TromboneChat

Is anyone aware of experimentations with a longer slide to add an extra position and greater torsional stability in the far reaches? I play in the outlying positions a lot and would benefit from a longer slide. Of course, it would have to have a shorter bell too in accommodation so it would be a complete custom affair. Thoughts!

At one time Conn was making longer slides on F-attachment and bass trombones. Long enough that many cases won't fit them.

Conn 70 series would be an example of this.

Not sure how much use it would be, as at 7th position there is already considerable instability and stress on the inner / outer slide. It would also be quite front heavy, and the slotting might be horrible. The current design of trombones is the result of quite a lot of trial and error over the past 100+ years.

Instead of making the slide longer, maybe make It... shorter? Put more in the bell, and then pretty much have the trombone be in Ab or G in 1st position.

Or maybe transpose the works you want to play a bit as well? You're really trying to use a Bb trombone in way it wasn't designed for.

Would this be limited to taller trombonists? As a shorty, 7th is about as far as I can reach!

I would think a cheaper and easier solution would be to add a trigger. Valves on trombone exist for a reason. I can’t even reach seventh position, so this probably would be for a specific market

Elow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:13 pm I would think a cheaper and easier solution would be to add a trigger. Valves on trombone exist for a reason. I can’t even reach seventh position, so this probably would be for a specific market

I think they specifically want a straight trombone.

Even a little bit of extra length makes the slide feel significantly heavier.

What if someone were to build a slide based on the 'DEG Quadro', but with bass-sized tubing? Reach would never be a problem but you'd have to build a new set of muscle memory for the shorter positions.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:13 pm Even a little bit of extra length makes the slide feel significantly heavier.

Doug is very correct on this. If you change any little thing on a trombone, it can change the way it feels and plays.

I recently had a customer request a “custom extra long” Bach 42 slide. He specifically asked for the slide to be 7/16” longer than the normal slide. When I made the inner and outer slide to his specifications and play tested it, it felt very front heavy and cumbersome (much like an old Besson G bass trombone that I played many years ago). I consulted with the customer and we decided to reduce the length by 2/16ths (end result=slide was 5/16 longer than normal). The reduction by that slight amount made a huge difference. It still felt different than the standard Bach 42 yellow brass slide, but it was infinitely more playable and didn’t feel like there was a 1-pound weight on the end of the slide.

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:31 am

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:13 pm Even a little bit of extra length makes the slide feel significantly heavier.

Doug is very correct on this. If you change any little thing on a trombone, it can change the way it feels and plays.

I recently had a customer request a “custom extra long” Bach 42 slide. He specifically asked for the slide to be 7/16” longer than the normal slide. When I made the inner and outer slide to his specifications and play tested it, it felt very front heavy and cumbersome (much like an old Besson G bass trombone that I played many years ago). I consulted with the customer and we decided to reduce the length by 2/16ths (end result=slide was 5/16 longer than normal). The reduction by that slight amount made a huge difference. It still felt different than the standard Bach 42 yellow brass slide, but it was infinitely more playable and didn’t feel like there was a 1-pound weight on the end of the slide.

If you don't mind me asking what was the reason for wanting the slide being exactly 7/16" longer? Trying to match the length of a bass slide?

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:47 pm If you don't mind me asking what was the reason for wanting the slide being exactly 7/16" longer? Trying to match the length of a bass slide?

Well, 42 and 50 slides aren't any different in length.

LeoInFL wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:28 pm What if someone were to build a slide based on the 'DEG Quadro', but with bass-sized tubing? Reach would never be a problem but you'd have to build a new set of muscle memory for the shorter positions.

Side note, one project I want to make (or more likely commission) is a double slide to mate with a standard bass section to put the horn in Eb. Could also do F, but for various reasons I think I like Eb better.

A Bb double slide (essentially half length) could be fun, but those half length positions are tiny. I suck at my soprano positions and that is before I get into the register issues. I never had a problem adapting to alto positions back in the day, so I think a little longer might not be a bad plan.

Cheers,
Andy

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:47 pm

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:31 am
Doug is very correct on this. If you change any little thing on a trombone, it can change the way it feels and plays.

I recently had a customer request a “custom extra long” Bach 42 slide. He specifically asked for the slide to be 7/16” longer than the normal slide. When I made the inner and outer slide to his specifications and play tested it, it felt very front heavy and cumbersome (much like an old Besson G bass trombone that I played many years ago). I consulted with the customer and we decided to reduce the length by 2/16ths (end result=slide was 5/16 longer than normal). The reduction by that slight amount made a huge difference. It still felt different than the standard Bach 42 yellow brass slide, but it was infinitely more playable and didn’t feel like there was a 1-pound weight on the end of the slide.

If you don't mind me asking what was the reason for wanting the slide being exactly 7/16" longer? Trying to match the length of a bass slide?

Before I answer this, keep in mind that “the customer is always correct.” The particular player who requested this slide was playing on a 42 slide with quite a bit of red rot. He wanted a replacement slide that was longer than normal because he did not like that his main tuning slide was consistently pulled out 1.5 inches or more.

Even though I presented a couple of other ideas for solving the problem, he really wanted a longer slide. The slide ultimately ended up 5/16” longer and I added a tone ring around the mouthpiece receiver. The extra weight helped lower the pitch so his main tuning slide ended up moving in about 1/2 inch or slightly more.

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:48 pm

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:47 pm
If you don't mind me asking what was the reason for wanting the slide being exactly 7/16" longer? Trying to match the length of a bass slide?

Before I answer this, keep in mind that “the customer is always correct.” The particular player who requested this slide was playing on a 42 slide with quite a bit of red rot. He wanted a replacement slide that was longer than normal because he did not like that his main tuning slide was consistently pulled out 1.5 inches or more.

Even though I presented a couple of other ideas for solving the problem, he really wanted a longer slide. The slide ultimately ended up 5/16” longer and I added a tone ring around the mouthpiece receiver. The extra weight helped lower the pitch so his main tuning slide ended up moving in about 1/2 inch or slightly more.

What’s some other solutions? I’m in florida and it’s constantly like 90 degrees and i’m always at least 20 cents sharp with my tuning slide as far out as it can be

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:48 pm Before I answer this, keep in mind that “the customer is always correct.” The particular player who requested this slide was playing on a 42 slide with quite a bit of red rot. He wanted a replacement slide that was longer than normal because he did not like that his main tuning slide was consistently pulled out 1.5 inches or more.

Even though I presented a couple of other ideas for solving the problem, he really wanted a longer slide. The slide ultimately ended up 5/16” longer and I added a tone ring around the mouthpiece receiver. The extra weight helped lower the pitch so his main tuning slide ended up moving in about 1/2 inch or slightly more.

Ahh! That makes sense. I completely agree that those other solutions would have been better but like you said the customer is always right!

Elow wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:52 pm
What’s some other solutions? I’m in florida and it’s constantly like 90 degrees and i’m always at least 20 cents sharp with my tuning slide as far out as it can be

Edwards are very short. Not much you can do about that.

Elow wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:52 pm
What’s some other solutions? I’m in florida and it’s constantly like 90 degrees and i’m always at least 20 cents sharp with my tuning slide as far out as it can be

Super hot outside temperatures are the only reason I ever move the tuning slide, the rest of the time it's all the way in.

But really, it's only sharp in 1st. Do you need 1st? Above the bass clef staff you have alternates for everything. In the staff there's that pesky Bb. Can you play it on the trigger?

Elow wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:52 pm
What’s some other solutions? I’m in florida and it’s constantly like 90 degrees and i’m always at least 20 cents sharp with my tuning slide as far out as it can be

Tune your trombone with Ab in line with the bell. First position is not what you think it is.

Elow wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:52 pm

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:48 pm
Before I answer this, keep in mind that “the customer is always correct.” The particular player who requested this slide was playing on a 42 slide with quite a bit of red rot. He wanted a replacement slide that was longer than normal because he did not like that his main tuning slide was consistently pulled out 1.5 inches or more.

Even though I presented a couple of other ideas for solving the problem, he really wanted a longer slide. The slide ultimately ended up 5/16” longer and I added a tone ring around the mouthpiece receiver. The extra weight helped lower the pitch so his main tuning slide ended up moving in about 1/2 inch or slightly more.

What’s some other solutions? I’m in florida and it’s constantly like 90 degrees and i’m always at least 20 cents sharp with my tuning slide as far out as it can be

Adding weight is the easiest way to pull the pitch down. How this idea came upon me goes back to one of my first years of being a high school band director. Being a new teacher, I was trying stir enthusiasm in the music program any way I could. In 1987, one of our home football games fell on Halloween weekend. I thought it would be a great idea to have the students dress in costumes for the half time show. While most students dressed up as zombies (think Michael Jackson's "Thriller"), one student had a costume plus he decked out his trumpet with about two pounds of costume accessories. He played the entire show a half-tone under pitch because he had so much stuff on his horn. The sad part is that he never realized that he was playing a trumpet in A, while his peers were playing the traditional trumpet in B-flat. It sounded horrible.

Anyway, the embarrassing experience actually fueled thought on how to manipulate pitch on brass instruments. You can lower the pitch by adding tone rings (donuts) around the mouthpiece receiver, adding weight to rotor caps and by adding weight to ferrules or trim rings. Please refer to the photos below as examples of things I have done with assorted instruments. Keep in mind that the weight does change the way the instrument plays. I find that you need to use more air on softer passages, however it adds much core to the sound on the loud end.

One should be careful when adding weight to an instrument. My recommendation is to start with a small amount on only one component. It is easy to go too far and the horn becomes slow to respond.

https://trombonechat.com/download/file. ... ew&id=6319

https://trombonechat.com/download/file. ... ew&id=6320

https://trombonechat.com/download/file. ... ew&id=6322

Would adding a counterweight help any?

Elow wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:52 pm
What’s some other solutions? I’m in florida and it’s constantly like 90 degrees and i’m always at least 20 cents sharp with my tuning slide as far out as it can be

Interesting. Here in metro Boston, we find that the instrument is flat most of the time (it's a lot chillier in New England) and people I know shorten tuning slides.

For you it might be a good idea to see if you can make a longer tuning slide bow.

Sorry folks, it looks like that third photo did not come through. Let's try it again......

http://trombonechat.com/download/file.p ... ew&id=6324

I'm afraid you would have to prove to me that simply adding weight lowers the pitch, because I don't believe it. It probably changes the way a student holds the horn and therefore their playing mechanics, which can cause pitch issues depending on their embouchure type.

Elow wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:48 am Would adding a counterweight help any?

Yes.....balance weights lower the pitch. Most straight instruments are designed to be at a standard pitch level with the balancer on the instrument. The reason why horns with an F-attachment (of the same model...Bach 42 versus Bach 42B) are exactly the same length is that the weight of the rotor + F-attachment tubing + braces is very similar to the weight of a balancer.

Just like any other weight, the balance weights have a huge impact on the sound and response of a horn. Also, the placement of the balancer (closer to the bell side versus closer to the gooseneck side) has an impact on the sound. I have a variety of balance weights to adjust my sound. For some of my straight horns, they play significantly better (for me) with the factory weight cut down about 35%.

The nuance of balance weights is worthy of its own thread. I spent a couple of weeks at the beginning of the COVID-10 pandemic doing hours upon hours of experimenting with different amounts of weight on the balancer. I am so glad I did......I have a couple of straight horns that play SO MUCH BETTER because I found the optimum weight for me.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:08 am I'm afraid you would have to prove to me that simply adding weight lowers the pitch, because I don't believe it. It probably changes the way a student holds the horn and therefore their playing mechanics, which can cause pitch issues depending on their embouchure type.

Doug, I absolutely respect your thoughts on this and can see how the playing mechanics would certainly be changed. You have made me question my theory, so I just created a blind test with my son holding the digital tuner across the room...... Please understand, I don't expect this experiment to be regarded with any validity!

I blew warm air into my Conn 72H for about one minute (as a horn temperature control on the instrument). I played up and down two-octave E-flat major and F major scales slowly (whole notes in 4/4) on that Conn 72H with the heavy rotor cap on. I intentionally chose these scales because the high frequency of 1st positions as a control. I also did my best to play the pitches in relative tune with each other.

Walked away from the instrument for about 9-10 minutes. This is so I could continue the experiment with a clean palette in terms of pitch. Removed the heavy rotor cap.

I blew warm air into the same instrument for about one minute (again, as a control for the temperature of the instrument). I played the same scales nice and slow. Again, I did my best to play the pitches in relative tune with each other.

My son said that, on average, the pitch went up about 7-8 cents with the heavy rotor cap removed. He noted that all but 2 pitches were higher and that the vast majority were 4 to 11 cents higher. To be honest with you, I was expecting the pitch to raise more significantly......but I was relieved to see that the pitch changed.

I know this is not a valid test and there would need to be many players with many more controls. I also know that there are "adding-weight-lowers-pitch" skeptics. I respect their thoughts on this and would not be surprised if they could find some type of acoustical proof that shows that weight has no impact on pitch. I can only base my beliefs on the evidence I have seen over many years of playing and experimenting with customizing instruments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, the best "proof" is the crazy stuff that I did to instruments back in the late 1990s. If you can recall, that was the age of "bigger, darker sound is better." I certainly got very caught up in that craze. It was also the time that I was starting to do my own custom work on instruments. I remember building what I now refer to as "the Bach 42 EXTREME." I started with a standard Bach 42BO. I customized the instrument with solid brass rods for the brace tube on the inner slide and all three brace tubes on the bell section. It also had a large brass donut around the mouthpiece receiver, a VERY HEAVY rotor cap and a some heavy brass trim rings on the main tuning slide and the F-attachment tuning slide. Like I said, I really got caught up in the craze.

As most of you have probably figured out, the horn was so heavy that it played rather dull and it weighed more than most double-valve bass trombones. It also went EXTREMELY flat! With the tuning slide all of the way in, the pitch was about 30 cents flat. Overall, the customizations lowered the pitch about 45 cents on that horn. Keep in mind that I did not change any LENGTH on any part of the instrument, only added very heavy components. It was that experiment that taught me that instrument customization is something that must be done in moderation. If you go too far, an instrument can be rendered unplayable.

Harrisonreed,

Thanks for your inclusion of the "tune to Ab" video. I liked his points about saving your teeth during fast slide changes as well as having a firm position in the midst of the others. I think I'll try that and see how it works out. Having an F attachment solves the issues with the seventh position barely on the stockings too.

Thanks!

Balance weight lowering pitch is new to me, and to physics, and as far as I know to trombone players in general. I've heard many many assertions that mass affects timbre, but pitch is a new claim.

I can't see a reason why it would work, and fall back on the old dictum "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

I agree with Tim on this one. I can understand weight distribution affecting how the instrument is held and consequently how it plays, but that is an entirely different matter.

I can see a large Placebo Effect here.

Just found this with a simple Google search of "Does mass impact pitch?"

https://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/webct/de ... ld004.html

To summarize.....as mass increases, pitch decreases. Think of the mass on a man's vocal cords versus a woman's vocal chords of the same length.

Sorry about the typo....woman's vocal CORDS....

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:36 pm Just found this with a simple Google search of "Does mass impact pitch?"

https://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/webct/de ... ld004.html

To summarize.....as mass increases, pitch decreases. Think of the mass on a man's vocal cords versus a woman's vocal cords of the same length.

There is a difference here. The vocal cords are the vibrating medium generating the pitch. A heavier violin string gives a lower pitch than a lighter one. We actually have equations to describe this.

The trombone is a tube that merely amplifies the pitch. The embouchure is the vibrating medium. Note that the pitch of the vibrating medium contains a number of frequencies (not a pure sine wave) and depending on the mechanical properties of the tube as well as its mass, different frequencies can be absorbed. This will change the tonality, but not the pitch.

mass can affect the way an instrument centers, which can affect the way you play it.

For example, say you typically play high in the slot. If you make the slots tighter by changing the weight distribution on the instrument, you will tend to play lower.

but conversely, if someone typically plays low in the slot, the same change will tend to make them higher.

even the tiny little weights on the edwards harmonic brace or the le freque plate thingies can change that on some setups.

but it's absolutely incorrect to draw the conclusion from that adding weight lowers the pitch. It depends on the player, the instrument, where the weight goes, and more.

Yes, Bruce. That all makes absolute sense. However, I believe there could be other laws of physics at play here.

I feel that there could be a relationship between the weight or mass of the resonating column and pitch. Why would Bach make the K-valve 36 and 42 trombones (those valves were very heavy) a little more than 1/2 inch shorter in the tuning slide? Actually.... since the tuning slide is two pieces of tubing, the total length of the K-valve models is over an inch shorter than all of the other 36 and 42 models. Don't tell me that there is a macaroni noodle twist inside the valve that adds over an inch of tubing....it's not there (I'm looking at the core of a K-valve right now). If anything, the length of tubing inside a K-valve is only 1/4" longer than a standard rotor.

Chuck McAlexander in NYC introduced me to a wide variety of donuts, rotor cap weights, screw on weights for tuning slides, etc...back in the early 1990s and they all do different things to a person's sound. I have customized quite a few horns with adding weight. The primary objective almost always has nothing to do with pitch...I do it for tone quality reasons because a little weight here or there can help center the sound. For me.....if it is done just right, putting weight in the right spot(s) can make certain instruments play much more evenly.

However, one of the side effects has always been....if you start adding a considerable amount of weight, there is definitely a lowering of pitch. I really don't expect the majority of players to relate to this. After all, probably a low percentage of trombone players have even one type of mass (like those pictured previously on this thread) on their instrument......much less...multiple pieces of mass.

Bbocaner, your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. Adding weight really does change the way an instrument slots. When I was younger, I did always play high in the slot. When I started experiment with adding mass, the center of my sound came down. That could certainly account for at least some of the pitch drop. I'm giggling because you brought up those weights for the Edwards harmonic bridge and how those impact the instrument. I'm turning around and looking at my Conn 72H heavy rotor cap that is probably the equivalent of about 25-30 of those pillars! Again, I don't think most people understand the magnitude of mass that is on some of my instruments. It is kind of like the scene in Crocodile Dundee when a gang member pulls out a switchblade on Dundee and he says "You call that a knife?"

I am hoping there is a physical scientist/acoustician who can present some type of explanation. I'm not buying the Placebo Effect. Otherwise, I'm going to have 20+ trombones (with mass added here and there, and the tuning slides have been cut) that will suddenly go 20 cents sharp tomorrow. Being that some of these horns have thousands of hours of playing on them......that's not going to happen.

I’m gonna try an experiment with a couple of my friends by adding a counterweight and not telling them why. I should be able to get a couple different people with different horns. I’ll post something about it or just make a whole new thread. I’m really curious about this but i feel i might be biased because i might sub consciously lip down or something. My friends shouldn’t know what i’m up to so should be a good experiment, maybe not the best way to go about but oh well.

Elow wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:17 pm I’m gonna try an experiment with a couple of my friends by adding a counterweight and not telling them why. I should be able to get a couple different people with different horns. I’ll post something about it or just make a whole new thread. I’m really curious about this but i feel i might be biased because i might sub consciously lip down or something. My friends shouldn’t know what i’m up to so should be a good experiment, maybe not the best way to go about but oh well.

But it is so easy to make the instrument predictably flatter by just moving the handslide further out, away from your face. Pulling the tuning slide out to the max and adding weight to play flatter seems silly to me, when you have a micro-adjusting tuning slide in your right hand. If you need to play flatter, just play flatter.

Adding weight will change how the horn responds. Maybe for the better, probably for the worse. I haven't found that it makes the horn play any more sharp or flat and I've added weight everywhere onto the trombone trying to make it play and sound different.

Pulling the tuning slide out in the bell will also affect how the horn plays, and how the partials line up. Generally, the longer the tuning slide section in the bell, the wonkier the horn will play. This effect doesn't happen if you increase the length of the hand slide, ie by moving it with your hand. That's why TIS horns have a following. There is exactly one trombonist I've heard sound great with the tuning side pulled out to the max -- Jorgen van Rijen. Not sure if that is relevant, but pulling your tuning side that drastically might usually be a side effect of deeper issues.

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:11 pm Yes, Bruce. That all makes absolute sense. However, I believe there could be other laws of physics at play here.

I feel that there could be a relationship between the weight or mass of the resonating column and pitch. Why would Bach make the K-valve 36 and 42 trombones (those valves were very heavy) a little more than 1/2 inch shorter in the tuning slide? Actually.... since the tuning slide is two pieces of tubing, the total length of the K-valve models is over an inch shorter than all of the other 36 and 42 models. Don't tell me that there is a macaroni noodle twist inside the valve that adds over an inch of tubing....it's not there (I'm looking at the core of a K-valve right now). If anything, the length of tubing inside a K-valve is only 1/4" longer than a standard rotor.

Chuck McAlexander in NYC introduced me to a wide variety of donuts, rotor cap weights, screw on weights for tuning slides, etc...back in the early 1990s and they all do different things to a person's sound. I have customized quite a few horns with adding weight. The primary objective almost always has nothing to do with pitch...I do it for tone quality reasons because a little weight here or there can help center the sound. For me.....if it is done just right, putting weight in the right spot(s) can make certain instruments play much more evenly.

However, one of the side effects has always been....if you start adding a considerable amount of weight, there is definitely a lowering of pitch. I really don't expect the majority of players to relate to this. After all, probably a low percentage of trombone players have even one type of mass (like those pictured previously on this thread) on their instrument......much less...multiple pieces of mass.

Bbocaner, your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. Adding weight really does change the way an instrument slots. When I was younger, I did always play high in the slot. When I started experiment with adding mass, the center of my sound came down. That could certainly account for at least some of the pitch drop. I'm giggling because you brought up those weights for the Edwards harmonic bridge and how those impact the instrument. I'm turning around and looking at my Conn 72H heavy rotor cap that is probably the equivalent of about 25-30 of those pillars! Again, I don't think most people understand the magnitude of mass that is on some of my instruments. It is kind of like the scene in Crocodile Dundee when a gang member pulls out a switchblade on Dundee and he says "You call that a knife?"

I am hoping there is a physical scientist/acoustician who can present some type of explanation. I'm not buying the Placebo Effect. Otherwise, I'm going to have 20+ trombones (with mass added here and there, and the tuning slides have been cut) that will suddenly go 20 cents sharp tomorrow. Being that some of these horns have thousands of hours of playing on them......that's not going to happen.

Having tried heavy mouthpieces and equipment and adding weight all over the trombone, I don't think it is true that a heavier horn plays flatter. It doesn't, in my experience. It's based on the length of the vibrating air column, a lot of factors with the mouthpiece shape, and to a much lesser extent, the input from the player lipping up or down.

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:36 pm Just found this with a simple Google search of "Does mass impact pitch?"

https://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/webct/de ... ld004.html

To summarize.....as mass increases, pitch decreases. Think of the mass on a man's vocal cords versus a woman's vocal chords of the same length.

This is correct.
When we analyzed systems in my engineering vibration class, we always had to construct matrices for the mass and the stiffness of an object. With a simple single degree of freedom system the governing equations are also simple, something like Ae^-lt, and the more mass the lower the frequencies, the more stiffness the higher. With real world objects like a propellor, flywheel, containment vessel, etc., the stiffness can be really complicated.

But in the trombone, what vibrates is not the mass of the metal but the mass of the air.

Mass on the brass will change how the brass vibrates, and you can probably test it by flicking it with your finger. But it doesn't change what happens to the air.

A MOMENT OF ENLIGHTENMENT!

First of all, I want to thank my friends in TromboneChat for the ongoing discourse. I enjoy coming here because, every once in a while, a topic comes up that makes me want to practice harder, makes me rethink how I am playing, etc..... This is certainly one of those moments.

This current conversation had me stirring in my sleep last night....it shows how much of a trombone nerd I really am. I want to understand the science, but more importantly, I want to understand how it impacts my playing. Bbocaner really got me thinking about how adding mass can alter the slotting on a trombone. Could my assumption that "mass lowers pitch" be a situation where the mass is simply anchoring the center of pitch in the lower part of the slot?

So.....I was up at 7:20 this morning honking on my trombone (much to the disapproval of my 19-year-old son who is home this college semester doing the virtual learning thing). I tried to think of ways to put mass vs. pitch to a test. I am fortunate enough to have enough modular components to do experiments.

I started with one of my favorite trombones and played it in it's original factory form.......no added mass. I placed the tuning slide out at exactly 1/2" warmed up for a little while and started analyzing pitch flexibility with a digital tuner. The pitch was extremely flexible with almost all of the notes having a range of about 35-40 cents that I could bend up or down with little or no change in tone quality. It was very easy to manipulate pitches and the description "wide slotting" came to mind. I have heard some call it "wide slotting"......others explain it as "the distance from partial to partial is smaller." While I enjoyed the pitch flexibility, the tone color was a little too bright for my personal taste When I blew freely, the pitch naturally gravitated to the higher end of the slot.....I would say about 8-9 cents higher than the center point of the 35-40 cent range.

I took the same instrument/same mouthpiece and added three heavier components. These are not the most outrageous components I have, but they are enough that you really feel it in your left hand. I replaced the slide with one that has a large mass ring around the mouthpiece receiver (slide is the exact same alloy and length as the original). I replaced the standard rotor cap with a heavy rotor cap (solid brass that projects out .315 inch for the entire diameter of the rotor cap). I replaced the tuning slide with a slide that has heavy brass ferrules (tuning crook has the same dimensions and alloy as the original). Again, I placed the tuning slide out at exactly 1/2". When I started playing, my initial reaction was....the tone is darker, denser and yes, the pitch is definitely lower. However, I tried to proceed with an open mind and went to the digital tuner to collect information. As it turned out, the pitch was pretty much identical and I had the same 35-40 cent flexibility for almost all of the pitches up and down the range of the instrument. However, three things became apparent: 1. It took MUCH MORE EFFORT to move individual pitches around in that 35-40 cent slot. 2. The range that I could move pitch (slotting) with little or no change in tone quality was narrowed to about 25 cents (more narrow slotting). 3. When I blew freely, the instrument naturally gravitated to a much lower spot within the slot (about 7-8 cents below the center of that original 35-40 cent range).

BINGO! ......Bbocaner nailed it! What I perceived as a lowering of pitch was actually a narrowing of the slot and a lowering of the natural center within that slot. The difference in the center of pitch for me turned out to be rather significant....an average of 15-17 cents with moderate pieces of mass.

Like I stated above, I enjoy the conversations we have and this has thread has helped me better understand some things about my playing. I appreciate your patience with me. Now.....if we can only explain why that high school trumpet player's horn transposed to Trumpet in A during that 1987 Halloween show? Cheers!

That to me makes a lot more sense! Yes, if you tend to lip a note high, and a slot forces you into pitch, you can perceive it as making the horn flatter.

That definitely does make sense. I mean, if making the horn heavier lowered the pitch, just holding the horn would make it "heavier" and throw it flat.

I also will say that when I had a bach megatone (yes I believed the hype) it definitely was much more focused and secure. I eventually decided I didn't like the feel, and sold that, long ago.

There is an effect where mouthpieces will make the upper register sharper and lower register flatter as well.

The V3 Bousfield stretches pitch about as much as a piano (or orchestra!) does, which is actually really great. The Alessi 1C puts the octaves mathematically equidistant, which is also really great. But only once you're aware that they do this.

I have never heard of a trombone with a purposefully longer slide to give you more than the normal number of positions though, other than the firebird trumpet with a telescoping slide that they built for Maynard. But that slide got you 7 positions where you ordinarily would get 4 (because it was a trumpet and had valves)

Hello,

Thanks to tbonesullivan for intuiting that as a tenor SLIDE-trombone purist I don't want to use a valve to overcome the perceived challenges obligated by the slide. My technique has defeated all need of a valve to avoid the positions it invites, and as a confirmed tenor trombonist, I've no need of the few extra low notes it adds.

So the short answer then seems to be...no...both to prior experimenting with longer slides, or with manufactured practice. That being the case, the other option is to win only a 'part' of what I'd hoped for: pursuing only the lightest slide possible to reduce wear on the slide itself due to flex and torsional forces.

Fortunately, their are several people doing super light carbon-fiber tubes now (I don't favor or want CF braces or bows). As a byproduct of having to pursue this myself, I have happened upon John Duda again (though I haven't yet spoken to him), and intend to employ his knowledge and skill to build me a new Williams .491 CF slide.

I don't care that CF tubes may sound different (a brass bow will help), as long as it works, and I win greater facility and improved feel (less aware of wear and tear on slide). 'Different' is not the same as worse, or bad. I have good mechanics and therefore too good generic tone, so I'm content to give up something small to win something big.

With any luck John (or someone else) will be able to integrate a thumb operated water key (such as are used on Thein trombones), which will be a big help in live performance. The combination of a small-bore horn, playing long-breathed high tessitura lines, in music with few rests, makes this device crucial to the evolution of my paradigm.

There was little activity, license or interest (or possibly just scope) in the original spirit of the thread as I had proposed it, so I won't bother to follow up on what has now become a simple slide build. Thanks for contributing.

Tim

tskeldon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:26 pm The combination of a small-bore horn, playing long-breathed high tessitura lines, in music with few rests, makes this device crucial to the evolution of my paradigm.

I'm sure we'd all love to hear some recordings!!

Hm. The musical instrument in a trombone is really the air column inside the cylindroconical tube, not the tube itself very much. If you make a violin string heavier the pitch goe flatt until you raise the tenchion. We have gone throught many experiments of extra heavy horns, mostly trumpets, the pitch is still depending on the air column profil. Ofcourse the tempartur makes a difference, but extra weight does not. The slide on one of my horns is kind of short, probably the idea is that the 7th position is not needed since the attachement cover the range, my newest horn has a longer slide, I like that.