godchaser

-Anybody know where i can get a line on whether SWE, Standing Wave Efficiency-(Ratio), is science or fiction when it comes to trumpet specific R&D? Or aware of design cues intended to bring about this 'Efficicency', i guess is a better question? Possibly we're just talking about a better breathing horn and giving it a name to try and bring such 'intended' designs into a specific/definable and repeatable build focus?

And whether there's substance to a 'constant pitch center' Monette's got goin' on? I can't find anything on this either. What it is exactly, or how it's accomplished? I've been told here, that there's technical explanation to its effectiveness. I couldn't get Dean over there to say anything about it other than it's a measure/method of builder artistry. Which again, is good stuff, but where do i find the unbiased industry references of what's genuinely innovative trumpet artistry with some basis, and what ain't?

Thanks.. Chris

GordonH

Check the books by Arthur Benade.

__________________
"O trumpeter, methinks I am myself the instrument thou playest,
Thou melt'st my heart, my brain--thou movest, drawest, changest
them at will;" (Walt Whitman)

GordonH

Read the last paragraph of his obituary:

Arthur Benade - In Memoriam

__________________
"O trumpeter, methinks I am myself the instrument thou playest,
Thou melt'st my heart, my brain--thou movest, drawest, changest
them at will;" (Walt Whitman)

godchaser

Much thanks Gordon! Looks like a lot of good reading there. Can't tell you how much i appreciate that.

Chris


______

"The fact that some alteration of playing habits is necessary to take advantage of what these instruments offer, makes the idea of adopting them anathema to professional performers coping fairly successfully with the current crop of good instruments." -Arthur Benade

And i'm starting to think as well, that a big chunk of the trumpets being offered is trouble-shooting by the trumpet makers. This being wholly apart from what a (good breathing trumpet) is.. let's call it, that Art and those before and now are getting after in theory. By trouble-shooting i mean, they're leaning on the horn this way and that to unnecessarily exaggerate its capacity for a certain color and sound because the player supposedly can't do it themselves?

A good player, can make a good breathing trumpet sound dark or bright, powerful or subtle, loud or soft? Provided this player isn't having to run after and compensate trumpets that were designed to run after and compensate poor playing/poor habits?

Round and round it goes- and who's on first!

Not that i'm complaining, if it wasn't for the money being made on discolored nonsense, (and i don't mean that in a purist sense- infinite sound color's best as far as i know); we wouldn't be able to further the simplicity of a sound and free breathing trumpet design? And i'm speaking of pro level trumpets, forgetting about this same conjured maze moderatly priced trumpets are riddled with?

This is what i'm starting to come to anyway.. maybe that's completely wrong. But trumpets built with pure breathing simplicity to enable (correct playability), and what i mean is the capacity to play and sound the way the player intends it to sound, and is capable of making it sound, regardless of what they're playing. Given the opportunity to play a good horn that is-

-My point being, there needn't be a whole line of trumpets to accomplish that?

And i don't feel like this runs up on the deafeningly fine tuned nuance of sound perfection in certain circles either- given such appetites in professionalism, which strikes me a nod to another mouthpiece than a horn. But i get that nonetheless, i don't argue it.

What i'm trying to get at is who's building the freest and purest breathing trumpets? I need to steal some good reference. No leans this way and that- just a good breathin' horn.


A'little help!





Ain't nothin' easy!



And thanks again Gordon.

rowuk

When designing a horn, we have to do a delicate balancing act. Some of the more important factors are efficiency, intonation, impedance, sound quality, evenness of tone over various registers, acoustical feedback to the player.
A basic horn calculation would give optimal amplification for one single frequency. Making the calculation less "perfect" gives us the opportunity to vary the other factors into the equation until we get a balance that is playable and salable. Changing one of the factors ALWAYS does something to the rest!
For many manufacturers, the math has not changed appreciably since before 1900. This does not mean that those calculations produce inferior products, it just means that no new mathematical R+D is being taken into consideration. Further compounding the issue is the hit or miss/trial and error R+D especially when it comes to leadpipe design.
Some of the most intensive "published" trumpet math here is done by Smith-Watkins in the UK.
You mentioned Monette, he has a relatively radical departure from the established "standards". The constant pitch center does work, but requires the player to change certain aspects of their playing - a very delicate issue for the performing pro, where consistency is very high on the list of priorities. Many just do not wish to take the chance because what they have works well, regardless of the possible advantages.
At the end of the day, all of that math does not make better music or even music that is easier to play. We earn that through practice, not superior hardware!
There have been great strides in trumpet construction, but we still see the granddaddy Bach 37 as being instrument of choice for many in spite of many other attractive alternatives.
If you only want to minimize the possible "technical" flaws and invest in a horn made by a company committed to R&D (probably spending more than all other companies combined), buy a Yamaha. They sell pro "New York", "Chicago" and "Xeno" sounds.
If you are sound and music driven, you can add the 50 to 100 other companies to the list and come to the realization of most people in the business that it is the person behind the gun and not the gun.
Manny Laureano(Monette), John Faddis(Schilke), Wilmer Wise(Bach), Al Vizzutti(Yamaha) and the countless other monsters of brass prove that success is NOT hardware driven! Those players successes drive HARDWARE SALES - exactly the opposite!

Hats off to the artisans that are advancing the art of building trumpets - regardless if they use a computer, well schooled ears or both!

__________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

godchaser

'You mentioned Monette, he has a relatively radical departure from the established "standards". The constant pitch center does work, but requires the player to change certain aspects of their playing..'

I'm at an advantage here as well then Robin, given i'm not playing yet. John Lynch's asymmetric's need player adjustment too. Where can i read the techniques and/or adjustments your speaking to there. Add to that, i was told by Dean over at Monette that Constant Pitch Center was derived of builder design and finess? If so, how can i replicate this in a custom? Is this trade secret stuff.. you mentioned Monette by comparison of the rest of the industry standards w/regard of constant pitch center, so apparently comparative reference of designs come to light eventually?

Possibly the new Monette mouthpieces need player adj., not unlike the asymmetric? And this was Dean's meaning of builder artistry before? Not necessarily having anything to do in particular with the horn's build/design and tweaking it just right.

I've got to get after some things here but i'd like to ask you some more regarding your post later on.. much thanks-

godchaser

"A basic horn calculation would give optimal amplification for one single frequency. Making the calculation less "perfect" gives us the opportunity to vary the other factors into the equation until we get a balance that is playable."

That's exactly my meaning as well Robin. And more to your post, and anyone that's interested. Leaning on a horn to amplify one or more factors- and by doing so, disrutping a balance to the rest of the equation, in trying to create a certain sound & style isn't necessary? My thinking is 'optimal' can only be a correctly applied term in the broad sense of all the desired factors/qualities of the horn, or the balance-equation your speaking to. Otherwise 'optimal' loses all practical meaning, and misleads supposed desirability in conceptualizing trumpet design? It's not semantics in considering what's optimal, so much as my agreeing that it's obviously the person behind the gun, and moreso, that there's no such thing as 'superior hardware' if we're talking about genuinely 'optimal' or balanced designs made with good materials?

That's to say, i don't feel that such trumpet designs are an 'idealized' mystery. And probably the easiest thing in the world to build, given we allow ourselves the opportunity.

Not a derived design, and because of that a disrupted balance that's provoked by foresight of trying to achieve a certain sound or seemingly accentuate a musical style by leaning on the horn... -But rather a design that's fortified in the purest nature of trumpet playability, and thereby easily playable to any degree in the players will of versatility?

If that's wrong, i'd greatly appreciate somebody explaining it to me. I want to try and build the best horn i can to start with, and i don't ever want to be able to outplay it, or to ever be overwhelmed by it.

Yamaha v. Bach 37 is more of what i'm getting at too. Not only is it the player behind the gun but why does Yamaha or anyone else need build a New York or a Chicago? Seems to me that because a Bach 37's still a 'go to', says a lot. And why are any of these companies building more than one 'optimized' horn? I suppose what it's coming to for me is a notion of whether a Chicago sound or a New York sound isn't something that's come about through the inflection of the players and can only be admired and 'optimally-amplified' or designed figuratively- through its influence in our play. And has nothing at all! -to do with trying to tweak a horn to get it there.

I'm starting to question whether there's ever been an 'optimally' balanced horn built yet, considering the nature of our bringing to the table our dispositions and forethought, in trying to achieve and compensate this and that. Despite feeling it's probably a very simple thing, if we'd get out of the way and just solder the thing up the way it wants to blow. You mentioned before that the Stradivari are all the hubbub with fortunate Violinists... and there's only one way to build a violin! The only way it can be built, and still do right. And with the best materials, and with great care and attention. Not that the luck of the materials that Antonio was apparently blessed to have around, does any harm. That's to suggest that there's obviously good R&D in getting trumpets to breath better. No argument here. But that's not influence brought to bear, that's just good ol'fashioned HotRoddin'. An engine breathes better.. it'll go faster- just that simple! As well, a V8 will always be a V8 and it'll tell you how it wants to run.


"For many manufacturers, the math has not changed appreciably since before 1900. This does not mean that those calculations produce inferior products, it just means that no new mathematical R+D is being taken into consideration."

Possibly this statement says i'm partly right about my thinking here, in that i'm certain, as are you, that there's improvements to be made in pure design, or what enables greater natural trumpet ebb and flow. And for my money, that's not labored in running after a type of music or its particular sound.

That strikes me meaningless, and completely unnecessary?


Anyhow-

Veldkamp

Hub van Laar told me once that it's quite possible to build his horns even more in tune as they are now but the trumpet will sound more dull because off that. There's allways a compromise or balance to make when building a horn. As Robin already said, if you change one thing another thing will change too.

I tested a Harellson Muse once for a couple of weeks, and was also eager to find out what this SWE is all about. Well the thick leadpipe and braces sure do their work and the responce was very good, but the bad thing about it was that the sound mostly was in front of the bell and the player doesn't get enough feedback because of that. So when you're playing in a big band, you have to work harder becuase you don't hear yourself enough. So in my opinion SWE didn't work for me as a leadplayer.

I also played a Monette B993 for half a year, I didn't play more in tune compared to my Bach Mt. Vernon so Constant Pitch center doesn't mean much to me. The Monette was probably a bit more in tune above high C but when I listen to Monette players, I also hear they don't play more (or less) in tune compared to let's say Allen Vizzutti or Wayne Bergeron.

But the R+D has done good things to modern trumpets. I notice that trumpets who have a lot of R+D in them like Monette, Yamaha, Hub van Laar, Eclipse, etc. tend to slot better, are a bit more in tune especially above high C, play more even and have better responce over the whole register. But as Robin also said, people still buy a good old Bach anyway. That has to do with the sound people like to hear plus, as a Yamaha designer told me once, most trumpetplayers are very oldfashioned in their opninions about how a trumpet should be.

__________________
www.erikveldkamp.com
http://trumpetkings.blogspot.com

Vulgano Brother

For more things Benade, check out:

Arthur H. Benade Archive Home Page

__________________
www.letsbuildhope.org

rowuk

No artisan in his right mind will give his formulas away. Dave Monette and his team will not do the R+D for a competitor. If you like what he is doing, you buy his stuff, if not, you buy something else!
I am sure that it is possible to reverse engineer just about anything, but what does that give you? Maybe a small piece of the puzzle. A Monette horn not tweaked with Daves' ears is not the same horn. The same goes for the other fine instruments available.
Just like there will be no "ideal, one size fits all" wife or husband, there will never be a one size fits all trumpet. Some like it fat, some thin, some dark, some light, some relaxed and smooth, some too hot to handle.
That is why the human experience is mirrored in the construction of trumpets.
Follow the bell curve - over half, statistically speaking is middle of the road (the Bach 37 Sound Syndrome?). The rest of us hang outside of "normal" and love it!

__________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.