TromboneChat

I am not sure whether brass players in other countries share this belief, but many people in my country believe in “burning in” a horn. Not actually burning, obviously, it comes from audiophile circle, where they say “burning a speaker” meaning playing something loud enough for an extended period of time on a speaker to make it “set”.

Accordingly, when used in brass instrument context it refers to playing a horn for a long enough period (months or even years, or for some people: playing the horn loud for shorter period) that the vibration of the bell and other parts “change” the property of the metal and/or the joint, making it “vibrates better/more fully” and thus making it “more free-blowing” or “sounds better, with more obvious overtones”, akin to shaking concrete to make it set faster and more compact (I suppose, I have zero knowledge in civil engineering and construction work).

Anyone has the same belief? Or has anyone done an experiment along those lines? I don’t quite buy the idea, since the vibration should not be strong enough to cause work-hardening or any other change in the metal. Proving it is also difficult, since one cannot compare the sound readily, or even one records and compares, there are many more variable, especially human factor, that can disturb the already small difference.

But as many believe it, there should at least be something, right?

Edit - This does not include “breaking in” of the slide and valve. That one I can understand the underlying mechanism.

When I was studying with Denis Wick in 1985, we were both frustrated with how I sounded in the middle register. In particular, my D's in the middle of bass clef were dull. The lessons were at his home. During one lesson, he asked me to step out of the room and have some snacks in his kitchen for about 10 minutes. From the adjacent room, I heard him play that D on my horn as loud as possible repeatedly with his favorite (Denis Wick) mouthpiece at the time. When I returned to my lesson, the note did seem easier to play. It also seemed more stable in the months after that.

I don't know if he "burned" that note for me or if it was all psychological. For what it is worth, I have chosen to NOT do the same process with my students and their instruments.

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:33 am When I was studying with Denis Wick in 1985, we were both frustrated with how I sounded in the middle register. In particular, my D's in the middle of bass clef were dull. The lessons were at his home. During one lesson, he asked me to step out of the room and have some snacks in his kitchen for about 10 minutes. From the adjacent room, I heard him play that D on my horn as loud as possible repeatedly with his favorite (Denis Wick) mouthpiece at the time. When I returned to my lesson, the note did seem easier to play. It also seemed more stable in the months after that.

I don't know if he "burned" that note for me or if it was all psychological. For what it is worth, I have chosen to NOT do the same process with my students and their instruments.

Is this the anecdote Denis Wick described in p. 12 of his Trombone Technique? I’ve often wondered about it. It could be psychological, as you say. But I think there is something to it.

The late Sam Burtis (sabutin) described an incident where something like the opposite happened. He had a Conn trombone (coincidentally, I believe it was also a 6H) that played well: flexible yet stable. He said he could get a beautiful centered sound, as well as a nice shimmery brilliance. He sold it to someone who played mainly traditional jazz and Dixieland, and had a hard-blowing, raspy style of playing. Years later, Sam met the player again and play-tested the same horn. Sam said all the beauty was out of the horn. It sounded brittle, and he wasn’t able to get a beautiful, centered sound on it. When he pushed it a little, all it did was rasp.

Just food for thought on this topic.

New slides are rarely an A or A+ out of the box. They need to be broken in before they feel good. (I’m assuming “burning in” and “broken in/breaking in” are the same thing. English .) Frequent cleaning, especially with a rod and cloth (cheesecloth, muslin, etc.) are essential. Removing the fine grit with soap and water (or cream like Trombotine) helps, along with the mildly abrasive action of the cloth.

I’m no physicist or chemist, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a bell went through a breaking in process through playing. Then again, there are dud horns. I believe it was Matthew Walker who described a horn that was a dud. Several people tried disassembling and reassembling it and it still played lousy.

What happens isn’t always observable, and what’s observable isn’t always the thing we think is happening.

When I was riding motorcycles there were two schools of thought on "breaking in" a new bike engine. One was to do it in careful stages over an initial riding period, increasing your RPM in increments, so that you didn't stress the engine or parts to an early breaking point. This was pretty much in line with recommendations that manufacturers provided for riding the bike for the first several hundred miles as I recall.

The other school of thought was expressed by the phrase "Ride it like you stole it," and argued that significant stress early on was a better way to ensure that all the relevant parts seated and wore properly prior to being subjected to various deposits and residues that might inhibit that and future performance. They also argued that the "measured break-in" period was old school and a vestige of time when materials and lubricants were inferior to modern ones.

There is a certain amount of "common sense" to each of these perspectives, and I suspect the same is true of the situation with new brass instruments -- especially valved ones (comparable to motorcycle engine valves). You don't really want to burn up those trumpet or bass trombone valve with careless, do you?

However, I've always been inclined towards the second approach and would play a new trombone "like I stole it." Just redline it and keep going. As an aside, careful experiments with motorcycle engines have seemed to indicate that it doesn't matter which approach you take. It turns out the same. I'm thinking that probably the same is true of trombones.

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:33 am When I was studying with Denis Wick in 1985, we were both frustrated with how I sounded in the middle register. In particular, my D's in the middle of bass clef were dull. The lessons were at his home. During one lesson, he asked me to step out of the room and have some snacks in his kitchen for about 10 minutes. From the adjacent room, I heard him play that D on my horn as loud as possible repeatedly with his favorite (Denis Wick) mouthpiece at the time. When I returned to my lesson, the note did seem easier to play. It also seemed more stable in the months after that.

I don't know if he "burned" that note for me or if it was all psychological. For what it is worth, I have chosen to NOT do the same process with my students and their instruments.

Yes, I too read with "interest" about this incident, in Denis's book. As Denis described it, was just that single note—I thought he said it was D5 that he blew the guts out of. My conclusion was that there may have been some debris lodged somewhere along the sound-path (perhaps something lodged in the tuning slide) at a pressure node corresponding to that particular note, and Denis simply blew it out. Question: had you been eating snacks before the problem arose?

Wolf tones like that can also occur if the spit valve is not fully seated (maybe a scone crumb stuck under it). Denis may have flicked that a few times, as well.

One thing we can be sure of: no amount of human air pressure or the vibrations caused by loud notes can have the slightest effect on any parts of the metal of the instrument! [Unless there is something already very loose and about to fall off.]

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 12:24 pm Sam said all the beauty was out of the horn. It sounded brittle, and he wasn’t able to get a beautiful, centered sound on it. When he pushed it a little, all it did was rasp.

I know a similar technique works for me when I blow all the bad pitches and intonation out of a horn by practicing. I also had a tuba that developed a bad rasp once (on a single pitch). But that time it was just a bad solder joint.

Since you ask for our believe, you get mine, probably only worth 2 cents ..

I believe in a physical thing: breaking in a slide i.e. playing, fussing around, cleaning, lubricating repeadetely until all production dirt ois out and it runs just nice and smooth. May take weeks to month.

I believe in a human ting: breaking in the horn, that is get used to it's particularities, response, and my way to produce the most beautiful sound, intonation and articulation possible with it. Actually breaking in my perceptual/motorical/feeling with the horn. will probably take a couple of weeks.

I believe in a physical phenomena: breaking in the horn in the sense of tighten/sealing the valves and slide tubes by greasing, oiling, and by sealing with the waterdrops from my breath. A tight horn just plays better than a leaky one, right?? That happens automatically during the first days of playing a new horn.

I do NOT believe in breaking in the horn as a physical thing of re-aligning the bell material, playing out stress in the metal, or otherwise play-anneal or in other ways change the flexibility or densitty of the metal. That never happens.


but the first 3 items on the list make the interaction between broken in horn and player better ... for me that is.

marccromme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:20 pm I do NOT believe in breaking in the horn as a physical thing of re-aligning the bell material, playing out stress in the metal, or otherwise play-anneal or in other ways change the flexibility or densitty of the metal. That never happens.

And, don't forget that, when the brass instrument leaves the factory, the outside (and part of the inside of the bell) is polished (and lacquered), but not the inner surfaces of the outer slide or the inner surfaces of the gooseneck, main tuning crook, and much of the bell throat. As it is played (over time), these surfaces will change due to oxidation and other chemical effects (perhaps stemming from the player's breath, especially after dining on Devonshire Teas)—thereby changing the surface quality (a little). This (potentially) could have some effect on the response (for better or worse?).

I've often wondered, strictly as an experiment, whether it would be possible to plate (or otherwise treat) the inside surfaces with a non-tarnishing, chemically inert metal. And whether this would "break in" any differently?

What about Sterling silver bells? Do they "break in" any differently?

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:28 pm I've often wondered, strictly as an experiment, whether it would be possible to plate (or otherwise treat) the inside surfaces with a non-tarnishing, chemically inert metal. And whether this would "break in" any differently?

What a marketing concept! Now I'm thinking of starting a company that would offer gold plating of the entire INNER surface of the instrument (gold plating of valves would be an option). It would have to be gold, right? To be really inert, I mean. I guess the economy offering could be nickel?

ghmerrill wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:37 pm

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:28 pm I've often wondered, strictly as an experiment, whether it would be possible to plate (or otherwise treat) the inside surfaces with a non-tarnishing, chemically inert metal. And whether this would "break in" any differently?

What a marketing concept! Now I'm thinking of starting a company that would offer gold plating of the entire INNER surface of the instrument (gold plating of valves would be an option). It would have to be gold, right? To be really inert, I mean. I guess the economy offering could be nickel?

Well, I guess you could do platinum. There are other rare metals that might merit consideration that are more expensive per ounce than gold.

I had an experience with "break in". I had a sad accident with my Yamaha 682 that needed a bell transplant. At the time, a good friend of mine worked for Shires and asked Steve if he could do the replacement. Steve had originally worked in my horn at Osmun and may actually have remembered me, so he offered to put on a 1G bell (at that time Shires offered 1Y and 1G bells only -- and delivery times then were a year plus for new horns). The new bell went on (it cost as much as the entire horn did when I bought it). I started playing the instrument and it seemed horrible! Raw sound, difficulty finding notes, and all kinds of problems. I thought I had made a terrible mistake. I kept on playing, and slowly but surely things got better. In the end, the horn played better than before the accident. Did the bell change? Did I? No idea.

At one time either Osmun or Shires was offering a "cryo treatment" where they brought the bell temperature to extremely low temperature and slowly warmed it up. Some players swore by this treatment while others (like me) couldn't tell any difference. Metallurgically, this was supposed to relieve some stresses in the metal brought on from working. I don't think anybody ever did metallurgical tests to show the differences.

Sorta rang a bell about trumpets in the past only opposite of “burning” in. Theory being the instrument’s sound was improved by cryogenic treatment. Probably had an equal number on both sides of the fence on that, and one doesn’t hear so much about that now…kinda tells tells the story.

I happen to be in the audiophile community as well and i agree with Crin, if the transducer aka headphone does not sound good immediately, not owing to problems or imbalance, then try a different set. no amount of swapping amps and DAC's will change how it sounds. maybe assist it a little bit by powering it adequately or differently or altering it if you go with tube amps, but fundamentally the headphone will not change. perhaps EQ may fix a few things for you, but again, probably worth trying other headphones instead.

I believe that to be true for horns too. If the horn does not immediately make a sound that you like or is not doing well, no amount of blowing really hard into the horn or "burning in" a bell will change how it sounds. it might smoothen things out slightly or maybe itll change SLIGHTLY just as things get vibrated and workhardening of the bell in various parts get evened out over time, but it wont change that much. you can change mouthpieces if youd like and maybe it might respond better to you and the sound may or may not change the little bit enough to get you to like it, but i dont think that will be enough for you to pick one horn over a "naturally" better playing horn, subjective to your tastes.

I think most of the burning or breaking in of horn parts will be the moving parts like slide and valves as would engine parts in a car. but you'd get much more significant results from changing bracing or turning slide material or slide variants, delacquering the horn, adding tone rings/halo, etc.

I simply dont believe that the horn has any parts that, through burning in or breaking in, will actively change how the horn sounds in a truly significant way. we can argue whether or not you can vibrate out the work hardening or whatever, but I dont think that changes the sound much at all unless your bell has been workhardened into like tool steel and then you like soften it back to brass. but no horn comes from factory with that much workhardening. I don't think the amount of workhardening from the hammering into shape of the various parts does THAT much do the sound. maybe changes very slightly, but not anything truly meaningful.

If the first impression of the horn on a few different mouthpieces does not bring the horn to your liking, no amount of burning in/breakin in the horn will make it come around. i dont believe the horn will have any change in sound significant enough to flip your judgement of it just based on burning/breaking in the horn. if you start changing horn parts and adjusting bracing etc, that's a different story altogether

The people love a faulty analogy with a big promise.

My favorite (probably dubious) anecdote is whacking the tuning slide in a certain spot with a mouthpiece and having a particular note suddenly be in tune.

Speaker "break in" is a thing, but it's my understanding that most hifi / audiophile grade speakers and headphones are designed with suspensions that don't undergo this process, or only go through it to a minimal amount.

Speakers for electrical guitar however, are still pretty much made using the same techniques / materials from the 1960s. The cones are paper, or sometimes hemp, and the upper suspension is usually part of the cone itself, not a cloth or fabric surround that is added as a separate piece. That area in particular undergoes structural changes as the speaker breaks in. The lower suspension / spider also does some of this, but not to as large of an extent as the upper suspension. Many guitar speakers have varying levels of "dope" on the speaker edge, which also affects the break in process.

With a brass instrument, you'd have to prove that vibration that doesn't result in any type of deformation can cause changes to the structure and / or internal stresses in the metal. This does however also include the solder joints between the components, which would be quite a bit easier to make changes occur in.

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:30 pm Speaker "break in" is a thing, but it's my understanding that most hifi / audiophile grade speakers and headphones are designed with suspensions that don't undergo this process, or only go through it to a minimal amount.

Back in my ham radio days, it was understood that a new piece of gear should be powered up for an extended period, like 24 hours.

That wasn't to break it in, but to break it. There was always a chance of a component ready to fail, and you wanted it to fail during the early bathtub curve period. Once repaired you could be confident it would be reliable, at least until the end of the curve.

timothy42b wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:58 pm Back in my ham radio days, it was understood that a new piece of gear should be powered up for an extended period, like 24 hours.

Those were the days when a not insignificant amount of power and high voltage ran through those radios -- and components were made of things like paper, cardboard, plastic, and glass tubes. All surrounding chunky transformers with iron cores. Your average short wave set often smelled like an electric storm was happening in it. Sometimes it was. Those were the days when men were men. Arrrrgh!

ghmerrill wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:08 pmThose were the days when a not insignificant amount of power and high voltage ran through those radios -- and components were made of things like paper, cardboard, plastic, and glass tubes. All surrounding chunky transformers with iron cores. Your average short wave set often smelled like an electric storm was happening in it. Sometimes it was. Those were the days when men were men. Arrrrgh!

My personal favorite was the instruction to pick the whole thing up, flip it over, and give it a good shake to make sure there wasn't anything loose in there (this was done before installing the tubes, of course).

I believe we change the horns we play - there might not be a ton of evidence for this, but i like it anyways! Its poetic, and art lives where physics and imagination meet.

This goes right into the woo woo pile, with slide locks and rubber slide bumpers.

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 12:24 pm

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:33 am When I was studying with Denis Wick in 1985, we were both frustrated with how I sounded in the middle register. In particular, my D's in the middle of bass clef were dull. The lessons were at his home. During one lesson, he asked me to step out of the room and have some snacks in his kitchen for about 10 minutes. From the adjacent room, I heard him play that D on my horn as loud as possible repeatedly with his favorite (Denis Wick) mouthpiece at the time. When I returned to my lesson, the note did seem easier to play. It also seemed more stable in the months after that.

I don't know if he "burned" that note for me or if it was all psychological. For what it is worth, I have chosen to NOT do the same process with my students and their instruments.

Is this the anecdote Denis Wick described in p. 12 of his Trombone Technique? I’ve often wondered about it. It could be psychological, as you say. But I think there is something to it.

My particular incident could not have been the one described in Wick’s “Trombone Technique” book. The book was published in the early 1970s. My lesson with him (when this happened) was fall of 1985.

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 1:39 pm
Yes, I too read with "interest" about this incident, in Denis's book. As Denis described it, was just that single note—I thought he said it was D5 that he blew the guts out of. My conclusion was that there may have been some debris lodged somewhere along the sound-path (perhaps something lodged in the tuning slide) at a pressure node corresponding to that particular note, and Denis simply blew it out. Question: had you been eating snacks before the problem arose?

Highly improbable that something being lodged in the instrument was the problem. Especially because that particular pitch had been problematic for a few years at that point. Other trombonists had observed the same issue with my instrument when they played it as well.

Of course you change the horn the moment you play it or even look at it. It's like looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or not.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 8:46 am Of course you change the horn the moment you play it or even look at it. It's like looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or not.

Musical instruments are like Schrodinger's cat?

BGuttman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:27 am

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 8:46 am Of course you change the horn the moment you play it or even look at it. It's like looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or not.

Musical instruments are like Schrodinger's cat?

Isn’t that what happens when you show up to the gig with the case but without the horn?

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 3:34 am This goes right into the woo woo pile, with slide locks and rubber slide bumpers.

Possibly. We have anecdotal evidence and subjective observations (lots of stories), but those don’t rule out the possibility of something being there. Just because we don’t have the ability to measure something doesn’t mean it’s not there.

All the same, I’ll leave the theoretical and practical means of detecting and measuring what might be there to Mssrs. Einstein, Hawking & Bohr, and their ilk.

I am inclined not to believe this.

But...

My m&w has only gotten better in the last few months. Obviously a fair amount of that is me getting used to the horn and getting better in general, but it sure feels like the horn has changed.

Based on experience with audio, trombones, and electric basses, I strongly believe that burn-in is a thing.

On bass guitar, there are many who believe that the wood contributes little to the sound...and many others whom pursue particular wood combinations of body, neck, and fingerboard, for particular tone goals. The extent to which good vintage instruments are prized for sound and playability provides some subjective data for burn-in...which makes perfect sense for wooden instruments that continue to dry out over time. Interestingly, for the last 6-8 years, Yamaha's premier line of "BB" bass guitars has been exposed to sophisticated vibration and curing treatments, and a lot of players credit this (along with other smart design features) for the sound of these instruments. In my own experience I rarely buy new basses, but the two times I have, each instrument seemed to open up over time, and this assessment is based largely on regular practice without amp or headphones. In one case I positioned the instrument on a stand in front of a subwoofer, when not playing it, and I believe that axe began to vibrate a lot more freely within 2-3 months

For audio, the high-end reviewers always seem to allow for burn-in time, and many of the manufacturers in that sector specifically counsel such. On electronics, I'm told this is because parts need time to optimize at operating temperatures. Cynics would say that "burn-in" time is solely for psycho-acoustic acclimation to the unit in question. Again, I rarely buy new stuff so can't provide a lot of personal experience, and I also think a lot of those high-end reviewers are blowing smoke, but over the decades I've identified a handful of reviewers whom I've come to trust based on similar opinions on equipment I've heard or owned. If they think burn-in is a thing, and they do what they do for a living, who am I to judge?

Finally, trombones. Been playing on and off since 1970, and have blown through a wide range of horns. Certainly the good ones and bad ones can be sorted right out of the box. But the good ones do seem to get better with age. I've had several Bach 36 specimens over the years, and play-tested even more still. The early-70's straight 36 that I bought at a pawn shop in 1975, and was my only horn until 1979, plays better than ever! Of course, the bell has been tempered due to dent repair, there is a small crack in the rim but no rattle or break in the wire, and the inners were replaced 15 years ago. And even though I hardly play these days, I know that some of the goodness I get from this axe is residual muscle memory from a period when I was practicing or gigging 15-30 hours a week, including a lot of salsa in the early years. So I'm used to the horn, it's used to me, and the life experience arguably alters the original design parameters. But it clearly has improved with age! (Sadly, I have not). Interesting comparison - I picked up a mid-70's 36 that spent most of it's life in a closet. Felt a little shut-in when I first got it, but it's now the horn I'm playing most in yet another desultory effort to regain some chops, and after about 50-60 hours on it, I"m pretty certain it's starting to open up. OTOH, have played several vintage brand-name horns that were clearly past their prime - primarily tone and center breaking up at volume.

So, why the changes? Call me delusional, but it seems pretty obvious that if an object designed to resonate and amplify vibrations is regularly activated, then over time it will resonate more readily to the range and pitches to which it's been exposed. And if it's been pushed by high-volume or gutty-styled players, its possible that cumulative activation in those modes will result in tonal degradation. Yeah, it's just metal and connective materials, but it's also system that was designed to resonate, rather than to power your vehicle.

So opinions are like belly-buttons - everbody has one - but this is mine, based on a lot of years in several music-related contexts. Objectivists may object, but ultimately if I hear and feel it, I feel bad for you, if you can't.

Most of the time, those who categorically dismiss this stuff obviously haven't bothered to think through the mechanisms that *might* make such things possible. Compare the disassembly of a fifty-year-old solder joint with a fresh one; it's not like nothing changes over time. Or just the really dumb factors - hopefully, a new horn arrived dry inside, vs the steady state of condensate and lubricant soup likely to characterize its ongoing use.

All those things do something, though it's reasonable to suggest that user adaptation is so much more significant as to leave the alternatives safely ignorable. Compared to other instrument types, brass has relatively little going on... compared - for example - to string instruments, where plastic deformation of wood and improved acoustic coupling as various components bed in are (a) definitely happening and (b) happening in a way that is specifically influenced by user handling and musical vibration, as opposed to static string tension loading alone.

It's true that the measurable performance of electrical components changes over time, and it's also true that manufacturers of all sorts benefit from the expectation that things can only get better. If the stars align, burning-in might take slightly longer than statutory cooling-off.

I think the vast, vast majority of the common feeling that our instrument has gotten better over time has to do with us adapting our playing to how the instrument wants to resonate, and eventually unlocking possibilities that weren't immediately available to us with the initial mismatch.

In terms of the instrument itself changing, what I'm inclined to believe is that being regularly played (and, not least, being regularly handled) would for sure have an impact on the inside surface (through oxydation), and time might have an impact on assembly stress as certain solder joints deteriorate and lose rigidity. The seal of the handside, tuning slide and whatever else movable joints will also for sure change somewhat over time. I think it would be hard to deny any of these things can impact how a horn plays, even if just slightly. So I think horns changing with time and/or with being played is a given.

But the crystal structure of the bell's brass re-aligning better from being played by a "good" player vs a "bad player"...my skeptic-o-meter just finds the idea has the distinct feel of esoteric pseudo-science.

Fortunately, all my horns are bought pre-broken in, since I get them used. But, the one exception is my Y-Fort, and I haven't noticed any change in the year and a half I've owned it.

I do think that horns change, but over a period of years or decades. I've read about horns "dying" (sound-wise) after decades of hard, everyday use.

Another possibility is that leadpipes don't usually fit perfectly enough to seal against the inner slide - in fact some are downright loose. That has to have some effect, and would change with use from condensation, oxidation, etc, filling in the gap. Or the reverse, getting red rot or otherwise corroding in ways you can't see.

And the same thing with other joints inside the horn.

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:39 am

BGuttman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:27 am

Musical instruments are like Schrodinger's cat?

Isn’t that what happens when you show up to the gig with the case but without the horn?

Only because you looked inside. Like I said ... Just *looking* at a horn changes it. Or causes it to cease existing altogether.

Actually playing it is about 4x10^38 times more of an effect! You might wind up turning your 42B into something actually nice to play! Or into a bowl of petunias.

This is a great topic. John Marcellus talked to me about burning in a bell. I’d like hime to opine on this. He along with Herb Bruce are two of the loudest players I have ever heard and played with. Huge compact sound. I’d like to know how they do it because they do it with the appearance of effort of just reading the newspaper!

I studied with a tuba player who swore by this and would purposely “break in” his tuba and would do it for others. Personally, I could care less and I think others should too if it really does or doesn’t do something. If it psychologically makes you play better than who cares what it actually does, the placebo effect is a hell of a drug. Whatever you need to do to play better is what you need to do

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:33 am When I was studying with Denis Wick in 1985, we were both frustrated with how I sounded in the middle register. In particular, my D's in the middle of bass clef were dull. The lessons were at his home. During one lesson, he asked me to step out of the room and have some snacks in his kitchen for about 10 minutes. From the adjacent room, I heard him play that D on my horn as loud as possible repeatedly with his favorite (Denis Wick) mouthpiece at the time. When I returned to my lesson, the note did seem easier to play. It also seemed more stable in the months after that.

I don't know if he "burned" that note for me or if it was all psychological. For what it is worth, I have chosen to NOT do the same process with my students and their instruments.

I have an issue with my Conn 88H (Elkhart ’69 vintage) that seems to be the opposite of the problem mentioned in the Dennis Wick anecdote. Instead of being dull or stuffy, playing the middle register G loud sets the bell to resonating and it rings for several seconds after I stop playing. The ringing was loud enough that I was afraid it would be a distraction any time I ended on that note. I noticed this problem after finding a slight crimp on the edge of the bell. I had the crimp removed, but it didn't fix the issue. My solution was to affix a wad of sticky tack, covered with a plastic cap painted to match the bell. This stopped the ring-on and did not seem to affect the tone otherwise. This might be heresy to some, but I believe the bell is designed to shape the sound, not generate it. Has anyone else ever encountered this problem, and can you suggest a more permanent fix? This has been my main horn for over 50 years, and my work-around has served me for at least half that time.