| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garrett901
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2009
Posts: 1248
Location: Vacaville CA
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | *Facepalm*  |
Yea, I know... 
_________________
Jeff Garrett
Playing "G" Soprano Bugle, Freelancers Alumni/Mini Corps
NorCal Horn Line Instructor/Musical Arranger
Kanstul G Soprano (Powerbore Bell)
Yamaha YTR-739T
Xtream XZ w/ XXX backbore GREAT MP!!!
http://freelancers-alumni.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
solo soprano
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Posts: 856
Location: Point O' Woods / Old Lyme, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
" It is the velocity of the vibrating lip that determines how high you play. Thus, any restriction that takes place previous to ( tongue level ) or at the point of the vibrating medium (embouchure contraction and mouthpiece pressure ) will produce a higher pitch. BUT once the lip is vibrating, no amount of restriction in the mouthpiece or the horn will make the lip vibrate any faster, since it is already set in vibration. "
W.B.Knevitt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StupidBrassObsession
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 1014
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just for the record, that wasn't aimed at you, just at the general nature of this thread haha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JRoyal
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 770
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:25 am Post subject: Re: I have no range. :( |
|
|
| jimh46 wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: | | Sorry about all the bold print, but I figured if you could be so bold as to attempt to cite the above studies in support of your view (clearly hoping no one would take the time to actually look at them), I can be so bold as to use bold print. |
John, I think the (third) report clearly indicates that the tongue does influence the tone production of the trombone, which by extension would similarly influence the trumpet due to the similarity of their acoustic architectures.
The point made in the report is that the tongue has a weak acoustic influence on the tone production of the trombone - not an influence on the airflow.
So tongue arch is helpful but not vital.
The report is excellent but is unfortunately steeped in technical terminology, making extensive use of the term impedance. A concept well understood by the engineering community but not intuitively understandable by others ...sorry. So, one of the most important aspects of horn design and performance is based around a concept that is not intuitively understandable.
Being the resourceful creatures that we are, we diligently look for explanations to describe what happens in the whole chain of events from 'lungs to bell' and resort to explanations based on feel.
And, what we feel is air flowing from our lungs, into the horn and naturally conclude that if we understand everything that influences airflow then we will understand how to apply that to being better trumpet players.
This is simply not true - besides which the mechanical concept of the tongue channeling the air towards the lips, in order to produce high notes is also incorrect.
I am not going to add anything to the extensive arguments provided by Darryl in the numerous 'hosepipe' arguments except to say that he is absolutely right.
Tongue Arch does have a positive influence on playing and having been taught by a brilliant trumpet artist who was also a strong Tongue Arch advocate, I can well imagine how it would have become such significant feature in your partcular playing setup.
Regards
Jim |
This is a good example of why arguing with John Mohan is a waste of time. John shows a general lack of ability to understand the studies presented to him in these arguments. His responses are thinly masked personally attacks and ignore the logic and argument present.
The first study is a good example, this time he is twisting it around to support his position, the last time he argued against that study he dismissed it for reasons of being "too old". He clearly lacks an understanding of correlation vs causation in the studies presented as well.
In debates such as this a lack of a college education can be a real handicap, now arguing something well beyond your education level, that is bold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crzytptman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 10124
Location: Escondido California
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The report is excellent but is unfortunately steeped in technical terminology, making extensive use of the term impedance. A concept well understood by the engineering community but not intuitively understandable by others ...sorry. So, one of the most important aspects of horn design and performance is based around a concept that is not intuitively understandable. |
Since I'm not a member of the engineering community, could you please expand on this? I probably use my own terminology to explain impedance, so I'd really appreciate a short lesson if you have time.
_________________
Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Since I'm not a member of the engineering community, could you please expand on this? |
I have explained impedance a number of times on TH. Search and see what you can find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
zackh wrote: | Quote: | | Wrong. The pressure does factor in, but the aperture size most certainly matters |
You do not understand me. The velocity through an aperture depends on the pressure difference between the pressures on each side of that aperture.
You are also attempting to explain aperture behavior by explaining flow in various pipe diameters. In that regard I am well aware that, once the flow is established, the average velocity of flow thru a pipe cross-section varies with diameter.
Your explanation ASSUMES constant flow. This is an assumption fraught with error because in the real world, a reduction in the pipe diameter will introduce resistance. This resistance will affect flow and therefore the velocities may be reduced.
Be careful with statements like "a smaller diameter pipe has greater velocity than.." because in practice it may not be the case. but it IS safe to assume that once flow is established in a system the velocity is proportional to cross sectional area.
By "aperture" I am speaking of a distinct narrowing of the flow path that has a very short length.
The common mistake when considering an aperture is that the same flow is guaranteed across an aperture that existed without it. (Many mistake the hose nozzle behavior with this assumption)
But it IS true that the velocity thru an aperture is determined by the pressure difference that exists across it. If that pressure difference IS unchanged and the aperture is made larger, the velocity will remain unchanged and will still be determined by the pressure difference.
The flow will be velocity x area and will be greater for a larger aperture.
The flow-limiting effects of an ever-decreasing aperture can effect the pressure distribution of the whole system. But then again, it may not. It depends on the flow geometry of the whole system.
That is why the comparison, in any literal sense, of the garden hose nozzle to the tongue arch is not valid.
It “assumes away” the effects of the long and narrow supply hose and supply pipes, the viscosity of the fluid, and their effect on the pressure at the nozzle for high flows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crzytptman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 10124
Location: Escondido California
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | | Quote: | | Since I'm not a member of the engineering community, could you please expand on this? |
I have explained impedance a number of times on TH. Search and see what you can find. |
2 pages of multiple page topics. Really, I just don't have the time to wade back through. Maybe give me a link or short tidbit? 
_________________
Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pops
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | zackh wrote: | Quote: | | Wrong. The pressure does factor in, but the aperture size most certainly matters |
You do not understand me. The velocity through an aperture depends on the pressure difference between the pressures on each side of that aperture.
You are also attempting to explain aperture behavior by explaining flow in various pipe diameters. In that regard I am well aware that, once the flow is established, the average velocity of flow thru a pipe cross-section varies with diameter.
Your explanation ASSUMES constant flow. This is an assumption fraught with error because in the real world, a reduction in the pipe diameter will introduce resistance. This resistance will affect flow and therefore the velocities may be reduced.
Be careful with statements like "a smaller diameter pipe has greater velocity than.." because in practice it may not be the case. but it IS safe to assume that once flow is established in a system the velocity is proportional to cross sectional area.
By "aperture" I am speaking of a distinct narrowing of the flow path that has a very short length.
The common mistake when considering an aperture is that the same flow is guaranteed across an aperture that existed without it. (Many mistake the hose nozzle behavior with this assumption)
But it IS true that the velocity thru an aperture is determined by the pressure difference that exists across it. If that pressure difference IS unchanged and the aperture is made larger, the velocity will remain unchanged and will still be determined by the pressure difference.
The flow will be velocity x area and will be greater for a larger aperture.
The flow-limiting effects of an ever-decreasing aperture can effect the pressure distribution of the whole system. But then again, it may not. It depends on the flow geometry of the whole system.
That is why the comparison, in any literal sense, of the garden hose nozzle to the tongue arch is not valid.
It “assumes away” the effects of the long and narrow supply hose and supply pipes, the viscosity of the fluid, and their effect on the pressure at the nozzle for high flows. |
Wow even I see fault in this.
You agree that with a garden hose with a nozzle on the end that the water speeds up. My garden hose is 150 FEET long and this happens.
BUT you worry that with the mere INCHES that the air has to move from our lungs to the lips; that there could be too much resistance and although it always speeds up; we shouldn't assume it speeds up.
You wrote that he assumed away the effects of resistance slowing down the flow in a LONG and narrow pipe. BUT what long and narrow pipe are you talking about? You already established that the LONG and narrow water hose does follow the laws of physics.
This is nothing short of you selectively accepting physics when you like the outcome and adding POSSIBLE unknown problems when you don't like the outcome.
The problems may be there but why not in BOTH cases?
============
Part 2
If you told me that every time someone used arch that they also blew harder/ used more support Then that would be a real issue. By habit that certainly always happens with me. I don't make any assumptions about others.
BUT I don't add a lot of support it is a little. I thought that was to offset the horrible resistance in the LONG hose issue.
Problem / solution.
==============
Part 3
Another issue is would faster air actually make the lips vibrate faster?
I know that some teachers say it does but teaching has a lot to do with giving the student a visualization and much was not meant to be taken literally.
============
Part 4
A couple of people want the nozzle thing to be true. I don't care either way but would like some REAL proof either way just to put it to rest.
I have always listed a couple of reasons why arch MAY work. The MAY is there because many studies have been done to check if it affects intonation, or if it affects tone color, or even if the player just uses it.
None of those satisfies those who want to know the differences between arch and a forward arch based off of anchor / K-tongue tonguing.
There is a tremendous difference in how they seem to respond and there is a difference in how they seem to help students. Sadly this study I haven't seen yet.
All studies are based on either tongue tip tonguing or floating tongue tonguing. BUT this is NOT what Clarke or Gordon used. Remember they did versions of anchor tonguing which would include air channeling and the other 2 types of arch don't channel the air.
WE also know that channeling air (in a lab setting) affects the pitch greatly.
Many of us feels this in real life too BUT again this hasn't been the target of a human study so we have no real numbers.
If I personally had any idea HOW to do those 2 studies then I would.
Sadly I don't know what equipment would be needed.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pops
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I often tell people that forums are a difficult place to get useful information.
The reason is that a few people want to prove or disprove a very specific thing. This is vastly different from a student wanting to know HOW to try to do something or a teacher who wants to explain how to do something.
This thread is a perfect example.
John has in the past said that you can't play without arch. (I have argued with him that thousands of players do so and some embouchures like Stevens don't use it.
Right now John has a different argument and air speed is a part of that.
Jeff wants to make sure that people know there are other ways to play besides just arch.
Darryl using his physics wants to smash the air speed issue because using bad science is a hot button.
DRoyal wanted to show that arch isn't THE way to change pitch. (Meaning that even if it helps that many other things help as much or more).
I misunderstood JRoyal until last night when I reread a post and then this stuck out. "There is no data to support John Mohan’s assertion that Tongue Arch is a scientifically verified approach to trumpet performance and the tongue arch is the critical element to performing the normal trumpet ranges."
I just want to make sure that some poor unsuspecting kid doesn't read all of this and not try something that MIGHT be of some help to him.
Everybody has a dog in the race. AND everybody is sincerely trying to be helpful to others. But because we all have a basic goal YOU have to know the goal before you get what is being said sometimes.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jimh46 wrote: |
John, I think the (third) report clearly indicates that the tongue does influence the tone production of the trombone, which by extension would similarly influence the trumpet due to the similarity of their acoustic architectures.
|
Hi Jim,
Yes, the report does show how the tongue can influence tone production on a bass trombone - but the only notes tested in that study were the low notes at the very bottom of the bass trombone's range. As such, this report has nothing to do with how the arching tongue is involved in playing into the extreme high register of a trumpet or any other brass instrument.
As we all know, if we play a Low C, we can move our tongues around pretty much anywhere in our mouths. Since the note requires very little air pressure and does not require a directed, thin (maybe fast) stream of air, tongue level is almost inconsequential down there. As long as the tongue doesn't completely impede the air, the note will come out and the only result of the tongue moving around will be changes in tonality. That is what the results of that study concluded.
It's a completely different situation when playing about High C (and for most players, when playing anything above the staff). So in my opinion, that paper is not applicable to our discussion.
Best wishes,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JRoyal wrote: | | This is a good example of why arguing with John Mohan is a waste of time. John shows a general lack of ability to understand the studies presented to him in these arguments. His responses are thinly masked personally attacks and ignore the logic and argument present. |
How does one respond to that? Anyone have any ideas? I don't so I'll just move on.
| JRoyal wrote: | | The first study is a good example, this time he is twisting it around to support his position, the last time he argued against that study he dismissed it for reasons of being "too old". |
I twisted nothing. I quoted directly from the Paper the only section of the Results in that Paper that concerned tongue level and range. Those results agree with my opinion and not yours.
I have never dismissed that study for being "too old". Again (as I have requested many times before), please stop being dishonest here. It seems every time you post, you either lie, or unintentionally write things that are not true. I really do not want to be so harsh as to accuse you of lying, but there is a pattern here.
| JRoyal wrote: | | In debates such as this a lack of a college education can be a real handicap, now arguing something well beyond your education level, that is bold. |
That would be quite an insult if it were true. Actually, either way it’s a pretty huge insult. But I’m not surprised, given its source.
I do not have a college degree. But I have a college education.
I completed more than 80 credit hours in the Pierce College Los Angeles honors program as a pre-med. I was set to transfer to UCLA back in the mid '90's but I met my wife to be and moved to Germany for 6 years instead (she's German).
When I came back to the States in 2004 I immediately enrolled at Daley College in Chicago, and was accepted into their honor program. I completed in excess of 60 hours at Daley (a lot of them being the med-school prerequisites for the second time - when you apply to Medical Schools, all your Med School prerequisites have to be taken within 5 years of application, so all my old Pierce College credits in Biology, Physics, Math, and Chemistry no longer counted).
By 2007 I completed my lower level classes as a Biology/Engineering Major at Daley and transferred to Illinois Institute of Technology as a Biomedical Engineering major (one of the hardest of all undergraduate majors). Due to my past academic record I received a 40% tuition scholarship to this private $36,000 per year University.
Unfortunately, with two of my kids in College, and an internet commerce business that went under when the economy tanked, I had to suspend my personal education for financial reasons - but on the bright side, last May my oldest Son graduated from a major University with a degree in Electrical Engineering (right up there with Biomedical Engineering in terms of tough majors). And my older daughter is doing fine in school, and my younger daughter will be an entering Freshman this coming fall at a major University where she is already accepted. Then, last but not least, my now 16 year old son will be stepping up to the plate in two more years.
I completed about 35 hours at IIT before having to stop. Unfortunately, among those 30 hours are quite a few hours devoted to… Medical School Prerequisite classes!!! Because after getting to IIT I found out from my Pre-med advisor there that Med Schools tend to frown on Prereq classes taken at the Jr. College level. They want to see grades in Organic Chemistry, Physics and all from a University. It’s not that they won’t accept grades from a college – but with the intensity of competition for spots in Med Schools, it’s best to have these classes on your University Transcript (with A’s in them).
So forgive me JRoyal, though I have accumulated well above the number of credit hours required to receive a Undergrad Degree, I haven't completed any 400 level science classes (though I did a few 400 level Lib Arts classes). But I've done quite a few 300 level Biomedical Engineering and Electrical Engineering classes. How many of those have you completed?
Actually, please don't answer that. I don't think many of us would believe you at this point.
Suffice to say, I don't think the realm of this discussion goes beyond anything in any of my three Physics textbooks, Statics book or Vector Dynamics books (got two of 'em) - and my years studying then playing trumpet for a living must count for at least a little something...
Sincerely,
John Mohan
P.S. I wish you well - I really do.
[edit: changed the word "completion" to "competition" - dang spell checker - why can't it recognize when I type the wrong word?!?!?]
Last edited by John Mohan on Tue May 01, 2012 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Darryl,
Regarding your submission from April 30th at 8:05pm CST, thank you for taking the time to write all that. Everything you write was clear and makes sense.
I see and realize that the difference in our views comes not from a difference in knowledge of how physics works. It comes from a difference in our opinions about the mechanics of what goes on when we play.
You consider the point of greatest resistance to be the lips themselves. I consider the point of greatest resistance to be the front-most point in the forward arching tongue. You consider the lips to be like the "nozzle on the end of a garden hose" (at least I think so; please correct me if I'm wrong). I consider the arching tongue to be like the "nozzle on the end of the garden hose" and I consider the lips to be like the "stone that gets shot off the driveway by the jet-like water stream caused by the nozzle". (I realize that the stone doesn't vibrate and the lips aren't rock-hard, but you know what I mean even if you don't agree).
The only thing I'm going to ask you to reconsider about what you wrote is where you wrote that the lips are open half the time and closed half the time. I think they're actually open almost all the time. After all, they are only completely closed for a brief instant of each vibration cycle - from the moment they open, until they open up to their full amplitude, and on until the moment they come in contact with each other (if they even do!), they are open. Some people think they never even come into contact with each other during the vibration cycles. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but either way, the vast majority of the time they are at least partially open during the vibration cycle.
I do think the lips create resistance in the system (of course they do). They are vibrating in response to an energy flow and that vibrating is certainly going to create resistance to the air flow. But I just don't think they are the predominate part of the resistance in the upper register.
I think we both know that we are not going to change each others minds (how many pages and pages of various threads have we spent countless hours writing the same things over and over again?). I suggest that it's probably best for both our sanities (and everyone else s) if we just agree to disagree. And in the future, I suggest that when situations crop up on the TH, we both respectfully acknowledge that we have different viewpoints on this subject (meaning we both should refrain from proclamations and claims of "debunking" each others opinions).
Best wishes,
John Mohan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3260
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Wow even I see fault in this. |
Really?
| Quote: | | You agree that with a garden hose with a nozzle on the end that the water speeds up. My garden hose is 150 FEET long and this happens. |
I never said it wouldn't.
| Quote: | | BUT you worry that with the mere INCHES that the air has to move from our lungs to the lips; that there could be too much resistance and although it always speeds up; we shouldn't assume it speeds up. |
That is absolutely NOT what I said.
| Quote: | | You wrote that he assumed away the effects of resistance slowing down the flow in a LONG and narrow pipe. BUT what long and narrow pipe are you talking about? |
I was referring to his assumption that the same pressure exists at both the small and the large nozzle. This is not the case.
| Quote: | | This is nothing short of you selectively accepting physics when you like the outcome and adding POSSIBLE unknown problems when you don't like the outcome. |
Not at all. I am actually trying to clarify that very thing. I am not "selecting" anything. For example, you can never assume that, within a closed system that which moves with more velocity also has more energy, force, pressure, etc. That approach ignores all of the parameters in play, namely static pressure and frictional effects due to viscosity.
| Quote: | | The problems may be there but why not in BOTH cases? |
Because the cases ARE quite different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zackh411
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1886
Location: Saint Louis MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darryl,
The flow is a result of a pressure gradient, but if you keep the pressure relatively the same (meaning, blow the same, not harder, or less hard, basically), then the flow rate is relatively constant.
Increasing pressure WILL allow you to play higher without having to reduce aperture size as much... this is the principle behind the way Roger Ingram says he plays.
However, you cannot ignore the effect of aperture size, as much as you'd like to.
_________________
~Zack
Lead Piece: Custom PickettBrass
Jazz Piece: Custom Curry TC
Legit Piece: Yamaha Shew Jazz (18 Drill) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beel40
Veteran Member
Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ten pages...Sheesh.
I read them all last night when I should have been practicing my B-flat scale. Today my playing sucked.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meet A Cheetah
New Member
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: I have no range. :( |
|
|
| AlexA15 wrote: | | Hey, I'm kind of worried about my range. I haven't got a very good one. I can just about play and hold a C above the staff. Which isn't that great. And it doesn't sound very nice either. It's very... bright, loud and "in your face". Not what I'm going for.
|
Generally speaking you're breaking some physical law. This is the reason for the overly strained sound and inability to blow above the C.
I consult with brass players. Not a teacher per se. Teaching is a major investment of time and energy. Covers many aspects of music. I just stick to just the physical aspects and intonation/timing is all.
A former student of Roy Stevens though not exactly his number one disciple. Still what I learned from Roy contradicts much of what is presented as trumpet playing theory today. I give advice freely without charge. Usually when people accept my ideas they soar quickly. Usually they don't listen to me though and that is their choice. Lead a horse to water and all that stuff.
Oddly the concept of "learning to play musically" while a good and desirable goal isn't all that important to range development. Musical range? Yes. you must have a well developed ear and sense of musicality.
But just to blow a solid High F? No problem. In fact books like Arbans might even be counter-productive to helping develop this range even as helpful as they are in other areas. All you need to do is figure how you're violating physical law and correct it. Then with a bit of practice the F or G should pop out just fine at any volume. Whether you decide to play musically or not.
I can think of several lead players with exceptional range who do not fit my description of playing musically at all. Yet I believe that they are capable of blowing sweetly but have just chosen not to do so. It is their decision to blow a lot of nasty, paint peeling extreme upper register with no soul in them. People buy tickets to see them but they are not blowing lovely tones such as was Maynard.
Have to slap myself to prevent mentioning their names. So far its working but is hard.
_________________
Coming soon "Cheetah Mouthpieces" for trumpet. Ask me about them.
Last edited by Meet A Cheetah on Tue May 01, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pops
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JRoyal wrote: |
Can you provide some evidence to support of your claim of 1/4 and of 1/8 to 1/64?
|
Since I have nothing to do this week but medical tests and surgery and since I want to avoid thinking about that; I find that I have time to play.
It depends on if you want evidence like you asked or proof via a college supported study. As luck would have it; I have both. (Actually it isn't luck I NEVER post unless I have some famous teacher or study to quote when needed.)
On page 40 of "The Art of Brass Playing"
Philip Farkas wrote about observations of vibrations while looking at his visualizer buzz in a mirror. The buzz got half as small when he buzzed an octave higher and half the size again as he went up another octave. He also claimed to have done this same experiment on countless players and that it was always true.
Farkas writes that he feels the length of the aperture when playing determines the pitch. Of course he gets this correlation from string instruments where we see this is true.
| JRoyal wrote: | | Pops is then making up numbers to justify his points that are not pulled from any clear source of data.
|
Assuming that Farkas didn't lie. Then let's look at the entire length of lip inside the mouthpiece.
Double pedal C =1 or the entire length
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
pedal c = 1/2
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
Low C = 1/4
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
middle c = 1/8
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
high c = 1/16
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
double high c = 1/32
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
triple high c = 1/64
and I know several people who can play this and I did before my open heart surgery
He changes octaves and according to Farkas the aperture is half
quad high c = 1/128 of the lip inside the mouthpiece vibrating.
I know that you more than likely have read the Farkas book. You simply didn't apply it. Nothing wrong there. However; your condescending writing style would work much better IF you were right.
We know that for a given volume this holds true in the normal trumpet register from low c to high c.
However; because loudness also changes the size of the vibration; this only holds true if the same dynamic is used for all notes.
And this is where the problem is.
With a guitar the vibration of a certain note is always a given length. A louder note only vibrates more side to side and no change happens lengthwise.
Both of those directions CAN change SOME with a change in dynamics for a lip vibration.
Moving on
The book "The Art of Producing High Notes on Brass Instruments: A New Theory and Method" by Brian Wadsworth with the help of Professor Curzon and the University of BC physics department.
This book was actually 3 studies that they published together.
The 1st was when they did high speed filming of people playing. There was a camera in the mouthpiece filming the lips vibrate.
They filmed and counted vibrations and measured the aperture.
The notes vibrated at the expected cycles per second. AND each octave of increased range showed the lip vibrations and aperture getting smaller by about half. (Sometimes the volume changed slightly and it was 9/16 change instead of exactly 1/2.)
They did this with pedal c, low c, middle c and high c and those 4 notes did exactly what Farkas had suggested and exactly what my numbers state.
moving on
| JRoyal wrote: |
Actually, plenty of trumpet players vibrate the entire lip surface ( in the mouthpiece), many players strive to have as much lip vibrate as possible to increase the richness of their sound.
|
Yes we vibrate as much tissue as we can FOR any given note. You simply can't vibrate the entire lip surface and play EVERY note.
The reason we use our corners and use lip compression is to make LESS lip vibrate so that we can play higher notes.
http://iwk.mdw.ac.at/TRP/research/videos/welcome.htm
Shows several videos of this change in vibrating size using clear mouthpieces. In these videos you see that octave and 2 octave jumps make BIG differences in how much lip is vibrating.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Last edited by Pops on Tue May 01, 2012 6:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrpPro
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1471
Location: Riverview, FL
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The amount of lip (the length of the aperture of the vibrating lips) vibrating would seem to be clearly around half as much per increase by one octave in pitch. This should be very visible with a clear mouthpiece, a visualizer or just, if you are able to do it, by buzzing notes in front of a mirror. You should be able to easily prove it to yourself.
Or, check out Pops 5 octave buzz (about as good a buzz as I've heard) at
http://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1213792&highlight=#1213792
and get out the ruler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beel40 wrote: | Ten pages...Sheesh.
I read them all last night when I should have been practicing my B-flat scale. Today my playing sucked.
Thanks. |
Sorry. My practicing has taken a nose dive as well. Not good. I think I'm bowing out of this one at this point. I am most impressed with Pops' writings. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I was critical of Pops at times. If I had known then what I know now...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
