issue since horn change

Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by 70newport, Mar 11, 2012.

  1. gmonady

    gmonady Utimate User

    18,125
    9,298
    Jan 28, 2011
    Dayton, Ohio
    And the bores of each of these horns? Sounds like there IS not correlation to horn size, is there? Still think we need to do the experiment to make a firm conclusion on bore size contributions.
     
  2. tobylou8

    tobylou8 Utimate User

    16,409
    7,525
    Dec 22, 2008
    Virginia
    Ambassador/.460; MC / .451; Jupiter flugel/.433. The rest of my horns range from.459 -.468 and don't bother me "spit" wise.
     
  3. richtom

    richtom Forte User

    Age:
    67
    1,537
    1,273
    Dec 7, 2003
    This is not string theory physics here. As previously stated, DRAIN THE HORN MORE FREQUENTLY. Not shouting, here. No italics available.
    As also stated, one possibility is the position of the water key is likely in a different location on the tuning slide and may be accumulating more condensation. That is one of the reasons why Rowuk mentioned posture.
    You also could be "spitting" more into the horn when tonguing. Play the mouthpiece only for a few minutes and if you see dribble coming out of the shank, you are spitting too much.
    RT
     
  4. trumpetsplus

    trumpetsplus Fortissimo User

    Age:
    68
    3,017
    3,585
    Jun 11, 2006
    South Salem, NY
    I looked at these last year and spoke with a player who had 17 of them mounted on his French Horn! Basically they just gradually leak the water out without (?) compromising the air-tightness of the horn. You end up sitting in a puddle of your own s_it! I then visited Martin Seiblod (the Minibal man) who is an agent for them. He attempted to demonstrate one to me but the "sieve" thing was all clogged up (needed an ultrasonic bath). It would not work - so the water stayed inside the horn. I decided to not pursue these water keys any further.
     
  5. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,611
    7,955
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    This is a flawed test from the doc!

    This is the Rowuk way:

    1) Weigh the horn dry (connect a hair dryer with a funnel and let it blow through the horn for 30 minutes, putting the horn in the clothesdryer for the same amount of time is equivalent)
    2) take the 50ml sip
    3) play
    4) weigh the HORN
    5) empty the spit valve
    6) weigh the horn again

    This way we know how much of the 50ml ends up in the horn, how much gets to the spitvalve and how much DOESN'T get emptied.
     
  6. gmonady

    gmonady Utimate User

    18,125
    9,298
    Jan 28, 2011
    Dayton, Ohio
    Not a flaw in my design asall. People are OBSERVING they are using spit valves more. So the experimentshould be measured using the valves. BUT I do like the idea of your methodologyas well. I think BOTH should be done and compared, but here is the point ofboth of our experiments. My null hypothesis is both measurement methods willdemonstrate that the bore size has no effect on the weight of spit, no matterhow the spit is weighed.

    OK rowuk... I'll include you as my co-author
    .
     
  7. BigDub

    BigDub Fortissimo User

    4,808
    2,997
    Dec 19, 2009
    Hillsborough, NJ
    I accept the assignment with enthusiasm. Uh, first, did you mean "variety"? ...............:roll: AAaaaaaaaaaaannd, did you mean, "my"and not "by"? .....there you go.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012

Share This Page