Trumpet Discussion Discuss Mouthpieces in the General forums; Rocket Scientist...
Hey Vulgano, that's good to know. Look forward to hearing more in the new thread when Robin gets ...
Mezzo Forte User
Hey Vulgano, that's good to know. Look forward to hearing more in the new thread when Robin gets it going. There's some quick copy here in building to it, in line of what your speaking to. I was wondering whether the asymmetrics would have the desired tone and range players are looking for? (The asymmetrics' tones arun't as brassy sounding, or metallic (?) by example-)
"What is needed is a new mouthpiece design that will reduce the difficulty of high-register playing for all trumpet players, students as well as professionals. This new design should also extend a player's upper register by a significant number of semitones, ideally five or more. And at the same time, it should impose only minimal restrictions on tone quality. The mouthpiece described in the following text has been designed to meet these demands." -John Lynch
That's from the 'Asymmetric Concept' prompt. He went on to say in the summary part there:
"The Asymmetric's cup design can add up to one-half octave of high range capability and make all notes in the high range generally easier to produce, and do this with no loss of tone quality."
So there's obviously a big difference between desired tone quality and what's generally appreciated, 'tone quality'? Which makes me think John could customize them to any desired tone a player wanted? I dunno- possibly they can be? That seems to be the suggestion here?
"Thus, the leading convex lower surface not only extends a player's high-range capability but makes all high-range playing easier. Introducing the convexity into the lower half cup surface, by itself, would reduce normal overall cup volume. Without compensating for this reduction, tone would tend toward the brassiness of shallow conventional-cup mouthpieces. This cup volume reduction can be compensated for, however, by enlarging the upper concave portion of the cup. For example, if we know that a particular symmetric cup volume will produce a particularly desirable tone quality, then instead of reducing that volume by making the cup shallower in order to obtain high-range capability (as is currently done, and thereby destroying the tone), we instead spatially redistribute this particular cup volume by making the bottom surface convex and the top surface sufficiently concave. This conforms with the experimentally derived ideal having concave upper and convex lower half-cups. It has been shown that total cup and backbore volume, rather than the particular shape of a cup, tends to determine tone quality and playing properties for a given player (ref. Benade). Thus, in this case, the Asymmetric cup would have essentially the same total cup volume as the symmetric cup, and the tone quality would remain unimpaired. But, increased range and an overall ease of high playing would be gained over the symmetric cup mouthpiece."
I guess it's reasonable he can machine anything that was wanted? And probably he has many examples already, to try and help a player formulate what they're specifically looking for? And in keeping with their horn's build-character as well? Which is more your all's good fun considerations of established players. :) Mine's just beginning. I'll have to contact John and see though.
And for anyone semi-interested in all this, but doesn't feel like reading an entire site. Here's more or less, the comparative gist between symmetrical mouthpieces, and asymmetrics. It's a quick reference in coming to Robin's technical description thread.
"It should be noted that any symmetric form of lower lip restrictor would also restrict the upper lip and inhibit vibration of this lip. And, even if such a restrictor were relatively small in width, it would also reduce the span of the cup for the upper lip. But the full span of the cup is required for the upper lip lest the vibrating mass be over-restricted and clean attack compromised. Both calculations and prototypes have shown that even with mouthpiece vertical respositioning, the tradeoff is such that bottom lip performance is enhanced by the restrictor, but simultaneous top lip restriction would impair its performance. Thus, asymmetry is required. It should also be noted that players using incorrect mouthpiece vertical positioning (other than the generally accepted 1/3 on the top lip and 2/3 on the bottom lip) will be unable to use the Asymmetric mouthpiece successfully. Players who position the mouthpiece "half on each lip" for example or more on the top than the bottom will experience the convexity as an obstruction to the air stream. Most players, however, use the "2/3 bottom, 1/3 top" position, this having been experienced for the last hundred years (see, for example, Arban's method) as more advantageous for higher register playing. Although the reason for this is clearly that much less top lip has to be immobilized, this was only known by experience prior to the last 50 years. Other positions decidely handicap the player unnecessarily."
All of the copy here's from the 'Asymmetric Concept' prompt.
Last edited by godchaser; 09-15-2007 at 06:43 PM.
"As I ascend in pitch I am very aware of doing a couple of things. First, I very deliberately reduce the "aperture" size. I think of myself reducing the "hole" that the air is escaping through between my lips as I play. This will reduce the vibrating mass. Next, I have always, regardless of whom I have been studying with, raised my lower lip towards the upper lip. This assists in my closing up the "aperture". Lynch refers to "immobilizing the upper lip" thereby reducing the vibrating mass.
Let Mr. Lynch immobilize anything he wants to. This is not the way it works for "normal players". The size of the aperature is the balance between "compression" of the lip tissue through the various muscles and the air pressure blowing the aperature open. When I compress lip tissue the (vibrating)mass goes UP not DOWN. The uninformed would assume that increased mass means a lower frequency - but just the opposite happens. I will get into this on a separate thread when I have time. With a penny, tap on a piece of marble and a piece of pine - the marble is higher mass and but will produce the higher tone.
Chris, don't try and fight the battle for asymmetry until you know what is going on - you are soaking up just about everything thrown at you and that is good, but you do not have the practical experience to put it in context. We will get there.
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Mezzo Forte User
'Let Mr. Lynch immobilize anything he wants to. This is not the way it works for "normal players". The size of the aperature is the balance between "compression" of the lip tissue through the various muscles and the air pressure blowing the aperature open. When I compress lip tissue the (vibrating) mass goes UP not DOWN. The uninformed would assume that increased mass means a lower frequency - but just the opposite happens.'
Hey Robin. You and John are agreed? This is from the 'Patent' prompt on his site.
"Let us assume that at some arbitrary frequency, a player's bottom lip is exerting an upward force sufficient to ensure that the effectively correct mass of upper lip tissue will be vibrating to produce this frequency. As the player attempts higher and higher frequencies, eventually he attains the maximum amount of upward push that he is capable of exerting and at that point is playing the highest pitch that he is capable of producing."
The 'immobilization' that you mention, that he's described -is a misleading term to my thinking, but it's nonetheless accurate i guess. Its reference is more or less the 'efficiency' of an asymmetric in aiding, or allowing for greater usage of the chops natural 'upward' action, you spoke to. -Asymmetric design disallows the mass of the lower lip to compress into the mouthpiece, or become unusable in this upward action when the player's trying to get after the high notes. It leaves no direction for the 'mobility' of the lower lip to go, but upward. Where the lower lip's mass is most useful, rather than being inefficiently compressed into a 'symmetrical' mouthpiece, by comparison.
I should retreive the copy- Lynch can speak to it better than i can.
Here it is:
"If the leading lower cup surface edge nearest to the bottom lip were made sufficiently convex, the portion of the lower lip tissue that would normally intrude into the cup would now tend to be pushed backward toward the player (to varying degrees depending on mouthpiece pressure against the lips) when it encountered this convexity. The lower lip tissue then, being an elastic container filled with an essentially incompressible fluid, blood, would act much like a balloon filled with water and would accommodate this additional compression by bulging even further in the only remaining unconstrained direction, namely upward against the upper lip. This additional upward push would then result in higher between-lip contact pressure causing additional upper lip immobilization and therefore in an increase in upper lip vibration frequency i.e. higher pitch. Prototypes have shown a typical increase in attainable range due to this mechanism of five to seven semitones. Thus, by making the leading edge of the bottom surface of the cup sufficiently convex, the first objective of the invention, significant increase in high range, is realized."
'I will get into this on a separate thread when I have time.
Chris, don't try and fight the battle for asymmetry until you know what is going on - you are soaking up just about everything thrown at you and that is good, but you do not have the practical experience to put it in context. We will get there.'
I sure appreciate it Robin. That'll be great, i'm really looking forward to it. -I don't question that the potential of asymmetrics is significant, and the experiential impressions are gold. Hopefully too, there's some players here that are using'em; particularly students.
Last edited by godchaser; 09-16-2007 at 10:44 PM.
This is not helping the person that started the thread at all - no more asymmetrics here from me, except to say THEY GET NO RECOMMENDATION FROM ME FOR BEGINNERS OR PLAYERS WITHOUT INFORMED TEACHERS. No amount of ad text or patent text (which by the way does not prove that the invention works, only that it is unique) would ever let me experiment with somebody elses face. I stick with my 7C recommendation for players at this stage. It would give me a tried and true basis to help a player floating in limbo. Getting good results is more than hardware, always has been and always will be.
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Mezzo Forte User
Mezzo Forte User
'No amount of ad text or patent text (which by the way does not prove that the invention works, only that it is unique) would ever let me experiment with somebody elses face.'
Cheers Robin, i agree with that completely. I said before, i don't think that's the least bit unreasonable. -That using mouthpieces that teachers are familiar with is good sense; and in line of keepin' it simple. :) Certainly Crunch is aware the thread's gathered into a discussion of interest in 'potential' -in that most do not use an asymmetric. My reference of players here that are possibly using an asymmetric, was that of existing users. Apologies; i should have been clearer.
'I stick with my 7C recommendation for players at this stage. It would give me a tried and true basis to help a player floating in limbo.'
No question this is'a given. Couldn't agree more.
'Getting good results is more than hardware, always has been and always will be.'
No doubt about it Robin. Although, it seems the likelihood of realizing the advantages in an asymmetric design are just a matter of familiarizing ourselves with the concept.
Incidentally, i'll keep notes on my progression come time, and offer up what's what as a beginner- least from my perspective. But again, that's my given interest prior to the thread momentum here. I'm sure not trying to 'defend' or advocate John Lynch inc. :) Despite my enthusiasm for what reasonably strikes me, advantaged potential- coming off like salesmanship. I'm very interested in the prospect of the discussion, particularly when it comes to hearing pros/teachers reflective and experiential interests and impressions now, and after giving the asymmetrics'a go. Whether the invention works effectively, or more efficently than symmetrics do? It seems likely?
Last edited by godchaser; 09-16-2007 at 09:01 AM.
All this hoopla over a mouthpiece that is questionable at best?
The 7C is the better mouthpiece for Crunch and most people who are getting into trumpet. Some keep the 7C for many years before they start their mouthpiece safari or keep it their mouthpiece arsenal in addition to others.
Mezzo Forte User
'All this hoopla over a mouthpiece that is questionable at best?'
-It does seem like a lot.
The 'questionable' thing is what's got the stage presently. I'd guess if John hadn't patented his designs, our interests would have long shifted to what's typical of mouthpiece discussion. This one's best for that setting, and what'd ya think of it with that horn, and all the good exchange here as well.
The patent itself excludes a lot of interest, but it's my feeling that there'd be a great deal of discussion in any event. And justifiably so. It's good course, and the nature of things. Tried and true traditions arun't an established motion by accident. They work, and obviously work very well. :) Robin mentioned 'unique' in this sound reasoning, and yourself, and anyone considering asymmetric, as 'questionable'? This given that it's not practically available to our mainstream conditioning and marketable adherence? There's obviously many considerations and impedance in our builders using, and adopting asymmetric design? Certainly though, this isn't what we'd think of as warranted consideration of design worthiness. Not that anyone's suggested so.
And truly, my frequent posting of text isn't anymore than convenience and interest of gathering an accurate conversation. Apologies for the length sometimes, but it's easier than reading a site if a passing interest is all most may hold. My self, i'm highly interested, and selfishly so, admittedly -in learning all i can from the experiences and reference of pros., teachers, and players alike. In however that lends itself here presently, and down the road.
The hoopla does seem warranted. Although, i almost wish John hadn't patented the dang things. :) At the least, it's a natural and constant teacher in good chops habit, (?) -which is my focus. And as well; endurance, or the general ease of play they're inclined? Their range is secondary to my thinking. I'm after good fundamentals, and maintaining that practice by all advantage available.
'The 7C is the better mouthpiece for Crunch and most people who are getting into trumpet. Some keep the 7C for many years before they start their mouthpiece safari or keep it their mouthpiece arsenal in addition to others.'
I agree whole heartedly. -When's practical become impractical, and for whom- and by what standards are we considering this? Given John's design are revolutionary, (?) by any measure of interest in playabilty.. or simply so, by comparison of symmetrical design, (?) -then that's plenty practical?
Talk later in the new thread.
And hope all's well Crunch- and you've been able to start to find some good practice time.
Last edited by godchaser; 09-16-2007 at 10:49 PM.
Once again these lengthy posts by godchaser lead me to believe he doesn't play the trumpet or even own one.
For the new player buy a 7C, an Arbans book, some recordings, and find a private teacher.
Has godchaser even tried playing a trumpet might be a more appropriate questions.
Originally Posted by trumpetnick
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By ewetho in forum Mouthpieces / Mutes / Other
Last Post: 08-25-2007, 04:12 AM
By Dustin in forum Trumpet Discussion
Last Post: 03-15-2007, 08:26 AM
By alaramore in forum Mouthpieces / Mutes / Other
Last Post: 01-16-2007, 09:07 PM
By eisprl in forum Trumpet Discussion
Last Post: 01-02-2006, 02:35 PM
By butxifxnot in forum Mouthpieces / Mutes / Other
Last Post: 07-04-2005, 04:25 PM