Holton TR-150 First Impressions

[MrHCinDE]

Encouraged by the recent purchase of another Holton vintage horn, I treated myself to a TR-150 out of curiosity and as a backup or potential replacement to my 88h.

I wanted to share my initial thoughts of this horn and to hear what others who play or have played think about theirs.

Background:
Generally I prefer my trusty old 8h for most large bore playing, reaching for the 88h only when a valve is almost unavoidable. The 8h is a very responsive N-series Elkhart and the 88h is an „lt ow“ (as far as I can tell the same as an 88hto i.e. thinwall bell). The 88h is an excellent all-rounder but I was considering swapping the 88h lt ow for a standard 88h so that I‘d have more contrast to the super-responsive and lively 8h for those times when a dark wall of sound is required, especially in the symphonic 2nd tenor money-range.

I chose to try the Holton as it came in at a price well below what I could get a Conn 88h (or 88hk) or Bach 42 for and on paper seemed to fit my need. It seems the Holton large-bore tenors are just not as prized as the basses. I was attracted to the nickel silver slide and oversized 9“ rose (or gold?) brass bell. Since I couldn‘t find many references to these trombones on here, I thought I‘d do this little write up.

Sound:
To my ears, it has a huge, warm sound, with clear articulations and the ability to colour the tone. It feels somehow halfway between a Bach 42 and a Conn 88h. Some might say the best of both, others may be less generous and say it’s neither one thing nor another. Although there is a hint of colour, it doesn’t light up excessively and stays civilised, even when really pushed. It‘s not quite as responsive as my Conns, especially at lower dynamics, it does however feel more agile than the 42s I‘ve tried. I really enjoyed playing through the Mahler 3 excerpts on it.

Intonation:
Obviously I‘m still getting used to it but my first impression is that 3rd and 4th position vary a lot more between partials than on other large bore tenors I‘ve played. The slotting is less forgiving than my 8h, more like the modern 88h. I can‘t quite reach an E with the trigger slide pull, at least not with some lipping down, but there‘s enough for a solid pedal C at least. There‘s an ok false tone in there somewhere for the B natural on the very rare occasion it‘s necessary.

Range:
The mid and lower range is very meaty. It‘s still a large bore tenor and not a bass but I‘d have no worries using it for parts below the bass clef score and down into the pedals. The valve isn‘t the most free-blowing which doesn’t bother me too much, perhaps not to everyone‘s taste. From the F below the bass clef staff up to the F two octaves above is where I think the sound really works for me. I probably won‘t be using it for many 1st trom. parts, it feels like much harder work than my 8h (with the same mouthpiece) in the upper range. That might improve once I get used to it.

Mechanics:
Mechanically, the slide and valve are ok, probably better than I would expect to find on an 88h or Bach 42 in that price range. The ergonomics of the trigger are a bit unusual, maybe due to the short-throw mechanism. I find the horn to be well balanced and comfortable to hold. The slide is relatively narrow, similar to an 88h.

Summary:
Overall my first impression is that the TR-150 is a naturally dark-playing symphonic horn which can really pump out a lot of sound at high volumes and with direct articulations if required. I probably wouldn’t choose it as my only horn, mainly because the upper range takes noticeably more effort than my other large bore horns. I‘d be very happy to play it on symphonic 2nd tenor parts. It could actually work well for 3rd/4th part in a big band (for groups with more traditional arrangements) or 2nd/3rd in a concert band. It would also be a nice option for 2nd trombone in a brass band or the middle parts of a trombone choir.

However, there is a caveat that I haven‘t played it in an ensemble yet so have no idea how it will blend. Whenever I get the chance I‘ll update this post with my thoughts about that.

If you’ve tried one, tell me what you think? Does anyone use one of these on a regular basis?

[Amconk]

I have a TR-140, which has the infamous Monster valve. That horn has a 9” red brass bell and a dark, broad sound. I’m curious if it utilizes the same slide as the 150?

[Posaunus]

Not really a relevant comment, since I've not played a Holton TR-150, but for a while I had a Holton TR-160, also purchased as a backup to my trusty Conn 88H. Can't comment on the specifics (since I've since sold it), but – though a decent trombone in good condition – it did nothing anywhere near as well as the 88H. I now have as a backup a Benge 165F, which I like much, much better than the TR-160.

[spencercarran]

I've tried the Holton 160, which is similar at least in 9" red bell and nickel slide (with a different valve wrap). I like the big sound a lot. The main sticking point IMO is that Holton symphonic tenors fall into a weird middle zone where they're a bit too dark/heavy for most places where you want to use a tenor and still not big enough to cover many bass parts. Lower/middle tenor parts in some ensembles seem like about the right niche, but... who wants a specific pro horn to cover "3rd tenor trombone" parts?

[BGuttman]

When I was looking for my first large bore tenor I tried the TR-150. I think this was the Frank Crisafulli model.

What I liked:
Ergonomics -- I like being able to wrap my thumb around the bell brace and it did not interfere with my ability to actuate the trigger.
Build quality seemed good.
Rose brass bell toned down my inherent brightness.

What I didn't like:
Large bell seemed unfocussed. I was playing a 9 1/2" bass (235 mm or so) and this was too close in sound.
No slide springs. I would probably have added these later, though.

[chromebone]

I owned a TR 168 for a short time, The 168 was the pre-LeBlanc model number/version of the TR-150. It was a totally different animal than any 150 I ever played. Dimensionally it was the same, but the bell looked like it was a different alloy than the 150: more a gold-ish bronze than the rose/red brass of the 150.
I could only describe the sound as the tenor equivalent of the TR-169 (Think of Frank Crisafulli’s glorious sound on his Holton)


I can’t say I was ever wowed by any 150 I played, but the 168 was a truly great horn. I think the 150 as it was originally designed it is a great horn, but LeBlanc made changes to the bell material that are not compatible with the way the design intended.

The 168 had a beautiful sound, but it was so different than anything else around that I found it really hard to blend with other players and ultimately sold it.

[rmb796]

So glad you have a Holton TR150. I played one for 30 years and now alternate between the 150 and my "Jay Friedman" 42G.
I think it is probably the most underrated horn on the market. I studied with Frank Crisifulli of the Chicago Symphony in the early 70's and that is what he was playing every day! The horn has great attacks, a BIG dark and yet mello sound, and a nice range. I played first parts on it for years.
I think the 3rd and 4th pos. issue is due to perhaps where the bell lines up. It just takes some getting used to.
The valve is fine if you keep it oiled. The slides are good but not like a Bach, 8H , or King.
You can listen to Mr. Chrisifulli playing on one if you go on YouTube and listen to the Chicago Brass Quintet playing
Victor Ewald, 0p. 5 Quintet No. 1.

Hope you enjoy the TR150!!!

[MrHCinDE]

The horn has great attacks, a BIG dark and yet mello sound, and a nice range. I played first parts on it for years.
I think the 3rd and 4th pos. issue is due to perhaps where the bell lines up. It just takes some getting used to.

I‘ve spent some more time on it now and have got used to the bell position. You were right, this was throwing me off a little at first.

Also, I may have to correct myself. It has a bit more resistance in the upper register than I was used to which I thought meant I‘d not enjoy playing 1st parts on it.

Wrong!
I‘ve figured it out now and am no longer fighting the horn. Basically, if the buzz is clean, stable and very close to the correct pitch this horn really sings. It is less forgiving than my 8h and if I just try to force the upper range by pushing more fast air through, it does not end well. If everything is working well, it has an excellent upper range.

So in summary, I wouldn‘t hesitate to use this horn for most symphonic 1st trombone parts as well as the lower parts I was already sold on.

[imsevimse]

I have a Holton TR-150

Herre are a couple of sound references

Rachmaninov Vocalise:


Purcel: Largo from Dido and Aneas

/Tom

[BGuttman]

Nice playing, Tom. I think there is something about the 9 inch (225 mm) bell because I heard some facets of the sound that reminded me of the King 5B i played for a while. It's much rounder than most 8.5 inch (215 mm) bell instruments I have.

[imsevimse]

Nice playing, Tom. I think there is something about the 9 inch (225 mm) bell because I heard some facets of the sound that reminded me of the King 5B i played for a while. It's much rounder than most 8.5 inch (215 mm) bell instruments I have.

Thanks! It was four years ago. I like the horn a lot but I usually play a Bach 36B whenever I play cassical music. The TR-150 has a vintage touch to its sound.

...I chose to try the Holton as it came in at a price well below what I could get a Conn 88h (or 88hk) or Bach 42 for and on paper seemed to fit my need. It seems the Holton large-bore tenors are just not as prized as the basses. I was attracted to the nickel silver slide and oversized 9“ rose (or gold?) brass bell. Since I couldn‘t find many references to these trombones on here, I thought I‘d do this little write up.

Yes, the tenors are not as well regarded as the basses. The Holton 169 and the TR-185 often are priced very high. The TR-180 can be found little cheaper and the TR-181 even cheaper. The two latter are double valves and are often within price range for students. The vintage Holton tenors are very good too but not much talked about. I think the ones that like old .547 horns rather seek a Mont Vernon Bach 42 or an Elkhart Conn 88H.

Sound:
To my ears, it has a huge, warm sound, with clear articulations and the ability to colour the tone. It feels somehow halfway between a Bach 42 and a Conn 88h. Some might say the best of both, others may be less generous and say it’s neither one thing nor another. Although there is a hint of colour, it doesn’t light up excessively and stays civilised, even when really pushed. It‘s not quite as responsive as my Conns, especially at lower dynamics, it does however feel more agile than the 42s I‘ve tried. I really enjoyed playing through the Mahler 3 excerpts on it.

Sound is good and can absolutely replace a Conn 88h or a Bach 42.
Your experience of intonation issues compared to other brands, slotting that is less forgiving, fake notes, not free blowing valve, were you think the best register is. These are things I have never thought about with my horn. I often switch between so many horns the adaptation now goes very fast. I don't even think much of the difference. It does not mean there are no difference. Of course every horn is different. Intonation and blow must be adjusted to make the most out of every horn. The response is different from every brand and model and even different between horns of the same model..

Range:
The mid and lower range is very meaty. It‘s still a large bore tenor and not a bass but I‘d have no worries using it for parts below the bass clef score and down into the pedals. The valve isn‘t the most free-blowing which doesn’t bother me too much, perhaps not to everyone‘s taste. From the F below the bass clef staff up to the F two octaves above is where I think the sound really works for me. I probably won‘t be using it for many 1st trom. parts, it feels like much harder work than my 8h (with the same mouthpiece) in the upper range. That might improve once I get used to it.

A low C on the trigger is no problem in 6:th position if you tune the valve a bit flat. I don't think the slide is longer than other horns. The big bell does still provide a tenor sound. The 9" bell does not make it more close to a bass trombone if anyone thought that.

Mechanics:
Mechanically, the slide and valve are ok, probably better than I would expect to find on an 88h or Bach 42 in that price range. The ergonomics of the trigger are a bit unusual, maybe due to the short-throw mechanism. I find the horn to be well balanced and comfortable to hold. The slide is relatively narrow, similar to an 88h.

Summary:
Overall my first impression is that the TR-150 is a naturally dark-playing symphonic horn which can really pump out a lot of sound at high volumes and with direct articulations if required. I probably wouldn’t choose it as my only horn, mainly because the upper range takes noticeably more effort than my other large bore horns. I‘d be very happy to play it on symphonic 2nd tenor parts. It could actually work well for 3rd/4th part in a big band (for groups with more traditional arrangements) or 2nd/3rd in a concert band. It would also be a nice option for 2nd trombone in a brass band or the middle parts of a trombone choir.

However, there is a caveat that I haven‘t played it in an ensemble yet so have no idea how it will blend. Whenever I get the chance I‘ll update this post with my thoughts about that.

If you’ve tried one, tell me what you think? Does anyone use one of these on a regular basis?

The mechanics are good. I have not noticed any troubles in the higher register on my TR-150, it blows as good as any vintage .547 horn.
No, I don't use the horn regularly. It was about four years aince I played the horn.

/Tom

[hyperbolica]

I've owned the 156 and 159, with the 547/562 dual bore slides. These are for tenor players that are super powerful and need a lot of volume. The 156 was great straight lead orchestral horn if you had the chops to drive it. More like a 42 than 8h. I really loved that horn but I don't have the chops or the need for one of those anymore.

I have a friend with a 150, and believe me, he gets his money's worth from that horn. It's a very respectable instrument without apology.

[MrHCinDE]

I have a Holton TR-150

Herre are a couple of sound references

Rachmaninov Vocalise:


Purcel: Largo from Dido and Aneas

/Tom

Nice playing Tom, thanks for sharing. I like the tasteful use of vibrato especially.

Thanks also for your point-by-point analysis. Now that I‘ve got used to the horn a bit, I have no concerns about the 3rd/4th position and upper register any more.

[jph]

Nice playing, Tom. I think there is something about the 9 inch (225 mm) bell because I heard some facets of the sound that reminded me of the King 5B i played for a while. It's much rounder than most 8.5 inch (215 mm) bell instruments I have.

Thanks! It was four years ago. I like the horn a lot but I usually play a Bach 36B whenever I play cassical music. The TR-150 has a vintage touch to its sound.

...I chose to try the Holton as it came in at a price well below what I could get a Conn 88h (or 88hk) or Bach 42 for and on paper seemed to fit my need. It seems the Holton large-bore tenors are just not as prized as the basses. I was attracted to the nickel silver slide and oversized 9“ rose (or gold?) brass bell. Since I couldn‘t find many references to these trombones on here, I thought I‘d do this little write up.

Yes, the tenors are not as well regarded as the basses. The Holton 169 and the TR-185 often are priced very high. The TR-180 can be found little cheaper and the TR-181 even cheaper. The two latter are double valves and are often within price range for students. The vintage Holton tenors are very good too but not much talked about. I think the ones that like old .547 horns rather seek a Mont Vernon Bach 42 or an Elkhart Conn 88H.

Sound:
To my ears, it has a huge, warm sound, with clear articulations and the ability to colour the tone. It feels somehow halfway between a Bach 42 and a Conn 88h. Some might say the best of both, others may be less generous and say it’s neither one thing nor another. Although there is a hint of colour, it doesn’t light up excessively and stays civilised, even when really pushed. It‘s not quite as responsive as my Conns, especially at lower dynamics, it does however feel more agile than the 42s I‘ve tried. I really enjoyed playing through the Mahler 3 excerpts on it.

Sound is good and can absolutely replace a Conn 88h or a Bach 42.
Your experience of intonation issues compared to other brands, slotting that is less forgiving, fake notes, not free blowing valve, were you think the best register is. These are things I have never thought about with my horn. I often switch between so many horns the adaptation now goes very fast. I don't even think much of the difference. It does not mean there are no difference. Of course every horn is different. Intonation and blow must be adjusted to make the most out of every horn. The response is different from every brand and model and even different between horns of the same model..

Range:
The mid and lower range is very meaty. It‘s still a large bore tenor and not a bass but I‘d have no worries using it for parts below the bass clef score and down into the pedals. The valve isn‘t the most free-blowing which doesn’t bother me too much, perhaps not to everyone‘s taste. From the F below the bass clef staff up to the F two octaves above is where I think the sound really works for me. I probably won‘t be using it for many 1st trom. parts, it feels like much harder work than my 8h (with the same mouthpiece) in the upper range. That might improve once I get used to it.

A low C on the trigger is no problem in 6:th position if you tune the valve a bit flat. I don't think the slide is longer than other horns. The big bell does still provide a tenor sound. The 9" bell does not make it more close to a bass trombone if anyone thought that.

Mechanics:
Mechanically, the slide and valve are ok, probably better than I would expect to find on an 88h or Bach 42 in that price range. The ergonomics of the trigger are a bit unusual, maybe due to the short-throw mechanism. I find the horn to be well balanced and comfortable to hold. The slide is relatively narrow, similar to an 88h.

Summary:
Overall my first impression is that the TR-150 is a naturally dark-playing symphonic horn which can really pump out a lot of sound at high volumes and with direct articulations if required. I probably wouldn’t choose it as my only horn, mainly because the upper range takes noticeably more effort than my other large bore horns. I‘d be very happy to play it on symphonic 2nd tenor parts. It could actually work well for 3rd/4th part in a big band (for groups with more traditional arrangements) or 2nd/3rd in a concert band. It would also be a nice option for 2nd trombone in a brass band or the middle parts of a trombone choir.

However, there is a caveat that I haven‘t played it in an ensemble yet so have no idea how it will blend. Whenever I get the chance I‘ll update this post with my thoughts about that.

If you’ve tried one, tell me what you think? Does anyone use one of these on a regular basis?

The mechanics are good. I have not noticed any troubles in the higher register on my TR-150, it blows as good as any vintage .547 horn.
No, I don't use the horn regularly. It was about four years aince I played the horn.

/Tom

Tom, your assessment is spot on. I have owned 150’s exclusively for tenor (1967-yellow via Crisafulli; 1975 and now a 1970). It IS very doable on first, and this was also Bob Boyd’s assessment (who played a large King in Cleveland) when I went to him for some additional high register advice…on the 150! Chris (Frank) Crisafulli never flinched in recommending an alternate horn. I also played an 185 loaned by Ed Kleinhammer back in 1972-73.

[TheYoungTrombonist]

I play a TR 150 and in my experience it is quite frankly a great horn. The positioning of the trigger is really comfortable as it allows my thumb to rest on the bar so it doesn’t strain. The trigger is a little heavy when pressing down however when actually playing it is hardly noticeable. The slide positions aren’t difficult, it just takes some getting used to. I have noticed that it is hard to get my second position A natural in tune at times. The slide moves like a dream, it is very smooth (when maintained correctly). I currently use a Denis Wick 4AL and I feel as though I can easily reach both my lower range and upper range. I can easily reach an Ab above the bass clef staff with little to no struggle. And I can peddle down to an Ab below the staff with ease.