Microtonal Trumpet

Good thoughts, Bart regarding the 19TET trumpet. I hope you don't mind if I
forward them to the tuning list. For any of you tuning listers who don't
already know, Bart Hopkin (barthopkin@aol.com) is the editor of Experimental
Musical Instruments magazine. Here are some thoughts on your thoughts:

> I don't know the context in which the question came up, ... the machine work
> involved in realizing a new valve design is pretty prohibitive for
> anyone without great expertise and a shop full of good equipment -- is that a
> factor here, or can we speculate freely about theoretically possible designs
> without worrying about who would actually build them?

I was thinking in terms of having whatever equipment is necessary at hand.
I'm not sure about the person who posted the original query though.



> Also, is the intent to have something which remains playable in 12, or
> can we start from scratch in designing a 19-tone instrument?

I personally was thinking in terms of something that is "upward compatible"
in a sense. By that I mean something wherein the additional fingering
possibilities 19TET offers go down as a reasonably intuitive variant on
traditional fingerings. So, to use one of my examples, separate right- and
left-hand valve sets would be fairly easy to adjust to, especially for those who
have played both trumpet and F.horn.

But there certainly is value in just plain starting over anew, which your
suggestion below addresses.



> For a pure 19-tone trumpet, I'd be inclined to think of just having four
> valves, at 1, 2, 3 and 4 nineteenths
> of an octave. In various combinations that would allow for the ten
> increments (actually yielding 11 scale
> steps) you need to fill in the diminished fifth between the "fundamental" and
> the next available overblown
> tone a fifth above. There are tuning accuracy issues here, having to do with
> the fact that how much tubing
> you add to achieve a given drop in pitch depends on how long the tube was
> before pressing the valve,
> which depends on which valves were already pressed. So you'd want to think
> through the intended
> fingerings and then calculate how much added tubing should be associated with
> each valve to arrive at the
> best compromises. In light of that, it might turn out that, to optimise
> tuning accuracy, the fourth valve
> should add enough for 5/19 relative to some configuration of other pressed
> valvles. These tuning questions
> are a routine part of valved instrument design, and the situation is actually
> quite forgiving because brass
> instruments lend themselves well to being lipped into tune. The idea of four
> valves is quite natural and not
> difficult to play -- lots of low brass have 4, especially wide-bore
> instruments.
> The other option that strikes me is you could use a standard trumpet valving
> system, and then just add a
> fourth 1/19th valve. This allows you to get close enough to all the tones in
> 19 that you could then bring
> them in tune with the little tuning slide with the finger ring. Simple! But
> what a drag to have to play such
> a thing.
> Denny's idea of interchangeable valving sections strikes me as a reasonable
> and do-able one, though I
> spose it might be expensive.
> Another tempting thought: would it be possible to set up the finger buttons
> so that they added tubing length
> by sliding slides rather than controlling valves that re-direct the air flow?
> Advantages: infinite variability
> (but they could be "notched" or have stoppers so that they click into desired
> positions. These posibitions
> could be made adjustable.) Also, simpler construction for home builders.
> Disadvantages: Leak-proof slides
> might be too stiff for easy operation. Also, the "throw" of the button
> probably wouldn't be enough to move
> the slide far enough for the desired pitch drops. You'd end up having to
> lever it up somehow, which would
> add a slew of potential problems. Oh well. Just a thought.
> -- Bart
>


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 21:28 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06749; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 21:30:13 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05511
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id MAA09279; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:30:11 -0700
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:30:11 -0700
Message-Id: <960921152733_107382256@emout04.mail.aol.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu