I must read your suggested book on pipe organs - but I wonder if they were the most mechanically complex 'things' of the 18th and 19th century?
Two things spring to mind in terms of very complex mechanical objects: The Mechanical Turk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk And Babbage's Difference (and later Analytical) Engine. Also, keep in mind we had very complicated mechanical computers even after the invention of the transistor for military application and ballistics computations throughout the 1930's, 1940's, and early 1950's. -William -----Original Message----- From: Steve Haflich <[email protected]> To: Leonard & Peggy Brown <[email protected]>; The Horn List <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jul 17, 2011 11:16 pm Subject: Re: [Hornlist] is this the future? I must gently contest several of the opinions in these posts as being either historically or technologically uninformed. Leonard & Peggy Brown <[email protected]> wrote: I don't think cheaper instruments for the masses will involve much brass except the bell and perhaps the leadpipe. This ignores the possibility that some new fabrication technique or material might be _better_ (not just cheaper) than traditional brass, at least for some components of the instrument. If such a development occurred, it wouldn't be restricted to instruments for the masses. Pros with unlimited money would also adopt it. I see blocks of carbon fiber with all the pipes routed inside and the valves drilled into the same block. I agree with the hidden assumption that brass is a problematic material out of which to build brass instruments [sic]. It is not very resistant to dents, it tarnishes, and eventually brass rots. On the other hand, a skilled builder or repairman with little more than a tiny hammer can make cold brass move and reshape magically under tiny taps. It is a marvelous material that way. And replacing the brass of the bell with anything else would be an extreme (but not impossible) change. It would be a small block because 2 pipes would share a common wall. So you would have the bell attached to a black block with a leadpipe coming out the other end. As Hans said, the trick would be to program the router, but thats about it. I certainly agree that carbon fiber or other non-metallic materials would be a better material over time if they behave correctly in other ways. They are probably more resistant over time to effects analogous to corrosion, and probably more easily cleaned periodically of internal crud. Some materials might even be better at not collecting internal crud. After that is done one could produce a thousand bodies with almost no skilled humans around. You seem to assume that this would be a bad thing. It would be a bad thing if quality control did not ensure quality fabrication and construction equivalent to the quality of hand construction, but why do you assume it must not? Reliable QA and adjustment depend on cost invested in it, but not necessarily on the fabrication technology itself. I don't really think this will take place because musicians are too conservative to change that much. Historically, I find the above statement to be complete nonsense. Throughout history both instrument builders and instrumentalists have enthusiastically dived into new technology, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. What are the most complex machines (in number of operational parts) that mankind has ever devised? In the 18th and 19th century, the pipe organ was probably the winner. (See Audsley _The History of Organ Building_ for more information than you will ever need.) Some time in the 20th century the mechano-electrical telephone exchange probably took over. Then in the late 20th century the computer processor chip forever outdistanced mechanical devices, if one accepts a transistor as a "moving" part, currently with tens of millions of gates on a single chip. (I don't want to ignore the possibility that a century or two ago that automated knitting machines might have been in competition, but I lack knowledge to decide.) But there was a time when musical instruments were the most complex and continually innovative machines that mankind produced. (Most accordions are now fabricated as electronic microprocessor synthesizers, so perhaps they are still in contention. But not yet violas. :-) Anyway, I don't understand how you propose to use computer-controlled milling machines to bore the valve cluster and associated and tubing. Such machines are really good at boring straight holes. It is _much_ harder to bore a curved hole, especially ensuring reliable diameter. (Just like traditional tube bending doesn't preserve circularity, but for different reasons!) But I'm no expert in milling machines. But I can propose an alternative technology that could be really interesting. In recent years a new technology has been developing called "3-D printing". It derives, curiously, from ink-jet printers. > For sure the top instruments will be made on the same processes and today, > - Ricardo Matosinhos A preposterous and unsupported conclusion! At the recent IHS I had a chance to visit the Finke booth and try a few of his horns. I don't intend to comment either positively or negatively on these horns, but Finke has developed composite low-mass valves with rather narrow diameter. These valves are astoundingly _fast_! (And the total horn is light!) If you want to match the semitone trill speed of a viola (or beat the speed of an accordion) this is the machinery on which to do it. I was astounded at what these valves could do. I predict that 20 years from now few main line horns will have the traditional _heavy_ brass rotors, like they have for about two centuries. Manufacturers and players throughout history have always looked for experiments that improve and/or reduce the cost of their results. In addition to the organ example cited above, piano construction (with many thousands of parts per unit) was (and remains) an incredibly fertile arena for invention and incorporation of new technology. (Many modern pianos have teflon bearings instead of rawhide -- teflon didn't exist in Brahms' day.) Certainly many innovations in instrument fabrication are eventually abandoned, but they die out because they are ultimately not successful whether in performance, in cost advantage, of in performance. But they almost never abandoned because builders and players are reactionary. _______________________________________________ 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
