Shires Q&A, what would you like to know?

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:20 pm

Quote from: Nic on Oct 19, 2014, 09:09PMG'day Ben,

Would you care to comment on the difference in design philosophy between the 7 and 8 bass bells?

Cheers,
Nic

The only difference between them is that the 7 has a soldered beadwire and the 8 is unsoldered.

In practice, the 8 bells do not work very well for most people. They can be unfocused and with dull articulations. In general, most people desiring and unsoldered beadwire are more successful with the more traditional type 2 bell.

I have only played one type 8 bell that I liked; it was standard weight (heavy) in gold brass and paired with a trubore valve and a TB47GLW slide (.547, bass crook, gold brass outer tubes without oversleeves). It felt like a very Germanic horn (and was, indeed, on its way to Germany) and felt very balanced with the rest of the set-up. I tried this same bell with many other parts and it wasn't as good. So this was part of a whole package.

I hope that helps.

Ben

ttf_Nic · Post by **ttf_Nic** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:13 pm

Thanks, Ben. Love your work.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:48 pm

Ben,

You might remember me from playing in Kent Glenns band about a dozen years ago.

Earlier in this thread, there is was talk of the dual alloy bells - that might be a tweak Im looking for. Right now Im playing B1 2RT7, dependent tru-bores, BYB, B62/78NLW. Where Im looking for help is that if really push it, the sound gets too razzy. Ive always explained the best bass trombone sounds is the proper blend of dark-smooth-warmth and ripping sheet metal. Im looking the dial the sheet-metal part back a bit, even for those times that I need to cut through a rhythm section that forgot that the knobs also turn to the left.

Is just the change to half gold brass going make a difference I can perceive?

While were on the subject of bells . . . ( this is probably more than a tweak ).
What about the sterling bells for bass bone? Ive always enjoyed the King silver sonics. But the SS Dou Gravis is a bit too quirky. Have you done enough silver bass bells to get a feel for what components complement it? What bell options, (taper, weight, etc.) apply the sterling bells?

thanks
Steve Carr

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:31 am

Quote from: SteveCarr on Oct 21, 2014, 01:48PMBen,

You might remember me from playing in Kent Glenns band about a dozen years ago.

Earlier in this thread, there is was talk of the dual alloy bells - that might be a tweak Im looking for. Right now Im playing B1 2RT7, dependent tru-bores, BYB, B62/78NLW. Where Im looking for help is that if really push it, the sound gets too razzy. Ive always explained the best bass trombone sounds is the proper blend of dark-smooth-warmth and ripping sheet metal. Im looking the dial the sheet-metal part back a bit, even for those times that I need to cut through a rhythm section that forgot that the knobs also turn to the left.

Is just the change to half gold brass going make a difference I can perceive?

While were on the subject of bells . . . ( this is probably more than a tweak ).
What about the sterling bells for bass bone? Ive always enjoyed the King silver sonics. But the SS Dou Gravis is a bit too quirky. Have you done enough silver bass bells to get a feel for what components complement it? What bell options, (taper, weight, etc.) apply the sterling bells?

thanks
Steve Carr

Hi Steve, great to hear from you again!

(Still have that Kaplan mouthpiece?)

Your set-up is designed to do exactly what you want a bass trombone to be. Warm when soft, face ripping as you get louder. All of your components contribute to this. I would explore several different things.

Leadpipe: Have you tried gold brass? It may calm things down enough that you don;t need to look into other more expensive options. It's very much a feel thing as well as sound too.

Bell: Dual alloy would be among my last choices. I would first look at trying a bell without the T7 treatment (they are less immediate in articulation but tend to hold together more before getting to the face ripping place). I would try a gold brass bell (it will resist face ripping more than red brass). I would try a medium or lightweight bell (to see if it would dissipate the energy quicker and perhaps get edge/brilliance while not being as face-rippy) and a type 1 (soldered beadwire , might hold together more). It might also be worthwhile to try a BII taper, which can mellow out that edge.

Slide: have you tried yellow brass?

I know this is a lot of different options, but you have a pretty specific set-up and I'd either want to talk more with you (outside of the forum) or hear you in person in order to make a real recommendation. This is probably a very personal decision, in terms of sound.

I hope that helps (somewhat).

Cheers,
Ben

ttf_choski55 · Post by **ttf_choski55** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:51 pm

Hey Ben,

If you mate a Shires 525 slide with a Bach 42 Bell section, will the tuning be affected? (a la Bach bell on a Shires valve section w/o an X tuning slide)

Thanks for your insight.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:54 pm

Quote from: choski55 on Oct 27, 2014, 03:51PMHey Ben,

If you mate a Shires 525 slide with a Bach 42 Bell section, will the tuning be affected? (a la Bach bell on a Shires valve section w/o an X tuning slide)

Thanks for your insight.

Anytime you mix ANY components between different manufacturers you are likely to change intonation. I would accept this as part of the equation. If you are planning on using a wide slide (TW25and variants) I would recommend a long slide (Designated by an "L" at the end of our slide code. By aware that "LW" means light weight, not long)/

I'd need to know more about your particular idea before commenting further. Obviously, using as many original parts as possible will retain more of the feel and intonation of the original horn.

I can say that I have not personally heard any complaints about intonation differences that could not be overcome by someone using our slide with a Bach bell section. This refers to slides, slides & valves, and slides & valves & tuning slides. Different, yes. But not insurmountable.

I should note, for posterity's sake, that our parts are not designed to work with any other manufacturer. If people decide to do this they do it of their own accord and (hopefully) realize that things like intonation might be affected.

I hope that helps/

Ben

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:32 pm

I have a 42G and a 36 mounted for Shires that I use with a T47LW and a T0825GLW and they both work great. I do not notice any drastic change in intonation between them and shires bells. Fwiw.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:28 pm

Hey Ben,

I have a couple of questions regarding the pairing of mouthpieces with Shires horns. I know this might also fit in the Mouthpiece section, but this also concerns testing out Shires horns. Firstly, do you notice any patterns of particular mouthpieces (thinking brand not size) that Shires horns tend to work well with? Different horns tend to mate better with certain mouthpieces, and I recall you saying at the factory that the Shires New Classic pieces (based on Greg Black tenor pieces?) worked better with Shires and other more "modern" horn setups, whereas Shires Vintage pieces (based on Mt. Vernon Bach pieces?) worked better with older style horns. Specific to my situation, I came to the factory just to try out mouthpieces on my Greenhoe/Bach 42 and switched from a Shires Vintage 4G to a New Classic 4 1/2M. When also trying out the Shires horns while there, I used the new New Classic mouthpiece. It seemed to work a lot better in the Shires horns than my Greenhoe/Bach 42, but I wasn't there to buy a horn. I eventually switched to a Shires Vintage 5G for my Greenhoe/Bach, but I'm thinking about getting a Shires horn soon, which is why I'm asking about this.

So my other question is how would you approach testing out a new horn at the factory in regards to mouthpiece? I could imagine playing on one's current mouthpiece would make sense to limit variables, but if you're ultimately going to change to one that mates better with the horn, should you use something different when testing out horns in the first place? It seems like a chicken-or-egg question to me (do you pick mouthpiece first or horn first?). I obviously used a new mouthpiece when I tried the horns last time, so is that what I should do when actually picking out a horn at the factory?

Thanks for any insight!

Matt

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:08 pm

Quote from: musicmatt12 on Oct 28, 2014, 12:28PMHey Ben,

I have a couple of questions regarding the pairing of mouthpieces with Shires horns. I know this might also fit in the Mouthpiece section, but this also concerns testing out Shires horns. Firstly, do you notice any patterns of particular mouthpieces (thinking brand not size) that Shires horns tend to work well with? Different horns tend to mate better with certain mouthpieces, and I recall you saying at the factory that the Shires New Classic pieces (based on Greg Black tenor pieces?) worked better with Shires and other more "modern" horn setups, whereas Shires Vintage pieces (based on Mt. Vernon Bach pieces?) worked better with older style horns. Specific to my situation, I came to the factory just to try out mouthpieces on my Greenhoe/Bach 42 and switched from a Shires Vintage 4G to a New Classic 4 1/2M. When also trying out the Shires horns while there, I used the new New Classic mouthpiece. It seemed to work a lot better in the Shires horns than my Greenhoe/Bach 42, but I wasn't there to buy a horn. I eventually switched to a Shires Vintage 5G for my Greenhoe/Bach, but I'm thinking about getting a Shires horn soon, which is why I'm asking about this.

So my other question is how would you approach testing out a new horn at the factory in regards to mouthpiece? I could imagine playing on one's current mouthpiece would make sense to limit variables, but if you're ultimately going to change to one that mates better with the horn, should you use something different when testing out horns in the first place? It seems like a chicken-or-egg question to me (do you pick mouthpiece first or horn first?). I obviously used a new mouthpiece when I tried the horns last time, so is that what I should do when actually picking out a horn at the factory?

Thanks for any insight!

Matt

As long as your current m'pce is at least a somewhat logical choice for the size of horn you are trying...not a 12C on a .547 or a 1.5G on a .485, etc...I would recommend staying with that m'pce not only during the tryout session(s) but once you have bought a horn you should stay with it until things stop seriously changing. For me...through any number of horns including 5 Shires instruments of different sizes...that has often meant months of patience. But it's worth it. Changing m'pces will just prolong the adjustment period or worse, completely derail it. Been there, done that too. Fuggedaboudit.

Now if you are buying a completely different size of horn? That gets tricky. I would rent/beg/borrow/steal/whatever a horn of that size and get at least comfortable for a couple of weeks on a mainstream m'pce size for that kind of instrument before I went and blew however much money on a "customized" horn. You be bettah off if you do. bet on it.

S.

ttf_musicmatt12 · Post by **ttf_musicmatt12** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:48 pm

Quote from: sabutin on Oct 28, 2014, 01:08PMAs long as your current m'pce is at least a somewhat logical choice for the size of horn you are trying...not a 12C on a .547 or a 1.5G on a .485, etc...I would recommend staying with that m'pce not only during the tryout session(s) but once you have bought a horn you should stay with it until things stop seriously changing. For me...through any number of horns including 5 Shires instruments of different sizes...that has often meant months of patience. But it's worth it. Changing m'pces will just prolong the adjustment period or worse, completely derail it. Been there, done that too. Fuggedaboudit.

Now if you are buying a completely different size of horn? That gets tricky. I would rent/beg/borrow/steal/whatever a horn of that size and get at least comfortable for a couple of weeks on a mainstream m'pce size for that kind of instrument before I went and blew however much money on a "customized" horn. You be bettah off if you do. bet on it.

S.

Sam,

Thanks for your input. This isn't really about changing anything drastic in terms of mouthpiece size, etc. It's more about going from one brand/type of mouthpiece to another of essentially the same size. While that may take a little bit of time to fully adjust, I don't see it as a months-long process. I could see the reasoning of trying out horns on your current mouthpiece so there's a good baseline of your playing, but the problem for me would be fitting a horn around the one control (the old mouthpiece) and that maybe not being the best idea if I'm ultimately going to switch to something that sounds/works differently with the horn. I feel like I'd rather build a horn around a mouthpiece that will maximize the way the horn sounds/plays rather than one I used to play and will ultimately be switching off of, but Ben would know more about this process which is why I asked. Also, this isn't about switching horn sizes. I would just be getting a new main ax, which for me is a .547 large bore. I've got an alto, bass, and a 36 too, so I know what you're talking about with changing horn sizes, but that isn't the case with what I'm asking about here. Like I said in my first post, I tried out the horns at the factory on a mouthpiece I had just picked out there that day, but I wasn't seriously shopping for a horn that time. The horns/mouthpiece weren't hugely different to play, just sounded different. There would obviously be an adjustment period to the new horn and mouthpiece, but nothing drastic since it would be the same size horn and similar size mouthpiece.

My question is more along the lines of: does trying out a horn on (and building it around) a mouthpiece that mates better with it outweigh trying out a horn on a more familiar mouthpiece that you would ultimately be changing? I'm not so much worried about the adjustment period as I am the process of putting together/picking the right custom horn.

Matt

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:44 am

Quote from: musicmatt12 on Oct 28, 2014, 02:48PMSam,

Thanks for your input. This isn't really about changing anything drastic in terms of mouthpiece size, etc. It's more about going from one brand/type of mouthpiece to another of essentially the same size. While that may take a little bit of time to fully adjust, I don't see it as a months-long process.
Up to you. "Essentially the same size" can have many meanings. A different resistance can happen between two supposedly the same m'pces, and it's the resistance that talks to you about a new horn as much as anything else. Just going from a 6.5AL to a 6.5A was a trip when I did it in the early '70s. Of course, I had never played another m'pce previous to that, but still...things got very interesting for a while. Interesting enough that I still remember it.

Quote---snip---

My question is more along the lines of: does trying out a horn on (and building it around) a mouthpiece that mates better with it outweigh trying out a horn on a more familiar mouthpiece that you would ultimately be changing? I'm not so much worried about the adjustment period as I am the process of putting together/picking the right custom horn.

Matt
You seem to have made up your mind. Like I said...it's up to you. You ask "...does trying out a horn on (and building it around) a mouthpiece that mates better with it outweigh trying out a horn on a more familiar mouthpiece that you would ultimately be changing?" and my answer is no, it doesn't. First of all, you cannot choose "...a mouthpiece that mates better with [a given horn]" if:

A-You don't really know the horn.

and

B-You don't really know the m'pce.

You can guess at a m'pce; you can take other peoples' word about one, but unless your face and body have gotten thoroughly used to that m'pce you will be in uncharted waters. You will be encountering two variables rather than one, and the m'pce variable is quite likely to influence the modular choices you are making in ways that will change over a period of time. Eliminate the m'pce variable and you will have a better chance of putting together a horn that plays the way you want it to play.

Good luck, whatever you decide. Eliminating one variable eliminates part of the need for "luck," however.

Later...

S.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:21 am

Hi Matt,

Sam pretty much nailed what I was going to say, but I'll say it again for redundancy and redundancy.

You want to be as settled as possible on equipment before going out and trying to fit yourself for custom equipment. This includes includes the mouthpieces, almost certainly the only piece of equipment that will make the transition to your new horn. The more comfortable and consistent you are on the mouthpiece the more comfortable and consistent you will be trying the new horn. If you;re going to spend all this money you want to be sure, right?

once you get settled on the new horn, a search for a mouthpiece can begin. You know, when you figure out where the intonation really wants to lie, when you know the blow inside and out, then you can chase modifying that with the smaller piece.

Some people switch it all up at once and it works for them. But if we want to be as consistent and scientific about the process as possible...

I should make some notes to your first post just for the record:

1.) Our New Classic mouthpieces have characteristics in common with Greg Black mouthpieces, they are not copies. Greg Black mouthpieces are the closest I've found in sound and feel to the New Classic series, though the weight and rims are completely different. I am certain the cup and backbores are too, but I've not had a set of Greg Black mouthpiece lying around to measure.

2.) The Vintage line is based on the best Bach mouthpieces we could find, regardless of era. Again, different weight and rim than Bach.

Comparisons to other brands of mouthpieces are inevitable, but we should note that there are NO two mouthpieces between different brands that are exactly the same.

I hope that helps,
Ben

ttf_ohno900 · Post by **ttf_ohno900** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:46 pm

I wanted to know the difference between a regular valve and a trubone valve. How do they function?

ttf_TromboneMonkey · Post by **ttf_TromboneMonkey** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:37 am

Hi Ben and all,

I'm interested to know which combinations seem to "work" most often with the .508 slides.

I ask this because I've read here and on other threads about how great the 7.75" bells are with .500-and-less sized instruments and was wondering if the same rings true (ha) with the .508, or if they prefer 8" bells, 1.0 or 1.5 tuning slides, etc?

Thanks in advance!

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:55 am

Quote from: ohno900 on Nov 07, 2014, 11:46PMI wanted to know the difference between a regular valve and a trubone valve. How do they function?

By "regular valve" I assume you mean a rotary valve, is that correct?

What makes the Tru-Bore unique is that when the valve is dis-engaged there is a pipe that runs through the center of the valve from the slide receiver directly to the leadpipe. This gives a straight shot through the entire valve. If you were to remove the handslide and tuning slide you would be able to look directly through the neckpipe and valve.

This is in contrast to a rotary valve, which always has a curve to go through, and an axial valve, which moves at and angle.

I describe Tru-bore valves as combining and axial's breadth of sound with a rotary's clarity of sound and crisp articulations. Many people can also benefit from the added weight of the valve, which can help certain people center better and/or improves projection.

I hope that helps.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:05 pm

Quote from: TromboneMonkey on Nov 10, 2014, 08:37AMHi Ben and all,

I'm interested to know which combinations seem to "work" most often with the .508 slides.

I ask this because I've read here and on other threads about how great the 7.75" bells are with .500-and-less sized instruments and was wondering if the same rings true (ha) with the .508, or if they prefer 8" bells, 1.0 or 1.5 tuning slides, etc?

Thanks in advance!

This all depends...what .508 slide, and what are you going for?

In very general, nickel lightweight slides are the most popular, with a quick response and action. It is a bright, clear sound. Standard weight brass slides have more heft and warmth to the sound. Brass lightweight slides are a little warmer and a bit more diffuse than either slide. Also, the .508 slides play a little bit on the big side of things to my sensibilities, more like a Benge 160 or a baby Conn 78H.

Also very generally, most people gravitate toward yellow brass; it is the most consistent throughout dynamic ranges and tends to be the most responsive (i.e. quickest response). I haven;t had a lot of experience with gold brass bells paired to .508 slides but I am certain they would be warmer, a bit heavier playing (in sound density and response), and would resist getting bright unless you went with something light and with a T7 treatment. Red bells are interesting but can get wild on the small bores. Really dark and then - BAM - really bright. We did make an S1RGLW 8 that was excellent! (Joe Fiedler now plays this bell).

7.75 is the golielocks bell, doing what 8" bells do for other manufacturers. It can be broad or focused and works well on any chair in a dance band. The 8" bells take a step closer to a medium bore, to my ears.

The SY1.5 has proven to be the most popular small bore tuning slide, effectively mirroring a feel that is much closer to what people expect from small bore instruments.

Popular combinations? Again, that depends on you. An S1YM 8/SY1.0/T08LW is a great baby Bach 36; warm and rich with just the right Fontana-foofiness. Add a nickel lightweight to make it bark but keeps the breadth (but looses the warmth). An S7YLW/SY1.5/T08 becomes a 6H let out a size. We also just came out with the Michael Davis Plus, which is a King 3B beater.

I hope that helps, knowing more about what you want to sound like and what you currently play (or have played) will help narrow it down further.

I hope that Helps.

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:36 pm

Quote from: griffinben on Nov 10, 2014, 12:05PMThis all depends...what .508 slide, and what are you going for?

In very general, nickel lightweight slides are the most popular, with a quick response and action. It is a bright, clear sound. Standard weight brass slides have more heft and warmth to the sound. Brass lightweight slides are a little warmer and a bit more diffuse than either slide. Also, the .508 slides play a little bit on the big side of things to my sensibilities, more like a Benge 160 or a baby Conn 78H.
My experience exactly.

Quote---snip---

7.75 is the goldielocks bell, doing what 8" bells do for other manufacturers. It can be broad or focused and works well on any chair in a dance band. The 8" bells take a step closer to a medium bore, to my ears.
Again...right on the money, right on up and down the sub-.525 bore sizes. I made the mistake...not a serious one, but a mistake nevertheless...of choosing an 8" bell for my .485 bore horn. They didn't have a 7.75' in my preferred model (a 7YLW) available for extended tryout when I went up there, only a 7.5" and an 8". I took them home and eventually chose the 8". I already own a wonderful 7.75" bell that I use on my .500 bore and a number of 8" bells, plus I've tried out many bells of different sizes at the factory. In my opinion...regardless of horn material, slide size/weight or any other factor, the 7.75 is definitely the Goldilocks choice w/the Shires smallbores for anyone who is using the horn to play a broad range of American idioms. It points up very well as a lead/solo horn but also plays big and broad in the section or again...for other kinds of solo work. The 8" also points up, but just a little too far up in the dynamic range. I find the 7.5 bells hard to broaden. I know...these are really nitpicky kinds of things, but that's what the end result is supposed to be all about. It's supposed to be about finding equipment that plays the way you want it to play most naturally so that you can concentrate on the music without paying undue attention to how the horn is acting. For those of you looking at buying a Shires smallbore who do the same kinds of work as do Ben and myself...a broad range of American idioms...but don't have the luxury of being able to visit the factory or a really well-stocked store (if there even is one well stocked enough to be able to offer this kind of choice set through several bore sizes), I suggest that you can't go wrong w/a 7.75" bell.

Later...

S.

P.S. This is not to say that I don't like my 8" 7YLW. I do. In fact, if I ever find a .508 slide/m'pce combination that works with I think that I will have found my J.J. Johnson horn. As it stands, it's really nice on the .485 for about 98% of the gigs on which I originally wanted to use it. It just doesn't quite provide that "Zing!!!" in the upper register when I want it, something I need from a horn because I'm really a converted tuba player with roots in 6.5 AL/.525 bore trombone playing.

Like now.

Tomorrow I'm playing an hour-long lead part that is just full of long tones in the upper register...Ben knows, he'll be on the gig too. There is one piece where after a near-eternity of long tones there is a climax where the 1st trombone has to do a loud gliss from

b

to

followed by an even louder one from

to

. At the rehearsal, the Bb->B sounded about right, but then the C->D seemed almost like it decrescendoed no matter how much air I blew. I'm writing now as I practice that register with tomorrow in mind, actually. (Blow a while, rest a while.) If I was playing that music on my 7.75" .500 bore I know exactly how that would work, but I'm not because the gig really needs an overall brightness at lower volumes than my .500 (fairly heavy and gold-plated besides) really isn't set up to do.

It's the 2% that makes the difference sometimes.

Bet on it.

ttf_TromboneMonkey · Post by **ttf_TromboneMonkey** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:59 pm

Nitpicky is what I SEEK!

Thanks for the guidance, Ben and Sam. I realize you are both very busy and sincerely appreciate your time. It's a testament to the quality of the instruments and the company. Ben I'll give you a PM with more specifics about my goals; essentially I have a Willims 4 and an old 36, and I've been looking to bridge the gap-- in sound, feel, and function!

ttf_YueYan · Post by **ttf_YueYan** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:44 pm

Hey, Ben,

Another question for you: I have heard of some Shires bass trombones with Hagmann valves. Is this something that can be ordered on a Shires horn?

Thanks!
Sean

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:13 am

Quote from: YueYan on Nov 10, 2014, 10:44PMHey, Ben,

Another question for you: I have heard of some Shires bass trombones with Hagmann valves. Is this something that can be ordered on a Shires horn?

Thanks!
Sean

This is not something we offer at the factory. I should also note that we do make any instrument with components from other manufacturers, it's all in house.

I do know people that have taken their Shires and have had them converted over to Hagmann valves, some done by Rene Hagmann himself (which is the best way to go, it seems). One should be aware that this has the potential of voiding a warranty on other parts of your horn effected or altered by a conversion, so caveat emptor.

We have been doing some experiments on Tru-Bore valves to see if we can bring them closer to a Hagmann feel and response.

I hope that helps.

ttf_SteveCarr · Post by **ttf_SteveCarr** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:55 am

Quote from: griffinben on Oct 22, 2014, 08:31AMHi Steve, great to hear from you again!

(Still have that Kaplan mouthpiece?)

Your set-up is designed to do exactly what you want a bass trombone to be. Warm when soft, face ripping as you get louder. All of your components contribute to this. I would explore several different things.

Leadpipe: Have you tried gold brass? It may calm things down enough that you don;t need to look into other more expensive options. It's very much a feel thing as well as sound too.

Bell: Dual alloy would be among my last choices. I would first look at trying a bell without the T7 treatment (they are less immediate in articulation but tend to hold together more before getting to the face ripping place). I would try a gold brass bell (it will resist face ripping more than red brass). I would try a medium or lightweight bell (to see if it would dissipate the energy quicker and perhaps get edge/brilliance while not being as face-rippy) and a type 1 (soldered beadwire , might hold together more). It might also be worthwhile to try a BII taper, which can mellow out that edge.

Slide: have you tried yellow brass?

I know this is a lot of different options, but you have a pretty specific set-up and I'd either want to talk more with you (outside of the forum) or hear you in person in order to make a real recommendation. This is probably a very personal decision, in terms of sound.

I hope that helps (somewhat).

Cheers,
Ben
Finally, I respond.

Thanks for the input Ben.

It is helpful and also kind-of what I expected. Sometimes you can just tweak one thing and it will help. Other times, one change leads to another and before you know it, youve unraveled the entire sweater.

I hadnt thought of the gold-brass leadpipe. I found that I do have a B2.5G. I think I got it when ITA was in Ithaca probably felt/sounded good in the try-out room. Ive been using a B2, so thats changing two things but Im going to experiment with it and see.

That Kaplan piece is box-o-mouthpieces on the shelf. About the time I bought that from you. I started using a Greg Black 1-1/4 that had been in that box.

later
Steve

ttf_musicmatt12 · Post by **ttf_musicmatt12** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:25 am

Sorry for replying so late. Thanks for the input Ben! Hopefully I'll see you at the factory soon!

ttf_Ellrod · Post by **ttf_Ellrod** » Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:29 pm

I have three Shires set-ups. The first I assembled with Gabe's help when I had the good fortune to be able to go to Hopedale and spend the day trying out everything that was available. At the time I was playing a very nice early 60s 88H, and I expected to buy something like a 78H. I ended up with a 1G8 bell, and a T25LW slide (I recall having to wait for the slide to cool down, as it had just come out of the bake oven). I have a rotor that I use both on this horn and on my .547.

A few years ago, I assembled a bass trombone over a period of several months with parts sourced from various places. Reading through this thread, I appear to have lucked out, having put together a BII 7YLW TB bell with what I believe is a B62 slide (there do not appear to be any markings on it). Independent rotors.

My .547 tenor is, I think, a little different ball game. I also assembled this from parts purchased from various sources. On a scale of well-matched v. ill-matched, do you have any comments on this combination? The bell is a 2YM and the slide is a T47G. I'm using one of Noah's yellow brass MV42 leadpipes, after using the Shires 1.0 for the last while. The tuning slide is a B, in what looks like gold brass. These days, I am playing it as a straight horn (I have a gooseneck, and I use the rotor on the .525 most of the time.) What I like about this set-up is the response - it just feels as if it responds instantly. It's just absolutely there, right now. On the other hand, the sound, while very clear (maybe not "complex"), might be just a little light.

I tend to have a darker sound generally, and I seem to gravitate towards gold brass. I recently acquired a 90's Bach 12 with a gold brass bell and a nickel lightweight slide and I am really impressed with it. (Very responsive, light, fast). On the other hand, I also like a 70s Bach Corp 42B I bought from a friend, although it plays a little squirelly (I think a different lead pipe would help).

So, any comments, suggestions, advice etc regarding the 2YM/T47G etc combination described above? Thanks in advance.

ttf_cigmar · Post by **ttf_cigmar** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:37 am

Ben,

My current set-up is 2Y bell, gold tuning slide, axial valve, TW47 slide, 2L pipe. I like the solid core this combination achieves, but am looking to move into something that provides more resonance, is more responsive with greater projection, and doesn't have as thick, heavy sound. I also feel as though I'm working harder than I need to or should. I'm thinking in terms of a change in bell, but am open to other possible options. Would value your suggestions.

Thanks.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:31 am

Quote from: cigmar on Dec 01, 2014, 09:37AMBen,

My current set-up is 2Y bell, gold tuning slide, axial valve, TW47 slide, 2L pipe. I like the solid core this combination achieves, but am looking to move into something that provides more resonance, is more responsive with greater projection, and doesn't have as thick, heavy sound. I also feel as though I'm working harder than I need to or should. I'm thinking in terms of a change in bell, but am open to other possible options. Would value your suggestions.

Thanks.

Hi Cigmar,

The first thing is, I can't say anything definitively without hearing you in person and doing a couple of A-B's with you. I'll try and address some things here but for a real work out come and visit us (or Dillon Music, they're close by!). I also do not know what you mean by more resonance, could you describe it in more objective terms; i.e. wider/broader sound, "I want to feel the horn vibrate in my hands", the horn feels dull, etc.

I look at your set up and I think that it is much the way you describe, solid core with a thick sound. This set up can be a little slow in response, especially if you are trying to get brilliance or brights in your sound quickly or at a low dynamic, at which point you probably ARE working too hard.

The two things I would look at are the bell and the tuning slide. A lighter bell will tend to snap to attention, with crisper articulations (you don't have to be as deliberate with thew tongue and air). If articulations are an issue, in particular, I would also consider a bell with a soldered bead. I would look at a 7YM, 1YM, and 7YLW. The 7 will maintain more of the crossover characteristics of the 2 bell while the 1 will be a big jump.

The gold brass tuning slide can make things oh-so-warm and velvety, but it can also dull response time and make it difficult to progressively add brilliance to the sound, especially with a fairly heavy, unsoldered bead bell. Changing just the tuning slide may bring the timbre in a brighter direction but will probably not cure all of the response issues.

I hope that helps. FWIW, we will be in NC at Michiko studios this Friday 12n-5pm if you'd like to come by. I do not think I'll have a 7YM but I'll certainly have a 7YLW. Send me a PM if you;d like to come by.

I hope that helps,
Ben

ttf_cigmar · Post by **ttf_cigmar** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:59 am

Quote from: griffinben on Dec 02, 2014, 08:31AMHi Cigmar,

The first thing is, I can't say anything definitively without hearing you in person and doing a couple of A-B's with you. I'll try and address some things here but for a real work out come and visit us (or Dillon Music, they're close by!). I also do not know what you mean by more resonance, could you describe it in more objective terms; i.e. wider/broader sound, "I want to feel the horn vibrate in my hands", the horn feels dull, etc.

I look at your set up and I think that it is much the way you describe, solid core with a thick sound. This set up can be a little slow in response, especially if you are trying to get brilliance or brights in your sound quickly or at a low dynamic, at which point you probably ARE working too hard.

The two things I would look at are the bell and the tuning slide. A lighter bell will tend to snap to attention, with crisper articulations (you don't have to be as deliberate with thew tongue and air). If articulations are an issue, in particular, I would also consider a bell with a soldered bead. I would look at a 7YM, 1YM, and 7YLW. The 7 will maintain more of the crossover characteristics of the 2 bell while the 1 will be a big jump.

The gold brass tuning slide can make things oh-so-warm and velvety, but it can also dull response time and make it difficult to progressively add brilliance to the sound, especially with a fairly heavy, unsoldered bead bell. Changing just the tuning slide may bring the timbre in a brighter direction but will probably not cure all of the response issues.

I hope that helps. FWIW, we will be in NC at Michiko studios this Friday 12n-5pm if you'd like to come by. I do not think I'll have a 7YM but I'll certainly have a 7YLW. Send me a PM if you;d like to come by.

I hope that helps,
Ben

Ben,

Thanks for your reply. Your suggestions were pretty much along the same lines as I was thinking.

Sorry for the vague reference to "resonance". By my terminology, resonance would be synonymous with "more presence", "more life" or "less dull". Also, as you mentioned "greater brilliance" with more detailed articulations, especially again as you mentioned at lower dynamic levels.

I do have a yellow tuning slide and as you suggested, that does get me closer to where I want to be than the gold slide but not completely. The reason I'm currently using the gold slide is, as I posted in another thread, I recently discovered a small pinhole in my yellow slide. I have no idea how that came to be or how long it's been there. The slide was never dented or severely damaged. There is a minute surface scratch below the hole, but nothing that would remotely result in a puncture. I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with that. Really don't want to go the patch route.

Anyway, the 7 and 1 series bells seem to be the avenue I need to explore, along with getting back into the yellow tuning slide. I have been to Dillon's, but their stock of Shires bells is fairly limited. I am unable to travel to NC this Friday. I foresee a trip to the factory but my schedule wouldn't permit that until early Spring. A visit to ETW is also a possibility, assuming you'll also be there, depending what Newell will have on hand at the time.

Thanks again for your expertise. This will be a work in progress.

Dennis

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:02 pm

Quote from: cigmar on Dec 02, 2014, 10:59AMBen,

Thanks for your reply. Your suggestions were pretty much along the same lines as I was thinking.

Sorry for the vague reference to "resonance". By my terminology, resonance would be synonymous with "more presence", "more life" or "less dull". Also, as you mentioned "greater brilliance" with more detailed articulations, especially again as you mentioned at lower dynamic levels.

I do have a yellow tuning slide and as you suggested, that does get me closer to where I want to be than the gold slide but not completely. The reason I'm currently using the gold slide is, as I posted in another thread, I recently discovered a small pinhole in my yellow slide. I have no idea how that came to be or how long it's been there. The slide was never dented or severely damaged. There is a minute surface scratch below the hole, but nothing that would remotely result in a puncture. I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with that. Really don't want to go the patch route.

Anyway, the 7 and 1 series bells seem to be the avenue I need to explore, along with getting back into the yellow tuning slide. I have been to Dillon's, but their stock of Shires bells is fairly limited. I am unable to travel to NC this Friday. I foresee a trip to the factory but my schedule wouldn't permit that until early Spring. A visit to ETW is also a possibility, assuming you'll also be there, depending what Newell will have on hand at the time.

Thanks again for your expertise. This will be a work in progress.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Dillon has actually been stocking more and more of our instruments, I think you will find a 7YLW there right now. The 7YLW and 7YM are amongst the most popular bells we make, so Newell will be certain to have one or more of them at ATW (Now the American Trombone Workshop, as dramatically revealed at the last concert of ETW 2014).

I think we could quickly find something that works for you with popular parts that most people have in stock.

Best Regards,
Ben

ttf_Mahlerbone · Post by **ttf_Mahlerbone** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:42 pm

I went from a 2Y/TB47/axial to a 7YM/TW47/Trubore and that definitely helped with the projection and more ease in getting a more lively sound. Definitely go with Ben's advice, he's the one who fitted me with my current setup!

ttf_cigmar · Post by **ttf_cigmar** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:51 pm

Quote from: Mahlerbone on Dec 02, 2014, 12:42PMI went from a 2Y/TB47/axial to a 7YM/TW47/Trubore and that definitely helped with the projection and more ease in getting a more lively sound. Definitely go with Ben's advice, he's the one who fitted me with my current setup!

Ironically, that was my exact setup. I went from the TB47 to the TW47 about 9 months ago and that was a huge step in the right direction. Now I'm looking to complete the journey. I hadn't considered a change in valve though. How significant was the change from the axial to the truebore?

ttf_Mahlerbone · Post by **ttf_Mahlerbone** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:58 pm

Quote from: cigmar on Dec 02, 2014, 12:51PMIronically, that was my exact setup. I went from the TB47 to the TW47 about 9 months ago and that was a huge step in the right direction. Now I'm looking to complete the journey. I hadn't considered a change in valve though. How significant was the change from the axial to the truebore?

For me, the difference between the axial and Trubore was huge. It especially helped with accuracy in the high range. Maybe the fact that the air goes straight through the valve without changing direction helped? Others don't find as big of a difference between those two valves, so your mileage may vary. It doesn't hurt to try.

ttf_cigmar · Post by **ttf_cigmar** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:13 pm

Quote from: Mahlerbone on Dec 02, 2014, 01:58PMFor me, the difference between the axial and Trubore was huge. It especially helped with accuracy in the high range. Maybe the fact that the air goes straight through the valve without changing direction helped? Others don't find as big of a difference between those two valves, so your mileage may vary. It doesn't hurt to try.

Oh boy...now you've opened another can of worms with the valve thing. And possibly more ka-ching!

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:00 pm

To me, the Tru-bore is a balance of the thayer and the rotary designs, a middle ground. It has some of the broadness and depth of sound of the thayer and some of the accuracy of articulation and cleanliness of a rotary. The pipe comes down very low on the Tru-bore wrapped as-is, I'm getting mine adjusted a little bit so I can fit a Greenhoe Thumbrest in it. We'll see how that turns out. The F side is also great on it, but th action on the Tru-bores is a lot. It can operate smoothly and quietly, but it seems to take a lot of effort to actuate it compared to thayers or rotaries.

ttf_Sliphorn · Post by **ttf_Sliphorn** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:25 pm

Quote from: Matt K on Dec 02, 2014, 04:00PMTo me, the Tru-bore is a balance of the thayer and the rotary designs, a middle ground. It has some of the broadness and depth of sound of the thayer and some of the accuracy of articulation and cleanliness of a rotary. The pipe comes down very low on the Tru-bore wrapped as-is, I'm getting mine adjusted a little bit so I can fit a Greenhoe Thumbrest in it. We'll see how that turns out. The F side is also great on it, but th action on the Tru-bores is a lot. It can operate smoothly and quietly, but it seems to take a lot of effort to actuate it compared to thayers or rotaries.
I totally agree with this. The action can be stiff, probably because of the mass of the valve needs a stiffer spring. I've had issues with Tru-Bore linkage action in the past, and currently. I had one horn where the retaining screw that holds the lever to the horn kept backing itself out...I had to keep a jeweler's screwdriver on the bandstand for it...

I currently have two Tru-Bore sets, neither without problems (though they play nicely enough). One has inexplicably sheared the retaining screw off in the hole. I'll have to send it away to get drilled out (I bought it used and it came this way, so who knows if someone sheared it off by overtightening) and the other has developed so much play in the mini-ball linkages and retaining screw/lever fitment that it probably needs replacing. It's like they wore themselves out.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:37 am

Quote from: Sliphorn on Dec 02, 2014, 04:25PMI totally agree with this. The action can be stiff, probably because of the mass of the valve needs a stiffer spring. I've had issues with Tru-Bore linkage action in the past, and currently. I had one horn where the retaining screw that holds the lever to the horn kept backing itself out...I had to keep a jeweler's screwdriver on the bandstand for it...

I currently have two Tru-Bore sets, neither without problems (though they play nicely enough). One has inexplicably sheared the retaining screw off in the hole. I'll have to send it away to get drilled out (I bought it used and it came this way, so who knows if someone sheared it off by overtightening) and the other has developed so much play in the mini-ball linkages and retaining screw/lever fitment that it probably needs replacing. It's like they wore themselves out.

The action/effort is completely a result of geometry. The design of the Tru-Bore allows for a very short stop arm (technically, it's not a stop arm, merely where the lever linkage attaches to the valve actuator). This allows for an extremely short throw. However, the closer the end of a lever to the axis, the greater the effort needed to actuate. That's the trade off. Most people think it's worth it, I don't know that I've ever heard anyone say that the effort is too great. Most of our customers gladly trade off the speed of the valve for the extra effort.

I'm sorry to hear about issues with your valve/s. Please give us a call at the shop and we'd be happy to help you out. We can give you the best advise for future maintenance and care of your horn, as well as recommended action for any issues you face.

The bridge screw can sometimes back out, just give it a good tightening and it should be fine. Some screws do snap do to a lack of lubrication (we do recommend using bearing and linkage oil in this area). We redesigned the screws several years ago to prevent this from happening but there are still some valves out there with the old design.

We also recommend mini-ball lubrication for the miniballs as well. We are moving to a different miniball design as well to hopefully avoid more troubles like the ones you are having.

I hope this helps,

Ben

ttf_bonedude · Post by **ttf_bonedude** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:02 pm

Hi Ben, it appears from pictures that your small bore horns are not modular. What's the reasoning for this?

ttf_vegasbound · Post by **ttf_vegasbound** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:59 am

Ben,

Tell us more about the new Mike Davis+ !!!

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:12 am

Quote from: bonedude on Dec 16, 2014, 09:02PMHi Ben, it appears from pictures that your small bore horns are not modular. What's the reasoning for this?

In testing, Steve thought that the small bores play much better as a hard-soldered instrument than they did as a modular horn.

I have one of the few small bores out there with a valve on it and a modular bell. After playing it with a straight neckpipe, I can confirm what Steve found. I basically leave the valve on all of the time, even if I am not using it. I mess around with the neckpipe from time to time but it doesn't feel as planted or secure as it does with the valve or hard soldered.

I hope that helps!
Ben

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:17 am

Quote from: vegasbound on Dec 17, 2014, 01:59AMBen,

Tell us more about the new Mike Davis+ !!!

It's a great horn!

.508, nickel lightweight slide with a round yellow brass crook, lightweight 7.75" bell, SY 1.5 tuning slide and a T8 1.5 leadpipe.

Plays very much like the original Michael Davis, just let out a size. It feels very stable to play but you can expand into the sound more. Broader core that isn't quite as dense as the original MD, but a more immediately more expansive sound. Real open low register. And I would say that the broader core gives it a little more timbral flexibility than the original MD.

If you are fed up with how rigid a King 3-B feels but want similar qualities in terms of size of sound and versatility, this is it. I honestly think it has the potential to become an even bigger success than the standard Michal Davis model!

It's been getting great reactions from the public. There's one at the Mid-West Band Festival right now. We've also been making a bunch for dealers, so you should see them popping up all over.

Anything more specific you'd like to know about it?

ttf_TromboneMonkey · Post by **ttf_TromboneMonkey** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:31 am

Quote from: griffinben on Dec 17, 2014, 08:17AMIt's a great horn!

.508, nickel lightweight slide with a round yellow brass crook, lightweight 7.75" bell, SY 1.5 tuning slide and a T8 1.5 leadpipe.

Plays very much like the original Michael Davis, just let out a size. It feels very stable to play but you can expand into the sound more. Broader core that isn't quite as dense as the original MD, but a more immediately more expansive sound. Real open low register. And I would say that the broader core gives it a little more timbral flexibility than the original MD.

If you are fed up with how rigid a King 3-B feels but want similar qualities in terms of size of sound and versatility, this is it. I honestly think it has the potential to become an even bigger success than the standard Michal Davis model!

It's been getting great reactions from the public. There's one at the Mid-West Band Festival right now. We've also been making a bunch for dealers, so you should see them popping up all over.

Anything more specific you;d like to know about it?

Are you sending one to Chuck's?

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:35 am

Quote from: TromboneMonkey on Dec 17, 2014, 08:31AMAre you sending one to Chuck's?

I don't know off the top of my head. But if you call them and ask they'll know it's a trombone you're interested in them having!

ttf_vegasbound · Post by **ttf_vegasbound** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:39 am

Am I right that the first one to arrive in the UK will be January?

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:17 am

Quote from: griffinben on Dec 17, 2014, 08:17AMIt's a great horn!

.508, nickel lightweight slide with a round yellow brass crook, lightweight 7.75" bell, SY 1.5 tuning slide and a T8 1.5 leadpipe.

Plays very much like the original Michael Davis, just let out a size. It feels very stable to play but you can expand into the sound more. Broader core that isn't quite as dense as the original MD, but a more immediately more expansive sound. Real open low register. And I would say that the broader core gives it a little more timbral flexibility than the original MD.

If you are fed up with how rigid a King 3-B feels but want similar qualities in terms of size of sound and versatility, this is it. I honestly think it has the potential to become an even bigger success than the standard Michal Davis model!

It's been getting great reactions from the public. There's one at the Mid-West Band Festival right now. We've also been making a bunch for dealers, so you should see them popping up all over.

Anything more specific you'd like to know about it?
I played one last week and Ben's right on the money here. Further...it is the first lightweight slide trombone that I have ever played that I really liked timbrally. Maybe I'm evolving in that direction or maybe not, but there it is. On countless visits to the Shires factory and equally countless blindfold tests I have rejected lightweight slides again and again in favor of normal ones. I own 5 Shires trombones and there never was a lightweight slide even in the running as a choice. This one's different. Bet on it. I don't know why, but I'll bet Ben has a theory or two. Something about the combination of the tuning slide and slide crook would be my guess.

Later...

S.

ttf_Duffle · Post by **ttf_Duffle** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:33 am

Quote from: sabutin on Dec 17, 2014, 09:17AMI played one last week and Ben's right on the money here. Further...it is the first lightweight slide trombone that I have ever played that I really liked timbrally. Maybe I'm evolving in that direction or maybe not, but there it is. On countless visits to the Shires factory and equally countless blindfold tests I have rejected lightweight slides again and again in favor of normal ones. I own 5 Shires trombones and there never was a lightweight slide even in the running as a choice. This one's different. Bet on it. I don't know why, but I'll bet Ben has a theory or two. Something about the combination of the tuning slide and slide crook would be my guess.

Later...

S.

You going to buy one, Sam?.......

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:31 am

Quote from: Duffle on Dec 19, 2014, 03:33AMYou going to buy one, Sam?.......

It's crossed my mind...

S.

ttf_keybone · Post by **ttf_keybone** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:18 am

Quote from: griffinben on Dec 17, 2014, 08:17AMIt's a great horn!

.508, nickel lightweight slide with a round yellow brass crook, lightweight 7.75" bell, SY 1.5 tuning slide and a T8 1.5 leadpipe.

Plays very much like the original Michael Davis, just let out a size. It feels very stable to play but you can expand into the sound more. Broader core that isn't quite as dense as the original MD, but a more immediately more expansive sound. Real open low register. And I would say that the broader core gives it a little more timbral flexibility than the original MD.

If you are fed up with how rigid a King 3-B feels but want similar qualities in terms of size of sound and versatility, this is it. I honestly think it has the potential to become an even bigger success than the standard Michal Davis model!

It's been getting great reactions from the public. There's one at the Mid-West Band Festival right now. We've also been making a bunch for dealers, so you should see them popping up all over.

Anything more specific you'd like to know about it?

I have a '70's King 3-B Silversonic. I would like to know more with regard to the comments above with regard to the rigidity of the 3-B. I love my horn when I play Dixieland as, basically, I stay in the middle/upper middle range. When I play big band lead, it can be rather difficult to play in the high register for long periods of time. With the smaller bell and lightweight slide, would you think the MD+ might help solve some of those problems? I tried to find information on the web about the MD+ with no luck. Is there a webpage somewhere with more information?

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:37 am

Quote from: keybone on Dec 19, 2014, 09:18AMI have a '70's King 3-B Silversonic.

---snip---

When I play big band lead, it can be rather difficult to play in the high register for long periods of time. With the smaller bell and lightweight slide, would you think the MD+ might help solve some of those problems?

---snip---
Short answer:

Yes, I do. One of the problems w/3B SS horns is that they produce a very "dark"...complex, actually...sound. Lead playing wants a more lyrical and/or brighter sound combined with easier, more pronounced attacks. A great deal of good lead playing has to do with bridging the gap between trumpet and trombone sounds and much of the rest of it is involved with sounding as a lead voice over several other trombones. Barring chop issues, a 3B SS can be a bear as a lead horn. Been there. It can be done, but it is a hard job. Much easier on a brass 3B or any number of other similar-sized or smaller horns. I only played the MB+ for a few minutes, but I was quite impressed. I don't really like the original MB version...it's good but simply too light for my style of playing...however this one really impressed me on first try. It's certainly worth a look.

Later...

S.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:14 am

Quote from: keybone on Dec 19, 2014, 09:18AMI have a '70's King 3-B Silversonic. I would like to know more with regard to the comments above with regard to the rigidity of the 3-B. I love my horn when I play Dixieland as, basically, I stay in the middle/upper middle range. When I play big band lead, it can be rather difficult to play in the high register for long periods of time. With the smaller bell and lightweight slide, would you think the MD+ might help solve some of those problems? I tried to find information on the web about the MD+ with no luck. Is there a webpage somewhere with more information?

As a former 3-B player (and I still have my trusty '65 3-B, by the way) and having owned many variations thereof, including a couple of Silver Sonics, I know exactly what you are talking about.

Yes, the timbre is an issue. And the lightweight does a lot to get you to the bright side of things much quicker. It's a bigger core than the standard MD, which isn't as small as a trumpet's, but if you like that sound you can certainly wail on lead with it.

Another issue is response in the upper register; a heavier horn tends to delay slightly (and delay even more if you are trying to push the timbre out of its comfort zone). When you are doing microscopic adjustments in time (truly temporal sense, trying to match a leads trumpet's timing) having a horn that snaps to attention really helps ease fatigue.

Another is the upper register has some funny, if not altogether obstinate notes. 10th partial D. 11th partial E. Ugly notes, don't center great. Even 9th partial B can be funny. One of the things I LOVE about Shires instruments is how easy and consistent the instrument is above 8th partial Bb. Everything up to 12th partial F (and beyond) has a great slot, in home and alternate positions. A real 13th partial f#? Don't mind if I do!

What should you expect? Well, it will be similar to moving to great brass belled 3-B, except even more so. Quicker response, more even throughout...more sports car-like. The sound WON'T be exactly the same (it can't!), but it does have a great sound.

The web site is undergoing construction right now and will have information about the MD+. But if you get a chance to play one, please do. I think you'll be surprised.

Ben

ttf_keybone · Post by **ttf_keybone** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:06 pm

Thank you, Sam and Ben! Your comments regarding my squirrely upper register notes (!), connecting with the trumpet section as a lead player, slow response (at times) confirmed my suspicions. You described my feelings about my lead playing to a capital T!

I am reminded of a compliment a few years ago about my mellow sound after playing a solo (in a Kenton-style band). Was that a compliment or...?

Two more questions: 1) does the MD+ have a fixed lead pipe or is it interchangeable, and 2) can one assemble a MD+ through the custom process or does that horn use different parts?

Again, thank you both for your answers to my questions.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:03 pm

Quote from: keybone on Dec 19, 2014, 12:06PMTwo more questions: 1) does the MD+ have a fixed lead pipe or is it interchangeable, and 2) can one assemble a MD+ through the custom process or does that horn use different parts?

1.) It is an interchangeable leadpipe but the MD+ (and MD, for that matter) come with only one leadpipe.

2.) No.

The bells and slides used are bespoke designs and are only used on these models. They are integral to how they play and are available only on these models.

I hope that helps!
Ben

ttf_keybone · Post by **ttf_keybone** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:20 pm

Thanks again, Ben!