I'm skeptical about axial valves

[JCBone]

I'm I only person that feels that axials really aren't that much better than rotors. Comparing an Edwards axial to my yamaha Rotor, I only noticed a small difference. With all the drawbacks of axials such as the long throw and it's maintenence need, I honestly would just prefer the rotor
Does anybody else feel this way?

[Burgerbob]

Which one do you play most of the time?

[JCBone]

Which one do you play most of the time?

On rotors.

[Burgerbob]

Which one do you play most of the time?

On rotors.

Well, there you go. Axials aren't an instant improvement in every aspect- it's something that some player prefer, not the pinnacle of valve design.

If you used it all the time for a few months, you'd probably get used to how it changes things and like it more. But you don't have to!

[hyperbolica]

It's not a crime to prefer rotors. Lots of people prefer rotors. Axials aren't "better", they're just different. If you prefer rotors, then play rotors. You don't have to justify it to anyone.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

There are pros and cons to every type of valve. I have three horns with axial valves and I play them sparingly because I fear that if I use them too much, the valve(s) will wear and I will need to deal with that. Fortunately, there is the option of a Mike Olsen (Instrument Innovations) axial for any future horns that I make/buy. The Instrument Innovations axial-flow valves use special ball-bearing casings that don't wear. If they do fail, you simply replace the ball-bearing disc.

Back to the pros and cons....I find that axial-flow valves are much more equal in resistance and tone quality between the engaged and disengaged sides of the horn. Low F's in trigger/1st position are much less work to control. However, all three of my axial-flow valve horns require a bit more air to play. They take about 10% more air (up and down the entire range) than my horns with assorted types of rotors.

On the flip side....while my horns with rotors are a bit more efficient, there are two problems that I notice with .547 bore horns with traditional rotors. 1. There are different degrees (depending on the horn and the valve) of change in tone color between disengaged and engaged sides of the horn. 2. Low F in trigger/1st position is a struggle to keep in the "center of pitch" on most of my rotor horns.

For some reason, the low F in trigger/1st position is not a struggle to center on all of my .562 straight and .562 - .578 dual bore bass trombones with rotors. All of my traditional rotor bass trombones center that note beautifully. I have often wanted to bring that up as a topic.

In the end, I think it is up to the performer to adjust to his/her equipment. A good musician will sound fantastic on an instrument with either type of valve.

[Elow]

I think the axials were great compared to older rotors, when they first came out, they didn’t have much completion. But now, rotors are pretty great. I got to service a frakenhorn with a bach bell, meinlschmidt open flow valves and dual bore shires slide and it was an incredible horn. Felt as open as my shires axials, but was just so much easier to play.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

A valve's success or ease of playing really depends on how well it is set up. Any rotor can be horrible if there is too much play or it is not seated/aligned correctly. Many players have brought me their instrument, saying "I want to replace my rotor because it doesn't play well." My normal response is..."let me do some adjustments and then let me know if you still want to replace it."

Many rotary valves have issues of port alignment and end-to-end play that can be adjusted by a decent technician. Most of the time, when I make adjustments on the bearing plate/bearings and get the corks/bumpers aligned correctly, these people realize that their rotary valve is actually quite good.....it just needed some fine tuning.

One of the more costly repairs for a rotary valve is to have the core plated/replated in nickel. However, I have found that a low percentage of valves actually need this.

I don't think there was a problem with "older rotors." Many of these "older rotors" (Conn, King, Bach, Olds, etc...) work very well after they have been adjusted correctly. To quote the technician who trained me on how to adjust bearings and bearing plates on rotary valves....."One of the most beautiful things about rotary valves is that they are infinitely fixable."

[Burgerbob]

A valve's success or ease of playing really depends on how well it is set up.

I think this could easily go for axials as well... too many people playing on dry, leaky axials that say they don't like them.

[spencercarran]

I like how Thayers sound/respond, but the ergonomic and mechanical issues are a dealbreaker for me. I have to do a little extra work to compensate for low range stuffiness through my rotors, but they're just not bad enough for me to pine after axials with all their drawbacks. Many modern rotors are probably better made than the old Holton ones and provide a more even response.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

A valve's success or ease of playing really depends on how well it is set up.

I think this could easily go for axials as well... too many people playing on dry, leaky axials that say they don't like them.

Absolutely.....very true of ANYTHING with ANY INSTRUMENT. Back in the 1990s I kept hearing from dozens of players about how awful the Bach K valves were. Years later, when I was doing tech work on horns, I noticed that MANY, MANY K valves were coming to me misaligned by 15-20%. After getting the proper alignment, those K valves actually played rather well.

[Cotboneman]

After 64 years I own my first axial, and at least preliminarily, I must say that I am not really feeling that much of a difference between my standard rotor instruments and the axial. If anything the rotors may be a bit more centered. As far as ease of 'blow", the axial could have an edge, but I am still experimenting with it in practice and have not had an opportunity to play it in real world experience. In any case, it is not going to be a life changing experience as far as contrasts go; of that I am sure. I will say that the current Infinity Valve on my Bach 42AF is not as physically as uncomfortable against my jaw as their earlier axial flow valve, which I did not like at all.

[hornbuilder]

The valve is only one component of an over-all instrument. There are so many other aspects to be taken into consideration. It may not have been the axial valve on the Edwards that didn't jive with you.

[whitbey]

I traded my old Edwards Thayer for a Edwards conventional rotor back in the 90's. The Thayer was too wide on my neck to play well. I got the new CR valve from Edwards recently. It is way better to me. Not just the valve but the way the whole thing is done.
Thayer was a good advancement back in the 90's. Since then much more has advanced.

[ChadA]

Axial flow valves can be great in the right circumstances. I used OE Thayer valves and Shires Axial flow valves for about 10 years. The OE Thayers were added to a Corp Bach and did wonders for that horn. I won my pro orchestra job on that horn and recorded a few CDs with the Cincinnati Symphony and Pops. The Shires Axials were more temperamental and were heavier. They ate oil and never quite as fast as I wanted. I eventually went to Shires rotors about 10-12 years ago or so and much prefer the sound, feel, maintenance, and reliability of them.

For context, I usually play dual bore slides and a big mouthpiece so having big open Thayers starts to push me to the point of diminishing returns when it comes to opening up the horn. I fully believe a horn can be too open, which causes the player extra work to focus the sound.

But people's mileage varies, of course. George Curran (who used to sub for me in my orchestra when he was in college ) sounds great on his dual bore slide and axials. He makes that combo work in ways I never could. Ditto Blair Bollinger, Brian Hecht, and many others.

There are a lot of ways to get the proper balance of open-ness vs. resistance in a horn. Axial flow valves are one way.

[Burgerbob]

So, this piqued my interest and I got the 42AFG out of the case (holding it for a friend at the moment). I have been playing a bog standard 42B for a while now and I like it, but the valve register sometimes likes to bite me.

Instantly the valve range is much more even, both in terms of sound and blow. Not so much painstaking thought when trying to match a C in the staff to the notes around it.

However, I play an Ultimate Brass SMP- developed by Tim Higgins to be a good principal mouthpiece for a 42 with a rotor. On the 42AFG, after running through the Hindemith, the high range was definitely WAY more work. Switching to a corp 3G (like a modern 5G, almost), the high range returned and the sound got a bit more tenor-y.

Mouthpiece, slide, all those choices will change how you perceive a different valve- if you play a rotor, something else in the setup is probably a bit more open to balance it out, and that setup with just a different valve will not feel as good. That's why Alessi played a long, sterling leadpipe in a medium size, to balance out the large mouthpiece and open F section he used.