Reviving old models
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
If you could revive or update any old model trombone, what would it be?
I would probably bring back a 6h or 48/38h variant, Martin Urbie model, and maybe 32h with a wider slide. Maybe a Minick 100h.
On the bass side, an Olds P24g, Conn 62h TIS and Holton 180, or one of the classic singles (169, 185) updated as a double.
I would probably bring back a 6h or 48/38h variant, Martin Urbie model, and maybe 32h with a wider slide. Maybe a Minick 100h.
On the bass side, an Olds P24g, Conn 62h TIS and Holton 180, or one of the classic singles (169, 185) updated as a double.
- Elow
- Posts: 1924
- Joined: Mar 02, 2020
I would really like another minick bell, but a little heavier. My bell is pretty light, like really light and i would love to try a heavier option.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
I think the premise is neat, but do we want them to be built by the modern company or by the original craftsmen?
I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.
Same thing with the Bach 12, 34, 40, 45, 46.
I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.
Same thing with the Bach 12, 34, 40, 45, 46.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.[/quote]
I think Christian sounds incredible on that album… but the horn doesn’t make a sound without the player…
I think Christian sounds incredible on that album… but the horn doesn’t make a sound without the player…
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="Kbiggs"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="164564" time="1638677529" user_id="3642">
Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.[/quote]
I think Christian sounds incredible on that album… but the horn doesn’t make a sound without the player…
</QUOTE>
Ah, yeah but those first few albums, including the Romantic Trombone Concertos one, were on that Minick and the sound was really special. On the latter albums it was the same guy practicing probably even more, but with a different setup (yellow 88H and then the sterling bell) and he sounded terrific but it was a different sound fun those first albums. I'm sure the mouthpiece change made a big difference too.
Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.[/quote]
I think Christian sounds incredible on that album… but the horn doesn’t make a sound without the player…
</QUOTE>
Ah, yeah but those first few albums, including the Romantic Trombone Concertos one, were on that Minick and the sound was really special. On the latter albums it was the same guy practicing probably even more, but with a different setup (yellow 88H and then the sterling bell) and he sounded terrific but it was a different sound fun those first albums. I'm sure the mouthpiece change made a big difference too.
- ithinknot
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Jul 24, 2020
[quote="hyperbolica"]Martin Urbie model[/quote]
Yes. I can understand commercially why it went - too many C-S lines, and by the turn of the millenium maybe the UG name wasn't quite as much of a draw, with younger customers preferring to invest in Beanie Babies and cursor trails - but that was a really well thought-out design.
I played one back to back with a variety of Kings a few weeks ago, and the sound had shockingly more depth and complexity, especially given how light it is. Super even response, perhaps a little tight overall for my tastes, but great high slots, and the thoughtful details - chromed neckpipe, no trim ring on the upper slide outer to remind you to only put cork in the lower barrel so you can't directly smack yourself in the teeth, etc.
Maybe the sound isn't for everyone, but it feels like an instrument that Conn, King and Bach people could all pick up and not immediately hate.
I mean, you can still get a Conn 100H, however much a betrayal of the original that is or isn't. Briefly tried a recent Elkhart one. It felt cheap and bad, and only the latter was true.
Yes. I can understand commercially why it went - too many C-S lines, and by the turn of the millenium maybe the UG name wasn't quite as much of a draw, with younger customers preferring to invest in Beanie Babies and cursor trails - but that was a really well thought-out design.
I played one back to back with a variety of Kings a few weeks ago, and the sound had shockingly more depth and complexity, especially given how light it is. Super even response, perhaps a little tight overall for my tastes, but great high slots, and the thoughtful details - chromed neckpipe, no trim ring on the upper slide outer to remind you to only put cork in the lower barrel so you can't directly smack yourself in the teeth, etc.
Maybe the sound isn't for everyone, but it feels like an instrument that Conn, King and Bach people could all pick up and not immediately hate.
Maybe a Minick 100h.
I mean, you can still get a Conn 100H, however much a betrayal of the original that is or isn't. Briefly tried a recent Elkhart one. It felt cheap and bad, and only the latter was true.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
Revive? Find in mint condition somewhere is more like. If so a few Holton 185s, another sterling 2B, and an Elkhart 88H.
- chromebone
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Apr 08, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.[/quote]
I have a Minick similar to Christian’s made a few years before his. It’s basically an 88h with a beryllium bell spun on an 88h mandrel. It has a very dense sound compared to a regular 88h along the lines of sterling silver. It’s a great horn, ideal for solo work, it’s hard to get it to blend in a section.
I have a Minick similar to Christian’s made a few years before his. It’s basically an 88h with a beryllium bell spun on an 88h mandrel. It has a very dense sound compared to a regular 88h along the lines of sterling silver. It’s a great horn, ideal for solo work, it’s hard to get it to blend in a section.
- Jimkinkella
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
TIS horns with modern materials and techniques are pretty awesome, some more standard options for that would be great.
- MrHCinDE
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Jul 01, 2018
I saw a couple of mentions of large tenor and bass Holtons already, maybe one or two small bore Holtons also? There’s not much on the market, other than from boutique makers, in the sub-0.500” range. Perhaps there’s a very small gap in the market for someone?
- spencercarran
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Oct 17, 2020
There are so many cool old horns that I wish still existed, perhaps with updated tech (new Holton-style basses with better valves and less clunky linkages, please and thanks).
I feel like several makers have put modern spins on the vintage 62H design. How much of that old magic they successfully capture is a matter of opinion.
I feel like several makers have put modern spins on the vintage 62H design. How much of that old magic they successfully capture is a matter of opinion.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Just one?
You all know I'm going to say 72H, but I'm going to say it anyway.
72H. Both single and indy.
You all know I'm going to say 72H, but I'm going to say it anyway.
72H. Both single and indy.
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Finetales"]Just one?
You all know I'm going to say 72H, but I'm going to say it anyway.
72H. Both single and indy.[/quote]
I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:
You all know I'm going to say 72H, but I'm going to say it anyway.
72H. Both single and indy.[/quote]
I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Posaunus"]<QUOTE author="Finetales" post_id="164724" time="1638817426" user_id="136">
Just one?
You all know I'm going to say 72H, but I'm going to say it anyway.
72H. Both single and indy.[/quote]
I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:
</QUOTE>
Seems like it's mainly the valve wrap. 72h is more 88h-ish, and 71h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve. If that makes sense.
Just one?
You all know I'm going to say 72H, but I'm going to say it anyway.
72H. Both single and indy.[/quote]
I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:
</QUOTE>
Seems like it's mainly the valve wrap. 72h is more 88h-ish, and 71h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve. If that makes sense.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Posaunus"]I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:[/quote]
There's been a couple of threads on that semi-recently. As far as I remember, the main difference is the wrap as mentioned. Maybe the leadpipe?
All I know is, the 71H I briefly owned was a dog. Every 72H I've played has been awesome.
[quote="hyperbolica"]72h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve.[/quote]
60H!
There's been a couple of threads on that semi-recently. As far as I remember, the main difference is the wrap as mentioned. Maybe the leadpipe?
All I know is, the 71H I briefly owned was a dog. Every 72H I've played has been awesome.
[quote="hyperbolica"]72h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve.[/quote]
60H!
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Finetales"]<QUOTE author="hyperbolica" post_id="164741" time="1638827325" user_id="104">
71h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve.[/quote]
60H!
</QUOTE>
Yes, of course!
71h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve.[/quote]
60H!
</QUOTE>
Yes, of course!
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="Posaunus" post_id="164740" time="1638826889" user_id="158">
I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:[/quote]
Seems like it's mainly the valve wrap. 72h is more 88h-ish, and 71h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve. If that makes sense.
</QUOTE>
Ah, got it. Thanks. The 72H does have a rather 88H wrap. Found photos:
71H: https://cderksen.home.xs4all.nl/Conn71H1970image.html
72H: https://cderksen.home.xs4all.nl/Conn72HC1964image.html
I have a 71H, which I like a lot, but I've never seen a 72H. What's the difference between the two? :idk:[/quote]
Seems like it's mainly the valve wrap. 72h is more 88h-ish, and 71h is more... 50h ish, or like a 62h without the second valve. If that makes sense.
</QUOTE>
Ah, got it. Thanks. The 72H does have a rather 88H wrap. Found photos:
71H: https://cderksen.home.xs4all.nl/Conn71H1970image.html
72H: https://cderksen.home.xs4all.nl/Conn72HC1964image.html
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Finetales"]... the 71H I briefly owned was a dog. Every 72H I've played has been awesome.[/quote]
Well, I'm happy with my (Elkhart, 1969) 71H (just as I suppose some dog owners are happy with their ugly mutts), but I've never tried a 72H - and I'm a doubler, not a bass trombonist, so I'll live with what I've got.
Well, I'm happy with my (Elkhart, 1969) 71H (just as I suppose some dog owners are happy with their ugly mutts), but I've never tried a 72H - and I'm a doubler, not a bass trombonist, so I'll live with what I've got.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Posaunus"]Well, I'm happy with my (Elkhart, 1969) 71H (just as I suppose some dog owners are happy with their ugly mutts), but I've never tried a 72H - and I'm a doubler, not a bass trombonist, so I'll live with what I've got.[/quote]
I'm sure yours is a much better instrument than mine was!
I'm sure yours is a much better instrument than mine was!
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="WGWTR180"]Revive? Find in mint condition somewhere is more like. If so a few Holton 185s, another sterling 2B, and an Elkhart 88H.[/quote]
It’s getting harder to find any of these old desirable horns in playable condition anymore, let alone mint. And if they are in good to excellent condition, they often sell at a premium.
It’s getting harder to find any of these old desirable horns in playable condition anymore, let alone mint. And if they are in good to excellent condition, they often sell at a premium.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="Kbiggs"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="164596" time="1638717943" user_id="7573">
Revive? Find in mint condition somewhere is more like. If so a few Holton 185s, another sterling 2B, and an Elkhart 88H.[/quote]
It’s getting harder to find any of these old desirable horns in playable condition anymore, let alone mint. And if they are in good to excellent condition, they often sell at a premium.
</QUOTE>
Very true. I think my only point was that if I had a choice I'd love for some of the original models to "appear from space" rather than play an a maker's attempt to revive an older instrument.
Revive? Find in mint condition somewhere is more like. If so a few Holton 185s, another sterling 2B, and an Elkhart 88H.[/quote]
It’s getting harder to find any of these old desirable horns in playable condition anymore, let alone mint. And if they are in good to excellent condition, they often sell at a premium.
</QUOTE>
Very true. I think my only point was that if I had a choice I'd love for some of the original models to "appear from space" rather than play an a maker's attempt to revive an older instrument.
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="Kbiggs" post_id="164815" time="1638897599" user_id="172">
It’s getting harder to find any of these old desirable horns in playable condition anymore, let alone mint. And if they are in good to excellent condition, they often sell at a premium.[/quote]
Very true. I think my only point was that if I had a choice I'd love for some of the original models to "appear from space" rather than play an a maker's attempt to revive an older instrument.
</QUOTE>
Some, like the 62h, Holton 180 and the Duo Gravis, you would probably want them to reappear with split levers. Or some of the single valve basses you might want a plugin valve.
It’s getting harder to find any of these old desirable horns in playable condition anymore, let alone mint. And if they are in good to excellent condition, they often sell at a premium.[/quote]
Very true. I think my only point was that if I had a choice I'd love for some of the original models to "appear from space" rather than play an a maker's attempt to revive an older instrument.
</QUOTE>
Some, like the 62h, Holton 180 and the Duo Gravis, you would probably want them to reappear with split levers. Or some of the single valve basses you might want a plugin valve.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="164826" time="1638902857" user_id="7573">
Very true. I think my only point was that if I had a choice I'd love for some of the original models to "appear from space" rather than play an a maker's attempt to revive an older instrument.[/quote]
Some, like the 62h, Holton 180 and the Duo Gravis, you would probably want them to reappear with split levers. Or some of the single valve basses you might want a plugin valve.
</QUOTE>
100% YES!!!
Very true. I think my only point was that if I had a choice I'd love for some of the original models to "appear from space" rather than play an a maker's attempt to revive an older instrument.[/quote]
Some, like the 62h, Holton 180 and the Duo Gravis, you would probably want them to reappear with split levers. Or some of the single valve basses you might want a plugin valve.
</QUOTE>
100% YES!!!
- DougHulme
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Apr 27, 2018
Duo Gravis but with already split triggers and an F trigger that is really comfortable!... Doug
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="DougHulme"]Duo Gravis but with already split triggers and an F trigger that is really comfortable!... Doug[/quote]
What if (like me) you found the original setup of the F trigger comfortable?
What if (like me) you found the original setup of the F trigger comfortable?
- u_2bobone
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Mar 25, 2018
How about manufacturing the King Duo Gravis exactly like George McCracken designed it ?
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="2bobone"]How about manufacturing the King Duo Gravis exactly like George McCracken designed it ?[/quote]
With split triggers, sure!
With split triggers, sure!
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="2bobone"]That is not the way that George McCracken designed it ![/quote]
Then that's a hard pass, haha
Then that's a hard pass, haha
- bassclef
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="2bobone" post_id="164907" time="1638995908" user_id="185">
That is not the way that George McCracken designed it ![/quote]
Then that's a hard pass, haha
</QUOTE>
I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.
And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.
It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.
That is not the way that George McCracken designed it ![/quote]
Then that's a hard pass, haha
</QUOTE>
I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.
And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.
It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Bach5G"]Strap to hold it. Teflon tape for mpc.[/quote]
Lots of extra work for a design that should be good in the first place!
Lots of extra work for a design that should be good in the first place!
- bassclef
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Bach5G"]Strap to hold it. Teflon tape for mpc.[/quote]
Yeah, I spent some time with a couple different strap options. Comfort level increased, but unfortunately didn't solve the problem of where my hand contacts the brace making the horn jump around when using the thumb trigger.
I know teflon tape works, but I don't like messing with it. If that was the only issue, I would have however. I also picked up a NOS 6B slide from the Eastlake factory several years ago to see if an unmolested receiver would get along better with the standard Morse taper shank, but no - it didn't. I was able to acquire a couple Benge bass mouthpieces which fit perfectly...but sadly, I wasn't a good match for them either.
Yeah, I spent some time with a couple different strap options. Comfort level increased, but unfortunately didn't solve the problem of where my hand contacts the brace making the horn jump around when using the thumb trigger.
I know teflon tape works, but I don't like messing with it. If that was the only issue, I would have however. I also picked up a NOS 6B slide from the Eastlake factory several years ago to see if an unmolested receiver would get along better with the standard Morse taper shank, but no - it didn't. I was able to acquire a couple Benge bass mouthpieces which fit perfectly...but sadly, I wasn't a good match for them either.
- JohnL
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="bassclef"]Yeah, I spent some time with a couple different strap options. Comfort level increased, but unfortunately didn't solve the problem of where my hand contacts the brace making the horn jump around when using the thumb trigger.[/quote]
Move the brace.
Not a simple mod, but there's techs that can do it. If you truly love the sound of a DG, it might be worth the effort.
Move the brace.
Not a simple mod, but there's techs that can do it. If you truly love the sound of a DG, it might be worth the effort.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="2bobone"]That is not the way that George McCracken designed it ![/quote]
The linkage and paddles have zero effect on how a horn plays, so it's not affecting the design at all. Also, if George McCracken designed the Duo Gravis today, you can bet it would have split triggers. Progress.
The linkage and paddles have zero effect on how a horn plays, so it's not affecting the design at all. Also, if George McCracken designed the Duo Gravis today, you can bet it would have split triggers. Progress.
- u_2bobone
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Mar 25, 2018
When you take a musical instrument [the bass trombone] that is well known for causing physical distress among its practitioners, it seems that a design that removes one of the strongest fingers from its role in supporting the instrument and re-assigning it to a non-supporting role undermines any design's legitimacy. This is especially true when other practical methods are available. I once owned a Holton 169 with the "Glantz" trigger setup. People who never owned one nor have ever even seen one have given it a bad rap because of something they heard, but not from personal experience. It worked well once you learned what was required to use it effectively. Note the considerable interest on TTF in items such as the Ax Handle, ErgoBone, Neotech Support, Rath Support, Hagmann Support, Curtis Support, and the Yeo grip. Am I missing something here or are instruments simply too damned heavy for the average person to support without the use of one of these cleverly designed aids ? I've mentioned before how the toll of this overburdening weight can end a playing career. Ask me how I know. To make the proclamation that "split" triggers are the only or the best or the most progressive way to solve the problem misses the fact that the Glantz setup and the Duo Gravis "stacked" trigger setup are used by many players with great satisfaction. And those players appreciate the careful design towards a specific aim that are incorporated into the instruments they cherish. I maintain that the advent of split triggers has caused far more damage to their players that any other arrangement with which I've been acquainted. I now own a carbon fiber Butler C12 with a weight about half that of other instruments I've owned. I wish I'd owned one 20 years ago ! It does have a split trigger arrangement, but with such a light weight to manage, the split trigger arrangement poses no problem. So, there you have it ---- either a lighter burden or a firmer grip.
If any tenor players read this and have complaints about supporting their instruments, as I know many do, I ask them to weep for their brethren, the BASS trombonists [especially if they are saddled with split triggers].
If any tenor players read this and have complaints about supporting their instruments, as I know many do, I ask them to weep for their brethren, the BASS trombonists [especially if they are saddled with split triggers].
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="2bobone"]Note the considerable interest on TTF in items such as the Ax Handle, ErgoBone, Neotech Support, Rath Support, Hagmann Support, Curtis Support, and the Yeo grip. Am I missing something here or are instruments simply too damned heavy for the average person to support without the use of one of these cleverly designed aids ?[/quote]
I'd say that we're lucky those things came around. Old horns are no easier to hold up, even if they are slightly lighter on average. The least ergonomic instruments I've ever used were a 70H, a Duo Gravis (unmodified), and an Olds S-22.
Celebrate the grip aids and the advances in ergonomics!
I'd say that we're lucky those things came around. Old horns are no easier to hold up, even if they are slightly lighter on average. The least ergonomic instruments I've ever used were a 70H, a Duo Gravis (unmodified), and an Olds S-22.
Celebrate the grip aids and the advances in ergonomics!
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="2bobone"]When you take a musical instrument [the bass trombone] that is well known for causing physical distress among its practitioners,...[/quote]
One of my biggest complaints about doubling on bass has been the weight. I've got a neck injury which mainly affects my left arm, and holding up a horn for more than 5 minutes at a time is a painful chore.
I tried an original DG, and just could not get the hang of the double thumb lever thing. I've always wanted to try a glantz bar, but never have. As a bit of an outsider, I think the split levers come from some of the added dexterity you need to jump in and out of the second trigger, and the ability to use it independent of the F trigger. The other mechanisms might have been ok for dependent horns, but not so much for independent. Bass bone parts in the last 60 years I think require a lot more traffic in the single and double valve ranges, and with independent setups becoming dominant, more people are using that second valve independently of the first. I can't imagine trying to use the saxophone-ish roller setup on an original 62h to do that kind of playing. A DG double thumb thing was very awkward and required a double jointed thumb. A glantz bar with a slider on the bar might work.
As far as using the middle finger to hold up the horn, yeah, losing the strength of that finger just to press a lever now and then seems crazy, and is really why all of those grip gadgets had to be invented. Or you could look at it another way, all of those grip gadgets freed up the middle finger for second valve lever duty.
One of my biggest complaints about doubling on bass has been the weight. I've got a neck injury which mainly affects my left arm, and holding up a horn for more than 5 minutes at a time is a painful chore.
I tried an original DG, and just could not get the hang of the double thumb lever thing. I've always wanted to try a glantz bar, but never have. As a bit of an outsider, I think the split levers come from some of the added dexterity you need to jump in and out of the second trigger, and the ability to use it independent of the F trigger. The other mechanisms might have been ok for dependent horns, but not so much for independent. Bass bone parts in the last 60 years I think require a lot more traffic in the single and double valve ranges, and with independent setups becoming dominant, more people are using that second valve independently of the first. I can't imagine trying to use the saxophone-ish roller setup on an original 62h to do that kind of playing. A DG double thumb thing was very awkward and required a double jointed thumb. A glantz bar with a slider on the bar might work.
As far as using the middle finger to hold up the horn, yeah, losing the strength of that finger just to press a lever now and then seems crazy, and is really why all of those grip gadgets had to be invented. Or you could look at it another way, all of those grip gadgets freed up the middle finger for second valve lever duty.
- Finetales
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
As someone who's spent time on split triggers, the Duo Gravis, and a Holton with a Glantz bar, the idea that split triggers are the worst setup of those options is...unique. To say the least.
Are split triggers perfect? Oh, definitely not. But there's a very good reason that all modern bass trombones are made that way (and why many older instruments are converted). I think it's fair to postulate that the manufacturers, and the vast majority of players, aren't wrong.
Are split triggers perfect? Oh, definitely not. But there's a very good reason that all modern bass trombones are made that way (and why many older instruments are converted). I think it's fair to postulate that the manufacturers, and the vast majority of players, aren't wrong.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
One other solution to the double valve was having the two valves side-by-side (facing each other). In one iteration the 2nd valve actually pressed the 1st, which pretty much requires its use being dependent. In another version there were rollers to facilitate moving from one valve to the other or both. This particular setup never caught on.
There was also a special setup called the Haynor Grip where you placed the instrument across your palm and the two paddles were on opposite sides of the neckpipe operated by your thumb and as many of your fingers as you wished. The Haynor grip was in theory a good idea, but the left hand position tended to create problems of its own.
There was also a special setup called the Haynor Grip where you placed the instrument across your palm and the two paddles were on opposite sides of the neckpipe operated by your thumb and as many of your fingers as you wished. The Haynor grip was in theory a good idea, but the left hand position tended to create problems of its own.
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
All this conversation about the bad ergonomics, weight, and discomfort of double-valve bass trombones sure makes me (an aging, sore-shouldered trombonist) glad that I have stuck with a single-valve bass trombone. I like it a lot, and may actually be able to play it for several more years before I hang up all my trombones. ;)
- hornbuilder
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: May 02, 2018
Bass Trombonists have evolved their technique far beyond anything possible with either the Glantz bar, or the duo-gravis levers. Dependant double basses are "much" more nimble with split levers than either of those other systems.
- spencercarran
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Oct 17, 2020
[quote="2bobone"]When you take a musical instrument [the bass trombone] that is well known for causing physical distress among its practitioners, it seems that a design that removes one of the strongest fingers from its role in supporting the instrument and re-assigning it to a non-supporting role undermines any design's legitimacy. This is especially true when other practical methods are available. I once owned a Holton 169 with the "Glantz" trigger setup. People who never owned one nor have ever even seen one have given it a bad rap because of something they heard, but not from personal experience. It worked well once you learned what was required to use it effectively.[/quote]
Not speaking from anything I heard, but from personal experience with the Glantz bar that came on my 180. It's an awful, nearly unusable system that forces the thumb out at a painful angle. I have nerve damage in my left ulnar which specifically affects the pinky and ring fingers, and I would still prefer the additional stress put on those fingers by holding a split trigger bass with no grip aid over returning to Glantz.
Not speaking from anything I heard, but from personal experience with the Glantz bar that came on my 180. It's an awful, nearly unusable system that forces the thumb out at a painful angle. I have nerve damage in my left ulnar which specifically affects the pinky and ring fingers, and I would still prefer the additional stress put on those fingers by holding a split trigger bass with no grip aid over returning to Glantz.
- u_2bobone
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Mar 25, 2018
"I have nerve damage in my left ulnar which specifically affects the pinky and ring fingers, and I would still prefer the additional stress put on those fingers by holding a split trigger bass with no grip aid over returning to Glantz."
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why they make chocolate AND vanilla !
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why they make chocolate AND vanilla !
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="2bobone"]
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why they make chocolate AND vanilla ![/quote]
I’ll take a 6B with a Giddings Chocolatero mouthpiece. Oh, and could I have side of Glantz bar, please? I believe it will pair well with the espresso leather grips.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why they make chocolate AND vanilla ![/quote]
I’ll take a 6B with a Giddings Chocolatero mouthpiece. Oh, and could I have side of Glantz bar, please? I believe it will pair well with the espresso leather grips.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="2bobone"]When you take a musical instrument [the bass trombone] that is well known for causing physical distress among its practitioners, it seems that a design that removes one of the strongest fingers from its role in supporting the instrument and re-assigning it to a non-supporting role undermines any design's legitimacy. This is especially true when other practical methods are available. I once owned a Holton 169 with the "Glantz" trigger setup. People who never owned one nor have ever even seen one have given it a bad rap because of something they heard, but not from personal experience. It worked well once you learned what was required to use it effectively. Note the considerable interest on TTF in items such as the Ax Handle, ErgoBone, Neotech Support, Rath Support, Hagmann Support, Curtis Support, and the Yeo grip. Am I missing something here or are instruments simply too damned heavy for the average person to support without the use of one of these cleverly designed aids ? I've mentioned before how the toll of this overburdening weight can end a playing career. Ask me how I know. To make the proclamation that "split" triggers are the only or the best or the most progressive way to solve the problem misses the fact that the Glantz setup and the Duo Gravis "stacked" trigger setup are used by many players with great satisfaction. And those players appreciate the careful design towards a specific aim that are incorporated into the instruments they cherish. I maintain that the advent of split triggers has caused far more damage to their players that any other arrangement with which I've been acquainted. I now own a carbon fiber Butler C12 with a weight about half that of other instruments I've owned. I wish I'd owned one 20 years ago ! It does have a split trigger arrangement, but with such a light weight to manage, the split trigger arrangement poses no problem. So, there you have it ---- either a lighter burden or a firmer grip.
If any tenor players read this and have complaints about supporting their instruments, as I know many do, I ask them to weep for their brethren, the BASS trombonists [especially if they are saddled with split triggers].[/quote]
As someone who owns 2 Tr 180s that had Glantz bars I CAN tell you from personal experience that it killed me to play them . My split triggers cause no problem at all and I've never had an issue holding the instruments. Also owned a Sterling Silver Duo Gravis and a yellow brass version. My issue was reaching around the main crossbar to play. Got rid of them.
Maybe I'm lucky that I've had zero issues. Maybe something else. But for me the Glantz Bars ended up in the spare parts bin many moons ago.
If any tenor players read this and have complaints about supporting their instruments, as I know many do, I ask them to weep for their brethren, the BASS trombonists [especially if they are saddled with split triggers].[/quote]
As someone who owns 2 Tr 180s that had Glantz bars I CAN tell you from personal experience that it killed me to play them . My split triggers cause no problem at all and I've never had an issue holding the instruments. Also owned a Sterling Silver Duo Gravis and a yellow brass version. My issue was reaching around the main crossbar to play. Got rid of them.
Maybe I'm lucky that I've had zero issues. Maybe something else. But for me the Glantz Bars ended up in the spare parts bin many moons ago.
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
I've played side by side levers, Glantz bar and split levers and was happy with all. That's just me over 51 years and I am very lucky. I spent the last 6 months using a single and wondered it I could go back to a double....I have and it's fine , but the change of balance did cause a temporary reaction....not the weight but the balance . As a result I think I will rebuild my single to fit better with my double....another valve should do it <EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI>
- SwissTbone
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="blast"]I've played side by side levers, Glantz bar and split levers and was happy with all. That's just me over 51 years and I am very lucky. I spent the last 6 months using a single and wondered it I could go back to a double....I have and it's fine , but the change of balance did cause a temporary reaction....not the weight but the balance . As a result I think I will rebuild my single to fit better with my double....another valve should do it <EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI>[/quote]
Interesting and completely off topic, but I am making the same experience as you right now!
I have a Hagmann custom bass trombone with a single and a double valve set. So it's really nice to be able to just swap the valve section and still have the "same" trombone. Have been on the single for some weeks now and I really love it. It won't be easy going back to the double valve set...
Interesting and completely off topic, but I am making the same experience as you right now!
I have a Hagmann custom bass trombone with a single and a double valve set. So it's really nice to be able to just swap the valve section and still have the "same" trombone. Have been on the single for some weeks now and I really love it. It won't be easy going back to the double valve set...
- Dennis
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Finetales"]The linkage and paddles have zero effect on how a horn plays, so it's not affecting the design at all. Also, if George McCracken designed the Duo Gravis today, you can bet it would have split triggers. Progress.[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. Alan Raph was H.N. White and McCracken's design consultant on the DG. The trigger system was designed for Alan Raph's hand, and he wanted the triggers stacked that way. It was intended to make getting from F to D easier than it was on the side-by-side with the sax-rollers triggers that Bach and Conn were using at that time. (Holton had switched to the Glantz bar for the TR180.) Going from Bb to D was okay (managed by linking the triggers so that the D trigger also engaged the F valve. Getting from F to D without blipping the F valve was more difficult. Raph's solution works well for that problem. I don't think it works as well as splitting the triggers to thumb and finger does, myself. But it's definitely easier than it was on the Bach and Conn doubles of the era.
I think it would all depend on how Alan Raph felt about the set-up. The fact that he played the DG for the remainder without having the triggers split says something about how he felt about it.
Maybe, maybe not. Alan Raph was H.N. White and McCracken's design consultant on the DG. The trigger system was designed for Alan Raph's hand, and he wanted the triggers stacked that way. It was intended to make getting from F to D easier than it was on the side-by-side with the sax-rollers triggers that Bach and Conn were using at that time. (Holton had switched to the Glantz bar for the TR180.) Going from Bb to D was okay (managed by linking the triggers so that the D trigger also engaged the F valve. Getting from F to D without blipping the F valve was more difficult. Raph's solution works well for that problem. I don't think it works as well as splitting the triggers to thumb and finger does, myself. But it's definitely easier than it was on the Bach and Conn doubles of the era.
I think it would all depend on how Alan Raph felt about the set-up. The fact that he played the DG for the remainder without having the triggers split says something about how he felt about it.
- hornbuilder
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: May 02, 2018
Yes. It suited "him". But that doesn't mean it suits everybody else.
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="LIBrassCo"]I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.[/quote]
Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time. :)
Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time. :)
- chromebone
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Apr 08, 2018
The levers on early double valve bass trombones were products of the way bass trombone was approached when they were designed; most, if not all, bass trombonists in the ‘60’s and early ‘70’s had started on single valve instruments, the second valve was simply there to facilitate a B natural without a slide pull and an occasional range extender. To that end, the second valve wasn’t used nearly as much as contemporary players, the occasional use of the DG, Sax key, or Glantz bar probably wasn’t too much of an inconvenience at the time to players who mostly played the f attachment and wanted something close to the ergonomics of a single valve instrument.
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="LIBrassCo" post_id="165205" time="1639224416" user_id="4931">
I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.[/quote]
Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time. :)
</QUOTE>
Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.
I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.[/quote]
Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time. :)
</QUOTE>
Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
I'm not sure I like the idea of printing a reinforced plastic. The reinforcing parts are supposed to be long fibers to add strength and you can't push those through a narrow printing nozzle. And extruding such a material will make a one-dimensional strength.
How about a Kevlar (polyimide) fiber reinforced bell? It's also pretty light weight, and very strong. And its natural yellow color would look more like brass.
How about a Kevlar (polyimide) fiber reinforced bell? It's also pretty light weight, and very strong. And its natural yellow color would look more like brass.
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
[quote="BGuttman"]I'm not sure I like the idea of printing a reinforced plastic. The reinforcing parts are supposed to be long fibers to add strength and you can't push those through a narrow printing nozzle. And extruding such a material will make a one-dimensional strength.
How about a Kevlar (polyimide) fiber reinforced bell? It's also pretty light weight, and very strong. And its natural yellow color would look more like brass.[/quote]
The high end machines allow for continuous fiber, and kevlar can easily be added into the mix. The part thickness appears to be the largest hurdle.
How about a Kevlar (polyimide) fiber reinforced bell? It's also pretty light weight, and very strong. And its natural yellow color would look more like brass.[/quote]
The high end machines allow for continuous fiber, and kevlar can easily be added into the mix. The part thickness appears to be the largest hurdle.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="LIBrassCo"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="165210" time="1639227918" user_id="7573">
Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time. :)[/quote]
Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.
</QUOTE>
Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that. :good:
Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time. :)[/quote]
Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.
</QUOTE>
Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that. :good:
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="LIBrassCo" post_id="165272" time="1639310229" user_id="4931">
Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.[/quote]
Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that. :good:
</QUOTE>
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.
Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.[/quote]
Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that. :good:
</QUOTE>
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.
If so, then why are those Indian trombones so awful? Brass is brass, no?
Well, no. Brass properties can be modified by working the brass. Sometimes for the better but often for the worse. And trace elements, too low to be measured by things like X-Ray Fluorescence, can also modify the crystal structure -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
Big problem for making brass instruments is that a brass instrument manufacturer buys such small quantities that the foundries won't make customized alloys. So we are at the mercy of whatever they choose to make.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="LIBrassCo"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="165281" time="1639316347" user_id="7573">
Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that. :good:[/quote]
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.
</QUOTE>
Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done. :good:
Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that. :good:[/quote]
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.
</QUOTE>
Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done. :good:
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="LIBrassCo" post_id="165287" time="1639321187" user_id="4931">
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.[/quote]
Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done. :good:
</QUOTE>
I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.
This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.[/quote]
Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done. :good:
</QUOTE>
I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="LIBrassCo"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="165293" time="1639326479" user_id="7573">
Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done. :good:[/quote]
I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.
</QUOTE>
The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models
We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better
Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done. :good:[/quote]
I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.
</QUOTE>
The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models
We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="LIBrassCo" post_id="165294" time="1639327230" user_id="4931">
I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.[/quote]
The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models
We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better
</QUOTE>
<EMOJI seq="1f914" tseq="1f914">🤔</EMOJI> reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.
I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.[/quote]
The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models
We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better
</QUOTE>
<EMOJI seq="1f914" tseq="1f914">🤔</EMOJI> reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="LIBrassCo"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="165297" time="1639328543" user_id="7573">
The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models
We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better[/quote]
<EMOJI seq="1f914" tseq="1f914">🤔</EMOJI> reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.
</QUOTE>
#donewithyou
The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models
We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better[/quote]
<EMOJI seq="1f914" tseq="1f914">🤔</EMOJI> reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.
</QUOTE>
#donewithyou
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
F
- LIBrassCo
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Feb 24, 2019
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="LIBrassCo" post_id="165298" time="1639329984" user_id="4931">
<EMOJI seq="1f914" tseq="1f914">🤔</EMOJI> reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.[/quote]
#donewithyou
</QUOTE>
<EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>
<EMOJI seq="1f914" tseq="1f914">🤔</EMOJI> reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.[/quote]
#donewithyou
</QUOTE>
<EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>
- spencercarran
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Oct 17, 2020
[quote="BGuttman"]<QUOTE>This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.[/quote]
If so, then why are those Indian trombones so awful? Brass is brass, no?
Well, no. Brass properties can be modified by working the brass. Sometimes for the better but often for the worse. And trace elements, too low to be measured by things like X-Ray Fluorescence, can also modify the crystal structure -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
Big problem for making brass instruments is that a brass instrument manufacturer buys such small quantities that the foundries won't make customized alloys. So we are at the mercy of whatever they choose to make.
</QUOTE>
I'm sure at some point subpar materials impact playing performance, but I seriously doubt that there was anything magic about the mostly standard brass alloys that mid-20th century makers used. It's probably not meaningfully different from the metals still in use by any reputable-adjacent maker today.
Not sure about the trombones, but the Indian euphoniums I've seen are just the wrong shape, and usually look to have been assembled incorrectly. They'd play badly no matter what they were made of.
If so, then why are those Indian trombones so awful? Brass is brass, no?
Well, no. Brass properties can be modified by working the brass. Sometimes for the better but often for the worse. And trace elements, too low to be measured by things like X-Ray Fluorescence, can also modify the crystal structure -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
Big problem for making brass instruments is that a brass instrument manufacturer buys such small quantities that the foundries won't make customized alloys. So we are at the mercy of whatever they choose to make.
</QUOTE>
I'm sure at some point subpar materials impact playing performance, but I seriously doubt that there was anything magic about the mostly standard brass alloys that mid-20th century makers used. It's probably not meaningfully different from the metals still in use by any reputable-adjacent maker today.
Not sure about the trombones, but the Indian euphoniums I've seen are just the wrong shape, and usually look to have been assembled incorrectly. They'd play badly no matter what they were made of.
- sf105
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.[/quote]
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="sf105"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="164563" time="1638677125" user_id="3131">
I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.[/quote]
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S
</QUOTE>
I'd love to. I wonder if he has it at Brassark, I'll have to ask.
I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.[/quote]
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S
</QUOTE>
I'd love to. I wonder if he has it at Brassark, I'll have to ask.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="sf105"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="164563" time="1638677125" user_id="3131">
I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.[/quote]
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S
</QUOTE>
The first thing to update would be that name.
"You wanna buy a Fuchs-tribute?"
[size=200]<EMOJI seq="1f90c" tseq="1f90c">🤌</EMOJI>
Even better when they are out of stock.
"I don't even have a single Fuchs to give you"
But only of the single trigger model...
"How about a double F--"
I'll show myself out.
I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.[/quote]
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S
</QUOTE>
The first thing to update would be that name.
"You wanna buy a Fuchs-tribute?"
Even better when they are out of stock.
"I don't even have a single Fuchs to give you"
But only of the single trigger model...
"How about a double F--"
I'll show myself out.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="sf105" post_id="165413" time="1639437552" user_id="173">
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S[/quote]
The first thing to update would be that name.
"You wanna buy a Fuchs-tribute?"
[size=200]<EMOJI seq="1f90c" tseq="1f90c">🤌</EMOJI>
Even better when they are out of stock.
"I don't even have a single Fuchs to give you"
But only of the single trigger model...
"How about a double F--"
I'll show myself out.
</QUOTE>
You forgot plug-in <EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>
Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?
S[/quote]
The first thing to update would be that name.
"You wanna buy a Fuchs-tribute?"
Even better when they are out of stock.
"I don't even have a single Fuchs to give you"
But only of the single trigger model...
"How about a double F--"
I'll show myself out.
</QUOTE>
You forgot plug-in <EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>
- imsevimse
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: Apr 29, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.[/quote]
He has a very good sound on that first record.
When it comes to "reviving old models" I think it is not necessary. Just search ebay and you can find one, and it plays well as it has ever played. Slide? Yes, the slide can be a problem but with Yamaha-snot most slides becomes good.
The old horns are good, they do not need to be rebuilt. The 6h was very good horn and so was the 70h but time change and studio musicians apparently want something else now. If you play live without mic the needs are not the same. There are few live gigs (over here) but then a 6h is great, but so is a Yamaha 891Z
/Tom
He has a very good sound on that first record.
When it comes to "reviving old models" I think it is not necessary. Just search ebay and you can find one, and it plays well as it has ever played. Slide? Yes, the slide can be a problem but with Yamaha-snot most slides becomes good.
The old horns are good, they do not need to be rebuilt. The 6h was very good horn and so was the 70h but time change and studio musicians apparently want something else now. If you play live without mic the needs are not the same. There are few live gigs (over here) but then a 6h is great, but so is a Yamaha 891Z
/Tom
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="imsevimse"]The old horns are good, they do not need to be rebuilt. The 6h was very good horn and so was the 70h but time change and studio musicians apparently want something else now. If you play live without mic the needs are not the same. There are few live gigs (over here) but then a 6h is great, but so is a Yamaha 891Z
/Tom[/quote]
We're not all lucky enough to have an old 62h or 70h or NY50. Some of us will never see original horns like this if they aren't reproduced some how.
/Tom[/quote]
We're not all lucky enough to have an old 62h or 70h or NY50. Some of us will never see original horns like this if they aren't reproduced some how.
- ithinknot
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Jul 24, 2020
[quote="hyperbolica"]We're not all lucky enough to have an old 62h or 70h or NY50. Some of us will never see original horns like this if they aren't reproduced some how.[/quote]
... except the reproductions will cost ≥ the original even in these examples, so that's not really the issue. It's a fun question, but it's more emotional than practical. There's plenty of brass manufacturing competence out there, and if someone thought there was a market they'd have done it already.
Lots of people seem to want a Duo Gravis, and (/yet) there are always lots of them for sale. It's almost like there are enough.
... except the reproductions will cost ≥ the original even in these examples, so that's not really the issue. It's a fun question, but it's more emotional than practical. There's plenty of brass manufacturing competence out there, and if someone thought there was a market they'd have done it already.
Lots of people seem to want a Duo Gravis, and (/yet) there are always lots of them for sale. It's almost like there are enough.
- drbucher
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Feb 16, 2022
I have a Holton TR-156 dual- bore 0.547"/0.559". Tapping the bell with a mouthpiece yields a rather limited lower-pitched "tungg", which I suspect reflects a heavier gauge to give Jay Friedman the serious projection he needed in the Chicago Symphony. Tapping on my Conn 88H or on a Bach 42B seems to yield a higher-pitched "tingg", perhaps reflecting a lighter gauge.
- Macbone1
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Oct 01, 2019
Do the Olds Super and Recording with wider slides and NORMAL sized mouthpiece receivers! Same goes for Featherweight, Ambassador and Superstar. Enlarge and open up those F atch wraps too!
Olds Opera - also do a normal size receiver and more comfortable trigger design. Still using bell brace grip but more comfortably. Change ALL the rotary valves so the spring is back on the outside. So basically, reopen the Olds factory and do it right this time, LOL. So maybe this isn't reviving so much as reinventing....
Olds Opera - also do a normal size receiver and more comfortable trigger design. Still using bell brace grip but more comfortably. Change ALL the rotary valves so the spring is back on the outside. So basically, reopen the Olds factory and do it right this time, LOL. So maybe this isn't reviving so much as reinventing....
- d00n
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Jul 29, 2021
[quote="JoeAumann"]An effective and great playing version of the Bach 45B.[/quote]
Not sure how well known this is, but 45 bells were (seldom) made somewhere around the 90s/00s. I don't have a lot of knowledge surrounding the newer 45 bells, but I remember seeing a 45/46 bell with a date stamped on it- November 24 1999 if I recall correctly. I assume that date was when the bell was spun.
The horn that bell was on was (in my opinion) quite a bit more interesting than the bell itself. The valve section was a Miller valve with a birdsnest rotor, and the slide an LT50 with a yellow crook. It was on Josh Landress' website for quite a while, but it seems to have been sold and the listing taken down. Pretty sure it was one of Jay Friedman's horns. I would've loved to have tried it, and I was in NYC when it was still listed, but sadly never set aside the time to go to the shop and play it. Such a goofy horn... I wonder if anyone on the forum has it.
I think bringing back the 45B would make for a great doubling bass for a tenor player, but I think both Conn-Selmer and I know that not a lot of people would go out and buy them.
Not sure how well known this is, but 45 bells were (seldom) made somewhere around the 90s/00s. I don't have a lot of knowledge surrounding the newer 45 bells, but I remember seeing a 45/46 bell with a date stamped on it- November 24 1999 if I recall correctly. I assume that date was when the bell was spun.
The horn that bell was on was (in my opinion) quite a bit more interesting than the bell itself. The valve section was a Miller valve with a birdsnest rotor, and the slide an LT50 with a yellow crook. It was on Josh Landress' website for quite a while, but it seems to have been sold and the listing taken down. Pretty sure it was one of Jay Friedman's horns. I would've loved to have tried it, and I was in NYC when it was still listed, but sadly never set aside the time to go to the shop and play it. Such a goofy horn... I wonder if anyone on the forum has it.
I think bringing back the 45B would make for a great doubling bass for a tenor player, but I think both Conn-Selmer and I know that not a lot of people would go out and buy them.
- octavposaune
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Jul 04, 2018
Hi,
Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor than a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 in the CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.
Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"
I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!
Benn
Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor than a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 in the CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.
Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"
I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!
Benn
- d00n
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Jul 29, 2021
[quote="octavposaune"]Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like.[/quote]
Ah, I didn't realize that. Just goes to show how little I know about the horn!
Ah, I didn't realize that. Just goes to show how little I know about the horn!
- TomRiker
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Jul 14, 2020
[quote="octavposaune"]Hi,
Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor that a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 thr CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.
Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"
I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!
Benn[/quote]
Where do the dimensions of tuning slides of the Bach 45 and 46 sit in terms of the 36/42 tuning slide vs. the 50 tuning slide?
Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor that a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 thr CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.
Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"
I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!
Benn[/quote]
Where do the dimensions of tuning slides of the Bach 45 and 46 sit in terms of the 36/42 tuning slide vs. the 50 tuning slide?
- octavposaune
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Jul 04, 2018
Bach 45s have nearly the same internal tuning slide dimensions as a 36/42, its not exactly the same, but close. Also 45s tuning crooks are bent to a wide span, the same center to center span as a 50B.
Benn
Benn
- elmsandr
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="TomRiker"]<QUOTE author="octavposaune" post_id="171741" time="1645060704" user_id="3487">
Hi,
Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor that a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 thr CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.
Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"
I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!
Benn[/quote]
Where do the dimensions of tuning slides of the Bach 45 and 46 sit in terms of the 36/42 tuning slide vs. the 50 tuning slide?
</QUOTE>
Benn answered it basically, but a few minor details for those that care. The small side is a 50B part. Ferrules and inner/outer. The tuning slide bow has a really ugly feature; flared out to fit the ferrule for a 50B small inner slide. The large side and ferrules are unique parts to the 45, between the 42 and 50. I corrected that flare on one of mine; but I also reversed the tuning slide to fit the valve sections I use.
*I* like a 45 as a small bass; often paired with one of my .562 slides... but it isn't for everybody. They are squirrely; the intonation is just goofy, and the sound can be thin for a bass. But when it works...
Still looking for the right gigs to play my straight 45, rarely seem to have a concert where all the rep works.
Cheers,
Andy
Hi,
Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor that a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 thr CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.
Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"
I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!
Benn[/quote]
Where do the dimensions of tuning slides of the Bach 45 and 46 sit in terms of the 36/42 tuning slide vs. the 50 tuning slide?
</QUOTE>
Benn answered it basically, but a few minor details for those that care. The small side is a 50B part. Ferrules and inner/outer. The tuning slide bow has a really ugly feature; flared out to fit the ferrule for a 50B small inner slide. The large side and ferrules are unique parts to the 45, between the 42 and 50. I corrected that flare on one of mine; but I also reversed the tuning slide to fit the valve sections I use.
*I* like a 45 as a small bass; often paired with one of my .562 slides... but it isn't for everybody. They are squirrely; the intonation is just goofy, and the sound can be thin for a bass. But when it works...
Still looking for the right gigs to play my straight 45, rarely seem to have a concert where all the rep works.
Cheers,
Andy
- bellend
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.
And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.
It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.
I had a later red brass bell 6B Duo Gravis and had exactly the same problem as yourself .
I had the main stay moved back so that the newly split triggers sat in front of it so alleviating the pressure on my thumb.
It was a relatively straight forward thing to do if you got a tech who is willing hacksaw off the main stay at the bottom then clean it up re silver solder it back in the new position. There is a small amount of adjustment to the flange at the bell end to get it to sit snugly again.
If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion
BellEnd
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
I wonder how much different that would be compared to a Shires which the 9" Chicago style bell and an "X" tuning slide. Obviously, the slide would be narrower since the 45 has the same span as the 50, but maybe close?
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="bellend"]<QUOTE>
I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.
And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.
It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.[/quote]
I had a later red brass bell 6B Duo Gravis and had exactly the same problem as yourself .
I had the main stay moved back so that the newly split triggers sat in front of it so alleviating the pressure on my thumb.
It was a relatively straight forward thing to do if you got a tech who is willing hacksaw off the main stay at the bottom then clean it up re silver solder it back in the new position. There is a small amount of adjustment to the flange at the bell end to get it to sit snugly again.
If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion
BellEnd
</QUOTE>
I wish I had known about this when I played my SS Duo Gravis(#4). Had to sell because my left thumb was toast. Should've kept the instrument anyway.
I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.
And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.
It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.[/quote]
I had a later red brass bell 6B Duo Gravis and had exactly the same problem as yourself .
I had the main stay moved back so that the newly split triggers sat in front of it so alleviating the pressure on my thumb.
It was a relatively straight forward thing to do if you got a tech who is willing hacksaw off the main stay at the bottom then clean it up re silver solder it back in the new position. There is a small amount of adjustment to the flange at the bell end to get it to sit snugly again.
If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion
BellEnd
</QUOTE>
I wish I had known about this when I played my SS Duo Gravis(#4). Had to sell because my left thumb was toast. Should've kept the instrument anyway.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]I wonder how much different that would be compared to a Shires which the 9" Chicago style bell and an "X" tuning slide. Obviously, the slide would be narrower since the 45 has the same span as the 50, but maybe close?[/quote]
A 45? Totally different.
A 45? Totally different.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
What would be the difference, the bell itself being larger, right? I know I had a Holton 9" of some variety awhile ago that was a great tenor bell but wholly unsatisfactory as a bass and the rest of the configuration was otherwise similar to that so it makes sense.
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion
BellEnd
That’s odd. Perhaps that’s a design for for dependent set-ups. I’ve played dependents in the past, but not regularly, and it’s been a long time since I played one.
My independents are set up so that the rotors turn in the same direction—when looking at the stop arm, they turn clockwise. When the second rotor (G, Gb, Eb, D, etc.) turns opposite to the first rotor (counter-clockwise, or anti-clockwise for those of you across the pond), it creates a pop that makes valve slurs/legato almost impossible.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]What would be the difference, the bell itself being larger, right? I know I had a Holton 9" of some variety awhile ago that was a great tenor bell but wholly unsatisfactory as a bass and the rest of the configuration was otherwise similar to that so it makes sense.[/quote]
It's like wondering why an 88H won't sound like a 42- it's a totally different taper and dimensions.
I've played Benn's 45, which currently is using an A47 tuning slide and 42 ish chassis, with a couple different slides. Even with a 42 slide and all those other tenor dimensions, it sounds nothing like a 42. Larger, more baritone-singer like sound. That's all exacerbated with a real 45 slide, much less the real tuning slide.
It's like wondering why an 88H won't sound like a 42- it's a totally different taper and dimensions.
I've played Benn's 45, which currently is using an A47 tuning slide and 42 ish chassis, with a couple different slides. Even with a 42 slide and all those other tenor dimensions, it sounds nothing like a 42. Larger, more baritone-singer like sound. That's all exacerbated with a real 45 slide, much less the real tuning slide.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
I mean, that's why I was asking. Obviously, the 88 is wholly different, and clearly the 42 bell is also different. But I was wondering if the primary difference is just the extra width in the tuning slide, which would explain some of the aforementioned wonky tuning and might also be... maybe half(?) of the reason a 45 sounds/plays the way it does or if that was a minor difference because the 45 bell is radically different than a 42. Reason I picked the Chicago bell was, first that I misremembered it as a 9" rather than an 8.5" so I thought it might be closer to a 45 bell but it look slike its just a variation of the 42 bell specifically. Since Shires tuning slide receivers are already a little bigger than Bach, well, maybe the tuning slide was already closer than the 42. Sounds like the 45 bell makes up much, if not most, of that difference though, rather than just the tuning slide.
- elmsandr
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]I mean, that's why I was asking. Obviously, the 88 is wholly different, and clearly the 42 bell is also different. But I was wondering if the primary difference is just the extra width in the tuning slide, which would explain some of the aforementioned wonky tuning and might also be... maybe half(?) of the reason a 45 sounds/plays the way it does or if that was a minor difference because the 45 bell is radically different than a 42. Reason I picked the Chicago bell was, first that I misremembered it as a 9" rather than an 8.5" so I thought it might be closer to a 45 bell but it look slike its just a variation of the 42 bell specifically. Since Shires tuning slide receivers are already a little bigger than Bach, well, maybe the tuning slide was already closer than the 42. Sounds like the 45 bell makes up much, if not most, of that difference though, rather than just the tuning slide.[/quote]
The final diameter is probably the least significant dimension to compare. The whole taper is different.
A K bell/5B bell is probably closer, but I haven't touched one of those in forever, so I do not know.
And Aiden... according to the shop cards, the single bore 45 slide uses the same leadpipe as the 42. So I don't know about a "real" 45 slide. (That said, my NY and Mt.V 45 slides feel like they blow bigger than my Mt V. 42 slide... but I have no dimensional measurements to compare them; and both these Mt. Vs are post shop card era to compare builds).
Cheers,
Andy
The final diameter is probably the least significant dimension to compare. The whole taper is different.
A K bell/5B bell is probably closer, but I haven't touched one of those in forever, so I do not know.
And Aiden... according to the shop cards, the single bore 45 slide uses the same leadpipe as the 42. So I don't know about a "real" 45 slide. (That said, my NY and Mt.V 45 slides feel like they blow bigger than my Mt V. 42 slide... but I have no dimensional measurements to compare them; and both these Mt. Vs are post shop card era to compare builds).
Cheers,
Andy
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
Yeah, I mean that makes total sense. Just with Bach's proclivity to borrow parts, like in this case perhaps even the leadpipe, I could conceive of a scenario where the 45 bell would be the same as the 42 bell but for that extra .5" and then they make a custom tuning slide and solder it all together. Evidently not so much.
I'm planning out my next projects and one of them is something between the large bore tenor and bass I have. Haven't totally conceived exactly what it will be yet. I might end up getting an 88HK or 5B bell since you can get those a pretty good price direct from CS, snce the odds of me getting my hands on a 45 bell are probably not so high
I'm planning out my next projects and one of them is something between the large bore tenor and bass I have. Haven't totally conceived exactly what it will be yet. I might end up getting an 88HK or 5B bell since you can get those a pretty good price direct from CS, snce the odds of me getting my hands on a 45 bell are probably not so high