TromboneChat

Hi all,

Something I’ve been thinking about lately, is: are we only after resonance in an instrument?

Obviously resonance is a huge part of what can make an instrument great, but are we purely searching for that? Is that the only thing that makes certain instruments better than others if we are excluding size & material, Or is there more to it than that?

Edit: clearly intonation, consistency, and ease of playing are to be looked for, but I suppose I’m looking at this from more of a sound perspective.

I think sound colour, sound texture, depth of richness of sound, thickness or thinness of sound are what will really sell a horn. I think these characteristics will depend on player and what their sound concept is. I think we can all agree that for many people, they will agree a horn can both sound fantastic and check off numerous boxes, but at the same time, not be the horn for them because it's not what they picture as "their sound." So it's hard to say specifically what is being looked for if not all of it. Of course, I think different people will be more willing to compromise on different characteristics while narrowing down other ones.

I think there's also projection aka how the horn sounds 10, 20, 30+ ft away and also response aka how the horn feels/sounds to the player behind the bell as well as how it reacts to player inputs.

i think ergonomics is a big one too but i think there are a fair good few people that will make do and figure out grips and padding or handles to help with that as much as they can if the horn sounds exactly how they want.

Essentially every time that I've tested two or more trombones back-to-back for an audience (whether trained musicians or not), they've almost always chosen the horn that I feel to be more resonant. They might not be able to put their finger on what they like, but they usually say something like it sounds "prettier" or "more colorful." The exception is if I'm playing any modern horn against a vintage horn, like an Elkhart 88H, with playability quirks that the audience perceives as me struggling to make it sound easy (thus negating any benefits of sound quality).

Definitely not just looking for resonance, a bad horn that resonates well is still a bad horn.

I had a very old TIS King that practically vibrated on its own, it was too much resonance.

JTeagarden wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:39 am Definitely not just looking for resonance, a bad horn that resonates well is still a bad horn.

I had a very old TIS King that practically vibrated on its own, it was too much resonance.

What are the qualities that make it bad, if it’s resonant?

Too much resonance? Do you mean it was too bright? Or did it literally vibrate too much?

it vibrated too much! Kept ringing even after the lips stopped vibrating.

Lousy natural overtone series: horn resonates just fine, just not a balanced horn

JTeagarden wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:29 am it vibrated too much! Kept ringing even after the lips stopped vibrating.

Lousy natural overtone series: horn resonates just fine, just not a balanced horn

Thanks. I wonder what contributes to that. A horn that’s resonant, but in a terrible way.

No idea! Seems like an awful lot needs to go right to make a quality brass instrument, and a decent number of additional steps required for a given maker to go from their Tempo/Connstellation/Ambassador/The Dude equivalents to their top-line horns: They clearly have the know-how to make only excellent horns, but cannot sell enough to cover the additional cost of doing so.

BrianJohnston wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:30 am Thanks. I wonder what contributes to that. A horn that’s resonant, but in a terrible way.

Resonance is a combination of geometry and material properties. Distribution of mass and properties like hardness would be another way to look at it. You can calculate this kind of thing for simple systems, but as the Edwards harmonic bridge demonstrates, it's hard to predict how something that isn't dead simple is going to react. And when it comes down to it, the harmonic bridge is just a very localized effect placed right next to your ear for a reason.

Resonance isn't even something you can measure with a single value. You have to measure the entire spectrum, and how the horn reacts to input from the entire spectrum, and understand how resonance effects articulation. It's very complicated, which is why we have a simple understanding of the physics, but have a hard time actually engineering the properties to produce predictable results or measuring results of a given instrument any way other than subjectively for most mortals without sophisticated equipment and know-how.

I would guess that the range of acceptable values is a narrow band in a huge sea of unacceptable results. We've had a few hundred years to narrow in on good design for brass instruments experimentally.

“A vintage horn, like an Elkhart 88H, with playability quirks”

What are the most common playability quirks of vintage Elkhart 88H horns?

JTeagarden wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:39 am Definitely not just looking for resonance, a bad horn that resonates well is still a bad horn.

I had a very old TIS King that practically vibrated on its own, it was too much resonance.

My king DG is a bit like this. Great when you want punch (big band). I got a calderpips halo to calm the resonance down, which works a treat!

TboneLeesMills wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 10:08 am “A vintage horn, like an Elkhart 88H, with playability quirks”

What are the most common playability quirks of vintage Elkhart 88H horns?

Every horn is different. When I had an Elkhart 88H, I was testing it alongside modern examples from Shires, Yamaha and Benge. Listeners loved the sound that I got out of the Elkhart on lyrical passages, but my particular horn had a couple of quirks (stuffy trigger, unstable 7th partial, etc) that came across as impeding playability, in comparison to the ease of playing across the range that I got from the modern horns. (Admittedly, had I spent significantly more time to internalize the playing quirks of each instrument and disguise them enough for the listener, the results may have been different)

I want an instrument that serves both craft and spirit. It must resonate naturally, like an extension of the body. I am the musical apparatus (the generator, energizer) while the trombone is the resonator. It must also move freely across a vast world of sound and style, without (literal and figurative) resistance, so other factors besides resonance apply.

I try to trust listeners more than my own feedback personally. I had a wonderful old Shires that had a ton of feedback and resonance, but moved to a Yamaha that felt really cold behind the bell. The reason I moved was people kept telling me that the sound was just as resonant and even cleaner on the Yamaha, and even though I couldn't perceive it I decided to trust it. The Stephens I play on now is somewhere between those two in terms of perceived resonance, but everyone that's listened has said it sounds more "like me" and has plenty of tone/sound so that's enough for me.

Sound is everything. If you don't have a head-turning sound, does it really matter what technique you have? I attended a recital where - at the end - the prof played a solo. My ears told me had an extremely raspy sound. I couldn't even believe it! Yes, he had ultra-high notes and all the multiple tonguing. But what I came away with was how raspy he sounded and I wouldn't want to study under him b/c there was no inspiration for sound. Sound is everything, to MY ears.

Some want a trombone with built-in edginess. I don't. I want a plain, vanilla sound. That gives me the palette to shape the sound the way I want it.