Does a large bore horn take more air?

Hi Grune,
Impressive! I like what you said when you said at the beginning and at the end, "it depends".

Kehaulani

Pardon me sir. Can you tell me what time it is?

Passer-by: Sure. No problem.

First make a sketch of what kind of watch you want. Note all of the ideas on a piece of paper.

Then begin with the design of the watch. Sometimes you can start with the watch case, sometimes with the movement, but mostly do it all together. To make the design of a movement is a full time job. It takes several months from the first line to the last drawing of every part. Draw every part before making it. And leave no doubt to the size or how to make the part.

Each part of the watch is calculated, simulated and verified several times. Then when every drawing is ready, begin to produce the watch parts for the first prototype. At this time check out with which machine or tool is the best way to make the part. Often you’ll need to build first the machine or a special tooling to make just one part.

Once the machine is adjusted, make your parts. But it is a big error to make too many parts at one time. Why? It’s very simple, if you see, when you are working on the prototype it often comes to pass that a change must be made to a part so it will function better. If you have X number of parts in stock, well, you may be tempted to leave the functional, but inferior part as is. But if your stock is nearly empty it is much easier to re-begin to make the part. And, this is, once again, a reason why you don’t work with on stock parts; it is too easy to not make it better.

Making from scratch also means to begin just from bars and plates of metal. So when you make, for example, a pinion, you begin with a bar of 4mm “Sandvik 20AP” steel. If you want to make a plate or a bridge, use a disk of brass or German silver. It takes a lot of work to make a perfect part from scratch.

To ensure the precision of every part, use precise machines like a Hauser Jig-borer, 2 Schaublin lathes, a 4-axis CNC-mill and high precision control devices like the Hauser optical comparator. These and many more machines give you the possibility to make all needed parts for your watches, but also complicated parts like beveled gears.

Once the prototype is really OK, you begin to make the real one. More to follow.

Oh. What? Oh. It’s 10:42.

Dr GO

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@Dr-GO

And you still need oxygen, glucose and ATP to "light the flame" provided more naturally, by lips directing the air flow "exciting" the column of air in the horn. Did you notice the lecturer light the torch in air... not in a vacuum. Thanks for posting this video to help support my position.

grune

@Niner said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@grune that impresses me. I'm ready to believe you. I'm no scientist and what you write seems logical to me. However I'm wondering about something related. What about size of bell flare relative to apparent loudness in relation to the same lip produced vibration and volume of air? What if a smaller bore horn had a larger bell flare than a larger bore horn with a smaller bell flare? Would that compensate in fullness or loudness of sound with the same volume of air to produce a like heard result?

Respectfully, I think you are mixing apples and oranges: qualitative with quantitative.

Quantitative. Loud sound results from high pressure, because our ears respond to pressure. If 2 horns have equal air volumes, and have equal air pressure applied, they should have no difference in sound volume. Sound volume is measured in decibels, which are a logarithmic function for an exponential function. This has no relationship to sound quality.

Qualitative. "Fullness of sound" is a subjective quality; ie a descriptor, not a definition. The descriptors I use are mellow and shrill. A horn that produces a shrill tone may seem louder than a horn that produces a mellow tone at equal decibels: this perception depends entirely upon the reaction of the listener.

For a bell, indeed the taper and flare do affect the sound quality, in my experience.
1/ A bell having a small taper from valve block to near end of bell, with a pronounced bell flare at the end. The small taper helps to maintain the air pressure along the length of the bell, and the flare gives an abrupt change in pressure, thereby releasing the wave energy quickly. Such a bell will produce a directional sound, and that sound will tend to be shrill or brighter or whatever descriptor you choose.
2/ A bell having a large taper from valve block to end of bell, with a smaller bell flare at end. The large taper creates a gradual change in pressure, thereby releasing the energy gradually. Such a bell will produce a more open, rounder sound, and that sound will be mellow or darker or whatever descriptor you choose.
3/ The metals used in the horn will also have great affects upon the sound.

Long ago, I sampled a variety of horns of various metals, when Yamaha was breaking into the market. It was a fascinating experience. Yamaha made horns with different alloys and pure metals. Cost them a fortune to do. A pure lead metal horn created a nearly pure sine wave on the oscilloscope: too pure, no harmonics, the sound was terrible. A pure copper horn was so mellow and soft, it could not be heard against even a clarinet! A pure silver horn was very bright, tending to shrill. The solid metal horns were extremely fragile. Then came the alloys; gold, silver, copper, tin, aluminium, nickel, yellow brass, and others I cannot recall. When all was tried, said and done, the horns that were considered the best for sound, projection, and playability were yellow brass!

@grune That's interesting. Certainly you are teaching way above my education grade. You do point out how metallurgy could play a part in the sound coming out the end of the horn. That's interesting. What I'm confused about though is the apparent fullness of sound coming out the end of the horn and the projection of sound and what the trumpet design engineers were knowing or assuming. In my admitted ignorance I think one part of the sound quality beyond actual talent and more important than the breath coming through the lips, which is what this string started out discussing, is the size of the bell flare.

Take this example. A Conn Constellation 28B compared to a Martin Dansant. The Dansant has a half inch narrower bell than the Constellation. The bell shafts are approximately tapered the same in relation to the valve block. The Dansant has a narrower bell loop. Both are medium bore although the Dansant may actually be marginally larger. The Dansant bell flare stops where the Conn continues larger. The Dansant was made for projection to cut through other instruments in an orchestra cleanly to be heard, admittedly a generation before the Conn. The Conn was a lead instrument, like Doc Severinson used once upon a time. However when Doc did a solo part the rest of the band played supporting parts in a way that didn't blanket the solo. The horn didn't have to compete with others as the accompanying instruments softened and took a background role and Conn player could produce a broader, perhaps fuller sound that may have been more musically pleasing to the listeners.

Dr GO

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@Niner said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Long ago, I sampled a variety of horns of various metals, when Yamaha was breaking into the market. It was a fascinating experience. Yamaha made horns with alloys and pure metals. Cost them a fortune to do. A pure lead metal horn created a nearly pure sine wave on the oscilloscope: too pure, no overtones, the sound was terrible. A pure copper horn was so mellow and soft, it could not be heard against even a clarinet! A pure silver horn was very bright, tending to shrill. The solid metal horns were extremely fragile. Then came the alloys; gold, silver, copper, tin, aluminium, nickel, yellow brass, and others I cannot recall. When all was tried, said and done, the horns that were considered the best for sound, projection, and playability were yellow brass!

Here is rare footage of two horns, one made of silver and one made of copper, found burred with King Tut, with interesting tone variance from metallurgy dating back to about 3,000 years ago:

grune

@Niner
Well, I can't say I understand your point clearly. But your focus is seemingly upon the qualitative aspects. If you opine the bell has a significant affect upon the overall tone and projection, then I concur. But if you are asking me to explain overall the reasons for the differences in tone and projection, this is impossible from my armchair.

I should say the bell is fixed in material, length and shape. Thus, once fabricated, its sound and projection will be fixed; ie cannot be varied. Either one likes the bell, or likes not. I would extend this notion to entire trumpet; once fabricated, the horn will have intrinsic properties that the player cannot alter.

Beyond the intrinsic properties, I have found the mouthpiece to be the most critical factor for me, for all aspects. How the slightest changes can create pronounced effects is simply uncanny; assuming the horn can actually reveal the differences.

With my horn, particularly, the differences in "colour" are amazing between small and large mouthpieces. A smaller 'lead' m/p produces a bright, piercing sound. A large [wide and deep] m/p produces a very full, "teutonic' sound. A 3c produces the "commercial sound", yet has depth. I have a no-name m/p, one-of-a-kind I found by chance, that is seemingly akin to a 1b: requires huge lung capacity and very strong chops [way too much for me], but produces a fantastic, rich, open, powerful sound: this is THE m/p for the Aida entrance. The perfect match is my customised 1.5c: this can be simultaneously sweet, rich, powerful, yet with a sparkle, and without undue strain. Its shank has been honed down to fit into the lead pipe without a gap. I know "gap" is a very contentious issue, but no-gap definitely plays best for horn and me.

Well, hopes this helps in some ways.

Lastly, gee, nobody picked up on the pun?

@grune Interesting comment from someone a lot more knowledgeable than me. Mentioning the mouthpiece as to what you think it does to the total result...beyond the original question is interesting too. The 7C is the general one to each horn mouthpiece I believe. The 10 1/2 C was the mouthpiece for young players in my day. I feel much more comfortable with a 3C now. But for me it is a matter of how I feel about playing comfort more than the apparent sound quality coming out of the horn. I'll have something to think about this next time I do some fun for me playing.

J. Jericho

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Lastly, gee, nobody picked up on the pun?

You mean the comment you made in passing?

Dr GO

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Beyond the intrinsic properties, I have found the mouthpiece to be the most critical factor for me, for all aspects... With my horn, particularly, the differences in "colour" are amazing between small and large mouthpieces... Its shank has been honed down to fit into the lead pipe without a gap. I know "gap" is a very contentious issue, but no-gap definitely plays best for horn and me.

I agree completely. But my experience is less with the cup size and more with the backbore. That is what most influences how the mouthpiece delivers the sound wave to the lead pipe. Getting the sound wave to hit at the peak of amplitude as it "hits" the leadpipe is key. This is less a function of cup size, and more a function of the brand of mouthpiece and the make of the trumpet.

grune

@Dr-GO said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@Niner said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Long ago, I sampled a variety of horns of various metals, when Yamaha was breaking into the market. It was a fascinating experience. Yamaha made horns with alloys and pure metals. Cost them a fortune to do. A pure lead metal horn created a nearly pure sine wave on the oscilloscope: too pure, no overtones, the sound was terrible. A pure copper horn was so mellow and soft, it could not be heard against even a clarinet! A pure silver horn was very bright, tending to shrill. The solid metal horns were extremely fragile. Then came the alloys; gold, silver, copper, tin, aluminium, nickel, yellow brass, and others I cannot recall. When all was tried, said and done, the horns that were considered the best for sound, projection, and playability were yellow brass!

Here is rare footage of two horns, one made of silver and one made of copper, found burred with King Tut, with interesting tone variance from metallurgy dating back to about 3,000 years ago:

Wow, how did you find this "clip"? I have always been intrigued by history and trumpets in history. Quite the tone differences from the metals.

grune

@Dr-GO said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Beyond the intrinsic properties, I have found the mouthpiece to be the most critical factor for me, for all aspects... With my horn, particularly, the differences in "colour" are amazing between small and large mouthpieces... Its shank has been honed down to fit into the lead pipe without a gap. I know "gap" is a very contentious issue, but no-gap definitely plays best for horn and me.

I agree completely. But my experience is less with the cup size and more with the backbore. That is what most influences how the mouthpiece delivers the sound wave to the lead pipe. Getting the sound wave to hit at the peak of amplitude as it "hits" the leadpipe is key. This is less a function of cup size, and more a function of the brand of mouthpiece and the make of the trumpet.

That is interesting. I haven't experimented a great deal with back bore per se, but have trialled hundreds of mouthpieces. In my experience, I would agree with you for amplitude: with the right combination of cup, throat, backbore, I can produce an amplitude from a small m/p equal to a large m/p. But the resultant tone from that small m/p will be very different from the larger one.

What is your experience?

Dirk020

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:
haven't experimented a great deal with back bore per se, but have trialled hundreds of mouthpieces.

Time to try the Warburton system

You will be surprised!

Dr GO

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@Dr-GO said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

@grune said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

I can produce an amplitude from a small m/p equal to a large m/p. But the resultant tone from that small m/p will be very different from the larger one.

What is your experience?

One must be careful because a small m/p can pinch the sound. Especially as fatigue sets in. I have used a Jettone Studio B for lead playing and in prior experience began to fatigue 2 hours into a gig. However, I had Jason Harrelson make me a Studio B exact rim/cup copy, but he put a larger throat into it with his 5mm assembly. That small change really opened up the performance of that small rim/cup combination. So if you can diminish the resistance behind the mouthpiece, from my experience, you can open up the sound of small cup sizes.

ROWUK

I remember reading about Schilke trying out lead, glass and other stuff for bell material. I remember the quotes about overtones. My own tests have shown a lot of this to be myths. As fine as the Schilke trumpets are, I never understood the need for Renolds „exaggerations“ (not just with the bell myths). I have played and measured plastic, wood, carbon fiber, pure silver, bronze, brass, copper, concrete and glass. The overtones on ALL OF THEM were the exact same frequencies, just varying in amplitude a bit. The shape played the biggest role in the tone. The biggest challenge with the instrument is how we hear ourselves. The thickness and temper of the bell as well as the bracing control what we hear and how our ears and brain react. The harder it is to hear ourselves, the more we think that we need more air.

@ROWUK said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

The harder it is to hear ourselves, the more we think that we need more air.

How true

grune

@ROWUK said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

I remember reading about Schilke trying out lead, glass and other stuff for bell material. I remember the quotes about overtones. My own tests have shown a lot of this to be myths. As fine as the Schilke trumpets are, I never understood the need for Renolds „exaggerations“ (not just with the bell myths). I have played and measured plastic, wood, carbon fiber, pure silver, bronze, brass, copper, concrete and glass. The overtones on ALL OF THEM were the exact same frequencies, just varying in amplitude a bit. The shape played the biggest role in the tone. The biggest challenge with the instrument is how we hear ourselves. The thickness and temper of the bell as well as the bracing control what we hear and how our ears and brain react. The harder it is to hear ourselves, the more we think that we need more air.

Apologies; I should not have introduced metals to a thread about bore.

Re Overtones. Overall true. A flute, clarinet, violin, tuba, are made of different materials and all produce overtones. But overtones are a combination of harmonics and disharmonics, and thus the analysis becomes quickly complicated. My point is different materials produce very different tonal qualities. And not for trumpets only. A brass clarinet will sound markedly different from a wooden one, and ditto for flute; well, to my ears anyway.

Re How we hear ourselves. So true.

Tobylou8

Concrete???

Dr GO

@Tobylou8 said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Concrete???

Assfault???

Kehaulani

@Tobylou8 said in Does a large bore horn take more air?:

Concrete???

Yes. It's for playing Musique Concrète.