Optimisation techniques for solving design problems in modern trombones

Alistair C.P. Braden

Room 4201, School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK. e-mail: alistair.braden@ed.ac.uk

This paper presents further approaches to the problem of numerical shape optimisation of brass musical
instruments, including a flexible object-oriented technique that describes the internal geometry of the in-
strument with very few design variables. This technique, used here both with a genetic algorithm and the
Rosenbrock 0th-order search algorithm, gives a significant increase in optimisation speed. Results of an
experimental study of the input impedances of a wide variety of different trombones are presented, dis-
cussed, and used to identify design problems common in modern trombones. From this, target impedance
data for the optimisation are formulated and a preliminary attempt made at demonstrating the effectiveness
of optimisation techniques at solving ‘real-world’ instrument design problems.

1 Introduction rate, fast and easy to use, would be a valuable asset as

it would allow a great many potential designs to be eval-
The calculation of the input impedance of a brass instru- uated cheaply and quickly. While human expertise in de-
ment from its bore-profile is well-established in the lit- sign and testing will always be paramount, such a com-
erature. The inverse problem – finding the bore of an putational tool would be very useful to a designer.
instrument from its impedance – can be solved using op-
timisation techniques (i.e. trial and improvement). This
requires an optimisation algorithm, a suitable geometric 2 Optimisation Problem
representation of the instrument as a set of ‘design vari-
ables’ to be optimised, and an ‘objective function’ with 2.1 Objective Functions
which to judge the merit of each potential match.
To the author’s knowledge, two previous attempts have An objective function compares impedance properties of
been made at this inverse problem. The first, by Kausel each ‘tested’ instrument to target impedance data. As in
[1] represents the instrument using a piece-wise linear in- [2] we denote the instrument symbolically by α. Three
terpolation of points along the bore (‘point-wise’), and objective functions are used here in different combina-
optimises using either the 0th -order Rosenbrock search tions depending on the task, each giving scores between
algorithm, or (unsuccessfully) an incremental genetic al- 0 and 1 (a perfect match). Typical parameter values, de-
gorithm. The second, by Noreland [2], uses a point-wise termined from experience, are given. The first function is
representation of the second derivative of the bore radii, a windowed linear least-squares comparison of the entire
and the gradient-based Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. (discrete) impedance magnitude curve:
Optimisation techniques of this kind can be applied either
to find an unknown bore from a known impedance curve n
(
(bore reconstruction) or to improve the design of a given 1X δZi2
if δZi < σ
J1 (α) = 1− σ2 (1)
bore such that its impedance matches desired character- n i=1 1 if δZi ≥ σ
istics (such as intonation or impedance envelope). Solu-
tion of these problems also requires an accurate physical where δZi = |Z(fi )−Z 0 (fi )|, i.e. the difference between
model, accurate measurements of the bore and impedance tested impedance magnitude Z and target Z 0 evaluated
of real instruments, and an understanding of the correla- at a series of frequencies fi , σ is the half-width of the
tion between impedance properties and playing charac- window (usually 1MΩ) and n the number of points in the
teristics. impedance curve. The second function is a windowed-
Instrument manufacturers have substantial accumulated Gaussian comparison, scoring only the peak-frequencies:
expertise regarding the design and construction of high-
quality instruments, and newly-designed models are cur-  µ ¶
rently being produced relatively frequently. However, the 
 −µφ δφ2i
1 − exp
1X 
k
design process is costly and time-consuming, as it gen- ξi2
J2 (α) = 1− if δφi < ξi
erally involves building prototypes which may or may k i=1 
 1 − exp(−µφ )

not be an improvement over existing models. A com- 1 if δφi ≥ ξi
putational design tool, provided it is sufficiently accu- (2)

557
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest
where δφi = |φi − φ0i |, i.e. the difference between tested
peak-frequency φi and target peak-frequency φ0i of peak
i, the half-width of the window ξi = νφ φ0i is dependent
on target frequency and parameter νφ (typically 0.1), µφ
is a ‘strictness’ parameter (typically between 10 and 40)
and k the number of impedance peaks being tested.
A very similar function J3 is also used for the peak-
heights, using difference |Z(φi )−Z 0 (φ0i )| and parameters
νZ and µZ (typically 0.3 and 20 respectively). We then
define an overall objective function:
J(α) = j1 J1 (α) + j2 J2 (α) + j3 J3 (α) (3)
where j1...3 are weights, which can take any real value;
later we refer to the choice of objective function as e.g.
{0, 1, 0}, denoting values of j. We then seek α to max-
imise J(α).
2.2 Physical modelling
Well-established in the literature is the one-dimensional
transmission-line [3], where an axisymmetric horn is
modelled as a concatenation of cylinders and truncated
cones (piece-wise constant and piece-wise linear inter-
polation); this is accurate for moderately-flaring horns.
We use this model here, and it should be noted that al-
though more complex geometrical shapes are used in the
optimiser, for the purposes of impedance calculation they
are themselves interpolated linearly and the standard TL
method applied. No account is currently taken of bends
in the tubing.
2.3 Impedance Curves
Calculated impedance curves are commonly approxi-
mated by a series of points at regular frequency inter-
vals. Finer grids give more accurate peak locations but
are computationally more expensive; an alternative is of-
fered here. A coarse grid is used, calculating impedance
every 8.0Hz, to give a first approximation of the peak fre-
quencies; these are then refined recursively, to a given
tolerance, using either the bisection method or inverse
parabolic interpolation [4], evaluating impedance at each
new frequency. Using this approach, an impedance curve
can be represented from 0-2000Hz with peaks known to
a tolerance of 0.1Hz by ∼350 points; these peak data are
then passed to (2).
558
Braden
3 Implementation
3.1 Program Design
A primary design aim was to produce a computer optimi-
sation ‘toolbox’ that is powerful, flexible and easy-to-use.
To this end, an application has been written allowing the
user to manipulate, modify and evaluate instruments and
impedance curves. The choice of programming language
(C++) allows a modular, object-oriented approach, and is
very fast at run-time.
3.2 Instrument Representation
Previous instrument representations have been point-wise
(or ‘bottom-up’); while this is the most simple approach,
it requires N ∼ 100 (where N is the number of design
variables) to be effective and can lead to some unsatisfac-
tory ‘jagged’ or ‘wiggly’ shapes. The computation time
of optimisation algorithms is strongly dependent on N ;
if this value can be reduced without compromising effec-
tiveness, the optimisation speed will be improved.
It is well-known that a single Bessel-horn (5) is a fair ap-
proximation to a brass instrument bell; by using several,
shorter, concatenated Bessel-horns we thus gain a much
better approximation (piece-wise Bessel-horn interpola-
tion). Bells can be described very closely by 5 Bessel-
horns of different flares, giving1 N = 12 and therefore a
significant increase in optimisation speed.
We introduce an elegant ‘top-down’ approach, allow-
ing us to specify a prototype that clearly defines an in-
strument as having the features and geometry of e.g. a
trombone but without the exact specifications. The opti-
miser is therefore constrained to consider only reasonable
‘trombone shapes’, considerably reducing the size of the
search space and therefore improving optimisation speed.
The instrument is represented as a flexible series of ‘el-
ements’, which are divided into two categories: primi-
tive elements and list elements. Primitives (e.g. cylinder,
cone, Bessel-horn) are defined in terms of their individ-
ual properties (length, radius etc.) instead of as a series
of points relative to the instrument’s coordinate origin;
elements can therefore be modified, added in or deleted
without affecting the rest of the instrument. List elements
allow a distinct part of the instrument to be treated as
a single element, allowing large sections of bore to be
moved easily between instruments (e.g. a mouthpiece el-
ement, itself a list of cone elements).
This method is implemented in C++ as a recursive, poly-
morphic linked-list of elements. The element classes
contain member variables describing their geometry and
functions for evaluating their own impedance. This gives
1 One variable is the length of the sections, 6 describe the input and
output radii of the sections and 5 give their flare coefficients
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest
tremendous flexibility and it is very easy for a user to set
up an instrument with any desired geometry, including
fully point-wise instruments. It can, in principle, be used
with any suitable optimisation algorithm.
3.3 Optimisation Algorithms
Two different optimisers are used here: a simple ge-
netic algorithm [5] and the Rosenbrock [6, 7] algorithm.
In each case the optimiser is essentially seeking a set
{α1 . . . αN } of design variables to maximise J(α). The
choice of instrument representation allows us to specify
that single dimensions (e.g. an input radius) or entire sec-
tions (e.g. a mouthpiece) are to be held constant. Each
design variable can be given upper and lower bounds and
a starting value. No constraints are made on the smooth-
ness of joins between elements (notably Bessel-horns)
and therefore some unsatisfactory shapes remain in the
search space; any such constraints would compromise
impedance match in favour of smoothness, and are there-
fore undesirable anyway.
The computations were performed on a 2.6GHz Windows
PC.
4 Bore Reconstruction Results
To test the efficacy of the optimisation techniques, a diffi-
cult problem was set. A virtual2 trumpet had its cylin-
drical section smoothed to remove ‘kinks’ due to the
valves, tuning-slide etc. The optimisers were asked to
reconstruct the bore of this instrument from its calculated
impedance (experiment I). The kinks in the cylindrical
section were then replaced, altering the target impedance
(expt. II) accordingly. The instrument had a reconstruc-
tion prototype of a cylinder attached to a multi-Bessel
bell; the total bell length was a variable with each Bessel-
section an equal fraction of this length. Wide bounds
were set on all variables (generally ±10%, wider for flare
coefficients), and objective function {1, 1, 0} was used.
4.1 Genetic Algorithm
After considerable experimentation, the best results were
found by optimising a 4-Bessel bell (N = 11) for two
50-individual generations, then, for each member of the
population, splitting each Bessel-section into two equal
parts, giving an 8-Bessel bell (N = 19), and optimising
for a further 18 generations. Results were inconsistent,
not always producing good matches when the experiment
was repeated. Experiment I (at best) gave a good match
to both impedance and bore in ∼5 minutes; experiment
2 We define ‘virtual’ to denote a theoretical instrument based on
physical measurements on the bore-profile of a real-world instrument.
559
Braden
II gave very poor results. Although the GA performance
is a significant improvement on [1], it is still neither sta-
ble nor capable enough to be practical. As we shall see,
the GA is again outperformed by Rosenbrock; given that
GA’s generally perform best in low-N problems, such as
that presented here, we can conclude that further use of
genetic algorithms for for brass-instrument optimisation
is not worthwhile.
4.2 Rosenbrock
Experiment I was repeated using the Rosenbrock algo-
rithm, with a 4-Bessel bell (N = 11). Results were
in every way superior to the GA: a near-perfect match
of both impedance and bore was found, with total re-
peatability, in 62s. Experiment II was then attempted:
due to the kinks in the target’s cylindrical section (which
were intentionally not accounted for in the reconstruc-
tion prototype), a close impedance match was outside the
search space and therefore impossible, thus making the
problem intrinsically more difficult. In spite of this, an
equally-good match of the bore (excepting the kinks in
the cylinder) was found – the closest impedance match
was still very close to the correct bore-profile, suggesting
that this optimiser is capable of reconstructing an instru-
ment’s bell without any knowledge of its valve sections.
The problem of reconstructing trombones was then at-
tempted. Prototypes based on two virtual trombones (A,
a large-bore tenor, and B, a bass) were relatively com-
plex (N = 24 and N = 18) due to a series of alter-
nating cylindrical and conical sections required between
the main slide and the bell. The virtual instruments were
successfully reconstructed as above, with mouthpiece E
attached, both with and without the kinks in the target.
These reconstructions, which took 91-129s and required
520-618 J-evaluations, are a very close match, differing
in radius from the target virtual instruments generally by
<0.2mm (Figures 1 & 2), excepting the kinks and slight
discrepancies in the extreme bell region. While the two
prototypes model tenor and bass trombones respectively,
they are still capable of reconstructing the other instru-
ment, though admittedly somewhat less effectively.
Figure 1: Target A (solid) and reconstructed A1 (dotted)
bore profile (kinks detail inset). Units /cm.
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest
Figure 2: Target B (solid) and reconstructed B1 (dotted)
bore profile (kinks detail inset).
5 Impedance Measurements
5.1 Overview
In order to perform intonation optimisation on instru-
ments we must first gain an understanding of a good tar-
get. To this end, the input impedances of a variety of
modern trombones were measured using the BIAS equip-
ment [8]. The frequency of each peak was then recorded
and plotted in terms of its equivalent fundamental pitch
(EFP) [9]. This calculates, for each peak fn , the funda-
mental frequency of which it is an exact nth harmonic
and the pitch of this equivalent fundamental relative to an
arbitrary reference frequency F ; this gives a measure, in
cents, of the harmonic alignment of the peak frequencies:
µ ¶
1200 fn
E(fn ) = log (4)
log(2) nF
When plotting EFP for several different instruments on
the same axes, it is often convenient to normalise by
choosing F = f4 /4 for each instrument, thus shifting all
plots such that each peak 4 lies on the vertical axis (ef-
fectively retuning the instruments so that each 4th mode
coincides). The shape of the plots is independent of F .
5.2 Results & Discussion
It has been known since Benade [10] that each sounded
note consists of a ‘regime’ of several harmonically-
related peaks; for example B[2 played on a trombone ex-
cites peaks 2, 4, 6 etc. It should be noted that some peaks
(e.g. 4, 6 & 8) are part of the regimes of several sounded
notes, whereas others (those of prime index) contribute
only to one regime.
It is generally accepted by the trombone community that
the material composition (e.g. alloy and thickness of ma-
terial) of a brass instrument affects its performance; while
there currently no conclusive proof, recent work [11, 12]
is suggestive. We should therefore accept that there may
be objective aspects of instrument performance which
cannot be accounted for in impedance measurements by
narrow-band excitation of comparatively low amplitude,
such as those presented here.
560
Braden
Figure 3: Measured EFP for trombones B (dashed), C
(solid) and D (dotted), normalised by 4th mode.
We give here a brief summary of a larger study conducted
on many more trombones than can be shown here. Fig-
ure 3 gives EFP plots for three typical trombones, nor-
malised by 4th mode (thus supressing the absolute into-
nation of the instruments for easier comparison). C and
D are large-bore tenor trombones measured with mouth-
piece E, and B is a bass trombone measured with mouth-
piece G. B and C are commonly described by profes-
sional players as being of first-rate quality. We see that
the assumption that brass instruments should have exactly
harmonically-aligned peaks is somewhat naïve: Large-
bore tenor and bass trombones have a general right-hand
diagonal EFP trend – i.e. higher peaks are tuned to a pro-
gressively sharper effective fundamental (medium-bore
trombones and French horns [9] generally have a vertical
EFP trend). This suggests that exact harmonic alignment
may not be desirable for this class of instrument. How-
ever, bass trombones tend to have peak 2 more closely
aligned with peak 4 (i.e. the regime for B[2 or the ‘lower
register’) than for tenor trombones, suggesting that close
alignment may yet be desirable in certain circumstances.
Clearly the issue of the harmonic alignment of peaks is
not straightforward, and there are several factors in ef-
fect. Further work is needed to determine the sensitivity
of players to changes in alignment, and the dependence of
the performance of the instrument on both the alignment
and the impedance envelope.
Consider the regimes of B[3 (i.e. peaks 4, 8, 12 etc.) &
D4 (peaks 5, 10, 15 etc.) of instrument D – peak 8 has an
equivalent fundamental that is +56c sharper than that of
peak 4, and peak 12 is likewise +57c sharper; similarly
peak 10 is −12c and peak 15 −9c compared to peak 5.
It is reasonable to suggest that a player moving from the
regime of peak 4 (+56, +57) to that of peak 5 (−12, −9)
with instrument D will therefore have to make a larger
embouchure adjustment than they would with C (+37,
+42 and −2, +20) as the two regimes differ much more
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest Braden

in EFP. Players may be sensitive to this difference, and

further investigation may prove valuable.

6 Intonation Optimisation
Instrument A, with (fixed) virtual mouthpiece E, was set
as a starting instrument. Two experiments using {0, 1, 0} Figure 6: Bore profiles for B2 (solid) and B3 (dotted).
were performed, firstly to shift peaks 2 & 3 by +10c (giv-
ing result A2) and secondly to replicate the measured EFP
plot (Figure 3, solid) of instrument C (A3). Both tasks
were largely successful (Figures 4 & 5); the first caused
a shift of higher peaks and the second produced a good,
but not perfect, match of the target EFP (even though this
required some peaks to be shifted by >50c).
Two experiments were performed on B, again with
mouthpiece E, to shift peak 5 by −15c, firstly with all
other peaks held constant (B2), and secondly to also shift
peaks 2 & 3 by +10c (B3). Both experiments largely suc-
ceeded (Figures 6 & 7) at a cost of slight shifts in other
peaks.
For both instruments, smooth bore-profiles were pro-
duced and the impedance peak magnitudes were largely
unaltered. Optimisations using {0,1,1}, keeping the im-
Figure 7: EFP for B (solid), B2 (dashed) and B3 (dotted).
pedance heights constant, proved less successful (but
were found to be effective when optimising Horns).
These results demonstrate that the optimiser is capable
of modifying instruments to give a good match of speci-
fied theoretical impedance characteristics, whether shift-
ing single or many peaks, while maintaining a smooth,
æsthetically-pleasing bore profile.

7 Conclusions & Further Work

Figure 4: Bore profiles for A2 (solid) and A3 (dotted).
Figure 5: EFP for A (solid), A2 (dashed) and A3 (dotted).
An object-oriented method for representing the geometry
of a brass instrument with very few design variables is
presented. This method is used both with a genetic algo-
rithm and with the Rosenbrock algorithm, the latter being
considerably more effective. An optimisation applica-
tion has been written which can reconstruct smooth bore
profiles from given calculated (theoretical) impedance
curves to a very good accuracy, even if certain ‘kinks’ ex-
ist in the target bore. Results of an extensive experimen-
tal survey of the impedances of modern trombones are
briefly summarised. Two ‘virtual’ instruments based on
modern trombones are optimised to shift their impedance
peaks to match target criteria; while there is generally a
cost of other peaks also being somewhat shifted, the mod-
ified bore profiles are smooth.
The optimisation technique is proven to be successful
both at reconstructing and optimising instruments based
on theoretical impedance curves. However, significant
discrepancies exist between the calculated impedance

561
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest
for virtual (target) instruments and their corresponding
experimentally-measured impedance. Causes include the
inaccuracy inherent in the plane-wave approximation,
and difficulty getting complete and accurate measure-
ments of the bore of real instruments. As a consequence,
the changes in calculated impedance due to alterations in
the bore may not accurately represent the corresponding
measured impedance if the changes were implemented in
practice; this difficulty does not, however, alter the ef-
fectiveness of the optimisation technique itself. Once the
optimiser is coupled with a sufficiently accurate physical
model, it is reasonable to expect its results to be of gen-
uine practical use for brass instrument design.
In order to improve the modelling, one must either take
account of higher modes in the transmission-line [13]
or use a (hybrid) FEM approach [14]. Improvements
may also be found by accounting for bends in the tub-
ing – manufacturers describe bend shapes as having a
noticeable effect. Optimisation speed may be improved
by combining the above technique with the gradient-
based methods of [2]. Further, more detailed, studies of
impedance curves for trombones and other instruments,
coupled with rigorous playing-tests, will give useful in-
sight into desirable impedance characteristics.
Appendix
Bessel-horns are defined as:
r(x) = b(x + x0 )−γ (5)
Where r is the radius, x the distance along the instrument,
γ the flare coefficient and b, x0 parameters usually de-
fined in terms of specified length and input/output radii.
Ackowledgements
I offer sincere thanks to Murray Campbell and John
Chick for their invaluable help and discussion throughout
this work, to Arnold Myers for providing bore measure-
ments, to the IWK for provision of the BIAS equipment,
and to Michael Rath Brass Instruments for their insight
and kind provision of excellent instruments to measure.
This work was supported by EPSRC.
References
[1] W. Kausel, ‘Computer optimization of brass wind
instruments’, Diderot Forum on Mathematics and
Music, p.227, OECG: ISBN 3-85403-133-5 (1999)
562
Braden
[2] D. Noreland, ‘A gradient based optimisation al-
gorithm for the design of brass-wind instruments’,
PhD thesis, Uppsala University (2003)
[3] D. Mapes-Riordan, ‘Horn Modeling with Coni-
cal and Cylindrical Transmission-Line Elements’,
J.Audio Eng. Soc., 41, p.471-483 (1993)
[4] W.H. Press, ‘Numerical Recipes in C++’,
Cambridge University Press, p.406-407, ISBN
0521750334 (2002)
[5] M. Wall, ‘GALib’, C/C++ Genetic Algorithm Li-
brary, http://lancet.mit.edu/ga
[6] F. Van den Bergen, C/C++ Rosenbrock package,
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~fvandenb/
optimization/rosenbrock.html
[7] H.H. Rosenbrock, ‘An automatic method for finding
the greatest or least value of a function’, Comp. J.,
3, p.175-184 (1960)
[8] ‘Brass Instrument Analysis System’
http://www.bias.at
[9] J.P. Chick, C. Lumb & D.M. Campbell, ‘Pas-
sive acoustic characteristics and intonation prob-
lems of modern orchestral horns’, Proceedings of
ISMA2004, Nara, Japan (2004)
[10] A.H. Benade, ‘Fundamentals of Musical
Acoustics’, Oxford University Press, p402-405
(1976)
[11] J.W. Whitehouse, ‘A study of the wall vibrations
excited during the playing of lip-reed instruments’,
PhD thesis, Open University (2003)
[12] T.R. Moore, E.T. Shirley, I.E.W. Codrey & A.E.
Daniels, ‘The effects of bell vibrations on the sound
of the modern trumpet’, ACUSTICA, 91, p.578-589
(2005)
[13] V. Pagneux, N. Amir & J. Kergomard ‘A study
of wave propagation in varying cross-section
waveguides by modal decomposition. Part I: Theory
and Validation’, J. Acoust Soc. Am., 100, p. 2034-
2048 (1996)
[14] D. Noreland, ‘A Numerical Method for Acoustic
Waves in Horns’, ACUSTICA, 88, p.576-586,
(2002)