Body Resonance = part of good tone?

[ahowle]

It could be the room you're playing in. Some of the practice rooms where I practice will vibrate a lot... one time I was playing and some metal pieces fell off the thermostat in the room from the vibrations that would occur when I played. Does this happen on a particular note, on a couple notes, or on every note?

[crbarnes]

I have studied both singing and play tuba. Each of us have several areas in our face and chest that have the ability to resonate. The singer's facial mask (the cheeks and forehead including the sinus passages) is an example. It is logical (to me) that the chest cavity is another. Given specific dimensions, etc. the resonance you speak of could easily be a result of a sympathetic pitch being played. If the throat is open, etc. then the skeletal structure of the chest could also contribute. Due to physical variations, this "magic" note will vary from one person to the other. In a similar manner, my 1291 has a note or two where the horn resonates differently to the player. Another similar phenomenon would be the center board hum of a small sailing boat or a tympani close to where you play, etc. This is different from the sympathetic vibrations of a snare drum, which is more related to any frequency near by. When I sing, there are a few notes that feel different than the rest for the same reasons.

[tubatooter1940]

I doubt if resonating with objects and/or your own body parts has anything to do with good or desirable tone. This is a coincidence of objects or parts being of a size and mass to vibrate with certain frequencies whether played with lousy or (good) tone.

[crbarnes]

I agree with the idea that it has no particular impact on the sound you produce as a brass player. A vocalist's instrument is the body and it does have an effect. This is more of a feeling you get as a player than a resultant effect for the listener. I feel my horn resonate on different pitches but it has no effect on the output through the horn.

[Rick Denney]

...It is logical (to me) that the chest cavity is another....

I rather doubt that the air in the lungs will vibrate much with sound. Lungs are not a single open chamber that can resonate, but rather a networks of passages more like a sponge. I would not expect much sound propagation.

The skeleton can vibrate, of course, though it is well-damped by all that mushy stuff surrounding it. And liquid in the lungs can also rattle, as those suffering from chest congestion (as I have been for a week now) can tell you. But both of these are mechanical vibrations, not resonance of the air in the lungs.

Of course, the oral and sinus cavities are open, and can resonate. I don't know to what extent they do.

There are other cavities that can hold air and be open enough to resonate. Or, well, they can hold gas, anyway. Resonance there is not considered a good thing.

Rick "who heard some remarkable resonances among those who ate the chili at the Quarterdeck this year" Denney

[Mitch]

Resonance is frequently neglected as a malleable aspect of sound production, be it in the body or in the instrument. It has been argued that a great instrument is one that resonates with the body, and vice-versa. This can be why one performer finds an instant appeal with an antique "great" violin, while the same instrument may leave another equally-skilled performer uninspired.

I have a friend who is an impeccable builder of instruments such as harpsichords, violins, guitars, clavichords, fortepianos, etc. His skills are not just in his hands; prior to building his instruments, he has made a gargantuan effort to understand not only the instruments of the masters, but their philosphy of creating. As a result, the one consistent factor found in the works of master builders is their efforts to design resonance into the instrument. Cristofori included this in his fortepianos, Silbermann seems to have not. This may be why Bach was not especially fond of the piano as he first encountered it; his first experience with a piano was purported to be a Silbermann copy of a Cristofori. It is believed by some that Silbermann built a dimensional copy of Cristofori's piano, not a tonal one. Similarly, Stradavari did this with his violins, while many who've copied his works have not. Many copies are exact in the sense of so-many millimeters from here to here, etc., but are not carved the way Stradavari carved. Before making his first violin, this friend of mine studied every instrument from the masters he could get his hands on. He found in all of them a particular tonal mapping, where the front and back of the body were carved so that specific areas were carved/tuned to resonate, when struck, to specific overtones. Stradavari's early violins have varying tonal mapping; it's almost a window into his experimentation. If memory serves correctly, all the violins from his Master Period all have the same tonal map. It's not likely so much the varnish, the wood, the age, etc., of a Stradivarius, as much as simply the exceptional hands and ears of a Master Craftsman.

This same aspect can be found in the most exceptional examples of early keyboard instruments. Key parts are "tuned" in effect, including the key itself, the lift jacks, etc. Believe what you will about this way of thinking, but know that the Chicago Symphony Orchestra has rented his harpsichords in the past, and he made a copy of the "Gibson" Guarneri del Jesu for Ruggiero Ricci that Ricci said was virtually impossible to tell from the original, that the feel, the sound, everything on the new instrument was as though it were 300 years old. The maker is Keith Hill, and more can be found at [/url]www.keithhillharpsichords.com[url].

The body's proportions are largely the same as sound's, with respect to the Golden Ratio (1:1.618), simply defined as a+b is to a, as a is to b, such that the sum of the distance of segments a and b, where a is longer than b, is proportional to segment a, and a carries the same proportional relationship to segment b. This is found in the body, where, playing the averages of bodies, the length of the shortest joint of a finger is .618 of the next longest, down to the wrist, the hand is .618 the length of the forearm. The length of the hand plus the length of the forearm is .618 the length of the whole arm. From chin to eyes is .618 the height of the head. This proportion is found throughout the body. If you experiment, you will find that your sternum (breastbone) has a pitch. In a quiet room, you will find yours is likely a different pitch from other people (it's easier to hear the different pitches when you've got at least a few different people involved). Mr. Hill's theory extends that the bones in the body relate to that "fundamental" of the sternum. As far as body resonance goes, exhale fully and tap firmly on your sternum (about 4 fingers' distance from the top), then inhale fully, and see if you notice a difference. I don't know that this will cause the body to specifically resonate to specific played pitches, but the body does resonate, and sound travels through bone (ever put a vibrating tuning fork on your elbow while your finger was over your ear?), so it seems like it should maybe be part of the discussion. Think what you may about some of this, but people will pay $50,000 for a Keith Hill harpsichord.

I have not yet come across a tuba that carries fully (or deliberately?) this same idea of craftsmanship. Metal resonates. Ever struck the bell? How does that sound relate to the bottom bow? I've found that on instruments I believe to be exceptionally resonant, the bottom bow relates to the bell, i.e., resonates a partial of the bell's pitch. I've struck bells that resonate a single pitch, and I've struck bells that sound like a garbage can. On tubas I thought to have a dead sound, I found that many different pitches could be found all around the parts of the horn when struck. Those horns also had resonating overtones not favorable to the pitch being played. On tubas I thought to be exceptionally resonant, including a Nirschl/York (genuine bell & bottom bow) EXACT copy of the CSO York, I found very few pitches around the horn, most of them relating as partials of the bell/fundamental. FWIW. My theory is that this is why "York Copy" type horns are still really hit-or-miss as to how they play. I've heard some played that essentially had a different overtone/tone coloring to every valve combination, essentially having as many as six or seven timbres in a single octave. They've copied the dimensions of a good York, but not the construction. This might also be why some old Yorks are great, some not so much. This might also be why some have a great sound as an upright, but lose "something" when converted to front action and/or cut from BBb to CC. When converted to CC, the proportions of taper may no longer relate to the whole horn as before. The piece(s) that was shortened will no longer perform the function of resonance it previously related to the whole. The horn might be pitched in CC, but not resonate well as a CC tuba. I haven't yet come across any literature from tuba makers that says their construction and design is determined by study and deliberate integration of resonance, but rather that their construction and design is aimed at hoping to achieve resonance. Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere.
FWIW.

Mitch "who's not ranting, but rather passionate about an aspect of tuba making that seems long overdue in discussion"

[iiipopes]

The body's proportions are largely the same as sound's, with respect to the Golden Ratio (1:1.618), simply defined as a+b is to a, as a is to b, such that the sum of the distance of segments a and b, where a is longer than b, is proportional to segment a, and a carries the same proportional relationship to segment b. This is found in the body, where, playing the averages of bodies, the length of the shortest joint of a finger is .618 of the next longest, down to the wrist, the hand is .618 the length of the forearm. The length of the hand plus the length of the forearm is .618 the length of the whole arm. From chin to eyes is .618 the height of the head. This proportion is found throughout the body. If you experiment, you will find that your sternum (breastbone) has a pitch. In a quiet room, you will find yours is likely a different pitch from other people (it's easier to hear the different pitches when you've got at least a few different people involved). Mr. Hill's theory extends that the bones in the body relate to that "fundamental" of the sternum. As far as body resonance goes, exhale fully and tap firmly on your sternum (about 4 fingers' distance from the top), then inhale fully, and see if you notice a difference. I don't know that this will cause the body to specifically resonate to specific played pitches, but the body does resonate, and sound travels through bone (ever put a vibrating tuning fork on your elbow while your finger was over your ear?), so it seems like it should maybe be part of the discussion. Think what you may about some of this, but people will pay $50,000 for a Keith Hill harpsichord.

As illustrated by daVinci's famous drawing.

[MaryAnn]

Mitch,

Several times I've posted on this board about Walter Lawson, a custom (french) horn maker, who has put scientific / acoustic theory into bell, leadpipe, horn, and mouthpiece design. This kind of approach has not made it into tuba making yet, that I know of.

MA

[Mitch]

Maryann,

Thank you for the information about Mr. Lawson's horns. It's an interesting website, to be sure.

It differs, however, from the discussion I'd intended. I admit I may be missing something, but it seems the acoustical design discussed on Mr. Lawson's website is geared toward the theoretical acoustical impact of the design. The site refers to computer designs for the horns, then construction to see if the horn measures up to what theoretical production should be, i.e., does it actually sound the way the design said it would.

The acoustic to which I refer is the actual physical sound of the horn, i.e., the metal. Beyond the design of the physical dimensions of the horns, it would be the sound dimensions of the horn. What sounds are produced by the metal itself, but when struck, rather than played? When I referred to Mr. Hill's harpsichords, the tuning to which I refer is not the tuning of the wires. Rather, he tunes the wood. The key is balanced not only physically, but acoustically, i.e., it produces the same sound/pitch wherever struck along the length of the key. This is repeated for every single wooden part of the key action, from where a finger touches the key back to where the plectrum plucks the string or hammer hits the wire. And it makes an AMAZING difference. I once had the opportunity to watch this process. I played the instrument before any modification had been done. It seemed fine. He worked on five key actions and put the entire action back in the instrument. Those five keys were ridiculously velvety, and all the others then felt clunky and awkward by comparison. A much broader range of expression was available in those five keys. I was astonished at the difference it made, something that seemed maybe trivial. This "tuning" of the wood is done througout the instrument. And I believe this is why his instruments are ridiculously crazy good. I've played a good number of harpsichords, and the differences between all the others and a Hill harpsichord are beyond description.

So my questions for tubas come back to the "tuning" of the metal itself. It's as much an open question, as I cannot say I know one way or another what difference it might make. But, as an example, take out a slide from a horn. Hang it from a string or something, then strike it with a finger so it vibrates, much like a tuning fork. What does it produce? Is it one, unified pitch? Does any overtone(s) produce enough sound to be heard along with the fundamental? I've come across some that will ring a single pitch, like a bell, and some that are at odds, either with a couple pitches fighting to be the fundamental, or a pronounced fundamental with a compatible overtone, or a pronounced fundamental.

The ultimate question addresses the fact that metal vibrates. I think we all agree on that. The question is whether controlling, deliberately, the way the metal vibrates, even without the horn being played, will impact the way the horn sounds when played.

If you've tried "ringing" a slide, go back to that. Rather than suspending the slide, hold between two fingers. Strike it again. Now squeeze it ever so slightly tighter. What happens? If you encountered overtones before, don't they start to disappear? I know that the slide back in the horn won't vibrate as much, but it will still vibrate. We know that sounds can cancel each other out. My question is more whether differing vibrations/pitches in the metal, be it in the slides, bows, or bell, are of considerable impact on the sound production of a tuba, given the large amount of metal and distance through which the air must travel, and whether those pitches, if controlled, can be made to significantly enhance a tuba. I've seen the incredible difference it can make in other instruments, so it begs of me the question of the impact it might have on a tuba.

Any thoughts?

[iiipopes]

In a very rough way, I had to damp the overring of my souzy bell. It was sounding rather mediocre, and I happened to bump the bell slightly. The "pitch" and overtones of the bell were all about quarter-tone off of any particular pitch. So, Miraphone style, I put a ring of 1" wide golfer's tape around the edge against the rim of the bell. Extraneous overtones damped down perfectly. Intonation and centering improved significantly. Overall tone improved dramatically. Yes, the actual resonance of the metal itself can either help or hinder the tone. That's why a lot of people prefer the "heavy" or the "light;" some prefer the tone with minimal body resonance contributing, others like the added overtones from a really responsive bell, for example. I'm not sure which I really like better, but I do know that I can do without the upper inharmonic overtones!