Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1076860 Posts in 71275 Topics- by 18956 Members - Latest Member: StanleyD
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumHorns, Gear, and EquipmentInstruments(Moderators: tbone62, slide advantage) Brass vs. Nickel Slides: Spectral Comparison
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Brass vs. Nickel Slides: Spectral Comparison  (Read 4774 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
snorsworthy

*
*
*
Offline Offline

Location: San Diego
Joined: Sep 8, 2009
Posts: 270

View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: Jan 03, 2017, 02:13PM »

I have a Shires.562 nickel slide and a Shires .562 brass slide. Maybe we could test those?

Hi Brad,

I am excited about your welcoming the methods I have devised. It does seem logical. Yes, it would be great to test the two Shires slides. I will eagerly work with you! I love substantive critiques that result in real and logical improvements and show results. Results-oriented, that is what good engineering and good music making is all about! Love it! You have my phone and email. Let's get started. I can pick up the slides maybe next week!

Best,
Steve

PS: Tell Noah we are going to start working together as a team. I assume!? I would also suggest I start measuring lead pipes with this method! That would really facilitate your business!

PS: I already measured changes with different mouthpieces, and was amazed but not surprised that tiny changes in the rim and backbone can easily be seen in the impulse and frequency domain!

 :) Sing it!
Logged

Professional Engineer
Professional Trombonist
snorsworthy.com
SMunger
*
Offline Offline

Location: Portland, Oregon
Joined: Mar 14, 2012
Posts: 85

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: Jan 03, 2017, 02:35PM »

I 100% seriously doubt that Mike Rath or anyone else has the signal processing expertise to devise an innovative way of doing mechanical non-player impulse excitation waves and doing periodogram spectral analysis on those outputs like I did. I have never seen published an output spectrum like mine from such excitation. If you are aware of such, send it, put it out there. Words and bragging are meaningless unless there is real substantive output... I have tirelessly put out my own work, explained it, and even put out my own playing recordings and examples. I see NOTHING but a bunch or bragging and boasting and complaining and criticism and back-seat driving on the freaking forum.

I again tell people, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP." I have been 'putting up' and all I get is loud mouthed criticism without any real substance to show for it. Sickening.

Snorsworthy, each of the threads you have initiated has gone in a very unpleasant direction. You seem to have some serious issues with arrogance, conceit, close-mindedness, childishness, anger control, and so on. You need stop blaming others and take a close look at your own behavior. Hope this helps!
Logged
snorsworthy

*
*
*
Offline Offline

Location: San Diego
Joined: Sep 8, 2009
Posts: 270

View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: Jan 03, 2017, 02:37PM »

More criticism.... lacking substance.... all BS...I am the one putting out substance.... your criticism is without substance... put it out there... let me see your work... SHOW ME
Logged

Professional Engineer
Professional Trombonist
snorsworthy.com
Bimmerman
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 190

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Jan 03, 2017, 02:58PM »

These results are really interesting. I'd be super curious to compare an Edwards .525 slide (since I play those...) but the results are really neat.

In building the response, did you generate each note individually or do a sweep across the frequency space? I'd be curious if you did a piecewise input what the overtone response would be. Say, looking at an overtone series for an F4 input vs a Bb4.

I didn't see it mentioned but were you moving the slide in/out to get the notes more or less in tune per partial, or just analyzing the results from a closed 1st position?

Logged
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 658

View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: Jan 03, 2017, 03:25PM »

Just to 'prove' the point, has anyone reported that a nickel slide plays fuller, fatter, darker, fuzzier, less highs, than a brass slide? LOL!

I have tried both brass and nickel outer slides on the Bach 12 I played for 30 years. There was a marked difference. The brass slide was heavier of course, but marginally so. But that didn't bother me at all.

The nickel slide made my sound more on the brittle side whereas the brass one took the volume better.

And I don't need spectral analysis to come to that conclusion.

That was my experience. I do not like lightweight slides.
« Last Edit: Jan 04, 2017, 07:56AM by slide advantage » Logged
Bellend

*
Offline Offline

Location: U.K.
Joined: Nov 25, 2001
Posts: 683

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Jan 04, 2017, 06:28AM »

Having spent some time  composing a reply to a topic I nom find locked  Amazed   >:( Pathetic!!!!!!!!

I would submit the following response.

No, we didn't have the equipment or supposed scientific know how you claim at the Rath workshop.
What we did have, was multiple sets of as near possible identical instrument parts and we would methodically change one element at a  time  to see if some of the UK's best players could perceive a change. Where ever possible we would not reveal what we had changed to try and eliminate preconceptions regarding alloys, shapes etc.

Is that a scientific experiment...... no....... but it did give us a great deal of valuable information in trying to make instruments that would play well and have broadly predictable  playing characteristics.

What you have done as I understand it  is taken two slide sections from two different manufacturers that also happen to have outer slides made from different materials and concluded from your experiment that it's the alloys that account for each one behaving in a certain way as a result.

There are I would suggest, simply too many variables in this scenario to conclude anything concrete.

These questions would also need to be addressed.

What size and wall thickness of tube did each maker use to start with?
How many times was the tubing drawn and subsequently annealed?
What material are the inners and outers ?
How hard was the finished tube?
What is the wall thickness of the finished inners and outers?
What is the wall thickness at the stocking?
What is the I.D. of the outers?
Does the outer slide have oversleeves? if so what length and material?
Where are the stays located? What material are they?
What diameter and wall thickness are the stays?
How was the end crook made? pressure formed? hand bent?
What is the construction/ weight/ length of the cork barrels? and what  material are they made from?
What is the I.D. of the end crook?
What is the wall thickness of the end crook
What is the shape of the end crook?
Where is the hole for the water key gutter drilled?
Is there a guard fitted?
etc etc etc.......


Like I said before....... Good Luck !!

Here in the U.K. Dr. Richard Smith has published numerous technical papers on a brass instruments including:

Measuring the effect of the reflection of sound from the lips in brass musical instruments
Proceedings of the 11th French Congress and the 2012 Annual IOA Meeting, Nantes, France (2012) (J. Kemp and R. Smith)
Analysis of transients for brass instruments under playing conditions using multiple microphones
Proceedings of the 10th French Congress on Acoustics, Lyon, France (2010) (J. Kemp, S. Logie, J. Chick, R. Smith, M. Campbell)
An Exploration of Extreme High Notes in Brass Playing
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Music Acoustics (Associated Meeting of the International Congress on Acoustics) 25-31 August 2010, Sydney and Katoomba, Australia (2010) (J. Chick, S. Logie, J. Kemp, M. Campbell, R. Smith)
Distinguishing between similar tubular objects using pulse reflectometry
(A study of trumpet and cornet leadpipes) Measurement Science and Technology 13 (5), 750-757 (2002) (J. Buick, J. Kemp, D. Sharp, M. van Walstijn, D. M. Campbell, R. Smith)
Exciting Your Instrument!
Journal of the International Trumpet Guild (USA), 44-45 (May 1999) (R. Smith)

Its all in the bore!
Journal of the International Trumpet Guild (USA), 42-45 (May 1988) (R. Smith)

Holographs of bell vibrations, News and Views, Nature 329
762 (29 October 1987) (R. Smith)
Ensuring high quality in the production of musical instruments
Commissioned by British Embassy for Das Musikinstrument 4, 131-132 (April 1986) (R. Smith)
The effect of material in brass instruments
a review, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 8, 91-96 (1986) (R. Smith)

Improved brass instrument design methods - The Design of the original 928 SOVEREIGN CORNET (1984)
a) Acoustics conference, Kraslice-Czechoslovakia (September 1983). b) Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 17-20 (April 1984) (R. Smith)

Recent developments in Trumpet design
Journal of the International Trumpet Guild (USA), (October 1978) (R. Smith)
Systematic approach to the correction of intonation in wind instruments
Nature 262, 761-765 (1976) (R.Smith and D.J.Daniell)

Any one who id interested in this kind of thing can download these papers free at

http://www.smithwatkins.com/9-smith-watkins-articles/library.html


Enjoy !!

BellEnd


Logged
wgwbassbone
*
Offline Offline

Location: West Hartford, CT
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 1761

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Jan 04, 2017, 06:31AM »

Thank you Bellend. Very well thought out.
Logged

Holton TR 180 MV 1 and 1/2G
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12064

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Jan 04, 2017, 07:25AM »

These topics do tend to get contentious. 

I wish Steve had described his methods in more detail.  He says he used an impulse input, and mathematically an impulse resolves to a summation of related frequencies (rather than a sweep).  His peaks are at the expected wind column peaks so he was exciting the wind column somehow, but that's all we can conclude.  I do agree with using an input that takes player variability out, even though I know many here (most) don't trust that as being applicable. 

His results do tend to support that these two slides would play differently; as pointed out there are enough other variables that this may not be material related. 

Here is the comparison I would like to see made:  test two supposedly identical Bach slides against each other, and two supposedly identical Shires slides against each other.  Which varies more?  There has long been accepted lore here that Bach instruments have significant variability within models - but we have no objective evidence to support that this is any better or worse than other brands. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Blowero

*
Offline Offline

Location: Southern California
Joined: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 1692

View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: Jan 04, 2017, 08:04AM »

More chest-thumping. Wonderful. This will end well, I'm sure.
Logged

Brass repair, modifications, custom parts and instruments

http://brassmedic.com
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 50573
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Jan 04, 2017, 08:10AM »

Brad, this is somebody who really was in the weeds trying to add some information.  Bellend was one of the guys Chris worked with testing out nominally identical slides with one thing changed.  A look inside the sausage machine is often useful.

I'm going to try to merge this with the other topic and unlock it.  I suspect it was locked to prevent Steve Norsworthy from posting.  I have no problem with our discussing the details of instrument design.

Problem that was ignored in the other thread (earlier) was that we are all different people and need different instruments to create our personal sounds.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Blowero

*
Offline Offline

Location: Southern California
Joined: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 1692

View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: Jan 04, 2017, 08:16AM »

Bruce, I think the info is great. I thought the tone was a tad contentious, though. I'm just hoping another flame war isn't started.
Logged

Brass repair, modifications, custom parts and instruments

http://brassmedic.com
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 658

View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: Jan 04, 2017, 08:30AM »

.....

Problem that was ignored in the other thread (earlier) was that we are all different people and need different instruments to create our personal sounds.

exactly
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12064

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Jan 04, 2017, 08:50AM »

Any test that compares only two different types of slides has no way to evaluate "within cell" variation.

We need to test two identical brass slides for "within brass" variability as well as comparing brass against nickel for "between slide" variability.

It would be interesting though not essential to also determine the vibration characteristics of the structure.

Let me explain.  We know most of the sound comes from the wind column and clearly Steve's results reflect measurement of wind column resonances. 

A mechanical impulse delivered to the metal structure enclosing the wind column will have a vibration characteristic of its own (eigenvector.)  It will not have a harmonic relationship.  It would be intellectually interesting to know how much this varies, and to what extent it may relate to any measured variations in wind column resonances. 

Steve's cite of the 1997 Pyle article (lacquer vs not) in the Acoustics journal was for measurement of a French horn bell with a very close microphone. Placed that close it very well may have picked up near field structural vibrations that would not have been audible much farther away. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Bellend

*
Offline Offline

Location: U.K.
Joined: Nov 25, 2001
Posts: 683

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Jan 04, 2017, 09:02AM »

Thanks for opening this discussion again !

If my tone sounded contentious it wasn't meant to be, just thought people might be interested in what we did back then and what a Pandora's box it all is.

I should state that I have had no association with Rath instruments for over ten years now so am not trying to fly any flags here  either.

As I side note, I always found it interesting that to the best of my knowledge C.G. Conn never made any model of trombone with nickel outers...... unless anyone knows different??

In the old days the bronze Conn slide alloy used on some models in the old days was  85Cu 13Zn 2Sn

We had a piece tested in the laboratory of the rolling mill that supplied us raw materials. The M.D. was a trombonist and was as curious as us, what a find!

Any wayiIt is listed in the American alloy specs but I can't remember the exact number.
I've just tried to look it up and it comes up as Pen Metal as it was used for making nibs.... go figure how they came up with using that one for trombone slides ?????

BellEnd

  
Logged
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2446
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Jan 04, 2017, 11:13AM »

Problem that was ignored in the other thread (earlier) was that we are all different people and need different instruments to create our personal sounds.

^ This!

In my experience, changing things on an instrument design will have the greatest effect on the FEEDBACK that the instrument offers to the player. THIS will change how the player approaches the instrument, which in turn changes the feedback more still. This cycle can either be a positive or negative feedback loop. This feedback loop is why people will choose different slides and materials over others. They are trying to get a positive feedback loop.

If something is difficult to play, even if it should sound better based on data and tests, it will cause a negative feedback loop. The player would compensate to try to accommodate for the equipment.

Everyone is different. We don't use the same mouthpiece in part because of tactile feedback. The same goes for equipment choices on the horn.

Taking the player out of the equation seems like it wouldn't show anything that would help anyone choose equipment. They might not be compatible with a given, tested-proven slide setup.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
MrPillow
Organologique et plus!

*
Offline Offline

Location: Vermillion, SD
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 1518

View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: Jan 04, 2017, 11:29AM »

I 100% seriously doubt that Mike Rath or anyone else has the signal processing expertise to devise an innovative way of doing mechanical non-player impulse excitation waves and doing periodogram spectral analysis on those outputs like I did. I have never seen published an output spectrum like mine from such excitation. If you are aware of such, send it, put it out there. Words and bragging are meaningless unless there is real substantive output... I have tirelessly put out my own work, explained it, and even put out my own playing recordings and examples. I see NOTHING but a bunch or bragging and boasting and complaining and criticism and back-seat driving on the freaking forum.

I again tell people, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP." I have been 'putting up' and all I get is loud mouthed criticism without any real substance to show for it. Sickening.

Best,
Steve




All other points aside, I do not understand why you insist that this is a "new" method when it has been out for years. Are you legitimately claiming that you are the only person in the world interested in musical instruments with the ability to produce a mundane output spectrum?

http://bias.at

It is used by many instrument manufacturers. It is relatively affordable. Operating the equipment and software requires essentially no signal-processing expertise. It's as user friendly as sending an email.


For the record of all readers - snorsworthy has NOT invented a new method of analyzing musical instruments.
Logged

King 3B/F Silversonic - King 608F - Holton Paul Whiteman Model
wgwbassbone
*
Offline Offline

Location: West Hartford, CT
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 1761

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Jan 04, 2017, 11:40AM »

^ This!

In my experience, changing things on an instrument design will have the greatest effect on the FEEDBACK that the instrument offers to the player. THIS will change how the player approaches the instrument, which in turn changes the feedback more still. This cycle can either be a positive or negative feedback loop. This feedback loop is why people will choose different slides and materials over others. They are trying to get a positive feedback loop.

If something is difficult to play, even if it should sound better based on data and tests, it will cause a negative feedback loop. The player would compensate to try to accommodate for the equipment.

Everyone is different. We don't use the same mouthpiece in part because of tactile feedback. The same goes for equipment choices on the horn.

Taking the player out of the equation seems like it wouldn't show anything that would help anyone choose equipment. They might not be compatible with a given, tested-proven slide setup.

Yup!



All other points aside, I do not understand why you insist that this is a "new" method when it has been out for years. Are you legitimately claiming that you are the only person in the world interested in musical instruments with the ability to produce a mundane output spectrum?

http://bias.at

It is used by many instrument manufacturers. It is relatively affordable. Operating the equipment and software requires essentially no signal-processing expertise. It's as user friendly as sending an email.


For the record of all readers - snorsworthy has NOT invented a new method of analyzing musical instruments.

Thank you!!!!!
Logged

Holton TR 180 MV 1 and 1/2G
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12064

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Jan 04, 2017, 11:53AM »


Taking the player out of the equation seems like it wouldn't show anything that would help anyone choose equipment. They might not be compatible with a given, tested-proven slide setup.

Wouldn't that depend a bit on what the results are without the player?

The reason for taking the player out is that the variability of most people, even high level players, is so large that it obscure the actual differences in the instrument being tested. 

Suppose your test without the player shows much greater high harmonics in one setup.  The player still has to decide what he likes and what fits his playing.  One size doesn't fit all.

Now suppose your test shows no difference.  But the player thinks there's a difference, because he play tested it tired after a hard gig and a bit dehydrated, and he thinks it sounds dull and unfocused.  Maybe he rejects his dream horn because of his own variability day to day, when on another day it would have sounded awesome.
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
Trying to be better.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 2787

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: Jan 04, 2017, 12:21PM »

^ This!

In my experience, changing things on an instrument design will have the greatest effect on the FEEDBACK that the instrument offers to the player. THIS will change how the player approaches the instrument, which in turn changes the feedback more still. This cycle can either be a positive or negative feedback loop. This feedback loop is why people will choose different slides and materials over others. They are trying to get a positive feedback loop.

If something is difficult to play, even if it should sound better based on data and tests, it will cause a negative feedback loop. The player would compensate to try to accommodate for the equipment.

Everyone is different. We don't use the same mouthpiece in part because of tactile feedback. The same goes for equipment choices on the horn.

Taking the player out of the equation seems like it wouldn't show anything that would help anyone choose equipment. They might not be compatible with a given, tested-proven slide setup.
If you are going to use the results of this kind test to determine 'the best horn configuration' then I agree.  I don't think there is such a thing as 'the best horn configuration'.  I think everyone has to determine their own best horn configuration.

However, if the results are used to give people an idea of what tonal characteristics are typically offered by different materials, coatings, leadpipes, ect... then it may prove useful. For example, if tests show a brass slide to provide a warmer, less edgy tone, then if you try a horn with a nickel slide and decide you'd prefer something a little warmer and less edgy, you would know that a brass slide might help get the tone your after.

Who knows?  At the very least, it would give us something to try out and if it does not prove helpful, go back to trying as many different horns as you can.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12064

View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Jan 04, 2017, 12:32PM »



However, if the results are used to give people an idea of what tonal characteristics are typically offered by different materials, coatings, leadpipes, ect... then it may prove useful. For example, if tests show a brass slide to provide a warmer, less edgy tone, then if you try a horn with a nickel slide and decide you'd prefer something a little warmer and less edgy, you would know that a brass slide might help get the tone your after.

Who knows?  At the very least, it would give us something to try out and if it does not prove helpful, go back to trying as many different horns as you can.

We already have an idea.  In fact, most people have very definite ideas, so definite that it may override what they hear when they try out horns.

The very best outcome, in my opinion (and in my opinion NOT gonna happen) would be for these type of tests to show there is NO difference that is as large as normal horn to horn variations.  Then we could get on with trying out a bunch of horns and seeing what we like, without any preconceptions. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: