Air speed

[Calvary]

Is air speed important, and if so, what are some practice tips for understanding and improvement? Thanks in advance.

Tim



[ This Message was edited by: Calvary on 2001-11-18 19:31 ]

[RMCullan]

lest you not be confused, the diference between air volume and air velocity:

more air velocity, makes you go higher but to also get "up there" requires less air volmue

and it is vice versa:
for the lower notes less air velocity is needed but greater air volme

just wanted to clear that up

[Calvary]

I am speaking of air velocity, not volume. I can generate plenty of volume, but I am not sure I understand how to evaluate and use velocity.

Tim

[John Mohan]

Hi there!

You achieve faster air velocity by arching your tongue up and forward in your mouth as you play. As in saying the word "sea".

"Eee" for higher notes, "Aw" for lower notes.

The same thing happens when you whistle. Whistle from a low note to a high note. Notice the way your tongue moves to change the pitch. It does the EXACT same thing when you slur from a lower note to a higher note on any brass instrument.

Lip Flexibility exercises (which are really tongue-level exercises) help to achieve this feeling and ability.

Do yourself a big favor and buy the book "Brass Playing Is No Harder Than Deep Breathing" by Claude Gordon, published by Carl Fischer. This book will answer all your questions on this subject. It contains the most accurate and useful information ever written about how to develop the ability to play a brass instrument at a professional/virtuoso level of ability.

The book can be bought via mail-order from the Claude Gordon website:

http://www.claudegordonmusic.com

Claude Gordon and his teachings are responsible for my success as a professional trumpet player (along with a lot of practicing what he told me to practice).

Sincerely,

John Mohan
_________________
1st/2nd trumpet Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"
1st trumpet "Emil & The Detektive"
former 1st trumpet "Cats" and "The Phantom of the Opera"
former L.A. Studio Musician
14 year student of Claude Gordon

[ This Message was edited by: John Mohan on 2001-11-19 07:50 ]

[_bugleboy]

To all,

It seems that a lot of people are of the opinion that air speed determines pitch. More specifically that faster air produces higher notes, often stated as faster = higher. No one seems to be able to offer reasons or evidence demonstrating that this claim is true.

It does seem that most are in agreement that air speed acts the same for all players regardless of the type of embouchure being used. I don't know how this can be true though, when my own observations lend themselves to a very different perception of the function of air speed in the embouchure. In my own embouchure, I observe air speed to be the determining force in producing loud and soft tones. But that air speed has no effect on whether I play higher. For me, air speed has a lot to do with playing loud high notes, but that the pitch is achieved by the tension in the lips as determined by the muscles in the face.

My conclusion is that either air speed is not related in an essential way to pitch or that different types of embouchures cause the function of air speed to be very different from one to another. In one type of embouchure air speed would act as a pitch inducing force while in another type of embouchure this would not be the case at all and it would act in a very different manner.

This subject seems to interest many, but it might be helpful if there is at least a consensus on whether or not air speed acts the same in all embouchures, or can it have a different function in some. My vote is that air speed functions the same for all players. That it is a force that controls dynamics and that it has nothing to do with playing high notes. To me, these are the most reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from observing the relationship that air speed has in sound production. When you blow the air faster the volumes increases; when you blow that air slower the volume decreases. The pitch doesn't go up unless you tense your lips more.

Another thing that is unclear to me is how a position can be held that there is some kind of difference between increasing air speed and increasing air volume. If you hold a note and increase the air speed, you'll be blowing more air. There is no example of increasing air speed without an increase in quantity of air being forced through the lips. Air speed and volume of air are the same thing said a different way. Air speed is the result of applying more air pressure to the resistance set up in the lips that results in more air passing through the lips. Faster air results in more air.

Regards,

Charles Raymond


[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2001-11-19 09:33 ]

[comebackkid]

John nailed it for answering the original question.

For Bugleboy, let me see if I can provide some input as an engineer, instead of a trumpet player.

Sound is simply vibration. the vibration can be measured in cycles per second. The greater number of cycles per second (faster), the higher the pitch.

Now lets apply this information to the application of trumpet playing. Faster air....greater number of cycles per second of lip vibration....higher note! Cool huh!

Everyone is first taught by their non-trumpet playing band teacher to tighten their lips to go higher. Using these muscles (as you mentioned) does produce this affect. But why? What you are really doing is controlling your apeture size (the hole in your lips that you are blowing through).

Lets get back to physics now. A given volume of air (or any other liquid or gas), passing through an orrafice (hole) over a given period of time, will increase velocity (speed) as the orrafice size is decreased. As an analogy, think of your garden hose. When you place your thumb over the hole, the hole gets smaller....the pressure goes up.....the velocity of the water goes up.

In the hose analogy, notice that the pressure goes up, as the hole gets smaller. In trumpet playing, this is why you need increased air support. You must be able to deal with the increased resistance (pressure going up).

So you see Bugleboy, you have been speeding up your air without even knowing it!

Reducing the size of the oral cavity speeds the air as well. This reduction in the oral cavity is achieved by moving the tongue up and forward.
In summary faster = higher is physics. The rules are indeed the same for all of us. As applied to trumpet playing, control your air speed by controling your appeture size, oral cavity, and air support, and you are in fact controling pitch....SCREAM BABY!
BTW - Johns whistling example is a great one for illustrating that this is physics. You can't find a person out there that can whistle higher by dropping his tongue.

Hope this is helpful!

[_bugleboy]

Hello,

I'd like to quote your post and answer each thing as I see it.

*** Sound is simply vibration. the vibration can be measured in cycles per second. The greater number of cycles per second (faster), the higher the pitch.
Now lets apply this information to the application of trumpet playing. Faster air....greater number of cycles per second of lip vibration....higher note! Cool huh! ***

You lost me with, " Faster air....greater number of cycles per second of lip vibration....higher note!"
Why is faster air causing a greater number of cycles per second in the lip? Is this intuitive? You haven't offered any basis for this relationship. In fact, I find that increasing the air velocity on a note makes it louder.

*** Lets get back to physics now. A given volume of air (or any other liquid or gas), passing through an orrafice (hole) over a given period of time, will increase velocity (speed) as the orrafice size is decreased. As an analogy, think of your garden hose. When you place your thumb over the hole, the hole gets smaller....the pressure goes up.....the velocity of the water goes up. ***

Aren't you jumping between two premises here?
1.) That the pressure from the spigot is increased and
2.) That the pressure from the spigot is not increased.

*** In the hose analogy, notice that the pressure goes up, as the hole gets smaller. In trumpet playing, this is why you need increased air support. You must be able to deal with the increased resistance (pressure going up). ***

It appears to me that the hose analogy breaks down in this comparison. If I maintain, to the best of my ability, a constant air pressure; but cause my aperture to decrease (by flexing, tensing the lips to achieve this) the pitch goes up and the air speed slows down. Of course the volume goes down also. The nozzle of a garden hose is usually metal with a clearly defined hole that does not vibrate. This is nothing like lip tissue which is actually touching before the air passes through and then appears to have an aperture. But the aperture is really many vibrations per second of opening and closing that appear to make a hole to the naked eye. Aperture, as I understand the definition of the word, is an unchanging orifice; but is a convenient term that is useful when discussing lip vibration. But the lips do not make an aperture. They vibrate. If they didn't vibrate, as in whistling, then they could be said to form an aperture.

*** So you see Bugleboy, you have been speeding up your air without even knowing it! ***

Have I ever said that I don't use air speed to play the trumpet?

*** Reducing the size of the oral cavity speeds the air as well. This reduction in the oral cavity is achieved by moving the tongue up and forward.
In summary faster = higher is physics. ***

Could you identify what you are summarizing. You have made statements that faster = higher and then
made observations about speeding up water in a hose and how tongue movement can speed up the air. But I am missing the basis for faster air causing the lips to vibrate faster.

*** BTW - Johns whistling example is a great one for illustrating that this is physics. You can't find a person out there that can whistle higher by dropping his tongue. ***

The big problem with any kind of analogy to whistling is that the lips don't vibrate when a whistling sound is produced. So I'm not sure if their is any value in comparing two sound producing systems that do not have the same vibrating source.

Regards,

Charles Raymond

[Roy Boy]

Excellent Charlie
I dug up an old post that needs to be injected here. I don't know where comebackid went to engineering school but his premises are false with air speed as you have well pointed out. The bogus science that John Mohan continues to litter the forum with defending the outdated,and misleading Claude Gordon books needs to be exposed.

bugleboy


"Bogus Science!" , posted Fri 20 Jul 12:30:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f2/f1 = [(1/2L)(T2/m)^.5}/(1/2L)(T1/m)^.5] = BOGUS!

This formula has been presented as proof positive that the lips and how they function in the embouchure, which includes among other things applying tension, cannot possibly be the essential ingredient in tone production on a trumpet. Cutting through all the verbiage, the equation has been reduced to:

f2/f1 = T2/T1 = 256

Anyone interested in the process of how this was determined may refer to the "Lip Trills" thread. This final equation correctly defines the ratio of frequency to tension if f2 is four octaves above f1. The presentation continues by providing f1 with a value of 2 ounces, a very acceptable value for the frequency f1 where f1 is a G1 on the trumpet. Frequency f2 represents a G5 on the trumpet which would now be, and correctly so, 32 pounds of tension.

It is important to note here that this formula applies to strings in vibration. From what I can determine, it was not designed to apply directly to the brass players lips and embouchure. I think it is also important to note here that John Mohan has said:

"A vibrating string is not a valid comparison to the trumpet player's lips."

But, immediately upon making this pronouncement, he pastes in the article by a physicist drawing an analogy between a vibrating string and a trumpet players lips! And then, of course, Djflores gleefully jumps in with his two cents worth. Is there no shame?

So, let's take another look at the equation.

The ratio of frequency to tension is being represented by a direct proportion, i.e., when the frequency goes up the tension goes up by a constant amount (in this case, 4). How has this been determined? In the original ratio equation,

f2/f1 = [(1/2L)(T2/m)^.5}/(1/2L)(T1/m)^.5]

L = length and m = mass (linear mass density) are assumed to be constant and are then canceled forthwith from the equation. The resulting equation:

f2/f1 = T2/T1 is now much more manageable and ready for values to be assigned.
The only problem here is that we have a formula that will very accurately determine the ratio of frequency to tension in a STRING secured at both ends, but in fact says NOTHING about what is going on with a trumpet player's tone production. As written it would be like tuning a string at some very low tension, plucking it to determine a pitch and then tightening the tuning peg until the string will sound one octave higher. This process would be repeated until we had a note four octaves above the original pitch, providing the string didn't break.

How did this bogus attempt to define frequency and tension in a trumpet player happen? To get the answer we have to check the premises of the original statement as quoted by John Mohan in the "Lip Trills" thread. The author has put the formula on the table and then makes what he refers to as:

".......a first order approximation of how the lips work. Let's assume that they behave very much like a vibrating string and follow a similar equation."

(Analogies can be very helpful, I couldn't agree more with this scenario.) continuing

The author goes on to propose what a good lead player is, provides the frequency ratio between octaves and then makes this statement, the QUANTUM LEAP:

"Now if we assume that all of the basic parameters are held constant (the length, and the mass density) and vary only the tension and the frequency we can........."

It is at this point that "....very much like a vibrating string" and "follow a similar equation" have ceased to apply. "Very much like" is not "exactly like" and "follow a similar equation" is NOT "follow an exact equation." There IS at least one variable not accounted for in this final formula.

Fortunately for the true reality of tone production and unfortunately for John Mohan and all others who NEED to present BOGUS science to support their untenable assertions, the basic parameters do NOT hold constant. There is that darn thing called an aperture that keeps changing in the lips. And, as we all know, when the tension stays the same but the aperture gets smaller, lo and behold the pitch goes up. This is very similar to a violinist moving up the fingerboard and shortening the string, i.e., changing the length (L). The tension in the string stays essentially the same but the pitch goes up. In the trumpet we see a very small increase in tension in the lips combined with huge aperture changes as the pitch increases. I have roughly estimated that the aperture in my lips gets 3 - 4 times smaller when I buzz from a G1 to a C4.

It should be noted, from what I've been able to determine on this forum, that this fits very nicely with the SC position of loose corners.

So, what we have is tension in the lips combined with dramatic changes in aperture size that cause the lips to buzz creating pitches throughout a players range, as the correct explanation for tone production on a trumpet.

We should use science to explain and clarify reality, not confuse it.

Remember, always eschew obfuscation.

*********************** please note **************************

The things that I have edited out of this post related to the references made inre ITG and John Lynch. After reading the article in question (and not just having the information that was provided by Mr. Mohan) I know that those statements were totally unfounded.

***************************************************************
bugleboy

bugleboy


"Bogus Science!" , posted Fri 20 Jul 12:30:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f2/f1 = [(1/2L)(T2/m)^.5}/(1/2L)(T1/m)^.5] = BOGUS!

This formula has been presented as proof positive that the lips and how they function in the embouchure, which includes among other things applying tension, cannot possibly be the essential ingredient in tone production on a trumpet. Cutting through all the verbiage, the equation has been reduced to:

f2/f1 = T2/T1 = 256

Anyone interested in the process of how this was determined may refer to the "Lip Trills" thread. This final equation correctly defines the ratio of frequency to tension if f2 is four octaves above f1. The presentation continues by providing f1 with a value of 2 ounces, a very acceptable value for the frequency f1 where f1 is a G1 on the trumpet. Frequency f2 represents a G5 on the trumpet which would now be, and correctly so, 32 pounds of tension.

It is important to note here that this formula applies to strings in vibration. From what I can determine, it was not designed to apply directly to the brass players lips and embouchure. I think it is also important to note here that John Mohan has said:

"A vibrating string is not a valid comparison to the trumpet player's lips."

But, immediately upon making this pronouncement, he pastes in the article by a physicist drawing an analogy between a vibrating string and a trumpet players lips! And then, of course, Djflores gleefully jumps in with his two cents worth. Is there no shame?

So, let's take another look at the equation.

The ratio of frequency to tension is being represented by a direct proportion, i.e., when the frequency goes up the tension goes up by a constant amount (in this case, 4). How has this been determined? In the original ratio equation,

f2/f1 = [(1/2L)(T2/m)^.5}/(1/2L)(T1/m)^.5]

L = length and m = mass (linear mass density) are assumed to be constant and are then canceled forthwith from the equation. The resulting equation:

f2/f1 = T2/T1 is now much more manageable and ready for values to be assigned.
The only problem here is that we have a formula that will very accurately determine the ratio of frequency to tension in a STRING secured at both ends, but in fact says NOTHING about what is going on with a trumpet player's tone production. As written it would be like tuning a string at some very low tension, plucking it to determine a pitch and then tightening the tuning peg until the string will sound one octave higher. This process would be repeated until we had a note four octaves above the original pitch, providing the string didn't break.

How did this bogus attempt to define frequency and tension in a trumpet player happen? To get the answer we have to check the premises of the original statement as quoted by John Mohan in the "Lip Trills" thread. The author has put the formula on the table and then makes what he refers to as:

".......a first order approximation of how the lips work. Let's assume that they behave very much like a vibrating string and follow a similar equation."

(Analogies can be very helpful, I couldn't agree more with this scenario.) continuing

The author goes on to propose what a good lead player is, provides the frequency ratio between octaves and then makes this statement, the QUANTUM LEAP:

"Now if we assume that all of the basic parameters are held constant (the length, and the mass density) and vary only the tension and the frequency we can........."

It is at this point that "....very much like a vibrating string" and "follow a similar equation" have ceased to apply. "Very much like" is not "exactly like" and "follow a similar equation" is NOT "follow an exact equation." There IS at least one variable not accounted for in this final formula.

Fortunately for the true reality of tone production and unfortunately for John Mohan and all others who NEED to present BOGUS science to support their untenable assertions, the basic parameters do NOT hold constant. There is that darn thing called an aperture that keeps changing in the lips. And, as we all know, when the tension stays the same but the aperture gets smaller, lo and behold the pitch goes up. This is very similar to a violinist moving up the fingerboard and shortening the string, i.e., changing the length (L). The tension in the string stays essentially the same but the pitch goes up. In the trumpet we see a very small increase in tension in the lips combined with huge aperture changes as the pitch increases. I have roughly estimated that the aperture in my lips gets 3 - 4 times smaller when I buzz from a G1 to a C4.

It should be noted, from what I've been able to determine on this forum, that this fits very nicely with the SC position of loose corners.

So, what we have is tension in the lips combined with dramatic changes in aperture size that cause the lips to buzz creating pitches throughout a players range, as the correct explanation for tone production on a trumpet.

We should use science to explain and clarify reality, not confuse it.

Remember, always eschew obfuscation.

*********************** please note **************************

The things that I have edited out of this post related to the references made inre ITG and John Lynch. After reading the article in question (and not just having the information that was provided by Mr. Mohan) I know that those statements were totally unfounded.

***************************************************************
bugleboy

[comebackkid]

Wow,

I can't believe how hostile and insulting things got! Especially considerring that we seem to be in agreement! you stated the following:

"In the trumpet we see a very small increase in tension in the lips combined with huge aperture changes as the pitch increases. I have roughly estimated that the aperture in my lips gets 3 - 4 times smaller when I buzz from a G1 to a C4. "

I agree!

The question is, what is happening when the appeture decreases in size.

You also stated the following:

"There is no example of increasing air speed without an increase in quantity of air being forced through the lips."

This statement is false. The ONLY way the same amount of air can get through a smaller hole (on the same amount of time) is to do so faster. This is the reason I introduced the garden hose analogy. Once again, if you decrease the size of the hole be partially coverring it with your thumb, the water comes out with greater velosity (faster). This is something we all have observed.

If you still disagree, thats fine with me. Please, however, lets be adults and not insult each other. This forum is about people trying to help one another. Aggressive attacks do not promote the right climate for sharing knowlege, ideas or opinions.

Thanks!

[airegin]

hey,
how about we go back in time and stick some probes and sensors all over maynard's or maurice's, or harry's chops and connect them to a computer to see what is going on with them.
rob

ps. how about we do it now with all the living greats before they are gone. do you think they would agree to "help" us out?

[Chicagoman]

Tim,
Air speed increase and decrease is a natural occurance when venturing to different registers, BUT the beautiful thing about all of this is, YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT! That makes life so much easier. The brain is SO complex in its structure and has so many internal checks that keep it in balance, that you are free to do use your intellect, rather than your subconcious. My point? Simple; let go of the concerns of your body, let it do what it does naturally, and concentrate on the musical aspects of playing. Everyone wants you to believe that you must do approach something physically to acheive something musically. This is incorrect. By approaching things musically you will learn faster, learn more efficiently, and above all else, you will SOUND good. Don't worry about your body in all this. Don't care whether you are learning to play "correctly", but that you sound better than everyone else. Nobody in an audience is going to care "where you put the tongue", or "how the oral cavity is positioned." They just want to hear good music.

I have been criticized in the past for being too simplistic, or I have been called a "natural". Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I want. To become a natural player. I want to make things as simple and fundamental as possible for myself. And I'll bet $100 that I'm learning at a MUCH faster rate than any one of the "body players"(exceptions of course).

So all in all, if you sing high C, you can buzz high C on the mouthpiece, and if you can buzz high C on the mthpce, you can play high C. Breath deep, hear the pitch in your head, close your lips, and waste the air. Simple. If that is too simple, then you are thinking too much.

Hope this helps,

Have fun and keep things fundamentally simple. You learn technique through music. ALWAYS.

Chicagoman
DF



_________________
'Don't learn how to play correctly, learn how to sound good.'
~Arnold Jacobs

[ This Message was edited by: Chicagoman on 2001-11-20 16:20 ]

[_bugleboy]

To Comebackkid,

Royboy has posted an old file that occurred in an interesting thread called "Bogus Science." Royboy and Bugleboy are two different members. I'm bugleboy, and if the auto signature ever starts working for me, my posts will all be signed, Charles Raymond. Royboy is another enthusiastic contributor on the forum. But you seem to be responding to Royboy's post as if I had posted it to you. Also, I think you have taken the tenor of that post as if it was intended to be directed at you, personally. That cannot be the case, since, I don't believe that you were ever involved in that original thread on the old forum. Royboy wanted to include the information in that post on this new thread, but the perceived hostility in the post (as written by me) should not have been taken personally. The enthusiasm of that original post should only be considered relevant to the original thread and relevant to the original participants. I hope this clarifies the present circumstances and keeps the doors of intelligent and mature discussion open.

You quoted me (from my original post) on this, the "air speed" thread:

"There is no example of increasing air speed without an increase in quantity of air being forced through the lips."

and then said:

*** This statement is false. The ONLY way the same amount of air can get through a smaller hole (on the same amount of time) is to do so faster. This is the reason I introduced the garden hose analogy. Once again, if you decrease the size of the hole be partially coverring it with your thumb, the water comes out with greater velosity (faster). This is something we all have observed. ***

First of all, I do not believe my statement to be false and
secondly, You have not addressed the statement nor have you refuted it or disproved it.

So, here it is again, restated.

If you blow the air faster through your lips while playing the trumpet, the quantity of air that passes through your lips will be greater than the quantity of air that was passing through your lips before you started blowing the air faster. Said differently:
if you blow x number of molecules of air (I know there is no such thing as a molecule of air, but a combination of molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) through the lips at a given velocity, and then increase that velocity, the number of molecules of air will now be greater, per unit of time, that are passing through the lips, yielding a greater quantity of air per unit of time than prior to the increase in velocity.

Therefore I conclude that volume of air and air velocity are the same thing. That they are related in that by increasing the speed of the air, you increase the quantity. That blowing air faster is an activity one engages in that results in more air being expired. Analogies with inanimate systems like garden hoses and balloons fall very short of representing the mechanics of the trumpet embouchure and human respiratory system.

I've given my reasons and made my case. You can disprove what I am saying by disproving my reasons. I don't have a problem with that. But to say that something is false and then not offer a refutation of the reasons that support the statement is to not disprove anything at all.

Regards,

[tryingtolivethelife]

I was always confused by all of this stuff on forums as a younger player. In fact I think anyone who hasn't really done all the research will have a hard time understanding everything above in it's intirity. Dominic Spera once told me to stop worrying about all the bull##it and to just play, if it feels good don't change it, if it hurts stop, rest, and try something else. I sure am glad that this archive of "knowledge" wasn't around when Louis was learning. Aren't we all trumpet players here?? Why does everybody have to be so rude

[comebackkid]

Bugleboy,

Thanks for the clarification on the tone of the previous posts.

As long as we keep it civil, I'm willing to continue so we all might have more food for thought.

You stated the following:
"I conclude that volume of air and air velocity are the same thing"

Volume is expressed as liters, or cubic meters or...

Velocity is expressed as feet per second, or miles per hour...

They are not the same thing at all.

You also stated:
"if you blow x number of molecules of air (I know there is no such thing as a molecule of air, but a combination of molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) through the lips at a given velocity, and then increase that velocity, the number of molecules of air will now be greater, per unit of time, that are passing through the lips, yielding a greater quantity of air per unit of time than prior to the increase in velocity. "

This statement is TRUE! You are right.
However, it does not take into account a change in oriface size at all. This is the exact variable that we are debating.

I shared this problem with all the other engineers at my work and no one could come up with a better analogy than the garden hose for showing that velocity is increased as the orafice is decreased. They did, however, find this thread very entertaining.

I guess analogies dont work for all people.

If I can find the time I will set up a model in our lab. In this model, I will measure air speed, and volume using two orafice sizes. Assuming I can find the time to do it, I will post the results to illustrate the relationship.

Thanks for the interest!

[_bugleboy]

Comebackkid,

You said:

*** Volume is expressed as liters, or cubic meters or...

Velocity is expressed as feet per second, or miles per hour...

They are not the same thing at all. ***

Strictly speaking isn't velocity a Vector and consequently also expressed with a direction as opposed to speed which is only expressed as a distance per unit of time? So maybe you will say I'm being picky about mentioning that (assuming I am correct). Increased air speed causes more air to go through the horn. We are not measuring the movement of a single object here but a continuous flow of air which certainly can be measured as a 3D quantity (volume), very much as you can measure the volume of water that flows form the garden hose or flows into your house from the Utilities company, which is measured in units of volume used, i.e., gallons. My point about the Vector is that although speed and velocity are not the same thing, exactly, we can pretty much interchange them in day to day life without causing the earth to shift on it's axis. Likewise I interchange air speed and air volume because they are, from a practical standpoint, (my view now until someone can show that it is in error) the same. If one engages in the act of blowing the air faster, the result is that more air is forced through the lips. Faster air = more air.

You said:

*** I shared this problem with all the other engineers at my work and no one could come up with a better analogy than the garden hose for showing that velocity is increased as the orafice is decreased. They did, however, find this thread very entertaining.

I guess analogies don't work for all people. ***

I love analogies. They can show us the way to a truth, or they can be used to deflect attention from the truth. I know of no truths that are expressed in terms of analogies. At some point you must state your premises and make your conclusions. In the analogy of the garden hose when you use your thumb to close off half of the orifice, the velocity of the water increases. The water pressure at the spigot has not changed however and the resistance of the orifice has been neatly cut in half. Further, the nozzle is an unchanging opening composed of an unyielding substance, metal.

None of these conditions hold true with the trumpet embouchure. To maintain or increase the velocity
of the air in the air stream (as you play) it is going to be necessary to consider certain things:

1.) increased air pressure
2.) the aperture in the lips (the perceived aperture) is subject to many complex forces from the facial muscles, tongue, mouthpiece pressure, etc., that are not present to any degree in the garden hose nozzle.
3.) lip tissue is not metal and the muscles are constantly in a state of flex, very different from a rigid metal ring that appears at the end of the garden hose.

The issue of the variable orifice in the trumpet embouchure now goes to another level of complexity.

At this point I think that if you have a serious interest in pursuing this very interesting topic, you should answer the statements in my last post that that you have left unaddressed. If you don't address them or offer that you agree with them, it presents me with the prospect of continually repeating myself. I have tried to address ALL of yours. Not to discourage your enterprising efforts with a lab model of air speed and orifices, but I wonder how you can simulate the trumpet players embouchure with any level of accuracy. To my knowledge, it has never been done.

Regards,

Charles Raymond

All edits have been grammatical improvements without changing content.

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2001-11-20 20:10 ]

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2001-11-21 00:48 ]

[Calvary]

Wow, thanks a lot for all of the input. There is so much material that I'm going to print it off and look at it a little closer.

As for my question, I was trying to determine if there was some component of my playing that I was not using. I kept reading about speed of air, but I wasn't sure what I needed to do to create more speed. For me, I find the sound is created by the proper use of air applied to a certain size aperture. Every note, including the extreme upper register was developed by first finding the correct aperture size. Granted the sound was very small, but after learning the size, it was a matter of developing the muscles in my chops to withstand a greater amount of air pressure to create more volume of sound. Speed seemed to be the effect, not the cause. The example of the hose is correct when you examine the water as it leaves the hose, but the water inside the hose is not moving quicker until it reaches the aperture. It's a little like a bathtub drain. The water in the tub is moving, but it moves quicker when it reaches the drain. It is purely a natural reaction of the pressure of the water applied to its natural desire to relieve the pressure. In other words, I'm not sure I have very much control over the speed, because I control the air pressure, not the air speed.

In terms of volume of air, my low notes require more air to create more volume of sound because the aperture is larger. High notes require greater control of the pressure, but less air than the low notes to create the volume of sound. I find that if I try to use the same amount of air volume in the upper register as in the low register, I just close off the sound because my chops are not developed enough to withstand that amount of pressure on such a small aperture.

Finally, I'm sure the tongue helps in the process of increasing the speed of air at the aperture, but I do not use my tongue to achieve my notes. It kind of works together with the variations in my imperfect aperture to smooth out the sound so it is as good as possible. It does not necessarily help or hinder me in creating the notes themselves.

Thanks again for all of the posts, and your contributions to this site. It has already improved my playing, because it has caused me to reexamine how I play.

Tim

[ This Message was edited by: Calvary on 2001-11-21 10:54 ]

[comebackkid]

Tim,

Thanks for updating us on your progress. I think you are headed in the right direction. I hope you meet all your goals!

Charles,

Thanks for keeping my co-workers entertained. All the engineers here are laughing the rear ends off. Uh-oh, the guy next to me just fell out of his chair......and he's still laughing! I know I said we should all keep it civil here, but they are the ones laughing, not me. He, He.....oops, sorry.

Well charles,
Here's your chance to get the last word. Use it wisely.

[_bugleboy]

[_bugleboy]

[Chicagoman]