Why do old horns sound more interesting? Or new ones more boring?

[Burgerbob]

ithinknot posted this amazing post over in another thread:

On a 6, you've got a small bore size, but a relatively open leadpipe/'front end', and then several different sources of resistance and turbulence further down the line - yes, the limits of .485, but also the dual radius slide crook, Bachian bore gaps in various spots, tuning slide bows that start slightly tighter than you might expect etc etc... so when you start to push it past its polite limits, you've got resistance progressively showing up from several different places and some really colorful acoustic shenanigans result. (Apropos this, if you put the TS of a modern 16/16M on a 6vii - which you can, because the legs are identical, and only the crook taper itself is different - the instrument gets much freer blowing, and significantly less interesting sounding. I mean, it still sounds good, and like a small Bach, but back-to-back you really notice a lot of that '6 character' disappear.)

In some modern small bore horns, you definitely hear traces of 'tight is bad, so open is good, so more open is more gooderer', and between computer-optimized tapers and lighter slides, you've taken out various sources of acoustic weirdness, inertia and difficulty, with a concomitant simplification of basic tone color. No free lunches, and people have different priorities.

and it has some similar thoughts to ones I've had in the last few years.

To massively simplify my position:

the more you make a horn efficient, the less interesting it sounds.

Older horns that we all love and know (Elkhart Conns, Bachs, etc) sound so very interesting because they are not perfect designs.

Now, a couple caveats:

Modern horns don't sound bad. Go watch some Steve Lange playing Cimera studies on his very efficient Edwards T-350. He sounds amazing on it, I don't think anyone would disagree. Obviously, top pros are looking for horns that don't give any trouble day-to-day on the job, but they aren't using things that sound bad either.

Old horns are not badly designed. They are not perfectly efficient, and there are so many compromises and wrong tapers and inconsistencies that we could talk about them all day... but they are still very well-though-out instruments.

Not all horns are equal- I personally think Kings, especially, are way ahead of the curve in terms of efficiency (3B anyone?), which is why I think they don't have that same ultra-colorful character that we think of with a Williams or Bach.


I can think of two recent examples for me, out of many:

I own a Holton 158 with screwbell (yes, a 258). It sounds really, really, really good when playing principal parts. An amazing color that I haven't heard from many instruments of any make that is relatively effortless. However, it's really only like this from the middle of the staff or so until high D. The outsides of that range get more difficult and lose that playability and sound.

I recently played a Shires with an Olsen rotor. This horn was one of the most even, easy playing large tenors I've ever played- awesome low range, incredibly easy high register, just easy everywhere. However, behind the bell, not much of anything. It sounded... fine. Completely acceptable. Good, even. But nothing close to the character I get from my Holton.

The Holton is so specialized that I'm probably not going to keep it long term- I can't imagine I'll be doing that much principal playing in the near future. But it does stand out to me how stark that difference is between a horn that does one thing especially well, and another that is nominally better at everything.


I will add that I play a heavily modernized Bach 50- only Bach in the fact that it has a 50 bell, in fact. It still sound amazing to my ears, but he most colorful, dense sounding 50 I had was a 50B2... that was nearly impossible to play. That's not to say there aren't amazing stock 50s out there that could be useable day to day, but you certainly don't see many in pro hands.

[elmsandr]

Preparing myself to talk out of both sides of my mouth...

1) Theoretically, I can't agree... I just don't have a way to explain it.

2) In practice; I don't think I currently own a horn where the majority of it is younger than I am, and I'm in my mid '40s. I dig the results when you get around the quirks. Could you build a modern horn with similar payoff? I think probably. Would it have similar quirks? I would love to know. I haven't spent significant time on a new Conn or Bach since the '90s, so I wonder how those are on these measures. Every time I've had a blow on one, even briefly, I recognize that they are truly part of that lineage. Is the new Bach 42 that much different from a the '90s flare I have somewhere, the older corp flare, or my Mt V? Dunno, there is some 'there' there, but as an engineer, I have a hard time wondering if I'm listening to a bell stamp.

I like the quirks of the older horns, but I do remember that the blow was just so much more even across registers on the Edwards I had. A much more consistent transfer function to the operator input to the output. The old 50B next to me... lots more details I need to learn to blow it as evenly, but the reward seems so much more... rewarding. Is it actually better? Probably not. Again, am I just listening to the bell stamp? But I like it and it makes me want to blow it more than the Edwards did, so I keep this one. I'll let the next generation figure out if it is actually better or not.

Cheers,
Andy

[ithinknot]

Andy's post reminds me that we might want to narrow this to primarily a question of vintage vs modern *designs*, rather than a more mystical sands-of-time/Mt Vernon/cryo/placebo debate. There are interesting points all round, and of course it's valid to wonder about the difference between today's 3B/42 and one from sixty years ago... but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm sure we can agree that a brand new 3B/42 still has more in common with any other example of its model than it does with anything else.

Not all horns are equal- I personally think Kings, especially, are way ahead of the curve in terms of efficiency (3B anyone?), which is why I think they don't have that same ultra-colorful character that we think of with a Williams or Bach.

I'm not going to back this up with FFTs but, as a musical proposition, I'd certainly agree that the 3B has a fundamentally simpler sound than the Bach/Williams end of the spectrum... but it's still a very characterful, err, character. Optimizing for volume/projection efficiency, and perhaps allowing some other tendencies to run free?

Listening to 3Bs, it's a pretty recognizable sound in all sorts of ways, but one thing that often strikes me is how different the 8th, 9th and 10th partials sound from one another. In a typical Bb solo, with plenty of Bbs, some Cs and the occasional Db or D, there's a really distinct color to each of these steps.

(There might be a little chicken and egg here, as this might be towards the top of someone's range, but you hear it even from the players punching the odd F. I guess it's not for nothing that more specialized high range types have tended to shop elsewhere.)

[ithinknot]

Now, lest we get into a morality play... I'm certain that virtually everyone is already on the correct side of this line for them, and it's not an ethical issue.

For amateurs, someone else would say they have a finite amount of practice time and energy and they'd rather not lose any of that working around avoidable instrumental quirks. For me, I'm aware that my playing will be near-as-makes-no-difference equally cruddy on anything, so I may as well only play instruments that in rare moments of success give me the giggly satisfaction of making some extremely specific noise that I like.

We're both right - it's a function of basic personality type, and no-one's likely to change sides. Maybe the modern utilitarians simply have the discipline to practice with only high-minded long-term goals in mind, and the rest of us are distractable goofs in thrall to shiny quirks and optional complications

For pros, I get it too. The instruments I play professionally - mostly harpsichord, with organ and other early keyboards - are often supplied by someone else, or come with the venue, so often I have little choice. On a given day, am I delighted to come across something that doesn't necessarily have the most interesting sound on earth, but which is in good condition and is mechanically reliable, so I can just get on with the job? You bet.

The amateur view of professional performers tends to lean heavily on notions of 'always doing their best' ... and this is, or should be, true as a sort of self-concept/personal development guide ... but there are also a lot of gigs where the venue is too cold for your fingers to thaw, and you got up at 3am for the flight, and you're pretty sure the hotel towels gave you pinkeye, and you just found out the concert is also a live radio broadcast for which you won't be receiving an extra fee. These are not primarily the moments for the GR 'greatest sound in the world' - they're the moments for a very good sound, and even better musicianship.

But at home, or transported by me where feasible, do I have instruments that sound Extremely Interesting? Oh yeah. Of these, my favorites are those designs so optimised for projection that the player feedback is almost actively misleading, because I know from experience just how much better they sound to the audience, or on mic, or for singers on stage. (And sure, I also enjoy the perversity of choosing an instrument that sounds better to everyone else than it does to me. Keeps me awake. Just another personality thing.)

[ithinknot]

One other thought, while we're in the vicinity:

There's an interesting observation from Christan Griego that most of the bass trombonists he works with are - IHO - playing a mouthpiece one size too large for them.

I'd bet quite a lot of imaginary money that the average player - particularly on modular horns - is playing a setup (at least) 'one notch' too open. 'Open' is such an easy sell, at an exhibition stand, trying things briefly in a shop, wherever. If you did the 6 tuning slide thing I mentioned above at your imaginary Bach factory fitting, you'd probably take it and move on. It's more open! High range needs a bit less finesse, you can 'blow past' some of the response quirks more easily, et ceterblah. But it doesn't really sound as good, and maybe you suspect that after a few months, and maybe you don't.

[Burgerbob]

Yes- perhaps it wasn't clear. Designs, not vintage (though there obviously some differences there- mandrels have worn out, different people have spun the bells, etc.).

And again, I'm not assigning a value to either side here. Both are valid and I don't think instrument manufacture has gone the wrong direction, or that anyone's choice is incorrect.

[atopper333]

From an amateur’s perspective I think there is a lot to both sides of this equation.

I wouldn’t be able to talk on any of your level, I’m just not there. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I would draw an example from modern race cars and liken them to the modern trombone. It appears more and more technically demanding parts are/have been written as technique develops necessitating an instrument which becomes more efficient to achieve these goals without having to fight the horn as much. Same as a modern race car has become more and more dependent on simulator testing and ecm programming to bring out peek efficiency.

It seems as though there are separate curves for technical playing vs feel and emotion in music and it takes a gifted musician to achieve both.

I have played a few small bore horns, and by far the XO 1032 and a newer Bach 16 were very much easier for me to play than my Olds Super. I find the Olds more difficult to ‘impose’ my will on musically where the other two could achieve my upper range with much less effort on my part, but darn it, the sound I make on my Olds sounds better to me, is more rewarding, and to me is worth the quirks in slotting and the extra practice to achieve those high Cs, Ds, and Fs.

I think it’s so much a matter of personal taste. What is it you as a musician want to pull out of a horn. Maybe on a professional level…what are you being tasked with pulling out of your instrument? I wouldn’t know how that works as I’ve never played for money…just in a high school and college settings in a community with a lack of low brass players who will take anyone they can to fill a part. Right now I play at home to myself mainly and am eventually looking into getting back out in community band/church/college band jazz…so I find it hard given my level of skill to justify the purchase of a Shires Q33 for 2,000 dollars vs. that 1947 Olds Super I bought through The Brass Exchange for $650.00. But for me it runs deeper. I have such an appreciation for that era and the music that came out of it, the ability to play an instrument from that time and try to make it sound good…or marginal at best is something that I’ll go for every time.

[blast]

Burgerbob is experiencing accelerated grumpy old fart syndrome. Smaller mouthpiece and liking old horns... where could this end ??
Seriously, high end players tend to be obsessed with sound...it's what music is...sound. A pro gets work from his sound, given all required abilities are present. Whatever sound you aspire to, it has to be interesting. A lot of newer instruments are hard to make interesting but by no means all. The Kanstul 1670 I recently acquired is very interesting, in a lighter, brighter kind of way. The new Conn basses are interesting sonically too...easily mistaken for bright and edgy if not well played. Quirks can be useful...they give you an easier mental memory of an instrument.

[MrHCinDE]

This got me thinking about the definition of efficient in this context. Personally I consider efficiency as the ease with which I can obtain the sound I want, as appropriate to the situations I mostly play in. Sometimes that means a very even response, sometimes I want more zing, but the transition between warm and round to fast and zippy should not fall off a cliff, it should be an accessible, but still controllable, curve. The amount of sound output relative to physical effort input is also important to me.

Others may look at it differently and place a larger value on partials lining up well, clear articulations or the ability to project in a huge concert hall etc.

I could think of a few pairs of horns I‘ve owned which fit BurgerBob’s hypothesis, e.g. (more interesting listed first):
Holton 67 Stratodyne vs. King 3B/F
Reynolds Contempora Bass vs. Yamaha 612Rii
The Holton and Reynolds definitively require more effort than the King and Yamaha but do have really cool and interesting sounds.

I also could think of some examples where I find the more interesting sounding horn also the more efficient one to play, at least by my definition of efficiency e.g.;
Elkhart 8H vs. Gen2 88HT
Minick small bore vs. King 3B/F
I mentioned the 8H/88H as I would suggest there are enough changes to say they are different designs, not just different vintages. The Elkhart 8H and Minick small bore were probably not optimised for efficiency so haven’t consciously been made more efficient as the expense of an interesting sound, they just happen to work great for my needs.

I think BurgerBob’s logic does hold up well in many cases but perhaps there is some space for outliers?

[Wilco]

I will add that I play a heavily modernized Bach 50- only Bach in the fact that it has a 50 bell, in fact. It still sound amazing to my ears, but he most colorful, dense sounding 50 I had was a 50B2... that was nearly impossible to play. That's not to say there aren't amazing stock 50s out there that could be useable day to day, but you certainly don't see many in pro hands.

Very interesting topic! In december I bought a corporation 50B2 as an extra next to my axial shires bass. The shires plays very well and sounds ok. The only thing that’s a bit to open for me. The 50B2 was a little covid project. No risk involved if I didn’t like it. I bought it in Switserland, so I couldn’t try it. I am happy for that. I started working at it, had the valves bored out and it so much fun to play. And much lighter. Even with the 10,5 inch bell. Got lots of compliments on its buttery and broad tone. Funny thing is that from my end it sounds completely different. Much more apparent than with the Shires. I am seriously considering keeping the bach as my main horn.

[blast]

Perhaps there is a 'best of both worlds' strategy that Burgerbob is suggesting...Best of old and new ? My go-to Conn has an Elkhart 62H bell with modern 62H bell tuning and Minick indi rotors and a modern Conn 6280 slide, topped off with an ex- Phil Teele leadpipe. Open, easy, vibrant...just works. My Conn 60H is similar...old bell and modern slide, converted to TIS. Best of both worlds...easy to blow, classic sound.

[Finetales]

Perhaps there is a 'best of both worlds' strategy that Burgerbob is suggesting...Best of old and new ? My go-to Conn has an Elkhart 62H bell with modern 62H bell tuning and Minick indi rotors and a modern Conn 6280 slide, topped off with an ex- Phil Teele leadpipe. Open, easy, vibrant...just works. My Conn 60H is similar...old bell and modern slide, converted to TIS. Best of both worlds...easy to blow, classic sound.

It may not even require that much. My "daily driver" is an Elkhart 72H where the only thing not stock is the valve section, which is a set of Yamaha independent rotors. Everything else is stock, but to me it feels like it was built yesterday. It's as easy to play as anything short of an ultra-easy modular horn and has no weird quirks, but it still has an incredible, classic sound. When I play my stock single 72H or my stock Elkhart 88H, they feel like old instruments. An absolute delight to play, for sure, but still old instruments with their share of quirks that enable that amazing, colorful sound. But the indy 72H retains that classic Elkhart 70-series sound while feeling like a modern horn.

[Burgerbob]

Burgerbob is experiencing accelerated grumpy old fart syndrome. Smaller mouthpiece and liking old horns... where could this end ??

Get off my lawn!!

[blast]

Perhaps there is a 'best of both worlds' strategy that Burgerbob is suggesting...Best of old and new ? My go-to Conn has an Elkhart 62H bell with modern 62H bell tuning and Minick indi rotors and a modern Conn 6280 slide, topped off with an ex- Phil Teele leadpipe. Open, easy, vibrant...just works. My Conn 60H is similar...old bell and modern slide, converted to TIS. Best of both worlds...easy to blow, classic sound.

It may not even require that much. My "daily driver" is an Elkhart 72H where the only thing not stock is the valve section, which is a set of Yamaha independent rotors. Everything else is stock, but to me it feels like it was built yesterday. It's as easy to play as anything short of an ultra-easy modular horn and has no weird quirks, but it still has an incredible, classic sound. When I play my stock single 72H or my stock Elkhart 88H, they feel like old instruments. An absolute delight to play, for sure, but still old instruments with their share of quirks that enable that amazing, colorful sound. But the indy 72H retains that classic Elkhart 70-series sound while feeling like a modern horn.

Very, very interesting.....I have a couple of Yamaha rotors and a Conn double dep. set to put in a project. The Yammys have just jumped to first place. The Yamaha valves are so well made...streets ahead of Conns. Very valuable to hear your experience, thanks.

[Bach5G]

It took ages for my Yams to break in. Maybe built too well.

[atopper333]

Burgerbob is experiencing accelerated grumpy old fart syndrome. Smaller mouthpiece and liking old horns... where could this end ??

Get off my lawn!!

Haha!!! Now that’s friggin hilarious!

[Burgerbob]

Seriously, high end players tend to be obsessed with sound...it's what music is...sound. A pro gets work from his sound, given all required abilities are present.

Yes, I don't want to make it sound like the top players are ok with just playing efficient, consistent horns that nobody cares to hear.

I think there's also something to be said for an instrument that doesn't impart itself too much on the player, which some people enjoy as well.

[atopper333]

Yes, I don't want to make it sound like the top players are ok with just playing efficient, consistent horns that nobody cares to hear.

I think there's also something to be said for an instrument that doesn't impart itself too much on the player, which some people enjoy as well.

I have watched a few of your videos and do enjoy your music and instruction. To me, it’s helpful and I appreciate the way you put things.

I guess it’s one of the things I’m blown away by…when I watch someone pick up a friggin p-bone and make it sound beautiful…

Yes, you give the same person YSL-354 and you can here a difference in depth of sound and color from the p-bone to the Yamaha…and that’s only with a well made “student” model horn, but you can just here the difference. And that’s my untrained ear listening to the differences. If I can do those comparative videos without watching and just listening to the different Horns without seeing them and guessing which is which…just feels more ‘honest’ that way.

To me, it like watching someone buy a really fast car and trying to race someone who has been doing it for years…anyone can drive relatively fast in a straight line…it’s those dang curves that get you.

You can hand me all sorts of upper end instruments, but at this stage of getting back into music, the difference I would hear would be negligible at best.

After years of riding a motorcycle professionally…you hand me a bike and I’m going to want to adjust the levers, brake cables, handlebar height, clutch sensitivity…etc…cause I know where I want it and it all means something to me. When I first started riding I just didn’t care, or even knew to care…

Just like being a professional in anything. It makes a difference because you know what you are listening for…

[LIBrassCo]

I kinda fall in the opposite side of the road here. I've gone back and forth on a myriad of horns, and the sound on the new stuff is continually preferential. That's not to say there isn't a list of vintage bells I'd like to see manufactured again, but as most people have a stroke when I mention something like catabolizing a horn just for a bell (particularly high value horns) I'm keeping that out of the equation.

At present my favorite sound on bass stems from a single valve I recently made with a unique valve I expected to loathe. Obviously I'm not taking utility into account, however since the topic here is more focused on sound that would be a different conversation.

[soseggnchips]

Interesting discussion. 'Awkward to play but sounds good' is pretty much the mission statement of the trombone, so it makes perfect sense to want the absolute best sound even if it comes at a price.

For my part, I've got two small bore trombones: a 1960s 2BSS, and a 1990s Rath R1. The Rath is superior in pretty much every way you can measure. It's lighter, the slide is better, the partials are more in tune, it's less stuffy in the low register. It's also a more appropriate size (.500/.510) than the tiny King for a lot of the playing I do. Despite all that, 99% of the gigs I've done over the last 15 years have been on the King. It just excites me in a way that the Rath never has, and as an amateur the only thing I get out of playing is fun - why would I play something I enjoy less just to make it easier?

[TheBoneRanger]

So do all horns exist somewhere on a scale, between 'efficient' and 'interesting sound', or can you have it all?

Does making an 'interesting' horn easier to play via various mods always make a horn 'less interesting'?

[TheBoneRanger]

...the most colorful, dense sounding 50 I had was a 50B2... that was nearly impossible to play. That's not to say there aren't amazing stock 50s out there that could be useable day to day, but you certainly don't see many in pro hands.

The bass I've played exclusively the last two years, a mid-60's 50b, has been sitting with my repair guy for the last few months, as it's about to receive a set of Meinlschmidt rotors. Why? Because like the above, it's an incredibly interesting sound that I, and many others, are drawn to. But it is tricky to play. Uneven, fussy down low. Not impossible to play, just tricky. It can sap your confidence at times, but the sound is always compelling. So, we'll pull it apart, and see if we can't iron that out. But will I lose some of 'the sound' while chasing that playability? And if I do, will it still be a great horn?

Whilst waiting for the work to be done, I have been playing my dependent Edwards, a horn I've played since the mid-2000's. A sound I enjoy, but not 'the sound' that i've come to crave. But the playability can be seductive. Point and shoot, every note where you expect it, open and easy, bang bang bang.

I've seen a few players up close over the years select custom horns from big manufacturers that are incredibly easy to play, but in doing so they have lost the compelling sound they had previously. 'It's sooo open, the response is amazing, I can do whatever I want on it, it feels alive in my hands.' Sure, but have you noticed what's missing? Naturally, that's not the case for everyone, but it's possible to fall in love with a horn simply because it feels alive in your hands.

We all draw these lines in different places, I guess.

[ithinknot]

So do all horns exist somewhere on a scale, between 'efficient' and 'interesting sound', or can you have it all?

Does making an 'interesting' horn easier to play via various mods always make a horn 'less interesting'?

No, we could find you something both inefficient and uninteresting

Re mods - in the end, the 'least interesting' horn would be one you didn't want to play, so...

...it's all personal, as you say, and perhaps too situationally dependent to generalize. I think this is what Chris is talking about in his own horns - a mixture of old and new that still give him what he recognizes as the signature elements of a classic sound. But putting those into words might be impossible, and others might latch onto slightly different things, either in tone color or playability considerations.

[Doug Elliott]

I think a lot of players confuse "open" with "easy" and end up with a bit "too open" which lacks "that sound "

[Burgerbob]

I think a lot of players confuse "open" with "easy" and end up with a bit "too open" which lacks "that sound "

It's also not as easy as it seems, at least in my findings. I've together a really open horn that I enjoy playing at home, and feels picky and difficult out in the real world, a few too many times.

[tbonesullivan]

I see this a lot on my other main musical interest: electric guitar. Mainly, the magnetic pickups that turn the vibrations into electrical impulses, and then sound. One of the big parts of these is a coil of very thin wire that goes around the magnets. Back in "the old days" these were all wound by hand, with a person guiding the wire as the bobbin spun around and around. They didn't keep track of the exact number of turns. They didn't really make sure that they got the same thickness of wire around the entire bobbin either. Some pickups use two different bobbins, and they did not really make sure both had the same amount of wire either.

The end result was pickups with a higher degree of variability in their tonal profile. As things became more mechanized an exact, they got a much more consistent product, but also many that lacked that "special something". This of course has led pickup makers to go back and look at things, and now engineer in those same imperfections in an attempt to recreate the magic of the old days.

Bringing this back to trombones, I remember reading about how Vincent Bach felt that the "magic" happened when the bells were spun on the mandrel, and that the single piece design led to more variations than the 2 piece design. A mechanically perfect 2 piece bell with a welded seam may not have the same complexity of tone as one with a brazed traditional seam that is hand hammered and spun.

I wonder if we'll start seeing more smaller makers attempting to bring back the magic of horns like the Bach 6vii.

[blast]

I think a lot of players confuse "open" with "easy" and end up with a bit "too open" which lacks "that sound "

It's also not as easy as it seems, at least in my findings. I've together a really open horn that I enjoy playing at home, and feels picky and difficult out in the real world, a few too many times.

I think open small bore and open bass are very different. My Bach 16m I would consider open in the small bore world which gives me a lot of pluses.... a bass that is very open is often an airhog and a liability.

[ithinknot]

I think open small bore and open bass are very different. My Bach 16m I would consider open in the small bore world which gives me a lot of pluses.... a bass that is very open is often an airhog and a liability.

In the sense that even the most open-playing .508/9 isn't going to reach the limits of lung capacity, yes - but in terms of 'presenting resistance conducive to the development of tone color relative to that bore size', then I think the same general logic applies. The 16M isn't as open as it could be. Some early configurations of West Yorkshire's finest - one of which I owned - on the other hand...

[timothy42b]

Are you talking about vintage horns vs vintage designs? The Sturgeon principle may be involved. (now called selection bias)

If there was a good deal of variety when the vintage horns were produced, possibly only the interesting ones survived and are still played. The other 90% are in landfills or recycling yards.

[Burgerbob]

Are you talking about vintage horns vs vintage designs? The Sturgeon principle may be involved. (now called selection bias)

If there was a good deal of variety when the vintage horns were produced, possibly only the interesting ones survived and are still played. The other 90% are in landfills or recycling yards.

I don't think anyone is singing the praises of the Beuscher Aristocrat here.

[pompatus]

Are you talking about vintage horns vs vintage designs? The Sturgeon principle may be involved. (now called selection bias)

If there was a good deal of variety when the vintage horns were produced, possibly only the interesting ones survived and are still played. The other 90% are in landfills or recycling yards.

In discussing horns of a certain vintage and older this shouldn't be completely discounted. While the dogs still exist, it's possibly the majority of them were relegated to student and school use in their time and subsequently rendered unplayable after years of that abuse, and it's the horns that knowledgeable players found worthy that exist as our fine examples today.

To look at it another way, perhaps in 60+ years it'll be primarily the finest examples of today's top horns that exist and are scrutinized at that level.

[ithinknot]

...selection bias...

In discussing horns of a certain vintage and older this shouldn't be completely discounted. ...

No disagreement, but here we're talking about design, and specifically the correlation between design changes for ease of use and subjectively less characterful tonal results.

[Kbiggs]

I wouldn’t be able to talk on any of your level, I’m just not there. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I would draw an example from modern race cars and liken them to the modern trombone. It appears more and more technically demanding parts are/have been written as technique develops necessitating an instrument which becomes more efficient to achieve these goals without having to fight the horn as much. Same as a modern race car has become more and more dependent on simulator testing and ecm programming to bring out peek efficiency.

I like this analogy/metaphor to older vs modern race cars and the development of the trombone over history. I have a few thoughts… more like generalizations, and not necessarily historically accurate… more like a philosophical diversion (all apologies)… so here it goes…

Until the Industrial Revolution took over the musical instrument manufacturing industry, trombones (and most other instruments) were hand-made items. In the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras, making musical instruments was a highly skilled craft, sometimes guarded by guilds and unions. They were unique and inconsistent. From the little we know, there were few if any choices about equipment. Instruments were made and players played what was available. This is similar to early automobile making (not manufacturing) in the late 19th century: autos were unique things made in small batches by experienced and highly-skilled craftsmen.

As the Industrial Revolution infiltrated to all sectors of society, ease of manufacturing and consistency became more common. This happened for all sorts of goods—weaving and spinning, furniture, and of course automobiles and musical instruments. Then we had assembly-line manufacturing, which greatly affected the automotive industry, and later still the music industry. Consistency, efficiency, and ease of production were prized in order to make more goods and to maximize profit.

With that consistency came the ability to produce standard models. While some makers, e.g., J. W. Pepper, Conn, Holton, Courtois, Boosey & Co., Besson, Cerveny, etc., produced mainly standard models, they also did some custom work. Prior to and after WWI, instrument makers produced some custom work (think of Conn’s Fuchs bass trombone), and also started to produce instruments for that “new music,” jazz.

WWII forced the automotive industry to innovate by producing military vehicles, emphasizing speed and efficiency in production. Instrument making stalled, for the most part, due to the need for materials in the war effort. After WWII, instrument making largely reverted back to the state before war. (Again, a generalization.)

Fast forward to the late 20th century, when individuals (mainly techs who like to improve and fiddle) began to experiment with design and manufacture—people like Larry Ramirez, Larry Minick, Steven Shires, and many, many others. Different valves were made (Thayer valves etc.), along with different post-production treatments (deep freezing). Eventually, this led to makers producing trumpets and trombones by a specifically-designed component or modular system. Shires, Edwards, Rath, and several other makers produce parts that vary by bore, taper, alloys, weight and gauge, etc., to truly tailor a horn to the individual. Literally any combination of brass and similar alloys can be used in combinations to make a unique sound. (Not all combinations work, but that’s a different point.)

Older auto races (not NASCAR) were famous for the technical differences between cars, and the different designs and construction that could give a driver an edge. Now, car designs are largely standardized, leaving little room for an advantage due to a machine. (Yes, there is still cheating in auto racing and other sports, but you can’t “cheat” on a trombone in a similar way. Here’s where the metaphor breaks down.)

Older racing cars were more difficult to drive, and required a lot of strength and stamina. Newer racing cars are tremendously fine-tuned machines that allow drivers to exert relatively less effort but greater finesse. Cars can go faster and turn more sharply, and drivers do not tire as easily. The skill and experience of the driver is emphasized over the mechanical advantage of the car. (Again, the metaphor is breaking down.) This is to say nothing of the fact that as brass instruments age, their response (behind the bell) and character (in front of the bell) changes. Sometimes that change is positive, and sometimes not.

So: How specialized can you make an instrument and still produce the sound of the trombone, a sound that is unique but within the spectrum of an acceptable trombone sound characteristic of the genre (classical, jazz, commercial, Dixie, etc.)? Said differently, at what point do we lose the character of older horns in favor of technicality of manufacturing? We might gain things like flexibility, improved articulation, projection, volume, but some say we lose color.

[eagleGT]

I wonder how much is the uniformity of mass production, and how much is uniformity of standards between the directors of ensembles? If the sound concept is what a certain pro gets on his particular setup, does it push everyone towards a more uniform setup?

I just think of when I stepped up from my beginner horn. My school system’s band directors wanted a symphonic sound, and wanted me on a bigger horn, so when the salesman from the music store came by the next time he was in town, all he brought were .547 bore trigger trombones for me to try. I ended up on an 88h and didn’t even realize until college that not all professional trombones were large bore trigger horns

[Jimkinkella]

In many cases it's the inconsistency of the thing that makes it "interesting".

Sometimes it's a design, sometimes it's a combination of materials, but I don't think that there's a simple answer.
It's really easy to assemble a Rath or Shires that plays very easily, but I've found it much more difficult to be able to find a combination of parts that are fun for me to play and listen to.
It's certainly possible, but takes a lot of effort.

There are some current outliers, (in my opinion only) Thein and Inderbinen are a couple of great examples of really well playing and "interesting" off the shelf.
I haven't played these personally, but have heard the same kind of things about Lawler and Herb Bruce.

As I'm writing this, the term "generic" seems to be appropriate for all too many horns.
I suppose that back in the '50s a Bach 50b would still be considered "generic", but I would guess that there were so few of them being produced at the time that each one got a bit more attention than nowadays.
So I'm guessing that the desire to find a middle of the road / works pretty well for pretty much everyone design coupled with a mass-production mentality tends to reduce the "interesting" factor.

I think a bit of that idea is borne out by our being able to take a "just ok" modern-ish horn to a good tech, have it taken apart and correctly reassembled, maybe replace a couple of parts (leadpipe, crooks?) and in my experience, it's always waaay better, in every way.

my 2c, ymmv

[ArbanRubank]

A lot of times, vintage horns aren't bought; they are sold.

[Jimkinkella]

A lot of times, vintage horns aren't bought; they are sold.

Somehow I only buy, not sell.....

[ArbanRubank]

A lot of times, vintage horns aren't bought; they are sold.

Somehow I only buy, not sell.....

In THAT case...

[baileyman]

The first post is interesting. A "perfect" horn would make a sound the sum of a series of sine waves with no "coloration". I suppose it would sound like a computer playing some kind of Fourier description of the sound. But even the most perfect horns are still trombones and have a "trombone" coloration, a function of its internal shape. Acousticians call this coloration the "formant" of a trombone, or of any instrument. It's not a higher partial, an overtone, or weird vocal stuff. It's the influence of the shape on the weights of the overtones that says to the ear "trombone". And, the formant is a relatively constant function since it's derived from the shape itself, not the frequency being played.

So, you take a middle Bb, a series of sine wave multiples, and then apply the formant function and it alters the weights, but in a fixed way, like multiplying by a contant that depends on frequency. Play the F below and the same formant applies, except this time the function is applied to different frequencies, except when the two notes have the same overtones. Like, high F is shared so the formant function will act on that single frequency in the same way for both notes.

It makes perfect sense to my ears that "errors" in internal shape can make for a more interesting sound, That would be altering the formant function to increase its influence. But those errors can also go wrong!

[timothy42b]

The first post is interesting. A "perfect" horn would make a sound the sum of a series of sine waves with no "coloration". I suppose it would sound like a computer playing some kind of Fourier description of the sound.

The signal you put into a horn is the sum of a series.

That's not the same as the set of partials the horn resonates at.

So you can color the sound by playing above and below pitch center.

[hornbuilder]

"So you can color the sound by playing above and below pitch center"

Hmmmm, I don't know about that..

The type of buzz you put into the horn sure makes a difference though. Focusing the buzz more, playing more "forward" can induce more focus and center in the sound. Opening the aperture, and blowing with a broader, "wider" buzz will induce a correspondingly wider sound.

[timothy42b]

"So you can color the sound by playing above and below pitch center"

Hmmmm, I don't know about that..

I don't know how to collect any data in support of the idea.

But consider this possibility. Start with a fundamental, 1 times N. Doesn't matter what N is, A 440 vs 415, etc.

Our input buzz is going to contain 1*N + 2*N + 3*N + ...+ k*N. The relative strengths of the overtones will vary.

No trombone has partials that line up that cleanly. Trombones are a mishmash of bends and other diameter changes. Maybe you have 1.95*N, 3.15*N, etc.

If you play above pitch center, you will have more response for any of those partials that are also high, and less for any that are a bit low.

Your mental image to accomplish it might be exactly what you describe as type of buzz, though.

[Doug Elliott]

So you can color the sound by playing above and below pitch center.

Some players have a tendency to push everything up in the pitch center - I know I used to do that.
Other players have a tendency to play low on the pitch center. It makes the sound darker.

It doesn't take much one way or the other to affect the color of the sound.
Even the actual pitch a few cents high or low is perceived as brighter or darker without necessarily sounding out of tune.

[blast]

"So you can color the sound by playing above and below pitch center"

Hmmmm, I don't know about that..

I don't know how to collect any data in support of the idea.

But consider this possibility. Start with a fundamental, 1 times N. Doesn't matter what N is, A 440 vs 415, etc.

Our input buzz is going to contain 1*N + 2*N + 3*N + ...+ k*N. The relative strengths of the overtones will vary.

No trombone has partials that line up that cleanly. Trombones are a mishmash of bends and other diameter changes. Maybe you have 1.95*N, 3.15*N, etc.

If you play above pitch center, you will have more response for any of those partials that are also high, and less for any that are a bit low.

Your mental image to accomplish it might be exactly what you describe as type of buzz, though.

I would humbly suggest that we just play in the pitch center. That's where you get the most interesting and vibrant sound. I would say just play the bl@@dy thing, but that would be rude.

[gbedinger]

The type of buzz you put into the horn sure makes a difference though. Focusing the buzz more, playing more "forward" can induce more focus and center in the sound. Opening the aperture, and blowing with a broader, "wider" buzz will induce a correspondingly wider sound.

Far be it from me to enter this debate, but there have been two quotes that, for me, succinctly sum up how I see things. The first are Matthew’s observations about how embochure openness affects a wider sound.

The second is this gem by BurgerBob aka Aidan:

I think there's also something to be said for an instrument that doesn't impart itself too much on the player, which some people enjoy as well.

That’s just brilliant.

And…to wit, I am currently auditioning two bass trombones, a Yamaha 621/rotax valve/321 slide and a vintage 50b in excellent condition. Compare and contrast if you will. My initial thoughts are the Yamaha is much more playable in terms of articulations and fitting my style of play. The 50b has a darker tone (with similar embouchure settings), but possibly more tonal variations. I just don’t know yet, but this is the first time I’ve actually played a 50b and want to know it better. As to whether either have more easily colored, or changeable tones? We’ll see.

Compare and contrast may not be fair to either instrument because they both have their virtues, but it’s a damn fun exercise.

[Posaunus]

I would say just play the bl@@dy thing, but ...

Sound advice!

[harrisonreed]

This is assuming the same mouthpiece, right? If you want to sound "more interesting", just skeletonize your mouthpiece. I think the mouthpiece had a much larger effect on the overall sound than anything the shank is attached to.

[ArbanRubank]

I think there's also something to be said for an instrument that doesn't impart itself too much on the player, which some people enjoy as well.

To me, this means something I have always thought: I go with the concept that in most cases, the horn plays a lot better than I do and if I can just get out of it's way, maybe I'll have a chance to let it sing.

[whitbey]

Several of the old horns I have had seem to play real nice on some notes and hollow on others. At one time I have two horns that covered the range, I just had to pick the one I was going to play that range of the gig.

I think the design of new horns is better at being consistent throughout the range. Maybe that takes away from the sweet spots a bit. I have several Edwards horns that seem to be sweeter and more consistent then any of my old horns.

[gbedinger]

This is assuming the same mouthpiece, right? If you want to sound "more interesting", just skeletonize your mouthpiece. I think the mouthpiece had a much larger effect on the overall sound than anything the shank is attached to.

Moi? Yes, of course.

In full disclosure I have 3 mouthpieces that feel similar to me but any of the mouthpieces produce the same comparative result between the 50b and the Yamaha.

That said, what does skeletonize mean when referring to a mouthpiece?