Biggest determinant of sound

[Eupher71]

I was wondering about what has the biggest influence on an instrument's sound.

I have been reading about the reviews of the Sterling euphonium in the Sterling thread. And I must say that I agree with the different observations regarding the sound of the various brands mentioned. I have never played a Sterling but I have played the Yamaha 321,621,641,642,842, Besson 967,968, 967GS, Prestige 2052, Wilson 2900, Courtois 167R, 167II.

I understand that what makes a specific brand sound like it does is the complete package of tubes, diameters of tubes, thickness of the brass, the number and the placing of sound posts and braces, the shape of the bell, the material of the bell and so on.

But what has the biggest influence? Is it the bell? If one could transplant a bell from one brand to another would it make big difference to the sound?

Also wouldn't exchanging the bell (for a smaller or bigger one) make a huge impact on the tuning? Does the shape of the bell (how quick the flare opens) affect the tuning as well?

[RickF]

Biggest determinant of sound

Not to be a smart a**, but I would say the player has the biggest influence on the sound, then all those other design variables you mentioned are intertwined.

[davewerden]

Biggest determinant of sound

Actually, I think both the player and the horn make a difference. If you heard me play on a Sterling and then on a Willson, I think a lot of my sound would be the same: dynamic treatment, shape of notes, use of slurs, type of attack, vibrato, etc. I would not sound like Brian Bowman while I played the Willson, and Brian would not sound like me while playing a Sterling.

That being said, there are a lot of factors in the horn that will make me sound different. While I was playing a Besson Sovereign 967 full-time, I tried a 968. The 968 had a different leadpipe and a smaller bell. My sound was more focused on the 968, but it was also smaller. I switched during a solo rehearsal, and band folks listening in the audience said they had much more trouble hearing me when I was using the 968.

When Besson first brought out the Sovereign 967, the only change from the previous "Imperial" line was in the leadpipe and the bell, but the horn sounded much larger and a bit darker.

While helping develop the Sterling, we noticed very big differences in sound among three different bell materials we tried (all of the same dimensions). So these factors matter, too.

In the 1970's I heard the Chicago Symphony play a concert. They performed a piece that had a big euphonium solo and I had never heard such a large euphonium sound. I went back stage later to see what brand of euphonium the trombonist had used. He was using a Yamaha 321, which I don't normally think of as a large horn.

Does that confuse the issue sufficiently?

[Eupher71]

Biggest determinant of sound

Well, I assumed that it would be common knowledge that the player is the biggest determinant of sound. But since I can't be someone else I really don't care much about that aspect (apart from my daily practice in order to improve myself, of course - just to preview any further smart a** comments). ;-)

Back on topic.

I like to experiment with things and I have changed the lead pipe on my Yamaha 642 to an 842 with a very good result.

I also play on an SM3 mouthpiece which I have enlarged in the throat area to around 8 mm (if I remember correctly - it was 6 years ago). At first I couldn't play on it but very quickly I figured out how to play on it without getting tired. It has actually been very good for me since the second you stop playing inefficiently and build up pressure you get punished.

I have unsoldered the lead pipe from the bell and added a few sound posts (one to the bell and one to the 3rd slide.

All these things had an effect on either sound or on the response of the instrument.

I have moved the hand rest up to help getting clearance for my 3rd finger.

The 842 lead pipe was a revelation in terms of response and also in terms of sound. The instrument has a much softer and more beautiful sound than it had before. The instrument has gotten much more character, which is something the Yamahas have always been lacking. The sound production is very good now. The instrument speaks very easily.

The unsoldering of the lead pipe from the bell had a big impact on the "feel" of the instrument. Also the sound is more free and transparent. Some of the notes "felt" hard on the lips (as if one had to force the note through the instrument) and now they have a much smoother feel.

I have had the opportunity to compare the instrument to an 842 and I found that the 842 had a much lighter/brighter sound. It felt very fragile. I know that the 842 has a lighter bell (but of the same dimension) when compared to the 642. I like my 642/842 hybrid much better. It has a much darker sound than the 842 (which must be due to the thicker material the bell is made of).

I have also had a main tuning slide trigger fitted and I have had the 1st valve slide shortened a bit to improve the C (or D in Bb treble clef) which tend to be low.

I'm still a fan of the British brass band euphonium and in that sense I feel that the Yamaha still lacks something in sound quality. So I was wondering if changing the bell would have an effect on the sound. Maybe getting a Sterling copper bell or a heavy rose brass bell. I don't know if they'll fit but they seem like they are of similar proportions.

Btw, as you can see I'm not afraid to solder stuff on or off my horn ;-)

[keithbarton]

Biggest determinant of sound

I read this thread earlier and wanted to first comment the player makes the difference, but being an amateur held my tongue until I saw what others had to say. I've only played on a handful of euphoniums and that is with a 30 year non playing gap. But I remember an experiment my high school band director did with a the jr high band director who played a mean trumpet. He had the trumpet player take two horns into another room and play the same passage on each horn. It was easy to tell a different horn was being played. One was obviously inferior to the other. But the fellow played well on both horns. My band director commented that a good player had to work harder on an inferior instrument.

I started back playing on a Weril. It was ok, I guess, but I never did like my tone. Wasn't full enough for me. Then I got my first B&H Imperial and fell in love with it's sound right away. Then I got Arthur Lehman's horn, another B&H Imperial. The two horns look almost identical but play differently. And that's using the same mouthpiece on both horns. So, yes, the player makes a big difference but the horn you play makes a difference, too. That's my opinion from very limited experience.

[uieuph]

Biggest determinant of sound

It's kind of a "to each your own" thing going with instruments. In my college studio, the tubas would often move around on different school tubas. Sometimes, a player would sound their very best on a tuba that didn't fit another player quite as well. The varying subtleties between the instruments, I think, made a difference in regards to a player's embouchure, use of air, and other physical factors. What varying attributes that you're bringing to the instrument probably has a lot to do with what part of the horn itself has the greatest amount to do with its sound.

[prototypedenNIS]

Biggest determinant of sound

Originally posted by: keithbartonMy band director commented that a good player had to work harder on an inferior instrument.

This leads to a common misconception, that "a good player will soundgood on anything." Trombonist love pointing to a trombonist who succesfully auditioned for Airmen of Note using a Yamaha 352 trombone ***(student horn).

There are limits to the human factor. A poorly designed horn will have more problems that which the player can alleviate (to some degree) but there are some problems which can't be alleviated due to technique.

It's like jogging. Now imagine for every problem with your instrument, you add a 1 lb weight to your body. Pushing yourself to your max, you logically won't be running faster with 20 lbs strapped to you. You can train yourself to get more used to it, to alleviate the problem, but there still is a problem.

If technique was all that mattered, we'd be playing hoseaphones. A leadpipe that's pinched off to a high degree won't produce the sound of an open leadpipe and heavyweight instruments generally respond less quickly than lightweight counterparts of the same instument type.

There are dozens of factors as to what makes an instrument's sound and the subcategories of an instrument's playability (including: tuning, nuances, tone, flexibilty, response, etc...). The player, as well as the constuction of every single piece of the instrument contributes to how the horn plays and how it sounds.



***
(note: 352's aren't bad... they were pretty decent student horns... some trombonists keep their old 352's and 354 (current model) as their cheap alternative jazz horn so they can spend their money on a symphonic trombone)

[prototypedenNIS]

Biggest determinant of sound

I guess the far end of this would be, wouldn't a player sound the same on a baritone as a euphonium, or even a trombone?

[Eupher71]

Biggest determinant of sound

hmm, I guess I should have made the headline "The biggest determinant of sound in an instrument (apart from the player)".

Anyway, I can chip in with a story. Some years ago I was at a party in my Brass Band . The party took place in our bandroom and our conductor who is a proffesional trumpet player picked up some old cornet in order to play a wedding song because a couple had just announced that they had gotten married at the city hall. It sounded amazingly good. After he had played I had a good look at the instrument. It was held together with eletrical tape and the valves felt like they had been oiled with glue. When he played there was no noticable hanging of the valves. You simply couldn't hear that the valves took one second to come back up after he had pressed them. One of our cornet players tried the instrument and he could hardly make it play.

Back on topic:
I know that no matter what instrument I play on people would still be able to hear that it is me playing.

But we all agree that instrumets do sound differently and it's commonly accepted that there is something called the Besson signature sound or the British brass band euphonium sound. People in British brass bands tend to play on Bessons not because everybody else does but because it gives them the sound they are looking for.

It is this aspect I'd like to know more about.

[keithbarton]

Biggest determinant of sound

Well first, of all, I played on a Besson for the first time in 1970 and found it had a very deep resonant sound - very nice - compared to the Conn I was playing. What is it about a certain horn? I sure don't know. Mouthpieces make a difference, metal thickness, quality of construction, so for and so on. We could probably talk about this topic for ever! Maybe even longer than that! (That's an Arthur Lehman phrase). Mostly though, find what you like and stick with it. If all the horns sounded the same, there'd only be one euphonium maker.

I think a good player can sound good on anything. You do have to work harder and that's not fair to a good player. You have your own style and manner of playing. It'll come thru. And by the way, in my limited experience, every trombone player whom I have heard who tried to play the euphonium, sounded like a trombone player trying to play a euphonium. Vice versa for me trying to play a trombone. Or a tuba, or a trumpet or the awful evil alto saxophone.