Handslide length

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2023-06-14 10:01 a.m.

I'd love to hear people's experiences comparing handslides of different lengths.

My Shires bass trombone slides are a little shorter overall than my Bach slides, and I recently took a look at a Greenhoe that is shorter still. It seems Edwards made the newer B502 slides a bit longer than their other options. On my Shires set-ups I do not have a fully usable 7th position (I play first position off the bumper). On my Bach I do.

I know that Shires has made longer handslides available as a custom option, and I know some players (Jim Nova, for example) who swear by them, but I can't recall doing an all-else-equal comparison when I was there.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2023-06-14 11:50 a.m.

Lucky for you, I have too many slides and I have them on hangers.

Here we have (L-R) Edwards, Bach, Bach, Shires:

Here we have (L-R) strange reverse slide, Edwards, Shires, Bach, Bach. Strangely the Edwards and Shires here are very similar lengths.

I like shorter slides on basses because it gives me more tuning room on Bach bell sections- my monster bass is cut down a significant amount and (at last testing) too long to play up to pitch with a 50 slide. I need to check again, though, because this nickel 50 is calling my name. Shires does seem like a nice middle ground.

On some Edwards that are worn out, 7th position is not even close to existing due to the leaking and short design. I had one like this for a while.

Thrawn22 · by **Thrawn22** » 2023-06-14 11:51 a.m.

Comparing all of my different Conn model slides, I'm still confused as to why the 78H slides are so long and wide? They're almost 2 inches longer than my 8H/88H slides and almost as long as my 71H slide.

Crazy4Tbone86 · by **Crazy4Tbone86** » 2023-06-14 11:57 a.m.

I love long slides, mostly because they usually have smoother 7th positions. At least that is my perception. All of my Bachs and my Conn 72H have very smooth slide action down through 7th position. When I play my Edwards and Yamaha horns, I am a bit more cautious in the outer positions because they start to pivot slightly in (what I consider) normal 7th position.

I do have one trombone in which the slide is definitely too long. It is my 1980s Holton TR-256 (.547-.559 dual bore with screw bell). When I converted it to modular bell section (added a Benge 190 valve and custom F wrap), I decided to trim the main tuning slide about 3/8 inch so it wasn’t flat with my larger mouthpieces. The slide on that horn is about 3/4 inch longer than my Bach 42 and 50 slides, even longer than my Conn 72H. Sure, I can play a low C in trigger 7.5 perfectly in tune, but the ergonomics on that horn are just too front heavy…….even with F attachment + balance weights at the far back end of the F tubing. Someday I am going to rebuild that horn because it has a beautiful sound…..just need to shorten the slide a bit and replace the tuning slide legs with ones that are normal length.

Crazy4Tbone86 · by **Crazy4Tbone86** » 2023-06-14 12:00 p.m.

[quote="Thrawn22"]Comparing all of my different Conn model slides, I'm still confused as to why the 78H slides are so long and wide? They're almost 2 inches longer than my 8H/88H slides and almost as long as my 71H slide.[/quote]

The fact that the 78H slide crook is wider than 8H and 88H slide crook has been baffling people for decades!

MrHCinDE · by **MrHCinDE** » 2023-06-14 12:37 p.m.

I prefer the standard length Edwards over the slightly longer Bach 42 slides for large bore tenor. The reason is simple, I often play in groups which tune to 442Hz or even 443. I can just about get there on a Bach slide but doesn’t leave much room for when the trumpets inevitably drift even higher.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2023-06-14 1:20 p.m.

[quote="Crazy4Tbone86"]I love long slides, mostly because they usually have smoother 7th positions. At least that is my perception. All of my Bachs and my Conn 72H have very smooth slide action down through 7th position.[/quote]

I really like the (somewhat longer?) slide on my Conn 71H, which has a smooth 7th position, and I can stretch it to play an in-tune low C.

(Could probably play a good low B if I pulled the extension on the F-attachment, but I almost never encounter these, so I don't bother.)

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2023-06-14 3:50 p.m.

If I could have a 72H-length slide (and matching shorter bell section) on all of my trombones, I would. Love that extra room for a real low C in long 7th.

I just got an old G bass trombone and that slide has 7.5 positions or so...guess I'm just drawn to extra-long slides. :idk:

CalgaryTbone · by **CalgaryTbone** » 2023-06-14 4:14 p.m.

Two of my colleagues here in Calgary both bought Shires large tenors at about the same time. One of them was having an issue getting his new horn up to pitch, and the other had his tuning slide out quite a bit to be at A440. They discovered that one of them had the longer slide from Shires. The slides were otherwise identical, and both were new, so they traded - problem solved.

Jim Scott

Thrawn22 · by **Thrawn22** » 2023-06-14 9:46 p.m.

[quote="Crazy4Tbone86"]<QUOTE author="Thrawn22" post_id="212573" time="1686757882" user_id="3709">
Comparing all of my different Conn model slides, I'm still confused as to why the 78H slides are so long and wide? They're almost 2 inches longer than my 8H/88H slides and almost as long as my 71H slide.[/quote]

The fact that the 78H slide crook is wider than 8H and 88H slide crook has been baffling people for decades!
</QUOTE>

Tuning crook width is baffling as well.

Kevbach33 · by **Kevbach33** » 2023-06-18 2:10 a.m.

The short slide is the only quibble I have with the Getzen, especially as one who uses alternate positions frequently. It's just so smooth that I'm not going to worry about getting a longer slide build for it for the time being.

I think small bore tenors and altos — or any trombones without a valve — need a solid 7th position since there are no substitute positions in the lower partials. Low C's are common enough that single valve basses also need a solid 7 positions plus a little extra room, something Conn nailed with the 7xH basses.

greenbean · by **greenbean** » 2023-06-18 2:45 a.m.

Right down to the bottom of the bumper...

King 3B 31 ½”

King 5B 32 ¼”

King 7B 32 ½”

King 1480/1485 32 ½”

Bach corp 42 33”

Yamaha 882 32”

Holton TR185 32 ½”

Getzen 351 31 ¼”

Conn 6H (1967) 31 ¼”

Conn 71H 33 ¼”

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2023-06-18 4:43 a.m.

If you're not just worried about whether something fits in a case, the only useful dimension is the length of the outer tubes, which defines the usable extension of the slide.

The distance 'lost' above the cork barrel varies considerably, and single vs dual radius crooks will naturally stick out more or less, but not in a way that tells you anything about 7th position.

greenbean · by **greenbean** » 2023-06-18 11:34 a.m.

Exactly right. Mine measurements were total length (and width) for making slide cases. A player can play low-C's all day but the slide might still not fit in the case!

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-18 5:26 p.m.

It's the length of the inner tubes that determines the maximum extension before too much of (one of) the stockings is exposed. [The outer tubes are not always the same length—e.g. the Conn alto.]

Seventh position on a Bb trombone is at an extension of 613 mm. F-attachment sixth position would require an extension of 661 mm. A normal tenor slide can be over-extended to about 620 mm, before leaking or almost falling off. At that extension, the F-attachment Cs are still 27¢ sharp and require some embouchure adjustment—most obvious on the fourth harmonic C3. [An F trombone B1 requires an extension of 818 mm. So players who routinely (and convincingly) play this note on an F attachment (with a standard tenor slide) are doing a lot of "embouchure adjustment"!]

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-18 6:50 p.m.

But what length is a "normal" tenor slide?? Or bass slide?? There is no "normal". Is Bach normal? Conn? Holton?

An instrument designer either incorporates the idea of "the player needs to be able to play an in tune low C", or they don't.

afugate · by **afugate** » 2023-06-18 8:47 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]But what length is a "normal" tenor slide?? Or bass slide?? There is no "normal". Is Bach normal? Conn? Holton?

An instrument designer either incorporates the idea of "the player needs to be able to play an in tune low C", or they don't.[/quote]

In general, what does an instrument designer sacrifice when designing a horn to have an in tune low C?

--Andy in OKC

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2023-06-18 10:09 p.m.

[quote="afugate"]

In general, what does an instrument designer sacrifice when designing a horn to have an in tune low C?

--Andy in OKC[/quote]

Generally the longer handslide means that the portion behind the player is less and hence you lose balance (the instrument becomes nose-heavy). There may be acoustic effects, but I don't know of any off-hand.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2023-06-18 11:58 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]A normal tenor slide can be over-extended to about 620 mm, before leaking or almost falling off.[/quote]
I'm not sure there is a single "normal" tenor slide. They're all a bit different.

[An F trombone B1 requires an extension of 818 mm. So players who routinely (and convincingly) play this note on an F attachment (with a standard tenor slide) are doing a lot of "embouchure adjustment"!]

Or they are pulling their F-attachment slide out to E, so the B1 is in tune at T6. Not always convenient, but it works!

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2023-06-19 12:01 a.m.

[quote="Posaunus"]

Or they are pulling their F-attachment slide out to E, so the B1 is in tune at T6. Not always convenient, but it works![/quote]

Pulling to E on most horns (non-long-slide Conns) will not get you a B. It'll get you a C just past 6th. You need almost Eb to get a B near the end of the slide.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2023-06-19 12:13 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="Posaunus" post_id="212942" time="1687147118" user_id="158">

Or they are pulling their F-attachment slide out to E, so the B1 is in tune at T6. Not always convenient, but it works![/quote]

Pulling to E on most horns (non-long-slide Conns) will not get you a B. It'll get you a C just past 6th. You need almost Eb to get a B near the end of the slide.
</QUOTE>

Thank goodness for long-slide Conn trombones. Especially my 71H, though that's not a tenor. (But it's only bass trombone parts where I encounter the low B1s.)

hornbuilder · 2023-06-19 10:42 a.m.

Pulling to E on most horns (non-long-slide Conns) will not get you a B. It'll get you a C just past 6th. You need almost Eb to get a B near the end of the slide.

That is not quite the whole story.

The traditional wrap 88H has a full E pull, but, the handslide length is not quite long enough to get the pitch down far enough for a low B. In this case, the valve loop is long enough, but the handslide isn't.

A Bach on the other hand, has a long enough handslide, but the valve slide is not long enough to get to a real E. So in this case the valve loop isn't long enough, but the handslide is.

Again, the instrument designer has the decision to make. Do they want the horn to have an in tune low B? It is simple to make the handslide long enough to get a full 7th position, "and" make the F valve tuning slide long enough to get an actual E in first position. That is how I designed my single valve basses. I have no problem playing low B's in tune.

Regarding the front/back balance being thrown off, that just simply isn't true. If the instrument is designed correctly.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-19 10:55 a.m.

To answer Gabe.

There has been a choice by some makers to make the bell section longer (this may have been necessary due to the valve of choice taking up more straight line space on the gooseneck, for example, or, they wanted to incorporate more length of tube for the taper to occur in the bell section) this has required the handslide to become shorter, if the base pitch is to be correct.

I trim my own slide tubes, and can make a slide pretty much whatever length someone may want. (I may not practice enough to discern the difference, but) I do not really experience any significant playing difference between slides that may be 1/2 to 3/4" different in telescoping tube length. Other than having, or not, a full 7th position.

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2023-06-19 11:06 a.m.

Thanks Matthew, I was hoping you would chime in.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-19 11:33 a.m.

Something else to consider..

Many players find the standard Bach (even more so the older MV or NY instruments) to be flat, especially with the larger/deeper mouthpieces generally used for the last few decades.

Again, the instrument designer has a choice. Do you take base pitch into account?

Bach (perhaps?) did when they moved to Elkhart, by shortening the tuning slide tubes from the length they had been in NY/MV. But some players still need to remove length from factory Bach's to get them up to pitch.

Edwards chose to have longer gooseneck/bell sections on their newer models, which would play "very" flat if paired with a standard Bach slide (26 3/4" outer tube length) their handslides are shorter to accommodate the pitch required.

I'm speaking to bass trombones generally here, but it also applies to tenors.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2023-06-19 4:40 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Something else to consider..

Many players find the standard Bach (even more so the older MV or NY instruments) to be flat, especially with the larger/deeper mouthpieces generally used for the last few decades.

Again, the instrument designer has a choice. Do you take base pitch into account?

Bach (perhaps?) did when they moved to Elkhart, by shortening the tuning slide tubes from the length they had been in NY/MV. But some players still need to remove length from factory Bach's to get them up to pitch.

Edwards chose to have longer gooseneck/bell sections on their newer models, which would play "very" flat if paired with a standard Bach slide (26 3/4" outer tube length) their handslides are shorter to accommodate the pitch required.

I'm speaking to bass trombones generally here, but it also applies to tenors.[/quote]
It was significantly after the move to Elkhart that Bach shortened the tuning slide tubes, though still in the ‘corporation’ bell stamp era, so not too terribly long. Somewhere I still have a picture of various ages of Bach tuning slide tubes all lined up to show the change.

Even with the current factory length, I still have to play with a Shires/Edwards length slide in order to have the tuning slide pulled a reasonable amount. If I’m playing with a Bach slide, my tuning slide is usually close to entirely closed.

Cheers,

Andy

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2023-06-20 1:17 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]It's the length of the inner tubes that determines the maximum extension before too much of (one of) the stockings is exposed. [The outer tubes are not always the same length—e.g. the Conn alto.][/quote]

If one played mostly in the high range, you might be able to shorten the inner slide to 3rd or 4th position, but keep the outer slide the normal length, so the horn stayed pitched in Bb. You might need a trigger.

And then if you wanted it for a travel horn or pit horn, you could fold the outer slide into a quadra-slide looking shape, but still pitched in Bb. There's an old post here somewhere with a couple options for how to connect that up. Unlike a quadra-slide it would stay aligned.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-21 9:01 a.m.

Just to follow up on "E pull", "flat-E pull", and an Eb attachment, let me put some actual numbers on the slide lengths.

The following snippets of ETSP Charts show the range between Bb1 and F2 for:

(a) a standard F attachment

(b) the attachment tuning slide pulled to E

(c) the so-called "flat-E" pull (so that B1 sits at slide-alone seventh position), and

(d) an Eb attachment.

The numbers at the very top (and the vertical lines) show slide-alone reference positions—seventh position being at 613 mm.

With an F attachment, to be able to play an in-tune C2 (and its pedal), the slide would need to be long enough to extend to 661 mm, as shown in (a). The B1 is far away, at 818 mm.

As seen in (b), pulling the tuning slide to E (or inserting a separate crook) puts the C1 well on the slide, at 544 mm; but the B1 would require an extension to 701 mm. Contrary to "conventional wisdom", an E-pull does not put an in-tune B1 onto even a "long" slide!

The so-called "flat-E pull" (to put B1 on the slide, at 613 mm) is actually closer to Eb—29¢ sharper than an equitempered Eb, as seen in (c). In other words: a sharp-Eb pull.

Finally, (d) shows the slide positions for an in-tune Eb attachment. The B1 is now at 576 mm, 37 mm shorter than slide-alone seventh position.

.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-21 9:45 a.m.

Showing numbers and graphs is all good, but they only live in the theoretical world. Apparently my claiming something isn't good enough, so, as the saying goes "video or it didn't happen".

<YOUTUBE id="efOrONjJQjk">https://youtu.be/efOrONjJQjk</YOUTUBE>

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-21 10:35 a.m.

Thanks Matthew, that definitely proves your point. Can you estimate how much further out the E-attachment B1 is beyond the slide-alone seventh-position B2? How's the intonation of a B2 played at the same location as the B1?

hornbuilder · 2023-06-21 10:39 a.m.

B1 is maybe 1cm further out on the slide than 7th B2.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-21 10:44 a.m.

So my theoretical analysis has just gone buggerup!

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-21 10:55 a.m.

I have done a lot of theoretical figuring of instruments in my time. Only to find that in almost every single instance, what the theory says, and what the practical application shows, do not agree. <EMOJI seq="1f633" tseq="1f633">😳</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f937" tseq="1f937">🤷</EMOJI> I know that theory for cylindrical tube is good. As is theory for cones, but brass instruments are neither, and seem to have their own quirks unexplained (so far) by theory.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2023-06-21 2:31 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]I have done a lot of theoretical figuring of instruments in my time. Only to find that in almost every single instance, what the theory says, and what the practical application shows, do not agree. <EMOJI seq="1f633" tseq="1f633">😳</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f937" tseq="1f937">🤷</EMOJI> I know that theory for cylindrical tube is good. As is theory for cones, but brass instruments are neither, and seem to have their own quirks unexplained (so far) by theory.[/quote]

Thanks Matthew. I've always felt that I can get in "in-tune" C1 on my Conn 71H if I stretch my arms enough, and perhaps even on my Elkhart Conn 88H. I play the B1 (using the "flat-E" pull) so seldom that I'm not sure whether it's perfectly in tune. (But it's a pretty good approximation). Wish I had longer arms!

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2023-06-21 5:22 p.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="212923" time="1687123565" user_id="15151">
It's the length of the inner tubes that determines the maximum extension before too much of (one of) the stockings is exposed. [The outer tubes are not always the same length—e.g. the Conn alto.][/quote]

If one played mostly in the high range, you might be able to shorten the inner slide to 3rd or 4th position, but keep the outer slide the normal length, so the horn stayed pitched in Bb. You might need a trigger.

And then if you wanted it for a travel horn or pit horn, you could fold the outer slide into a quadra-slide looking shape, but still pitched in Bb. There's an old post here somewhere with a couple options for how to connect that up. Unlike a quadra-slide it would stay aligned.
</QUOTE>
I read this and thought… ooh that would be interesting to build…. Then I realized I have most of it already built, just not the folded slide built. I have my Eb tenor with a slide that is ~24” overall from tenon to rubber tip. And it is made from a Bach 42, so I could try it with a regular 42 outer, which I also have. Wonder what it will sound like…

Hadn’t considered this as a use for those parts.

Cheers,

Andy

Sesquitone · 2023-06-21 9:38 p.m.

At the risk of drifting into a discussion of short-slide configurations, let me draw your attention (again, in some cases) to a US patent in 1995 of a short-slide version of a Bb/G trombone, with the "missing" slide length made up in the bell section (giving a very comfortable weight distribution). This was intended as a professional trombone covering the standard tenor range continuously down to E2 (plus pedals)—actually, Eb, in this case. See attached ETSP Chart. It also makes an excellent student model for young students (with short arms). It thereby differs from the Holton Bb/G Collegiate student model developed in consultation with Mark McDunn, which had a full-length tenor slide. The instrument shown has six full positions in Bb—to allow for some additional low-register alternates; five positions in G. But the slide could be even shorter, without interrupting chromatic continuity. Of course, as many members here know, a single (thumb-trigger-actuated) minor-third attachment (on a tenor trombone) is far (far) superior to the perfect-fourth attachment in terms of facile slide manipulation in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register! Not even close!

The other tenor trombone I really like is pitched C/A with seven positions in C, six in A. This has the full tenor range down to E2, with two additional "bonus" pedals. The slide is 12% shorter than that of a Bb tenor. It makes a powerful professional lead instrument, paralleling the C trumpet often used in orchestras.

.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2023-06-22 8:46 a.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]<QUOTE author="timothy42b" post_id="213112" time="1687281454" user_id="211">

If one played mostly in the high range, you might be able to shorten the inner slide to 3rd or 4th position, but keep the outer slide the normal length, so the horn stayed pitched in Bb. You might need a trigger.

And then if you wanted it for a travel horn or pit horn, you could fold the outer slide into a quadra-slide looking shape, but still pitched in Bb. There's an old post here somewhere with a couple options for how to connect that up. Unlike a quadra-slide it would stay aligned.[/quote]
I read this and thought… ooh that would be interesting to build…. Then I realized I have most of it already built, just not the folded slide built. I have my Eb tenor with a slide that is ~24” overall from tenon to rubber tip. And it is made from a Bach 42, so I could try it with a regular 42 outer, which I also have. Wonder what it will sound like…

Hadn’t considered this as a use for those parts.

Cheers,

Andy
</QUOTE>

It would be interesting to know what it sounded like with the 42 slide. The quadras sounded a little stuffy to me, but then you have the inner slide folded too, with all the alignment difficulties. I never played one with an acceptable slide at the usual dealer booths.

Oh, and don't forget about the jazzbone configuration. Is he still around here?

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2023-06-22 9:25 a.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]Oh, and don't forget about the jazzbone configuration. Is he still around here?[/quote]
I found a tribute post to him on Facebook. Looks like he passed away back in 2019.

Doesn't look like Tromba is making the Jazzbone any more; it's still on their site, but I don't see anyone selling them.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-26 8:06 p.m.

Just a note supporting a simple-but-practical theory of brass instrument acoustics consisting of:

(a) a Full Harmonic Series (FHS) for a fixed sound-path length, based on modifications of the odd harmonics of a circular cylindrical pipe closed at one end, due to the effects of bell flare and mouthpiece/lead-pipe geometry,

and

(b) sound-path lengths for equitempered tones of a twelve-note chromatic scale based on a geometric series with a common ratio equal to the Twelfth-Root of Two (TRT).

This FHS/TRT theory predicts pitch frequencies and sound-path lengths that are generally within (plus or minus) a few cents and a few millimetres, respectively, of values found in practice.

For example, for a Bb trombone with an F attachment, the FHS/TRT theory predicts that C2 will be available at 48 mm beyond slide-alone seventh position—very close to the position usually used if the slide is long enough. If the slide cannot accommodate that much over-extension, an extension of only 10 mm beyond seventh position has a theoretical frequency 25 cents sharper than an equitempered C2. This is easily lipped down by embouchure adjustment to give a well-in-tune C2. A similar technique is used for the pedal C1.

For a Bb trombone with an attachment tuned to E (e.g. by pulling out the tuning slide of an F attachment), FHS/TRT theory predicts that B1 will be available at 88 mm beyond slide-alone seventh position. This is a very long over-extension, and usually not possible even on a "long" bass-trombone slide. If the slide can indeed be extended to 48 mm beyond seventh position, the theoretically predicted frequency is (by chance, also) 25 cents sharper than an equitempered B1—again, easily lipped down to an in-tune B1. An extension of only 10 mm beyond seventh position is almost exactly "half-way" (i.e. the geometric mean) between E-attachment theoretical positions for C2 and (what would be) B1, which, of course, produces a tone 50 cents sharper than the equitempered B1. To lip this down to a robust B1 requires a very strong and well-controlled embouchure (in addition to a "good ear", of course).

The straightforward FHS/TRT theory works well in predicting frequencies of the harmonics of brass instruments at any fixed sound-path length. And in predicting (and explaining) the sound-path length for any given tone (equitempered or not)—as seen, in particular, in the discussion of playing C2 on a Bb/F trombone. There does not seem to be any reason to doubt the theory's validity when applied to playing B1 when the attachment is re-tuned to E.

If a single-trigger continuously chromatic (bass) trombone is called for, the optimal ("canonical") tuning of the attachment is down a perfect fifth, for example Bb/Eb: the five fundamentals supplied by the attachment, Eb, D, Db, C, and B, just exactly fill in the five missing tones of the "tenor gap". Slide manipulation is no more awkward than that for a Bb tenor trombone (without attachment) in the low register. If the attachment is tuned 14 cents sharp, some handy attachment alternates are available from the attachment fifth harmonic.

.

.

.<ATTACHMENT filename="Backus , modified harmonics.png" index="2">~~[attachment=2]~~Backus , modified harmonics.png</ATTACHMENT><ATTACHMENT filename="The twelfth-root of 2.png" index="1">~~[attachment=1]~~The twelfth-root of 2.png</ATTACHMENT><ATTACHMENT filename="Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png</ATTACHMENT>

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-26 8:47 p.m.

I'm not lipping down the pitch of the low B in the video I posted. I think that is pretty obvious from the sound quality.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2023-06-26 8:57 p.m.

To be fair, that's flat ish E with a long slide.

hornbuilder · 2023-06-26 9:02 p.m.

Listen to the video again. The handslide is standard Bach length. ie 26 3/4" outer tubes.

One thing to note. Bach make their slides so that the outer tube does not go all the way to the top of the outer slide sleeve. This reduces the maximum possible extension of the slide. I make my slides with the outer tube going to the very top of the sleeve. Maximizing slide extension

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2023-06-26 9:03 p.m.

To my ears, sounds like the E through the valve is noticeably lower than the E on the slide. Not a big deal, but not an E you would probably want to play in 1st position either.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-26 9:11 p.m.

It is a different tone color. Because it is being played on a long tube. vs 2nd position. Just like that same E in 7th doesn't sound the same as the 2nd position note.I will play it again tomorrow with a tuner to confirm, but even if it is lower, it is microtones, if anything.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-26 9:39 p.m.

The simple fact is, that horn is a single valve bass trombone that has an absolutely usable low B. I have used it many times in ensembles playing repertoire that has low B's, with no hesitation.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-06-26 11:21 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]<ATTACHMENT filename="Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png</ATTACHMENT>[/quote]

Sorry, I just really like whatever this chart is. I'm not smart enough to decipher it, but I feel the need to see more of it.

Like this:

<ATTACHMENT filename="Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png</ATTACHMENT>

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-27 9:08 a.m.

The ETSP Chart for any kind of trombone, with or without attachment(s), is a very straightforward idea: a precise graphical portrayal of Equitempered Tones (vertical axis) against Slide Position (horizontal axis)—based on FHS/TRT theory, as described earlier.

In the first chart below for a Bb tenor trombone, available equitempered tones are shown by black dots. The heavy lines sloping down to the right connect all tones on a given harmonic. Vertical lines show each of the seven reference positions corresponding to the first, second, fourth, eighth and sixteenth harmonics. ET points on other harmonics do not fall exactly on these lines. Unlike conventional "position charts" (using staff notation), the ETSP Chart shows precise deviations. Horizontal lines represent each note of the chromatic scale, numbered above Bb1 at the right. At the left, lines of the treble and bass clefs have been shown so as to correlate with staff notation. Dashed lines connect ETSP points one whole-tone apart between adjacent harmonics. Semitone increments between adjacent harmonics are shown by light solid lines. Note how these sets of lines form similar patterns, one octave apart. The coloured regions are bounded by chromatic scales for shortest possible slide positions (orange) and longest possible positions (blue). In this way, available alternate positions can be seen at a glance—in the unshaded regions in between. Where the coloured regions touch, no alternates are available. The five-note tenor gap is quite obvious.

The second ETSP Chart is for a Bb (tenor or bass) trombone with an F attachment. Attachment ETSP points are shown by open circles. The relationship between attachment and slide-alone positions is precise—which is relevant to the current discussion (albeit for an E attachment, not shown here). [Lower portions of ETSP Charts for F, E, "flat-E" (actually, sharp-Eb), and Eb attachments were shown earlier.]

A similar chart for a "real" trombone played by a "real" person will differ slightly—but not (usually) by more than a few cents vertically or a few millimetres horizontally. Also relevant to the current discussion!

I have been using ETSP Charts for over 50 years; I'm so used to them that I've probably forgotten to explain some important points. Once you become familiar with them, their pedagogical (and practical) use becomes obvious. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

.
<ATTACHMENT filename="Bb Trombone ETSP Chart.jpg" index="1">~~[attachment=1]~~Bb Trombone ETSP Chart.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

hornbuilder · 2023-06-27 9:25 a.m.

Here's a question. Who are you? Where do you play? How many trombones have you designed and put into production in your life? All any of us know of you is your anonymous forum handle, and your listing as being a retired engineer and amateur trombonist.

Me?? I won my full time, permanent position of bass trombone with the Australian Opera a when I was 21. That was a 48 week professional orchestra job, which I occupied for 16 years. I list that in my signature.

I am a trained instrument technician.

I moved to the US 17 years ago to become involved in manufacture full time. I have been involved in design of trombones for several companies, including my own, M&W, and I have consulted with others. I have personally made many, many hundreds of top level professional trombones, many of which are played by the some of the finest players both in the US and overseas.

I have even posted a video showing that it is possible to make a single valve bass trombone that has a perfectly usable low B.

I even put my "real" name in my signature.

But none of that seems to matter because it hasn't been presented in graph form.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-06-27 9:27 a.m.

Yes! That's the stuff right there! ^

And here:

<ATTACHMENT filename="Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png</ATTACHMENT>

Mmmmm

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2023-06-27 10:40 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Here's a question. Who are you? Where do you play? How many trombones have you designed and put into production in your life? All any of us know of you is your anonymous forum handle, and your listing as being a retired engineer and amateur trombonist.

Me?? I won my full time, permanent position of bass trombone with the Australian Opera a when I was 21. That was a 48 week professional orchestra job, which I occupied for 16 years. I list that in my signature.

I am a trained instrument technician.

I moved to the US 17 years ago to become involved in manufacture full time. I have been involved in design of trombones for several companies, including my own, M&W, and I have consulted with others. I have personally made many, many hundreds of top level professional trombones, many of which are played by the some of the finest players both in the US and overseas.

I have even posted a video showing that it is possible to make a single valve bass trombone that has a perfectly usable low B.

I even put my "real" name in my signature.

But none of that seems to matter because it hasn't been presented in graph form.[/quote]
Matt,

Just to note here that we do ‘know’ Benny, as he’s had some history on this site, the previous site, and even the Trombone-L if I recall correctly. Just not in the handle or signature line.

Also, for design credentials, I seem to recall that he was involved in the development of the Caidex valve. What with fluid dynamics being his professional area of expertise…

But anyway, yes, you are darned near the only builder I’ve seen that notices how long the handslide AND F attachment slide both need to be to get a B. One of my few general design annoyances is really long F attachment tuning slides that do not actually provide functionality for that length (looking at you, every Thayer valve section ever designed).

Cheers,

Andy

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-27 11:49 a.m.

Thanks Andy.

It all makes sense now.

I've said all I need to say on this thread.

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2023-06-27 11:53 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]But none of that seems to matter because it hasn't been presented in graph form.[/quote]

Just add the guy to your foes list and remain blissfully graphless :good:

[quote="elmsandr"]But anyway, yes, you are darned near the only builder I’ve seen that notices how long the handslide AND F attachment slide both need to be to get a B. One of my few general design annoyances is really long F attachment tuning slides that do not actually provide functionality for that length (looking at you, every Thayer valve section ever designed).[/quote]

Yeah, never understood how regularly these things go wrong - the math isn't exactly complicated, with or without charts :?

The Thayer lengths must just have been a visual, force of habit thing? Or the legendary sharp-E pull, the stuff of campfire stories...

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2023-06-27 12:21 p.m.

A couple of things to consider about Ed Thayer and Thayer/axial flow valves:

Ed was a horn player

Ed was an engineer

The original design focused on reducing impedance and improving sound, not on maximizing tubing length to allow for low B

I’ve often wondered why the tubing of Thayer valves—the diameter of the crook, the length of the inner-outer telescoping tubing, and the length of the return tube—hasn’t been re-designed to allow for a low B. I know it’s not a simple thing. Tubing, bracing, tools and forms would need to be re-designed, techs and workers would need to be retrained, etc.

Back to handslides…

Sesquitone · 2023-06-27 12:24 p.m.

Hello, Matthew. At the outset, let me state that I am interested in constructive debate. There is clearly something going on here between "theory" and "practice" in this case. I admit that the FHS/TRT "theory" is over-simplified. Your video demo is quite convincing. It would be "constructive" to see if the differences between the two could be resolved—perhaps thereby improving the theory a bit.

If you do a Google search of "B P Leonard CFD" or "B P Leonard NVD" you'll find out a bit about what I have been doing over the past 50 years or so in my "day job" (now retired).

When I was a student in mechanical engineering at The University of Melbourne in the 1950s, I studied trombone with Dutchy Turner of the Melbourne ABC studio orchestra and played in the Melbourne Symphony Youth Orchestra (called the "Junior Symphony" then), in addition to a little Dixieland band called The South Street Stompers. When at Cornell University, studying aerospace engineering in the 1960s, I was invited to play in the Cornell Symphony Orchestra under Karel Husa. I took a few lessons with Henry Romersa, who had me acquire a Conn 88H. Among other things, Henry showed me the "E-pull" technique for reaching the B1, when necessary. This was my first experience with an "attachment trombone".

Frankly, I was not impressed with the stated "advantages" of the F attachment. So in 1960, being an inquisitive engineering student with a background in acoustics, I sat down with available "tools" (graph paper, slide rule and tables of logarithms) to figure out the the best (single-trigger) attachment tunings for two (separate) design criteria:

(i) chromatic sub-tenor extension continuously down to pedals (without regard to necessarily improving slide technique) and

(ii) enhanced slide facility using attachment alternates in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register (without necessarily extending far into the sub-tenor range).

The optimal design for the first criterion is essentially unique: the perfect-fifth attachment (Bb/Eb or C/F). The second turned out to be the minor-third tuning (Bb/G or C/A for tenor, Eb/C for alto). In 1961, Lloyd Fillio at the Bach/Selmer factory in Elkhart was kind enough to supply a Selmer (Paris) "Bolero" customised to Bb/G, which I played during my stay at Cornell.

In 1962, I attended a lecture/demonstration by Allen Ostrander at Ithaca College on the virtues of a second valve within the traditional F loop (of a bass trombone) as a quick-change mechanism to put the attachment in E. From my previous investigations (according to "theory") and my familiarity with mechanical linkages, I knew there were two things that could be improved:

(i) use Eb (or, preferably, D) for the additional loop, and

(ii) replace the awkward split-spatula thumb trigger by independently operated thumb and finger triggers.

My design would have the finger trigger operating the G attachment. Then it occurred to me that an independent valve, placed in-line along the gooseneck, would allow for more attachment alternates in the low register. The result was Bb/G(thumb)-E(finger)-D(double). The E is tuned 20¢ sharp giving a perfectly in-tune D double. Ten years later, when I was teaching Engineering Science at CUNY in New York, I had a proof-of-concept prototype constructed by converting my 88H to this tuning, customised at Giardinelli's famous shop. On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs. So, yes, I do have some experience at trombone design, being one of the early (independent) inventors of the independent dual-valve in-line geometry. My Bb/G-E-D Conn 88H was the first example (by many years) of a continuously chromatic in-line dual-valve tenor trombone.

In the 1990s, I worked closely with René Hagmann trying to discover why conventional attachments had typical "problems" that made professional players shy away from using a lot of attachment alternates. For example, flat a stuffy F2, sharp an uncentered C3, unreliable attack response. It turned out to be due to the conventional use of "oversized" attachment tubing in relation to the slide bore. With "matched bore" designs, we found that all these problems evaporated. I published an article in the Winter volume of the ITA Journal on this in 1999. Larger attachment bores can be used, but the transition between slide and valve/attachment must be very "smooth". An abrupt discontinuity (or little inadvertent "gaps" inside the slide-receiver between the slide and valve knuckle) can recreate such problems. René has had success with his "progressive-bore" design on his bass trombones—made possible because of the three-tube design of his valve.

More recently, I have been involved with valve design. In addition to the patented (all-caps) ULTRA valve—Unsymmetrical Lipped-Tube Rotary Actuator—I am the conceptual designer of the (all-caps) CAIDEX valve. [It's an acronym for Constant Area Internal Ducts of Elliptic Cross Section, with the CS replaced by X for easy pronunciation.] My co-designer, Dr Morteza Vatani, who graduated a few years ago from the graduate program in robotics at The University of Akron, where I used to teach, takes my rough sketches and produces beautiful computer codes for this compact rotary valve with amazingly small rotational inertia and friction. And individually adjustable bumper stops, with a see-through end cap (so that the player can check at a glance that the alignment is exact). And the valves are produced by Willson in Switzerland.

My hope is that more professional players will take up the minor-third tuning, making full use of the attachment alternates that mimic, in the otherwise awkward low register, the facile upper register; then, harmonics are separated by intervals of thirds and seconds throughout the complete practical range of the instrument.

Hopefully, we can amicably resolve some of the anomalies that have cropped up between "theory" and practice involving B1 with the E attachment. Perhaps improving both.

Benny Leonard

.

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2023-06-27 12:31 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]The original design focused on reducing impedance and improving sound, not on maximizing tubing length to allow for low B[/quote]

What I don't understand is the random excess pull (i.e. overlapping tube mass) that's still short of a useful flat-E for B pull. Not designing for a low B is a perfectly reasonable choice - most people don't care on tenor, and more or less nobody is playing a single valve Thayer bass - but then just make the slide legs shorter and lighter, as Shires does on the Curran section.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-27 12:38 p.m.

[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="Kbiggs" post_id="213657" time="1687882876" user_id="172">
The original design focused on reducing impedance and improving sound, not on maximizing tubing length to allow for low B[/quote]

What I don't understand is the random excess pull (i.e. overlapping tube mass) that's still short of a useful flat-E for B pull. Not designing for a low B is a perfectly reasonable choice - most people don't care on tenor, and more or less nobody is playing a single valve Thayer bass - but then just make the slide legs shorter and lighter, as Shires does on the Curran section.
</QUOTE>

Because the reduction in weight changes the way the horn plays. That change may be good, or not.

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2023-06-27 12:42 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]<QUOTE author="ithinknot" post_id="213659" time="1687883486" user_id="9763">

What I don't understand is the random excess pull (i.e. overlapping tube mass) that's still short of a useful flat-E for B pull. Not designing for a low B is a perfectly reasonable choice - most people don't care on tenor, and more or less nobody is playing a single valve Thayer bass - but then just make the slide legs shorter and lighter, as Shires does on the Curran section.[/quote]

Because the reduction in weight changes the way the horn plays. That change may be good, or not.
</QUOTE>

Exactly.

The origin of the lightweight axial section on the Curran model is that we had a request from Charlie Vernon to make a valve section for his NY Bach bell that was as light as possible, in order to help with hand strain. George happened to come to the factory while we had the prototype; he tried it and loved the way it responded for him, so that option was incorporated on his signature model.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2023-06-27 12:45 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Because the reduction in weight changes the way the horn plays. That change may be good, or not.[/quote] My Yamaha YBL-612 RII is almost a different horn with Eb crook installed instead of the D crook. It is quite a bit longer, also has a 6 inch long tuning slide built in so it weighs a lot more.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-27 1:39 p.m.

FWIW.

I made a single Thayer bass many years ago that had an in tune E pull. Again. No issues at all playing in tune Low B's.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-06-27 4:54 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs.[/quote]
A bit before my time, but I'm pretty sure Burt Herrick and Larry Minick were building independent bass trombones in the late 1960s.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-06-27 7:10 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]

Frankly, I was not impressed with the stated "advantages" of the F attachment. So in 1960, being an inquisitive engineering student with a background in acoustics, I sat down with available "tools" (graph paper, slide rule and tables of logarithms) to figure out the the best (single-trigger) attachment tunings for two (separate) design criteria:

(i) chromatic sub-tenor extension continuously down to pedals (without regard to necessarily improving slide technique) and

(ii) enhanced slide facility using attachment alternates in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register (without necessarily extending far into the sub-tenor range).

The optimal design for the first criterion is essentially unique: the perfect-fifth attachment (Bb/Eb or C/F). The second turned out to be the minor-third tuning (Bb/G or C/A for tenor, Eb/C for alto). In 1961, Lloyd Fillio at the Bach/Selmer factory in Elkhart was kind enough to supply a Selmer (Paris) "Bolero" customised to Bb/G, which I played during my stay at Cornell.

In 1962, I attended a lecture/demonstration by Allen Ostrander at Ithaca College on the virtues of a second valve within the traditional F loop (of a bass trombone) as a quick-change mechanism to put the attachment in E. From my previous investigations (according to "theory") and my familiarity with mechanical linkages, I knew there were two things that could be improved:

(i) use Eb (or, preferably, D) for the additional loop, and

(ii) replace the awkward split-spatula thumb trigger by independently operated thumb and finger triggers.

My design would have the finger trigger operating the G attachment. Then it occurred to me that an independent valve, placed in-line along the gooseneck, would allow for more attachment alternates in the low register. The result was Bb/G(thumb)-E(finger)-D(double). The E is tuned 19¢ sharp giving a perfectly in-tune D double. Ten years later, when I was teaching Engineering Science at CUNY in New York, I had a proof-of-concept prototype constructed by converting my 88H to this tuning, customised at Giardinelli's famous shop. On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs. So, yes, I do have some experience at trombone design, being one of the early (independent) inventors of the independent dual-valve in-line geometry. My Bb/G-E-D Conn 88H was the first example (by many years) of a continuously chromatic in-line dual-valve tenor trombone.

In the 1990s, I worked closely with René Hagmann trying to discover why conventional attachments had typical "problems" that made professional players shy away from using a lot of attachment alternates. For example, flat a stuffy F2, sharp an uncentered C3, unreliable attack response. It turned out to be due to the conventional use of "oversized" attachment tubing in relation to the slide bore. With "matched bore" designs, we found that all these problems evaporated. I published an article in the Winter volume of the ITA Journal on this in 1999. Larger attachment bores can be used, but the transition between slide and valve/attachment must be very "smooth". An abrupt discontinuity (or little inadvertent "gaps" inside the slide-receiver between the slide and valve knuckle) can recreate such problems. René has had success with his "progressive-bore" design on his bass trombones—made possible because of the three-tube design of his valve.

More recently, I have been involved with valve design. In addition to the patented (all-caps) ULTRA valve—Unsymmetrical Lipped-Tube Rotary Actuator—I am the conceptual designer of the (all-caps) CAIDEX valve. [It's an acronym for Constant Area Internal Ducts of Elliptic Cross Section, with the CS replaced by X for easy pronunciation.] My co-designer, Dr Morteza Vatani, who graduated a few years ago from the graduate program in robotics at The University of Akron, where I used to teach, takes my rough sketches and produces beautiful computer codes for this compact rotary valve with amazingly small rotational inertia and friction. And individually adjustable bumper stops, with a see-through end cap (so that the player can check at a glance that the alignment is exact). And the valves are produced by Willson in Switzerland.

My hope is that more professional players will take up the minor-third tuning, making full use of the attachment alternates that mimic, in the otherwise awkward low register, the facile upper register; then, harmonics are separated by intervals of thirds and seconds throughout the complete practical range of the instrument.

Benny Leonard

.[/quote]

This is pretty interesting. Are you saying that you came up with the idea for in-line independent valves for bass? Also good work on all those valve types.

I get, theoretically, why you like the E or Eb tuning on the attachment (for tenor trombone, I guess?) so that you can "easily" play in that low range with the B natural and a bit more facility. That said, I don't know of any repertoire where such an advantage would take the cake over an easy low F and C in first, and B and E in 2nd, etc. I think deep down, nobody wants to use 6th position unless they have to. Sure there are sadists and try-harders who want to look cool on a straight horn, but they are hidden somewhere deep in academia. F on modern horns sounds just as good in 1st as it does in 6th.

If you need such facility in the low register, the double plug bass gets you there, and then some. I'd say a modern bass has more facilty than a Bb/Eb trombone. I've seen a double plug 36B that would also get you there, but I'm not sure who is going to be playing extensively in difficult low register stuff on such a horn.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2023-06-27 7:18 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="213658" time="1687883041" user_id="15151">
On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs.[/quote]
A bit before my time, but I'm pretty sure Burt Herrick and Larry Minick were building independent bass trombones in the late 1960s.
</QUOTE>
George Strucel is the name I've always heard as being the first. On the old forum, there was some info, including a picture, of what was said to be the first inline double bass.

Of course, there were inline contras long before that...

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2023-06-27 7:32 p.m.

I'm just now realizing who Sesquitone is. I used to see him and talk to him at some of the ITF's way back when they were in Nashville. He knows what he's talking about. I'll let him answer your questions.

Oops, I didn't see so many answers happened earlier today.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-06-27 10:49 p.m.

[quote="JohnL"]

George Strucel is the name I've always heard as being the first. On the old forum, there was some info, including a picture, of what was said to be the first inline double bass.
[/quote]
I figured that was probably the case, but I couldn't find any references to it on the web, and I didn't want to speculate.

Olofson · by **Olofson** » 2023-06-28 9:25 a.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]<QUOTE author="JohnL" post_id="213699" time="1687907890" user_id="119">

George Strucel is the name I've always heard as being the first. On the old forum, there was some info, including a picture, of what was said to be the first inline double bass.
[/quote]
I figured that was probably the case, but I couldn't find any references to it on the web, and I didn't want to speculate.
</QUOTE>

Yes George Strucel made the first inline doublevalve bass trombone, the idea came from the new inline contrabasstrombone, like Gebr. Alexander. Latter (with permision from Georg Strucel) Old´s copied G S:s horn, P 24. nice horn, it was possible use lot of different tunings on attachements.

Olofson · by **Olofson** » 2023-06-28 9:33 a.m.

Many horns had in tune E pull. Conn and Holton. The trouble is that the slide is not long enough. It could not be very difficult to make a longer slide (shorter bell). My problem is that the arm is not long enough.

Today the bells are longer. To make a more conically sound? Better intonation?

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-06-28 6:16 p.m.

So now I am confused (again). From what Olofson and others have pointed out, to get B1 on a single-valve (tenor or bass) nominally Bb/F trombone, we need: (a) an attachment tuning slide that can be pulled to an in-tune E, and (b) a hand-slide that can reach far enough beyond slide-alone seventh position to find an in-tune B1. [That has been my experience, both theoretically AND practically.] Some (most?) trombones from commercial manufacturers have one or the other of these features, but not both. Others do. Is that correct?

Many wrap geometries (especially with axial valves) aren't designed to allow a long enough E-pull. But those that do, it seems, if they have a bona fide seventh position, should have a long enough hand-slide to reach B1. In fact, Matthew has shown, quite vividly in his video demo, that he can get a dinky-di B1 at about one centimetre beyond slide-alone seventh position, which is not much further out, and should be easily reached by players with arms long enough to reach the seventh position (e. g. by extending the fingers a bit further). All tenor trombones (with or without attachments) that I am aware of have hand-slides long enough to reach the seventh position; and can be over-extended (at least) one centimetre without becoming mechanically unstable. Am I to understand that some single-valve (bass?) trombones' hand-slides don't actually reach to slide-alone seventh position? And can therefore not play B1, even when the tuning slide can be pulled to an in-tune E. So how can they reach far enough to play C2 when the attachment is tuned to F?

Something seems amiss.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2023-06-29 7:57 a.m.

Not to be too silly, but you don’t have to listen to too many trombonists play low Cs on a single valve to figure out how they do it…. They are just out of tune.

FWIW, I tune to a bF if I need a big solid C when playing a single. More frequently, that’s when I just bring a double.

Cheers,

Andy

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-29 8:23 a.m.

The simple fact is most makers of trombones don't seem to take slide length into consideration, particularly in regards the ability to play low C and/or B with one valve.

The vast majority of bass trombonists play 2 valve instruments, and rarely get past 5th position. So the fact that their handslide isn't long enough for C and B is irrelevant.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-06-29 8:44 a.m.

I know this thread is more about playing low Bs, but in reference to the out of tune Cs on tenor:

<YOUTUBE id="p-j8wZZcHUo">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/p-j8wZZcHUo</YOUTUBE>

This guy did pretty well on an 88H. Maybe a little sharp, but this is very much a live recording.

The lindberg recording where he does it on a tiny 5CL mouthpiece is dead on:

<YOUTUBE id="rWxexHxv6X8">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/rWxexHxv6X8</YOUTUBE>

The low C master.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-29 9:28 a.m.

Guy in the first video has his tuning slide pulled about 3 inches.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2023-06-29 9:46 a.m.

I know one of the Bass Trombone methods / Books I have, I think one by Paul Faulise? has a bunch of sections on the flat F tuning for use with a single valve bass. I've thought about learning the positions but I think I'll just stick to using the second valve if I need an in tune low C.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-06-29 9:48 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Guy in the first video has his tuning slide pulled about 3 inches.[/quote]

Yep, he's also got his main slide pushed almost all the way in. That's about par for the course on the 88HCL. You play long for Bb, and the F is tuned right on the slide bumpers. My F slide was pulled about that far when I used one.

Everyone is different -- he may very well have made the F unusable, I didn't look at the video for F in first.

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2023-06-29 4:36 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]The simple fact is most makers of trombones don't seem to take slide length into consideration, particularly in regards the ability to play low C and/or B with one valve.

The vast majority of bass trombonists play 2 valve instruments, and rarely get past 5th position. So the fact that their handslide isn't long enough for C and B is irrelevant.[/quote]

Except that you need a G in long 7th on the F valve for the beginning of the glisses in Hary Janos.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-06-29 4:58 p.m.

Except that you need a G in long 7th on the F valve for the beginning of the glisses in Hary Janos.

I did say "rarely". That is probably the only time where most double valve bass players find themselves "needing" a long 7th. I doubt there are any trombone makers who take that note into consideration. I hadn't thought of it until you mentioned it. But if you can play an in tune low C in 7th, then that G is also playable.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2023-06-29 5:22 p.m.

The simple fact is that most trombone slides aren't long enough for an in-tune low C while also giving an in-tune low F, so you can give up one or the other. The Conn 70-series bass trombones are the only example I can think of that are actually long enough, but there are probably others out there.

However, not having a slide that's quite long enough to get that low C in tune is the norm rather than the exception, so players who do play them in tune are used to lipping down a bit down to get there (even if they don't realize that's what they're doing - many players don't know that the slide is not technically long enough and if they get the desired result anyway, who cares!).

As for the low B, even a Conn 70-series slide isn't long enough for an in-tune low B with the valve set in E. It has to be a flat E - my single 72H could pull very nearly to Eb.

Lipping down is certainly not the worst thing in the world, and if you're good at it it's by far the easiest solution to a convincing Bartok gliss. But all else being equal you'd prefer to not have to, which is why I prefer longer slides. Obviously with two valves it's very rarely necessary to go out to long 7th, but as already mentioned: Hary Janos. So it's definitely nice to have.

(That said, a Bb/F/ascending C bass might be the ultimate solution for Hary Janos - easy glisses and a turbo button for that high B!)

octavposaune · by **octavposaune** » 2023-06-29 6:03 p.m.

This is an interesting thread to me. I play double valved basses yet ALWAYS ALWAYS practice consistently out to at least 6th and use 6th all the time and 7th plus at least a little everytime I pick up ANY of my horns.

I see 2 camps, it is possible and it is not possible to play in tune low Cs and Bs on modern single valve instruments without "out of tune" F attachments.

In my opinions both camps are correct. I lean towards most horns are not setup to play low Cs in tune without a detuned F attachment, however I HAD one modern horn that could do just that. A Bach 42 I recently sold that I had built into a Olsen Axial instrument and I had re tubed the slide with MK drawing outer tubes about 11 years ago. Why do the specifics matter? I think it is several factors with the build that allowed me to able to do this:

1: On the horn side, the outer slide tubes had a slightly smaller ID than Bach outers and sealed very very well against my factory inner. In my experience as a tech and trombonist the tighter the slide tolerances the less far out the outer positions are, especially on H3 (C in the staff in 6th as an example). Bach tenor trombones (but not 50Bs) HAD tighter tolerances than most bass bones until about 2011, hence why NO Bach 50 slide I have owned or played could come close to low C in tune in the same position as my 42 slide (I didn't sell that slide with my 42, it awaits another build). Second horn aspect, my valve was setup to seal very well. Leaks to atmosphere on an instrument also effect pitch center and the ability to lock in pitch, a loose Axial valve can cause lots of problems.

2: My own playing technique. I play off the bumpers, BUT I tune to F in tune against my bumpers, and I setup all my slides to have only one felt in the cork barrels so there is maximum travel available. This requires moving the slide lock lug to be able to lock the slide. The effect is F IS FLAT in my normal playing position but can be played in tune if need be. I extend this to my bass playing as well, as I like to keep relative positions fairly close. Most of my horns are Bach, or have the handslide bracing in Bach positions (Shires).

That being said, I only HAD one modern instrument that could in fact play low C in tune without lipping or pulling the f attachment tuning slide out. It was that 42.

The second aspect of playing low C and B in tune are falset tones and conscious lipping down to pitch.

I know a lot of professional trombonists and 2 of my colleagues can produce extremely authentic sounding low Cs on Edwards T350 trombone without detuning their F attachments. One of those 2 individuals has the ability to lip to B and sound perfect on it. He is the only guy I know who can lip to B from a low C position and have it sound like a real note.

On tenor and small basses a falset B in T3 (Low Eb position) can often work quite well and it locks in place better than lipping down from a low C position, but the larger the horn and equipment the less likely it will sound good.

Anyways, There are my thought,

Benn

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-06-29 6:10 p.m.

[quote="Finetales"]The simple fact is that most trombone slides aren't long enough for an in-tune low C while also giving an in-tune low F, so you can give up one or the other.[/quote]

Do you think the trend of tuning the horn so that Bb is on the bumpers, where the tuning slide is pulled 1.5" or more, might be a culprit here?

My horns all have both an F and a C on the F attachment. I play with the tuning slide all the way in, and in some cases I've shortened the bell on my horns (in the tuning legs)

It reminds me of when all the bass trombone players on the old forum were complaining that their F slides were too short to play an F in first, but when pressed admitted that they had the Bb slide pulled 1-2".

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2023-06-29 8:58 p.m.

Compromise, choice, situation. We have to be flexible to play what’s on the stand. If you’re playing a single and a low B shows up, you can either lip it down from 6th, play a falset tone in Vb3 (a “George Roberts”), or pull the F-crook (in which case you lose C and F in V1). Elizer Aharoni’s book is the blueprint for learning different tunings and being flexible.

Wilco · by **Wilco** » 2023-06-30 4:11 a.m.

Love the Lindberg recording! Thanks! New to me <EMOJI seq="263a" tseq="263a">☺️</EMOJI>

Sesquitone · 2023-07-01 3:32 p.m.

Since dual-valve (dependent or in-line) attachments don't require hand-slides that extend beyond slide-alone seventh position (and some could be much shorter), the following should be relevant to the current topic, including some questions that have arisen earlier with respect to some of my own design efforts. First, I want to emphasise that the straightforward full-harmonic-series/twelfth-root-of-two (FHS/TRT) theory has always worked extremely well for me. When prototypes of my several different designs have been constructed, sound-path lengths have been "exactly" as predicted—i.e. to within a few millimetres. With a couple of exceptions, the pitches of various harmonics are as predicted: in practice, fifth (and tenth) harmonics (relative to fourth and eighth) are usually much closer to equitempered major thirds than to the corresponding (14¢ flat) natural harmonics.

Regarding my in-line dual-valve Bb/G-E-D tenor—designed in 1962, with the first prototype built in 1971/72—this resulted from invoking globally optimal design, usually known by its TLA. The design objective is, first, to be compatible with the previously designed (and built in 1961) Bb/G(thumb-trigger) tenor that optimises facile slide technique in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register, then add a second (independently operated finger-trigger) valve-actuated loop (either dependently within the G loop or independently along the gooseneck) to extend the low range continuously down to pedals, choosing the tuning of the second loop so as to distribute its own and the combined dual-attachment's harmonics as uniformly as possible between the pre-existing slide-alone and G-attachment harmonics (which are themselves already optimally interleaved)—using ETSP Charts as the primary diagnostic tool. The in-line geometry offers more possibilities for optimally interleaved harmonics—being vertically spaced (on the ETSP Chart) by thirds and seconds, mimicking the facile upper register, throughout the whole playable range of the instrument. Optimally spaced interleaving of harmonics turns out to be achieved by the following combination: Bb/G(thumb)-E(finger)-D(double), with the E-attachment tuned 20¢ sharp in order to guarantee an exactly in-tune D double with the slide closed. An alternative tuning, Bb/G(thumb)-Eb(finger)-Db(double), with the Eb tuned 7¢ sharp, comes in a close "second". [See the respective ETSP Charts, below.]

The proof-of-concept prototype of the Bb/G-E-D combination was a modification of my Conn 88H tenor trombone, which I happened to have available—since I was now using my Bb/G "Bolero" full time (in addition to a Giardinelli tenor sackbut, a Meinl & Lauber bass sackbut in Eb, an alto cornetto, and several other "early music" wind instruments). The customisation was done at Bob Giardinelli's famous shop in New York City, where I was, at that time, teaching courses in engineering science, computational fluid dynamics, and other subjects (including foundations of musical acoustics) at a branch campus of the City University of New York. Giardinelli's lead technician, Jack Onqué, did the conversion and helped me with the detailed design of the independent finger-trigger linkage geometry. As a "back-burner" project, the work was often put on hold, especially when Jack broke his ankle and was "out" for quite a while due to complications. The practical results—equitempered pitch frequencies and corresponding slide extensions—were exactly as predicted by FHS/TRT theory, as expected!

As a result of my Bb/G-E-D continuously chromatic tenor trombone project, well-known bass trombonist Paul Faulise and Bob Giardinelli himself were so taken with the (apparently "new") idea of independent in-line dual-valves that they made several "in-line conversions" of dependent dual-valve bass trombones in the early 1970s. These conversions used the traditional F attachment with the thumb trigger, and either G (natural) or Gb with the finger trigger, giving "(flat) Eb" or D, respectively, for the double combination. Paul wrote up a short article strongly praising the advantages of what was (to all of us) a "new" idea in "Trombone Conversion", published in the Souvenir Journal of the 4th Annual New York Brass Conference for Scholarships, 1976—listed in the index simply as "GIARDINELLI". In the article, Paul gave musical examples—with notated slide positions and valve choices (contrasting dependent and in-line techniques)—that appeared later, in expanded form, in his now well-known method books for bass trombone. Commercially produced in-line dual-valve bass trombones with these (now conventional) tunings started to become available in the mid-to-late 1970s.

For a thoroughly researched and beautifully presented history of the evolution of (both dependent and in-line) dual-valve bass trombones, see Doug Yeo'a article, "EVOLUTION: The Double-Valve Bass trombone" in the ITA Journal, Volume 43, Number 3, July 2015. [I'll have a little more to say about an expanded chronology of in-line designs later.]

******

For clarification, I have never advocated for the use of a single-valve Bb/Eb combination—although continuously chromatic, the necessarily long slide-position shifts between B2 and Bb2 (and B1 and Bb1) and between E2 and Eb2 make this far too awkward for general use. A similar comment applies to a single-valve Bb/E combination—and in this case, there is no (in-tune) B1 within a reasonable over-extension beyond slide-alone seventh position. With an equitempered E attachment, the "theoretical" slide extension for an equitempered B1 would need to be 88 mm beyond slide-alone seventh position. And this is, indeed, borne out in practice! In the Bb/G-E-D and Bb/G-Eb-Db combinations, the (finger-trigger actuated) valve tunings, 20¢ sharp E and 7¢ sharp Eb, arise "automatically" from the optimisation procedure.

******

The picture of Bob Giardinelli holding a bell section with dependent valves (below) is heavily cropped from the original photo (by Bill Spilka). Just at the bottom, can be seen a pair of in-line valves. That second complete bell section is being held by Paul Faulise (cropped out of the picture), for direct comparison with the dependent geometry. The full picture, and another, appeared in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article, mentioned above. I've included a (much later) photo of Paul from an interview by Jack Schatz.

.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-07-01 4:36 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]The picture of Bob Giardinelli holding a bell section with dependent valves (below) is heavily cropped from the original photo (by Bill Spilka). Just at the bottom, can be seen a pair of in-line valves. That complete bell section is being held by Paul Faulise, for direct comparison with the dependent geometry. The full picture, and another, appeared in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article, mentioned above.[/quote]
I believe that is the prototype for the 112H, built by Larry Minick.

http://www.trombone-usa.com/faulise_paul_bio.htm

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2023-07-01 5:54 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="214039" time="1688239978" user_id="15151">
The picture of Bob Giardinelli holding a bell section with dependent valves (below) is heavily cropped from the original photo (by Bill Spilka). Just at the bottom, can be seen a pair of in-line valves. That complete bell section is being held by Paul Faulise, for direct comparison with the dependent geometry. The full picture, and another, appeared in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article, mentioned above.[/quote]
I believe that is the prototype for the 112H, built by Larry Minick.

http://www.trombone-usa.com/faulise_paul_bio.htm
</QUOTE>

I was about to post the same - it's obviously the 80s Minick in the Paul Faulise photo - and then I decided that wasn't actually what Sesquitone was claiming, though the wording is a bit ambiguous.

I think the suggestion is that in the heavily cropped photo of Bob Giardinelli, PF is holding up the second bell section.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-07-01 6:07 p.m.

Just to be clear, that picture of Paul was intended to be just that—for people who perhaps did not know him personally. Showing the trombone he's holding there is definitely not intended to imply that it was one of the Giardinelli conversions from the early 1970s. I'm currently at my summer lake cottage in the Northwoods and won't have access to the full-sized Bill Spilka photographs in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article—showing Paul and Bob each holding up a different bell section and literally "pointing out" the differences between the two types of valve geometries—until I get back to Madison in October. In the meantime, perhaps someone else does. I've tried to edit the description of the heavily cropped Giardinelli photo for more clarity. I'm pretty sure the bell section held by Bob is that of an early Bach 50B2, Bb/F/Eb. The in-line conversion (with some rearrangement of the wrap layout) would presumably become the prototype for the 50B3. I trust this clears up any possible confusion. Thanks for your comments.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-07-02 9:50 a.m.

"A similar comment applies to a single-valve Bb/E combination—and in this case, there is no (in-tune) B1 within a reasonable over-extension beyond slide-alone seventh position. With an equitempered E attachment, the "theoretical" slide extension for an equitempered B1 would need to be 88 mm beyond slide-alone seventh position. And this is, indeed, borne out in practice!"

<EMOJI seq="1f633" tseq="1f633">😳</EMOJI>. <EMOJI seq="1f926" tseq="1f926">🤦</EMOJI>. Apparently my video still isn't enough.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-07-02 10:24 a.m.

At least I get to see more of those charts! I love them!

<ATTACHMENT filename="Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Bb[Eb] ETSP Chart.png</ATTACHMENT>

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2023-07-02 10:26 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]

<EMOJI seq="1f633" tseq="1f633">😳</EMOJI>. <EMOJI seq="1f926" tseq="1f926">🤦</EMOJI>. Apparently my video still isn't enough.[/quote]

Well... yes. I got my 42 out with an LT42 slide a couple days ago and tried this out. With an in-tune E pull and the slide falling off the end, I am still 45 cents away from a B. Even pulling the F attachment as far as it will go, it's still not there.

Can I lip it? Sure. But it's not on the slide.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2023-07-02 11:00 a.m.

In case anyone else besides me is kinda confused by the ETSP charts, Sesquitone did post a great explanation a few months ago in the Teaching & Learning forum: <LINK_TEXT text="viewtopic.php?t=29939">https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?t=29939</LINK_TEXT>

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-07-02 11:52 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="hornbuilder" post_id="214121" time="1688305855" user_id="3205">

<EMOJI seq="1f633" tseq="1f633">😳</EMOJI>. <EMOJI seq="1f926" tseq="1f926">🤦</EMOJI>. Apparently my video still isn't enough.[/quote]

Well... yes. I got my 42 out with an LT42 slide a couple days ago and tried this out. With an in-tune E pull and the slide falling off the end, I am still 45 cents away from a B. Even pulling the F attachment as far as it will go, it's still not there.

Can I lip it? Sure. But it's not on the slide.
</QUOTE>

Because Bach doesn't make their slide tubes long enough to get to E. I've said this before

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2023-07-02 11:55 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="214124" time="1688308014" user_id="3131">

Well... yes. I got my 42 out with an LT42 slide a couple days ago and tried this out. With an in-tune E pull and the slide falling off the end, I am still 45 cents away from a B. Even pulling the F attachment as far as it will go, it's still not there.

Can I lip it? Sure. But it's not on the slide.[/quote]

Because Bach doesn't make their slide tubes long enough to get to E. I've said this before
</QUOTE>

My section is not a Bach, and it gets comfortably to E.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2023-07-02 11:57 a.m.

If you want an in-tune low C (or B), you'll have to think outside the Bachs.

These notes seem readily achievable on my Conn 71H (which has a longish slide) - but it's a bass, not a tenor.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-07-02 4:46 p.m.

The Doug Yeo article is great. <LINK_TEXT text="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... i=89978449">https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwix2pzB6PD_AhWOPkQIHclDDQ4QFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yeodoug.com%2Farticles%2FYeo_ITAJ_July_2015_Double_Valve_Bass_Trombone.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2FH9prZRj0olu3Oy05n3Lc&opi=89978449</LINK_TEXT>

There is a photo of the 1967 Strusel in-line conversion.

<ATTACHMENT filename="Strucel.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Strucel.png</ATTACHMENT>

Timeline of the first in-line basses:

1967—George Strusel (Los Angeles) makes an inline

double-valve bass trombone conversion for Ken Adkins.

• 1973—Olds S-24G inline double-valve bass trombone

in B-flat/F/G/E-flat; Larry Minick (Los Angeles) makes an

inline double-valve bass trombone conversion in B-flat/F/G/

E-flat for Jim Prindle.

No mention of Giardinelli ever making one in either the Paul Faulise interview or the Doug Yeo article. It would be interesting to see the uncropped photo of the supposed Giardinelli 50B3 prototype and the Faulise article. And a photo of Sesquitone's dual inline tenor.

Sorry if I'm getting off topic.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2023-07-02 5:01 p.m.

My section is not a Bach, and it gets comfortably to E.

But yet in my video I am clearly playing an in tune low B.

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2023-07-02 5:13 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]But yet in my video I am clearly playing an in tune low B.[/quote]

Indeed you are!

And you're pulled to a slightly flat E. The 4th partial trigger E is noticeably flat compared to the open horn in 2nd position, and the 3rd partial trigger B in 1st is slightly lower than the one you play in 7th, though not by much... but as we both know, the 3rd partial (especially on the valve side) tends to be sharper than the 2nd.

So it's all as both the math and experience would suggest :good:

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-07-03 11:29 a.m.

The following FHS/TRT analysis is based on a Bb trombone sound-path length of SPL(Bb) = 2960 mm [Campbell & Greated, page 28]. The semitone factor, S, is the twelfth-root of 2, i.e. 2 raised to the power 1/12:

S = 2^(1/12) = 1.059 463

[I'm carrying several decimal places so that we don't get into roundoff error problems.]

The sound-path length for an equitempered E, 6 semitones below Bb, is, therefore:

SPL(E) = SPL(Bb) x (S^6) = 4186.072 mm

When the E is played in the seventh position (i.e. without an attachment actuated), the portion of the sound-path within the slide is:

SPL(E) – SPL(Bb) = 1226.072 mm

The slide extension is half of this, so 7th position is at approximately 613 mm.

If an (equitempered) E attachment is added, the slide-closed sound-path length is now 4186.072 mm. The complete sound-path length for B1, 11 semitones below Bb2, is:

SPL(B) = SPL(Bb) x (S^11) = 5587.736 mm

With the E attachment actuated, if a slide were long enough to reach B1, the slide extension would need to be:

SE(B) = [SPL(B) – SPL(E)]/2 = SPL(Bb)[(S^11) – (S^6)]/2 = 700.8379 mm

The required over-extension beyond (slide-alone) 7th position is thus, approximately:

OE(B) = 701 mm – 613 mm = 88 mm

—usually a bit too far to reach, even by "longish" slides (and normal arm lengths!).

******

Now let's apply a similar FHS/TRT analysis to the video demonstration. As Burgerbob and ithinknot have observed, the video's attachment E is audibly flat relative to the 2nd-position slide-alone E. This is not just a matter of different tone quality due to the different sound-path lengths. The core frequency of the attachment tone—for clarity, call it E* (E-star)—is 24 cents below that of the slide-alone E. Since there are, by definition, 1200 cents in an octave, this means that the attachment E* sound-path length, SPL(E*), is a factor of 2^(24/1200) longer than the equitempered E sound-path:

SPL(E*) = SPL(E) x (2^0.02) = 4244.508 mm

Now if a slide were long enough to reach B1, the extension would need to be:

SE(B) = [SPL(B) – SPL(E*)]/2 = SPL(Bb)[(S^11) – (S^6) x (2^0.02)]/2 = 671.6142 mm

This is "only" about 6 cm beyond slide-alone 7th position, which might be possible to reach on a "longish" slide.

However, hornbuilder has estimated that the video B1 (call it B*1) is found at perhaps 1 cm beyond 7th position, which, with the E* attachment actuated, would be at a total sound-path length of about:

SPL(B*) = SPL(E*) + (613 mm + 10 mm) x 2

Approximately 5490.5 mm.

The corresponding sound-path length ratio is therefore:

SPL(B*)/SPL(B) = 5490.5/5587.736 = 0.9826

Taking 1200 times the logarithm-base-2 of this gives the interval in cents:

i(B*, B) = 1200 log2(0.9826) ¢

—about 30 cents sharp. At this low frequency—f(B1) = 123.5 Hz, f(B*1) = 125.7 Hz—a normal human ear might not be able to discriminate between the two.

Note that if the over-extension beyond slide-alone 7th position were actually 3 cm—which is easily accommodated—the theoretical B1 found there would have a frequency of 124.7 Hz, only 18 cents sharper than an equitempered B1. This would be heard as "exactly in tune".

Conclusions:

(i) FHS/TRT theory explains the video precisely. In other words: "Bob's your uncle!"

(ii) With an <I>equitempered</I> E attachment, an <I>equitempered</I> B1 would require a slide long enough to reach 88 mm beyond slide-alone 7th position.

******

For convenience, I have once again enclosed relevant portions of ETSP Charts for (a) an F attachment, (b) an (equitempered) E attachment, (c) a "flat-E" (actually, sharp-Eb) attachment, and (d) an Eb attachment.

******

Reference:

Campbell & Greated. The Musician's Guide to Acoustics, New York: Schirmer Books, 1988.

.

peteedwards · by **peteedwards** » 2023-07-03 4:24 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]

But yet in my video I am clearly playing an in tune low B.[/quote]

Matt, with all due respect, if you post a video claiming to be in tune you should probably check it against a tuner first

I get (rounded to 5 cents) F+10 E+10 E-15 Bb-10 B-25 B+5 B+20

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-07-04 11:28 a.m.

Speaking of long slides, the "contrabass" design patented by Hans Kunitz, and later built by Alexander, had a full-length (F bass) slide with a necessary extension handle because, being an in-line design tuned F/C(thumb)-D(finger)-Bb(double), the Gb1 (linking to pedals) is played with the (contra) Bb double-valve combination, twice as long as 5th-position on a Bb bass (or tenor). By contrast, the modern Thein contrabass with "German" tuning, F/D(thumb)-Bb(finger)-Ab(double), can reach the Gb1 easily using the (contra) Ab double-valve, with a much shorter slide (not requiring a handle).

There is some confusion about the Kunitz tuning because in Doug Yeo's article, it is described as F/Eb/Bb/Ab, which is not a viable combination! The Alex, owned at the time by Alan Charlesworth (with the original Kunitz linkages), that I tried out at the ITF meeting at North Texas State University, was definitely tuned F/C-D-Bb; and this is how it was described in the original Kunitz patents, two (of the three) of which I have copies. And you can see this by the length of the attachment tubing in the patent sketch (not precisely to scale) and the picture of the real thing.

There is an interesting connection here with the Boosey & Hawkes "Sovereign" bass with in-line valves, tuned Bb/F(thumb)-G(finger)-Eb(double)—as described by Gavin Dixon in his wonderful article on the "Kidshifter"—involving George Strusel, Ken Adkins, Denis Wick and Ray Premru (see below). B&H held off producing this trombone until the Alex patent had expired even though these were two entirely different trombones with entirely different tunings, the only similarity being that the respective attachments had the same relative tunings.

PS I have included juxtaposed pictures of a (modern) Bach 50B2 bell section and the (early 1970s) bell section being held up by Bob Giardinelli (further cropped down) pictured in the "Trombone Conversion" article by Paul Faulise, showing that it was, indeed, a Bach bass in-line conversion that they were demonstrating. [I hope to be able to access the full article next week, and will include the un-cropped pictures of Bob and Paul enthusiastically showing off their "new" idea.]

.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-07-04 3:12 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]

PS I have included juxtaposed pictures of a (modern) Bach 50B2 bell section and the (early 1970s) bell section being held up by Bob Giardinelli (further cropped down) pictured in the "Trombone Conversion" article by Paul Faulise, showing that it was, indeed, a Bach bass in-line conversion that they were demonstrating. [I hope to be able to access the full article next week, and will include the un-cropped pictures of Bob and Paul enthusiastically showing off their "new" idea.][/quote]
With all due respect, that doesn't prove that the bottom instrument in the photo is a Giardinelli Bach inline conversion; it only proves that the top instrument is a Bach, which we already knew.

Sesquitone · 2023-07-04 4:19 p.m.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything; I'm just describing what I know (to the best of my memory, which, admittedly, is not what it used to be—what is?). In the original photos by Bill Spilka (two of them in the article), Paul Faulise is holding up the in-line conversion quite close to the original dependent-valve bell held by Bob Giardinelli (seen above), which is the same in every other respect. Bob and Paul are literally pointing to where the two bell sections differ. As I recall (from being there), one of the conversions was tuned Bb/F-G-Eb, which corresponded to the dependent tuning Bb/F/Eb; the other was tuned Bb/F-Gb-D, corresponding to the dependent tuning Bb/F/D. This may have been a "first" in-line bass trombone tuning giving the D with the double-valve combination. [Of course, my alternative ("unconventional") tuning, with the thumb-trigger operating the G attachment and the independent finger-trigger operating a 20¢ sharp E attachment already gave a perfectly-in-tune D with both triggers actuated.]

I'm hoping my son can dig up the original article ("filed away" in one of my multitude of "piles" of brass instrument publications) and bring it to me this weekend. In which case, I'll scan the photos and post them here. I trust that will "prove" the point.

By the way, my original Conn 88H conversion, Bb/G-E-D, was stolen from our home in Staten Island in 1981—along with my beautiful Bb/G "Bolero", the Meinl & Lauber bass sackbut, a Bach 50B2 that was awaiting conversion at Gardinelli's (to Bb/G-E-D), and several other "early music" instruments. [I think the burglars probably thought that the consort of viols consisted of some kind of easily fenced guitars!] I wouldn't be surprised if the Conn and the sackbut are today nailed up behind some bar in some New York City dive as "decoration".

BigBadandBass · by **BigBadandBass** » 2023-07-04 6:06 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]One of my few general design annoyances is really long F attachment tuning slides that do not actually provide functionality for that length (looking at you, every Thayer valve section ever designed).

Cheers,

Andy[/quote]

Fwiw, my standard shires bass thayers have an E pull, say I had a double to single valve converter and a single bore slide, instant light rep horn without much hassle

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2023-07-04 8:07 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]There is some confusion about the Kunitz tuning because in Doug Yeo's article, it is described as F/Eb/Bb/Ab, which is not a viable combination! The Alex, owned at the time by Alan Charlesworth (with the original Kunitz linkages), that I tried out at the ITF meeting at North Texas State University, was definitely tuned F/C-D-Bb; and this is how it was described in the original Kunitz patents, two (of the three) of which I have copies. And you can see this by the length of the attachment tubing in the patent sketch (not precisely to scale) and the picture of the real thing.[/quote] Looking at the Kunitz patent pictures, my mind went right to a Courtois 500R inline bass trombone. I wonder if this is where they got the concept of having the finger valve come before the thumb valve on the gooseneck. Just an observation.

BigBadandBass · by **BigBadandBass** » 2023-07-04 9:24 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]<QUOTE>

Except that you need a G in long 7th on the F valve for the beginning of the glisses in Hary Janos.[/quote]

I did say "rarely". That is probably the only time where most double valve bass players find themselves "needing" a long 7th. I doubt there are any trombone makers who take that note into consideration. I hadn't thought of it until you mentioned it. But if you can play an in tune low C in 7th, then that G is also playable.
</QUOTE>

I want to see all of your thoughts on this but I’ve just been told to pull out the F slide about as far as you need to make the G solid and the Cs will speak well enough that with a tuba or accompaniment it’s negligible

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-07-05 1:07 a.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]

By the way, my original Conn 88H conversion, Bb/G-E-D, was stolen from our home in Staten Island in 1981—along with my beautiful Bb/G "Bolero", the Meinl & Lauber bass sackbut, a Bach 50B2 that was awaiting conversion at Gardinelli's (to Bb/G-E-D), and several other "early music" instruments. [I think the burglars probably thought that the consort of viols consisted of some kind of easily fenced guitars!] I wouldn't be surprised if the Conn and the sackbut are today nailed up behind some bar in some New York City dive as "decoration".[/quote]
I'm very sorry to hear that.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-07-08 4:50 p.m.

I was finally able to access my copy of the TROMBONE CONVERSION article, undoubtedly written by Paul Faulise (although attributed to "GIARDINELLI" in the index) in the Souvenir Journal of the 4th Annual New York Brass Conference for Scholarships, January 1976. These in-line dual-valve conversions followed from experience gained from the conversion of my Conn 88H (to Bb/G-E-D) carried out by lead technician Jack Onqué at the Giardinelli shop. [The (heavily cropped) photo that was shown earlier, although clearly taken at the same time, does not appear in the article.] The first photo here shows Bob Giardinelli holding the bell of the dependent-valve Bach 50B2 and Paul holding the in-line conversion; they are literally pointing to the difference in valve geometry. From the second photo, you can see that Bob and Paul are very pleased with the result—which looks an awful lot like a prototype for a Bach 50B3, with a slight difference in wrap geometry (notice the absence of a main tuning-crook brace). [There are some errors in the valve designations in the examples, which should be easy to spot. And some cut-and-paste (or copy-but-don't-cut) "word-processor" duplication in the text.]

.

baroquetrombone · by **baroquetrombone** » 2023-07-08 6:40 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]There is some confusion about the Kunitz tuning because in Doug Yeo's article, it is described as F/Eb/Bb/Ab, which is not a viable combination! The Alex, owned at the time by Alan Charlesworth (with the original Kunitz linkages), that I tried out at the ITF meeting at North Texas State University, was definitely tuned F/C-D-Bb; and this is how it was described in the original Kunitz patents, two (of the three) of which I have copies. And you can see this by the length of the attachment tubing in the patent sketch (not precisely to scale) and the picture of the real thing.[/quote]

I barely have an idea of what's going on in this thread, and I have no horse in the race, but are you saying that F/Eb/Bb/Ab on a trombone isn't a thing at all? Because if so, I have an instrument that says otherwise.

If I misunderstood, apologies.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2023-07-08 7:00 p.m.

This thread is beyond the comprehension of trombone players

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2023-07-08 7:05 p.m.

Actually, we seem to have drifted quite a distance from the original topic.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2023-07-08 8:59 p.m.

[quote="baroquetrombone"]I barely have an idea of what's going on in this thread, and I have no horse in the race, but are you saying that F/Eb/Bb/Ab on a trombone isn't a thing at all? Because if so, I have an instrument that says otherwise.[/quote]
If I understand correctly, they're talking about an open horn in F with independent valves, one which lowers the pitch a whole step (Eb) and another which lowers the pitch three and a half steps (Bb). Combining the two valves won't get you four and half steps (Ab).

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2023-07-09 1:40 a.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]I was finally able to access my copy of the TROMBONE CONVERSION article, undoubtedly written by Paul Faulise (although attributed to "GIARDINELLI" in the index) in the Souvenir Journal of the 4th Annual New York Brass Conference for Scholarships, January 1976. These in-line dual-valve conversions followed from experience gained from the conversion of my Conn 88H (to Bb/G-E-D) carried out by lead technician Jack Onqué at the Giardinelli shop. [The (heavily cropped) photo that was shown earlier, although clearly taken at the same time, does not appear in the article.] The first photo here shows Bob Giardinelli holding the bell of the dependent-valve Bach 50B2 and Paul holding the in-line conversion; they are literally pointing to the difference in valve geometry. From the second photo, you can see that Bob and Paul are very pleased with the result—which looks an awful lot like a prototype for a Bach 50B3, with a slight difference in wrap geometry (notice the absence of a main tuning-crook brace). [There are some errors in the valve designations in the examples, which should be easy to spot. And some cut-and-paste (or copy-but-don't-cut) "word-processor" duplication in the text.][/quote]

Thanks for posting this! Very interesting. It doesn't look like a modified Bach, though. It looks like a modified Conn. It has that sharper first bend in the F valve tubing on the bell side, but the more rounded bend at the top, unlike Bach's dual radius bend on their F attachment tubing. The first part of the F tubing looks unchanged from original Conn except for removing the second in-line valve and replacing it with straight tubing, and then rotating the turn-around bend at the top so the valve tuning slide goes around the front of the instrument instead of the back. But the valves were obviously swapped to have the second valve first. The configuration of the ports is the opposite of a dependent Conn. And I can almost see the more decorative socket on the bell brace that Conns have, although it's too blurry to be sure.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2023-07-09 10:40 a.m.

I apologise for drifting way off the original topic. I should have opened up and linked to a new topic when we first started chatting about dual valves to the exclusion of their (reduced) requirements for handslide length.

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Handslide length