TromboneChat

Anyone ever cut their tuning slides (both main and F attachment or bass slides) to reduce the weight of the horn? I am not talking about shortening the horn. I think Shires has a model where this is the case.

You won't save much weight by cutting the hidden legs of the tuning slides. Maybe an ounce or two.

You couldn't remove enough material to make a significant change in the weight of the horn without seriously degrading your sound.

First I've heard of it, if Shires does a model as such.

Years ago, Eric van Lier had the outer slide tube legs of the F and D sections of his 62H removed and the crooks soldered directly to the legs when he converted his old horn to Hagmann valves. The write-up at the time said he thought the instrument responded more quickly. Of course, that could have been from the valves, too. I also remember the article saying he got used to the lack of tuning options and winding the bell section around to empty spit.

Shires' George Curran model has a lightweight axial valve section. Shorter overlapping valve tubing and no brace on the valve tubing crooks is how the weight is reduced. https://www.seshires.com/tbgc

Could it be that balance, as opposed to weight, is an issue here?

I cut my F slide on my Bach bass long ago. As I did not need the E pull and I wanted to pull the slide easier to drain water, it made sense.

No change in weight, but the horn was a touch more open.

I just did some calculations, and I don't even think it would amount to an ounce on my tenor and maybe a little more than ounce on my bass. The balance is ok. Just trying to reduce weight to ease the wear and tear on my shoulder and back.

ERGObone in action

whitbey wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:26 am I cut my F slide on my Bach bass long ago. As I did not need the E pull and I wanted to pull the slide easier to drain water, it made sense.

No change in weight, but the horn was a touch more open.

More "open" because you effectively increased the bore of the F section. You could always insert the cut sections of tubing if you wanted to close off the F section at some point.



Eric

[/quote]
More "open" because you effectively increased the bore of the F section. You could always insert the cut sections of tubing if you wanted to close off the F section at some point.



Eric
[/quote]



I like it this way. And it has been this way 30+ years. Not sure where those tubes are now.

If you really want to squeeze out every gram...

Back when they actually used stock bodies for stock car racing, they'd acid dip the bodies to thin out the metal. Obviously, you'd have to mask the mating surfaces, but it would certainly lighten things up. When the whole thing crumples like aluminum foil, you know you've gone too far.

Thinner, narrow ferrules might also help. Not only is the ferrule itself lighter, but the narrower ferrule means less solder (though it also means more care has to be taken in assembly).

Bonearzt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:58 pm

whitbey wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:26 am I cut my F slide on my Bach bass long ago. As I did not need the E pull and I wanted to pull the slide easier to drain water, it made sense.

No change in weight, but the horn was a touch more open.

More "open" because you effectively increased the bore of the F section. You could always insert the cut sections of tubing if you wanted to close off the F section at some point.
Eric

Huh... I never thought of that. Is that why many modern F sections don't have usable E pulls? Makes them feel more "open"?

mrdeacon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:40 pm

Bonearzt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:58 pm
More "open" because you effectively increased the bore of the F section. You could always insert the cut sections of tubing if you wanted to close off the F section at some point.
Eric

Huh... I never thought of that. Is that why many modern F sections don't have usable E pulls? Makes them feel more "open"?

No, modern valve sections have a much larger bore to begin with, and most big manufacturers probably don't even consider an E pull when designing their horns.

That is not entirely true. The "normal" bore size for a bass trombone valve section has been .594" for almost 100 years. Valves have changed, but tube bore size hasn't

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:30 am That is not entirely true. The "normal" bore size for a bass trombone valve section has been .594" for almost 100 years. Valves have changed, but tube bore size hasn't

I can think of several sought after vintage basses where the valves and tubing are .562 bore.

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:28 am

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:30 am That is not entirely true. The "normal" bore size for a bass trombone valve section has been .594" for almost 100 years. Valves have changed, but tube bore size hasn't

I can think of several sought after vintage basses where the valves and tubing are .562 bore.

Such as? Other than the King DG? I can't think of another off the top of my head that is .562.

Old Holtons were .585, most Conns are ~590-593. I'd call the .585 close enough to the .590 range to not be worth the arguement.

Cheers,
Andy

elmsandr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:34 amOld Holtons were .585, most Conns are ~590-593. I'd call the .585 close enough to the .590 range to not be worth the arguement.

The GR Olds and models based thereon are also .585". Some versions of the S-20/S-23 family are .565", but I wouldn't characterize those as "sought after" (not even by me).

King 6b, 7b, 8b, and bach 45 &46 (I have to double check my friends, but I'm fairly sure they had .562 valves) come to mind as the desirable ones, but there are more basses that used .562 for certain.

I've used .562 rotax valves on basses as well, which worked perfectly for what the customer was after.

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:24 am King 6b, 7b, 8b, and bach 45 &46 (I have to double check my friends, but I'm fairly sure they had .562 valves) come to mind as the desirable ones, but there are more basses that used .562 for certain.

I've used .562 rotax valves on basses as well, which worked perfectly for what the customer was after.

Pretty sure the 7B and 8B are .590 ish. The Bach 45 is literally Bach 50 .590 valve section.

Bear in mind that I don’t think the valve tubing bore matters as much as has been discussed, but the DG is outside the norm. Virtually every other bass, even the small ones, generally use the larger valve section and have since the 20’s. Now, some horns that were basses then, say the 14H, have .562 sections, but I don’t think anybody would classify that horn as a bass today.

Cheers,
Andy

elmsandr wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:29 am

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:24 am King 6b, 7b, 8b, and bach 45 &46 (I have to double check my friends, but I'm fairly sure they had .562 valves) come to mind as the desirable ones, but there are more basses that used .562 for certain.

I've used .562 rotax valves on basses as well, which worked perfectly for what the customer was after.

Pretty sure the 7B and 8B are .590 ish. The Bach 45 is literally Bach 50 .590 valve section.

Bear in mind that I don’t think the valve tubing bore matters as much as has been discussed, but the DG is outside the norm. Virtually every other bass, even the small ones, generally use the larger valve section and have since the 20’s. Now, some horns that were basses then, say the 14H, have .562 sections, but I don’t think anybody would classify that horn as a bass today.

Cheers,
Andy

I know for a fact 7 and 8b are .562, i have them here.

Also, I agree is not night and day between .562 and .593. I actually quite like .562 rotors/wraps on a bass.

One size larger makes sense.
My Bach dependent bass has the second valve in C as one more size larger then the F. Plays very open.

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:15 am Also, I agree is not night and day between .552 and .593. I actually quite like .562 rotors/wraps on a bass.

The tighter the bend, the larger the effective size of the bore. This is the complication that gets neglected. To the sound wave, a bend in tubing can look like a straight tube with a section of expanded bore.

timothy42b wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:31 am

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:15 am Also, I agree is not night and day between .552 and .593. I actually quite like .562 rotors/wraps on a bass.

The tighter the bend, the larger the effective size of the bore. This is the complication that gets neglected. To the sound wave, a bend in tubing can look like a straight tube with a section of expanded bore.

Maybe im reading this wrong. Are you suggesting that if one were so inclined to use a larger bore on a tight bend it would have an advantage? (I ask because i do this)

Actually, one could argue the point that you don't need any tuning slides on a tenor or bass trombone because you're playing a tuning slide. See my profile for a description of my Conn 62H open wrap that Larry Minick built for me in 1974-75. The stock 62H had a heavy slide with in-slide tuning. I had Larry make a light slide with no tuning so the horn had no main tuning slide. Having the nice tapered shoulder pipe and light slide really opened up the horn. It was pitched a bit sharp so I played first position slightly extended which I preferred and no springs.

We discussed removing the F and E flat tuning slides but decided it wasn't worth the trouble. The horn was all stock Conn 62H parts except for a Bach 50B leader pipe. The horn is almost completely balanced at the mid point and very easy to play all day long with minimal fatigue. Larry had a stack of raw Conn 62H bells and I found one that was 9 1/8" and we didn't lacquer the horn. Wonderful big band studio horn with a beautiful rich sound and a bit of sizzle to be heard out front or get on the mic. Very, very responsive horn. We also retained the original 62H valve trigger setup as it was faster than having a side paddle. Not having a side paddle helps in gripping the horn.

If you have a talented repair person available, by all means try some of your ideas. I was a regular a Larry's shop in Culver City, CA for 5 years during my time in LA and was an "informal" tester for Larry. I learned a lot at other people's expense.

Jim Ehrmin

LIBrassCo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:50 am

timothy42b wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:31 am

The tighter the bend, the larger the effective size of the bore. This is the complication that gets neglected. To the sound wave, a bend in tubing can look like a straight tube with a section of expanded bore.

Maybe im reading this wrong. Are you suggesting that if one were so inclined to use a larger bore on a tight bend it would have an advantage? (I ask because i do this)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Intuitively it seems like a tight bend would have more resistance, so you should make the bore wider to compensate. However it is actually the opposite. There might be more resistance to air flow, but not to sound wave. To the sound wave, a tight bend already appears to be a larger bore. So you could maybe go smaller, e.g. inside a valve. (and this may be why we don't use our valves much in the high register, whereas French horns, tubas, and trumpets don't have that problem)