Calling all horn makers!

[Jgittleson]

Ok- I have a couple of questions for all of you. When assembling a horn how are you doing it? In a jig? By hand? Both? What are your acceptable tolerances? If a tuning slide is angled by 1° do you go back and fix it? What about .25° when does it get your seal of approval? When is a solder joint clean enough? When theres hardly any trace of solder? Absolutely no solder?

Im curious to see at what point people are satisfied with their work. I assemble my horns by hand, and if the parts dont fit tight, it can be a massive pain. I also strive for joints where 0 solder shows, but sometimes (maybe one out of ten) that last 5% thats visible fights me. I use a digital angle cube to check everything to the .05°, and usually inside of .25° my eye calls it straight (other than the tuning slide receiver, which i will sit there and fight to get 0.00° relative to the bell flare, otherwise over the length of the slide it sticks out with a sore thumb).

[Inspector71]

These are fairly involved questions. I'll do my best...but coffee hasn't kicked in yet...

The answer to question 1 is both. Tuning slides are usually made in a jig of our design. It just makes things easier. BUT you have to check the part after it is removed from the jig. Just because it is built in the jig doesn't mean it's straight and parallel. When heat is involved it can make things tricky. For tuning slides and hand slides we shoot for .003" or less.

Once the chassis is built, then you hang the tubing. This is all hand fit. We purposely make our parts too long. This way the tubes can be trimmed and hand filed for an exact fit. We don't want any gaps where the tubes are joined. There is much more time involved in doing it this way but we feel it is an important detail.

Lastly the solder...

After the joint has been soldered, cooled and the flux has been neutralized, any excess solder is wiped away. This is done by ONLY heating the excess solder just to the melting point. Then it is brushed away with a paper towel or pipe cleaner. Any leftover residue can easily be buffed and/or hand ragged away.

I hope this is understandable...my coffee is still failing me.

MDM

[elmsandr]

If you go to a lot of different factories and repair shops, you’ll find both. There are some that measure everything and use jigs, some that use jigs and do it all by feel, some that use no jigs and measure everything etc....

The thing is, most jigs built for horn manufacture are pretty simple early 20th century type steel holding jigs thatdo not compensate for minute differences in parts or temperature. Not a problem, good enough for the 19th century design of a trombone that we are still using. Similarly, the measurement techniques generally used are not as precise as we would think, calipers are just not that good. Don’t believe me, just have a friend randomize some parts for you and do a blind Gage R&R study and tell me what tolerance the study says you can reliably meet.

The design of the trombone lends itself to the hand fitting and filing of pieces for exact arrangement. So did gun manufacture prior to the industrial revolution. A more advanced design and process could remove this, but what would it look like and sound like? What would it cost? These things aren’t going to the moon, so is there a need to bring this into the automated age? We also cannot exactly define what the output of a horn is supposed to be. Guns are pretty straightforward in their function and reliability. The current trombone design is reliable enough and sounds the way we expect.

Some ramblings, but I will simply note that some places that have reputations for a lot of variance happen to be the same places where I never saw any gage that gave the builder a number back to them. The gages may not be exact, but if they are close enough you can still work on your observed variation.

Feel like I could go off on the measurement of various components and interfaces here for a long time, but that probably isn’t helpful.

Cheers,
Andy

[Jgittleson]

Andy, you hit a couple of nails on the head that I've been ranting about. Theres a fair amount of parts even on high end horns I'd label junk. If some key parts were made differently, the horn would assemble perfectly every time.

For example, last night I was assembling one of my Db horns. On the valve side of the crook, Bach ferrule going into a gooseneck. On the bell side, ferrule I turned on my lathe to my specs. The bell side was one two three to assemble, and because of some thought out designing, it could only go together one way. No slop in the joint, built in tubing stop for the crook, no chance for improper assembly. The came the Bach Ferrule. What crap! The excessive play alone makes it nearly impossible for perfect alignment by eye.

Why bother to go into all that? Because that junky ferrule, from a 5-6k horn, is what spurred me to start this topic. I'm personally tired of crap parts, I'll be having parts of my own design cnc'd in small quantities from now on.

[doctortrombone]

The came the Bach Ferrule. What crap! The excessive play alone makes it nearly impossible for perfect alignment by eye.

Why bother to go into all that? Because that junky ferrule, from a 5-6k horn, is what spurred me to start this topic. I'm personally tired of crap parts, I'll be having parts of my own design cnc'd in small quantities from now on.

Just a guess here, but do you think maybe cutting several inches off of a tapered neckpipe might have contributed to the sloppy fit of that ferrule? I could be wrong, but looking at your Db horn's design, it appears that you've had to make dual-diameter ferrules to accommodate jumps in bore size in places where you've removed conical tubing. If that's the case, I don't think it's Bach's fault.

Bach makes ferrules that assemble well with original parts, at a factory, in a jig. Why should they be concerned with how well they work when they are repeatedly heated, fitted to tubes they weren't designed to fit, and buffed to thinner dimensions?

[Jgittleson]

The came the Bach Ferrule. What crap! The excessive play alone makes it nearly impossible for perfect alignment by eye.

Why bother to go into all that? Because that junky ferrule, from a 5-6k horn, is what spurred me to start this topic. I'm personally tired of crap parts, I'll be having parts of my own design cnc'd in small quantities from now on.

Just a guess here, but do you think maybe cutting several inches off of a tapered neckpipe might have contributed to the sloppy fit of that ferrule? I could be wrong, but looking at your Db horn's design, it appears that you've had to make dual-diameter ferrules to accommodate jumps in bore size in places where you've removed conical tubing. If that's the case, I don't think it's Bach's fault.

Bach makes ferrules that assemble well with original parts, at a factory, in a jig. Why should they be concerned with how well they work when they are repeatedly heated, fitted to tubes they weren't designed to fit, and buffed to thinner dimensions?

You read it wrong. Other side. And the OD to ID are both bach parts. Also this goes for ferrules as well. Lots of slop nothing precise. And if you only saw how many of the joints have close to no solder holding them together from Bach. They're not the only ones either!

[elmsandr]

Well, poor fit of Bach Ferrules is something I’ve never seen. They are generally pretty good at the manufacture of components there. In the machining areas they are generally spot on. It is the variable fit area where I see them missing on some opportunities for precision.

The only times I’ve had issues with tubing diameters from Bach is when I am trying to match parts that are generations different. Frankly, I think it is fairly reasonable that a new tuning slide tube may not fit my 50+ year old horn.

Anyway, my point was more on measurement of assembly. How parallel is the slide? Sure, they looked at it on a stone, but a stone and eyeball can only see so much. How straight is the tube measured? I have rarely seen anything close to a robust measurement used. Of course, even with the measurement, if it doesn’t feel “right”, the measurement system is not useful.

That said, doing slides Cliff Ferree measured everything. Gary Ferree did it all by feel. When rebuilding my slides, the one Cliff did looked a lot better, the one Gary did felt better and moved a lot better, so what do I know?

Cheers,
Andy

[mrdeacon]

The came the Bach Ferrule. What crap! The excessive play alone makes it nearly impossible for perfect alignment by eye.

Why bother to go into all that? Because that junky ferrule, from a 5-6k horn, is what spurred me to start this topic. I'm personally tired of crap parts, I'll be having parts of my own design cnc'd in small quantities from now on.

Just a guess here, but do you think maybe cutting several inches off of a tapered neckpipe might have contributed to the sloppy fit of that ferrule? I could be wrong, but looking at your Db horn's design, it appears that you've had to make dual-diameter ferrules to accommodate jumps in bore size in places where you've removed conical tubing. If that's the case, I don't think it's Bach's fault.

Bach makes ferrules that assemble well with original parts, at a factory, in a jig. Why should they be concerned with how well they work when they are repeatedly heated, fitted to tubes they weren't designed to fit, and buffed to thinner dimensions?

I was thinking the same thing when I first saw OPs post about making his own ferrules. Nothing wrong with him making his own parts to fit his own design but I agree about the Bach parts matching stock Bach parts.

[Jgittleson]

I should do a video then. Like i said, not just bach. And i should also be more specific. I had a run of my own ferrules made, with a .002" clearance (cnc'd from billet). These fit what i would consider perfect. Snug but not impossible to assemble, and the wall is .050" vs the .020 or .030" ive seen around. Stronger, secure, and make assembly much easier. I'll compare these to bach parts, getzen, and some others in a video with a caliper. I will use brand new parts from the manufacturer to eliminate all the variables and doubt.

I should also mention i can get away with making my clearance much tighter because im soldering the horns in an entirely different way, and don't need any room for the solder. The way i do it with my own parts eliminates about 90% of the clean up work too.

Let's move on the bracing, these really drive me nuts. None of these tend to fit perfect right off the bat, and they are so cheap and flimsy, particularly bell braces, or any flanged brace. Again, welcome to 2018. Theres better ways to make higher quality parts for these things, and done right would not add any more cost to making a horn.

Alright my rant about crappy parts is over, back to the making of horns!

[Jgittleson]

Just a guess here, but do you think maybe cutting several inches off of a tapered neckpipe might have contributed to the sloppy fit of that ferrule? I could be wrong, but looking at your Db horn's design, it appears that you've had to make dual-diameter ferrules to accommodate jumps in bore size in places where you've removed conical tubing. If that's the case, I don't think it's Bach's fault.

Bach makes ferrules that assemble well with original parts, at a factory, in a jig. Why should they be concerned with how well they work when they are repeatedly heated, fitted to tubes they weren't designed to fit, and buffed to thinner dimensions?

I was thinking the same thing when I first saw OPs post about making his own ferrules. Nothing wrong with him making his own parts to fit his own design but I agree about the Bach parts matching stock Bach parts.

You'd think that, but you be surprised. I don't pretend to be an expert on the major manufacturers, but taking apart horns I'm honestly shocked at what I've found. Joints with literally a thin line of solder maybe bonding 75% of the joint together, where air can easily find its way through is fairly common. And at one of every ten to fifteen no solder at all. I can't believe this is what passes QC. And the ends on outer tuning slides are even worse! They are slightly larger at the end for the solder to have a place to go, but as a result the tube can be angled a good 15° to 20° in any direction. This is not precision! Nor quality for that matter.

For what these horns cost everyone should take a page from M&W's book. Look at their construction. The hardware at the joint is more substantial, the end gaps are virtually zero. This is how they should all be folks. And it's part of why im designing my own line of parts.

Most of the parts on a horn can be substantially improved upon with a the machining processes available today. Even rotor design sucks. I showed a rotor to a cnc programmer and an engineer, and within 30 seconds they had seveval ideas for improvements in serviceability and durability, that they apply to a rotor of similar use in a different application. One we are trying, it's as simple as teflon plain bearings front and rear, and cnc'd bodies with integrated ferrules, having all the elbows off the body at .050" to reduce the inherent weak points that can fail on a horn. They claim with the bearing improvement, they use something identical in a mchine that has to rotate 10,000x daily, and the bearings last 6 month to a year! I highly doubt any horn has that much use in a lifetime.

[Schlitz]

.

[doctortrombone]

For me, the point is "do parts do the job?" and is performance lessened with their use? Enthusiasts are born to redesign and overthink the way components work. Woodworkers may suggest that chamfered teak would make superior popsicle sticks. An artist versed in decoupage might say that postage stamps stick better with a glue that permeates the paper and the stamp. And I, Professor Trombone, study verse. The scansion of the posts on Trombonechat is random. Why not use a formal "foot?" (Yes, that entire paragraph is in iambic pentameter.)

The point is, ANYTHING can be overthought, but if it does its intended job, why redesign it?

As a general rule, ferrules are designed to seal, and to add strength along the latitudinal axis. Some, like those on tuning slides, need additional strength in the longitudinal axis since they're subject to that stress in normal use. As long as there's a contiguous band of solder on the inside, they're doing their job. I've disassembled 100-year-old horns hand built by exceptional craftsmen and I find that there is seldom full saturation in the joint, and there are generally large areas where oxidized brass is exposed within the joint, yet these horns played beautifully and held together for a century. If they don't leak and don't fall apart under normal use, what's the beef?

I don't know what these super-ferrules look like on the inside, and I won't guess because I'll get one of two responses: "It's a secret---buy 100 and see" or "WRONG!!!" with no other explanation. The thing is, I've found that standard ferrules with minimal solder do the job quite well as far as sealing and connecting, and avoid other issues that come up when redesigning. More solder = more expansion. Thicker ferrules = expansion only toward the inside. More internal expansion = interruption of the bore profile.

I'll repeat a point I made earlier--the focus on the mechanical function of the ferrules on these cut-down horns distracts from the larger issue--the bore still does not appear to be contiguous in profile. Judging from the pictures, it looks like there are jumps in bore that are in the hundredths, and perhaps even tenths, at the neckpipe-to-crook and crook-to-bell junctions. A better ferrule might help to create a strong connection between these mismatched parts, but it won't make them play any better.

[Jgittleson]

For me, the point is "do parts do the job?" and is performance lessened with their use? Enthusiasts are born to redesign and overthink the way components work. Woodworkers may suggest that chamfered teak would make superior popsicle sticks. An artist versed in decoupage might say that postage stamps stick better with a glue that permeates the paper and the stamp. And I, Professor Trombone, study verse. The scansion of the posts on Trombonechat is random. Why not use a formal "foot?" (Yes, that entire paragraph is in iambic pentameter.)

The point is, ANYTHING can be overthought, but if it does its intended job, why redesign it?

As a general rule, ferrules are designed to seal, and to add strength along the latitudinal axis. Some, like those on tuning slides, need additional strength in the longitudinal axis since they're subject to that stress in normal use. As long as there's a contiguous band of solder on the inside, they're doing their job. I've disassembled 100-year-old horns hand built by exceptional craftsmen and I find that there is seldom full saturation in the joint, and there are generally large areas where oxidized brass is exposed within the joint, yet these horns played beautifully and held together for a century. If they don't leak and don't fall apart under normal use, what's the beef?

I don't know what these super-ferrules look like on the inside, and I won't guess because I'll get one of two responses: "It's a secret---buy 100 and see" or "WRONG!!!" with no other explanation. The thing is, I've found that standard ferrules with minimal solder do the job quite well as far as sealing and connecting, and avoid other issues that come up when redesigning. More solder = more expansion. Thicker ferrules = expansion only toward the inside. More internal expansion = interruption of the bore profile.

I'll repeat a point I made earlier--the focus on the mechanical function of the ferrules on these cut-down horns distracts from the larger issue--the bore still does not appear to be contiguous in profile. Judging from the pictures, it looks like there are jumps in bore that are in the hundredths, and perhaps even tenths, at the neckpipe-to-crook and crook-to-bell junctions. A better ferrule might help to create a strong connection between these mismatched parts, but it won't make them play any better.

Oh boy.... ok for starters the bore is continuous, which, by the way even on high end well regarded horn it isnt. Shires basses for example have a jump in bore size in the tuning slide leg.

You know, you do a lot of complaining, and honestly dont have much of a clue what your complaining about. Do me a favor, stay off my topics, thanks buddy!

[doctortrombone]

Oh boy.... ok for starters the bore is continuous.

Is it? There a jump of at least .040 in the first picture, as seen in the crook slid over the valve stub. In the second picture, it looks as though you've simply put in a stepped ferrule. Unless your new design incorporates a tesseract or you're using a completely different back crook, there's still at least a .040 jump between the valve and the crook. There appears to be a similar jump at the big end of the crook where it connects to the bell.

You know, you do a lot of complaining, and honestly dont have much of a clue what your complaining about. Do me a favor, stay off my topics, thanks buddy!

Perhaps if your goal is to sell products, you should buy advertising instead of posting on a forum. You're posting ideas and theories here, not advertisements. Why wouldn't you expect them to be challenged?

[Schlitz]

.

[doctortrombone]

...

Granted, I have no clue ...

Pretty much sums it up.

I live in Eastern Washington, but I'm a California native. Don't assume that where I live has anything to do with whether or not my points are "silly." If you think they're silly, by all means tell me why. For example, your earlier post about black market ferrules really didn't make much sense to me. Bach makes inexpensive ferrules because employees steal them and sell them? Where? To whom?

[Jgittleson]

Oh boy.... ok for starters the bore is continuous.

Is it? There a jump of at least .040 in the first picture, as seen in the crook slid over the valve stub. In the second picture, it looks as though you've simply put in a stepped ferrule. Unless your new design incorporates a tesseract or you're using a completely different back crook, there's still at least a .040 jump between the valve and the crook. There appears to be a similar jump at the big end of the crook where it connects to the bell.

You know, you do a lot of complaining, and honestly dont have much of a clue what your complaining about. Do me a favor, stay off my topics, thanks buddy!

Perhaps if your goal is to sell products, you should buy advertising instead of posting on a forum. You're posting ideas and theories here, not advertisements. Why wouldn't you expect them to be challenged?

Talking about this horn guy. Like i said, you make comments without knowing what you're commenting about. The independent one has a step on the valve side, its unavoidable. It also makes no difference in the sound of the horn, but since youre an expert in my designs of course you know that already. Tell ya what, ill design a custom valve leg with an integrated taper just for your order. When should i plan on getting that again? Since you insist im a salesman ill keep perfecting my pitch on ya bud!

[Jgittleson]

You know, you do a lot of complaining, and honestly dont have much of a clue what your complaining about. Do me a favor, stay off my topics, thanks buddy!

I regularly complain about people from Oklahoma. OSU, there, isn’t a football school, and most party noisemakers are more accurate than their trombone players.

Please ignore the silly people from the eastern part of Washington. West of I-5 is pretty normal.

Granted, I have no clue about your manufacturing issues. But I find your posts informative and interesting. Please continue your postings and ignore the Quickdraw McGraw analyst.

Lol! He's attacking you now!

Thanks man, i don't intent to have a rotten egg spoil the rest of the dozen. Simply toss it out and keep the good ones!

[Jgittleson]

To anyone who was actually interested where i was originally going i apologize. The intent was to get a feel from those who are making horns what some of their assembly preferences are. Also, i felt it pertinent to post observations from horns from established manufacturers that i have taken apart, and the findings. If you buy a horn, you should know what you are potentially purchasing, whoever makes it.

[doctortrombone]

The independent one has a step on the valve side, its unavoidable.

No, it isn't. I've cut down more than 20 horns. If I can't avoid a major step in bore, I won't build it. Its shoddy workmanship.

But hey---I apologize for getting you all riled up again. Advertise away. I'll let you be.

[Jgittleson]

The independent one has a step on the valve side, its unavoidable.

No, it isn't. I've cut down more than 20 horns. If I can't avoid a major step in bore, I won't build it. Its shoddy workmanship.

But hey---I apologize for getting you all riled up again. Advertise away. I'll let you be.

So tell ya what- you go ahead and make me the custom crook or valve needed for the horn that oh yea, I INVENTED, and ill use you are my supplier. And again, I'm so glad you know so much about my design, apparently you've made 20 of them to my specs! What flattery!

[Schlitz]

.

[doctortrombone]

The profile pic on the faculty bio page is silly, Doc.

You figured that out, eh? That we weren't required to pose in Hawaiian shirts with Conn 90Gs, and that I was being silly? Good for you.

[LeTromboniste]

[blast]

If ALL members cannot calm down and debate and discuss with mutual respect, this topic will close.
That would be a shame as there are interesting perspectives here.

Chris

[afugate]

I regularly complain about people from Oklahoma. OSU, there, isn’t a football school, and most party noisemakers are more accurate than their trombone players.

To set the record straight... Paul Compton, trombone professor at Oklahoma State University, is turning out some outstanding trombone players.

And I agree with Chris. Let's calm the flaming and talk trombone. It's been interesting to see the project progress.

-- Andy in OKC

[LeTromboniste]

I have to say, I'm a bit put off by the ad hominem attacks and the insults in this thread (and maybe above all, the "stay off my topics" comment - that just really goes against the spirit of this forum). I haven't seen you being insulted and attacked personally. When posting on a forum like we have here, it is to be expected that not everyone will agree and there might be debate. If you're not ready to have your ideas challenged and have a respectful discussion about them why are you posting on a forum? Doctortrombone here has posted in the past about horns he built and asked for constructive criticism or input on how his ideas could be improved, whereas anytime someone has questioned some of your ideas, the response has been defensive and along the lines of 'you don't know what you're talking about'.

I'm genuinely interested in that project of yours and wish that constructive discussion could emerge of these posts. In this particular thread I'd love for there to be a discussion about instrument assembly, and how crappy parts make their way into high end instruments, but if it's only a pretext for the poster to say how much better he could do it, I find it utterly uninteresting.

I have a question about your project, but I'll post it on the other thread so the discussion here can get back on topic.

[Jgittleson]

Im only going to respond to the part that stay on topic to keep this on track.

I should be more specific when i say the parts are of lower quality. My 2 issues with them are, fitment, and thickness primarily. I think some context is appropriate. 100 years ago, this was probably the best that could be done with the available tooling. But this is not 100 years ago, and we have tooks available to make incredible advancements. I use ferrules as an example, because an improvement here is so easy to accomplish, and has big benefits.

My purpose here is to specifically question the accepted norms, since many of them are honestly outdated. I dont know about any of you, but to me, $6,000+ is a lot of money. So i work this thing backwards. If i were to buy a new horn right now for that amount of money, what would i want in terms of quality that isnt being offered? I follow that up with what would the benefits be? And finally how can it be accomplished?

[doctortrombone]

My 2 issues with them are, fitment, and thickness primarily. I think some context is appropriate. 100 years ago, this was probably the best that could be done with the available tooling. But this is not 100 years ago, and we have tooks available to make incredible advancements. I use ferrules as an example, because an improvement here is so easy to accomplish, and has big benefits.

But this has been addressed, and as others have pointed out, you haven't responded to any of the points that challenge your argument about ferrule design. I'm not convinced that redesigned ferrules offer an advantage, and I believe they offer some disadvantages.

Thickness:

1) A thicker ferrule offers advantages in re-assembly, but limited advantages in strength, since a horn's bracing ensures that there are minimal stresses at the ferrule. I've seen well-built European horns with ferrules that are half the size of my wedding ring, and they still do the job.

2) A thicker ferrule expands less as the solder in the joint cools, thus potentially creating a bottleneck. Tube junctions generally end up several thousandths smaller than their original dimensions once solder is added to the joint.

Fitment:

1) We haven't determined that this poor fitment actually exists. A few techs have noted that Bach ferrules tend to be quite precise.

2) If this poor fitment does exist, my question is always "does it affect the sound"? When assembling horns in a jig at a factory, perhaps some tolerance to lateral motion is a good thing, since the tubes are lined up well. Perhaps a tighter-tolerance ferrule would shift the tubing as the solder cools, putting stress in the build.

Other things that affect ferrule design include mass at node points (perhaps thicker ferrules affect the overtone series) overall instrument weight, (a double-valve bass has at least eight of these, and sometimes as many as twelve) moving mass (many lightweight slides are built without ferrules, using expanded tubing at the ends of the handslide crook) and I'm sure there are other points that can be brought in.

I applaud your efforts to build a better mousetrap, but I'm the kind of person who is going to ask "does it trap more mice?" and "what if it traps fewer mice?"

[elmsandr]

A 0.002" gap is not the generally specified gap for a solder filled joint. On a trombone or even in the electronics industry.

Also, from experience building horns, I REALLY dislike adding thicker ferrules/tubing. In general, I want to minimize the number of joints and then also minimize the thickness of the added material. For example, using the tuning slide legs and ferrules of Getzen/Edwards basses to me really kills the feel of the horn. Again, I've made a couple of those and don't really like the response. It isn't bad, and it certainly works for some people, but that isn't me.

Cheers,
Andy

[Jgittleson]

Lol. Getzen has the thinnest ferrules. Heres is proof. And i accounted for a place for the solder.

[Jgittleson]

More:

[Jgittleson]

And more

[Jgittleson]

I can't be more transparent than that. And there are .010 by .1 rings in the ferrules for the solder. I preload them and then heat the joint. Almost no cleanup and air tight joints every time, in part to the .001 gap all the way around vs .0025 on the other one. It makes a huge difference. And yes i am patenting this to potentially Liscence, along with a dozen other utility patents.

[SwissTbone]

I am an absolute nnob when it comes to such details in horn building. I think it would be really interesting if you could show some "bad" parts and some "good" parts. As well as good or bad assembly examples.

That would be really instructive to a lot of players.

[Jgittleson]

I am an absolute nnob when it comes to such details in horn building. I think it would be really interesting if you could show some "bad" parts and some "good" parts. As well as good or bad assembly examples.

That would be really instructive to a lot of players.

I have plenty of parts sitting heres with what i would call sloppy tolerances. I'd be happy to take some photos for you. I also have some that are a perfect example of great workmanship i can do the same with. As far as assembly, thats pretty straight forward.

Solder shouldn't be exposed at the joints, and things should be lined up peoperly, or at least perfect enough the human eye doesnt notice it (which is much closer than you'd expect). As far as assembly methods, im eager to hear how other people are doing it myself, that was mostly why i created this topic.

[SwissTbone]

I have plenty of parts sitting heres with what i would call sloppy tolerances. I'd be happy to take some photos for you. I also have some that are a perfect example of great workmanship i can do the same with.

That would be great!

[elmsandr]

Lol. Getzen has the thinnest ferrules. Heres is proof. And i accounted for a place for the solder.

Neat. Now measure how thick the inner large tuning slide is at the ferrule you took of the tuning slide bow. There is a huge step in that ferrule and socket assembly to accommodate the tapered inner tuning slide leg. One side is thin, one is quite fat. Overall, the joint has a big wall thickness. Does it matter? Heck, I don't think the world could agree on how to determine which is better.

If the expansion rate in the bell section is your prime design factor, the tapered tuning slide legs and odd stepped ferrules makes sense for Getzen. I do not concur, but I am not an expert, just an observer.

Cheers,
Andy

[Jgittleson]

Lol. Getzen has the thinnest ferrules. Heres is proof. And i accounted for a place for the solder.

Neat. Now measure how thick the inner large tuning slide is at the ferrule you took of the tuning slide bow. There is a huge step in that ferrule and socket assembly to accommodate the tapered inner tuning slide leg. One side is thin, one is quite fat. Overall, the joint has a big wall thickness. Does it matter? Heck, I don't think the world could agree on how to determine which is better.

If the expansion rate in the bell section is your prime design factor, the tapered tuning slide legs and odd stepped ferrules makes sense for Getzen. I do not concur, but I am not an expert, just an observer.

Cheers,
Andy

? I phased those out with my new design. I bridged the tapers

[mrpillow]

I can't comment on the manufacturing specifics, but as a horn consumer, I would never buy something with that hideous step down after the ferrule.

[Jgittleson]

I can't comment on the manufacturing specifics, but as a horn consumer, I would never buy something with that hideous step down after the ferrule.

That is a design choice. I wanted it that way to match the rest of the ferrules. The outside is easily tapered should one want it to be.

[Jgittleson]

How did we get back on my horns? Anyone with questions on the Db horns, i have a lonely thread i encourage you to respond on, where i am more that happy to andwer any questions/engage in any dialogue about them. Can we try to keep this one a little more on topic? Thanks!

[LeTromboniste]

How did we get back on my horns? Anyone with questions on the Db horns, i have a lonely thread i encourage you to respond on, where i am more that happy to andwer any questions/engage in any dialogue about them. Can we try to keep this one a little more on topic? Thanks!

Well, let's see...

Neat. Now measure how thick the inner large tuning slide is at the ferrule you took of the tuning slide bow. There is a huge step in that ferrule and socket assembly to accommodate the tapered inner tuning slide leg. One side is thin, one is quite fat. Overall, the joint has a big wall thickness. Does it matter? Heck, I don't think the world could agree on how to determine which is better.

If the expansion rate in the bell section is your prime design factor, the tapered tuning slide legs and odd stepped ferrules makes sense for Getzen. I do not concur, but I am not an expert, just an observer.

Cheers,
Andy

? I phased those out with my new design. I bridged the tapers

Oh...

[mrdeacon]

How did we get back on my horns? Anyone with questions on the Db horns, i have a lonely thread i encourage you to respond on, where i am more that happy to andwer any questions/engage in any dialogue about them. Can we try to keep this one a little more on topic? Thanks!

Well, let's see...

? I phased those out with my new design. I bridged the tapers

Oh...

I guess the question then is... bridging those tapers a good or a bad thing?

Maybe this is similar the endless battle between people who think "the gap" between the mouthpiece and leadpipe is a good thing, and those who think it is a bad thing.

Maybe ferrules are similar in nature? That extra little bump in the Getzen and Bach ferrules might give the horn some extra resistence that's good for the blow of the horn.

I mean shoot. There is a huge difference between how horns with regular tuning slides, reversed tuning slide, J bend tuning slide, and TIS play.

[Elow]

Do ferrules really matter that much? I fail to see the point of making fancy ferrules. They hold parts together... do they not? The parts under the ferrules should be touching... should they not? For tuning slides, when are you ever going to be pushed in all they way? Only when im outside.

[harrisonreed]

Do ferrules really matter that much? I fail to see the point of making fancy ferrules. They hold parts together... do they not? The parts under the ferrules should be touching... should they not? For tuning slides, when are you ever going to be pushed in all they way? Only when im outside.

At all times.

[Elow]

Do ferrules really matter that much? I fail to see the point of making fancy ferrules. They hold parts together... do they not? The parts under the ferrules should be touching... should they not? For tuning slides, when are you ever going to be pushed in all they way? Only when im outside.

At all times.

What? I’m always about 3 1/2 inches out with my slide just barely out

[harrisonreed]

At all times.

What? I’m always about 3 1/2 inches out with my slide just barely out

The American way of tuning!

Conn used to put springs in the bumper barrels to teach players how to not play or tune that way.

[Redthunder]

The American way of tuning!

Conn used to put springs in the bumper barrels to teach players how to not play or tune that way.

I played this way until Doug pointed it out to me in a lesson. The tuning slide was half the battle - figuring out how to lower my pitch by nearly a full half step with my oral cavity was the real challenge.

[Doug Elliott]

I played this way until Doug pointed it out to me in a lesson. The tuning slide was half the battle - figuring out how to lower my pitch by nearly a full half step with my oral cavity was the real challenge.

I don't want anybody to take that the wrong way... For most players the pitch adjustment would be primarily in the handslide.

Redthunder is an upstream player who was playing very high on the pitch and needed the oral cavity adjustment to bring the pitch down and open his sound.