Bad idea? 50L bell on Q-series rotors

[TomInME]

I've got a 50B3LOG that I've enjoyed playing for a long time, early '90's vintage with pretty small (but fast) rotors and open wrap, and the double-trigger C/B's are always work. The only time I've liked the B is when I upsized to a Yeo mouthpiece, but I've since backed away from that mouthpiece.

I've been thinking of getting more modern rotors but don't have the budget for a custom-level bell section (Shires are $5300), and I'd like to keep the sound I get from the Bach bell (some sentimental attachment too), not to mention having the option of switching bells. It might even be possible to set up the leftover rotors as a "small bass" or pseudo-tenor configuration which would be nice to have.

TBQ36GR's are only $4200 new and I've seen some used as low as $3000, also saw a used rotor section for $1900 (although that would require buying a main tuning slide also). Getting the Bach cut will add some to that but if I end up with the equivalent of multiple instruments and stay under $4k, I'd be very tempted.

Knowing how much I don't know, I wonder if this is straight-up a terrible idea, so I'm putting this out for more-experience minds to ponder.

[Wilco]

You could try an edwards slide with the most open pipe. Or more drastically pull the pipe on your bach slide

[Burgerbob]

The only thing I would watch out for is slide clearance, many modern bass valve sections are only made with 9.5 bells in mind so the slide receiver is not at the right angle.

I just had some Q rotors on an otherwise custom Shires trombone... they were ok. Not bad, but a big step down from the real deal.

An Edwards slide (with any leadpipe... I wouldn't go most open) will make a big difference on any Bach.

[Wilco]

I pulled mone for a thein leadpipe so that I can use the same mpc as on my Thein bass. Big difference

[elmsandr]

Slide clearance can be somewhat easily adjusted at the time of fitment. Second, if you reverse the Bach tuning slide the shires inner will work just fine. The front bell brace on a shires variant is almost 1/2” farther forward than the Bach…. The handslide receiver is shorter to match. So, decide which receiver you are using and consider how much work is required.

Not a small job, but could be swapped over in a day (I’ve done similar twice with Trubore sections).

I didn’t love the Shires custom level rotors that I had for a while. They were… fine. But not for me.

Cheers,
Andy

[Elow]

Why not go all out? Have someone build you a valve section? Yes it will be pricey but you’re already spending upwards of $2000. Have something custom built is not too far out of the ball park and the result will be 10000000x better than something put together in a Chinese factory. The Eastman/qseries are built terribly.

[TomInME]

An Edwards slide (with any leadpipe... I wouldn't go most open) will make a big difference on any Bach.

I'm using a Shires slide with a 2.5L leadpipe.

[TomInME]

Why not go all out? Have someone build you a valve section? Yes it will be pricey but you’re already spending upwards of $2000. Have something custom built is not too far out of the ball park and the result will be 10000000x better than something put together in a Chinese factory. The Eastman/qseries are built terribly.

That's definitely an option I'm considering, but it would require a real pro, which could end up even more expensive. Might be worth it though.

[TomInME]

I just had some Q rotors on an otherwise custom Shires trombone... they were ok. Not bad, but a big step down from the real deal.

Thanks for that info - I don't want to spend $3k to move laterally...

[Matt K]

I’d also recommend swapping rotors with something “improved”. M&W do conversions like that which are always mouth watering. I’ve got a set of Instrument Innovations on mine that Jeff at Long Island brass assembled for me that are really great. Rotax or Caidex are popular too. They aren’t “drop in” - nothing is - but some techs do a really great job of cutting and doing adjustments to get it just right.

I’d also personally swap the tuning slide and leadpipe since they’re not terribly expensive operations and have been worth it for Bach horns I’ve done them to in the past

[TomInME]

Yeah, getting something built is likely path forward, get some top-shelf rotors. Not going to be cheap though.

Thanks to all for your feedback.

[GabrielRice]

Shires bass trombone bell sections are smaller diameter at the small tuning slide leg than Bach.

[elmsandr]

Shires bass trombone bell sections are smaller diameter at the small tuning slide leg than Bach.

Curious what you mean by this… because the Shires inner (on the neckpipe side) fits perfectly into a Bach outer like they were made together. I’ve done this at least three times and haven’t had to expand or lap anything to fit. We got out the tools each time… and didn’t have to use them.

image.jpg

I have a variety of Bach parts from 1942-2007 or so and they all mate perfectly each other (on diameter only) and with three Shires valve sections, two of which I still have.

Cheers,
Andy

[TomInME]

...the Shires inner (on the neckpipe side) fits perfectly into a Bach outer like they were made together. I’ve done this at least three times and haven’t had to expand or lap anything to fit. We got out the tools each time… and didn’t have to use them.

Again: thanks for valuable info.
Have you done this with Bach/Shires basses? (photo is a single-valve)

Follow-up question: Does the large side (bell-side) of a Bach main tuning slide work with Shires bells?

[TomInME]

I’d also recommend swapping rotors with something “improved”. M&W do conversions like that which are always mouth watering. I’ve got a set of Instrument Innovations on mine that Jeff at Long Island brass assembled for me that are really great. Rotax or Caidex are popular too. They aren’t “drop in” - nothing is - but some techs do a really great job of cutting and doing adjustments to get it just right.

I'm seeing $4275 on the M&W page for a double-valve section, which would bust my budget even before the additional costs to fit the Bach bell and possibly buy a new main tuning slide. A Rath R9 costs $5600 and also includes bell, slide, tuning slide...

I'm sure I'd love the M&W setup, but I wouldn't love having to work an extra year before retiring in order to pay for it...

[WGWTR180]

I’d also recommend swapping rotors with something “improved”. M&W do conversions like that which are always mouth watering. I’ve got a set of Instrument Innovations on mine that Jeff at Long Island brass assembled for me that are really great. Rotax or Caidex are popular too. They aren’t “drop in” - nothing is - but some techs do a really great job of cutting and doing adjustments to get it just right.

I'm seeing $4275 on the M&W page for a double-valve section, which would bust my budget even before the additional costs to fit the Bach bell and possibly buy a new main tuning slide. A Rath R9 costs $5600 and also includes bell, slide, tuning slide...

I'm sure I'd love the M&W setup, but I wouldn't love having to work an extra year before retiring in order to pay for it...

Yes but you get what you pay for. Matthew’s work
and experience have been tried and proven. Throwing any valves on a Bach is an experiment. Comparing a R9 price is also not really a fair comparison.

[Matt K]

I don’t think that the price is the same for conversions, fwiw. Probably also won’t save a huge amount though either. Instrument Innovations rotors would be more budget conscious and still be a massive improvement.

The big thing that people don’t plan for expense wise is linkages. Getting them right is really expensive relative to what people expect.

[WGWTR180]

I don’t think that the price is the same for conversions, fwiw. Probably also won’t save a huge amount though either. Instrument Innovations rotors would be more budget conscious and still be a massive improvement.

The big thing that people don’t plan for expense wise is linkages. Getting them right is really expensive relative to what people expect.

Why do you think that's not the conversion price?

[TomInME]

I'm sure I'd love the M&W setup

Yes but you get what you pay for.

Of course you do! (usually... not sure why new 50B3O's with the same rotors are nearly $7k) And I'm sure I'd love it (see quote above), but I don't need the best of the very best. I'm not that level of player nor do I have sufficient paid work to justify it - just a bump from where I'm currently at would be nice, if the price is right.

[TomInME]

Instrument Innovations rotors would be more budget conscious and still be a massive improvement.

Yeah, that's probably the direction I'm looking to go - not top-of-the-line, but a noticeable step up.

[Burgerbob]

I don’t think that the price is the same for conversions, fwiw.

It is

[Wilco]

It’s probably wiser to buy a used horn with good valves instead….

[elmsandr]

...the Shires inner (on the neckpipe side) fits perfectly into a Bach outer like they were made together. I’ve done this at least three times and haven’t had to expand or lap anything to fit. We got out the tools each time… and didn’t have to use them.

Again: thanks for valuable info.
Have you done this with Bach/Shires basses? (photo is a single-valve)

Follow-up question: Does the large side (bell-side) of a Bach main tuning slide work with Shires bells?

Photo is my single bass Trubore. All of my comments are for Shires/Bach Bass sections. I did not try the bell side connection or tuning slide while I owned one. Probably should have, but I never tried it and didn’t blueprint it/measure it at all. I no longer own the Shires flare, tuning slide, or traditional rotor set.

Cheers,
Andy

[TomInME]

Thanks for the follow-up.

[GabrielRice]

Shires bass trombone bell sections are smaller diameter at the small tuning slide leg than Bach.

Curious what you mean by this… because the Shires inner (on the neckpipe side) fits perfectly into a Bach outer like they were made together. I’ve done this at least three times and haven’t had to expand or lap anything to fit. We got out the tools each time… and didn’t have to use them.

I have a variety of Bach parts from 1942-2007 or so and they all mate perfectly each other (on diameter only) and with three Shires valve sections, two of which I still have.

You are right; I was wrong.

It's not the Bach parts that are bigger...it's the Greenhoe parts I have in my conversion.

Interesting.

[modelerdc]

After having several frakenbones assembled I think you should consider the total cost of the project and ask yourself if this is a better investment than buying an instrument that’s already what you want. Bach bells are often thought to work better with a Bach tuning slide, but the Bach tuning slide may be narrower in span than the shires, and this can cause problems adapting the bell to the valve section. Shires tuning slides would be an easier fit and shies make a B and a C so hopefully at least one would work well for you. One final thought, the Bachs that play the best for me have been the ones with the most open valves. The q valves are good but there are more open options. If you can swing it the higher quality option will make you happier in the long run. For a Bach I’d recommend Thayer valves

[harrisonreed]

I've got a 50B3LOG that I've enjoyed playing for a long time, early '90's vintage with pretty small (but fast) rotors and open wrap, and the double-trigger C/B's are always work. The only time I've liked the B is when I upsized to a Yeo mouthpiece, but I've since backed away from that mouthpiece.

"Here's your sign"

That's the bad Foxworthy reference of the day, but if you solved or improved the issue with the Yeo mouthpiece, what makes you think that it is the rotors' fault that the low C and B are a lot of work?

TL;DR: It's probably not the massive diameter and cup of the Yeo that made those notes easier for you, it's likely the Yeo backbore and the .315" throat.

I had a ton of problems with those on the Yamaha 830 and the solution was to get a mouthpiece with a larger throat and a backbore that compensated for it. I realized this when I switched my bass mouthpiece out for my tenor mouthpiece to try and figure out what was going on, and found that it was much easier to play below the staff with my shallow tenor mouthpiece (.308 throat) than my bass piece I had at the time. The sound was all wrong, but the compression and feedback was great. With this thought, I designed a 2G mouthpiece that was a bit deeper than a 1.5G and had a .312" throat with a middle of the road backbore. Haven't looked back since.

[TomInME]

Have you or Mr. Foxworthy played the instrument in question? "the double-trigger C/B's are always work" I say this after playing it as my one and only instrument for 30+ years.

The Yeo had a pretty nice low B (it was still work, but rewarded) but there were other downsides, mainly color. It's pretty dead unless you really step on it (which it is reluctant to accept), and then it's still kind of dead. So my choices were: stick with a mouthpiece that gives me a sound I don't like most of the time in exchange for making those particular notes sound good, or use something that sounds good everywhere else but is extra work on those notes (which is what I had with a 1 1/4 GM). Those are my reasons for backing away from those mouthpieces.

But since the trouble zone is the lower double-trigger range, where the valve section has significant influence (and may be the largest single factor), it seems reasonable to conclude that improving the valves would be beneficial. (yes, mouthpieces are a lot cheaper and should be looked at first - I have and will continue to do so). I've tried other players' axials and truebores and those notes kind of fly out but sound ugly.

But since this thread may be telling me my budget isn't adequate for new valves (especially not axials), I'm doing what they did to fix it back when independent rotors first came around: the Bach 1G (until I find a modern equivalent that is less bad). I backed off the leadpipe one size smaller, and it's surprisingly decent in the context of almost any ensemble playing actually written for bass not tenor. IMO, color and response are still very "Bach" (unlike the Yeo). High register is a world of hurt though - not very centered above G and super-thin on high C/B (nothing above that, although I could reach E's on the 1 1/4GM).

It's the smallest mouthpiece (from what I currently own) that will do the job at hand. In other contexts, I'll have to switch back to the 1 1/4 or something - to do big band right, I really should have a tenor for the crazy high stuff anyway, and that would cost half (or a third, or even one-fourth) as much as new valves. (if I was doing orchestra, I'd want a small bass)
And I'll keep dreaming about a setup that does everything well without any effort required.