.508 bore and DE shanks

[PaKETaZ]

To DE mouthpieces and .508 bore fellow players: do you ever feel your #2 shanks work better than your #3 equivalents?

My XO 1634 I almost wanted to sell seems to benefit a lot! For me.

Attacks cleaner, response much quicker, no more stuffiness, no « blowback ». More accurate. Cleaner.
Less broad I have to admit and a bit harsher (or clearer?) but that’s maybe the 1634 sound I wasn’t used to, no telling…

But what a difference on this side of the bell!

Is it me? Is it the 1634? A combination of two? Or is it commun to sometimes choose a #2 shank for .508…?

[Burgerbob]

#2 is fine! I use XT C+.D3 on my 3B/F currently, but used the D2 for a while. Until I dialed in my chops and air just right, the 3 was just woofy and uncentered.

Even now, it's more of a "legit" sound than some would be going for, and definitely one that is geared towards loud. If I weren't doing that I would use the 2.

On my 16M the 3 shank doesn't seem to work at all.

[Matt K]

I think the #2 / #3 shank can be affected greatly by which leadpipe you have in the horn. I actually tend to prefer the other direction. I've been using an XT104N/XTE/E4* on my King 3BF recently. But I just switched to a 32H copper replicate from Brassark and I haven't totally dialed in exactly what the best combination is for that setup yet. I'll probably give my C+/C3 or C2 shanks a try sometime this month.

[hyperbolica]

I only use the 2 shank on my DE C cup. D gets a 3 and E gets a 4. Right now I'm only using the 2 shank on my 48h (500 bore) and rarely on my Recording (495/510). It's nice on the Recording, but I think it gets a more characteristic sound with the bigger setup.

[Doug Elliott]

Interesting to read opinions on this.
I don't own any.508 bore horn right now for testing but I originally used a 3B to test the #3 and a 36B for #4. My designs are all different now, but the same relative differences between 2, 3,and 4.

[CaptEquinox]

My designs are all different now, but the same relative differences between 2, 3,and 4.

I don’t expect you to reveal any trade secrets, but in general, what’s the difference in your current shank designs?

[Doug Elliott]

Some of them are bigger in certain ways and others are slightly smaller in certain ways and some didn't change much at all.
They mostly feel more open while keeping great focus, and allow more volume.
Some are dramatically better,

[Posaunus]

Some of them are bigger in certain ways and others are slightly smaller in certain ways and some didn't change much at all.
They mostly feel more open while keeping great focus, and allow more volume.
Some are dramatically better,

Gee thanks, Doug. Very helpful information!

[CaptEquinox]

There's sometimes boilerplate about this kind of thing which says something like, "All design specifications are subject to change without notice." In this case, I guess you're giving notice, just being a little cagegy about it. I suppose that you wouldn't commit to changes you didn't consider to be improvements, particularly on what you play regularly yourself? In others words, is the new D2 shank pretty good?

[CaptEquinox]

Don’t get me wrong — the one I have is *already* pretty good!

[modelerdc]

for me the E4, D3, C2 combos work well. E4 for Bach 36, for stuffy horns like flugabone and valve trombone, and works OK for small bores if I just happen to have it out. The D 3 is excellent for small bore tenors, the C2 for leadwork and with the C2S shank for alto. The Horns I use aren't unusually mpc sensitive and these combos give me what I want from each one.

[Matt K]

I’ve tried several of Doug’s new stuff and I can totally back it up. Hard to put into words. But some, I’m convinced, are actually made of mythril or something because they are just “better”.

I’ll have to put my thoughts on all that I’ve tried somewhere when I have more time to practice. Toddler has been eating up much of my free time in the evenings while it’s cold out!

[PaulT]

...

My XO 1634 ...

Do you have the yellow brass or the rose brass version? Were you able to try each? Comments if so?

Thanks

[PaKETaZ]

Sorry for the late comment.

Thank you all for your insights.

After testing different combinations and live playing this past days, I really still prefer the #2 shanks with my 1634… Maybe I have to make another experiment (larger rim) and see if the #3 cames back my first .508 shank choice.

I’m talking about rim size because Doug advised me years ago to switch from 6 1/2’ish rims to his XT102. I went slowly to an XT104. Unfortunately I brought everything in doubt (my playing included) and I tried each mouthpiece I could find… (or buy…).

Very bad idea: I couldn’t be more confused and lost.

I’m now with an LT101 and I will soon buy an LT102.(« damned: remember to listen to Doug!!! »). And #2 and/or #3 new shanks.

[PaKETaZ]

...

My XO 1634 ...

Do you have the yellow brass or the rose brass version? Were you able to try each? Comments if so?

Thanks

Unfortunately I didn’t try the rose brass bell. I wish I did.
I don’t regret my choice although.

The « standard » yellow bell 1634 XO is very nimble with a nice warm tone.

Very even on all the range and super light. Not the loudest trombone but it can pierce with the right mouthpiece when you push it and become a bit harsh.

I’m really curious to try the rose brass bell now.

[PaulT]

I brought in both 1632 (.500) versions, the 1632 GL (yellow brass bell) and the 1632 RGL (rose brass bell) for a week trial. I damn near went nuts trying to decide which one I liked best. I generally gravitated to the rose bell, but every time I played the yellow, I went, " wow!, this is fun!". I came within an inch of keeping both. I would have but I just didn't want to extend the back and forth confusion, dithering and brain clutter. I had enough going on with going back and forth between the .500 and my .508 Yamaha 891.

Long story short, if you try both 1634s (or both 1632s, as I did), you will like both and will probably want both. Either one is wonderful in a slightly different way.

The difference in tone/character between the two bells was greater than I expected it to be. I expected subtle, it was more than subtle, it hit me like a hammer (a fun, enjoyable hammer). I wondered if the difference I heard was perhaps accentuated by the lightness of the respective bells' material which allowed for more something or other to occur (vibration?) but that was speculation based on nothing but speculation.

The rose brass had a warmer, fatter, thicker, complex sound (more overtones?), the yellow was cleaner, simpler, crisper, thinner (more fundamentals?). It really was horses for courses, I loved both. There was a lot of back and forth, this one/that one, but at the beginning and end of each day, it was the rose I reached for.

But, my experience was with the .500. From what I recall and what I imagine (partly based on what I hear with my 891Z), it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up preferring the yellow brass with the slightly larger .508 1634. A slightly bigger horn would fill out and solidify what I was hearing in the smaller yellow brass 1632 that, while clean and pure as a crystal bell, was perhaps slightly thin for my taste. I do strongly expect that if I were to compare one of each of the two Jupiter .508's, I would just go nuts again trying to decide between them.

[pbone3b]

Both my .508s (Courtois AC602, King 3B) like the #3 shank better.
And C+ cup likes the D3 shank.

[PaKETaZ]

I brought in both 1632 (.500) versions, the 1632 GL (yellow brass bell) and the 1632 RGL (rose brass bell) for a week trial. (…)

It was a little bit off (original) topic, but I thank you so much Paul for your extremely detailed feedback about those wonderful XOs.
It was very fun and informative.

I know so well this indecision when testing great stuff… And sometime it drives me crazy too.




Doug told me he would still tend to advise on the #3 shank for a .508.

Some players here tell they have different feelings about their mouthpieces combos.

Although I naturally trust Doug, I find it really interesting.

As I wrote earlier: maybe a correlation between the right shank and the « right » rim for each embouchure? More than we thought.

[Doug Elliott]

I can always send you both to try. I've been surprised a few times.

[PaKETaZ]

Ok, I can confirm there seems to exist a real correlation, for me, between right rim size for my embouchure and right association between bore/shank.

Someone lent me an LTN102 and bam! I feel better with a shank 3 with all my .508s!

Today I play my Bolero: I find my XO not as responsive… I definitely love the sound, but sometimes I’d like to get my Bolero attacks.

I find a shallower cup works better too.

[harrisonreed]

I have tried both the 2 and 3 on my 3B. The 3 is right for that horn. There might be other.508 horns where the 2 works better.

With the wrong rim size, though, nothing works. Maybe something works better, so you latch onto that, but it's a false street -- there is no way that is just a coincidence that I can make every piece play well as long as it has "my" rim on it.

[Ndwood]

On the Bolero - does the shank insert to the same depth as on the XO? My Bolero has an undersized receiver. I’m using an Alto S shank instead of my C3 on it because even though it’s undersized everything lines up so much better with it inserting to the same depth. If yours is the same way you should definitely try a 3S or 2S with it.

[ajeasley]

I'm getting acquainted with my new DE setups that came in this week - I'm very pleased and regret not going this route years ago!

Anyhow, I tried out my small tenor configuration (XT 102 medium narrow/D/D3) on both the .508 horns I have, a King 3BF and an XO 1634. I don't have any other cup size or a 2 shank to compare against. To my ears it plays just fine on both horns and I sound like an out of practice euphonium player trying to get by on a small(ish) bore trombone. The King loses a little of the 3B zip, but otherwise it seems like a good all around setup for small tenor. I will probably order a C or C+ cup sooner than later, but I wouldn't be inclined to stray from a 3 shank on either horn based on my experience so far.

Other mouthpieces that I've had over the years had more variability to them. In other words, some worked much better with the King than the XO or vice versa.

[PaKETaZ]

On the Bolero - does the shank insert to the same depth as on the XO? My Bolero has an undersized receiver. I’m using an Alto S shank instead of my C3 on it because even though it’s undersized everything lines up so much better with it inserting to the same depth. If yours is the same way you should definitely try a 3S or 2S with it.

The shank inserts to the same depth yes.

With my new DE setup my 1634 suddenly awoke!