Best posts made by grune

@mafields627
Good choices. We all have our preferences and reasons. Have you compared such horns against the Carol Brass models? You might be surprised.

idle curiosity: anybody know which brand of horn Zell used at the time?

@Dr-GO said in Anyone remember JOHNNY ZELL:

@GeorgeB said in Anyone remember JOHNNY ZELL:

I think she looks more angelic than evangelic...in a kind of sexy way.

Like Charlies angels? (The originals of course)

well, the media darling was Fawcett, but I think Jaclyn Smith was the much more gorgeous. I rate Anacani higher, for her combination of musical talent and beauty. obviously, personal preferences.

Re Mr. Adams. I find these articles to be so off base, I don’t know where to begin to comment. Maybe start with the nomenclature?

1. OVERTONES

The assertion is more overtones lead to better sound. This is false.

An overtone has 2 components; the harmonic and inharmonic.
a/ An harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental. Example: an harmonic of C is G.
b/ An inharmonic is non-integer multiple of the fundamental. Example: an inharmonic of C is C#.

Why is this important? Simplistically, an harmonic will increase the tonal quality of the instrument. The inharmonic interferes with the fundamental, reducing the tonal quality of the instrument.

We want harmonics.

Every vibration that any instrument turns into a tone for our ears has an harmonic. This is basic physics. The question is: can we hear the harmonics? If we can, the common descriptor is “rich”. If we hear fewer harmonics, the common descriptor is “focussed”. If we hear the inharmonics, the descriptor is “poor”.

To hear this for yourselves, listen carefully to this excellent trumpeter at this link: two identical trumpets but for the bells, with two distinct tonal qualities. [play on a good sound system!]
{

Why these horns sound different? Answer: harmonics. The brass bell produces very audible harmonics, which create a rich tone; but some will say this horn has less projection. The copper bell produces less audible harmonics, which our ears pick up as a more focused tone; which some will say this horn has more ‘core’ and more ‘projection’.

2. RESONANCE

The assertion is trumpets have resonance. This is false.

Resonance describes the phenomena of amplification that occurs when the frequency of a periodically applied force is in harmonic proportion to a natural frequency of the system on which it acts. The term resonance (from Latin resonantia, 'echo', from resonare, 'resound') originates from the field of acoustics, particularly observed in musical instruments, e.g., when strings started to vibrate and to produce sound without direct excitation by the player.

The effect of resonance is to amplify sound. This requires 2 or more sources of vibrations, in harmony. It means the wave of source 2 is added to source 1, in perfect cycle, so to combine the energy of the 2 waves, and thus increase the amplitude.

Ask any violinist about a ‘wolf tone’. These are tones that mysteriously appear when an open string is played, usually the A string. Sound on a violin has 3 vibrating sources: the strings, the air inside the violin, and the wood. Too often, these sources combine to create resonance, which produces a louder A string than desired, for the duration of the note played. This produces a very unnatural sounding tone that is very audible. For this reason, violinists will go to extreme contortions to avoid this: they avoid resonance!

On a trumpet, how is it possible that a trumpet has 2 sources of vibrations, and in perfect cycle, and can be added perfectly? Have you ever encountered a time when somehow a G note is mysteriously louder with no additional effort from you?

Resonance requires a closed structure. Trumpets are not closed. For trumpets, this means a closed room. And, the acoustics of that room must be conducive to resonance. To prove this, simply play outdoors, and tell me how ‘resonant’ is your sound.

No trumpet can be resonant. It’s impossible.

3. AMPLIFICATION

The assertion is trumpets amplify sound. This is false.

Frankly, this a weird assertion. Amplification means the output is greater than the input. To increase anything, something must be added. For sound, the only factor is pressure. To increase pressure, more energy is required.

The term, amplification, is derived from the science of electronics. Typically, a weak analogue signal is fed into a circuit, which increases the power of that signal. This requires an additional source of energy. For audio amplifiers, that energy comes from the power supply: ie a battery or the power mains. If no additional power is added, no amplification is possible.

Tell me, does a trumpet have a power supply? How does a trumpet add more energy? How can a trumpet add pressure [in fact, trumpets decrease pressure]? It cannot.

Trumpets are not amplifiers.

4. EFFICIENCY

Frankly, I cannot define his assertion, but Adams tosses ‘efficiency’ into his mix quite frequently.

Efficiency is a ratio: the ratio of outputs to inputs. The quotient can never exceed ‘1’: because the principle of energy conservation means outputs can never exceed inputs (2÷2=1).

In a prior post, I explain the factors of sound and trumpet.
a/ Sound requires 2 factors: pressure and frequency (because our ears respond to these, only)
b/ A trumpet is an open-ended, conical tube. The pressure applied at the small end [mouthpiece] is drastically reduced at the large end [the bell]. The ‘smoke test’ demonstrates this visually and very clearly. Virtually no air flows through. Therefore, the trumpet is inherently inefficient.

To improve a trumpet’s efficiency, the output must increase. This means reduced volume and proportions. But doing so would ruin a trumpet’s tone and sound. All we can hope for is that one trumpet can magically produce slightly more output pressure than another trumpet. But each trumpet is static: ie fixed in volume and proportions, which the trumpeter cannot magically change via inputs alone. Thus, we must do with whatever inherent qualities any particular trumpet may have.

A trumpet has an extremely low efficiency. No trumpeter can increase this without physically altering the instrument.

THEREFORE:
a/ as the maths and smoke test demonstrate a trumpet’s extreme level of inefficiency;
b/ as our ears require pressure to hear sound, and increased amplitude requires increased pressure;
c/ as no trumpet can add energy to increase [amplify] pressure;
d/ as resonance requires 2 sources of vibrations and a closed structure;
e/ as no trumpet has 2 vibrating sources and a closed structure;

can anyone tell me what Mr Adams is talking about?

this thread is aptly labelled.. a little humour.

I wrote about this topic some time ago on another site, and was pilloried for it.

Your question: is air needed to play? Technically, yes, we humans require air to produce a sound via a trumpet.

But your reference to the video is not about playing, it is about how a trumpet could make a sound. Sound cannot be produced in a vacuum. Technically, yes, air is required for sound.

@administrator said in Trumpets Made ONLY by Their Maker:

A maker by very definition makes the thing they are maker of. The question really asks, "are there any trumpets where all of their parts are made and assembled in-house?"

In that case, for a trumpet that is hand-made by a single craftsman in-house, click these links:

http://www.musik-loebner.de/Musikhaus_Loebner.php?Loebners=Zylinderjazztrompete.html#close

[these will be in the category of... if you must ask for the price, you cannot afford it. ]

@tjcombo these days, I imagine a treatment for ingrown toenails would be political.

True, WE need air, but not for the reasons people think. The vid below demonstrates this.

What we perceive as sound is a function of 2 factors; pressure and frequency. Why? Because our ears are evolved so. No movement (ie displacement) of air is needed.

To produce a pressure from the trumpet, we need to apply a pressure into the trumpet/tube. For most of us, this means we must blow air into the tube. But, the tube must resist the air we apply: else no pressure will result.

To produce a frequency, we need to apply a vibration to the tube: for us, the source is our lips. For most of us, we need to exhale air against closed lips to produce a vibration/frequency.

Unfortunately, the science we learn in high school is erroneous, and thus people carry this throughout their lives. Sound is always depicted via 2-dimensional graph as a line to form a 'wave'; this pictorially presents sound to have a frequency we can measure, but excludes entirely the factor of pressure. But here is a simple fact: sound is 3-dimensional and 2-factored.

What we hear as high pitch from a trumpet is a function of both frequency and pressure: ie greater vibration and greater pressure, from the player. To achieve this, many factors must be combined. One factor is the resistance of the trumpet to help us create greater pressure. Thus, a trumpet requires bends in the pipes; the bends assist to create pressure. If the right pressures are achieved, what we call 'partials' can result. This is why a trumpet having a D-shaped lead pipe will be easier to play for high notes than one having a semi-circular C lead pipe.

The prof in the vid below is a talented musician, not a scientist. Unfortunately, he cannot explain the science for what he demonstrates. But, he is on the right track.

For anyone who may doubt the above, kindly ponder why the flame produces a sound exiting the glass tube; when the flame itself consumes air and burns without a vibration.

@Shepherds_Crook said in Adams new Balanced Trumpet at Taylor Music:

http://www.1800usaband.com/products/view/7875

Last year, I had the fortune to play an Adams trumpet: but I cannot recall the model! Maybe an A3. Whichever the model, the horn was simply great; very much better than my Bach Strad in all respects. So if the same perfection is given to this balanced horn, it should sell very well. I'm surprised not more 'pros" play Adams.

Also, I played the Carol Brass balanced horn. This, too, is a great horn. Its tone is difficult to describe: more open than my Strad. Easier to play, too. The balance definitely makes the horn easier to hold for long periods.

If I needed a different horn, I would definitely buy one of the two.

@Kehaulani What do you mean, "take more air"? Technically, yes, a larger bore is a larger diameter, which creates a larger volume of air.

@vulgano-brother me too, I have a megatone-looking 3c from an unknown Chinese mfgr, for about $7 new. For mine, compared to the genuine Bach 3C I have ca 1972, I would say the cup width is same, the bite sharper, and cup depth deeper. The sound is a tad darker and more brassy, and it is more difficult to play above the staff. The build quality is better; better silver plating. The B 3C gives a sweeter sound at pianissimo, much louder sound at forte, and is easier above the staff. For $7, price can't be beat. I bought it to experiment with the weight and sound. I do like the extra weight as a counter balance; the horn balances better in my hands.

@GeorgeB I know well the trumpet he bought, having been to the factory that made it. All Thomann horns are made in China. Some Bach horns are made in China. One Thomann model is made in the factory that makes Bach oem. I shall not disclose who and where, as I wish to avoid liability for libel or such. The horn pictured is decent for a student. I would not describe it as fantastic. It has resistance and intonation issues, and has a bright somewhat thin tone, and feels uncomfortable in my hands. Mechanically very good. A mature player will want something better. The Thomann price is many times more than factory. The Bach price even more times more. If the owner is happy with it, that's all that counts.

@ssmith1226 All very true. As much as I wish to, I shall refrain from adding comments about wars, to respect the TB rules banning politics. What is war if not politics? Well, you seem to agree the song and performance by Lay, with his magnificent voice, is indeed moving, so I believe I have made my points about the performance, message, politics. I believe truly, were the world ruled by musicians, we would not have wars.

Care to post your opinion/s about valve oils?

re Cass.
FWIW... I have used the Bach oil since time began. Reason; it's fast. But... Bach is petrol based, so it is 'aromatic' and 'volatile': which implies it smells and evaporates quickly, which implies re-oiling every 2 hours or so. Seeking to avoid the smell and evaporation, I tried a bottle of Al Cass Fast, which is 'synthetic'. This Cass is indeed odourless and clear, as claimed. But Cass is not 'fast'. Cass viscosity feels significantly thicker, which causes valve action to be slower and require more finger-muscle. The viscosity makes the valves feel smoother, but at the expense of slower. But it is very much less volatile, so valves feel well oiled for many days. pros and cons.

@GeorgeB agree entirely. enthusiasm is the most important factor.

update: arrived... Tromba T3
Received a bottle of La Tromba T3. Apart from an amber colour, and a slight 'fragrance' that reminds me of fruits, and a higher price tag... I cannot say this is any faster then the Cass Fast oil.

So far, the fastest oil I have found is the good'ol Bach. It may be smelly and volatile, but it is quick.

These no-smell oils must be refined from gas concentrate, which would account for their higher viscosity and lesser volatility. Oils like the Bach are refined from crude into kerosene and further refined into near colourless, which accounts for their odour, lower viscosity, higher volatility.

Seems everything these days is a compromise: odourless means slower; faster means odour. Good to have choices?

@georgeb My experience with the unbranded OEM model was exactly the same: a very nice horn in all respects, except above the staff.

@rowuk You are 100% correct. The very definition of OEM is made-to-order. For self-label, the Chinese will build to what sells. This is purest form of capitalism: supply to demand. The Chinese are more than capable of producing the finest quality in just about everything. They don't often, because they know to go against top brands means to carve into a very entrenched, consumer psyche. When I visited the OEM manufacturer for Bach, I trialled a self-branded horn that was equal, if not better, to my Strad. Such a horn will never be sold in NA, due to cost and price; who would pay a near-Bach price for a near Bach, when for a bit more you could have the real Bach? Such 'commercialism' is not confined to instruments. Mercedes-Benz tried to compete with Rolls Royce, by offering the Maybach. Maybach was an excellent vehicle, technically superior to the Rolls in all aspects. Rolls continued to sell, while the Maybach did not. Toyota can make the finest automobile too, and created a new brand to sell them. The Chinese have learned this lesson well.