| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| scottfsmith wrote: | | Wherever the thread goes, watch the video!! Pretty amazing stuff, thanks John. |
You're welcome!
_________________
Trumpet Player, Clinician & Teacher
1st Trpt for Cats, Phantom of the Opera, West Side Story, Evita, Hunchback of Notre Dame,
Grease, The Producers, Addams Family, In the Heights, etc.
Ex LA Studio Musician
16 Year Claude Gordon Student |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darryl (Kalijah) is right when he writes that arching the tongue cannot increase the air pressure above that which is supplied by the blowing muscles. But I think there is more to it than that.
Concerning pressure, here's something I've learned about in Nursing School that actually relates to what we are discussing. From https://www.amsn.org/practice-resources/care-term-reference/central-line-care-maintenance/question-when-patient-has-picc concerning what size syringes to use when pushing an IV bolus (liquid injection) into an IV catheter:
| Quote: | Per manufacturer guidelines, and infusion nurses society guidelines, ONLY 10 cc syringes are to be used, as smaller syringes increase the pressure within the catheter and can cause damage to the catheter or even the blood vessels. Small amounts should be transferred to a 10 cc syringe and diluted if necessary/compatible.
The reasoning behind this is that infusion pressure should never exceed 25 psi because pressures higher than that may also damage blood vessels. In comparing this to syringe sizes, a 3 ml syringe generates pressure greater than 25 psi, whereas a 10 ml syringe generates less than 10 psi. |
The large 10cc syringe and the low pressure it generates correlates to when we blow air through the big, open air channel created when our tongues down flat. While the same amount of finger pressure is being applied to the plunger, the larger diameter of that 10cc syringe's cylinder and inner plunger spreads that force out more. The smaller 3cc syringe and the higher pressures it generates corresponds to what happens when we blow air through the small air channel created by our up and forward arched tongue.
When we arch our tongues up and forward and create a tiny channel for the air to go through, it concentrates all of our blowing power on a much smaller area of the lips. Similarly, and I know this has been stated by myself and others many times, when we tighten a nozzle on the end of the garden hose we concentrate the water stream into a very thin, fast stream.
With the hose and nozzle concentrating the force of the water, we are then able to drive stones and debris off our driveways. This is a good thing.
With the arching tongue we are able to concentrate the force of the air and play screaming high notes (with proper development of the required strength and coordination). This is a good thing (unless you are a trumpet hating string player).
If we use a small syringe with its small plunger concentrating the force (too much) that we are exerting on it as a doctor or nurse while pushing a bolus into a catheter, the excess pressure created can and will blow up the patient's vein. This is a bad thing.
Cheers,
John Mohan
Skype Lessons Available - Click on the e-mail button below if interested
_________________
Trumpet Player, Clinician & Teacher
1st Trpt for Cats, Phantom of the Opera, West Side Story, Evita, Hunchback of Notre Dame,
Grease, The Producers, Addams Family, In the Heights, etc.
Ex LA Studio Musician
16 Year Claude Gordon Student |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seymor B Fudd
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 1465
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Mohan wrote: | Darryl (Kalijah) is right when he writes that arching the tongue cannot increase the air pressure above that which is supplied by the blowing muscles. But I think there is more to it than that.
Concerning pressure, here's something I've learned about in Nursing School that actually relates to what we are discussing. From https://www.amsn.org/practice-resources/care-term-reference/central-line-care-maintenance/question-when-patient-has-picc concerning what size syringes to use when pushing an IV bolus (liquid injection) into an IV catheter:
| Quote: | Per manufacturer guidelines, and infusion nurses society guidelines, ONLY 10 cc syringes are to be used, as smaller syringes increase the pressure within the catheter and can cause damage to the catheter or even the blood vessels. Small amounts should be transferred to a 10 cc syringe and diluted if necessary/compatible.
The reasoning behind this is that infusion pressure should never exceed 25 psi because pressures higher than that may also damage blood vessels. In comparing this to syringe sizes, a 3 ml syringe generates pressure greater than 25 psi, whereas a 10 ml syringe generates less than 10 psi. |
The large 10cc syringe and the low pressure it generates correlates to when we blow air through the big, open air channel created when our tongues down flat. While the same amount of finger pressure is being applied to the plunger, the larger diameter of that 10cc syringe's cylinder and inner plunger spreads that force out more. The smaller 3cc syringe and the higher pressures it generates corresponds to what happens when we blow air through the small air channel created by our up and forward arched tongue.
When we arch our tongues up and forward and create a tiny channel for the air to go through, it concentrates all of our blowing power on a much smaller area of the lips. Similarly, and I know this has been stated by myself and others many times, when we tighten a nozzle on the end of the garden hose we concentrate the water stream into a very thin, fast stream.
With the hose and nozzle concentrating the force of the water, we are then able to drive stones and debris off our driveways. This is a good thing.
With the arching tongue we are able to concentrate the force of the air and play screaming high notes (with proper development of the required strength and coordination). This is a good thing (unless you are a trumpet hating string player).
If we use a small syringe with its small plunger concentrating the force (too much) that we are exerting on it as a doctor or nurse while pushing a bolus into a catheter, the excess pressure created can and will blow up the patient's vein. This is a bad thing.
Cheers,
John Mohan
Skype Lessons Available - Click on the e-mail button below if interested |
To take another analogy: Read a newspaper! Light a common lamp! Diffuse light spreads everywhere. Now try to focus the light, as with a pencil beam; and let us keep the light bulb candela ratio the same. What happens - the area which is illuminated now seems more bright! Same amount of light though. You are now able to read only a portion of the paper!
Now take a step further, think rocket science, Nobel Prize: same amount of light but now concentrated "in absurdum" you can´t read by it but you can cut a whole in the newspaper. Laser!
Bottom line: same amount of air but now concentrated via the aperture
and tongue arch. Not "faster air". Not more air. More focussed. That´s why small stones get shoveled away, not beacuse of higher pressure.
Am I completely out of my mind or?
If so please enlighten me, not laser like though. 
And from a layman´s&amateur´s viewpoint: I can play say a high C with my tongue way down, but that C gets much more stable, my lips not that tired, if I raise the tongue in the position described above.
_________________
Cornets:
Getzen Custom Series Schilke 143D3/ DW Ultra 1,5 C
Getzen 300 series
Yamaha YCRD2330II
Yamaha YCR6330II
Getzen Eterna Eb
Trumpets:
Yamaha 6335 RC Schilke 14B
King Super 20 Symphony DB (1970)
Selmer Eb/D trumpet (1974) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottfsmith
Veteran Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 474
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with analogies is they are not completely analogous and its hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff. For example in a syringe, the area of the plunger piece (the black rubber bit) will be how much force (from the hands) is being applied per square cm. Pressure is a measure of force per area, so decreasing the area with a smaller syringe and keeping the force constant will increase the pressure. In the lungs there is no analogous pressure increase at the source.
There are also lots of un-intuitive things happening. For example in the hose system when you put your finger on the end you are slowing down the rate of flow and that reduces friction which in turn increases pressure. This may or may not make any difference in the lungs-tongue system.
Another physics principle that applies is Bernoulli's equation. According to this principle the pressure is in fact reduced at a narrowing, but the velocity increases. So it could be that there is no pressure increase at all and only an increase in velocity of the air at the lips which is putting more force on the small lip area which is why a higher tongue is a benefit.
I'm sort of surprised there is no well-known answer to this question as all the physics involved here has been known for a very long time. Wheres a physics expert when you need one?
_________________
Thane Standard Large Bb / Monette Unity B6-7M mpc
Lots of vintage trumpets and mouthpieces |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For example in the hose system when you put your finger on the end you are slowing down the rate of flow and that reduces friction which in turn increases pressure. This may or may not make any difference in the lungs-tongue system.
|
It doesn't. Not in the sense that it can increase the air pressure bearing on the aperture. The resistance due the instrument AND aperture is the dominant resistance. This insures that the lung air pressure exist at the aperture. Adding additional resistance with an extreme arch will only decrease the air pressure available at the aperture. It can never increase it.
| Quote: | | So it could be that there is no pressure increase at all and only an increase in velocity of the air at the lips which is putting more force on the small lip area which is why a higher tongue is a benefit. |
It does not. Any increase in air energy due to greater flow velocity is offset by the reduction in energy due to decrease of static pressure. So there is no net increase. But that is the BEST case for a frictionless case (inviscid flow). In reality there is a friction so any attempt to increase the velocity by narrowing the geometry will result in a lower total pressure. ALWAYS.
| Quote: | | Where's a physics expert when you need one? |
What else would you like explained?
In due time I will address John's questions. And Mohan's confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottfsmith
Veteran Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 474
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | | What else would you like explained?
|
Why is the resistance of instrument and aperture the dominant resistance? I think we can factor out the resistance of the instrument as tongue arch applies just as well to mouthpiece (and arguably free) buzzing. So the revised question is what evidence do you have that the resistance of the aperture dominates the resistance added by any tongue arch?
Also, is overall energy the proper measure of the effect of higher velocity? Perhaps what matters more is energy per unit area of the open aperture and not overall energy. In other words, much less of the lip is vibrating for the higher notes so less energy is needed overall; what instead is needed is more energy per unit area in the center and that is something that a tongue arch could provide.
etc etc etc. I repeat we need a real physics expert who can perform a detailed analysis of this very complex system.
_________________
Thane Standard Large Bb / Monette Unity B6-7M mpc
Lots of vintage trumpets and mouthpieces |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think we can factor out the resistance of the instrument |
That is the most important resistance there is from a sound production standpoint. It is also a significant resistance if not the most significant. Of course I am referring to the resistance due to acoustic impedance of the tone. Not simple air flow resistance of the tubing. Do you understand the difference?
| Quote: | | I repeat we need a real physics expert who can perform a detailed analysis of this very complex system. |
And I repeat; I am that expert. I can explain it. It is also less complex than you may think. Do you have an open mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottfsmith
Veteran Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 474
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | | Quote: | | I think we can factor out the resistance of the instrument |
That is the most important resistance there is from a sound production standpoint.
|
The question under debate is whether tongue arch improves the ability to produce high notes. The tongue still appears to need to arch to produce high notes with mouthpiece buzzing or free buzzing, so in the alternative free-buzz experiment I am proposing there is no horn but still it seems that tongue arch is a factor in producing high notes. So, it doesn't seem necessary to consider the resistance of the horn when considering this particular question. Of course for other questions the resistance of the horn is very important. I would like to hear contrary evidence as to why that is an invalid experiment to test for whether tongue arch may be helpful.
| Quote: | | And I repeat; I am that expert. I can explain it. It is also less complex than you may think. Do you have an open mind? |
I have an open mind, I am a scientist for a living (not a physicist obviously) and I'm primarily interested in knowing whatever the truth of the matter is. I think more than an expert in physics is needed, someone who is an expert in all of the relevant physics and who has analyzed the problem in full detail is needed.
| Quote: | | Of course I am referring to the resistance due to acoustic impedance of the tone. Not simple air flow resistance of the tubing. Do you understand the difference?
|
I know there is a big difference, air flow vs sound wave propagation. Again I am no physicist but I do know some basics.
How about responding to my point above above that the energy per unit area may be the overriding factor, and not just total energy? I didn't see a reply to that.
Also, a ways above you asserted that the tongue is moving up due to how it is tied to embouchure movements. Do you have any evidence for that in terms of how the muscle groups of the tongue and face are linked, or in terms of how face/tongue nerves may be linked? In the double tonguing in the video, the tongue is making radical movements with out affecting the tone quality or production other than the tonguing breaks and I am skeptical there is any strong linkage.
_________________
Thane Standard Large Bb / Monette Unity B6-7M mpc
Lots of vintage trumpets and mouthpieces |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How about responding to my point above above that the energy per unit area may be the overriding factor, and not just total energy? I didn't see a reply to that. |
The energy per unit area is not defined. Or is zero.
The energy per unit volume is the pressure.
The power required to play is flow x pressure.
This does not depend on area.
So, no. The tongue arch does not increase the air pressure acting on any area. Nor does it increase the "energy per area".
Last edited by kalijah on Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mohan wrote:
| Quote: | | The large 10cc syringe and the low pressure it generates correlates to when we blow air through the big, open air channel created when our tongues down flat. |
Nope. No it doesn't.
The area that our mechanical force acts upon is a fixed area for each person. That is, the lung area that is subject to the exhalation muscles. You can not arbitrarily claim that you are using the same mechanical force but on a smaller area because you are not.
| Quote: | | While the same amount of finger pressure is being applied to the plunger, the larger diameter of that 10cc syringe's cylinder and inner plunger spreads that force out more. |
I think you mean finger force. And the force would yield a pressure of P=F/A so the pressure is greater for the smaller area. But again, There is no analogy to a flow path where pressure is already established.
| Quote: | | The smaller 3cc syringe and the higher pressures it generates corresponds to what happens when we blow air through the small air channel created by our up and forward arched tongue. |
No. It does not. The pressure is not arbitrarily greater because you are considering a narrower flow geometry. The pressure is established in the lungs by a variable force acting on a fixed area.
| Quote: | | When we arch our tongues up and forward and create a tiny channel for the air to go through, it concentrates all of our blowing power on a much smaller area of the lips. Similarly, and I know this has been stated by myself and others many times, when we tighten a nozzle on the end of the garden hose we concentrate the water stream into a very thin, fast stream. |
I have debunked this false analogy more times than I can count. Yet John keeps regurgitating it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricV
Veteran Member
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 227
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You may think you have debunked but given the amount of people that disagree with you, i think thats wishful thinking on your part.
Cheers
EricV
_________________
CG Benge trumpet
Yamaha Xeno Cornet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. I am sure there are many trumpet players that believe the prevailing myths. Every one with confused or nonexistent technical knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottfsmith
Veteran Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 474
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | | The energy per unit area is not defined. Or is zero.
|
I may have had my units wrong, perhaps it is power (energy per unit time) per area, which is intensity.
Let us assume that a tongue arch is helping make a narrower stream of air which is moving faster. E = 1/2 m v^2, so each air molecule moving through the aperture at higher velocity will have more energy per molecule. But, there is a smaller cross-section area at the aperture due to a more narrow passage so even though the velocity is greater there will be fewer molecules moving through per second so the overall power is no more. But power per area (intensity) is greater due to the higher velocity, and since the actively vibrating area of the embouchure is also a smaller target that this narrower stream will fully "hit" on the lip area needed for a higher pitch there will be more intensity on that lip surface which is will lead to better high pitch production.
_________________
Thane Standard Large Bb / Monette Unity B6-7M mpc
Lots of vintage trumpets and mouthpieces |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sharkbaitboi
Veteran Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2018
Posts: 104
Location: Antarctica Symphony
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i put an air accelerator in my mouth to play my quadruple c’s on my brand new as of today tuba mouthpiece for a brilliant trumpet sound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rod Haney
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 937
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darrell,
I certainly want to hear what you have to say about this but I’m not sure all the scientific discussion is helping me understand what is going on.
Ive been working on regaining some range for awhile and got tired of weakly hitting higher notes with all the force of a q tip. Breath was not the issue as I can run thru Clarke 2 in F 9 times in one breath. Tongue arch wasn’t it, I play much higher with a free tongue.
What is helping me is working on the shape of each note in the face area. I have taken the thought that this includes the corners, tongue, jaw, and some visible muscles in the face. I feel if I form the proper shape for each note the corners will be in the right place, the tongue in the right place for me, the jaw where it belongs, and the note comes out right. When the note is properly formed you will feel the horn respond by sounding the note with more ease in my experience. I can now sound notes to hi g at a whisper volume, and a hi c anyone would be proud of, with no huge abdominal push or volume of breath. I know the good hi c isn’t all that impressive to hi note guys, but it’s totally without strain. As soon as I can figure out how hard to push for the higher notes they will be there too. I have been working shape now for about 2months. This particular pursuit has helped my sound, ease, and range more quickly than any other factor I’ve found since mounting a serious comeback effort a few years ago. Now I just concentrate on making the right shape for the pitch and let everything go where it needs to be. When I get above hi c I am running into pressure and some strain needing abnormally more air and abdominal push, I also note that the horn is pushing back in a way I haven’t learned to work with yet. I can play the notes, but they are weaker and less in tune and just don’t sound like the notes below hi c (and I don’t like the strain). The muscles that form the aperture are just not in muscle memory and the strength isn’t here to hold a strong note so I’ll keep working. I concentrate on just forming the lips to make the pitch and keep volume low so no push and if I think of any one thing it would be getting the corners right - everything else just does its own thing.
I’d be very interested in your take on the above, and if you can help me with learning to match my impedance / resonance in upper register like they do on lower notes, I’d certainly be greatful.. I think what I’m doing will get me a stronger hi register, but I certainly don’t understand the walls I hit, or why i hit them. I try to minimize tension in my play. And adding more air tongue or tension dont help for me anyway.
BTW I played a dance or 2 with your old friend Larry Ford back in WV and Ohio when he visited home from the big time, and he was my hero when I first started. Could play and read ANYTHING. Did you *o to NTS with him?
Thanks,
Rod |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I may have had my units wrong, perhaps it is power (energy per unit time) per area, which is intensity. |
I think you are looking for force per area. Which is the units of pressure. but ultimately, no, the pressure does not increase due to increased flow velocity.
| Quote: | | Let us assume that a tongue arch is helping make a narrower stream of air which is moving faster. E = 1/2 m v^2, so each air molecule moving through the aperture at higher velocity will have more energy per molecule. |
you are making a common mistake in your interpretation of the Bernoulli equation. The "energy per molecule" ,as you say, is already defined by the pressure source.
Ultimately, on a micro-level, any air pressure that acts on any boundary is a molecular phenomenon. That includes static pressure. So increasing Dynamic pressure at the expense of static pressure results in no net gain of pressure. Regardless of the velocity of flow.
Also, dynamic pressure is something that can only be considered in mid-path. Since the boundary is stationary, there is no dynamic pressure there. Only static pressure. The aperture does not exist in the path of air flow it exists at the boundary of air pressure. What I mean is, the aperture would have to "float" in the "stream" of moving air to consider dynamic pressure alone (which is what you are attempting to do) but the aperture exist at the boundary of air pressure in the body.
But as I stated before, if you attempt to increase the flow velocity by narrowing the path of flow, then viscous losses are realized. This is why the widest path with the slowest flow velocity is the most efficient in terms of air pressure. The narrowing of the path by an extreme tongue Arch causes loss of air pressure due to viscous losses. This is why we must blow with more effort to preserve air pressure at the aperture while using a pronounced Arch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottfsmith
Veteran Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 474
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again I am no expert in physics, but in fluid dynamics there are special equations that apply to boundary conditions, and the point where the air is exiting the lips in spurts (on/off as the lips vibrate) is such a boundary. It seems like your are attempting to apply the Bernoulli equation to the boundary where it is not valid.
So, either convince me that this is not a boundary or why the Bernoulli equation still applies at this boundary.
Also I'm still waiting to hear details of your theory on why the tongue is moving up even though you don't think it has to for high pitch production, in particular why the tongue will supposedly move due to changes in the embouchure muscles, when they don't appear to be linked in any way I can see either physically or physiologically.
_________________
Thane Standard Large Bb / Monette Unity B6-7M mpc
Lots of vintage trumpets and mouthpieces |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It seems like your are attempting to apply the Bernoulli equation to the boundary where it is not valid. |
Dude! YOU brought up Bernoulli and then attempted to use a portion of it to justify your argument.
My point is that the aperture exists at the boundary of the air pressure in the body. This is not disputable. The pressure bearing on the area where the aperture exists is THE pressure. And there is NOTHING you can do with your tongue that will increase this pressure above what the lungs are generating.
| Quote: | | So, either convince me that this is not a boundary or why the Bernoulli equation still applies at this boundary. |
You are now arguing a point that I did not make.
It also appears you have already made up your mind.
| Quote: | | Also I'm still waiting to hear details of your theory on why the tongue is moving up even though you don't think it has to for high pitch production, |
I already explained it. And you have rejected it.
And, I did not say that the tongue does not have to move up to ascend. I have yet to be convinced of any causative effect. Only correlation to lip effort. Especially since the causative explanations are based on such erroneous science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seymor B Fudd
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 1465
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sharkbaitboi wrote: | | i put an air accelerator in my mouth to play my quadruple c’s on my brand new as of today tuba mouthpiece for a brilliant trumpet sound |
It says Sharkbaitboi. Oh boy! Where´s the shark?
_________________
Cornets:
Getzen Custom Series Schilke 143D3/ DW Ultra 1,5 C
Getzen 300 series
Yamaha YCRD2330II
Yamaha YCR6330II
Getzen Eterna Eb
Trumpets:
Yamaha 6335 RC Schilke 14B
King Super 20 Symphony DB (1970)
Selmer Eb/D trumpet (1974) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JetJaguar
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 1516
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seymor B Fudd wrote: | | Sharkbaitboi wrote: | | i put an air accelerator in my mouth to play my quadruple c’s on my brand new as of today tuba mouthpiece for a brilliant trumpet sound |
It says Sharkbaitboi. Oh boy! Where´s the shark? |
It looks like we're jumping it in this discussion.
_________________
1938 Martin Handcraft Imperial #2 bore, 38 bell
Bach 7C mouthpiece
I'm looking for a Connstellation 5C-N or 5B-N mouthpiece
www.jazzscales.org
The Coady Strengthening Exercises: http://coady.coolwarm.com |
|
| 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
|
