opinions on valve types

[DaveHickman]

I'm considering buying a new horn - I haven't done so since 1993. There are so many options these days. I'm especially curious about the various valve types for F attachments - axial, Thayer, CL, etc. Any input on the differences, pros, cons, etc?

Thanks much!
Dave

[BoomtownRath]

Hi Dave,

Yes there are many types of valves which offer various degrees of resistance and what's best is what works for you, it depends on how you play and use your air as well as the type of music you play. My advice would be to visit a store that have a good selection of makes and models and try them. I can't give you better advice than that!

Good luck.

[DaveHickman]

That certainly makes sense, thank you! Now, to find a store that actually has a nice variety to try...

Dave

[BGuttman]

The various new valves have been an answer to the problem of stuffy Bach 42 F-attachments. I have owned conventional rotors (but not Bach) for a long time and have had no problems. My horns have been Yamaha, King, and Conn, as well as a few odd Chinese "bangers". I also have a Bach 36 (C) which has the same rotor as the 42 but it's much more open on the Medium Bore horn.

The first "exotic" was the Thayer (Axial) valve. It has very little resistance. The F side feels almost as open as the Bb side. I've found the Thayer to be TOO open but it may be fine for you. One issue with Thayers is they drink a lot of oil. They also need a lot of service (cleaning, adjusting, etc.).

Bach came out with an odd valve called the "K" valve. It looks like a frozen orange juice can on its side. The K valve has minimal internal bends like the Thayer. Big problem is that it sticks out into your neck. If you are large like me this can be a real problem. That has really hindered its acceptance into the marketplace.

Rene Haagmann of Switzerland came out with a valve that looks like you mounted a rotor on its side and pulled the ports out of the top. Again, the design minimized the bends in the tubing near the valve. Haagmann valves have a little more resistance than Axials, and it may suit your taste. Bach calls theirs the A model (as in 42A).

Edwards and Shires have conventional rotors that are much more open than Bach. I think Shires calls theirs "TruBore".

There are also rotor valves with 3 internal chambers so that the air goes through the center when in Bb and the two outer ones when in F. Again, this tries to reduce the resistance. Result is still more resistance than a Thayer, though much less resistance than a Rotor.

Holton created something called the "Monster Valve" which is basically an oversize rotor turned on its side. It had similar problems to the K valve -- ergonomics.

There is also the Miller valve. I think there's a thread here just on that.

I wouldn't get hung up on valve design, as long as what you buy plays well for you. I never got a Bach 42B, opting instead for a Yamaha 682 and never felt a need to muddle with odd valves.

[Kbiggs]

Like Bruce said, there are many different types of valves available to the trombonist these days. There are many that are improved rotary valves (Rotax, Greenhoe, M&W (I believe), Miller aka Instrument Innovations), and some that are completely different designs (Thayer aka axial flow, Hagmans, Lindberg, etc.). Like Bruce said, don’t get hung up on what’s better or not. What’s optimal is what works for you, and what works well for the design of the instrument.

Rene Haagmann of Switzerland came out with a valve that looks like you mounted a rotor on its side and pulled the ports out of the top. Again, the design minimized the bends in the tubing near the valve. Hagmann valves have a little more resistance than Axials, and it may suit your taste. Bach calls theirs the A model (as in 42A).

Edwards and Shires have conventional rotors that are much more open than Bach. I think Shires calls theirs "TruBore".

This is a detail, but the Shires TruBore and the Hagmann valves are more similar to each other than they are to other types of valves. Edwards, Shires and Rath make their own version or flavor of rotary valves that improve on the design of standard rotary valves (e.g., the stock Bach valve, and the stock Conn and King valves, which are actually quite good).

There is also the Miller valve. I think there's a thread here just on that.

There are two Miller aka Instrument Innovations valves. One is an improved Thayer valve called the Infinity valve, which I believe is now used by Conn-Selmer on their new trombones. The other Miller valve is a vastly improved rotary with venting to prevent “pops” between the open and closed positions, and bearings to help with speed and smoothness. It’s used (I believe) primarily as a replacement for people who still like rotary valves but want an improved response but not so “open” feeling as Thayers, TruBores, Hagmanns, and the like.

https://instrumentinnovations.com/

[walldaja]

As important as the valve itself is the geometry of actuation. I tried two of the same horns except for the type of valve, rotor and axial. I wanted to like the axial but ended up getting the rotor.

I also noticed how hard it was to hold the slide with my pinky with some horns. My new horn shortens the distance from valve lever to right hand slide brace by over an inch. Much more comfortable and secure.

Also consider the routing of the thumb lever, some are under the thumb but more seem over the thumb. I had a tech move the lever one one horn from under to over because my thumb would inadvertently actuate the lever.

Don't rush, try as many as possible.

[hornbuilder]

Kbiggs.

The Miller valve has no relation at all with Instrument Innovations.

It was named after it's inventor, whose last name was Miller. It was only produced for a short time and never gained much traction in the market place. It had similarities to the Back K valve.

Instrumsnt Innovations is owned by Mike Olson in Elkhorn WI. They make 2 types of valve, an axial and rotary, both with ball bearings instead of traditional bearing spindle styles.

[hornbuilder]

Photo of a Miller valve.

[elmsandr]

There is also the Miller valve. I think there's a thread here just on that.

There are two Miller aka Instrument Innovations valves. One is an improved Thayer valve called the Infinity valve, which I believe is now used by Conn-Selmer on their new trombones. The other Miller valve is a vastly improved rotary with venting to prevent “pops” between the open and closed positions, and bearings to help with speed and smoothness. It’s used (I believe) primarily as a replacement for people who still like rotary valves but want an improved response but not so “open” feeling as Thayers, TruBores, Hagmanns, and the like.

https://instrumentinnovations.com/

Gah.

No.

Miller valve =/= Instrument innovations. Separate things. What you said about instrument innovations is very true about their valves, except for getting the name confounded with another product.

The "Miller Valve" is this beauty that looks a lot like a Bach K valve:

assymbled_kit.jpg

BACK to the OP; I'm an engineer. I'm a much better engineer than trombonist. I'm amused by valve types. I have a Bach 42 chassis that is set up with interchangeable:
-Aluminum cored Ed Thayer
-Holton Monster
-Conn CL2000
-Bach K

Used to have a rotor and ALMOST had mounted a Hagmann on it, but ran out of money at the time.

I also have/had a handful of basses with:
-Ancient Bach 'Marston' valves
-Aluminum cored Ed Thayers
-Edwards Thayers
-Shires Trubores

So... I've played a lot and have opinions on all of them. I DO enjoy the blow and feel of Thayers. BUT, do I need a horn that open? Do I need a valve that I need to play with, clean, and pay attention to? The 70 year old rotor I mostly ignore and it still works fine (Seriously--I've never taken it apart and I've owned it for a decade). I forget to oil the Thayers for a week and they get sluggish. The Trubore is an interesting balance between these two types. Minimal maintenance more like the rotor, a little more open blow like the thayer... but still more oiling and attention than should be necessary. When playing these days, first call is the single old rotor; next probably the Trubores, third the Thayers. Thayer is first on my tenor. CL2000 is allowed to leave the house; the K valve and Monster are really just for laughs.

If I were to choose from scratch, I would probably stick around the more "advance rotors" like Instrument Innovations, M&W, Greenhoe, Shires, Caidex, or the Artisan Bach offerings; but I'd need to play around on them a bit before choosing. I'll probably do something like this eventually; want to make a new independent valve section with some of the new rotors to have a more changeable in-line setup... but i've got a million projects to work on and no reason for any of them.

Cheers,
Andy

[DaveHickman]

Thanks so much to all of you for posting. The wealth of knowledge here continues to be impressive. I've learned a lot already about what I want and don't want. I don't want something that's high maintenance, and I am also a large fella, so I need to pay extra attention to the ergonomics. The Trubore does sound appealing. I feel my current setup is a bit stuffy, but I like the durability of the rotor.

This makes my backstory all the more interesting. As a junior in high school, my band director encouraged me to attend a sales event the local music store was having. I picked up a Benge 190 that had been a demo and was in my budget. I played it, liked it, and bought it. To this day it is the only large bore horn I have ever played. I have no idea what other horns play like. I've casually looked to see if there are places in my state, Missouri, that might have a variety of horns to try. I haven't found a place, but if I do, this process should be fun.

Take care,
Dave

[Pezza]

I have a Bach 36 with the K valve. Not bad, but to be honest I prefer standard rotors!

I have played troms, tenor & bass, with Thayers, but like them less than the K, except they don't stick into your neck!

I have played Conn 88 with the Lindberg valve. Pretty good. The owner wouldn't let me keep it!

I like a little more resistance, especially in the bottom register.

[blast]

Thanks so much to all of you for posting. The wealth of knowledge here continues to be impressive. I've learned a lot already about what I want and don't want. I don't want something that's high maintenance, and I am also a large fella, so I need to pay extra attention to the ergonomics. The Trubore does sound appealing. I feel my current setup is a bit stuffy, but I like the durability of the rotor.

This makes my backstory all the more interesting. As a junior in high school, my band director encouraged me to attend a sales event the local music store was having. I picked up a Benge 190 that had been a demo and was in my budget. I played it, liked it, and bought it. To this day it is the only large bore horn I have ever played. I have no idea what other horns play like. I've casually looked to see if there are places in my state, Missouri, that might have a variety of horns to try. I haven't found a place, but if I do, this process should be fun.

Take care,
Dave

Be prepared to stick with the Benge...very underrated horns. Have some fun with the money you save

[harrisonreed]

The CL valve is nice, especially the throw, but it only comes on an 88H. So if you don't like the 88H and don't have money to burn on experiments, you don't like the CL valve.

Thayer/Axial valves seem to have the best resistance to me. I'm weird, they feel like they have more resistance than other valves to me, but that is probably just me being able to use the full amount of air I have and liking how that feels. The throw is long, though.

Normal rotors are great. My alto has a normal rotor, as does my 3B, and I like both of these horns a lot more than the same version of the horn without a valve. Long throw though ...

The hybrid rotor, the Rotax and greenhoe and whatever else, didn't actually seem to be any better than a normal rotor. But it always seems to come on a horn that is otherwise flat out better than other trombones in all other aspects. The 396's, the Greenhouse, etc.

So, moreso than a valve, I can only conclude that it's the sum of the parts that matters most. That includes the valve, too.

[BGuttman]

How far are you from Chester, Ill? That's the base residence of DJ Kennedy, who has a house full (literally) of used trombones.

As Chris said, he Benge 190 plays well above its reputation. The stuffiness could be something as simple as needing a valve alignment or tightening a loose joint. Before you go horn shopping, have your current horn looked over by a good tech. I would suggest Aaron Chandler, who seems to be the go-to guy for DJ's repairs.

[DaveHickman]

I've heard that about the Benge. My horn could use a lot of work (dents, extreme lacquer wear, slide movement, etc.), or perhaps more so, it would be nice to get this work done. It would cost upward of $1k to get it done by BAC. I like the horn overall, and love the sound, but there are things I wish was better. Namely valve resistance and slotting variance. One commenter mentioned the sum of the parts, which is a good point, and another mentioned trying several and not placing too much emphasis on the valve, also a good point.

I'm about 3.5 hours from Chester, IL, a worthy drive in my opinion. I hadn't thought about valve alignment, to be honest. Bruce, I like your idea of having it looked over first.

[Posaunus]

The Benge 190 is a perfectly good (and, as noted, under-rated) large-bore trombone. With a pretty good valve (larger and more open than the 88H valve in its day). This trombone should not play "stuffy." Avoid BAC, and find a good tech to take a look, restore and adjust. Good luck!

[Kbiggs]

Gah.

No.

Miller valve =/= Instrument innovations. Separate things. What you said about instrument innovations is very true about their valves, except for getting the name confounded with another product.

The "Miller Valve" is this beauty that looks a lot like a Bach K valve {…}

{…}

Cheers,
Andy

Gah.

Dammit. I meant Olsen.

Thanks for the correction.

*****

FWIW, I used to play a King 4B (similar to a Benge). I really liked the horn, and especially the valve on it. It was also quick, light, and had an even response between the Bb and F sides.

I recently put I.I. valves on my Bach 42 and Bach 50. (Both horns have gone through several stages of development.) I think they allow the horn and player to be the best they can be. Of course, the player still needs a lot of work…

If you like your Benge 190, stick with it. Like the people above said, underrated horns. OTOH, if everyone around you is playing Brand X, i.e., not a Benge, it might be challenging to blend and balance in a section. (Might, not will.) Just food for thought…

[Kbiggs]

Out of curiosity…

For those familiar with King and Benge trombones: Is the bore of the F attachment tubing on a 4B the same as the slide (.547)? That is, is it similar to the valve section tubing of the 6B Duo Gravis staying .562 as designed by George McCracken?

[DaveHickman]

Out of curiosity…

For those familiar with King and Benge trombones: Is the bore of the F attachment tubing on a 4B the same as the slide (.547)? That is, is it similar to the valve section tubing of the 6B Duo Gravis staying .562 as designed by George McCracken?

My section mate plays a Bach 42. We seem to blend pretty well.

I believe I read somewhere the valve section on the Benge is .562 bore.

[DaveHickman]

Thanks all. I'm pretty convinced to just spend the money and breathe some new life into my Benge.

[CalgaryTbone]

Nothing against BAC, but unless you want some special treatment (cosmetically) from them, I'm guessing that you could find someplace that would fix up your Benge for a bit less than that quote you mentioned. A little shopping around, and checking recommendations of the shop that you are considering using for the work. It may involve shipping the horn, but that's not too expensive.

Jim Scott

[BGuttman]

Actually, Aaron Chandler is at the other end of the state (near St, Louis). He's DJ Kennedy's favorite tech. BAC is in Kansas near Kansas City MO.

[imsevimse]

One thing with old rotors is they may leak. I found that thicker oil in the rotor improve such horns a lot. I have a few old single trigger basses that play a lot better if I oil them with my thickest oil to seal better, not that the valve needs to be faster but only because the valve needs to be tighter. It may of course indicate the horn needs a new replaced valve too, but I like those old horns just as they are and do not mind that extra oil.

/Tom

[harrisonreed]

Thanks all. I'm pretty convinced to just spend the money and breathe some new life into my Benge.

Go with a tech that doesn't specialize in stained glass.

[DaveHickman]

Thanks all. I'm pretty convinced to just spend the money and breathe some new life into my Benge.

Go with a tech that doesn't specialize in stained glass.

Agreed. I’m gonna poke around locally and see who I find. I realize part of the high quote I received was for fancy above normal work.

[patrickosmith]

I'm researching conversion to open wrap with rotor replacement and came across this thread. I get one chance to do this. I'd like the best result possible. I am planning to use a ROTAX rotor.

Seems like it's been around for a while and proven itself. Yes? No? Maybe?

[Matt K]

Caidex is the new kid on the block that everyone seems to like at the moment. But a Rotax would be a totally solid choice. I also have a bass with Instrument Innocetions rotors that plays superb. Lots of great options it’s almost hard to go wrong these days.

[pedrombon]

I own several modified Bach 42s, including one with Rotax and one with Instrument Innovations rotary valve. The Instrument Innovations is my favorite.

I also have a Sonas Stelo (tenor) and two Sonas Eklipso basses (single and double), all with Instrument Innovations rotary valves and I couldn't be happier with them. These valves work really amazing.

[mcphatty00]

I love an Axial on a tenor. But since I'm not a bass player by trade, I'd probably want some resistance for that. Which of the various rotors? I don't know.

[harrisonreed]

I'm researching conversion to open wrap with rotor replacement and came across this thread. I get one chance to do this. I'd like the best result possible. I am planning to use a ROTAX rotor.

Seems like it's been around for a while and proven itself. Yes? No? Maybe?

Yeah, it's a good valve. Plays nice, easy to maintain.

[MTbassbone]

Before you go horn shopping, have your current horn looked over by a good tech.

^^^^This. A good slide alignment, and valve service can be a good value. Osmun Music and others offer valve porting to open the valve ports. I don't have any personal experience with it but I know of other rotor valved instruments which have benefited. It may be worth looking into, YMMV. Eventually there will be a point of diminishing returns and it would be better to consider a different instrument. Whatever you decide, stick to it and don't worry about the rest of the latest bright shiny thing on the market. The equipment can aid you to certain extent, but the vast vast majority is you putting in the time to sound good. I can't stress this enough. Constantly searching for something that will make you better can make you Chiroptera guano crazy.

[patrickosmith]

Whatever you decide, stick to it and don't worry about the rest of the latest bright shiny thing on the market. The equipment can aid you to certain extent, but the vast vast majority is you putting in the time to sound good. I can't stress this enough. Constantly searching for something that will make you better can make you Chiroptera guano crazy.

Agreed! This is exactly my approach. Same equipment for decades. I'm fortunate to have equipment that is uniquely qualified and proven. No reason to look for anything else. Except the rotor is starting to buzz. And the instrument's closed wrap actually does inhibit performance in certain awkward passages.

[BGuttman]

Agreed! This is exactly my approach. Same equipment for decades. I'm fortunate to have equipment that is uniquely qualified and proven. No reason to look for anything else. Except the rotor is starting to buzz. And the instrument's closed wrap actually does inhibit performance in certain awkward passages.

I would tend to doubt the second part of your statement. The buzzing valve indicates it is worn but opening the wrap of that horn probably won't make that big an improvement (if any). Holtons with the original wrap had nice response in the F side when the valve was good. If the design of the replacement valve necessitates going open wrap, so be it.

[Basbasun]

" Except the rotor is starting to buzz. And the instrument's closed wrap actually does inhibit performance in certain awkward passages."

Thicker oil takes care of that buzz!
The good thing about the open wrap is that it does not collect condens water in the tubing.
Acousticcaly it is no improvement in my opinion.

[Basbasun]

I have played all the mentioned valves, some I like some i dont like so much. My friends and collegues do sometimes have other opinions. Test to find out what is best for you now! Your opinion my change in a few years!

[Matt K]

Jörgen van Rijen doesn't seem to mind his closed wrap!

But in this case it doesn't matter since it would seem any new rotor is incompatible with the existing tubing due to size. (As discussed elsewhere, if I'm remembering right?). And it does make the design simpler to implement usually with fewer solders & bends. Open does usually make it a little easier to get an E pull too. Or the other direction and make a G with pull or extension to F... which is what I'd do if I was making a valve section from scratch at the moment.

[ithinknot]

... the rotor is starting to buzz. And the instrument's closed wrap actually does inhibit performance in certain awkward passages.

I too doubt part two of this, but if the rotor is worn to the point of buzzing, you're not in much of a position to judge anything more concrete. Adjusting the seat of the bearing plate and swedging the bearings isn't difficult for someone who knows what they're doing. After this, you will still probably need 'heavier than modern' oil to maintain air-tightness around the core, but it should run and seal better and certainly not buzz.

Re your Holton project more generally, it depends on your priorities. A Rotax (and the Caidex?) fits in the space of an old rotor, while having greater internal volume through 3D milling. Meinlschmidt OFs, Instrument Innovations etc all take up a bit more lateral space, so installation will involve trimming the neckpipe.

You haven't played these, and virtually no one has played these on an old Holton in conjunction with a change of valve tubing bore, so you should employ a reputable tech and then trust their recommendation - they'll do their best work with a design with which they're familiar. Every design will present slightly different challenges.

One other thought - you mentioned on your other topic that you wanted to retain string linkage. This is a bit trickier on the Willson offerings because the flat-topped stop arm arrangement has no central turret around which to loop the string. Others may offer a choice of stop arm designs for different purposes - again, your tech should know this.

[Wilco]

Jörgen van Rijen doesn't seem to mind his closed wrap!

Hagmann with open wrap for quite some time now…

[patrickosmith]

Open wrap does usually make it a little easier to get an E pull too. Or the other direction and make a G with pull or extension to F... which is what I'd do if I was making a valve section from scratch at the moment.

I appreciate your advice (and everyone's advice for that matter). I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by E pull in, G with pull or extension to F. Would you care to elaborate?

[BGuttman]

As you are probably aware, there are only 6 positions on the F side of a trombone. To close the range between the trigger notes and the pedals, you can retune the attachment to E so that low B natural is way at the end of the slide (like low C is now). Your Holton has a long tuning slide on the narrow loop that pulls out far enough to retune the attachment to E. Interestingly, most open wraps have much shorter tuning slides so you can't retune to E for low B natural. This is generally not a problem for most tenor players since that note is quite rare; but if you are called to cover a bass part on your tenor it's nice to be able to pull to E.

There has been discussion of using an attachment in G for tenor trombones. Holton made one way back when. A G attachment makes some passages within the bass staff sit a little better. I'd guess that Matt was talking about a "double" attachment in G with the tuning slide in a normal position and in F with the slide pulled. This would require a pretty long tuning slide; maybe longer than the entire length of an open wrap.

[Matt K]

Yep! Bruce pretty much nailed it. The "problem" with closed wraps is that much of the length of the attachment is curvature. Use the wrap on a classic 88H or 42B for reference. Normally, your "F" attachment tuning slide would be pretty close to as far in as it can go... maybe out an inch or so. If you wanted to play an "E" in first instead of an "F" (or perhaps flat F), you'd have to pull it out really far. But the length of the tuning slide for the "F" side is somewhat limited because a lot of the length is being used for the bends. It can only get so long before it is no longer an F attachment! With an "open" wrap, you mostly have straight tubing. That means that you have a few inches on the entrance and exit ports, but the entire length of the F attachment otherwise can be straight tubing. As a consequence, sometimes makers make the tubes the entire length of the F attachment slide, even if it seldom ever moves more than 1" or so. That means you might be able to pull it out really far, far enough that it is tuned to "e" instead of "F".

Sometimes the "F" attachment isn't long enough for an "E" pull because the maker knows the user is unlikely to pull it out very much. In those instances, you can make an insert where you remove the tuning slide crook, insert two parallel tubes and then put the crook in those tubes. Alternatively, sometimes people just have a second crook made that is longer than the original one. Think of the Bach 50 "D" attachment (where you can play a "D" with only one of the valves attached). The benefit to the insert or longer slides is you have access to lower notes with just that one valve.

Point that I was making is that it's often easier to do this with open wrap horns than closed wrap (usually), but that isn't an absolute statement by any means.

What I meant by the G attachment is that I'm 100% in love with my G attachment on my bass trombone now that I have an independent made with it. Jeff over at Long Island Brass made me a "G" and a "Gb" tuning slide for my second valve but I've only used the "Gb" one once to try it out. The "G" is just supremely useful. So useful that I'm working on getting my tenors to have them, with the option to go out to F. There is technically a wrap of the King variants that is closed wrap that interestingly enough makes it somewhat easy to just switch one of the crooks around... but usually it is easier to get a "G" attachment in an open configuration because it's really short compared to an F attachment.

Therefore, what I'm probably going to end up doing with mine is making an open "G" attachment and then using an extension - two parallel tubes attached with a thin brace - that I can insert when I want it to be an "F" attachment. However.... I'm not sure how much that will be the case. I really, really like the G side. And if I want to play low... well, I have a bass.

[hornbuilder]

The tuning slide tubes on a traditional wrap Conn 88H "are" long enough to pull to E. On the Bach traditional wrap, though, the tuning slide tubes are noticeably shorter (with the large 180⁰ crook being longer) so an effective E pull is not available. The ts tubes on both Conn and Bach open wrap sections are too short for E pull, even though there is more than enough straight tubing to accommodate it. I doubt the concept of an E pull was even a consideration in either case.

[Burgerbob]

The tuning slide tubes on a traditional wrap Conn 88H "are" long enough to pull to E. On the Bach traditional wrap, though, the tuning slide tubes are noticeably shorter (with the large 180⁰ crook being longer) so an effective E pull is not available. The ts tubes on both Conn and Bach open wrap sections are too short for E pull, even though there is more than enough straight tubing to accommodate it. I doubt the concept of an E pull was even a consideration in either case.

I've never had a problem with pulling to E on 42Bs or 50Bs. Past E, yes, there's definitely no flat E.

[Matt K]

It seems that it is pretty inconsistent what is available or not on a lot of makes with regards to the E pull. Another example are the Yamaha ("semi") closed wraps, which frequently only have one crook that is pullable, definitely not enough to give you an E, but the pro models sometimes do. The point still stands that if it IS something that someone wants, I would probably go for an open rather than a closed wrap, all else considered. The closed wraps, especially the traditional 42/88 style closed wraps, look totally asinine when pulled to E.

[LIBrassCo]

Yep! Bruce pretty much nailed it. The "problem" with closed wraps is that much of the length of the attachment is curvature. Use the wrap on a classic 88H or 42B for reference. Normally, your "F" attachment tuning slide would be pretty close to as far in as it can go... maybe out an inch or so. If you wanted to play an "E" in first instead of an "F" (or perhaps flat F), you'd have to pull it out really far. But the length of the tuning slide for the "F" side is somewhat limited because a lot of the length is being used for the bends. It can only get so long before it is no longer an F attachment! With an "open" wrap, you mostly have straight tubing. That means that you have a few inches on the entrance and exit ports, but the entire length of the F attachment otherwise can be straight tubing. As a consequence, sometimes makers make the tubes the entire length of the F attachment slide, even if it seldom ever moves more than 1" or so. That means you might be able to pull it out really far, far enough that it is tuned to "e" instead of "F".

Sometimes the "F" attachment isn't long enough for an "E" pull because the maker knows the user is unlikely to pull it out very much. In those instances, you can make an insert where you remove the tuning slide crook, insert two parallel tubes and then put the crook in those tubes. Alternatively, sometimes people just have a second crook made that is longer than the original one. Think of the Bach 50 "D" attachment (where you can play a "D" with only one of the valves attached). The benefit to the insert or longer slides is you have access to lower notes with just that one valve.

Point that I was making is that it's often easier to do this with open wrap horns than closed wrap (usually), but that isn't an absolute statement by any means.

What I meant by the G attachment is that I'm 100% in love with my G attachment on my bass trombone now that I have an independent made with it. Jeff over at Long Island Brass made me a "G" and a "Gb" tuning slide for my second valve but I've only used the "Gb" one once to try it out. The "G" is just supremely useful. So useful that I'm working on getting my tenors to have them, with the option to go out to F. There is technically a wrap of the King variants that is closed wrap that interestingly enough makes it somewhat easy to just switch one of the crooks around... but usually it is easier to get a "G" attachment in an open configuration because it's really short compared to an F attachment.

Therefore, what I'm probably going to end up doing with mine is making an open "G" attachment and then using an extension - two parallel tubes attached with a thin brace - that I can insert when I want it to be an "F" attachment. However.... I'm not sure how much that will be the case. I really, really like the G side. And if I want to play low... well, I have a bass.

The one and only horn I'll ever make with Instrument innovation rotors. Best bang for the buck on any rotor today is the meinlschmidt open flows. I like the rotax and caidex as well, but there are design choices that make a lot of sense on the meinls that are very beneficial, plus they cost significantly less.

[patrickosmith]

The "G" is just supremely useful. So useful that I'm working on getting my tenors to have them, with the option to go out to F. There is technically a wrap of the King variants that is closed wrap that interestingly enough makes it somewhat easy to just switch one of the crooks around... but usually it is easier to get a "G" attachment in an open configuration because it's really short compared to an F attachment.

Therefore, what I'm probably going to end up doing with mine is making an open "G" attachment and then using an extension - two parallel tubes attached with a thin brace - that I can insert when I want it to be an "F" attachment. However.... I'm not sure how much that will be the case. I really, really like the G side. And if I want to play low... well, I have a bass.

I'm interested to hear more about how a G attachment can be "supremely" useful! But I don't often play bass bone parts.

One quirk of this instrument: the D above the bass clef staff is very flat. So I tune to a middle Bb with the hand slide out a bit from first position. As a consequence the B natural in the bass clef staff is closer to the end of the 7th position; this makes some passages more difficult to play with B nat in 7th. On the other hand, at louder volumes the timbre of the B natural sounds so much better in 7th as when compared to with F attachment, closed-wrap in a flat 2nd position. So I prefer to play in 7th. I'm hoping the open wrap and rotor update will get the B natural through attachment to sound more like the B natural in 7th position.

[Matt K]

I'm interested to hear more about how a G attachment can be "supremely" useful! But I don't often play bass bone parts.

One quirk of this instrument: the D above the bass clef staff is very flat. So I tune to a middle Bb with the hand slide out a bit from first position. As a consequence the B natural in the bass clef staff is closer to the end of the 7th position; this makes some passages more difficult to play with B nat in 7th. On the other hand, at louder volumes the timbre of the B natural sounds so much better in 7th as when compared to with F attachment, closed-wrap in a flat 2nd position. So I prefer to play in 7th. I'm hoping the open wrap and rotor update will get the B natural through attachment to sound more like the B natural in 7th position.

It effectively splits the horn in half, giving you access to most notes in positions 1-3. The most useful benefit is that in addition to having a closer B natural and C like you do on an F attachment, you also get a closer Db, D, Gb, and G (as well as the B natural below middle C). But you also have access to a few other notes in further out positions, much in the same way an F attachment has a nice Bb in T4 which I invariably end up using for something like the Saint Saens organ symphony excerpt if I have an F attachment. Incidentally, I prefer a G attachment for that because I can do T2 for the Db rather than using T3 for the Bb.

From a harmonic perspective, if you want to outline a Bbmaj7, it's 1st -> T1 -> 1 -> 2. Bb7 is the same but with 3rd position at the end. Or if you're already in 4th position, you can go a little further out to T5 -> 3 -> T3 -> 3. That lets you be a lot more nimble in the base clef, just like you can an octave higher, which is where I frequently find myself staying when I'm improvising because you can be really nimble when all the notes are available to you are a lot closer together.

Concerning your B natural issues, it could be as simple as corrosion, misalignment, or leaks. Typically, the tubing in the F attachment is larger than the slide tubing as well so you're putting it through more .547 tubing without engaging the F attachment. I don't think that would make as much of a difference tbh, just like I don't think the wrap in-and-of-itself would cause that. But I do think that with more bends and solders there is possibly more room for manufacturing defect. I've had a few closed wraps that I had to have deburred. But I frequently use my G attachment, (which is open wrap because it's so short that it would be nearly impossible to close wrap it anyway) and find it just as easy to play as the open horn so it definitely is possible to have a satisfying rotor/tubing configuration.

[adryalm]

Whatever you decide, stick to it and don't worry about the rest of the latest bright shiny thing on the market. The equipment can aid you to certain extent, but the vast vast majority is you putting in the time to sound good. I can't stress this enough. Constantly searching for something that will make you better can make you Chiroptera guano crazy.

Agreed! This is exactly my approach. Same equipment for decades. I'm fortunate to have equipment that is uniquely qualified and proven. No reason to look for anything else. Except the rotor is starting to buzz. And the instrument's closed wrap actually does inhibit performance in certain awkward passages.

I would have to agree with other comments that changing the closed wrap to open might not make the difference you are hoping it will make.

I also think this was addressed in a different thread, and I apologize if this derails a productive subject, but I think it’s worth mentioning again. If the horn that you want to modify is Mr. Crisafulli’s “uniquely qualified and proven” Trombone, I think the historical significance of this horn should be taken into serious consideration before major modifications are made.

[Ellefson]

Agreed! This is exactly my approach. Same equipment for decades. I'm fortunate to have equipment that is uniquely qualified and proven. No reason to look for anything else. Except the rotor is starting to buzz. And the instrument's closed wrap actually does inhibit performance in certain awkward passages.

I would have to agree with other comments that changing the closed wrap to open might not make the difference you are hoping it will make.

I also think this was addressed in a different thread, and I apologize if this derails a productive subject, but I think it’s worth mentioning again. If the horn that you want to modify is Mr. Crisafulli’s “uniquely qualified and proven” Trombone, I think the historical significance of this horn should be taken into serious consideration before major modifications are made.

AMEN to that!

[patrickosmith]

Reasons for doing the open wrap conversion:
1) closed wrap has red rot (been there for years, not going away).
2) rotor buzzing noise is get worse, even with regular maintenance and frequent oiling
3) expected improvement in sound quality when employing trigger attachment

The closed wrap, red rot and all, will be preserved for posterity (it's all in one piece).

Is there a risk the the horn will play differently when *not* employing the trigger attachment? I certainly don't want to alter that aspect of the horn.