The Sound and feel of an unplayed instrument.

[Euph100]

Hello! This is just a curiosity question. Can a professional ear hear when playing an instrument (in this case an euphonium) feel and hear that the (perfectly tuned and perfect valve movement etc) instrument has been left unplayed for many years even if the instrument has had a sufficient warm up of 30 mins? I would guess that once the brass is warm it would have the same sound as a regularly played euphonium but maybe there is more to it than that?!!

[Euphonium17]

Anyone on here can probably tell me wrong, and I very well could be, but I'd say it might be possible, depending. Leaving a horn sitting year can leave it to take on many changes. The metal could react to the air, and change its composition, or buildup inside could start growing (heaven forbid) or any matter of variables can change in a horn that has sat for years. I would imagine such a horn could very likely have a different sound or feel, a more strained sound possibly or the sound of a newer horn, because it hasn't been used and the metal has settled instead of vibrating and in a sense being "loosened up" like a horn that is used frequently. So, all of this to say, there's countless variables that could lead to a different sound, which could make a professionally trained ear able to hear the difference. While some think of these instruments being rugged, durable things, I think of them as fragile, and very subject to change from any number of minute things.

However, I could be wrong. Hope this helps, however!

[carbogast]

I think a "dry" horn may not sound and feel as good as a "wet" one, where a "wet" horn has oiled pistons, lubed slides and a certain amount of condensation and the former inside all the tubes. My horn seems to sound and feel better when the pistons are freshly oiled.

[RickF]

I think a horn that was broken in would play better. Several years ago some euphers would pour milk in the instruments to coat them and leave it for a few days before rinsing it out. I think I'll pass on that one.

See this blog post by our admn:
Breaking in a horn:

[Euph100]

Yes thankyou and i agree too, they are more fragile than we think!

[Euph100]

Yes makes sense, thanks.

[Euph100]

Thanks for the link and i think ill pass on the milk too, wouldnt want my cat getting stuck in the bell!

[davewerden]

Thanks, Rick, for posting the link to my blog post. I was all set to add some opinions here, but I see that my blog post covered them!

[Euph100]

I was glad for the link, great post thanks!

[djwpe]

Allow me to contribute a dissenting opinion. I believe it's the player that "breaks in" and not the instrument. All these theories about changes to the metallurgy of the instrument have no basis in science in my opinion.

I believe most people talking about a horn feeling better after "break in" are dealing with models that are new to them, that have different characteristics in intonation and acoustic "feel". My hypothesis is that the "break in" period, barring mechanical issues like the grit that Sterlings carry, is the player adapting to the characteristics of the new instrument that differ from the old one, and that there is no perceived break in period if the instrument is identical.

I recently changed from a 7 year old Miraphone 5050 to a brand new 5050. I picked up the new instrument on the way to the Association of Concert Bands convention on a Friday, played a rehearsal on Saturday morning, and a performance on Saturday afternoon. The new horn felt better, and sounded better to me and my band mates.


Don Winston

[davewerden]

Certainly there is a "player" aspect to the break-in process. One of the hardest times in my professional life was in the early days of the Sterling euphonium development. Sterling would send me a new prototype a few times a year, at which point I would return the one I had and play the new one to evaluate the changes. I was constantly getting used to new playing characteristics, even though I was not changing brands.

However, horns DO break in. My best example was when I was buying my first Sovereign 967. Besson sent me one, and I simply could not make notes speak lower into the 4th-valve register (like the C, C#, D below the bass clef staff). But after a few weeks I was getting the notes to come out reasonably comfortably. At that point you could have convinced me that it was the horn or that it was me. But I didn't like the over playing of that one and asked for a second sample to be sent to me. The experience was identical regarding the low notes! On the new sample I could not make the low notes speak, but after a few weeks they got better. So at the point when the 2nd sample arrived, I was used to the characteristics of the 967 in general (different from my New Standard), and yet the 2nd sample was not "ready" for me.

[ghmerrill]

Because you'd been broken in by the first one?

[davewerden]

Because you'd been broken in by the first one?

When the second horn arrived I had the same problems with it as I had with the first horn. But after playing it for a few weeks, it responded better in the low register. This is when B&H was using the monel valves that weren't lapped, so that may have played a part in needing a breaking-in period.

[djwpe]

Because you'd been broken in by the first one?

Gary, it's no fair to have two RPI grads ganging up on anyone!!

[ghmerrill]

Long ago and far away ... (Especially right now. I'm sitting in Seattle. )