| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GenoValet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 1244
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Biber wrote: | | trickg wrote: | Now wait just a danged minute! Do we really want to muddy up the issue with facts?!  |
Aint that the truth! Want to make trumpet player mad? tell him his trumpet is actually a cornet. Denial is everywhere. I know, I was in denial until recently.
Not to take this thread in another direction, but this raises the issue of what actually defines a cornet and what actually defines a trumpet. Can't be wrap - Conn, Harry B Jay and others offered basically a single model instruments with different receivers. Note also Monette's "Frumpet" - no extra turns there yet a dark tone. Conical/cylindrical proportion: not that, see my earlier post with statistics for Bach and Schilke horns.
When all is said and done its probably mouthpiece-i]together[/i] with all those other factors if we're being honest. Though even that is to an extent questionable. Some cornets are still relatively darker sounding with C cup mpieces. But we should perhaps view it from a different angle. What originally differentiated a trumpet from a cornet? From all indications (thank you HLC et all) it was tone color and function. A predominantly (50%+) cylindrical piston valved trumpet hasn't been made in America since around the beginning of the 20c, if not even longer ago (most European imports from the 1880s on were significantly/mostly conical - that's where it all started). Those instruments (bad intonation because of their cylindrical nature and all) had exceedingly bright timbres and played secondary roles to the cornet in almost every regard. Both the cornet and the trumpet drew on the other's design aspects in the first quarter of the 20c = long model cornets / trumpets with more refined conical bores. Thus causing their formerly distinct timbres to effectively converge into a single amorphous trumpet-like tone by the 30s or 40s at the latest. I'm not saying that was necessarily a bad thing, but we need to acknowledge that that did indeed happen. Fortunately, thanks in large part to the British Brass band movement in America, we have seen a return to short model shepherd's crook instruments and "funnel' shaped cornet mouthpieces, and with these changes cornets are going back to their darker heritage. German Rotary valved trumpets are probably the closest we come to true (cylindrical) trumpets, though even they have adopted tapered leadpipes to tame their intonation. Quite a different animal isn't it, seems like American orchestras use them reluctantly at best. Now isn't that telling
Just some thoughts.
By the way, for the Constellation 28A, Stewart gives the following specs: 37 conical / 16.625 cylindrical total: 53.625 = 69% conical
B |
OK, then considering that almost all leadpipes are conical (but maybe not my 38B), & all bells are conical, & most of the tube length of any trumpet is the leadpipe length + bell length, then IF a cornet is defined as "a majority of conical rather than cylindrical tubing," almost all 'trumpets' are really 'cornets.'  (Just let me add here that I mostly play cornets & flugels; so I don't really care about trumpet vs. cornet controversies, but I did watch the Mythbusters on Discovery the night before my original post...). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Randall Nelson
Veteran Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 232
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
...a little twist to this thread.
I wonder if Charles Hargett at Kanstul could shed some light on the Conn measurements as the Kanstul 991 is supposedly a copy of the 38B. If they copied the Conn 38B, they would have the dimensions and be able to answer this with some certainty I would think...
Thoughts?
_________________
Randy Nelson
Olds Super Recording
Kanstul Chicago
Kanstul French Besson Marvin Stamm
Lawler C7
Getzen Custom 3051 LB RL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
connloyalist
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 1154
Location: Netherlands (by way of New York)
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps I ought to pitch in here since I am probably the one who started the "myth".
The 28A Connstellation was available a full year before the 38B Connstellation came about. The lowest 28A serial number I am aware of is 508160. The lowest 38B serial I know is 618249. Hence my statement that the 38B is a 28A with a trumpet receiver. So I suppose the question is whether the 28A is a trumpet with a cornet receiver or a "true cornet".
I assume it is obvious that there is a gliding scale from trumpet through cornet to flugelhorn with at one end of the scale cylindrical and at the other end conical. There also aren't any predefined borders, along the lines of "this instrument is 37.82530673% cylindrical and therefore a trumpet." As I said, it is a gliding scale.
Of course the amount of conical tubing is only half the story; the degree of conical-ness is also relevant. Everyone will agree I think that a 10" tube that starts at 0.440" and ends at 0.445" is less conical than the same length tube that starts at 0.440" and ends at 0.460".
By traditional standards, early 20th century, all modern trumpets are probably cornets, in that "real" trumpets were more cylindrical back then. So when is something a cornet and when a trumpet, really?
I don't think measuring the bore size through the valve block is really telling. I strongly suspect that far and away most trumpets, cornets and flugelhorns will have the same bore size throughout the valves. The conical-ness, I believe, is in the section from the mouthpiece receiver to where the tubing enters the valves, and in the bell.
Remember that since a cornet has a smaller mouthpiece receiver, all else being equal including the main tuning slide, it will be more conical.
As for the 28A/38B, the distance from the receiver to the main tuning slide is an inch longer on the 28A than on the 38B. More specifically, the top tube of the 28A's main tuning slide is an inch shorter than it is on the 38B, hence the leadpipe is an inch longer. The bore size of the tuning slide is the same, and since the 28A's receiver starts out smaller because of the cornet mouthpiece, it is more conical than the 38B's.
Where the 28A and 38B Connstellation's real conical section comes into play I think is in the bell. The bell opens up really quickly. So I think that while most modern trumpets are a good degree towards cornet on that gliding scale, the 38B is perhaps a little further along yet towards cornet.
Regards, Christine
_________________
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lipshurt
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 2642
Location: vista ca
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the leadpipe is NOT cylindrical.
the small end is about .330 which is very small for a trumpet.
The Big end is .438
the connstellation starts a lot smaller and ends a lot lot bigger that most trumpets. That is probably more important to it's "conical-ness" than the general proportion of conical vs cyindrical tubing.
Doug M
_________________
Mouthpiece Maker
vintage Trumpet design enthusiast
www.meeuwsenmouthpieces.com
www.youtube.com/lipshurt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenoValet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 1244
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lipshurt wrote: | the leadpipe is NOT cylindrical.
the small end is about .330 which is very small for a trumpet.
The Big end is .438
the connstellation starts a lot smaller and ends a lot lot bigger that most trumpets. That is probably more important to it's "conical-ness" than the general proportion of conical vs cyindrical tubing.
Doug M |
28A or 38B? The end of my M'wicz 311 ('symphonic' backbore) mouthpiece inner diameter is about 0.3350. So it's safe to assume that end of 38A leadpipe after the mpc receiver is the same or 0.33 as Doug says. (In fact, in order to not have a weird gap configuration disturbing airflow, I would imagine most leadpipes start around 0.33 inch.) The flow is into the tuning slide since it is not a reversed leadpipe configuration, and that inner diameter is 0.4365. The difference is 0.1015 inch. I don't have another non-reversed tpt to compare, but on my Yamaha with reversed leadpipe, the difference is only about 0.12. Since the calipers can't reach in very far, I'm guessing that about where the Conn tuning slide intake would be, it's also about 0.1. So it would seem the 38B is not very different from a modern trumpet either. Even more 'myth busted?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kandor
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 113
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Experiment ! |
|
|
I own both a trumpet 11C4 mouthpiece (Yamaha), and a cornet 11C4 mp, long shank.
Well, the cup is the same, looks mostly designed for the trumpet.
So the difference must be only in the backbore and in the shank: but I did an experiment, I put the CORNET 11C4 mouthpiece into a Bb TRUMPET, through a shank adapter. Guess what happened... it sounded pretty cornet!!
This is something I cannot explain, but I'm curious. Anyone can help me understanding ?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
razeontherock
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 10609
Location: The land of GR and Getzen
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
when you look at the drill size and backbore, do you see a difference between the 2 mouthpieces?
_________________
"And this is life: that you know the Son, and the One who sent Him." The rest is just details |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kandor
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 113
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The throat is exactly the same, according to Yamaha, exactly 3.65 mm. The backbore of the cornet mp is shorter, smaller, but then ends into the adapter before going into the leadpipe. All together, yes, has a different shape and is overall shorter. However, I did not expect such a difference in sound from what looks like a small physical difference. Also slotting is much more sloppy and "wide". After this simple experiment, I start thinking that the mouthpiece has the greater influence on sound, more than conical tubing proportions, bell metal alloy and so on.
It seems that there are (at least for me) still lot of mysteries to be understood in brass instruments! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenoValet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 1244
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kandor wrote: | | The throat is exactly the same, according to Yamaha, exactly 3.65 mm."... After this simple experiment, I start thinking that the mouthpiece has the greater influence on sound, more than conical tubing proportions, bell metal alloy and so on. |
While this is aside to my original topic, I once was in a shop that had 3 new same model Yamaha cornet mouthpieces. I tried all 3 & each had a distinctly different sound. I think you may find that problem with all mass produced mouthpieces as opposed to the more quality-controlled small shops like Curry, GR, Marcinkiewicz, Warburton, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B_Starry
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 903
Location: Lake Norman
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
My take on this thread to-date:
* the 28A is 69% conical, with a cornet receiver
* the 38B is 67% conical, with a trumpet receiver
I'd conclude the "myth" has not been busted.
I own a 28A, and - in spite of what any of you may claim - in my opinion it is truly a cornet. I do not own a 38B, but by most accounts it is a very fine instrument. Based on all I've read, I think it leans more toward the 'cornet' side of the equation ...
The tone of my 28A is absolutely wonderful, and very versatile. It sounds like a cornet (with my GR65 #3 or #7). And, I can blend with trumpets with a shallower Bach 3C or 7D (which I've used). I personally have not tried it with anything more shallow than that, but I imagine it would make a great lead horn for big band jazz with the proper mouthpiece.
- Brian
_________________
do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenoValet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 1244
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I’m looking a pictures of herald “trumpets” in catalogs. Here are instruments that look like they are easily more than 67% conical piping. Yet no one would mistake the sound of a herald to be a cornet. So, I think the conclusions I’m reaching are these, & I think they jibe more with what Christine wrote more than any other. It is not the percent of conical tubing at all that determines if a horn is a long cornet or a trumpet; it is more the rate of conical shaping that would likely determine innate timbre & whether a horn should be called a long cornet or a trumpet. So, first, while the 38B may indeed have 67% conical tubing, that seems not to be much different than a more modern trumpet like my Yamaha. Second, digital calipers don’t lie and so the rate of change in the conical pipes carrying the airflow in a 38B - - at least until the bell section - - is slow & the differences from end-to-end are negligible (it may be different in the 28A, accounting for Mr. Stewarts additional 2%); very different in comparison to the numbers I got on the Pepper short cornet. The 38B uses a trumpet mouthpiece. It projects like a trumpet. It looks like a trumpet (compared to a short cornet). Generally, it sounds more like a dark trumpet than a cornet. Therefore, Conn rightly called it a trumpet. Myth busted. So now, how do you define a Flumpet (tm)?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lipshurt
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 2642
Location: vista ca
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poster writes:
<<<<So it would seem the 38B is not very different from a modern trumpet either. Even more 'myth busted?'>>>>
The 38B design is much more "modern" than let's a say a bach. Most every trumpet made today is a virtual copy of the bach. The all start at about .346 or bigger (yamaha, conn V1, bach, olds etc) and have bells that are also nearly identical to a bach. Even the diferent bach bells are all pretty close to the same. Now the 38B bell is way bigger. It's pretty drastic.
The bach bells and pipes were designed well before the 38B. The 38b is more modern. Most of the horns built today are based on ealrlier designs. there are exceptions of course like monette etc....
Still the fact that the 38b starts at .330 which is drastically smaller than .346, and ends drastically bigger that most horns means that it is radically different from the horns that came before it (and after it) Plus it is a small bore and nickel plated etc. (connstellations are NOT copper or coprion bells by the way... people keep saying that for some reason)
As to what makes the diference between a cornet and a trumpet, there are two differences:
1) the mouthpiece
2) the wrap of the tubing.
3) that's it. Everything else can be either/or
It is not the percent of conical etc... or the rate of conical etc....
Just the mouthpiece and the wrap
Doug M
_________________
Mouthpiece Maker
vintage Trumpet design enthusiast
www.meeuwsenmouthpieces.com
www.youtube.com/lipshurt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrentAustin
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2002
Posts: 5485
Location: KC MO
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All this talk about connstellations will make the values go up! I'm trying to get some right now so shhhhh
I'm really enjoying the thread... thanks for starting it up!
All kidding aside the Connstellation is probably my favorite Vintage horns. I'll do sound clip and general comparisons of my new 28A, 36B, and 38Bs when I get all of them together soon! woo-hoo!
Best,
T
PS: My wife has informed me that some horns must go in order for my newfound love for connies. Hence the sale at my website.
_________________
http://austincustombrass.biz
http://trentaustinmusic.com
http://instagram.com/austincustombrass
This acct will be deactivated as of March 2021. email info@austincustombass.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lipshurt
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 2642
Location: vista ca
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah...
of all the horns i have right now, the 38B is probably the most versatile.
Good fro playing fast and flexible with a big mouthpiece, and it works exremely well with a shallow mouthpiece, and does not go sharp in the upper register. Also has a great low register with any mouthpiece. The sound is just a little too dark for matching with a legit player in a brass quintet, but it plays very "successfully" for legit playing. Easy to be accurate, and play softly. Pretty amazing really.
I originally got a nice 38B and a nice 36B each for $400 a few years ago (higher now) and let the 36B go to my nephew who LOST it....
I thought the 36B was maybe better for legit playing, and the 38B worked better with a lead mouthpiece.
Both were good for playing fast, except not until I put my brace in between the receiver and bell. They were both lame for playing fast until that modification. I have more info on my website...
Doug m
_________________
Mouthpiece Maker
vintage Trumpet design enthusiast
www.meeuwsenmouthpieces.com
www.youtube.com/lipshurt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt Graves
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2001
Posts: 836
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
All these measurements and discussions can be fun, but I would find listening to some recordings of "real" cornets and mouthpieces versus "real" trumpets more interesting. Unfortunately, we don't have recordings of today's quality of 19th century virtuosos like Clarke, Levy, Liberati et al. The recordings we do have of them are a pale reflection of what they actually sounded like. In my own past discussions with Claude about Clarke, he said that Clarke's technique, range, musicality and big fat sound made everyone else sound like a mediocre college player!
It would be interesting to hear recordings of some of todays greats comparing so called cornets and mouthpieces versus so called trumpets.
_________________
For Online Lessons via Live Video, email
me at matthewjgraves@gmail.com
Author of Fundamental Flexibility Studies
Claude Gordon Certified Teacher
BAC Custom Dream Trumpet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dale Proctor
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 9379
Location: Heart of Dixie
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Graves wrote: | | ...Unfortunately, we don't have recordings of today's quality of 19th century virtuosos like Clarke, Levy, Liberati et al. The recordings we do have of them are a pale reflection of what they actually sounded like... |
Ah, now there's the rub. I play in a small brass band that tries to recreate the sound of a mid-19th century band. It would be great to know how these guys really sounded back then, but recording didn't exist until later. The recordings of the greats you mention are interesting, but are severely limited in timbre. We play original horns, original music, and most of us use original mouthpieces. The sound is quite different from modern brass instruments, so we'll just have to hope we're approximating the right sound and style.
On that same note, I've seen a post or two wondering what equipment (horn, mouthpiece, mutes) to use to sound like some of the early ragtime and jazz greats. The recording equipment used at the time has as much or more to do with the "sound" the poster's are after as did their equipment. Actually, they probably didn't sound like the recordings we have of them.
_________________
"Brass bands are all very well in their place - outdoors and several miles away ." - Sir Thomas Beecham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Biber
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 514
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dale Proctor wrote: | ... We play original horns, original music, and most of us use original mouthpieces. The sound is quite different from modern brass instruments, so we'll just have to hope we're approximating the right sound and style.
On that same note, I've seen a post or two wondering what equipment (horn, mouthpiece, mutes) to use to sound like some of the early ragtime and jazz greats. The recording equipment used at the time has as much or more to do with the "sound" the poster's are after as did their equipment. Actually, they probably didn't sound like the recordings we have of them. |
So true. The best we can do is use the same equipment and remember that even that will take us only so far. We cannot, no matter how much we try, divorce ourselves from the sound concept we have in our head (and all its influences), which is perhaps even more influential to how we sound than our equipment. Would that we didn't have to hear all the old greats through the filter of old recording technology. Atleast we can hear them.
B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadickson
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lipshurt wrote: | the leadpipe is NOT cylindrical.
the small end is about .330 which is very small for a trumpet.
The Big end is .438
the connstellation starts a lot smaller and ends a lot lot bigger that most trumpets. That is probably more important to it's "conical-ness" than the general proportion of conical vs cyindrical tubing.
Doug M |
I assume this is why the 38b responds so differently in the upper register than a standard Bach 37? Like how some people describe it as "less work" to play above the staff on a Conn 38b? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenoValet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 1244
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Biber wrote: | | Dale Proctor wrote: | ... We play original horns, original music, and most of us use original mouthpieces. The sound is quite different from modern brass instruments, so we'll just have to hope we're approximating the right sound and style.
On that same note, I've seen a post or two wondering what equipment (horn, mouthpiece, mutes) to use to sound like some of the early ragtime and jazz greats. The recording equipment used at the time has as much or more to do with the "sound" the poster's are after as did their equipment. Actually, they probably didn't sound like the recordings we have of them. |
So true. The best we can do is use the same equipment and remember that even that will take us only so far. We cannot, no matter how much we try, divorce ourselves from the sound concept we have in our head (and all its influences), which is perhaps even more influential to how we sound than our equipment. Would that we didn't have to hear all the old greats through the filter of old recording technology. Atleast we can hear them.
B |
When you think about it, the same can be said of today's recordings. Having worked in a state-of-the-art studio on both sides of the board in WA & having a home studio, I feel safe in stating that what you hear is what the Mastering Engineer, hopefully with the artist sitting next to him, wants you to hear. Only an analog, 'direct to disk' recording without digital remastering comes close to what is actually going into the mic(s). If you really want to know what say C. Botti sounds like live, you need to see/hear him live & unplugged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Biber
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 514
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GenoValet wrote: | | When you think about it, the same can be said of today's recordings. Having worked in a state-of-the-art studio on both sides of the board in WA & having a home studio, I feel safe in stating that what you hear is what the Mastering Engineer, hopefully with the artist sitting next to him, wants you to hear. Only an analog, 'direct to disk' recording without digital remastering comes close to what is actually going into the mic(s). If you really want to know what say C. Botti sounds like live, you need to see/hear him live & unplugged. |
I'm not in the least bit surprised. I wonder though, if it would be possible to digitally "re/de-master" old wax cylinder/lacquer recordings with some sort of complex algorythm to give a better idea of what people like Clarke et al actually sounded like. Sounds like a good graduate project.
Speaking of old recordings - here's a modern old recording session: http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/15373.
Enjoy!
B |
|
| 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
|
