Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:08 am

Just checked the second track.... you still sound the same

Chris Stearn

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:50 am

Quote from: blast on Nov 29, 2009, 05:08AMJust checked the second track.... you still sound the same

Chris Stearn

Hehe....then I guess the third is.....me too.

Leif

ttf_Birdy · Post by **ttf_Birdy** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:48 pm

...and here endeth the lesson. We all sound like ourselves, it's just that some equipment makes it easier to sound like ourselves than others. Leif, I'm guessing that it's feel from your side that is where the difference is. Maybe it's time to go with what you feel most comfortable with..

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:11 pm

I have removed a series of posts started by Griffin relating to his problems with a Rath 1 1/2 mouthpiece. They are all now in a new topic. In case anybody is wondering.

ttf_GetzenBassPlayer · Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:23 pm

I feel like like G&W mpcs. run on the large side. I play on a Don Harwood and that piece makes my BT-1 feel small. Ivan lives in the same area as I do and I have played all his mpcs. I thought his version of a 1.5g was like a small 1.25g. How detrimental would it be to wait till the summer to switch? It sounds like you are going to have to change some of your approachs to playing. Is it possible that mouthpiece is not a good match? There are a lot of choices in that 1.5g size. I am sure you can find one with a rim that is closer to your ideal.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:51 pm

Quote from: savio on Dec 18, 2008, 01:52AM
I feel the "new" 1 1/2g variants are easier to play especially down in the low pedal register. But very short, for me they all lack personality. (Thats just me) I'm back on my Bach 1 1/2g and I buy you all a beer guys if this is not my mouthpiece next year at this time.

Leif

What's your address? I have my litre stein ready!!!

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Quote from: Sammy99 on Dec 30, 2009, 08:51PMWhat's your address? I have my litre stein ready!!!

All I can say is:

Sorry all my ramblings here Sammy. I have done a lot of trying and failing, its really not much to read. Sometimes I have been really confused. I'm not proud of it.

Anyway If you go to Norway I will be happy to buy you a beer!! At least I can stand by that sentence.

Leif

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:50 am

Leif,

For the very first time you dissappoint me!
Not only have you tried and failed, you have also succeded, AND done your best to document the confusion, trials, and results.

This is definitely something we NEED to pass on to the next generations of trombonists!

If we do not continue to question how we do what we do, how will we improve it? If we do not filter out the questions that make a difference on the equipment from the ones that are interesting but of no real consequence, how to we free up more time to get on with the most important part: actually making music?

Hopefully folks can actually TRACK in your posts that the technical bits only exist in service to the musical objective. Chris' comment that the most recent posted recordings are "still you" do not diminish his other comments about how sound concept and musicality worked together, with SUBTLE shadings from the technology.

Your posts have, at least for me, been a reinforcing fiber in this interesting thread. They are among the parts that would cause me to refer young players I know to this thread, as those players think about putting bathtubs on the mouth end of their horns. Nothing wrong with big mouthpieces, as long as there is rational consideration of the effects rather than wishful thinking of emulating someone who has spent years taming such a big beast. And your comments have a LOT to offer for methods of rational consideration.

Please do NOT set the example of NOT being proud to be inquisitive and methodical!

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:39 am

I'm so glad you are here Dave.

And I think like you say one of the points Chris have with this tread is to prevent very young kids to go direct on a big mouthpiece. They have like me many idols like Charlie Vernon, Yeo, Hawes, that play big mouthpieces. They play like God all of them and we all enjoy their fantastic playing. But its not the right thing to do when they buy their big mouthpieces and think then think I can play like them. That will not happen. It needs really hard work and a lot of understanding. They would go faster to their sound goals if they start on a 1 1/2g. And I don't think these ultimate players recommend a young kid to go direct on a 60 size either. And its also a point to show players like George Roberts to the young up growing bass trombonists. Charlie, Yeo and these players have him as an idol.

For my self I have had a lot of fun and help here, from Dave and many other. I'm just a normal player fare away but if I can show it is possible to have fun and learn here I do that. I have been curious and tried many things but that's also a way to learn. Maybe not the right way to learn but I learn and that's the main thing. And I found out how I should sound like. And that's like me of course.

Leif

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:17 am

Quote from: boneagain on Jan 01, 2010, 05:50AMLeif,

For the very first time you dissappoint me!
Not only have you tried and failed, you have also succeded, AND done your best to document the confusion, trials, and results.

This is definitely something we NEED to pass on to the next generations of trombonists!

If we do not continue to question how we do what we do, how will we improve it? If we do not filter out the questions that make a difference on the equipment from the ones that are interesting but of no real consequence, how to we free up more time to get on with the most important part: actually making music?

Hopefully folks can actually TRACK in your posts that the technical bits only exist in service to the musical objective. Chris' comment that the most recent posted recordings are "still you" do not diminish his other comments about how sound concept and musicality worked together, with SUBTLE shadings from the technology.

Your posts have, at least for me, been a reinforcing fiber in this interesting thread. They are among the parts that would cause me to refer young players I know to this thread, as those players think about putting bathtubs on the mouth end of their horns. Nothing wrong with big mouthpieces, as long as there is rational consideration of the effects rather than wishful thinking of emulating someone who has spent years taming such a big beast. And your comments have a LOT to offer for methods of rational consideration.

Please do NOT set the example of NOT being proud to be inquisitive and methodical!

I whole heartedly Second Dave's post!!!!

Please keep doing what you've been doing. That is why I've been reading this thread.

We seriously need to be able to follow along in your thought processes. They are expressed expressed very well.

I'm learning from you.

Thanks Leif,

Sammy
New to bass bone.

ttf_apwilliams · Post by **ttf_apwilliams** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:39 pm

And find that most people either have around about a 1.5 G or something like a Doug Yeo.
It seems that most bass trombonist fit in only one of them and stay around those size mouth pieaces.
Does anyone find this true?

ttf_GetzenBassPlayer · Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:26 pm

Quote from: apwilliams on Jan 11, 2010, 08:39PMAnd find that most people either have around about a 1.5 G or something like a Doug Yeo.
It seems that most bass trombonist fit in only one of them and stay around those size mouth pieaces.
Does anyone find this true?

Is a Yeo a 60/1G size. I find that most players who really sound good on a large piece are right in that range. I think any larger, the vast majority end up losing focus to their sound. I know under certain circumstances players will go larger, like those pedal D's in Hellboy, but as an every day piece, +60 sizes only seem to work for a very few.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:35 pm

The Yeo is indeed of approx 1G size. I read apwilliams's point as being that it seems to them that bass players tend to use either 1-1/2G-size or 1G size - but not 1-1/4G size - in other words, that the distribution of sizes is bimodal.

I created a poll a while back to test this hypothesis out statistically among forum members:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,42460.0.html
As you can see, the results did not support this - easily the most popular size bracket was the 1-1/2G with approximately similar numbers plumping for the 1-1/4G and 1G size brackets. These three sizes covered over three quarters of the responses.

ttf_kbiggs · Post by **ttf_kbiggs** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:55 pm

Only slightly off topic, but related to recent posts:

I still think it is odd that with the wide range of rim sizes used by bass trombonists, we restrict the nomenclature to only a few sizes. To name a few, we have the Bach 2, 1 1/2, 1 1/4, and 1 (that's 4 rim sizes); Schilke 57, 58, 59 and 60 (4 again); Hammond 19, 20 and 21 (3 stock sizes, although he apparently does a lot of custom work); and Greg Black 2, 1 1/2, 1 3/8, 1 1/4, 1 1/8, 1, and 0 (!) (that's 7 rim sizes to choose from, not including custom work). Yet the actual rim sizes range from about 26 mm/ 1.05" to 30 mm / 1.16", depending on the maker. Doug Elliott's rims appear to cover the widest range, including some of the territory in between these "common" sizes: his small bass rims start at number 108 (27 mm, or 1.08") and go up to a 116 (29.5 mm / 1.16"). That's 2.5 mm or 8/1,000 of an inch difference between the largest and smallest.

If we were talking about trumpet mouthpieces, there would be half a dozen rim sizes (maybe more!) between a 1 1/2 and a 1 1/4 (or a 58 and 59, if you prefer). For example, Greg Black's stock trumpet mpcs range in rim size from 15.5 mm / .610" to 17.3 / .681", and he has 9 stock models. That's only 1.8 mm or less than 2/1,000 of an inch.

So--why do we have fewer choices available when we have a wider range to cover? Yeah, I know: trumpet players are smaller

, and they're dealing with smaller amounts of tissue

, but it still just don't make no sense.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:07 pm

The snide (but true) answer is because trumpet players buy a lot more mouthpieces.

Until not that long ago it was quite difficult to find anything between and 1 1/2 size and a 1G/60 size. the Schilke 59 was it, and the rim diameter itself is pretty similar to a 1G although the rest of the mouthpiece is much smaller. I was playing an in between size for years, and I had completely custom mouthpieces made to get what I was after.

With the notable exception of Doug Elliott, when the more recent custom makers started they would basically do a small bass mouthpiece and a big one: Monette BT2 and BT1; Stork 1.5 and 1 (the 1.25 came years later). Laskey still only does 3, and one of them (95D) is unreasonably huge for most players - but it's Charlie Vernon's mouthpiece. I think Greg Black started with a 1 1/2 G and a 1G and filled in the other sizes later as well.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:27 am

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Jan 12, 2010, 08:07PMUntil not that long ago it was quite difficult to find anything between and 1 1/2 size and a 1G/60 size. the Schilke 59 was it

I was under the impression that the Bach 1G and 1-1/4G were introduced at the same time as each other. Is that wrong?

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:05 am

I meant other than a 1 1/4 G and a Schilke 59.

ttf_Slidennis · Post by **ttf_Slidennis** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:43 am

My Benge 1 1/2G is actually between a Bach 1 1/2G and 1 1/4G, both in rim and throat size...

I love it!

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:02 am

Quote from: Slidennis on Feb 22, 2010, 02:43AMMy Benge 1 1/2G is actually between a Bach 1 1/2G and 1 1/4G, both in rim and throat size...

I love it!

I played one for about 15 years on my Dave Taylor-altered Holton TR-whatever. (TR 169, I think.) I loved it, too. It played bigger (easier, anyway) than a 1 1/2G in the trigger ranges but was not nearly as cumbersome in the higher ranges as a 1 1/4 G and I was using it it situations where I had to play lots of improvised solos and play w/a real bass trombone sound in ensembles. Sadly, it does not work so well in the low range on my Shires bass (Who knows why. Me? The horn? Some combination of both?) and since I spend much less time on bass these days than I did in the past I have never really gotten down to finding a great all-around piece for that horn. The Jeff Reynolds L that I am playing has a great sound and wonderful low range, but as far as being a solo m'pce...again, for me as a very occasional doubler...it is a bear up past say

.

So it goes.

You real bass players out there...any suggestions? I already own a number of Bach pieces...1 1/4G, 1 G, a couple of pretty good 1 1/2Gs...plus a Schilke 59 that I do not much like at all. (I have never played a Schilke or Schilke derivative on any horn that worked for me, truth be told. Too hooty.)

I do not have the practice/playing time available to truly "learn" a 1 1/2G in the low range or something big like my Jeff Reynolds in the higher ranges. Are there any newer m'pces out there that really split the difference? The Benge 1 1/4 was a revelation to me when I found it on my old Holton. I remember going into a session w/Eumir Deodato just after I had found it and laying out a double trigger C that was so strong he got mad at me because he thought I was messing with him. I had to explain and then back way down. I had always struggled with the Holton setup that Dave used...the 2nd valve back on the tuning slide was so resistant compared to the single valve feel...but the Benge solved that and still played well throughout the rest of the horn.

I miss it.

I don't miss the Holton much...it was so uneven in response compared to my Shires although it did have great timbral characteristics...but I wish that I could feel freer up through about

on my Shires. When I am soloing I too often forget what horn I am playing and start playing like a tenor player...self-censorship and improvisation do not mix very well, I have found...and I run into a wall on the setup that I am now playing every time I do that.

Suggestions?

S.

ttf_Brisko · Post by **ttf_Brisko** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:42 am

I've had good luck with a Stork 1.5S... I've used it in situations where a solid low C was required along with

in sax/tpt unison lines. I find it to be pretty focused (a little too focused down low, actually) which helps a lot in the upper registers. I have a Stork 1.25 that is nice and meaty in the trigger ranges but is useless beyond

or so unless I spend 4 hrs a day on it. And yeah, the Schilkes are hooty... though my father-in-law has a tired old 72H that really comes alive with a Schilke 59 (not enough to use it full time, though, sadly). Anyway, Storks are good pieces and comfortable to play (I say this as a doubler who spends a lot less time practicing than you do, Sam). Some people absolutely hate the S backbore but I like it, YMMV, I guess. The only problem might be that the Stork is a little dead depending on your Shires setup. I use the Storks on a light Yamaha, and the weight and focus helps to settle down the horn. It might be too much on a better balanced horn.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:34 am

Hey Sam-I have a pile of stuff-I'm in White Plains. PM me if you're interested

ttf_bassclef · Post by **ttf_bassclef** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:04 pm

Quote from: sabutin on Feb 22, 2010, 09:02AMYou real bass players out there...any suggestions? I already own a number of Bach pieces...1 1/4G, 1 G, a couple of pretty good 1 1/2Gs...plus a Schilke 59 that I do not much like at all. (I have never played a Schilke or Schilke derivative on any horn that worked for me, truth be told. Too hooty.)
S.

I suggest the Laskey 85MD, though it is a Schilke derivative. You mention that you're playing on the the Jeff Reynolds now, and this one is in the same ballpark measurements wise. I tried both several years ago and settled on the Laskey.

The 85MD has less mass than the Reynolds, which I believe makes it behave differently (better for me) up high. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it vs. the Reynolds. I don't do a lot of improv, but I do a lot of big band playing. For me, the Laskey just handles better above the staff and blends very well with the small tenors. I've found this to be true in softer ballad-type lines and especially when some punch/bite is necessary.

I also find it to be quite versatile. I can produce a wide variety of appropriate sound colors with it and after watching your YouTube videos on the subject, I can only imagine what you could do with it.

Take that for what it's worth I guess. I feel a little foolish suggesting stuff for you to try.

I take my playing just as seriously as my day gig will let me. I write software by day and practice or gig all night.

Beats chasing skirts I suppose.

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:34 pm

Quote from: bassclef on Feb 22, 2010, 03:04PMI suggest the Laskey 85MD, though it is a Schilke derivative. You mention that you're playing on the the Jeff Reynolds now, and this one is in the same ballpark measurements wise. I tried both several years ago and settled on the Laskey.

The 85MD has less mass than the Reynolds, which I believe makes it behave differently (better for me) up high. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it vs. the Reynolds. I don't do a lot of improv, but I do a lot of big band playing. For me, the Laskey just handles better above the staff and blends very well with the small tenors. I've found this to be true in softer ballad-type lines and especially when some punch/bite is necessary.

I also find it to be quite versatile. I can produce a wide variety of appropriate sound colors with it and after watching your YouTube videos on the subject, I can only imagine what you could do with it.

Take that for what it's worth I guess. I feel a little foolish suggesting stuff for you to try.

I take my playing just as seriously as my day gig will let me. I write software by day and practice or gig all night.

Beats chasing skirts I suppose.

I'll put it on my list.

Thanks.

Sam

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:52 am

Sam, the next time you are at Dillons have a look at the Rath B1 1/2W. Much easier than a 1 1/2G down low and better than your Reynolds up high. The rim is shaped after a Mt Vernon 4G, which was quite flat. A rounder rim is possible... if you send it to me to be modded.
Chris Stearn

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:37 am

Sam, I think I sold you a Laskey 85MD a couple of years ago.

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:30 am

Quote from: blast on Feb 23, 2010, 12:52AMSam, the next time you are at Dillons have a look at the Rath B1 1/2W. Much easier than a 1 1/2G down low and better than your Reynolds up high. The rim is shaped after a Mt Vernon 4G, which was quite flat. A rounder rim is possible... if you send it to me to be modded.
Chris Stearn

Thanks Chris. Will do.

Sam

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:32 am

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Feb 23, 2010, 05:37AMSam, I think I sold you a Laskey 85MD a couple of years ago.

Hmmmm...

It's not in the bass collection...I'll rummage through my other m'pce containers and see. I think I remember that, now that you mention it.

Duh.

Too many m'pces, not enough brains.

Thanks...

Sam

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:21 pm

To add to this a little, the 85MD is really not a Schilke derivative. I don't find that any of the Laskey bass mouthpiece behave like standard Schilkes at all - they seem to me really much more like Bach mouthpieces in sound and response characteristics. I gather that the same thing is true of his trumpet mouthpieces.

And one thing that Scott Laskey has completely pegged, in my opinion, is a linear response characteristic. In other words, things about the sound and response change gradually and logically from register to register and at different dynamics. I thin this works really well for some players and not so well for others.

For Sam specifically, I think this aspect of the 85MD might very well be what he's looking for. And it's just a bit smaller at the rim than the Reynolds L with the rest of the dimensions fairly similar.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:31 am

The thing that worried me about the Laskey 85MD was the sound... it is quite bright and hard... what you play on Gabe, sounds great

but that's way bigger.
Chris Stearn

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:47 am

It's a funny thing Chris. I've heard people sound very warm and rich on the 85 - and in fact a college player I did a workshop with had me completely fooled with the 85; I thought it was the 93. Likewise the tenor trombone and trumpet mouthpieces. They often do seem bright and hard (exactly right words) at first, but I think when people spend a little time on them they relax into them and find the points of warm resonance. The overtones are always there though, which seems to me to be where the brightness comes from, but also the richness and resonance.

Also, when I am playing by myself the 93D makes me sound significantly brighter than most other mouthpieces in that size range - from my perspective behind the bell. But it seems to be a different story on the other side of the bell, and I almost never feel like I have to hold the highs of the sound back in ensembles.

ttf_bassclef · Post by **ttf_bassclef** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:57 am

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Feb 23, 2010, 06:21PMTo add to this a little, the 85MD is really not a Schilke derivative. I don't find that any of the Laskey bass mouthpiece behave like standard Schilkes at all - they seem to me really much more like Bach mouthpieces in sound and response characteristics.
I will most happily defer to your experience on that point.

I guess I thought that mainly because I was looking to replace a Schilke 59 with something similar size/specs-wise that worked better for me. I can describle my experience with the 85MD using the cliche "a Schilke 59 on steroids"...but perhaps that means it has the Bach qualities that you describe above! I know Mr. Laskey worked for Schilke for many years as well.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:53 pm

Yes, Scott Laskey worked for Schilke for years, but even when he was there he was doing custom work closely related to Bach models. At one point I had a custom 60 made by him with an outer shape very much like his current mouthpieces (and the friend I sold it to won't give it back!). Since leaving there he has built a reputation not only for mouthpieces but for modifying Bach trumpets along with Ron Pinc. They also make their own trumpets, clearly intended for Bach players.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:04 pm

The Topic?

ttf_Bob Kolada · Post by **ttf_Bob Kolada** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:39 am

"Re: Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??"

Not me apparently.... I play almost exclusively on a 30mm JK KBP2C on my 1062, though I occasionally use a Yamaha 60B on bass and as a crossover on my .547 Bb/F. I also like that mp for most big band parts though if I never had to play above the staff I would stick to the 2C.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:41 am

Sorry Don, this topic has a habit of straying.

The Klier KBP2C is a fine mouthpiece... I use one myself... on a contrabass.

I checked a whole lot of mouthpieces the other day and 27.5 was a very common ID for Mt Vernon Bachs and smaller Minicks... anybody would think Larry had copied one

Thinking of doublers, the standard Bach 1 1/2G is not too popular with them... I don't think that the rim shape relates to many tenor offerings, so I can see why.
Sort of back on topic

Chris Stearn

ttf_BassBoneFL · Post by **ttf_BassBoneFL** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:00 am

Quote from: Donward59 on Feb 24, 2010, 08:04PMThe Topic?

4 years.... 1100+ replies.... 80,000+ views.... perhaps an occasional tangent could be permitted.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:58 am

How about:"Are you Man enough to play one of these?"

ttf_JimR · Post by **ttf_JimR** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:11 am

Quote from: Donward59 on Feb 25, 2010, 07:58AMHow about:"Are you Man enough to play one of these?"

Oh my, 4 years, 1100+ replies and 57 pages before somebody finally said it out loud. It really all does come down to the relationship between size and manhood! God help us now!

JR

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:11 pm

Quote from: sabutin on Feb 23, 2010, 07:30AMThanks Chris. Will do.

Sam

Sam,
A fairly new option, and at least nominally a 1 1/2G! I just came home to find a Kelly stainless steel had arrived. I'm impressed enough with it right now that I'm going to give it a few weeks of workout. Initial impression: the Duo Gravis likes it, and so does my Benge 190. Can't say I care for my tone on F at the top of the treble clef, or that I'd be reliable there as a night wore on, but initially this feels more solid up there than my Rath B1 1/2W or genuwine Bach. Doesn't seem to me like it should be possible. I can feel much more vibration on the outside of the mouthpiece cup with my index finger than I thought would be the case with a wide register response.

So far the very bottom of the DG seems on a par with the Rath, and much better than the Bach.

Might be worth a trial period from Kelly to see if it works on the Shires for what you describe.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:54 pm

And don't forget-stainless is dishwasher safe!

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:52 am

I noticed that Kelly were making those a while back. I like the idea of stainless as such a good surface in practical terms, but the two models I've tried ... the G&W mk1 and loud LM35 had sound characteristics that didn't do it for me.
Dave, is this Kelly a true 1 1/2G size, or is it a little wider on the rim ? What do you think about the sound ?
It is interesting that Kelly think that it's worth making a 1 1/2G size in stainless... the demand must be there.

Chris Stearn

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:09 am

Quote from: blast on Feb 27, 2010, 12:52AMI noticed that Kelly were making those a while back. I like the idea of stainless as such a good surface in practical terms, but the two models I've tried ... the G&W mk1 and loud LM35 had sound characteristics that didn't do it for me.
Dave, is this Kelly a true 1 1/2G size, or is it a little wider on the rim ? What do you think about the sound ?
It is interesting that Kelly think that it's worth making a 1 1/2G size in stainless... the demand must be there.

Chris Stearn

Professor Stearn, did you REALLY say "TRUE" 1 1/2G?

Hard question to answer. Here's a comparison shot with a Rath B1 1/2W, Bach, Kelly, and Faxx 1 1/2G side by side:

I think the EXTERNAL size is VERY interesting (as noted in previous post.) Without thinking too hard on it, the idea of different metal amounts for different materials appeals to me. I'll have to record some things and listen from the OTHER end of the horn, though.

Internally, seems right in line with the rest. I used a digital caliper and my strongest reading glasses. I thought without a vernier I wouldn't need those glasses. But I STILL have to try to find a consistent spot below the "bite" to measure. I also made rough measurements by dialing in a bore gauge so it just passed the throat and checking that with the calipers. Then I backed the gauge off to where it just DIDN'T pass and measured how far down from the rim the constriction was. Not definitive measurements, but hopefully useful comparative numbers between known models.

Maker Throat Rim->Throat Inner Rim Outer Rim
Rath 7.39 32.71 27.21 40.62
Kelly 6.97 32.70 27.23 39.11
Bach 7.02 34.49 27.14 39.31
Faxx 6.99 34.52 27.16 39.44

I was surprised by my Rim->Throat numbers. My two favorites right now on the Duo Gravis BOTH have significantly shorter distance there. With all the reflections I really can't be even part way certain, but it LOOKS like both of those have more efficient transitions to the throat.

I think it qualifies as belonging in the 1 1/2G family. How "TRUE" it is remains to be seen.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:40 am

Thanks VERY much Dave

... that's a really good set of readings. So it looks like the Kelly has a thinner rim than the rest. The outside shape looks nice... I expect that would give a similar weight to the Rath. An interesting new option for sure. Funny how my Mt Vernons come up a little bigger on the inner rim... perhaps I've just gotten rid of the smaller ones !!
Chris Stearn

P.S. 'true'.... Oh ! you have to be SO careful here

Chris Stearn

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:39 am

Dave,
Very interesting posts on the Kellyburg 1.5.

I know that it's only been a somewhat short time, but what do you think of your sound on the Kelly SS? Thanks!

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:17 pm

Quote from: GettinDere on Mar 09, 2010, 10:39AMDave,
Very interesting posts on the Kellyburg 1.5.

I know that it's only been a somewhat short time, but what do you think of your sound on the Kelly SS? Thanks!

I haven't had time to record and listen from the business end yet. From MY end of the horn it has TWO distinct sounds. The first sound is what I get when the note is well lined up with the horn. Nice and focused, very vibrant. The second sound is what I get when I'm careless. Much duller. In other words, my early impression is that I get more bang for the buck when I pay attention, but less forgiveness to be able to "lip" notes when I get distracted.

I'll be trying it in a big band setting tomorrow night. I'll report back after that. No reports of any noticeable difference in sound in Bone Choir last week from my colleagues. I suspect that I will, as Chris puts it, "still sound like me." The difference is likely how much effort that takes when I pay attention. When me, the horn, and the MP are lined up, it's the easiest playing 1 1/2G sized variant I've found yet. Nice sound match playing arpeggios on zero, one, and two triggers in outer positions... almost as good as on my Rath, better than any of the others. Nice bottom register... almost as good as the Ferguson V. Nice upper register... as good as my modern Bach. It's remarkably balanced, but the thin stainless DOES feel different from my end of the horn. Takes some getting used to!

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:55 pm

Dave let us hear from you soon?

I have a new experience to share with you trombonists. I did buy a new MT Vernon 1 1/2g from Don here in the forum some weeks ago. But it was small shank. Very short I did have a tech guy to put on a large bore shank from my best 1 1/2g. I wanted to tell about this before but I'm always in heaven when I got a new mouthpiece so I thought it was best to wait a little. The tech did nice work and you cant see anything inside or outside. (Sorry Don, can I still have that beer?

)

I think I have settled down very well on this now and are more objective then I use to be. For those of you that have tried a George Roberts MV this MT Vernon is very close. I don't know if I play better or sound better with this. Probably the same. But I feel very comfortable with it. I feel it kind of vibrate more. Also easier to make buzzing on it. And I'm usually very bad to make a good buzz. The sound was in heaven the first 3 days then it was some grey and boring. But I didn't leave it like I have done before. I really wanted this to work. It also look nearly as new. So I did blow on and have now got my sound back and think it will be better and better. The rim is not so thick, but not complete flat. It have a high point near the cup and goes slightly downhill to the other side. I like it because it sit very well on my mouth.

Slotting is what I have seen better on more modern design. Also intonation maybe. I have to consentrate to make my best out of it. Low end is not better or worse than others. The same in the high. But because it vibrate so much I feel at the same time it is very safe. Its not so often I miss notes. But I understand it don't blow by it self. What I put in is what I get out. But I can understand a really good player will have unlimited possibilities with this. My big wish is I also can reach some of this possibilities. And that's what I'm going for with this one. I like Bach sound and I like the the old MT Vernon.
And most of all the 1 1/2g.

Leif

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:34 pm

Quick variation on a "double blind" test. I sub'd with this big band a few weeks ago. The rehearsal covered quite a few charts with significant under-the-staff content. By significant I mean often fairly exposed, and requiring both loud and soft control. At that first rehearsal they also played through "Wave" as a sort of "thank you" for me filling in on fairly short notice.

Cut to last night. Since I'll be sub on a gig at the Henrico Theatre in Highland Springs, VA at 7:30 on March 20, they covered a lot of ground on tunes expected to be on the program. Most of the charts were a bit tougher than the previous rehearsal. And the pulled up "Wave" again for consideration.

That is pretty much the double-blind. I did NOT mention I changed mouthpieces. They liked how things sounded on the Rath from the first rehearsal to pull the tune up again this time. They liked how it sounded this time well enough that it's in the final list for possible inclusion on the program.

No comments from anyone about me sounding any different. Quite a few reinforcements of liking the way the horn fit into the whole sound of the band. Bari sax seemed as satisfied with what he had to work with this time as last time.

I'd say, from the far end of the horn, that all amounts to a pretty good indication "I still sound like me."

From MY end of the horn the differences I noted above remain. Lipping is just a bad idea with this mouthpiece. Since I was all ready for that, the result was actually an easier time of balancing and swinging. The A above the staff toward the beginning of "Wave" spoke cleanly with easy control of the weight of the tone. The low A at the end of "Wave" spoke easily enough to allow a fairly long fermata.

I hope to get a chance to record some of the Pederson etudes on it this weekend. That gives good exercise reaching down to the second D below the staff, with sections to highlight articulations, flexibility, and cantabile work. If the result isn't too embarrassing I might prevail upon Leif to make an mp3 available. If I have time I'd record into garage band first, then play along with one mouthpiece, then the other, and cut the MP3 with one mouthpiece per stereo channel. Direct A-B comparison. Just takes time....

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:09 pm

I know most of you are tired of mp3's.....

http://www.mediafire.com/file/eznjkywzbmz/11 mars10 whoopee conn mtvernon.mp3

Leif

ttf_John Beers Jr. · Post by **ttf_John Beers Jr.** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:21 pm

Quote from: savio on Mar 11, 2010, 05:09PMI know most of you are tired of mp3's.....

http://www.mediafire.com/file/eznjkywzbmz/11 mars10 whoopee conn mtvernon.mp3

Leif

Absolutely gorgeous lyrical chocolate tone through the low register on that piece.

Leif- when you say it was "Small shank", do you mean it was "Morse Taper" and so didn't play well with the Remington taper on your 72H or that it was small-bore tenor shank?

Oddly, given that the 1.5G is a "small-ish" mouthpiece, I'm less convinced by the mid-upper register (above about

).

I'd give my left nut for a tone quality and beautiful subtle vibrato like that, though.

Any chance you'd be willing to share with the peanut gallery what you used for a mic/recording setup for that? I'm very interested.

ttf_slidejj · Post by **ttf_slidejj** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:47 pm

Quote from: boneagain on Mar 11, 2010, 02:34PMNo comments from anyone about me sounding any different. Quite a few reinforcements of liking the way the horn fit into the whole sound of the band. Bari sax seemed as satisfied with what he had to work with this time as last time.

My experience trying a Loud LM35 is that I could fit in easily with a big-band, especially the bari-sax and it worked in a gig where 3 of 4 in the section were playing stainless. At times in other ensembles I felt like a "fish out of water" the sound was okay but not really what I wanted. Also decided that the flat rim was too much so, I don't like much of a crown but have to have a little I learned.

Back to brass for now...