Cryogenics study

[Matt K]

I work in medical research at the moment; the first thing anyone I know in the industry does is go to the methods portion. Then if that at least seems sound, read the remainder; but any ancillary materials presented outside of that are basically treated as being non-existent. Maybe that's different for Engineering studies, and perhaps I'm missing something, but I saw no mention of how the structure was measured nor thhe precision it was measured at. In the medical studies I've participated in, you'd mention what 'no difference' means and give a range and why you indicated there was no difference. For that matter... again, perhaps I'm missing it because I'm not used to engineering studies, but what exactly is their null hypothesis? It would seem to me that the conclusion of any study I've participated in that this would be a failure to reject the null hypothesis and would have perhaps warranted another study with a different question.

[brassmedic]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I mean, here's a study that did find a change in the structure of brass after cryogenic treatment, and the methods they used to determine this are mentioned, even in the abstract.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=picb

[BGuttman]

I'm sure there is a change to the metal based on a treatment of any sort (as long as the metal endures some kind of challenge: heat, metalworking, vibration, etc.). What we don't really know, and what the study in question failed to prove, is that the change that occurs during cryo treatment has any bearing on the playing of the instrument.

[ngrinder]

I think I’m in the minority here, but I tend to believe almost anything you do to an instrument will change how it plays. Annealing, lead tape, plumbers tape, spit valve screws.... All this stuff actually does matter (just set up an appointment with Wayne Tanabe!)

I was in a lesson with a very prominent bass trombonist whom you all know (who has tons and tons of equipment -can you guess who it is?), and he handed me two mouthpieces to play. I played them, and they felt quite different! I asked what the difference was and he said one thousandth of a click more open in the throat! How many folks on here would dismiss the difference between a .312 throat and .313 throat? I might have before I tried it....

I have read so many posts poo-poo-ing certain equipment changes, and these posts usually come from folks who know quite a bit about chemistry, science, etc. All of course have valuable insights. But, the very fact that good musicians have said there is a change means to me that there probably is something to all this stuff. Those who play their horns hours each day professionally gain a lot of insight into instrument builds, more so than can really be quantitatively measured. I’ve never played a cryogenically treated horn, but I would gladly come at it with and open mind.

If you play it and it feels different, it probably is! I feel it shouldn’t be more complicated than that. Though of course, I know it is, especially for some people.

[Matt K]

I think I’m in the minority here, but I tend to believe almost anything you do to an instrument will change how it plays. Annealing, lead tape, plumbers tape, spit valve screws.... All this stuff actually does matter (just set up an appointment with Wayne Tanabe!)

I was in a lesson with a very prominent bass trombonist whom you all know (who has tons and tons of equipment -can you guess who it is?), and he handed me two mouthpieces to play. I played them, and they felt quite different! I asked what the difference was and he said one thousandth of a click more open in the throat! How many folks on here would dismiss the difference between a .312 throat and .313 throat? I might have before I tried it....

I'm not sure if you're in the minority, particularly here, but there certainly is a large contingent of "you are an easily duped, coddled millenial if you don't play the first random 5G that you pulled off the shelf until the plating wears off" in the broader trombone community. But in their defence, they can point to me, an easily duped, coddled millennial who has at times majorly gone down the equipment rabbit hole for better or for worse.

I'm in jest of course to a large degree but if you can cut through any hyperbole that you might hear on either side of that particular dichotomy, I think that the general rule boils down to this: Yes, just about anything can have an influence on your sound but with two caveats:

1) Is the difference actually perceivable and consistently identifiable?
2) If there are consistently identifiable differences, are they overshadowed by something that is oft ignored?

The latter is interesting and pointed out to me by Matt Walker a few years ago. I don't remember what my contention was but he basically asked if I kept up with shaving to the same degree as whatever it was I was interested in at the time. I'm admittedly quite lazy about facial hair; I hate shaving. Yet the difference between smooth, a little stubble, and a weeks worth of growth is going to far overshadow .001" difference in the throat. You have to bear in mind too that such a difference is so minute that in the regular course of playing, you are going to fill that gap in with crud from your sinuses. Do you regularly clean out that particular point? Or for that matter, the rest of the horn? If so, sure very subtle changes might be noticeable because you have a very consistent baseline. If not, it's really hard to say if that .001" throat size makes a difference or if its that you're normally playing something that's constricted because of accumulation such that either an actual .312 or a .313 bore would be preferable to a .312 that is actually a much smaller bore for most of the year.

I have read so many posts poo-poo-ing certain equipment changes, and these posts usually come from folks who know quite a bit about chemistry, science, etc. All of course have valuable insights. But, the very fact that good musicians have said there is a change means to me that there probably is something to all this stuff. ...

If you play it and it feels different, it probably is! I feel it shouldn’t be more complicated than that. Though of course, I know it is, especially for some people.

This is what people were talking about when they were mentioning the placebo effect earlier. It is really, really powerful stuff. It might be more accurate to say, "If you play it and it feels different, it probably isn't, but you probably think it is!" The placebo effect is so strong that it can produce pharmacological effects even when people know it is a placebo.

A 2014 study led by Kaptchuk and published in Science Translational Medicine explored this by testing how people reacted to migraine pain medication. One group took a migraine drug labeled with the drug's name, another took a placebo labeled "placebo," and a third group took nothing. The researchers discovered that the placebo was 50% as effective as the real drug to reduce pain after a migraine attack.

If you can take a placebo and have it be 50% as an actual pain killer, just imagine what your brain can do to your perception of your current sound vs the memory of your previous sound, especially days removed from the old sound. (As would be the case of a cryo treatment which is done over the course of several days).

Note that I am not saying that cryo treatments aren't effective or even that minor equipment differences aren't important. On the contrary, I generally contend that such differences are important even if they don't have a perceivable influence on sound because the net result either way is you like your playing better even if it's a placebo. However, it would make more sense to me to emphasize things that people can do that actually have a proven, direct influence on their sound like regularly maintaining their horn first. And if you have facial hair, shaving daily. So on an so forth. If you can get to that stage, have at it with changes of decreasing perceptibility. Gold/Yellow brass; bass/wide/narrow slide crook; nickel/brass/etc crook; lightweight/regular weight slides; bell weights; counterweight/no counterweight; bell dampers (duct tape or otherwie); rubber bumper/no rubber bumper; felt bumpers/nobumpers, etc. etc. etc.

[ngrinder]

All good points, Matt!

The latter is interesting and pointed out to me by Matt Walker a few years ago. I don't remember what my contention was but he basically asked if I kept up with shaving to the same degree as whatever it was I was interested in at the time. I'm admittedly quite lazy about facial hair; I hate shaving. Yet the difference between smooth, a little stubble, and a weeks worth of growth is going to far overshadow .001" difference in the throat. You have to bear in mind too that such a difference is so minute that in the regular course of playing, you are going to fill that gap in with crud from your sinuses. Do you regularly clean out that particular point? Or for that matter, the rest of the horn? If so, sure very subtle changes might be noticeable because you have a very consistent baseline. If not, it's really hard to say if that .001" throat size makes a difference or if its that you're normally playing something that's constricted because of accumulation such that either an actual .312 or a .313 bore would be preferable to a .312 that is actually a much smaller bore for most of the year.

As far as the facial hair thing goes - yes! That is so frustrating - even a little bit makes it feel different. Having a certain amount of facial hair on my upper lip gives me an airy sound that I agonized over before shaving my upper lip. When I had a beard, I would always shave about 1/8th of an inch above my lip to prevent that from being a problem. Someone I know takes and electric shaver in the pit and uses it minutes before downbeat for that specific spot on his lip.

To the .313-.312 throat size: Yes, we regularly fill our mouthpieces with wet stuff, but wet stuff responds quite differently than hard metal....All I can say is on two very clean, CNC made mouthpieces with the difference said to be one thousands of an inch felt quite different. I felt that way, as did the person I was in the lesson with.

This is what people were talking about when they were mentioning the placebo effect earlier. It is really, really powerful stuff. It might be more accurate to say, "If you play it and it feels different, it probably isn't, but you probably think it is!" The placebo effect is so strong that it can produce pharmacological effects even when people know it is a placebo.

If you can take a placebo and have it be 50% as an actual pain killer, just imagine what your brain can do to your perception of your current sound vs the memory of your previous sound, especially days removed from the old sound. (As would be the case of a cryo treatment which is done over the course of several days).

Note that I am not saying that cryo treatments aren't effective or even that minor equipment differences aren't important. On the contrary, I generally contend that such differences are important even if they don't have a perceivable influence on sound because the net result either way is you like your playing better even if it's a placebo. However, it would make more sense to me to emphasize things that people can do that actually have a proven, direct influence on their sound like regularly maintaining their horn first. And if you have facial hair, shaving daily. So on an so forth. If you can get to that stage, have at it with changes of decreasing perceptibility. Gold/Yellow brass; bass/wide/narrow slide crook; nickel/brass/etc crook; lightweight/regular weight slides; bell weights; counterweight/no counterweight; bell dampers (duct tape or otherwie); rubber bumper/no rubber bumper; felt bumpers/nobumpers, etc. etc. etc.

It's entirely possible and plausible that the placebo effect is what many of these things are. But I feel we have to be equally open to the possibility that these changes also makes a difference, since there seems to be difficulty in ascertaining what "proven, direct influences" on sound can be, outside of course of what you mentioned. I have spent far too much money changing the tube material on my slides, the crook, the bell weight - almost all the variables you mentioned in your last sentence, and I have found they all have an effect. Of course the addage, "it's a trombone, it's going to sound like a trombone and feel like a trombone, and you need to practice if you really want to get anywhere" is in play for all of this, but there is a whole world above that, once you *do* practice/play for 5-8 hours a day.

Getting sucked down that hole is another thing! From my experience I'd advise against it if you value your bank account or sanity, but I don't believe it's all for naught.

[Matt K]

Yeah, I totally agree, or maybe to play of what you mentioned in a less dogmatic fashion than me indicating things that are "proven" would be to indicate that it's a lot cheaper to give your horn a bath consistently and shave than it is to get a second bell or having a cryo treatment to bring it back to the primary point of the thread. But I fully admit to having done the latter without the former, from time to time

[ngrinder]

Yeah, I totally agree, or maybe to play of what you mentioned in a less dogmatic fashion than me indicating things that are "proven" would be to indicate that it's a lot cheaper to give your horn a bath consistently and shave than it is to get a second bell or having a cryo treatment to bring it back to the primary point of the thread. But I fully admit to having done the latter without the former, from time to time

But then where would we spend the piles of the money we make playing trombone on?!

[ssking2b]

I suggest this whole thing is like Dumbo's crow feather.

[whitbey]

I suggest this whole thing is like Dumbo's crow feather.

I have a cryo bell. It is plays like a thinner bell yet holds up like a thicker bell.


I traded a bell I did not like or use for it and got lucky.

I would never pay for a cryo job. Not enough benefit for the money in my mind. And I am sure there is a way to get the same benefit for less money.