Let's talk about your opinion on Chinese musical instruments. China also has excellent musical instrumentsp

[Tubaaiyue]

I have seen some friends' opinions on Chinese made musical instruments in some posts. Here, I would like to say that good Chinese musical instrument brands are still very good. For example, Tuba from Eastman Group in Beijing, Hootersmre euphonium 8521G/7521G from Oves Company in Tianjin, Tuba and trombone from ZO Company in Hebei Province

[Tubaaiyue]

.

[JonTheCadet]

For example, Sierman's trombone and Tuba from Langfang City, Hebei Province (which now has some new models that are very interesting to play)

Ask Greg Black about that. Ask Melton about that too with their new tuba line...

The instruments of Jupiter and XO brands in Our China Taiwan Provinceare also very excellent，

Yes, but they aren't Chinese, they are Taiwanese. Mark the difference.

If you're going to spread propaganda about another country which is de facto independent, do it elsewhere - no one is interested here.

[WGWTR180]

This should be fun.

[drnim]

in Our China Taiwan Province

yikes

[imsevimse]

I'm Swedish not an American nor a Chinese.

I've bought eight Chinese trombones of different sizes; one soprano, two altos, one small straight tenor, one trombone with only six positions and attachement ("child trombone"), one .525 tenor with valve, one .547 tenor with valve and one independent bass trombone. All are Chinese made instruments with certain Thomann quality control. They are good instruments. If I compared with other (my "older") horns they are not worse. They are not the best either, but a good musician can make them sound pretty nice. If you also consider the price then they are very price worthy. Of course I prefer my hand made Swedish Gerdt Bb/G trombone made on special order to any of those. Considering the price I can really recomend the Thomann altos, if you want to learn. They are both well made and in tune. To sum an intermediate player could be very happy with a Thomann trombone.

/Tom

[Tubaaiyue]

For example, Sierman's trombone and Tuba from Langfang City, Hebei Province (which now has some new models that are very interesting to play)

Ask Greg Black about that. Ask Melton about that too with their new tuba line...

The instruments of Jupiter and XO brands in Our China Taiwan Provinceare also very excellent，

Yes, but they aren't Chinese, they are Taiwanese. Mark the difference.


If you're going to spread propaganda about another country which is de facto independent, do it elsewhere - no one is interested here.

Hello，JonTheCadet，I just want everyone to know the specific locations of these instrument companies
，

[Tubaaiyue]

By the way, if anyone wants to post here, please only make comments related to the instrument itself，Because I don't want this topic to be locked

[Posaunus]

Note a parallel thread about Carol Brass - quality instruments made in Taiwan not mentioned here.

[WGWTR180]

By the way, if anyone wants to post here, please only make comments related to the instrument itself，Because I don't want this topic to be locked

Well okay but first YOU need to be clear on what you're posting. You've made some mistakes, some omissions, and one questionable reference. Let's play fair. Thank you.

[Savio]

I have seen some friends' opinions on Chinese made musical instruments in some posts. ......... Moreover, we Chinese people are very friendly and welcome everyone. (Most of the news reports from Western capital are not in line with the actual situation. Don't believe them. Chinese people find those fake news absurd after reading them.)

That was maybe me?

I'm sure the Chinese instruments will develop and the people are hard working and fast learner's. I only speak out of my own experience. I got 6 bass Chinese trombones for free. Valves, slide are not good. Still they are OK to play. But not close to a Conn, Bach or King. I have not tried Rath, Shires or Edwards, but I believe even further away these modern masterworks. Or the old Conn, Holton, Bach which is really a gem in instrument making.

I teach a lot of kids and lately I have seen even Yamaha make their student instruments in China. I see these instruments daily, they are not good. Period. The mechanical side like valves and slides are really not good.

I still have my first trombone, a small bore yamaha. In fact still a very good sounding trombone;
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/IQQAAOSw ... -l960.webp It's still working after 50 years

Leif

[JTeagarden]

Chinese musical instruments are on the same trajectory (maybe 50 years later) as Yamaha instruments, just as Chinese consumer goods in general are going through the same evolution as Japan went through in the 1960s: Cheap and shoddy turns into cheap and a good value, turns into mass-produced goods of high quality at a price that reflects a good value for the money.

If you're close to my age (1963 vintage), you very well remember those shoddy Japanese transistor radios with the leatherette cases that were virtually everywhere in the US for a time, and "Japanese" being synonymous with "poorly made."

Not sure where China is on the musical-instrument learning curve, since I am fortunate enough to buy whatever I want in a trombone (glad I didn't pick bassoon), and for this, an American classic of one or another stripe pushes all my buttons, but it's really only a question of time.

[brassmedic]

[EriKon]

This almost reads like a poor government cheap AI post for advertising...

[ithinknot]

This almost reads like a poor government cheap AI post for advertising...

"almost"

[Tubaaiyue]

This almost reads like a poor government cheap AI post for advertising...

……Thank you for the reminder. I will describe the topic clearly later

[Tubaaiyue]

Chinese musical instruments are on the same trajectory (maybe 50 years later) as Yamaha instruments, just as Chinese consumer goods in general are going through the same evolution as Japan went through in the 1960s: Cheap and shoddy turns into cheap and a good value, turns into mass-produced goods of high quality at a price that reflects a good value for the money.

If you're close to my age (1963 vintage), you very well remember those shoddy Japanese transistor radios with the leatherette cases that were virtually everywhere in the US for a time, and "Japanese" being synonymous with "poorly made."

Not sure where China is on the musical-instrument learning curve, since I am fortunate enough to buy whatever I want in a trombone (glad I didn't pick bassoon), and for this, an American classic of one or another stripe pushes all my buttons, but it's really only a question of time.

You have a point. ，Chinese musical instruments are still in the process of development

[ghmerrill]

Everybody's musical instruments are always in a process of development. Compare to the 20th century development of the auto industry, the precision tools industry, the optics industry, the electronic devices industry, the medical devices industry, and ... well ... every industry (at least in unconstrained markets.

[JohnL]

This almost reads like a poor government cheap AI post for advertising...

It's the translation.

Yamaha had one huge advantage over the Chinese manufacturers of today: with the exception of Yanagisawa saxophones, Yamaha was the face of Japanese band instrument manufacturing. Any time they upped their game, it impacted the perception of the company pretty quickly. From the outside, at least, the Chinese band instrument field is a bewildering, shifting maze of different manufacturers and brands, with limited transparency into who makes what. It gets even more obscure when you add in the European and American distributors that put their name on instruments from multiple manufacturers.

[ghmerrill]

From the outside, at least, the Chinese band instrument field is a bewildering, shifting maze of different manufacturers and brands, with limited transparency into who makes what.

A good observation. It's essentially a "brandless" approach of the manufacturers, and the branding is done by the retail sellers. I think this started with the selling of clones, but was then extended even to original or "improved" designs and products.

Without wanting to wax political about this, I do see it (and I'll try to say this as neutrally as possible) as a "non-capitalist" approach to the marketplace, and in fact a "non-capitalist" approach to selling into a capitalist (and differently competitive) marketplace. I don't want to make too much of that, but I do think it offers a kind of insight. I'm not sure that "capitalist" is the best term here, but I don't have another and I really just mean it to give some sense to the environment of a (relatively) free market in which there is competition among products and the companies that sell them.

It gets even more obscure when you add in the European and American distributors that put their name on instruments from multiple manufacturers.

Exactly. To some significant degree these "distributors" often differentiate the product not on the basis of its particular features and attributes, but on the basis of their "branding" of it (and claiming different benefits from buying their particular "brand" of the product). An imperfect analog to it might be found among automobile dealers in the US (e.g., different Chevrolet dealers) who pitch the product to you on the basis of their service, customer support, financing, "reliability", etc. So often you end up paying perhaps more for one service/support-enhanced "brand" over another, even though the products in such cases are virtually (or very close to) identical.

Note that this sort of thing has always happened in the case of "stencil" instruments -- which are essentially "debranded" or "rebranded" instruments, but those instruments had already achieved a reputation prior to the production of "stencils" of them. Now it's happening in a context where the instruments themselves were never originally associated with any brand at all. In fact, if you look on Etsy and other sources, you'll find offerings for generic no-brand instruments with the offer to engrave the bells of what you buy with your own branding information. You can easily start your own instrument company without doing any design or production work (aside from whatever is needed to come up with a name for it and a logo). This is essentially what the "Schiller" brand is, for example.

You can actually see this happening if you read threads on various forums in which discussions take place about which "brand" of a particular Chinese-made instrument you should buy -- and whether you'd get the same result by buying a "generic" one.

Notice that this is quite different from the rise of Japanese (and Taiwanese, and Brazilian) products, including musical instruments, onto the stage of world-wide business. There, the branding (and associated distinction among products, designs, quality, etc.) was strongly linked directly to the manufacturer.

[JohnL]

An example of a Chinese-made instrument maker with strong branding would be Briz French horns. As I understand it, they are a small company that only works through a few (well-regarded) distributors in North American and Europe. Their products seem to be quite well-regarded, to the point where they aren't just a "good value for the money" but are actually thought of as being good horns, full stop.

[Posaunus]

A good observation. It's essentially a "brandless" approach of the manufacturers, and the branding is done by the retail sellers. I think this started with the selling of clones, but was then extended even to original or "improved" designs and products.

It's not just musical instruments. The Chinese have managed to pretty successfully separate manufacturing from marketing and sales. Trombones, shoes, pliers, phone chargers, toys, watches, golf clubs, ... Millions of products are made in China and sold under multiple "wrappings" - branded or not. All you have to do is search for these products on eBay or Amazon, and you'll see the same things sold under a variety of "brand" names. It's a different way of doing business than we are accustomed to. Is this the future?

[harrisonreed]

A good observation. It's essentially a "brandless" approach of the manufacturers, and the branding is done by the retail sellers. I think this started with the selling of clones, but was then extended even to original or "improved" designs and products.

It's not just musical instruments. The Chinese have managed to pretty successfully separate manufacturing from marketing and sales. Trombones, shoes, pliers, phone chargers, toys, watches, golf clubs, ... Millions of products are made in China and sold under multiple "wrappings" - branded or not. All you have to do is search for these products on eBay or Amazon, and you'll see the same things sold under a variety of "brand" names. It's a different way of doing business than we are accustomed to. Is this the future?

I think if the quality is there and that's how these companies want to operate, that's cool. I like getting good products that don't cost a lot, though I don't think it is ever transparent how much workers are being taken advantage of in manufacturing, regardless of where the manufacturing is happening. I am not making any accusations, I literally just don't know and wonder about it.

I don't think that this method of manufacturing really lends itself to innovation, though. Making stencil products that copy a good example of a trombone so someone else can pay Etsy to brand them for you and then pass off as your own product is about as far from innovation as you can get. And there is no incentive for anyone involved to innovate or improve on anything.

Eventually the "real deal" or progenitor will not exist as an example to compare to, so you likely go backwards. So I hope this is not the future of brass manufacturing. The future should hopefully include people who want to put their name on something they designed and made and believe in.

[Kingfan]

Conn-Selmer is closing the old King plant in Eastlake, Ohio putting 150 workers out of a job. I blame foreign competition.

[ghmerrill]

I don't think that this method of manufacturing really lends itself to innovation, though. Making stencil products that copy a good example of a trombone so someone else can pay Etsy to brand them for you and then pass off as your own product is about as far from innovation as you can get. And there is no incentive for anyone involved to innovate or improve on anything.

I refrained from making this observation (with which I fully agree) since I felt it might open a can of worms I'd not be inclined to untangle here.

The future should hopefully include people who want to put their name on something they designed and made and believe in.

From some perspectives this would be part of the best approach and overall vision. For others, it is not -- or at least is not obviously so. But again I'll refrain from anything more in that direction since the original topic pertained only to the quality of instruments and not to their genesis or to the business or social context of their design and development, or to the aspirations of their designers and makers -- and would move us into "tangents" of various sorts.

[ghmerrill]

I blame foreign competition.

To some degree, clearly. But Conn-Selmer has been in decline over at least the past 20 years, and from reports during that period (and about Bach as well, as another example) there were problems in the quality and production of these US instruments that's can't be attributed (at least in any fairly direct way) to foreign competition.

[harrisonreed]

I blame foreign competition.

To some degree, clearly. But Conn-Selmer has been in decline over at least the past 20 years, and from reports during that period (and about Bach as well, as another example) there were problems in the quality and production of these US instruments that's can't be attributed (at least in any fairly direct way) to foreign competition.

I actually looked into this a bit and did a thought experiment and it seemed that the 88H used to sell for $350. Ballpark conversion to today's money is about $3500. Looks like this is nearly exactly what they sell for today. So the price seems to have remained static with inflation. In the 1960's I'm fairly sure that Conn was mostly producing instruments for professionals. More than a few here might even say they were making the best trombones in the world. Some might even say those 50's and 60's Conns are still the best in the world.

If you want to argue that cheap trombones that are mostly student horns made outside of the USA are what put Conn on the ropes, you have maybe two reasons:

Reason 1: Unfair low prices put Conn on an unfair playing ground and took away their business

Counterargument 1: Why were Conn's professional trombones competing with student quality trombones in the first place? If the clientele is professionals, what professional is foregoing an 88H or a 62H for a stencil horn? Now, to be fair, I am pretty sure that Conn eventually was bought and pivoted to a business model where student horns made up a big chunk of production. But that was their business decision to compete in that market and shift to that market.

Reason 2: Non-US companies put Conn on the ropes because they made better quality instruments.

Counterargument 2: Well, it depends! Even in the 70s and 80s Yamaha was making HEAVILY Conn influenced trombones, but I don't think these were better than the original. But in the 90's they took what they learned and the Conn influence was improved upon and Yamaha started making straight up great trombones. I think the 90's were their heyday. There was one of their semi-open wrap models from that time I had and I would have bought that over an 88H any day of the week. It was fantastic. So maybe. But I don't think that the inherent quality of the Chinese made stencil horns on Amazon are the reason why people moved away from Conn. The real competition from a quality perspective would have been from Edwards from the mid to late 90's and then they were joined by Shires. With the exception of possibly the King pro small bore horns, 90's Edwards would have been blowing UMI made horns out of the water. Shires would follow suit.

Conclusion: I think that Conn's purchase and corporate decision to move production to Abilene, followed by the decision to focus on student instruments right as band programs were about to start falling apart across the USA were the real reasons for their current position and the closing of their factory. They had a relatively large staff carried over from a time when the demand for professional instruments might have been higher than it was in the 70's. I think they made a decision to try and keep their factories open and keep people employed in the 70's and the mechanism to do that was to shift focus to student horns. That was just punting factory closures into the future. Perhaps they should have downsized back then and went all in on professional horns, rather than move to Abilene, we won't know. Contributing factors included:

1. Yamaha coming into their own in the 90's and making really good trombones. I believe they were strong competitors both in price for all tiers of instruments and quality for all tiers of instruments.

2. Edwards and later Shires catering towards the professional musicians. They were in a position to not need a ton of staff, make the trombones that the now even smaller pool of pros needed, and they could even charge more than Conn. Suddenly the 88H is priced like an "intermediate horn", out of the blue, even though it's the same price it always was. I remember getting my 88HTCL (fantastic horn, Eastlake era) for $2000 in the early 00's and thinking that I'd never be able to afford a $4000 Shires. But pros were going absolutely nuts for Shires in the 00's and everyone seemed to be playing them.

3. Chinese made or sourced instruments like Y-Fort or the Shires Q series are more recent, and like Yamaha, they compete both at the right price point and quality point. But I don't see these too much. I think they are a contributing factor.

[ghmerrill]

Conclusion: I think that Conn's purchase and corporate decision to move production to Abilene, followed by the decision to focus on student instruments right as band programs were about to start falling apart across the USA were the real reasons for their current position and the closing of their factory. They had a relatively large staff carried over from a time when the demand for professional instruments might have been higher than it was in the late 70's. I think they made a decision to try and keep their factories open and keep people employed in the 70's and the mechanism to do that was to shift focus to student horns.

And weren't their costs going up at the same time -- including materials costs and labor force costs (for a non-decreasing labor force), and energy costs in a period when it was becoming more common/necessary to provide more benefits to employees? Failure of productivity management is also sometimes cited.

[WGWTR180]

You have a point. ，Chinese musical instruments are still in the process of development
[/quote]

Is copying an instrument the same thing as developing an instrument?

[JohnL]

You have a point. ，Chinese musical instruments are still in the process of development

Is copying an instrument the same thing as developing an instrument?

You have to develop the process to produce the duplicate. Tooling, techniques, etc.

[Nemo]

I don't think that this method of manufacturing really lends itself to innovation, though. Making stencil products that copy a good example of a trombone so someone else can pay Etsy to brand them for you and then pass off as your own product is about as far from innovation as you can get. And there is no incentive for anyone involved to innovate or improve on anything.

Eventually the "real deal" or progenitor will not exist as an example to compare to, so you likely go backwards. So I hope this is not the future of brass manufacturing. The future should hopefully include people who want to put their name on something they designed and made and believe in.

I'm not so sure this last point is accurate. There are several Chinese-manufactured brands that may have started doing copies, but have since made significant changes (some improvements, some not) to make the designs their own. The biggest example that comes to mind is Eastman tubas. In particular, the 836 which began as a copy of the Yamaha (or Nirschl, can't remember) copy of the legendary CSO York tubas, but has since improved to be considered one of the best instruments of its type - even beating out the original Yorks. Wessex, also, is a manufacturer that has several designs that were initially 1-to-1 copies but have since had changes and improvements made based on feedback from customers and professionals.

Are they as good as shops that have been making and refining their designs for 100 years? No. Could they achieve that quality if they keep going on the current trajectory? Absolutely. In any case there will always be a market for an instrument that plays better than the competition, and the most certain thing about Chinese manufacturing is that they will find and serve any market that exists.

[ghmerrill]

Are they as good as shops that have been making and refining their designs for 100 years? No. Could they achieve that quality if they keep going on the current trajectory? Absolutely. In any case there will always be a market for an instrument that plays better than the competition, and the most certain thing about Chinese manufacturing is that they will find and serve any market that exists.

There's some conflation here among innovation, refinement, and quality -- which are three very different things.

I don't think we've seen much innovation for quite a long time -- except perhaps in some alternatives to valve design or the use of different materials (like plastics, carbon fiber, and lubricants). But nothing like the innovations that were done by the likes of Aldoph Sax in conceiving, designing, and producing his new families of instruments. Is ANYONE doing something like that now? I'm inclined to see all the "improvement" of the past (What? More than a century?) more as refinements and improvements.

Have we seen any genuine innovation from the Chinese in this area? No (or at least I don't know of any), but I wouldn't necessarily expect to at this point in the evolution of their approach. But where's the innovation from anyone else? I don't see the "current trajectory" of anyone arriving at real Innovations in brass instrument design. It's a pretty mature field.

"Quality" is a different issue, and I suppose can be seen as closely related to "refinement", at least in certain ways. And achieving it is a much more well-known and delimited problem.

[harrisonreed]

I don't think that this method of manufacturing really lends itself to innovation, though. Making stencil products that copy a good example of a trombone so someone else can pay Etsy to brand them for you and then pass off as your own product is about as far from innovation as you can get. And there is no incentive for anyone involved to innovate or improve on anything.

Eventually the "real deal" or progenitor will not exist as an example to compare to, so you likely go backwards. So I hope this is not the future of brass manufacturing. The future should hopefully include people who want to put their name on something they designed and made and believe in.

I'm not so sure this last point is accurate. There are several Chinese-manufactured brands that may have started doing copies, but have since made significant changes (some improvements, some not) to make the designs their own. The biggest example that comes to mind is Eastman tubas. In particular, the 836 which began as a copy of the Yamaha (or Nirschl, can't remember) copy of the legendary CSO York tubas, but has since improved to be considered one of the best instruments of its type - even beating out the original Yorks. Wessex, also, is a manufacturer that has several designs that were initially 1-to-1 copies but have since had changes and improvements made based on feedback from customers and professionals.

Are they as good as shops that have been making and refining their designs for 100 years? No. Could they achieve that quality if they keep going on the current trajectory? Absolutely. In any case there will always be a market for an instrument that plays better than the competition, and the most certain thing about Chinese manufacturing is that they will find and serve any market that exists.

I hear you but I'm not talking about quality -- I'm already convinced that Chinese instrument makers are capable of making nearly any quality of instrument. I'm taking about innovation. You mention some "improvements" taking place at places like wessex, but those are free and far between I think. I stand by what I said:

Making unbranded stencil horns for others to buy and stamp a brand on and sell as their own product does not lend itself, as a manufacturing process, to innovation. And I fully acknowledge that this is not all that Chinese instrument makers are doing right now. I'm just talking about that practice, as someone said it might be the future of instrument manufacture. If it becomes that, innovation will grind to a halt.

[WGWTR180]

Is copying an instrument the same thing as developing an instrument?

You have to develop the process to produce the duplicate. Tooling, techniques, etc.

Yes but my point is copying is not innovating or developing. It's copying.

[JTeagarden]

The total North American market for trombones seems to be anywhere from $50 M - $80 M per year or thereabouts, and I would suspect that the annual market for professional horns is maybe 10-15% of this number, which ranges from $5 M - $12 M per year, spread out among many, many makers.

While we care deeply about the quality of horns, I'd be willing to bet that 80% of anyone who's ever played trombone did not, do not and will not notice the difference in quality between a trombone-shaped object made in China and an O'Malley horn, and even if they noticed it, they would not have the skill to produce an audible difference.

Making musical instruments is an inherently conservative undertaking, and innovations necessarily incremental: horns need to look, feel and sound like something people recognize as a trombone, just consider the real aversion to silver-plated trombones, so the innovations are likely to take place in manufacturing processes, and even here, people have been bending, annealing, soldering etc., for a couple hundred years now, the axial-flow valve kind of seems like the last significant modification in trombone design, and that's now roughly 50 years old.

Craftsmanship, and its close cousin, repeatibility, are the hallmarks of instrument making, not innovation, if you look at old photos of the Conn factory in Elkhart from 100 years ago, nearly all the tooling you can see is still used in nearly the same form as today.

[harrisonreed]

There have been many innovations since the axial valve. Interchangeable leadpipes becoming standard, modular components becoming pretty standard, the harmonic bridge from Edwards, CL2000 valve, Trubore valve, new bracing systems, adjustable counterweight from BAC.

You don't get any of that with the stencil horn mode of manufacturing. I'm not knocking it, as young students need robust horns that aren't expensive, I just hope that that doesn't become "the future of instrument making" as posited above.

You might get some of that with the Shires Q mode of manufacturing. They were initially described as the most popular custom horn setups but with Q series parts. But there is nothing stopping them from making a Q series horn that isn't a copy or version of something already offered. The Q alto might be an example of this.

[ghmerrill]

... the innovations are likely to take place in manufacturing processes ...

Yes, some Innovations will be process Innovations. But Harrison has pointed out some more genuine product Innovations.

Craftsmanship, and its close cousin, repeatability, are the hallmarks of instrument making...

Only if your focus is on the process of making the instrument, and the quality of the parts and of the assembly -- rather than the design and science/engineering aspects. You can use all the craftsmanship you can muster, and a poorly designed instrument will still be a poorly designed and performing instrument -- no matter the skill of the craftsman who builds it.

if you look at old photos of the Conn factory in Elkhart from 100 years ago, nearly all the tooling you can see is still used in nearly the same form as today.

Maybe. But then there are also things like electroforming and plating, CNC and precision machining (e.g., to produce more precision tubing), 3D printing, laser cutting of parts, and new techniques for tube bending.

[JTeagarden]

... the innovations are likely to take place in manufacturing processes ...

Yes, some Innovations will be process Innovations. But Harrison has pointed out some more genuine product Innovations.

Craftsmanship, and its close cousin, repeatability, are the hallmarks of instrument making...

Only if your focus is on the process of making the instrument, and the quality of the parts and of the assembly -- rather than the design and science/engineering aspects. You can use all the craftsmanship you can muster, and a poorly designed instrument will still be a poorly designed and performing instrument -- no matter the skill of the craftsman who builds it.

I guess I take it as given that the science bits of instrument design are well known, and that the likelihood of signifcant enhancements to the efficiency or playability of the trombone within the paramaters imposed on it in the musical styles it normally plays in are well understood at this point, and thus making a horn that performs well in its defined "lane" is more a matter of the proper materials, accurate manufacturing of components, and skillful assembly (collectively "craftsmanship.")

[ghmerrill]

... making a horn that performs well in its defined "lane" is more a matter of the proper materials, accurate manufacturing of components, and skillful assembly (collectively "craftsmanship.")

Ummm ... I get that view -- which is basically that the modern trombone is a "mature product," (like, say, the buggy whip or riding crop) not really permitting of any significant "innovation" in the future, but only of improvements in fabrication. I'm not inclined to disagree strongly with that ... except that (a) we can't really see into the future, and most of us can't imagine true Innovations that others may conceive, and (b) there are clearly times in the past where this view about trombones would have been as attractive as it is today, and yet genuine Innovations were made after those points.

The whole idea of innovation is that you don't remain in the current "lane" and you don't recognize the lane as "defined". So making a statement that depends for its accuracy on the notion of a "lane", and of a product staying in its "lane", is in danger of simply defining away -- or trying to define away -- the possibility of innovation.

However, the good news is (as usual) that innovators will innovate if innovation is possible and beneficial -- even if the rest of us think that the time of innovation for a particular product is past.

As an example, it's tempting to think that the riding crop (you know, the thing you whack -- or "guide"? -- a horse with) reached the pinnacle of its design and implementation in the 19th century. I mean -- really -- what does it take to design and manufacture something to whack a horse with as you're riding it? And yet, if you look into it, there is a list of riding crop features that have been introduced in the 21st century (aided by different materials and fabrication methods, to be sure) that are regarded as significant Innovations and include genuine design differences rather than simply improved materials or construction methods. Has that taken the riding crop out of its traditional "lane"? No. It's just made it better to use in that lane.

[WGWTR180]

While we care deeply about the quality of horns, I'd be willing to bet that 80% of anyone who's ever played trombone did not, do not and will not notice the difference in quality between a trombone-shaped object made in China and an O'Malley horn, and even if they noticed it, they would not have the skill to produce an audible difference.





Well I'm definitely in the other 20%.

[boneagain]

I guess I take it as given that the science bits of instrument design are well known...

... and there's a thing right there

I'd argue that the science bits are NOT well known.

There have been arguments about the science right here and in TTF before.
End results of those arguments tend to boil down to "just played the darned thing."

But let's just talk about bells.
The reputable scientists (discussions NOT in trombone fora) tend to agree:
1) basic trombone sound (as opposed to horn or trumpet, say) is largely determined by bell shape
2) specific trombone sound is FAR more involved than just the bell (or bell/mouthpiece cup that make #1 possible)

For other insights we can look at the arrival of time delay reflectometry and it's usefulness for locating reflection points inside the acoustical path. Great possibilities for more control of "color" added/subtracted by those internal reflections. Would be completely invisible to a buyer. Would we know if a Chinese manufacturer were doing this? Would we know if an American manufacturer were using Chinese tools to do this? Have you priced a Hewlett-Packard precision electronic tool vs a Chinese one?

I have not seen as many articles on acoustics from China as I have seen from places like Stanford. Case-Western, University of New South Wales, Edinburgh, etc. OTOH I can't read Chinese. Would seem to me unwise to assume that, just because I can't find the articles, they do not exist.

Just how much of the science is out there to discover? With the current level of science no one has been able to completely recreate the sound and feel of the Duo Gravis or King 7B. Chinese have made made some well-playing attempts, but not quite hit the mark.

So, IMHO, the science is STILL out there to be discovered. Benade made the switch from nuclear physics to acoustics when he started teaching at Case-Western. It was that involved.

Do we think the cost equations for getting that level of scientific expertise is more likely from a Chinese cost model or a western one? Do we think we are more likely to get another Earl Kent (of Conn "fame") than China is?

The science is still up for grabs. The challenge is making it work the cost of nailing down and applying that science.

Lacking the science the trombone world relies on people with hands-on experience working with discriminating musicians to make ANY innovations.

Bottom line: if I were still playing, would I DEPEND on a Chinese horn for my daily living? Not YET. But I wouldn't bet on not ever.

[harrisonreed]

I guess I take it as given that the science bits of instrument design are well known...

... and there's a thing right there

I'd argue that the science bits are NOT well known.

There have been arguments about the science right here and in TTF before.
End results of those arguments tend to boil down to "just played the darned thing."

But let's just talk about bells.
The reputable scientists (discussions NOT in trombone fora) tend to agree:
1) basic trombone sound (as opposed to horn or trumpet, say) is largely determined by bell shape
2) specific trombone sound is FAR more involved than just the bell (or bell/mouthpiece cup that make #1 possible)

For other insights we can look at the arrival of time delay reflectometry and it's usefulness for locating reflection points inside the acoustical path. Great possibilities for more control of "color" added/subtracted by those internal reflections. Would be completely invisible to a buyer. Would we know if a Chinese manufacturer were doing this? Would we know if an American manufacturer were using Chinese tools to do this? Have you priced a Hewlett-Packard precision electronic tool vs a Chinese one?

I have not seen as many articles on acoustics from China as I have seen from places like Stanford. Case-Western, University of New South Wales, Edinburgh, etc. OTOH I can't read Chinese. Would seem to me unwise to assume that, just because I can't find the articles, they do not exist.

Just how much of the science is out there to discover? With the current level of science no one has been able to completely recreate the sound and feel of the Duo Gravis or King 7B. Chinese have made made some well-playing attempts, but not quite hit the mark.

So, IMHO, the science is STILL out there to be discovered. Benade made the switch from nuclear physics to acoustics when he started teaching at Case-Western. It was that involved.

Do we think the cost equations for getting that level of scientific expertise is more likely from a Chinese cost model or a western one? Do we think we are more likely to get another Earl Kent (of Conn "fame") than China is?

The science is still up for grabs. The challenge is making it work the cost of nailing down and applying that science.

Lacking the science the trombone world relies on people with hands-on experience working with discriminating musicians to make ANY innovations.

Bottom line: if I were still playing, would I DEPEND on a Chinese horn for my daily living? Not YET. But I wouldn't bet on not ever.

Not to mention some of the "science" behind the "design" of some bells was that Bill was spinning and buffing them on a Tuesday vs the ones Steve made on Wednesday. I'm reminded of the anecdotes of people going to the shop and mixing and matching Bach bells to slides until something felt good.

[JTeagarden]

I suppose it we can’t say why a certain horn performs as it does in a way that can be repeated, the science is not well understood.

Here’s a thought: my experience with Yamaha trombones is that they are very consistent, student and professional horns alike, and further, that one person’s very average-playing instrument is another person’s horn of a lifetime.

Is Yamaha unable to further refine their manufacturing processes to only make consistently great horns, or is it simply a matter of making horns that meet the needs of the broadest number of players, as what constitutes a great horn varies with each player?

Perhaps Yamaha only innovates, without there being any kind of science-driven basis for it, in the same way there was technology for thousands of years before there was a scientific method: largely imitating what’s been done before, even if the underlying acoustical basis was not understood, applying the Ellington Principle: if it sounds good, it is good.

[cmcslide]

Another side to this is how a couple of Chinese companies are partnering with or buying out some name pro instrument manufacturers (Eastman with Shires and Willson among others, and now John Packer with Rath). Thus, China is acquiring designs for pro level instruments. The upper line of Eastman trombones are really based on the Q series and aren't bad horns for the money, though there may still be questions about quality control and materials. Hence why some (many?) sellers and buyers consider a "pre-Eastman Shires" to be more desirable....

[ghmerrill]

Is Yamaha unable to further refine their manufacturing processes to only make consistently great horns, or is it simply a matter of making horns that meet the needs of the broadest number of players, as what constitutes a great horn varies with each player?

Or is there simply a cost/benefit market evaluation analysis in play? But again, there's danger of a conflation here -- between (1) excellence in manufacturing/production, and (2) what constitutes a "great horn" in terms of design and performance. You can have one without the other, or you can skew your approach to emphasize one over the other, to one degree or another, depending on your modelling of sales and profits. If you want to pursue the goal of providing "great horns" to a variety of customers whose view of that greatness varies, then you're talking about custom work. Yahama is not in that business, nor are the Chinese, nor is Conn-Selmer, etc.

[NotSkilledHere]

not arguing with anyone but i think yamaha does innovate and experiment,a lot actually, but most of those horns are sold only in japan. the global customerbase rarely gets what they offer in the japanese market. perhaps that boils down to gobal distributors wanting fleshed out products from them that each have a designated spot preferably without 15 different variations of what appears to be exactly the same horn vs yamaha basically self distributing in Japan.

I would point out for example that Yamaha has very recently experimented with valves or their own version of valves and we never even saw them overseas unless someone imported them. Go look at the Yamaha 882V and the 882B. the V has their own V valve which has seen a variety of praise from people but they arent making them anymore i think. their B valve is some variation of the Conn CL or Shires Trubore valve i believe. I dont think yamaha is making those anymore but I could be wrong again.

so simply because we dont see yamaha trying things out at international expos and stuff doesnt actually seem to mean they arent testing the waters with various designs.

I would argue that yamaha has achieved a level of consistency because of science but also at current time, they cannot become even more consistent because science's law of diminishing returns on investment renders further consistency prohibitive to cost to customer.

and also I think there is some cost-benefit analysis to be done on whether it is cost beneficial to approach developing instruments based on science or if there is a breaking point at which just simply making things and testing them out to see if they work or bring new improvements is more economical.

anyway the main gripe for about chinese horns, im talking about the more well respected chinese brands, is really just the cut corners in fit and finish. I get that's part of how they achieve their significantly lower prices, but maybe just a little bit more with consideration to fit and finish would entice people to consider their products more complete of a product. and perhaps some longevity of a products life is to be tested with some of the more recent offerings into the market, eg y fort, but overall from feedback from members on this forum, they on their part, do seem to have a quality product. certain improvements could be made and i suppose that's what we are expecting from them in coming years and releases, but perhaps they are going to be the king of the chinese horn market in terms of top of the line horns (as a homegrown brand and not opposed to say shires with chinese manufactured parts)

[WGWTR180]

How many of these instruments are play tested and actually used by high quality professional Trombonists? Don't forget that the Yamaha YBL613H and YBL622G were developed and actually used by Steve Norrell and Douglas Yeo. I know several tubists who use the Eastman tubas and love them. I know other musicians who were given instruments by certain Chinese or Taiwanese manufacturers, some with their "names on them", and they use them because they were given to them and not because they spent hours with these manufactures during the design process. Only time will tell how long any of these will stand up.

[slidesix]

Tubaaiyue, interesting topic. Thanks for starting it. When I think of Chinese trombones I think of a sea different brands or brand-less offerings or options. Mainly, it is hard to navigate what I am looking at or what I am attempting to buy.

When I think of Chinese manufacturing, I imagine manufacturing plants what will build or craft almost anything, as long a minimum unit count per order or per year (term?) is agreed upon. And of all this within the confined parameters (a spectrum if you will) of what manufacturing plant will produce.

Notice I have said "manufacturing plant" and not "brand" or "company." When I think of the U.S., I think of Conn, Bach, (formerly Holton), King, (formerly Benge), Edwards custom, Schilke Greenhoe, S.E. Shires custom, Stephens Brass, M&W Custom, O'Malley custom, plus some of the crazy stuff Noah at BrassArk will partner to bring to market. With U.K., I think of Rath (used to) or Besson (used to). With France, I think of Courtois. Germany, Switzerland, etc. With each of those, I have an idea of what to expect. Tone, responsiveness, affordability, or lack of affordability, reliability, service, warranty--all with an established history (Even if short) to let me to confidently know what to expect. none of that holds true with Chinese except for maybe S.E. Shires Q series with Eastman+Shires, maybe Eastman itself, and third with the Chinese saxophones that Conn-Selmer seems to contract out as their student line.

When I think of Chinese instruments, I have a hard time understanding what I am buying. Sure the ad copy says: -..547 bore, F attachment, gold brass bell. And the computer generated image sure looks shiny. But what I am buying? This is an instrument, not copper plumbing to build my bathroom! Sure, I make humor here for effect. But what is the fit and finish like? How long with it last? 3 years? 10 years? 75 years? I don't have a clue! What is the tone and responsiveness like? Sure at $1300 I can afford it. What does the $700 model lack? What does the $2300 model add? At least with a Conn or a Greenhoe or a M&W, I have an idea of what I might be buying. Will this deal be a good thing in the long run? With a Chinese instrument I never know. In fact, I tend to doubt it.

Why I doubt it? They tend to have subtle issues that may not be present on first inspection but present themselves in the long run. Generally, these instruments often lack good tone, responsiveness, or the ability for the developing musician to express musically. Tone, color, dynamics, expressiveness. Those things. Cheap low priced instruments make those things hard. And those are precisely the things a developing musician tends to struggle with. Sold, dependable American, European, and Yamaha--yes, I agree with another poster that Yamaha is THE FACE of Japanese music instrument building-- professional musical instruments all allow for that. With Chinese, I am at the mercy of the middlemen who placed the order with the plant. Do those middlemen care if I get a quality instrument? They might, they might not. I do know they want my money. And it seems it is up to me to decipher what I am buying.

With the Chinese instrument, they are masters of making literally anything you want. They will build it to your order. Materials, time, labor, specifications, and exact price point. The issue is sometimes to hit the price point for the market to sell the item, something sometimes seems to get lost. And it is the quality. Or it is the craftmanship. Or the musicality or expressiveness. And that is damn hard to see on a spec sheet or a bill of materials (BOM).

Excellent topic, Tubaaiyue

[slidesix]

For example, Tuba from Eastman Group in Beijing, Hootersmre euphonium 8521G/7521G from Oves Company in Tianjin, Tuba and trombone from ZO Company in Hebei Province Chinese i

Tubaaiyue, I am glad you listed brands. I have not heard of any of these.

I did take a look at ZO. From what I can tell, they ad copy is part of the problem I mention in my first post. Now, in your defense, and in the defense of the advice of buying a musical instrument, I do need to get out and play them. However, if I try to make a decision solely off of the advertising copy. I can see one tenor trombone is some sort of a small bore. But what kind? Is it a student model? A step-up or intermediate model? Is a professional model like a King 3b or an Edwards? I can't tell.

Maybe that isn't a problem? Maybe I need to play them? I think we take Conn's mass production too much to heart or at least their legacy from 1800s to 1969. And we just assume they are all good and all play good. Maybe we need to approach this how young violin students, their private teachers, and their parents do. They get out and they play fiddles after their teach helps to narrow them done first by play testing them. I think at times we don't do that enough. I digress.

Back on the ZO site, I see a middle horn that is like a Conn 88HO or a Bach 42BO. That f attachment wrap looks like it. And I think that is the point. I think they want the customer to think that, too. It is the middle option. And that takes us to the third choice: it looks like the higher end model. Why? I has a Minnick wrap or an Alessi wrap or it at least looks like that is what they want me as the customer to think. So here, I think I am supposed to think I am getting a custom horn or a boutique horn. 1-2-3. Good-Better-Best. Am I though? I guess the proof is in the playing. Or the proof is also when I take it to a tech and have them look at it, or have them clean it, or have them repair it. Will it still be a good, long term value? I don't know. Maybe it is. Likely it is not. Or even more likely, "it is complicated".

and as for those small manufacturers who are not serious about making instruments, we Chinese people also dislike them. Of course, any industry needs to develop, and from the beginning to maturity, it takes time and continuous learning

I am REALLY glad you mentioned that. Bold for emphasis. I think you need to understand what our (American mainly, but UK, Canadian, and Australian, too) experience is with Chinese horns. Many of us first see them as teachers or as parents whose students or children get these. Often it is Allora, which is a House Brand instrument of a music store chain such as Guitar Center, Music and Arts, or similar. It is Chinese. Often the tone is not good. the responsiveness is not good. The intonation is not good. The construction does not hold up well like a Conn 88H or a Bach 42B. The brass is of low quality and cannot be resoldered or repaired buy a brass technician or local musical instrument repairman. The metal is too poor quality, the solder is poor quality. The solder work is even worse quality. Another chinese horn we see is online, sold as Mendini by Cecilio trombones. These also are not good.

Realize, we tend to see THESE either first or most often here in the States. So this is also what we are typically commenting on. Tubaaiyue, if I understand you correctly, you also have a low opinion of such trombones that are made by people who are not serious about making instruments. If so, then we agree on something.


P.S. For me, I think when the Chinese start making something as good as an American Schilke Greenhoe large bore f attachment or bass double valve, I will take notice.

[Nemo]

I don't know anything about ZO's trombones, but their tubas are world class. Competitive with the Eastman and Yamaha offerings for sure.