TromboneChat

They played the same sequence on trumpets that had been frozen and those that had not, and then rated the instruments.

JohnL wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:00 pm Nowhere near enough detail in the article, but there's this bit:

They played the same sequence on trumpets that had been frozen and those that had not, and then rated the instruments.

I tend to agree with Doug Elliott on this one. Nothing proven one way or the other.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:20 am If you're trying to find out whether a treatment makes a difference or not, the SAME instruments need to be tested before and after... With the SAME player.

Take 12 horns, have the player rate each of them and do a high quality recording of all. Then treat half of them and go through the same rating and recording, with nobody knowing which ones were treated or not. That's a double blind study that has some validity.

Do that same study with 12 different players, treating each as its own independent study.

Then you have eliminated or at least accounted for the 2 problems of variation from trumpet to trumpet and player to player. You would have clear documentation as to whether the treatment changed anything, and what the change was, as determined by a variety of players.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:56 am I think each player needs to test every instrument - twice.

4.2. Discussion. When comparing treated and untreated trumpets from the same player, data collection session, and player-microphone orientation, no statistically independent results are seen (except for a single data point at one instant in time in a single case). Conversely, significant deviations are seen when different players are compared, and even when different data sets from the same person are compared. Although differences in the mean values of power in the temporal regime are clearly seen in many cases, these variations are overwhelmed by the scatter associated with the data.
A few conclusions can be drawn from this data. First, it may be possible that the cryogenic treatment does have an effect on the timbre and attack of the trumpets, as the large differences in the mean values of frequency content is seen in the time domain. However, the deviation of frequency content from trumpet-to- trumpet overwhelms any effect seen between the two sets of trumpets. Further, the deviation from player-to-player and even session-to-session for the same player also overshadows any effect seen due to the cryogenic treatment. Thus, it is the individual player, and even the current preparedness of the player, that has a greater effect than the cryogenic treatment on the timbre of the trumpets.

5. Conclusion
In many cases, the cryogenically treated trumpets display elevated upper harmonics when compared to their untreated counterparts. This deviation can be seen in both the steady-state and transient regions of the notes played. This could be correlated with the claims that the treatment results in a trumpet with a brighter tone. However, in the case of Player#3, the opposite is seen, with the untreated trumpets displaying stronger upper harmonics (and, presumably, a “darker” tone). In addition to this contradiction found in the data, virtually none of the data is conclusively statically independent. The scatter of data (i.e. variation from trumpet-to-trumpet) overshadows any difference seen between the treated and un- treated trumpets. Further, variations seen between players and between sessions for the same player are also much greater than the variations found between the treated and untreated trumpets. Although it is possible that the cryogenic treatment does have an effect on the timbre of an instrument, the effect is subtle at best when compared to other determining factors.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:20 am If you're trying to find out whether a treatment makes a difference or not, the SAME instruments need to be tested before and after... With the SAME player.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:49 pmYeah, Conn-Selmer definitely wasted their money on that one.

JohnL wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:23 amNot entirely. They learned that the study they paid for produced inconclusive results.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:52 pm

What we can say from this study is that the benefit of Cryo is not proven. There might be an effect, but this study couldn't find it.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:35 am There is a big placebo effect here. If you did a study where the people knew they were playing modified instruments they might find them better whether they were or not.

such that neither the player nor the researchers were aware if the trumpet under examination had been treated. Players were asked to rate each trumpet on a scale of 1-10 for the categories of tone and playability. They were also asked to record general impressions of each instrument, then guess if the trumpet had been treated based on those attributes that are commonly associated with cryogenic trumpets. Players' opinions of a single trumpet often varied greatly from session to session. The most pronounced came from the professional player. In his first session he identified a particular trumpet as virtually unplayable, stating that he "couldn't imagine anyone liking this horn." In his next session, one week later, he cited this trumpet as being his 2nd favorite of the 10. When guessing which trumpets had been treated, the players as a group were correct 52.5% of the time, with individual players guessing correctly between 40% and 60% over the course of their sessions. (see Chilling Trumpets: Does It Have An Acoustic Effect?)

JohnL wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:23 am

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:49 pmYeah, Conn-Selmer definitely wasted their money on that one.

Not entirely. They learned that the study they paid for produced inconclusive results.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:57 pm

JohnL wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:23 am
Not entirely. They learned that the study they paid for produced inconclusive results.

Not sure they did learn that. According to that article, they decided not to offer cryogenic treatment on their instruments based on the study's conclusion that it doesn't do anything. But if you actually read the study, they did find differences between treated and untreated instruments, but concluded that the difference between players is greater than the difference between treated and untreated.

sungfw wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:01 pm I think Selmer's decision makes perfect sense from an ROI standpoint. Why sink a boatload of money in a process that has negilgible effect? It's not like the cost acquiring, much less maintaining, cryo treatment equipment would have been negligible, particularly on an industrial scale, so, given the negligible possible quantitaive differences detected (well within the statistical variance) between the treated and untreated trumpets, and given the demonstrated inability of players to consistently identify the treated samples, what percentage of buyers could one realistically expect to opt for the treatment, and how long would it take to recoup the initial investment?

brassmedic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:22 pm Hmmm... when I read their conclusions, I'm not seeing where they say the effect was negligible. They say the effect was overshadowed by the differences between players, level of preparedness, and which session it was. But doesn't that go without saying? It seems quite obvious to me that the difference between an amateur player and a professional player, or between a player who is in shape and a player who is not in shape, is going to be greater than the difference between a treated and untreated bell. I mean, has anyone seriously contended that treating the bell would make an amateur player sound better than a professional player? OF COURSE the effect is going to be subtle compared to these other huge differences. A valid experiment needs to control the variables, not throw them into the mix and say, "Oh, well, I guess this doesn't do anything."

I don't think they proved the effect is negligible; I think they proved nothing. I'm not saying there is a noticeable effect; I'm just saying they didn't prove that there wasn't.

In order to verify that the treatment has a definitive effect on the trumpets, we approached our research from three distinct perspectives: materials science, quantitative acoustic measurements, and qualitative player responses. Our sample set was comprised of 10 Bach Stradivarius trumpets randomly picked from the Selmer production line, half of which were cryogenically treated. We then enlisted six players of proficiency ranging from beginner to professional, with each participating in between two and four data collection sessions.

The materials science phase of this research found no changes in the crystalline structure of the brass on the microscopic level. Identifying, verifying and quantifying changes in the material is ultimately irrelevant if the trumpet sounds and plays the same after it has been treated. Thus we began looking for differences in acoustic properties between the two sets of trumpets. As scientists, it is not up to us to decide what sounds "good," "warm," or "tubby," (much less to correlate this vernacular with quantitative data). We can identify differences in timbre by measuring frequency content of a sound and graphically displaying what frequencies are present. From this, we get a quantitative description of the sound. We can also compare these graphs of the average frequency amplitudes of the two sets of data and easily calculate the difference in sound. These graphs are especially powerful, because they can tell us the amplitudes of the harmonics (e.g. overtones or partials). Further, we can calculate the frequency content of the steady tone in the middle of the note or look at how the frequency content develops in the beginning, or attack, of a note.

When we compared the average frequency content of the treated trumpets to the untreated set for each player, no conclusions could be drawn regarding the influence of the cryogenic treatment. The amplitudes of the frequencies were scattered greatly, and the related uncertainty in the data was far greater than any differences seen between the two sets of trumpets in all but one isolated case (a particular player playing a particular note, the E5). In this single case the treated trumpets had more power on average in the higher harmonics, indicating a "brighter" or more trebly sound (often cited as a trait of cryogenically treated trumpets).

We repeated the anomalous data set some months later and the difference was not seen again. Interestingly, this player, a student at the New England Conservatory, came in for his first recording session at the end of a summer that was comprised of more sailing than trumpet playing. His second set of data was collected near the end of his senior year, during which he had been practicing many hours a day and performing in public weekly. The overall difference in timbre between the two sets of data was much greater than the difference we had originally seen between the treated and untreated trumpets. Apparently, simply practicing your trumpet does more to change one's tone than does freezing it, even for advanced players. Finally when comparing data from different players, the difference in timbre between some players is even more pronounced.

The most interesting, if not entertaining, data comes from the qualitative results. The trumpets were played and examined in a random, double blind fashion, such that neither the player nor the researchers were aware if the trumpet under examination had been treated. Players were asked to rate each trumpet on a scale of 1-10 for the categories of tone and playability. They were also asked to record general impressions of each instrument, then guess if the trumpet had been treated based on those attributes that are commonly associated with cryogenic trumpets. Players' opinions of a single trumpet often varied greatly from session to session. The most pronounced came from the professional player. In his first session he identified a particular trumpet as virtually unplayable, stating that he "couldn't imagine anyone liking this horn." In his next session, one week later, he cited this trumpet as being his 2nd favorite of the 10. When guessing which trumpets had been treated, the players as a group were correct 52.5% of the time, with individual players guessing correctly between 40% and 60% over the course of their sessions.

– Chilling Trumpets: Does It Have An Acoustic Effect? Popular version of paper 2pMUa6, Presented Tuesday afternoon, November 11, 2003, 146th ASA Meeting, Austin, TX.

sungfw wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:42 am
The point of the experiment WAS NOT to "prove" or "disprove" whether or not cryogenic treatment hand an "effect," and (as noted upthread) Jones and Rogers made no such claim to that effect: it was to determine whether or not the effects claimed by proponents of cryo treatment (stress relief, changes to the crystalline structure of the brass, more responsive, richer tone, etc.) were sufficiently demonstrable to justify Conn-Selmer investing in the "technology," because the proponents claim that those effects ARE readily demonstrable.

In order to verify that the treatment has a definitive effect on the trumpets, we approached our research from three distinct perspectives: materials science, quantitative acoustic measurements, and qualitative player responses. Our sample set was comprised of 10 Bach Stradivarius trumpets randomly picked from the Selmer production line, half of which were cryogenically treated. We then enlisted six players of proficiency ranging from beginner to professional, with each participating in between two and four data collection sessions.

The materials science phase of this research found no changes in the crystalline structure of the brass on the microscopic level. Identifying, verifying and quantifying changes in the material is ultimately irrelevant if the trumpet sounds and plays the same after it has been treated. Thus we began looking for differences in acoustic properties between the two sets of trumpets. As scientists, it is not up to us to decide what sounds "good," "warm," or "tubby," (much less to correlate this vernacular with quantitative data). We can identify differences in timbre by measuring frequency content of a sound and graphically displaying what frequencies are present. From this, we get a quantitative description of the sound. We can also compare these graphs of the average frequency amplitudes of the two sets of data and easily calculate the difference in sound. These graphs are especially powerful, because they can tell us the amplitudes of the harmonics (e.g. overtones or partials). Further, we can calculate the frequency content of the steady tone in the middle of the note or look at how the frequency content develops in the beginning, or attack, of a note.

When we compared the average frequency content of the treated trumpets to the untreated set for each player, no conclusions could be drawn regarding the influence of the cryogenic treatment. The amplitudes of the frequencies were scattered greatly, and the related uncertainty in the data was far greater than any differences seen between the two sets of trumpets in all but one isolated case (a particular player playing a particular note, the E5). In this single case the treated trumpets had more power on average in the higher harmonics, indicating a "brighter" or more trebly sound (often cited as a trait of cryogenically treated trumpets).

We repeated the anomalous data set some months later and the difference was not seen again. Interestingly, this player, a student at the New England Conservatory, came in for his first recording session at the end of a summer that was comprised of more sailing than trumpet playing. His second set of data was collected near the end of his senior year, during which he had been practicing many hours a day and performing in public weekly. The overall difference in timbre between the two sets of data was much greater than the difference we had originally seen between the treated and untreated trumpets. Apparently, simply practicing your trumpet does more to change one's tone than does freezing it, even for advanced players. Finally when comparing data from different players, the difference in timbre between some players is even more pronounced.

The most interesting, if not entertaining, data comes from the qualitative results. The trumpets were played and examined in a random, double blind fashion, such that neither the player nor the researchers were aware if the trumpet under examination had been treated. Players were asked to rate each trumpet on a scale of 1-10 for the categories of tone and playability. They were also asked to record general impressions of each instrument, then guess if the trumpet had been treated based on those attributes that are commonly associated with cryogenic trumpets. Players' opinions of a single trumpet often varied greatly from session to session. The most pronounced came from the professional player. In his first session he identified a particular trumpet as virtually unplayable, stating that he "couldn't imagine anyone liking this horn." In his next session, one week later, he cited this trumpet as being his 2nd favorite of the 10. When guessing which trumpets had been treated, the players as a group were correct 52.5% of the time, with individual players guessing correctly between 40% and 60% over the course of their sessions.

– Chilling Trumpets: Does It Have An Acoustic Effect? Popular version of paper 2pMUa6, Presented Tuesday afternoon, November 11, 2003, 146th ASA Meeting, Austin, TX.

So, no measurable change to the crystalline structure, no demonstrable quantitative effect on the sound, no demonstrable qualitative effect on the sound, as judged by the players: I think that for the purposes of the study, that qualifies the effect as "negligible*."

*negligible - so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention

First,it may be possible that the cryogenic treatment does have an effect on the timbre and attack of the trum-pets,as the large differences in the mean values of frequency content is seen in the time domain.

In many cases,the cryogenically treated trumpets display elevated upper harmonics when compared to their untreated counterparts.This deviation can be seen in both the steady-state and transient regions of the notes played.This could be correlated with the claims that the treatment results in a trumpet with a brighter tone.

However,in the case of Player#3, the opposite is seen, with the untreated trumpets displaying stronger upper harmonics (and,presumably, a "darker"tone). In addition to this contradiction found in the data,virtually none of the data is conclusively statically independent . The scatter of data (i.e.variation from trumpet-to-trumpet) overshadow sany difference seen between the treated and un-treated trumpets. Further, variations seen between players and between sessions for the same player are also much greater than the variations found between the treated and untreated trumpets. Although it is possible that the cryogeni treatment does have an effect on the timbre of an instrument, the effect is subtle at best when compared to other determining factors.

Apparently, simply practicing your trumpet does more to change one's tone than does freezing it, even for advanced players.

elmsandr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:27 amThey weren't using the same horns... but that is kinda the point, you need to try to control some variables (the date of the playing for example) and try to average out the answers. That is a really good way to tease out limited effects. The main change they could have used here was to try larger sample sizes, but that gets expensive.

JohnL wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:58 pm

elmsandr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:27 amThey weren't using the same horns... but that is kinda the point, you need to try to control some variables (the date of the playing for example) and try to average out the answers. That is a really good way to tease out limited effects. The main change they could have used here was to try larger sample sizes, but that gets expensive.

But by not using the same instruments, they introduced a significant uncontrolled variable. They could have addressed this by doing a round of playing tests before doing any cryo treatment. As it is, we have no idea if any differences (negligible or not) between the control group and the treatment group are the result of cryo treatment or if they were there before the treatment was applied.

That said, I suspect the study was entirely adequate for Conn-Selmer's needs. If the play testers had unanimously and overwhelming favored the treated instruments, C-S would be looking to offer cryo treatment. Since that was not the case, I expect they'll be leaving cryo treatment to the aftermarket folks.

elmsandr wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:58 amYou make a widget and they average a 5 on the scale. Whatever scale, whatever widget. You take a subset and you will be fairly certain that they average a 5. Having done this for years, you can set a probability around that (and it should be really high if you know what you are doing).

JohnL wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:53 pm

elmsandr wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:58 amYou make a widget and they average a 5 on the scale. Whatever scale, whatever widget. You take a subset and you will be fairly certain that they average a 5. Having done this for years, you can set a probability around that (and it should be really high if you know what you are doing).

Ah, now that's where we're not on the same page. I'm hung up on the question of whether or not the population is sufficiently uniform that the sampling is valid. So many variables...

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:18 am So, an inconclusive, sorta botched "experiment" report from 2003 where the researchers admit that player variability negated any meaningful value in the experiment? What am I missing here? Why internet, why?

brassmedic wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:36 pm I'm also skeptical of this "no changes in the crystalline structure" claim, because it's mentioned in the "popular version" of the study, but not in the study paper itself

, and no mention is made of how they determined this.

And if they did determine that, why would they say it's "irrelevant" and go ahead with the playing portion of the experiment. If there is literally no physical change to the metal, the study should have been over right then, unless they are studying voodoo.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:21 am Of course! Why bring up an article from two decades ago now, was my rhetorical question...

sungfw wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:57 pm
Do you belong to any academic research organizations, and have you ever presented a popular lecture based on a research paper you presented at their annual meetings? I suspect the answer to both questions is “No,” because if you were or had, you would know fully well that papers read at such conferences are published and distributed several months in advance to allow attendees to offer informed critiques, challenge conclusions, and seek clarification on matters of methodology and interpretation during the Q&A period following the presentation, and that in the interim between publication and presentation, authors are not only free, but are expected, to revise those papers in light of feedback from respondents. That's SOP in the hard sciences, soft sciences, and humanities, so, at worst, the fact that the published paper doesn’t mention the mechanical analysis may (probably) reflect(s) an oversight by the presenter: one that would have been address orally during the formal presentation itself or the Q&A following the presentation, and in the text of the popular lecture delivered subsequent to the formal presentation.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:52 pm I'm reminded of the "experiments" posted to the old forum by Snorlax ... Snoreswurthers? Snoresworthy! Remember him??

Memories!

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:04 pm

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:52 pm I'm reminded of the "experiments" posted to the old forum by Snorlax ... Snoreswurthers? Snoresworthy! Remember him??

Memories!

Or the Schilke "study" where he made a trumpet bell out of lead that produced a perfect sine wave.