TromboneChat

Hey all,

Does anybody happen to have some insight on which of Edwards bells are more “Bach” like? I know they do two piece bells which already are quite different.

After the numbers will be the letters: CFB. Like a 321CFB.

Interesting. I had not heard of the B designation

(update): this information was all wrong. disregard.

This info I got second hand or third hand reading TromboneChat for year and half. So take this with a huge grain of salt. I've never once talked to Edwards, owned one, played one, or even been in the same room as one. With that out of the way.

321CF is what I understand is the base for the Alessi horn. It is the 321 bell mandrel with CF heat treating.

336 is the mandrel that is symphonic. I understand this is more bach like or more bach 42 like. I think this is what you might want.

384 is the mandrel for the Bousfield, I understand the base is or was the Conn 8H/88H, but I understand the 384 leans more boutique or modern.

B designation means double-buffed, so is has extra buffing with more material removed. So you end up with a boutique bell that is in-between 2 thicknesses. I understand this leans more boutique or modern.

There are a bunch of other mandrels but I don't hear them mentioned as much so right now I don't understand them, at least not beyond the alloy changes or gauge changes or jazz horns or bass bones, etc.
https://www.edwards-instruments.com/tro ... one-bells/


(update): this information was all wrong. disregard.

lol, no. The number is not the mandril. It says more about the process to make the flare (fun fact, it is the standard run number from a full factorial Design of Experiments if you know all the factors.

The “B” notation above is noting the process and the tool. I haven’t seen one without the CF as well, but I also haven’t been paying that close attention.

Cheers,
Andy

elmsandr wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 2:51 pm lol, no. The number is not the mandril. It says more about the process to make the flare (fun fact, it is the standard run number from a full factorial Design of Experiments if you know all the factors.

Does the number really only lean towards the process to make the flare and the standard number run? So, 336 wouldn't be a symphonic one? Only CF the symphonic one? or 336CF? Or do I have it completely wrong and the "bach like" bell is told some other way?

i'm curious as to how wrong I was. I'm always trying to learn. (I'm leaning towards completely wrong as Edwards seems to decipher in some strange way to me.) Thanks!

CF is a treatment. I used to play a 987 non CF. The non CFs aren’t made anymore.
And I used to be employed by Getzen/ Edwards. The B is a Bach Mandrel. So a 321CF and then on the B mandrel= 321CFB.

I’ve always wondered what “CF” stands for. I know it’s not the Latin “compared to.” Perhaps cryogenically frozen? Cystic fibrosis? Cardiac failure? Cyanosphere fiberosity?

Kbiggs wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 6:56 pm I’ve always wondered what “CF” stands for. I know it’s not the Latin “compared to.” Perhaps cryogenically frozen? Cystic fibrosis? Cardiac failure? Cyanosphere fiberosity?

No. Not going to say if it isn’t publicly available (I don’t remember if I’ve seen it out in the wild). Not cryo, however.

Edited to add: ok it used to be on the website circa 2001; it is a flame treatment. The F in CF is for flame. Also, a lot of other absolute garbage in this thread, lol. https://groups.google.com/g/alt.music. ... -7838NIdVU

Cheers,
Andy

slidesix wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 4:40 pm

elmsandr wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 2:51 pm lol, no. The number is not the mandril. It says more about the process to make the flare (fun fact, it is the standard run number from a full factorial Design of Experiments if you know all the factors.

Does the number really only lean towards the process to make the flare and the standard number run? So, 336 wouldn't be a symphonic one? Only CF the symphonic one? or 336CF? Or do I have it completely wrong and the "bach like" bell is told some other way?

i'm curious as to how wrong I was. I'm always trying to learn. (I'm leaning towards completely wrong as Edwards seems to decipher in some strange way to me.) Thanks!

So, not going to go into everything, but all symphonic tenor bells #1-~400? Or so are made on the same mandril, unless it says B at the end. There is nothing to decipher in the number, it is a numerical list (if you don’t know what a standard run order is, spend some time in a DoE stats class). Some other notes; a 319,320, and 321 are identical process except one is Red Brass, one is Rose, and one is Yellow. Other variables include diameter, soldered rims, and some other things. They have all been referenced at one time or another in the marketing material, just gotta dig for things, and the team there will always tell you about any bell you have a question on; but resist trying to understand a bell by spec, doesn’t work that way for most people.

Cheers,
Andy

What Andy said^

ZacharyThornton wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 5:10 pm CF is a treatment. I used to play a 987 non CF. The non CFs aren’t made anymore.
And I used to be employed by Getzen/ Edwards. The B is a Bach Mandrel. So a 321CF and then on the B mandrel= 321CFB.

Do you know if Edwards offers B mandrel for bass? Also, I’m guessing main difference B has is a wider taper?

felixbone wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2026 8:59 pm

ZacharyThornton wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 5:10 pm CF is a treatment. I used to play a 987 non CF. The non CFs aren’t made anymore.
And I used to be employed by Getzen/ Edwards. The B is a Bach Mandrel. So a 321CF and then on the B mandrel= 321CFB.

Do you know if Edwards offers B mandrel for bass? Also, I’m guessing main difference B has is a wider taper?

(They always had two mandrels for bass-it was baked into the numbers.)
One was immensly more popular than the other. To the point of I haven’t seen one on the other mandrel for 20yrs+

Cheers,
Andy

There is a different mandrel and doesn’t work so they don’t use it anymore.

My bell plays very nice. It’s marked:
2223333CFB*
I received it when I visited Edwards for a fitting. I’ve paired it with an AR handslide. I’m not sure what the * is? Regardless, it’s a nice setup and does have “Bach like” tonality even though it’s a 2 piece bell.

It is a mixture of two different bells. The stem of one and the flair of another. Then that on a Bach Mandrel. It’s a pretty popular bell and the idea was for it to be one of the most Bach like bells. Since Bach bells are so different this plays like a great Bach bell that Christan tested.
That’s what I remember but I may have some details wrong.