What makes the sound?

[Mary Ann]

I will re-iterate too, just this once (ha) for hopefully some concept of clarity: it is the size of the hole in your face that is what works. If it weren't the size then you wouldn't need lips in the cup doing anything at all, and you could just vary air speed or something like that. Yes there is vibrating going on, but it's not the same as a free buzz producing a clear pitch, no matter what some of the famous horn teachers say. (And they do not succeed with all students, either.)

I enjoy demonstrating to high brass players how I play my first note of the day, which on the NS is always the open Eb below the staff. I blast the note, freeze my face, turn to the side and blow exactly the same way; there is a "hint" of the pitch but that's all. I so clearly am not making a "buzz" and my lips are pooched out, not formed into the shape I'd have to use to make a free buzz sound on that note.

Most of you are on this same page and we are the ones who like to figure out what we do, and it doesn't really matter unless you are trying to teach someone else, and then it does matter. You don't have to be particularly good to have figured this out, either, but if you have figured it out you'll be better than if you haven't.

[bloke]

And yes, Mr Louis Armstrong had a huge dent in his face from his mouthpiece. I have to believe that this resulted from mashing his instrument into his face when he was first learning to play. All of the damage outlined in CK's link surely was and can be caused by doing that.

[TheDoctor]

How does a tuba (or other brass instrument) make a sound?

First ya make a fart noise into the twisty brass tubes, then the noise gets embiggened somewhere inside, and you get tuba noise.
That’s about as far as my knowledge goes.

[peterbas]

...

[arpthark]

In what unit is "power" measured here?

[bloke]

In what unit is "power" measured here?

There you go again, questioning The Science.

[peterbas]

...

[donn]

Y'all are going to trigger the people who believe that a clarinet reed is actually thumping against the tip of the mouthpiece, the blades of a bassoon reed actually hit each other at the tip over and over

That would include physicists and the like. The reed phenomenon is described with the verb "beat", and while it isn't so characteristic on the clarinet, it's common on the saxophone and typical on double reed instruments. The reed opens and closes due to the same kind of vibrating air column, like lips in a brass mouthpiece, and it works the same when the reed fully closes as when it doesn't - the air column pushes it back open, whether it was closed all the way or part of the way makes no difference. If you blow too much air at it, you can stick it shut - not really relevant.

In the discussion that I imagine this refers to, Doug Elliott illustrated brass players' lips closing, all the way, with high speed photographs. Maybe it happens more with trombone than tuba, only with some players, who knows, but his opinion at the time was that we all close, whether we feel it or not.

Does it matter? No. I mean, if you have a characteristic sound, it could have something to do with whether your lips close, or how long they stay closed during the cycle. Somewhat like the woodwinds, where the non-beating soft tone is fairly different, not just softer. But in terms of the acoustic principles, whether your lips close or not is immaterial.

[bloke]

Stick the key in, turn it, and out comes the nonsense.
An interesting study would involve polling people's beliefs, and then recording their playing.
Defining "science" as "because an authority figure says so, and they did a really good job of convincing me" is how the Catholic Church defined "science" through and beyond Galileo's time. I don't view that as a particularly straight path towards the truth or what is.

"Science" and "what is" are not synonyms. The definition of "science" is "the seeking of what is".

[peterbas]

...

[bloke]

The problem with "scientists" is that too many of them embrace/group-think "The Science" rather than actually being scientists (who always understand that not everything is "settled", and that actual truth and those things which actually are cannot be determined by some sort of group-think vote or a "consensus"). Things which are, are going to be, and cannot be changed by what men (regardless of the credentials they have awarded themselves) believe or wish them to be.

Those who believe that the lips rattle against each other (even when we spread them well over a quarter of an inch apart to execute very low fortissimo frequencies), that single reeds rattle against the tips of their mouthpieces, and that bassoon and oboe double reeds rattle against each other (the bassoon reed thing really prompting me to smh), always avoid the additional example that I offer of the jaw harp's suspended spring steel reed, which obviously doesn't touch anything. When it does touch something (due to someone biting the frame too hard), the sound becomes uncharacteristic or else stops completely.

It always seems that the same people who believe in the rattling of these things (rather than the free vibration of them) causing the sound are the same people who believe that humans releasing carbon into the atmosphere is leading to the end of the world, ie. yet another example of "The Science" than science (again: much like "The Science" dictated by the Church during the Dark Ages).

Even piano/guitar strings, timpani heads, and such - once set into motion - vibrate freely, and are not continuously whacking themselves against other things. Lips and reeds (small, wide, and short) aren't as prone to vibrating as are drum heads and strings, thus - rather than being set in motion by a single strike - require continuously being stimulated by a stream of air, in order to continue to vibrate freely.

Science can (but doesn't always) lead to discovery of that which is. "The Science" (again) is what the Church dictated during the Dark Ages.

bloke "It's still sort of early - and I've only had one cup of coffee, but this is the best troll that I could manage this early in the day."

[donn]

No one but you says "rattling." That sound you're hearing there isn't coming from the computer.

Try to hold these two thoughts in your mind at the same time, as a prerequisite for further discussion:

Wind instrument tone generators like lips and reeds ...

• may touch (or strike)
• do not generate tone by striking

[bloke]

If those "may" be your strategies for playing tuba and sax, please don't send me recordings (although I wouldn't expect to hear much sound recorded on them).

For my original-very-leaky-pads Buescher bass sax, I ordered (just for the time being) a VERY soft Légère reed (in order to be able to blow past all the leaks, and just mess around with it a little bit - prior to restoration and all new pads with no leaks).
The reed is so very soft that - unless I take particular care - the tip of the reed might barely touch the tip of the mouthpiece. Guess what happens then...

[donn]

The reed opens and closes due to the same kind of vibrating air column, like lips in a brass mouthpiece, and it works the same when the reed fully closes as when it doesn't - the air column pushes it back open, whether it was closed all the way or part of the way makes no difference. If you blow too much air at it, you can stick it shut - not really relevant.

... And of course the softer the reed (and the closer the facing), the more likely that problem.

Whether the lips/reed touch, has nothing to do with how much sound comes out. It doesn't generate the tone. It isn't a strategy, it's just what happens with wind instrument tone generators.

[bloke]

The first sound is my trying to make a fart sound with my lips, attempting to jam my lips together, which allows them to touch (when I'm not managing to blow them back apart). The sound starts and stops. As my air manages to blow my lips apart, I get a very restricted and dampened vibration, but - as soon as I overpower the air so that my lips can again touch - the sound stops or jumps.

The second sound is me holding my lips apart from each other in an "embouchure", and allowing them to vibrate freely and individually - as does a bassoon reed.

With both tacks (whether or not you might believe me) I was attempting to get the best sound I could manage to get.

I told Mrs. bloke - a bassoonist - that some people believe that the tips of bassoons' double reeds touch each other in-order-to/when make the sound. She laughed.

[peterbas]

...

[arpthark]

Not stepping on either side of this since I am not even really sure what I am seeing here, but here it is, for discussion's sake:

[peterbas]

...

[donn]

And for the jaw harp, if the frame isn't touching a solid object it will not produce any sound.
So the frame against the teeth, the lips on the frame and the tongue to the frame. A lot of touching going around.
For string instruments, a true freely string would be not touching the instrument on both ends. Try getting sound now.

Yes, this is a good point, that these instruments are going to be rather useless analogies because the tone generation is so different - soundboards etc. To be clear, it just doesn't have much of anything to do with wind instruments. Touching / not touching, is not a real issue here, with the fundamental mechanics of wind instrument tone generation.

[peterbas]

...