I'm starting to delve into the small bore world, where narrow slides reign supreme. Due to the angle I play on (down/left), the gooseneck of many instruments press against the bone behind my left ear. I can get away with playing a Bach 36, but smaller horns and some basses are problematic. The exit tubing from the second valve of an independent thayer setup, for example, makes it a no-go.
These ergonomics haven't been a problem with larger horns, but are problematic with anything small bore. I've been getting around this by having the shanks of mouthpieces bent in order to fit. This works surprisingly well. I can't speak to what effect this has on the blow of the mouthpiece (I imagine it's not improving it...) since I'm a small-shank rookie compared to the rest of my professional career.
Bending shanks does make it difficult to test a mouthpiece, however, and then makes it impossible to sell if I decided I don't like it.
So what would you do?
1. Continue buying used mouthpieces and having the shanks bent to suit?
2. Pursue a "wide glide" slide conversion on my Bach 16M?
The wide-glide crooks are a little wider than a Bach 36, so it means I could play whatever mouthpiece I like. I've had an initial chat with DJ about sourcing one...
Any thoughts?
Andrew
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Wide glide.
Have you tried "opening up" the dihedral angle? That helped for me.
Have you tried "opening up" the dihedral angle? That helped for me.
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: BGuttman on Dec 27, 2016, 03:10PMHave you tried "opening up" the dihedral angle? That helped for me.
Minimal effect. The gooseneck can't really get any further away that the maximum width of the slide. I've experimented with all sorts of ergonomic tweaks, but they tend to gain millimetres, not centimetres. The biggest gain was playing left-handed, but let's not go into that conversation...
Andrew
Minimal effect. The gooseneck can't really get any further away that the maximum width of the slide. I've experimented with all sorts of ergonomic tweaks, but they tend to gain millimetres, not centimetres. The biggest gain was playing left-handed, but let's not go into that conversation...
Andrew
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
How much does a slide widening cost?
-
ttf_Horn Builder
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Slide widening would be the cost of the part, and the time for the tech to install it. Maybe couple hundred, or less, depending on the cost of both of those things....
M
M
-
ttf_HouBassTrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Making the slide wider will change everything about how the horn plays. That would effect resale value unless you spent the money to have it returned to original shape if sold. So what is cheaper? I would think bending mps would be more cost effective in the long run.
-
ttf_Horn Builder
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
What's more important to you? Resale value, or play-ability?
It's your horn, and your call!
M
It's your horn, and your call!
M
-
ttf_greenbean
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
I would rather have a horn that fits me. Unless you are sure you will be selling it soon, go for it. Just have a good tech do it.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Maybe it would change everything, but perhaps that change is very, very small?
The change in the shape of the air column would be less than if you changed out rotor valves for Thayer valves or some other similar thing and no one frets about that alteration.
The change in the shape of the air column would be less than if you changed out rotor valves for Thayer valves or some other similar thing and no one frets about that alteration.
-
ttf_hyperbolica
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
I put a wide crook on my 10h. It did change the response of the instrument, but was very much in character with the horn. I can play the same slide on 6h and 48h.
The wide crook was about $60, and resoldering/aligning the slide was another $100. You've also got to transfer the water key, hole, crook guard and end pin.
My usual slide is a 79h, which is wide-ish.
The mouthpiece bending solution is cheaper and affects the horn less, and is easy to transfer from horn to horn.
I have a wide neck and can only play my very narrow 30h if I rotate the slide so the lower slide is directly horizontal from the top tube. I can play an 88h width slide ok, but I generally avoid smaller width slides.
The wide crook was about $60, and resoldering/aligning the slide was another $100. You've also got to transfer the water key, hole, crook guard and end pin.
My usual slide is a 79h, which is wide-ish.
The mouthpiece bending solution is cheaper and affects the horn less, and is easy to transfer from horn to horn.
I have a wide neck and can only play my very narrow 30h if I rotate the slide so the lower slide is directly horizontal from the top tube. I can play an 88h width slide ok, but I generally avoid smaller width slides.
-
ttf_Bellend
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
I too have a similar problem in that I have a wide neck and also play at quite an extreme downward angle.
I have now got bending mouthpieces down to a fine art and friends who have blown them before and after have found surprisingly little change in the blow.
Even on the bass trombone I found the narrower Conn bass slides a bit small and managed to fit a Greenhoe wide slide crook to my old 62H which has worked out really well. This was a copy of an original Conn wide bow available to special order in the 1920's /30's that is even wider than a Bach.
I have recently returned to playing the small tenor again so am presently facing the same dilemma
with regards changing the bottom crook. To that end I measured up a few of the crooks I have knocking about to see what bore they were as I think it is important to try and stay as close to the original as possible.
These were measured with an old and slightly worn pair of vernier callipers but an old Bach mounting sheet I have a copy of lists the model 12 crook (which is what I believe they use on the 16M) at .536" so I think it is fairly accurate. also, all the crooks are brand new old stock that have never been mounted so should not be distorted out of round.
Hand Slide Crook Dimension Chart
Model I.D. Crook Width I.D.
Selmer Bolero 14.1mm /.555" 71.5mm/ 2.3/4"
Bach 16M 13.6 / .535" 68mm/ 2. 11/8"
Besson 941 13.3 / .520" 80mm/ 3 3/8"
Wide Glide 14mm / .551" 80.6mm/ 3 3/8"
As you will see the wide glide is considerably larger in bore than the standard 16M (may be off a large bore?) so I would be very surprised if it didn't alter the blow a bit. Whether it will be better or worse I can't say but it will be different, it's a matter of trial and error. I am shortly going to try putting the Besson 941 crook on my own 16M. The Besson is as far as I know the only small bore horn that had a wide crook from the factory. I'll let you know how it goes.
Regards
BellEnd
I have now got bending mouthpieces down to a fine art and friends who have blown them before and after have found surprisingly little change in the blow.
Even on the bass trombone I found the narrower Conn bass slides a bit small and managed to fit a Greenhoe wide slide crook to my old 62H which has worked out really well. This was a copy of an original Conn wide bow available to special order in the 1920's /30's that is even wider than a Bach.
I have recently returned to playing the small tenor again so am presently facing the same dilemma
with regards changing the bottom crook. To that end I measured up a few of the crooks I have knocking about to see what bore they were as I think it is important to try and stay as close to the original as possible.
These were measured with an old and slightly worn pair of vernier callipers but an old Bach mounting sheet I have a copy of lists the model 12 crook (which is what I believe they use on the 16M) at .536" so I think it is fairly accurate. also, all the crooks are brand new old stock that have never been mounted so should not be distorted out of round.
Hand Slide Crook Dimension Chart
Model I.D. Crook Width I.D.
Selmer Bolero 14.1mm /.555" 71.5mm/ 2.3/4"
Bach 16M 13.6 / .535" 68mm/ 2. 11/8"
Besson 941 13.3 / .520" 80mm/ 3 3/8"
Wide Glide 14mm / .551" 80.6mm/ 3 3/8"
As you will see the wide glide is considerably larger in bore than the standard 16M (may be off a large bore?) so I would be very surprised if it didn't alter the blow a bit. Whether it will be better or worse I can't say but it will be different, it's a matter of trial and error. I am shortly going to try putting the Besson 941 crook on my own 16M. The Besson is as far as I know the only small bore horn that had a wide crook from the factory. I'll let you know how it goes.
Regards
BellEnd
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
I think you really want to be able to get the mouthpiece on your chops at the optimum angle and location for your embouchure. So an improvement in ergonomics here might more than compensate for any small change in blow.
We know wide slides work.
I wonder though about a gooseneck bend. Would that be possible? Or is there just not enough room past the receiver without a sharp bend?
We know wide slides work.
I wonder though about a gooseneck bend. Would that be possible? Or is there just not enough room past the receiver without a sharp bend?
-
ttf_Matt K
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Bell end's point about it being a larger bore size is correct. As are the points about it being a sunk cost. However, there are two counter ideas to these as well that are related to eachother.
The first is that there are a fair number of people who have converted their Bach 16 and 16M crooks to King 3B crooks and found the difference in blow to be different in a good way if not outright beneficial. There isn't much data on this other than anecdotal, but I'd say that is one of the more common mods that are done to a specific model of horn that I've seen on here. You don't hear nearly as much about any other instrument having as specific of a procedure done, or at least that is my impression of it. The Bach crooks are on the smaller side, perhaps for a reason but perhaps not necessarily to the benefit of 100% of the players who are on them. However, this leads to the second point.
There are a fair amount of players with wide necks and/or embouchure that want a wider slide but are likewise worried about putting the torch to it. I'd imagine that if you did this and didn't like it, there would be someone who would be willing to trade or take it off your hands. Even if the person buying or trading didn't need a wide slide, they might find it to be a good playing instrument because it wouldn't be too far removed from one of the more common modifications to this specific model that already happens.
Are the wide glide slides dual radius? That would probably even be closer to a "bach" feel but more open than a single radius King 3B crook would be.
Food for thought.
The first is that there are a fair number of people who have converted their Bach 16 and 16M crooks to King 3B crooks and found the difference in blow to be different in a good way if not outright beneficial. There isn't much data on this other than anecdotal, but I'd say that is one of the more common mods that are done to a specific model of horn that I've seen on here. You don't hear nearly as much about any other instrument having as specific of a procedure done, or at least that is my impression of it. The Bach crooks are on the smaller side, perhaps for a reason but perhaps not necessarily to the benefit of 100% of the players who are on them. However, this leads to the second point.
There are a fair amount of players with wide necks and/or embouchure that want a wider slide but are likewise worried about putting the torch to it. I'd imagine that if you did this and didn't like it, there would be someone who would be willing to trade or take it off your hands. Even if the person buying or trading didn't need a wide slide, they might find it to be a good playing instrument because it wouldn't be too far removed from one of the more common modifications to this specific model that already happens.
Are the wide glide slides dual radius? That would probably even be closer to a "bach" feel but more open than a single radius King 3B crook would be.
Food for thought.
-
ttf_john sandhagen
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
One thing to consider...(that I have forgotten aboout several times)...is that when you modify your instrument, will it fit back in the case?
RE the wide glide, I'd rather make the instrument ergonomic than adapt myself to a piece of plumbing.
RE the wide glide, I'd rather make the instrument ergonomic than adapt myself to a piece of plumbing.
-
ttf_itisunknown
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
What about the Jupiter 710 "ergonomic" ?
See here: http://www.jupiter.info/en/posaunen-gesamtuebersicht/ergonomic.html
Could this be a mod for other horns?
See here: http://www.jupiter.info/en/posaunen-gesamtuebersicht/ergonomic.html
Could this be a mod for other horns?
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
That Jupiter ergonomic is what I was picturing.
But when I look close, I'm not sure it can work. That curve looks like it will be behind the head, instead of on the neck where needed.
Also, the straighter you hold your horn in front, the less room. Those players with a sharply downward slide angle might make it work, but if you play close to straight in front the curve is farther behind.
Anybody try one?
But when I look close, I'm not sure it can work. That curve looks like it will be behind the head, instead of on the neck where needed.
Also, the straighter you hold your horn in front, the less room. Those players with a sharply downward slide angle might make it work, but if you play close to straight in front the curve is farther behind.
Anybody try one?
-
ttf_Matt K
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: itisunknown on Dec 28, 2016, 10:27AMWhat about the Jupiter 710 "ergonomic" ?
See here: http://www.jupiter.info/en/posaunen-gesamtuebersicht/ergonomic.html
Could this be a mod for other horns?
I was actually surprised at the 710 when I played one at Dillons. Its a pretty respectable horn and is surprisingly comfortable despite how ridiculous looking it is (at least in my opinion). The hand grip is very comfortable to the point where I tried to order the part to see if it would fit on my Shires, but apparently Jupiter doesn't sell the part.
I didn't think the neck pipe being bent would do much on it either, but it actually did make it a little easier to hold. Don't know if Jupiter would sell that part but it may well be a decent solution to this particular problem. Although I'd imagine a wide glide conversion would be better and cheaper than swapping out the neckpipe for this particular part. I'd be really surprised if the neckpipe length was the same between the two horns. Would probably require some other kind of reworking and cause some kind of intonation issue but I could well be wrong about that.
For what its worth, I'm a Reinhardt IIIB (I think that's what Doug told me anyway) and have a very high and slightly left placement.
See here: http://www.jupiter.info/en/posaunen-gesamtuebersicht/ergonomic.html
Could this be a mod for other horns?
I was actually surprised at the 710 when I played one at Dillons. Its a pretty respectable horn and is surprisingly comfortable despite how ridiculous looking it is (at least in my opinion). The hand grip is very comfortable to the point where I tried to order the part to see if it would fit on my Shires, but apparently Jupiter doesn't sell the part.
I didn't think the neck pipe being bent would do much on it either, but it actually did make it a little easier to hold. Don't know if Jupiter would sell that part but it may well be a decent solution to this particular problem. Although I'd imagine a wide glide conversion would be better and cheaper than swapping out the neckpipe for this particular part. I'd be really surprised if the neckpipe length was the same between the two horns. Would probably require some other kind of reworking and cause some kind of intonation issue but I could well be wrong about that.
For what its worth, I'm a Reinhardt IIIB (I think that's what Doug told me anyway) and have a very high and slightly left placement.
-
ttf_BMadsen
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: HouBassTrombone on Dec 27, 2016, 06:48PMMaking the slide wider will change everything about how the horn plays. That would effect resale value unless you spent the money to have it returned to original shape if sold. So what is cheaper? I would think bending mps would be more cost effective in the long run.
This is not necessarily true, depending on how you approach the mod. I wanted a wider slide on my 3b for ergonomic reasons, but wanted to have no to minimal effect on the way the horn played. There were no stock made crooks that would accommodate this change, so I had a custom crook made by Brad Close that was the exact bore of the original crook, with a single radius bend. I had the tuning slide pulled out on that horn so much that I had the ability to push in enough to compensate for the extra length. When it was all said and done, the horn plays so similar that it's hard for me to know if the change was me (the natural variation in chops from day to day), my expectation of change, or the horn itself. All in all, I was in about $400 for all of it. My slide is the width of a Bach 42, so it still fits into most cases just fine.
I went to more extreme lengths than most would - most people I know who have tried this buy a ready made crook, and results are mixed - some are happy, some are not. So, depending on your budget and goals, you may or may not be pleased.
As a side note, I know someone who had their gooseneck bent like the Jupiter. They are happy with the ergonomics, but they said the blow changed tremendously - it's a lot more stuffy now.
This is not necessarily true, depending on how you approach the mod. I wanted a wider slide on my 3b for ergonomic reasons, but wanted to have no to minimal effect on the way the horn played. There were no stock made crooks that would accommodate this change, so I had a custom crook made by Brad Close that was the exact bore of the original crook, with a single radius bend. I had the tuning slide pulled out on that horn so much that I had the ability to push in enough to compensate for the extra length. When it was all said and done, the horn plays so similar that it's hard for me to know if the change was me (the natural variation in chops from day to day), my expectation of change, or the horn itself. All in all, I was in about $400 for all of it. My slide is the width of a Bach 42, so it still fits into most cases just fine.
I went to more extreme lengths than most would - most people I know who have tried this buy a ready made crook, and results are mixed - some are happy, some are not. So, depending on your budget and goals, you may or may not be pleased.
As a side note, I know someone who had their gooseneck bent like the Jupiter. They are happy with the ergonomics, but they said the blow changed tremendously - it's a lot more stuffy now.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: BMadsen on Dec 28, 2016, 11:41AM
As a side note, I know someone who had their gooseneck bent like the Jupiter. They are happy with the ergonomics, but they said the blow changed tremendously - it's a lot more stuffy now.
To the sound wave, a bend "looks" like a wide spot in the tube, which is counterintuitive. You might have to redesign the gooseneck to be narrower there.
As a side note, I know someone who had their gooseneck bent like the Jupiter. They are happy with the ergonomics, but they said the blow changed tremendously - it's a lot more stuffy now.
To the sound wave, a bend "looks" like a wide spot in the tube, which is counterintuitive. You might have to redesign the gooseneck to be narrower there.
-
ttf_Matt K
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
May have changed the overall length of the horn. If you put a bend in it, it'll make it longer. If you make it longer, it'll be flatter and definitely change the overtone series. The Jupiter was designed with a particular length in mind and does seem to be shorter as a result. If anything, the Jupiter plays a little bit too bright, at least for my tastes, but is not stuffy at all. Or at least the one I played was not.
What I think would be interesting is doing an A/B comparison where the neckpipe was made interchangeable with a bent and a "traditional" straight neckpipe. I'd imagine you could bend the bell brace such that you could make it fit the bell connectors with the "shorter" bent pipe and leave the posts where they were on a horn that has a traditional straight neckpipe. That way you could compare the bend itself without comparing both the bend and overall length of the horn. Would probably be fairly pricey though.
What I think would be interesting is doing an A/B comparison where the neckpipe was made interchangeable with a bent and a "traditional" straight neckpipe. I'd imagine you could bend the bell brace such that you could make it fit the bell connectors with the "shorter" bent pipe and leave the posts where they were on a horn that has a traditional straight neckpipe. That way you could compare the bend itself without comparing both the bend and overall length of the horn. Would probably be fairly pricey though.
-
ttf_Dukesboneman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:43 pm
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
why not try a 16M top slide tube on a 36. making it more of Conn 32H a dual bore .509/525. That would keep the wider slide but give you a "smaller" horn.
-
ttf_octavposaune
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Couple things to clear up,
MV 12s had .536" crooks, all modern Elkhart Bach small bores use the same bottom crook. The .522" crook off of a model 6.
The wide glides I designed to replace 16Ms, their nominal bore is .547" a perfect match to 16M slide tubes. These crooks are sold long and need to be trimmed and fitted by the tech who is installing it. They work well on Bach 12s as well as .500" bore Conns. On King 3Bsthey are a different shake and slightly under bore (.006"). They kinda of "squarify" a 3B. More resistance and a slightly darker tone.
I've got a few left in nickrl and brass. It costs a lot to have these made up. 75 with ferrules, 60 without....
Benn
MV 12s had .536" crooks, all modern Elkhart Bach small bores use the same bottom crook. The .522" crook off of a model 6.
The wide glides I designed to replace 16Ms, their nominal bore is .547" a perfect match to 16M slide tubes. These crooks are sold long and need to be trimmed and fitted by the tech who is installing it. They work well on Bach 12s as well as .500" bore Conns. On King 3Bsthey are a different shake and slightly under bore (.006"). They kinda of "squarify" a 3B. More resistance and a slightly darker tone.
I've got a few left in nickrl and brass. It costs a lot to have these made up. 75 with ferrules, 60 without....
Benn
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Thank you one and all for your thoughts.
I'm going to have the slide modified. It'd be nice to be able to pick up the horn, combined with whatever mouthpiece I like, and not have to worry about whether I put the mouthpiece in the right way!
Benn, I'm shooting you a message about a nickel crook...
Andrew
I'm going to have the slide modified. It'd be nice to be able to pick up the horn, combined with whatever mouthpiece I like, and not have to worry about whether I put the mouthpiece in the right way!
Benn, I'm shooting you a message about a nickel crook...
Andrew
-
ttf_Bellend
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: octavposaune on Dec 29, 2016, 12:55AMCouple things to clear up,
MV 12s had .536" crooks, all modern Elkhart Bach small bores use the same bottom crook. The .522" crook off of a model 6.
The wide glides I designed to replace 16Ms, their nominal bore is .547" a perfect match to 16M slide tubes. These crooks are sold long and need to be trimmed and fitted by the tech who is installing it. They work well on Bach 12s as well as .500" bore Conns. On King 3Bsthey are a different shake and slightly under bore (.006"). They kinda of "squarify" a 3B. More resistance and a slightly darker tone.
I've got a few left in nickrl and brass. It costs a lot to have these made up. 75 with ferrules, 60 without....
Benn
Hi Benn,
That's very interesting.
What is the Bach crook that I was supplied as a spare part marked "trombone 12/16" then ? It is definitely not .522" As I said my vernier callipers are a little worn but not by that much.
Also , if the wide glide crook is designed as a replacement for a 16M why is it so much bigger than the original ? I don't understand the logic of that.
Yours confusedly
BellEnd
MV 12s had .536" crooks, all modern Elkhart Bach small bores use the same bottom crook. The .522" crook off of a model 6.
The wide glides I designed to replace 16Ms, their nominal bore is .547" a perfect match to 16M slide tubes. These crooks are sold long and need to be trimmed and fitted by the tech who is installing it. They work well on Bach 12s as well as .500" bore Conns. On King 3Bsthey are a different shake and slightly under bore (.006"). They kinda of "squarify" a 3B. More resistance and a slightly darker tone.
I've got a few left in nickrl and brass. It costs a lot to have these made up. 75 with ferrules, 60 without....
Benn
Hi Benn,
That's very interesting.
What is the Bach crook that I was supplied as a spare part marked "trombone 12/16" then ? It is definitely not .522" As I said my vernier callipers are a little worn but not by that much.
Also , if the wide glide crook is designed as a replacement for a 16M why is it so much bigger than the original ? I don't understand the logic of that.
Yours confusedly
BellEnd
-
ttf_Doug Elliott
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Probably because there was no logic in Bach putting a 6 crook on a 16 in the first place.
-
ttf_Bellend
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Having had this alteration done a couple of times my self and also having been involved with the R&D stages of developing a range of trombones I know that altering dimension of the bottom crook will have a big impact. Things don't always work out the way you imagine and yes, the seemingly logical more often than not can be wrong.
However
A. One might assume that Bach had carried out at least some experimentation before arriving at that bore? The 16M was not made at Mt.Vernon to the best of my knowledge so this was a decision taken in collaboration with the players involved...... Watrous
B. If the object of the exercise is to widen the slide with the least alteration to the blow so why make such a huge change if you are indeed having the new crooks custom made to any spec you desire?
BellEnd
However
A. One might assume that Bach had carried out at least some experimentation before arriving at that bore? The 16M was not made at Mt.Vernon to the best of my knowledge so this was a decision taken in collaboration with the players involved...... Watrous
B. If the object of the exercise is to widen the slide with the least alteration to the blow so why make such a huge change if you are indeed having the new crooks custom made to any spec you desire?
BellEnd
-
ttf_Doug Elliott
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
I have heard Bill Watrous say that the 16M is not like his own horn which was put together from various much older parts. Decisions like that, to use existing parts, are more likely made by bean counters than players or designers.
Better instruments are made with good design in mind.
Better instruments are made with good design in mind.
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: Doug Elliott on Dec 29, 2016, 03:53PMI have heard Bill Watrous say that the 16M is not like his own horn which was put together from vstious much older parts. Decisions like that, to use existing parts, are more likely made by bean counters than players or designers.
I have to agree with Doug here.
The 16M was likely born out of players requesting a horn like Watrous; a straight .508 bore. Bill's horn was custom built from Bach parts by Peppy, I believe. Bach didn't have a straight .508 like this in their catalogue, so I suspect they went to the parts bin and screwed something together that was pretty close in specs. Players started buying it, Bach was making money, everyone was happy!
Quote from: Bellend on Dec 29, 2016, 03:16PMIf the object of the exercise is to widen the slide with the least alteration to the blow so why make such a huge change if you are indeed having the new crooks custom made to any spec you desire?
I am primarily concerned with making the horn's ergonomics work for me. Assuming I can obtain a wide glide crook from Benn, this crook is well within the bore parameters that many manufacturers use for similar horns, so it puts me in the ballpark. I do not know precisely whether this will make for an excellent horn, but I do know that there is not a small bore on the market which I can comfortably play, so at this point, it's this or nothing.
Andrew
I have to agree with Doug here.
The 16M was likely born out of players requesting a horn like Watrous; a straight .508 bore. Bill's horn was custom built from Bach parts by Peppy, I believe. Bach didn't have a straight .508 like this in their catalogue, so I suspect they went to the parts bin and screwed something together that was pretty close in specs. Players started buying it, Bach was making money, everyone was happy!
Quote from: Bellend on Dec 29, 2016, 03:16PMIf the object of the exercise is to widen the slide with the least alteration to the blow so why make such a huge change if you are indeed having the new crooks custom made to any spec you desire?
I am primarily concerned with making the horn's ergonomics work for me. Assuming I can obtain a wide glide crook from Benn, this crook is well within the bore parameters that many manufacturers use for similar horns, so it puts me in the ballpark. I do not know precisely whether this will make for an excellent horn, but I do know that there is not a small bore on the market which I can comfortably play, so at this point, it's this or nothing.
Andrew
-
ttf_hyperbolica
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: The Bone Ranger on Dec 29, 2016, 04:28PMI do not know precisely whether this will make for an excellent horn, but I do know that there is not a small bore on the market which I can comfortably play, so at this point, it's this or nothing.
Andrew
The wide glide gave my 6h/10h a fatter sound, as you might expect. I like the effect with the 10h bell, less crazy about it with the 6h. With a 48h, it makes for a real beast. It would probably have a less dramatic effect on a 3b/16m size horn.
Andrew
The wide glide gave my 6h/10h a fatter sound, as you might expect. I like the effect with the 10h bell, less crazy about it with the 6h. With a 48h, it makes for a real beast. It would probably have a less dramatic effect on a 3b/16m size horn.
-
ttf_Bellend
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: The Bone Ranger on Dec 29, 2016, 04:28PMI have to agree with Doug here.
The 16M was likely born out of players requesting a horn like Watrous; a straight .508 bore. Bill's horn was custom built from Bach parts by Peppy, I believe. Bach didn't have a straight .508 like this in their catalogue, so I suspect they went to the parts bin and screwed something together that was pretty close in specs. Players started buying it, Bach was making money, everyone was happy!
Andrew, the two of you could well be correct in this as I have seen first hand this approach by Bach on other models. Their failure to try and resolve the duff notes on the 12's 16M's is testament to that attitude (although from watching Bill Watrous play his horn has the same problems)
I am not trying to be negative at all, just curious having been at times involved in trombones from two sides of the fence both playing professionally and manufacture / development.
I sincerely hope this mod proves successful for you because as I mentioned in my first post I too suffer from a similar problem.
Please let me know how it works out and I'll do the same after the installation of the Besson crook on my own 16M slide.
My own horn has a 12 bell section which if we are to believe the blurb features a different gooseneck to the 16M doubt that as well some how..........
BellEnd
The 16M was likely born out of players requesting a horn like Watrous; a straight .508 bore. Bill's horn was custom built from Bach parts by Peppy, I believe. Bach didn't have a straight .508 like this in their catalogue, so I suspect they went to the parts bin and screwed something together that was pretty close in specs. Players started buying it, Bach was making money, everyone was happy!
Andrew, the two of you could well be correct in this as I have seen first hand this approach by Bach on other models. Their failure to try and resolve the duff notes on the 12's 16M's is testament to that attitude (although from watching Bill Watrous play his horn has the same problems)
I am not trying to be negative at all, just curious having been at times involved in trombones from two sides of the fence both playing professionally and manufacture / development.
I sincerely hope this mod proves successful for you because as I mentioned in my first post I too suffer from a similar problem.
Please let me know how it works out and I'll do the same after the installation of the Besson crook on my own 16M slide.
My own horn has a 12 bell section which if we are to believe the blurb features a different gooseneck to the 16M
doubt that as well some how..........BellEnd
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: Bellend on Dec 30, 2016, 04:14AMPlease let me know how it works out and I'll do the same after the installation of the Besson crook on my own 16M slide.
My own horn has a 12 bell section which if we are to believe the blurb features a different gooseneck to the 16M doubt that as well some how..........
My horn is an early 16M. These were stamped "16M" on the slide and "16" on the bell, which means .508 slide and the standard (not "open") gooseneck. So our horns are likely identical specs. If I can get my hands on a slide crook, this should give you a near identical example...
Andrew
My own horn has a 12 bell section which if we are to believe the blurb features a different gooseneck to the 16M
doubt that as well some how..........My horn is an early 16M. These were stamped "16M" on the slide and "16" on the bell, which means .508 slide and the standard (not "open") gooseneck. So our horns are likely identical specs. If I can get my hands on a slide crook, this should give you a near identical example...
Andrew
-
ttf_Bellend
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
OK that's great I'll be very interested to compere how they work out.
Cheers for now and Happy New Year!
Andy
AKA BellEnd
Cheers for now and Happy New Year!
Andy
AKA BellEnd
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
My crook arrived from Benn today. Thanks mate!
Here's a picture of it, between my 16M slide (left) and my 36 slide (right).
Slightly wider than the 36 crook.
I hope to get to this project in a couple of months. I'll post more pictures when it happens.
Andrew
Here's a picture of it, between my 16M slide (left) and my 36 slide (right).
Slightly wider than the 36 crook.
I hope to get to this project in a couple of months. I'll post more pictures when it happens.
Andrew
-
ttf_Bellend
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Hi Andrew,
Just wondered if you have had the wide glide crook fitted to your 16M yet? and if so what the result was?
I've resisted changing mine out yet but have just booked it in with my mate who's a great tech to have the Besson 941 crook fitted as I'm struggling to deal with playing the horn at such an offset angle.
BellEnd
Just wondered if you have had the wide glide crook fitted to your 16M yet? and if so what the result was?
I've resisted changing mine out yet but have just booked it in with my mate who's a great tech to have the Besson 941 crook fitted as I'm struggling to deal with playing the horn at such an offset angle.
BellEnd
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
So I had the slide rebuild done this week.
My repair guy, Bret Gustafson, did the work for me, including making the leadpipe removable. I'd heard tales that the 16M leadpipe was an odd duck, but I couldn't believe just how short it was. Here it is next to a standard Shires bass leadpipe:
Unusual indeed! I have some Shires leadpipes on the way, so I look forward to seeing how they play compared to this strange animal.
The first impression was a little puzzling. When you pick it up for the first time, it feels like you're holding a large bore tenor! It looks like someone put their Bach 50 slide on a 16! It took a moment or so to recalibrate. Initially, it was a little like picking up a tuba and having a euphonium sound come out of the bell!
The slide is also noticeably heavier than before. Not heavy, per se, but heavier. Hardly surprising, given it has almost doubled in width. I guess this might bother some people, but since I've spent most of my life on big horns, it's not a concern to me. Slide vibrato felt a little different at first, but it's not insurmountable.
After overcoming the initial feel, I settled into the horn quite quickly.
The horn plays a little flat. The crook added roughly an inch of tubing to the horn, so we will take that inch out of the bell section at a later date. I will have the incoming Shires leadpipes (1.5 and 2.5) set up at the same time.
So, how does it play?
Terrific!
I'm really impressed with the result. I'm hard pressed to tell any difference in the tone. It's maybe a little warmer in the staff, perhaps a little extra fundamental in the sound, but it certainly doesn't sound any "bigger" to me. It sings above the staff, and is still has that classic Bach small bore sound. It also feels more even, top to bottom.
Whether any of this was the result of the new slide crook, the extra mass of the longer braces, or the rebuild itself, is impossible to tell.
Most importantly, my head now fits! No more bent mouthpieces for me!!
I'm currently supposed to be shedding my bass and my Bach 36 for a show, but I kept picking up the 16M today. It was just too much fun!
I think I will find myself playing this horn an awful lot from now on.
Oh, and my repair guy modified the case so the slide still fits easily.
So clearly I am happy with the results.
As to whether I would recommend it to others? Yes, with a small caveat...
I've made my living playing predominantly bass trombone, large and medium bore tenors, and tuba. I've really only added the small bore to my arsenal in the last 5 years or so. Part of me wonders whether a lifelong small tenor player would never be quite comfortable with the width of the slide in their hands. Some people are more affected by the tactile elements of an instrument than others. My small bore colleagues are yet to have a blow on this, so I will await their reactions, but ultimately, borrrowing a horn for a half-hour is different than living with it day-to-day.
Ultimately, if you can overcome that sensation (and I did in 10 minutes), then I think you'll enjoy the results.
This is a great solution to a unique problem, and the perfect solution for me. Big thanks to Benn for helping me obtain one of these wonderful crooks. I'm really looking forward to putting in some miles on this horn in the months to come!
Andrew
My repair guy, Bret Gustafson, did the work for me, including making the leadpipe removable. I'd heard tales that the 16M leadpipe was an odd duck, but I couldn't believe just how short it was. Here it is next to a standard Shires bass leadpipe:
Unusual indeed! I have some Shires leadpipes on the way, so I look forward to seeing how they play compared to this strange animal.
The first impression was a little puzzling. When you pick it up for the first time, it feels like you're holding a large bore tenor! It looks like someone put their Bach 50 slide on a 16! It took a moment or so to recalibrate. Initially, it was a little like picking up a tuba and having a euphonium sound come out of the bell!
The slide is also noticeably heavier than before. Not heavy, per se, but heavier. Hardly surprising, given it has almost doubled in width. I guess this might bother some people, but since I've spent most of my life on big horns, it's not a concern to me. Slide vibrato felt a little different at first, but it's not insurmountable.
After overcoming the initial feel, I settled into the horn quite quickly.
The horn plays a little flat. The crook added roughly an inch of tubing to the horn, so we will take that inch out of the bell section at a later date. I will have the incoming Shires leadpipes (1.5 and 2.5) set up at the same time.
So, how does it play?
Terrific!
I'm really impressed with the result. I'm hard pressed to tell any difference in the tone. It's maybe a little warmer in the staff, perhaps a little extra fundamental in the sound, but it certainly doesn't sound any "bigger" to me. It sings above the staff, and is still has that classic Bach small bore sound. It also feels more even, top to bottom.
Whether any of this was the result of the new slide crook, the extra mass of the longer braces, or the rebuild itself, is impossible to tell.
Most importantly, my head now fits! No more bent mouthpieces for me!!
I'm currently supposed to be shedding my bass and my Bach 36 for a show, but I kept picking up the 16M today. It was just too much fun!
I think I will find myself playing this horn an awful lot from now on.
Oh, and my repair guy modified the case so the slide still fits easily.
So clearly I am happy with the results.
As to whether I would recommend it to others? Yes, with a small caveat...
I've made my living playing predominantly bass trombone, large and medium bore tenors, and tuba. I've really only added the small bore to my arsenal in the last 5 years or so. Part of me wonders whether a lifelong small tenor player would never be quite comfortable with the width of the slide in their hands. Some people are more affected by the tactile elements of an instrument than others. My small bore colleagues are yet to have a blow on this, so I will await their reactions, but ultimately, borrrowing a horn for a half-hour is different than living with it day-to-day.
Ultimately, if you can overcome that sensation (and I did in 10 minutes), then I think you'll enjoy the results.
This is a great solution to a unique problem, and the perfect solution for me. Big thanks to Benn for helping me obtain one of these wonderful crooks. I'm really looking forward to putting in some miles on this horn in the months to come!
Andrew
-
ttf_sabutin
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: The Bone Ranger on Jun 03, 2017, 04:29AMSo I had the slide rebuild done this week.
My repair guy, Bret Gustafson, did the work for me, including making the leadpipe removable. I'd heard tales that the 16M leadpipe was an odd duck, but I couldn't believe just how short it was. Here it is next to a standard Shires bass leadpipe:
Unusual indeed! I have some Shires leadpipes on the way, so I look forward to seeing how they play compared to this strange animal.
The first impression was a little puzzling. When you pick it up for the first time, it feels like you're holding a large bore tenor! It looks like someone put their Bach 50 slide on a 16! It took a moment or so to recalibrate. Initially, it was a little like picking up a tuba and having a euphonium sound come out of the bell!
The slide is also noticeably heavier than before. Not heavy, per se, but heavier. Hardly surprising, given it has almost doubled in width. I guess this might bother some people, but since I've spent most of my life on big horns, it's not a concern to me. Slide vibrato felt a little different at first, but it's not insurmountable.
After overcoming the initial feel, I settled into the horn quite quickly.
The horn plays a little flat. The crook added roughly an inch of tubing to the horn, so we will take that inch out of the bell section at a later date. I will have the incoming Shires leadpipes (1.5 and 2.5) set up at the same time.
So, how does it play?
Terrific!
I'm really impressed with the result. I'm hard pressed to tell any difference in the tone. It's maybe a little warmer in the staff, perhaps a little extra fundamental in the sound, but it certainly doesn't sound any "bigger" to me. It sings above the staff, and is still has that classic Bach small bore sound. It also feels more even, top to bottom.
Whether any of this was the result of the new slide crook, the extra mass of the longer braces, or the rebuild itself, is impossible to tell.
Most importantly, my head now fits! No more bent mouthpieces for me!!
I'm currently supposed to be shedding my bass and my Bach 36 for a show, but I kept picking up the 16M today. It was just too much fun!
I think I will find myself playing this horn an awful lot from now on.
Oh, and my repair guy modified the case so the slide still fits easily.
So clearly I am happy with the results.
As to whether I would recommend it to others? Yes, with a small caveat...
I've made my living playing predominantly bass trombone, large and medium bore tenors, and tuba. I've really only added the small bore to my arsenal in the last 5 years or so. Part of me wonders whether a lifelong small tenor player would never be quite comfortable with the width of the slide in their hands. Some people are more affected by the tactile elements of an instrument than others. My small bore colleagues are yet to have a blow on this, so I will await their reactions, but ultimately, borrrowing a horn for a half-hour is different than living with it day-to-day.
Ultimately, if you can overcome that sensation (and I did in 10 minutes), then I think you'll enjoy the results.
This is a great solution to a unique problem, and the perfect solution for me. Big thanks to Benn for helping me obtain one of these wonderful crooks. I'm really looking forward to putting in some miles on this horn in the months to come!
Andrew
Best of luck to you with this experiment, Andrew. But...I think that you will eventually find that the wider slide does indeed change the playing characteristics of your horn, especially if you are using it as a lead player in fairly aggressive, primarily acoustic big bands. There was a reason why Bach...and every other serious U.S. horn maker...made smallbore slides that were relatively narrow starting in the 19th century. It was a large ensemble, acoustic musical world until the late '50s, early '60s, really. No close miking to speak of, just acoustic blend.
I never paid slide width much mind, myself...it doesn't really affect my playing position...until I went to Shires to put together a .525 horn. Now...normally speaking a .525 is more like a smaller big horn than it is a bigger small horn, but since I wanted this one to be primarily a jazz solo horn, I was aiming for the latter. In blindfold tests at the factory I was quite amazed at the differences wider Bach style slides and narrower Conn style ones made...exactly the same slides except for width on exactly the same bell with exactly the same leadpipe. Two completely different horns. Different timbral characteristics, especially at volume, different attack characteristics and a different blow.
That said...I would bet that the differences could be minimized by leadpipe/tuning slide choices. When you get a chance to be playing/practicing on that horn for a couple of weeks, keep an ear out for how it develops. Big band lead playing calls for a good blend...a sort of bridge...between the trumpet section and the trombone section in tutti playing, and acoustic soloing also wants some added zing in the approach.
Good luck...
S.
My repair guy, Bret Gustafson, did the work for me, including making the leadpipe removable. I'd heard tales that the 16M leadpipe was an odd duck, but I couldn't believe just how short it was. Here it is next to a standard Shires bass leadpipe:
Unusual indeed! I have some Shires leadpipes on the way, so I look forward to seeing how they play compared to this strange animal.
The first impression was a little puzzling. When you pick it up for the first time, it feels like you're holding a large bore tenor! It looks like someone put their Bach 50 slide on a 16! It took a moment or so to recalibrate. Initially, it was a little like picking up a tuba and having a euphonium sound come out of the bell!
The slide is also noticeably heavier than before. Not heavy, per se, but heavier. Hardly surprising, given it has almost doubled in width. I guess this might bother some people, but since I've spent most of my life on big horns, it's not a concern to me. Slide vibrato felt a little different at first, but it's not insurmountable.
After overcoming the initial feel, I settled into the horn quite quickly.
The horn plays a little flat. The crook added roughly an inch of tubing to the horn, so we will take that inch out of the bell section at a later date. I will have the incoming Shires leadpipes (1.5 and 2.5) set up at the same time.
So, how does it play?
Terrific!
I'm really impressed with the result. I'm hard pressed to tell any difference in the tone. It's maybe a little warmer in the staff, perhaps a little extra fundamental in the sound, but it certainly doesn't sound any "bigger" to me. It sings above the staff, and is still has that classic Bach small bore sound. It also feels more even, top to bottom.
Whether any of this was the result of the new slide crook, the extra mass of the longer braces, or the rebuild itself, is impossible to tell.
Most importantly, my head now fits! No more bent mouthpieces for me!!
I'm currently supposed to be shedding my bass and my Bach 36 for a show, but I kept picking up the 16M today. It was just too much fun!
I think I will find myself playing this horn an awful lot from now on.
Oh, and my repair guy modified the case so the slide still fits easily.
So clearly I am happy with the results.
As to whether I would recommend it to others? Yes, with a small caveat...
I've made my living playing predominantly bass trombone, large and medium bore tenors, and tuba. I've really only added the small bore to my arsenal in the last 5 years or so. Part of me wonders whether a lifelong small tenor player would never be quite comfortable with the width of the slide in their hands. Some people are more affected by the tactile elements of an instrument than others. My small bore colleagues are yet to have a blow on this, so I will await their reactions, but ultimately, borrrowing a horn for a half-hour is different than living with it day-to-day.
Ultimately, if you can overcome that sensation (and I did in 10 minutes), then I think you'll enjoy the results.
This is a great solution to a unique problem, and the perfect solution for me. Big thanks to Benn for helping me obtain one of these wonderful crooks. I'm really looking forward to putting in some miles on this horn in the months to come!
Andrew
Best of luck to you with this experiment, Andrew. But...I think that you will eventually find that the wider slide does indeed change the playing characteristics of your horn, especially if you are using it as a lead player in fairly aggressive, primarily acoustic big bands. There was a reason why Bach...and every other serious U.S. horn maker...made smallbore slides that were relatively narrow starting in the 19th century. It was a large ensemble, acoustic musical world until the late '50s, early '60s, really. No close miking to speak of, just acoustic blend.
I never paid slide width much mind, myself...it doesn't really affect my playing position...until I went to Shires to put together a .525 horn. Now...normally speaking a .525 is more like a smaller big horn than it is a bigger small horn, but since I wanted this one to be primarily a jazz solo horn, I was aiming for the latter. In blindfold tests at the factory I was quite amazed at the differences wider Bach style slides and narrower Conn style ones made...exactly the same slides except for width on exactly the same bell with exactly the same leadpipe. Two completely different horns. Different timbral characteristics, especially at volume, different attack characteristics and a different blow.
That said...I would bet that the differences could be minimized by leadpipe/tuning slide choices. When you get a chance to be playing/practicing on that horn for a couple of weeks, keep an ear out for how it develops. Big band lead playing calls for a good blend...a sort of bridge...between the trumpet section and the trombone section in tutti playing, and acoustic soloing also wants some added zing in the approach.
Good luck...
S.
-
ttf_tbonedude89
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
I could be wrong, but didn't conn make some wide 88H slides (for some experimental axial flow valve instruments)? I believe that they simply cut the crook in the middle and added some tubing to widen it. You'd need to pay more in labor for the modification (to cut and widen the crook), but it might cost less then buying and installing a new part? Could be less predictable then a replacement crook, modifying an instrument can never be entirely predictable anyway.
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: sabutin on Jun 03, 2017, 07:07AMBest of luck to you with this experiment, Andrew. But...I think that you will eventually find that the wider slide does indeed change the playing characteristics of your horn, especially if you are using it as a lead player in fairly aggressive, primarily acoustic big bands.
I don't doubt for a moment that the crook will have an effect. So far, the difference seems nominal, though I've only put in a few hours, and haven't played it in an ensemble yet, either.
I'm betting that the majority of any difference can be overcome now that I am freely able to choose my leadpipe and my mouthpiece. Moving from my 6.5A (with a bent shank - what effect does that have?) to a regular 6 3/4C, for example, is also going to have an effect on the attack, timbre, let alone what various leadpipes bring to the table.
And if I'm wrong? Long term, what is the solution? I'm back to where I was at the beginning of this thread. This way, I'll have something of an answer. For the moment, it seems promising.
Andrew
I don't doubt for a moment that the crook will have an effect. So far, the difference seems nominal, though I've only put in a few hours, and haven't played it in an ensemble yet, either.
I'm betting that the majority of any difference can be overcome now that I am freely able to choose my leadpipe and my mouthpiece. Moving from my 6.5A (with a bent shank - what effect does that have?) to a regular 6 3/4C, for example, is also going to have an effect on the attack, timbre, let alone what various leadpipes bring to the table.
And if I'm wrong? Long term, what is the solution? I'm back to where I was at the beginning of this thread. This way, I'll have something of an answer. For the moment, it seems promising.
Andrew
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Wider slide or continue bending shanks?
Quote from: sabutin on Jun 03, 2017, 07:07AMBest of luck to you with this experiment, Andrew. But...I think that you will eventually find that the wider slide does indeed change the playing characteristics of your horn, especially if you are using it as a lead player in fairly aggressive, primarily acoustic big bands.
I don't doubt for a moment that the crook will have an effect. So far, the difference seems nominal, though I've only put in a few hours, and haven't played it in an ensemble yet, either.
I'm betting that the majority of any difference can be overcome now that I am freely able to choose my leadpipe and my mouthpiece. Moving from my 6.5A (with a bent shank - what effect does that have?) to a regular 6 3/4C, for example, is also going to have an effect on the attack, timbre, let alone what various leadpipes bring to the table.
And if I'm wrong? Long term, what is the solution? I'm back to where I was at the beginning of this thread. This way, I'll have something of an answer. For the moment, it seems promising.
Andrew
I don't doubt for a moment that the crook will have an effect. So far, the difference seems nominal, though I've only put in a few hours, and haven't played it in an ensemble yet, either.
I'm betting that the majority of any difference can be overcome now that I am freely able to choose my leadpipe and my mouthpiece. Moving from my 6.5A (with a bent shank - what effect does that have?) to a regular 6 3/4C, for example, is also going to have an effect on the attack, timbre, let alone what various leadpipes bring to the table.
And if I'm wrong? Long term, what is the solution? I'm back to where I was at the beginning of this thread. This way, I'll have something of an answer. For the moment, it seems promising.
Andrew