magnetic field

[Glen B]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:49:14 -0500, "Fester Addams"
<gogofester@comcast.net> decreased the available storage
space of our news server by typing the following:

That's a nice production quality rework station, not just a
"soldering iron". Retail is $1050 with all the goodies. Half
price is not bad for a slightly used system. It's definately
not for the electronics hobbiest, though. Weller makes a
sub-$50 station for that realm and you can pick up a
sping-loaded desoldering pump for $15-$30.

http://www.all-spec.com

Glen

"OLY" <Gyruss1984@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113855675.922188.241210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Ends Tonight


Metcal- nice, but not THAT nice for just a soldering iron.

 

[Jerry Avins]

Jon Harris wrote:

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:2LKdndtBrcfiZO3fRVn-pA@rcn.net...

Frnak McKenney wrote:
...


Is there a reason that "tuning instruments" (at least, the ones
I've seen and the ones discussed here) only analyze sounds and don't
attempt to apply controlled signal stimulation? Or is it that such
already exist and are simply too expensive for everyday use?

My guess: generating the sound is usually something that comes so easily
to a musician that it's not worth automating. Something was published on
a piano tuning device that both excited the string -- I forget how --
and turned the tuning peg with a geared servo motor. A human had to
place the string-isolating wedges and move the servo from peg to peg.


Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that guitar
tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding some for
stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that, plus as Jerry
said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own strings! Plus, I don't
many people that would trust a machine "banging on" their expensive instruments.


Jerry

P.S. Is your name really Frank?


I was wondering the same thing.

Somewhere in the attic, I have an oak box with a tuning fork mounted on
it. One tine of the fork is driven by a coil and the other drives the
button of a diaphragmless carbon microphone that modulates the coil
current. Coil voltage is available on binding posts. At one time, it was
General Radio's premier 1 KHz frequency standard. Feeding back to a
mechanical resonator has been done for a long time.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Tony]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:04 -0700, "Jon Harris"
<jon_harrisTIGER@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:2LKdndtBrcfiZO3fRVn-pA@rcn.net...
Frnak McKenney wrote:
...

Is there a reason that "tuning instruments" (at least, the ones
I've seen and the ones discussed here) only analyze sounds and don't
attempt to apply controlled signal stimulation? Or is it that such
already exist and are simply too expensive for everyday use?

My guess: generating the sound is usually something that comes so easily
to a musician that it's not worth automating. Something was published on
a piano tuning device that both excited the string -- I forget how --
and turned the tuning peg with a geared servo motor. A human had to
place the string-isolating wedges and move the servo from peg to peg.

Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that guitar
tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding some for
stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that, plus as Jerry
said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own strings! Plus, I don't
many people that would trust a machine "banging on" their expensive instruments.

Jerry

P.S. Is your name really Frank?

I was wondering the same thing.

A guitar already has a mag pickup, so it should be possible to just
plug it into a tuner (with vol and tone right up) and have the tuner
search for the slight narrow-band impedance resonances at each string
pitch, then use that to sustain continuous oscillation. Of course it
would probably also pick up harmonics of other strings if they weren't
damped (ideally need access to a hex pickup as well, I guess). A
practical design would be tricky, but still quite cheap.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

 

[David Tweed]

Frnak McKenney wrote:

That is, why not have the "tuning instrument" induce the vibration
as well as analyze the resulting sound.

Because the whole point is to get the instrument in tune *as played*
by the performer. It is a good thing that the tuning analysis is as
passive as possible.

A surprising number of musicians, as well as nonmusicians don't seem
to get this: An instrument that's in "perfect tune" can be played
out of tune by a bad player (or deliberately by a good player), and
a badly-tuned instrument can be played in-tune by a good player. The
quality of the overall performance depends a lot more on the player
than on the instrument.

I happen to play trombone, which is an extreme example of this, but
it applies to all wind instruments and most stringed instruments.
A piano (and electronic synthesizer), which I also play, is at the
other extreme, being one of the instruments on which the performer
has almost no real-time control over the pitch.

-- Dave Tweed

 

[Frnak McKenney]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:55:53 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Frnak McKenney wrote:
...

Is there a reason that "tuning instruments" (at least, the ones
I've seen and the ones discussed here) only analyze sounds and don't
attempt to apply controlled signal stimulation? Or is it that such
already exist and are simply too expensive for everyday use?

My guess: generating the sound is usually something that comes so easily
to a musician that it's not worth automating. Something was published on
a piano tuning device that both excited the string -- I forget how --
and turned the tuning peg with a geared servo motor. A human had to
place the string-isolating wedges and move the servo from peg to peg.

Ah. Sounds reasonable. I wasn't thinking of making the entire
process automated, but you've given me another obstacle to consider
if I ever try. <grin>

P.S. Is your name really Frank?

Yes, my fingers are just a little dylsexic. I'm in an odd industry
for someone who was finally permitted to drop Typing in the 7th
grade, and (aside from 026/029s) my first real computer keyboard
experience was with something called APL with a very "different"
keyboard layout. <grin>


Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut minds pring dawt cahm (y'all)
--
Everything has to start with fantasy... Knowledge is what
you finish up with, if you're lucky, after you've done the
hard work -- but the hard work needs passion to drive it.
People need reasons to be interested, reasons to be committed,
reasons to do their damndest to find the truth.
-- Brian Stableford / Dark Ararat
--

 

[Frnak McKenney]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:04 -0700, Jon Harris <jon_harrisTIGER@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:2LKdndtBrcfiZO3fRVn-pA@rcn.net...

P.S. Is your name really Frank?

I was wondering the same thing.

I've typed it that way often enough for me to consider legally changing it,
but it's in the header mainly as one more obstacle in the way of address
harvesting programs.


Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut minds pring dawt cahm (y'all)
--
Q: What are the benefits of speaking to your fans via e-mail?
DNA: It's quicker, easier, and involves less licking.
-- Douglas Adams / The Salmon of Doubt
--

 

[Kelly Hall]

David Tweed wrote:

An instrument that's in "perfect tune" can be played
out of tune by a bad player (or deliberately by a good player), and
a badly-tuned instrument can be played in-tune by a good player.

A trombone will be played out-of-tune by a bad player and will not be
touched by a good player. Same thing for the soprano sax and oboe.

In all seriousness, I would much rather play trombone than trumpet (my
two main axes) in a large ensemble because it's so much easier for me to
adjust the pitch while I play.

Kely

 

[Frnak McKenney]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:36:23 GMT, David Tweed <dtweed@acm.org> wrote:

Frnak McKenney wrote:
That is, why not have the "tuning instrument" induce the vibration
as well as analyze the resulting sound.

Because the whole point is to get the instrument in tune *as played*
by the performer. It is a good thing that the tuning analysis is as
passive as possible.

The nice thing about a microprocessor-controlled tuner is that it
can be configured to match multiple "good" settings... assuming
these can be defined in a way so they can be recognized.

A surprising number of musicians, as well as nonmusicians don't seem
to get this: An instrument that's in "perfect tune" can be played
out of tune by a bad player (or deliberately by a good player), and
a badly-tuned instrument can be played in-tune by a good player. The
quality of the overall performance depends a lot more on the player
than on the instrument.

I happen to play trombone, which is an extreme example of this, but
it applies to all wind instruments and most stringed instruments.
A piano (and electronic synthesizer), which I also play, is at the
other extreme, being one of the instruments on which the performer
has almost no real-time control over the pitch.

Fair enough, I can see how a violin's "tuning" can be tweaked by
minor adjustments of the fingers, and a trombone is also offers a
continuous frequency spectrum. Not sure if that makes a self-
stimulating tuner _useless_ -- it just says that it's probably not a
useful approach for some (perhaps many) instruments.

Ignoring the electronic synthesizer (I just ran across a couple of
hex-shafted ferrite-slug-coil tuning wands <grin&gt, which
instruments might benefit? Guitar&fretted, piano&friends... drums?
I have _no_ idea how (or if) one tunes a xylophone...

I admit that my interest is a combination of a life as a consultant
("Wait a minute! I can make that much MUCH better!") as well as
several frustrating years trying to tune a guitar to match a tin ear
(my own). So far, my picture of this thing is a slim wand with a
microphone, a string of LEDs (TooLow...TooHigh) and a pager motor
with a hard-rubber- coated cam, but I admit I'm probably not going
to build it _this_ week. <grin>


Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut minds pring dawt cahm (y'all)
--
There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent
methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth,
whatever that may be. -- Charles Sanders Pierce
--

 

[Jon Harris]

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:ns0471helh4gkl617ht8caipp4kc1cqbfl@4ax.com...

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:04 -0700, "Jon Harris"
jon_harrisTIGER@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:2LKdndtBrcfiZO3fRVn-pA@rcn.net...
Frnak McKenney wrote:

Is there a reason that "tuning instruments" (at least, the ones
I've seen and the ones discussed here) only analyze sounds and don't
attempt to apply controlled signal stimulation? Or is it that such
already exist and are simply too expensive for everyday use?

My guess: generating the sound is usually something that comes so easily
to a musician that it's not worth automating. Something was published on
a piano tuning device that both excited the string -- I forget how --
and turned the tuning peg with a geared servo motor. A human had to
place the string-isolating wedges and move the servo from peg to peg.

Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that guitar
tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding some for
stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that, plus as Jerry
said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own strings! Plus, I don't
many people that would trust a machine "banging on" their expensive
instruments.

A guitar already has a mag pickup, so it should be possible to just
plug it into a tuner (with vol and tone right up) and have the tuner
search for the slight narrow-band impedance resonances at each string
pitch, then use that to sustain continuous oscillation. Of course it
would probably also pick up harmonics of other strings if they weren't
damped (ideally need access to a hex pickup as well, I guess). A
practical design would be tricky, but still quite cheap.

I assume you are talking about using the pickup in reverse, i.e. to drive the
strings to vibrate? Well, it's true that _some_ guitars have passive magnetic
pickups. But others have different types including active pickups. With active
pickups, you can't just reverse drive them from the 1/4" input--the output
buffer gets in the way.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:08:30 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:

Jon Harris wrote:
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
Frnak McKenney wrote:

Is there a reason that "tuning instruments" (at least, the ones
I've seen and the ones discussed here) only analyze sounds and don't
attempt to apply controlled signal stimulation? Or is it that such
already exist and are simply too expensive for everyday use?

My guess: generating the sound is usually something that comes so easily
to a musician that it's not worth automating. Something was published on
a piano tuning device that both excited the string -- I forget how --
and turned the tuning peg with a geared servo motor. A human had to
place the string-isolating wedges and move the servo from peg to peg.

Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that guitar
tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding some for
stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that, plus as Jerry
said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own strings! Plus, I don't
many people that would trust a machine "banging on" their expensive instruments.

I've heard of those "self-tuning" pianos, and from what I've heard,
hearing it tune itself is almost a transcendental auditory experience. %-}

Somewhere in the attic, I have an oak box with a tuning fork mounted on
it. One tine of the fork is driven by a coil and the other drives the
button of a diaphragmless carbon microphone that modulates the coil
current. Coil voltage is available on binding posts. At one time, it was
General Radio's premier 1 KHz frequency standard. Feeding back to a
mechanical resonator has been done for a long time.

World's first "Accutron"!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:58:49 +1000, Tony wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:04 -0700, "Jon Harris"
jon_harrisTIGER@hotmail.com> wrote:

Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that
guitar tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding
some for stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that,
plus as Jerry said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own
strings! Plus, I don't many people that would trust a machine "banging
on" their expensive instruments.

A guitar already has a mag pickup, so it should be possible to just plug
it into a tuner (with vol and tone right up) and have the tuner search
for the slight narrow-band impedance resonances at each string pitch,
then use that to sustain continuous oscillation. Of course it would
probably also pick up harmonics of other strings if they weren't damped
(ideally need access to a hex pickup as well, I guess). A practical
design would be tricky, but still quite cheap.

Electric guitarists have been doing this acoustically since they
discovered feedback. I guess there's a whole mystique (sp?) about
the process - I think they toss the term "sustain" about. (my brugly
other is a professional guitarist, on the side.)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:53:37 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that David Tweed <dtweed@acm.org> wrote
(in <42722C7B.294C02F0@acm.org&gt about 'DIGITAL GUITAR AUTO-TUNER
PROJECT', on Fri, 29 Apr 2005:

I happen to play trombone, which is an extreme example of this,

My colleague, John Bowsher (a physicist as well as a trombonist)
demonstrated this to an AES British Section meeting many years ago. Two
demos:

- producing a constant pitch note while collapsing the slide.

- producing a swept pitch note with the slide stationary.

I don't really believe it, and I was there!

Embouchure, comrades, iron embouchure!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jerry Avins]

Kelly Hall wrote:

David Tweed wrote:

An instrument that's in "perfect tune" can be played
out of tune by a bad player (or deliberately by a good player), and
a badly-tuned instrument can be played in-tune by a good player.


A trombone will be played out-of-tune by a bad player and will not be
touched by a good player. Same thing for the soprano sax and oboe.

In all seriousness, I would much rather play trombone than trumpet (my
two main axes) in a large ensemble because it's so much easier for me to
adjust the pitch while I play.

Your trumpet is too pretty. The bugler in Boy Scout camp played so
beautifully that he could bring tears of joy to listen to him noodle.
The camp bugle was battered from years of abuse, ans the Campmaster, a
Presbyterian minister in real life, thought it a disgrace to his
administration. He replaced it with a shiny new one, lacquer intact, a
joy to behold. It sounded awful, with sour notes that resisted all
skill. Campmaster refused to return the old instrument, claiming that he
had disposed of it (a lie). The bugler, a fine trumpeter, was literally
in tears, berating himself for not having his trumpet with him.
Trumpeter and I retired to the woods with a variety of implements: a
broomstick, pieces of firewood, and a blackjack made from a rock encased
in six socks. We took turns "distressing" the poor bugle, at one point
denting it in so deeply that we needed the broomstick to round it out.

Hearing the sweet sound again made Campmaster come running to gloat that
the instrument was fine, that as he had said all along, practice would
make perfect. Boy Scouts don't lie. Bugler said, "We fixed it" and
proudly displayed the dents. "The prof helped." Thanks a lot!

Jerry
--
The virtue of a knife is to cut. ... Aristotle
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Jerry Avins]

Rich Grise wrote:

... (my brugly other is a professional guitarist, on the side.)

Please translate "brugly" for me. I'm still trying to learn.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Ben Bradley]

In
sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.misc,comp.dsp,comp.arch.embedded,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:49:44 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

... (my brugly other is a professional guitarist, on the side.)

Please translate "brugly" for me. I'm still trying to learn.

Know what a Spoonerism is? "brugly other"

Jerry

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Tony]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:07:25 GMT, "Jon Harris"
<jon99_harris7@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:ns0471helh4gkl617ht8caipp4kc1cqbfl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:04 -0700, "Jon Harris"
jon_harrisTIGER@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:2LKdndtBrcfiZO3fRVn-pA@rcn.net...
Frnak McKenney wrote:

Is there a reason that "tuning instruments" (at least, the ones
I've seen and the ones discussed here) only analyze sounds and don't
attempt to apply controlled signal stimulation? Or is it that such
already exist and are simply too expensive for everyday use?

My guess: generating the sound is usually something that comes so easily
to a musician that it's not worth automating. Something was published on
a piano tuning device that both excited the string -- I forget how --
and turned the tuning peg with a geared servo motor. A human had to
place the string-isolating wedges and move the servo from peg to peg.

Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that guitar
tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding some for
stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that, plus as Jerry
said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own strings! Plus, I don't
many people that would trust a machine "banging on" their expensive
instruments.

A guitar already has a mag pickup, so it should be possible to just
plug it into a tuner (with vol and tone right up) and have the tuner
search for the slight narrow-band impedance resonances at each string
pitch, then use that to sustain continuous oscillation. Of course it
would probably also pick up harmonics of other strings if they weren't
damped (ideally need access to a hex pickup as well, I guess). A
practical design would be tricky, but still quite cheap.

I assume you are talking about using the pickup in reverse, i.e. to drive the
strings to vibrate? Well, it's true that _some_ guitars have passive magnetic
pickups. But others have different types including active pickups. With active
pickups, you can't just reverse drive them from the 1/4" input--the output
buffer gets in the way.

Not just in reverse - by incorporating the pickup in an impedance
controlled oscillator it can act in both directions at once. I doubt
that losing a few % of the market (guitars with active pickups) would
be an issue for such a niche market device, although guitars with ONLY
piezos and pre-amps would be significant loss. Some guitars already
come equipped with crude feedback built in for "sustain" (generally
using separate pickups for sensing and actuation), but not selective
enough for this application.

I only tossed in the concept to illustrate that there are other
options (in the spirit of the discussion); if I really thought it was
going to set the world on fire I'd probably not publish it here. And
in any case, that's only a small part of the tuning loop - the most
important bit is mechanically adjusting each tuner, which isn't likely
to be automated until someone builds a complete low loss tuner block
that actually replaces conventional tuners (rather than attaching to
them). Even that isn't a big challenge technically, but as always, the
guy develops the first one could lose his investment if the market
isn't ready.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

 

[Jon Harris]

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:djd571doqnq0pfk7msf34efe9rp4qd8hvt@4ax.com...

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:07:25 GMT, "Jon Harris"
jon99_harris7@hotmail.com> wrote:


Maybe it would make sense for something like piano, but consider that
guitar
tuners cost about 20 bucks and can fit in a back pocket. Adding some for
stimulation is going to be pretty expensive compared to that, plus as Jerry
said, musicians are pretty good at plucking their own strings! Plus, I
don't
many people that would trust a machine "banging on" their expensive
instruments.

A guitar already has a mag pickup, so it should be possible to just
plug it into a tuner (with vol and tone right up) and have the tuner
search for the slight narrow-band impedance resonances at each string
pitch, then use that to sustain continuous oscillation. Of course it
would probably also pick up harmonics of other strings if they weren't
damped (ideally need access to a hex pickup as well, I guess). A
practical design would be tricky, but still quite cheap.

I assume you are talking about using the pickup in reverse, i.e. to drive the
strings to vibrate? Well, it's true that _some_ guitars have passive
magnetic
pickups. But others have different types including active pickups. With
active
pickups, you can't just reverse drive them from the 1/4" input--the output
buffer gets in the way.

Not just in reverse - by incorporating the pickup in an impedance
controlled oscillator it can act in both directions at once. I doubt
that losing a few % of the market (guitars with active pickups) would
be an issue for such a niche market device, although guitars with ONLY
piezos and pre-amps would be significant loss. Some guitars already
come equipped with crude feedback built in for "sustain" (generally
using separate pickups for sensing and actuation), but not selective
enough for this application.

Thanks for the clarification. I come from the acoustic guitar world, where the
vast majority are piezo and/or pre-amps, rather than a niche market. For
electric guitars, you are probably right.

I only tossed in the concept to illustrate that there are other
options (in the spirit of the discussion); if I really thought it was
going to set the world on fire I'd probably not publish it here. And
in any case, that's only a small part of the tuning loop - the most
important bit is mechanically adjusting each tuner, which isn't likely
to be automated until someone builds a complete low loss tuner block
that actually replaces conventional tuners (rather than attaching to
them). Even that isn't a big challenge technically, but as always, the
guy develops the first one could lose his investment if the market
isn't ready.

OK, point taken.

 

[Jon Harris]

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:QtWdnRDwnIJLAe_fRVn-vg@rcn.net...

Kelly Hall wrote:
David Tweed wrote:

An instrument that's in "perfect tune" can be played
out of tune by a bad player (or deliberately by a good player), and
a badly-tuned instrument can be played in-tune by a good player.


A trombone will be played out-of-tune by a bad player and will not be
touched by a good player. Same thing for the soprano sax and oboe.

In all seriousness, I would much rather play trombone than trumpet (my
two main axes) in a large ensemble because it's so much easier for me to
adjust the pitch while I play.

Your trumpet is too pretty. The bugler in Boy Scout camp played so
beautifully that he could bring tears of joy to listen to him noodle.
The camp bugle was battered from years of abuse, ans the Campmaster, a
Presbyterian minister in real life, thought it a disgrace to his
administration. He replaced it with a shiny new one, lacquer intact, a
joy to behold. It sounded awful, with sour notes that resisted all
skill. Campmaster refused to return the old instrument, claiming that he
had disposed of it (a lie). The bugler, a fine trumpeter, was literally
in tears, berating himself for not having his trumpet with him.
Trumpeter and I retired to the woods with a variety of implements: a
broomstick, pieces of firewood, and a blackjack made from a rock encased
in six socks. We took turns "distressing" the poor bugle, at one point
denting it in so deeply that we needed the broomstick to round it out.

Hearing the sweet sound again made Campmaster come running to gloat that
the instrument was fine, that as he had said all along, practice would
make perfect. Boy Scouts don't lie. Bugler said, "We fixed it" and
proudly displayed the dents. "The prof helped." Thanks a lot!

Great story! What do you think made the difference? I've heard that removing
lacquer opens up the sound slightly, but have never known anything good to come
from dents. Any explanation?

 

[Jon Harris]

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.29.20.35.57.887837@example.net...

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:53:37 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that David Tweed <dtweed@acm.org> wrote
(in <42722C7B.294C02F0@acm.org&gt about 'DIGITAL GUITAR AUTO-TUNER
PROJECT', on Fri, 29 Apr 2005:

I happen to play trombone, which is an extreme example of this,

My colleague, John Bowsher (a physicist as well as a trombonist)
demonstrated this to an AES British Section meeting many years ago. Two
demos:

- producing a constant pitch note while collapsing the slide.

- producing a swept pitch note with the slide stationary.

I don't really believe it, and I was there!

Embouchure, comrades, iron embouchure!

How much did he vary the pitch by in the second example? I can change the pitch
maybe a half-step either way on my French horn using embouchure, but not much
more than that.

 

[Kelly Hall]

Jon Harris wrote:

How much did he vary the pitch by in the second example? I can change the pitch
maybe a half-step either way on my French horn using embouchure, but not much
more than that.

Partials on a french horn are so close together that it's hard to lip
much before the horn refuses to play along and just moves to the next
partial. One of the typical trumpet books (Maggio? Stamp?) has a series
of exercises where you first finger and then lip down a half-step. Back
in my serious days I took it down to major thirds.

Once you get used to holding your embouchure in spite of the horn not
wanting to resonate, it's a lot easier to play those false notes. It's
the only way to play the trumpet notes between low F# and pedal C with a
3-valve horn.

There was a Boston Pops concert on PBS a few years back with Arturo
Sandoval playing a pretty ballad on his flugel - he played a number of
notes below f# and they sounded fantastic: big, full, pretty. And the
fact that 98% of the people listening didn't notice (or care) was the
best part: it wasn't some gimmick to lay onto the kids at a clinic, he
was just making music

Kelly