Research on Cryogenic Treatment of Horns

[rafterman]

Interesting article. I would have posted the link, but it wouldn't open if you hadn't registered with the NY Times. So here's the copy:

Hot Sounds From a Cold Trumpet? Cryogenic Theory Falls Flat
By TERRY SCHWADRON

Published: NY Times, November 18, 2003

Without, er, fanfare, two Tufts University engineering researchers announced results of a study last week rebutting a popular myth among some trumpet players that deep-freezing the instruments will change the sound for the better.

Rather, they told the Acoustical Society of America meeting in Austin, Tex., that scientific testing of cryogenically freezing 10 trumpets showed minimal differences when the instruments were thawed and played by six musicians. After two years of research, Dr. Chris Rogers, an engineering professor, said that he and colleagues determined that freezing trumpets did not make them sound better.

"One of the great things about studying musical instruments, though, is if the player believes it will make a difference, he or she will play better, so it acts as a sort of placebo," Dr. Rogers said.

There has been growing interest among musicians in these treatments for brass instruments of all kind. In experiments, the instruments were cooled with liquid nitrogen to minus 321 degrees Fahrenheit, and then slowly warmed, all in the belief that they would become easier to play. A major flute manufacturer uses the process, and small storefront businesses have popped up for the sole purpose of freezing the instruments.

Chip Jones, a Tufts graduate student involved in the research, said he had recruited six trumpeters ranging in skill from a former high school musician to a New England Conservatory player to member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

They played the same sequence on trumpets that had been frozen and those that had not, and then rated the instruments. They were also asked to identify which trumpet matched the sound that "people say is brighter, freer-blowing or that had more `presence,' " Mr. Jones said.

Differences in the answers, he said, were statistically insignificant. "There was more difference from trumpet to trumpet and from player to player than in the results from treatment of the instruments," Mr. Jones said.

The research was requested by Selmer Musical Instruments, a wind instrument manufacturer, which was considering whether to offer the cryogenic treatments for new instruments sold from the Vincent Bach Stradivarius trumpet line. As a result of the tests, the company has decided to forgo the deep-freeze.

But others who have tried the deep-freeze say there is a difference in ease of playing and in the range of "color" in the tone.

In Arlington Heights, Ill., Wayne Tanabe, owner of the Brass Bow music repair shop, said his advertising was by word of mouth. "Otherwise, people think you're talking about voodoo," he said.

He has a tub-size cryogenics tank where he can fit a tuba and several trumpets. His freeze technique costs about $200 and takes 35 to 50 hours. As Mr. Tanabe explained it, cryogenics accelerates what seems to happen to brass instruments as they age. Sound quality improves because resonance is clearer, he said.

Mr. Jones said studies had shown that while steel, for example, did undergo change through freezing, brass did not. Heating, by contrast, does soften metal, potentially changing its acoustics.

The trumpet research is part a musical instrument engineering program at Tufts.

[_dcstep]

There's another thread about the Tuft's study elsewhere on TH. It includes links to the Tufts papers.

Unfortunately, Tufts failed to establish baseline comparisons of the instruments before cryogenically treating half of them. Since we all "know" that Bachs vary from horn to horn, they proved nothing. They needed to compare the post-cryo horn responses to their pre-cryo responses. I thought that establishing baseline performance was an established part of the scientific method that even an engineer would know to do, but evidently not. Oh well, it's a shame that all that energy was spent (two years!!) and no meaningful results were produced.

Dave
_________________
Schilke '60 B1 -- 229 Bach-C/19-350 Blackburn -- Lawler TL Cornet -- Conn V1 Flugel -- Stomvi Master Bb/A/G picc -- GR mpcs
[url=http://www.pitpops.com] The PitPops[/url]
Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest

[trumpetmike]

Does this mean that cryogenics is just a load of hot air

[jophst]

More like a load of cold air ....

I agree with Dave that a study should have been done on the horns before they were frozen. The treated horn may have been a P.O.S. before and now plays just ok as a result. Personally, I do not believe the process will help anything but I have no evidence or experience to back that up.
_________________
Bb - Yamaha Xeno 8335RGS
Picc - Yamaha 9830 w/PVA
Flugel - Yamaha Shew 6310Z
Laskey's 68MD,68C,PIC,68F,68DB

[rafterman]

A few thoughts:

The headline, "cyrogenic theory falls flat" is exactly that - a catchy headline. The experiment tests an hypothesis and provides findings that do not support the assertion that cryogenic treatment of horns improves their performance. The researcher, as quoted, goes out on a limb by saying that proves that the placebo effect accounts for reports of the treatment's effectiveness. The number of people testing the horns was small and no listeners were involved in the evaluations. It is a common practice among skilled players to test and select horns with the assistance of a colleague who listens to the sound from the front. From the article, only player perceptions seem to have been analyzed.

I don't think this article should be taken as the final worn on the freezing process.

Other thoughts on this?

[ChopsMcgraw]

There's another study floating around on the web that showed that some horns benefit from it, they brought in Drozdoff and some other guys to baseline a couple of horns (Blackburn, Bach, some other horns), and then called them back to play them after the treatment. They focused purely on player perception, how the horn felt to the player. Some horns benefited, and some did not. Unfortunately I don't remember the link...


ChopsMcgraw

[_dcstep]

Yes, I think that I've seen that study. Unfortunately it was totally subjective. If you played a horn for hours every day for a couple of years and then sent it off for cryo, you'd probably be able to sense a difference, if one existed. However, if you played three horns for an hour or so and then sent them away for a day of cryo, I think you'd be hard put to tell the differences unless they were very large.

What I liked about the Tufts study was their attempt to quantify the comparative response of the horns. Had they established an instrument-by-instrument baseline and used only expert players that could get the maximum resonance out of each horn, it would have been a valuable study. As it is, I think it's worthless.

Dave
_________________
Schilke '60 B1 -- 229 Bach-C/19-350 Blackburn -- Lawler TL Cornet -- Conn V1 Flugel -- Stomvi Master Bb/A/G picc -- GR mpcs
[url=http://www.pitpops.com] The PitPops[/url]
Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest

[Waxer]

What I know of heat treatment tells me that raising the temperature of the metal is much more likely to relax internal stresses than deep freezing. But then, raising the temperature will probably release stresses by changing the shape of the structure to do it. Cryogenics would probably lock the stesses in place. Harden them.
I believe it's called the martinsetics.

[jhaysom]

Waxer:

Have a look at this other thread on the subject:

http://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=14131&forum=7&start=15
_________________
John Haysom
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Yamaha 8310ZS trumpet
Yamaha 6310ZS trumpet
Courtois flugel
1941 King Silvertone cornet
1941 King 2B valve trombone
Kanstul 920 piccolo
etc.