I'm an amateur musician who plays mostly big bands and some wind ensembles. I have rehearsals about three times a week mostly playing Bass Trombone. Due to various health issues, my lung capacity isn't what it was when I was younger. Something I am working on.

I've been playing my Getzen 3062AF for the last 20 years and I love it. But someone suggested due to my air problems there might be setup options that are more efficient.

What should I look for in a Bass Trombone setup for someone who doesn't have the air capacity they once did? Are there models that are known to be more efficient, even if I have to sacrifice in other aspects?.or am I barking up the wrong tree?

This is a common question without a really good answer. Most of your options will be older horns, horns not really meant for the purpose, or custom jobs. And of course add a fair dose of practice in the low range.

1) King Duo Gravis - only actually smaller through the valves

2) King 1480 - single valve smaller bore, sounds bass-ish with the right mouthpiece

3) Bach 50 - try it with a 42 slide or a modern 62h w/ a 547- you'll need some imagination and patience.

4) Bach 45 - single valve and rare-ish

5) Benge 190, Conn 88hk, Bach 42 - add a 562 slide and a bass mouthpiece

6) Any 547 tenor with a big mouthpiece.

7) custom job, preferably 2 valves, a bass taper bell and maybe a dual bore 547/562 slide. My choice would be a 1480 with a plugin valve on the main tuning slide.

None of the conventional options make anything new that fits this description.

You can also make sure your mouthpiece is efficient - no huge throats. I use a Curry 2.0 D, and I think it helps in the efficiency regard.

Good luck

I disagree that you need to look vintage or custom. The Getzen you have is about the largest bass trombone on the market, with a dual bore slide and wide open axial flow valves AND larger dimensions at the tuning slide than anything else. Also, Thayer valves that old are prone to be very leaky.

I see you are in the Seattle area - I suggest you visit The Mighty Quinn Brass and Winds in Redmond to try their excellent stock of Shires and Yamaha bass trombones. The owner, Matt Stoecker, is a trombonist (who I went to college with, BTW), and he can guide you.

Yamaha YBL-620g, lightweight and easy to hold and play with a great sound.

Almost anything else, really.

If the Getzen has interchangeable lead pipes (don't know?), you could start with a tighter lead pipe and a smaller/more efficient mouthpiece. This can already make a huge difference on bass.

[quote="MStarke"]If the Getzen has interchangeable lead pipes (don't know?)[/quote]
Getzen's website says it does...

I'd say that replacing the horn is a last resort. Try tinkering with mouthpieces and leadpipes first. Maybe see if you can borrow a single-bore .562" slide from someone with a Getzen 1052.

Appreciate the insight. Thank you!

What mouthpiece are you using ?

[quote="JohnL"]I'd say that replacing the horn is a last resort. Try tinkering with mouthpieces and leadpipes first. Maybe see if you can borrow a single-bore .562" slide from someone with a Getzen 1052.[/quote]

Yeah, replacing the horn is drastic, but aside from changing the slide, mouthpiece and leadpipe, that's what it would take. Even making that change would just catch you up to changing to another random modern bass. Modern instruments are built for 2x year old college students with peak lung capacity. If you do a google search, there's no such category as "air efficient bass trombone" just like there isn't anything for a modern "commercial" bass bone (aside from the Dillon horn with the marketing label). The industry could do better. Not every bass bone player plays in the NY Phil.

Being 78 years old and playing in a big band, I face this same problem to some degree. When I decided to upgrade my horn I specifically decided NOT to go for a Thayer valve alternative. I find that efficiency isn't an issue for me except in some pieces in the double valve area -- and I'm just not sure this can be avoided.

I think that JohnL's recommendations are good ones to start with ...

If you're having "overall" efficiency problems (outside a "problematic" range), I think it is likely the result of fundamental features of the horn you've chosen -- such as the Thayers and the dual bore slide. If you're have "limited" efficiency problems -- e.g., associated with a certain range, those MAY be addressed by other changes. The mouthpiece is one. I spent a huge amount of time experimenting with DE components and other mouthpieces. I'm currently using a Markey 87 for big band, but would probably use my DE set-up for other stuff.

The thing to consider is the leadpipe -- which I think you might want to experiment with. You can get lead pipes for that horn from several sources, but (given my own experience with the Getzen), I'd recommend going to Edwards first. My horn came with the #2, which I found to be "okay". I don't know which one is in yours. If it's the #3, that could contribute to your efficiency problems. Maybe even the #2 is "too much" for you.

I'm using the #3 in my 1052 and love it (and live with the occasional inefficiency issues), but for you a "smaller" (less open) one may be better -- especially combined with your valves. You can order one from Edwards, try it, and return it if it doesn't work for you (5% restocking fee): <LINK_TEXT text="https://store.edwards-instruments.com/p ... s-500-bore">https://store.edwards-instruments.com/product/trombone-leadpipes-500-bore</LINK_TEXT>. Similar to other sources like M/K, but I'd try the Edwards pipe first. Or order both the #1 and #2 (If you currently have the #3) and try both. It's a pretty cheap way to experiment with something that might work for you.

Like others have said, look at the leadpipe first. How many grooves are there? That's the number of the pipe and how open it is.

Opposite @ghmerrill, I actually use the #1 pipe (1 groove) on my 1052FD since I only play bass trombone in big band, as I strive for a sound that's more "large trombone" than "slide baritone."

Gabe mentioned that your axial valves could be leaky; Benn Hanson (sp?) (Octavposaune on here) may be able to take your 3062 in to address that. Properly sealing valves can make a big difference in efficiency.

But, again: the 3062 is very big before the bell, and that contributes considerably to its sound profile. Even the Eterna basses have the same big tuning slide, but the rotors and lighter bell give a more compact sound profile that can better suit your needs now.

Good luck!

The sound is certainly influenced to some degree by the leadpipe, but is also what you make it. I don't think anyone in the band would characterize my sound as "slide baritone", and when I record myself I hear bass 'bone and not euph. Having played tuba and euph for a couple of decades, I'm sensitive to that difference. My choice of the #3 is based on ease of articulation in the low range, particularly for rapid jumps into the double valve pitches. But I think everyone handles these things in their own ways.

Nobody's singling out any brands or models, which should be enough to tell you that there aren't any bass bones that are particularly air efficient made this century for sure. You can incrementally get "more" air efficient by combining a new slide, leadpipe and mouthpiece, but if you're looking for an "air efficient bass trombone", the title of your post, you're going to have to look further afield than conventional stuff.

[quote="hyperbolica"]Nobody's singling out any brands or models,[/quote]

I'm singling out brands and models. The Getzen 3062 is about the largest production bass trombone on the market. There are significantly more efficient bass trombones you can buy without going vintage or custom.

[quote="GabrielRice"]I'm singling out brands and models. The Getzen 3062 is about the largest production bass trombone on the market. There are significantly more efficient bass trombones you can buy without going vintage or custom.[/quote]

Right, but there's nothing from the past several decades that's made specifically with efficiency as a goal. There is stuff that looks small compared to big cannon, but nothing that is supposed to be a small or efficient bass. Even Wessex, who for a while were coming out with oddball stuff. Dillon markets a "commercial" bass, but it's not clear that it's really smaller or more efficient. There are some Euro brands that may have something a little smaller. The Conn 62h can be bought with a 547/562 slide. One Yamaha model that people cite as "light" doesn't mean it's blow-efficient.

If you can find a used one, the Kanstul 1585 might be a good option. They have removable leadpipes, so you could tweak efficiency that way, and they also are a bit more lightly built than other brands, so you can get it to "sing" without pushing it as far. I still am kicking myself for not grabbing a 1570 bass when I had the chance, as when I played it there was a nimbleness I just don't get from the heavier bass trombones.

There's a lot that goes into making ANY brass more "efficient", and it's not just bore size. Ask any tuba player.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Almost anything else, really.[/quote]

Yeah, the big dual-bore Getzen is an air hog. I've seen lots of people struggling on those when they just don't have the lungs for it. It also (IMO) does not lend itself well to the sound concept one should pursue in big band or wind ensemble settings, even if you do have the air it wants.

For a reasonably(ish) priced production horn that would be appropriate to amateur big band work, looking for an Eastlake Conn 62H and using a mouthpiece in the ballpark of the 1.5 size is probably the simplest good path.

I'm really don't agree with the characterization that no contemporary basses are oriented towards "efficiency." As noted, the 3062 is pretty extreme. Off the top of my head, the other extreme there is the Thein BVD which has a 547/562 as a stock option. All of the boutique makers offer such a combo and even smaller bells (a variety of tapers and also 9" bell flares). Long Island Brass has produced several .562 rotor basses too.

Outside of the boutique/custom/high end offerings, the Getzen 1052, Shires Q36, Rath R900 immediately come to mind as basses that I thought spoke very easily and also were on the "lower" end of the price spectrum, at least if only considering new instruments. The Getzens have the same receivers as Conn, which even has a stock 547/562 slide that occasionally comes available for sale. For that matter, there ARE a number of Bach 50s out there that play well, even though it's not unusual for them to play... perhaps not as well. In fact, the easiest speaking bass - by far - I've ever played was a Bach 50 with Rath Hagman valves on it (previously owned by a few people on the forum here).

This is a bit of a hot take, but I actually find basically everything I've mentioned so far to be far more "efficient" than trying to play bass parts on a tenor such as a 5B. Now if we're talking about a "fourth trombone" part which is really just a tenor part, that's a bit of a different story. But for real bass tessitura, a "vanilla", run-of-the-mill 562 slide 9.5" bell bass is quite efficient, in my experience.

Bore size is not the full story on efficiency.

[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="GabrielRice" post_id="290271" time="1765202786" user_id="102">
I'm singling out brands and models. The Getzen 3062 is about the largest production bass trombone on the market. There are significantly more efficient bass trombones you can buy without going vintage or custom.[/quote]

Right, but there's nothing from the past several decades that's made specifically with efficiency as a goal. There is stuff that looks small compared to big cannon, but nothing that is supposed to be a small or efficient bass. Even Wessex, who for a while were coming out with oddball stuff. Dillon markets a "commercial" bass, but it's not clear that it's really smaller or more efficient. There are some Euro brands that may have something a little smaller. The Conn 62h can be bought with a 547/562 slide. One Yamaha model that people cite as "light" doesn't mean it's blow-efficient.
</QUOTE>

The Yamaha 620g mentioned I would certainly classify as incredibly efficient. You get a great sound with very little effort. Great bang for your buck as far as energy in : sound out goes. It works really well with smaller mouthpieces like a 2G and 1.5G. I’d say the JDM Yamahas are still very much efficiency based, definitely different to the heavier Xeno range (thinking mainly large bore horns here).

When I have mostly been playing tenor or for whatever reason feel a bit low on air, I like my Bach 50B3OG with a .547/.562” custom Bach slide.

It’s quite happy with a smaller mouthpiece like a 2G or 1.5G and at low and moderate dynamics, the gold brass bell has a nice warm sound so could give the impression of sounding like a bigger setup.

It’s harder to control than with the .562” slide at very loud dynamics and a bit stuffy for very low stuff so that would be the compromise I suppose. The low C and B (and Bb but you wouldn’t expect that to be a problem anyway) are still totally usable for me which covers anything I find in the ensembles I play in. Anything much lower gets a bit squirrely. The traditional rotors seem to be well adjusted as they are not too restrictive in the range I usually play in, they are a world away from two axial valves though.

I also have a Holton TR-180 which for full disclosure I am selling. That Holton has a 9.5” yellow brass bell and a nickel silver slide and as well as being quite light to hold, churns out much more sound for a given input than you would reasonably expect. I might end up keeping it actually, I had a bit of a muscle injury recently and appreciated the lighter setup whilst recovering.

It's probably tough to see a need when you don't have the need yourself. If you age with a big bass, you figure out how to make it work, but when you start playing later, it's a bigger struggle. I don't think you get there by picking the daintiest existing horn from a set of decidedly not-dainty options.

Wessex had a start on it when they did a double valve big tenor with a 547/562 slide and a tweener bell, but that project didn't fly. They did come up with the "super tenor", which, with another valve on it, would be a small bass. I wish I had that prototype back. You don't always know what you've got when you have it. I sold it to a military musician in DC is all I remember. It played like a 42b on steroids, probably a 45 although I've never played a 45.

<ATTACHMENT filename="0811161318.jpg" index="0">[attachment=0]0811161318.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

I'm well aware that slide bore isn't the only thing, but it is one factor. Combined with other factors you could make a bass bone that requires less air. Maybe it's less powerful - most bass bones are too much already, so going smaller should be an easy sacrifice.

What factors would go into a more efficient bass?? It's mostly the air column shape and size. We've had this thread already.

- mouthpiece (cup depth-shape/throat/backbore

- leadpipe (length, shape, venturi placement and size)

- slide (single/dual bore/ crook size/shape/material)

- valves (type, thru dia, tubing dia)

- neckpipe (size / taper)

- tuning slide (size / shape / taper)

- bell (stem/ taper/ throat / flare)

After that material properties including hardness, thickness and overall mass.

Remember the experiement by Funkhoss, where he made a modular horn that would play like (among other things) a bass with a smallish slide. <LINK_TEXT text="viewtopic.php?t=10763">https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?t=10763</LINK_TEXT>

If someone were to try hard enough, I think there are some improvements that could be made in this area. A Miata is still a sports car. A Ranger is still a pickup truck. You wouldn't make one and price it at $8k as a vanity instrument, but Wessex might be convinced to follow through with the earlier experiments and sell one for $3k for beginner and not-fully-committed bass players, or tenor players who can't decide and need one horn to do it all.

I don't think you get there by picking the daintiest existing horn from a set of decidedly not-dainty options.

I mean, in my opinion, that is exactly what you do, although I disagree with the framing. Seems that a significant about any disagreement here boils down to semantics. If the tessitura of what you are playing, and the intended timbre, is closer to a tenor - a large bore tenor is admittedly wholly sufficient, if not perhaps ideal, compared to a larger bass. (Such as with "Trombone 4" parts from the swing era). Heck, in some instances, even that might be idiomatically better on something smaller.

I do have unique hindsight of having put down... more money and effort than I should have... on several tweener projects, including a - basically - Shires setup similar to the one linked before with an assortment of slides and bells... among them 547, 547/562, 562 and a 9" Holton bell. Such "super tenors" to me are not basses. I could convincingly play bass parts on mine, and with the benefit of the dependent Bb/F/D setup, had a very adequate low B natural on it. But the timbre for "bass" parts, in my opinion, is not sufficient with such a small bell throat - among other things, nor is the facility in the lower registers.

In other words, for the things you could play on a large bore, or even a medium bore adequately, in my opinion there's no reason to have a bass anyway. And for the things you cannot, such "super tenors" provide minimal, as the difference between them and large bores is quite minimal, at least in my experience. Having the second rotor is handy for getting access to certain lower notes, but - for example - if I were to put a 2nd rotor on my King 3BF, I wouldn't call it a bass. SOMEWHERE between that and a contemporary bass lies the line and I think for me I draw it where the throat of the bell is comparable to what we "typically" call a bass trombone.

[quote="Matt K"]<QUOTE>I don't think you get there by picking the daintiest existing horn from a set of decidedly not-dainty options.[/quote]

I mean, in my opinion, that is exactly what you do, </QUOTE>

That gives you the least bad option, not a good option. And to say something is better that the worst option isn't really a useful statement.

[quote="Matt K"]Seems that a significant about any disagreement here boils down to semantics.[/quote]

It boils down to experience. If you had the experience of having some sort of capacity problem, you'd recognize this as a need.

[quote="Matt K"]If the tessitura of what you are playing, and the intended timbre, is closer to a tenor - a large bore tenor is admittedly wholly sufficient, if not perhaps ideal, compared to a larger bass. (Such as with "Trombone 4" parts from the swing era). Heck, in some instances, even that might be idiomatically better on something smaller.[/quote]

1940s swing band Tbone 4 parts could be played on an Olds Recording - with no valve. They are often higher than the tbone 3 parts.

[quote="Matt K"]I do have unique hindsight of having put down... more money and effort than I should have... on several tweener projects, including a - basically - Shires setup similar to the one linked before with an assortment of slides and bells... among them 547, 547/562, 562 and a 9" Holton bell. Such "super tenors" to me are not basses. I could convincingly play bass parts on mine, and with the benefit of the dependent Bb/F/D setup, had a very adequate low B natural on it. But the timbre for "bass" parts, in my opinion, is not sufficient with such a small bell throat - among other things, nor is the facility in the lower registers.[/quote]

If we call the range high Bb to pedal F, and agree that an 88h could play that low end, but not sound right, I think you can get to the right sound before you get to the Yamaha 620. The King 1480 does it, but lacks a second valve and adequate ergo properties. The term "slide euphonium" exists because people think bass bones are too woofy. The extra range that you get at the price of that criticism is the rest of the range - pedal E to pedal C. I'd be willing to cede that territory since I rarely see it, especially if I gain a horn that's playable in the range where I normally play - tuning Bb to pedal Bb.

[quote="Matt K"]In other words, for the things you could play on a large bore, or even a medium bore adequately, in my opinion there's no reason to have a bass anyway.[/quote]

And I think for the things beyond the normal range (below pedal F) there is no reason to have an extra pound and a half of horn that is rarely called to do that duty. For the 2% of the trombone population that gets called on 5% of the time, maybe it makes sense. I don't think the big basses shouldn't exist, I just think their perceived importance way outstrips the need.

I asked a guy who calls himself a bass bone player and plays in an Army band how to play a low B, and he said he didn't know, he had never had to play one. I was a little shocked, he's not a novice or a high schooler.

[quote="Matt K"]And for the things you cannot, such "super tenors" provide minimal, as the difference between them and large bores is quite minimal, at least in my experience. Having the second rotor is handy for getting access to certain lower notes, but - for example - if I were to put a 2nd rotor on my King 3BF, I wouldn't call it a bass. SOMEWHERE between that and a contemporary bass lies the line and I think for me I draw it where the throat of the bell is comparable to what we "typically" call a bass trombone.[/quote]

There is huge overlap in the tenor trombone world (485, 495, 500, 508, 510, 515, 522, 525, etc). I don't think any of it has to do with range. Take a 1480 and put an Eb valve on it (in addition to the F valve) (and fix the ergo problems) and you've got something. The slide bore is less than 562 (or 547 for that matter). Still called a bass. That would cover 95% of stuff written for bass bone. 100% of what I'm called to play. I've got other modification projects, but the 2 valve 1480 is 2nd on the list. I've got the Kanstul if I ever grow to miss that velvety woof.

I've been following this thread for a while. The OP has never revealed his mouthpiece and leadpipe, which leaves everybody groping in the dark. The biggest equipment efficiencies are at the mouthpiece/leadpipe end. A few years ago, one of my closest friends was dying. He wanted to carry on professionally for as long as he could, but was finding it harder and harder. He asked if there was anything I could do to help. I sent him a leadpipe that I knew was a lot easier and it made a huge difference to him. It gave him a few more months of fine playing that meant everything to him.

Most people with only the ordinary problems of age, can help themselves most, by working at breath control. Not huffing and puffing, but stretching the control of maximum and minimum air. Far more important than any equipment changes.

[quote="blast"]I've been following this thread for a while. The OP has never revealed his mouthpiece and leadpipe, which leaves everybody groping in the dark. The biggest equipment efficiencies are at the mouthpiece/leadpipe end. A few years ago, one of my closest friends was dying. He wanted to carry on professionally for as long as he could, but was finding it harder and harder. He asked if there was anything I could do to help. I sent him a leadpipe that I knew was a lot easier and it made a huge difference to him. It gave him a few more months of fine playing that meant everything to him.

Most people with only the ordinary problems of age, can help themselves most, by working at breath control. Not huffing and puffing, but stretching the control of maximum and minimum air. Far more important than any equipment changes.[/quote]

:clever:

The closer to the face, the more impact.

The closer to the lungs...?

You may try the suggested Getzen 1052, horn or slide. If that is too large after you have tried the assorted lead pipes, you could even try a Getzen 3047, 547 bore slide.

You could contact Doug Elliott to see if he could provide a mouthpiece setup tailored to your needs.

I play the above horns and have employed them in the various settings with enjoyed success.

Good luck in your search.

PD Lyerla

Geizens

Miraphone

Kings

Edwards

You may try the suggested Getzen 1052, horn or slide. If that is too large after you have tried the assorted lead pipes, you could even try a Getzen 3047, 547 bore slide.

You could contact Doug Elliott to see if he could provide a mouthpiece setup tailored to your needs.

I play the above horns and have employed them in the various settings with enjoyed success.

Good luck in your search.

PD Lyerla

Geizens

Miraphone

Kings

Edwards

I don't have anything to help you. But at 48 I have my own issues. A year ago when I started playing again after having stopped when I was a teenager, I ran into my own issues as I was getting reacclimatized. I found on both my .500 bore and .547 bores I would run out of air after a 4 count measure. So the struggle was real! I think I was plain doing at least 4 things inefficiently: one, I was over-blowing the horn. Two, I wasn't breathing a deeply, fully enough. Three, I was over punching instead of using an appropriate embouchure, which Doug helped me with. Four, using a focused air stream. For me, it was an efficiently question not an equipment issue. Good luck with your problem solving your particular issue(s)!

Or maybe just breathe more often? If the lung capacity thing is starting to be an issue. No rule that you can just breathe sooner. Often Tuba players take this approach (some of them but not all or even most)