That's a great point - but that just begs the question: "How can you be completely objective on what sounds best?"
The only way to really be objective is to equalize the player. I know Schmid employs testing the actual horn with different frequencies to test intonation and other things. He's photographed doing this on his site. Other horn makers probably do the same. However, it never gets around the problem that everyone's lips are different. Everyone's teeth are different. People get used to lipping notes differently. Some people are used to playing sharp, some flat, some in tune (but in tune to what?). Japan has actually made robots that can play instruments - and the strange thing is it ends up sounding synthesized because it is too perfect. They have created robots that have vibrating lips and which can play just about any brass instrument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PijbSFmzuUc Maybe someone could create an apparatus that uses vibrating lips to test instruments out, but then again people are not perfect like robots and it goes down to what the player wants to sound like. Even a perfect Horn is going to have a single sound to a particular player, and even with changing Bells there are only limited things you can do to alter the sound of an existing horn. Mouthpieces and bells are just that lagniappe to the sound, the final alteration. I just can't stand the idea that there is a 'perfect' horn or that the 'traditional' horn is the only way to go. There have been many different designs over the years from Lidl to Jiracek to Thein to Kruspe to Geyer to Knopf. McCracken does things slightly different. Paxman, Schmid, Yamaha all have different ideas. In the end, it is the players which decide which Horns are to be bought and sold and used - and whether we like it or not it all ends up as a subjective decision. -William -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Jul 9, 2010 9:33 pm Subject: [Hornlist] Airflow & Brass... > Go to hornplayer.net and read the article there about the Veneklasen horn. I've read it several times, but it's been over a decade ago. I'll go read it again, but there won't be anything in to change the laws of fluid dynamics. A lot of good instruments are built according to what sounds best. The builder/designer's best ideas are put into metal, then "massaged" 'til they play well. I have no problem with this method as it is "empirical..." as it must be. However, many of these "best ideas" are based on bad science. That is, the horn most certainly PLAYS well, but its pleasant characteristics are ATTRIBUTED to "bad science." The horn STILL plays well, but after the mix-and-match-materials and design changes the horn goes through as it evolves from "prototype" to "great brass instrument" are more often the reason for the pleasant playing characteristics, not the "bad science" I keep hearing as I talk with the "think tank" people from the major "boutique" instrument makers. I'm not saying airflow is a non-issue, but rather, it couldn't be of much import. For instance, the "resistance" the player feels is not an "air flow" issue, though "bad science" tells us it is. There are simple do-it-at-home tests that allow one to prove this to himself. So you see, the above is not "my opinion," it is "my observation." At the last eastern trombone workshop in Maryland (NOTE: there are lots of interesting valve things going on in the trombone world), I listened while a knowledgeable fellow with one of the revered makers explained--wrongly--how & why his valve was better. Later, when he was alone, I told him of a simple experiment he could do that would allow him to "observe" what was really going on. As I described the test, his eyes lit up. He looked at me and said, "Does it really work that way?" The next time I saw him he grinned at me so wide it looked like someone had slit his throat. His company's valve still WORKED well, and the horn it was attached to still PLAYED well, but now he knew the proper reason to which he should be attributing these pleasing characteristics. He'd thought it was airflow through the valve, but it wasn't and I showed him how to prove it to himself. NOTE: Edwards trombones have long (always?) been advocates of the Thayer valve because of its superior airflow characteristics. They have a new tenor trombone, built at the behest of Joe Alessi. It has a rotary valve. Also, I've seen the prototype for the new Edwards bass trombone. It has TWO rotary valves. Airflow is over-rated, and assigned properties of brass instrument "goodness" that it cannot possibly take responsibility for. (pardon my ending with a preposition, but my wife is calling me to go hear a visiting Cajun band and I'm not taking the time to self-edit.) ADiF _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
