Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by Dr.Mark, Jul 3, 2013.
Answers in bold
"What is the measuring device that was used to detect the two pitches. The problem I had using a regular Korg type tuner it was hard for the tuner to detect the air sound.
Ear. It serves me well.
What I'm going to do is amplify the air sound so it can be detected by the Korg tuner.
Never the less, we now know "qualitatively" that the Bb Wild Thing with Denis Wick 2W has matched resonances at 230Hz. ~20 cent below concert Bb.
Strictly speaking, we know that if I pull my main tuning slide out 35 mm, my low C is a tad flat.
Flat to what? Is 35 mm out your normal setting or is this setting further out than usual?
That sounds like a lot but I've got to ask:
At that setting:
Did the horn vibrate more in the hands?
Did it play easier?
Was the sound brighter?
Not noticeably. In fact, I recall no horn I ever played (even when I was quite good), showing a significant change in playing characteristic for a reasonable pull on the tuning slide.
Oh my, this is where we differ. If I have to play a horn that's out of tune, after a while it wears me out fighting with it. If I play a Bb trumpet (not rotary) that can't be tuned in this manner, I tend to avoid the horn. I use to have an Olds Ambassador that's beautiful but I don't like it. I noticed that the bell rim gave off a "dunk-like untuned metal sound" instead of an audible "ping note". I'm not saying that this is the reason I didn't like it but here's something interesting. I gave the Olds to my daughter who uses a beat up old Holton. Now I'd think that the daughter unit would gravitate toward the Olds (very pretty horn). Come to find out, after playing it for just a little while, she came to the quick conclusion that she didn't like it and continues to play the Holton. Now the Olds just sits in it's case never used. It should be noted that she is very well advanced in technique, ear training and how the trumpet should sound.
It's actually quite interesting to consider the impact of such a thing. You could find yourself in the position of claiming "Of course I sound rubbish, the oboe's 20 cents sharp". Actually, if we did come across an instrument with a performance that was significantly sensitive to tuning slide position, wouldn't we discard it as a poor design? Just a thought.
For me, my instruments are (except for the Olds Ambassador). I don't think they are of poor design and if they are, I really paid too much!
The thing that's neat about this idea is that it helps take the person out of the equation. We know that the pitch can be manipulated sharp or flat via the lip (oh no! not the lip again!).
If someone blows (not buzzes) harder through the mouthpiece when tuning the air, it only serves to make the sound louder. The ping of the bell rim is relativley consistant. If the ideas holds, then tuning the bell rim ping to the main tuning slide will remove a lot of the human variability.
Looking forward to your contribution to the Stumac Research Project
I'll give it my best try.
How stupid can this get now? Dr. Mark playing daddy - it simply doesn't fit. Isn't even funny.
The resonant frequency of a cylindrical tube is based on length, irregular shapes (like beer bottles) on volume and horn shapes based on a "complicated formula". It is impossible to tune out of the complete system (including the player). Just because a method provided the right pitch on "some" horn mouthpiece combinations does not justify the assumption that it had anything to do with one another. It simply means that there are trumpets built with leadpipes and slides of a certain length that "perhaps" at A=440 correspond.
I have recently had a C trumpet with tuning bell - without removing the braces. I also kept the standard tuning slide. The differences in the tuning of the trumpet vary depending where it is tuned.
As far as bell ping goes, equally weak. It depends on material, thickness, bracing not horn theory. Not all bells are made to seriously ping, and considering how most artisans work, after soldering the bell, the resonance patterns are not even consistent. There is even solid data through technical research in the english language that I have repeatedly posted (I'll give you a hint - Institut Wiener Klangstil).
Somehow I get the impression that this thread belongs in the lounge and not here.
Mmmm, think I might try to find a forum on naturopathy or astrology and get some opinions this topic. Is almost two years since Dr Mark listed instruments for which this theory allegedly worked a couple of which I'd tried and found no such effect. (manipulation of test data)
Sir Paul Nurse, president of The Royal Society recently suggested that scientists should be skeptics and skeptical most of all about their own theses .
You'll do with it as you please. I just wonder if your behavior will reflect that of an adult or a spoiled brat that posesses a smidgin of power. Why not just go away and let people play and have fun instead of you being...well....you. please?
You guys can play with the math all you want. As for me, It's something I found while drinking beer. I'm forbidden to drink beer and use a math at the same time. Others have found similar findings. I don't know why. If you're up to it possibly you tell me/us why or why not. It would make for an interesting study but as for me, it's just an interesting find. Time to see where it's at.
The worrying thing for me with this method is that just blowing air through the leadpipe the resultant audio spectrum generated is akin to random noise and with a selective filter almost any tone can be resolved from it. From my years of trying to hear weak signals in high noise levels on short wave radio the imagination plays lots of tricks on what we actually hear.
So the discussion died a natural death two years ago and you've revived it.
It's OK Dr Mark. Each one of us is a trumpet player and know that it's All About Me .
I prefer to cogitate over a glass of red than a beer, but even when well "medicined up" pseudo science gets my goat. You can't one hand ask for participation in a study, then point to skeptics as being overly mathematical.
This has been a fun exercise and I couldn't wait to try (April fool me?), but two years on? Give us a break.