Instrument=Amplifier or resonator ?

[RustBeltBass]

First of all, I am posting this with the hope of creating a civilized conversation with the maximum extend of any confrontation being a polite “agree to disagree” answer.

(Re)watching some videos that had some impact on me during the last 10 or so years, I noticed a fundamental view in what the mouthpiece is/does between two of the people I admire the most. They also have tremendous respect for each other (enough to record a cd together) and both held and hold major positions that put them into the very top of their field.

Please see these two videos and the comments made on the mouthpiece being an amplifier vs. generator.

Denson Paul Pollard minute 2:30.


James Markey minute 2:00 but 1:40 really.



Scientifically speaking there may be a definite answer to whether the instrument is an amplifier vs. a resonator.

From a pedagogical standpoint there may be more answers. Thai could easily be turning into a buzzing/no buzzing conversation and if this is where it leads to, then so be it. But it is worth noting that Mr. Markey is not against buzzing at all as becomes clear in many other videos.

Personally, the idea of “Sing->Buzz->Play” has helped me in so many ways that I tend to think of the instrument really being an amplifier (if operated properly with slide and valve usage). But Mr. Marley’s thoughts make a lot of sense at this point in my life.

What are your thoughts ?

[GabrielRice]

I don't think Jim and Paul actually disagree about the function of the buzz. I think they are using the words to mean different things. And I doubt either word would be defined the same way by a physicist (but I don't know...because I'm not a physicist either).

This gets to one of my fundamental principles as a player and teacher: that how we THINK is essential. I think it's useful for Paul to *think* of the instrument as an amplifier for his buzz, regardless of the definition a physicist might give for that word. Obviously Jim finds it more useful to think of the instrument as a resonator, so that's the word he chooses.

Which word is more useful for you, at whatever stage of your life, is up to you to determine. Maybe it's neither!

[ithinknot]

I don't think Jim and Paul actually disagree about the function of the buzz. I think they are using the words to mean different things. And I doubt either word would be defined the same way by a physicist (but I don't know...because I'm not a physicist either).

This gets to one of my fundamental principles as a player and teacher: that how we THINK is essential. I think it's useful for Paul to *think* of the instrument as an amplifier for his buzz, regardless of the definition a physicist might give for that word. Obviously Jim finds it more useful to think of the instrument as a resonator, so that's the word he chooses.

Agree with your interpretation.

However, in developing a mental/physiological/poetical model of one's own activity, there would seem to be no significant disadvantage (beyond the effort of being interested) to adopting 'settled' terminology and conceptual frameworks where the matters under discussion are concrete and such linguistic tools already exist. Making up fun new names for all the engine parts wouldn't stop someone being a good practical mechanic, but it needlessly inhibits pedagogical (and wider) communication.

In this case, the instrument *is* a resonator, and knowing that is specifically relevant and valuable in exactly the way Markey demonstrates - a perfectly buzzed E in 1st position nonetheless sounds and feels bad. Amplifier doesn't explain that, but resonator does.

There's enough genuine mystery in the process that we needn't introduce more. Of course, above and beyond the scientific, there may still be great value to the individual in poetically conceiving of the instrument amplifying their song, yea, even unto the ends of the earth

I know what I'm suggesting tends to boil down to personality type, but it's not a zero-sum game. It's fun to be completely interested in the dry stuff AND completely fantastical about wet art.

[EriKon]

body = generator
instrument = resonator

[JohnL]

I've heard players at the highest level talking about breathing in ways that are inconsistent with human anatomy - but visualizing it that way works for them.

[harrisonreed]

Resonator, regardless of what the person playing it thinks

[BassBoneFL]

Yes

[tbonesullivan]

A human playing a brass instrument is a resonant system that amplifies and converts the energy from the player into sound energy.

And yes, it's true, no matter what anyone says, that buzzing out of the instrument is not the same as playing the instrument. It just isn't, as the instrument itself has resonant tendencies and interacts with the entire air column, which extends back into the player's mouth (and maybe further). However that does not mean that it is not useful for people who do it. I have found that buzzing a note that I flub on the mouthpiece will help me get a bit of the "Feel" for it, and that it then helps me to play it with the mouthpiece attached to the instrument.

[timothy42b]

A human playing a brass instrument is a resonant system that amplifies and converts the energy from the player into sound energy.

I haven't had time to get to those videos but will a bit later today. I've heard James Markey lecture and he has thought fairly deeply and usefully about some of these.

Yes the horn amplifies the buzz, but it also stabilizes it. The reflections from the end of the wind column arrive at the lips in time to help them open and close at that pitch. There is a psychological component to the feeling of being pulled into the pitch that I've never heard discussed. (I'll be embarassed if this is in one of the videos! Let you know later.)

[tbonesullivan]

A human playing a brass instrument is a resonant system that amplifies and converts the energy from the player into sound energy.

I haven't had time to get to those videos but will a bit later today. I've heard James Markey lecture and he has thought fairly deeply and usefully about some of these.

Yes the horn amplifies the buzz, but it also stabilizes it. The reflections from the end of the wind column arrive at the lips in time to help them open and close at that pitch. There is a psychological component to the feeling of being pulled into the pitch that I've never heard discussed. (I'll be embarassed if this is in one of the videos! Let you know later.)

True, the concept of "slotting" is definitely at play, and buzzing at a non-resonant frequency inhibits the ability to amplify. It's like when you're on a swing, and you shift your weight to increase how high the swing goes. If you don't exert the energy at the right time, there will be no increase in the height/amplitude, and possibly even a decrease.

I have played with someone who does warmups on the 2nd partial, but instead of going down to the false tone, he just goes all over the place. Then when it comes time to play an in tune note on the partial, he's often way flat. I wanted to ask him why he was practicing playing out of tune, but I figured there must be some reason, right?

[Kdanielsen]

Want to hear the trombone as an amplifier and not a resonator? Play an A in first position.

[timothy42b]

I haven't had time to get to those videos but will a bit later today. I've heard James Markey lecture and he has thought fairly deeply and usefully about some of these.

Yes the horn amplifies the buzz, but it also stabilizes it. The reflections from the end of the wind column arrive at the lips in time to help them open and close at that pitch. There is a psychological component to the feeling of being pulled into the pitch that I've never heard discussed. (I'll be embarassed if this is in one of the videos! Let you know later.)

True, the concept of "slotting" is definitely at play, and buzzing at a non-resonant frequency inhibits the ability to amplify.

Yes. Any system will vibrate at the input frequency, and response will be greatest at the resonant frequency (although that's not a sharp point but a curve.) That seems to be where Pollard stopped.

But in the case of the trombone, the reflections from the air column also affect the input frequency. Markey got there, and talked about the feel. There is a distinct pull sensation when you're on the wrong note, trying to play middle C in 1st.

[tbonesullivan]

Yes. Any system will vibrate at the input frequency, and response will be greatest at the resonant frequency (although that's not a sharp point but a curve.) That seems to be where Pollard stopped.

But in the case of the trombone, the reflections from the air column also affect the input frequency. Markey got there, and talked about the feel. There is a distinct pull sensation when you're on the wrong note, trying to play middle C in 1st.

It definitely is an interesting feeling, especially when I'm playing on a Euphonium and trying to lip things down a bit. Definitely one of those times I appreciate playing a giant tuning slide.

[harrisonreed]

Yes the horn amplifies the buzz, but it also stabilizes it. The reflections from the end of the wind column arrive at the lips in time to help them open and close at that pitch.

No. The lips vibrate BECAUSE the trombone is vibrating. If you go the other way around, you're playing A in first and it sounds like ****. You can have it where you're actively trying to buzz the pitch while the horn is trying to resonate, but this usually means you aren't slotted, you're out of tune, and you're introducing crud into your sound. You know, run of the mill brass playing.

You even have the answer, in everything else you've written that follows up what I've highlighted in bold. So you know what's true and how it actually works. Why is it so hard for us to just give up on "buzzing makes trombone go toot"?

I like the story above, about the guy practicing false tones and then sounding like crap when it came down to actually playing. That rings true.

[WilliamLang]

There's useful information from either viewpoint. Some people need help with one or the other side of the equation (my own view is that in an ideal set-up, amplifying and resonating work together the same way the musician works with the instrument.)

Being aware of what a student needs and having as many tools as possible to help them get there, rather than getting stuck in a system or absolute definition of anything, is the goal, as it's both an art and a science.

[timothy42b]

Yes. Any system will vibrate at the input frequency, and response will be greatest at the resonant frequency (although that's not a sharp point but a curve.) That seems to be where Pollard stopped.

But in the case of the trombone, the reflections from the air column also affect the input frequency. Markey got there, and talked about the feel. There is a distinct pull sensation when you're on the wrong note, trying to play middle C in 1st.

It definitely is an interesting feeling, especially when I'm playing on a Euphonium and trying to lip things down a bit. Definitely one of those times I appreciate playing a giant tuning slide.

Yes, and it got me to thinking. We want to play in the center of the slot. (I assume, unless for deliberately altering the tone.) But do we do that by feel or by sound? While playing this morning I was trying to pay attention, and I'm not sure which works.

[VJOFan]

Why is it so hard for us to just give up on "buzzing makes trombone go toot"?

It's just the perceptual experience. No one puts the trombone on their lips and suddenly finds it playing music. Because the perception is that the player does something to start the sound, it is easy to believe that taking in a breath and pushing it back through the lips to initiate a buzz is what makes the sound.

Even if the physics agree, it feels like philosophy or metaphysics to say the trombone causes the lips to buzz.

[Doug Elliott]

Why is it so hard for us to just give up on "buzzing makes trombone go toot"?

It's just the perceptual experience. No one puts the trombone on their lips and suddenly finds it playing music. Because the perception is that the player does something to start the sound, it is easy to believe that taking in a breath and pushing it back through the lips to initiate a buzz is what makes the sound.

Even if the physics agree, it feels like philosophy or metaphysics to say the trombone causes the lips to buzz.

"taking in a breath and pushing it back through the lips to initiate a buzz is what makes the sound" is exactly true. There is no initiation of sound vibration without the pulse provided by the buzz.
No matter who thinks that's not the case.

[Macbone1]

I vote for both amplifier and resonator; amplifying the buzz along with the resonance inside the oral cavity.
My first college teacher, C Robert Wigness, was a dedicated "no pressure" player and a firm believer in free buzzing. Also, a firm believer that the trombone is merely an "expensive amplifier", as he demonstrated by sounding almost as good on a piece of garden hose and a metal funnel.

[GabrielRice]

Why is it so hard for us to just give up on "buzzing makes trombone go toot"?

I really tried not to get into any arguments on this subject, but buzzing makes trombone go toot. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't.

I know really good players who don't practice on the mouthpiece by itself or practice any freebuzzing. Ralph Sauer comes to mind. But I don't think Ralph is going to say his lips are not vibrating when he makes sounds.

I practice with the mouthpiece so that the pitch in my head, the pitch of my buzz, and the length and partial of my trombone all agree. I don't find myself needing to go back and forth between them a lot at this point in my life, but I touch base with the mouthpiece every day.

And I don't worry about the semantics of amplifier or resonator.

[harrisonreed]

Why is it so hard for us to just give up on "buzzing makes trombone go toot"?

I really tried not to get into any arguments on this subject, but buzzing makes trombone go toot. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't.

I know really good players who don't practice on the mouthpiece by itself or practice any freebuzzing. Ralph Sauer comes to mind. But I don't think Ralph is going to say his lips are not vibrating when he makes sounds.

I practice with the mouthpiece so that the pitch in my head, the pitch of my buzz, and the length and partial of my trombone all agree. I don't find myself needing to go back and forth between them a lot at this point in my life, but I touch base with the mouthpiece every day.

And I don't worry about the semantics of amplifier or resonator.

It's a chicken or egg thing. The lips are vibrating, along with the rest of the air in the trombone, and the metal. All together.

When we try to convince people that buzzing an A, on the lips, on the mouthpiece, whatever -- that that is the action that makes the trombone go toot, it's false. The lips lock into the vibrations of the instrument. James Markey is right. Take his word for it. When we say that buzzing is what starts the note, we are half wrong. Loosen your mouthpiece, play the best F you can, and slide the mouthpiece out. Your "buzz" turns into just air. Put it back into the horn and it magically becomes an F. You can't have one without the other, without something sounding wrong. The horn and lips vibrate at the same time, because of each other. Christian Lindberg is right. Take his word for it.

Those videos are really interesting, above, actually. James Markey immediately gives concrete examples of what he is talking about. Denson Paul Pollard talks a lot about what he believes, buzzes some notes, and then reaches for some breathing contraption. He doesn't demonstrate at all how the horn is an amplifier for the buzz examples he gives. He just says it's true. I would say that Markey is using the phrases "what I buzz" and "what my embouchure does" interchangeably, but since he is saying it within the context of "the resonating horn affects your lip vibration" he is still correct.

You have probably taught about playing in the slot, and locking a note in. Playing in the slot and locking a pitch in is the opposite of buzzing on a mouthpiece or freebuzzing, or using the horn as an amplifier. It's getting the lips out of the way as much as possible and letting the system buzz your lips for you.

This debate won't go anywhere, and like others have said, the psychology of teaching the way you do is beneficial for the majority of students, especially beginners. But I truly believe the students that really take it to heart will find themselves with years of work unlearning it, getting the crud out of their tone, and trying to justify the way they were taught into what they teach their own students.

[GabrielRice]

Loosen your mouthpiece, play the best F you can, and slide the mouthpiece out. Your "buzz" turns into just air.

That does not happen for me. I can and do buzz a consistent pitch into and out of the instrument and mouthpiece. I might well be making some kind of adjustment to do so, but it is completely subconscious and sounds seamless.

Put it back into the horn and it magically becomes an F. You can't have one without the other, without something sounding wrong.

But I truly believe the students that really take it to heart will find themselves with years of work unlearning it, getting the crud out of their tone, and trying to justify the way they were taught into what they teach their own students.

I make a really good sound and I have the paychecks and professional network to prove it.

I don't doubt that you also play at a professional level, and I know Christian Lindberg does. But that does not mean his way, or your way, OR MY WAY, is the only way to do it. And I know when I have students with certain kinds of tone production issues, mindful mouthpiece practice can be very helpful. And I don't teach beginners.

[GabrielRice]

You have probably taught about playing in the slot, and locking a note in. Playing in the slot and locking a pitch in is the opposite of buzzing on a mouthpiece or freebuzzing, or using the horn as an amplifier. It's getting the lips out of the way as much as possible and letting the system buzz your lips for you.

In fact, I don't teach about that. I teach about finding easy response and resonance, and part of that is having the easy, unforced, somewhat airy buzz match the pitch the instrument wants to be at.

[harrisonreed]

I can't argue with your results, and I know you turn students into great musicians. You are right when you say that there is more than one way to skin a cat, or maybe there is more than one way to think about how you skin a cat.

I've been obstinate, and I used to be pretty mean. I've posted here and on TTF since 2007, and a lot has happened between then and now. I don't want to be mean anymore, and I've actively tried not to for years now, and I'm trying to be less obstinate. I am passionate about a few of these niche topics within brass pedagogy. It's hard not to be. The stuff James Markey and C. Lindberg say resonate pretty deeply with me. Seeing some of my friends fall apart professionally, between buzzing themselves into focal dystonia and practicing their way into the smallest sound ever in tiny practice rooms, that resonates deeply with me too.

But I do want to say, yeah it's not black and white. I'm not some great teacher. You don't get where you are, Gabe, as a teacher or performer and not know what you're talking about, and not have a process that works. I really do respect you, your career, and the work you did with Shires.

I'll leave it to James Markey and Denson Paul Pollard to figure out if the instrument is an amplifier or resonator.

[RustBeltBass]

Loosen your mouthpiece, play the best F you can, and slide the mouthpiece out. Your "buzz" turns into just air.

That does not happen for me. I can and do buzz a consistent pitch into and out of the instrument and mouthpiece. I might well be making some kind of adjustment to do so, but it is completely subconscious and sounds seamless.

Put it back into the horn and it magically becomes an F. You can't have one without the other, without something sounding wrong.

But I truly believe the students that really take it to heart will find themselves with years of work unlearning it, getting the crud out of their tone, and trying to justify the way they were taught into what they teach their own students.

I make a really good sound and I have the paychecks and professional network to prove it.

I don't doubt that you also play at a professional level, and I know Christian Lindberg does. But that does not mean his way, or your way, OR MY WAY, is the only way to do it. And I know when I have students with certain kinds of tone production issues, mindful mouthpiece practice can be very helpful. And I don't teach beginners.

I am happy someone else is saying that as well. When I try the Lindberg experiment, it doesn’t happen for me like that. I’m not sure if I subconsciously manipulate that experiment, but my result is different than the one of Mr. Lindberg. Actually, I believe Mr. Lindberg’s way of playing, his ideas, his posture, his sound, his breathing are the ultimate proof that there are many different ideas and concepts that can lead to world class playing.

[Doug Elliott]

If you watch Lindberg's chops when he's "demonstrating" why not to buzz you can see that he is clearly changing his chops.

When I demonstrate why to freebuzz you can clearly see that I'm NOT changing anything.

Like statistics, you can make anything show whatever you want it to.

[Wilktone]

Scientifically speaking there may be a definite answer to whether the instrument is an amplifier vs. a resonator.

Absolutely do not trust what I say here, as I do not know what I'm talking about.

"Amplifier" and "resonator" do have specific definitions, but I've found musicians and physicists often disagree on definitions.

As far as I can tell, technically the trombone does function as an "amplifier," but I don't think the sound being amplified is the lip buzz, so much as it's the vibrating column of air inside the instrument. That vibrating column of air is what makes the instrument a "resonator." I *think* that *maybe* the resonator part of the equation is much more an influence on our technique than the amplifier portion.

But do not trust what I said above.

From a pedagogical standpoint there may be more answers. Thai could easily be turning into a buzzing/no buzzing conversation and if this is where it leads to, then so be it.

I do feel that a correct understanding of how the instrument works is useful for good teaching and playing. I think it can inform the conversation about buzzing too.

Playing in the slot and locking a pitch in is the opposite of buzzing on a mouthpiece or freebuzzing, or using the horn as an amplifier. It's getting the lips out of the way as much as possible and letting the system buzz your lips for you.

I teach about finding easy response and resonance, and part of that is having the easy, unforced, somewhat airy buzz match the pitch the instrument wants to be at.

I sort of see this as two sides of the same coin. Finding easy response and resonance happens because you're playing in the slot and locking in the pitch. Letting the lips respond to the system is matching the pitch the instrument wants to be at.

Free buzzing, mouthpiece buzzing, lipping the pitch all are different from getting the embouchure to align with the resonating column of air inside the trombone. Personally, I've found that they can be useful tools to learning how to allow the system to do the work for me. But I also would agree that there's a risk of doing them in a way that works against a musician.

Dave

[RustBeltBass]

I can't argue with your results, and I know you turn students into great musicians. You are right when you say that there is more than one way to skin a cat, or maybe there is more than one way to think about how you skin a cat.

I've been obstinate, and I used to be pretty mean. I've posted here and on TTF since 2007, and a lot has happened between then and now. I don't want to be mean anymore, and I've actively tried not to for years now, and I'm trying to be less obstinate. I am passionate about a few of these niche topics within brass pedagogy. It's hard not to be. The stuff James Markey and C. Lindberg say resonate pretty deeply with me. Seeing some of my friends fall apart professionally, between buzzing themselves into focal dystonia and practicing their way into the smallest sound ever in tiny practice rooms, that resonates deeply with me too.

But I do want to say, yeah it's not black and white. I'm not some great teacher. You don't get where you are, Gabe, as a teacher or performer and not know what you're talking about, and not have a process that works. I really do respect you, your career, and the work you did with Shires.

I'll leave it to James Markey and Denson Paul Pollard to figure out if the instrument is an amplifier or resonator.

When I created this topic, I had requested a polite conversation. far as I am concerned, neither you nor anyone else is being mean (yet). Strong and opposing opinions are fine with me and most readers, I am sure. So all is good.

I read all answers and I feel this is an interesting conversation, from a physical standpoint as well as from a methodology standpoint. Personally, when I read of people “buzzing themselves into dystonia” that is a red flag for me as I am personally more than convinced that buzzing is in no way responsible for that in most cases. However, I do not know your friends’ stories and I do not mean to lead the original conversation astray, maybe this could be another conversation on here.

[boneagain]

Scientifically speaking there may be a definite answer to whether the instrument is an amplifier vs. a resonator.

Absolutely do not trust what I say here, as I do not know what I'm talking about.

"Amplifier" and "resonator" do have specific definitions, but I've found musicians and physicists often disagree on definitions.

As far as I can tell, technically the trombone does function as an "amplifier," but I don't think the sound being amplified is the lip buzz, so much as it's the vibrating column of air inside the instrument. That vibrating column of air is what makes the instrument a "resonator." I *think* that *maybe* the resonator part of the equation is much more an influence on our technique than the amplifier portion.

But do not trust what I said above.

This thread waggles back and forth in a very entertaining way. Strikes me as a conflict around the bottom of a "Wittgenstein's Ladder."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_ladder

The word "amplify" is so central here that a look at derivation and common usage is appropriate.

General concensus on the web is that "modern" usage originated in a context of adding verbiage to clarify a point in speech or writing. From that came subsequent definitions meaning to ADD something to make another thing larger. All of these have in common the idea of ADDING.

Most of us are familiar with sound systems. All of those have amplifiers. All those amplifiers start with an input signal, then take some OTHER source of power and magically ADD it to the input signal to make a louder version of the original input signal.

Clearly, NO outside power source is ADDED to the lip signal by the trombone.

BUT calling the trombone an amplifier is a useful analogy to simplify the complex action of the trombone.
This is a useful teaching assumption because the REAL work of the trombone is a lot harder to teach and does very little to increase ability to play.

In Dave's post he links out to a Wikipedia article on horns. Pretty clear in there that an acoustical horn is an acoustical impedence matching transformer that increases the efficiency of a small acoustical signal input as it radiates out into a space. No extra power is added. The function of the transformer has to do with wave guides, which pulls in some complex resonance and other factors.

Will any of the "real" definitions make us play any better? I don't think so.

Will the Wittgenstein Ladder assumptions from top-flight players help us play better? I guess yes.

So we can take our pick. But we don't have to get excited about it.

[VJOFan]

Weren't the original "amplifiers" on hand crank phonographs just cones attached to the stylus?

There is no power supplied to the cone in these machines in their earliest form, I believe.

It can't be a coincidence that wind instruments 9other than the flute that uses air splitting rather than a vibrating lip or reed as a sound source) have flaring bells.

If you don't believe in non-powered amplification play a video on your phone and place it in a large (empty) salad bowl to hear it in action.

[boneagain]

Weren't the original "amplifiers" on hand crank phonographs just cones attached to the stylus?

There is no power supplied to the cone in these machines in their earliest form, I believe.

It can't be a coincidence that wind instruments 9other than the flute that uses air splitting rather than a vibrating lip or reed as a sound source) have flaring bells.

If you don't believe in non-powered amplification play a video on your phone and place it in a large (empty) salad bowl to hear it in action.

Amplification is not just "making louder." Amplification is ADDING something to make louder.

Horns have a LONG history making stuff louder in specific ways. This predates phonographs by generations.

Your buzz all by itself does a lousy job transferring energy to the air around you. Once you attach a wave guide that adjusts for the input and output impedence that transfer is hugely more efficient. The same basic principle applies to a horn loudspeaker. The driver isn't very loud, and requires a very large amplifier if used without a horn. Once the driver is matched properly to a horn it gets into high 90% efficiency. The horn is not adding anything... it is making more efficient use of what is there.

But as I said, getting all this stuff down pat won't improve your playing any.

So if you want to call a trombone (or a water glass) an amplifier, or a simple resonator, feel free.

Scarcely a day goes by when SOMEONE doesn't say, "The proof is in the pudding." The original maxim was that "The proof (of the pudding) is in the eating."

Common usage does not make something right.

But just as in the maxim, in this case, common usage does not HAVE to be right.

[brassmedic]

Weren't the original "amplifiers" on hand crank phonographs just cones attached to the stylus?

There is no power supplied to the cone in these machines in their earliest form, I believe.

It can't be a coincidence that wind instruments 9other than the flute that uses air splitting rather than a vibrating lip or reed as a sound source) have flaring bells.

If you don't believe in non-powered amplification play a video on your phone and place it in a large (empty) salad bowl to hear it in action.

+1

A brass instrument is clearly an amplifier, i.e. it makes the sound louder. I feel that some people are confusing "the trombone is an amplifier" with "the trombone is only an amplifier". Why can't it be two things? I made an amplifier for cell phones out of a trumpet bell. It works very well.

[SGH]

The horn acts as an acoustic impedance matching device to efficiently transfer the pressure oscillations (lots of pressure, minimal displacement) in the narrowest part of the instrument into lots of resonant motion as it approaches the flare. The most energy or work is transferred into sound pressure when the impedance matching is 1:1 between input and output. Ambient air has a very low acoustic impedance.

Some of our engineering members could probably state this more elegantly or more rigorously.

[SGH]

Oops, I missed Boneagain’s post. Sorry to simply recapitulate his statement

[boneagain]

Oops, I missed Boneagain’s post. Sorry to simply recapitulate his statement

I think your post is clearer than mine.

[baileyman]

The horn acts as an acoustic impedance matching device to efficiently transfer the pressure oscillations (lots of pressure, minimal displacement) in the narrowest part of the instrument into lots of resonant motion as it approaches the flare. The most energy or work is transferred into sound pressure when the impedance matching is 1:1 between input and output. Ambient air has a very low acoustic impedance.

Some of our engineering members could probably state this more elegantly or more rigorously.

Nicely said.

Regarding the phonograph flare, I believe they were designed to be non-resonant so as not to color the recording, but to do the impedance matching from the tiny amount of acoustical energy at the needle.

For the trombone, apparently the shape of the flare massages the partials one way or another, otherwise partial alignment could be really weird. Luckily it does both alignment and impedance matching at the same time.

[timothy42b]

Amplification is not just "making louder." Amplification is ADDING something to make louder.

Me thinking out loud.

In the typical sense of amplification by a tube or transistor, you have a large power source, controlled by a small signal input. There are basically two terminals with power connected, and a small input opens a gate between them proportional to the signal.

There's no external power source for a trombone. There is just signal input (which is stabilized by reflections if and only if it is somewhere near a resonant frequency or frequencies.)

There are a couple of other ways to think of adding power. One is to focus directionally. A point source spreads in all directions equally. If you could put all that power into one direction you would have a louder signal where you point, and less signal where you don't. There is no additional energy, but it would be perceived louder. That's how an antenna works, and we call it gain.

In a resonant system with a continuous series of inputs, each input should stack on top of the next one. Like pushing a child on a swing set, a series of light pushes at exactly the right time eventually results in large but not infinite amplitude. That is what happens with the trombone. Should we call that amplification? I guess you could, though it's not the classical use of the term. The sound wave as it passes down the wind column and reflects has huge losses. Benade says that the round trip losses are 76.5%; I've seen it stated as high as 95%.

I mention "not infinite" because some science articles will show amplitude appearing to go to infinity at resonance. These usually show a sort of bell curve with a break at the peak, and lines appearing to go asymptotic. That's just bad math. When you set up the governing equations you generally leave out the higher order terms, as their effect is small - except when you get near resonance.

[harrisonreed]

I know I said I'd stay out of it, but I just can't. We can't forget that the action of sound production on any wind instrument is not dissimilar to a flute on a physics level. It's just that, instead of both ends being open, only one end is open on a trombone, and the lips are vibrating in unison with the vibrating air inside the horn.

No one would claim that a flute is amplifying the sound of someone blowing the wind going into a flute. If that were true a flute would sound like this "T-fffffffff!!!!!". The whole flute resonates, locks onto a harmonic length, and that is the sound you hear. The player isn't whistling into the flute, either.

Likewise, I've never heard someone freebuzz anything that sounds remotely like any brass instrument. Or mouthpiece buzz anything that sounds like a brass instrument. If the trombone was amplifying a buzz, you would hear *raspberry sound* but much louder. Kind of like Jim Markey "playing" E in 1st position. Clearly, when we hear a great note on a trombone, we are not hearing the amplification of the lips vibrating. Again, please name the person who sounds like a brass instrument when they free buzz. I want to see that video.

No, the sound of a brass instrument is, like a flute, the sound of the air inside the brass, vibrating at a harmonic length. It will contain the lip vibration sound, and be affected by the lip formation and tongue position, but that is not the primary sound you are hearing. At best the lips are vibrating in completely sympathy with the air in the trombone, to the point where the lips are vibrating because the trombone is resonating. At worst, the lips are forcibly vibrating an E, when the tube is at a length where the air cannot vibrate at that harmonic length, like 1st position.

So, if we can agree that:

1. Wind instruments make noise because air inside of them vibrates at a certain frequency
2. Flute players aren't whistling into their flute, they are just blowing air into it and exerting energy on the air already inside it.
3. No human being can free buzz their lips in a way that sounds remotely close to a trombone, trumpet, or tuba.

Then we should unequivocally agree that there is no way the trombone is amplifying any possible sound input a human being is capable of making. It is resonating. In the sense of a phonograph, the bell is amplifying that resonation.

[VJOFan]

The trombone is capable of amplifying any sound a human can make. And every sound will come out the other end a little different as it passes through the tube and the bell. Yes the horn affects the sound, but there is no logic in saying the sound comes out to spite the player's input which really seems to be the concession Harrisonreed is looking for.

The instrument is purpose built to make certain pitches sound beautiful when they are stimulated into existence with a properly initiated and controlled buzz.

At the same time any other sound input through the mouthpiece comes out the other end as a new an interesting noise.

This dude shows how all kinds of sounds he makes come out of the horn louder than before and different too. None of them are typical trombone "music" but none of them are the sound source the instrument is built to amplify and improve. Yet amplified and more interesting they are.

https://andrewhugill.com/OrchestraManua ... ended.html

This one in particular is interesting to the discussion as it is a window into how the sound gets cooked as it travels through the horn. https://andrewhugill.com/OrchestraManua ... emoved.mp4

[harrisonreed]

The trombone is capable of amplifying any sound a human can make. And every sound will come out the other end a little different as it passes through the tube and the bell. Yes the horn affects the sound, but there is no logic in saying the sound comes out to spite the player's input which really seems to be the concession Harrisonreed is looking for.

No, sound definitely comes out in regards to the player's input. The E played in first by Markey -- it sounds awful and not like a trombone. That's the human generated forced buzz being "amplified".

What I'm saying is that when you get an actual trombone sound, where the horn length and air direction is determining the frequency that the air inside the horn is vibrating at, and the slot is locked in, the lips aren't being forcibly buzzed by the player, through tension like in a freebuzz or mouthpiece buzz. And the sound you hear is the sum of the overtones of that air vibration, not the amplification of two slabs of meat flapping together. The lips are vibrating with the air in the trombone, and because of the air vibrating in the trombone. That's why you feel compression when you play in the slot; the air in the horn is physically resisting your input. When you forcibly buzz an E in first, the air barely vibrates and there is no compression. It's all tension in the face.

I'm not sure the video supports or has anything to do with note production on a brass instrument, other than that he was still playing harmonics on different length tubes. Are we talking about trombone/brass playing, or making weird noises into a cone? I'm not knocking avant garde stuff and extended techniques, but those are two different things.

[Wilktone]

What I'm saying is that when you get an actual trombone sound, where the horn length and air direction is determining the frequency that the air inside the horn is vibrating at, and the slot is locked in, the lips aren't being forcibly buzzed by the player, through tension like in a freebuzz or mouthpiece buzz. And the sound you hear is the sum of the overtones of that air vibration, not the amplification of two slabs of meat flapping together.

I'm not sure you mean this as literally as it's coming across. When we slot a pitch in we still using muscular effort in the lips to maintain the pitch correctly, it's just easier to hold them in position when it's slotted in conjunction with the standing wave.

[VJOFan]

I'm not sure the video supports or has anything to do with note production on a brass instrument, other than that he was still playing harmonics on different length tubes. Are we talking about trombone/brass playing, or making weird noises into a cone? I'm not knocking avant garde stuff and extended techniques, but those are two different things.

It shows how the sound changes as it goes through the horn. If it were more systematic it would be more obvious. The sound of a free buzz does not sound like a trombone. Okay. The sound of a mouthpiece buzz does not sound like a trombone, but is a little closer. The sound that comes out of the first pipe of a slide sounds even closer. Etc, etc until there is a full trombone between the initiating noise at the lips and the listener. The other clicks and taps and even singing through the horn all demonstrate that a brass instrument, though built to support specific frequencies generated in specific ways, can and does amplify any sound pushed through it.

As far as making a typical trombone sound, in the end my lips buzz because air moves through them (I push it or allow it to move depending on the fullness of my lungs) while I hold the lips in positions to be flapped by that Bernoulli thingy. Anyway that the trombone makes this feel easier is just improvements developed after someone got a sound out a conch or an animal horn. “Og” would say,”Me go phhtt in little whole in bottom of shell, and pretty sound comes out.” Og would be right. What medieval and renaissance craftsmen did to develop brass instruments just harnessed that phhht more eloquently.

[boneagain]

The horn acts as an acoustic impedance matching device to efficiently transfer the pressure oscillations (lots of pressure, minimal displacement) in the narrowest part of the instrument into lots of resonant motion as it approaches the flare. The most energy or work is transferred into sound pressure when the impedance matching is 1:1 between input and output. Ambient air has a very low acoustic impedance.

Some of our engineering members could probably state this more elegantly or more rigorously.

Nicely said.

Regarding the phonograph flare, I believe they were designed to be non-resonant so as not to color the recording, but to do the impedance matching from the tiny amount of acoustical energy at the needle.

For the trombone, apparently the shape of the flare massages the partials one way or another, otherwise partial alignment could be really weird. Luckily it does both alignment and impedance matching at the same time.

Benade and Jansson pulled together their research and quite a bit that went before them on this very topic.
The combination of bell flare AND mouthpiece cup shape pretty much cooperate to cause the "every other harmonic" regime of a pipe closed at one end to magically produce what sound and feel like EVERY harmonic.

And it IS quite lucky, since the shapes in question predate the math and science that best describe those shapes.

[elmsandr]

…
When we try to convince people that buzzing an A, on the lips, on the mouthpiece, whatever -- that that is the action that makes the trombone go toot, it's false. The lips lock into the vibrations of the instrument. James Markey is right. Take his word for it. When we say that buzzing is what starts the note, we are half wrong. Loosen your mouthpiece, play the best F you can, and slide the mouthpiece out. Your "buzz" turns into just air. Put it back into the horn and it magically becomes an F. You can't have one without the other, without something sounding wrong. The horn and lips vibrate at the same time, because of each other. Christian Lindberg is right. Take his word for it.
…

Ack.

Speak for yourself. I think you are 100% wrong here. When I sound good, I can do this all day and the buzz sounds great and on pitch. Can we fin links to the Sam Burtis ‘crack the embouchure code’ thread? Same concept.

Oh and having watched a LOT of Steven Mead practice sessions, he pulls the horn down and a beautiful resonant buzz exists immediately (for example while he flips pages or rearranges music).. the horn comes up and it moves perfectly to the most resonant tone on any horn ever.

Better input, better toot. If intentional buzzing gets you there, good. If something else does, also good.

Cheers,
Andy

[Wilco]

Seen this one??

[StevenHolloway]

Buzzing makes the trombone go toot. Buzzing also isn’t required to make the trombone go toot, but it can dramatically improve your tooting if practiced thoughtfully and properly.

[musicofnote]

content deleted by author

[harrisonreed]

I have been saying what Wayne is saying for years. Even on the old TTF. I'm sure he's been saying it longer. Lindberg has been saying it since the 80's, I believe.

We talked about this years ago, on the old forum. I called it Type I vs Type II. Resistance at the face vs resistance from the air in the horn. People basically said I was crazy.

I couldn't find the old discussion but it's referenced here too:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=19366&p=141762&hil ... ii#p141762

FWIW, I maintain my idea that as a "chest player" or Type II, your lips move sympathetically with the vibrating air in the horn, and it's basically a feedback loop. Type I "Head Players" are using more of the face to make the sound. A lot of jazz guys who rely on the mic do this.

[Wilktone]

Another interesting take on buzzing, although "only" on trumpet:

I watched it twice and still don't understand what Bergeron's point on buzzing is. I think that we may be missing some context from earlier in his masterclass that isn't explicitly discussed in that clip.

Is his point that the lips interact with the standing wave inside the instrument? If so, I agree. Or is his point that the lips don't actually vibrate? He doesn't explicitly say that, but when he mentions a flute embouchure he seems to be suggesting that in some way.

Blowing air into the mouthpiece and then slotting it into the instrument to get sound requires an adjustment to how we play. When I try this out and really try to *feel* like I'm not changing anything when the mouthpiece is slotted into the instrument I still am blowing air. For a middle F I don't *feel* like I need to do much adjustment in order to have a tone produced. It's essentially making a breath attack, but you're already blowing air past the lips before you engage the lips and make the adjustment to the standing wave. The higher the pitch I try to play while slotting the mouthpiece like in Bergeron's demonstration the more it *feels* like I'm making adjustments, otherwise I'm blowing air. When I get to high Bb like this it's clear to me that I have to adjust my lips in order to get the note to speak.

FWIW, I maintain my idea that as a "chest player" or Type II, your lips move sympathetically with the vibrating air in the horn, and it's basically a feedback loop.

The lips always move sympathetically with the vibrating column of air inside the instrument. You can force them to move away from that, but they are still going to interact with the standing wave. When the lips and standing wave are working in tandem the tone is focused and it feels easier to play.

But it's the lips (and other playing factors too) that tell the instrument how to divide that standing wave in the first place. When we slur across partials there is a split second adjustment at the lips that tells the instrument what pitch to play. Experienced players get good at making those adjustments very quickly. When we don't do that as well we can crack the attack or the tone suffers.



If the above video embed works like I want it should start on a clip of Stewart Dempster playing some ascending octave slurs. Notice that as he slurs from low Bb to middle Bb you can see that split second of adjustment needed for him to adjust his lip vibrations to the correct frequency. The same thing happens on the high Bb, but it takes a little longer and you might notice that the attack of that pitch was cracked a bit.

There has to be at least two cycles of the lips opening and closing first before they can match the standing wave. It's the lips that tell the standing wave how many nodes to create in order for the standing wave to vibrate at the frequency for the pitch we want to play, not the other way around.

It might be beneficial for some to practice making it *feel* like the lips are merely interacting with the standing wave, but there is no way that they can do so unless the brass musician controls the lips to make that happen. Playing softly, using a microphone, or playing jazz has nothing to do with that point.

Dave

[musicofnote]

content deleted by author