TromboneChat

Hello, I am looking to purchase a bass trombone and have been looking into the Conn 62H primarily, in particular the 62HCL; I play tenor trombone mostly and have enjoyed the Conn 88H's and currently play on an 88H SGX CL.
Does anyone know the best era for the 62H? I know the early elkhart models are completely different than the redesigned 62H with Bill Reichenbach, so I am looking at the Abilene, Eastlake, and new Elkhart models.
I've read that a lot of people don't consider the 62H to be a great orchestral horn, but rather a commercial instrument; why is this?
I've also heard that the new 62H models have had trouble focusing the sound, spreading problems and general quality issues, has anyone had a similar experience with these horns.
The Kanstul 1662i has also grabbed my attention.
Does anyone have any experience with both of these horns and can provide some general information on the instruments.
Thank you!

They can certainly be used in an orchestra. John Lofton uses a 62HI with dual bore slide in the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and the former bass trombonist of San Diego used a 62HCL with sterling bell and dual bore slide.

They’re definitely orchestral horns and are used by a lot of professionals in symphony’s. The CL valves can take more air and are probably what you’re looking for...unless you’re new to bass. In which case you might want to ease in with the 62HI. In my experience the Eastlake built horns are some of the best Conn’s ever made. However, the quality has definitely gone up on the new Elkhart Conn’s (and Bach’s) recently so I wouldn’t count out a newer one.

Don’t know anything about Kanstul’s except that it’s heavily inspired by the 62H. Also Kanstul doesn’t exist anymore?

Honestly it's a lot of bass trombone for a doubler. If you are (and will be primarily) a tenor player I would steer towards a regular 62hi or one of the kanstuls if you can find one. The single bore slide and standard rotors and going to be a little easier to adjust to.

Burgerbob wrote: Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:54 pm ...the former bass trombonist of San Diego used a 62HCL with sterling bell and dual bore slide.

Tom Klaber of The Cleveland Orchestra used one like that for quite a while up until his retirement as well. If I'm not mistaken in my repetition of internet stories, it was the 62HCL prototype and he just never gave it back.

I have a Gen II 62H. It has dependent valves- I've never tried independent.

It was a great horn to start with, but massively improved after I stripped the lacquer from the bell section. Also, it now has an Edwards dual-bore slide (courtesy of Aidan). The stock 62H and 62HI have the narrow 88H slide- the valve section hit my head with the old slide. The 62HCL has a wider crook, which is an ergonomic improvement.

Not sure where the impression came from that these are commercial horns only- sure, the bell is a tad tighter than a Bach 50 or an Edwards, but if you treat 'em right you can still melt faces with a giant orchestral FFF.

I have an Elkhart Conn 62h and a Kanstul 1662. Both are dependant and Bb/F/D. The Kanstul is very easy to play and sounds good as it projects real well. It is the kind of horn that is heard a lot in front but not the same at the sides. That said others hear more of me than I think they do when I'm on that horn. The Conn 62h is wonderful too but more towards a classical symphonic sound. Not as easy to play as the Kanstul.

/Tom

The Conn 88HCL suffers from a lack of focus. It's subtle and only noticeable after you've played it a while, then it drives you nuts. I would imagine that he 62HCL would share this lack of focus. If you want to buy a 62H, you should probablly stick with the regular valves

I doubt they are all unfocused for everyone. That's a bit of a blanket statement.

Steve Ferguson and I agree; the 88HCL is (very slightly) unfocused. I'm not saying it's not a good horn. A friend of mine had one and was complaining about it; I thought he was nuts as it played well and sounded good to me. Then I played it for a while...
It's very subtle and I'm sure some people don't even notice it. Megumi Kanda won the Milwaukee job playing an 88HCL and later switched to a Greenhoe.

I'm not surprised that the plethora of Bach valve options never made it to the Conns- they are great valves to start with.

However, one of my teachers told a story of an ITF of yore- the Conn-Selmer booth had a prototype 62H that had a wide slide and thayers. Apparently it played like a dream. Then, Jeff Reynolds walks up, tried it, harrumphs, and we have the current 62H and 62HI.

I'm not complaining, I love them, but a wide slide would have been nice.

wayne88ny wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:53 pm The Conn 88HCL suffers from a lack of focus.

Not (to my ears) in my experience. Nor is it apparently the experience of those (including several professional trombonists) who have heard me play my 88HCL. At any rate, it doesn't drive me nuts; I enjoy playing it.

wayne88ny wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:53 pm The Conn 88HCL suffers from a lack of focus. It's subtle and only noticeable after you've played it a while, then it drives you nuts. I would imagine that he 62HCL would share this lack of focus. If you want to buy a 62H, you should probablly stick with the regular valves

I don't find them unfocused either, I much prefer the sound of the CL horns over the standard Conn's I've tried. Although I do believe that's not just because of the valve but the difference in bracing as well.

If you can find a 1662, they're everything the 62h should have been. The TIS is nice, the valves are big, I got mine with a wide slide, and the 1662i eliminated a lot of bracing.

I've played the new 62h at shows, and they play well, but I think the Kanstul valves are in a sweet spot between the regular Conn rotors and the CL. Everyone comments on the sound of my Kanstul, and I'm not a very remarkable bass player.

Thank you everyone for the feedback.
In regards to the Lindberg valve, I have never had a problem focusing mine. In fact I think, at least on my horn, the cl2000 valve has a more focused sound than my 88h with a greenhoe valve.