Crossovers

May 31st, 2014

In looking over a parts catalog, I see some interesting insights.

Bundy uses Bach

Conn Cornet

Director Models 15A & 17A "Sandwich Valve Guide" before 1985 are American made.

Model 19A before 1985 are Japanese made.

Many Conn instruments are distinguished as whether they were made before or after 1985.

Euphonium 19I Same as King 2280

Mellophone 132E same as King 1120

Marching FrHrn 134E Same as King 1122

Marching Tnb 138E Same as King 1130 Fugabone

Marching Bar 136E same as King 11245 Baritone

Tuba 14J Short run from Selmer

15J Same as King 1140

Sousaphone Director 14k Elkhart Production before 1985

Director 14K Eastlake Production after 1985 Same as King 2350

36K Fiberglass Same as King 2370

Holton Cornet C603 & C 603 Same as Yamaha YCR-2310

Trumpet T602 Same as Yamaha YTR-2320

Euphonium and Tubas that end with an R in the model number are Yamaha made

Olds marching ins Same as Bach Marching brass

Baritone A25, A30, A31, A35, T-25, ^26, T30 same as 1566 Bucy Brass

Reynolds Baritone BR56, BR57, BR 58, BR01, BR 05, BR 06 Same as Bundy Baritone

A Rose by any other name


Sep 24th, 2005,

If we mix European and American terms we are doomed

But how can we not. I will start this topic by pointing out that the Euphonium and Baritone of today has changed a few times in its life. American Manufactures have produced literature calling Euphoniums, Baritones. Baritones were extinct in the USA for many years and are now starting to make a comeback.

We all know that Euphs and Bari's have been produced with 3 or 4 valves (sometimes 2 or 5). Sometimes the tuning slide is in the lead pipe and sometimes not, on both Euphs and Bari's. The big difference is in the amount of growth in diameter. We don’t find Baritones with 12" bells. Big old tubby things I call Euphs.

Bell front, American 3 or 4 valve horns I call Euphoniums. This is because they play like a Euph and the bore grows quickly. The Trombonium falls at the small end of the spectrum and would get placed with the "Bb Tenor horn". A Baritone would fall halfway in between.

The old Bb bass which can be found in catalogue reprints (or originals) I believe is very close to todays "Professional" Euphoniums. They had the largest bell and bottom bow in the drawings in the sears catalogue. I would love to see the 4 horns from the same Mfg side by side. (and play them)



Reply #1 - Sep 24th, 2005

Yeah, it is easy to complain about the British scheme of things, I mean how can a Bb trumpet be an alto voice!!!

But unfortunately, the confusion seems to have its roots in our own brass band history. Civil War bands for example often had parts for Bb Bass saxhorn, but it appears that this was really a chair for the 2nd baritone rather than a distinct instrument. I would not be surprised that some manufacturers had horns that they advertised as Bb basses, but just because it is marketed that way, doesn't make it so. I think it is more important that the bands of the period did not see the need for a separate and different instrument to play the part.

There does seem to be some relationship between the categories based on bore profile, but there seems to be no clear dividing lines. And the other common notion is that the euphonium has a larger percentage of conical tubing than the baritone.

IHMO the trombonium is a valved trombone, wrapped funny. That is, that it is primarily a cylindrical instrument with only a relatively small amount of conical tubing.

The tenor horn is the place where British terminology gets things all confused. The tenor sax horn is a primarily conical bore instrument, but it slowly expands. And the British baritone is similar. But there is an American tradition going back to the baritone saxhorn which more like that old high school baritone (that we were told was a bell front euphonium) than it is the tenor horn.



Reply #2 - Sep 25th, 2005

Here we go- the US-Britain range thing again. Heh.

How can a Bb trumpet be considered an alto voice? Simple- its playing range from low F# to 3rd space C is within the alto range in choral music. This range is shared by the Bb alto clarinet. The thing is, voice-wise, both instruments span the soprano, mezzo-soprano, and alto vocal ranges, so any strict comparison is out.

In choral music, parts are generally kept to an octave and a half (on average). The soprano range is roughly middle C to high A (the range of your 1st trumpets), the mezzo soprano range is roughly low A to 5th line F (the range of your weaker trumpets), the alto range is roughly F below middle C to 4th line D (the range of beginners on trumpet), the tenor range is roughly 2nd line B bass clef to G above middle C, baritone is roughly 1st line G bass clef to E above middle C, and the bass range is roughly E below the bass clef to middle C.

Comparing instrument range to vocal range is problematic because many instruments span several vocal registers.

The British system is a fair reflection of register, especially if you were to consider an arrangement of Eb soprano cornet, Bb alto trumpet, Bb tenor trombone and Bb bass tuba. Many vocal sopranos can sing up to high C, whilst many beginner and intermediate trumpet players only have a usable range of from low concert E to 5th line concert F.

Also, in general brass band, concert band and orchestral arranging, the Bb trumpet is not the highest sounding voice, and as a general guideline for arranging is SATB, that leaves out the Bb trumpet as a soprano instrument.

We should just ignore what instruments are called, range-wise, and just concentrate on their usable range. The overlap of similar instruments otherwise gets bogged down in irreconcilable differences.

For example: take the French horn, F contralto trumpet, F contra-alto trumpet, and F alto trombone. All these horns are in the same pitch, and therefore play in the same register, and music for them is interchangeable. Right?

Dead wrong!

These are four very different instruments. The French horn has perhaps the greatest range in triple form (Bb tenor, F alto, Bb descant), the F contralto trumpet has a much smaller usable range that spans from bass C# to C above middle C, the F contra-alto trumpet plays music in the same range as the Bb trumpet, and the alto trombone's usable range is the same as the tenor trombone's high range.

The thing is, despite the appearance of shared range, these instruments, though all in alto F, are anything but equal in what we might be tempted to dismiss as being a single common shared range and register.

So- each instrument has to be taken on its own ground, regardless its termed range. After all, the very term, "range", can be demonstrated to be difficult and misleading.


Reply #3 - Sep 25th

Well, ok first off, the British thing was just a tease

And second, I agree that the designations of SATB as best ignored as a reference to anything (but unfortunately, several of our instruments use them as their name)

But that having been said, I do have to comment (as an aside only).

The main lead voices in the modern concert band are not the higher sounding instruments, nor the Eb cornet but rather the Bb Clarinet and Bb Cornet.

The Eb cornet once was the lead voice in the saxhorn bands, but it has since lost out as the pitch center of the modern band has dropped a fifth as evidenced by the Bb Clarinet/trumpet taking the lead and the BBb tuba taking the bass line from the Eb bass.



Reply #5 - Sep 25th,

This problem of baritones and euphoniums extends to the tuba family. The term "tuba" is just a generic term for a whole whack of bass brass winds. Some are tubas, many are bass saxhorns.



The easiest way I've found to classify these horns is to not look at individual instruments, but to focus instead on families of related instruments. For example, true tubas come in Eb alto (the Cerveny alto "horn" is really an alto tuba), the tenor tuba (euphonium), and the Eb and Bb bass tubas.

All these horns have that characteristic fat bell, all share the same bore profile, all use the same type of mouthpiece, all have the same ratio of conical to cylindrical tubing, all sound alike, all play alike, all have the same range possibilities.

Then we come to the saxhorn-derived horns, which include the narrow-belled Eb and Bb tubas, the large-bore baritone, the small-bore "British" baritone, the Eb tenor (alto) horn, and the Bb "fluglehorn", which is not a fluglehorn, but is properly called an "Infanterie-model" saxhorn. Discarding the junk examples of these instruments, and focusing on the best players among them, these horns share a lot in common. They share the same type of bell, most are played with the same type of mouthpiece, most play alike, all have the same range possibilities.

From there, you can get lost in the labyrinthian convolution of splitting hairs trying to accommodate other variations of these instruments, but those basic guidelines have always worked for me.

When it comes to other instruments, I try to distance them from these categories, because trying to include other instruments into this mix is a slippery slope. Once you've left the barn door open, your definitions tend to fall apart.



Reply #7 - Sep 25th, 2005,

I can see the problem.

From what I have read, here in the USA, our bands were mostly factory and mining workers. I can see the SATB type scenario where all the big Eb things were called tubas, the Bb things were called Baritones and Trombones, then we add 2 Bb/C cornets on top and we have a band. I say Bb/C because I have seen a lot, and that would allow the band to play out of a Hymnal and to play piano music and Vocal music.

This could have been the start of my miss-guided education. I try to be nice if somebody calls my horn a Baritone, but I have been known to show up with a Baritone if inadvertently asked. (with my Euph in the car)


Reply #8 - Sep 25th, 2005

Aside #1, in the US, though there were mine bands and factory bands, they only represented a small portion of the bands that were out there. Most - even small - communities had several bands. I imagine that they were not dissimilar to the proliferation of rock bands today. However, their role was much expanded than the modern rock band is. They played for celebrations, dances, funerals, town events, political rallies, military units, etc.

Aside #2. The big guy wasn't originally called a tuba. It was a Bass. I'm not sure when they got labeled as tubas. I think I understand that "tuba" started as a rather generic term, that later got attached to a specific type of instrument.


Reply #9 - Sep 26th, 2005,

Guys, this recalls the stuff Dodworth wrote about dance. As I recall, he wrote a book on the history of formal dance, and other books on band instruments and directing. The cultural milieux tended towards a wide variety of both performance and participation, it seems, and people in the social/entertainment biz had to wear several hats, in ways that people don't today.

For example, when people went to hear a Strauss waltz, they weren't going to listen to classical music- they were all heading out to the dance hall for an evening of fun. I think this goes for a lot of the music we're talking about; the layman was probably thinking in terms of the activity.

There's also the fact that things were more socially/culturally/formally laid out and planned in those days. A planned "social event" could mean a ladies' tea party, a reading, a gathering whose centerpiece was a person of status, a formal dance, holiday celebrations, gatherings and music for celebrities, and all the stuff you guys brought up.

Unlike rock bands, I think most of the players of the 19th century were amateurs. The pros seemed to be more of a tour/concert thing with promotion and advertising, and a good many of them seemed to travel very long distances- around the world, in fact. There seemed to be a fascination with things across the pond, in both directions.



Reply #10 - Feb 19th, 2007

I agree with the standard British brass band terms: a baritone is of smaller and more cylindrical bore, euphoniums are larger in bore and bell and have a fully-conical profile (except for the valve area).

I have an article explaining the difference that has been the most popular page on my web site for about 10 years, so there is obviously a lot of confusion still:

http://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-bareuph.cfm



Reply #11 - Feb 19th, 2007,

FWIW: Conn did, in fact, make a "double-bell" baritone. Before model numbers they are listed in catalogs, and after Conn Ltd made the 74I, 75I, 78I, and 79I.



Reply #12 - Feb 19th, 2007,

At one point, I tried measuring bore profiles, and the percent of cylindrical versus conical tubing in the tenor horns, baritones and euphoniums that came through here, but I could establish no clear pattern.

I think it is like trying to establish which is a car and which is an automobile.

However, I do have some working definitions that I use for my own personal classification system. 1) a tenor horn is a narrow bore instrument that has some cylindrical tubing outside of the valve assembly, 2) a baritone is a wide bore instrument that has some cylindrical tubing outside of the valve assembly, and 3) an euphonium is a wide bore instrument that doesn't have cylindrical tubing except where it is needed for slides. (i.e., the tuning slide is not reversible)

(I also tend to suspect those with tuning before the valves to not be euphoniums)



Reply #13 - Feb 21st, 2007,

Thats a nice place to start. The problem being using today’s "euphonium" as a guide to be telling whether an instrument made in 1899 is a euphonium or baritone or Bb tenor horn or Bb Bass.

The catalogues help when they are available. But, the American companies we not consistent with terminology. We find the same basic horn described as a baritone and then on the same page they call it a double bell euphonium when they add a second bell.

Horns like

Fall in between today’s terminology. I would say that this was made as a "Euphonium" even though it doesn’t start being conical until after the valve section.



Reply #14 - Dec 1st, 2009,

To classify a Baritone vs. Euphonium, I would suggest looking at the harmonic series of the instrument in question. Trumpets & cornets have more than a 9th between the 1st and 2nd harmonics, while a flugelhorn has a perfect octave between the 1st and 2nd harmonics. In general, a more conical bore squashes the harmonic series closer together.

Another interesting characterization is the presence or absence of "False tones" (useful resonance between the 1st and 2nd harmonic). False tones allow a player to play down chromatically to the fundamental. In some cases, the false tones sound better than stuffy 4-valve combinations, but in other cases they are very weak or non-existent such as in trombones.

Adjusting the taper of individual sections of the horn allows the horn designer to move around the resonances of the horn.

As an example, application of classifying via harmonic series, my Lyon & Healy "American Professional" baritone would be considered a Baritone (even though is LOOKs like a Euphonium), because it lacks false tone resonance, while a 2009 Schill wide-bore baritone would be classified as a Euphonium because it can be played down the fundamental chromatically with just 3 valves, due to it's strong false tone resonance.

The lack of false tone resonance on my Eb Concertone Tuba may indicate it's not really a tuba (but maybe an Eb bass Saxhorn?).



Reply #15 - Dec 2nd, 2009

Interesting idea. I don't recall anyone suggesting that false tones were related to the classification of an instrument before.

I don't know if it will hold up for saxhorns, however. I've played a couple of vintage saxhorns that had a strong false tone register.




Reply #16 - Dec 2nd, 2009,

Another issue might be that the instrument must be in playable condition to classify.

If one could measure the bore throughout well enough to predict without playing, we probably wouldn't require such a taxonomy in the first place.

Wouldn't the mouthpiece used have a major effect on the outcome, also?

Interesting idea, though, and one certainly related to performance and not perception.



Reply #17 - Jan 7th, 2010,

I am trying to find out more info on a 1853 VF Cerveny horn (in the Baritone/Euphonium family, sort of) called "Euphonion" - are there any examples in collections? Is it a small tuba or large Euphonium?

The other instrument in this catalogue scan is also interestingly rare - the Zvuoroh (AKA Schallhorn or Phonikon ) - any further info ?



Reply #19 - Aug 10th, 2011,

I'm a euphonium player and I’ve basically attempted to gather all the brass instruments into families as in cylindrical bore are Trumpets, Trombones, Baritone, and the like, while conical fits with the Fluegelhorn, Cornet, Eb alto horn (its more conical than cylindrical from what I’ve seen) Euphonium, Tubas

It makes it easier to explain what an instrument most people haven't ever heard of is. like a euphonium in comparison to the rest of the instruments

although wrong one can call a cornet a soprano tuba and due to how close the features are one wouldn't be far off



Reply #20 - Aug 10th, 2011,

Ah, but you see; none of that works. The cylindrical family isn't. Modern trumpets are really modified cornets, many modern trombones have stepped slides so they aren't cylindrical. The bore profile of instruments is so varied that you can't say, this is the point where instrument A is no longer in this family and is now in this other family. We've even tried to measure the proportion of cylindrical tubing to conical tubing in an instrument, and even that produces no clear distinctions.

In the bass tuba section, you have just differences, which if they were in Bb range rather than BBb range, we would be calling them tromboniums, tenor horns, baritiones and euphoniums. But in the tuba section, they are just tubas.


Reply #21 - Jul 9th, 2012,

Ya, that goes back to the whole issue of the development of low and midrange brass. It is still a cause for occasional discussion and may never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. As is pointed out clearly by Bob Beecher, there is a point where the whole business overlaps. I guess you could say, "When is a tenor horn, not a tenor horn?” much the same as you could fairly ask, "When is a cornet or a trumpet not a cornet or trumpet?" Musical instruments like all music are often difficult to pigeonhole accurately. For many years the French catalogues had an instrument called the Baryton. Next down was the three piston Basse which more or less morphed into the Euphonium. But in the same catalogues there was no tenor horn mentioned. If you started measuring bores and the conical nature of the many instruments made using these names, it would get even more complicated. It doesn't help at all that you have people interchanging the modern terms tenor horn and alto. For the historian, you just must accept that there will always be some confusion until people hash out exactly what they mean. Then we would probably mostly agree.



Reply #22 - Jul 9th, 2012,

I disagree with the contention that the tenor horn got renamed in the US to baritone. From the time of the saxhorn bands in the US, there were tenor horns and baritone AND Bb basses.

The role of the Tenor horn in the music was much like the 3rd and 4th French horns. (With the 1st and 2nd horns parts covered by the alto horns.) Consequently, the tenor horns needed to have a bore profile like the alto horn. In fact, the Civil War makers would sometimes use parts off the same mandrels to make both, the tenors just had more tubing.

As time went on, the tenor parts became more varied and evolved into a part that could be played by either tenor horns or trombone. And eventually, they were supplanted by the trombones.

The role of the baritone has basically remained unchanged from the time of the saxhorn bands.

Though the evolution is less clear, it does appear that some makers at least in the latter part of the 19th Century were making fat baritones and labeling them as Bb Basses. The Bb bass part itself goes back to at least the Civil War days, but it appears that it generally was played on a baritone. This probably morphed into the euphonium.


Sep 24th, 2005,

What got me thinking about this topic was an article I read recently that was quoting H.M. Lewis on the alteration of the sound of the cornet around the turn of the 20th century. His contention is that the cornet was getting progressively brighter in sound, which probably means that it was being manufactured with a less radical bore profile, in which the conical tubing was not increasing as rapidly as in earlier instruments.

That notion coupled with innumerable conversations I have had with gsmonks about the modern trumpet being a misshapen cornet. (Greg, you can jump in here any time now!)

And, then there are all those discussions about the difference between a baritone and an euphonium.

I don’t imagine that we will finally set standard definitions for these instruments, but it does seem worthwhile to get the issues down for the record.

Theory of design of trumpets and cornets?

Aug 21st, 2012,
There must be some basic formula for construction of brass instruments relative to length and diameter of tubing and length and diameter of valves. Obviously, there are some basic designs that seem to have become dominant...but there are any number of designs that have been made over the years that seem to work well and must follow some basic formula. For instance, some older pea shooters have the lead pipe curving around and attaching to the back of the third valve and more modern standard design keeps the lead pipe more vertical and attaching to the side of the third valve.

Cornets are designed all sorts of ways and in all sorts of straight and bent configurations. However, all of the B flat horns play in the same way and all the keys operate in the same way to produce the same notes. And this is true of course for both cornets and trumpets. And......while I'm thinking of it.. the flugel horns follow the same key to note use with another tone altogether.

Is there some.... more or less... simple formula?


Reply #1 - Aug 22nd, 2012,

I suspect that other than basic length to establish the pitch, the rest is arcane. Hence, so many stencils. When someone stumbles upon a working combination copying is the next step.



Reply #2 - Aug 22nd, 2012,

I lined up a few different configurations of instruments. The cornets that connect from lead pipe to third valve seem to be about the same length no matter how bent. The straight trumpet like cornet lead pipe tube is shorter but to the third valve and the first valve gets the extra length going out to the bell. The trumpets have less configuration distinctions as to how the tubes measure and connect.

However, the Flugal has the lead pipe connected to the first valve instead of the third. And.... take a look at these three cornets. The Pan American on the bottom has its lead pipe connected to the first valve too. The others....and more standard way it seems...is to connect to the third valve.

Now I know I'm just another old man with too much time on his hands and not enough engineering sense to fully understand any technical explanation.... However, just the Wikipedia version would do just fine.



Reply #3 - Aug 22nd, 2012,



Well, if you are brave enough to tackle this topic then I'm in too. Without specialized knowledge of acoustics my comments will have to remain in the realm of the empirical. Hopefully someone who has designed and built brass instruments that have been played by competent musicians will weigh in here.

I believe that of all the elements that go toward making up a brass instrument, the least significant is the wrap. All anyone must do to understand this is pull out a "pocket cornet" and give it a blow. There is no tighter, more convoluted wrap. Whether the lead pipe enters the valve block from the first or third piston is also irrelevant. There are too many examples to mention.

So that leaves a list of items that can be discussed individually but that all interact together leaving the overall effect of the constituent items dependent on all the others. So, some simple math will show how many permutations there can be if say there are a half dozen elements. Then the number increases with every alteration of each part. It could theoretically be infinite.

The beginnings of a list, and people could add to is possibly something like this:

The weight of the material

The lead pipes.

The Valve block (including the path of the air column as it progresses through the valves)

The Bell and stem

I'm certain that any one of these items could be discussed at length for at least a year if sufficient time and energy were allotted.

There would likely still be arguments that went unresolved at the end of that time. That explains the vast variety of "modern" instruments. Those produced from at least the early 19th century until today.

The subject was interesting enough back in the day of the natural horn, but once the valve block or keys were introduced the potential for controversy has gone through the roof. I've heard it said that a horn can be made to sound like a Bach or an Olds simply exchanging the entire valve block. Given the simple nature of the basic natural trumpet, this makes some sense, but I have two natural trumpets in Eb, one French, the other British and they don't sound alike at all. The bore, weight of metal and bell profile reasonably close but it goes to show the slightest difference makes a world of difference.


Reply #4 - Aug 22nd, 2012,

The single most confusing issue in brass design is the use of air in the performer’s lungs. Other than the need for the player to use his breath to affect the vibration of the lips and support the column of air within the instrument, there is no difference between a brass horn and a violin in the way sound is produced. Basically, a membrane, tube or string which is "struck “or actuated in any manner to set vibration in motion. The strings use a sounding box to modify and enrich the sound. With a horn the players lips buzz, establishing a standing wave within the tubing, the tubing thereby replacing the body of the stringed instrument, a gourd or a finely constructed wooden box or in this case a carefully constructed arrangement of tubes with a bell at the end. People wonder what the essence of a top-quality instrument is and it is essentially nature and the refinements in these sounding boxes diaphragms or tubes. I lump the instruments together like this because they all boil down to the same thing. A means of setting sound waves in air, in motion. The internet is full of material describing sound waves within tubes. The wave cycles back and forth between the backbore and the bell. Hundreds of thousands of hours of brass instruction could be saved if students were made to understand, from day one, that they are not blowing "through" anything, regardless of how much the image of a guy puffing away at the end of a pipe suggests the act of "blowing".

There are mechanical trumpets that require no air whatsoever to play solid, clear tones. Trumpet automatons have been made throughout Europe since the Renaissance just as modern researchers are doing today. Light a cigarette and play a short tune. Sure, eventually some smoke will make its way through the horn but not in the way it would if you just blew forcefully through the instrument without playing.

I'm an oldish guy with lots of time on my hands too and I like thinking about stuff that I'm involved in. The "rub" with brass instruments seems to be in the way the standing wave is handled and the careful arrangement of the tubing diameter and bracing in regard the arcane "nodes". Which is where I find myself with absolutely nothing to say. I haven't studied acoustics. It’s enough to see that the arrangement must be optimized so as not to interfere with the clear sounding of the nodes and the "partials" as well. That's where the magic comes in. Just how all this is done by the craftsman is driven by the sound he is after. There is no such thing as the perfect anything let alone a brass instrument.


Reply #5 - Aug 22nd, 2012,

I was wondering if there were some formulas as to design of parts to produce an expected note result. For instance....to produce the key moves to play a b flat concert scale that every middle school band plays...or used to play. Before starting any band practice, all the cornets and trumpet players should go through the same key and lip vibration movements to produce an approximate sound result with each note as the scale is played. But....not all the horns in a section are in the same configuration much less the same brand or age. I was thinking maybe there was somewhere some rule of construction relative to brass pipe diameter to length as connected to the valve block to produce a uniform result related to key stroke and proper lip vibration.

It would seem to me that if someone were going to design a trumpet, they would have some mathematical formula for all of the pieces that would have to plug in to produce a a horn that any trumpet player ought to be able to pick up and play with the same keystrokes and expected result from lip vibration.

Maybe what I'm asking is all a matter of trade secret.


Reply #6 - Aug 23rd, 2012,

Going back to the old trumpeters’ Guilds, the craftsmen have maintained secrecy. Nobody wants to give the shop away.



At a high school band level, a mix of instruments is tolerated and to the parents, a varied group of instruments is fine. The tones produced are not all that far apart, but in large professional orchestras, the conductors can be very picky about what they will allow. They are listening very closely.




Reply #7 - Aug 23rd, 2012,

Schilke studied the precise matter that you are discussing here. He published all his findings and I remember a link somewhere on HUC to his publication. No secrecy at all. Just a warning from me it is COMPLICATED.


Reply #8 - Aug 23rd, 2012,

I performed some ad hoc experiments with my trombone section back before my crash, with some very good ears, and what we determined was that almost every modification except bore profile never made it more than the immediate vicinity, in other words, not out to the hall.

I began to think that Schilke's experiments were good for close-in effect only.


Reply #9 - Aug 24th, 2012,

I know next to nothing about trombones, but the slide position is obviously important in achieving the desired note. I say, because someone who is young and a long way from grown or somebody with a short arm and short reach must have some problems reaching the notes in the last position at arm’s length.

A trumpet or cornet is more exact in that there is no slide tuning in actual playing. And yeah, I know that a band master, conductor, likes to get all of his horn sections in tune to his hearing to begin with but once the playing starts I would think trumpet adjustments are ended.

I'd think that a trumpet, cornet, flugal...and other such horns.... would have to be constructed to be to in a narrowly defined performance slot right out of the factory. Even the cheap ones that nobody with any experience would want for various reasons probably find this slot to have any chance of being sold and being replaced in any dealer’s inventory.



Reply #10 - Aug 24th, 2012,

Well, regarding pitch, they are all presumably within the pale and if that is the extent of a person’s inquiry then "design" only needs to be pursued as far as relative tubing lengths. Which is a simple matter.

So many inches of tubing "over all" to achieve the required pitch, then provide the necessary crooks for the valve arrangement. In the case of the valve crooks there is still a certain amount of wizardry going on to achieve correct pitch throughout the scale. Something that is difficult to achieve, or we wouldn't see so many "thumb" and "pinky" rings on the 1st and 3rd valves. But, on that subject, E.A Couturier came very close to creating an "in tune" instrument with his "Conical Bore series. I have an excellent, well-preserved trumpet of his. One of the early models was when he was working closely with the tradespeople and getting them right. There is no need or even the means to adjust the 1st or 3rd valve crook and the thing plays in tune throughout the scale.

So even something as cut and dried as tubing lengths is not as simple as it may seem at first. It is all a very complicated business that I suspect most of us are hardly capable of discussing at length. I know I'm not and really have to keep it simple or I'm out of my depth.

Reply #11 - Aug 24th, 2012,

The problem is that the overtone series itself is "out of tune", so that if you tune to a "pure" intonation (one with minimal harmonic beats) you are adjusting cents off a physical scale... the "well-tempered" scale is only equally-out-of-tune.

One of the first things I had to do was learn to adjust major thirds cents down and minor thirds cents up.

Couturier's continuous conical bore was only a gimmick... and there all adjustments had to be made with embouchure, not tubing length, which did not give optimum resonance.


Reply #12 - Sep 3rd, 2012,

Here is another thought about the geometry of the structure. In those horns with the "balanced" valve block there seems to be different length of tube at least by lead pipe or bell pipe from more "unbalanced" configurations. Why doesn't this alter the exactness of some notes played from one horn to another?

Look at these horns that are all resting on a shelf with the bell down. Notice the Olds Ambassador with the "balanced" block and the Martin Dansant, although a narrower and slightly longer variation also has a “balanced” block center placement. The Olds Super is somewhere between " balanced" and unbalanced. The King Liberty to the far left is the more ...standard.... unbalanced conventional version with the block located nearer the mouthpiece.

Notice how the lead pipe tube length overall , including the slide crook, seems longer on the balanced horns.


Reply #14 - Sep 4th, 2012,

As much as I like chewing the fat, I recommend that you read, read, read. The archives at the Trumpet Herald and Trumpet master forums are invaluable. The internet is a good resource. Our "forte" here is collecting and cataloguing. There has been plenty written on the matter of tubing lengths and only so much can be derived from observation.

If you asked someone which instrument had the longer lead pipe, a typical cornet, or a trumpet, they would probably pick the trumpet, but the cornet lead pipe is often about 6" longer. Visual clues can be misleading. Theory and design are huge, complicated subjects that few musicians would even try to understand. Like pilots and flight theory. Some fall woefully short in the theory department and can still fly well.

I didn't mean to sound discouraging. In fact, I wanted to encourage the general line of inquiry by mentioning these other sites. They have regular members who are designers and builders of brass instruments. These guys, if encouraged to do so, have a lot to say. The archives alone could keep a person busy for ages.

As far as the distribution of tubing length fore and aft of the valve block, an average modern trumpet has around 24 inches of tubing before the valves (balanced or otherwise), but the lead pipe portion comprises only 10 to twelve inches. The remainder just goes toward filling out the average length. And it is only an average length because the form of the bell makes up the final accounting and this differs on most horns. There are some very good explanations of this on the net. That's why when you measure a dozen or so old horns, they are all a little different length. These are modern horns, or instruments made after the late 1800's. I consider most of these instruments to be modern. But back in the day, the real trumpets as opposed to the various horns and cornetti around, had no lead pipe whatever. They were simply the length of tubing with a flared bell at one end. The mouthpieces and back bore is all there was in the way of a lead pipe. This has always been the great argument about what constitutes a trumpet as opposed to a horn or cornet. Some classical valved trumpets were made this way right up to the early 1900s. The purists claim that this is in fact what makes a true trumpet with the sound and tone that was known back in the Orchestras in Beethoven and Haydn’s time.

But tastes and styles have changed and all instruments these days have internally tapered lead pipes of one fashion or another. These lead pipes are in fact where most of what wizardry there is goes on. Everybody has their own formula and opinion on this. Trumpeters these days are often trading out stock lead pipes for aftermarket pieces. I guess what I'm really trying to say in a roundabout way is that balanced business is only there to "balance" the horn physically, to make it easier to handle during long sessions. It has no effect on the sound of the instrument or the distribution of waves and nodes.


Reply #19 - Sep 4th, 2012,

A quick summary of some of the measurements I did a long time ago.

Instrument Bore % of horn before valves % conical

Fischer Trumpet .500 40 41

Keefer Trumpet .500 47 45

Cavalier Cornet .500 35 40

Olds Cornet .500 54 41

Wurlitzer Altohorn .500 9 73

Lauther Civil War Vintage tenor saxhorn .531 18 72

King Sousaphone .703 17 80

I quit building that table after it quickly became apparent that there was no pattern developing.

But, I bring it up at this stage because although I do believe there is some science lurking in the construction of instruments, as clearly some instruments do play with better intonation than others, etc., I do not find any evidence that the % of conical tubing, the position of the valves or the manner in which the tubing is bent or braced; has anything more than incidental effect on the performance of the instrument.

But then, I don't sell new instruments, so I don't have to posture as to why my instrument plays better than the next guys.


Reply #20 - Sep 5th, 2012

There is probably a formula for total horn tube length related to tube diameter and metal density with added formula for slide geometry and what the keys being utilized do to the path of the vibration of that causes the sound or the feedback to the mouthpiece and the part it plays. Where the keys are and how they relate to the rest of it has to matter. Or is this astrophysics or organic chemistry?

Up until at least the last couple of decades trumpets weren't constructed by computer model. Somebody with some mechanical ability and some formula constructed them. And... it wasn't done by a guy who could have been Einsteins twin brother either.


Reply #21 - Sep 5th, 2012,

Let me ask you this. Are you more interested in the auditory feedback you get as a player of an instrument, or are you interested in the sound heard by an audience? These are two fundamentally difference areas of inquiry. And will probably lead to very different experiments, matters of science and conclusions.

Reply #22 - Sep 5th, 2012,

My take on this is that design is so complex and the variables so interrelated that I would be surprised if anyone has gone very far from the theoretical level in this area. It is much easier to do ad-hoc experiments and work back through inference than construct a physical model that works... sort of like predicting the weather: narrow probabilities of observed events with some theoretical guidance.

And through my own experiments, local and house acoustics are very different animals.


Reply #23 - Sep 5th, 2012,

I am not particularly interested in this inquiry with whatever the difference is between what a player hears and what an audience hears when he plays. I'm just interested in what kind of rules a maker may have in mind when making an instrument that will play in a standard recognizable way.

There is a guy named Benoit Glazer that seems to be well versed in modern trumpet design.

He starts out saying at his site:

Quote:

I have been thinking about trumpet design for many years. There are a few things about traditional designs that have always bothered me, and I believe I have solved most of them.

First, let me remind you of some laws of physics that apply to us.

Sound travels at a constant velocity in a constant medium. And even though sound velocity is faster in a flared brass instrument than it is in the open air at sea level, that velocity is still affected by air density and sharp bends in a similar way than it would be in open air. A change in the medium’s density changes the velocity, and a change in velocity is a change in pitch. That presents a few problems regarding the sound that travels through the air column of a brass instrument.

I don't know if he knows what he is talking about or not.... but what I'm interested in knowing more about is along the lines of what he is saying about his designs.

I'd think, even in my own admitted ignorance, that a trumpet would be designed with a set of mathematical equations that may include such things as lengths, diameters, tapers, metal properties, path bends, etc., with values that can be adjusted if the equation is balanced.

Say you use one set of scientific principles to make the horn sound best to the player, another set of scientific principles to make the horn sound best to the audience, another set of principles to make the trumpet sound more cornet like, another set of principles to make the horn easier to play, another set of principles to make the instrument more affordable to manufacture, etc.

And all of that ignores the issue that even if you rely on that much science, there is still a disconnect. Science can only tell you measurable findings. It can't tell you which are the good findings and the not so good findings. The assertions of quality are not made by science.


Reply #25 - Sep 5th, 2012

Certainly, there are actual tone differences between a cornet and a trumpet and a flugelhorn and whatever else uses the same valve/key movements to play the same notes. And there certainly are actual sound differences between like instruments within a descriptive class when made with only a general purpose in mind. And makers with skill seek after adjusting their products to produce a desired effect. Yet.... There must be a set of parameters that make a trumpet a trumpet and a cornet a cornet that do not require that all trumpets or all cornets look alike. And ...they don't look alike as we know as we are interested in "obscure, Antique and Out-of Production Brass Instruments".


Reply #26 - Sep 5th, 2012,

There are differences between a true trumpet, a modern trumpet, a cornet, a fluglehorn, etc.

And there are differences between a tenor horn, a baritone, a euphonium, a tenor tuba, etc.

BUT there no clear dividing lines between each category.

And you can make a baritone sound more euphonium like, by changing mouthpieces. And I suspect a mouthpiece change on a cornet might make it sound more fluglehorn like.


Reply #27 - Sep 5th, 2012

http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures

This is worth watching, I'm sure some have seen this series of lectures but for anyone who hasn't they are great fun, and he makes it interesting. One point he makes is that it's not only the mouthpiece and the instrument, but also the mouthpiece and the player that makes the difference. Mouthpieces are funny things. Only certain brass has them. As we know the Sax doesn't. Mouthpieces bring some interesting things to an instrument but also raise some difficult issues.


Reply #28 - Sep 6th, 2012,

As Kenton said, there "are" theoretically different parameters that guide the design of this class but on close inspection of many examples of each these guidelines are known to be blurred and indefinite. The cornet is supposed to be more conical than the trumpet. Because there is generally more length of tubing before the valves, the bells, and stems flare more rapidly than on a trumpet.

Within the same pitch, the length of tubing on all the crooks is the same or very close. Flugels shouldn't be included in any comparison of trumpets and cornets as they belong to a radically different branch of the family. The modern flugel is often a soprano saxhorn. The original flugels are scarcely seen today. The French call them Bugles and the Italians the Soprano Flicorno. There is clearly as much confusion in this family of instruments as there is between the trumpet and cornet. At one level, the business of design and the instruments themselves represent more a matter of "intent" than anything else. The slight variations in detail, the different mouthpieces and shanks, the expectations of the players and audience and the differing styles of music all go together to maintain this supposed divide between the two. The complaint for many years in the mid-20th century was that the cornet was being designed to sound more and more like a trumpet and from the trumpet school, the trumpets were beginning to sound more and more like cornets. In fact, both instruments were bowing to public taste and musical fashion and were usually merging with one another. There is a joke that says, "in the battle between the trumpet and the cornet, the cornet won." Trumpet players hate that sort of talk, but in fact, neither won. Both instruments have evolved along the same lines.

If we look at an old Boston 5 star or a Lyon & Healy "Own Make" or just about any cornet made up until the early part of the 20th century, we will find a completely different instrument than a trumpet. They can hardly be made to sound alike regardless of mouthpiece selection. This isn't the case today. You can put a Rudy Muck 17C on a modern Selmer cornet and the same piece on a Bach clone trumpet and I don't think many untrained people could tell the diff. Different shanks, lengths and backbores. Then put say Bach 3Cs on both and they are just sound warmer, more mellow but pretty much the same. Get out an old cornet from before WWI and it won't matter what mouthpiece you put on it, it will not sound like a trumpet.

So what in modern design has brought all this to pass? I believe it's a matter of compromise in both designs. People wanted more projection from the cornet but they also wanted the "Fat" sound on a trumpet so there it is. Basically, the same instruments. Different wrap.

Certain modern boutique makers are putting the cornet back into its corner and making more of a proper little horn out of it than it has been for the last 50 years. Cornet - little horn as in "horn". Whereas the name "trumpet" harkens back to the brazen yards of the renaissance courts. Blaring and shamelessly "out of tune" with the orchestra. Made in small batches to ensure an average pitch, which even then required small crooks to bring them together.


Reply #29 - Sep 6th, 2012,

That's one man’s opinion. Given a fair listening test of both hypothetical horns played one after the other I don't see how anybody with any sensibility at all could tell the difference. Maybe the mouthpiece shank for a trumpet is different from that of a cornet for a reason.

One of the questions that occurred to me, is whether the effect of the conical and cylindrical portions of the horn are dependent on the way they are laid out, or whether it is just the cumulative effect of it all.

Some horns are conical until they get to the valve section and are then cylindrical and then return to conical the rest of the way to the bell. Some trombones are stepped in that they are conical until they get into the first inner tube where they are cylindrical, then are conical in the slide bow and then return to cylindrical in the second inner tube and then are conical after the slide. Some horns make this progression with relatively narrow bore profiles, and some do so with much wider profiles.

And is there a relationship between horns that have a good pedal tone and the accuracy of the 5th harmonic?


Reply #32 - Sep 7th, 2012,

I got a reply from Benoit Glazer. I wanted him to see this string...but forgot that since he isn't a member he couldn't. He did reply to my asking him about design formula:

Quote:

Hi Robert,

I like your question.

My short answer is:

The most important aspect of trumpet (cornet) design is the tapers, or the shape of the air column that is used to make the instrument sound.

Most of the differences that can be seen (wrap styles, valve styles, etc.) have very little effect on the sound. When they do, it is not always what one imagined...as I found out with my own design tribulations.

If you look at the last 100 years of cornet design, for example, aside from bore size (smaller in 1896 than it is today, generally), the tapers are actually very, very similar. Even Monette instruments, while being different looking, are very similar. He plays a lot with faster tapers, but so do other makers...The one notable difference with Monette is the fact that he cuts off the end of the mouthpiece shank and does away with the annulus (gap) after the mouthpiece receiver. Although this is a slight difference in design, in my opinion, it is not an improvement on traditional design, quite the opposite...but some people like the sound they make, and having a wide variety of choices is always a good thing.

I have a Conn cornet from 1896, and while it is in C, it plays much like you would expect a cornet to play. The major difference in design in that case is the valve block design (which is why I bought it), and it turns out it does not really alter the sound or playability much at all.

The other thing that is different, if left unfixed (like mine) is that valves that old leak a lot, and that has an important effect on the feel of the horn, in a negative way.

I have given up maintaining the patent I have because the few modifications that were applied to some horn, I had built would have required a complete re-design of the air column, and I simply cannot afford it.

I found out that much wider bends tend to darken the sound a bit, and so to get the desired sound, I would need a slower rate of taper of the conical parts of the horn, possibly (but not necessarily) coupled with a smaller bore size.

But aside from a small possible gain in efficiency, the result would not be improved enough to justify spending 6 figures on a single instrument...

Of course, I could be wrong.

Reply #33 - Sep 8th, 2012,

I asked him about how cornets can be designed with the lead pipe connecting to various valves and still produce the same sound.

Quote:

Hi Robert,

The lead pipe leading into the third of first valve does not change much because it is the length of each slide that determines the pitch of each piston combination.

What does change, usually, is the way the instrument is put together, mainly the taper rates. This is the basic difference between German trumpets (cornets) and American (French) proportioned instruments.

So, if you have a very short lead pipe leading straight into the first valve, your bore size is likely to be much smaller through the block, and most of the taper will happen in the bell.

But if you keep the basic proportions, leading into the first valve will not change much at all, except that you may end up with very different wrap styles, which, as my personal research has shown, does change the blow and the sound of the instrument somewhat.

The great thing about the turn of the century is that designers were not afraid to try new things.

My recent conclusion has been that the evolution of design went in the right direction, and that modern design is by and large a better one than the forgotten ones. It is however always worth studying the different designs to check that something did not fall through the cracks, either because it was badly built, or because it was squashed under massive marketing...


Reply #34 - Sep 8th, 2012,

I never really thought about it before, but though there are a few cornets and trumpets that have short lead pipes that lead directly into the valve engine on the 1st valve slide - fluglehorn style; There are few, if any, where the lead pipe goes past the valve engine and then loops back to go into the 1st valve.

I suppose that is because it would be more difficult to loop the tubing after leaving the 3rd valve to position the bell in the expected location.


Reply #37 - Sep 9th, 2012,



Yeah, it is hard to figure what advantage this design was trying to capture.

I'm not sure it was an "advantage"...

Buescher had patented the "Z"-type mouth pipe with provisions for H/LP, key, and tuning in 1906. (826473)

This may just be a way around that.


Reply #38 - Sep 9th, 2012,

Quote:

Yeah, it is hard to figure what advantage this design was trying to capture.

That Conn has a compensating tube between the first and third valve so maybe there just wasn't enough room on the first and third.



Quote:

So, what is relevant?

Several factors contribute to the feel of a bore, such as valve alignment or mouthpiece gap. In my own experience, the wrap, that is the shape of the instrument, and especially the main tuning slide, has a lot to do with it. The diameter of the bell seems to be involved as well.


Reply #42 - Sep 14th, 2012

All of that is interesting to read. She is speaking to the mystery we probably all are intrigued by as far as the way one horn is different from another in how it performs and sounds. It's all in the mouthpiece and how it matches with the horn this woman seems to be saying .... after acknowledging a lot of other things that go into the equation. “The feel of the bore" is the important subject to her in this group of essays. I guess I'm still looking for some better understanding of general form over the observation of performance application




Reply #30 - May 27th, 2008

Well, here is another opinion (found on eBay) on the difference between the cornet and the trumpet. I thought I would share. [Describing what we have called a long cornet.]

"This is a short Trumpet. Cornet lead pipes go to the first valve, (closest to the mouthpiece) and the bell pipe exits on the third valve. Trumpets are opposite."


Reply #31 - May 27th, 2008,

I like this one, found on one of the trumpet forums (trumpetmaster) recently, best of all:

"The best way I know to describe the difference between playing trumpet and playing cornet:

Playing trumpet is like having sex.

Playing cornet is like making love."

Now, can we explain why organologically?


Reply #32 - May 27th, 2008,

Makes one wonder why anyone would trade in their cornet for a trumpet, doesn't it?


Reply #35 - Jul 22nd, 2008,

Over at another forum (Trumpet Herald) there was a discussion about shepherd's crooks, and it of course came up that our colleagues across the "pond" don't use that term when describing a cornet - there are just cornets and trumpets. This is certainly nothing new, but what was new to me was that they refer to American long-model cornets at "mezzo-trumpets". What an interesting term! Perhaps one we should consider for our cornet/trumpet thesaurus.


Reply #37 - Jul 22nd, 2008,

With all the various permutations of cornet wrap designs another comes to mind. The Holton Clarke models with their preloop construction.


Reply #38 - Jul 22nd, 2008,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it refers to the meeting of trumpets and cornets at a bore profile in the middle... corpets!

OLDLOU wrote on Jul 22nd, 2008, at 7:01pm:

With all the various permutations of cornet wrap designs another comes to mind. The Holton Clarke models with their preloop construction, along with the Holton New Proportion Couturier models, and others by other manufacturers...


Alto Voices

Sep 25th, 2005,

Sep 25th, 2005,

Here we go- the US-For example: take the French horn, F contralto trumpet, F contra-alto trumpet, and F alto trombone. All these horns are in the same pitch, and therefore play in the same register, and music for them is interchangeable. Right?

Dead wrong!

These are four very different instruments. The French horn has perhaps the greatest range in triple form (Bb tenor, F alto, Bb descant), the F contralto trumpet has a much smaller usable range that spans from bass C# to C above middle C, the F contra-alto trumpet plays music in the same range as the Bb trumpet, and the alto trombone's usable range is the same as the tenor trombone's high range.

The thing is, despite the appearance of shared range, these instruments, though all in alto F, are anything but equal in what we might be tempted to dismiss as being a single common shared range and register.


Only one comment to add to this very interesting discussion. In triple configuration, a French horn is usually F basso (12' tube), Bb alto (tenor - 9' tube) and f alto (sometimes Eb alto - about 6' tube). Our designation of basso, alto or soprano is not related to the discussion in this thread but has more to do with the various transpositions we do and the relationship to the F horn (basso) which is considered the "home" instrument key. Oh, and the range is the same whether you're using a single F horn, single Bb, standard double (F/Bb), Bb/f alto descant, Bb/bb soprano descant (well, maybe you get a few more notes with this one, but you also gain a big hole in your low register!) or a F/Bb/f (or eb) triple. Check out the Vienna Phil on their single F Pupenhorns!

OK - two comments. I'd love to see a similar discussion about the alto voice instruments here. especially the ones no longer being made (altophone, etc.)



Okay, this is a perfect example of why we needed someone who knows "French" horns!

The altophone just plays like a good quality mellophone. They often have some intonation issues, but the tone is pretty much the same.

The vocal horn is pretty much like a frumpet, except that the frumpet is F, the vocal horn is C. Both are played using a "French" horn mouthpiece. You can get pretty much the same disgusting, vile tone by playing an Eb tenor (alto) horn with a "French" horn mouthpiece and adaptor.

The C/Bb cornophone is an exception. It, too, is played using a "French" horn mouthpiece, but has a very nice sound, like an old-fashioned cornet, the type conical and steep-sloped enough to get a good, true fundamental.

The C bass (but really a tenor instrument) ballad horn sounds close to a low C mellophone.

The F Koenig horn sounds like a dark but high-quality mellophone.

The althorns, which look like rotary-valve right- or left-handed mellophones, sound like a dark, velvety mellophone. This is the horn the Hindemith alto horn sonata was written for. These horns are of higher quality than mellophones and are pro-quality horns.

The tenor cor is essentially a low-F cornet with a smallish mellophone bell. This is my preferred instrument. Unlike regular mellophones, the tenor cor has a narrow throat, small 10" bell, perfect intonation, bright, crisp tone, doesn't flatten out in the high range, good consistent tone free of nodes. Doesn't blare like a mellophone, is free of that "old-fashioned" hollow, grainy sound. Produces good in-tune usable pedals.

The valved furst pleiss (post) horn sounds like a cornet. A few companies like Dotzauer still make them.

The corno da caccia is beginning to make a comeback. It's like the "French" horn, except that its range is generally higher, and it is played using a mouthpiece similar to a cornet. The Thein Bb corno da caccia sounds like a descant althorn. The Guttler corno da caccia sounds more like the old F or Eb alto cornets, which unfortunately are now extinct.

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Guttler-Ludwig.htm


Reply #2 - Sep 26th, 2005,

That's interesting. As I may have mentioned, my interest in the mellophone arose out of finding something to double with French horn that had a similar sound but with more focus and immediacy. After playing around with both the classic and marching versions of the mellophone, I've pretty much decided that I'll have to have something built for me and from your descriptions, it'll probably have to be either some sort of althorn or a tenor cor. The only thing is, it has to be bell-front or I'll have many of the same issues all over again.

I'm kind of stuck on the mellophone because of the historical relationship with African-American brass players and early jazz/ragtime music, though.

I did talk to one trumpet builder about making me an instrument (Taylorphone? heh.) and the changes he suggested would have basically turned the mellophone inspired instrument into a tenor cor.

Anyway, thanks for the rundown.


Reply #3 - Sep 27th, 2005,

The tenor cor, in my opinion, Mark, is the pick of the bunch for this reason:

Many years ago, when I was recording at Little Mountain Sound at 201 W 7th in Vancouver, British Columbia, I learned a thing. I was hired to play a piano part I'd written for some pop tunes. The piano in question was a Howard, which, if memory serves, was a sub-make of Baldwin, made in Japan after the company got sold (or something close to that). To my dismay, when I sat down and played, the piano made this godawful clanking noise. I checked under the hood to find out what that engine-knock noise was and discovered that the hammers had all been filed down, almost to nothing, so that they were as hard as bullets.

I said something intelligent, like "What the %# is <I><s>[i]</s>this<e>[/i]</e></I>?" Lindsey Kidd, the producer, told me to ignore what I was hearing acoustically, and to just listen through the headphones. On went the headphones, and hey, presto! it sounded just like a normal piano again.

As Lindsey explained it to me, the rule of acoustics and recording is to go for bright, no matter how painful the audible sound, because when it comes to running the sound through electronics, you can't add what isn't already there. If you don't have top end at the beginning, ain't no way you can get it in the end. You need just enough lows to be audible- you can bring those up later, and reduce the highs with e.q., graphic e.g., and so on. And in the natural process of recording, you lose some brightness, and the way you compensate is to add it artificially- hence the filed-down hammers.

I apply this same rule to the mellophone family of instruments, and for recording purposes, the tenor cors are the brightest, crispest, most in-tune, no blaring nodes, good even timbre in all ranges, good functional pedals, etc. Plus, if you want dark, you just switch to a deeper cup.

Tenor cors are essentially a cornet with a mellophone bell. My favorite tenor cors are the Huttl's, and for mellophone instruments they have a smallish bell, exactly 10".

A bell-forward instrument you may want to check out is the Holton, which is still made.

I forgot the exact model number, but it's on the site somewhere.

What you may want is a hybrid like this one, but with a different shape. The only negative I can think of with the bell-forward models is the bell getting in the way of reading. For that reason, I think the Elliot model was probably the best.

I mention the Holton design because I've found through long trial and error that the more cylindrical tubing you have, the richer and more resonant the horn is. Those hollow, grainy, node-ey horns are all more conical, and always have a much wider bell throat.

Generally, with F, Eb, D, C mellophones, the basic F horn is a very conical instrument with only a short cylindrical tuning slide, but as you add tubing, you're adding cylindrical tubing, and as the horn gains this cylindrical tubing, the tone invariably improves. The worst junk horn will make a pretty good Bb horn if you make a longer set of slides for it, and what starts out as a good F horn will make an excellent C or Bb horn (you replace the receiver and play it with a small-shank trombone/baritone/euphonium mouthpiece).

In the case of the Holton, you've got an F horn that already has a long section of cylindrical tubing, which probably accounts for the good press it gets.


Reply #4 - Sep 27th, 2005,

My bell front horn is a Holton, but an older model which is wrapped quite differently. In fact, I think Holton calls the horn you're talking about a marching French horn even though it needs an adapter to use a fr. horn mpc.

Anyway, my Holton has an 11" bell and, depending on the mpc and how I'm playing, can sound like a flugel (imagine that stereotypical jazz ballad flugel sound) or somewhat more like a "French" horn. Some of that is my sound concept, though.

I think it's cylindrical as well. Which, according to what you've just told me, could account for the surprising performance. I wasn't expecting much when I bought it, to be honest. I'd make the bell a bit smaller and the throat a bit larger (more like a flugel bell).




Reply #5 - Sep 27th, 2005,

H'm. I wish I could spare one of my Huttl's. They have a 10" bell, and I think you'd like their sound and performance. That said, you want a bell-forward instrument.

The Huttl's are the only mellos I know of that somehow get away with having very little cylindrical tubing, but still retain good tone, intonation, etc.. I put it down to a combination of the small bell plus the narrow bell throat.


Reply #7 - Sep 27th, 2005,

Both of those are an earlier incarnation of the Huttl company, so I don't have any idea what they're like. They may play just like mine, but they're different, so I don't know if they play the same. Much wider tuning slide, for one thing. The bell engraving is different.


Reply #8 - Sep 27th, 2005,

Jeff Stockham suggested I look for a solo alto. Even played a bit for me over the phone. It sounded sort of like you're describing the tenor cor, but I know these are rare. Aren't they?


Reply #9 - Sep 27th, 2005,

Yeah, the dang things have become rare. There were some nice ones around, like the old King's. York & Sons made a good one, too. Both were WWI vintage.

There are marching altos these days, though. Kanstul makes a marching alto in F- their model # 275, but I've no idea how good a horn it is. I'm wary of Kanstul products because their 4-valve Eb tenor horn was billed as a pro instrument, but by all accounts, it was a real dog with inferior valves. They do make some very good instruments, but based on that experience I wouldn't buy anything from them sight unseen (or lip untried).


Reply #10 - Sep 27th, 2005,

I believe he does own such a horn. He owns lots of old brass instruments and was horn-sitting Howard Johnson's mellophone when I started looking into all this. I know him from Thelonius Monk Jr.'s big band where he was playing horn and trumpet. I forget the name of the civil war era cornet band he plays with, but if I find/remember it I'll post it here.


Reply #12 - Oct 4th, 2005,

I have a brass London Besson bell-up circular alto (1890-1894) very much like the Keefer link you posted, but not nearly in as nice a shape. If there's any interest, I could dig it out, check the key, and maybe send pictures to Kenton. I just always assumed it was Eb.


Reply #15 - Oct 6th, 2005,

I took my King Alto to practice, only once, knowing it was in Eb and I could handle the transposing. What a shock to find it was in F. I stick to Bb Euphoniums and Baritones now.


Reply #16 - Oct 9th, 2005,

Reminds me of trying to quickly put my Buescher Mellophone in C for a tune someone brought into rehearsal. I "knew" what key it was in, but had never really played it in C. What a joke, couldn't figure out where anything was.


Reply #20 - Jul 13th, 2006,

Well, a Horn player trick that might work is to put a hand-hammered bell on an existing mello. I remember reading about some research they did at Lawson Horns where they discovered that (at least for French horn) changing the bell flare alone did more to change the sound (and certain playing characteristics) of the instrument than changing any other section.

I thought about getting Edwards to put one of their bass 'bone bells on my Holton...

IN fact, I've been wondering about that for a while. Seems to me if you took a pretty decent mello and put a pro quality/custom made lead pipe and/or bell on the thing, shouldn't you be able to raise the overall level of the instrument to near pro status? I mean, an F mello is short and as long as there are no real taper problems in the first branch and the valves are good, the playing characteristics should be mostly controlled by the lead pipe and bell (and mouthpiece, of course). Or am I WAY off on this?


Reply #22 - Jul 13th, 2006,

Although I don't know for sure, don't they now make 3 valve "bugles" in bell-front alto and tenor G? Seems like that might be a good place to start...

Cornfused

Reply #39 - May 8th, 2008,

Last week I got so irked with my Blessing mello's flatness that I dismembered a facsimile Civil War bugle, sawing off the bell section, and then shoved the bugle bell into the Blessing bell.

To keep it in place and separate it from the monster bell flare of the Blessing, I used three big wads of Plasti-Tak.

The horn now plays in tune!!!!! It does look funny, but big deal!

How's that for beginner's luck?


Reply #40 - May 8th, 2008,

My first question is what made to decide to try this 'fix'?

But, if I understand correctly what you did, you have a bell inside a bell.

I have an old Conn 16E mellophonium, that at some time past its bell had been crinkled about 12in back, and someone scrapped another 16E and used that portion of the scrapped horn's bell to reinforce the inside and then soldered it in place.

And, oddly enough, it responds better that way than other 16E's.


Reply #41 - May 8th, 2008,

I'd already gotten a better mouthpiece, which did help some, and I just thought a differently shaped bell might help (but didn't want to "operate" on the bell by altering it for real. Just a brainstorm kind of thing.


Reply #42 - Sep 23rd, 2008,

Though I am somewhat in awe of the assembled knowledge here, I may have something to add. I have a 1895 Conn alto that I consider absolutely wonderful but I don't play it much because of its baritone conformation and key that clashes with a lot of tunes. But it got me interested in alto voices and mellophones. I had several older, traditional wrap mellos, from 1900-1925--Holton, CG Conn, and another I already forgot, trying to find one I liked. They all had limited useful range--not much more than an octave-- and increasingly awful intonation outside that range. After those came a pristine Conn 16E. Gorgeous sound to about c above middle, but bad intonation setting in shortly after that. I tried both crooks and I don't recall either of them being better than the other re intonation, though I played it mostly in F because the horn would not fit in the case with the E flat crook installed. It was also nose heavy and tiring to play, and as a practical horn, would have been prone to more damage than more compact horns. As impressive as it looked, I sold it and got a King 1120 Marching mellophone. It was better than the 16E but still suffered intonation from G above the staff. I sold that and then got a DEG Dynasty, and have played it, and enjoyed it a lot about 4 years now in a jazz band in tunes that are outside a good range for either trumpet or trombone. Good valves, built like a tank for bugle corps road trips, and good (enough) intonation from low A to B above the staff. I got a stock DEG mpc (#6 I think) which is quite close to a trumpet mpc in size. The hardest thing about it is to not treat it like a trumpet or trombone. It has its own voice. On some songs demanding a low register, I use the alto mouthpiece from the Conn, a Yamaha 37C I think, (same shank, but a little shorter) which fattens up, enlarges, enriches, and mellows the bottom end, while cutting 3 or 4 notes on the top. So the two mpcs can yield two distinctly different voices which I can use to match certain song flavors. It can be quite confusing to switch from trumpet after several trumpet pieces to the mello if the new song's range doesn't clearly inform me of what range I'm in with the mello; I find it hard to figure out where I am get "lost a 5th out" somewhere in a passage that shouldn't be that difficult. I am now looking for a cornet to add another timbre set and play off against the trumpet voice in the same register. But I was intrigued by the idea above of grafting on a mello (or trombone) bell to the cornet to get it more mellow and darker yet. I would like to try out the other marching mellos of Olds and Holton, but don't feel any need to find something better than the DEG. I have heard that Bach is nobody's favorite. I don't find it hard to transpose from B flat to F, but it is much harder to go to E flat for some reason. Glad I came upon this thread.


rotary trumpets/cornets

Dec 3rd, 2008,

Any thoughts regarding a distinction being made between tuning shank (a la flugel horn) and tuning slide rotary instruments? the former a cornet and the latter a trumpet perhaps?


Reply #1 - Dec 3rd, 2008,

My thought is that it's the bore profile AFTER the valves that determines the name, witness your own example: the flugelhorn wrap.

Cylindrical tuning and yet a thoroughly conical instrument.


Reply #3 - Dec 3rd, 2008,

It seems that only the euphonium/baritones use the placement of the tuning slide (pre/post valves) as an indication of identification. Tubas don't seem to make a distinction on that basis.

I can't think of any trumpets or cornets that tune post valves, but maybe there are some.

But whether the pre valve tuning is in a mouthpipe slide, or a tuning slide that is cylindrical, it would seem to be the same difference, other than whether the mouthpiece moves, or the slide changes the length.

Although, I suppose the argument could be made that the mouthpipe allows for tuning with less cylindrical length.


Reply #2 - Dec 3rd, 2008,

True, I was just wondering if placement of the tuning slide might play a more significant role in the taxonomy. Add slides and you add cylindricalness to the equation. (a stocking-ed slide arrangement - internally tapered/externally cylindrical - would be impractical for production in my opinion) Certainly, long bell tails can be significantly cylindrical as well.



Reply #4 - Feb 11th, 2009,

How, then do we classify all those trumpet and cornet designs that utilize a "tunable bell"? I had a Martin Cornet that had its tuning slide post 1st valve in the bell tail. One of my friends has a luxury grade British trumpet that is a virtual clone of my old Martin. Many trumpet designs over the last 100 years used a sliding bell for tuning.



Where are the dividing lines re. classification?

Nov 5th, 2007,

A couple of questions from a totally bumfuzzled brass-player-wanna-be with a (useless) Master's in flute(s):

I understand why same-named brass instruments for sale can have widely differing dimensions, bell sizes, etc. -- brass, unlike wood, is infinitely variable and subject to any maker's whim. However, I'm bewildered by advertisements for "trumpets" with larger bores than some alto horns, "flugelhorns" that vary internally so much that they could hardly sound like "the same instruments" -- etc.

General question -- ARE there any generally accepted "borders" between say, trumpets and cornets, cornets and flugelhorns, etc.?

And in particular -- what, if anything, would keep a "real" cornet from sounding like a soprano saxhorn? If there really isn't a notable difference, except for shape, then an Eb alto horn ought to sound like the now-obsolete Eb alto cornet -- the instrument I'd really like to get. But does it???


Reply #1 - Nov 5th, 2007,

If it quacks like a duck. . . "Generally accepted", no but it is a lot of fun arguing about.

For all practical purposes, there are no modern trumpets out there, just modified cornets. Often the name of the instrument comes from the way it is wrapped, not a characteristic tubing profile.

So, there are general middle of the road instruments that can be called by a certain, but as they push into the dimensions of the next, it becomes much less clear.


Reply #2 - Nov 5th, 2007,

I think it depends on the usage, and the key.

Bore profiles are very free now, so for all practical purposes definitions have become pretty much useless, with the possible exception of the British Brass Band.

Regardless of bore profile, contrabass tubas have always known as tubas. American sopranos are mostly known as trumpets now, regardless of shape or heritage, whereas they used to be separated into three distinct families.

To answer your question, it doesn't depend on bore size, or mouthpiece size and cross section, any more than it does tone quality.

To put it another way, does it matter if a flute is gold or platinum, or even conical bore and wood, really, if the upper harmonics are less prominent?

There is often not much difference between a carefully made British "tenor horn", and the solo altos of the 19th century in sound, even if there are practical differences in the placement of the valves in the over-all horn (and therefore bore as measured at the valve slides). The greatest difference in sound probably lies in the contemporary mouthpieces that are used.

Re: Instrument Design
Turn of the 20c. trumpet makers

Jan 30th, 2008,

Can anybody tell me who was making trumpets at the beginning of the twentieth century with straight lead pipes? That is lead pipes which were not tapered but cylindrical.


Reply #1 - Jan 30th, 2008,

I'm not aware of any by then that would have no conical tubing. The bell also became more conical as time went on.


Reply #3 - Jan 31st, 2008,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. I should have posted the question when I had more time to give more details.

I have an essay from the 1930s which describes the trumpet as being (or should be) cylindrical from the beginning of the mouthpipe to the beginning of the bell. I was just wondering who if anybody (American maker) produced such an instrument at the beginning of the 20c.


Reply #4 - Jan 31st, 2008,

The essay is describing the 'true' trumpet. Herbert Clarke described it as an instrument not suitable for solo work. And, it was not a popular or common instrument, but was rather used for fanfare and orchestral work. The cornet had been the dominant soprano voice, from the first days of valved instruments.

But eventually the makers started experimenting with long cornets and trumpet shaped cornets and hybrid trumpet/cornets. And the hybrid won the battle.


Reply #5 - Jan 31st, 2008,

Hence my question, who produced such an instrument?


Reply #6 - Jan 31st, 2008,

I've been told that the lead pipe on my 1927 Conn 22B "New York Symphony" model is cylindrical, but I've never really tried to check it. It certainly looks that way on the outside, though.


Reply #7 - Jan 31st, 2008,

Yes, I too have seen many early instruments which externally appear to have cylindrica lead pipes. But to what extent are they cylindrical on the inside? Can you give us a look and get back to us on that?

Let us know how you did it as well. Offhand I'm not sure how you'd confirm this short of shoving something up the lead pipe from the tuning slide end and seeing if it gets stuck short of the receiver. You could simply look from that end I suppose, but it may be deceiving given the optical taper of parallel lines over a distance (i.e., vanishing point - Thank you Brunelleschi!).


Reply #10 - Jan 31st,

The 1907 Distin catalog has a trumpet listed and at least is making the case that it is different than a cornet. Whether it was a true trumpet, I don't know.

The 1880 Buesch and Dodworth catalog didn't offer any trumpets.

The Buescher 1909 Catalog Belated lists one trumpet.

The Pepper ads don't show any trumpets.

Trumpets showed up in the Sears catalog in 1908.

My sense is that if you wanted a trumpet before the turn of the Century, you probably had to look to European makers.




Reply #11 - Feb 3rd, 2008,

Quote:

...Yes, I too have seen many early instruments which externally appear to have cylindrica lead pipes. But to what extent are they cylindrical on the inside? Can you give us a look and get back to us on that?...

The Conn has an internally tapered lead pipe. It looks cylindrical on the outside, but the inside tapers from the mouthpiece receiver to somewhere about 3 inches past the end of the mouthpiece. It then appears to be cylindrical, or at least much less conical from there to the tuning slide receiver. I checked this by inserting a metal gun-cleaning rod with a patch holder (no patch) on the end into the tuning slide end of the lead pipe. It fit the end of the lead pipe with a tiny bit of slop and maintained that slop for a couple of inches. It then became progressively tighter. Anyway, so much for the “scientific" method.... Bottom line, it has a conical lead pipe.




Reply #12 - Feb 12th, 2008,

I own a Bb trumpet that has no conical tubing in the lead pipe whatsoever.

It was made by the Mahillon Co. in Bressels Belgium, and it truly is a unique trumpet. The mouthpiece receiver is soldered to the lead pipe, and at that point the bore is .395 inch, and this diameter is maintained throughout the instrument until the final bell turn where it begins a slow taper that eventually forms the bell.

I can't verify when the instrument was made as there is no serial number on it. In fact, there are no numbers on the instrument anywhere, inside, or out, not even 1, 2, 3 on the valve casings! The only way to know which valve goes in which casing is a small file mark on the lower part of the valve stem (below the cap); 1 file mark on the first piston, two on the second and so on. This instrument therefore is an actual trumpet, not a cornet or soprano valved trombone like nearly all modern "trumpets" are. It's timbre is unusual to say the least; very bright, yet velvety, but not as stuffy as one would think, and not much volume due to the very narrow bore and smallish bell diameter. I've recently posted a photo of this instrument in the Mahillon section of the site.

Trumpet Dominance

Mar 14th, 2005,

For much of the history of valved instruments, the cornet dominated. But sometime in the 20th century, the modern trumpet overtook the cornet as the premier soprano voice.

But just when did the trumpet overtake the cornet?


Reply #1 - Mar 14th, 2005,

The answer is that the cornet overtook the cornet, Kenton. The modern instrument we call a trumpet is really a cornet, and it overtook the real trumpet and the cornet over the course of the First World War.

The instrument we today call a trumpet is a cornet that was designed to imitate the sound of a real trumpet.

The real trumpet was, of course, originally a "natural" instrument. It had valves circa 1750. Yes, I know the Weidinger/Haydn story that the keyed trumpet was invented in 1801, just in time to play Haydn's trumpet concerto in Eb. That story is baloney. Music for keyed trumpet dates back as far as 1750, and Weidinger based his instrument on earlier versions. The Weidinger instrument was in a common key, low G if I remember correctly.

The trumpet had valves of various types in the 1820's (disc, rotary, Perinet, Stoelzel, Vienna), and by circa 1828 the modern valved trumpet came into being.

The valved trumpet pitched in low F is still very much with us today. Dotzauer and Egger make very nice instruments.

I'm not sure exactly when the modern thing we call a trumpet was first made, nor do I know who first made it, but I suspect that it was invented in the 1880's. The earliest examples I'm aware are A, Bb and C instruments, and date from the 1880's. If there are earlier versions, I have never seen or heard of one.


Reply #3 - Mar 15th, 2005,

The modern cornet-thingie-that-pretends-to-be-a-trumpet took over during the First World War. It was during the period 1914-1918 that its use became widespread, both in symphony orchestras around the world, and in brass, concert, and jazz bands.

In symphony orchestras it found its voice primarily as the first trumpet and was used to deliver a brighter, more stable sound in the high range.

The reason the key of Bb was chosen was primarily because using the valves gets you down to low E, a semitone below low F, which is the most pervasive key of the contra-alto trumpet.

The modern "trumpet" took a little longer to find favor with popular musicians, but by the end of the 1920's it had pretty much taken over.

The modern "trumpet" generally has the same amount of conical tubing as a regular cornet. Both use conical bore mouthpieces, mouthpiece receivers, lead-pipes, and bell tubing. As Kenton pointed out, the only difference is to be found in the slope of the conical tubing. The cornet is steeper, the imitation-trumpet thing is shallower.

The real trumpet shares much in common with the trombone. In fact, the trombone can trace its taxonomy directly back to the bass trumpet. The word "trombone" means something like "big trumpet", of which it was an off shoot. Both have roughly the same proportions of cylindrical to conical tubing. They share a common type of lead-pipe.


Reply #2 - Mar 15th, 2005,

Well, I thought I'd get away with calling it a modern trumpet, but Greg is still going to nail me on this one!

The point that Greg is making is that the true trumpet - whether with valves or in natural form - was primarily a cylindrical tube that only flared at the end into a bell. This instrument produces a more brilliant sound than the cornet form.

The cornet form contains much more conical tubing and produces a more mellow sound.

The typical cornet starts with a smaller shank mouthpiece/mouthpipe than the modern trumpet and ends with a bell the same size as the trumpet. The modern trumpet is also mostly conical, but it is less pronounced than the cornet.

But the question still stands, when did the modern trumpet overtake the cornet.


Reply #4 - Dec 16th, 2009,

When Louis Armstrong switched from cornet to trumpet, it had a profound influence.


Reply #5 - Jan 1st, 2010

Technically, we really can't say that the trumpet overtook the cornet because the true trumpet came first, and once the cornet arrived it has dominated ever since. As Greg has pointed out, the modern "trumpet" is merely a variant of the cornet which has a timbre resembling a true trumpet; so, we might simply say that as the 20th century began there was a shift in musical taste towards a "brighter" timbre in high brass instruments. The modern trumpet was the result.

In my experience, I have found "timbre" to be a very elusive thing indeed. A well-trained ear is needed to discern the subtle difference between a cornet and a modern trumpet, and it now seems that when a trumpet sounds a little more like a cornet, the listener will usually say something like "what a lovely sounding trumpet". Clearly, the pendulum has swung slightly in the other direction. Still, there are those "screaming" big band lead players out there who will continue to keep the brightest of timbres alive and well.

As to the true trumpet, I own one, and it is not necessarily one of my favorite instruments to play. The absence of any taper in the lead pipe makes the lowest partials a little more difficult to execute, and the tone quality throughout the scale is a bit uneven. However, the upper register is quite bright and very penetrating, and it plays much better up there. The unique timbre is worth the effort when you really want that sound.

Overall, though, I'm really quite content to play the modern trumpet!


Reply #6 - Jan 1st, 2010,

I have long wondered whether the shift from cornet to trumpet was not acoustic, but rather tactile or 'self-image'. That is to say, the player felt different when playing the horn.

For example, the trumpet makes the player hold his hands slightly further away and possibly makes it feel like he is playing with more power.

I have both a conventional alto horn and a solo alto, and although the conventional plays better, nevertheless I will often grab the solo, just because it feels 'cooler'.


Reply #7 - Jan 1st, 2010,

You could possibly be onto something there Kenton. It might also explain why Harry James and Louis Armstrong both preferred the balanced action Selmer Paris trumpet (valves more centered on the trumpet), as it may have facilitated a fuller breath by having their arms extended outward a little further in front of them. Both gentlemen played with a great deal of power!!

Still, the slightly less steep slope of the conical tubing of the modern trumpet coupled with a shallower bowl-shaped cup in the mouthpiece probably contributes more to the difference in power and projection compared to the cornet.

It really depends on what sound one is looking for. A cornet with a shallow bowl cup mouthpiece might yield a similar result as a trumpet with a deep V cup mouthpiece, but it wouldn't be as "cool".

Try to imagine Miles Davis playing a cornet.


Tuning slides

Jul 25th, 2011,

I learned cornet playing my grandfather’s antique Lyon & Healy horn. My band director hated the instrument and had me switch to the Baritone as the school would let me use it rent free.



I bet your band teacher was primarily concerned with "tone". The older instrument probably didn't "fit in". As the years have gone by the cornet became a stubby trumpet in tonality. Only the best horns retaining something of the older cornet "sound". Mostly in the North America school system, they just wanted them to blend with the trumpets. There was a time when the piston cornet was king, but those days have been over for a long time.

I love the sound of the old L&H's. A lot of them were French by various makers. I don't believe for a minute that my #810 was manufactured in the USA, "OwnMake" being a vague provenance if any at all. They made the kind of sound you would have expected to hear coming through the doors of a saloon or dance hall back in the day before jazz was ever heard of. The sound is more intimate, less brassy or as I like to say, suitable for playing outdoors without fear of bothering the neighbors.


Reply #5 - Jul 26th, 2011,

at one time, (about 1923 ), Lyon and Healy of Chicago bought the rights to build the 'Conical Bore' trumpets and cornets designed by E.A.Couturier. These instruments had no tunable valve slides.


Reply #8 - Jul 26th, 2011,

Interesting point Lou, if you had a true conical instrument, it would be impossible to have tuning slides that slid!


Reply #10 - Jul 28th, 2011,

Some of them, in fact, had short cylindrical sections on the valve slides, too. This was so you could replace/interchange High and Low Pitch sections!

swells

Reply #11 - Aug 9th, 2011,

On student horns the 3rd slide fittings started probably sometime in the '50s, although it wasn't till the '80s that they really were made to work as well as on pro horns and about then that the 1st slide 'hook' or trigger took off in popularity.

It is a sad commentary that they are prominent features of modern instruments when the ideal we *SHOULD* be seeking is found in vintage cornets which were not so equipped because it wasn't NECESSARY!!! The horns played a lot better in tune without having to manipulate the tubing length for different notes in the overtone series!

Re: Instrument Design

Length of cornet third valve

Jan 9th, 2006, at 12:07pm

I have seen a statement that Arban's cornet had a third valve which corresponded to two full steps instead of the standard 1.5 that we are accustomed to. Does anyone have access to an old Arban "bible" with fingering charts? I would be very grateful to have this confirmed or falsified. It is not totally unbelievable since French tubas often have used two-tone third valves.


Reply #2 - Jan 9th, 2006,

A valve system that uses the 3rd valve for two full tones does exist, even if it is rare. It is called "Swedish" system, my old master told me, but it has appeared also in Bayern (Bavaria) It was invented to compensate the traditional 3rd valve mismatch problem but does not solve that problem either. Just gives another and maybe more comfortable spread of errors.



Fingering is:

3 instead of 2+3

2+3 instead of 1+3

1+3 instead of 1+2+3

all other combinations are unaffected.

I have a few instruments with this fingering, and the different fingering is not that difficult to learn.


Reply #3 - Jan 9th, 2006

I am well acquainted with the so called "Swedish system” since I am a Swede and grew up with it. On a three-valve instrument with this system, the two first valves have the usual lengths, but the third is two full steps instead of the more common 1.5. "Swedish" seems to be a misnomer, since this system was used in Germany and in France, and probably in several other countries. Its use is not limited to ancient times.

What I wanted to find out, is if this system was used in French cornets of the kind Arban played, as one source has stated. The prime advantage of the system is that you get one more half step down.

Re: Length of cornet third valve

Reply #4 - Jan 18th, 2006,

I have found out that this third valve length still is used in the French Saxhorns. Maybe one should call it "French" instead of "Swedish".

Engraved tubing
According to the Salvation Army WEB site, the way that the highly decorated tubing was made was by using a decorated steel roller and pressing against a brass tube while there was a smooth steel roller on the inside of the tube. So, the design was simply pressed into the horn, not engraved.


So, it's really embossed, rather than engraved. A look at such work with a good magnifier would tell the difference. Embossed work would have somewhat rounded edges, while engraved work would show crisp edges. The difference would be subtle, but there.


It might get less obvious in well-worn areas, especially in places like the underside of a ferrule or tubing. From looking at lots of other metal objects with engraving vs. embossing, the difference is clear in an 8-10X loupe. Once you see examples of both, you're unlikely to mistake one for another.


Embossing is more common. Real engraving is used more for expensive professional instruments.