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.
no possible way Alpert would have performed with Kerr.
I do. But not because of his playing with the Welk Orch. For me, the LWO was and remains way too square and restricted. I suspected the musicians were far better than their output with LWO, where, seemed to me, they were never given the opportunity to cut loose. My thoughts were confirmed one day when I heard a radio recording of a live performance of a big band. I cannot recall the time (ca 1970), location, event, pieces, in fact virtually nothing. But I do recall the radio host stating many members of the band were performing with permission from the LWO, and a few names were highlighted: Zell was one. Zell played a solo and lead for one piece. All I remember is what a huge difference from his LWO work; this time he could cut loose, and I was amazed by how fantastic he played. Maybe he used a different horn, but this time his music simply sprang to life. For that performance, he had everything except the ultra high range popular today. I suspect the LWO contract prevented him from performing elsewhere, and more the pity if true. Sadly, no recordings were made of this performance. So good of you to keep his memory alive.
Someone said LW had some very pretty ladies on his shows. I second this notion; two young ladies stick in mind. Real beauty is timeless.
The question: what does "it" take?
The answer (notwithstanding the poor grammar of the question):
Talent, application, and knowledge.
I am of the belief application and knowledge can be acquired, and, after sufficient diligence, many people can become "proficient" on an instrument.
True talent is God given.
To practice until you cannot play something wrong gives you a base and makes you a technician; not a musician.
fwiw.
@Shepherds_Crook said in Adams new Balanced Trumpet at Taylor Music:
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.
I am curious to know why people seem to collect trumpets, cornets, etc., in the same key (eg. Bb). I can understand why a pro would want all keys. Investment? Hobby? Curiosity? thanks.
Congrats! Appears to be in a super condition.
@Dr-Mark
I expected my points would garner some attention. Without providing a resume to "toot my own horn", I am equal academically to the scientists at UNSW; and have my own research, as an academic and player. Their research and your response are respected.
Allow me to quote from that research: "the resonances are a complete harmonic series, except for the fundamental". I need to see the research before commenting further. But, if you consider my post, have I not emphasised the importance of harmonics?
The problem I have with the research cited is this: a trumpet cannot alone create two sources of audible vibrations that combine in perfect sync. The trumpet valves channel air to the correct tube/s, and in the process close off all other tubes. Thus, the chance of a secondary wave forming in an other tube is impossible. Thus, resonance is impossible. Harmonics are possible.
To the topic of teaching "kids", young and old, how to attain full sound, I agree with you entirely: the science above and the article by Mr Adams would turn away all but the most intrepid. And THAT is one purpose of my posts.
For my own students, in 5 minutes I teach them sound is a combination of frequency and pressure. So simple. I teach them frequency is produced by vibrations from our lips. Lips need air flow to vibrate. The air comes from our lungs. By exhaling gently or strongly we create a volume and movement of air. When that air is channelled into the mouthpiece, we create low and high pressures. The combination of pressure and frequency enters the trumpet, and the trumpet mechanically produces an audible sound. The art of trumpet playing is to control the pressure and frequency, which require we control our bodies. If we constrict or strain our bodies, the sound is likewise. Thus the beauty of sound comes from within us. This is the meaning of "soul". And this is why I say the trumpet is an intimate instrument.
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?
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’.
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.
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.
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?
@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.
I thought a thread devoted to the tonal effects from different metals might be of general interest.
Here is a short vid for 2 Stomvi trumpets I find very interesting. One has a silver plated brass bell, the other a silver plated copper bell. [disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Stomvi in any way, and I am not promoting the brand.]. I am very intrigued by the tonal effects of the silver on copper.
@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?
@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.
@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?
@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!
Well, allow me to have a go at this, please. Correct me if incorrect. Simplistic...
The question is: do I need more air for a larger bore? The answer: it depends.
Why: Boyle’s Principle. Pressure and volume have an inverse function. If volume increases, pressure decreases.
Why is this relevant? Our ears. Our ears respond to 2 factors only: pressure and vibration. Our ears transform pressure and vibration into a signal to our brain, and our brain interprets this signal as sound.
So, to produce a sound from a trumpet, we need pressure and vibration. So how to do?
First, some basics.
Q1. So, do WE need air to make a sound?
A1. YES. Why? The air we push out from our lungs vibrates our lips. No air across our lips, no vibration. Try vibrating your lips without blowing air through them.
Q2. Does the trumpet need extra air to make a sound?
A2. NO. Why? The trumpet is already filled with ambient air. It needs a perturbation and a pressure to get that air to vibrate and produce the sound we hear.
Q3. So why do we see almost no air flowing out of the horn, when we use the smoke method? After all, when we ‘blow’ into the mouthpiece, we feel the release of air from the mouthpiece (m/p). Why is the bell output different from the m/p input (ie why the smoke test shows near zero air flow)?
A3. The key is Volume.
(a) First, we need to know exactly what occurs when air is vibrated at a specific frequency.
A wave is created, having nodes and antinodes. Textbooks illustrate this as a 'sine wave'; but this is incorrect, actually. Both the sine and cosine waves should be shown graphically, sort of like this … ∞∞∞ (I am trying to keep the physics to a minimum).
Why is this important? Because this is how the wave forms inside the trumpet, what exits, and what you hear. What we hear is the antinode, because this is the amplitude: the node has zero amplitude, but maximum pressure. The node must form at the bell: thus the bell shape and volume are critical for sound.
(b) If you blow directly into the lead pipe, you will feel air flow out of the bell (but no pitch). But the outflow will very be very much slower than what you inflow, and it will have much less force (pressure). The reason is simple; volume. As volume increases, pressure must decrease. If the outflow point has a much greater area than the inflow point, the flow from input to output will be very much reduced. The analogy is using a garden hose to fill an outdoor pool. Only a very small volume of water can be pumped through a garden hose, but with high pressure the flow velocity can be very high. If a small volume container is filled, the fill rate is rapid. But try to fill a pool, and the fill rate is very slow. The reason is volume. To prevent overflow, the pool may have an exit port. If the exit port is very much larger in area than the hose nozzle, the flow and pressure of water exiting the pool will be very slow and very low.
(c) So with Volume, Pressure, Velocity, Frequency, we can now comprehend our trumpet and our interaction.
(i) We fill the m/p with a volume of air, moving at some velocity, and vibrating at some frequency. The m/p exit hole is about 3mm. The cup width/depth varies greatly, but let’s peg at 16mm x 8mm. If the bowl is semi-spherical, the max volume will be 2.15ml. The air exiting the m/p will have a noticeable pressure and velocity.
(ii) As our air flows through the trumpet, it must flow through an ever increasing volume. Two results: the pressure decreases; and the wave from the m/p elongates and drops in frequency. If the exit diameter at the bell is 70mm, this alone will account for a reduction of over 20x the input pressure. When we consider the volume of the horn to the m/p volume, the scale factor is huge. Thus the combined factors result in a very low volume and low pressure of air exiting the horn: the resulting air flow may be <1% of the input. Thus we perceive almost zero effects for the smoke test.
Q4. So what about sound volume? Why must I blow harder to get more sound volume? Notice: we are talking about “sound volume” (ie Amplitude) exiting the horn, not physical “air volume”.
A4. Pressure. (physics: the node is point of maximum pressure, thus the antinode is the least pressure). Amplitude is the antinode. Thus for a max antinode, we must have a max node (pressure). We create pressure by blowing air into a vessel (m/p) that is less in volume than the feedstock volume (our lungs). The more pressure we create, the more resulting amplitude.
Q5. Ok. But what about the high notes? Why do these require more effort than the lower notes?
A5. 2 reasons.
(i) Our bodies are very limited in capacity. Our lips are extremely limited and weak: in “natural” state, they are simply not engineered to vibrate at high tension to create high frequency vibrations. We must train our lips/embouchure into a very unnatural state. This requires effort to develop and to apply on demand.
(ii) High notes result from high frequencies exiting the horn. A high frequency requires many times more nodes than a low frequency. Nodes result from pressure. Thus as frequency increases, we must apply more air pressure to create the nodes AND we must increase the tension in our embouchure. The combined factors result in an exponential function: ever increasing tension and pressure.
Q6. Bore. How does the bore of the trumpet factor into all this?
A6. Complicated. The bore relates to the diameter of the tubing at valve #2. In theory, a larger diameter tube will have volume greater than a smaller diameter. But this does not mean a trumpet of L bore will have an overall volume greater than one of ML bore: the bell shape and length is a significant factor to overall volume, and thus an L bore horn can be equal in overall volume to an ML bore horn, and vice versa. Added to this, is the internal resistance of each horn, which is in itself a very complicated aspect to analyse: lead pipe taper; thickness of tubes; radius of bends; bell taper and flare; and more are all factors. Added to this is “dual bore”, where the connection to the bell is usually larger than the rated bore: which creates a lower pressure point within the horn, and presumably this results in lesser internal resistance.
So does a larger bore horn require more air? The honest answer is “it depends”.
I hope this long winded post has not bored too many people.