> For those less informed I've been called worse
*** > ...the problem of bends in an instrument has two aspects > One is simply air flow, which will respond to straightening > curves the same way unkinking a hose will I've heard that applied to horns, but I have to wonder. With the main tubing being nearly 1/2" ID, then suddenly getting HUGE after the valve section, it seems to me that a great deal of the horn's resistance is not the bottleneck(s) around the valves, but rather the tiny leadpipe. I'm not saying that valve-kinks make NO difference, but I don't see it as being all that much. Pressing all three main valve levers adds several feet of (cylindrical) tubing and a boatload of resistance. I've had thoughts of hooking up my water manometer and rigging a set of gauges to calculate resistance on several horn/leadpipe/mouthpiece combinations, but all that work wouldn't make me a better player OR an acoustic engineer, so I haven't fidgeted with it. I don't know what's right, but I know what I like. *** (see PS) *** > The other aspect is bending the actual acoustic wave If a horn didn't have to have rounded profile or be "pretty," how might an understanding of your above statement impact horn design. I've always wondered what an acoustic engineer might come up with if you gave him (or her) the basic parameters for how a horn should react and had him design and build one... without knowing what it was he was building. Givens would be things like, 1) Key of F, 2) Three valves (we'll get into double-stuff later), and 3) A rearward-facing bell that the player could reach with his free hand... ...would be a good place to start. Assuming all cosmetic conventions have been tossed to the seven seas, what would it look like? Hang on to your hats, boys and girls, 'cause it JUST MIGHT HAVE VIENNA VALVES! However, someone here probably had it right recently when he said something about, "A great horn is more about good braces and careful assembly, etc..." There's probably not much way to build a horn appreciably better than is now done but, through clever design, there might be a way to build a mid-line horn that plays like a $9,000 one. Mark Veneklasen (don't make me look up the spelling) might have been on a pretty good track (before the wheels came off, that is), but to solve the problem of making the horn play better, one first must define "the problem." The thing is, lots of horns have marvelously clever engineering features that--when all is said and done--amount to little more than noting the metallurgical flaw in the Titanic's steel hull, then meticulously arranging the deck chairs in order to "improve" the ship. It's better alright. Perhaps the chairs were messy before, but somehow I don't think we identified the right problem. Just typing aloud here. Good night, jrc in SC PS: *** What would I like? I'd like a lightweight screwbell double that uses some clever bits like titanium valve rotors and carbon-fiber spatulas, etc. to keep the weight down. That way, the "sounding" parts could be built from whatever material is deemed best, but when an unwary player went to pick it up, he'd toss it through the ceiling tiles... due to its lightness. THAT's what I want. Also, I have a head full of neat ideas that (to my knowledge) have never been tried. The problem is, I think I might would soon find out why. There, I'm easy to please, eh-wot? r _______________________________________________ post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe or set options at http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
