Difference between trumpet and cornet

[Richard III]

How about this? The cornet mouthpiece has a smaller hole at the end than a trumpet mouthpiece. Smaller hole means less air. Smaller hole means though conical after that they can be the same, the smaller hole always starts smaller and therefor the totality of the conical nature will always be greater.

[J. Jericho]

@ssmith1226 said in Difference between trumpet and cornet:

@j-jericho
Trumpet- Cylindrical Bore
Cornet- Conical Bore

@ssmith1226 That's debatable, and it has been debated before. Just for fun, I invite anyone to measure the lengths of tapered sections compared to tubular sections, including the rate of taper (Thank you Dale Proctor!) on your own horns, and see what the results are. I've done this in the past, and while my examples were by no means exhaustive, I found no trend characterizing either bore description. Some of the trumpets I measured had a greater conical section than that of some of the cornets, and some of the cornets had a greater cylindrical section than some of the trumpets. I found no consistent ratio of conical/cylindrical lengths among the horns I measured.

My conclusion, as I deliberately put in as many words as I could in my post above for the sake of levity, is that the difference between trumpet and cornet is visual, not functional.

[J. Jericho]

@richard-iii said in Difference between trumpet and cornet:

How about this? The cornet mouthpiece has a smaller hole at the end than a trumpet mouthpiece. Smaller hole means less air. Smaller hole means though conical after that they can be the same, the smaller hole always starts smaller and therefor the totality of the conical nature will always be greater.

It's my understanding that throat size is comparable between trumpet and cornet mouthpieces and that if bore measurement is taken the same distance from the rim, those diameters will be comparable, too. The difference is that more of what is considered to be the backbore of a trumpet mouthpiece is included in the leadpipe of a cornet.

[GeorgeB]

Interesting conversation here, but all I know is that when someone like Bobby Hackett, who played both cornet and trumpet, recorded a song on either the trumpet or cornet, I'll be damned if I could tell which of the two he was playing.
George

[Kehaulani]

Does it matter? Fact is, there are trumpets made with cornet characteristics and cornets with trumpet characteristics, Same for mouthpieces. Do you want a characteristic sound, get a horn and ,mouthpiece combination that produces that.

[Jolter]

@trumpetb said in Difference between trumpet and cornet:

I do not accept that the number of bends in the wrap has any effect on the tone.

If that were the case then when I play open the tone would be much brighter than when playing with all valves down.

But it does sound different! If you play an F# with #2 , and compare it with playing it with all three valves, there is a difference plain as day. You're on a different (higher) overtone on #123, on a longer instrument. If you can't hear the difference, you either have some magical extra-physical trumpet, or there is something seriously wrong with your hearing, or you are being dishonest. In either case, it does not seem worthwhile to discuss acoustics with you.

Of course your observation about the peashooter is correct: If one moves the valve cluster but makes the bell smaller, the difference in bell taper has a much larger effect than the position of the bell cluster. Nonetheless it is a useless observation; the trumpets are surely very dissimilar in many aspects. Only by testing on two trumpets with identical designs apart from the position of the valve cluster could you draw any useful conclusion.

[J. Jericho]

I think we can all agree that the difference between trumpet and cornet is............................................ the spelling!

[SSmith1226]

(just kidding, sort of)

[Kehaulani]

That cornets and trumpets can sound the same doesn't change the general characteristics.

A trumpet is brighter and more direct.
A cornet is broader and more subtle.

Can you play them in reverse? Yes But just because you can doesn't mean that no inherent difference exists.

[Trumpetb]

Hi Jolter,

I understand your position and I wont disagree with you that there will be a difference in nuance of tone when using different valve combinations, but that is not what I am talking about.

Declarations have been made in the past many times that the reason a shepherds crook cornet has a very noticeable richer and deeper tone than a trumpet is due to the extra 40 degrees or so of bend that the shepherds crook introduces into the wrap.

So if that is true, that 40 degrees of extra wrap makes a noticeable richening of tone then adding more bends must make the change even more profound. Double the wrap bend must double the tonal change, ten times the wrap should make ten times the tonal change.

So if the 40 degrees of extra bend substantially makes the tonal difference between cornet and trumpet what might an extra 180 degrees make tonally and what would an extra 360 degrees make and what would an extra 540 degrees of bend make.

an extra 540 degrees is 12 times the amount of bend than the shepherds crook alone introduces.

If it is true that 40 degrees of extra bend introduces very noticeable richness and darkness to the tone, then simply depressing three valves should change the tone massively and yet it does not.

Are you really suggesting that a trumpet played open sounds like a trumpet and with three valves depressed it suddenly sounds like a trombone or a euphonium and with two valves it sounds like a flugel and with one valve it sounds like a cornet.

The difference in tone should be expected to be huge, not slight.

The argument is that an increase in bend of the wrap caused by the shepherds crook is responsible for the richness of tone of a cornet. That makes no sense to me and I hope you might revue my words based on this.

Or is my hearing so bad that I cannot tell the difference tonally between a trumpet and a trombone.

Bends alone do not change tonality immensely or hugely, I am sure of this, but if you are hearing immense and huge differences in the timbre and tone of your instrument when using different valve combinations I would be very interested in exploring why that might be.

As far as I am concerned the instrument should sound very much the same when playing different notes.

Or maybe we are simply talking about different things and there is a slight misunderstanding between us.

May I ask are you supporting the view that the 40 degrees of extra bend in the wrap that the shepherds crook introduces, is responsible for the tonal difference between cornet and trumpet. If not then we are not in disagreement at all.

[Trumpetsplus]

Bends alone do not change tonality immensely or hugely...

If this were the case the after market tuning slides - D shaped, rounded etc, would not make a difference. It is generally accepted that they do.

An acoustics engineer once remarked to me "Sound waves love straight lines." When I change my regular main slide (quite square) with a very round one there is a distinct loss of higher harmonics. I imagine a straight line going along a curved tube; the more gentle the curve the more reflections from the sides, the more reflections, the more highs are lost. This is only a thought, but the change in timbre I describe is real and I can demonstrate this quite easily. My friends at Taylor trumpets made a bell with a sharp acute angle rather than the conventional curve; they tell me (and I believe them) that the trumpet sound is not compromised by this arrangement.

Valve slide crooks have quite sharp bends and the sound wave only bounces off the side of the tube twice to achieve 180 degrees; Tuning slide and Bell bows have much more gradual bends and the timbre can be modified by the shape of these. In fact these bends are one of the many important factors we consider when designing trumpets.

[Jolter]

@trumpetb said in Difference between trumpet and cornet:

Declarations have been made in the past many times that the reason a shepherds crook cornet has a very noticeable richer and deeper tone than a trumpet is due to the extra 40 degrees or so of bend that the shepherds crook introduces into the wrap.

Bends alone do not change tonality immensely or hugely, I am sure of this, but if you are hearing immense and huge differences in the timbre and tone of your instrument when using different valve combinations I would be very interested in exploring why that might be.

May I ask are you supporting the view that the 40 degrees of extra bend in the wrap that the shepherds crook introduces, is responsible for the tonal difference between cornet and trumpet. If not then we are not in disagreement at all.

I would not object to your objection in this case. My impression was that the discussion concerned only the importance of the position of the valve cluster, so indeed there must have been a misunderstanding on my part.

Like you, I don't believe the shepherd's crook is a major factor[1] in the sound of a modern cornet. But as others have stated, the crook serves to bring the bell rim closer to the player, which I am convinced will have an effect on the player. Perhaps, by having the rim closer to your ear, you will hear a "brighter" sound when playing it, leading you to sub-consciously compensate and play with a "rounder" tone?

I could make similar reflections regarding heavyweight bells -- by virtue of being heavier, they will project less sound back to the player, leading them to play differently than they otherwise would.

[1] I have not experimented with a cornet with interchangeable bells, with and without a crook. I do not doubt Ivan's experience described above, that tuning slide changes will affect tone. I have heard it from so many other players, and I trust his judgement. It would make sense that we should likewise expect a subtle change in tone from the shepherd's crook, all else being equal, by the mechanism he describes.

[Trumpetb]

Thats an excellent reply trumpetplus.

My position on this is I agree with you, and I would argue that your reply confirms my position somewhat.

Consider the extra bends introduced by using valves. Compare that to the change in shape of the tuning slide.

If the tuning slide shape change introduces changes to the tone, and I agree it does, then how profound must the changes be when introducing even one extra bend of 180 degrees when using one valve.

Do you hear huge differences in tone and timbre when depressing one single valve and adding 180 degrees of bend into the wrap.

What of the cornets that had a replaceable leadpipe to change pitch that had a 360 degree bend in the leadpipe did they sound like a tenor horn when using that leadpipe.

Something does not add up here .

Maybe I am missing something or I am tone deaf.

But a rising scale on a trumpet whether it has a c shaped slide or d shaped slide sounds very much the same in timbre and tone as I ascend.

Does it change hugely for you when you play a rising scale.

Perhaps that is my problem, when I hear a rising scale played on a trumpet all notes sound aligned in timbre and tonality, they all sound similar to each other but rise in pitch, and other musicians must then hear notes that vary hugely in timbre and tonality and probably dont even sound like they come from the same instrument.

I have to say that I am disappointed that manufacturers in 150 years of development have been unable to make any instrument with a consistent tonality throughout its range but we are where we find ourselves.

[Trumpetsplus]

@trumpetb The valve crooks, having a sharper bend than a tuning slide, have less affect on the timbre than the tuning slide. I wrote a possible reason for this.

Yes, I can usually detect what notes/valve combinations a trumpet player is playing. I think this is timbral, although I do have a highly developed ear for pitch (but not perfect pitch). I am glad that the trumpet retains its personality vis a vis the changes in timbre which allow me to observe this. Let us not attempt to emulate the computer!

Interesting thread, I started it solely to point out the self evident differences between the 2 instruments: Trumpet (French Besson design) and Cornet (Besson Brass Band design). Others have postulated a "this for that" description of design elements, but instrument design is much more complex. We know that putting a shepherd's crook bell (like Adams has) or introducing an extra coil (like I have on Jaeger ascending valve instruments and Puje does on their trumpets) on a trumpet will not magically turn it into a cornet.

[Trumpetb]

@Trumpetplus

I am building a healthy respect for your thoughtful and well considered replies that display a great deal of technical knowledge and experience.

I would love to read your thoughts and reasoning as to why the crooks have less effect than the tuning slide.

I have a suspicion that the location of the tuning slide in the wrap may have a bearing on this in relation to the location of the nodes and where they fall in relation to the standing wave.

Let us not forget as well that the tuning slide end is not the only sharp bend in the instrument, the passageways within the valve itself also bend the airway sharply and is often overlooked.

These instruments are very complex and it is of no surprise that confusion can easily strike us when we least expect it.

It is a pleasure discussing these characteristics with you and other members too of course.

[Trumpetsplus]

@trumpetb Thank you for your kind words. So much of trumpet design and playing can only easily be described by metaphor. Take the common instructions from teachers "use more air". Well, when one actually measures the amount of air going through the trumpet, or considers the length of a phrase, one realises that these instruments are not pneumatic circuits. But the instruction is valid! In trumpet design all we can do is experiment to see what works - when a computer simulation can predict what will happen when a particular brace is moved I will hang up my mouthpiece!

As far as the sharp and gentle curves are concerned, bearing in mind that sound waves love straight lines, I like to imagine the pathway as something like the attached sketch, where each time the wave (the red line) hits the wall some higher frequencies are lost (like the boom box in a car several corners away - you hear the bass but not the treble). In the sketch the gentle curve of the tuning slide has many more collisions than the sharp valve slide bend.

Please remember this is ONLY A THOUGHT - and as I have often said
I think does not equal it is

[Trumpetb]

@ Trumpetplus

I like your concept and postulation.

I am not going to claim any expertise so my words are just speculation, however this is my thinking.

Sound travels in waves, radio travels in waves, radar also travels in waves so we can perhaps compare the behaviour of all these waves to your concept and see if there is any agreement.

Light is reflected by a reflective surface, radio waves are reflected by the heavyside layer allowing them to travel around the earth, radar waves which for many decades were assumed to only travel in straight lines have been discovered to be reflected in a similar manner to radio waves and incoming targets can be detected over the horizon.

Why then should we assume that sound waves cannot act in a similar manner to these other waves and be reflected by a suitable surface.

Light, radio, radar, and sound, all can be reflected by a suitable dish reflector so we know they all can be reflected.

Furthermore light waves pass along the length of an optical fibre and around the bends in that fibre by bouncing around within the fibre exactly as you have laid out in your drawing. I find this to be compelling evidence that you are correct.

Your concept therefore neatly obeys the behaviours of many other kinds of waves and aligns with other work and knowledge of the behaviour of these many other waves.

We cannot prove this concept without extensive research of course but it looks right and has a simplicity and beauty.

Simplicity and beauty is very important in nature, with the DNA double helix for example, before Watson and Crick the explanations offered of the structure of DNA were all excessively complex and convoluted in their attempt to explain a complex system. Watson and Cricks double helix was both simple and beautiful.

Simple and beautiful in nature is often right.

For all these reasons I choose to believe your concept.

Thank you for sharing it.

[Seth of Lagos]

@trumpetb said in Difference between trumpet and cornet:

Simplicity and beauty is very important in nature, with the DNA double helix for example, before Watson and Crick the explanations offered of the structure of DNA were all excessively complex and convoluted in their attempt to explain a complex system. Watson and Cricks double helix was both simple and beautiful.

Is it a coincidence you chose this example?

As @Trumpetsplus correctly states, the pressure wave seeks the shortest path available to it.

But not necessarily so the air. If you could watch the airflow through a tuning slide section from upstream, the right hand half would be rotating clockwise and the left anticlockwise (rather like two 'D's facing each other).

Our very own double helix.

[Trumpetb]

It was a coincidence or rather an observed correspondence or alignment.

Having said that I believe all things are connected in one way or another and these connections are not always obvious but it takes sometimes wisdom or clarity of thinking to understand and reveal the connection.

We all if we are lucky can contribute to the accumulated knowledge and reveal the synergies that surround us.

Thank you for your contribution.