TromboneChat

Anyone ever studied the effect on horn timbre of large, elaborate bell engravings? They have to have some effect, but is it audible? If so, is it considered to be a positive or negative effect?

Has anything ever been made of the engraving effect on sound--marketing-wise, or other?

It seems counter-intuitive that we would be focused on brass sheet and tube uniformity, uniform brazing, uniform seams, uniform lacquer, plating, uniform bends, etc., yet then engrave a maker's mark that spans nearly the whole length of the bell and much of its circumference in some cases.

Louis

Inaudible

I can confirm there is no difference. I let engrave a bell which I already played before. There is no difference with or without engraving.

Schilke was down on it and only put his name in small letters on trumpet bells. Bach kept it to a minimum. They worked so hard to get the response they desired they may have been over reacting. If we were able to put vibration testing equipment on the bells we might detect a shift in frequency response. It is possible to argue that the engraving is not that deep. If engraving disappears due to aggressive buffing, it can be an indication of a thinned out bell. Many players will not like such a horn. On a new horn with a standard thickness bell or otherwise unmolested horn, most players will not be able to detect the difference.

If you're just asking from a theoretical point of view, the engraving will slightly work harden the material, which would raise the resonant frequency. In reality the bell material only contributes a small bit to the overall sound (air column shape being most of it), but engraving theoretically would cause a slightly brighter sound.

The engraving might contribute as much or less as the simple difference between two "identical" Shires bells with the same nomenclature. You can have two horns that are supposed to be the same, but they won't play exactly the same. There's so many other factors that happen when a bell is made, and the engraving (present or not) is just a tiny part of that.

I did see Christian Lindberg play concert where the airline had obviously mangled his trombone. The very edge of bell was crunched up (not the throat) and he walked on stage and played. It sounded like the album of that piece -- no discernable difference between that and the live version in terms of sound or tone. So I imagine that the engraving is even lower on the list of factors.

Interesting. Thanks for the replies.

I figured it couldn't matter in any real audible way, else the makers would all do it one way or the other. It seemed to me an item ripe for some marketing team to latch onto, though.

hyperbolica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:39 am If you're just asking from a theoretical point of view, the engraving will slightly work harden the material,

Agree.

which would raise the resonant frequency.

Agree, probably. For some elements of the eigenvector. There is not just one frequency involved. And brass mechanical resonances are not related the same way air column ones are.

In reality the bell material only contributes a small bit to the overall sound (air column shape being most of it),

Agree, but... Neither of us is likely to convince anyone of that.

but engraving theoretically would cause a slightly brighter sound.

Well, yeah, for ONE NOTE. It's hard for me to come up with an explanation for a frequency shift causing a uniform change across multiple notes.

OneTon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:05 am Schilke was down on it and only put his name in small letters on trumpet bells. Bach kept it to a minimum. They worked so hard to get the response they desired they may have been over reacting. If we were able to put vibration testing equipment on the bells we might detect a shift in frequency response. It is possible to argue that the engraving is not that deep. If engraving disappears due to aggressive buffing, it can be an indication of a thinned out bell. Many players will not like such a horn. On a new horn with a standard thickness bell or otherwise unmolested horn, most players will not be able to detect the difference.

Eh, Bach would put out more engraving than you could shake a stick at…. He just wanted you to pay extra for it. I don’t think there was any sort of “it sounds better this way” as much as “do you have any idea how much it costs to pay those guys to engrave all that?”

Cheers,
Andy

Might depend on what you're having engraved. I distinctly remember a thread on this very topic on TTF (RIP ) where someone claimed that he had a comma (plus sign) engraved on his bell and negatively affected the sound, and Doug Elliott responded saying if you think a comma is bad, he heard a . is a bloody mess.

If you were to compare the mass removed by even the most extensive engraving job with the remaining mass of the bell you will find the mass removed is less than the process variation of bell spinning and polishing. And way less than the mass gained by lacquering.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 3:26 pm If you were to compare the mass removed by even the most extensive engraving job with the remaining mass of the bell you will find the mass removed is less than the process variation of bell spinning and polishing. And way less than the mass gained by lacquering.

This is a much more elegant way of saying what I was trying to say.

sungfw wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 3:26 pm Might depend on what you're having engraved. I distinctly remember a thread on this very topic on TTF (RIP ) where someone claimed that he had a comma (plus sign) engraved on his bell and negatively affected the sound, and Doug Elliott responded saying if you think a comma is bad, he heard a . is a bloody mess.

A sax player told me he was able to get more girls with the nice engraving.
This effected his practice time.
So the effect of the engraving was negative on his playing.

This story is from a sax player and therefor cannot be discovered to be truthful.