Real bass trombones

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-01 1:22 a.m.

Are any instrument makers building real bass trombones today?

I feel that our terminology regarding trombone voices is wrong: there is no such thing as a modern bass trombone. What we call a bass trombone is a Bb tenor with slightly larger bore and sometimes an extra valve. A Bb trombone is a tenor whatever the bore size, just like a trombone in Eb (or F) is an alto whether it is a straight one in .485 or a valved one in .547. One could even make an alto with .562 bore and two valves, it would still be an alto. When Jay Friedman plays a Bach 45 on

first it’s called a tenor, if Vernon would use it for a third part in a Brahms symphony it would be called a bass trombone…

A real bass trombone is an instrument tuned in F or G. A contra bass trombone is in low Bb.

The modern so called bass trombone is only a function. Players are specializing in playing low parts on a tenor trombone with an extra valve, just like there are lots of French horn players specializing on low horn with bigger mouthpieces and equipment.

We have brought the alto back, I don’t understand why we don’t bring the bass trombone back as well. I think a modern symphony trombone section should alternate between using three different sized tenors (like now) and the classical ATB set up for the right repertoire: an alto, a tenor and a relatively narrow bored bass trombone, with or without a valve attachment.

Now to my question: are there any good real bass trombones being made today? Trombones made smaller in bore than the so-called contras, tuned in F or G. If not, why are there so few so-called bass trombonists trying to bring back the real bass trombone, 40-50 years after the principals brought the alto back to the symphony orchestras?

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2022-07-01 1:24 a.m.

Quick question: why? I'm not sure what we're missing with the current setup.

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-01 1:32 a.m.

I don’t know and I don’t think we can without having explored the territory. But bringing the alto back for the right repertoire was an improvement, I’m thinking we should explore the possibilities with small F basses as well.

The possibilities to create different sounds and expressions as players and sections. And then there’s the historical curiosity: why not try and create sounds like some of the major composers would have had in mind?

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2022-07-01 1:43 a.m.

I've got two things:

I'm not sure alto has been dead for the time that matters, the last 100+ years. Bach and Conn (and many German makes) have been making altos that whole time. No one has been making F basses.

Alto also makes a few things a little bit easier. F bass does not.

slipmo · by **slipmo** » 2022-07-01 1:43 a.m.

I built myself a F/C bass last year and its wonderful for romantic repertoire, but certainly not a daily driver

CalgaryTbone · by **CalgaryTbone** » 2022-07-01 2:19 a.m.

While I don't have an issue with any experimenting that anyone wants to do for the sake of trying to find interesting colors from the trombone section sound, are you also going to suggest that the rest of the orchestra will have to use historical reproductions of their instruments? There are groups that perform on historical instruments, and everyone in the ensemble is playing "authentic" instruments, and the conductors are taking tempos and interpretations that historians have put forward as what the composer may have intended (rather than what has become tradition). I'm not sure that changing the trombones makes sense without the entire orchestra playing on period instruments. To be fair, we do often scale down a bit to lighter instruments for certain rep. here, but taking on too many vastly different instruments can add a lot to the workload. It may not be a worthwhile use of time if the trombones don't blend with their brass colleagues that are playing on modern instruments.

Jim Scott

HermanGerman · by **HermanGerman** » 2022-07-01 2:31 a.m.

[quote="Chatname"]And then there’s the historical curiosity: why not try and create sounds like some of the major composers would have had in mind?[/quote]

YES!!!!!!

Stop playing these oversized trombones (.547) with that hornlike muffled sound (Big Mac with extra cheese) and go back to the trombones the composers of the 19th and most of the 20th century had in mind and ear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finesse, grace!

A medium bore horn for 1. and 2. trombone! Or even better, a plain German trombone..

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-01 4:00 a.m.

I am maybe I bit childish in my opposition to the term bass trombone being used for the modern big 3rd tenor trombone. Of course that’s no big deal, only words. However I do find it strange that being employed as a tenor I would get extra paid if I would sit on the 3rd part playing let’s say my Bach 42 with a 50 slide because suddenly my equipment is magically transformed from a tenor into a bass trombone and I’m now doubling on a different instrument... Maybe it’s time we get the words right? All Bb trombones are tenors. I don’t mind the extra pay, though… :)

Regarding the F/G trombones, I think it would be exciting to explore. Don’t know how successful it would be, however the success of the modern alto should be inspiring. I personally don’t use the alto primarily for ease, rather for the difference in sound. Most alto parts can be equally easy on small bore tenors, but the sound is different.

I don’t think all instruments of the orchestra need to be historical instruments, however the trend to sometimes incorporate classic small timpanies, natural trumpets and also alto trombone and as mentioned above small/medium bore tenors is very exciting!

Noah, that F/C bass looks fantastic!!

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-01 6:33 a.m.

So, "bass trombone" has pretty much always designated a function rather than a length of instruments, there's nothing new there. There were Bb-length trombones called bass trombone long before there were valves.

The David concertino was written for "bass trombone". A bass trombone in Bb, with no valve, and roughly the size of a modern tenor. At the time, it was considered a bass trombone, despite longer trombones still being in use.

So I think we need to make peace with the nomenclature.

That being said, I totally agree that it would be really cool to have long F and Eb basses with modern construction and with a modern bass trombone bore and bell size (i.e. not "period instruments" and also not contrabass).

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-01 6:54 a.m.

Weren’t they called tenor-bass posaune?

Anyway, good points and you phrase it very well; a modern bass in between a period F instrument and a contrabass!

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2022-07-01 7:15 a.m.

There is quite a historical precedent for having three “tenors”, particularly in France. I don’t know off te top of my head when that practice started there but it isn’t necessarily a contemporary development to have a homogenous section.

Beyond that, I’m not sure if I would characterize medium and large bores as having less finesse or being muffled anymore than I’d say small horns are edgy and bright. They simply provide more ease of access to particular tonal palettes. It isn’t like there’s a lack of high quality small bores available and at this point at least the majority of professional classical players own one either because it’s the instrument they started out on or they do commercial music as well which frequently does call for smaller bores. If it’s merely a matter of picking one case when you leave the house instead of another, it would seem there’s perhaps a reason for it. And it isn’t necessarily volume or else I suspect big bands would be packed with 547 horns too.

Rob1662 · by **Rob1662** » 2022-07-01 7:44 a.m.

I thought this thread might be discussing the IMO oversized equipment being used by many players these days. A lot of the time sounding like slide euphoniums or small tubas and totally inappropriate for the repertoire they are playing. Thank god for the likes of Bob Hughes who are encouraging young players back to the "real" bass trombone sound..

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2022-07-01 8:04 a.m.

Do we listen to music with our ears, or with a tape measure?

Care to dance about architecture a little? (If you don't get this reference, don't worry it isn't important)

That said, I do want to have a double slide made to put my straight Bach 45 into Eb.... I think that could be a very fun horn to play. Would it be fun to also use with my other bell sections and maybe re-tune those valves? Probably. Would it make anything easier? Almost certainly not. Is there any good reason this should ever leave my house? Absolutely not.

Still want to do it just for kicks. Learn something about long basses in the process.

Curious about that one-off long F bass that Yamaha made for Doug Yeo. Pretty horn, but I wonder if they made new tapers for it. I think optimizing those tuning slide bows and flares to be distinct, useful, yet not a contra could be very time consuming and expensive. Doubt that will happen without a market.

Cheers,

Andy

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-01 8:21 a.m.

[quote="Chatname"]Weren’t they called tenor-bass posaune?

Anyway, good points and you phrase it very well; a modern bass in between a period F instrument and a contrabass![/quote]

In 19th century Germany they were sometimes called "Bassposaune" and "Tenorbassposaune" interchangeably.

Nemetz in Vienna in the 1820s describes a Bb instrument as an "alto, tenor and bass trombone", indicating only the mouthpiece is different, before he goes on to describe the other lower pitched bass trombones. Earlier, many older instruments were altered in the 18th century to adapt them to evolving taste, practices and performing pitches, and some of them are formerly long bass trombones that were cut down to Bb length, probably still to be used as basses since the tenors of the time were not yet as large as that.

Earlier still, at the very beginning the trombone (originally only in the size we would call tenor) was most likely invented as a bass instrument.

Nomenclature is messy, and it's certainly not just the trombones. The French C tuba, a variation on the bass saxhorn, was pitched one step higher than the baritone saxhorn in Bb, but had 6 valves and a full bass tuba range. Nobody would call that a tenor horn.

LIBrassCo · by **LIBrassCo** » 2022-07-01 9:05 a.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]Do we listen to music with our ears, or with a tape measure?[/quote]

This.

afugate · by **afugate** » 2022-07-01 9:21 a.m.

I wonder about the challenges of getting slide work done on these long slides.

--Andy in OKC

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-01 9:34 a.m.

[quote="LIBrassCo"]<QUOTE author="elmsandr" post_id="182204" time="1656677078" user_id="147">
Do we listen to music with our ears, or with a tape measure?[/quote]

This.
</QUOTE>
With ears certainly, with tape measurements occasionally, but also with imagination. I imagine there are still sounds to be explored.

The Eb trombone is different both in sound and in measurement. A small F bass would be too. I imagine ATB set ups could be an exciting development. I don’t know however, because having worked professionally for 30+ years I’ve never had a small F bass beside me. Maybe it would be nice even for my ears?

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2022-07-01 9:35 a.m.

About 30 years ago I tried an Alexander bass in F with a C valve. Handle on the slide. It was not considered a contra at the time. I liked it, but the price was above what I could afford.

Up until about 50 years ago the British Brass Bands were using very small bore tenors and a G bass (also very small bore). I own a G bass, but it doesn't leave the house. It won't blend with any other section. It's 0.525" bore, so it's smaller than most of the tenors even in Community Band.

Chatname, I have a friend with three instruments from the early 20th Century: Tenor Horn, Baritone Horn, and Bass Horn. All 3 have exactly the same construction, are the same length, and differ only in the bore. The Bass Horn was about the bore size of a modern Euphonium. The tenor horn was about the bore size of a modern 0.509". The baritone horn was in between.

There is a Historic Brass article that describes instruments of the 19th Century orchestra as all being the same length but different bores. They were called Alto, Tenor, and Bass.

If you are really set on a longer bass trombone, see if you can find that Alexander model. Be prepared to spend a lot of time learning F fingerings and an even longer time learning the C valve. But don't expect to win any auditions on it.

TomRiker · by **TomRiker** » 2022-07-01 12:40 p.m.

I find this subject fascinating. My understanding is that the lower trombone parts in orchestras were written for a variety of instruments depending on the era and the location of the composer. So in that regard I'm sure thinking of the third trombone part as a function rather than a voice is the right approach.

Having said that I'm not a professional musician. I play for fun. For me part of the fun is being creative. Applying an interpretation to the music. To that end I don't really care what the composer originally intended. And since I'm an amateur I don't necessarily have to. I know there are plenty of places an amateur can play where that would be the expectation, but in terms of my own pursuits, learning solo literature for example, I just don't particularly care about what the composers intent was. I care what my intent is.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about the voice side of the various trombone sizes. I recently purchased a used Bach 42BO with a dual bore Edwards .547/.562 slide. What many here think of as a super tenor. I think of it as having a baritone (rather than tenor or bass) voice. I've really enjoyed the approach. It's kind of my perfect Bach cello suites horn. I do think you could extend this train of thought to third trombone parts in terms of musicianship . Evaluate what's happening musically in terms of how the third (or fourth) part fits in with the orchestra and with the section. Optionally you could then choose an instrument based on that evaluation. I think lots of players do this already. Like moving to a smaller instrument on third for Haydn for example. Even if you don't change instruments thinking about what voice you are trying to inhabit may be helpful.

As a side note I think an f bass with a bore in between the traditional f/g basses and the modern contrabass could be interesting. Something like .562 or .547/.562. I think most f contras are .578 but to be honest I'm not sure. Are any of them .562?

harrisonreed · 2022-07-01 12:43 p.m.

[quote="Chatname"]Are any instrument makers building real bass trombones today?

I feel that our terminology regarding trombone voices is wrong: there is no such thing as a modern bass trombone. What we call a bass trombone is a Bb tenor with slightly larger bore and sometimes an extra valve. A Bb trombone is a tenor whatever the bore size, just like a trombone in Eb (or F) is an alto whether it is a straight one in .485 or a valved one in .547. One could even make an alto with .562 bore and two valves, it would still be an alto. When Jay Friedman plays a Bach 45 on

first it’s called a tenor, if Vernon would use it for a third part in a Brahms symphony it would be called a bass trombone…

A real bass trombone is an instrument tuned in F or G. A contra bass trombone is in low Bb.

The modern so called bass trombone is only a function. Players are specializing in playing low parts on a tenor trombone with an extra valve, just like there are lots of French horn players specializing on low horn with bigger mouthpieces and equipment.

We have brought the alto back, I don’t understand why we don’t bring the bass trombone back as well. I think a modern symphony trombone section should alternate between using three different sized tenors (like now) and the classical ATB set up for the right repertoire: an alto, a tenor and a relatively narrow bored bass trombone, with or without a valve attachment.

Now to my question: are there any good real bass trombones being made today? Trombones made smaller in bore than the so-called contras, tuned in F or G. If not, why are there so few so-called bass trombonists trying to bring back the real bass trombone, 40-50 years after the principals brought the alto back to the symphony orchestras?[/quote]

A real bass trombone .... is tuned to F .... and G. And maybe Gb. And Eb, or D. And Bb. If your hangup simply that the tubing isn't all in the hand slide? Tut Tut.

They already solved it for you.

Bore size aside, trombonists in the past, who played on those old "real basses" chose to stop playing them, and put the extra tubing in the bell section. That goes for the Germans, too, Herman.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2022-07-01 12:47 p.m.

[quote="Chatname"]With ears certainly, with tape measurements occasionally, but also with imagination. I imagine there are still sounds to be explored.

The Eb trombone is different both in sound and in measurement. A small F bass would be too. I imagine ATB set ups could be an exciting development. I don’t know however, because having worked professionally for 30+ years I’ve never had a small F bass beside me. Maybe it would be nice even for my ears?[/quote]

I am curious what type of sound you want to look for... something that is smaller than the current sound of the large Bb; but happens to sound larger than _____?

I think my Eb 45 would be an interesting niche there, but I don't know if that is a real place to inhabit... yet.

Or are you really just pining for the G basses to come out of retirement?

Andy

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-01 12:53 p.m.

The sound would differ as a function of the different slide technique required to play it. Otherwise, unless the bell is changing or the bore is changing too, the sound would be mostly the same. It's mostly a straight pipe with a few bends in it.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2022-07-01 1:05 p.m.

Making a valve on a contemporary bass be reversible would "solve" that particular problem and be a lot cheaper!

One thing to bear in mind is that the tubing in the valve is frequently larger than the slide. So bass "F" attachment tubing is already .593.

robcat2075 · 2022-07-01 1:59 p.m.

39 years ago I auditioned at the University of North Texas with my fake Bb-F bass trombone and when I finished playing they said, "You could play an important role here as a model of the true bass trombone sound."

With that tiny bit of validation I'm going to say that "bass trombone" is a sound one cultivates rather than an arrangement of tubing.

Everything that people believe and expect about bass trombone sound today is almost entirely the result of 100+ years of Bb-F instrument playing and I'm doubtful that anyone is going to come up with a demonstration of F bass trombone playing that proves it superior for all the things bass trombones do.

[quote="Chatname"]...why are there so few so-called bass trombonists trying to bring back the real bass trombone, 40-50 years after the principals brought the alto back to the symphony orchestras?[/quote]

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nudge it aside.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-01 3:12 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nude it aside.[/quote]

Does it have to be one or the other though?

The alto can't do everything the tenor does, and it's not use to play all 1st trombone parts. Still I don't know many people who argue the alto should never be used. If anything it's used to cover more parts now that it was at the time the music was composed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting all 3rd/bass trombone parts should be played on a long bass, so I don't think "superior for all the things" is needed. Just more interesting musically for certain parts could be enough.

[quote="harrisonreed"]The sound would differ as a function of the different slide technique required to play it. Otherwise, unless the bell is changing or the bore is changing too, the sound would be mostly the same. It's mostly a straight pipe with a few bends in it.[/quote]

I am currently developing a new model of bass sackbut that has the back loop removable and can play in G, F, D, or low C, at a variety of different pitches. And let me tell you, without changing the slide, or any part of the conical portion of the instrument, it plays and feels vastly different when it's set up to D versus G. Not inherently better or worse, just very different. Better for some things, worse for others.

An F or Eb bass with modern proportions would be recognisable as a bass trombone of course, but still offer a very different sound and feel. If I still played a lot of modern trombone, there are many things for which I would definitely not want to play that kind of long bass, but for some repertoire it would be really nice (like Noah said above, by no means a daily driver). If I ever auditioned for and won a modern bass trombone position, that would honestly be one of my first purchases.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2022-07-01 3:15 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nude it aside.[/quote]

I think even Truly-actually-superior-for-a-few-things would be enough to get a bunch made.

I do not really have an imagined view of what I think it will do better; and I want to make one!

Cheers,

Andy

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2022-07-01 4:01 p.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="robcat2075" post_id="182244" time="1656698395" user_id="3697">

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nude it aside.[/quote]

Does it have to be one or the other though?

</QUOTE>

The OP lamented that only a few players were doing the F bass trombone thing. He wants lots of people playing it... because it's the real bass trombone.

It doesn't sound like he is satisfied with partial adoption.

My answer is to why partial, special case adoption is all he'll get and the Bb-F is the 600-pound gorilla that will not be moved.

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-01 6:56 p.m.

About the nomenclature: Maybe using terms like alto, tenor and bass is a creating some confusion. Until the first decades of the nineteenth century the first parts were mostly played by Eb/F trombones and called the alto part. When the Bb trombone took over some composers would still use the alto name (e.g. Bruckner) for a while. Same thing with the bass, but it seems we got stuck with the bass term. Maybe we should skip the names of the functions and just call them Bb or Eb or F trombones. Like trumpet players do, with the exception of piccolo (and bass)… Obviously this is not happening, we will continue using these names, which is fine by me. I’m just thinking out loud a little bit here…

About the actual instrument, I’m more serious. I would find it interesting if the bass trombonists I play with would occasionally try to use a small F or G trombone, and therefore I was curious about whether there any being made. I would not expect every 3rd player in the world to convert, and certainly not every week. Like I wrote earlier: alternating between an all tenor set up and an ATB set up. So as often as the Eb trombone is used; five or six weeks a year..? Anyway, this won’t happen I know. The instruments are set in stone due to the development described by others in this thread. The Bb section is superior for most uses. For all? Maybe. Or maybe not. We won’t know unless we’re willing to experiment with curious minds and open ears. And tape measurements, of course!

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-01 7:08 p.m.

You don't even play the "real" trombone then. That would be something with a bore smaller than a trumpet, and a bell smaller than one too. And you would need to use olive oil on your slide. When would it end?

We live in a modern world. The way we do things has evolved. If it needs to evolve to something different, it will. It already is.

You keep talking about the "real" bass trombone, and anything in Bb being a tenor. You must've played a bass trombone next to a tenor at some point -- they are not the same thing.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-01 7:15 p.m.

[quote="Chatname"]About the nomenclature: Maybe using terms like alto, tenor and bass is a creating some confusion. Until the first decades of the nineteenth century the first parts were mostly played by Eb/F trombones and called the alto part. When the Bb trombone took over some composers would still use the alto name (e.g. Bruckner) for a while. Same thing with the bass, but it seems we got stuck with the bass term.[/quote]

Except, first trombone parts before the 19th century were a lot of the time not actually played on Eb instruments, or called alto.

Out of the old vocal doubling tradition, German 19th century editors slapped the terms "Altposaune", "Tenorposaune" and "Bassposaune" on basically everything, whether or not it was actually written for "true" ATB trombones or 3 Bb instruments (or 2 Bb and something else), including in cases where manuscripts or older editions used terminology like "Trombone primo", "Trombone secondo". The Bb trombone didn't take over, it was always by far the most used, and not used only for 2nd trombone parts.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-01 7:19 p.m.

And Russian music too. If it says alto, except in a few cases, it means Bb trombone.

Dennis · by **Dennis** » 2022-07-01 8:57 p.m.

[quote="Chatname"]About the nomenclature: Maybe using terms like alto, tenor and bass is a creating some confusion. Until the first decades of the nineteenth century the first parts were mostly played by Eb/F trombones and called the alto part. When the Bb trombone took over some composers would still use the alto name (e.g. Bruckner) for a while.[/quote]

I'd be interested in seeing a source for this claim about first parts. In the early 17th C Syntagma Musicum Praetorius illustrated the alto, tenor, and bass trombones. He referred to the tenor as the gemeine rechte posaune (lit., common right trombone, I suspect common proper trombone is probably more idiomatic English), suggesting that this was the instrument composers could expect to have available. That in turn suggests that in writing for multiple trombones, composers should expect the parts to be played on that commonly available instrument.

It's also true (as Maximilien pointed out above) that late 18th and 19th Bb trombones described as "bass trombones" are commonplaces in museums. Some of those large bore-large bell instruments are reported to play the privileged tones pretty well. Apparently it was as true then as it is now that composers don't care much what the player has to do as long as the job gets done.

sirisobhakya · by **sirisobhakya** » 2022-07-01 9:10 p.m.

Why hark back to something when the current thing can do the job better and easier?

At the end of the day, the musicians just want to play music well, and the audiences just want to listen to good music. There is no point in playing an “authentic” instrument from practical point of view. Anything that makes the job more difficult just falls obsolete. It is like saying “why don’t we save data on a ‘real’ floppy disk instead of just clicking on floppy disk save icon?”

It would be interesting and fun from time to time indeed, but not the way everyone wants to do it everyday.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2022-07-01 10:19 p.m.

Chatname, I believe you are ignoring the reason we went to the current style of bass trombone.

Instruments in G, F, or Eb have VERY long slides. You can't reach all the positions with just an arm -- you need some kind of extension. Usually it's a handle. The handle is cumbersome to manipulate. When it became possible to just add the additional tube length using a "quartventil" the new technology effectively replaced the old nearly overnight. You still use the wide bore for response in the lower range, but you get effectively 10 positions between the Bb and F sides of the instrument.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2022-07-01 10:59 p.m.

First of all, ~~[url=https://swisstbone.com/contrabass-trombone/]~~here's the most modern F bass trombone out there, other than Noah's. It's not a contra as listed, it's a real F bass with some Hagmanns put on it. And it's for sale!

(Please don't buy it. I must accrue the funds to purchase it. I called dibs.)

Anyway...

Trombones named the way they are currently is the best because their name describes their FUNCTION, not their taxonomically-correct-according-to-tubing-length designation. A Bb tenor trombone's money register is the tenor register. Sure it can play a lot more than that (especially with a valve), but its most characteristic sound and role comes in the tenor range. A modern Bb bass trombone's money register is not the tenor register. Sure, it can play in there just fine...having heard Jim Markey give a recital playing lovely lyrical solos with numerous high Dbs, I can attest that it can play in the tenor register more than fine! But that's not where the instrument shines the most. Its more characteristic sound and function is in the bass register. So, we call it a bass trombone because it fulfills the bass role. That's why we can also have both F bass and F contrabass trombones. One works best in the vocal bass register (focused around the bass clef staff) like the Bb bass trombone, and the other...definitely does not.

The Bb contrabass trombone is the weirdest one, because the Bb contrabass trombone does nothing well. <span class="emoji" title=":wink:">😉</span>

hornbuilder · 2022-07-02 4:39 p.m.

Years ago, in another life, I modified a Boosey and Hawkes G bass trombone (the straight, satin silver plated one, with the handle on the slide) into an F bass, by adding a loop of tubing to the gooseneck. I used that horn for performances of several Mozart operas, as well as some Gluck pieces. The first trombone played a Bach 39, and the second used a Conn 6H or Bach 36.

The thing that was most noticeable was the way those horns could be played at "decent" volumes, without getting The Hand from the conductor. It was so nice to be able to actually "play" without that overbearing dread constantly looming over you.

Also the blend of the sound with the rest of the orchestra,especially the woodwinds, was extraordinary!! Having my sound meld with the oboe (who was sitting immediately in front of me) was truly special!!

The other consideration for the use of different length instruments is the harmonic structure of the sounds we make. One example (in the opposite direction, but equally relevant) is the F major chord on Humperdinck Hansel and Gretel. The 1st trombone has the 3rd of the chord, A on the top of the bass staff. That chord was notoriously difficult to play in tune. Bass on low F, second on second space C, and the A above. I suggested the first player play the A in 6th. BINGO! A settled, in tune chord that RANG like crazy!!

Why?

Because we were all playing notes on the same harmonic series. Compared to the same A being played in 2nd position gives a clash of the F harmonic series vs the A harmonic series (C against C# harmonic!!)

Now, the same applies to a bass in F. The reason why an instrument in F sounds different is because the notes you're playing are set in a different harmonic structure to that same note on a Bb instrument. Plus, you don't get into the pedal register until the low F, so you're playing a "long tube low note" much lower into the tessitura, versus a "short tube pedal" of a Bb horn.

I believe that some composer understood this differentiation (well, I can dream can't I!?!? :-) ) and using different pitch instruments "where appropriate" can make a huge difference to the sonic complexity of the overall. Playing Puccini on an F instrument sounds very different to the same part on a Bb instrument. And it isn't just because a contra is bigger!

I made an "F bass" using a Bach 50BGL bell, double valves, and a long .562 slide. It provided the same added depth of sound to the trombone section, (even though it was smaller in bore and bell shape than the Glassl F contra I had been using) because the notes being played were relatively higher on a long tube pitch center, compared to the relatively lower notes on a short tube pitch center of a standard Bb bass trombone.

I'm not advocating using F pitched instruments for everything. We need to approach it from an "informed perspective", but I believe the results can be very rewarding!

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-02 5:22 p.m.

[quote="sirisobhakya"]Why hark back to something when the current thing can do the job better and easier?[/quote]

A modern-proportioned and modern-construction long-bass wouldn't be "harking" back, because it was never a thing. And the point is precisely that it would do certain things better and easier than the current thing.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2022-07-02 10:40 p.m.

This is the sort of thing that, if you really want it and the rest of us just don't get it, it falls on you to lead the charge and show us how mistaken we are.

Lamenting that someone else doesn't do it won't advance your cause much.

modelerdc · by **modelerdc** » 2022-07-03 1:55 a.m.

Pre Eastman-Shires made a longer slide and extension to the tuning slide to convert a B flat bass to an F bass. I've never had the chance to play this, but it was reported to play pretty well. Once you have the longer slide a dedicated F bass bell and J tuning branch could make a step-by-step conversion to a pretty good F bass possible.

As Matt above says, playing some notes in some chords in certain positions can work better. But this raised an interesting question. Does playing the same note on a different harmonic series, such as F in 1sot or 6th, or D in first or 4th, does this result in a different structure to the overtone series? Perhaps some readers with a strobe could test this. I think this is important because if the harmonics are the same, then the effect of the alternative harmonic series is really just pitch, but if the harmonics aren't the same, then that raises other questions.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-03 2:37 a.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]This is the sort of thing that, if you really want it and the rest of us just don't get it, it falls on you to lead the charge and show us how mistaken we are.

Lamenting that someone else doesn't do it won't advance your cause much.[/quote]

:clever:

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2022-07-03 10:07 a.m.

[quote="modelerdc"]Does playing the same note on a different harmonic series, such as F in 1sot or 6th, or D in first or 4th, does this result in a different structure to the overtone series?[/quote]

Of course. You don't even need to worry about the (straightforward) physics. They don't sound the same, and there's your answer.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2022-07-03 10:31 a.m.

[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="modelerdc" post_id="182379" time="1656827720" user_id="3210">
Does playing the same note on a different harmonic series, such as F in 1sot or 6th, or D in first or 4th, does this result in a different structure to the overtone series?[/quote]

Of course. You don't even need to worry about the (straightforward) physics. They don't sound the same, and there's your answer.
</QUOTE>

The more common physics explanation for why they sound different is that the cylindrical/conical ratio of the tubing is different.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2022-07-03 10:50 a.m.

No.

The pitch we hear when playing a brass instrument is not just made up of that fundamental pitch. The harmonic series above that pitch also sound. This is the thing that gives the instrument sound "interest". It is more or less prevalent depending on dynamic to some extent, too, as well as bell construction and material choice. A softer dynamic reduces the prevalence of the upper over tones. A louder dynamic increases the upper over tones. It is the balance of those overtones in the sound that dictate if we perceive the sound as "bright" or "dark".

To answer modelerdc.

Play a first position F, then play all the harmonic notes above that note (F, Bb, D, F, AB, Bb, C, D etc) then play the same note in 6th and do the same. (F, A, C, Eb, etc) you can see immediately that the 2 sounds are made up very differently, harmonically.

So to extrapolate further.

A low Bb played in 1st position on a Bb tenor resonates the Bb harmonic series above that low Bb pitch. The same pitch played on V-3 actually resonates on the harmonic series of Eb, and has a lower set of harmonics on a much longer tube than the "same" note on the shorter Bb tube.

Further. A pedal Bb on Bb bass trombone resonates on a short tube Bb harmonic series. That same pitch on an F contra is actually resonating on a tube length twice as long as the Bb bass pedal note.

The cylindrical/conical ratio is not the cause here. It is the resonating harmonic tube length.

LeoInFL · by **LeoInFL** » 2022-07-03 11:55 a.m.

pardon me if this is a silly question, but what would happen if you paired a single-valve Edwards bass bell section with the "Bartok" double slide that apparently puts the assembled horn in F? Just wondering if this would result in a contrabass?

Here's the link to the straight bass horn in F:

<YOUTUBE id="tgfnjPl7PSk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgfnjPl7PSk</YOUTUBE>

From the comments section of the video, it sounds like Edwards offers (once offered?) the slide.

StefanHaller · by **StefanHaller** » 2022-07-03 12:24 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Play a first position F, then play all the harmonic notes above that note (F, Bb, D, F, AB, Bb, C, D etc) then play the same note in 6th and do the same. (F, A, C, Eb, etc) you can see immediately that the 2 sounds are made up very differently, harmonically.

So to extrapolate further.

A low Bb played in 1st position on a Bb tenor resonates the Bb harmonic series above that low Bb pitch. The same pitch played on V-3 actually resonates on the harmonic series of Eb, and has a lower set of harmonics on a much longer tube than the "same" note on the shorter Bb tube.[/quote]

You are confusing two different things here: 1. the harmonic series that the note you are playing is a part of, and what other notes you can play on that series, 2. the harmonic spectrum of the note you are playing itself. The two are independent.

If you play a note, that note is always the root of its overtone series. If you play that Humperdinck A, its overtone series will always be A, A, E, A, C# etc., no matter whether you play it on 2nd or 6th position. Yes, the two notes sound different, but that's only because the relative strength of the overtones is different; the structure of the overtone series is the same.

Which means that it's hard to explain why the chord sounds so much better one way than the other. I believe you that it was the case, it's just not obvious to me why.

hornbuilder · 2022-07-03 12:34 p.m.

That is not correct.

You can map out the harmonic series of any note you are playing by playing the notes that are available in that position.

So, the middle A being referenced in second position has a harmonic series of A, starting 2octaves above the pedal A fundamental, of A (root), C#, E, A, etc.

. That same pitch played in 6th position has the harmonic structure of F available in 6th position. A (root) C, Eb, F, etc. ie the F harmonic structure

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2022-07-03 12:38 p.m.

A certain length of tube can only produce one set of harmonics. If that wasn't the case, we could play any note in any position. That is why we can play alternate positions. The "alternate" note has to be a note available on the harmonic series of that particular slide position.

StefanHaller · by **StefanHaller** » 2022-07-03 1:11 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]You can map out the harmonic series of any note you are playing by playing the notes that are available in that position.

So, the middle A being referenced in second position has a harmonic series make up of A (root), C#, E, A, etc. That same pitch played in 6th position has the harmonic structure available in 6th position. A (root) C, Eb, F, etc.[/quote]

You are mistaken about this, it's not true, and it doesn't make sense physically.

And you can actually hear it. With just a little bit of practice you can easily hear the strongest overtones (especially if you play with a bright tone), usually the fifth and the third. If I play a trigger D I can easily hear the A and the F# above it. (It's not always easy to tell in which octave I'm hearing them.) By your theory I shouldn't be able to hear those, but rather G and B; but that's not what you hear.

Same with your Humperdinck A; if you listen carefully you can easily hear the E and C# in both cases.

Guess I'll have to record some notes and post some spectograms if you don't believe this.

elmsandr · 2022-07-03 1:15 p.m.

There are a few horns out there built as long basses...

The Conn Eb

~~[url]~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkG4zOeG0Sw

The original listing is gone, but you can see some of an old Holton here:

~~[url]~~https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?t=14333
<ATTACHMENT filename="s-l1600.jpg" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~s-l1600.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

Would love to try something similar, but have other projects first.

Cheers,

Andy

hornbuilder · 2022-07-03 1:23 p.m.

With all due respect Steffan, I have studied the acoustics and physics of musical instruments quite extensively, as part of my training to design and make instruments. I'm not guessing or speculating in any regard here.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-03 1:27 p.m.

[quote="StefanHaller"]

Guess I'll have to record some notes and post some spectograms if you don't believe this.[/quote]

Don't tease us now! I bet you won't!

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2022-07-03 1:42 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]That is not correct.

You can map out the harmonic series of any note you are playing by playing the notes that are available in that position.

So, the middle A being referenced in second position has a harmonic series of A, starting 2octaves above the pedal A fundamental, of A (root), C#, E, A, etc.

. That same pitch played in 6th position has the harmonic structure of F available in 6th position. A (root) C, Eb, F, etc. ie the F harmonic structure[/quote]

I don't believe this to be true and I've never heard anyone in physics assert such a thing. Consider that the first harmonic over any fundamental tone is an octave above it, the next is an an octave plus a fifth, the next is two octaves...

The existence of a playable note a mere third above the played one is not a factor in this in the overtone series produced by the played note.

The harmonics of any performed pitch are so far above the reliable "slotting" of the tubing that I am very doubtful that the resonances of the tube bend the harmonics as hornbuilder is describing.

Possibly... they have some small role in causing some natural harmonics to predominate and others to be dampened?

[quote="hornbuilder"]A certain length of tube can only produce one set of harmonics. If that wasn't the case, we could play any note in any position. That is why we can play alternate positions. The "alternate" note has to be a note available on the harmonic series of that particular slide position.[/quote]

The conventional statement is that a certain length of tube can produce only one base pitch (sometimes called a "fundamental") and several overblown notes (sometimes called "partials"). In classic physics these overblown notes are always whole number multiple frequencies of the base note. (Real musical instruments are contrived to approximate this as closely as possible.)

This is different from the harmonics that a played tone contains.

The harmonics produced by by a classic resonator, string or air column, will always be whole number multiples of the fundamental frequency.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2022-07-03 1:55 p.m.

Back to the OP’s question: Several people have answered this very well, but I’ll add something something to the mix. The modern bass trombone is a compromise arrived at through experimentation (history) and efficiency (the desire to play things more easily and allow more people to play the instrument). It is designed to work as a bass trombone. Being pitched in Bb, the slide has 7 positions, so it can produce a chromatic scale and it’s about an arm’s length. It’s easier to play than a bass trombone with a handle, whether that instrument is pitched in F, Eb, D, or any other pitch. The large bore helps to produce a “darker” sound, a compromised “mimic” of the sound of a bass in a longer length.

The more important thing, however, is the role and function of the part and player. The person playing the part must assume play the instrument in the role and function served by the music regardless of the instrument. An extreme example to prove the point: If you can play a bass trombone part on a tenor sarrusophone and still produce a characteristic sound, articulation, phrasing, blend, etc., then what would it matter? It’s the sound, the function (in the chord), and the role (what part does it play in the group) that’s important.

Several people have mentioned playing different pieces on smaller-bore trombones. I’ve played bass trombone parts on a large-bore tenor when the first played alto and the second played a 36 or a 78H. (I would have preferred an F bass, but I don’t have the money or availability for one.) If it works—if it makes the sound, and serves the role and function—why would it matter what instrument is played?

Yes, the different lengths produce different colors of sound, and in the hands of a knowledgeable and accomplished player, an F or Eb or G bass will sound “better.” But for the rest of us mortals, we’ll have to make do with a Bb bass.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2022-07-03 2:04 p.m.

Robert.

Your assumption is incorrect.

We can only play notes that are available to us on any particular length of tube. The harmonic frequencies and the alignment of those frequencies of that tube do not change.

So. When we play a pedal Bb in 1st position, sound we hear is the fundamental pitch of Bb, with the harmonic structure available on that length of tube. ie Bb one octave above the fundamental,then F, then Bb, D, Ab, Bb, C etc..

Playing the low Bb, in first position, resonates the same harmonic series as the pedal Bb, but minus the fundamental. So the harmonic partials are the same F, Bb, D, Ab, Bb, C etc.

Playing first position F gives the harmonic series above it of Bb, D, Ab, Bb etc.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-03 3:30 p.m.

I thought this was common knowledge. This is why your Bb in 5th will never sound the same as Bb in first. They have different harmonic series forming their tone, on different lengths of pipe.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-03 4:51 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="StefanHaller" post_id="182405" time="1656868262" user_id="74">

Guess I'll have to record some notes and post some spectograms if you don't believe this.[/quote]

Don't tease us now! I bet you won't!
</QUOTE>
Don't even need to. This is very easily done. I recorded the opening of Tuba Mirum from YouTube. I isolated the second note, F and plotted the spectrum. The peaks are 351 hz - F4, 529 hz - C5, 703 hz - F5, 877 hz - A5, 1052 hz - C6, etc. The overtones are of the pitch that we hear, F, not from the fundamental of that slide position, which would be Bb. Which is what I would expect. If it didn't have the overtones of the note F, I don't think we would even hear it as an F. In fact, it wouldn't be an F.

u_2bobone · by **u_2bobone** » 2022-07-03 5:41 p.m.

NO ! Not the dreaded charts ! This thread is heating up too much and should be shut down !

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-03 5:42 p.m.

[quote="2bobone"]NO ! Not the dreaded charts ! This thread is heating up too much and should be shut down ![/quote]
Get out the popcorn!

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2022-07-03 6:37 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]The overtones are of the pitch that we hear, F, not from the fundamental of that slide position, which would be Bb. Which is what I would expect. If it didn't have the overtones of the note F, I don't think we would even hear it as an F. In fact, it wouldn't be an F.[/quote]

Agreed. That's also why the brain readily and often infers fundamental pitch from the harmonic content of sounds where the actual 1st partial is absent or weak (either 'actually' weak, or because the 1st partial lies towards the bottom of the average hearing range for sine waves).

For 'same note played in different positions' purposes, the different tube length must modify standing wave behavior, so the relative strengths presented in the standard 'within note' harmonic structure will be somewhat different - hence the somewhat different sound. (And yes, the conical/cylindrical issue of slide extension must have some effect on perceived tone, but that's probably where the modelling gets complicated.)

WRT Matthew's contention, playing a given note on a given partial is not merely extracting a sine wave component from the 'complete spectrum' of the pedal note...

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-03 6:48 p.m.

[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="brassmedic" post_id="182419" time="1656881507" user_id="4102">
The overtones are of the pitch that we hear, F, not from the fundamental of that slide position, which would be Bb. Which is what I would expect. If it didn't have the overtones of the note F, I don't think we would even hear it as an F. In fact, it wouldn't be an F.[/quote]

Agreed. That's also why the brain readily and often infers fundamental pitch from the harmonic content of sounds where the actual 1st partial is absent or weak (either 'actually' weak, or because the 1st partial lies towards the bottom of the average hearing range for sine waves).

For 'same note played in different positions' purposes, the different tube length must modify standing wave behavior, so the relative strengths presented in the standard 'within note' harmonic structure will be somewhat different - hence the somewhat different sound. (And yes, the conical/cylindrical issue of slide extension must have some effect on perceived tone, but that's probably where the modelling gets complicated.)

WRT Matthew's contention, playing a given note on a given partial is not merely extracting a sine wave component from the 'complete spectrum' of the pedal note...
</QUOTE>
Absolutely. I would expect to see the same overtones, but different ones emphasized. That's what timbre is, and I think its patently obvious that the same note played in a different position has a different timbre.

Chatname · by **Chatname** » 2022-07-03 7:09 p.m.

First , I don’t play bass trombone so any experimentation would have to be done by other players. Otherwise, I would certainly already be doing it.

Second, I regret using the phrase “real bass trombone”. It was meant to be tongue in cheek but was unserious on my behalf, and probably provocative. I should not be so caught up with the words and terms. I apologize.

Third, on the first chair in the symphony orchestras I know of and also in mine, three or four instruments are used regularly: a large tenor (with F attachment), a small and maybe even a medium tenor (possibly straight) and an Eb/alto. On the third chair one is expected to play a large double valved Bb bass, a little smaller single valved Bb bass and at least in opera or large orchestras a contra bass in F. My thought was that in addition to this, a small F trombone would be very interesting to experiment with. Many instruments to handle, obviously. Maybe too many. However, if one learns how to play the F contra, a smaller bore F bass should not be impossible to add to the mixture and might keep life in the orchestra more interesting. Might add some exciting colors and expressions to the section playing as well, like the alto.

Fourth, the physics! Very interesting discussion by you people who know a lot more than me! I got the popcorn out and am learning a lot!

Thank you

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-03 8:08 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]<QUOTE author="ithinknot" post_id="182431" time="1656887837" user_id="9763">

Agreed. That's also why the brain readily and often infers fundamental pitch from the harmonic content of sounds where the actual 1st partial is absent or weak (either 'actually' weak, or because the 1st partial lies towards the bottom of the average hearing range for sine waves).

For 'same note played in different positions' purposes, the different tube length must modify standing wave behavior, so the relative strengths presented in the standard 'within note' harmonic structure will be somewhat different - hence the somewhat different sound. (And yes, the conical/cylindrical issue of slide extension must have some effect on perceived tone, but that's probably where the modelling gets complicated.)

WRT Matthew's contention, playing a given note on a given partial is not merely extracting a sine wave component from the 'complete spectrum' of the pedal note...[/quote]
Absolutely. I would expect to see the same overtones, but different ones emphasized. That's what timbre is, and I think its patently obvious that the same note played in a different position has a different timbre.
</QUOTE>

Yes. If playing an F in 1st position significantly resonated the system at Bb and D, then we'd perceive the note as a Bb below that. That's how they fake 32' and 64' stops on organs, and also a lot of what happens when we play pedal tones (which are not a mode of resonance of the system, and have a very weak fundamental, but the brains hears them because the right pattern of overtones is there)

The instrument is a resonator, and it essentially filters the input frequencies and resonates only at or near its modes of resonance, which in first position is roughly a Bb harmonic series.

These are incredibly complex phenomena that are still not fully understood, and I'm not an expert, so I might be very wrong on parts of this, but as far as I understand, when you play an F in 1st, the system will not resonate on the overtones of F that aren't also modes of resonance for that particular length of trombone tubing. However, it will also not resonate at modes that are not being excited by the input.

And while the instrument resonates only those Bb harmonic series frequencies, the same is not true of our lips or vocal tract. When we play an F, we are not just generating random noise and letting the instrument filter it. We are producing an F harmonic series (maybe a bit rough, with some amount of noise). That the length of tubing is part of what makes our lips want to vibrate at that pitch in the first place doesn't change the fact that our body is not a fixed resonator like the instrument is, and doesn't have a preference for Bb.

So, the input is an F harmonic series, the instrument acts as a resonator for the all the F's and some of the higher C's within our note (i.e. the frequencies that are both harmonics of F and near modes of resonance of the pipe), and as a megaphone for the rest of the harmonic spectrum that we produce but that doesn't line up with the instrument's modes. So you get an F harmonic series with some but not all harmonics reinforced by the resonator. If you play that F in 6th position, all of the harmonics correspond to modes of resonance, and so the harmonics are reinforced in a different way. Of course then you have to deal with a different resistance and different problems with the altered conicity (which probably introduces a fair bit of extra inharmonicity too).

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2022-07-03 9:15 p.m.

Back on the original question, I've also often wondered about the singular nomenclature applied or possibly misapplied to the "bass trombone". I keep searching for a better playing alternative, and I keep coming back to a valved F instrument. The slide kind of complicates or even hinders the bass voice, in my view. As long as there is some sort of effective tuning mechanism, a small cimbasso / bass trombonium 4/5 valve thing in F would be better for real bass parts. Orchestral 3rd parts are often just on-the-staff 3rd parts, and usually don't require even a second valve. Real bass parts intrude on the tuba range, of course with a brighter sound.

Current 2valve bass trombones are problematic on a number of fronts, and it wouldn't be much of a chore to improve on it. Ergonomics, blatty sound, playability, confusion amongst composers about its role. Did I mention ergonomics?

Digidog · by **Digidog** » 2022-07-04 4:47 a.m.

I don't give a rat's a$$ if a bass instrument is deemed real or not; I care for its use and its sonority. If an instrument is used for a bass function, it is a bass to me; if it sounds like a bass in the setting it's used, then it is a bass to me.

That said, I think that modern trombones are getting too large, and that orchestras and bands use too large trombones; too large bores, too wide bells. My preferred trombone section sound, regardless of setting, is a sonor vocal sound, with a distinct underlying hint of the ability to become piercing and brutally explosive without previous warning. A group of instruments that sound sweet and nice, but hints at totally different underlying characteristics.

Leaving the diffused attacks, the round, mellow and saturated brass sounds, to the horns and the tubas.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2022-07-04 1:39 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Chatname, I believe you are ignoring the reason we went to the current style of bass trombone.

Instruments in G, F, or Eb have VERY long slides. You can't reach all the positions with just an arm -- you need some kind of extension. Usually it's a handle. The handle is cumbersome to manipulate. When it became possible to just add the additional tube length using a "quartventil" the new technology effectively replaced the old nearly overnight. You still use the wide bore for response in the lower range, but you get effectively 10 positions between the Bb and F sides of the instrument.[/quote] I believe back then even the these bass trombones had smaller bores than a "modern" bass trombone. I know the "classic" bass or contrabass trombone is pictured with the handle on the slide, but that really was mooted with the introduction with the F attachment. Combined with using larger bells and bores, the space that the original bass trombones had in the orchestra was filled.

Once the second valve was added, that was pretty much the end.

I know that there are modern F / G bass and contrabass trombones, but those also tend to be larger in bore than those used "back in the day", mainly because the sound desired by orchestras and conductors changed. You can see a similar change with Tubas and Bass Tubas. Bores, Bells, and instruments got bigger as a more "organ-like" sound was desired. It's especially noticeable when you compare F and Eb tubas from the late 19th / early 20th century to what they became by the mid 20th century.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2022-07-04 2:40 p.m.

I think Chatname was looking for a large bore Eb or F trombone; the length of the old instruments but a modern bore size.

I stand by my feeling that it is obsolete. If you want the sound of an F or Eb bass trombone, play the Bb/[whatever] one with the valve depressed. I have managed to play my Bb/F trombone on the F side out to about 5th position (Db/Ab/Db/...). I've found that playing the notes on the F side don't really make enough of a difference to matter; at least in the ensembles where I play. I can use these trigger notes to make difficult passages within and below the bass staff play better, but sound-wise they don't really provide an advantage. In fact, trying to play this extended tubing sometimes makes the notes more difficult to play with a resulting awful sound.

A large bore instrument favors the bass register, regardless of its length.

StefanHaller · by **StefanHaller** » 2022-07-04 3:04 p.m.

Here's the spectogram that I promised earlier. Not because I think it's still needed to prove my point (after a few other forum members have chimed in), but because Harrison challenged me to it. :-)

In this recording I played three A's (top of the base staff), the first one in 2nd position, the second in 6th position, and the third in trigger-5 (or #6 or whatever you want to call that). As you can see, the harmonic spectrum is the same for all of them, and on the keyboard on the left you can easily see that the harmonics are A, A, E, A, C# and so on.

The forth note I played was a low F in 6th position, just to show that its harmonic series does not line up with the A in 6th position, as was claimed before. (I now realize that I should have played a pedal F to make that even clearer; sorry.)

<ATTACHMENT filename="Screenshot 2022-07-04 at 20.48.27.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Screenshot 2022-07-04 at 20.48.27.png</ATTACHMENT>

StefanHaller · by **StefanHaller** » 2022-07-04 3:05 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I thought this was common knowledge. This is why your Bb in 5th will never sound the same as Bb in first. They have different harmonic series forming their tone, on different lengths of pipe.[/quote]
So this just shows how wide-spread this misconception is, then.

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-07-04 6:07 p.m.

Stefan,

Looks like pretty good control to get the A's as close in volume as you did.

Does your tool have a simple way to normalize the volume, so the side-by-sides are more directly comparable?

These three A's always sound different to my ear. Since they are, for me, qualitatively different, I wonder if your tool can help wtih ANY quantitative differences?

Regardless of whether timbre changes come from the ratios of tubing diameter to length to frequency, or materials, or acoustic path discontinuities, our ears DO pick them up. Kinda hard to get good numbers to back that up, though.

Also, I wonder how much contribution goes in here from the "every other partial" nature of a pipe closed at one end? The way the bell and mouthpiece cup squash the partials so we get the "natural" series we expect from string based theory is pretty wild. The squashing does NOT have to match the natural series very well to work. But would one not expect that having a shape that DOES match the natural series well would mean better reinforcement for the harmonics that line up with one of the resonant frequencies of the horn? Can't say that I could see that very clearly in the spectogram, yet I still wonder.

Thanks for posting it!!

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-07-04 6:12 p.m.

Hmmm... I'm looking at Brad's post again. I realized I know how to get that data in Audacity, and export it.

I wonder if I could normalize the volume with Audacity, then overlay the spectrum data in one plot, so the differences would be clearer side-by-side. Maybe even python, so I could zoom in on the kinkiest areas... just what I need... another project... must... resist...

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2022-07-04 6:53 p.m.

Now stuff like this always interests me, like how when you play a Pedal note on a trombone, the actual note itself isn't really ringing, it's just the overtones.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-04 10:52 p.m.

:hi: [quote="StefanHaller"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="182418" time="1656876621" user_id="3642">
I thought this was common knowledge. This is why your Bb in 5th will never sound the same as Bb in first. They have different harmonic series forming their tone, on different lengths of pipe.[/quote]
So this just shows how wide-spread this misconception is, then.
</QUOTE>

Yeah, let me stand corrected. Your data and the previous spectograph data is even more evidence showing just how useless a "real bass trombone" would be vs. a modern one in most playing situations. Not saying there isn't a use, but overtone series dictating tone as one of them is disproven. I'm glad you did it, the image is clear as day. It looks like, if anything, the upper overtones are stronger farther out on the slide. But like notes are all made out the same parts.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-05 3:34 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]:hi: <QUOTE author="StefanHaller" post_id="182520" time="1656961539" user_id="74">

So this just shows how wide-spread this misconception is, then.[/quote]

Yeah, let me stand corrected. Your data and the previous spectograph data is even more evidence showing just how useless a "real bass trombone" would be vs. a modern one in most playing situations. Not saying there isn't a use, but overtone series dictating tone as one of them is disproven. I'm glad you did it, the image is clear as day. It looks like, if anything, the upper overtones are stronger farther out on the slide. But like notes are all made out the same parts.
</QUOTE>
Huh?

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-05 4:42 a.m.

It looks like the notes are all the same, regardless of position, aka horn tuning

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-05 5:25 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]It looks like the notes are all the same, regardless of position, aka horn tuning[/quote]

Sure, then let's all play euphoniums or bass trumpets. Those will have similar if not identical graphs. Even a cello or bari sax might have a similar looking graph... The purpose was to show that no, the harmonic series doesn't suddenly include other notes because you play in a different position. This graph is way too low resolution and doesn't present data to show anything beyond the fact that an F is an F, and has an F harmonic series. Timbre is way, way more complex (and still far from well understood even by acousticians) than just the rough harmonic spectrum (which also doesn't account for playing characteristics). The sustain of most instrument's tone is so close that when isolated from the attack and decay, one often can't correctly guess what instrument produced it.

I actually play long basses for a living. No, an instrument pitched a fourth lower doesn't sound or play the same as when playing in 6th position, or engaging the valve. It just doesn't.

I've read you writing about the Edwards harmonic bridge and strongly supporting the fact that inserting a mere screw in there does changes your instrument. Are you really going to say that you believe an instrument that is actually built completely different, with different proportions, different balance, different conicity, etc, would somehow sound the same?

Digidog · by **Digidog** » 2022-07-05 5:50 a.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]I actually play long basses for a living. No, an instrument pitched a fourth lower doesn't sound or play the same as when playing in 6th position, or engaging the valve. It just doesn't.

I've read you writing about the Edwards harmonic bridge and strongly supporting the fact that inserting a mere screw in there does changes your instrument. Are you really going to say that you believe an instrument that is actually built completely different, with different proportions, different balance, different conicity, etc, would somehow sound the same?[/quote]

Most people here seem to miss the fact that frequencies can be the same, but the sine waves can look different - this producing the same note with a different sound.

Instrument builders know this, and that's why seemingly similar instruments - like fluegelhorns and trumpets - sound very different when played with the proper fittings.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2022-07-05 7:32 a.m.

Oh ok. I'm back to my original belief then. I knew D in 4th sounded different.

:tongue:

imsevimse · by **imsevimse** » 2022-07-05 9:23 a.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="182557" time="1657010566" user_id="3642">
It looks like the notes are all the same, regardless of position, aka horn tuning[/quote]

Sure, then let's all play euphoniums or bass trumpets. Those will have similar if not identical graphs. Even a cello or bari sax might have a similar looking graph... The purpose was to show that no, the harmonic series doesn't suddenly include other notes because you play in a different position. This graph is way too low resolution and doesn't present data to show anything beyond the fact that an F is an F, and has an F harmonic series. Timbre is way, way more complex (and still far from well understood even by acousticians) than just the rough harmonic spectrum (which also doesn't account for playing characteristics). The sustain of most instrument's tone is so close that when isolated from the attack and decay, one often can't correctly guess what instrument produced it.

I actually play long basses for a living. No, an instrument pitched a fourth lower doesn't sound or play the same as when playing in 6th position, or engaging the valve. It just doesn't.

I've read you writing about the Edwards harmonic bridge and strongly supporting the fact that inserting a mere screw in there does changes your instrument. Are you really going to say that you believe an instrument that is actually built completely different, with different proportions, different balance, different conicity, etc, would somehow sound the same?
</QUOTE>

Good post! :hi:

I think we do our best to make an egal sound on the instrument we play. That is an important part of learning the instrument to make an egal sound in all registers. I know it is not possible because the instrument has different timbre in high and low register no matter what but it is still a goal to connect registers sound wise. I think best is just to listen and play.

/Tom

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-05 8:36 p.m.

You can definitely see timbre in the data when you plot a spectrogram. Here's the first note (D) of the Bach Sarabande played by James Markey (on top) and then by Yo Yo Ma.<ATTACHMENT filename="sarabande2.jpg" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~sarabande2.jpg</ATTACHMENT> The difference is actually rather striking. To me it looks like the trombone sound has more "core". But this is a crude representation, so we don't know how much is due to the instrument and how much is due to the sheer volume of the note, the acoustics of the room, and how they were recorded. To be really scientific about this, you would have a lot of variables to control.

u_2bobone · by **u_2bobone** » 2022-07-05 9:33 p.m.

NO ! Not the dreaded Spectrograms ! This thread is heating up too much and should be shut down !

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-07-06 6:45 a.m.

[quote="2bobone"]NO ! Not the dreaded Spectrograms ! This thread is heating up too much and should be shut down ![/quote]

YES INDEED! SPECTROGRAMS! :)

They are not just for breakfast, er, single notes. They work well for any waveform, such as a musical excerpt.

This is by a player who, to my ears, is VERY consistent in his playing. He played the same excerpt on his Bach 36, then on his Bach 42.

The "full" attachment is for spectral values across the whole range sampled from the WAV file.

The "upper" attachment is for the final octaves.

As in Brad's example, you can see definite differences in how the same basic spectral "steps" combine for different timbres.

And now I'm curious enough to try a single note or two in as many positions as I can find to go with the previous single note comparisons. I find it easier to visualize when they are on one chart like this rather than in two.

Which means... even MORE spectrograms, Bob! :)

Dave

PS: for the technically minded: I switched from the traditional "frequency in Hz" on the x-axis to "octaves over lowest note" because many folks relate more easily to octaves.

PPS: On these it is worth keeping in mind that the visually greater deviations in the upper octaves are subject to the psycho-acoustic audio curve that require more power at extreme frequencies to be audible.

PPPS: sorry if I got duplicates in the html. Struggled mightily but lost to the attachment demons!

<ATTACHMENT filename="36v42_full.jpg" index="1">~~[attachment=1]~~36v42_full.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

<ATTACHMENT filename="36v42_upper.jpg" index="1">~~[attachment=1]~~36v42_upper.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2022-07-06 8:18 a.m.

We seem to be straying somewhat from the original question, which was why when other instrument families go from soprano to alto to tenor to bass to contrabass they get longer while some trombone models do not. In fact, if we were to accept the original poster's plaint what we call a contra in F would be a "true" bass, and something like the Mirafone would be a "true" contrabass. It is a definition that goes back to Praetorius, who illustrated a whole family of trombones of increasing lengths. The problem is that as we descend to the larger instruments they become unwieldy to manipulate. Also, we have the examples of saxhorns and other valved brass from the mid 19th century where the tenor, baritone, and bass instruments were all the same length but different bores.

It might be interesting to see the spectrograms of, for example, F3 in 1st, F3 in 6th, and F3 in trigger 5.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2022-07-06 10:53 a.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]We seem to be straying somewhat from the original question, which was why when other instrument families go from soprano to alto to tenor to bass to contrabass they get longer while some trombone models do not. In fact, if we were to accept the original poster's plaint what we call a contra in F would be a "true" bass, and something like the Mirafone would be a "true" contrabass. It is a definition that goes back to Praetorius, who illustrated a whole family of trombones of increasing lengths. The problem is that as we descend to the larger instruments they become unwieldy to manipulate. Also, we have the examples of saxhorns and other valved brass from the mid 19th century where the tenor, baritone, and bass instruments were all the same length but different bores.

It might be interesting to see the spectrograms of, for example, F3 in 1st, F3 in 6th, and F3 in trigger 5.[/quote]

And Praetorius doesn't name a "bass trombone", but rather uses the term "Quartposaune" for the long bass in D.

Nomenclature has never, ever been consistent. A bass trumpet is not a bass instrument. A cello is, literally, a "small large viol". You can't fit a nearly 600 year-old instrument into neat, consistent, late-19th-century boxes (especially when instrument families actually invented in that time often can't fit the boxes themselves!). We just need to accept that and move on.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-06 11:00 a.m.

All the brass families got shorter with the advent of valves, except the cornet, which originally had finger holes to allow it to play chromatically without extra length. Some will probably say, "but the French Horn is in F". It's really no different than modern trombone, though. Higher notes are played on the Bb side and lower notes are played on the F side. Modern bass trombones are mostly in the key of D with both valves engaged, the same as the old quint bass with the tuning slide pulled. The difference now is that instruments can be shortened on the fly, so higher notes don't have to be played on the extreme upper partials of the instrument. The tuba is the only one that has actually evolved into a longer instrument, but tuba didn't exist before valves. Brass instruments have a different quality of sound when played on higher partials, which is why we have ensembles that recreate period instruments to get that more interesting timbre. But why would we want to do this only for the bass trombone if we aren't doing it for all the other instruments in the ensemble?

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2022-07-06 11:19 a.m.

it's an interesting assumption to say that microphones will always capture 100% of the audio information being fed into them. a spectral analysis is also dependent on the information being captured, and microphones are imperfect receivers, even at the higher end of the available spectrum.

as far as having preferences for other instruments, go ahead and bring them to gigs and auditions. if you can win over people, then that's great

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2022-07-06 1:45 p.m.

[quote="boneagain"]YES INDEED! SPECTROGRAMS! :)

They are not just for breakfast, er, single notes. They work well for any waveform, such as a musical excerpt.

This is by a player who, to my ears, is VERY consistent in his playing. He played the same excerpt on his Bach 36, then on his Bach 42.

....[/quote]

This is one thing that always gets me on these types of studies, to your ears they are consistent. However, with this tool (the gage being the microphone and analysis), we can actually quantify exactly how repeatable they play as measured by the graph. Do we know that the difference in the 36 and 42 graphs shown is greater or lesser than the random variation of just playing the same thing over again on the 42? I don't know that and if the player was me I would bet against it. Quantifying any difference here and the scale of such a difference on average is fascinating to me. Actually define how much is different horn to horn, person to person, performance to performance. Heck, right now we do not even exactly know if the chart would be the same if the microphone were listening to a recording. I think it is fair to assume that it would, but there will be variability even in that scenario if we look close enough.

That also leads us to:
[quote="WilliamLang"]it's an interesting assumption to say that microphones will always capture 100% of the audio information being fed into them. a spectral analysis is also dependent on the information being captured, and microphones are imperfect receivers, even at the higher end of the available spectrum.

...[/quote]
Right, I would be VERY careful interpreting any of this as reproduceable to a different recording setup. This type of analysis is probably best used to highlight when something is the same or different within the detection window. There are multiple things that can filter or alter the input as seen, but if those are unchanged for a particular set, the differences can be see and scaled to provide directional information. Different systems could have a different repeatability value for the same performer and instrument... this can be quantified, but this step is skipped in every study I have ever seen.

Repeatability and Reproduceability get at why we can rarely get out of our way on these studies; just because you saw a higher point on one chart does not mean anything other than it was higher this one time on that one performance. Maybe it is actually lower on average, but a higher variance on that setup? That is something that I often feel about horns, some help me be consistent, some require more out of me.

Cheers,

Andy

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-07-06 2:10 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]Do we know that the difference in the 36 and 42 graphs shown is greater or lesser than the random variation of just playing the same thing over again on the 42?[/quote]

Great question. And, drat, I lost the file where we did JUST that! The overlays were pretty startlingly the same. But I can't honestly ask anyone to just take my work for that :)

Which is why I'm going to try just the multiple notes with different positions trick. More than once. Comparing notes that the tuner and my ear says are the same with each other.

I WILL normalize volume in Audacity. As you say, the fewer variable the more comparable the results.

RE: Williams note about microphone accuracy: I know I did not assume a microphone would capture 100% of the audio information. I know for a fact that ALL the microphones I have are "colored" in one way or another. Thing is, if that coloring is applied the same to both traces, it's still a usable comparison. I think sampling rate can have as much impact on results as microphone. These were, IIRC, 44k Hz. For the comparisons I'll do on single notes I'll go over double that, so none of the interesting overtones will suffer from Nyquist limit challenges.

RE: Bruce's comment about getting back to the OP.... I did not read his first post that way. He DID make assertions about "real basses" having a certain fundamental pitch. The comments about "real" are just as valid a response as those about length-based families. And I think discussion of timbres of different bore/length combinations fits nicely into both side of that. Of course, that is only my opinion.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-06 3:28 p.m.

The player should normalize the volume, not the software. The volume changes the sound spectrum, and merely reducing the volume with the software will only compress the graph. Ideally you would be able to play a note many times, making sure they are all the same volume, and generate a graph that averages them all together. Then when you compare two graphs, you will have eliminated the random variations.

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-07-06 7:45 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]The player should normalize the volume, not the software. The volume changes the sound spectrum, and merely reducing the volume with the software will only compress the graph. Ideally you would be able to play a note many times, making sure they are all the same volume, and generate a graph that averages them all together. Then when you compare two graphs, you will have eliminated the random variations.[/quote]

Just learned that the hard way :)

Having a tuning meter right there eliminates one variable.

I think I have a solid sound level meter around somewhere. I'd use the computer screen, but it gets in the way of being able to hold the horn and watch the tuner (and listen to the simultaneous drone.)

MUCH better results using unequal volume "raw" stuff than computer normalized, EXACTLY as you point out.

Expecting even better results after having the speedo and tach, er, tuner and volume.

Interestingly, the tips of the FFT spikes seem to stablize across volumes for a given position, with the valleys between those peaks going up and down with volume. Obviously, more experimenting required...

MrHCinDE · by **MrHCinDE** » 2022-07-07 6:21 a.m.

Where does this fit on the scale of realness:

~~[url]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anz ... 9-74-2041?">https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anzeige/posaune-es-barock-von-gebr-alexander-mainz/2149779989-74-2041?</LINK_TEXT>

baileyman · by **baileyman** » 2022-07-07 7:53 a.m.

Re the Bartok gliss, if I recall he was poking fun at Shostakovich with that, a guy he thought was basically a fraud. It's funny how players obsess over it. Conceivably, Bartok may have written a basically unplayable line as part of the joke.

On the sound of a long bass, it seems like there are two things happening here. First is the overtone series, which on an air column are pretty exact in frequency until the very high multiples. Second is the trombone formant, which is characteristic of trombones in general and also individual horns, as a result of "errors" in the air column. These make internal reflections and "color" the overtone series as a series of weights in the series (different coefficients). For any fixed position, the formant is constant but changes with slide length. "Bach sound" seems likely to be from a characteristic formant created by slide joint diameter mismatch, tuning slide receiver diameter jumps, slide bow diameter jumps, for instance. So basically, the formant for an F bass with long slide should still say "trombone" but would also say "different" compared to a short slide bass, even when playing the same note with the same amount of tubing at work.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2022-07-07 8:30 a.m.

I like your idea. But who's going to notice the difference? The conductor? Probably not most. The audience? Probably even fewer. Only a few (and I want to emphasize few) trombone players will notice.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2022-07-07 9:29 a.m.

[quote="baileyman"]Re the Bartok gliss, if I recall he was poking fun at Shostakovich with that, a guy he thought was basically a fraud. It's funny how players obsess over it. Conceivably, Bartok may have written a basically unplayable line as part of the joke.[/quote]

Fascinating thought. I really like the music of both Bartok and Shostakovich. I wonder what Bela thought was fraudulent about Dmitri? :idk:

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2022-07-07 9:38 a.m.

[quote="baileyman"]On the sound of a long bass, it seems like there are two things happening here. First is the overtone series, which on an air column are pretty exact in frequency until the very high multiples. Second is the trombone formant, which is characteristic of trombones in general and also individual horns, as a result of "errors" in the air column. These make internal reflections and "color" the overtone series as a series of weights in the series (different coefficients). For any fixed position, the formant is constant but changes with slide length. "Bach sound" seems likely to be from a characteristic formant created by slide joint diameter mismatch, tuning slide receiver diameter jumps, slide bow diameter jumps, for instance.[/quote]

Interesting insight. Thanks for that. I really don't know (or, I guess, appreciate) the "Bach sound" because I've never played one since I sampled several Bach 42Bs many years ago and found those trombones inferior to my wonderful Conn 88H (which I still play and love). I'm sure the Conn "formant" is rather different from the Bach's. Apparently I approve of Conn's "errors!"

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2022-07-07 10:34 a.m.

Re the "Bach Sound". That sound comes from the bell. Not the rest of the horn. Putting a 42 bell on a Conn chassis gives a horn that sounds like a Bach 42. Similarly, an 88 bell on a 42 Chassis gives a horn that sounds like a Conn 88. Observation based on having done the experiment.

HowardW · by **HowardW** » 2022-07-07 12:18 p.m.

[quote="baileyman"]Re the Bartok gliss, if I recall he was poking fun at Shostakovich with that, a guy he thought was basically a fraud. It's funny how players obsess over it. Conceivably, Bartok may have written a basically unplayable line as part of the joke.[/quote]

Unplayable and part of the joke? Hardly. Actually, Bartók also used the BB to F bass trombone gliss in other places. For example 22 times in The Miraculous Mandarin, in the full ballet version (one measure before rehearsal no. 97 to one before no. 101 -- the first two times are BB to F, then 20 times up-and-down F to BB to F.

I remember when the Boston Symphony played Bluebeard's Castle at the Lucerne Festival in 2001, Doug Yeo played the bass trombone part on the F-bass that he also always used for the glissando in the Concerto as well as for the Mandarin. I don't have a score of Bluebeard, so I can't say if there is also a BB to F gliss there too, but apparently the part fits well on the F-bass.

See also the so-called "glissandi" in all three trombones in the ad lib finale of the Violin Concerto. They are not actually glissandi, but the slide position numbers in the bass trombone part correspond to those of an F-bass.

I don't know why Bartók thought of the bass trombone as an instrument in F. I have a couple ideas, but I've never been able to find any tangible evidence ...

Moreover, I don't know if Bartók thought that Shostakovich was a fraud, but he surely thought that the theme Shostakovich repeated ad nauseam in the Seventh Symphony was extremely trite: hence the scornful laughs assigned to the trombones after his quotation and persiflage of it.

Howard

sungfw · by **sungfw** » 2022-07-07 2:02 p.m.

Interesting thread on whether or not Bartók was parodying Shostakovich 7 over on the ~~[url=https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=24859.0]~~Good Music Guide Classical forum (including the observation that Shostakovich parodied Bartók's Sonata for 2 Pianos and Percussion in the 13th.)

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2022-07-07 2:28 p.m.

[quote="MrHCinDE"]Where does this fit on the scale of realness:

~~[url]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anz ... 9-74-2041?">https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anzeige/posaune-es-barock-von-gebr-alexander-mainz/2149779989-74-2041?</LINK_TEXT>[/quote]

Pretty low on the scale. That's about the most inauthentic sackbut you could find. At least it doesn't have a valve.

baileyman · by **baileyman** » 2022-07-08 7:02 a.m.

[quote="HowardW"]<QUOTE author="baileyman" post_id="182724" time="1657194813" user_id="160">
Re the Bartok gliss, if I recall he was poking fun at Shostakovich with that, a guy he thought was basically a fraud. It's funny how players obsess over it. Conceivably, Bartok may have written a basically unplayable line as part of the joke.[/quote]

Unplayable and part of the joke? Hardly. Actually, Bartók also used the BB to F bass trombone gliss in other places. For example 22 times in The Miraculous Mandarin, in the full ballet version (one measure before rehearsal no. 97 to one before no. 101 -- the first two times are BB to F, then 20 times up-and-down F to BB to F.

I remember when the Boston Symphony played Bluebeard's Castle at the Lucerne Festival in 2001, Doug Yeo played the bass trombone part on the F-bass that he also always used for the glissando in the Concerto as well as for the Mandarin. I don't have a score of Bluebeard, so I can't say if there is also a BB to F gliss there too, but apparently the part fits well on the F-bass.

See also the so-called "glissandi" in all three trombones in the ad lib finale of the Violin Concerto. They are not actually glissandi, but the slide position numbers in the bass trombone part correspond to those of an F-bass.

I don't know why Bartók thought of the bass trombone as an instrument in F. I have a couple ideas, but I've never been able to find any tangible evidence ...

Moreover, I don't know if Bartók thought that Shostakovich was a fraud, but he surely thought that the theme Shostakovich repeated ad nauseam in the Seventh Symphony was extremely trite: hence the scornful laughs assigned to the trombones after his quotation and persiflage of it.

Howard
</QUOTE>

The gentleman yields the rest of his time on this topic to Howard.

rickfaulknernyc · by **rickfaulknernyc** » 2022-07-08 10:12 a.m.

[quote="Matt K"]And it isn’t necessarily volume or else I suspect big bands would be packed with 547 horns too.[/quote]

I remember once reading a quote from somebody, talking about high school and college jazz bands using large-bore tenors: "sounds like a squadron of baritone horns." In a jazz context, a section of large-bore tenors would sound too thick and not have enough bite.

BTW, a section of three tenors was the norm in most big bands until at least the 50's. I love the sound of the three-tenor Duke Ellington section, especially in the 50's: tight unisons and ringing triads.

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-09-06 9:31 a.m.

Over a month in the making.... new and improved spectrograms for Mr. Kraft!!!

[quote="boneagain"]<QUOTE author="brassmedic" post_id="182686" time="1657135708" user_id="4102">
The player should normalize the volume, not the software. The volume changes the sound spectrum, and merely reducing the volume with the software will only compress the graph. Ideally you would be able to play a note many times, making sure they are all the same volume, and generate a graph that averages them all together. Then when you compare two graphs, you will have eliminated the random variations.[/quote]

Just learned that the hard way :)

Having a tuning meter right there eliminates one variable.

I think I have a solid sound level meter around somewhere. I'd use the computer screen, but it gets in the way of being able to hold the horn and watch the tuner (and listen to the simultaneous drone.)

MUCH better results using unequal volume "raw" stuff than computer normalized, EXACTLY as you point out.

Expecting even better results after having the speedo and tach, er, tuner and volume.

Interestingly, the tips of the FFT spikes seem to stablize across volumes for a given position, with the valleys between those peaks going up and down with volume. Obviously, more experimenting required...
</QUOTE>

See notes these six charts.

Another chart follows the notes.

<ATTACHMENT filename="FFT_Overlays.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~FFT_Overlays.png</ATTACHMENT>

As Brad pointed out, matching volume is crucial. Just to be on the safe side, I matched volume AND pitch as closely as I can these days. I picked A220 in three slide/valve combinations, adding LOTS of tubing into the mix.

Let's start with the SECOND row of plots. I kept the slide in the same position while playin three different dynamics. Lots of visible chart color overlay for each position. Not surprising. We EXPECT timbre to change with volume. Notice that, at least with MY microphone, things taper off a LOT by around 7k Hz.

This row fully supports what Brad wrote about THE PLAYER needing to keep volume consistent.

Which leads us to the first row. Now I do my best to keep my VOLUME consistent, and play the note at the same volume in each of three valve/slide combinations.

This first row is not NEARLY as colorful as the second. Most of the color appears between 5k Hz and 8k Hz. I found it interesting but not surprising that I saw the fewest color differences at the highest volume and most at the lowest.

Now some of you might be saying, "But wait... you are showing content at ZERO Hz!"

Yes, but not as much as you might think. The X axis is logarithmic. and the first peak at 220 Hz is compressed with all the other low octave stuff.

Others might be saying, "But wait... the differences arond 6k Hz are lower than the stuff around 0."

At which point we'd need to remember the "Fletcher-Munson" curve (and updates to it since its introduction in the 1930's.)

from wikipedia:

If we can perceive things around 6k Hz as the same volume as something around 20 dB louder at 200 Hz then things shift a bit.

In fact, looking at the loudness curve we can see that the biggest differences in timbre that we get by adding tubing for the same note occur in the MOST sensitive range of normal human hearing. Heck I can even hear that range at MY age :)

Why do these differences show up this way? I'm leaning toward reinforcement of harmonics, especially at lower volumes. I think at a piano the way the overtone series of the tubing do, or do not, support the harmonics over the note being played are more visible. I think at louder volumes the harmonic content of the played note over-ride the tube-length factors.

I like the upper right chart best. The blue "p2" trace has the most support in the 6k Hz harmonics. The double-trigger odd-fifth position has the least support.

If my "real" bass trombone only had a slide (no valves) and was tuned so I only had the option of playing THIS note with THIS much tubing, I would have a pretty limited timbre palette at lower volumes.

One could do similar comparisons with other factors affecting timbral differences between "real" and 20th century bass trombones, like bore size or German vs. sackbut vs. other bell flares.

If someone is interested in doing that, send me a PM and we can discuss how to get you the Python code I used to make the charts above.

TECH NOTE: the actual charts are MUCH more fun than what I'm posting here. If you run the code you can zoom in on ANY part of ANY of the charts. You might even be able to add in code to show approximate loudness curve effects.

jtbandmusic · by **jtbandmusic** » 2022-09-07 11:09 p.m.

'Spose you took a peashooter trigger horn with a trigger... maybe a Olds Superstar or the small trigger Yamaha... and taped the trigger permanently pulled. Wouldn't you have the (kinda) smaller bore, (kinda) smaller bell, and the same length of cylindrical tubing (for all notes in positions 1 through 5)? Take playing a bass trombone part with such a horn. Seems a good way to simulate a long F bass.

John Thompson

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2022-09-08 12:00 a.m.

[quote="jtbandmusic"]'Spose you took a peashooter trigger horn with a trigger... maybe a Olds Superstar or the small trigger Yamaha... and taped the trigger permanently pulled. Wouldn't you have the (kinda) smaller bore, (kinda) smaller bell, and the same length of cylindrical tubing (for all notes in positions 1 through 5)? Take playing a bass trombone part with such a horn. Seems a good way to simulate a long F bass.

John Thompson[/quote]
Partially. There is actually a G-Bass with a sub-0.500" bore, so that bore size is not particularly out of bounds..

But a true F-bass has a 7 position slide with a handle to reach the outer positions. A Bb trombone slide will only give 5 or perhaps 6 positions in F. This leaves a larger than expected gap between the last "regular" (2nd partial) and pedal (1st partial) notes.

'

boneagain · by **boneagain** » 2022-09-08 6:45 a.m.

Also, by having the extra length in the valve section you will change the color in ways that can be made visible with exercises like the above.

All the bits, like bore size of the valve section, place in the air column where the unavoidable slide discontinuities occur, etc., contribute to what Max states about audible difference between a "long bass" and one making a note by adding cylindrical tubing and leaving the slide short.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2022-09-08 8:46 a.m.

[quote="boneagain"]Also, by having the extra length in the valve section you will change the color in ways that can be made visible with exercises like the above.

All the bits, like bore size of the valve section, place in the air column where the unavoidable slide discontinuities occur, etc., contribute to what Max states about audible difference between a "long bass" and one making a note by adding cylindrical tubing and leaving the slide short.[/quote]

Somehow I missed this thread. But various persons have said what I would have.

To chime in (sorry) on Dave's thread though, the discontinuities matter and you have to stabilize both pitch and volume.

As I understand it, the harmonics for a given note are fixed by the physics, as is shown by the spectrograms provided. The set of partials are semi-fixed by the length of tubing, but they don't line up as neatly as the harmonics do, because of the discontinuities. What I think that means is that by playing above or below pitch center for a given length of tubing, the upper harmonics (which are fixed) are reinforced differently and the timbre can be colored. Maybe that's the only way timbre is colored if you don't increase the volume to raise the upper harmonics.

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Real bass trombones