Need suggestions finding a trombone similar to this Shires configuration

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat May 20, 2017 8:15 pm

I went trombone shopping today for a large bore tenor until the store closed. There was still more research I needed to do, but my favourites ended up being:

A) Shires 2RVE 7.75" bell, trubore valve, yellow tuning slide, T47 slide
B) Yamaha Xeno 882OR

However, that Shires trombone is super expensive, so I'm wondering if there's a stock trombone from some other brand that is similar. However, the Shires is a little too compact, and ideally I would want my trombone to be opened up a little bit. I wanted to try the axial valve on this setup, but had no time.

This is what happened while trying the trombones:

I tried several other Shires components, a Bach 42 artisan with the thayer valve and a Conn 88H. The Conn 88H was a throw out right away. It was kind of nice how it played relatively easily, but the sound was too small and stuffy. The Bach stuck for a while, but ultimately was tossed because the Yamaha and Shires were easier to control, and more consistent.

For the Shires trombones, I started off with a really heavy configuration that I didn't like very much. We eventually moved to smaller/lighter bells until we landed on the 2RVE, which I found to be the most responsive and easiest to manipulate in soft dynamics. However, I didn't like how this Shires sounded when played loud. Overall, it was a little too compact for my liking, and if I had time I was going to experiment with ways to open it up a little bit, starting with the axial valve. My first response was that the bell sounded "corny", lol, but it started to grow on me. I like the direction it's going in, but I think I'd prefer something just slightly bigger than that.

I'd just like to point out that I'm a hobbyist, so I don't need to sound like a symphony player. I'm fine with something that has a unique sound.

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Sat May 20, 2017 9:31 pm

I don't see how the axial valve would open it up more than the TruBore, given that the TruBore is a 3-port valve, where the air has no deviation at all when the valve is not activated. Axial flow valves are very open and have very little deviation, but they still do have some deviation.

I don't believe you'll find a standard/stock horn that has both a .547 bore and a 7¾" bell, or even a 8" bell.

It's interesting that your first choice is a very small bell while your second choice is the Xeno, as that has the largest bell of any mainstream stock large bore tenor.

ttf_JubbaDaTrombone · Sat May 20, 2017 10:21 pm

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on Yesterday at 09:31 PM
It's interesting that your first choice is a very small bell while your second choice is the Xeno, as that has the largest bell of any mainstream stock large bore tenor.

You're right, that is interesting...I didn't realize that. Despite the large bell, it focused very well and was easy to control.

Some things to note while trying out Shires:
-Bass crook slides are bad for me
-Lighter weight bells were better for me

Also, I remember the guy who was helping me told me that the Yamaha Xeno bell is somewhat similar to Conn bells, and the Shires bell I liked is a replica of an Elkhart 88H bell. So, maybe even if we can't find an 8" bell, it might still work if we find an 8.5" that has a similar construction technique.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Sat May 20, 2017 10:48 pm

Elkhart Conn bells had an unusual thickness taper that is duplicated by the Shires VE profile. In fact, a 2RVE 8.5" bell is about as close to an Elkhart 88H as you will find in a Shires.

ttf_Duffle · Post by **ttf_Duffle** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:22 am

That Shires configuration is very unusual in itself - 7.75" bell on a .547! - and very different to the Yamaha - surprised you like them both. None of us here know how you sounded on either horn or how each of them felt to you. Specs mean little so probably best to go to a well stocked store and try as many horns as you can and pick the one you like best. It may be a mistake to try the very high end horns if you're on a budget as you will always be comparing the less expensive horns with the expensive ones and in that comparison they will probably not fair to well. Concentrate on the affordable horns unless you are happy to wait and save up for the expensive horn. If you can try the JP Rath large bore - for the money it is very good.......or the Rath R400 which is fantastic for the money.....

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:42 am

Despite what the salesman may have told you, the Xeno has a heavier bell and bass crook. Which is fine actually. It sounds like you narrowed down your search to two horns that were built well though perhaps neither were the best one for you. ALternatively, you could not yet have a sound concept fully developed. You can identify which horns are working well, but not which direction is the best for your sound.

As others have mentioned, the 7.75" bell is unusual. Its no surprise that you didn't find it open. I had a Bach 36 bell on my Shires (8" flare). When my main bell was in the shop, in order to use it for classical stuff and get the sound I wanted, I had to use a slide bigger than mine, with a more 'open' leadpipe, and a mouthpiece with a much deeper cup and more open throat than I'm used to. The thayer valve would have not helepd you in that regard. The problem in the equation was the small bell. You may have been able to make it work by getting a huge slide, leadpipe, mouthpiece, etc. but I think you'd be better off getting something that works in a more conventional manner.

Given that you liked the lighter bells, I would probably avoid the Xeno. You may find it grows on you but you also may find its a thorn in your side. This was the case for me when I purchased a Xeno 882O a number of years ago. I was in HS at the time, but it was the best playing horn I tried among a Conn, Bach, and Yamaha and I didn't know much else existed. I eventually went the lighter bell route myself and play a Shires 2RVET7 (8.5" bell) setup now not too dissimilar from the one you tried.

There's actually a forum member selling a 2RVE8, which is the 8" version of the bell. The rest of the horn is similar to what you liked. You could pick up the valve you want and call it a day. If you play that for awhile and still think its too small, you could go a little bigger with a 2RVE or 2RVET7 bell that may come up for sale.

Or you may also try the Q series Shires and do a similar thing. It has a price point similar to the Yamaha but is fully compatible with Shires parts. So if you find another bell come up for sale thats lighter, go for it.

Given that you unknowingly liked two horns so different means you probably need to spend some time on something before you are able to determine which 'direction' you want to go, and the Shires horns give you that flexibility later.

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Sun May 21, 2017 8:19 am

Also, you said the Bach stuck around for a while but you eventually tossed it out because it was harder to control. Bear in mind that Bach 42s are known to be hard to fill and hard to play at first especially for people who haven't played large bore instruments a lot before.

But if you liked the sound and the feel, once you'd adapted to it (within a few weeks), maybe it would turn out the better option. Bach 42s with good, open valves (Hagmann, Thayer, some have custom valves) can be found used for 2000-2500$, much less than the price tag of that new Shires. They're also much easier to sell if you want to switch.

I have several friends that went down the Shires road in college or before, thinking they loved that horn and they could just improve it as their playing evolved by swapping parts. None of these guys play a Shires anymore, they all went back to non-modular horns by the time they had finished grad school (Bach 42s with Hagmann or Thayer valves, Conn 88Hs...), and most of them took months to sell their Shires because they couldn't find anyone that wanted the specific combination they had...in the end they all had to sell on eBay and settle for a price much lower than they wanted.

Not saying don't buy a Shires, but there are always two sides to a medal.

ttf_JubbaDaTrombone · Post by **ttf_JubbaDaTrombone** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:35 am

Hey guys thanks for the awesome responses.

A little background about me:

I studied classical trombone performance at University of Toronto, but ultimately I decided that the orchestral musician was not the route I wanted to take, and now I am a web developer. I continue to play the trombone in my spare time for fun. My sound concept of what I want might not be as evolved as a true professional, but I think it's mature enough to be able to tell rather quickly whether or not the trombone I'm trying will be a good fit for me.

Quote from: Matt K on Today at 04:42 AM....Despite what the salesman may have told you, the Xeno has a heavier bell and bass crook. Which is fine actually. It sounds like you narrowed down your search to two horns that were built well though perhaps neither were the best one for you......

...As others have mentioned, the 7.75" bell is unusual. Its no surprise that you didn't find it open....

...Given that you liked the lighter bells, I would probably avoid the Xeno. I eventually went the lighter bell route myself and play a Shires 2RVET7 (8.5" bell) setup now not too dissimilar from the one you tried....

....Or you may also try the Q series Shires and do a similar thing. It has a price point similar to the Yamaha but is fully compatible with Shires parts. So if you find another bell come up for sale thats lighter, go for it....

Given that you unknowingly liked two horns so different means you probably need to spend some time on something before you are able to determine which 'direction' you want to go, and the Shires horns give you that flexibility later.

I used to play a Yamaha Xeno 882OR and I liked it, so the fact that it felt familiar could have impacted my decision. However, back then I was more in the classical/symphonic mindset, and today things have changed. Unfortunately, I went to the best stocked music store around, but they only had in stock all the trombones I listed, so not many to choose from. I was hoping they'd have some Schilke trombones- those seem interesting. I'm sure that if I had a wider selection to choose from, I would eventually have tossed the Xeno out of the equation.

I didn't know that the bell I tried came in larger sizes. I agree that a larger version of the same bell is most likely the answer! BTW it looked adorably small on the rest of the beefy trombone, lol.

What's the downside of the Q series? Are they worse? I'm on a budget, but not too small of one. I'd be willing to spend around $4-5k CAD, but I think the Shires at the store were going for around 6-7k.

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on Today at 08:19 AMAlso, you said the Bach stuck around for a while but you eventually tossed it out because it was harder to control. Bear in mind that Bach 42s are known to be hard to fill and hard to play at first especially for people who haven't played large bore instruments a lot before.

But if you liked the sound and the feel, once you'd adapted to it (within a few weeks), maybe it would turn out the better option. Bach 42s with good, open valves (Hagmann, Thayer, some have custom valves) can be found used for 2000-2500$, much less than the price tag of that new Shires. They're also much easier to sell if you want to switch.

I have several friends that went down the Shires road in college or before, thinking they loved that horn and they could just improve it as their playing evolved by swapping parts. None of these guys play a Shires anymore, they all went back to non-modular horns by the time they had finished grad school (Bach 42s with Hagmann or Thayer valves, Conn 88Hs...), and most of them took months to sell their Shires because they couldn't find anyone that wanted the specific combination they had...in the end they all had to sell on eBay and settle for a price much lower than they wanted.

Not saying don't buy a Shires, but there are always two sides to a medal.

You make some great points. Although I am a bit rusty, I do have plenty of experience playing large bore trombones, including a Bach 42BO trombone, which was the first large bore I ever purchased.

They also had a regular infinity valve bach (non-artisan) but I figured if I don't like the artisan, there's a high chance I won't like the lesser quality version of it. However, there was another thing I couldn't stand about the Bach, which was the grip. It felt very awkward to hold this trombone compared to the rest. My thumb naturally rested higher than where the thumb paddle on the trigger was, so I had to contract my grip into an unnatural position to play it. Do you know if the Hagmann valve's paddle is in a higher up position?

It did have a unique sound to it, but the intonation was the hardest to achieve on that trombone, and not all the notes came out as easily as the other ones. Is there any chance the hagmann valve would solve these issues? The salesman did note that I sounded like I was having an easier time on the Shires trubore compared to the shires axial (I tried the axial on some other bells), and the hagmann seems to have a similar shape to the trubore.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Sun May 21, 2017 10:23 am

Was the 88H you tried brand new? If so, was it an Elkhart or Eastlake?

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:34 am

QuoteI studied classical trombone performance at University of Toronto, but ultimately I decided that the orchestral musician was not the route I wanted to take, and now I am a web developer. I continue to play the trombone in my spare time for fun. My sound concept of what I want might not be as evolved as a true professional, but I think it's mature enough to be able to tell rather quickly whether or not the trombone I'm trying will be a good fit for me.

That makes two of us! Have a degree in music ed, studied a little at the masters level but I do development know (albeit data science). When I say "sound concept" I don't necessarily mean you don't know what you want to sound like but the approach to getting that sound. I didn't really even have one upon leaving graduate school after one year myself. The distinction is that there could be many horns that would be a good fit for you but they all have different characteristics and tendencies that need to be adjusted relative to other horns. So, for example, Bach 42scan have a tendency to be more rigid or consistent in timbre at all dynamic levels whereas Conn 88s can have a tendency to be more lively at the expense of some brightness at lower volumes and becoming brighter at louder volumes. Very, very, very generally. You may find one of each that is a good fit but not necessarily what you'll have to do to accommodate the things you will use it for down the road.

If you like the Yamaha, you may also like the Schilke's. They are a little on the heavier side, or at least the ones I've played all are. But if you are trying to go for lighter horns then I wouldn't try too hard to find one.

As far as the 7.75" bell, you aren't wrong technically because of their nomenclature... Someone posted about it a few months back. Custom job for someone; its the smallest large bore bell they're produced. Memory serving, it was intended for a medium bore horn too. The 2RVE, however, is among their most popular bells, so its actually one that you stand a pretty fair chance of being able to find used. It stands for:

2 = Unsoldered bell bead
R = red brass
VE = as mentioned by Bruce, a taper meant to mimic some of the characteristics of older conns
(nothing after those letters) = 8.5" bell

then the number after that is the size of the bell, so a 2RVE775.

Another very popular bell is their 2RVET7, which is what I play. It has a treatment that thins the bell on the edges slightly. I absolutely love mine but I would be probably quite happy with a 2RVE given how little I play classical in comparison to other things.

Then their 8" bell variations would be 2RVE8 or the T7 version 2RVE8T7. Which is awful to look at as a model indicator but is something I'd be interested in acquiring at some point myself. You would probably be okay with the 2RVE8T7 as well, but for a classical horn only I'd suspect you'd want to look for the 2RVE, 2RVET7 or perhaps even 2RMT7.

The combination of a lighter bell, thinned flare, and narrower slide mean that a lot of people - myself included - like the setup with rotors. But everyone is different. I had a trubore on my configuration for two years. I sold the trubore to fund a project to make an F/D attachment for it out of some rotors I picked up. I liked the way the rotors played, so I sold the trubore.

There are a number of threads on the Q series. Basically they are assembled in China by the Eastman factory workers, but the parts are all made in the US and then the finishing is done in the US too. The debate about them seems solely focused on the merits of trade balances between the US and China, but as a Canadian that's probably not something you care about one iota lol The ones I've played are really nice instruments. I would be happy with one, but ultimately I would probably end up closer to the horn I'm on now. They basically are a combination of the most popular components they sell and actually if I were to recommend a horn similar to the Xeno, it probably would actually be similar to the setup the Q is. (Although technically the Xeno is a heavier weight, one piece bell, which would be Shires 5 series bells (so a 5Y or perhaps 5YHW, which is their once-piece bell)). You can find more info here: https://www.seshires.com/model-q30 . They come in different flavors. I actually didn't know they had a red belled version. Given your like of the 2RVE775 bell, I'd suggest that you could order the red belled version and be happy. They also have an axial version fwiw, but I think that you would be better with the rotor on an 8.5 bell vs a 7.75: bell.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sun May 21, 2017 11:42 am

Grumpy old man warning.....
First.... you cannot build a trombone up from one company that plays like one from another company. It took me years to realise that... yours for free in one line. I bet 90% of you don't buy that... your choice.
Second.... when putting a trombone together you need to build a BALANCED instrument that ALLOWS you to do everything you want pretty well..... then YOU need to learn how to play it. If you want to build the perfect instrument, you won't..... it does not exist. Your work on a balanced instrument is the most important factor.
Again, most won't buy that.... that's fine with me.
Give it 40 or 50 years and it becomes obvious..... tick tock....

Chris Stearn

ttf_bonenick · Post by **ttf_bonenick** » Sun May 21, 2017 12:06 pm

I do buy it, Grumpy Old Man

You can build an instrument that is next to perfect or almost for person X in context X. But as you said it yourself, even then person X will have to learn to play that wonderful balanced instrument.

There is an instrument that is perfect as is and it doesn't depend on the performer - it is called audio system. Anything else needs a period of adjustment and the mouthpiece choice may make of destroy an instrument.

Chris, I do enjoy your input as most of us hopefully do. Keep it coming, Grumpy Old Man.

ttf_Duffle · Post by **ttf_Duffle** » Sun May 21, 2017 12:49 pm

Quote from: blast on May 21, 2017, 11:42AMGrumpy old man warning.....
First.... you cannot build a trombone up from one company that plays like one from another company. It took me years to realise that... yours for free in one line. I bet 90% of you don't buy that... your choice.
Second.... when putting a trombone together you need to build a BALANCED instrument that ALLOWS you to do everything you want pretty well..... then YOU need to learn how to play it. If you want to build the perfect instrument, you won't..... it does not exist. Your work on a balanced instrument is the most important factor.
Again, most won't buy that.... that's fine with me.
Give it 40 or 50 years and it becomes obvious..... tick tock....

Chris Stearn

I, too, spent years trying to replicate the sound and feel of vintage instruments with modern horns, both stock and boutique and, as Chris has said it just doesn't work. Accept that all makes have their own sound profile and feel....

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Sun May 21, 2017 1:19 pm

Good heavens, Chris, you "almost" said that:

Buying a "signature" mouthpiece or "signature" horn won't let you play like the "signature" player, unless you are the signature player yourself.
And, you almost said, that the insight to know these things comes from a steady 40 or 50 years of hard personal practice, and 40 or 50 years of trial and error daily keeping yourself going!

That was a close call! Keep Grumpy. Or, as the Brit you are, say to yourself: Keep Calm, And Grumpy On.
My girlfriend bought me a lovely T-shirt from the Disney company that has a picture on it of Grumpy Dwarf scowling and the shirt says:

I'm Grumpy
Not Santa

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:54 pm

Quote from: JubbaDaTrombone on May 21, 2017, 09:35AMHey guys thanks for the awesome responses.

A little background about me:

I studied classical trombone performance at University of Toronto, but ultimately I decided that the orchestral musician was not the route I wanted to take, and now I am a web developer. I continue to play the trombone in my spare time for fun. My sound concept of what I want might not be as evolved as a true professional, but I think it's mature enough to be able to tell rather quickly whether or not the trombone I'm trying will be a good fit for me.

Useful information! Sorry to have assumed otherwise!

Quote from: JubbaDaTrombone on May 21, 2017, 09:35AMThey also had a regular infinity valve bach (non-artisan) but I figured if I don't like the artisan, there's a high chance I won't like the lesser quality version of it. However, there was another thing I couldn't stand about the Bach, which was the grip. It felt very awkward to hold this trombone compared to the rest. My thumb naturally rested higher than where the thumb paddle on the trigger was, so I had to contract my grip into an unnatural position to play it. Do you know if the Hagmann valve's paddle is in a higher up position?

I wouldn't say the 42 is the ''lesser quality'' version. I don't think the Artisan line is better quality, it's simply Bach's attempt at stopping the bleeding to Shires and Edwards, and crawl their way into the modular/custom market. New Bach's quality seem to be as inconsistent as before, from what I've tried and heard from others - I see no reason to believe the Artisan components will be any more consistent. With Bach, trying several is even more important than other brands, I feel. Finding a good, older, used 42, straight or with the standard valve, and then buying a Hagmann conversion kit is probably cheaper than buying a new 42A or 42T, with the advantage that the conversion kit has a slightly different wrap than a stock 42A's and you can pull the F slide to E, and you can get an adjustable thumb lever in German silver or wood instead of the standard non-adjustable one.

The grip is pretty bad on the 42, that's right. I have a Greenhoe thumbrest on mine.

Quote from: JubbaDaTrombone on May 21, 2017, 09:35AMI was having an easier time on the Shires trubore compared to the shires axial (I tried the axial on some other bells), and the hagmann seems to have a similar shape to the trubore.

The main issue I had with the TruBore and other similar 3 port designs I've tried was that the F side is a lot less open than the Bb side, which goes straight through. The Hagmann's 3D design for the ports instead of the usual 2D plane, and the very smooth curves of the wrap design allow the F side to be more open, while the Bb side is slightly less open because the central port is slightly curved (so they are more even). Thayers/Axials are great of course, probably the most even between the two sides, I just hate how they stick in my neck, and in most of the ones I tried, I didn't like the throw or weight of the action. That's all very subjective and personal. Try as many horns as you can, including used horns.

Other suggestions - have you tried the Courtois AC440? Modernized copy of a 60's Elkhart 88H, better than any modern 88H I've tried. Long and McQuade should have them (and they will usually have it shipped between locations if it's not in stock at your local store and you are insistant enough)

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sun May 21, 2017 3:02 pm

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 21, 2017, 02:54PMUseful information! Sorry to have assumed otherwise!

I wouldn't say the 42 is the ''lesser quality'' version. I don't think the Artisan line is better quality, it's simply Bach's attempt at stopping the bleeding to Shires and Edwards, and crawl their way into the modular/custom market. New Bach's quality seem to be as inconsistent as before, from what I've tried and heard from others - I see no reason to believe the Artisan components will be any more consistent. With Bach, trying several is even more important than other brands, I feel. Finding a good, older, used 42, straight or with the standard valve, and then buying a Hagmann conversion kit is probably cheaper than buying a new 42A or 42T, with the advantage that the conversion kit has a slightly different wrap than a stock 42A's and you can pull the F slide to E, and you can get an adjustable thumb lever in German silver or wood instead of the standard non-adjustable one.

The grip is pretty bad on the 42, that's right. I have a Greenhoe thumbrest on mine.

The main issue I had with the TruBore and other similar 3 port designs I've tried was that the F side is a lot less open than the Bb side, which goes straight through. The Hagmann's 3D design for the ports instead of the usual 2D plane, and the very smooth curves of the wrap design allow the F side to be more open, while the Bb side is slightly less open because the central port is slightly curved (so they are more even). Thayers/Axials are great of course, probably the most even between the two sides, I just hate how they stick in my neck, and in most of the ones I tried, I didn't like the throw or weight of the action. That's all very subjective and personal. Try as many horns as you can, including used horns.

Other suggestions - have you tried the Courtois AC440? Modernized copy of a 60's Elkhart 88H, better than any modern 88H I've tried. Long and McQuade should have them (and they will usually have it shipped between locations if it's not in stock at your local store and you are insistant enough)

Interested to know how the Courtois is better than the modern 88H....

Chris Stearn

ttf_Ellrod · Post by **ttf_Ellrod** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:04 pm

The 8" Shires VE bell was probably intended to be used with a medium bore .525 slide. 78H-ish? I thought that was what I wanted when I left for Hopedale, but after a day with GL, I returned with a 1G8/LW .525 brass slide, because that's what GL and I thought sounded the best.

If you're talking about L&M, they usually have some interesting stuff at other stores that they're happy to bring in. Also, stock tends to circulate through the system so it's worthwhile checking in from time to time. This weekend, for example, there were Yam 882 and Kanstul 1662i bass bones on the wall in the Vancouver store. If it's a special order, you have to pony up the purchase price before they will order it although I don't how that squares with their satisfaction guaranteed/refund policy.

Your impression of the new 88H was exactly what I thought when I tried one a couple of months ago. I was quite disappointed. I also found the Yam Xeno tenors and the 830 bass a little heavy, the sound a bit dense (my term). The Xenos (maybe not the Yeo horn) as I understand it, incorporate a heavier bell and leadpipe, which may account for that. Similar to the 682B tenor of a few years ago. The Yam 620 tenor and bass trombones appear (according to Yam's literature) interesting, maybe lighter and more colourful (and less expensive) than the Xenos. Good luck finding one and Yamaha never responded to my question about the valve in the tenor. I did quite like one of Yam's intermediate models that I tried.

I played a Courtois bass in L&M a few years ago. Beast of a horn. Courtois seem inordinately expensive in N America.

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:35 pm

Quote from: blast on May 21, 2017, 03:02PMInterested to know how the Courtois is better than the modern 88H....

Chris Stearn

I've tried 3 different AC440's that were all very close to identical, the modern 88Hs (maybe 7 or 8) I've tried were less consistent. I found the AC440s more resonant and responsive, with partials better in tune.

They felt closer to the 2 or 3 50s-70s 88Hs I've tried. One of the 440s and one of the older 88Hs were both my teacher's when I was in college, so I got to try them several times. They were so similar that if I hadn't known better, I could have thought the Courtois was based on that specific 88H.

ttf_Ellrod · Post by **ttf_Ellrod** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:46 pm

I understand that the Courtois was based on an Elkhart 88H owned by British trombonist Dudley Bright, although apparently they subsequently had a falling out over some of the details.

If Courtois is your pleasure, you might do better flying to London and buying one from Parker's and claiming your VAT exemption.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Mon May 22, 2017 12:37 am

Quote from: Ellrod on May 21, 2017, 04:46PMI understand that the Courtois was based on an Elkhart 88H owned by British trombonist Dudley Bright, although apparently they subsequently had a falling out over some of the details.

If Courtois is your pleasure, you might do better flying to London and buying one from Parker's and claiming your VAT exemption.

I think Dudley just decided he preferred his old Conn.
Having sat in professional sections with Conns, old and new, Courtois and the Getzen Bousfield model, I would say that the Getzen is what a Conn might have ended up as if it had been developed over the years in the way it might have been. Still a Getzen of course. The Courtois seems to have a different dynamic envelope to any Conn. Looks like a Conn though....

Chris Stearn

ttf_Duffle · Post by **ttf_Duffle** » Mon May 22, 2017 12:23 pm

Quote from: blast on May 22, 2017, 12:37AMI think Dudley just decided he preferred his old Conn.
Having sat in professional sections with Conns, old and new, Courtois and the Getzen Bousfield model, I would say that the Getzen is what a Conn might have ended up as if it had been developed over the years in the way it might have been. Still a Getzen of course. The Courtois seems to have a different dynamic envelope to any Conn. Looks like a Conn though....

Chris Stearn

Chris, would you like to expand on what you said about the Courtois having a different dynamic envelope to the Conn? Thanks....

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Mon May 22, 2017 12:43 pm

Quote from: Duffle on May 22, 2017, 12:23PMChris, would you like to expand on what you said about the Courtois having a different dynamic envelope to the Conn? Thanks....

Not really....

Well...starts more mellow... stays mellow for longer and does not do mega loud in a Conn way.
Any help ?

Chris Stearn

ttf_JubbaDaTrombone · Post by **ttf_JubbaDaTrombone** » Mon May 22, 2017 4:19 pm

Hey guys, there's been talk about how you can't replicate a trombone from one brand with another. I understand that, but I'm wondering if there's something in a similar direction as that Shires that I enjoyed. I still didn't like that Shires 100%, so right now I want to continue trying out things to discover more.

Maybe if there is something similar, I can ask L&M to bring it in for a test. The Shires was very expressive in the quiet register, compared to the Yamaha. I think this may have to do with the rose brass bell, so hopefully the suggestion would have a rose bell. That's originally why I thought Schilke because I know they have those as an option, but after hearing the talk about those being heavy horns, I'm losing interest.

The Q series sounds interesting, but I'm not a fan of the whole assembled in China thing.

Then there leaves chancing it with a used shires. I know I can always customize things later, but I don't know if I'm interested in taking that route right now. The thing is, you would think that a trombone that is a compilation of seemingly unrelated parts (Shires) would be worse than one designed to complement itself perfectly (stock trombone). I think I was proven wrong about that at L&M, but I'm still not 100% convinced of it. How can you possibly make each component 100% compatible with each other?

ttf_Horn Builder · Post by **ttf_Horn Builder** » Mon May 22, 2017 4:26 pm

To add to what Chris said so well.

There are many who get stuck on little tiny details when choosing an instrument, sometimes working on minuscule increments of one particular detail. The result is that more often than not, they get hung up on this one tiny detail, trying to get it "just right" (Important point.. "at that particular time and place")

The reality is some people miss seeing the forest for the trees, as the old saying goes. The player changes more from day to day (due to diet, weather, amount of sleep, did they shave their chops today, etc etc) than those little tiny incremental changes do.

Look at an instrument as a "Big Picture", not an accumulation of little details.

And "sometimes" it may actually be up to the player to work out how to get what they want out of the horn, instead of thinking that something on the horn needs to be "fixed".

FWIW...
M

ttf_Ellrod · Post by **ttf_Ellrod** » Mon May 22, 2017 4:57 pm

I'm pretty happy with the Shires horn I assembled. Well-used bits and pieces, but I think it stands up. It represents a reasonable combination: 1GM bell, TW47 slide, rotor. No markings on the tuning slide. I had to get some work in the rotor at one point.

Plays well. Sounds best after I've been practicing a lot.

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Mon May 22, 2017 6:57 pm

Quote from: Horn Builder on May 22, 2017, 04:26PMTo add to what Chris said so well.

There are many who get stuck on little tiny details when choosing an instrument, sometimes working on minuscule increments of one particular detail. The result is that more often than not, they get hung up on this one tiny detail, trying to get it "just right" (Important point.. "at that particular time and place")

The reality is some people miss seeing the forest for the trees, as the old saying goes. The player changes more from day to day (due to diet, weather, amount of sleep, did they shave their chops today, etc etc) than those little tiny incremental changes do.

Look at an instrument as a "Big Picture", not an accumulation of little details.

And "sometimes" it may actually be up to the player to work out how to get what they want out of the horn, instead of thinking that something on the horn needs to be "fixed".

FWIW...
M

This, yes!

I don't see how the rose brass bell is going to bake that big difference you're looking for. Jury is still out on whether alloy composition has any effect at all... In the end the way you play the horn will have much more difference than that 5 or 10% more copper in the last foot of tubing on your horn.

ttf_bonenick · Post by **ttf_bonenick** » Tue May 23, 2017 3:04 am

It is quite rare that the material of which was made any component (bell included) makes an audible difference except for those who hear with their eyes (the performer included). Some extreme differences in materials can eventually change how they behave dynamically. Often it is more up to the flare shape, the shape or the measurements of any tweakable component (like the leadpipe) and eventually to the bore shape of the bell section or the slide (dual bore), as well as the shape, the weight and the placement of the bracings. How thick the brass sheets and how masterfully (or not) the bells were shaped (makes me thing of the famous peppy bells).

ttf_Horn Builder · Post by **ttf_Horn Builder** » Tue May 23, 2017 3:41 pm

Bonenick, you contradict yourself. You say that material does not make a difference, but weight does. How can material "not" make a difference, but weight "can"?

I've been doing what I do for long enough now to know, without question, that yes, material "DOES" make a difference in sound and response, as does weight and mass.

My original post was trying to get across the idea that it just doesn't make sense, (or is even feasible sometimes) to get down to "micro measurements" in one particular area of the instrument's design, since you the player will change more than the tiny incremental gains made in tweaking "X" for you on the day. You go out and hit it a bit too hard that night, come back tomorrow and the same setup just won't work with flabby chops. Then what? It's not the horn that changed!

FWIW...
M

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Per the Shires components question: you can't always be sure (although I've put together a few setups buying parts that were available and have been pleased so far with the results even compared to ones I've tried at conventions). But there are common setups that do work together. That may be because some parts were designed to be used together at Shires but we don't think of it that way because the parts literally aren't 'permanently' attached together as they are on fixed horns. Afterall, bear in mind that even Bach, Conn, Yamaha and others that only sell 'fixed' horns offer varying options and there's no more a guarantee that the parts you have assembled were arranged in that particular configuration for anything more than the whim of the person who purchased it.

Also bear in mind the immense popularity in the 80s and 90s of adding Thayer valves to Bach instruments - horns that existed prior to the thayer valve ever being invented in some cases. Those certainly were not designed to be played with a Thayer, but they sure worked, or at least a lot of people thought they worked enough to get custom work done to assemble them that way.

ttf_bonenick · Post by **ttf_bonenick** » Wed May 24, 2017 2:39 am

Quote from: Horn Builder on May 23, 2017, 03:41PMBonenick, you contradict yourself. You say that material does not make a difference, but weight does. How can material "not" make a difference, but weight "can"?

I've been doing what I do for long enough now to know, without question, that yes, material "DOES" make a difference in sound and response, as does weight and mass.

My original post was trying to get across the idea that it just doesn't make sense, (or is even feasible sometimes) to get down to "micro measurements" in one particular area of the instrument's design, since you the player will change more than the tiny incremental gains made in tweaking "X" for you on the day. You go out and hit it a bit too hard that night, come back tomorrow and the same setup just won't work with flabby chops. Then what? It's not the horn that changed!

FWIW...
M

As said above, the difference between yellow brass and red brass are not that big. A red brass bell could be eventually detected by very vigilant and educated ears, but to the "ordinary" listener it will make next to no difference (if perceived at all) if anything else is equal (flare shape, the thickness of the metal, the quality of the build etc). From performer's perspective things may be slightly different, but still blow, how fast a horn speaks seems to be more a result of more complete design "tweaks" than just adding some more copper or silver to the equation.

If you go at something completely different (solid nickel silver, some kind of plastic or glass, or anything out of the ordinary) even if everything is equal, you may get very different results. But if you just change a bell from the same brand with roughly the same flare with 10% more copper (like from gold brass to red brass) I am not sure that you will get an audible to everybody difference.

What I am actually saying is that most probably to get real change by changing other specs than basic brass materials.

As far as thickness/weight is concerned, basically thicker sheets of brass tend to transfer more energy to the listener, but makes for a lesser feedback to the performer ears. Feel free to correct if I am wrong.

ttf_wgwbassbone · Post by **ttf_wgwbassbone** » Wed May 24, 2017 5:52 am

Quote from: bonenick on May 24, 2017, 02:39AMAs said above, the difference between yellow brass and red brass are not that big. A red brass bell could be eventually detected by very vigilant and educated ears, but to the "ordinary" listener it will make next to no difference (if perceived at all) if anything else is equal (flare shape, the thickness of the metal, the quality of the build etc). From performer's perspective things may be slightly different, but still blow, how fast a horn speaks seems to be more a result of more complete design "tweaks" than just adding some more copper or silver to the equation.

If you go at something completely different (solid nickel silver, some kind of plastic or glass, or anything out of the ordinary) even if everything is equal, you may get very different results. But if you just change a bell from the same brand with roughly the same flare with 10% more copper (like from gold brass to red brass) I am not sure that you will get an audible to everybody difference.

What I am actually saying is that most probably to get real change by changing other specs than basic brass materials.

As far as thickness/weight is concerned, basically thicker sheets of brass tend to transfer more energy to the listener, but makes for a lesser feedback to the performer ears. Feel free to correct if I am wrong.

What's an ordinary listener? My grandmother? An amateur trombonist? Professional? To say that there's no difference in sound between yellow and red brass flares is just not true. And to say earlier that " quite rare that the material of which was made any component (bell included) makes an audible difference except for those who hear with their eyes (the performer included)."is also untrue. At least for me.

ttf_JubbaDaTrombone · Fri May 26, 2017 11:37 am

So, any suggestions to something similar to that Shires setup?

I found this: http://www.wwbw.com/Cerveny-VFC-SL6677HR-Hagmann-Series-F-Attachment-Trombone-J18571.wwbw#productDetail

I've never heard of Cerveny trombones before. Anyone have any thoughts about them?

The traits that I can say I liked for sure in the Shires were:

-The slide, which was narrower than the bass crook version, but wider than the Conn 88H slide
-The valve
-the bell (2-piece, unsoldered, red brass)

This Cerveny trombone has a valve that I know I like and it's red brass, but I don't know the construction technique of the bell. I'm also leery as to what all that nickel silver on the slide will do to the response.

I found this on their website:

"Bell: 216mm, hand shaped, wire reinforced." What does hand shaped, wire reinforced mean?

http://www.vfcerveny.cz/en/piston-valve/slide-trombones/item/110-vfc-sl6677h

ttf_timbone · Post by **ttf_timbone** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:39 pm

Interesting post and I'd like to weigh in about the Courtois 440. It is a copy of a 1960 Elkhart purchased in Italy, including leadpipe taper. The instrument was in R&D for about three years, the last phase was finding a red brass bell material in Europe, which I spent quite some time on here in the US. Dudley and Jacques Mauger were the playtesters and committee. The horn was designed to go after market share in the UK. I was also fortunate to play a concert as an adjunct tenor player with the LSO, alongside Dudley when he first took over, a very nice man, and fortunately for me Robert Hughes was on the gig (!). According to my sources, Dudley's conductor wanted him on the Conn. I've had a similiar conversation with Mick Rath of the reluctance to accept his trombones in the LSO!

To address the topic of cost as Ellrod has eluded to, many years ago Courtois sole distribution was through Vito Leblanc, which was back early in the 80's. Those were the days before the custom houses started mass producing, probably before Steve Shires was at Osmun. Back then you had Bach, Conn, and Holton as the big three. Vito jacked the Courtois pricing up, put the brand in the closet so he didn't have to compete against it (Holton was part of Leblanc), with the exception of two horns- the alto trombone and the flugelhorn, which he did not have in his inventory. That is why today if anyone knows anything about Courtois, it is because of the alto and flugelhorn. And that is the rumor about pricing. Today you can buy a Courtois AC420BO at $3250 MAP, Bach 42BO $3169, Yamaha 8820, $2767, and coming from Europe I think that is quite good. Anyway, there are some staunch supporters of the Courtois AC440- John Marcellus, Tim Anderson, Jaime Moralez Matos, Carl Lundgren, to name a few. I've had it repeadly at shows and have been told by some that it was the best player at the show. A couple of years ago at ITF Rochester, Abby Conant was knocked out by it, came back the next day to play it and learn her friend bought it out from under her. Oh well. Happy searching!

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:30 pm

You won't necessarily find something g that plays like it because the taper in Shires horns puts the overtone series in different spots than other horns. But since it probably shares some characteristics of an 88 because of it's setup you might be fine with a used 88. If you picked one up for say 1kish you could have it rebuilt if you didn't like the way it played and still come out under 2k probably. You could also add a wide slide crook if you still were 100% satisfied and thought that what was holding it back.

ttf_JubbaDaTrombone · Post by **ttf_JubbaDaTrombone** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:52 pm

Matt K, maybe, but the Conn 88H was the first one I tossed aside. It played way too tight. I'd have to try the Christian Lindberg valve to see if it makes any improvement. I think the slide needs to widen a little bit, too.

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:12 pm

Quote from: JubbaDaTrombone on Jun 06, 2017, 04:52PMMatt K, maybe, but the Conn 88H was the first one I tossed aside. It played way too tight. I'd have to try the Christian Lindberg valve to see if it makes any improvement. I think the slide needs to widen a little bit, too.

That isn't too surprising to me if it was a new horn. One that has been put together right is totally night and day in comparison in the same way Bachs are. That's why I suggested used; at a good enough price point you can modify it accordingly - including the wider slide crook - and still come out ahead.

I'm not a huge fan of the Lindberg valves and I know more than a few people who have had to totally replace theirs. If you like the way a particular 88CL plays, I would actually probably be more inclined to suggest it was because it happened to be put together ok rather than the valve itself. I would typically suggest that in such a situation it may be better to find a used 8H or 88H and either have an "improved" rotor added to it or swapped out for the existing rotor. I've played a number of really great 88s with Greenhoe valves, for example. I'd really love to give the Instrument Innovations new rotors with the same bearings as their infinity rotor a go with an 88. I bet that would be a heck of a horn.

Either way, if you were to make the leadpipe removable you might find that something like a Shires 2.5 or 3 is a good fit for you with that horn and all said and done would be probably less than the cost of a new Xeno and closer to the sound you are after.

FWIW!

ttf_Duffle · Post by **ttf_Duffle** » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:40 pm

Quote from: timbone on Jun 02, 2017, 12:39PMInteresting post and I'd like to weigh in about the Courtois 440. It is a copy of a 1960 Elkhart purchased in Italy, including leadpipe taper. The instrument was in R&D for about three years, the last phase was finding a red brass bell material in Europe, which I spent quite some time on here in the US. Dudley and Jacques Mauger were the playtesters and committee. The horn was designed to go after market share in the UK. I was also fortunate to play a concert as an adjunct tenor player with the LSO, alongside Dudley when he first took over, a very nice man, and fortunately for me Robert Hughes was on the gig (!). According to my sources, Dudley's conductor wanted him on the Conn. I've had a similiar conversation with Mick Rath of the reluctance to accept his trombones in the LSO!

Do conductors do this? Do they know one brand from another? Which conductor was it I wonder? Whoever it was it can't be the present conductor of the LSO as Peter Moore plays a Yamaha Xeno and James Maynard has recently switched from a Conn to a Yamaha. Yet Dudley Bright is still playing on his old Conns.......

ttf_mr.deacon · Post by **ttf_mr.deacon** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:24 am

Quote from: JubbaDaTrombone on Jun 06, 2017, 04:52PMMatt K, maybe, but the Conn 88H was the first one I tossed aside. It played way too tight.
A modern Eastlake or Elkhart Conn 88h is not the same as a vintage Elkhart Conn 88h. The Shires is based off of the vintage horn. The modern and vintage 88h's play quite a bit differently due to design changes along the way... Confusing I know

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:45 am

Quote from: Duffle on Jun 06, 2017, 10:40PMDo conductors do this? Do they know one brand from another? Which conductor was it I wonder? Whoever it was it can't be the present conductor of the LSO as Peter Moore plays a Yamaha Xeno and James Maynard has recently switched from a Conn to a Yamaha. Yet Dudley Bright is still playing on his old Conns.......

Highly unusual for a conductor to know anything about trombones.... or even care.

Chris Stearn

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:16 am

Quote from: mr.deacon on Jun 07, 2017, 01:24AMA modern Eastlake or Elkhart Conn 88h is not the same as a vintage Elkhart Conn 88h. The Shires is based off of the vintage horn. The modern and vintage 88h's play quite a bit differently due to design changes along the way... Confusing I know

This is true, but this is also why there are threads here that, when you boil it down, are dedicated mostly to defining how precisely we use the term 'like' when comparing trombones.

I think in this particular scenario, a Conn is close enough to a Conn is close enough to a Shires that has a few parts that are, on paper, similar to a Conn. Especially since the Xeno was also a contender even though its components, again on paper, are pretty different compared to both of them. The 88HT (thin) could be an option, but given that the heavier Xeno bell was also an option it sounds like a really well put together Conn would be a good fit. But then again, if the Xeno worked then its a fine instrument and, even though its not technically similar to the other horns the OP tried, would also probably be a good choice.

Also, I can't believe I forgot about this, but Horn Guys actually had said something similar to what I said closer to the top of this thread:

QuoteFebruary 2016: We're sold out of all Conn 88H trombones. Current Elkart, Indiana Conn trombones do not meet our standards, so we declined to reorder. But please do check back next year. Improvements are possible. For 2016 we will offer a new trombone at similar pricing to the Conn 88H called the Shires Q Model. These should arrive in May. Check back for updates.

Emphasis mine.

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:16 am

Quote from: mr.deacon on Jun 07, 2017, 01:24AMA modern Eastlake or Elkhart Conn 88h is not the same as a vintage Elkhart Conn 88h. The Shires is based off of the vintage horn. The modern and vintage 88h's play quite a bit differently due to design changes along the way... Confusing I know

This is true, but this is also why there are threads here that, when you boil it down, are dedicated mostly to defining how precisely we use the term 'like' when comparing trombones.

I think in this particular scenario, a Conn is close enough to a Conn is close enough to a Shires that has a few parts that are, on paper, similar to a Conn. Especially since the Xeno was also a contender even though its components, again on paper, are pretty different compared to both of them. The 88HT (thin) could be an option, but given that the heavier Xeno bell was also an option it sounds like a really well put together Conn would be a good fit. But then again, if the Xeno worked then its a fine instrument and, even though its not technically similar to the other horns the OP tried, would also probably be a good choice.

Also, I can't believe I forgot about this, but Horn Guys actually had said something similar to what I said closer to the top of this thread:

QuoteFebruary 2016: We're sold out of all Conn 88H trombones. Current Elkart, Indiana Conn trombones do not meet our standards, so we declined to reorder. But please do check back next year. Improvements are possible. For 2016 we will offer a new trombone at similar pricing to the Conn 88H called the Shires Q Model. These should arrive in May. Check back for updates.

Emphasis mine.