Bach-style or Conn-style, but no King-style?

[Digidog]

As the title says: Everywhere I look, builders describe and advertise their horns as either Bach- or Conn-style built, but why are there - to my knowledge - no builders that say they build instruments in the King-fashion?

I mean: Bach and Conn are two separating constructions and concepts, but in my opinion King has/had a third somewhat differing concept: wider bell throats, seemingly thicker bells, differently tapered tuning slides and different feel of the gooseneck. When I play one of these three brands, I sense there is difference enough between them to justify a third constructional distinction and main concept, but where does that show in the legacy for constructing new horns?

Or am I alone in this regard? Do everybody else see more of discernible differences between Conn and Bach to sort King into only one of those two main concepts?

The, to me, intriguing question then follows naturally: Are there more concepts of building trombones that do not fall into either the Bach, Conn (and maybe King) folds? Like three-piece (or more) bells, one-piece unsoldered bells, totally separating flare and/or throat progressions, different measurements and whatnot that could define a separate take on specifying a trombone?

[tbdana]

It's a King thing. It has its own identity, and shouldn't be lumped in with Bach or Conn styles. I don't know why builders have this Conn v Bach thing going on, except that those two brands are most popular in symphony orchestras, and King...not so much.

[MStarke]

Interesting question. Just some wild guesses:
- It might be less clear how to differentiate "King-style", not sure
- In the large bore area I would agree, it's mostly between Conn and Bach style, King doesn't really play a big role there
- For basses, King seems to be clearly different from Conn and Bach style, but has become more or less out of fashion
- For small bore, I would actually say there actually is a bit of a Conn and Bach AND King style
- However while actual current Conn and Bach smallbores seem to be not too popular anymore and boutique builders seem to offer potentially better alternatives, King seems to stand their ground far better. Maybe there simply isn't much room for an "improved King", as the 2bs and 3bs may be quite good by themselves?
- Lastly there seems to be at least a bit of King DNA spreading in other brands. I understood that the Greenhoe smallbore has been kind of oriented towards a mix between Conn and King characteristics

[Digidog]

What exactly is the King-style?

I tried go give some examples from my POV, but I'd love to hear more of what differentiates King into its own fold.

[GabrielRice]

Probably the biggest difference from a playing feel standpoint is the two-piece leadpipe, which ends up having a gap like a trumpet leadpipe.

[Digidog]

....and where are the builders who say "this our latest model is based on the legendary King 4B model, with our refined material selection, our latest slide design and our new eternal-flow valve. A horn that takes the King legacy into the next millennium!"?

And what builder says "our bass trombone is a development of the famous Duo Gravis concept, to give that unforgettable sound and characteristics a fresh take in 2025!"?

I've not seen anyone. Has anybody?

[MStarke]

If there were enough people who wanted an updated 4/5/6/7b, there would probably be someone building it. But there is probably a reason why even King have stopped most of that...

[atopper333]

Well, considering Considering Conn Selmer no longer makes new 4B trombones, it probably is just cost prohibitive for horn makers to make a horn based on an updated 4B model due to a lack of popularity. Don’t get me wrong, I love my 4BF, it’s a keeper for life, but I don’t see a massive following there.

A new model based on the 6B? That would have be the 7B introducing Independent valves or maybe the Benge 290 as a fresh take on King bases back when they came out? Now it only seems Chinese stencil companies work with the King design. From the common traffic I see here, the King basses just don’t seem to fit the model sound concept…

[Burgerbob]

I mean, it's pretty obvious right? The Kings are great horns- I love the 4B. But it never caught any real market share in the pro world. There's no incentive to make a King-style modern instrument for another maker.

And there is no money in making small stem/throat basses, either. No one is making 7X Conn copies or King copies.

Edit: I am only referring to the large instruments. Obviously there is plenty of share for the 2B/3B.

[DaveAshley]

XO's Fedchock horns are very much King-influenced.

[JohnL]

XO's Fedchock horns are very much King-influenced.

As are some of Yamaha's small-bores, at least from what I've heard.

Then there's the Wessex PB4501 P, which is very much Martin-inspired.

[tkelley216]

I figured Benge was one of King's last attempts of breaking into the "pro classical" market. Good horns (as are king 4/5/6/7) but never really took off, maybe because of how established/popular Bach, Conn, and their various copies are.

I personally would love to see a reboot of a duo gravis (or some maker's modern take on the duo gravis). That said, I see why makers don't. A duo gravis is kind of particular, and if you only own one bass trombone it might not be that one.

My instrument tech in Germany is designing a trombone with a slide based on the 4b, along with a meinlschmidt valve and a Bach-like bell. I don't think he's fleshed out the design yet, but I should ask him about it next time I see him.

[JohnL]

I personally would love to see a reboot of a duo gravis (or some maker's modern take on the duo gravis). That said, I see why makers don't. A duo gravis is kind of particular, and if you only own one bass trombone it might not be that one.

I had that conversation with Steve Shires at the NAMM Show several years ago. Lots of people talk about how cool it would be if someone introduced an updated Duo Gravis, but actually buying one is another matter entirely - particularly given how much more expensive the new version would be compared to buying a nice original one.

[Chazzer69]

removed

[hyperbolica]

King style to me means a bright commercial sound. I agree this needs to be an option in modern basses. We have this option in small tenors. Why no commercial basses?

[Finetales]

Funnily enough, the 4B was a little more popular among orchestral players in Europe than it ever was in the US. I think the Cleveland Orchestra was the only US section to use them.

The King "style" of large bore (and bass trombone, for that matter) is very different than Conn or Bach, but as others mentioned, it's not a style that people look for very often. The real deal Kings and Benges didn't accomplish much in their campaign to break into the orchestral world, so why would a manufacturer bother to copy them?

I haven't seen any direct responses to this question and I'd love to see those with expertise weigh in.

From a technical standpoint, I would say that narrow slides with a round end crook are the defining feature of the King (and Benge) style. It's a different blow, especially compared to Bach's wide slide/square crook approach.

King style to me means a bright commercial sound. I agree this needs to be an option in modern basses. We have this option in small tenors. Why no commercial basses?

I think this is just because bass equipment is much less specialized between orchestral and commercial. Any middle of the road bass trombone can play either orchestral or commercial perfectly well. So there isn't a huge market for a specialized commercial bass trombone.

[CalgaryTbone]

The Benge trombones had a bit of a "King" feel/sound to them. They had a following for a while, and some very good orchestral players used the 190.

By the way, I believe that the Cleveland section were using 5B's when they were playing King's in the orchestra. The larger bell was part of the appeal, since Szell originally wanted them to play German trombones, and the King's were sort of a compromise that gave them a wider and less direct sound but with tuning and response that was more comfortable for the players.

Jim Scott

[2bobone]

I think it is obvious to anyone with an interest in trombone playing that there is a great disparity in the physical attributes of trombone players. We've got players who are built like football players and we've got players who are slight of build and might more likely be chess players. In my experience, the most important factor in choosing an instrument is how well it "balances" with the player in question. If a player struggles to maintain that balance on a particular instrument then that particular instrument is not a good match to that player. If an instrument requires a huge expenditure of effort to make it perform to a sustainable standard, then it is unsuitable for that player. I've heard great players on a variety of instruments of differing manufacture, but none of which would have worked for me, personally. BALANCE is the key ! That's how I became a fan of KING and BENGE instruments. Just my 2 cents---------------------------------------------------------.

[Matt K]

I think the "Bach" and "Conn" buckets make sense; they represent fairly distinct approaches to design, at least for large bores. Although I think a significant amount of this boils down to "one piece" vs "two piece", and the related design around that bell, and Kings to the best of my knowledge are essentially exclusively two-piece bells, as are Conns. And Bachs, at least on the pro series, are essentially universally one-piece soldered bells.

Interestingly enough, I might dare say that despite seldom being referred to as "King style," the King approach to design is now actually the dominant choice. On paper, virtually all of the boutique or related brands indicate such a configuration as being popular... E.g., Edwards / Getzen have a "this is the combination of all of the most popular selling components" setups: Getzen 3047, 3508; Shires "Q" series, Rath R100, and many of the boutique (M&W, Shires, Rath, Greenhoe (GC2-Y,GC4/5), Edwards) all frequently have a plethora of 2-piece, soldered bell bead options on all the showroom events. And these characteristics are found, basically unchanged since the 2B/3B were popularized to present.

[chromebone]

I’d say the Bach 45 is more influenced by the King symphony horns than anything made by Conn.


King also pioneered the annealing process of bells with the Benge line, which later was adopted by the King branded instruments as well, in the 80’s. Now almost all boutique manufacturers use this process in the manufacture of their instruments to achieve different bell characteristics.

[Kbiggs]

My two cents: large-bore King instruments tend to have a more “Germanic” sound to them than do American (Conn and Bach) instruments. It’s a lighter, brighter sound that is still powerful.

If you have a chance to listen to old recordings of the Vienna Philharmonic, you can hear traditional German trombones. Then listen to the same piece with Cleveland under George Szell. There’s a similarity in sound (but not style) to the trombones. Then listen to the same piece with a modern American trombone section. A very different sound.

You can play loudly with them with less effort but—and this is the “more Germanic” quality to them—instead of most American horns that are like a bulldozer and bury everything in their path, Kings (like German trombones) can cut through the orchestra or sail over it. You can still hear the strings and winds and all the other brass, but you also hear the louder, “brassy” or “shimmery” sound of the trombone. And you can do that with less effort.

There’s an anecdote about Szell and James DeSano (I’ll probably get this wrong): DeSano was trying a different horn, perhaps a Bach or a Conn. Szell immediately heard the difference and asked DeSano to go back to the “more German” sounding instrument.

Why do the large-bore Kings sound more “Germanic”? I’ll leave the more complete answer to the techs, but my guess is the tapers in the bell, the neckpipe, and the tuning slide; the size of the F-valve (and other valve) tubing; the U-shaped slide bow; and the nickel silver slides.

I think it’s a shame that the classical trombone world continues to trend towards homogeneity of sound. I like the differences in sound—the old fashioned French trombones (and horns with their weird vibrato!), the German-sounding instruments, the old Besson-dominated British orchestras. Vive la difference!

[chromebone]

Harry Ries played a 4B during his tenure as co-principal with the Cologne Radio Symphony, I think he sounds great on it. Check out the solos at 50:15: a lighter sound in some ways, yet still powerful enough to carry over the orchestra without sounding like a cannon. Why more people didn't play 4B’s in orchestras is a mystery to me, they have a good mix of the Germanic and American trombone sound. It’s a great sound unto its own, just like Bach or Conn are great sounds in their way, but the King never overwhelms the way other horns can.

[CalgaryTbone]

I’d say the Bach 45 is more influenced by the King symphony horns than anything made by Conn.


King also pioneered the annealing process of bells with the Benge line, which later was adopted by the King branded instruments as well, in the 80’s. Now almost all boutique manufacturers use this process in the manufacture of their instruments to achieve different bell characteristics.

There's also the 88HK that was designed for the old 2nd trombone of Cleveland. It had a lot of King 5B DNA, including the 9 inch bell and larger throat.

JS

[chromebone]

I’d say the Bach 45 is more influenced by the King symphony horns than anything made by Conn.


King also pioneered the annealing process of bells with the Benge line, which later was adopted by the King branded instruments as well, in the 80’s. Now almost all boutique manufacturers use this process in the manufacture of their instruments to achieve different bell characteristics.

There's also the 88HK that was designed for the old 2nd trombone of Cleveland. It had a lot of King 5B DNA, including the 9 inch bell and larger throat.

JS

That was the actual 5B bell mounted on an 88H.

[Digidog]

I understand the need to adapt to market demands, and I can understand any hesitation from a producer to not advertise a product as based on a design that wasn't/isn't in much demand from profiled users. Nevertheless I find it strange that King large bore horns never seemed to get any traction in the orchestral world - whereas the horns themselves seem to be highly appreciated and some of them sought after today.

I wonder what really happened! Did Conn and Bach at the time really stand out so much more, that everybody wanted one or either? Or were some kickbacks paid to some prominent musicians/orchestras and/or professors in order to kill the competition? I'm not sure the "ideal of the orchestral sound" fully explains the discrepancy in legacy today; or?

[Burgerbob]

King came along pretty late with the 4B, compared to the 42/36 and the 88H. More a matter of not introducing a competing instrument in time for it to matter.

King was also well known for their jazz instruments, to the exclusion of anything else, unlike Conn and Bach.

[Matt K]

When was the 3b+ first released? The late entry of not only a large bore, but a .525 bore, and never releasing a .525 with the larger bell section, as is still the standard for virtually every other "medium" bore trombone, also certainly played a role.

[chromebone]

When was the 3b+ first released? The late entry of not only a large bore, but a .525 bore, and never releasing a .525 with the larger bell section, as is still the standard for virtually every other "medium" bore trombone, also certainly played a role.

Around 1981.

[Posaunus]

I wonder what really happened!

Too late to the party, I expect. And their late entries were not quite what folks were looking for.

It happens all the time with so many products. One or two brands get a foothold, and it's hard to displace them until there is some sort of innovation / dramatic improvement (which hasn't happened in brass instruments.)

[Digidog]

King came along pretty late with the 4B, compared to the 42/36 and the 88H. More a matter of not introducing a competing instrument in time for it to matter.

King was also well known for their jazz instruments, to the exclusion of anything else, unlike Conn and Bach.

This makes sense. It seems that King was all too content with their small bores and their dominance of that market segment to develop larger horns to widen their market. Or could it have been that King lacked the competence and skill to construct, develop and build larger, valved horns, and it took time to acquire the people and equipment necessary for doing that?

Too late to the party, I expect. And their late entries were not quite what folks were looking for.

It happens all the time with so many products. One or two brands get a foothold, and it's hard to displace them until there is some sort of innovation / dramatic improvement (which hasn't happened in brass instruments.)

I agree on all but the notion that King would not have been what people were looking for, since I percieve King horns to be pretty distinctly different from both Conn and Bach.

As @Finetales said, the round slide crook is one thing but from how I percieve King trombones, the biggest separating trait is the differently tapered bells, bell throats and bell sizes, making all King trombones I have owned and tried very much their own in feel, percieved sound, slotting, timbre and blow. Characteristics that I'd say in many fields surpass Conn and Bach.

I may be formed by having played mainly King and Yamaha horns through my playing life - my ventures into Conn- and Bach-land have been far and few and not very accomodating though I have a Bach 16 that I really like for some purposes. It's only these last fifteen years that I seriously have branched out to play more of other brands like Shires, Conn and some odd other Bach; though I have a hard time liking and adapting to Bach.

I simply find myself at home with a King trombone of any size, and after all these years I'm still not really sure of why that is and why the King approach to horn design isn't more of it's own style and better defined as such in the over all trombone market.

[Doug Elliott]

viewtopic.php?p=241229

It would be interesting to put together a timeline of the various King models and George McCracken's involvement in their designs.

[JohnL]

I wouldn't say that the 1480 was "late to the party"; it was in the King catalog at least as early as 1938, while the 88H didn't appear as a production model until 1954. Why, then, with at least a decade and half head start, did it lose out to the 88H? My theory is that it was too big and too soon. It arrived at a time when most of the "trombone heroes" were big band players using .500" bore and smaller instruments. Years later, when Conn and Remington basically reinvented the orchestral tenor trombone, the result was something significantly different from the 1480. If you ever have the opportunity to play a 1480 and an 88H (preferably an Elkie) side-by-side, you'll hear and feel what I mean.

I suppose this didn't really bother King (in the persons of Edna and Kay White) much, as it wasn't until after they had sold the company that steps were taken to develop an "answer" to the 88H (i.e., the 4-BF).

[chromebone]

McCracken came in around the time the White family sold the company to Seeburg in 1965. That’s right at the time they started to develop new large bore horns and the DG. McCracken also updated the French horn line as well, the King Eroica was his design and he continued to make that design after he left King.

Aside from the Cleveland section, the large bore horns didn’t catch on in the orchestral world in the US, but 4B and Duo Gravis were more popular choices in Germany, Europe and the Eastern European bloc countries, so it’s not as if no one played them. Maybe if Robert Boyd had students that were winning major US jobs on a King the way Remington had students winning jobs on Conns it would been a different story here.

Also keep in mind that Benges were Kings with a different branding, they are clearly Kings in just about every way in their design philosophy.
Chuck Ward said the Benge line was starting to catch on and there were plans to offer more bell options, etc., but the UMI and Conn-Selmer acquisitions put an end to those plans.

[hyperbolica]

... Years later, when Conn and Remington basically reinvented the orchestral tenor trombone, the result was something significantly different from the 1480.

Well, the 8h existed for a long time before that (back to the 20s), and the 88h essentially just added a valve. Even then there was an 8h Spec which was a special order 8h with a valve. So I wouldn't say Remington so much reinvented anything as really just happened to notice some nice horns were being produced, and then produced a lot of great students using them.

If you ever have the opportunity to play a 1480 and an 88H (preferably an Elkie) side-by-side, you'll hear and feel what I mean.

Yeah, the 1480 didn't become popular because it's kind of an ergo nightmare. Even if you play it as a bass, it's a bass with no low C or B. If you match it with a good mouthpiece, it can be a big uncomfortable tenor. If they had produced it as a viable bass, it might have had a different history.

[chromebone]

The original 8h went out of production in the late 20’s early 30’s, but could be ordered special. There was another model called the 66H which was a special order as far back as the late 30’s that was more like the modern 88h. The rise, fall and resurrection of the large bore instrument roughly coincides with the advent of recording technology. Large bore horns didn’t record as well as smaller instruments; that’s why medium bore instruments became more popular in the 20’s-30’s. With the advent of better recording technology after WW2, large bore instruments became popular again as the technology could record them better.

[JohnL]

... Years later, when Conn and Remington basically reinvented the orchestral tenor trombone, the result was something significantly different from the 1480.

Well, the 8h existed for a long time before that (back to the 20s), and the 88h essentially just added a valve. Even then there was an 8h Spec which was a special order 8h with a valve. So I wouldn't say Remington so much reinvented anything as really just happened to notice some nice horns were being produced, and then produced a lot of great students using them.

According to in on The Conn Loyalist site, the 8H was dropped from the catalog around 1934 and reintroduced in 1954. It was apparently still available as a special order during the intervening years. That said, your point is well taken - there really wasn't much "new" about the 88H from a hardware standpoint.

A random thought: Did King develop and introduce their large-bore symphony models (1410, 1480, etc.) because they saw what they thought was a gap in the market when Conn dropped the 8H from their catalog?

What Remington and his students did was convince a lot of people that a horn like the 88H was a better choice than the other offerings available at the time. 88H-ish instruments had been around for a while (Gardell Simons seems to have used them in the 1920's), but it wasn't until Remington that we start to their adoption on a large scale. Chromebone is probably right that changes in recording technology were a contributing factor.

It wasn't just King's symphonic trombones that didn't quite catch on. Their original double horns were "also-rans" for decades. Then they got George McCracken to do a ground-up redesign and he comes up with the Eroica/Fidelio. By rights, the Eroica should have been a winner, but it was, at best, a modest success. To further the parallel, the early piston-change King double horns have a small but loyal following, as does the Eroica - much like the 1480, the 4B, and the 5B.

[Pieter]

King style to me means a bright commercial sound. I agree this needs to be an option in modern basses. We have this option in small tenors. Why no commercial basses?

Thein offers a jazz bass, although it is expensive. Kühnl and Hoyer used to offer a big band bass, and still hints at the option for a specific configuration. Yamaha has the YBL-620G as a brighter sounding bass trombone, but does not market it as being commercial. There are more options. Whether these are king style is a different question.

The King 4B - just not a popular type of sound?

[Doldom]

In my opinion, King 4B needs different mouthpiece that have different design philosophy from today's mainstream orchestral mouthpieces. I have King 4BFSS for some months now and in my opinion I could say it hates big mouthpieces. Standard orchestral dimension like Bach 5G, is already a little big in my opinion. If you blow these standard or bigger orchestral mouthpieces with 4B, there's some weird unpredictable feeling with the blow. If I recall the original King 29 mouthpiece right(which I briefly had years ago,), it had shallow cup(like, shallower than Bach 6.5al?) and smaller throat(almost small bore mouthpiece-like) with long backbore. I think the cup depth and throat of modern orchestral mouthpieces are almost too big to be good match to King 4B. Maybe because 4B have smaller bell throat, and very tight leadpipe. A little German-trombone like, if I say?. I'm experimenting with DE E cup and shank, and the thighter throat and shallower cup of E setup is better than, F setup or G setup. Very natural feeling and have "honest" "trumpet-ish" sound.
So in my humble opinion, most orchestral mouthpieces are maybe not a good match with 4B, and the sound is very trumpety, which I like a lot, but necessarily not a good sound concept for modern orchestras. (But I'm also eager to hear all King trombone,or even all Olds trombone orchestral section in modern orchestra..!! that imagenary section would be very trumpety brassy and great..!)

[Digidog]

It's also interesting to note that a couple of years ago Shires began offering a new bell taper for their small bore line of horns, that would be somewhat similar to vintage Kings. When I ordered my 0.500 Shires custom horn a couple of years ago, I initially wanted it to be based on that King taper bell, but got the answer that they did not offer that "new" type of bell since it hadn't worked out the way they wanted it to. I got a hint that it might have had something to do with intonation and tuning stability.

Now looking at the Shires web page, I see that they still line up the "new", differently tapered bell as a custom option and wonder if they did a redesign of the bell concept, or just have been sloppy in updating their web page.

I wonder why that "new" taper didn't work, since it obviousy works on King horns, and I wonder if Shires really, really have abandoned the idea of offering King-tapered bells - or if they ironed out the initial problems and now regularly offer bells with King taper after a couple of years of experimenting and testing?

There's a lot of wondering here......

[Matt K]

I was under the impression that the MD and MD+ models were that taper, but I guess I've never seen any official correspondence indicating that as such.

[Digidog]

Isn't there someone here on TC that used to work at Shires?

She or he may know what became of that "new" bell design. I, myself, haven't heard a lot about the Michael Davis Shires line, so I cannot say anything about them. The 2B Davis model I once tried was a very good horn and would maybe have suited me really well, but it was brand new and at the time too expensive for me.

[Matt K]

Ben Griffin did, though I don't think he worked there when the MD was developed, or if he did it wasn't a big overlap iirc.

I believe Alexis has an account here but I don't recall the last time she posted or what the handle was.

[Posaunus]

Isn't there someone here on TC that used to work at Shires?

Yes. GabrielRice.

[mbarbier]

McCracken came in around the time the White family sold the company to Seeburg in 1965. That’s right at the time they started to develop new large bore horns and the DG. McCracken also updated the French horn line as well, the King Eroica was his design and he continued to make that design after he left King.

Aside from the Cleveland section, the large bore horns didn’t catch on in the orchestral world in the US, but 4B and Duo Gravis were more popular choices in Germany, Europe and the Eastern European bloc countries, so it’s not as if no one played them. Maybe if Robert Boyd had students that were winning major US jobs on a King the way Remington had students winning jobs on Conns it would been a different story here.

Also keep in mind that Benges were Kings with a different branding, they are clearly Kings in just about every way in their design philosophy.
Chuck Ward said the Benge line was starting to catch on and there were plans to offer more bell options, etc., but the UMI and Conn-Selmer acquisitions put an end to those plans.

There were also some plans after the acquisition for a new horn that was a mix of Conn and Benge that were sort of a revisiting of the project. I've got one- Benge bell, but different than normal material, early Lindberg valve, and a Benge slide (though I use a Conn slide most of the time). It was being done with the Cleveland section- Rick and Steve had a literal car full of combinations they were trying for them. Seems like it kind of fell apart once Desano retired and they started shifting to Bachs. It's a shame- they were really lovely horns.

[JKBone85]

The taper in question is the SII taper. It doesn't actually refer to the bell throat taper, as it does the neckpipe taper. We found some major issues with intonation and ultimately stopped offering this type of bell section. Because the small bores are not component based in the same way the large bores are, the neckpipe is accounted for in the name of the type of bell. The Q33 was a very good copy of a 3B, but due to the TII neckpipe taper causing issues with intonation, we changed the spec to the TI. I own 1 of the 6 Q33's that we rebuilt in Holliston. It's my job daily to playtest, box and ship all of the Shires trombones that leave the building, but in this instance, to confirm the issues we had been hearing about from customers, so a half dozen of them came home with me for a week to confirm suspicions. It played so much better AFTER we swapped the neckpipe and lower leg, I bought one. The Q33's that have been built in the last 4 or so years are all new spec. If you find an older one, it likely has intonation issues, but there aren't that many.

TLDR; Correct, the website needs an update.

[harrisonreed]

King trombones play in tune though.

It must be that the king design is the sum of its parts, not just the bell. That taper must not play well with the rest of the way Shires interchangeable parts are designed.

TBF, I don't think people are rioting because of the lack of King-like trombones on the boutique market, especially with the plethora of used kings out there and, like was said up above, Benges which are even better.

[Digidog]

King trombones play in tune though.

It must be that the king design is the sum of its parts, not just the bell. That taper must not play well with the rest of the way Shires interchangeable parts are designed.

TBF, I don't think people are rioting because of the lack of King-like trombones on the boutique market, especially with the plethora of used kings out there and, like was said up above, Benges which are even better.

The taper in question is the SII taper. It doesn't actually refer to the bell throat taper, as it does the neckpipe taper.

I agree on that the King traits are not specified or defined by only one certain specification or detail. Like @Finetales say, the round slide crook is one part that I believe is quite specific to King horns. However: I'm not sure it's just me, but I have always had a different feel about the gooseneck of King trombones, and that it especially in the small bores has a different angle in the bend and a different taper (or measurements) than other brands have. I also percieve that the bells have a differently grading of the taper; to me most discernible in the throat but also just where the flare widens.

I have not seen any measurements, nor done any myself, but are there others who have the same opinion or perception?

We found some major issues with intonation and ultimately stopped offering this type of bell section.

Has Shires ever analyzed what caused the intonation problems? Or thoroughly tested components to find what mismatched to produce these shortcomings?

TLDR; Correct, the website needs an update.

I'd say that the Shires website needs an over all overhaul. Especially in the underlying menus, like with mouthpieces, accessories and components menus and explanations. It looks good, but is lacking in some important aspects that may undermine customer friendliness - and in the long run affect company credibility and reliability.

[JKBone85]

King trombones play in tune though.

It must be that the king design is the sum of its parts, not just the bell. That taper must not play well with the rest of the way Shires interchangeable parts are designed.

TBF, I don't think people are rioting because of the lack of King-like trombones on the boutique market, especially with the plethora of used kings out there and, like was said up above, Benges which are even better.

The taper in question is the SII taper. It doesn't actually refer to the bell throat taper, as it does the neckpipe taper.

I agree on that the King traits are not specified or defined by only one certain specification or detail. Like @Finetales say, the round slide crook is one part that I believe is quite specific to King horns. However: I'm not sure it's just me, but I have always had a different feel about the gooseneck of King trombones, and that it especially in the small bores has a different angle in the bend and a different taper (or measurements) than other brands have. I also percieve that the bells have a differently grading of the taper; to me most discernible in the throat but also just where the flare widens.

I have not seen any measurements, nor done any myself, but are there others who have the same opinion or perception?

We found some major issues with intonation and ultimately stopped offering this type of bell section.

Has Shires ever analyzed what caused the intonation problems? Or thoroughly tested components to find what mismatched to produce these shortcomings?

TLDR; Correct, the website needs an update.

I'd say that the Shires website needs an over all overhaul. Especially in the underlying menus, like with mouthpieces, accessories and components menus and explanations. It looks good, but is lacking in some important aspects that may undermine customer friendliness - and in the long run affect company credibility and reliability.

The gooseneck and neckpipe are the same thing. After a week of testing 6 horns with that neckpipe, in front of a tuner, as well as SI vs SII removable neckpipes on component based small bores, we identified the neckpipe taper as the culprit for the intonation issues. We changed it to our standard neckpipe, SI, which has a less broad taper than an SII.

[harrisonreed]

.... over all overhaul....

I support this phrase linguistically. This should be the buzzword of 2025.

[Matt K]

.... over all overhaul....

I support this phrase linguistically. This should be the buzzword of 2025.

This is such rage bait

(Joke for those who aren't in the loop:https://www.npr.org/2025/12/01/nx-s1-56 ... f-the-year )