TromboneChat

Having played the euphonium, that is more conical than a trombone, and seen some attempts to make the trombone more conical (dual bore slides, tuning in the slide...), it is quite obvious to me that a more conical brass instrument is in general easier to play (And the easiness of sound emission is greater for the euphonium than for the trombone, generally speaking...)

And it looks like most "classical" german trombone designs is in favor of conicity, f.i. some early german bass trombone had relatively small mouthpiece and upper slide tubing diameters pared to quite a large bell.

Conn with its 62H TIS model was an attempt to get a more conical instrument.

Ralf Sauer with its dual bore symphonic tenors (Conn 88 / SL2547 slide, etc...) had a similar approach.

This said, I'm wondering now if a relatively simple way to get more conicity out of a "symphonic" tenor in putting a small shank mp leadpipe in a large bore slide (.547") has ever been made?

(The reverse has been made : large shank mp leadpipes in .525" slides...)

You can get a taste of what that would be like by using a small shank mouthpiece with an adapter in a large shank slide...it's not great. Or, try an otherwise normal euphonium that has a small or even medium shank. There's a reason those instruments often get modified with a large shank receiver.

E.A. Couturier was obsessed with making brass instruments as conical as possible, and sold trombones that even had tapered inner slides. There's probably a reason that experiment started and ended there.

The euphonium I played many years ago was a small shank mp Yamaha, built so from the factory, and I played it with the only mp I had at that time : a Bach 12C.

No one ever complained about my sound, and I had even compliments about my tone...

Returning now from a .547" 88H to a .525" 88H I find so much more advantages about that configuration that I wonder... And still, old 62H's are still very much in demand nowadays...

Edward Solomon was a lot in favor of the old F english basses for the same reason : more conical tubing length in the bell section...

Slidennis wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:16 am ...

Edward Solomon was a lot in favor of the old F English basses for the same reason : more conical tubing length in the bell section...

Actually, the English Bass trombone was in G. It came in two bores: one sub-0.500" and one 0.525" (I have an example of the latter). I wouldn't call my G bass more conical. It's just longer.

If you really want to conicalize a trombone, try a double slide with all 4 tubes in different diameters. Might make for an interesting experiment. But kinda pricey...

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:27 am
Actually, the English Bass trombone was in G. It came in two bores: one sub-0.500" and one 0.525" (I have an example of the latter). I wouldn't call my G bass more conical. It's just longer.

It is more conical : the bell section is conical and longer for a G bass than a for a Bb (usual) bass, so when you play a low G on a Bb bass you have a much more cylindrical lenght engaged than when played on a G bass... me think...

Slidennis wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:16 am The euphonium I played many years ago was a small shank mp Yamaha, built so from the factory, and I played it with the only mp I had at that time : a Bach 12C.

No one ever complained about my sound, and I had even compliments about my tone...

It's not necessarily about the sound (although in the low register it definitely helps those notes be more open), it's about the feel for the player. Of course swapping the small shank receiver of the 321 for a large shank one is not necessary to make the 321 a good instrument. But it's a common enough swap that there is a "standard" part to do the job (King 2280 receiver).

A Willson 2900 euph comes in both medium and large shank. They sound like Willsons either way, but the large shank is nicer to play so the medium shanks often get swapped.

Slidennis wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:39 am

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:27 am
Actually, the English Bass trombone was in G. It came in two bores: one sub-0.500" and one 0.525" (I have an example of the latter). I wouldn't call my G bass more conical. It's just longer.

It is more conical : the bell section is conical and longer for a G bass than a for a Bb (usual) bass, so when you play a low G on a Bb bass you have a much more cylindrical lenght engaged than when played on a G bass... me think...

The cylindrical handslide is equally longer on a G bass (hence the slide handle), the proportion of cylindrical to conical tubing is about the same. Sure for low G you'll have more conical tubing on a G bass, but for low Ab the G bass will be way more cylindrical out in 7th.

I’m actually not sure if the small receiver I’m a 547 couldn’t work in limited applications but a 525/547 will almost certainly work better for anything you want to use that for. The adapter definitely leads to less satisfying results but on the other hand, many of the original 6.5AL sizes and their subsequent copies essentially have an adapter built into the shank in the sense that the taper is the same as the small shank and they essentially have thick walls, much in the same way an adapter would work.

I really like my 525/547. Works with large shank and small shank but there are definitely tapers that work better than others. I would suspect that a 547 upper with small shank would likewise have to have a particular taper or else it would be quite weird.

The dual bore slides we typically find, by mixing and matching existing tubing typically with one size on upper and “the next size up” on the lower, tend to be what I prefer compared to straight slides . However, I also like the 500/525 setup enough that I’m having a horn built around that bore rather than a 508/525. Thus a fairly large jump of .025”. It makes me wonder if i should try something similar with other sizes like a 547/578 (.031) or try to find one of the rarer .555 uppers so it would be a .023 diff. Or a 485/508 (.023) difference. The 525/547 is likewise similar (.022) enough that I think there might be something to the slight extra conical nature of these setups. I think I’ll be content for awhile once this one is built though

Finetales wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:45 am The cylindrical handslide is equally longer on a G bass (hence the slide handle), the proportion of cylindrical to conical tubing is about the same. Sure for low G you'll have more conical tubing on a G bass, but for low Ab the G bass will be way more cylindrical out in 7th.

Good take on that one, you're right, although the partial for Ab on both basses is not the same...

Generally speaking, I prefer the tone of a euphonium than the one of a baritone, the tone of a flugel (that has really better pedal notes than a trumpet) than the one of a trumpet, and I like the tone of some german trombones very much...

And horn players can reach very low notes with rather small mouthpieces, so bass trombones with more conicity could be done... ( At my own surprise, I personnaly often get an easier low range out of my .525 88H, than out of a .547 88H, same bell... : only the high dynamics for the low range are more available on a larger bore...)

But it was also about easiness of sound emission...

(BTW, lately I tried to develop my pp playing abilities, which wasn't good at all...)

I play duo bore horns the best. My old Bach bass is the only horn not duo bore.
For me they play and sound the best.

I have a 525/547 and 547/562 slides that I can flip between. They really sound the same. The smaller slide lets me play longer phrases and bigger slide has more power. Other then that they play the same.

If I play a 547/547 slide, I can sound and play the same for about a half hour, then I start struggling. For me it is a neurological thing.

I hear more sound change between a cornet and a trumpet then a single and duo bore trombone. So I think it is a tool box thing rather than a sound thing.

I'm not sure I would agree with the assessment that conical instruments are easier to play than cylindrical. There's a difference, but "easier" isn't the word I would necessarily use.

Slidennis wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:34 amAnd horn players can reach very low notes with rather small mouthpieces, so bass trombones with more conicity could be done...

Low horn playing is some sort of witchcraft though, we shouldn't have to add that layer of difficulty to low brass playing if we don't have to. As a horn player myself I still haven't cracked that code. (Fortunately, the things I get paid to play on that instrument usually range from "high" to "very high".)

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:16 am I'm not sure I would agree with the assessment that conical instruments are easier to play than cylindrical. There's a difference, but "easier" isn't the word I would necessarily use.

Conical instruments like euphonium, baritone, tuba, flugelhorn, etc., feel different to the player and sound different to the audience compared to cylindrical instruments (trumpet, trombone, etc.). They are built that way for a reason.

I do think it’s easier to produce a nice sound on a conical instrument compared to a cylindrical one (esp. for beginners), but it’s a matter of practice and knowing what kind of sound you want to produce (the sound in your head). I don’t think that making the trombone more conical will make it any easier to play. Traditional German trombones tend to be more conical, but they are no easier to play than “American” style instruments. In a way, they are more difficult to play because you have to work against the more conical nature of the horn to produce a characteristic trombone sound.*

I think it’s more a matter of having the characteristic sound in your head and using the right tool for the job.

*On the other hand, the smaller bore slide, relatively small bore neck pipe and tuning slide, along with a thin, large bell equipped with a kranz, helps create the characteristic German trombone sound.

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:16 am I'm not sure I would agree with the assessment that conical instruments are easier to play than cylindrical. There's a difference, but "easier" isn't the word I would necessarily use.

Different and only easier for different people.
Before my nero issues a single bore horn was easier. Now it has to be duo.

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:29 pm I think it’s more a matter of having the characteristic sound in your head and using the right tool for the job.

I very much like this statement !

whitbey wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:14 pm [Different and only easier for different people.
Before my nero issues a single bore horn was easier. Now it has to be duo.

"Nero issues", what were them, can you explain? Seems interesting to me...

Note for note, I do agree that a euphonium is generally easier time out of and with a better range than a trombone but I’m not sure how much of that is that it’s comical and how much is because of things like extra resistance and larger bore.

Matt K wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:38 am Note for note, I do agree that a euphonium is generally easier time out of and with a better range than a trombone but I’m not sure how much of that is that it’s comical and how much is because of things like extra resistance and larger bore.

I just think I like the resistance to be as near to my lips as possible for me, so my preference to conical instrument...

And I also think it has to do with playing quietly or with a lot of stress... Pushing or letting it come out...

Slidennis wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:01 am

whitbey wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:14 pm [Different and only easier for different people.
Before my nero issues a single bore horn was easier. Now it has to be duo.

"Nero issues", what were them, can you explain? Seems interesting to me...

I was badly electrocuted many years ago. As most do not survive, dealing with the post issues has been a challenge.

Smooth air is the best thing and dou bore make that easier. D Elliot things have been a really big help.

whitbey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 7:02 am

Slidennis wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:01 am
"Nero issues", what were them, can you explain? Seems interesting to me...

I was badly electrocuted many years ago. As most do not survive, dealing with the post issues has been a challenge.

Smooth air is the best thing and dou bore make that easier. D Elliot things have been a really big help.

Thanks to you for sharing it !
I'm also leaning toward smooth air those days, as I was more and more required to play quieter and to manage to play longer musical phrases without breathing before the end...

When I play euph, I can actually recline and just relax and play (don't recline so far the condensation rolls back into your mouthpiece!) . When I play bone, I sit up straight and I get sweaty. When I play tuba I get light headed.

My bass trombone is the bone that has the most euphonium like sound properties, and it's a bit of a bear to play. It's not duo bore, but it does have TIS which is meant to make the bell section more conical. I have several smaller dual bore bones, and I don't think there's anything particularly special about them except that they combine characteristics of different sizes.

Matt K wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:38 am … I do agree that a euphonium is generally easier…but I’m not sure how much of that is that it’s comical…

Are you referring to the instrument or the musicians? Either way, it’s true!

Only when I play it