Rath small bore questions

[Cmillar]

Hi anyone who is playing a small bore Rath, and used to play something else. (I've never tried one)

Am wondering, as a starting point of reference from what I'm familiar with:

- what would you compare the 'blow/feel' to in their R10's or R12's:
Bach 12, King 2B, King 2B+, Yamaha 697z, Bach 16 ?

- what about the R1 or R2:
Bach 16M, King 3B, Yamaha 691 (897z)

Thank all for any opinions.

[Mv2541]

I think many will agree the Rath small bores blow more like Bachs. Very easy horns to play, but some don't find the sound interesting enough- especially compared to a good Bach. A good alternative if you like the King feel instead is the Shires MD/MD+

[mrdeacon]

Rath small bores are essentially souped up Bachs.

I absolutely love my R1 and I think it blows better than any Bach 16 or 16M I've ever tried!

Getting the more exotic materials like a nickel bell or copper crooks and tubes can make the Rath it's own unique beast... but at the end of the day they are still heavily Bach inspired... much more so than their large bore or bass horns IMO.

Don't forget Bach also made other models than the 16... 6, 8, 12 and 16 all exist with multiple variations. That's what you should be comparing the Raths to.

[deanmccarty]

I play a Rath R10 with a nickel bell and hand slide. I went through several instruments before finally finding the perfect horn for me. The instruments I used prior to the Rath were a King 2B, Blessing B-5, Conn 100H, Conn 6H, Shires with a 7.75” gold bell and nickel bell, and a BAC Custom (same setup as the Shires. For me... the best of the bunch of those was the BAC... I wanted something that slotted well, gave me the sound I wanted, and zinged through a band when playing lead. The BAC came close... but never quite satisfied... The Shires always felt like I was playing a medium bore horn... I was always tired after a gig... The 100H gave me plenty of bite, but didn’t slot well, and had some tuning issues... The Blessing was pretty good sound wise, but a tuning nightmare... the King just didn’t do it for me... I always felt choked off.

After I sold my BAC I went solely with my Rath R3 medium bore... it gave me more what I was looking for than the BAC... However... after about 4 months of being tired after the gig... I decided to get the exact same setup in a .500 bore horn.. and OH MY!!! This R10 WAILS! It is smooth, easy to play, and peels the paint off in a big band if I need it. My first session with this horn had the other players wondering what got into me. The result on playback was great with the horn section... it blends very well, with no effort. I cannot say enough about Mick and his craft. He helps me keep getting call backs... and... that first session with the horn... it was nominated for a Grammy that year!

[Neo Bri]

My R1 was a great horn. I sold it since I have too many horns. Similar specs to a Bach 16 but infinitely easier to play.

My R12 is still my main small-bore. What a great ballad horn!

[Mikebmiller]

There was some guy on the old forum that wrote a whole dissertation about how he tried every jazz horn on the planet and ended up with an R100.

[mrdeacon]

My R1 was a great horn. I sold it since I have too many horns. Similar specs to a Bach 16 but infinitely easier to play.

If all Raths play as well as your old R1 does I might just have to play all Raths!

I still haven't sold it yet!! Haha.

[AndyBaker]

At the time the R1 was conceived, Mark Nightingale was playing a Bach 16m (sterling bell). So it would make sense that Raths come from that mold.

[Cmillar]

Thank all for the ideas, thoughts, etc.

I realize I made a great choice in buying the Rath S11 M.N. mouthpiece, as it's brought 'new life' to my old Bach 16, and is a great rim for my face.

No excuses now (...now...just need to finetune a leadpipe choice....or really check out a Rath tbone.)

But, it's interesting to hear that Nightingale knows the 'blow' of a Bach horn, which may have been behind the brilliance of the mouthpiece he helped design.