The following information is the result of the combined efforts of members of the Trumpet Players' International Network (TPIN), an international mailing list of trumpet and brass players. The topic of the cryogenic treatment of brass instruments has come up on this network many times, and the process has plenty of skeptics. The question of whether or not this process makes a difference has been around as long as the process itself. This experiment was intended to prove, or at least provide substantial evidence about, the value of cryogenically treating a brass instrument. For more information on the process, see Cryogenic Resonance Restoration™ by Wayne Tanabe, owner of The Brass Bow Music Co. in Arlington Heights, IllinoisTwo types of evaluation were used to gather the results. One was a spectra analysis of different sounds before and after the treatments. The other was a series of playing tests provided by three professional, and one active comeback trumpet player. This page will concentrate on the playing tests and their results.
The members of the TPIN represent just about every profession, musically and otherwise. There are active members who are scientists, repairmen, physicists, teachers, and all are brass players at some level. I originally proposed this experiment knowing that we had the means to organize something worthwhile. There was enough interest to proceed with organizing this test.
Wayne Tanabe, owner of The Brass Bow Music Co. and repair shop, and a highly respected repairman, provided the cleaning and cryogenic treatments of the instruments involved, as well as contacting several well known, professional trumpet players to play test the instruments.
John T. Lynch is a physicist employed by the United States Government and is a brass repairman and trumpet player. John provided a computer spectra analysis of each instrument before and after the treatments. For more on John's contribution, see his page on spectra analysis of musical instruments.
Four trumpets were used in our experiment and were donated for the time period that they were needed by their owners. The instruments used were a Bach Stradivarius model 37, a C.G. Benge, an F. Besson Classic, and a Blackburn. All instruments are in the key of Bb. One instrument was left untreated until after the tests were completed for control purposes. That instrument will be revealed later.
The instruments were first collected by Wayne for cleaning and preparation for treatment. This was done before any assessment to insure that any noticeable changes could only be attributed to the cryo treatment and not to anything involving the preparation process.
The instruments were then sent to John for the first round of specta analysis. John then returned the trumpets to Wayne for the first round of playing tests and then the cryogenic treatments. The four play testers were asked to complete an evaluation form for each instrument at this time, giving a rating to several categories or playing characteristics. Once the treatments were complete, the instruments were play tested again, and again the players completed an evaluation form. The instruments were returned to John for the second round in the spectra analysis.
The same evaluation form was used for both play tests. It involved a series of six basic qualities that each player was asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best. There was also an open ended section for additional comments.
The basic guidelines given to the testers for the scale were these:
5. Among the best I've ever played in this category.
4. Very good. Clearly above average.
3. Average.
2. Clearly below average. Could probably tolerate it, but barely.
1. Horrible. Among the worst I've ever played in this category.
The six characteristics they were asked to rate are as follows:
1. Overall impression of tone quality.
2. EASE of response throughout the register.
3. EVENESS of response throughout the register.
4. Flexibility of sound quality (the ability to go from bright to dark).
5. Intonation of the entire scale used.
6. What is your overall impression of this instrument?
| Click on a tester to see his responses: |
| Mark Ponzo: Professor of trumpet, Northern Illinois University. |
| Stanton Kramer: Active comeback player and professional photographer. |
| John Hagstrom: Second trumpet, Chicago Symphony Orchestra. |
| Nick Drozdoff: Former Maynard Ferguson trumpet player, now physics teacher. |
| Average scores for each category and average overall ratings. |
| Comments from the owners. |
| Contributors. |
The results of this portion of the test are very subjective. The players are giving their own opinions of each aspect of each instrument. Different players are going to be more sensitive to changes than others. Likewise, one may notice changes in intonation more readily than others, while another player may tend to notice changes in response more quickly. This is due to many factors including their playing backgroud, the type of instrument they normally play, etc. This is why I felt it important to average all of the scores together.
While it was very subjective, we tried to remove as many variables as possible between the two series of tests. Each player used the same mouthpiece both times. Everyone was given a series of items to play that was used both times.
The Bach, which was the control, or untreated horn, was clearly the least changed horn in the opinions of the play testers, with a difference in total score of only .25 of a point. The Blackburn showed the most improvement with a difference of +1.08. The Benge was the least preferred instrument of the group both before and after. While a change was noted, it was the least significant of the three treated instruments. It is possible that this general lack of interest could be attributed to the fact that the valves on this trumpet were not well aligned.
The testers noted significant improvements in the Blackburn and the Besson in every category.
While no solid scientific proof of changes can be determined through this particular portion of the test, it is interesting to note the consensus noted improvements on the three treated instruments, and that three of the four were able to clearly pick the control instrument out of the group. Also, the average score for the control instrument was indentical in the before and after tests in the overall impression category.
This information was organized and provided as a public service. No one involved was paid or profited financially in any way through this test. Several interested individuals contributed money to cover the cost of shipping. Feel free to share this page for informational and reference purposes. Properly citing myself as the author, and the play testers and Wayne and John if necessary, is appreciated.
Jason A. Blough
jblough44@hotmail.com
© Copyright 2000, Jason A. Blough; Ralph J. Jones
Return to the Brass Resources Page?