In a message dated 2/15/2004 10:41:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, Valkhorn writes:
> I wonder about it as well. Is the method behind this just an extra blob of > weight at one point? I can understand that more than a lot more weight evenly > distributed throuought the horn. I mean if a heavier horn made you sound better > why doesn't everyone make their horns out of lead or > something. Lead bells have been tried. The description of the sound I'm aware of is shrill and brittle. Making horns of thinner metal makes them less efficient. The reduced rigidity of the tubing allows it to absorb more of the acoustic energy, but the horn probably 'feels' good to play. It's a useful feature for making a horn with a full dynamic range that isn't overpowering. My Enders compensating double weighs less than my King single Bb, but has a bell throat larger than my heavy bell Chambers (8D size). It allows me to play a huge dynamic range (by timbre) in smaller groups. The light weight also seems to add to the agility of the horn, but I'm not certain exactly how that is related. My Paxman 42 weighs about the same as the Chambers, but is most agile of all. The Paxman has a medium bell throat, but projects about the same as the Chambers, but with a less full sound. I've seen high end European hors offered with a thin metal option, specifically to allow full dynamic range at lower absolute loudness. Perhaps somebody can educate me on the subtleties, but I suspect bracing, particularly the location, becomes a more important factor in efficiency as a horn gets lighter.
_______________________________________________ post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] set your options at http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
