Different slides with Bach bells and valve section

[Danitrb]

Hi, anyone tried different slides with Bach bell and valve section? What are your thoughts? Thank you!

[Burgerbob]

Yes. Edwards slides work with no modification (though you will have to pull the tuning slide out farther, as they are shorter slides).

Shires slides are a great match, but need a swap to an Edwards slide tenon to work without problems.

I have 2 Edwards bass slides and one Shires- I usually use my Shires bass slide on my Bach section.

I have an Edwards and Shires large tenor slides- I haven't decided which of those I will use full time, but they are both great.

[Danitrb]

Thank you! Do you use TBCN and TW47 (on tenor)?

[Burgerbob]

Thank you! Do you use TBCN and TW47 (on tenor)?

TBCN and a TB47, so both with nickel oversleeves, yellow tubes, nickel bass crook from two different brands! Right now I am using the TBCN but I'm not sure if that's long term.

[Mamaposaune]

A Bach 42 will mate up perfectly with a Courtois 2/3 (.527-.547) or a 3/3 (.547) slide.

[MrHCinDE]

For my use case, I actually quite like the slightly shorter Edwards slide with my Bach bell section. I play in groups which usually tune to A=442Hz or even 443. It means in those groups my tuning slide has a bit more room to tune sharper if necessary, depending on the conditions and tuning tendencies on the day. With the Bach slide I‘m pretty much fully in.

Don‘t get me wrong, the Edwards slide is also fine at A=440Hz and the tuning slide isn‘t excessively far out (or alternatively playing off bumpers).

I‘ve also had some success with the lightweight nickel slide from my Yamaha 612Rii with a Bach 42 bell section. The mechanical fit is good, it‘s also little shorter than a Bach slide but manageable with a tuning adjustment. If you have a Yamaha bass or large tenor to hand, it‘s worth trying (they might not all work, I think I tried a Yamaha 321 slide once and that didn‘t work).

[BoomtownRath]

I second Aidan on the Edwards slide. I happened to be in a music shop in december when my wife was looking for a new cornet and I tried a dual bore edwards slide with a nickle crook on my Bach 50 bell section, was amazing to play, a marked improvement on my Bach 50 slide and the fit was perfect. Ended up buying it. Removeable leadpipes are a bonus too. The tuning slide on my bell is out an extra 1/4" which isn't a problem.

[Danitrb]

Thanks to all of you. What are improvements you noticed? Better sound center? More clarity in articulation?

[pedrombon]

Sonas slides are compatible with Bach bell sections. Available in yellow brass, gold brass and nickel (independently for outer tubes and crook), regular or lightweight, with interchangeable leadpipes, from 525" to 562" (single or dual bore).

Better than Bach slides in every way (sound, response, articulation, playability and of course, slide action).

Several players here in Spain are using them on their Bach bells and they tell me they couldn't be happier with them.

[MrHCinDE]

Thanks to all of you. What are improvements you noticed? Better sound center? More clarity in articulation?

My Bach 42 slide is an LT with the standard fixed leadpipe, my Edwards is standard weight with yellow brass outers and a nickel silver crook and various leadpipes. This means I can‘t give a 1:1 comparison of a slide with the same leadpipe and materials. I can say some things about my perception of the various combos in case that‘s of any help, but it doesn‘t compare the two manufacturers directly.

All setups are based around a modular Bach 42 frame, though in some combos only the tuning slide is original.

I like the Bach LT slide, especially with the Shires red brass bell section. It has a very fast response and I can find the centre of the slots very well up to about a C (above tenor clef staff). I find the D hard to centre with that slide, with my red brass or the original Bach 42 yellow brass bell. At lower dynamics, it maintains a little bit of a gravel-like soulful character, which I quite like for solo playing. At upper dynamics it does have a definite threshold which is like a cliff edge after which the sound gets angry. In a section that combo can get a bit more difficult to blend.

With the Edwards slide and a T1 leadpipe (which I believe to be close in design to a Bach 42 leadpipe) I find the response and sound actually quite similar to the Bach LT slide. However, especially if I‘m tuning to 442 or 443, the Edwards is easier for me to centre in the upper range, maybe I get another 2 or 3 tones of decent upper range. It holds together better at higher volume also and needs slightly less adjustment of tuning between partials. The sound of the Edwards+T1 is however a little bit less interesting so I still have a place for the Bach LT slide occasionally. How much of this differences is down to materials/oversleeves/leadpipes and how much to the difference and length and manufacturer is hard to say. The action of the Edwards, like all Edwards I‘ve ever tried, is excellent. Not the case with all Bach slides I‘ve tried.

With my Bach open and long open leadpipes, the Edwards slide and the yellow brass bell it is noticeably more open and has a less focussed sound than the LT42 or Edwards+T1. Quite nice for playing chorales in Posaunenchor I suppose but a bit too open for me in general playing. The Edwards slide with an open Bach leadpipe and the red brass bell just doesn‘t work at all for me.

And finally the Edwards slide, T2 Alessi sterling silver leadpipe and either bell just kicks ass. For me, the upper range is just as solid as with the T1 and it can just take whatever amount of air I can give it. There is a rich resonance (again especially for tuning at higher pitch) which I just don‘t get with the Bach LT slide or with the Edwards+T1. The sound is surprisingly flexible and is very hard to reach the point of breaking up. Given the difference I find between the T1 and T2 leadpipes, I would say the difference between Bach and Edwards is less significant than the difference between Edwards leadpipes.

So in conclusion I like nearly all combos for different reasons. I play the Edwards the most at the moment is because it suits my tuning, is just easier for me to play securely in the upper register, is adaptable by swapping the leadpipe and is mechanically excellent.

I suppose if I had a Bach 42 (or other compatible) slide with an Edwards/Shires leadpipe fitting and with an action as good as the Edwards it‘d also be fine.

[Danitrb]

Thank you for yours answers!

[MBurner]

I use an edwards slide on my Bach 42 and Bach 50. I have .547 T-STDN and .547-.562 T-DBN slides, as well as a regular .562 bass slide that I love. I used to have a Courtois, and that slide was Bach styled and worked on my Bach.
I personally think that Edwards slides are far more consistent in their build quality, and offer a lot more focus to their sound in their leadpipes. I haven’t found a Bach slide that I’ve enjoyed as much. The Courtois slide kept all of the things I personally didn’t like about the horn, which I think is leadpipe based.
My Edwards slide has focus, and I get the color of sound I want from the Bach bell.
My bass is similar, though I’m not nearly as competent of a bass trombonist.

[Burgerbob]

Thank you for yours answers!

Thanks for the question. You inspired me to try all my options with my 42TG bell section as my practice today. Why not!

I have

Edwards TBCN with brass 2 and sterling silver 2 leadpipes

Shires TB47 with brass 2 and Kanstul BB leadpipes

Bach LT42 slide

as options for it.

I played the same scales and etudes on each to really get down the feel and sound.

The LT42 slide (nickel tubes, nickel crook, no oversleeves) plays well, just about as good as any 42 slide I've gone through (which is many!!!). I like the lighter action, both of the other slides are quite heavy. The sound with this bell section is a bit light and can quickly get tinny if it's not protected. If played just right, it's a nice color and I think would be good for quintet or solo stuff. This slide has the widest variation in amount of air needed to play... you can really back off and it sounds smaller, or feed it more and it wakes up.

Shires with the 2 leadpipe is a very wide, broad sound- it plays easily enough, but it's a bit slower and requires quite a lot of air to really work. The difference in sound is really quite massive. With the Kanstul BB pipe, it's much more of the Bach character but a fair bit easier to play, more centered. This is my 2nd favorite setup.

Edwards with the 2SS leadpipe is nasty. It's all core, no color, really quite a gross sound. It's a bit like the nickel slide but with none of the good characteristics. Quite interesting. The brass 2 leadpipe is goldilocks- nice broad sound, color, ease, good high range, nice fat low range, I feel I can express on it easily. This is the choice for now.

As always, keep in mind that this is with THIS particular bell section- I actually have all of these options because I have a big Bach 42/36 project coming soon and I want to find the best possible setup for those. In the past, I have enjoyed different setups with different bell sections.

FWIW, the Edwards with the 2 leadpipe is also what I used with the completely-different-playing 42AFG I was borrowing previously.

[Danitrb]

More specifically: do you feel slide (TBCN) have more compression with T2 leadpipe (brass or silver) compare to Bach slide? I will try next days Edwards TBCN with T2 brass leadpipe.

[Burgerbob]

More specifically: do you feel slide (TBCN) have more compression with T2 leadpipe (brass or silver) compare to Bach slide? I will try next days Edwards TBCN with T2 brass leadpipe.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by compression. Some 42 slides are quite inefficient, and it's definitely better than those.

[Danitrb]

More specifically: do you feel slide (TBCN) have more compression with T2 leadpipe (brass or silver) compare to Bach slide? I will try next days Edwards TBCN with T2 brass leadpipe.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by compression. Some 42 slides are quite inefficient, and it's definitely better than those.

What do you mean with inefficient? I mean with compression , a kind of more resistence compare to Bach slide. Resistence like rotor vs axial.

[Burgerbob]

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by compression. Some 42 slides are quite inefficient, and it's definitely better than those.

What do you mean with inefficient? I mean with compression , a kind of more resistence compare to Bach slide. Resistence like rotor vs axial.

More of what you input ends up being sound. The Shires and Edwards slides use plenty of air, I don't think they have more compression, but they typically still make more sound.

[MrHCinDE]

A section mate made me think about another aspect of the Edwards slide after practice yesterday.

To cut it short I normally play 1st but won’t be there for the next concert so was encouraging him to play the 1st instead of 2nd/3rd in out 12 person brass group. He started telling me that he plays a Bach 42B and that it is very hard to play the delicate high range stuff that often comes up in such an ensemble. I’m not sure I agree with his statement being a Bach 42 player myself these days, it’s more a question of embouchure and practice and there are plenty of Bach 42 players with an awesome upper range to back that up. Perhaps his chops are optimal for a middle part (he has a great resonant sound in that range, I’m not dissing him personally!). Such parts were a little bit easier on my old Elkhart 8h than my Bach 42 with LT slide but far from impossible with the Bach.

Anyway, that got me thinking and I realised that actually I do have an easier time playing lightly in the upper register with my Edwards slide (T1 or T2 Alessi SS) than with the Bach LT slide. This might just be the most useful advantage for usual section playing. Like I said before I get a bit more range and some more quality range at high dynamics but most of the time I don’t need either in section playing.

By the way, my Edwards slide is a prototype of the T-STDN which was described by the previous owner as being slightly larger than the production T-STDN and more open, but not as open as the T-BCN.

[Danitrb]

A section mate made me think about another aspect of the Edwards slide after practice yesterday.

To cut it short I normally play 1st but won’t be there for the next concert so was encouraging him to play the 1st instead of 2nd/3rd in out 12 person brass group. He started telling me that he plays a Bach 42B and that it is very hard to play the delicate high range stuff that often comes up in such an ensemble. I’m not sure I agree with his statement being a Bach 42 player myself these days, it’s more a question of embouchure and practice and there are plenty of Bach 42 players with an awesome upper range to back that up. Perhaps his chops are optimal for a middle part (he has a great resonant sound in that range, I’m not dissing him personally!). Such parts were a little bit easier on my old Elkhart 8h than my Bach 42 with LT slide but far from impossible with the Bach.

Anyway, that got me thinking and I realised that actually I do have an easier time playing lightly in the upper register with my Edwards slide (T1 or T2 Alessi SS) than with the Bach LT slide. This might just be the most useful advantage for usual section playing. Like I said before I get a bit more range and some more quality range at high dynamics but most of the time I don’t need either in section playing.

By the way, my Edwards slide is a prototype of the T-STDN which was described by the previous owner as being slightly larger than the production T-STDN and more open, but not as open as the T-BCN.

Thanks for answer! I'm agree with your comment. My Bach slide it is fine, I can play all things on it, just looking for small detail in a better way.

[Danitrb]

Hi. A little update: I tried TBCN on Bach bell and it works pretty much better than my standard 42 slide. What are yours impression also for different leadpipes on edwards slide? Thanks!