TromboneChat

Manufacturers hire people who are expert in trombone design and manufacturing. They do their best to design the best professional horns they can. It’s their job, and they do it every day to the best of their ability.

So when you get one of those professional horns and start modifying it, are you really making it better, or are you just making it different?

tbdana wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 12:48 pm Manufacturers hire people who are expert in trombone design and manufacturing. They do their best to design the best professional horns they can. It’s their job, and they do it every day to the best of their ability.

So when you get one of those professional horns and start modifying it, are you really making it better, or are you just making it different?

Citation needed for the first sentence.

Show me an E pull slide that actually pulls to E or what pitch it is meant to make work on the slide.

They hire people for the position, but I’d argue most base things on existing templates rather than a knowledge of the design.

Cheers,
Andy

"to the best of their ability."
And sometimes they're wrong.
Or horns get assembled with a wrong part. Or somebody forgets to solder a joint during assembly. Or uses too little or too much solder.

Example: the 16M started out with a gooseneck that was (maybe) too small. So they put a bigger gooseneck on it. Was that the correct improvement? Or maybe it was too big? In what way was it bigger? Maybe a different version of "bigger" would have been a better choice.

There are many other examples, especially in leadpipes and end crook sizes and styles and materials.

It also may have been to the best of their ability *within a very tight budget and lack of time for r&d*

I don't think we can argue that Bach conventional rotors are the best possible option, even though they are still offered.

For me it‘s about economics, supporting a local craftsman and getting a second life out of solid parts.

I found a straight Bach 42 I really liked and got it set up to be modular with the original straight gooseneck and a brand new valve section which plays better than any factory conventional rotor Bach 42B I‘ve tried.

The original horn and modifications plus slide service cost me significantly less than the typical price of a new Bach 42B. As a bonus I can swap to be a straight horn when I don‘t need the valve, a fairer comparison would be to the A47X, which costs much more double what my setup cost me.

I like the idea of supporting my local artisan and re-using much of the Bach 42 I started with, respecting the efforts of the work that went into making a great straight horn in the first place.

My local craftsman is a trombonist and designs/makes his own horns as well, so you could say I trust his design skills, especially to cater to my playing quirks, much more than someone working for a large corporation who I will never meet and might even have designed the horn decades ago based on different technical and commercial criteria to mine. I‘ve played alongside the gentleman in question in an ensemble so he‘s not only heard me in his workshop, also side-by-side in concert.

It might be all psychological but I see a value in that. Even if it‘s purely a placebo effect, something works as I feel great playing a horn which was personalized for me, being a bit of a confidence player that little boost when I get the horn out before a tricky rehearsal is also nice.

Bach pretty famously made good parts and assembled them poorly. Larry Minick made a whole career off of buying factory parts and building better versions of the original horns. A Minick 88 > Abilene 88, even if made with the same parts.

If you listen to "The Virtuoso Trombone", I'd say that that was probably the best sounding 88H I've ever heard. And it's a Minick.

There are a lot of "popular mods" that many people do to "professional instruments" to make them more playable, or at least more playable for them. Porting rotors, switching to removable leadpipes, and so forth. Conversions to open wrap, removal of excessive bracing (Holton TR181), removing slide oversleeves, and so forth.

However I would wager a lot of people don't mod their horns much, which many are playing designs like a Bach 42B that haven't been "updated" for decades. Others were also slowly changed to make them cheaper to make and increase parts interchangeability.

I think a good question is how far you have to go back with the "Big Name" brands to when they were "artisan made", as many were large companies even long ago. However that was also a time when skilled labor seen much more often, and people were trained to do more than just one operation over and over again.

Dana, all 3 of your horns are modifications to the original design.

Burgerbob wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:30 pm Dana, all 3 of your horns are modifications to the original design.

Ha! That’s true! Good point.

But both Greenhoe and Lindberg were developing and designing — and even patenting — not just part swapping, which is kind of what I intended here. And they were good enough to become their own models. It’s hard to draw a bright line, but I guess I’m distinguishing the development of commercial models from individuals buying those models and changing them.

Oh, how is my 16M a modification? Unless you mean from its predecessor the 16, which I suppose is true.

All 3 of those were the result of some dude in a shop chopping up perfectly good horns to make something better. They just happened to become "real" models.

I've had a few horns modified in my time. Most of the time it's in conjunction with a repair - buy a beat up horn, bring it back to life in a new form. Usually using recycled parts.

But sometimes its to create something that never existed before. Like take an Olds single trigger bass and replace the funky valve with a double valve section removed from another horn in the course of an "upgrade". Made a crazy destroyer of worlds out of a horn no one seems to want.

In one case I simply made something playable for me. Replacing the stock extremely narrow crook with a wide crook on a 32h has turned out to be a great move. Makes a nice lead bone for pops orchestra out of something that doesn't really fit anywhere.

Adding a second valve to a 1480 will make a nice big band bass out of a horn that really can't do anything well.

I tend to not mess with horns that I think are pretty good to start with. Manufacturers want to make generalized tools, not specialized tools. But specialized tools are more fun to play in the right situation.

I've been involved in development in the past. Getting to productionise a prototype is the hardest bit. Rath did it very well and continued to develop their models over time. Modular is very easy to customise to the player as long as they know what they want.
You need professional input and a great craftsman to create better instruments. It happened with Conn and Burkle and various pros between the wars. Then, pretty much no development. Same with most companies. Progress has to be repeatable. My Raths are all production models...nothing unique.

If nobody ever bothered to modify a Bach, the current large bore and bass trombone landscape would look very different.

Again, I'm not considering the development of models to be included in "modifying" for this thread. I'm talking about those of us who buy commercial models and then modify them.

But that's just it:

16M only exists because Bill took his horn to Peppy and had him modify it. Bach wanted to capitalize and made it a model.

88CHL exists because Christian was futzing around with 88Hs with Minick, and eventually came to an agreement with Conn for a signature model.

Greenhoe 50s only exist because people took 50s to Gary enough that he started offering them as a pre-built option.

All three of those were modified instruments.

The CL version of the 88H was externally similar to the Minick but the valve was actually made by his father in law. A different internal design. He had stopped playing Minick horns for over a decade.

Hmm...doesn't sound like a normal factory model to me

That was, essentially, how M&W came to be. I started messing around with horns myself because I couldn't find anyone in Australia to do what I wanted done. I played, and chopped up "a lot" of instruments in my 16 years with that orchestra. I reached the point where the guys would ask "What have you brought in tonight?" because I literally would bring stuff in to test out on the job. Those years informed me of many things. Then working in Jackson for 6 1/2 years solidified many things, and introduced some new concepts. Then 12 Months at Getzen taught me some things too. M&W is the culmination of that 25 some years of playing and modifying and finally manufacturing trombones that I think embody what a great trombone is.

Burgerbob wrote: Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:13 pm Hmm...doesn't sound like a normal factory model to me

The 88HY was his "factory model" that was the original Lindberg model from Conn. Then he had some weird version with a lock that hid the CL valve from view that his father in law built. The weird history of the 88H.

That was around the same time Minick was accusing Yamaha of stealing his valve design, so maybe that has something to do with it. But Lindberg said it was so Conn wouldn't copy his valve design.

Burgerbob wrote: Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:13 pm Hmm...doesn't sound like a normal factory model to me

I truly don't know if I'm not saying it well enough or it you're purposefully mischaracterizing it for some reason. I'll assume I'm just not communicating clearly. But I think I dealt with the Greenhoe and Conn bit above. Apparently it didn't get absorbed into the discussion.

OBVIOUSLY every model of trombone in existence today evolved from previous models. That's not what I'm talking about. And to me, Conn deciding to use the CL version that involved a lot of testing, manufacturing, design, and patenting. To me, that's wholly different than some rando buying a developed model and slapping Toyota ( ) parts on it.

But I can see I've reached a point of futility, so I surrender. I'm done in this thread.

well... that's how those models got started! I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with it, since that's how your horns existed. And why someone like Matt can have a company at all.

tbdana wrote: Fri Jun 13, 2025 7:20 pm

Burgerbob wrote: Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:13 pm Hmm...doesn't sound like a normal factory model to me

And to me, Conn deciding to use the CL version that involved a lot of testing, manufacturing, design, and patenting. To me, that's wholly different than some rando buying a developed model and slapping Toyota ( ) parts on it.

No it was Lindberg and his father in law slapping random parts on an 88H.

tbdana wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 12:48 pm Manufacturers hire people who are expert in trombone design and manufacturing. They do their best to design the best professional horns they can. It’s their job, and they do it every day to the best of their ability.

So when you get one of those professional horns and start modifying it, are you really making it better, or are you just making it different?

Unfortunately many of the engineers and line workers at big name companies are neither experts in trombone design nor manufacturing.

Do you really believe that every person on the production line at the Bach factory is an expert instrument maker? Many of them are local folks that were hired on, taught a handful of tasks, and perform only those tasks. Or that they hire engineers that specialize in musical instrument design and production? They regularly bring in outside consultants to help resolve specific production issues that they struggle with.

Many of the folks I worked with at Shires were hired with no experience in manufacturing, but were hired because of their musical background. Some of their most effective employees are not musicians and had not worked with musical instruments before being hired, but have become highly proficient at certain tasks over time.

Modern production work is usually not the "artisanal craftsmanship" experience that many companies portray in marketing material. It is factory work like any other company producing widgets - they are producing products and need to meet production deadlines. They have developed processes and procedures that make it somewhat simple to train inexperienced employees on these tasks. Over time, folks that become somewhat proficient may be taught new tasks.

New horns off the production line often have significant issues that must be addressed for the instrument to be of excellent quality. This detail work often takes more time or skill than is available/profitable to apply.

Someone buys a new instrument and wants it tailored to their particular needs or playing styles. Someone buys a new car and drops the suspension and installs a body kit on it because they think it looks cool. Someone buys a new lathe and installs a different chuck on it to better suit their work. Someone buys a walking stick and carves the handle to better fit their hand.

Making an item suit your particular needs is a very human thing to do.

The design is very human:

I've said similar things to Dave here before. His comments are spot on

Re the question of modifying instruments, and the outcome of those modifications. Some of the mods I did early on in my experimenting phase worked exceptionally well. And some didn't. That was how I learned

Most brass making is still guesswork. I believe there are very few in trombone design that move with real intention. Most often they are like “this worked for a trombone player who lived a very different life than you 60 years ago so if it doesn’t work for you just practice more”. R&D (for the trombone, not manufacturing process) died ages ago outside a few blips over the years like new valves or collars. You evolve so your horn has to or you buy a new one. That’s why modular caught fire. Big fixed horn companies don’t want to deal with change (often because it is not profitable to do so).

And a trombone’s just tubing. This isn’t dropping a Toyota engine into another brand…though that does happen quite often because Toyotas just work.

The question felt a little smug. Then bouncing after folks weighed in? Hmm. Probably not the intent and ultimately I love these chats. Different can be better, especially to the individual player. Sure, some tinker more than they practice. But after 15 years of it, due in large part to this forum, I’m finally building horns that reflect me. Vintage parts, hybrid builds, no corporate jargon with zero feel for how I actually work.

Sidebar: still dying to try an M&W !!!

tbdana wrote: Fri Jun 13, 2025 7:20 pmz

But I can see I've reached a point of futility, so I surrender. I'm done in this thread.

Never surrender!

I’ve worked for a couple of different (non-brass instrument) manufacturers.

I’m not going to make any brass-specific comments, but in my experience a bunch of the products that we see on the market aren’t necessarily “the best”, or even what the engineers wanted to build. Whether the constraint is cost, materials, processes, or limited market.
If you assumed that every product is a compromise you wouldn’t be far off.
The idea is to provide something that works for most people most of the time (a bit simplistic, but that’s the idea)

So, are our mods making that stock product better?
Entirely possible.
Are we taking that stock product and making it a more appropriate tool for our individual use? Hopefully!!

Questionable factory build quality is always a concern, but that’s a different topic.

My 2c

It would be interesting to know exactly what modifications were made to Bill Watrous's trombone. I would appreciate it if someone could share that information

When I talk about trombones to friends I always use cars and food as a way to relate what I’m talking about to them.

When BWM says they build The Ultimate Driving Machine ™ it’s just marketing. When a mad billionaire with an amazing idea that everyone says they also love makes the Ineos models there’s clearly room for improvement. So we car people throw in coilovers or tunes or LS swap the world. So rarely does a meal get a 10/10 even if the head chef made it himself. I like spicy food, I don’t like things all that salty, I’m a garlic fiend, and what may be balanced for me may have too much of something for someone else.

Even Doug Yeo had carbon fiber parts made for his horn and it’s his signature model to begin with. Sometimes it’s necessary, sometimes it’s to change something to match the individual, and sometimes it’s a lesson to learn by spending money and not liking the result but it’s learning all the same

If modifying instruments was nonsense, there'd be no boutique, modular horns, for a start. My R10 is better for me with a nickel lead pipe than brass. For. Me.

Mass-manufactured instruments are built to suit the mass, not the individual. So getting a leadpipe changed, or some stays removed is small beer for a significant change in that instrument's appeal to its user.

I have a Mercedes car. It's perfectly fine, but it would be better if it had push button controls for track <¦ and ¦>. it has volume up and down, but not track control. I'd have that added, if I could.

And as for "But I can see I've reached a point of futility, so I surrender. I'm done in this thread", that's as good as a flounce as I've seen in a while. You have your opinion, state it; but when challenged, instead of debate, declare "I'm off".

There's some remarkably negative stuff here. Mick Rath spent vast amounts of time developing his instruments to be wonderful, and they are. I had dinner with Steve Shires a week ago, and he talked a lot about how much effort he puts into making sure that every instrument that leaves his workshop is as good as he can possibly make it. These people are perfectionists. Support them.

blast wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 1:36 pm There's some remarkably negative stuff here. Mick Rath spent vast amounts of time developing his instruments to be wonderful, and they are. I had dinner with Steve Shires a week ago, and he talked a lot about how much effort he puts into making sure that every instrument that leaves his workshop is as good as he can possibly make it. These people are perfectionists. Support them.

also, I'm assuming that the mass manufacturers are targetting the mass buyers: in this forum, mainly US institutions like schools and colleges. That was the theory behind Macmillan's disastrous purchase of Conn.

as an example of "professional" design, last weekend I sat next to a second part that went down to a low B. One player brought a 42B, where the valve pull is too short to be meaningful, unlike the 88H on the next day.

sf105 wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 4:27 am as an example of "professional" design, last weekend I sat next to a second part that went down to a low B. One player brought a 42B, where the valve pull is too short to be meaningful, unlike the 88H on the next day.

That’s the beauty of modifying for function! If otherwise the 42B is perfect for the ensemble, venue, and piece, but a low B is needed enough the attachment can be revised.

Nobody plays a Stradivarius or Gaurneri violin in the original form when they were made.

tbdana wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 12:48 pm Manufacturers hire people who are expert in trombone design and manufacturing. They do their best to design the best professional horns they can. It’s their job, and they do it every day to the best of their ability.

So when you get one of those professional horns and start modifying it, are you really making it better, or are you just making it different?

If you find the perfect say 1953 Mount Vernon Bach with a stuffy valve (Because those valves suck) and you put like a M&W valve section, pull the lead pipe (Those lead pipes can be bad), you're actively modifying the technology while keeping the classic sound. Some of those old horns have sounds that modern manufacturers can't recreate... BUT Valves, and lead pipes? Currently amazing options. We are in the era of insane trombone tech. With that being said, there's something special about the sound of a vintage horn.

I’ve thought a lot about this over the years, and tried to stay quiet, but here goes…

When you buy a new horn from a big name brand, you are purchasing a product that has been through r&d, economic cost-benefit analysis, manufacturing by specialists and technicians, as well as run-of-the-mill wage earners with no experience in music or music manufacturing. None of that guarantees that the horn will play well. That’s why some of the larger manufacturers have a QA Dept at the end. Sometimes that catches errors, sometimes it doesn’t.

When you purchase a horn from a “boutique” maker, the odds of the horn playing well are greatly increased. There are few hands on the product. The maker has a philosophy, an aesthetic to how they want a horn to look and sounds. There are a limited number of people to dictate tolerances (for example), and there are usually people with multiple skills on manufacturing the parts and assembly. There is more skill, craftsmanship, and care taken to make a horn that works and sounds good.

When you take a stock horn from a big name brand and start changing components (as I have done periodically throughout my limited career), you hope that the valve, leadpipe, end crook, tuning slide crook, etc., that you insert will make the horn play differently than it currently does. I’m luck—most of my experiments have worked well.

Does it play better? Only if the horn is responding in a way that you wanted. If you want less compression (“more open feel”) in the horn and you replace the valve with Instrument Innovations valve, or a Hagmann, or a Thayer, or a [insert valve name here], then you’ll have decreased compression. The instrument, though, works as a system. You might find that the new valve affects the range, or perhaps the “width” or projection, a compromise or trade-off, if you will. Then it’s up to the player to compensate.

Apologies to anyone this might offend.

Rant over.