TromboneChat

Hi All-

I've got a Bach 50B2 that I just picked up and I'm having an issue I hope you can help shed some light on. No matter what I do I can not get the thing up to pitch. Always 20-25 cents flat.

This one still has the valve linkage where both valves are operated by the thumb. The slide receiver obviously has been replaced from a horn with a traditional thumb and middle finger valve setup (you can see the diamond shaped outline from where the old second valve linkage was attached). Does anyone have an original 50B2 that is willing to verify how long that slide receiver is on their horn? I am not sure if this is the standard "all bach basses need to be cut down" thing, or if that replacement slide receiver was taken from a different Bach model that has a longer slide receiver.

Thanks,

Jared

Is this your first bass trombone?  Often the first bass and bass mouthpiece are much larger than what you used to play and your embouchure is set up for the smaller mouthpiece.  This makes the horn flat.

If you have this problem with all bass trombones you may be using too big a mouthpiece for the state of your embouchure.

I wouldn't rule out the fact that there might be a "long" receiver.  But it would have to be pretty long to make you 25 cents flat!

Not new to bass. I have a masters degree in Trombone performance and have been playing bass for 20 years.

Primarily play a Shires. Just picked up a Bach as a potential second horn.

Quote from: jwebster on Yesterday at 08:24 PMHi All-

I've got a Bach 50B2 that I just picked up and I'm having an issue I hope you can help shed some light on. No matter what I do I can not get the thing up to pitch. Always 20-25 cents flat.

This one still has the valve linkage where both valves are operated by the thumb. The slide receiver obviously has been replaced from a horn with a traditional thumb and middle finger valve setup (you can see the diamond shaped outline from where the old second valve linkage was attached). Does anyone have an original 50B2 that is willing to verify how long that slide receiver is on their horn? I am not sure if this is the standard "all bach basses need to be cut down" thing, or if that replacement slide receiver was taken from a different Bach model that has a longer slide receiver.

Thanks,

Jared
The hand slide receiver on all Bach basses is the longest hand slide receiver that I know of from modern basses.  Any other make is 1/2 inch shorter.

Bach basses are just built flat.
Andy

Bachs are long. I do have a 50B2 (and have had two in the past). I play them with the tuning slide all the way in, or nearly so. However, they are not any more flat than a stock 50B or othe rotor 50 model.

Yours was converted from split triggers back to stock? That seems pretty backwards!

jwebster, I recall that short tuning slides were an option you could order on all Bach basses a few years ago. The cutting to raise pitch problem has been around for at least 75 years.
The R&D for the 50B and 50B2 was done when players had smaller oral cavities, and when mouthpieces were indeed smaller and had cups of smaller internal volume.

As for the Bach 50B3??-- you can't convince me that there was any R&D for that model. I think they just looked at a picture of another horn and got the torches out.......

If it is long enough to accommodate the cut try, 1/2" per side to start, it can't hurt, as you can then pull the slide out if you didn't get relief, and you can cut more if it does make an improvement.

Also, the mod who mistook you for a beginner has also mistaken a student of Charlie Vernon for a beginner. Of course, mods here on a faceless internet on TTF also mistake beginners frequently -- they assume that because kids have access to a computer they also have a teacher.

  Please don't take being mistaken too personally, it happens very frequently here on TTF. We are all anonymous.

I have had the same issue with Bachs.  My current valve section came from a prominent pro player and arrived from him with the tuning slide already cut to remedy the issue.  I do believe that the horns are flat, but also think that though we have all become accustomed to the massive modern mouthpieces, they are still pushing us flat, making the length of the Bachs more problematic than ever.  Even as a doubler, I consider a 1-1/2 on the smaller end of the size spectrum to attain a sound that fits with a section of other in shape players on orchestral sized instruments. 

Years ago, I bought a early 70's Bach 50B. It was too flat(I play a 1&1/2G). Had a tech cut 1/2 inch off the tuning slide. Problem solved.

I've had to cut down the tuning slide of every Bach trombone I've owned except a 36.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I was aware of Bachs generally playing flat, but wanted to make sure that trait was not being exacerbated by this being the wrong replacement part. I'll just assume the replacement part is right.

Re: being converted from split back to stock: not sure if that is what happened or if the slide receiver needed to be replaced at some point and the part they used was from a horn with split triggers. I am assuming option 2 but I have no evidence to back that up.

Also, no offense taken!

If you have a chance, try your bell section with an Edwards slide. I think they are a little shorter, and may solve the problem. Then maybe work out a trade with someone?

I had my Bach bass tune slide cut short in the 70's.

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Today at 05:13 AMjwebster, I recall that short tuning slides were an option you could order on all Bach basses a few years ago. The cutting to raise pitch problem has been around for at least 75 years.
The R&D for the 50B and 50B2 was done when players had smaller oral cavities



When players had smaller oral cavities?

You know, I see the terms "large" and "small" oral cavity used here quite a lot by different people. How do you know for sure if you have a large or small oral cavity? In fact what is an average oral cavity? I dont think I have ever heard of anyone going to the dentist to have them remark on the unusal size of their oral cavity. Is it dependant on how many marshmallows you can fit in your mouth at any one time? 
 
I suspect this is a made up term by trombone players.... but I would love to be proven wrong and find out where my own oral cavity sits on the scale.

Quote from: bigbassbone1 on Today at 06:42 PMWhen players had smaller oral cavities?

You know, I see the terms "large" and "small" oral cavity used here quite a lot by different people. How do you know for sure if you have a large or small oral cavity? In fact what is an average oral cavity? I dont think I have ever heard of anyone going to the dentist to have them remark on the unusal size of their oral cavity. Is it dependant on how many marshmallows you can fit in your mouth at any one time? 
 
I suspect this is a made up term by trombone players.... but I would love to be proven wrong and find out where my own oral cavity sits on the scale.

This made me chuckle and reminded me about the scene in the Coneheads movie where Dan Akroyd is at the dentist and the dentist keeps telling him to open wider... hehehe.



--Andy in OKC

Some who post, have HUGE oral cavities-at their keyboards....

I wonder how many tuningslides on Bach bass trombones that are cut? Many many. I had to cut quite a few my self. I do know lots of other bass bone players who hade their tuning slide cut, so it is very common.

You'd think the Bach builders would catch on after a while and just make the darn tuning slide shorter.  They must be deaf and blind.

In any case, I feel most trombones are built on the flat side.  To me the average player should need to have the tuning slide out about 3/8 of the total slide movement, but instead most seem to be substantially less than 1/4 or 3/16 of the total movement.  What's with that?

Of all my trombones only the Blessing B88 and the plastic Tiger are truly capable of playing in tune outside on a cold winter's day.

Quote from: svenlarsson on Dec 30, 2017, 07:25AMI wonder how many tuningslides on Bach bass trombones that are cut? Many many. I had to cut quite a few my self. I do know lots of other bass bone players who hade their tuning slide cut, so it is very common.

Did you find this an issue with both Bach singles and doubles? I as because I wonder if when adding the 2nd valve if proper allowances were made in the design to account for the added length of the 2nd valve?

There is a well known explanation of the phenomena of the larger oral cavity-

Arnold Jacobs, tubist of the CSO, was sharing a master class in Japan with a much physically smaller Japanese tubist. The much smaller tubist borrowed Jacobs' horn to demonstrate something, and found that he had to pull the tuning slide about 4".  ( 8" total to bring it into tune.)( As I recall the story, it has been over 35 years since I read it in print.......)

The world's authority on all things brass and physical, Jacobs, attributed the difference in tuning slide pull between players using the same horn and mouthpiece, as the proof that the difference was the oral cavity. Jacobs was huge-- he pushed the slide in. His professional counterpart was tiny, he pulled it 4" to get the same tuning.

Think about it-- the horn has no brain. The horn has no idea where the mouthpiece ends, and the oral cavity begins. As far as the brainless horn knows, the length of the horn always includes the oral cavity, and the volume of it, perhaps as far back as the uvula and glottis.

***
I had occasion myself to be examined by a ear/nose/throat specialist for an unrelated medical exam. I asked the doctor to measure my oral cavity, after telling him the Jacobs story, and explaining that I had occasion to cut most of my horns. The specialist just inserted a small white plastic ruler to take a reading in cm. As suspected my oral cavity-- a large adult's male oral cavity-- was larger than normal, but well within human limits. On the larger size limit, and confirmed by specialist.

I cut most of my horns.
We ARE as a species larger now.

Go to any vintage clothing shop. You'll find that most of the extant vintage men's hats are size 7 or slightly smaller. Now, this is a very unscientific example, and I freely admit that perhaps the smaller hats survived because nobody wore them, or perhaps because they were well cared for, or they are still for sale because nobody has a size 7 head now.

Bach bass bones are frequently cut because the $$$$$ rules all. If they sold at the length they were built, nobody bothered to redo the R&D, if they were cut, it was no skin off of the noses of the Bach R&D team.
A team which likely never existed.

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Dec 30, 2017, 05:30PMThere is a well known explanation of the phenomena of the larger oral cavity-

Arnold Jacobs, tubist of the CSO, was sharing a master class in Japan with a much physically smaller Japanese tubist. The much smaller tubist borrowed Jacobs' horn to demonstrate something, and found that he had to pull the tuning slide about 4".  ( 8" total to bring it into tune.)( As I recall the story, it has been over 35 years since I read it in print.......)

The world's authority on all things brass and physical, Jacobs, attributed the difference in tuning slide pull between players using the same horn and mouthpiece, as the proof that the difference was the oral cavity. Jacobs was huge-- he pushed the slide in. His professional counterpart was tiny, he pulled it 4" to get the same tuning.

Think about it-- the horn has no brain. The horn has no idea where the mouthpiece ends, and the oral cavity begins. As far as the brainless horn knows, the length of the horn always includes the oral cavity, and the volume of it, perhaps as far back as the uvula and glottis.

***
I had occasion myself to be examined by a ear/nose/throat specialist for an unrelated medical exam. I asked the doctor to measure my oral cavity, after telling him the Jacobs story, and explaining that I had occasion to cut most of my horns. The specialist just inserted a small white plastic ruler to take a reading in cm. As suspected my oral cavity-- a large adult's male oral cavity-- was larger than normal, but well within human limits. On the larger size limit, and confirmed by specialist.

I cut most of my horns.
We ARE as a species larger now.

Go to any vintage clothing shop. You'll find that most of the extant vintage men's hats are size 7 or slightly smaller. Now, this is a very unscientific example, and I freely admit that perhaps the smaller hats survived because nobody wore them, or perhaps because they were well cared for, or they are still for sale because nobody has a size 7 head now.

Bach bass bones are frequently cut because the $$$$$ rules all. If they sold at the length they were built, nobody bothered to redo the R&D, if they were cut, it was no skin off of the noses of the Bach R&D team.
A team which likely never existed.


Hmmmmmmmm..... maybe. I am still very skeptical. Its possible the only difference between Jacobs and this other player was their oral cavities..... but I doubt it. There are so many other factors and variables happening when someone plays, that I dont think you can really just single out the oral cavity as the only difference.

Well, you are the first person to tell me they actually had their oral cavity measured. So did the specialist tell you what a "normal" reading would have been? 

Numbers mean NOTHING.

An extreme example: When my daughter was born she was one of the rare kids who refused both soothers and other pacifiers. However, if we inverted a hand and gave her a little finger tip to suck she was quite happy and pacified. Her oral cavity at birth was the size of only the tip of an adult finger.
That was perfectly normal.

Children have small oral cavities until they lose their baby teeth and grow a larger jaw to accommodate adult teeth.

I'm 6'2", and a very large adult male/ size 16 shoes. Quite normal for my gender and age. Why do you suspect that my oral cavity does not also reflect my size, say, relative to a female of my species.

Look at it this way--- beginners of the age 10 to 12 have small faces. A Bach 12C mouthpiece might completely cover the whole embouchre of a very small kid aged 10, and their oral cavity is relatively small as well.

Yet none of that explains why Bach basses, seemingly more so than any other brand of trombone in existence, have to be shortened to be usable.

Quote from: BillO on Dec 30, 2017, 07:47AMYou'd think the Bach builders would catch on after a while and just make the darn tuning slide shorter.  They must be deaf and blind.
...
Nah, they are just faithful to old ideas to a fault.  You may have noticed that they still make two basses that are Bb/F/bE and make it a pain to buy a slide to put it in Eb or D.

Of course, the really funny thing is that they DID shorten the tuning slides from V.B.’s original designs.  Just not enough.  Really, check out the straight tuning slide lengths on some original Mt.V and NY large tenors and basses.  Hilariously too long.

Cheers,
Andy

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Dec 30, 2017, 06:26PMNumbers mean NOTHING.

An extreme example: When my daughter was born she was one of the rare kids who refused both soothers and other pacifiers. However, if we inverted a hand and gave her a little finger tip to suck she was quite happy and pacified. Her oral cavity at birth was the size of only the tip of an adult finger.
That was perfectly normal.

Children have small oral cavities until they lose their baby teeth and grow a larger jaw to accommodate adult teeth.

I'm 6'2", and a very large adult male/ size 16 shoes. Quite normal for my gender and age. Why do you suspect that my oral cavity does not also reflect my size, say, relative to a female of my species.

Look at it this way--- beginners of the age 10 to 12 have small faces. A Bach 12C mouthpiece might completely cover the whole embouchre of a very small kid aged 10, and their oral cavity is relatively small as well.





No im not saying your oral cavity doesnt reflect your size, Im saying what you just said. Numbers mean nothing. To me, It seems like an odd thing to bring up when talking about things that affect how you play the trombone. Seeing as how having a small or large oral cavity doesnt really have to impact how you sound I am just surprised whenever I see someone mention it.
You dont have to have a big face to play a big brass instrument and vice versa....

This discussion has probably gone on too long for its purpose. My original point was that mentioning oral cavities in most cases seems to be a mostly self diagnosed thing which bears little to no relevance in trombone playing. I would bet being a big person doesnt always mean you have a big oral cavity (apparently in your case it does), but im surprised at how many people assume their own is small or large....

I bet mine is average 

I do not believe that trombone players as a whole had smaller oral cavities in the 40s and 50s than they do today.  Why would that be true?

And why aren't the old Conns flat?  Or Holtons?...

For what it is worth, my 1966 50B is a bit flatter than the other basses I own or have played.  Warmed up in a average room, I am pulled out 1/4" or less.  Works for me.

I had a closed single valve Bach 50B during my freshmen year.  It was my very first bass and used for a year until I went to high school my sophomore year to use the school's Benge 290.

I had pretty good results with it and it was probably one of the best Bach 50s I've personally played.  As of flatness, I didn't pulled the main tuning that much but I was a young student so I didn't know much back then but looking back, it did somewhat played on the flat side but, hey it was years ago.

Quote from: MrPillow on Dec 30, 2017, 06:54PMYet none of that explains why Bach basses, seemingly more so than any other brand of trombone in existence, have to be shortened to be usable.
The most convincing theory I've seen is mouthpiece design. Bach trombones are made to be played with Bach mouthpieces, and when you start introducing larger mouthpieces that make horns play flatter in general, Bach trombones are going to play even flatter. Things are going to be flat on Bach especially if you play with your slide off the bumpers!

Even Bach trumpets play kind of weird if you use them with a non Bach mouthpiece or a mouthpiece that strays to far off from the original Bach dimensions. There's a reason why MK Drawing makes such a killing on their Bach trumpet tuning slides and leadpipes.

Quote from: greenbean on Dec 30, 2017, 07:21PMAnd why aren't the old Conns flat?  Or Holtons?...
Every Holton TR180 and TR185 I've played with a Schilke 60 sized mouthpiece has been on the flatter side of things much like a Bach 50B. My Minick bass trombone is much the same way. I push out maybe a 1/10th of an inch on all the above mentioned horns.

Honestly I'd rather have a horn on the flatter side then have a horn built intentionally sharp for large mouthpieces like a Getzen or Edwards bass trombones are built. IMO a horn plays best with the tuning slide in as far as possible and being forced to have the tuning slide out 1-2 inches isn't that appealing to me.

If all Bach trombones played flat, and needed to be cut to be usable, then we could expect the vast majority of used Bach trombones to have cut tuning slides. I have seen a lot of used Bach trombones, and I can tell you that this simply is not true. The vast majority retain the original length tuning slide. Some players need to cut the tuning slides. To make an absolute statement that "Bachs are flat" is wrong, because it depends on the player. Personally, I have never played a Bach trombone that was too flat for me to play in tune. Shires trombones do play sharper than Bach trombones, but you can't categorically say one is right and the other is wrong, and have that be true for all players. I don't know about my oral cavity, but I do have a large hat size. But I also work a lot on making sure that my lips are buzzing the same note through the mouthpiece that I am playing on the horn, whereas many players tend to buzz a pitch that is lower than the note they are playing, and I think that pulls the pitch down.

Another theory, Blowero, and no disrespect, just an observation:

There are lots of USED Bach trombones floating around out there because of one of two reasons
1/ Slightly worn vintage horns are sold more frequently now that there are literally thousands of choices in the modern boutique horn world
2/ Used Bachs are on the market because the former owners just finally got fed up with fighting a horn that was flat, and it didn't occur to them to just cut it and keep it. They were convinced that the horn was a dog, and sold it, instead of looking into why.
The good ones-- in tune ones-- are kept, the bad ones are flipped.

And, yes, all of the Bach mouthpiece R&D was done and dusted decades BEFORE the advent of the double valve horn even existed. Bach 2G and 1 1/2G were pre-WWII designs. The 1 1/4 never showed up until after the company sale in 1960s, and not until the late 70s.

Plug a 2G into a flat Bach, and the pitch does rise, as does the rise in pithc occur when you have a smaller oral cavity in conjunction with  smaller 2G designed mouthpiece.

If you do want to see if your horn is flat, play a Bb in 1st position. See if the tuner you're checking it on is registering it is   showing it as in tune. Match the 1st position note with the same note in #5. Play with your chops and the slide to see if the sound improves, or the horn is more brilliant in sound ( not sharper, just more brilliant) as you adjust the slide to a sharper #5.
There is your answer.

Why would anyone accept the sound that might be produced with a flat horn, if it is less brilliant? Because the mind is a fickle thing. You drop thousands of dollars on a horn, and you refuse to believe that you've bought a poor design, especially when a Bach was/is supposed to be a quality horn.

Do the 1st position vs #5 experiment, It is quite surprising.

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Dec 31, 2017, 07:19AMAnother theory, Blowero, and no disrespect, just an observation:

There are lots of USED Bach trombones floating around out there because of one of two reasons
1/ Slightly worn vintage horns are sold more frequently now that there are literally thousands of choices in the modern boutique horn world
2/ Used Bachs are on the market because the former owners just finally got fed up with fighting a horn that was flat, and it didn't occur to them to just cut it and keep it. They were convinced that the horn was a dog, and sold it, instead of looking into why.
The good ones-- in tune ones-- are kept, the bad ones are flipped.

No disrespect intended, but here is why I disagree with your theory:

1. There are lots of ALL used trombones floating around, not just Bachs.

2. The idea being promoted in this thread is not that there are "good ones" and "flat ones", but rather that Bachs are ALL flat. And again, if that were the case, then they would ALL have to be cut down, and they are not all cut down. In fact, very few of them are cut down.

3. I can't accept the idea that Bach manufactured hundreds of thousands of trombones just so people can buy them, realize that they are no good, and "flip" them. Bitcoin maybe, but trombones, no. The Bach 42 and the Conn 88H were THE standard for a long time, and were used in most major symphonies. If this were a horn that is unusably flat, that just couldn't have occurred. It's impossible.

Good points, Blowero, and you likely see, as a repair person hundreds times more horns than the rest of us.

Likely the Bach 42s aren't prone to being flat because most folk blow them with a 5G size mouthpiece, unlike the BASS versions played with mouthpieces larger than the Bach 1G.

As for the piles of Bachs floating around, remember that here on TTF lots of press is given to the relative worth of any Bach only being fit to play in Texan marching bands, or for beginners, until daddy and mummy can buy them a new Shires.......

I've seen and owned a not-insignificamt number of Bach basses. Only 1, a '70s 50B2 was cut.

Plenty of 42s being played out there with large mouthpieces, too. The 42 is a little shorter in general, I think.

Quote from: Blowero on Dec 31, 2017, 12:37PMNo disrespect intended, but here is why I disagree with your theory:

1. There are lots of ALL used trombones floating around, not just Bachs.

2. The idea being promoted in this thread is not that there are "good ones" and "flat ones", but rather that Bachs are ALL flat. And again, if that were the case, then they would ALL have to be cut down, and they are not all cut down. In fact, very few of them are cut down.

3. I can't accept the idea that Bach manufactured hundreds of thousands of trombones just so people can buy them, realize that they are no good, and "flip" them. Bitcoin maybe, but trombones, no. The Bach 42 and the Conn 88H were THE standard for a long time, and were used in most major symphonies. If this were a horn that is unusably flat, that just couldn't have occurred. It's impossible.
No, really... Bach changed the design length of the straight sections of tuning slide. The design closed length was too long and they changed it.  I don’t have my 50B original tubes anymore, but the straight parts were about 1/2” longer.  I’m too lazy to get a camera or tape measure, but I can show this on my 42s, as I have a 90s Elkhart and a MTV downstairs.  Bachs were designed too long, the factory made a change, and it still wasn’t enough to match the market.

Oh, and the Conn Fuchs down there is also too long.

Cheers,
Andy

Look at the main tuning slide from the initial conversion of my Bach bass. Big leg is closed, original length of tuning slide. Small leg, which was a new 2006ish part. Notice how it is shorter and not seated? The tube is just shorter, man, not mis aligned. Yes, I fixed this later.

(Note to mods the pic is in my gallery here if I mucked up the link)

Cheers,
Andy

Bear in mind too that Bach hand slides are a little longer than other "contemporary" designs.  Edwards and Shires will make you a Bach length slide. I played on a 42 with a Shires 525 slide (and occasionally a Shires 562 slide) when I was woking on a masters degree and both combinations worked better for me than the stock slide. Although I never, ironically, tried the combination with a 547 slide other than the stock one so way too many variables to make that advice be heeded with anything other than a big grain of salt.

I have played a bunch of 50B's made between 1966 and 2000-ish.  They were all identical in terms of tuning slides.  So, perhaps Bach shortened them sometime after 2000...

I don't have the experience with multiple Bachs that many of you do.  I've only played my own, purchased in 1971.  It came with a 4G mouthpiece. 

I just tried the Bb in #5 experiment.  I couldn't tell any difference.  I'll give it another shot later when I can record it.

But anyway.  A what if? occurs to me.

What if over the years since the Bach was designed, our collective tone concept has changed?  If our concept is darker, perhaps we play lower in the slot, hence flatter.  And if people who choose Bach partly do so because Bachs are supposed to play darker, we're selecting for people who tend to play lower. 

One more point for somebody of a more recent vintage than myself to post about-

So many Bach basses were being cut to accommodate the use of the original length Schilke mouthpieces, that eventually Schilke changed to a standard Morse taper ( Bach taper) and Bach shank length.

When did this happen?
I think we can all agree that it happened to fix in part the flatness problem of the horns most likely to be used with the original length Schilke pieces ( Bach basses).

I am a big guy with a low voice. I sing too low to sing bass in the choir.
All of my 547 Edwards slides are cut and my Bach bass is cut a lot.
My small bore Edwards is ok all the way in. It will be cut soon.
Funny my Conn alto is ok almost all the way in and ok.
I also play my 1st position out a 1/4" to 3/8" so that makes a need for shorter.
It is the person not the horn that determines the length of tubing beyond the face to resonate the pitch.

Quote from: elmsandr on Dec 31, 2017, 05:43PM
Look at the main tuning slide from the initial conversion of my Bach bass. Big leg is closed, original length of tuning slide. Small leg, which was a new 2006ish part. Notice how it is shorter and not seated? The tube is just shorter, man, not mis aligned. Yes, I fixed this later.

(Note to mods the pic is in my gallery here if I mucked up the link)

Cheers,
Andy

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't follow as to why you didn't use the original tuning slide tube in the conversion, and how you know the Thayer valve set isn't just shorter than the original valve set.

Quote from: Blowero on Jan 01, 2018, 12:07PMI'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't follow as to why you didn't use the original tuning slide tube in the conversion, and how you know the Thayer valve set isn't just shorter than the original valve set.
Because I wanted to keep the original dependent section.  Parts were cheap enough I didn’t worry about it.

And the length of the valve section is irrelevant.  I’m only talking about the length of the straight section of the tuning slides.  The length of the valve section would matter for the overall tuning of the horn, I’m just pointing out that bach noticed the issue and made a change on their own.  Not sure when, but somewhere between 1969 and 2004.

They aren’t “too long” for most to play them without issue, even at a high professional level.  Just that let’s say the design intent is for most to play with the horn @ A440 with the tuning slide out ~1/2-3/4” out.  My guess is that they missed that by at least 3/16ths.   Just enough for those that play on the extreme of pitch to not have any room on the slide to adjust.

Cheers,
Andy

I assume Bach shortened the tuning slides sometime in the 60s.  My MV was too long so I cut it.  I also have two corps from the 70s that are the modern length.

Quote from: miketrombone on Jan 01, 2018, 09:41PMI assume Bach shortened the tuning slides sometime in the 60s.  My MV was too long so I cut it.  I also have two corps from the 70s that are the modern length.

I am glad I found out about this. I almost bought a Bach 50A3...I think that this would not have gotten by Vincent if he was still alive and running the company.

I do have one tuning slide with an abnormally long bell side leg. The bottom was cut to fit my Thayers (I assume), so it's both shorter and longer than all my other tuning slides. MV? It should be a Corporation setup.

Interesting thread!
Swedish people are often on the tall size. Pitch standard in Swedish orchestras are A=442Hz. Both single valve Bach basses and double valve basses do often have shortend tuning slides in Sweden.
About mouth cavity. I have an unusualy big mouth cavity, checked by my dentist. I don´t know, but I tend to belive that it can have an effect on the tuning. The idea of buzzing to low or high is interesting, most people who play trombone for their living try to play the horn with the best sound possible I believe, not many players compare their mpc buzzing F with the F played in the horn. Yes some do, but not so many that it should have an inpact of the most players tuning issues.
Older trombone players in Sweden, older the me, (I am 73) very often played all D:s above the staff on 4th position to be in tune. And the Bb on the bumper.

Quote from: svenlarsson on Jan 02, 2018, 03:18AMI don´t know, but I tend to belive that it can have an effect on the tuning.


I had not thought of that until username Liche mentioned it long ago.  He was trying to model the trombone mathematically for his thesis and if I recall correctly said he had to include some of the mouth and throat. 

Quote from: elmsandr on Jan 01, 2018, 06:59PMBecause I wanted to keep the original dependent section.  Parts were cheap enough I didn’t worry about it.

And the length of the valve section is irrelevant.  I’m only talking about the length of the straight section of the tuning slides.  The length of the valve section would matter for the overall tuning of the horn, I’m just pointing out that bach noticed the issue and made a change on their own.  Not sure when, but somewhere between 1969 and 2004.

They aren’t “too long” for most to play them without issue, even at a high professional level.  Just that let’s say the design intent is for most to play with the horn @ A440 with the tuning slide out ~1/2-3/4” out.  My guess is that they missed that by at least 3/16ths.   Just enough for those that play on the extreme of pitch to not have any room on the slide to adjust.

Cheers,
Andy
Well no, it's not irrelevant. If the length of the thayer section you installed was shorter from where it connects to the receiver, to the tuning slide tube, then there would be a gap, even if the new tuning slide outer were the same length as the old one. You seemed to be saying the fact that there's a gap proves the new part is shorter than the old part. Maybe you also compared the two parts side by side,  but you didn't say that you did.

Quote from: Blowero on Jan 02, 2018, 08:14AMWell no, it's not irrelevant. If the length of the thayer section you installed was shorter from where it connects to the receiver, to the tuning slide tube, then there would be a gap, even if the new tuning slide outer were the same length as the old one. You seemed to be saying the fact that there's a gap proves the new part is shorter than the old part. Maybe you also compared the two parts side by side,  but you didn't say that you did.
Dang it, Brad, just look at the picture!  The tuning slide on the small side is actually too close to the tuning slide if you look, not too close to the handslide receiver that would be required by what you state. Recall that this ferrule from Bach is countersunk for the tuning slide receiver, so it sits flush into a shoulder on the ferrule.  That is, you can assemble the ferrule and receiver sitting on the bench without the horn. FWIW, I put the handslide receiver joint in the exact place it was on the original because I didn't want to screw up the bell rim placement relative to my face.

On this initial mount, I cheated the the small one towards the tuning slide bow because it was shorter.  The straight sections of nickel tubing are different length.  A picture isn't a good way to exactly measure this, but it is off by about 1/2".  It would still be off if the valves were sitting in the box unopened just looking at the brace locations relative to the ferrules and main tuning slide bow.  The small and large tuning slide tubes are supposed to be the same length. They were the same length on the factory parts, they were not when I mixed parts of different vintages (the entire point of the picture). For fun, I also had to trim the main tuning slide tube on the NY45 when I made that tuning slide and bell flare fit the same valve section later (and planning for a NY50 that is sitting next to it).  Having had to make the same cut several times, you tend to remember it.  Especially if you lose one of those little beauty rings on the end of the tuning slide. 

I'll take some pictures and measurements of my 42 parts later to show this if I have a chance when I get home.

Cheers,
Andy

I's a flat Bach anything like fatback?

Quote from: BillO on Jan 02, 2018, 10:50AMI's a flat Bach anything like fatback?

No.  I have a fat back but my Bach is not flat.