xtl /Vo0 , 6 Z se

PERCEPTION OF TIMBRAL DIFFERENCES

AMONG BASS TUBAS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC

By

Gary Thomas Cattley, B.A.

Denton, Texas

August, 1987 Cattley, Gary T., Perception of Timbral

Differences among Bass Tubas. Master of Music (Music

Education), August, 1987, 98 pp., 4 tables, 6 figures, bibliography, 74 titles.

The present study explored whether musicians could

(1) differentiate among the timbres of bass tubas of a single design, but constructed of different materials,

(2) determine differences within certain ranges and articulations, and (3) possess different perceptual abilities depending on previous experience in low brass performance.

Findings indicated that (1) tubas made to the same specifications and constructed of the same material differed as much as those of made to the same specifications, constructed of different materials; 2) significant differences in perceptibility which occurred among tubas were inconsistent across ranges and articulations, and differed due to phrase type and the specific tuba on which the phrase was played; 3) low brass players did not differ from other auditors in their perception of timbral differences. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES ...... - . - . v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . .*. ... .vi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ......

Purpose of the Study Research Questions Definition Delimitations Chapter Bibliography

II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE . . . 14

The Perception of Timbre Background Acoustical Attributes of Timbre Subjective Aspects of Timbre Subjective Measurement of Timbre Contextual Presentation of Stimuli

The Influence of Materials on Timbre Chapter Bibliography

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ...... 41

The Pilot Studies The Present Study The Selection of Stimuli The Test Tape Subjects Statistical Procedures

Chapter Bibliography

IV. TREATMENT OF THE DATA...... 50

Reliability Main Effects and Interactions

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

V. CONCLUSIONS...... 66

The Research Questions Research question #1 Research question #2 Research question #3 Research question #4

Discussion Suggestions for Further Research Chapter Bibliography

APPENDIX - - - - . . . * - * . *...... 80

Raw Data Test Form

BIBLIOGRAPHY . o - . . - ...... 86

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Main Study Analysis of Variance Source Table . . . . . --- 53

II. Homogeneous Subsets, Phrase Main Effects ...... 55

III. Homogeneous Subsets, Pair Main Effects ...... 56

IV. Homogeneous Subsets, Pair by Phrase Interaction . . . 59

V LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

I. Musical Examples ...... 0 . 0 44

II. Scheffe Procedure, Phrase Main Effect ...... 54

III. Scheffe Procedure, Pair Main Effect ...... 55

IV. Scheffe Procedure, Pair by Phrase Interaction . . . . 57

V. Scheffe Procedure, Rater by Phrase Interaction . . . . 64

VI. Group Means Rater by Phrase Interaction . . . . 65

vi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The materials used in construction of a musical

instrument and the resultant effects on that

instrument's tone quality have long been an issue of curiosity and debate. Backus suggested that the first

such discussion may well have involved cavemen's

preferences for the sound of a flute made of bone

rather than of wood (2, p. 247). The use of various

compositions of brass in the manufacture of brass

instruments has evoked similar discussion and debate

among contemporary manufacturers and as well as

performers.

There have been a wide variety of claims regarding

the extent to which different materials and finishes

have an effect on tone quality. Construction materials

are only one of the many differences between

instruments, yet certain materials significantly

influence the cost' of the instrument. If the more

expensive materials do not alter noticeably the timbre

of the instrument, one would then have to consider

whether the. resulting appearance of the tuba is worth

the added costs.

1 2

Many opinions have been offered concerning the significance or insignificance of material and wall thickness in respect to their effects on the timbre of brass instruments. Some are based on scientific research; others rely on players' or instrument makers' practical experience. Bevan, while not citing specific responses, acknowledged that players' reactions differ from tubas with heavier or lighter gauge walls, but maintained there is no scientific basis for this (9, pp. 45-46). Smith wrote, "Great claims have been made for the acoustical properties of various alloys, especially the expensive ones." He also indicated that the effect of metallic composition of a trumpet bell is only significant with thinner gauges of metal (26, pp.28-29). In an interview, Reynold Schilke of Schilke

Music Products stated "The material. . . (of brass instruments] . . . is relatively unimportant; it's what you do with it that makes the difference!" (27, p.50); however, in the same article his father, who founded the company, was reported to have said that the application of lacquer ". . . killed an instrument"

(27, pp.50-51). In an effort to systematically settle this controversy, researchers have explored the relationship of timbre and construction material on many instruments; yet, the tuba has not been considered specifically. However, considerations for other 3 instruments can be generalized to apply to instruments of different families, and as such, provide the background for the present study (2, pp. 247, 252,

279).

Backus noted that ". . . the material of the wind

instrument may be chosen for its working qualities and

not for any imagined effect on its tone" (2, p. 247).

Many studies support this statement, and many opinions

exist to the contrary. Analyses of tones of wooden and

metal clarinets and flutes showed ". . . no appreciable

effect" on tone quality due to the composition or

thickness of wall materials (21, p. 417; 12, pp.

520-523). Concerning the flute and oboe, Bate

reflected that many players' ideas, contrary to

scientific opinion, allowed for differences in tone

quality attributable to construction materials (6, p.

160; 7, p. 24). Baines, Rendall, and Miller suggested

marked differences in the playing characteristics and

timbre of woodwinds due to superior and inferior

materials (5, pp. 54-56; 24, pp. 12-13; 19, pp.

.161-171). Backus related an experiment which compared

and found no difference among the tones of brass and

wooden trumpets (2, p. 279). Knauss and Yeager found

that the amount of vibration occurring in the walls of

a trumpet did not possess enough acoustical energy to

be heard above the actual sound produced by the 4

instrument (18, pp. 160-162). By means of computer models, Watkinson and Bowsher studied the vibration characteristics of trombone bells of various shapes and materials. While modes of wall vibrations for different materials differed slightly, the significance of the observed properties was not determined with respect to the perception (33, pp. 1-16).

Despite the general scientific evidence which excluded contribution of material to tone quality, a plethora of contrary opinions exist. One of the first articles addressing the proper composition of metals for constructing a brass instrument appeared in the

Talbot manuscript of the Christ Church: "Best mettal

Bastard-Brass mixed with solid Brass: Worse Silver and worst copper springy." (4, p. 20). While the meaning of this entry is far from precise, it does indicate a preference for the use of particular alloys in the

manufacture of brass instruments.

Ferron felt that the walls of the tubing of brass

instruments vibrate sympathetically with the air

column, both radially and longitudinally, and that the

material of which the instrument is made influenced its

sound due to these vibrations. In addition, he related

that a musician actually imprints his personal sound

upon his instrument through unique formant frequencies,

thereby increasing the flexibility of the instrument 5 and, thus, enhancing its response to that player's individual signature (14, p. 57). This view also appears in other anecdotal literature (23, pp. 29-31;

28, pp. 18-19). Poncet stated that since vibrations are reflected off the walls of an instrument, the sound quality largely relates to the composition of the metal. Additionally, he offered that in the hands of a bad player, a horn may lose flexibility and mellowness in the same manner as it may be improved by a good player (23, pp. 29-31).

Tuckwell cited pronounced differences in timbres of French horns constructed of different compositions of metals (30, p. 149). Morley-Pegge related the opinions of two noted hornists who expressed preference for certain alloys on grounds of tone quality (20, pp.

125-126). Baines allowed for some contributions of wall vibrations to inharmonic overtones in brass instruments (3, p. 24).

Benade also reasoned that material could effect the timbre of an instrument, but for different reasons than those previously suggested. Plastics used in the manufacture of woodwinds allowed sharper edges around the tone holes and joints than wood. These edges purportedly caused turbulences which disrupted the air column inside the instrument and changed its tone quality (8, pp. 499-501). 6

Brass instrument manufacturers' claims for certain characteristic sounds due to material are both inconsistent and contradictory. Complications in associating timbral characteristics of instruments with certain mixtures of metal and assorted finishes arise when one considers the number of other factors that can cloud the issue. For example, instruments of various tubing configurations inherently are different; individual players can produce a broad spectrum of

sounds, even on the same instrument; and a listener may consider an instrument's qualities to be different from

a player's perception of the same because of the

performer's proximity to the source of sound (16, pp.

15-17; 33, p. 1193; 10, pp. 23-24).

The description of perceived differences also is

problematic. Many inexact terms, viz., bright, dark,

core, focused, spread, compact, are used in the

description of perceived musical sounds. Although

there seems to be some agreement as to the application

of such terms among musicians, great latitude in the

particular attributes that fit these terms is also

commonplace (1, pp. 1-7; 16, p. 14).

Conditions under which an instrument is heard may

also effect subjective judgments of timbre. Musical

instrument sounds tend to be evaluated more accurately

when presented in the context of a musical phrase 7

rather than as an isolated tone (17). Attack transients also are important to correct identification of musical instrument timbre (13; 30; 25, pp. 95-134).

Based on this body of literature, the investigator determined that a study which explored aurally perceivable timbral differences in tubas constructed to the same dimensions but made of materials that differ might increase the body of knowledge in this controversial area. Other studies have explored this general issue; none have been performed specifically on the tuba. Results of these investigations seem to suggest that the material of which instruments are made

is of little or no consequence, provided the material

is substantial enough to insure that the acoustical

shape of instrument interiors do not change due to

pressure applied to the outside walls. Other less

scientific sources, such as the opinions of some

performers and instrument makers, allow greater

latitude as to the influence of materials (11, pp.

25-30; 14, pp. 59-60; 23, pp.29-30).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore whether

musicians could differentiate timbral differences

between bass tubas of a single design, constructed of

different materials. In addition, this study explored 8

whether timbral differences among tubas sounds existed only within certain ranges or articulations, and whether low brass players perceive differences that players of other instruments do not discern.

Research Questions

1) To what degree are tubas that are made to the same specifications but constructed of different metals perceived as significantly different in timbre?

2) Do two tubas made of the same specifications and constructed of the same material differ perceptibly

in timbre as much as or greater than those of different materials?

3) Are significant perceivable differences among

tubas consistent regardless of range and articulation?

4) Do low brass players players significantly

perceive differences among tubas to a greater extent

than other auditors?

Definition

To give a concise, singular definition of timbre

is difficult. The American Standards Association

adopted the following definition: "Timbre is that 9

attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which a listener can judge that two sounds similarly presented and having the same loudness and pitch are dissimilar."

"Timbre depends primarily upon the spectrum of the stimulus, but it also depends upon the waveform, the sound pressure, the frequency location of the spectrum, and the temporal characteristics of the stimulus."

(31, p. 45). In this sense, timbre is described denotatively rather than by specifically outlining its attributes. "Sounds similarly presented" may be

interpreted as involving Schouten's description of the

five major attributes of timbre, or as referring mainly

to the frequency spectrum, excluding dynamic aspects of

timbre (usually denoted as "Klangfarbe") (22, pp.

397-398). As applied in this paper, timbre refers to

the sensation of difference in sound quality, perceived a by listeners, between stimuli of complex tones in

dynamic context.

Delimitations

1) The listening test was administered to college

music majors and music faculty.

2) The tubas used in this were limited to the

following versions of the Mirafone 188/5U bass tuba:

Two lacquered standard models, one silver-plated and 10

one rose brass model (red brass with nickel valve section). CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abeles, Hal, "Verbal Timbre Descriptors of Isolated Clarinet Tones," Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, LIX (1979) , 1-7.

2. Backus, John, The Acoustical Foundations of Music, New York, W.,~W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1977.

3. Baines, Anthony, Brass Instruments: Their History and Development, New York, Charles Scribner' s Sons, 1978.

4. , "John Talbot's Manuscript, (Christ Church Library Music M. S. 1187)," The Galpin Society Journal, I (1948), 9-26.

5. , Woodwind Instruments and Their History, New York, W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1957.

6. Bate, Philip, The Flute, A Study of its History, Development, and Construction, London, Ernest Benn, 1979. History, 7. , The Oboe, An Outline of its Development,and Construction, London, Ernest Benn Ltd., 1956.

8. Benade, Arthur H., Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, New York, Oxford University Press, 1976.

9. Bevan, Clifford, The Tuba Family, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978.

10. Bowsher, J. M., "The Physics of Brass Wind Instruments," Endeavour, IV (No. 1, 1980), 20-25.

11. Bowsher, J. M. and P. S. Watkinson, "Manufacturers' Opinions about Brass Instruments," Brass Bulletin, XXXVIII (1982), 25-30.

11 12

12. Coltman, John W., "Effect of Material on Flute Tone Quality," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIX (No. 2, 1971), 520-523.

13. Elliott, Charles A., "Attacks and Releases as Factors in Instrument Identification," Journal of Research in Music Education XXIII (No. 1, f-975) , 35-40.

"De la Sensibilitie des Instruments de 14. Ferron, E., 5 7 60 Cuivre," Brass Bulletin, XXX (1980), pp. - .

15. Giardinelli Band Instrument Company, Inc., Fall 1986 Brass, Woodwind, and Accessory Catalog, New York, Giardinelli Band Instrument Company, Inc., 1986.

16. Goodwin, John, "Brass Instrument Research at Surrey University," Brass Bulletin, XXXVI (1981), 8-17.

17. Grey, John M., "Timbre Discrimination in Musical Patterns," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64 (August,1978) , 467-472.

18. Knauss, H. P. and W. J. Yeager, "Vibration of the Walls of a Cornet,"Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIII (No. 13, 1941), 160-162.

19. Miller, Dayton C., "The Influence of the Material of Wind Instruments on their Tone Quality," Science, XXIX (January 29, 1909), 161-171.

20. Morley-Pegge, R., The French Horn, Some Notes on the Evolution of the Instrument and of its Technique, New York, Philosophical Library, Inc., 1960.

21. Parker, Sam E., "Analysis of the Tones of Wooden and Metal Clarinets," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIX (May 1947), 415-419.

22. Plomp, Reiner, "Timbre as a Multidimensional Attribute of Complex Tones," in Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing, edited by Plomp, R., and F. Smoorenburg, Leiden, A. W. Swithoff, 1970. 13

23. Poncet, Jacques, "De la Sensibilitie des Instruments de Cuivre," Brass Bulletin, XXVIII (1979) , pp.57-60.

24. Rendall, F. Geoffrey, The Clarinet, Some Notes upon its History and Construction, New York, W. W. Norton, 1971.

25. Seashore, Carl E., Psychology of Music, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938.

26. Smith, Richard A., "Recent Development in Trumpet Design," Journal of the International Trumpet Guild, III (October, 1978), pp. 27-29.

27. Suter, Stephan, "Instrumentenbau in USA: Schilke Music Products, Inc. Chicago," Brass Bulletin, LI (1985) , 48-53.

28. Suter, Stephan, "Lawson Brass Instruments Inc., Boonsboro," Brass Bulletin, LII (1985), 15-19.

29. Thayer, Ralph C. Jr., "The Effect of the Attack Transient on Aural Recognition of Instrumental Timbres," Psychology of Music, II (No. 1, 1974), 39-52.

30. Tuckwell, Barry, Horn, New York, Schirmer Books, 1983.

31. U.S.A. Standards Institute, American Standard Acoustical Terminology, New York, U.S.A. Standards Institute, 1960.

32. Watkinson, P. S., and J. M. Bowsher, "Vibration Characteristics of Brass Instrument Bells," Journal of Sound and Vibration, 85 (No. 1, 1982), 1-17.

33. Wogram, Klaus, " Problems Relating to Acoustics in Brass Instrument Manufacture," Das Musikinstrument, (September, 1977), 1193-1194. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

The prime focus of this study concerned the importance of materials to the timbre of tubas; emphasis was placed on whether timbral differences exist due to the type of metal used. Rather than by performing analyses and comparisons electronically, the ear was used as an analyzer of complex tones.

Therefore, the major areas of pertinent literature were the writings which concerned the perception of timbre, those which explored the effects of material on instrument characteristics, and studies which specifically addressed the characteristics of brass instruments.

The Perception of Timbre

Background

Historically, investigations in hearing and psychoacoustics have focused on the perception of pitch and loudness rather than timbre (16, pp. 67-69; 39, p.

397). Until recently most studies of pitch, timbre or loudness utilized pure rather than complex tones as stimuli. As a result, much of hearing theory has been

14 15 based on investigations of pure tones, generalized to include complex stimuli (40, p. 322). Considerably less has been done with sounds that change dynamically with time (19, p. 1-3). Plomp stated that the conclusions of more recent studies using complex sounds are not always in agreement with those based on pure tones, especially where the physical and physiological correlates of pitch are concerned (38, p. 322). Most relevant to a listening test of instrument timbres are those studies relating to the perception of complex timbres, with others having varying degrees of

importance.

Helmholtz's (1885) work on the perception of tones

stands as an exception to the general neglect for study

of timbre. He provided a strong experimental base

describing timbre as the amplitude of partials in

periodic vibrations. Although the actual idea had been

predated by others (Willis, 1830; Bindseil, 1839;

Seebeck, 1849; and Brandt, 1861), Helmholtz's book

presented ". . . a brilliant and never surpassed

treatise on timbre in its relation to the properties of

sounds and of the hearing mechanism" (39, p. 398).

Acoustical Attributes of Timbre

Helmholtz showed that complex sounds are periodic

in nature and are composed of a fundamental and its 16 associated set of harmonics. Furthermore, he demonstrated that the ear can identify some of these harmonics within a complex tone. He then concluded that the amplitude pattern and bandwidth of the harmonic series are the primary elements that are perceived in the discrimination of timbre, with the phase relationships of harmonics being of no importance

(22, p. 124-127). A subsequent investigation of complex tones showed that phase may be of slight

importance to timbre (41).

Chapin and Firestone explored the effect of the relative phase of fundamental and harmonic on tone quality and loudness. Their findings suggested that

loudness and tone quality changed perceptibly when the

phase relation of two low frequency, high intensity

harmonic tones was changed (12, p. 180).

The role of formants in the timbre of musical

tones was first explored by Fletcher in 1934. The

formant region is that specific portion of the spectrum

that is strengthened relative to other partials in the

sound (16, p. 59-69). Bartholomew proposed similarly

that characteristic tone qualities of musical

instruments are due to the strengthening of partials

within a fixed or relatively fixed bandwidth within the

spectrum. Luce showed that the formants of many

musical instruments are not fixed, but change relative 17 to the fundamental frequency. Slawson, and Plomp and

Steeneken support the case of a modified fixed-formant theory, where changing the two lower formants by approximately ten percent of the change in fundamental frequency best preserved tone quality (19, pp. 4-6).

Subjective Aspects of Timbre

Greer explored the relationship of timbre to brass-wind intonation. He found that subjects exhibited better intonation when matching pitches of certain timbres (18, p. 65-94). Conversely, one may reasonably conclude that pitch may affect the recognition of timbre (45, pp. 23-32). An earlier study by Lichte and Gray involved subjects matching pure tones to complex tones of the same loudness. For each complex tone, the frequency of the adjusted pure tone was different than the fundamental frequency of the complex tone (28, p. 431-436). Jost recorded musical examples at varied dynamic levels and altered the dynamic level during playback. A factor analysis of semantic evaluations of the quality of these tones showed that the original level of the tones had some influence on timbre (55, pp. 481-489). Clark and

Milner also recorded and altered the dynamic level of tones. Listeners were not successful in determining the original dynamic level by timbral cues (12, p. 18

28-31). In a subjective assessment of trombone quality, Pratt and Bowsher found that pitch and

loudness significantly influenced subjects' ratings of

timbre according to instrument, player, and type of

mouthpiece (42, pp. 434-435).

In view of the above studies, one may conclude

that loudness and pitch play a significant role in the

subjective nature of tone quality. The main attributes

of timbre seem to be the harmonic spectra and the

formant regions within the bandwidth of the tone; other

influences on timbre are the phase relationships of the

partials, the pitch of the sound, and its loudness.

The subjective nature of timbre is complicated by these

effects. The assessment of differences among complex

tones can be carried out by the ear, especially when

comparing tones presented in similar manners. Pitch

and loudness have been shown to play an important role

in the perception of tone quality. Therefore,

regardless of whether timbres are presented dynamically

or as steady state tones, pitch and loudness should

carefully controlled when presenting stimuli to

auditors for timbral comparison.

Subjective Measurement of Timbre

Loudness and pitch are both unidimensional, and

thus can be measured along a continuous scale in rank 19 order. Timbre is a multidimensional attribute of sound which requires a scale of more than one dimension (19, p. 14-17; 20, p. 1270). Likewise, the perception of timbre is multidimensional. Plomp stated that timbre perception has a finite dimensional limit associated with the number of critical bands that cover the whole audible frequency range (roughly from 20 to 16,000 Hz).

Therefore, timbre is at most 23-dimensional as far as it concerns frequency spectrum. The number of dimensions can be reduced when concerning sounds in typical listening ranges (39, pp. 408-409). If one considers timbre to be an all-encompassing term which is applicable to any perceivable difference between two sounds, exclusive of loudness and pitch, the dimensionality of timbre necessarily increases in an infinite manner.

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques are particularly useful in examining the complex perceptual

attributes of timbre. Grey used multidimensional

scaling to map "subjective distance relationships" of

instrument timbres. MDS requires only that the

listeners rate stimuli according to subjective

difference (i.e., same or different). Sixteen

instrument timbres were used. After practice examples,

listeners rated the similarity of two tones as they

related to other pairs of tones presented. A 20 three-dimensional spatial graph was used to represent the perceptual relationships of the tones. Instruments were clustered according to perceptual similarities rather than by instrument family (20, p. 1270-1277).

Pratt and Bowsher used semantic differential scaling (SDS) to subjectively assess trombone quality.

This procedure required subjects to rate stimuli on a

semantic scale, the mid-points of which were in the

center of postulated semantic spaces. The choice of

scales is of much greater importance for SDS than MDS;

omission of a relevant scale will deny the opportunity

to rate that attribute. SDS may be particularly useful

in situations requiring the analysis of preferences

(42, pp. 425-435).

Rasch and Plomp stated that the ears allow a finer

judgment of perceived sounds than vocabulary can

provide. In addition, vocabulary may differ between

subjects. Most results in psychoacoustics are

therefore obtained from responses based on perception

without making direct reference to the perception (43,

pp. 2-4). Methods of choice and adjustment are

commonly used to obtain responses. With choice

methods, carefully delineated, unambiguous alternatives

are made available to the subject. The most simple

choice procedure is therefore the two-alternative

forced-choice (2AFC). The adjustment method allows the 21 subject to vary the stimulus until an optimum value is reached. Thus, the results do not have to be

incorporated into a psychometric curve, but can be read directly from the apparatus.

In all timbre perception studies, the ear is being

used as a frequency analyzer. Helmholtz described the of phenomenon of the ear's ability to resolve partials

musical tones in his famous treatise, cited earlier

(22, p. 49-69). Plomp stated that the ear is limited

in its ability to analyze, but that systematic studies

of the limits did not exist. Studies by Plomp, and

Plomp and Mimpen explored the extent to which the ear

could "hear out" partials of complex tones. The first

experiment showed that frequency separation of partials

must be greater than the corresponding critical

bandwidth in order to be identified (37, pp.

1628-1636). The latter was in agreement with the

first, and went further to state that even in favorable

conditions, only the first five to seven harmonics

could be heard (40, pp. 764-767).

These results indicate that the frequency response

of recording and equipment should be at least wide

enough to cover the range from the lowest fundamental

played to the highest resultant seventh harmonic. The

typical range of the bass tuba would then require a

response of approximately 65 to 2080 Hz to account for 22 its identifiable harmonics. Aspects of timbre not within the realm of steady-state spectra, such as transients in the attack, should dictate that a much greater frequency response be used.

Contextual Presentation of Stimuli

Several studies have explored brain response patterns for familiar and unfamiliar stimuli. In an experiment involving cats, John found that brain wave patterns are quite different for stimuli which are familiar than for meaningless ones. He reported that

subjective experience such as remembering or thinking

is accompanied by the release of a particular

electrical waveshape in the brain which represents a

specific memory. The activation of such is termed the

"readout component." Readout components were observed

due to visual and aural stimuli and direct electrical

stimulus. They were not influenced by physical

distractions and were observed for a variety of tasks

for various motivations. Meaningless stimuli failed to

produce these waves; they appeared only with a

meaningful stimulus. He related similar findings by

others with regard to human subjects (25, p. 862-863).

Herrington and Schniedau found that waveshapes

(readout components) in humans for familiar imagery (a

circle and a square) occurred with corresponding 23

imagined the stimuli, but also appeared when subjects Furthermore, shape with no physical image present. wave patterns associated with a particular image about that occurred when subjects were asked to think a different pattern image, even though actually viewing

(23, pp. 1136-1137).

Webster, Woodhead, and Carpenter studied the of relationship between the subjective assessment sound. sounds and the degree of meaning attached to the

Their results suggested that identification of complex

sounds is dependent both on the attachment of a acoustic meaningful identification of the sound and its

traits (54, pp. 119-133).

Houtsma and Goldstein found that complex tones, as when placed in a musically meaningful context such

recognition of melody, harmony, or instrument timbre,

were processed differently from each other by the

brain. In addition, it has been shown that complex

tones presented singly and out of musical context can

lead to incorrect or multiple pitch sensations (46, p.

130).

Grey compared the discrimination of instrument

timbres presented as single tones with the

discrimination of the same in various contexts.

Although trumpet and clarinet timbres appeared to be

more readily identifiable with isolated tones, bassoon 24 timbres were best discriminated in a single-voice musical pattern. He concluded that context influences the type of differences that are heard among timbres.

Small temporal differences seem to be enhanced in between isolated contexts, while spectral differences notes appear to be amplified when heard in a musical context (21, pp. 467-473).

Based on these studies, it was determined to be of same manner importance to present musical timbre in the as one would realistically experience it. For subjective discrimination among musical instruments, musical contexts seemed to be the best choice. The musical many idiosyncrasies in the way notes occur in phrases, the possibility of different listener criteria

for phrases than for isolated tones, and constraints

imposed by the complexity of a melodic line may be

important in instrumental timbre perception (21, p. 467).

Other studies supported this conclusion. Seashore

wrote that tone quality consists of timbre (in this

case, referring only to the fundamental and its

partials) and sonance (the dynamic aspects of the

sound) (49, pp. 95-134). Several studies show the

importance of the relationship of these aspects.

Thayer investigated the importance of attack transients

of musical instruments upon their timbre. Attacks of 25

one instrument were mechanically replaced with that of

another instrument and presented to listeners on a test

tape. The initial transient was found to be very

important in the identification of the trumpet and oboe

while it was less important in the identification of

the flute and clarinet (51, pp. 39-52). Elliott found

attacks as well as releases to be important to the

identification of musical instrument timbre (15, pp.

35-40). Saldanha and Corso investigated the relative

importance of the spectra, attack transient, and

steady-state portions of the sound envelope on timbre

perception. They showed that transients and rise times

of partials contributed substantially to musical

instrument timbral cues. The flute, oboe, and clarinet were least reliant upon the attack (47, p. 2025).

Berger altered recordings of several woodwind and brasswind instruments and presented the sounds to

auditors. Instruments were identified most

consistently when presented with the rise and decay and

not only the steady-state portion of the sound (8, pp.

1888-1891).

The Influence of Materials on Timbre

Studies and opinions concerning the effect of materials on an instrument's timbre are numerous. Some are based on scientific research; others rely on 26

experience. players' and instrument makers' practical of timbre and material Explorations on the relationship have been done on many instruments. Saunders, and

Meinl, explored differences in tone between

Stradivarius and less expensive violins (48; 30). instruments Similar discussion has occurred over wind

as well (24, 36).

The tuba has not been the major subject of studies

concerning the timbre and material of wind instruments. wind However, Backus indicated that considerations for

instruments can be generalized among themselves (1, pp.

247, 252, 279). Luce and Clark assessed physical

correlates of instruments of the brass family. were Trumpet, French horn, trombone, and tuba sounds

analyzed through time-dependent Fourier analysis.

Results indicated that when the frequencies were scaled

accordingly, spectral envelopes were approximately the

same for trumpets and trombones across all dynamic

levels; tubas were the same at lower dynamic levels

(29).

Goodwin felt that any effect of material upon tone (17, p. quality would be due to vibrations in the bell

12). Watkinson and Bowsher explored this possibility

in the bell vibration characteristics of trombones by Bell generating computerized models of trombone bells. and parameters were altered in the computer simulation, 27

data was then compared with experimental results obtained by another investigator. Simulated response of signatures were found to be similar for bells silver, nickel, silver-nickel and copper. The brass frequency of the vibrational modes for copper and were identical, while silver and nickel-silver exhibited slight shifts in frequency. Simulated movement of the mounting stay, alteration of the

thickness of the rim and material, did alter vibrational characteristics; however, no conclusions

were made regarding the significance of these changes

on the actual timbre of instruments. In addition, the

comparisons of calculated and experimental results did

not agree, possibly due to either insufficient data for

the calculations or to certain procedures followed in

the experimental design (53, pp. 1-17).

In regard to trumpet design, Smith wrote, "Great

claims have been made for the acoustical properties of

various alloys, especially the expensive ones."

Continuing, he indicated that the effect of metallic

composition of a trumpet bell is only significant with

thinner gauges of metal (50, pp. 28-29). Several

studies have been done concerning trumpet materials.

Backus related an experiment concerning trumpet tones,

where trumpets of brass and wood were compared. The

researcher found no difference in tone quality between 28 the two instruments. He also concluded that the amount of vibration occurring in the walls of a trumpet bell,

like the walls of a woodwind instrument, did not possess enough acoustical energy to be heard above the actual sound produced by the instrument (1, p. 279).

Knauss and Yeager encased the walls of a bugle in putty to compare its tone quality with and without

suppression of wall vibrations. Conclusions stated

that any wall vibrations were totally masked by the vibrating air column, and that differences in tone quality could ". . . hardly be noticed" (26).

Figgs compared trumpets of different makes and price ranges to determine if listeners could discriminate between tone qualities. The study showed differences among the instruments, resulting in good and bad considerations for each instrument. One

instrument of each model was used, one mouthpiece was used on all models, and one performer was used to play the examples. Therefore, specific conclusions regarding characteristics must be accepted with

skepticism (24, p. 67-72).

Investigations on the characteristics of organ pipes are also of interest. A study by Schafhaut

indicated that the rigidity of organ pipe walls affected tone quality to a considerable degree (33).

Miller altered the rigidity of a double-walled 29

rectangular pipe, which was sounded with air and with water inside the double wall. Results seemed to

indicate that materials of various density may affect timbre (32, pp. 156-158). However, experimentation by

Boner and Newman on organ pipes showed that pipes of

identical dimensions could be made from a broad variety

of materials, including paper, and produce sounds which

were not different to any large degree (10, pp. 83-89).

Mercer found that wooden pipes could be voiced to sound

like metal pipes. Still, he found it difficult to

accept conclusions of his investigation which

downplayed the importance of wall materials, due to

strong views to the contrary among organ builders (31,

pp. 45-54). A study by Glatter-Gbtz concluded

differences among pipes of different materials were the

same as among pipes of the same material (3, p. 936).

Backus and Hundley replicated Miller's study, using

cylindrical pipes. Conclusions were that wall

vibrations in flue organ pipes did not radiate enough

sound to be perceived, 'and that the vibrations did not

effect the steady state tone or the internal standing

wave of a cylindrical organ pipe. In the case of

thin-walled pipes (10 mil) of non-cylindrical (square)

shape, there was an undesirable effect on the tone,

perhaps explaining Miller's findings. It was proposed

that the slight differences found by Boner and Newman 30 were due to a slightly elliptical pipe cross section

(3, pp. 936-945)

Parker performed an analysis of the tones of wooden and metal clarinets. A mechanical embouchure was used to produce tones from four clarinets. Results showed that no obvious effect on tone quality could be attributed to ". . . the wood or metal of which certain instruments are made" (36, p. 417). Lanier also used a mechanical embouchure to produce tones from clarinets.

Although electronic analysis showed a greater number of partials on wooden clarinets than those made of metal

or ebonite, he concluded that ". . . differences in

timbre of tones produced from metal, ebonite, and wooden clarinets were not too recognizable by the

unassisted ear" (27, pp. 16-22).

Coltman conducted a listening test on wooden and

metal flutes. Flutists played keyless flutes of thin

silver, heavy copper, and wood for listeners.

Statistical analysis of data showed ". . . no evidence

that experienced listeners or trained players can

distinguish between flutes . . . whose only difference

is the nature and thickness of the wall material" (14,

pp. 520-523).

Benade indicated that the tone quality of

woodwinds was not directly affected by material,

provided the material was rigid. However, he felt that 31

the sharp edges on joints and tone holes of woodwinds, due to harder materials and machine boring methods, created turbulences that disrupted the vibrating air column and altered the quality of tone (7, pp.

499-501).

As stated earlier, Backus indicated that expectations for the effects of materials on the tone quality of certain wind instruments should be universal to all wind instruments (1, pp. 247, 252, 279). He maintained that the same considerations for woodwinds should apply to brasses as well: Materials in construction may be selected for their workability and not for any imagined effect on timbre (1 p. 247). In view of the studies cited, one would tend to believe that construction material is of little or no importance to tone quality.

Bate has stated that scientific opinion is contrary to many players' ideas which allow for an effect on tone quality due to materials (6, p. 160; 7, p. 208). Bevan, discussing this matter with respect to

tubas, also mentioned the disparity between scientific

opinion and the opinions of many musicians:

"Scientifically there is an absolute and discouraging

answer to all these questions, but fortunately music

and the instruments used to create it transcend

science. Therein lies the magic" (9, p. 46). 32

Many other texts on instruments also include comments, usually brief, concerning material. Barnes was very specific in citing the timbral characteristics associated with certain materials used in organ pipes

(5, p. 161). Miller stated that the tone quality of a wind instrument can be influenced by the material of its body (33, pp. 161-171). Morley-Pegge related the opinions of two noted hornists who expressed preference for certain alloys on grounds of tone quality (34, pp.

125-126). Rendall noted superior and inferior materials for clarinets with regard to tone quality, as well as for reasons of workability and appearance (44, pp. 12-13). Baines made several references to tone quality as it related to material, suggesting marked differences in the playing characteristics and timbre of metal and wooden flutes (6, pp. 54-56). Tuckwell cited an example where a particular sound was considered to be an attribute of silver, but as later exhibited through acoustical tests to be due to a wider-throated bell (52, p.149).

Texts on pipe organs cite preference to certain materials for reasons of timbre. Williams wrote: "The tone of organ pipes is influenced by the thickness and elasticity of the material as well as the shape; and

this is the case also with wood, hard wood giving a

clearer and stronger tone than soft" (56, p. 161). 33

This concurred with Norman and Norman, who opined that

"Wood as a material for pipes naturally suppresses some of the higher harmonics. This accounts for its popularity for bass pipes and also for very pure-toned flutes" (35, p. 154). Helmholtz believed that wood tends to suppress higher pitches:

"Wooden sides. . . [of organ pipes]. . . do not resist the agitation of the waves of sound so well as metal ones, and hence the vibrations of higher pitch seem to be destroyed by friction. For these reasons wood gives a softer, but duller, less penetrating quality of tone than metal" (22, p. 94).

In summary, the results of scientific investigations concerning instrument timbre seem to suggest that the type of material of which an instrument is made is of little or no consequence, provided it is substantial enough to insure that the acoustical shape of its interior does not change due to pressure applied to the outside walls of the instrument, and provided that the shape of the bore is not rectangular. Less scientific sources, such as performers' and instrument makers' opinions, allow much greater latitude as to the importance of construction material with respect to instrument tone. Wogram stated that ". . . very little impartial information reaches the end-consumer. . . we need not be surprised at some of the apparently absurd opinions held and 34 prejudices formed by practising musicians" (57, p.

1193).

Bowsher and Watkinson described current views on construction materials and their influence on instrument timbre as ". . . a grand mixture of fact, folklore, repute, myth, and mystique" (11, p.25). The subjective nature and multi-dimensionality of timbre may contribute to the wide range of opinions concerning the tonal characteristics of certain construction materials. Further research in both the physics of wind instruments and in timbre perception may help to clarify the true relationship of material and timbre in musical instruments. CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Backus, John, The Acoustical Foundations of Music, New York,~W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1977.

2. Backus, John, and T. C. Hundley, "Harmonic Generation in the Trumpet," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIX (No. 2, 1971), 509-519.

3. , "Wall Vibrations in Flue Organ Pipes and Their Effect on Tone," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXIX (No. 5, 1966), 936-945.

4. Baines, Anthony, Woodwind Instruments and Their History, New York, W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1957.

5. , The Oboe, An Outline of its History, Development, and Construction, London, Ernest Benn Ltd., 1956.

6. Barnes, William H., The Contemporary American Organ, New York, J. Fischer and Bro., 1937.

7. Bate, Philip, The Flute, A Study of its History, Development, and Construction, London, Ernest Benn, 1979.

8. Benade, Arthur H., Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, New York, Oxford University Press, 1976.

9. Berger, Kenneth W., "Some Factors in the Recognition of Timbre," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (October, 1964) , 83-89.

10. Bevan, Clifford, The Tuba Family, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978.

11. Boner, C. P. and R. B. Newmann, "The Effects of Wall Materials on the Steady-State Acoustic Spectrum of Flue Pipes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XII (No. 1, July 1940), 83-89.

35 36

12. Bowsher, J. M. and P. S. Watkinson, "Manufacturers' Opinions about Brass Instruments," Brass Bulletin, XXXVIII (1982)0, 25-30.

13. Chapin, E. K. and F. A. Firestone, "The Influence of Phase on Tone Quality and Loudness; the Interference of Subjective Harmonics," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, V (NO. 3, 1934), 173-180.

14. Coltman, John W., "Effect of Material on Flute Tone Quality," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIX (No. 2, 1971), 520-523.

15. Elliott, Charles A., "Attacks and Releases as Factors in Instrument Identification," Journal of Research in Music Education XXIII (No. 1, 1975), 35-40.

16. Fletcher, Harvey, "Loudness, Pitch, and Timbre of Musical Tones and Their Relationship to the Intensity, the Frequency, and the Overtone -Structure," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, VI (October, 1934), 59-69.

17. Goodwin, John, "Brass Instrument Research at Surrey University," Brass Bulletin, XXXVI (1981) , 8-17.

18. Greer, R. Douglas, "The Effect of Timbre on Brass-Wind Intonation," in Experimental Research in the Psychology of Music, edited by Gordon7 Edwin, Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 1970.

19. Grey, John, M., "An Exploration of Musical Timbre Using Computer-Based Techniques for Analysis, Synthesis and Perceptional Scaling," Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology and the Committee on Graduate Studies, Stanford University, March 1975.

20. , "Multidimensional Perceptual Scaling of Musical Timbres," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, LXI (May, 1977) , 1270. 37

21. , "Timbre Discrimination in Musical Patterns," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64 (August, 1978), 467-472.

22. Helmholtz, Hermann L. F., On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, translated by A. S. Ellis, New York, Dover Publications Inc., 1954.

23. Herrington, R. N. and P. Schneidan, "The Effect of Imagery on the Waveshape of the Visual Evoked Response," Experientia, XXIV, June 1968 1136-1137.

24. Hilton, Lewis B., "Review of Figgs, Linda Drake, Qualitative Differences in Trumpet Tones as Perceived by Listeners and by Acoustical Analysis," Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, LXIV (1980), 67-72.

25. John, E. R., "Switchboard Versus Statistical Theories of Learning and Memory," Science, CLXXVII, (September, 1972), p. 863.

26. Knauss, H. P. and W. J. Yeager, "Vibration of the Walls of a Cornet," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIII (1941), 160-162.

27. Lanier, James M., "An Acoustical Analysis of Tones Produced by Clarinets of Various Materials," Journal of Research in Music Education VIII (No. 1, 1960), 16-22.

28. Lichte, William H. and R. Flanagan Gray, "The Influence of Overtone Structure on the Pitch of Complex Tones," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49 (June, 1945),431-436.

29. Luce, David and Melville Clark, Jr., "Physical Correlates of Brass Instrument Tones," .Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLII (No. 6,1967), 1232-1243.

30. Meinl, H., 'Regarding the Sound Quality of Violins and a Scientific Basis for Violin Construction," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXIX~(July, 1957), 817-822. 38

31. Mercer, Derwent M.A., "The Voicing of Organ Flue Pipes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXIII (No. 1, 1951), 45-54.

32. Miller, Dayton C., "The Influence of the Material of Wind Instruments on their Tone Quality," Science, XXIX (January 29, 1909), 161-171.

33. Miller, Dayton C., The Science of Musical Sounds, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1916.

34. Morley-Pegge, R., The French Horn, Some Notes on the Evolution of the Instrument and of its Technique, New York, Philosophical Library, Inc., 1960.

35. Norman, Herbert and H. John Norman, The Organ Today, New York, St. Martins, 1966.

36. Parker, Sam E., "Analysis of the Tones of Wooden and Metal Clarinets," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIX (May 1947), 415-419.

37. Plomp, Reiner, "The Ear as a Frequency Analyzer," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (September 1964), 1628-1636.

38. , "Pitch, Timbre, and Hearing Theory," International Audiology, VII (July, 1968) , 322-344.

39. , "Timber as a Multidimensional Attribute of Complex Tones," in Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing, edited by Plomp, R., and F. Smoorenburg, Leiden, A. W. Swithoff, 1970.

40. Plomp Reiner, and A. M. Mimpen, "The Ear As a Frequency Analyzer II," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIII (No. 4., 1968) , 764-767.

41. Plomp, R. and H. J. M. Steeneken, "Effect of Phase on the Timbre of Complex Tones," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLVI (No. 2, 1968)., 409-421. 39

42. Pratt, R. L. and J. M. Bowsher, "The Subjective Assessment of Trombone Quality," Journal of Sound and Vibration, LVII (No. 3, 1978), 425-435.

43. Rasch, R. A., and R. Plomp, "The Perception of Musical Tones," in The Psychology of Music, edited by Diana Deutsch, New York, Academic Press, 1982.

44. Rendall, F. Geoffrey, The Clarinet, Some Notes upon its History and Construction, New York, W. W. Norton, 1971.

45. Rissett, Jean Claude and M. V. Matthews, "Analysis of Musical Instrument Tones," Physics Today, XXII (1969), 23-32.

46. Roederer, Juan G., Introduction to the Physics and Psychophysics of Music, London, The English Universities Press Ltd., 1973.

47. Saldanha, E. L. and John F. Corso, "Timbre Cues and the Identification of Musical Instruments, " Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (November 1964), 2021-2026.

48. Saunders, F. A., "The Mechanical Action of Violins," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, IX (October, 1937), 81-98.

49. Seashore, Carl E., Psychology of Music, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938.

50. Smith, Richard A.,, "Recent Development in Trumpet Design," Journal of the International Trumpet Guild, III (October, 1978) , 27-29.

51. Thayer, Ralph C. Jr., "The Effect of the Attack Transient on Aural Recognition of Instrumental Timbres," Psychology of Music, II (No. 1, 1974), 39-52.

52. Tuckwell, Barry, Horn, New York, Schirmer Books, 1983.

53. Watkinson, P. S., and J. M. Bowsher, "Vibration Characteristics of Brass Instrument Bells," Journal of Sound and Vibration, 85 (No. 1, 1982). 1-17. 40

54. Webster, J. C., A. Carpenter and M.M. Woodhead, "Identifying Meaningless Tonal Complexes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44 (No. 2, 1968), 606-609.

55. Webster, J. C., A. Carpenter and M.M. Woodhead, "Perceptual Constancy in Complex Sound Identification," British Journal of Psychology, LVI (1970), pp. 481-489.

56. Williams, C. F. Abdy, The Story of the Organ, London, The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd., 1916.

57. Wogram, Klaus, " Problems Relating to Acoustics in Brasss Instrument Manufacture," Das Musikinstrument (September, 1977), 1193-1194. CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The Pilot Studies

Two pilot studies were performed in developing the present study. Both involved live performances on the four tubas used in the final study. In the preliminary pilot, one performer played two excerpts in paired examples. The four tubas were lined up in front of the performer; a screen separated the performer and three raters. For each example, the performer selected the prescribed instrument, played the excerpt, replaced the instrument, then selected the designated instrument for the second item in the trial.

Results showed the raters to be in general agreement in quantifying timbral differences on a five-point scale. The same procedure was then repeated, using a group of eighteen raters. Raters were not in agreement as to which pairs differed in timbre. In addition, despite standardized instructions which requested the judges to utilize the full spread of the five-point scale, many used only three or four points within the scale to rate differences.

A review of the data and anecdotal information concerning the test supplied by the raters seemed to

41 42 indicate that two fundamental problems existed in the procedure. Elapsed time between the items in each pair, which allowed the performer to set down and pick up the instruments, was excessive, although this was done as efficiently as possible. Some judges attributed difficulty in discerning timbral differences to this time factor.

Additionally, any differences among the items were probably not large enough to encompass the range of a five-point scale.

Based on these assumptions, it was decided to present the test items via a pre-recorded tape in the present study, thereby making it possible to separate items comprising each trial with a very brief period of silence. Based on the patterns of raters' responses, a three-point scale replaced the pilot study five-point scale.

The Main Study

The Selection of Stimuli

Recordings were made of four short exercises, played on

four tubas. Context has been shown to be important to the perception of timbre (5; 8; 4). Additionally, Watkinson and

Bowsher suggested that if material is important to tone

quality, it may be on specific pitches rather than

throughout the entire range of an instrument (10, pp.

15-16). Therefore, simple musical phrases were used as 43

were stimuli rather than single tones. The examples phrase in two comprised of one legato and one articulated of C3 to G4 as shown in registers, covering a total range tubist performed all Figure I. An experienced professional on each instrument. A examples, using the same mouthpiece even and metronome with an earplug was used to ensure on all consistent tempos. One excerpt was played instruments and results recorded digitally before proceeding by to the next. Individual items were chosen or rejected Criteria for the recording engineer and the performer. in musical approach or rejection were obvious differences such as interpretation, and technical errors in recording were recorded truncation of attack or decay. Three attempts listened to. One using one instrument, then immediately each case of phrase single item of the three was saved for the and instrument. If more than one item was acceptable, the first acceptable one was chosen; if none was acceptable, was used until the process was repeated. This process

necessary examples were obtained. Mirafone The four instruments used in this study were Two Model 188/5U CC tubas of the following varieties: and one standard lacquered versions, one rose-brass model included silver-plated model. The two standard models were between to control for slight manufacturing differences on horns. Selection of brand and model was based because of its availability. A digital recorder was used 44

l. High Marcato

= 84

2. High Legato

* = 84

3. Low Marcato

j= 84

Ph

4- t

4. Low Legato

= 84

VT 4 11

Fig. 1--Musical Examples 45 accuracy in monitoring amplitude and duration of the sound envelope, its large signal-to-noise ratio and available dynamic range, and in the inherent ease in reproducing the stimuli without performing countless splices on the recorded tape. The digital recording system was accomplished on the

New England Digital Synclavier II system, via a Beyer model

B500C microphone and a Teac model 5 mixer.

Loudness can affect timbre and timbre perception (2; 6, pp. 434-435; 11); therefore, all examples were played at the

same dynamic level, set arbitrarily at approximately a

mezzo-forte level. This dynamic level was monitored via the

recording equipment VU meters, and was held constant

throughout each group of examples without tampering with the

record level of the equipment. Tone quality can also be

influenced by pitch (3, 5, 7); therefore, tuning slides on

all tubas were adjusted prior to recording. No further

adjustments were made during the recording session. The

player's proximity to the microphone and seating position in

the recording room were identical for all examples. The

microphone was placed slightly off axis and away from the

bell. Such an arrangement ensured that the tubas were

recorded faithfully so as to include the effects of wall,

ceiling, and floor reflections (1, pp. 218-233). 46

The Test Tape

Each digital sound sample was used to generate paired examples of instruments for each excerpt, so that each instrument was paired with itself as well as the others.

These pairs were created by appending digitized examples, separating the elements of each pair with a one second period of silence. A master tape of all the samples was then recorded from the Synclavier to Ampex 409 tape using a

Teac Tascam series 40/4 tape recorder and a dbx model 155 noise reduction unit.

A test tape was created from the master tape. Each test example was comprised of two items separated by one second of silence. Trials were separated by a four second pause in which the number of the next example was announced.

Ordering of items was decided upon by a random process

(selection of face-down tabs indicating unique combinations)

for each phrase group. A header was included at the beginning of the test tape which reiterated the written

instructions on the test form.

Subjects

Fifty-one participants, consisting of twenty-seven

low-brass and twenty-four non-low-brass players,

participated in the test. The test was administered to each

participant in the same manner. The tape was played through

high-quality headphones in a quiet environment. Each 47 subject rated stimuli on an answer sheet according to a three-point scale, labeled "no difference," "slight difference," and "obvious difference." This scale was determined to fit best the range of differences, based on the pilot study.

Statistical Procedures

Statistical procedures were applied to the data as required by the research questions proposed earlier. The

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSx) was used to perform statistical procedures. Specific programs used within the package were Reliability, MANOVA, and the ONEWAY analysis of variance procedure, which included the Scheffe test and homogeneous subgroups operation (9). CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Benade, Arthur H. "From Instrument to Ear in a Room, Direct or via Recording," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, XXXIII (April, 1985) , 218-233.

2. Clark, M., and P. Milner, "Dependencies of Timbres on the Tonal Loudness Produced by Musical Instruments," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, XII (1964), 28-31.

3. Greer, R. Douglas, "The Effect of Timbre on Brass-Wind Intonation," in Experimental Research in the Psychology of Music, edited by Gordon, Edwin, Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 1970.

4. Grey, John M., "'Timbre Discrimination in Musical Patterns," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64 (August, 1978), 467-472.

5. Lichte, William H. and R. Flanagan Gray, "The Influence of Overtone Structure on the Pitch of Complex Tones," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XLIX (June, 1945), 431-436.

6. Pratt, R. L. and J. M. Bowsher, "The Subjective Assessment of Trombone Quality," Journal of Sound and Vibration, LVII (No. 3, 1978)', 425-435.

7. Rissett, and Matthews, "Analysis of Musical Instrument Tones," Physics Today, XXII (1969) , 23-32.

8. Roederer, Juan G., Introduction to the Physics and Psychophysics of Music, London, The English Universities Press Ltd., 1973.

9. SPSS Inc., SPSS User's Guide, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1983.

48 49

10. Watkinson, P. S., and J. M. Bowsher, "Vibration Characteristics of Brass Instrument Bells," Journal of Sound and Vibration, LXXXV (No. 1, 1982), 1-17.

11. Webster, J. C., A. Carpenter, and M.M. Woodhead, "Identifying Meaningless Tonal Complexes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44 (No. 2, 1968), 606-609. CHAPTER IV

TREATMENT OF THE DATA

Reliability

The first treatment of the data was to determine whether the measures obtained could be considered reliable.

The Guttman split-halves procedure was then used to estimate test reliability. In addition, Cronbach's alpha was obtained in order to assess internal test reliability. The

Guttman split-halves reliability was 0.8590 (N of cases =

51). Observed coefficient alpha for the entire test was

0.8664. The reliability coefficients obtained were considered to be adequate for the sample size on which this study was based.

Main Effects and Interactions

Raw data was entered in a computer data file from each test form. Each subject required three lines of data, or records. The first record reflected a subject identifier (a secret four-digit number given by the subject), and a subject type identifier (0 = non low brass, <0 = low brass).

The second record was comprised of subject responses 1 through 40, and the third included responses 41 through 80.

50 51

A computer program was written by the author to sort the data into a form more convenient for the ONEWAY and

MANOVA programs in the SPSS x package. This program created a record for each subject response. Each record consisted of five entries: rater (0 = non low brass, <0 = low brass); pair (0 through 9, correspondent to Brassi vs. Brassi,

Copper vs. Brassi, Silver vs. Brassi, Brass2 vs. Brassi,

Silver vs. Silver, Copper vs. Silver, Silver vs. Brass2,

Brass2 vs. Brass2, Copper vs. Brass2, and Copper vs.

Copper); phrase (1 through 4, for all combinations of high/low and marcato/legato) ; test half (included in the sort program but not used); and rating (1 = no difference, 2

= sLight difference, 3 = obvious difference).

An analysis of variance was used to test main effects and interactions among variables (see Table I). The means of the dependent variables were derived from each occurrence of the particular variable being considered. For example, the dependent variable, rater, appeared eighty times per subject, corresponding to one rater responding to all trials on the test form. The mean of 27 low brass players' responses, across 80 trials, was compared with the mean of

24 non low brass players' ratings across the same 80 trials.

These responses of 51 subjects to 80 test items created

4,080 data points for the variable rater.

Similarly, each case of the dependent variable, pair, occurred eight times on each test form (four times per test 52 half). Fifty-one subjects, rating each pair eight times, created 408 data points for each pair. These 408 data points for the variable, pair, multiplied by the 10 combinations of tubas presented on the test, also totalled

4,080 data points.

Each case of the dependent variable, phrase, occurred twenty times on each test form (ten times per test half).

Fifty-one subjects, responding to each phrase twenty times, created 1,020 data points for each phrase. The 1,020 data points for the variable, phrase, multiplied by the 4 phrases included in the test totalled 4,080 data points.

Thus, the means of each variable included all the various ways in which the stimuli were presented, with more than one rating given by each subject. The variable, rater, inherently averaged each subject's responses across eighty trials. The variable, pair, included ratings of all four phrases, eight times per subject. The variable, phrase, included ratings of all ten combinations of tubas, four times per subject. This served to present an overall view of each of the variables, not based on a singular specific condition particular to the way in which wach was presented.

The main effects, phrase and pair, and the interactions phrase by rater and phrase by pair were considered

significant at the <.01 level of confidence. The Scheff6

subanalysis procedure was used to determine statistically

significant differences among group means. In addition, 53 groups were categorized into homogeneous subsets. These subsets illustrated all possible groupings of mean ratings whose means could be considered to be equivalent, given the size of that particular subset. The Scheffe procedures appear in Figures 2 through 5. Homogeneous subsets are shown in Tables II through V.

TABLE I

MAIN STUDY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE TABLE

Source of Sum of Mean F F Variation Squares df Square ratio sig. phrase 81.943 3 27.314 83.023 <.01 pair 893.739 9 99.304 301.837 <.01 rater 1.056 1 1.056 3.210 ns phrase x pair 99.478 27 3.684 11.199 <.01 phrase x rater 4.112 3 1.371 4.166 <.01 pair x rater 3.194 9 0.355 1.079 ns phrase x pair x rater 13.463 27 0.499 1.516 ns

N = 51 subjects

Figures 2 through 5 show comparisons of the means of groups listed in the left-hand column to the same groups represented numerically at the top of the Figure. Group means are provided with the homogeneous subset 54

shown in Tables II through IV. The differences among means of the interaction phrase by rater were not statistically significant, and therefore could not be categorized into subsets. Phrase by rater means are given in Figure 4.

Figure 2 illustrates where significant differences appeared in the phrase main effect. These differences appeared in all instances where legato phrases were compared with marcato phrases. No significant differences were observed among high and low phrases of the same

articulation.

Phrase 1 2 3 4

1) High Legato . . . . 2) Low Legato . . 3) Low Marcato * * 4) High Marcato * *

(*) Denotes difference between groups at the .01 level.

Fig. 2--Scheffe Procedure, Phrase Main Effect

Table II gives the observed means for the phrase main

effect. As with the means of marcato phrases, high and low

phrase legato phrase means were not rated as being

significantly different. The mean ratings of marcato

phrases had means closer to the category labelled "obvious

difference" (closer to 1) on the test form, while legato

phrases tended towards "no difference" (closer to 3). 55

TABLE II

HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS PHRASE MAIN EFFECT

Subset 1 Phrase Mean

High Legato ...... 1.6118 Low Legato ...... 1.6157

Subset 2 Phrase Mean

Low Marcato ...... 1.8461 High Marcato ...... 1.9343

Figure 3 shows where significant differences occurred for the pair main effect. All identical comparisons, viz., brass vs. brass, copper vs. copper, etc., were different from unalike comparisons. The unalike comparisons, viz., copper vs. silver, brass2 vs. brass, also exhibited differences amongst themselves.

Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1) Brassl vs. Brass ...... 2) Silver vs. Silver ...... 3) Brass2 vs. Brass2 ...... 4) Copper vs. Copper ...... 5) Copper vs. Silver * * * * . . . . 6) Silver vs. Brass2 * * * * . . . . 7) Copper vs. Brass2 * * * * . . . . 8) Brass2 vs. Brassl * * * * * * * . 9) Copper vs. Brass * * * * * * * . .. 10) Silver vs. Brass * * * * * * * . ..

(*) Denotes difference between groups at the .01 level.

Fig. 3--Scheffe Procedure, Pair Main Effect 56

The differences among pair means are readily seen in

Table III. It is shown that all unalike comparisons involving the tuba designated brasss" were considered to be equivalent, had significantly greater means from the other non-identical comparisons, and were rated closest to the test category "obvious difference." Conversely, all identical comparisons were rated closest to the test category "no difference." A third subset, comprised of the remaining unalike comparisons, appeared between the two categories mentioned above.

TABLE III

HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS PAIR MAIN EFFECT

Subset 1

Pair Mean

Brassi vs. Brassi ...... * ...... 1.2279 Silver vs. Silver ...... -- . * 1.2917 Brass2 vs. Brass2 ...... ~ 0. . . 1 3113 Copper vs. Copper ...... 1.3137

Subset 2

Pair Mean

Copper vs. Silver ...... 1.6250 Silver vs. Brass2 ...... * . . . - 1.7132 Copper vs. Brass2 ...... 0 . 0. 1* 0 - 1.D8113

Subset 3

Pair Mean

Brass2 vs. Brassi..0...... 0.0. . . 2.3603 Copper vs. Brassi . . . . * . . . . 0 . . 0- . 2.4265 Silver vs. Brassi ...... *.. 0 . . . *. . . 2.4387 57

Figure 4 illustrates where the significant differences occurred in the interaction pair by phrase. (To avoid redundancy, categories 1 through 23 appear only once in this figure. All significant differences are reported.)

Paired Comparison 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

1) Brassl vs. Brassl,LL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2) Silver vs. Silver,LL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3) Silver vs. Silver,HL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4) Copper vs. Copper,HL . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5) Copper vs. Copper,LL . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6) Brassl vs. Brassl,LM . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7) Brassi vs. Brassl,HL . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8) Brass2 vs. Brass2,HL . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9) Brassi vs. BrasslHM * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10) Brass2 vs. Brass2,LL * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11) Brass2 vs. Brass2,LM &. .. * 12) Copper vs. Copper,HM...... * * * * * * * * * * * * 13) Silver vs. Silver,LM ...... * * * * * * * * * * 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2,HM...... * * * * * * * * * * 15) Silver vs. Silver,HM...... * * * * * * * * 16) Copper vs. Silver,HL...... * * * * * * * * 17) Copper vs. Copper,LM...... * * * * * * * * 18) Copper vs. SilverLM...... * * * * * * * * 19) Copper vs. Brass2,HL...... * * * * * * * * 20) Silver vs. Brass2,HL...... * * * * * * * * 21) Silver vs. Brass2,LL...... * * * * * * * * 22) Copper vs. SilverHM...... * * * * * * * 23) Copper vs. Brass2,HM...... * * * * * * 24) Copper vs. SilverLL...... * * * * * * 25) Silver vs. Brass2,LM...... * * * * * * 26) Silver vs. Brass2,Hm...... * * * * * * 27) Copper vs. BrasslLL...... * * * * * * 28) Copper vs. Brass2,LL...... * * * * * 29) Silver vs.Brassl,LL...... * * * * * 30) Copper vs. Brass2,HM...... * * * * 31) Brass2 vs. Brassl,LL...... * * * * 32) Brass2 vs. Brassl,HL...... * * * * 33) Silver vs. Brassl,HL ...... 34) Copper vs. Brassl,HL ..- 0.. 00...0 ... a 35) Copper vs. Brassl,LM 36) Brass2 vs. Brassl,LM 37) Silver vs. Brassl,HM 38) Brass2 vs. Brassl,HM. 39) Silver vs. BrasslLM 40) Copper vs. Brassl,HM ......

HM * High Marcato LM a Low Marcato HL * High Legato LL = Low Legato

(*) Denotes pair of groups significantly different (.01 level).

Fig. 4--Scheffe Procedure, Pair by Phrase Interaction 58

As noted in Figure 3 and Table III, the observed means of alike comparisons in Figure 4 are the closest to 1, which corresponds to "no difference" on the test form.

Comparisons which paired brasss" with other instruments are the closest to 3, denoted as "obvious difference." However, no discernible pattern appeared due to pair when considering phrase type.

Table IV groups the subsets of means for the interaction pair by phrase. Observed means in each subset are given in ascending order, corresponding to a progression from "no difference" to "obvious difference." The same ordering of alike and unalike comparisons occurred as noted in Figures 3 and 4, and Table III. Again, there is no clear-cut pattern to the subset groupings when considering an interaction of pair and phrase. Furthermore, there is considerable overlap among the subsets, especially among those of least-different comparisons: The largest subsets, possessing the greatest amount of overlap, coincide with observed means that approach 1,, correspondent to "no difference" on the test response sheet; the smallest subsets, possessing the least amount of overlap, coincide with observed means that approach 3, correspondent to

"obvious difference" on the test response sheet. There are no clear patterns of pair and phrase interaction in subsets occurring at either end of the table. 59

TABLE IV

HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS PAIR BY PHRASE INTERACTION

Subset 1

Pair Phrase Mean

1) Brassi vs. Brassi, Low Legato . . . 1. 1470 2) Silver vs. Silver, Low Legato . . . 1.1860 3) Silver vs. Silver, High Legato . . . 1.1860 4) Copper vs. Copper, High Legato . . . . 1.2250 5) Copper vs. Copper, Low Legato.e . . . 1.2350 6) Brassl vs. Brassi, Low Marcato . . . . 1.2350 7) Brassi vs. Brassl, High Legato . . . . 1. 2450 8) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Legato . . . 1.2650 9) Brassi vs. Brassl, High Marcato . . . 1.2840 10) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Legato . . . 1. 3040 11) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Marcato . . . . 1. 3040 12) Copper vs. Copper, High Marcato . . . 1.3330 13) Silver vs. Silver, Low Marcato . . . . 1.3530 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Marcato .. . . 1.3730 15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato . . . 1.4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato . . . . 1.4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato . . . . 1.4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato . . . . 1.5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato . . . . 1.5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato . . . 1.5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato . . . 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato . . . 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato . . . 1.7750

Subset 2

Pair Phrase Mean

4) Copper vs. Copper, High Legato ...... 1.2250 5) Copper vs. Copper, Low Legato ...... 1.2350 6) Brassi vs. Brassi, Low Marcato ...... 0.0.0.1.2350 7) Brassi vs. Brassi, High Legato...... 1.2450 8) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.2650 9) Brassi vs. Brassi, High Marcato . . . .. 0.. 1.2840 10) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Legato . . .f.0.0.4. . . 1.3040 11) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 0.0.0.1.3040 12) Copper vs. Copper, High Marcato . . . .0..0.0. 1.3330 60

TABLE IV Continued

Pair Phrase Mean

13) Silver vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.3530 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.3730 15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato . . . . .0 . . . . 1.4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato ...... 1. 4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1. 5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1. 7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.8530

Subset 3

Pair Phrase Mean

5) Copper vs. Copper, Low Legato . 1.2350 6) Brassi vs. Brass 1, Low Marcato . 1.2350 7) Brassi vs. Brassi, High Legato . 1.2450 8) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Legato . 1.2650 9) Brassi vs. Brass1, High Marcato 1.2840 10) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Legato . 1.3040 11) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Marcato . 1.3040 12) Copper vs. Copper, High Marcato 1.3330 13) Silver vs. Silver, Low Marcato . 1. 3530 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Marcato 1.3730 15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato 1.4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato 1.4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato 1.4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato 1.5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato 1.5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato 1.5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato 1.8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2, High Marcato 1.8630 61

TABLE IV Continued

Subset 4

Pair Phrase Mean

9) Brassi vs. Brassi, High Marcato ...... 1.2840 10) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.3040 11) Brass2 vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.3040 12) Copper vs. Copper, High Marcato ...... 1. 3330 13) Silver vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.3530 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.3730 15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato ...... 1.4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato ...... 1.4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.8630 27) Copper vs. Brassl, Low Legato ...... 1.9120

Subset 5

Pair Phrase Mean

12) Copper vs. Copper, High Marcato ...... 1.3330 13) Silver vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.3530 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.3730 15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato ...... 1. 4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato ...... 1. 4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1. 5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.8630 27) Copper vs. Brassl, Low Legato ...... 1. 9120 28) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.9510 62

TABLE IV Continued

Subset 6

Pair Phrase Mean

13) Silver vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.3530 14) Brass2 vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1. 3730 15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato ...... 1.4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato ...... 1.4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 1.5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1. 5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.8630 27) Copper vs. Brass 1, Low Legato ...... 1.9120 28) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.9510 29) Silver vs. Brass1, Low Legato ...... 1.9800 30) Copper vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.9900

Subset 7

Pair Phrase Mean

15) Silver vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1. 4410 16) Copper vs. Silver, High Legato ...... 1.4410 17) Copper vs. Copper, Low Marcato ...... 1.4610 18) Copper vs. Silver, Low Marcato ...... 0 1. 5100 19) Copper vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5290 20) Silver vs. Brass2, High Legato ...... 1.5490 21) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.5880 22) Copper vs. Silver, High Marcato ...... 1. 7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1. 8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.8630 27) Copper vs. Brassi, Low Legato ...... 1.9120 28) Copper vs.. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1. 9510 29) Silver vs. Brassi, Low Legato ...... 1.9800 30) Copper vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.9900 31) Brass2 vs. Brass1, Low Legato ...... 2.0200 32) Brass2 vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 2.0290 63

TABLE IV Continued

Subset 8

Pair Phrase Mean

22) Copper vs. Silver High Marcato . . 0 0 0 1.7160 23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... - 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... - - 1.8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2., High Marcato ...... 1.8630 27) Copper vs. Brassi, Low Legato . . . . . - - - 1. 9120 28) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.9510 29) Silver vs. Brassi, Low Legato ...... - 1-9800 30) Copper vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... - 1. 9900 31) Brass2 vs. Brassi, Low Legato ...... 2.0200 32) Brass2 vs. Brassi, High Legato ...... 2.0290 33) Silver vs. Brassi, High Legato ...... - - 2.2550

Subset 9

Pair Phrase Mean

23) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.7750 24) Copper vs. Silver, Low Legato ...... - 1.8330 25) Silver vs. Brass2, Low Marcato ...... 1.8530 26) Silver vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1. 8630 27) Copper vs. Brass1, Low Legato ...... 1.9120 28) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... 1.9510 29) Silver vs. Brass 1, Low Legato ...... 1.9800 30) Copper vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.9900 31) Brass2 vs. Brass1, Low Legato ...... 2.0200 32) Brass2 vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 2.0290 33) Silver vs. Brass 1, High Legato ...... 2. 2550 34) Copper vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 2.3920

Subset 10

Pair Phrase Mean

28) Copper vs. Brass2, Low Legato ...... - 1.9510 29) Silver vs. Brassi, Low Legato ...... 1.9800 30) Copper vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.9900 31) Brass2 vs. Brassl, Low Legato ...... 2.0200 32) Brass2 vs. Brassi, High Legato ...... 2.0290 33) Silver vs. Brassi, High Legato ...... 2.2550 34) Copper vs. Brassi, High Legato ...... - 2.3920 35) Copper vs. Brassi, Low Marcato ...... 2.5690 64

TABLE IV Continued

Subset 11

Pair Phrase Mean

30) Copper vs. Brass2, High Marcato ...... 1.9900 31) Brass2 vs. Brass1, Low Legato ...... 2.0200 32) Brass2 vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 2.0290 33) Silver vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 2.2550 34) Copper vs. Brass 1, High Legato ...... 2.3920 35) Copper vs. Brassi, Low Marcato ...... 2. 5690 36) Brass2 vs. Brass 1, Low Marcato ...... 2.6270 Subset 12

Pair Phrase Mean

33) Silver vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 0.. 2.2550 34) Copper vs. Brass1, High Legato ...... 2.3920 35) Copper vs. Brassi, Low Marcato ...... 2.5690 36) Brass2 vs. Brass1, Low Marcato ...... 2.6270 37) Silver vs. Brass1, High Marcato . .0 0 .... 2.7450 38) Brass2 vs. Brassl, High Marcato . . . 0 ... 2.7650 39) Silver vs. Brassi, Low Marcato ...... 0.. 2.7750 40) Copper vs. Brass1, High Marcato ...... 2.8330

Figure 5 illustrates the significant differences among means for the interaction phrase by rater. Categories appearing on the left correspond to numerals across the top.

Phrase/Rater Combination 36274815

3) Low Marcato/Non Low Brass ......

6) Low Legato/Low Brass ...... 2) Low Legato/Non Low Brass ...... 7) Low Marcato/Low Brass . . . . 4) High Marcato/Non Low Brass * * . . . . 8) High Marcato/Low Brass * * * * . . . . 1) High Legato/Non Low Brass * * * * . . . . 5) High Legato/Low Brass * * * * . . . .

(*) Denotes difference between groups at the .01 level.

Fig. 5--Scheffe Procedure, Phrase by Rater Interaction 65

In Figure 5, no significant differences were observed among comparisons of the same type.. Significant differences occurred only among dissimilar categories, such as low brass low brass players' high legato ratings as compared with non players' low marcato ratings. The observed means for phrase by rater are given in low Figure 6. There is a crossing of the means of high and legato phrases across low and nonlow brass players.

However, the means did not differ significantly, and could not be be divided into subsets.

Rater

Non Low Brass Low Brass

Phrase

High Marcato 1.88 1.98

Low Legato 1.65 1.59

High Legato 1.57 1.65

Low Marcato 1.84 1.85

Fig. 6--Group Means, Phrase .by Rater Interaction CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant differences were noted among the means of main effects, pair and phrase, and of the interactions, phrase by pair and phrase by rater. Each effect will be discussed below, with respect to the research questions posed earlier.

The Research Questions

This study explored timbral differences between bass tubas. The following research questions were posed:

1) To what degree are tubas, made to the same specifications but constructed of different metals, perceived as significantly different in timbre?

2) Do two tubas made to the same specifications and constructed of the same material differ perceptibly in timbre a-s much as or greater than those of different materials?

3) Are significant perceivable differences among tubas consistent regardless of range and articulation?

66 67

4) Do low brass players players significantly perceive differences among tubas to a greater extent than other auditors?

Research Question #1

The pair main effect indicated that there were

significant differences among the ratings of the

comparisons of tubas. Three aspects illuminated where

these differences occurred. First, subanalyses showed

no significant differences among the means of identical

comparisons (e.g., silver vs. silver compared with

brass vs. brass). This was expected, and in addition,

served to support test reliability. Second,

subanalyses showed that differences were significant

among the mean ratings of different tubas and identical

tubas playing the same phrase. Third, the control

comparison of two standard models, designated as

"Brassi vs. Brass2," as well as the comparisons of one

standard model ("Brassi") paired with either the

silver-plated model or the rose brass model were

significantly greater than all of the other dissimilar

trials. The two standard models, brasss" and

"brass2," could be considered to be as different in

timbre to each other as brasss" vs. rose brass and

brasss" vs. the silver plated model. By comparison,

the mean rating of the trial silver-plate vs. rose 68 brass was shown significantly less different than for the two alike models.

Since (1) two standard models could be considered to be as different in timbre to each other as any other comparison, (2) no significant differences occurred among the means of all trials which presented one tuba playing the same phrase twice, and (3) differences were significant among the tubas compared with themselves itself and two different tubas compared with each other, question 1 was answered as such: Tubas made of different materials but built to the same specifications differed perceptibly in timbre to no greater degree, and perhaps a lesser degree, than tubas of the same design and material.

Research Question #2

The answer to the second research question was an extension of the first, and is based on the same rational. Two tubas made to the same specifications and constructed of the same material differed perceptibly in timbre as much as those of made to the same specifications but constructed of different materials. One further clarification was also made:

Since the mean rating of the trial brasss" vs.

"brass2" was included in the subset of those trials that were rated most different and since this subset 69 also included trials that contrasted materials, it was not possible to conclude that tubas made to the same specifications and constructed of the same material were greater in difference than those of different materials.

Research Question #3

The phrase main effect indicated that there were significant differences among the ratings due to musical phrase. Subanalyses indicated that means for marcato phrases were significantly greater than the means of legato phrases. No differences in mean phrase ratings were attributable to tessitura. Marcato phrases apparently emphasized the subjective timbral differences among the instruments.

There was a significant interaction between phrase and pair. The response to the third research question required consideration of both the main effect, phrase, and the interaction, phrase by pair. The phrase main effect indicated that the tuba timbres were perceived differently due to articulation, but not range.

However, this included mean ratings of comparisons of identical stimuli, and could not support a statement about whether the differences were also due to the particular tuba playing the phrase. The interaction of phrase and pair indicated that tubas differed in 70

perceived timbre due to the specific tuba and to the

specific phrase. However, no clear pattern emerged in

this interaction; each instrument apparently responded

somewhat uniquely, depending upon the phrase played.

For example, the trial copper vs. silver, low legato

was not in the same subset as brass vs. brass2, low

legato.

Based on these analyses, it was concluded that

significant perceivable differences which occurred

among the tubas were not consistent regardless of range

and articulation, but differed due to both the phrase

type and the specific tuba on which the phrase was

played.

Research Question #4

The ratings of trials did not differ significantly

by rater. However, there was a significant interaction

indicated for phrase by rater. Differences were

observed between raters when comparing dissimilar

phrases (such as low marcato, non low brass and high

legato, low brass), but did not appear when comparing

ratings of auditors for the same phrase. This was

easily explained: Since phrase type was a significant

main effect, it followed that the low brass mean rating

of legato would significantly differ from the non low

brass rating of marcato. Differences also occurred in 71

the magnitudes of the ratings of low brass and non low brass players for legato phrases. While not

significantly different, the legato mean ratings of the

groups did cross. Considering that 1) the marcato

phrases seemed to be those that accentuated timbral

differences while legato phrases appeared to obscure

differences, 2) there were no significant differences

among auditors overall, and 3) the means for the

ratings of trials by both groups of auditors,

regardless of phrase, did not differ by a great enough

magnitude to be grouped by subset, one must be hesitant

in concluding that low and non low brass players will

typically perceive high and low legato trials

differently.

Question 4 was thus answered: Low brass players

players did not significantly perceive differences

among tubas in a manner different from the other

auditors.

An additional effect was observed which was not

posed in the research questions. As stated earlier,

the mean ratings of marcato phrases were significantly

higher than the mean ratings of legato phrases. This

outcome was not entirely unexpected. Timbre can be

considered to pertain to the whole sound envelope (9).

The importance of initial attacks and the sound

envelope to the correct identification of instruments 72 has been noted in other studies (2, 4, 8, 10). It is reasonable to conclude that since the marcato phrases provided many more initial attacks per trial, those phrases were the easiest to discriminate.

Discussion

The strongest arguments in support of the conclusions drawn with respect to metal and timbre were the inclusion of the silver plated vs. rose brass trial amongst those trials which pitted comparisons of identical stimuli against each other, and the placement of the two different standard models brassi vs. brass2) trial with ratings of one standard model vs. either the rose brass or silver plated models. These findings were similar to those of Glatter-Gbtz, who concluded that organ pipes of different material exhibited as much timbral difference as pipes of the same material (1).

Other studies have arrived at similar conclusions regarding construction materials. Trumpet timbres were found to be unaffected by wall vibration and wall material (6). Clarinets made of metal were indistinguishable from wood clarinets in their tone quality (5, 7). Similarly, comparisons of flutes provided the same indications (3). In view of

Backus's expectation that considerations regarding 73 material and timbre should be applicable among all wind instruments, the findings of the present study tended to agree with other literature which has addressed this issue (1).

Differences between instruments were rated but not described. Therefore, one possible limitation in the present study may have been that timbral differences among tubas were equivalent in magnitude but not in quality. Two tubas equally different in magnitude of timbral differences as another pair may not have possessed the same differences. Another possible limitation was the use of a three-point scale.

Although such a scale was suggested by the pilot studies, the use of three categories may have caused a

"bottoming-out" of the ratings highest in magnitude.

Since the tubas presented in this study did differ significantly in perceivable timbre, and it has been concluded that construction material was not of consequence for the examples in this study, the differences that were perceived must have existed due to some other reason. One.possible explanation could be that small variations in dimensions and roundness existed from instrument to instrument due to inconsistencies in manufacturing methods. A similar explanation was proposed as the reason for slight variations in timbres of organ pipes (1). 74

The continued disagreement among opinions concerning this matter was more difficult to explain.

However, possible explanations for this general disagreement can be proposed. A player's perception of and response to an instrument may be different while playing the instrument than when listening to it being played. This is plausible, when considering the player's proximity to the sound source, bone conduction of sound, and physiological reactions to the instrument's impedance. In addition, the attractiveness of a product may influence consumer reaction to it. It is conceivable that expectations based on visual stimuli create a response set in evaluating audible differences among instruments.

Finally, manufacturing inconsistencies can apparently account for more than slight timbral differences among instruments. Given these inconsistencies, responses to characteristics of an instrument may easily be tied to a large obvious to visual indicator such as construction material.

Research concerning timbral effects of construction materials no doubt began as an attempt to systematically explore and eventually explain that which had been casually observed. The persistence of opinions, often contrary to researchers' findings, served as further impetus for investigation. Further 75 research is required in order to better understand how instrument, construction material, and humans interact.

Suggestions for Further Research

The present study explored differences among four tubas of the same design. While the findings were generally supported by investigations of the characteristics of other instruments, there remains a need for replication of this and similar studies in order to add to the existing literature on the subject.

In particular, investigations of other variances besides material that may effect the tone quality of instruments would be of interest. More research is also needed concerning the effects of parameters of sound, such as the effects of attack transients, upon the perception of timbre. CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Backus, John, and T. C. Hundley, "Wall Vibrations in Flue Organ Pipes and Their Effect on Tone," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXIX (No. 5, Part 1, 1966), 936-945.

2. Berger, Kenneth W., "Some Factors in the Recognition of Timbre," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (October, 1964), 83-89.

3. Coltman, John W., "Effect of Material on Flute Tone Quality," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIX (No. 2, 1971), 520-523.

4. Elliott, Charles A., "Attacks and Releases as Factors in Instrument Identification," Journal of Research in Music Education XXIII (No. 1, 1975), 35-40.

5. Lanier, James M., "An Acoustical Analysis of Tones Produced by Clarinets of Various Materials," Journal of Research in Music Education VIII (No. 1, 1960), 16-22.

6. Knauss, H. P. and W. J. Yeager, "Vibration of the Walls of a Cornet,"Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIII (No. 13, 1941), 160-162.

7. Parker, Sam E., "Analysis of the Tones of Wooden and Metal Clarinets," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIX (May 1947), 415-419.

8. Saldanha, E. L. and John F. Corso, "Timbre Cues and the Identification of Musical Instruments," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (November 1964), 2021-2026.

9. Seashore, Carl E., Psychology of Music, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938.

76 77

10. Webster, J. C., A. Carpenter, and M.M. Woodhead, "Identifying Meaningless Tonal Complexes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44 (No. 2, 1968) , 606-609. APPENDIX

Raw Data

The trials were identified as follows:

1-10 = high marcato: SP/SP RB/S1 RB/S2 RB/RB SP/S2 S2/S2 SP/Si S2/Si S2/S2 RB/SP

11-20 = low legato: RB/S1 RB/S2 S2/S1 SP/S2 RB/SP S1/S1 SP/Si SP/SP S2/S2 RB/RB

21-30 = high legato: RB/SP S1/Si S2/S1 RB/S1 RB/RB SP/SP SP/S2 RB/S2 S2/S2 SP/S1

31-40 = low marcato: RB/S2 SP/SP S2/S2 SP/S1 SP/S2 S2/S2 S2/S1 RB/Si RB/RB RB/SP

RB = rose brass, SP = silver plate, S1 = standard model, S2 = standard model

Trials for each articulation were reversed for the second half of the test, viz., item forty-one was high marcato RB/SP, item eighty was low marcato RB/S2, etc.

Data records are in the following format: Record 1 = auditor i.d, auditor type (0 non low brass, >= 1 low brass) Record 2 = trials 1 through 40 Record 3 = trials 2 through 80

4119 2 2321323212232121112221232112131223323333 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 0003 1 1 2 1 11 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 11 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 11 1 1 3 1111 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 0002 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 11 3 3 1 2 2 1 22111232112212221221221133121233123111 0001 0 2312213312222121211112212122121223113221 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 11 2 1-1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 4975 0 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 3

78 79

9934 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2854 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 111 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 3862 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 0004 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 0005 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 0550 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 0006 0 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 0007 0 2 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 13 3 2 3 3 3 3 12 3 2 3 13 3 23 2 2 12 2 113 3 1113 3 3 113 3 13 0008 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0009 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 11 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0010 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0011 0 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 2189 1 1 3 2 1 2-1 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 5520 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 5442 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 6784 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 4811 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 2

I 80

2085 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1133111131111212222211111132111122113123 1017 1 2322223311222121211121221122132113213211 2 2 3 3 2 2 13 3 2 2 212 13 2 2 2 2 2 112 12 3 3 112 2 3 3 12 3 2 12 7483 1 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 0012 0 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 23 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0013 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 7483 1 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 11 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 0014 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 3888 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 9095 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 2 2161 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 0015 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0016 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1133121331111212222221111132111132123112 0017 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 13 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2165 0 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 13 3 13 12 3 3 1112 1112 111111113 3 2 2 2 3 33 13 3 12 3 0018 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 0832 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1515 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 81

0019 0 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 2064 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 6265 0 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 0967 0 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0020 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1011 0 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 11 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 0021 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 0022 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 5127 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 1 1 2'1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 9721 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0023 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 5150 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 Test Form

1

This study is to determine whether tubas made of different materials are identifiable by their timbre. (This is not a test which determines how well an individual perceives timbre.) You will hear a* phrase played twice; these two phrases will comprise a single trial. After each trial, indicate the degree to which the timbres differ by checking no difference, slight difference, or obvious difference on the scale given below. Timbral differences will probably be slight. Occasionally a trial will be comprised of identical phrases. The first ten trials are practice examples. Using the items on this page, check the column that most accurately describes the difference in tone quality between each of the two phrases. Use these examples to develop your listening strategies.

No Slight Obvious Difference Difference Difference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

If you have any questions, please ask them at this time.

Turn to the next page to begin the test.

82 83

2

No Slight Obvious Difference Difference Difference

1.______

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30. 84

3

No Slight Obvious Difference Difference Difference

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52. 53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59. 60. 85

4

No Slight Obvious Difference Difference Difference

61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Please indicate your primary instrument: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Backus, John, The Acoustical Foundations of Music, New York, W. W.Norton and Co., Inc., 1977.

Baines, Anthony, Brass Instruments: Their History and Development, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978.

Baines, Anthony, Woodwind Instruments and Their History, New York, W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1957.

Barnes, William H., The Contemporary American Organ, New York, J. Fischer and Bro., 1937.

Bate, Philip, The Flute, A Study of its History, Development, and Construction, London, Ernest Benn, 1979.

, The Oboe, An Outline of its History, Development, and Construction, London, Ernest Benn Ltd., 1956.

Benade, Arthur H., Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, New York, Oxford University Press, 1976.

Bevan, Clifford, The Tuba Family, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978.

Greer, R. Douglas, "The Effect of Timbre on Brass-Wind Intonation," in Experimental Research in the Psychology of Music, edited by Edwin Gordon, Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 1970.

Miller, Dayton C., The Science of Musical Sounds, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1916.

Morley-Pegge, R., The French Horn, Some Notes on the Evolution of the Instrument and of its Technique, New York, Philosophical Library, Inc., 1960.

Norman, Herbert and H. John Norman, The Organ Today, New York, St. Martins, 1966.

86 87

Plomp, Reiner, "Timbre as a Multidimensional Attribute of Complex Tones," in Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing, edited by R. Plomp, and F. Smoorenburg, Leiden, Holland, A. W. Swithoff, 1970.

Rasch, R. A., and R. Plomp, "The Perception of Musical Tones," in The Psychology of Music, edited by Diana Deutsch, New York, Academic Press, 1982.

Rendall, F. Geoffrey, The Clarinet, Some Notes upon its History and Construction, New York, W. W. Norton, 1971.

Roederer, Juan G., Introduction to the Physics and Psychophysics of Music, London, The English Universities Press Ltd., 1973.

Seashore, Carl E., Psychology of Music, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938.

SPSS Inc., SPSS XUser's Guide, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1983.

Tuckwell, Barry, Horn, New York, Schirmer Books, 1983.

U.S.A. Standards Institute, American Standard Acoustical Terminology, New York, U.S.A. Standards Institute, 1960.

Von Helmholtz, Hermann L. F., On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, translated by A. S. Ellis, New York, Dover Publications Inc., 1954.

Williams, C. F. Abdy, The Story of the Organ, London, The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd., 1916.

Articles

Abeles, Hal, "Verbal Timbre Descriptors of Isolated Clarinet Tones," Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, LIX (1979), 1-7.

Backus, John, and T. C. Hundley, "Harmonic Generation in the Trumpet," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIX (No. 2, 1971), 509-519. 88

, "Wall Vibrations in Flue Organ Pipes and Their Effect on Tone,," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXIX (No. 5, Part 1, 1966), 936-945.

Baines, Anthony, "John Talbot's Manuscript, (Christ Church Library Music M. S. 1187)," The Galpin Society Journal, I (1948), 9-26.

Benade, Arthur H. "From Instrument to Ear in a Room, Direct or via Recording," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, XXXIII (April, 1985), 218-233.

Berger, Kenneth W., "Some Factors in the Recognition of Timbre," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (October, 1964), 83-89.

Boner, C. P. and R. B. Newmann, "The Effects of Wall Materials on the Steady-State Acoustic Spectrum of Flue Pipes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XII (No. 1, July 1940) , 83-89.

Bowsher, J. M., "The Physics of Brass Wind Instruments," Endeavour, IV, (No. 1,. 1980), 20-25.

Bowsher, J. M. and P. S. Watkinson, "Manufacturers' Opinions about Brass Instruments," Brass Bulletin, XXXVIII (1982) , 25-30.

Clark, M., and P. Milner, "Dependencies of Timbres on the Tonal Loudness Produced by Musical Instruments," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, XII (1964), 28-31.

Chapin, E. K. and F. A. Firestone, "The Influence of Phase on Tone Quality and Loudness; the Interference of Subjective Harmonics," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, V (NO. 3, 1934) , 173-180.

Coltman, John W., "Effect of Material on Flute Tone Quality," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIX (No. 2, 1971), 520-523.

Elliott, Charles A., "Attacks and Releases as Factors in Instrument Identification," Journal of Research in Music Education XXIII (No. 1, 1975), 35-40.

Ferron, E., "De la Sensibilitie des Instruments de Cuivre," Brass Bulletin, XXX (1980) , 57-60. 89

Goodwin, John, "Brass Instrument Research at Surrey University," Brass Bulletin, XXXVI (1981), 8-17.

Grey, John M., "Multidimensional Perceptual Scaling of Musical Timbres," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, LXI (May, 1977), 1270-1277.

, "Timbre Discrimination in Musical Patterns," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64 (August7 1978), 467-472.

Herrington, R. N. and P. Schneidau, "The Effect of Imagery on the Waveshape of the Visual Evoked Response," Experientia, XXIV, 1136-1137.

Hilton, Lewis B., "Review of Figgs, Linda Drake, Qualitative Differences in Trumpet Tones as Perceived by Listeners and by Acoustical Analysis," Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, LXIV (1980), 67-72.

John, E. R., "Switchboard Versus Statistical Theories of Learning and Memory," Science, CLXXVII (September, 1972) , 862-863.

Knauss, H. P. and W. J. Yeager, "Vibration of the Walls of a Cornet," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIII (1941), 160-162.

Lanier, James M., "An Acoustical Analysis of Tones Produced by Clarinets of Various Materials," Journal of Research in Music Education VIII (No. 1, 1960), 16-22.

Lichte, William H. and R. Flanagan Gray, "The Influence of Overtone Structure on the Pitch of Complex Tones," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XLIX (June, 1945), 431-436.

Luce, David and Melville Clark, Jr., "Physical Correlates of Brass Instrument Tones," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLII (No. 6, 1967) , 1232-1243.

Meinl, H., "Regarding the Sound Quality of Violins and a Scientific Basis for Violin Construction," Joukrnal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXIX (July, 1957), 817-822. 90

Mercer, Derwent M.A., "The Voicing of Organ Flue Pipes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXIII (No. 1, 1951), 45-54.

Miller, Dayton C., "The Influence of the Material of Wind Instruments on their Tone Quality," Science, XXIX (January 29, 1909), 161-171.

Norman, Herbert and H. John Norman, The Organ Today, New York, St. Martins, 1966.

Parker, Sam E., "Analysis of the Tones of Wooden and Metal Clarinets," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XIX (May 1947),, 415-419.

Plomp, R., "The Ear as a Frequency Analyzer," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (September 1964), 1628-1636.

, "The Ear As a Frequency Analyzer II,," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIII (No 4., 1968), 764-767.

, "Pitch, Timbre, and Hearing Theory,," International Audiology, VII (July, 1968), 322-344.

Plomp, Reiner and A. M. Mimpen, "The Ear As a Frequency Analyzer II," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLIII (No. 4., 1968), 764-767.

Plomp, R. and H. J. M. Steeneken, "Effect of Phase on the Timbre of Complex Tones," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XLVI (No. 2, 1968), 409-421.

Poncet, Jacques, "De la Sensibilitie des Instruments de Cuivre," Brass Bulletin, XXVIII (1979), 57-60.

Pratt, R. L. and J. M. Bowsher, "The Subjective Assessment of Trombone Quality," Journal of Sound and Vibration, LVII (No. 3, 1978), 425-435.

Radocy, Rudolf E. "Review of Hallquist, Robert Eugene, A Comparative Study of the Effect of Various Mouthpieces of the Harmonic Content of Trumpet Tones," Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, LXIV (1980), 59-66. 91

Rissett, and Matthews, "Analysis of Musical Instrument Tones," Physics Today, XXII (1969), 23-32.

Saldanha, E. L. and John F. Corso, "Timbre Cues and the Identification of Musical Instruments," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXXVI (November 1964), 2021-2026.

Saunders, F. A., "The Mechanical Action of Violins," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, IX (October, 1937), 81-98.

Smith, Richard A., "Recent Development in Trumpet Design", Journal of the International Trumpet Guild", III (October,. 1978) , 27-29.

Suter, Stephan, "Instrumentenbau in USA: Schilke Music Products, Inc. Chicago," Brass Bulletin, LI (1985) , 48-53.

Suter, Stephan, "Lawson Brass Instruments Inc., Boonsboro," Brass Bulletin, LII (1985),, 15-19.

Thayer, Ralph C., Jr., "The Effect of the Attack Transient on Aural Recognition of Instrumental Timbres," Psychology of Music, II (No. 1, 1974), 39-52.

Wang, Cecelia Chu, "Timbre Perception of Brief Tones," Psychology of Music, XI (No. 2, 1983), 79-85.

Watkinson, P. S., and J. M. Bowsher, "Vibration Characteristics of Brass Instrument Bells," Journal of Sound and Vibration, LIIIV (No. 1, 1982) , 1-17.

Webster, J. C., A. Carpenter, and M. M. Woodhead, "Identifying Meaningless Tonal Complexes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44 (No. 2, 1968), 606-609.

Webster, J. C., A. Carpenter and M. M. Woodhead, "Perceptual Constancy in Complex Sound Identification," British Journal of Psychology, LVI (1970), 481-489.

Wogram, Klaus, " Problems Relating to Acoustics in Brass Instrument Manufacture," Das Musikinstrument, (September, 1977), 1193-1194. 92

Dissertations

Grey, John, M., "An Exploration of Musical Timbre Using Computer-Based Techniques for Analysis, Synthesis and Perceptional Scaling," Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology and the Committee on Graduate Studies, Stanford University, March 1975.

Catalogs

Giardinelli Band Instrument Company, Inc., Fall 1986 Brass, Woodwind, and Accessory Catalog, New York, Giardinelli Band Instrument Company, Inc., 1986.