My mouthpiece comparison results
ghoo...@comcast.net
I'm a mediocre player. My main instrument is bass. It used
to be trumpet, yearrrrrrrrrs ago. I'm playing some horn again.
Having fun. Been playing a mid-70's King Silver Sonic since it
was new...using a 7C..that's all I've ever used.
Now...the King SS is a bright horn by nature. I know that.
I play in a combo band (mostly bass) and just play a few
trumpet riffs now and then. Our band leader says he'd like
my horn to not be so bright. OK...so I bought me a Flugelhorn..
I LOVE Flugels. Since I'm not a 'mainly' horn player..I just
bought a mediocre Flugel...a Jupiter Rose bell...it's nice... just O.K.
but anyway..back to the mouthpiece.
I've read lots about a different mouthpiece being able to 'darken' your
tone some.
So at a nearby store , I FINALLY found a megatone mp to try. I brought
my own horn.
Now being on 'this side of the horn, playing' I don't know how much I
could really
tell. But I noticed no difference in the tone. It was a 7C megatone vs
my
bach 'regular' 7C. Then I tried a 3C , a 5C, and a Shilke
(something) that the
resident brass guy at the store had me try. Now...my wife...bless her
heart,
stood there and listened to me play. She is not knowing on music stuff.
She said she didn't hear any difference. Neither did I. I had the brass
guy
come into the little room while I tried them again. He admitted hearing
no
difference. Then I tried a 5B (also bach). Immediately my wife
reacted, and he
reacted. They said it seemed to take a bit of edge from the sound.
Well I didn't think it was enough to justify buying it...BUT...when I
begain haggling over
Flugelhorn price, I told the sales guy if he would 'give' me the 5B for
my trumpet I would
buy the flugelhorn. I wanted to play around with it, but didn't really
wanna buy one.
So he did. So now I'm messing around with a 5B.
My conclusion, NOT being very knowledgeable in these things, is that a
mp just
doesn't seem to make all THAT much difference in tone. Again, I am NOT
knowledgeable
in horn stuff. Now ask me about electric bass stuff...I'm there !! :)
My next quest....maybe heavy valve caps ?
Bob Ficoturo
<ghoo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1142875237.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> difference. Then I tried a 5B (also bach). Immediately my wife
> reacted, and he reacted. They said it seemed to take a bit of edge from
> the sound.
[snip]
It's the depth of the bowl that made the difference. The deeper the bowl -
the fatter the sound. You will probably compromise a tad on range to get
that sound, however. The other considerations are the bore and throat. If
you really want to get into it, mouthpieces can make you crazy. At some
point, I think it's best to stick with what you're comfortable with if it
fits the kind of playing you do.
Bob F.
William Graham
this newsgroup, and maybe join TPIN too......Pretty soon you will begin to
believe in magic like most trumpet players do. At that point you will know
all about, "projection" and the effect of changing mouthpieces, leadpipes,
and valve caps. - Not only that, you will be certain that just changing the
finish on a horn will give it a completely different sound......As a matter
of fact, I have even been informed that changing the plating on a mouthpiece
from silver to gold will make a huge change in the sound of the horn. Of
course, none of these changes will show up on any electronic sensing
equipment such as sound power level meters or spectrum analyzers, but
believe me.....It will certainly be there, as any experienced trumpet player
can tell you. At least, God help you if you ever join a band and tell the
other guys in the trumpet section that you don't believe in "projection".
(for example) Your sound will be "dead and lifeless" from that time on, and
you will either see the light, or have to quit and join some other band.
I guess the message in all this is that artists in general are believers
in magic, and there is nothing any engineer can possible tell them that will
infringe on those beliefs.....So, since you can't beat them, you'd better
damn well join them, or your artistic life will be one continuous fight
until you do.
Tara
> [...] you will be certain that just changing
> the finish on a horn will give it a completely different sound......
Yes, well, not *completely*, but noticeably different. I have two
nearly identical Olds Ambassadors, one is raw brass and the other
has 99% of it's original lacquer. They sound distinctly different, like
two different flavors of trumpet. I'm amazed at how such a thin layer of
lacquer can mellow the sound as much as it does.
> As a
> matter of fact, I have even been informed that changing the plating on a
> mouthpiece from silver to gold will make a huge change in the sound of the
> horn.
I've read that too, but haven't had the opportunity to test it.
> Of course, none of these changes will show up on any electronic
> sensing equipment such as sound power level meters or spectrum analyzers,
> but believe me.....It will certainly be there,
Average human hearing is usually far more discerning than even a good
quality spectrum analyzer. It's not a matter of the sensitivity of
the detector, but the data processing it goes through.
Tara
Tara
> My conclusion, NOT being very knowledgeable in these things, is that a mp
> just doesn't seem to make all THAT much difference in tone.
It does; you simply haven't tried the right ones yet.
I went through this same search and ended up with a Curry 5TF
mouthpiece. It is for trumpet, but the shape is more like that
of a flugelhorn mouthpiece, with a deep V-shape. (Mark Curry
says the shape is "convex-concave".)
There are mp3 samples here:
http://www.currympc.com/v.php?pg=465#Austin
My own experience is that the 5TF doesn't make my trumpet sound as
much like a flugelhorn as in Trent Austin's tracks, but it's a lot
mellower than with my Bach 7C.
Or you might get by with a deep cup mouthpiece, as Bob Ficoturo
suggested. There are many models from various manufacturers to
choose from.
> My next quest....maybe heavy valve caps?
You can try that too. Other possibilities include switching
to a trumpet with a heavy receiver, more conical cross section,
and copper or rose brass bell. And as was discussed in another
message, lacquer rather than raw brass or silver or gold plating.
Tara
William Graham
"Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.20....@void.net...
> Average human hearing is usually far more discerning than even a good
> quality spectrum analyzer.
Oh really? - Care to give me a reference for this?
Have you ever heard of the placebo effect, Tara?
Ellestad
>
> You can try that too. Other possibilities include switching
> to a trumpet with a heavy receiver, more conical cross section,
> and copper or rose brass bell. And as was discussed in another
> message, lacquer rather than raw brass or silver or gold plating.
>
> Tara
>
Tara
Please take note of my use of the word "possibilities".
Tara
Tara
> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote
>
>> Average human hearing is usually far more discerning than even a good
>> quality spectrum analyzer.
>
> Oh really? - Care to give me a reference for this?
I have better things to do than debate this issue.
My statement is based on about 25 years of personal
experience and reading debates about "audiophile
quality" equipment, "golden ears", etc., along with
learning as much as I can about how the biological
system of ears and nervous system works.
If you don't like what I have to say, then you don't
have to believe any of it.
> Have you ever heard of the placebo effect, Tara?
I'm not saying that coloring your CDs green makes them
sound better, or that switching from 14 gauge to 12 guage
speaker cable makes a huge difference.
Tara
S Meyer
I have found this article by Jim Donaldson very interesting and a good acid
test for mouthpiece sound quality.
http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/Monette%20experiment.html
Jeff
peashooters.
Also, Bach mouthpieces are notorious for not providing an accurate
stepwise change in cup volume. A 7C and 3C have almost identical cup
volume with different diameters, for example.
I play enough different kinds of gigs that I use a couple of
mouthpieces that have the exact same diameter but different cup
configurations. The sound difference is only present at the extremes,
I expect (and is subtle), but I do it for comfort and endurance
reasons, and the difference is significant.
As for listening to doubters who question the effect of mouthpiece
changes, leadpipe changes, etc., who shall remain nameless, caveat
emptor.
David Hoffman
things are being discussed!
I think the best way to get the kind of sound you want is to first be
able to have the concept of that sound. That takes listening to a lot
of trumpet players. Once you know what you want to sound like, you will
start making adjustments to get there. Some will be with equipment.
Obviously the deeper the mouthpiece cup, and the bigger the backbore,
the darker the sound will be. As Jeff said, this mainly shows up in
extremes. Extreme volumes, extreme registers. But the biggest thing
will be doing long tones while conceptualizing the kind of sound you
want to attain.
All the other things, as Bill pointed out, are basically magical
thinking. The differences are so subtle that they are are lost on
everyone but the person playing.
But we love toys, and are always looking for a magical answer. The
magical answer is not so magic, though. It's listening and practicing.
Bummer, huh?
William Graham
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote
>>
>>> Average human hearing is usually far more discerning than even a good
>>> quality spectrum analyzer.
>>
>> Oh really? - Care to give me a reference for this?
>
> I have better things to do than debate this issue.
> My statement is based on about 25 years of personal
> experience and reading debates about "audiophile
> quality" equipment, "golden ears", etc., along with
> learning as much as I can about how the biological
> system of ears and nervous system works.
>
> If you don't like what I have to say, then you don't
> have to believe any of it.
You are the one that initiated this conversation. - I didn't ask for your
input on the matter. (not that I don't welcome it....I am always pleased to
talk about any trumpet playing issue, and you have more trumpet experience
than I do)
But you are very wrong when you say that the human senses are much better
than modern electronic devices such as spectrum analyzers. I have experience
with this myself. - I worked for 30 years in a research laboratory that used
multi thousand dollar devices whose job was solely to aid the human senses
in sensing and analyzing signals that were far beyond our natural abilities
to even know of their existence without these devices. Believe me, if a
Techtronix or Hewlett Packard spectrum analyzer says there is no difference
between two sounds produced by a trumpet, then no human ear can tell any
difference either. This can be easily proven by a double blind test. I will
say, however, that when it comes to sheer sensitivity to very weak signals,
the human ear (and that of other animals) is very good.....It can detect
just a very few molecules of air striking the ear drum with regularity out
of the billions that strike it randomly every second. But this only gives
our ears the ability to detect that there is any sound there at all. Not the
ability to analyze that sound, or tell its harmonic mix. For this, we have
to depend on HP or Techtronix......:^)
William Graham
"Jeff" <jeff.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142971432....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
"playability" of one's horn. I just said that plating it with gold doesn't
affect it's sound......Please be at least a little bit discriminating when
reading my posts.......
William Graham
"David Hoffman" <fearles...@davidhoffmanjazz.com> wrote in message
news:1142973219.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
just as susceptible to these effects as the next guy. All I'm trying to do
with a lot of my posts on this subject is to save some of the poor
trumpeters in our midst the damage to our pocketbooks that results from some
of this stuff.....Like paying over $100 to get a horn "cryogenically
treated", for example. You can do amazing things to your sound just with
your mouth, lips, and tongue. One morning, I made my flugelhorn sound OK
after about 5 minutes, even though it still had a mute jammed down into it
that I had been playing with a few days before. - It was a struggle, but I
was actually able to make it play like it normally does without the mute! I
felt pretty foolish when I inspected the horn to try to find out what was
wrong with it, and discovered that mute.
But the message to me was clear. You can do amazing things to your sound
just by using your mouth. And your sound will vary considerably from day to
day because of this. A lot more variance than occurs because of a change in
mouthpiece, or leadpipe, or heavy valve caps, or a lot of other minor
things. So, if these other things are relatively cheap, then go ahead and
use them, but if they are going to cost you hundreds of dollars, and force
you to not play your horn for days and days, then all I ask you to do is to
stand back, take a good look at just what you are doing, and give it some
real scientific thought.......
Randy Replogle
<fearles...@davidhoffmanjazz.com> wrote:
David and Jeff,
Where are all the "old timers" hanging out these days?
Randy Replogle
ghoo...@comcast.net
getting upset with each other. Makes newsgroups fun I guess eh ?
Well I guess I'm one who was looking for 'magic' to darken my tone
without spending money for a new horn. Old 70's horn. Small bell.
But I solved that problem. I bought a Flugelhorn. :) I'm a long
time fan of the flugel sound.
Jeff
more carefully next time.
Jeff
TPIN is getting less pleasant, due to the recent appearance of
individuals who will remain nameless.
Unfortunately, there are people everywhere with opinions. :-)
William Graham
fortunate thing.......
mjd
phase of the moon making a big difference. For people who play trumpet once
a week in a jobbing band, etc etc..
Seek good help. Find the mouthpiece diameter, contour, volume that works
right for you (i.e. the shoe that fits). Play for several years, learn what
your character is on the horn. Then, maybe, just maybe, start talking about
valve caps, heavy mouthpieces, rose brass, etc..
I know Maurice Andre, Allen Vizzutti, Sergei Nakariakov, Timofei Dokshitzer
etc. all swear/swore by bell finishes and heavy valve caps and mega
mouthpieces etc. to produce their sound. Must be the way to go!
The Holy Grail must be out there somewhere... hello? hello?
;-)
"David Hoffman" <fearles...@davidhoffmanjazz.com> wrote in message
news:1142973219.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Jeff
Tara
> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote
>> William Graham wrote:
>>> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> Average human hearing is usually far more discerning than even a good
>>>> quality spectrum analyzer.
>>>
>>> Oh really? - Care to give me a reference for this?
>>
>> I have better things to do than debate this issue. My statement is based
>> on about 25 years of personal experience and reading debates about
>> "audiophile quality" equipment, "golden ears", etc., along with learning
>> as much as I can about how the biological system of ears and nervous
>> system works.
>>
>> If you don't like what I have to say, then you don't have to believe any
>> of it.
>
> than modern electronic devices such as spectrum analyzers. I have
> experience with this myself. - I worked for 30 years in a research
> laboratory that used multi thousand dollar devices whose job was solely to
> aid the human senses in sensing and analyzing signals that were far beyond
> our natural abilities to even know of their existence without these
> devices. Believe me, if a Techtronix or Hewlett Packard spectrum analyzer
> says there is no difference between two sounds produced by a trumpet, then
> no human ear can tell any difference either.
Electronic equipment is really good for making measurements, and
cool-looking graphs, and sure, you can point at a -70 dB bump in
the chart and say "there it is". But for perceiving subtle nuances
in real music, forget it.
If your Tektronix spectrum analyzer can't tell the difference between
any trumpet played with a shallow cup mouthpiece and the same when
played with a deep funnel mouthpiece, then I'm not surprised. I
wouldn't expect it to tell the difference between a trumpet and
a flugelhorn in an audio recording of a jazz band, either. But
human ears (mine, anyway ;) can do that with little problem, easily
separating the horns from other instruments in the mix.
BTW, I think it's odd you're using a Tektronix analyzer as an example,
because I visited their website to check up on their current products and
was surprised to find that their real-time spectrum analyzers have only
14 bit resolution! That's not very good, and if it's better than that of
human hearing, it's not by very much.
For use in the audio frequency range, a PC with a pro quality sound
card can do far better.
Tara
St. John Smythe
> I'm not saying that coloring your CDs green makes them
> sound better, or that switching from 14 gauge to 12 guage
> speaker cable makes a huge difference.
But either of those makes a bigger difference than the plating on a
*mouthpice* makes to the sound. Lacquer on a horn *does* make a
difference, but the difference between silver, gold or raw brass are
negligible.
There are, of course, things that will change the tone of a trumpet, and
other things -- widely believed in -- that will not. Humans, despite
their fine discrimination, are notoriously unreliable judges of subtle
differences in sound quality except for double-blind A-B tests.
--
St. John
Half-century audiophile *and* sceptic
St. John Smythe
> Also, Bach mouthpieces are notorious for not providing an accurate
> stepwise change in cup volume.
Yes.
> A 7C and 3C have almost identical cup
> volume with different diameters, for example.
I believe that's the 2C and 7C, and that the 3C has less volume than
either.
> As for listening to doubters who question the effect of mouthpiece
> changes, leadpipe changes, etc., who shall remain nameless, caveat
> emptor.
Yes, mouthpiece changes and leadpipe changes do affect the sound, but
there are a few other things that don't (but don't ever tell that to the
True Believers).
--
St. John
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is
lightly greased."
-Kehlog Albran, "The Profit"
St. John Smythe
> I know Maurice Andre, Allen Vizzutti, Sergei Nakariakov, Timofei Dokshitzer
> etc. all swear/swore by bell finishes and heavy valve caps and mega
> mouthpieces etc. to produce their sound. Must be the way to go!
Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The endorsement of world-class
players for gold-plated pinkie rings might be compelling for sales of
them, but it doesn't really do the job of proving that they make any
difference.
> The Holy Grail must be out there somewhere... hello? hello?
I believe it'll be found in the practice room.
--
St. John
The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are
correct.
-Ralph Hartley
Randy Replogle
>I spend more time in trumpetherald.com and reading TPIN, though even
>TPIN is getting less pleasant, due to the recent appearance of
>individuals who will remain nameless.
HIM???
St. John Smythe
> HIM???
No. <whew>
--
St. John
"This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does
something child-like."
-Forbes Burkowski, Computer Science 454
Tara
Yes, despite what people might think of me from my other posts in
this thread, that's definitely true. No matter where this general
subject comes up, it almost always stirs up a lot of opposing views.
I think the reason for this is the nature of our perceptual experience
itself. It takes a lot of discernment for an individual to tell the
difference between objective observation (assuming there is such a
thing, and maybe there isn't), subjective interpretation, and what
is the result of one's own creative imagination or arbitrary belief.
Things like A-B tests and measurements by electronic instruments do
help sort things out, but not completely. Trying to test things
brings up the uncertainty principle ... that is, by applying a test,
the situation is changed so much as to be separate and different from
the original subject.
Anyway, it's fun to chat about, and I wish that I myself could do so
without becoming reactive and discussing spectrum analyzers in a thread
that was supposed to be about mouthpieces! ;-)
There is one thing I'd like to add. I wouldn't think that a
silver vs. gold plated mouthpiece would make much difference. I have a
gold-plated Curry TF mouthpiece. I ordered the gold plating to avoid
developing a reaction to silver, which I've read causes problems for some
people (just a "better safe than sorry" thing). Also, I think it just
looks prettier.
One thing I noticed is that the gold plating (done by
mouthpieceexpress.com) is really thin. In fact, I've already managed to
polish a little of it off, just because I wanted to find out what would
happen if I used metal polish on it. (Bad idea!) It doesn't make sense
to me that a few molecules-thick layer could affect the resonance of a
mouthpiece in any significant way. Besides, underneath that thin
gold plating, the standard silver plating is completely intact.
But, if someone believes that gold plating on a mouthpiece improves its
sound, maybe she/he will be happier playing with it, and if the musician
is happier or more at ease, then that can have a huge influence on what
comes out of the horn, how she/he feels about listening to it. That
is a positive feedback loop that can have a big overall effect.
So, no matter whether the effect is "objective", "subjective" or
purely imaginary, it is still real and completely valid for the
specific player, and may be completely invalid for any other.
(Including "objective" effects, which one player might like and
another won't.)
Tara
St. John Smythe
> So, no matter whether the effect is "objective", "subjective" or
> purely imaginary, it is still real and completely valid for the
> specific player, and may be completely invalid for any other.
> (Including "objective" effects, which one player might like and
> another won't.)
Bottom line (and this is not meant to be facetious): Would Dumbo ever
have been able to learn to fly had it not been for the feather? The
placebo effect can have a real function.
--
St. John
Scott's first Law:
No matter what goes wrong, it will probably look right.
Greg Evans
> I wouldn't think that a silver vs. gold plated mouthpiece would
> make much difference.
I've had a couple of gold-plated mouthpieces, and while I'd be
surprised if it made the slightest difference in sound or response, I
did feel that the gold-plated rim was a little more slippery on my
lips (without being TOO slippy-slidy). It wasn't a huge difference,
but it seemed noticable enough to me to go beyond Mr. Graham's placebo
effect. Not enough of an issue for me to go get any of my silver
mouthpieces gold plated, but still. And yes, I do think it looked
pretty! My current trumpet is gold plated, and while I don't rely on
that to make a sound difference, it sure does look cool. My silver GR
mouthpiece would look nice on it with a matching gold-plated rim,
someday when I've got the cash just lying around gathering dust.
Jeff
Jeff
Joe Rooney
> William Graham wrote:
snip
>
> For use in the audio frequency range, a PC with a pro quality sound
> card can do far better.
>
> Tara
Hi Tara,
Not only did you get the spelling correct, you are right to select a real
time analyzer. The old timey swept analyzers could probably do better in
this test, but only if the trumpeteer could send the note consistently for a
long time (30 seconds).
Realtime analyzers continuously monitor discrete channels, say 500 hz apart
and interpolate. The actual channels for some of the real time analyzers
was closer to 1kz back in the mid eighties. Basketfuls of nuances would be
missed.
Joe Ex-Tek Svc
William Graham
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote
>>> William Graham wrote:
>>>> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote
> If your Tektronix spectrum analyzer can't tell the difference between
> any trumpet played with a shallow cup mouthpiece and the same when
> played with a deep funnel mouthpiece, then I'm not surprised.
I never said it couldn't. I only said that it couldn't tell the difference
between one that was silver plated, and one that was gold plated. These
expensive instruments can be used to prove your points, too, you
know....They were not just invented to prove stuff for Bill Graham....:^)
And, of course, these instruments cant, "Tell the difference between the
subtle nuances of music", (or whatever) They can only show differences in
signal harmonic levels between two tones carefully orchestrated to sound the
same by their producers.
Actually, a far better test for my money is a double blind test using
real musicians on real instruments.....If neither the trumpet player, nor
the audience knows which of two mouthpieces is the gold plated one, and yet
a significant percentage of the listeners (and/or players) can tell the
difference, then I would be convinced. The same is true for other parts of
the trumpet, such as cryogenic treatment, or different leadpipes, or
finishes, etc. I am not convinced that I am right.....All I am asking for is
a little proof other than somebody blowing through the trumpet and saying,
"There.....I can sure tell the difference that that gold plating makes!" You
see, such a test doesn't eliminate the placebo factor, and this has to be
eliminated in order to find out anything at all......
Just be reasonable.....If the physicists can't prove that there should
be a difference mathematically, and a spectrum analyzer can't tell the
difference, and a double blind test can't tell the difference, then what do
you expect me to believe?
And if, in the face of all this lack of evidence, you still believe
there is a difference, then why are you unhappy when I say that you believe
in magic?
William Graham
"St. John Smythe" <sin...@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:dvrjut$3a4$6...@n4vu2.n4vu.com...
> mjd wrote:
>> I know Maurice Andre, Allen Vizzutti, Sergei Nakariakov, Timofei
>> Dokshitzer
>> etc. all swear/swore by bell finishes and heavy valve caps and mega
>> mouthpieces etc. to produce their sound. Must be the way to go!
>
> Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The endorsement of world-class
> players for gold-plated pinkie rings might be compelling for sales of
> them, but it doesn't really do the job of proving that they make any
> difference.
>
>> The Holy Grail must be out there somewhere... hello? hello?
>
> I believe it'll be found in the practice room.
>
"gut instincts", or placebo effects to any extent they so desire.....I worry
about the thousands of little guys that spend their hard earned money on
stuff like cryogenic treatments, when they should be spending it on music,
or teachers, or just practice time......When just a few minutes of screwing
with your embouchure can compensate for a mute being jammed down in the bell
of a horn, then it is perfectly obvious to me that you are wasting your time
with these other things whose effect on your playing is so subtle that it
isn't even worth mentioning. All these professionals got where they are
today through many hours of hard practice, and not by resoldering different
leadpipes on their horns, or having their mouthpieces gold plated........:^)
William Graham
I absolutely agree with this, and, as I've said on this and other forums, I
am certainly not immune to the placebo effect myself, and I gladly allow it
to affect most everything I do. Just knowing about it doesn't make one
immune to it.
But I have found that most people don't think that it has much effect on
their lives, and I would just like to teach them otherwise. It is a very,
very strong force, and it affects most everyone to a marked degree. When you
drive at night, (for example) a large percentage of what you see is really
just being filled in by your brain from past experience, and you don't
really see it at all. Some unknown percentage of people driving off of
cliffs is due to this, and we may never know just what that percentage is. I
also wonder how much money is misspent every year by people because they
believe that cryogenic treatment of their horns (or whatever) will improve
the sound.....Actually, It's not them I care about so much....If they really
believe there is an improvement, well, more power to them....I am annoyed at
the people who make a living providing this "service" instead of doing
something really worthwhile with their lives.....
afn5...@afn.org
get a better sense of the effects of them on my horn.
While of course it is subjective, it did open my eyes (actually ears)
as to to the differences in tone.
I recorded several short excerpts and exercises on each mp and then
moved on to the next with the exact same excerpts.
I came to certain conclusions based on my own sensibilities but gave a
CD of the comparisons to a friend to compare as well. He will give me
honest feedback as to his perceptions.
Bill Dishman
Gainesville, Florida
Tara
> [probably way too much snipped by Tara]
> Just be reasonable.....If the physicists can't prove that there should
> be a difference mathematically, and a spectrum analyzer can't tell the
> difference, and a double blind test can't tell the difference, then what
> do you expect me to believe?
Anything you want. :-P
> And if, in the face of all this lack of evidence, you still believe
> there is a difference, then why are you unhappy when I say that you
> believe in magic?
Never said I was. And in fact, I actually *do* believe in magic,
including psychic abilities that can really screw with your
scientific A-B double-blind studies.
Once upon a time, a mathematician friend of mine told me that
there was a thing mathematicians were considering, that there
are things that are true, but that cannot be proven to be
true. That is the kind of thing that is difficult for them
to handle, and it was causing a bit of a fuss.
William, I think that you and I aren't really so much in a state
of disagreement as we are in two somewhat different choices
of perceptual experience. :)
Tara
William Graham
> Once upon a time, a mathematician friend of mine told me that
> there was a thing mathematicians were considering, that there
> are things that are true, but that cannot be proven to be
> true. That is the kind of thing that is difficult for them
> to handle, and it was causing a bit of a fuss.
Yes. There a lot of things that mathematicians believe because as far as
they can count (even with computers) they have never found an exception, but
they can't analytically prove. But this is not, "difficult for them to
handle". It is a part of the science, and it is, in fact, what makes the
science interesting to them. Like the four color map problem. (which was
solved a few years ago) Geometrically squaring the circle is another
example......Being able to predict prime numbers is another
example.....Number theory is full of these kinds of problems. (My major was
mathematics) But that doesn't mean that any of these problems exist because
of magic.....:^)
Jeff
> compensate for a mute being jammed down in the bell
> of a horn, then it is perfectly obvious to me that you are wasting your
> time with these other things whose effect on your playing is so subtle
> that it isn't even worth mentioning.
I agree. I think that Bill should post an MP3 of how his understanding
of how the balance of muscle tissue and equipment has yielded results.
Any takers? We could do a double-blind test.
El Lippo aka Allegro
Over these past couple of years, I've spent more than my fair share
for mouthpieces, sound sleeves, cryrogenic treatments, and what not,
all purchased with the hope of finding that magic bullet. I'm by no
stretch of the imagination qualified to make a true judgment call on
their effectiveness. In most cases though, any 'positives' for me have
been only for a short time.
After all that's said and done, I found that what has been working
best for me in general are my recent purchases of the Caruso Method
and a metronome. Both have helped me much more than anything.
Maybe I should dump all the hardware in a shoe box and sell it to the
United States Government where they can melt it all down and make a
mailbox, or more likely turn it into a weapon.
I doubt that my moratorium on buying these performance aids in the
future will bankrupt the industry, being that I'm always looking for
that 'perfect' horn, one which I had delivered yesterday in the form
of the Yamaha Bobby Shew Z. So far so good. A nice horn with excellent
response.
I will say though, if people are getting good results with these aids,
be it they are scientifically valid or they get a psychological lift,
then who am I to disagree? It's whatever floats one boat and they
should go for it.
William Graham
But it isn't "understanding". I don't understand it at all. I would,
however, like to be able to simulate a mute with my embouchure.....That
would be really useful to me. Usually, I don't have the time to change to a
mute at band practice.....I almost always end up coming in late....Now if I
could just learn to make it sound muted without actually using a mute, that
would be really neat.......
Dave Stephens
"El Lippo aka Allegro" <beaglebob6192@(nospam)comcast.net> wrote in message>
> for mouthpieces, sound sleeves, cryrogenic treatments, and what not,
> all purchased with the hope of finding that magic bullet. I'm by no
> stretch of the imagination qualified to make a true judgment call on
> their effectiveness. In most cases though, any 'positives' for me have
> been only for a short time.
Changing the mass and the stiffness of a trumpet will NOT improve your
playing; however, it WILL change the response of the horn. What's "positive"
to one player is "negative" to another. Both players are right, because the
trumpet is a "system" that's only complete when you combine the player,
mouthpiece and trumpet.
I think that comeback and casual players will do fine if they play a Bach 37
or a Yamaha 8335 or a Getzen/Kanstul/Selmer/Olds/etc. middle of the road
trumpet with either a 3C or 7C mpc and don't worry about "tweaks" to their
trumpets. It'll be two to five years, at least, before they'll have any hope
of discerning the change in response caused by changing the mass of the
third valve cap. Until then, don't worry about it.
When it's time to find a mpc or trumpet that better suits they'll have some
specific objectives that their current trumpet is not meeting. Some (most?)
never need a "tweak". When you develop to the point where you sense the
changes caused by tweaking your trumpet or mpc, then is the time to do it,
without concerning one's self with what rmmt thinks.
Dave
mjd
sarcastic in my first post.. ;-) None of these guys use any of these gizmos
that I've even seen... and I've seen half of them live, and sat and played
one on one with one of them for two hours once by virtue of being in the
right place at the right time (and was mightily humbled in the process only
by virtue of their sheer ability). I think they would all get a chuckle out
of this discussion.
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I9idnd3xsORkX7zZ...@comcast.com...
Jon Trimble
piece. When I got older/bigger I switched to a different piece (larger
diameter) and have played basically that the past 20 years. Here's what I've
found.....
I feel the diameter is the post important thing. Find one that is
comfy/fits. One isn't better then the other any more then a size 9 shoe is
better then an 11. For me, a deeper cup give more accuracy and a little
deeper tone. Asking someone on the other side of the bell, they don't hear
a whole lot of difference. We're splitting hairs here.
We all like toys, it comes with being a trumpeter yet I have to
ask.....How many gadgets did Bud Brisbois have? How many weighted pieces
did Dizzy have? Did Chase use weighted caps? Did Al hirt use a sound
sleave? Did Miles use platinum? Distractions we only feed. I find it
interesting how basic the equipment is among the greats. Maybe we should
simply practice more.
Just my thoughts,
Jon Trimble
William Graham
"Jon Trimble" <jontr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BrXUf.282$C85.58@dukeread10...
either. If they want to play around with different mouthpieces or cryogenic
treatments, well, we should leave them alone. I sometimes get real sick of
other trumpet players telling me to change something on my horn to "Make it
project better" or some such thing.
Jeff
Miles popularized black lacquer for his horn.
Bill Chase played one of the smallest pieces ever (Schilke 6A4A).
Marsalis plays a horn that looks like something out of a Jetsons
episode.
---
Very few people play on the equipment least likely to impede their
progress. For some people, it doesn't matter. For others, a switch
can make all the difference in the world (I made a lead pipe change on
my horn two years ago that made a HUGE difference for me).
Tara
> We all like toys, it comes with being a trumpeter yet I have to
> ask.....How many gadgets did Bud Brisbois have?
When I first started playing about a year ago, I was curious to
find out more about all the associated gear. I happened across
some listings of professional players and the mouthpieces they
used, and noticed that they often had 2 or 3 mouthpieces in the
list. (And almost always at least 1 :-P)
That got me thinking that hey, maybe there's a reason they have
more than one, so I decided I'd better learn more about mouthpieces.
I'm really glad I did, because it made the trumpet a possibility
for me (I started out on cornet and was thinking maybe I'd get a
flugelhorn, but not a trumpet). Now I'm really happy with my
trumpet, to such an extent that I'm excited when I find some time
during the day to practice.
For me, that's unusual. My usual pattern is that I try something
for a while, lose interest, and give it up. Getting just the right
gear made all the difference. I might pick up a flugelhorn or
pro-level cornet someday, but it's no longer a priority.
Other people are different. If you are happy with the mouthpiece
that came with your trumpet (or maybe a Bach 3C), I envy you. Things
are rarely that simple for me.
I did get away without being taken for the cost of cryogenics,
heavy bottom caps, etc. (But I will admit that the under $40 price
of Curry bottom caps, which are available for my '65 Ambassador,
made them really tempting. ;-)
Really, I think that brass players are blessed with simplicity.
It's a different world than that of an electric guitar or synth
player, whose life tends to become obsessed with the latest
gadget or multi-thousand dollar "do everything" keyboard. And
next year or so another will show up that pretends to do even more...
> Maybe we should simply practice more.
Yes!!!
I read somewhere that Raphael Mendez regularly practiced 8 hours per day.
Now that's a professional attitude.
Tara
William Graham
> I read somewhere that Raphael Mendez regularly practiced 8 hours per day.
> Now that's a professional attitude.
>
> Tara
I don't know how that would be possible....I am worn out after our weekly
2-1/2 hour community band practice, and we get a 15 minute break in the
middle, and aren't really playing continuously during the rest of the time
either....
During the rest of the week, I manage to get in about 2 hours a day on
the average, and usually that's in two sessions, with a couple of hours
(dinner) in between. My practice during the rest of the week is more useful,
because I can just work on my weaknesses, while the band practice consists
of working on the whole band's weaknesses, which don't necessarily match
mine. The people who amaze me are the mariachi players on the streets in
the resort towns down in Mexico....Those guys can play all night with hardly
any break at all. - I just don't know how they do it....
Carl Dershem
>
> "Tara" <nor...@void.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.03.25....@void.net...
>> I read somewhere that Raphael Mendez regularly practiced 8 hours per
>> day. Now that's a professional attitude.
>>
>> Tara
>
> I don't know how that would be possible....I am worn out after our
> weekly 2-1/2 hour community band practice, and we get a 15 minute
> break in the middle, and aren't really playing continuously during the
> rest of the time either....
When I was in the navy band I played 8-10 hours a day, and had chops of
steel. Now a 3 hour big band gig wears me to a frazzle. Well, that and
being 30 years older. :(
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Jon Trimble
"Jeff" <jeff.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143237122.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Miles was quoted as saying "because it looks cool" in answer to black
laquer
Diz had many physical problems which demanded odd horn design.
Chase was commonly known as playing a Schilke 6a4a YET he had several pieces
around to include and old Giardinelle. He pounded so hard he chose a piece
that would match the swelling from day to day.
Don't know a thing about Wynton and I concider him "not one the old guys" I
was referring to. If he wants to blow a space ship, more power to him. He
sounds great.
I do agree a change for blow does make a huge impact. It goes back to my
shoe theory. If it fits....blah blah blah....:)
Cool answer Jeff...:) I can dig it...:)
Jon Trimble
>
Bryan Fields
said they played all day, too. He had an iron lip; they were known as the
"all-weather attack band."
"Carl Dershem" <der...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9790DC6338C...@70.169.32.36...
William Graham
>
>
> "Jeff" <jeff.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143237122.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> Diz had the ultimate in designer equipment.
>>
>> Miles popularized black lacquer for his horn.
>>
>> Bill Chase played one of the smallest pieces ever (Schilke 6A4A).
>>
>> Marsalis plays a horn that looks like something out of a Jetsons
>> episode.
I think Monettes were designed by Darth Vader.......
admini...@trumpetmaster.com
self a great private teacher and some recordings of excellent players.
Stick to basic time tested equipment such as a Bach 3C, 5C, (5B) 7C.
Doesn't have to be Bach but those are typical sizes new players get
started off on. As you progress you will be able to tell that the MP
plays a big part in the quality of tone. Good Luck and have fun!