Greenhoe vs. M&W Valves

[apetrombone]

I'm wondering if anybody here has experience with both valves and is able to compare/contrast them. Bass and tenor are accepted!

[tbonesullivan]

Probably best to ask M&W themselves, as Matt Walker worked at Greenhoe before founding M&W.

[Burgerbob]

I've played a fair amount of greenhoe basses and owned a couple. I currently have an M&W that is my main bass.

Greenhoe valves are very good- very good balance of resistance/openness, good sound, short throw.

M&W are simply better in every way. There are valves out there with shorter throw, faster response, broader sound, but nothing that combines all the qualities in one package.

The main thing Greenhoe are sub-par at is valve legato- they want to chuff hard when playing valve slurs. Like, to annoying levels. The M&W simply do not. You're not getting axial level valve legato, but again the M&W are better in so many other categories.

[bassboneman69]

I've played a fair amount of greenhoe basses and owned a couple. I currently have an M&W that is my main bass.

Greenhoe valves are very good- very good balance of resistance/openness, good sound, short throw.

M&W are simply better in every way. There are valves out there with shorter throw, faster response, broader sound, but nothing that combines all the qualities in one package.

The main thing Greenhoe are sub-par at is valve legato- they want to chuff hard when playing valve slurs. Like, to annoying levels. The M&W simply do not. You're not getting axial level valve legato, but again the M&W are better in so many other categories.

I enjoy, greatly, reading Aidan’s responses!
My query would be, short of the “throw”, where do axials fall short in comparison to the aforementioned valves???

[CalgaryTbone]

Axials are great, but the throw is long, and they take more air than valves that are more traditional in design.

Jim Scott

[Burgerbob]

Easy center, response, a few things.