This ability to play a single sustained note for 59 minutes is a game changer for me,

I thought I had too few tunes in my set when gigging, I see now that I dont need more tunes I just need longer notes.

Circular breathing opens the door to 30 minute notes for me and a larger paycheck for less effort.

I could make a tune last 24 hours with this approach.

I may pick up the drum sticks and repeat the 2370 beats per minute of that 10 year old who beat the old record, Who needs to learn rhythm when you can kick out almost 3000 beats per minute.

This performance and the 59 minute sustained note are clearly pushing the boundaries of music.

Some say we have lost real music to the sideshow but I say I cant wait until we have the 3 hour sustained note and the 10,000 beats per minute drum solo,

In your dreams Buddy Rich and Miles you guys hadnt got a clue about real music.

If this excellent recording by the Leningrad brass sounds this good and this powerful due to their use of home made poorly manufactured instruments made from old car and truck parts then let us all play on such instruments.

I have seen so called musicians complain that they have never managed to get a decent sound out of any bach instrument and likewise other musicians say similar things of shilke or martin or conn.

I have also seen a good musician deliver a superb performance from a so called communist wall-hangar ornament.

I also believe that the communist regime were obsessed by a need to show the superiority of the communist workers over the decadent west and if the instruments really were compromising the performance and making the musicians task impossible then they would have corrected that situation.

I believe that a great musician can make even a stove pipe sound great.

A brass instrument is just a tube, it is the musician that is the heart and soul of a great performance, he does not need some thirty thousand dollar instrument to sound great. The instrument just makes it easier to sound great.

There are many reasons why this could be happening, but lets assume the instrument should play and you have the right valves for the instrument.

I assume from your post that the air is being blocked somehow so I will address that.

There could be some blockage in for example the ports between the valves.

Let us first try to make sure the valves are in the right chambers.

Remove all the valves.

Now blow into the mouthpipe and see if air freely exits the mouthpipe into the third chamber with no restriction.

If it does place the third valve in its chamber and secure it with valve guide located. Then blow again into the mouthpipe. If the air is blocked then you have a wrong valve or a valve wrongly fitted.

Reseat the valve 180 degrees apart and see if the air now blows through.

If you cannot get the air to blow through then it is probably a wrong valve try the others and see if the air will blow through.

If the air blows through with the third valve fitted then move on to the second.

Fit the second valve and try to blow through, if you cannot blow through then try the valve 180 degrees the other way.

If you can blow through then fit the first valve and try to blow through.

I know it sounds a bit daft but this method should reveal if the air will move through the instrument with no valves pressed, and also will check all ports between valves are clear.

Once the air blows through you can test there is no blockage in the valve slides by blowing through and then as you blow press a valve.

Once you have made sure air passes through the instrument with no valves pressed and with each valve pressed then there is no blockages.

I assume that one of these tests will reveal a blockage somewhere.

If no blockages exists then you should have the valves all correctly fitted and the instrument should then play.

I have never had a problem finding plenty of places to play.

First of all equipment, the smallest under seat cabin bag for most international carriers can accommodate a standard trumpet.

If that doesnt work cornets fit in the smallest of bags.

I have travelled abroad internationally in passenger jets with a trumpet stowed in a cabin bag under the seat in front of me with no difficulties at all.

Dump the trumpet case, take a soft cabin bag.

This means you will never have to compromise on your equipment while travelling.

When you get to your destination, there are always parks woods streets back alleys I have never had any difficulty finding a dozen places within minutes of where I am accommodated.

The only place there has ever been any issue or restriction
was a Mall. And their heads were so far up their rear ends they outlawed their customers from singing or humming to themselves in the Mall.

The problem you will most likely face is turning people down who want you to play for them.

The main problem I expect you to suffer is there being too many places to play and practice in rather than there being too few.

What I have seen in the past in forums is trumpet players who insist on buying a pocket trumpet when there is no need, and then they insist upon playing it in their hotel room and suffering intonation issues from unfamiliar gear and complaints from the hotels guests.

Take a trumpet with you, walk to a park, alley, street, and you will be astounded by the good will and respect the citizens there who are staved of live music, will give you for your efforts.

What better high is there for a musician than spontaneous applause and cheers for what amounts to doing a bit of practice to preserve your chops.

One thing I would suggest is learning a few simple tunes that you can play easily that local audiences might like, but I suspect you dont need that being an experienced player.

People want to hear you, so let them and have a ball doing it.

You got me on a technicality

Ok first of all dont panic it may be that the instrument is gunged up and needs a really good clean.

I would also suggest that the corks are falling apart, and the water valves corks are probably leaking.

Bad or leaking corks can make an instrument sound strangled. I would take it to a good tech and ask them to make it playable, basically a cork and felt replacement and that should only cost a few dollars and will make a world of difference.

Also they will check the valves are all seated correctly and working correctly.

The instrument sounds like a Reynolds Medalist trumpet these were a premier student trumpet from a great manufacturer and they had many features of professional instruments. It sounds like you have a very good instrument there that is well worth having a tech check it over and it will help you to develop for many years.

@Kehaulani

Or maybe we dont perform as well as we used to.

I think there are lots of reasons, I like your direct and no messing about way of expressing yourself Kehaulani, it is very refreshing.

I would counter that there was nothing communicated throughout this clip between 0:43 to 2:41

0:43 to 0:50 was the exactly same as 1:10 to 1:30 and exactly the same as 2:10 to 2:30 in content it was the musical equivalent of repeatedly saying

Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago

Yes the audience went wild but audiences have gone wild over my performances and that reaction in itself does not mean anything was communicated, other than surprise.

I can make audiences cheer due to surprising them as well as anyone but it is not an aspiration of mine to make a career from simply surprising or shocking people.

They were impressed by trombone shortys ability but there was no communication at all that I could detect beyond "I can do the same thing over and over and over and over again without stopping"

I agree trombone shorty was skillful but being skillful is not communication.

Any politician could have given a speech at ghettysburg, but Abraham Lincoln communicated a message that inspired a nation.

Just repeating the same few notes over and over again for 2 minutes or for 2 hours or for 2 days does not move me at all.

I can listen to an entire performance of The Magic Flute, that is 3 hours and 5 minutes and be entertained from beginning to end but 2 minutes of trombone shorty had me losing the will to live.

I deeply suspect that your conductor had no idea of your quality and that of your daily driver instrument.

Flugels I am led to believe can be somewhat skittish and variable. I must admit somewhat shamefully that I have never played on one.

Just having the name Bach or strad on an instrument is not an absolute guarantee of quality and beauty of tone even though the strad 135 is well respected, especially if the instrument is the worst for wear and has suffered a hard life.

It seems to me that if he knew about flugels he would have recognised your courtois 154r as one of the very best you can play. (going by reputation here).

I like that he reversed his decision when faced with the truth.

Is it possible for Bix to exist today with the internet and music resources so widely available.

Bix could not read music other than on a rudimentary level.

He was not trained in cornet or any brass instrument

He had to work out how to play and used alternate fingerings because he did not know correct fingerings

This led to a number of things, he developed a unique phrasing and style, and he did not write down his improvs or use licks.

In his last appearance he stood and was unable to play anything his improvs deserted him. If he were a modern player with licks a plenty and a strategy for jazz improv he would not have had a problem but instead would have made it through that performance.

He was replaced in the band because of being unable to play when called upon to do so.

If he were born today he would have access to theory training and software that would have moulded him to use correct technique correct fingering a huge number of licks and jazz phrases plus access to Jamey Abersold.

Would he have any chance of becoming the great man that Bix became in his lifetime.

Possibly, but I doubt it.

Students learn to be as their teacher, Bix had no teacher and was free to develop to his full potential in areas that mattered.

I believe that if he was born today Bix would not be Bix.

I believe that the saying keep a fighter hungry applies, Bix was hungry for Jazz and when he couldnt find what he needed he invented it and we all benefit from that.

Long live Bix, the musician the seeker the inventor the ground breaking Jazz man.

Forever we will be in his debt

On the question of whether the cost of refurbishing a horn exceeds the value of the horn after the refurbishment is completed, I have known many cases where that is not true and a profit from refurbishment can therefore be made.

Even after adding the cost of the purchase to the refurbishment the value of the horn can still exceed the total costs.

Real world example of a horn in my possession in ukp purchase price 200 refurbishment price 550 typical sale price on the second hand market in excess of 900.

So it can be done sometimes.

I have also seen Martin committees on buy it now for 1700 refurbishment costs around 550 and they are commonly offered for between 3000 and 6000 in excellent condition.

It is difficult but not impossible, and it help if you are lucky.

just my 2 cents

It is my belief that creating trying to create a close copy of an instrument out of other instruments parts is unlikely to yield success.

Instrument designers had a goal in their designs and they used subtle design elements to reach that goal.

Assembling parts in the hopes of replicating that goal abandons their design philosophy.

I feel the way forward is to research instruments by other makers that also reached that goal and therefore had fewer compromises.

For example Shilke, Reynolds, Martin, Rudy Muck, Bach, Besson, Selmer, Olds, and others. All these created wonderful instruments and there may be a close alternate to the 28b somewhere amongst them.

Reynold Shilke for example designed solutions to intonation problems in his horns by careful placing of braces, constrictions, the shaping of the bell flare, and the tapers.

Such sophisticated design elements cannot be replicated simply by assembling foreign parts from other instruments with different design elements in them, something would have to give, and that might be the tone the core the blow or the intonation.

Just my 2 cents

No I havent had cataract surgery, I am not qualified to comment of the time you should wait before returning after this procedure.

I posted my comments to suggest that you allow yourself the best chance of a swift and issue free recovery.

The doc suggested 10 days, enough said, we are talking health here. Trumpet playing can be stressful on the body as we all know.

I would add the following anecdotal comment, some years ago a severe motorbike accident left me with spinal injuries several fractured vertebra punctured lung and several major broken bones, the neuro surgeon in charge of my case said that a significant number of patients have been discovered to be very slow to recover while others are swift.

We cannot know in advance which group we are in.

I would therefore for safety sake assume myself to be in the very slow to recover group and allow longer than the doctor recommends for recovery unless I have definite evidence to the contrary.

In my opinion it just is not worth gambling my prospects of recovery for the sake of saving a day or two in the recovery.

Just my 2 cents.

Good luck.

Not all trumpet playing is the same.

I would be inclined to begin with gentle playing in the lower register at first so internal pressures do not build.

Then gradually lift the playing to the upper register.

Driving out high notes has been suggested as a contributing factor to eye problems in some players when taken to excess so some care in this area may be wise.

My mistake

These are chat room rules and I dont do chat rooms

I dont need a chat room.

I like to learn new things and that often means lengthy posts.

I was putting lengthy posts in a chat room.

I wish you well with your chatting however.

I pretty much expected that response.

The response of a spoiled child who has read up on a subject, is incapable of an adult conversation on the topic and just wants to "prove" how much he knows.

If you dont like what is written you always have the option to not read it, but in your case you choose instead to try to force the writer to obey you and you ridicule them if they dont do that.

I am happy you have chosen silence for the future, but if you do answer any of my post in an adult manner I will be more than happy to have a dialogue with you.

Until then fare well and good luck

@Jolter

you are turning a discussion into an argument again.

Whether you like it or not the fact is the 7 layers exist, from level 7 the application layer that we interact with, to layer 1 the physical layer the lowest hardware level that is implemented for interconnectivity.

The internet is not the only game in town, there is a variety of different connectivity that is not internet based, we are talking radio based, defence based, high security applications, small bespoke implementations that avoid the internet.

NASA for example does not use the internet to communicate with devices in orbit. The Navy does not use the internet to communicate with ships at sea.

And in these lesser observed areas manufacturers implement the 7 layers for safety, data integrity, and security.

As for updating my knowledge I dont need to, I have worked at all levels in support of pc's, peripherals, servers, server farms, clusters, - Individuals, Companies, Corporations, Defence organisations, Banks, Hospitals, Government, the Armed forces.

The majority of my work was internet based and companies often cut corners there, but the internet was only one small part of the entire mix of connectivities I was responsible for supporting.

I do not wish to turn this into a fight, I was not correcting you I was praising your knowledge and contributing.

You seem very defensive however.

I was not questioning your knowledge why are you questioning mine, particularly when you make assertions that conflict with my hard won experience in industry working at all levels. And I have a significant amount of experience from the very highest level to the lowest.

I was simply pointing out that the OSI layers exist in the same way that laws exist. Not all manufacturers comply with the OSI and not all people comply with the law, but people should comply with the law and companies should comply with OSI.

But where they do comply with OSI and where they do comply with good practice, they apply error checking when transporting data between layers. This cannot be denied. If you were to deny this I would be forced to question your knowledge and experience.

It could be the case that you are very knowledgeable academically but educationalists do not know everything and in the real world academic knowledge sometimes falls short.

Error checking between OSI layers exists, it has not disappeared simply because it is not always applied by manufacturers who chose not to implement it.

Spanning of course exists where devices span layers error checking between layers is then unnecessary.

And simply because many manufacturers chose not to implement it does not mean we should not implement it. We should not abandon laws just because lots of people ignore them.

Now for a real world example of implementation of the OSI 7 layers and implementation of error checking that destroyed a businesses ability to operate.

I was tasked some years ago to resolve a catastrophic failure in a company that prevented any of the companies home workers from connecting and functioning.

The problem turned out to be caused by the error checking in the device at layer 1.

It was finding errors in the data every few seconds and then forcing a disconnect and resend of the data. Nobody could work and the company survival was threatened. This was a tier 1 catastrophic failure and every engineer assigned to it globally had failed to resolve it despite escalations and extensive work on it.

Nobody had the guts to turn off the error checking because it was bad practice to do so as it was mandatory to have error checking at the OSI layer boundary for this equipment.

I had to insist that we break the rules and disable error checking, I got my way because the fault could not be resolved in any other way and the equipment with error checking turned off, performed faultlessly.

I was told YOU CANT TURN ERROR CHECKING OFF everyone was trained to never break this fundamental rule it was a law. This is the difference between academic knowledge and real world knowledge. The world is not black and white sometimes we have to break rules that teachers say must not be broken to get results.

I do believe that you are very knowledgeable but the way you have approached your posts suggests a very detailed academic knowledge that does not always work in the real world.

You are not the only very knowledgeable person in the world. And when I add information to a thread that you have commented on that does not mean that I am questioning or doubting your knowledge or abilities.

As for your assertion that brevity is the key to understanding, I disagree brevity usually means leaving something out.

Technical subjects demand full and complete descriptions and answers or the entire story is not told.

And with the brevity comes lack of knowledge, and this lack of knowledge sometimes causes wrong decision making because we dont have all the facts..

In chat rooms nobody likes walls of text, but in technical descriptions walls of text are required or important information is missing.

The only way forward to escape this issue would be to refuse to speak technically in chat rooms, and that means we just chat pointlessly, I dont want that.

I refuse to miss out pertinent information simply because the reader cannot be bothered to read a full and complete text.

If they cannot be bothered to read a technical description in its entirety the fault lies with the reader and not the author.

Less is not more here, less is less.

@Jolter

I agree with J.Jericho your post is exceptionally well presented accurate and clear.

I would add however that while you are quite correct when you say that Memory in consumer hardware doesn't have error correction codes (ECC) but more expensive server hardware generally does, - we do however end up with error detection and correction due to the OSI 7 layers and the way it is implemented.

Typically hardware and software manufacturers include error checking at the OSI boundary their equipment communicates across.

The end result is error checking of the function of the consumer device by the back door.

This can and sometimes does lead to excessive and repeated error checking.

For example when sending information from the application layer in source machine 1 across a comms link to the application layer on destination machine 2, the data traverses 14 OSI boundaries so if we error check at every boundary transition, we error check the same data 14 times.

While in the classroom and the lab, error checking is mandated and always held to be a good thing, in the real world this excessive error checking has been known to kill the data transfer and cause catastrophic failures.

I have personal experience of this.

@J-Jericho

excellent post you are absolutely right

Put simply, a cmos logic gate is in essence a flip flop based upon a 3.5 volt threshold

The problem is there is no such thing as a logic circuit outputting logic 1 or logic 0.

There are instead analogue circuits that output a range of voltages that we can force to behave like logic circuits.

If the voltage output of the logic circuit or gate is higher than 3.5 volt it is a logic 1 if it is less than 3.5 volts it is a logic 0. 3.5 volts has been adopted in CMOS as the threshold for logic 1

CMOS gate values are supposed to be either 0 volts or 5 volts for those logic states, but they rarely are because they are analogue circuits trying to behave like digital circuits, so we use threshold values to detect the logic states.

In realty there could be any value between those voltages and given losses in the circuits a logic 1 of above 3.5 volts could be pulled down below 3.5 volts due to a voltage sink of some kind and become a logic 0.

Then the logic has changed when it should not have changed and the computer program has then malfunctioned.

The logic state should really be unknown if the voltage in the gate output voltage is less than the 3.5 volt threshold set for logic 1, but almost 3.5 volts.

When does a 0 become a 1 at what voltage 3.50 3.49. 3.48

What happens if a gate output is at the 3.5 volt threshold and rippling slightly between 3.4 volts and 3.6 volts.

This is the computer logic equivalent of panicking.

The detection of 3.5 volts or more causes downstream logic gates to flip due to logic 1 being detected but less than 3.5 volts causes the downstream logic gate to a flop to logic 0

There is a period of indecision due to logic gate ripple where the gates are all in an indeterminate state during the ripple and they take a period of time to settle into the final state of correct logic.

The larger the number of gates the longer it takes for the ripple through and to settle

This period of settling in which the logic gates are performing illogically grows as circuits are miniaturised and with greater miniaturisation comes greater difficulty of determining logic 1 in any single gate.

The hope is of course that all logic gates will settle correctly to the correct logic value however as you quite rightly point out losses due to miniaturisation plus abnormalities can disrupt the logic gate performance.

We cannot wait forever for logic circuits to settle so we make assumptions that within a set period of time all rippling will have ceased and logic circuits will have reached the correct values.

A typical 4 logic gate cluster takes 300 ps to settle, we need not explore the ramifications of this, it is not much time, 300 trillionths of a second, but compounded by the sheer total number of logic gates in a system means that it actually can take a significant amount of time for all rippling to cease in all the gates.

This is one of the limiting factors on the growth of computer systems

After rippling has ceased we then read the output of all the gates allowing time for all rippling to end plus x, - a safety margin time. We cannot risk reading a logic gate output if it is still rippling.

But what happens when a passing neutrino enters a logic gate and trips a gate from logic 1 to logic 0 during the safety margin wait state.

Rippling must begin again. This passing neutrino could also by the way on the hard drive stab a binary value in a stored program changing the program forever and preventing the computer from obeying the designed code, because the code has now changed and is no longer as programmed.

We are bombarded by Neutrinos every day and most pass through us harmlessly but when a neutron interacts with the semiconductor material, it deposits charge, which can change the binary state of the bit and Neutrinos can only be stopped by lead or concrete so computers are vulnerable to them in stored programs in RAM in ROM and in the data carried on the bus.

We may then finish up reading the logic output during a new rippling state caused by a neutrino attack. We then have a 50 50 gamble that the logic is in error.

Exactly as you describe and pointed out J.Jericho.

And exactly as you suggest greater miniaturisation makes this effect more likely as gates miniaturise more, but neutrinos do not miniaturise and their effects could become more profound for logic circuits as we miniaturise more over time.

The more logic gates you have the more opportunity there is for Neutrino disruption.

This is a very long post I know but we are deep diving here into complex areas that usually are hidden from the general public and largely unknown to them.

The present state of miniaturisation of logic is called VLSI very large scale integration and it brings issues that are difficult to address relating to robustness and reliability of these very large scale integrated circuits.

I am comfortable J.Jericho that you already know all of this and more besides, possibly more than I do on this topic given your excellent posts.

We are in examining this topic very close to the cutting edge of computing and its far reaching implications for the future of computer systems as we plod ever onwards down the road of greater miniaturisation and with greater miniaturisation comes greater risk of failures due to the very miniaturisation that we seek.

I intended this post to illustrate exactly why your post is technically correct and on topic. I do not intend to slight other members very few people understand this stuff, and we can only know what we know.

Most members know lots of stuff I do not know and cannot hope to know and I want to make it quite clear that not knowing this deeply technical and difficult subject is no reflection on them at all.

Moores law says computer gates double in complexity every 2 years. I would suggest that Risk doubles along with that.

I am not at all surprised that most people do not know all this it is the province of micro electronics engineers largely hidden from the public and there is no need for the public to know these things only electronics engineers chip designers and systems designers need to know this stuff.

What does surprise me on a daily basis is how reliable computers are given their huge vulnerability to errors and mishap.

Computers seem to me to fly less like an F15, and more like a bumble bee, they just manage to get there despite being a bit poor at flying.

@Shifty

I dont disagree with you in principle but the issue is, more than half the computers in the world are carrying errors many are carrying several errors many of which may take years to appear.

The argument here that we are discussing is that the computer will always obey the program that the human has inputted because thats what computers do. They execute lines of code as programmed.

Except they dont, that is a wrong statement. They simply appear to execute lines of code correctly for most of the time.

Never in the history of Intel computing have computers ever executed the code the programmer inputted and compiled.

The computer makes a copy of the code in RAM memory and executes that copy. It is fairly common for there to be a corruption in that copy, so you have a fail right there.

The truth is even if the copy is a good one, the computer does not execute the program correctly every time due to other errors that exist elsewhere.

And the computer cannot spot most errors it has to rely on checksums which dont reveal much and errors can cancel out in checksums.

There are several places where corruption of the program is likely to occur.

I can name several kinds of errors and in every case the program the human inputted is not followed by the computer.

FYI I worked as a second line support and a third line technical support engineer with Hewlett Packard working in Intel products SUN systems, coms and telecoms.

I designed and built several servers, designed and built a clustered supercomputer on Linux, I programmed distribution software for Hewlett Packard, I acted as an advisor to technical support companies and worked with Radio Networking companies.

I can tell you now computers do not always execute programs correctly due to fundamental issues in the way they are constructed configured and operate.

Check out Real Time computing and the ADA system

Ada is a strongly typed programming language that enjoys widespread use within the embedded systems and safety-critical software industry.

ADA solves some of these issues that plague intel systems

Computers were too unreliable for use on the Moon shot and NASA had to commission a new real time system that guaranteed that their computer would execute code correctly. NASA invented real time computing.

They would not have had to do that if computers executed code reliably and correctly but they didnt and still dont.

The only systems that do execute code correctly are real time systems, these are mission critical systems like air traffic control systems where lives are at risk or lost if code is not executed correctly.

I do know what I am talking about here.

Why do you think the most common fix for a computer is and always has been "turn it off and on again", it is because they often dont function correctly and they dont execute code correctly and turning them off and on again refreshes the OP sys the RAM images etc etc etc, for a few hours until the next error hits.

So does a computer execute code exactly how it was told to do in the code.

No - no way. Sometimes they do sometimes they dont.