TubaForum.net

Well ... bleah.

I looked around and found the same info about Greenline. And also what seems to be a consensus that it's heavier than wood, and what I think is fairly strong indication that it isn't real strong. Tenon joints breaking etc.

This is BS. People who buy Greenline clarinets are impressed with how well they play ... because it doesn't make any difference. As long as you get the tone holes shaped right and all that stuff, you're going to get the same sound whatever the instrument body is made of. It isn't a violin where the soundboard material has a critical role in sound production. The clarinet body makes no difference, it just forms a volume within which the sound does its thing.

To make a big deal of a composite that has Grenadilla wood in it ... but is heavy and fragile? That's sad. One word - are you listening? "polypropylene."

Hell yeah, I'd be up for that. i have a clarinet, a nice wood LeBlanc that I never play, partly because it already has a slight crack in the top joint and of course a clarinet that's rarely played is even more likely to respond to a little playing by cracking some more. (And partly because shrill high notes are not me.) A made-in-USA Vito that isn't wood? Perfect. It's not like I'm totally stuck on polypropylene (I believe my Vito bass clarinet is of that estimable material.)

As an eefer-American, who also plays euphonium, I find it convenient to tell the family, "I'm going to go play my horn," when I disappear to practice.

I suppose I could say, "I'm going to go play my bass tuba," or " I'm going to go play my tenor tuba, " but that would be cumbersome. And there might be people who argue that a euphonium is not actually a tenor tuba.

So, I will use the word horn because no less of an authority than the Walt Disney animation studios have said it is so.

On materials in woodwinds: My friend the professor of cryogenic something-or-other physics at San Jose (State?) (who, BTW, is a HORN player) says that a concrete flute would sound exactly the same as a platinum flute if the inner dimensions were exactly the same, and the reason more expensive flutes sound better (hopefully) is the finishing of the insides; whether the inside dimensions are also different, I have no idea. Which makes me wonder why would any company make a product worse on purpose to sell to a "lesser market?" I have a long way to go in understanding basic greed.

I have long thought that this would be an almost practical experiment. Not with a flute, but say a trumpet. Want to be a famous brass instrument scientist? Seal a trumpet's valves up so they won't get concrete in them, and plug up the bell, and pour concrete around it. Clear out the bell and see if it plays any different than it did before. It will be a lot heavier, that's all. If you can perfect the technique, though, it might be the rage for long enough that you could make a few bucks selling trumpet boulders that have an exceptionally stable high end or something.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 2:36 pm On materials in woodwinds: My friend the professor of cryogenic something-or-other physics at San Jose (State?) (who, BTW, is a HORN player) says that a concrete flute would sound exactly the same as a platinum flute if the inner dimensions were exactly the same, and the reason more expensive flutes sound better (hopefully) is the finishing of the insides; whether the inside dimensions are also different, I have no idea. Which makes me wonder why would any company make a product worse on purpose to sell to a "lesser market?" I have a long way to go in understanding basic greed.

I once got into an argument with a music ed professor at U. of Kentucky over this same subject about 50 years ago. We started out discussing the differences between laquer, raw brass, and silver. He said it's been proven that if the inner dimensions were the same. I asked if he thought a concrete tuba would sound the same as my brass one, and he said yes. So as a research project, I did a blind test behind a screen putting various things on the bell, a rubber bell guard, a belt around the throat of the bell (that idea came from David Kuehn), and with nothing, asking if they could hear a difference between each one. The tuba professor (Conner) and the trumpet teacher said yes to each one, while the music ed professor said no, either to prove his point or because he couldn't hear. I think that's why he was a music ed professor and not a player.

donn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:28 pm I have long thought that this would be an almost practical experiment. Not with a flute, but say a trumpet. Want to be a famous brass instrument scientist? Seal a trumpet's valves up so they won't get concrete in them, and plug up the bell, and pour concrete around it. Clear out the bell and see if it plays any different than it did before. It will be a lot heavier, that's all. If you can perfect the technique, though, it might be the rage for long enough that you could make a few bucks selling trumpet boulders that have an exceptionally stable high end or something.

I would think the resonance off that concrete would be just a wee bit different from that from vibrating brass.

Careful folks: this is inching dangerously close to becoming a lacquer vs. silver debate!

Jperry1466 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:44 pm I would think the resonance off that concrete would be just a wee bit different from that from vibrating brass.

That's why it's a good experiment. In my version of the acoustic principles, if you're getting any significant resonance out of that brass, it's probably subtracting from the sound, not adding to it. Brass instruments are not like violins. The air is set in motion at the mouthpiece, to resonate within a semi-enclosed volume. The concrete reinforcement is going to improve the output, if it makes any difference at all.

Or maybe I'm wrong, as rarely as that ever happens. The concrete trumpet will tell the tale. (OK, if it weren't for the problematic experimental design.)

Well, he said flute, not brass instrument. Because of the way the sound is produced.

Blind testing has to be blind to the performer, too. It’s too hard to avoid unconsciously manipulating the results if the performer knows, but that’s the tricky part—constructing a test where the performer doesn’t know.

And the study has to require a preference, not a difference. Even if the person thinks they can’t hear a difference, they have to give a preference. If they really can’t hear a difference, the won’t show a statistical preference.

Many samples will be required, which may require multiple sessions.

If there is a statistical preference, there is a statistical difference.

Rick “most testing is biased” Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 9:37 pm Blind testing has to be blind to the performer, too. It’s too hard to avoid unconsciously manipulating the results if the performer knows, but that’s the tricky part—constructing a test where the performer doesn’t know.

And the study has to require a preference, not a difference. Even if the person thinks they can’t hear a difference, they have to give a preference. If they really can’t hear a difference, the won’t show a statistical preference.

Many samples will be required, which may require multiple sessions.

If there is a statistical preference, there is a statistical difference.

Rick “most testing is biased” Denney

This is very true. I just thought it interesting that the music ed prof disagreed with the two brass teachers 100% down the line. I didn't really have a preference; I was trying to decide whether I wanted to leave the protective ring around the bell or do without. As time went on, I found that the rubber ring killed a few of the harmonics and made a couple of notes less responsive, but it gave me a somewhat darker sound. No ring gave me better response but a brighter sound that I didn't like as much. And some here will say that it couldn't make a difference; maybe it was all in my head. But I managed to tick off a non-musical professor and still got a B in the course.

donn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 5:28 pm That's why it's a good experiment. In my version of the acoustic principles, if you're getting any significant resonance out of that brass, it's probably subtracting from the sound, not adding to it. Brass instruments are not like violins. The air is set in motion at the mouthpiece, to resonate within a semi-enclosed volume. The concrete reinforcement is going to improve the output, if it makes any difference at all.

Or maybe I'm wrong, as rarely as that ever happens. The concrete trumpet will tell the tale. (OK, if it weren't for the problematic experimental design.)

Well, we may be having 2 different conversations. You're talking about a trumpet encased in concrete, while I'm describing a tuba made of nothing but concrete. Maybe I don't hear the difference I think I do when I play on a Lexan mouthpiece vs. a silver or gold plated brass one. I may be entirely wrong, which I very often am. Just ask my wife.

Jperry1466 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 10:05 pm You're talking about a trumpet encased in concrete, while I'm describing a tuba made of nothing but concrete.

If it's poured right, it's just going to be concrete lined with metal. No one cares what's on the inside of their horns, am I right?

Maybe I don't hear the difference I think I do when I play on a Lexan mouthpiece vs. a silver or gold plated brass one.

Well, of course this is a sensitive subject, but ... no. The plastic mouthpiece is our case in point. People hear differences with heavy mouthpieces, mouthpieces made of this or that (as long as they can see the difference) - and then along comes this mouthpiece that probably floats in water and it's almost rubbery, and you can't tell the difference in sound without looking. As observed above - most testing is biased.

That said, I'm talking mainly about what others could conceivably hear, and the player is in a position to pick up on more. There could be some difference in how a plastic mouthpiece transfers sound vibrations directly to your ear through the skull. The player is sure going to hear a different sound from a tuba's bell, sitting beside/behind it, than the audience. Etc. And some players may have a different playing experience with different mouthpiece surfaces - gold plating for example, vs. other materials.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 6:07 pm Well, he said flute, not brass instrument. Because of the way the sound is produced.

Both, because of the way the sound is produced. If we were talking about a stringed instrument, definitely not. But flute vs. trumpet, in terms of specifically how the sound is produced -- same difference.

As for experimental design, double blind etc. ... forget it. No one's ever going to win that game. I'm going for the "are you amazed that a plastic tuba can work at all" prize, where we will certainly never convince everyone that the concrete trumpet is the equal of the brass one, but a lot of people will get the basic idea: resonance of the brass itself plays no significant role.

... And I hasten to add, it's for the sake of artistic freedom. We're artists, not engineers, we don't have a responsibility to our clients to bring instruments constructed with approved principles of science. If a tuba mouthpiece made of granite, rotated a particular way on your tuba, makes you play better, then you play better and it's all good. You're a ___ing artist, not an engineer!

Saw this on Youtube on this subject:


with 'trumpets' made from various materials

.

.

peterbas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 3:58 am In this video you can see a valveless trumpet made in concrete. We don't know how good an amateur player he is, but the trumpet sounds hardly playable.

OK, but it doesn't demonstrate much of anything. I mean, I didn't go all the way through the videos, but it doesn't look like there's any A/B before/after adding the concrete. A bad trumpet implemented in concrete is kind of an achievement, but anyone can make a bad trumpet. What I'm talking about is a reasonably, demonstrably playable student trumpet, plus concrete.

peterbas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:08 am A bit simplistic view and a rather dismissive towards engineers and repairmen. If not for them, people would still be playing on a cow horn.
It is new measuring technology that lately makes so much improvement on instruments the last couple of years.
And dont forget that there are a number of pro players that also have an engineers, physics... degree.

Sure, and I imagine many other disciplines contribute to the art of the tuba. Medicine perhaps - if not, it should - and many tuba players are medical professionals. But playing the tuba is best left to artists - who may also be engineers, or lawyers or car mechanics or whatever, but musicianship is an art. However you realize your best performance, that's your artistic judgement.

It has to be that way, anyway, because however brilliant we may be as player engineers, we don't get a whole lot of data to work with.

For example, there are those different colors of brass. Red, rose, gold, yellow, "bronze" ... but there are a list of brass alloys as long as your arm, with different mechanical properties. We don't know what "yellow brass" is, it just looks yellow and the story ends there. Everything we care about - as artists - it's all things we can see. The color of the tuba, its finish, its gross shape. Mouthpiece distinctions we can see (as opposed to e.g. the backbore, which arguably makes a big difference but is hard to see or measure, so ...)

It's fine. We get results, because it's really about how well we function, as artists, with the tuba we get ahold of.

.

peterbas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:16 am Much comment but you didn't even bother to look to the end.

The end of what? If it's a youtube video, I can practically guarantee that I'm not going to sit through the whole thing.