| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JeffTheHornGuy
Veteran Member
Joined: 07 Feb 2013
Posts: 174
Location: Boston
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think the most desired horns of the future are going to be ones that the most notable pros play today. Look at the vintage horns that are most sought after right now - Committees, Connstellations, old Bach's, Benges, Super Recordings, etc - if you watch any old concerts, you'll likely see guys playing those trumpets. So, what horns are pros flocking to today? Monette for sure, and I'll speculate on a few others:
Yamaha 8310Z & 9XXX series
Lotus (this is a solid "MAYBE" - they are still very new but I see a few very prominent people picking them up)
Selmer Chorus 80J
Wild Thing (another "MAYBE" - this would have been more true a few years ago)
_________________
Trumpet player in Couch
Puje "Super T"
1970 Bach Stradivarius 37
Custom Lawler C7
Electronic music producer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huntman10
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2017
Posts: 683
Location: Texas South Plains
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ron Haney [quote ] I really don’t think the full value of all the good existing designs have been explored yet. I would like to see the airflow in the valves maximized to the point where the airflow enters in the center of valves like some leblancs and conn vocabel or the olds superstar. To me these have the best blow. These horns all have same valves 1-3 and all line the slides with same exit. Surely with all the CAD and other tools valves could be configured to eliminate the bumps common to all current designs but MAW and these don’t have center flow. I also love the projection and tone of rimless bells, and think that more can be done with combinations of materials to tailor tone. Something like this will survive and thrive because it will help us play more efficiently. None of this new ground but it would make for a unusual looking trumpet compared to standard.
Just my opinion, and I am looking to build this if possible just for me.[/quote]
So basically, we can expect improved flow and resonance so the instrument would eventually require minimal input, perhaps even drawing air through itself, making the player less important,perhaps. And at that point, we would have a trumpet that finally truly sucked!
_________________
huntman10
Collector/Player of Fine (and not so fine) Brass Instruments including
Various Strads, Yammies, Al Hirt Courtois, Schilkes,
Selmer 25, Getzen Eternas, Kanstuls (920 Pic, CG)
Martin Custom Large Bore, Lots Olds!, Conns, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bflatman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 720
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
loweredsixth
How do we measure speed and what does speed mean, I said computers are 10,000 times faster now than they were originally.
But then those infinitely slow computers that ran at the speed of a snail booted up in seconds whereas modern computers even though they are infinitely faster take several minutes to boot up. That makes them slower.
It is interesting to consider that whenever hardware doubles in speed microsoft introduces software that runs at half the speed and the overall speed does not increase.
The original IBM XT took around a minute to boot from cold start and had a processing speed of just 4.7 megahertz
The latest cpu is around 4 gigahertz that is 1000 times faster than the original IBM XT in raw speed and the latest cpus are dual core and have much greater capabilities in prefetch and cycle efficiency and bus speeds are also accelerated.
So we should see the modern desktop boot up to ready state in around 10,000 of a minute or 0.006 seconds.
So why do we accept a boot time of around 3 minutes as normal when it should take around 1000th of a second.
Of course a modern boot does much more than load a simple operating system.
But this is the point and you make it for me, you are defending a slower functioning device while falsely claiming it is a faster functioning device.
This is the very principle I expressed. We somehow come to believe that a poorer system is better than it really is. And by this means standards are eroded.
If we drove a fast car to the mountains on vacation and it took us longer to get there than in the slower car would we claim it was getting us there faster just because the route was more attractive.
A modern computer loads up windows plus add ins for video and sound and hooks for software plus a raft of functions that we dont use but might use.
This is called software bloat.
As for instruments and players now I agree standards are high I do not accept that modern instruments are better than older instruments, that is a common fallacy.
A Mount Vernon Bach or a committee is not a poorer instrument than any made today. there were many fabulous instruments made 70 years ago that have not been bettered.
I disagree that people who are serious about playing music expect more from instruments now than they did in the past. That is in my opinion wrong.
Are you suggesting that Louis Armstrong had low standards, that Dizzy had poor standards.
Expecting more from a modern instrument than you would get from a bach or a martin or a buescher or a schilke is doomed to failure.
I think this argument falls under its own weight.
I do agree of course that Monette for example is a fine instrument builder and many others exist.
What is acceptable or good changes over time but may not be for the better.
We have seen cd's called an improvement over plastic lp's we have seen transistor amps called an improvement over valve amps what is perceived as better is not always better.
And it does not matter what you believe good players today think or believe what matters is what good players in 100 years time will think or believe and you cannot claim to know what that will be.
_________________
Conn 80a Cornet
Boosey & Hawkes Emperor Trumpet
Olds Fullerton Special Trumpet
Selmer Invicta Trumpet
Yamaha YCR 2330II Cornet
Selmer Student Trumpet
Bohland and Fuchs peashooter Trumpet
Boosey and Hawkes Regent Cornet
Lark M4045 Cornet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phoenix864
Veteran Member
Joined: 20 May 2019
Posts: 223
Location: Washington DC, US
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bflatman wrote: | loweredsixth
How do we measure speed and what does speed mean, I said computers are 10,000 times faster now than they were originally.
But then those infinitely slow computers that ran at the speed of a snail booted up in seconds whereas modern computers even though they are infinitely faster take several minutes to boot up. That makes them slower.
It is interesting to consider that whenever hardware doubles in speed microsoft introduces software that runs at half the speed and the overall speed does not increase.
The original IBM XT took around a minute to boot from cold start and had a processing speed of just 4.7 megahertz
The latest cpu is around 4 gigahertz that is 1000 times faster than the original IBM XT in raw speed and the latest cpus are dual core and have much greater capabilities in prefetch and cycle efficiency and bus speeds are also accelerated.
So we should see the modern desktop boot up to ready state in around 10,000 of a minute or 0.006 seconds.
So why do we accept a boot time of around 3 minutes as normal when it should take around 1000th of a second.
Of course a modern boot does much more than load a simple operating system.
But this is the point and you make it for me, you are defending a slower functioning device while falsely claiming it is a faster functioning device.
This is the very principle I expressed. We somehow come to believe that a poorer system is better than it really is. And by this means standards are eroded.
If we drove a fast car to the mountains on vacation and it took us longer to get there than in the slower car would we claim it was getting us there faster just because the route was more attractive.
A modern computer loads up windows plus add ins for video and sound and hooks for software plus a raft of functions that we dont use but might use.
This is called software bloat.
As for instruments and players now I agree standards are high I do not accept that modern instruments are better than older instruments, that is a common fallacy.
A Mount Vernon Bach or a committee is not a poorer instrument than any made today. there were many fabulous instruments made 70 years ago that have not been bettered.
I disagree that people who are serious about playing music expect more from instruments now than they did in the past. That is in my opinion wrong.
Are you suggesting that Louis Armstrong had low standards, that Dizzy had poor standards.
Expecting more from a modern instrument than you would get from a bach or a martin or a buescher or a schilke is doomed to failure.
I think this argument falls under its own weight.
I do agree of course that Monette for example is a fine instrument builder and many others exist.
What is acceptable or good changes over time but may not be for the better.
We have seen cd's called an improvement over plastic lp's we have seen transistor amps called an improvement over valve amps what is perceived as better is not always better.
And it does not matter what you believe good players today think or believe what matters is what good players in 100 years time will think or believe and you cannot claim to know what that will be. |
I don't understand the computer analogy. Computers today are faster in every way - cold boot, browsing websites, editing videos, etc. Literally nothing about them has gotten slower. I have an NVMe drive-equipped Windows laptop - its cold boot is mere seconds. CPUs today often top 8 cores (with 16+ threads), and often run at speeds over 5ghz. Increases in speed do not linearly affect boot times, so .0006 of a second is neither expected nor feasible. Literally nothing was better about computers from 20 years ago compared to today.
As for trumpets, I would say in general horns have improved - most notably in the valve blocks. The 20th century produced many great horns, but looking purely at build quality, a modern Carol Brass horn has better tolerances and consistency than any Bach, Conn, or Schilke from the 20th century (even when those horns were new).
Players from that era didn't necessarily have low standards - their standards were just based around the best that was available at the time. The same thing happens today, and I expect will continue in the future. Precision CNC machining and 3rd printing will likely continue to decrease tolerances and increase consistency on future trumpets.
Honestly, I'm not sure if there will be another generation of 'legendary' horns. As someone who was born after the 'golden era' of trumpet playing and manufacturing in the US, I just don't have much of a connection with any horn - it's a tool, and I look for the best one for the job. I've played several vintage Bueschers and Conns and didn't feel they outclass my current, modern horn.
As far as trumpet design, I think a metal, manually operated trumpet will continue to exist. People love live music that's played by real people - I'm not worried about the trumpet (or most other instruments) going extinct. I do think we could see some design innovations, maybe along the lines of what Jason Harrelson is doing. There's a small builder in France(?) doing slideless horns - I could also see that gaining more traction if/when the benefits are more established. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bflatman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 720
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Windows 10 cold boot is typically 1.2 minutes and on fast systems it can be quicker on slow systems it can take much longer.
The fastest boot times are around 5 seconds but that is with faststart enabled as it is by default.
A faststart enabled system is not cold booting.
Linux can boot to kernel load in around 64 seconds depending on the version.
The old XT was around a minute or less to load fully. and hand the system over to the operator.
That is the difference it takes just as long to start work on modern systems as it did in 1982 on the XT
Old operating systems were written in assembler that is lean and mean windows is written in c and c++
I have programmed in both c++ and assembler.
c++ is far easier to program in but it runs horrifically slowly compared to assembler code.
The analogy is c++ code is a ferrari and assembler code a missile.
I wrote a commercial program in assembler that the c programmers could not write and make function. The most minimal code in c++ written by the programming team was far too bloated and could not be got to work.
Speed is relative.
The only reason for speaking about this was to highlight the changing standards over time and instruments will I am sure be subject to different standards in 100 years time to those they are subject to now
_________________
Conn 80a Cornet
Boosey & Hawkes Emperor Trumpet
Olds Fullerton Special Trumpet
Selmer Invicta Trumpet
Yamaha YCR 2330II Cornet
Selmer Student Trumpet
Bohland and Fuchs peashooter Trumpet
Boosey and Hawkes Regent Cornet
Lark M4045 Cornet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deleted_user_687c31b
New Member
Joined: 03 Apr 1996
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phoenix864 wrote: | | I don't understand the computer analogy. |
What bflatman refers to (I think) is the fact that because computers have become more powerful, it's less required by programmers to write efficient code. The code still performs the same basic function (a lot of modern software is simply aimed at writing to or reading from a database for example) but instead of hard to read C++ code, you now get a sugar coated syntacticly intellisense based C# compiler with documentation and automatic testing inside the code. The basic purpose and effect hasn't changed, just the stuff around it (and for the better I might add).
A similar comparison would be the mileage on a car. I drive a 17 year old gas powered Toyota. My partner drives a 1 year old Toyota hybrid of the same model. The mileage on both cars is about equal (5L/100km). The difference is that the old car has less features (smaller trunk, no airco, traction control, automatic gearbox and so on). The modern car has many fancy features that aren't really required to drive, but are certainly nice to have. The advances in technique have made it possible to carry all that extra weight around and not spend additional fuel doing so. But in the end, it's not more economical than the old car to drive.
| Phoenix864 wrote: | | As for trumpets, I would say in general horns have improved - most notably in the valve blocks. The 20th century produced many great horns, but looking purely at build quality, a modern Carol Brass horn has better tolerances and consistency than any Bach, Conn, or Schilke from the 20th century (even when those horns were new) |
The 'flaw' in your reasoning, or rather the one thing I can find to argue with  , is assuming that smaller tolerances lead to a 'better' instrument. They certainly allow manufacturers's to make more copies of the same model that are much more similar than the old instrument makers could. But that's the main advantage: consistancy. Whether tight tolerances lead to a better sound is a different discussion altogether though. And because everything is made exactly the same, the chance of accidently making an 'exceptional instrument' (where the combination of tiny 'flaws' lead to an improved instrument) is reduced as well.
This video by Trent Austin also shows how a horn with poor tolerances can have a great sound. He admits not playing it on gigs because it's demanding to play though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Finn
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 8333
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right......
_________________
LA Benge 3X Bb Trumpet
Selmer Radial Bb Trumpet
Yamaha 6335S Bb Trumpet
Besson 709 Bb Trumpet
Bach 184L Bb Cornet
Yamaha 731 Bb Flugelhorn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beyond16
Veteran Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2020
Posts: 220
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bflatman wrote: | ...So we should see the modern desktop boot up to ready state in around 10,000 of a minute or 0.006 seconds.
So why do we accept a boot time of around 3 minutes as normal when it should take around 1000th of a second.... |
This is drifting off-topic, but I can answer the question. I worked on boot time reduction about 10 years ago, especially the pre-OS part. I made a special legacy BIOS for a 24-thread server that reached OS hand-off in roughly .5 seconds. It could boot DOS from A/C power on in 3/4 seconds. Legacy BIOS is efficient hand-coded assembly language, and limited by I/O operations. x86 computers now use UEFI BIOS, something forced by Intel and Microsoft. UEFI adds several seconds to boot time, no matter what. But UEFI can still get to OS hand-off in less than 10 seconds, if properly optimized. HP commercial notebooks are known for this. BIOS (and other pre-OS code) has to do a lot more initialization than in the PC/XT days. DDR4 memory requires 'training' which is something like a series of calibration loops. Every thread gets its microcode patch decrypted and loaded, and registers initialized. The XT had no plug & play. The modern computer scans and detects all installed hardware.
But the bottom line is computers can be made to boot faster. AC on to OS hand-off in less than 10 seconds is not too hard. But companies do not prioritize this metric enough, probably because customers don't prioritize it much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blownchops
Regular Member
Joined: 15 Apr 2020
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is about vintage trumpets, lets keep it that way?
Also, Bflatman almost always comes into threads, says a bunch of random nonsense with the air of a wise shaman passing along knowledge, then acts superior to you when I get the feeling from their posts they are likely not a very good player.
It is very Capt. Kirk like, except with less bach bashing.
Please, lets get the thread back on track. I will start,
I played one of those new Bach Mike Sachs model horns the other day and I was very pleasantly surprised. The horn was great and I could totally see it being rare and desirable in the future.
I also see people looking for specific gen Xenos as well as Chicago and New York model Yamahas. I think this is a good indicator of future desirability. I also see the now discontinued Yamaha 8335RG selling for pretty high prices which also makes me think that certain yamahas will be highly sought after in the future.
_________________
Bach 37 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goby
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Josh Landress is doing a small run of Besson and NY Bach inspired Bb's built on Bauerfiend blocks. They posted the valve blocks on their social media accounts earlier this week, and they look fantastic. I expect these horns to become instant classics, and will likely be held in the same regard as Calicchio and Severinsen/Ackright Bel Canto in the coming years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phoenix864
Veteran Member
Joined: 20 May 2019
Posts: 223
Location: Washington DC, US
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hibidogrulez wrote: | | Phoenix864 wrote: | | I don't understand the computer analogy. |
What bflatman refers to (I think) is the fact that because computers have become more powerful, it's less required by programmers to write efficient code. The code still performs the same basic function (a lot of modern software is simply aimed at writing to or reading from a database for example) but instead of hard to read C++ code, you now get a sugar coated syntacticly intellisense based C# compiler with documentation and automatic testing inside the code. The basic purpose and effect hasn't changed, just the stuff around it (and for the better I might add).
A similar comparison would be the mileage on a car. I drive a 17 year old gas powered Toyota. My partner drives a 1 year old Toyota hybrid of the same model. The mileage on both cars is about equal (5L/100km). The difference is that the old car has less features (smaller trunk, no airco, traction control, automatic gearbox and so on). The modern car has many fancy features that aren't really required to drive, but are certainly nice to have. The advances in technique have made it possible to carry all that extra weight around and not spend additional fuel doing so. But in the end, it's not more economical than the old car to drive.
| Phoenix864 wrote: | | As for trumpets, I would say in general horns have improved - most notably in the valve blocks. The 20th century produced many great horns, but looking purely at build quality, a modern Carol Brass horn has better tolerances and consistency than any Bach, Conn, or Schilke from the 20th century (even when those horns were new) |
The 'flaw' in your reasoning, or rather the one thing I can find to argue with , is assuming that smaller tolerances lead to a 'better' instrument. They certainly allow manufacturers's to make more copies of the same model that are much more similar than the old instrument makers could. But that's the main advantage: consistancy. Whether tight tolerances lead to a better sound is a different discussion altogether though. And because everything is made exactly the same, the chance of accidently making an 'exceptional instrument' (where the combination of tiny 'flaws' lead to an improved instrument) is reduced as well.
This video by Trent Austin also shows how a horn with poor tolerances can have a great sound. He admits not playing it on gigs because it's demanding to play though. |
My wording was poor - I meant to say that I felt the computer analogy went completely against what they were trying to say about trumpets. While they may feel like computers have gotten slower in the past 20 years, that's objectively not the case. I can't imagine a single task that is faster on a computer from the 90s vs today. Using the computer analogy, trumpets from today would be a world better than trumpets from the 20th century - though I think we can agree that's not the case.
Regarding tolerances, I would agree that smaller tolerances don't always make a better horn. That said, looser tolerances = more wasted energy, which in general I would say makes for a worse horn. Valve rebuilds, PVAs, and services like Osmun's blueprinting are pretty common recommendations for improving old and new horns, so from what I've seen it looks like people generally like horns with smaller tolerances and fewer manufacturing flaws.
I think the same thing goes for building horns. Sure, with inconsistent manufacturing and poor tolerances 1/100 might be special due to the specific inconsistencies. But a whole lot more than that will be subpar. I would prefer manufacturers focus on designing the best horn possible, and then build consistent copies of that design, rather than playing roulette with a horn to see if you get a good example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huntman10
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Aug 2017
Posts: 683
Location: Texas South Plains
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simply put, the old MS-DOS operating system of the first generation PC was simply letters and numbers, and you could get them in monochrome greens occasionally the crummy orange. Your input device was a boring keyboard. There was no worldwide web of data. No mouse. And the operating system depended more on the fixed firmware of the old 8088 microprocessor architecture.
Now we have apps loaded with graphics and sound. You can input data in so many ways, even by talking. So, in fact, an old coal fired PC did start faster than a Windows 10 boot today, and a simple garbage in/garbage out program might run in a shorter time than your typical data search. We could not get a simple phone app on a 160 KB floppy disk.
Having said that, it is apples and oranges.
_________________
huntman10
Collector/Player of Fine (and not so fine) Brass Instruments including
Various Strads, Yammies, Al Hirt Courtois, Schilkes,
Selmer 25, Getzen Eternas, Kanstuls (920 Pic, CG)
Martin Custom Large Bore, Lots Olds!, Conns, etc. |
|
| 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
|
