TromboneChat

My 822G will make it to E with both slides pulled.

I'll have to try my YSL-640 when I get home. It was my understanding that it doesn't make it to an E-pull, and that the second tuning slide is just so you can empty the spit.

I could be wrong. Honestly I would only try an E-pull on a traditional wrap instrument. With an open wrap you end up with the tuning slide out REAAALLY far.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 am

Matt K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:27 pm
Beyond that, all of the F attachment wraps which are not 'open' for Yamahas are "semi-closed", a design feature that was copied on some clones of Yamaha instruments (e.g. the older Jupiter 636 models). The closest similarity that predates Yamaha having this wrap is the King closed wrap models and only because it has two smaller loops, when you examine them they aren't really all that much similar. I'm not sure who copied who, but the "closed wrap" you find on Bach 42B and Conn 88s bear an incredibly strong resemblance to one another. As do the open wraps. Really, if anything, Yamaha has been one of the more creative manufacturers in the previous half-century on this front between the semi-closed wrap and the convertible bass design on the 622 (and 822) you mentioned previously.

I'm not understanding the distinction you're making between "closed" and "semi-closed". Bach and Conn closed wrap trombones have two small radius crooks and one large radius crook. Don't Yamaha closed wraps also have two small radius crooks and one large radius crook? I think the reason Conn changed to the wrap that they now use is because the two long straight tubing sections allow for an E pull. And I'm guessing that's why Bach used a similar design. I don't see the advantage of doing it differently; actually seems like a regression to me. Am I missing something?

I don't know who originally coined the term "closed"; "semi-closed" is what Yamaha refers to the wrap, much in the same way Hagmann refers to this:

as a "Double "0"" rather than "closed wrap".

My point was that, whether the design choice be a regression or an enhancement, it isn't a copy of an existing model unless your definitions of "copy" are so broad as to take away any of its pejorative meaning. Under such a definition, certainly the two big American manufacturers of the mid 20th century "copied" designs in both their "closed wrap" and later their "open wrap" with both wraps on two of the most popular instruments of that era differing only really in the style of radius in the larger of the bends:
On the 42BO and 88HO, you'll notice the same distinction, but the only radius is in the crook. Eyeballing it, it looks like it may even be the same part.


For comparison, the 3BF looks like this: The Yamaha wrap looks like this: The King 3BF I've tried all do have an E pull. Actually, I had a 3BF that I really kick myself for selling. It was a great horn and a straight Shires I picked up at the time was possibly marginally better. Probably could have gotten the King that last few %... long story. Anyway, it had a killer low range. Way better than it should have been.

This particular Yamaha also has an E pull because the larger of the radius bends is also pullable. On the 400 series horns, no such pull exists and you have to pull the lower one. The one advantage this has over a traditional wrap is that the lowest point of the slide is removable. So if you get water stuck there, it's pretty easy to take it out. That seldom happens in my experience but I know some people have that issue with closed wraps. On paper, the downsides are that it has a 180 degree bend like an open wrap and two smaller bends so theoretically, it should play less well than any of the contemporary "open-wrap" designs or the traditional closed-wrap design. However, in my personal experience, I tend to like the way they play but I haven't yet been able to A/B them to anything... yet. (In the works though!)


Image Attribution:
Hagmann was from their website
Bach/Conn from their respective sites.
King 3BF from the brass-exchange
646 (Horrible photo provided by me)

My 421G doesn't not pull for low B. That and it being a single-trigger bass is probably why Yamaha designates it as an "intermediate" horn. I doubt it could be used effectively for higher-end technical low passages. But all of that is okay with me. It suits my needs at present.

And the sound of Yamaha horns being described as "middle of the road" also suits my needs. It allows me to play it as a low, mellow bass with, say - a Yamaha 60 mpc and yet turn around and play it as an over-sized tenor with a smaller Bach mpc. That makes it a very versatile horn for me.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 amI'm not understanding the distinction you're making between "closed" and "semi-closed". Bach and Conn closed wrap trombones have two small radius crooks and one large radius crook. Don't Yamaha closed wraps also have two small radius crooks and one large radius crook? I think the reason Conn changed to the wrap that they now use is because the two long straight tubing sections allow for an E pull. And I'm guessing that's why Bach used a similar design. I don't see the advantage of doing it differently; actually seems like a regression to me. Am I missing something?

I usually prefer "traditional" for the wraps on a Conn 88H and 42B. When I think "closed" I think of pancake wraps, which had a lot of tight bends, and couldn't have any type of E pull without a custom tuning slide made. The traditional wraps do have two pretty tight 180 degree bends.

The Yamaha Wrap is "semi-open", so it's got larger radius bends in it than the "traditional" wrap. I honestly have no idea if the radius size of the bend has that much of an effect on sound or blow, and the Yamaha wrap also has that 180 bend at the valve. I don't entirely understand why Yamaha did it this way either, but they currently use it on one of their Xeno horns, so they must like it.

Thinking back on the "soft" brass on Yamaha horns, what would cause that? Less work hardening? Heat treatment?

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:56 am

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 amI'm not understanding the distinction you're making between "closed" and "semi-closed". Bach and Conn closed wrap trombones have two small radius crooks and one large radius crook. Don't Yamaha closed wraps also have two small radius crooks and one large radius crook? I think the reason Conn changed to the wrap that they now use is because the two long straight tubing sections allow for an E pull. And I'm guessing that's why Bach used a similar design. I don't see the advantage of doing it differently; actually seems like a regression to me. Am I missing something?

I usually prefer "traditional" for the wraps on a Conn 88H and 42B. When I think "closed" I think of pancake wraps, which had a lot of tight bends, and couldn't have any type of E pull without a custom tuning slide made. The traditional wraps do have two pretty tight 180 degree bends.

The Yamaha Wrap is "semi-open", so it's got larger radius bends in it than the "traditional" wrap. I honestly have no idea if the radius size of the bend has that much of an effect on sound or blow, and the Yamaha wrap also has that 180 bend at the valve. I don't entirely understand why Yamaha did it this way either, but they currently use it on one of their Xeno horns, so they must like it.

Thinking back on the "soft" brass on Yamaha horns, what would cause that? Less work hardening? Heat treatment?

Neither my 610/620f nor my 421G are what I would refer to as having an "open" blow in the trigger range in any meaningful way that I can determine. But they certainly aren't the stuffiest either. That dubious distinction went to two different period Conn 88H horns I have owned and subsequently sold (The best was a King 3Bf).

As far as I can tell, my 421G weighs almost exactly as much as my 620f (although it is decidedly more nose-heavy). I can only speculate that they used the same amount of metal in both. They just rolled or drew it out thinner on the 421G, I guess. Clueless.

The terms tend to be somewhat fluid, I generally defer to marketing material where it exists. In this case, both Conn and Bach refer to their not-open-wraps as "closed wrap" and so that tends to be what I go with. Actually, I have been mistakenly been calling Yamaha's 'semi-closed' when you are correct, they do refer to it as "semi-open". Guess it's glass-half-full vs glass-half-empty type of thinking lol

The exception to this is "traditional" wrap which I'm not aware of ever being labeled as such in marketing materials. I believe I've seen "flat-wrap" but I generally conflate what people call "pancake-wrap", "flat-wrap", and "traditional-wrap" as being essentially the same though there are differences between these. The common element is that they all have many sharp angles and are generally all on one plane. But this is by no means a definitive assertion that I am correct, just my preference.

I took my Yam 620 bass in to the shop to get the tuning slides unfrozen and was surprised to find there were 5 of them (although, to be fair, one was mainly to allow easy water removal). The D slide is made up of two slides, allowing for an extra long pull. I don’t know why, as the D seems to be in tune with little extension of the D tube.

The valves seem to have only recently broken in, after several years of use. It’s almost as if the tolerances were too fine.

Bach5G wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:48 am I took my Yam 620 bass in to the shop to get the tuning slides unfrozen and was surprised to find there were 5 of them (although, to be fair, one was mainly to allow easy water removal). The D slide is made up of two slides, allowing for an extra long pull. I don’t know why, as the D seems to be in tune with little extension of the D tube.

The valves seem to have only recently broken in, after several years of use. It’s almost as if the tolerances were too fine.

Memory serving, the second slide - similar to how the Duo Gravis is designed - can be removed from the additional sleeve and inserted to be an Eb attachment. So you have the main F attachment slide, the secondary F attachment slide (which can be used for water removal or when both pulled should be an "E" pull. Then you have the ability to have an Eb/D/Db attachment (or possibly bD) depending on how far out all the slides are and if you have the sleeve inserted. That way, you can get a really solid B natural in 6thish. It's not super practical but I can see the utility of it.

Matt K wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:42 amMemory serving, the second slide - similar to how the Duo Gravis is designed - can be removed from the additional sleeve and inserted to be an Eb attachment. So you have the main F attachment slide, the secondary F attachment slide (which can be used for water removal or when both pulled should be an "E" pull. Then you have the ability to have an Eb/D/Db attachment (or possibly bD) depending on how far out all the slides are and if you have the sleeve inserted. That way, you can get a really solid B natural in 6thish. It's not super practical but I can see the utility of it.

I don't think the tuning slides on the YBL-620 F attachment are long enough for an E-pull, which would also pretty much be redundant on a double valve bass trombone.

The horn, like it's predecessor the YBL-612, comes with crooks to put the horn in Bb/F/D or Bb/F/Eb. The setup of the 620 allows it to use just a tuning slide extension, while the 612 had a different wrap, so you had to swap out the whole attachment crook. When in the "D" configuration, only the end tuning slide is intended to be used.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:48 am Yamaha had an innovative wrap style with multiple tuning slides. One you left tuned, the other was for E pull. The king wrap also does this.

Yamaha wishfully called it a semi-open wrap or some such.

But if you leave one slide tuned, the second slide doesn't get you all the way to E.

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:06 pm

Matt K wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:42 amMemory serving, the second slide - similar to how the Duo Gravis is designed - can be removed from the additional sleeve and inserted to be an Eb attachment. So you have the main F attachment slide, the secondary F attachment slide (which can be used for water removal or when both pulled should be an "E" pull. Then you have the ability to have an Eb/D/Db attachment (or possibly bD) depending on how far out all the slides are and if you have the sleeve inserted. That way, you can get a really solid B natural in 6thish. It's not super practical but I can see the utility of it.

I don't think the tuning slides on the YBL-620 F attachment are long enough for an E-pull, which would also pretty much be redundant on a double valve bass trombone.

The horn, like it's predecessor the YBL-612, comes with crooks to put the horn in Bb/F/D or Bb/F/Eb. The setup of the 620 allows it to use just a tuning slide extension, while the 612 had a different wrap, so you had to swap out the whole attachment crook. When in the "D" configuration, only the end tuning slide is intended to be used.

Wait, what? So, the second valve tuning slide, without the insert, puts the horn into E or Eb. Inserting the extension puts the horn into D or, if all the way out, into Db (is there such a thing as a Db bass trombone?). Yam markets the horn as a basic pro model of particular interest to band directors, and I could see the marketing types thinking offering the various tunings might appeal to a broad market, particularly a broad educational market.

The school I went to had one of those horns but I don't know how much of it was aftermarket. I don't believe they marketed specifically as having that particular configuration as a benefit, but yeah, the one I played on years ago if you pulled everything out you could get a convincing Db in first. The practicality of that for even a working professional is debatable. I might have the model mixed up (or perhaps even it wasn't stock or had a part swapped) and indeed, the horn I played differs from the description where the D and Eb slides are different parts so it might be wholly different.

Bach5G wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:21 pmWait, what? So, the second valve tuning slide, without the insert, puts the horn into E or Eb. Inserting the extension puts the horn into D or, if all the way out, into Db (is there such a thing as a Db bass trombone?). Yam markets the horn as a basic pro model of particular interest to band directors, and I could see the marketing types thinking offering the various tunings might appeal to a broad market, particularly a broad educational market.

The official Yamaha specifications list the key of the YBL-620G as "Bb / F / Eb & Bb / F / D"

I don't think there is enough of a pull for Db, and they didn't really design it that way. I think part of it is for stability, as the attachment doesn't have any bracing at all, so it's gotta be kinda solid. The D crook on my 612 has a VERY long tuning slide.

The original YBL-612 and 611 were just in Bb / F / Eb, and didn't even have split triggers. They added the D crook as an option later, as for the Dependent horn, the main thing is to get that low B Natural. This is also why the first independent bass trombones were in Bb / F / G/ Eb. That is still a popular tuning option, even today, though almost all of the non-custom horns only offer Bb/G/Gb/D.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:12 pm

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:48 am Yamaha had an innovative wrap style with multiple tuning slides. One you left tuned, the other was for E pull. The king wrap also does this.

Yamaha wishfully called it a semi-open wrap or some such.

But if you leave one slide tuned, the second slide doesn't get you all the way to E.

I guess it depends on how you tune it to F. Like I said, I think it is a really optimistic design.

Thrawn22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 pm There is only one Yamaha horn I've played and, for lack of a better word, liked. That was the Doug Yeo bassbone.

Beyond that, all Yamaha horns are is copies of American horns and combining those various parts into something they claim to be innovative or original. I don't like Bach, but I'd buy a Bach before a Yamaha.


I have a couple of friends who play Yamaha and swear by them. And good for them. Its just not my cup of tea.

The American" trumpets are just copies of french trumpet... so what?
Trombones, just like trumpets, tubas, baritones, euphoniums are not an american invention...
The sousaphone is...does Yamaha build one?

I’m just adding to the thread because I like Yamaha and have heard a lot of dismissive things about them. Some were from a younger me. There are great musicians who play Yamaha and several professors I had sounded like they found god when they talked about why they played Yamaha. I liked the 822G and 882O enough to buy them. And others I liked enough to enjoy borrowing them including a 321 bass trombone I should have bought... I think what happens with top level pros is that manufacturers add some special attention to the specific horns they play. On top of that even if a top level pro picks up a random horn they’re a top level pro and can play it to the best of their ability which is far beyond myself and many others.

Whatever the red belled 88H copy was (654R?) Was so good it wasn't every funny. They had one of the first Eb/Bb altos, and are always innovative.

That was the 643. It was developed with the help of Schilke.

Yam has a history of working with pro players to develop products. Yeo, Shew, Vizzuti, Bousfield, Crewe, and Trudel all come to mind. The Bousfield horn is an example of designing an instrument for a particular player’s circumstances, namely the Barbican.

For me yammie is OK, not one of the best one bones, but it is OK. I had an opporunity to play on conn 6h, the "victor" one, the friend of mine borrowed me that axe. Then there was a time when I needed to but my own 0,500 bone and I boutght the yamaha 651 one, because it was not that expensive, and was a pro horn (from that info that i found on internet).
6h and 651 have equal bore size and bell size, but for me the 6h sounds much more "wide" than its bore size, in comparsion with yammie 651. For example, the 6h is more 0.508 or larger, than yammie, because 651 cracks up at lower volume than 6h. But it is not a minus, because yammie is more "light" like in a "king" way, but with its own character. Playing with less "wind pressure" from your lungs on yamaha 651 can show me another path of creativity when I try to solo in jazz or rock or ska. But anyway, for me 6h > yamaha 651.
Still I remeber the days when i was at music school. They had spare yammie with 547 bore and F attachment, it was the 4ХХ one, I dont remember the exact model number, but for me, than, it was a killer horn and maybe it would be a killer horn for me nowadays. The Yamahas' intermidiate horns are the best as far as i know for their price!