Reviving old models

[blast]

I've played side by side levers, Glantz bar and split levers and was happy with all. That's just me over 51 years and I am very lucky. I spent the last 6 months using a single and wondered it I could go back to a double....I have and it's fine , but the change of balance did cause a temporary reaction....not the weight but the balance . As a result I think I will rebuild my single to fit better with my double....another valve should do it

[SwissTbone]

I've played side by side levers, Glantz bar and split levers and was happy with all. That's just me over 51 years and I am very lucky. I spent the last 6 months using a single and wondered it I could go back to a double....I have and it's fine , but the change of balance did cause a temporary reaction....not the weight but the balance . As a result I think I will rebuild my single to fit better with my double....another valve should do it

Interesting and completely off topic, but I am making the same experience as you right now!

I have a Hagmann custom bass trombone with a single and a double valve set. So it's really nice to be able to just swap the valve section and still have the "same" trombone. Have been on the single for some weeks now and I really love it. It won't be easy going back to the double valve set...

[Dennis]

The linkage and paddles have zero effect on how a horn plays, so it's not affecting the design at all. Also, if George McCracken designed the Duo Gravis today, you can bet it would have split triggers. Progress.

Maybe, maybe not. Alan Raph was H.N. White and McCracken's design consultant on the DG. The trigger system was designed for Alan Raph's hand, and he wanted the triggers stacked that way. It was intended to make getting from F to D easier than it was on the side-by-side with the sax-rollers triggers that Bach and Conn were using at that time. (Holton had switched to the Glantz bar for the TR180.) Going from Bb to D was okay (managed by linking the triggers so that the D trigger also engaged the F valve. Getting from F to D without blipping the F valve was more difficult. Raph's solution works well for that problem. I don't think it works as well as splitting the triggers to thumb and finger does, myself. But it's definitely easier than it was on the Bach and Conn doubles of the era.

I think it would all depend on how Alan Raph felt about the set-up. The fact that he played the DG for the remainder without having the triggers split says something about how he felt about it.

[hornbuilder]

Yes. It suited "him". But that doesn't mean it suits everybody else.

[LIBrassCo]

I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.

[Chatname]

Which bells?

[WGWTR180]

I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.

Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time.

[chromebone]

The levers on early double valve bass trombones were products of the way bass trombone was approached when they were designed; most, if not all, bass trombonists in the ‘60’s and early ‘70’s had started on single valve instruments, the second valve was simply there to facilitate a B natural without a slide pull and an occasional range extender. To that end, the second valve wasn’t used nearly as much as contemporary players, the occasional use of the DG, Sax key, or Glantz bar probably wasn’t too much of an inconvenience at the time to players who mostly played the f attachment and wanted something close to the ergonomics of a single valve instrument.

[LIBrassCo]

I've often considered having some of the more notable bells scanned to reproduce in the future. One of these days I'll move forward with it.

Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time.

Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.

[BGuttman]

I'm not sure I like the idea of printing a reinforced plastic. The reinforcing parts are supposed to be long fibers to add strength and you can't push those through a narrow printing nozzle. And extruding such a material will make a one-dimensional strength.

How about a Kevlar (polyimide) fiber reinforced bell? It's also pretty light weight, and very strong. And its natural yellow color would look more like brass.

[LIBrassCo]

I'm not sure I like the idea of printing a reinforced plastic. The reinforcing parts are supposed to be long fibers to add strength and you can't push those through a narrow printing nozzle. And extruding such a material will make a one-dimensional strength.

How about a Kevlar (polyimide) fiber reinforced bell? It's also pretty light weight, and very strong. And its natural yellow color would look more like brass.

The high end machines allow for continuous fiber, and kevlar can easily be added into the mix. The part thickness appears to be the largest hurdle.

[WGWTR180]

Better search for some old stock metal stock too. Without that it'll be a waste of time.

Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.

Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that.

[LIBrassCo]

Meh, metal is metal. Ideally I want to offer them all as 2 piece screw bells with multiple stem/flare options. And to go one step further, i would also offer them in printed carbon fiber. Over 50% carbon, whilst maintaining an extremely low void percentage is possible today. The only potential obstacle is printing at .020". While i already have brass and bronze parts printed for horns with outstanding quality, printing bells is still prohibitively expensive just yet. Perhaps in 5-10 years its something to revisit.

Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that.

This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.

[BGuttman]

This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.

If so, then why are those Indian trombones so awful? Brass is brass, no?

Well, no. Brass properties can be modified by working the brass. Sometimes for the better but often for the worse. And trace elements, too low to be measured by things like X-Ray Fluorescence, can also modify the crystal structure -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

Big problem for making brass instruments is that a brass instrument manufacturer buys such small quantities that the foundries won't make customized alloys. So we are at the mercy of whatever they choose to make.

[OneTon]

And where the copper and zinc is procured from.

[WGWTR180]

Yes and that thought process is where the problems lie. Metal is not metal. But go on thinking that.

This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.

Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done.

[LIBrassCo]

This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.

Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done.

I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.

[WGWTR180]

Okay. Then put your money where your mouth is. Since this is a thread about reviving older instruments pick one, any one, then build it. Then let the players who are familiar with that instrument come and play it. it might be a great instrument but will it be THAT instrument? Let us know when you're done.

I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.

The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models

We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better

[LIBrassCo]

I think you possibly mistake me. I have no interest in reproducing the exact instrument, same way i dont reproduce mouthpiece. I just want to use the dimensions of a few bells. Also, I'd aim for it to play better, not the same.

The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models

We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better

reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.

[WGWTR180]

The Thread title:
Re: Reviving old models

We should start another one: Reviving old models and make them play better

reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.

#donewithyou

[harrisonreed]

F

[LIBrassCo]

reviving doesnt necessarily mean direct reproduction, not sure I follow.

#donewithyou

[spencercarran]

This is a very old argument, and flat out untrue.

If so, then why are those Indian trombones so awful? Brass is brass, no?

Well, no. Brass properties can be modified by working the brass. Sometimes for the better but often for the worse. And trace elements, too low to be measured by things like X-Ray Fluorescence, can also modify the crystal structure -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

Big problem for making brass instruments is that a brass instrument manufacturer buys such small quantities that the foundries won't make customized alloys. So we are at the mercy of whatever they choose to make.

I'm sure at some point subpar materials impact playing performance, but I seriously doubt that there was anything magic about the mostly standard brass alloys that mid-20th century makers used. It's probably not meaningfully different from the metals still in use by any reputable-adjacent maker today.

Not sure about the trombones, but the Indian euphoniums I've seen are just the wrong shape, and usually look to have been assembled incorrectly. They'd play badly no matter what they were made of.

[sf105]

I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.

Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?

S

[Burgerbob]

I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.

Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?

S

I'd love to. I wonder if he has it at Brassark, I'll have to ask.

[harrisonreed]

I think a new Fuchs 70H would be cool (I'm aware of Noah's project), but I'm not sure if I would want it built by the current Conn factory, for instance. A non-Fuchs 70H would be really neat too.

Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?

S

The first thing to update would be that name.

"You wanna buy a Fuchs-tribute?"



Even better when they are out of stock.

"I don't even have a single Fuchs to give you"

But only of the single trigger model...

"How about a double F--"

I'll show myself out.

[Tbarh]

Has anyone here tried Noah's Fuchs-tribute horn?

S

The first thing to update would be that name.

"You wanna buy a Fuchs-tribute?"



Even better when they are out of stock.

"I don't even have a single Fuchs to give you"

But only of the single trigger model...

"How about a double F--"

I'll show myself out.

You forgot plug-in

[imsevimse]

Whatever trombone Minick made Christian for his first album. That trombone sounds unbelievable.

He has a very good sound on that first record.

When it comes to "reviving old models" I think it is not necessary. Just search ebay and you can find one, and it plays well as it has ever played. Slide? Yes, the slide can be a problem but with Yamaha-snot most slides becomes good.

The old horns are good, they do not need to be rebuilt. The 6h was very good horn and so was the 70h but time change and studio musicians apparently want something else now. If you play live without mic the needs are not the same. There are few live gigs (over here) but then a 6h is great, but so is a Yamaha 891Z

/Tom

[hyperbolica]

The old horns are good, they do not need to be rebuilt. The 6h was very good horn and so was the 70h but time change and studio musicians apparently want something else now. If you play live without mic the needs are not the same. There are few live gigs (over here) but then a 6h is great, but so is a Yamaha 891Z

/Tom

We're not all lucky enough to have an old 62h or 70h or NY50. Some of us will never see original horns like this if they aren't reproduced some how.

[ithinknot]

We're not all lucky enough to have an old 62h or 70h or NY50. Some of us will never see original horns like this if they aren't reproduced some how.

... except the reproductions will cost ≥ the original even in these examples, so that's not really the issue. It's a fun question, but it's more emotional than practical. There's plenty of brass manufacturing competence out there, and if someone thought there was a market they'd have done it already.

Lots of people seem to want a Duo Gravis, and (/yet) there are always lots of them for sale. It's almost like there are enough.

[drbucher]

I have a Holton TR-156 dual- bore 0.547"/0.559". Tapping the bell with a mouthpiece yields a rather limited lower-pitched "tungg", which I suspect reflects a heavier gauge to give Jay Friedman the serious projection he needed in the Chicago Symphony. Tapping on my Conn 88H or on a Bach 42B seems to yield a higher-pitched "tingg", perhaps reflecting a lighter gauge.

[Macbone1]

Do the Olds Super and Recording with wider slides and NORMAL sized mouthpiece receivers! Same goes for Featherweight, Ambassador and Superstar. Enlarge and open up those F atch wraps too!
Olds Opera - also do a normal size receiver and more comfortable trigger design. Still using bell brace grip but more comfortably. Change ALL the rotary valves so the spring is back on the outside. So basically, reopen the Olds factory and do it right this time, LOL. So maybe this isn't reviving so much as reinventing....

[JoeAumann]

An effective and great playing version of the Bach 45B.

[d00n]

An effective and great playing version of the Bach 45B.

Not sure how well known this is, but 45 bells were (seldom) made somewhere around the 90s/00s. I don't have a lot of knowledge surrounding the newer 45 bells, but I remember seeing a 45/46 bell with a date stamped on it- November 24 1999 if I recall correctly. I assume that date was when the bell was spun.

The horn that bell was on was (in my opinion) quite a bit more interesting than the bell itself. The valve section was a Miller valve with a birdsnest rotor, and the slide an LT50 with a yellow crook. It was on Josh Landress' website for quite a while, but it seems to have been sold and the listing taken down. Pretty sure it was one of Jay Friedman's horns. I would've loved to have tried it, and I was in NYC when it was still listed, but sadly never set aside the time to go to the shop and play it. Such a goofy horn... I wonder if anyone on the forum has it.

I think bringing back the 45B would make for a great doubling bass for a tenor player, but I think both Conn-Selmer and I know that not a lot of people would go out and buy them.

[octavposaune]

Hi,

Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor than a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 in the CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.

Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"

I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!

Benn

[d00n]

Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like.

Ah, I didn't realize that. Just goes to show how little I know about the horn!

[TomRiker]

Hi,

Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor that a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 thr CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.

Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"

I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!

Benn

Where do the dimensions of tuning slides of the Bach 45 and 46 sit in terms of the 36/42 tuning slide vs. the 50 tuning slide?

[octavposaune]

Bach 45s have nearly the same internal tuning slide dimensions as a 36/42, its not exactly the same, but close. Also 45s tuning crooks are bent to a wide span, the same center to center span as a 50B.

Benn

[elmsandr]

Hi,

Bachs 45s as made originally may have been called a bass but they are more inline with a large throated tenor that a bass trombone. Currently Jay Friedman is using a MV45 thr CSO on principal, with a .562 slide I might add.

Thinking a MV45 will simulate a 50 is not very accurate. They have their own unique sound which I love, but they are not by modern standards very bass like. Also MV45s had a straight .547" bore slide, and only the 46s had the dual .547-.562"

I am in the camp that 45s should exist, I own one myself!

Benn

Where do the dimensions of tuning slides of the Bach 45 and 46 sit in terms of the 36/42 tuning slide vs. the 50 tuning slide?

Benn answered it basically, but a few minor details for those that care. The small side is a 50B part. Ferrules and inner/outer. The tuning slide bow has a really ugly feature; flared out to fit the ferrule for a 50B small inner slide. The large side and ferrules are unique parts to the 45, between the 42 and 50. I corrected that flare on one of mine; but I also reversed the tuning slide to fit the valve sections I use.

*I* like a 45 as a small bass; often paired with one of my .562 slides... but it isn't for everybody. They are squirrely; the intonation is just goofy, and the sound can be thin for a bass. But when it works...

Still looking for the right gigs to play my straight 45, rarely seem to have a concert where all the rep works.

Cheers,
Andy

[bellend]

I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.

And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.

It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.

I had a later red brass bell 6B Duo Gravis and had exactly the same problem as yourself .
I had the main stay moved back so that the newly split triggers sat in front of it so alleviating the pressure on my thumb.
It was a relatively straight forward thing to do if you got a tech who is willing hacksaw off the main stay at the bottom then clean it up re silver solder it back in the new position. There is a small amount of adjustment to the flange at the bell end to get it to sit snugly again.

If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion

BellEnd

[Matt K]

I wonder how much different that would be compared to a Shires which the 9" Chicago style bell and an "X" tuning slide. Obviously, the slide would be narrower since the 45 has the same span as the 50, but maybe close?

[WGWTR180]

I learned to play bass in early high school on a Duo Gravis. Since college, I have tried and tried to love a DG because I do A LOT of big band work. I've had 6-7 of them pass through my hands and the one I currently have is the best playing example of them all. But, I think I'm (still reluctantly) going to sell it. I just don't think there are any trigger modifications which are going to make it playable for me. I don't have very large hands and the bell brace is just in the way for me. Even if I were to have the triggers split, I'm pretty confident there's not going to be a way to position the thumb level in a spot where the horn wouldn't shift around on my face when I use it. The brace rests in the perlicue of my hand in a way that causes the weight of the horn to shift around even if I was able to only use the last joint of my thumb to actuate it. Perhaps working closely with a competent tech on such a customization might work out, but I don't know if I'm willing to gamble perhaps up to another grand to find out.

And don't get me started on trying to find a mouthpiece that won't wobble in the receiver.

It's one of my favorite bass trombones ever made, I just wish I could hold it up to my face.

I had a later red brass bell 6B Duo Gravis and had exactly the same problem as yourself .
I had the main stay moved back so that the newly split triggers sat in front of it so alleviating the pressure on my thumb.
It was a relatively straight forward thing to do if you got a tech who is willing hacksaw off the main stay at the bottom then clean it up re silver solder it back in the new position. There is a small amount of adjustment to the flange at the bell end to get it to sit snugly again.

If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion

BellEnd

I wish I had known about this when I played my SS Duo Gravis(#4). Had to sell because my left thumb was toast. Should've kept the instrument anyway.

[Burgerbob]

I wonder how much different that would be compared to a Shires which the 9" Chicago style bell and an "X" tuning slide. Obviously, the slide would be narrower since the 45 has the same span as the 50, but maybe close?

A 45? Totally different.

[Matt K]

What would be the difference, the bell itself being larger, right? I know I had a Holton 9" of some variety awhile ago that was a great tenor bell but wholly unsatisfactory as a bass and the rest of the configuration was otherwise similar to that so it makes sense.

[Kbiggs]

If I were doing it now I would also get the rotors turning in the opposite direction which was a later George McCracken Suggestion

BellEnd

That’s odd. Perhaps that’s a design for for dependent set-ups. I’ve played dependents in the past, but not regularly, and it’s been a long time since I played one.

My independents are set up so that the rotors turn in the same direction—when looking at the stop arm, they turn clockwise. When the second rotor (G, Gb, Eb, D, etc.) turns opposite to the first rotor (counter-clockwise, or anti-clockwise for those of you across the pond), it creates a pop that makes valve slurs/legato almost impossible.

[Burgerbob]

What would be the difference, the bell itself being larger, right? I know I had a Holton 9" of some variety awhile ago that was a great tenor bell but wholly unsatisfactory as a bass and the rest of the configuration was otherwise similar to that so it makes sense.

It's like wondering why an 88H won't sound like a 42- it's a totally different taper and dimensions.

I've played Benn's 45, which currently is using an A47 tuning slide and 42 ish chassis, with a couple different slides. Even with a 42 slide and all those other tenor dimensions, it sounds nothing like a 42. Larger, more baritone-singer like sound. That's all exacerbated with a real 45 slide, much less the real tuning slide.

[Matt K]

I mean, that's why I was asking. Obviously, the 88 is wholly different, and clearly the 42 bell is also different. But I was wondering if the primary difference is just the extra width in the tuning slide, which would explain some of the aforementioned wonky tuning and might also be... maybe half(?) of the reason a 45 sounds/plays the way it does or if that was a minor difference because the 45 bell is radically different than a 42. Reason I picked the Chicago bell was, first that I misremembered it as a 9" rather than an 8.5" so I thought it might be closer to a 45 bell but it look slike its just a variation of the 42 bell specifically. Since Shires tuning slide receivers are already a little bigger than Bach, well, maybe the tuning slide was already closer than the 42. Sounds like the 45 bell makes up much, if not most, of that difference though, rather than just the tuning slide.

[elmsandr]

I mean, that's why I was asking. Obviously, the 88 is wholly different, and clearly the 42 bell is also different. But I was wondering if the primary difference is just the extra width in the tuning slide, which would explain some of the aforementioned wonky tuning and might also be... maybe half(?) of the reason a 45 sounds/plays the way it does or if that was a minor difference because the 45 bell is radically different than a 42. Reason I picked the Chicago bell was, first that I misremembered it as a 9" rather than an 8.5" so I thought it might be closer to a 45 bell but it look slike its just a variation of the 42 bell specifically. Since Shires tuning slide receivers are already a little bigger than Bach, well, maybe the tuning slide was already closer than the 42. Sounds like the 45 bell makes up much, if not most, of that difference though, rather than just the tuning slide.

The final diameter is probably the least significant dimension to compare. The whole taper is different.

A K bell/5B bell is probably closer, but I haven't touched one of those in forever, so I do not know.

And Aiden... according to the shop cards, the single bore 45 slide uses the same leadpipe as the 42. So I don't know about a "real" 45 slide. (That said, my NY and Mt.V 45 slides feel like they blow bigger than my Mt V. 42 slide... but I have no dimensional measurements to compare them; and both these Mt. Vs are post shop card era to compare builds).

Cheers,
Andy

[Matt K]

Yeah, I mean that makes total sense. Just with Bach's proclivity to borrow parts, like in this case perhaps even the leadpipe, I could conceive of a scenario where the 45 bell would be the same as the 42 bell but for that extra .5" and then they make a custom tuning slide and solder it all together. Evidently not so much.

I'm planning out my next projects and one of them is something between the large bore tenor and bass I have. Haven't totally conceived exactly what it will be yet. I might end up getting an 88HK or 5B bell since you can get those a pretty good price direct from CS, snce the odds of me getting my hands on a 45 bell are probably not so high

[Brent]

F

I see your F and raise you a G...