beautiful woman. I can think of much better things to do. As long as we're talking about tools, let's agree to use the proper ones (the ones that make us sound the best for the type of playing we're doing) for the jobs we do. Hence, the variances in current designs and approaches.

My opinion for what it's worth..

[Philip Jensen]

I'd like to see comparison on the effects of heavy weight mouthpieces and heavyweight valve caps on thin vs thick walled tubas.

I recall on the old Tubenet it had been put forth that these "gimmicks" did make a difference, but only for those using thin-walled instruments. I'd be very interested in a careful test of this - paraticularly a blind listening test, not a player test. In using these devices, then would one lose the desireable characteristics that Joe likes.

My tuba is of the thin-walled variety, and as Ken K. pointed out, it does tend to get edgy at louder volumes. I admit to being tempted by some kind of heavyweight

Joe, I don't think of it as plowing, more like bulldozing, but only when called for. I'd like to be able to play like those crazy bikers on the X games. On that scale though, I think I've finally got rid of those training wheels and am starting to do some exploring

[Chuck(G)]

Well Joe, if it's true that thin-wall instruments respond better than the boat anchors, you need to attach a "response augmentation" surcharge the next time you overhaul one of those school Miraphones-that-have-been-buffed-so-many-times-you-can-poke-your-finger-through-the-brass.

[Jay Bertolet]

I only mention the size of modern day halls because it is a part of a current trend towards more volume. My understanding of hall acoustics is that the magic number (of total seating) is around 1500. If the number is 1500 or smaller, the acoustics have a good chance for success, all other things being equal. It is when that number of total seats begins to top 2000 that we see a much lesser chance of a successful acoustic space.

I don't know off the top of my head what the total seating is in that new hall near you in Memphis but I do know what the seatings are in the two new halls here in South Florida. Both are over 2500. The one in Fort Lauderdale is an acoustical nightmare. The one in West Palm is much better but I'm told it sounds much better on stage than in the audience. And of course, the new facility in Miami is also planned to have over 2500 seats.

Hall sizes are just an obvious component of the larger problem orchestral musicians face today. We are all being asked to play louder. String players are having more physical problems than ever. Woodwind players are using new reeds that will produce larger, less refined sounds. Brass players are all using increasingly larger equipment. I definitely believe the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way but this is where we are now. Current product offerings reflect that and the heavier walled, larger tubas will produce more sound and tolerate being played louder than their thin walled cousins. In a world where just 1% could make the difference, perhaps this is why we see so many professionals going to this equipment. Certainly, the rigors of the job are such that the 1% gain, spread out over the vast numbers of services in a career, could mean extra years of playing instead of early retirement due to physical problems.

My opinion for what it's worth..

[imperialbari]

Thin walled brasses have been made for specific purposes.

Olds made a “Recordingâ€

[Matthew Gaunt]

I'd like to see comparison on the effects of heavy weight mouthpieces and heavyweight valve caps on thin vs thick walled tubas.

For my $.02, the best mouthpiece by far when I was/am playing the rudy 3/4 cc (thin-ish) was the monette 94 (heavy). However when I use that mouthpiece on my mw 2145 (heavy) it feels like I am blowing into a concrete wall. For me, heavy horn needs light mouthpiece and vice versa for opposite reasons (help response vs help hold the sound together)

am sure there are exceptions...
matt

[glangfur]

Great post Harold.

Here's a contribution on the subject from your friends to the right...

http://www.yeodoug.com/articles/text/teamplayer.html

Given the choice of a tuba player with a focused sound lively with overtones, and one with a huge, diffuse sound with almost nothing but fundamental, I will always choose to play with the former. I don't care what instrument the sound comes from. I get that with Matt Gaunt and John Manning, who tend to play smaller horns (actually, I've played with Matt with him playing at least four different tubas, and he's had that focus on all of them), and I get it with Mike Roylance and Randy Montgomery, who play 6/4 Nirschls. I also get it with Greg Fritze in the RI Phil on a PT-6P, and I always loved playing with Steve Campbell when he was in Boston playing a PT-6 as well.

The player and the concept matter more than the instrument, and it's up to each player to find the instrument that most readily helps to produce that concept.

[Chuck(G)]

All I know is that after spending $5200 on a tuba and a gigbag to put it in, I'll be switched if I'm gonna mess with it by removing the laquer now. I like my horns to be sparkly and shiney, it intimidates the trumpets (as it should).

Hmmm--how about painting your horn with metallic gold-flake Imron, Wayne? That'd be pretty sparkly!

I've got an old Henry Distin eefer that's made pretty thin and it's one of the most responsive horns I've ever played--it comes alive with very little effort at all.

[CJ Krause]

***

[TubaKen]

Very interesting discussion. I second Harold's observation (based on Jacobs) that the mental "image" of the sound one is trying to create is more important than any small variance do to lacquer, thickness of material, etc. The second most important factor has got to be the sound the performer hears himself, which doesn't necessarily correspond to what gets out into the hall. A thin-walled bell is going to feel more responsive and "alive" than a thick-walled because it is vibating slightly more and thus gives the player more feedback. This may be audible as well to players immediately around the tubist (say in a quintet), but I don't buy that any of this makes a differnce to the audience. What is primarily vibrating in a wind instrument is the air-column, not the bell or the tubing. And the interior shape and volume of the horn (and thus of the air-column) is 100 times more important than if the istrument is thin-walled or lacqured or silver or titanium or made of cheese for that matter. Same goes for mouthpieces. The interior shape is all that matters. Having a 3 pound hunk of brass stuck on the end of your leadpipe is just a mental pacifier (oops, that was kinda harsh; sorry).
As to the practice of open-wrapping trombones, or using special water keys which "don't impede the air flow" in brass instruments, that is total B.S. There isn't enough air coming out of a trombone bell (even at FFF) to deflect the flight-path of a mosquito. Again, it's the air-column vibrating, not "wind" going through the horn.
My $.02,
Ken

[Jeff Miller]

As to the practice of open-wrapping trombones, or using special water keys which "don't impede the air flow" in brass instruments, that is total B.S. There isn't enough air coming out of a trombone bell (even at FFF) to deflect the flight-path of a mosquito. Again, it's the air-column vibrating, not "wind" going through the horn.
My $.02,
Ken

Although I agree with the points about the importance of concept, I have to disagree with the point about open-wrapping trombones. When I had my bass trombone open-wrapped, it made a very noticable difference in the way the instrument responded and centered.

I think a lot of these acoustics arguments are mis-directed. I think we often use a bit of physics to justify or dismiss something, when the physics we are referring to are misapplied to the phenomenom under discussion.

There is a very substantial difference in the physics of linear fluid flow (i.e. blowing air through a tuba without buzzing) vs. the physics of vibrating air columns. In one instance, you're only measuring 2 or 3 variables; in the other, you're dealing with a much more complex system requiring many times as many variables to describe. For instance, open-wrapping trombones. I don't think that the impedence of a free-flowing, non-vibrating stream of air will be greatly affected by the difference between an open or closed wrap. However, every bend in a tube has the same effect as a dent or bulge to a vibrating air mass. This in turn can greatly affect the acoustical properties of the instrument, whereas the fluid flow properties may be relatively unchanged.

Once again, my $.02.

Jeff

[TubaKen]

I think we often use a bit of physics to justify or dismiss something, when the physics we are referring to are misapplied to the phenomenom under discussion...

...I don't think that the impedence of a free-flowing, non-vibrating stream of air will be greatly affected by the difference between an open or closed wrap. However, every bend in a tube has the same effect as a dent or bulge to a vibrating air mass. This in turn can greatly affect the acoustical properties of the instrument, whereas the fluid flow properties may be relatively unchanged.

O.K., I buy the acoustical argument that the shape of the tubing can affect the vibrating air column, in the way that a bad dent can affect a certain note or notes depending on the frequency of the wave form. But, every trombonist I've spoken to regarding the reasons for doing an open wrap speaks in terms of "it's more free-blowing" which "opens up the sound". I don't like to point out the error in their thinking, as they tend to be an argumentative bunch
But, seriously, a "bit of physics" is about all I can muster. If someone here can enlighten me as to the acoustic reasons for doing open wrap trombones, and why it's better (and not just different), please do so.
Thanks

[Mudman]

Many trombonists claim that the closed-wrap Bach 42 plays better than an open-wrap 42. (Usually older players who took the time to learn how to make the older style work.) The weak point in that design is as Bloke points out, at the stuffy valve body.

Bigger differences are noticeable on bass trombones where you are forced to route the air through two sets of valves. A closed-wrap Bach 50 (bass trombone) does not play as well as an open-wrap Bach 50. You have to move much more air using the closed wrap system to get the same sound as on the open-wrap horn. (From personal experience.) Fast technical passages that use the valves are more difficult on a closed-wrap Bach 50.

As with any horn, you can learn how to compensate for any trigger notes. But why make it more difficult than it needs to be.

Bass trombone has been my professional axe for about ten years. When thayer valves came out, they dramatically changed the possibilities on a bass trombone. These valves were produced with open-wrap tubing attached. Nowdays just about anybody can get a huge sound in the trigger register. Sometimes, this system can be too open and diffuse sounding. (One attack sound is possible instead of the many colors available on a less leaky horn with more resistance.)

In conclusion, I would say that the valve design itself makes a bigger difference than the wrap. Yamaha's very nice rotor (on the 682 series) will improve a Bach's freeness in the trigger register. The stuffy valves on Bach horns do not maintain a circular path for the air. Greenhoe valves are an improvement over traditional rotors in that the air flows through actual brass tubes in the valve body. The horn blows as freely wether you are on the trigger side of the horn or not. Thayer valves allow you to blow with the least possible resistance, but they are leaky by design. It seems like the biggest name players use Thayer's, but when most people use them, there is a certain lack of excitement and variety in articulation. (The American school of trombone playing.)

[MartyNeilan]

Many trombonists claim that the closed-wrap Bach 42 plays better than an open-wrap 42.

I have talked to tenor trombonists about this and observed many copies of both closed wrap and open wrap 42's. The biggest problem with the open wrap 42 is that Bach soldered a huge brace right on the middle of the bell to support the open wrap tubing. I have been told that when this brace is removed and relocated the open wraps play with a much more open sound and better response.

I am sure the decline (or inconsistency?) in Bach quality also has something to do with the older closed wrap models playing better.

[Jonathan Fowler]

I think that substantial dents in the bell, not the bottom bow, do indeed cause playing changes in the horn. Since the bell is the one item on the horn itself that can be changed to drastically alter the sound/feel of an instrument(other than the leadpipe) Likewise, any modifications done inside of the istrument, particularly to the slides is magnified (such as ill-fitted ferrels (sp?) or beveled slide ends) significantly because this is the first place (other than the leadpipe) that the airstream hits.

[glangfur]

What many of us don't seem to realize is that most of what we are doing is ruled by the laws of physics. As such, we should be able to show scientifically that a change has taken place.

We've had this discussion so many times on the various trombone forums, I don't know if I can stand to do it again, but here goes.

The laws of physics are nothing more than descriptions of what actually happens. Physicists get better and better at describing and predicting, but their knowledge always reaches a limit. In the case of brass instruments, they really don't understand the entire system, and any physycist who has really studied it will admit that.

The fact, supported by an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence, is simply that changing aspects of a brass instrument, interior or exterior dimensions or weight or properties of materials, changes aspects of how the instrument sounds and responds to the player. That physicists don't completely understand why doesn't change that overwhelming evidence.

Bloke, in the case of the Bach open-wrap, we're not talking about a tiny brace, we're talking about the biggest brace on the instrument. It makes a BIG difference...and furthermore, small braces make a difference too.

One of the smartest people I know is a very good amateur horn player and a leading MIT physicist, who is devoting his retirement to studying the physics of brass instruments. His working theory at this point boils down to this: changes in materials and the distribution and amount of mass on an instrument of course don't change much about the vibrating air column inside the horn, but they have profound effects on the feedback loop that involves the source of the vibration itself, the buzz.

In other words, the differences we're talking about in instrument design directly affect the way your lips buzz. You have to be starting with good input from your brain and body, but the instrument itself, including how much mass there is at the mouthpiece and at other important parts of the instrument, and where and how heavy the braces are, and every other aspect of the physical properties of the instrument, contribute feedback to the input you are producing at your lips.

This rings true with my experience, and I think ultimately he will be proven correct.

[TubaKen]

Once again Harold has hit the nail on the head. Any of these changes to the instrument (open wrapping a trombone, using a gigantic machined cylinder of brass as a mouthpiece, etc.) are going to make a difference. The question is whether this difference is mostly in the mind of the player, or if there is some objective way to measure exactly what has changed, and why this produces a better (or worse) result. As has been pointed out, the science isn't mature enough to describe all the variables in musical instruments, and we are thus left with the subjective impressions of the musician as the final arbiter.

This leads (at least in my mind) to a lot of questionable things being done to brass instruments, like modifications to make the air-flow less restrictive (open wrapping 'bones, changing tuba rotors so they don't turn against the "wind"), cryogenic freezing, etc. (If a player has shelled out several hundred dollars to deep-freeze his axe, he has a strong motivation to hear a positive result.)

My statement of a few posts back that open wrapping trombones was "total b.s." was obviously over the top. Of course it makes a difference. What I was trying to communicate was that the reasons usually given for doing so are entirely wrong-headed; there is very, very little air going through the horn, and sharp hairpin turns, etc. are entirely irrelavent. Why an open wrapped 'bone plays better (and not just different) is still a mystery to me, and to the readers of this forum, as far as I can tell.
Ken

[glangfur]

The change is in the psychology of the player - arguably the endpoint of the feedback loop - where there is a difference that is thus far not measurable.

The question to be answered at this point isn't "What can I do to change my horn to change my sound?" it is "What can I do to change my perception of my playing to find the sound that I want?"

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I think you're taking an extreme viewpoint. If what you say is true, then the carbon fiber tuba bells really should sound just as good as brass ones, and I think it's clear that's not the case. Equipment matters, and so does the player. Which matters more? Certainly the player, ultimately, but a great player playing equipment that really suits him or her (or that they know intimately) will always sound better and be more comfortable than the same player playing a cheap, badly constructed student instrument.

This gets directly back to my quote from Jacobs - that you have to hear what you want in your sound and then find a way to create it. Would Mr. Jacobs approve of someone altering their horn in order to improve their sound? I would guess that he would - if it gave you the results you were looking for.

Look at a collection of photos of Arnold Jacobs, and I'll bet you that in at least a third of them he has an adjustable cup mouthpiece.

My point being that we traditionally look to change the horn which is responsible for probably only 15% of our sound instead of changing our perception which is responsible for the other 85%.

I think your percentages are off, on something that's essentially unquantifiable anyway. And the percentage will vary in any comparison depending on how radical a difference there is between the equipment you are comparing. A 6/4 Nirschl will sound radically different than a 3/4 Yamaha for any player. Maybe not so much on one middle-register, middle-dynamic note, but as soon as you start doing anything musical with different ranges and different dynamics, there will be big differences, and you won't even have to be a musician to hear them.

[ken k]

Reading the other post on the tubenet asking about the Kelly mouthpieces got me thinking about this thread a little bit.

When I play the Kellyberg mouthpiece, which is supposed to be close to the Helleberg in dimension, it feels totally different than the metal version and the sound is different (to me at least). According to Joe's original post of this thread. It shouldn't make any difference what material it is made of, but in the case of the Kelly mouthpieces, I would have to disagree. Now how different the sound is out front I do not know. It would be interesting to have a "blind taste tester" out front to hear if there is a difference between number 1 and number 2.

I also have the R& S heavyweight. Now that plays much differently to me. Is it the extra mass or the slight difference in dimension that make it play differently?

I would think the different material has to affect the sound, just as the extra mass of the heavyweight would have a definite effect on the way the mouthpiece works. Again they sure feel alot different, sdo they sound different out front? Only my hairdresser knows I guess.

ken k