TromboneChat

Thanks Andy.
It all makes sense now.
I've said all I need to say on this thread.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:25 am But none of that seems to matter because it hasn't been presented in graph form.

Just add the guy to your foes list and remain blissfully graphless

elmsandr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:40 am But anyway, yes, you are darned near the only builder I’ve seen that notices how long the handslide AND F attachment slide both need to be to get a B. One of my few general design annoyances is really long F attachment tuning slides that do not actually provide functionality for that length (looking at you, every Thayer valve section ever designed).

Yeah, never understood how regularly these things go wrong - the math isn't exactly complicated, with or without charts

The Thayer lengths must just have been a visual, force of habit thing? Or the legendary sharp-E pull, the stuff of campfire stories...

A couple of things to consider about Ed Thayer and Thayer/axial flow valves:
Ed was a horn player
Ed was an engineer
The original design focused on reducing impedance and improving sound, not on maximizing tubing length to allow for low B

I’ve often wondered why the tubing of Thayer valves—the diameter of the crook, the length of the inner-outer telescoping tubing, and the length of the return tube—hasn’t been re-designed to allow for a low B. I know it’s not a simple thing. Tubing, bracing, tools and forms would need to be re-designed, techs and workers would need to be retrained, etc.

Back to handslides…

Hello, Matthew. At the outset, let me state that I am interested in constructive debate. There is clearly something going on here between "theory" and "practice" in this case. I admit that the FHS/TRT "theory" is over-simplified. Your video demo is quite convincing. It would be "constructive" to see if the differences between the two could be resolved—perhaps thereby improving the theory a bit.

If you do a Google search of "B P Leonard CFD" or "B P Leonard NVD" you'll find out a bit about what I have been doing over the past 50 years or so in my "day job" (now retired).

When I was a student in mechanical engineering at The University of Melbourne in the 1950s, I studied trombone with Dutchy Turner of the Melbourne ABC studio orchestra and played in the Melbourne Symphony Youth Orchestra (called the "Junior Symphony" then), in addition to a little Dixieland band called The South Street Stompers. When at Cornell University, studying aerospace engineering in the 1960s, I was invited to play in the Cornell Symphony Orchestra under Karel Husa. I took a few lessons with Henry Romersa, who had me acquire a Conn 88H. Among other things, Henry showed me the "E-pull" technique for reaching the B1, when necessary. This was my first experience with an "attachment trombone".

Frankly, I was not impressed with the stated "advantages" of the F attachment. So in 1960, being an inquisitive engineering student with a background in acoustics, I sat down with available "tools" (graph paper, slide rule and tables of logarithms) to figure out the the best (single-trigger) attachment tunings for two (separate) design criteria:
(i) chromatic sub-tenor extension continuously down to pedals (without regard to necessarily improving slide technique) and
(ii) enhanced slide facility using attachment alternates in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register (without necessarily extending far into the sub-tenor range).
The optimal design for the first criterion is essentially unique: the perfect-fifth attachment (Bb/Eb or C/F). The second turned out to be the minor-third tuning (Bb/G or C/A for tenor, Eb/C for alto). In 1961, Lloyd Fillio at the Bach/Selmer factory in Elkhart was kind enough to supply a Selmer (Paris) "Bolero" customised to Bb/G, which I played during my stay at Cornell.

In 1962, I attended a lecture/demonstration by Allen Ostrander at Ithaca College on the virtues of a second valve within the traditional F loop (of a bass trombone) as a quick-change mechanism to put the attachment in E. From my previous investigations (according to "theory") and my familiarity with mechanical linkages, I knew there were two things that could be improved:
(i) use Eb (or, preferably, D) for the additional loop, and
(ii) replace the awkward split-spatula thumb trigger by independently operated thumb and finger triggers.

My design would have the finger trigger operating the G attachment. Then it occurred to me that an independent valve, placed in-line along the gooseneck, would allow for more attachment alternates in the low register. The result was Bb/G(thumb)-E(finger)-D(double). The E is tuned 20¢ sharp giving a perfectly in-tune D double. Ten years later, when I was teaching Engineering Science at CUNY in New York, I had a proof-of-concept prototype constructed by converting my 88H to this tuning, customised at Giardinelli's famous shop. On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs. So, yes, I do have some experience at trombone design, being one of the early (independent) inventors of the independent dual-valve in-line geometry. My Bb/G-E-D Conn 88H was the first example (by many years) of a continuously chromatic in-line dual-valve tenor trombone.

In the 1990s, I worked closely with René Hagmann trying to discover why conventional attachments had typical "problems" that made professional players shy away from using a lot of attachment alternates. For example, flat a stuffy F2, sharp an uncentered C3, unreliable attack response. It turned out to be due to the conventional use of "oversized" attachment tubing in relation to the slide bore. With "matched bore" designs, we found that all these problems evaporated. I published an article in the Winter volume of the ITA Journal on this in 1999. Larger attachment bores can be used, but the transition between slide and valve/attachment must be very "smooth". An abrupt discontinuity (or little inadvertent "gaps" inside the slide-receiver between the slide and valve knuckle) can recreate such problems. René has had success with his "progressive-bore" design on his bass trombones—made possible because of the three-tube design of his valve.

More recently, I have been involved with valve design. In addition to the patented (all-caps) ULTRA valve—Unsymmetrical Lipped-Tube Rotary Actuator—I am the conceptual designer of the (all-caps) CAIDEX valve. [It's an acronym for Constant Area Internal Ducts of Elliptic Cross Section, with the CS replaced by X for easy pronunciation.] My co-designer, Dr Morteza Vatani, who graduated a few years ago from the graduate program in robotics at The University of Akron, where I used to teach, takes my rough sketches and produces beautiful computer codes for this compact rotary valve with amazingly small rotational inertia and friction. And individually adjustable bumper stops, with a see-through end cap (so that the player can check at a glance that the alignment is exact). And the valves are produced by Willson in Switzerland.

My hope is that more professional players will take up the minor-third tuning, making full use of the attachment alternates that mimic, in the otherwise awkward low register, the facile upper register; then, harmonics are separated by intervals of thirds and seconds throughout the complete practical range of the instrument.

Hopefully, we can amicably resolve some of the anomalies that have cropped up between "theory" and practice involving B1 with the E attachment. Perhaps improving both.

Benny Leonard


.

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:21 am The original design focused on reducing impedance and improving sound, not on maximizing tubing length to allow for low B

What I don't understand is the random excess pull (i.e. overlapping tube mass) that's still short of a useful flat-E for B pull. Not designing for a low B is a perfectly reasonable choice - most people don't care on tenor, and more or less nobody is playing a single valve Thayer bass - but then just make the slide legs shorter and lighter, as Shires does on the Curran section.

ithinknot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:31 am

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:21 am The original design focused on reducing impedance and improving sound, not on maximizing tubing length to allow for low B

What I don't understand is the random excess pull (i.e. overlapping tube mass) that's still short of a useful flat-E for B pull. Not designing for a low B is a perfectly reasonable choice - most people don't care on tenor, and more or less nobody is playing a single valve Thayer bass - but then just make the slide legs shorter and lighter, as Shires does on the Curran section.

Because the reduction in weight changes the way the horn plays. That change may be good, or not.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:38 am

ithinknot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:31 am

What I don't understand is the random excess pull (i.e. overlapping tube mass) that's still short of a useful flat-E for B pull. Not designing for a low B is a perfectly reasonable choice - most people don't care on tenor, and more or less nobody is playing a single valve Thayer bass - but then just make the slide legs shorter and lighter, as Shires does on the Curran section.

Because the reduction in weight changes the way the horn plays. That change may be good, or not.

Exactly.

The origin of the lightweight axial section on the Curran model is that we had a request from Charlie Vernon to make a valve section for his NY Bach bell that was as light as possible, in order to help with hand strain. George happened to come to the factory while we had the prototype; he tried it and loved the way it responded for him, so that option was incorporated on his signature model.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:38 amBecause the reduction in weight changes the way the horn plays. That change may be good, or not.

My Yamaha YBL-612 RII is almost a different horn with Eb crook installed instead of the D crook. It is quite a bit longer, also has a 6 inch long tuning slide built in so it weighs a lot more.

FWIW.
I made a single Thayer bass many years ago that had an in tune E pull. Again. No issues at all playing in tune Low B's.

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:24 am On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs.

A bit before my time, but I'm pretty sure Burt Herrick and Larry Minick were building independent bass trombones in the late 1960s.

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:24 am

Frankly, I was not impressed with the stated "advantages" of the F attachment. So in 1960, being an inquisitive engineering student with a background in acoustics, I sat down with available "tools" (graph paper, slide rule and tables of logarithms) to figure out the the best (single-trigger) attachment tunings for two (separate) design criteria:
(i) chromatic sub-tenor extension continuously down to pedals (without regard to necessarily improving slide technique) and
(ii) enhanced slide facility using attachment alternates in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register (without necessarily extending far into the sub-tenor range).
The optimal design for the first criterion is essentially unique: the perfect-fifth attachment (Bb/Eb or C/F). The second turned out to be the minor-third tuning (Bb/G or C/A for tenor, Eb/C for alto). In 1961, Lloyd Fillio at the Bach/Selmer factory in Elkhart was kind enough to supply a Selmer (Paris) "Bolero" customised to Bb/G, which I played during my stay at Cornell.

In 1962, I attended a lecture/demonstration by Allen Ostrander at Ithaca College on the virtues of a second valve within the traditional F loop (of a bass trombone) as a quick-change mechanism to put the attachment in E. From my previous investigations (according to "theory") and my familiarity with mechanical linkages, I knew there were two things that could be improved:
(i) use Eb (or, preferably, D) for the additional loop, and
(ii) replace the awkward split-spatula thumb trigger by independently operated thumb and finger triggers.

My design would have the finger trigger operating the G attachment. Then it occurred to me that an independent valve, placed in-line along the gooseneck, would allow for more attachment alternates in the low register. The result was Bb/G(thumb)-E(finger)-D(double). The E is tuned 19¢ sharp giving a perfectly in-tune D double. Ten years later, when I was teaching Engineering Science at CUNY in New York, I had a proof-of-concept prototype constructed by converting my 88H to this tuning, customised at Giardinelli's famous shop. On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs. So, yes, I do have some experience at trombone design, being one of the early (independent) inventors of the independent dual-valve in-line geometry. My Bb/G-E-D Conn 88H was the first example (by many years) of a continuously chromatic in-line dual-valve tenor trombone.

In the 1990s, I worked closely with René Hagmann trying to discover why conventional attachments had typical "problems" that made professional players shy away from using a lot of attachment alternates. For example, flat a stuffy F2, sharp an uncentered C3, unreliable attack response. It turned out to be due to the conventional use of "oversized" attachment tubing in relation to the slide bore. With "matched bore" designs, we found that all these problems evaporated. I published an article in the Winter volume of the ITA Journal on this in 1999. Larger attachment bores can be used, but the transition between slide and valve/attachment must be very "smooth". An abrupt discontinuity (or little inadvertent "gaps" inside the slide-receiver between the slide and valve knuckle) can recreate such problems. René has had success with his "progressive-bore" design on his bass trombones—made possible because of the three-tube design of his valve.

More recently, I have been involved with valve design. In addition to the patented (all-caps) ULTRA valve—Unsymmetrical Lipped-Tube Rotary Actuator—I am the conceptual designer of the (all-caps) CAIDEX valve. [It's an acronym for Constant Area Internal Ducts of Elliptic Cross Section, with the CS replaced by X for easy pronunciation.] My co-designer, Dr Morteza Vatani, who graduated a few years ago from the graduate program in robotics at The University of Akron, where I used to teach, takes my rough sketches and produces beautiful computer codes for this compact rotary valve with amazingly small rotational inertia and friction. And individually adjustable bumper stops, with a see-through end cap (so that the player can check at a glance that the alignment is exact). And the valves are produced by Willson in Switzerland.

My hope is that more professional players will take up the minor-third tuning, making full use of the attachment alternates that mimic, in the otherwise awkward low register, the facile upper register; then, harmonics are separated by intervals of thirds and seconds throughout the complete practical range of the instrument.

Benny Leonard


.

This is pretty interesting. Are you saying that you came up with the idea for in-line independent valves for bass? Also good work on all those valve types.

I get, theoretically, why you like the E or Eb tuning on the attachment (for tenor trombone, I guess?) so that you can "easily" play in that low range with the B natural and a bit more facility. That said, I don't know of any repertoire where such an advantage would take the cake over an easy low F and C in first, and B and E in 2nd, etc. I think deep down, nobody wants to use 6th position unless they have to. Sure there are sadists and try-harders who want to look cool on a straight horn, but they are hidden somewhere deep in academia. F on modern horns sounds just as good in 1st as it does in 6th.

If you need such facility in the low register, the double plug bass gets you there, and then some. I'd say a modern bass has more facilty than a Bb/Eb trombone. I've seen a double plug 36B that would also get you there, but I'm not sure who is going to be playing extensively in difficult low register stuff on such a horn.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:54 pm

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:24 am On the basis of my in-line prototype, in the early 1970s, Bob Giardinelli, encouraged by bass-trombonist Paul Faulise, subsequently made several "in-line" conversions—of single- or dependent double-trigger bass trombones. These were tuned using the traditional F attachment for the thumb-trigger and either G (natural) or Gb for the finger trigger, giving (flat) Eb or D for the double. These tunings became commercially available shortly thereafter. At that time, I was unaware of similar efforts at developing in-line designs.

A bit before my time, but I'm pretty sure Burt Herrick and Larry Minick were building independent bass trombones in the late 1960s.

George Strucel is the name I've always heard as being the first. On the old forum, there was some info, including a picture, of what was said to be the first inline double bass.

Of course, there were inline contras long before that...

I'm just now realizing who Sesquitone is. I used to see him and talk to him at some of the ITF's way back when they were in Nashville. He knows what he's talking about. I'll let him answer your questions.

Oops, I didn't see so many answers happened earlier today.

JohnL wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:18 pm
George Strucel is the name I've always heard as being the first. On the old forum, there was some info, including a picture, of what was said to be the first inline double bass.

I figured that was probably the case, but I couldn't find any references to it on the web, and I didn't want to speculate.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:49 pm

JohnL wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:18 pm
George Strucel is the name I've always heard as being the first. On the old forum, there was some info, including a picture, of what was said to be the first inline double bass.

I figured that was probably the case, but I couldn't find any references to it on the web, and I didn't want to speculate.

Yes George Strucel made the first inline doublevalve bass trombone, the idea came from the new inline contrabasstrombone, like Gebr. Alexander. Latter (with permision from Georg Strucel) Old´s copied G S:s horn, P 24. nice horn, it was possible use lot of different tunings on attachements.

Many horns had in tune E pull. Conn and Holton. The trouble is that the slide is not long enough. It could not be very difficult to make a longer slide (shorter bell). My problem is that the arm is not long enough.
Today the bells are longer. To make a more conically sound? Better intonation?

So now I am confused (again). From what Olofson and others have pointed out, to get B1 on a single-valve (tenor or bass) nominally Bb/F trombone, we need: (a) an attachment tuning slide that can be pulled to an in-tune E, and (b) a hand-slide that can reach far enough beyond slide-alone seventh position to find an in-tune B1. [That has been my experience, both theoretically AND practically.] Some (most?) trombones from commercial manufacturers have one or the other of these features, but not both. Others do. Is that correct?

Many wrap geometries (especially with axial valves) aren't designed to allow a long enough E-pull. But those that do, it seems, if they have a bona fide seventh position, should have a long enough hand-slide to reach B1. In fact, Matthew has shown, quite vividly in his video demo, that he can get a dinky-di B1 at about one centimetre beyond slide-alone seventh position, which is not much further out, and should be easily reached by players with arms long enough to reach the seventh position (e. g. by extending the fingers a bit further). All tenor trombones (with or without attachments) that I am aware of have hand-slides long enough to reach the seventh position; and can be over-extended (at least) one centimetre without becoming mechanically unstable. Am I to understand that some single-valve (bass?) trombones' hand-slides don't actually reach to slide-alone seventh position? And can therefore not play B1, even when the tuning slide can be pulled to an in-tune E. So how can they reach far enough to play C2 when the attachment is tuned to F?

Something seems amiss.

Not to be too silly, but you don’t have to listen to too many trombonists play low Cs on a single valve to figure out how they do it…. They are just out of tune.

FWIW, I tune to a bF if I need a big solid C when playing a single. More frequently, that’s when I just bring a double.

Cheers,
Andy

The simple fact is most makers of trombones don't seem to take slide length into consideration, particularly in regards the ability to play low C and/or B with one valve.

The vast majority of bass trombonists play 2 valve instruments, and rarely get past 5th position. So the fact that their handslide isn't long enough for C and B is irrelevant.

I know this thread is more about playing low Bs, but in reference to the out of tune Cs on tenor:



This guy did pretty well on an 88H. Maybe a little sharp, but this is very much a live recording.

The lindberg recording where he does it on a tiny 5CL mouthpiece is dead on:



The low C master.

Guy in the first video has his tuning slide pulled about 3 inches.

I know one of the Bass Trombone methods / Books I have, I think one by Paul Faulise? has a bunch of sections on the flat F tuning for use with a single valve bass. I've thought about learning the positions but I think I'll just stick to using the second valve if I need an in tune low C.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:28 am Guy in the first video has his tuning slide pulled about 3 inches.

Yep, he's also got his main slide pushed almost all the way in. That's about par for the course on the 88HCL. You play long for Bb, and the F is tuned right on the slide bumpers. My F slide was pulled about that far when I used one.

Everyone is different -- he may very well have made the F unusable, I didn't look at the video for F in first.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:23 am The simple fact is most makers of trombones don't seem to take slide length into consideration, particularly in regards the ability to play low C and/or B with one valve.

The vast majority of bass trombonists play 2 valve instruments, and rarely get past 5th position. So the fact that their handslide isn't long enough for C and B is irrelevant.

Except that you need a G in long 7th on the F valve for the beginning of the glisses in Hary Janos.

Except that you need a G in long 7th on the F valve for the beginning of the glisses in Hary Janos.

I did say "rarely". That is probably the only time where most double valve bass players find themselves "needing" a long 7th. I doubt there are any trombone makers who take that note into consideration. I hadn't thought of it until you mentioned it. But if you can play an in tune low C in 7th, then that G is also playable.

The simple fact is that most trombone slides aren't long enough for an in-tune low C while also giving an in-tune low F, so you can give up one or the other. The Conn 70-series bass trombones are the only example I can think of that are actually long enough, but there are probably others out there.

However, not having a slide that's quite long enough to get that low C in tune is the norm rather than the exception, so players who do play them in tune are used to lipping down a bit down to get there (even if they don't realize that's what they're doing - many players don't know that the slide is not technically long enough and if they get the desired result anyway, who cares!).

As for the low B, even a Conn 70-series slide isn't long enough for an in-tune low B with the valve set in E. It has to be a flat E - my single 72H could pull very nearly to Eb.

Lipping down is certainly not the worst thing in the world, and if you're good at it it's by far the easiest solution to a convincing Bartok gliss. But all else being equal you'd prefer to not have to, which is why I prefer longer slides. Obviously with two valves it's very rarely necessary to go out to long 7th, but as already mentioned: Hary Janos. So it's definitely nice to have.

(That said, a Bb/F/ascending C bass might be the ultimate solution for Hary Janos - easy glisses and a turbo button for that high B!)

This is an interesting thread to me. I play double valved basses yet ALWAYS ALWAYS practice consistently out to at least 6th and use 6th all the time and 7th plus at least a little everytime I pick up ANY of my horns.

I see 2 camps, it is possible and it is not possible to play in tune low Cs and Bs on modern single valve instruments without "out of tune" F attachments.

In my opinions both camps are correct. I lean towards most horns are not setup to play low Cs in tune without a detuned F attachment, however I HAD one modern horn that could do just that. A Bach 42 I recently sold that I had built into a Olsen Axial instrument and I had re tubed the slide with MK drawing outer tubes about 11 years ago. Why do the specifics matter? I think it is several factors with the build that allowed me to able to do this:

1: On the horn side, the outer slide tubes had a slightly smaller ID than Bach outers and sealed very very well against my factory inner. In my experience as a tech and trombonist the tighter the slide tolerances the less far out the outer positions are, especially on H3 (C in the staff in 6th as an example). Bach tenor trombones (but not 50Bs) HAD tighter tolerances than most bass bones until about 2011, hence why NO Bach 50 slide I have owned or played could come close to low C in tune in the same position as my 42 slide (I didn't sell that slide with my 42, it awaits another build). Second horn aspect, my valve was setup to seal very well. Leaks to atmosphere on an instrument also effect pitch center and the ability to lock in pitch, a loose Axial valve can cause lots of problems.

2: My own playing technique. I play off the bumpers, BUT I tune to F in tune against my bumpers, and I setup all my slides to have only one felt in the cork barrels so there is maximum travel available. This requires moving the slide lock lug to be able to lock the slide. The effect is F IS FLAT in my normal playing position but can be played in tune if need be. I extend this to my bass playing as well, as I like to keep relative positions fairly close. Most of my horns are Bach, or have the handslide bracing in Bach positions (Shires).

That being said, I only HAD one modern instrument that could in fact play low C in tune without lipping or pulling the f attachment tuning slide out. It was that 42.

The second aspect of playing low C and B in tune are falset tones and conscious lipping down to pitch.

I know a lot of professional trombonists and 2 of my colleagues can produce extremely authentic sounding low Cs on Edwards T350 trombone without detuning their F attachments. One of those 2 individuals has the ability to lip to B and sound perfect on it. He is the only guy I know who can lip to B from a low C position and have it sound like a real note.

On tenor and small basses a falset B in T3 (Low Eb position) can often work quite well and it locks in place better than lipping down from a low C position, but the larger the horn and equipment the less likely it will sound good.

Anyways, There are my thought,

Benn

Finetales wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:22 pm The simple fact is that most trombone slides aren't long enough for an in-tune low C while also giving an in-tune low F, so you can give up one or the other.

Do you think the trend of tuning the horn so that Bb is on the bumpers, where the tuning slide is pulled 1.5" or more, might be a culprit here?

My horns all have both an F and a C on the F attachment. I play with the tuning slide all the way in, and in some cases I've shortened the bell on my horns (in the tuning legs)

It reminds me of when all the bass trombone players on the old forum were complaining that their F slides were too short to play an F in first, but when pressed admitted that they had the Bb slide pulled 1-2".

Compromise, choice, situation. We have to be flexible to play what’s on the stand. If you’re playing a single and a low B shows up, you can either lip it down from 6th, play a falset tone in Vb3 (a “George Roberts”), or pull the F-crook (in which case you lose C and F in V1). Elizer Aharoni’s book is the blueprint for learning different tunings and being flexible.

Love the Lindberg recording! Thanks! New to me

Since dual-valve (dependent or in-line) attachments don't require hand-slides that extend beyond slide-alone seventh position (and some could be much shorter), the following should be relevant to the current topic, including some questions that have arisen earlier with respect to some of my own design efforts. First, I want to emphasise that the straightforward full-harmonic-series/twelfth-root-of-two (FHS/TRT) theory has always worked extremely well for me. When prototypes of my several different designs have been constructed, sound-path lengths have been "exactly" as predicted—i.e. to within a few millimetres. With a couple of exceptions, the pitches of various harmonics are as predicted: in practice, fifth (and tenth) harmonics (relative to fourth and eighth) are usually much closer to equitempered major thirds than to the corresponding (14¢ flat) natural harmonics.

Regarding my in-line dual-valve Bb/G-E-D tenor—designed in 1962, with the first prototype built in 1971/72—this resulted from invoking globally optimal design, usually known by its TLA. The design objective is, first, to be compatible with the previously designed (and built in 1961) Bb/G(thumb-trigger) tenor that optimises facile slide technique in the otherwise awkward low-tenor register, then add a second (independently operated finger-trigger) valve-actuated loop (either dependently within the G loop or independently along the gooseneck) to extend the low range continuously down to pedals, choosing the tuning of the second loop so as to distribute its own and the combined dual-attachment's harmonics as uniformly as possible between the pre-existing slide-alone and G-attachment harmonics (which are themselves already optimally interleaved)—using ETSP Charts as the primary diagnostic tool. The in-line geometry offers more possibilities for optimally interleaved harmonics—being vertically spaced (on the ETSP Chart) by thirds and seconds, mimicking the facile upper register, throughout the whole playable range of the instrument. Optimally spaced interleaving of harmonics turns out to be achieved by the following combination: Bb/G(thumb)-E(finger)-D(double), with the E-attachment tuned 20¢ sharp in order to guarantee an exactly in-tune D double with the slide closed. An alternative tuning, Bb/G(thumb)-Eb(finger)-Db(double), with the Eb tuned 7¢ sharp, comes in a close "second". [See the respective ETSP Charts, below.]

The proof-of-concept prototype of the Bb/G-E-D combination was a modification of my Conn 88H tenor trombone, which I happened to have available—since I was now using my Bb/G "Bolero" full time (in addition to a Giardinelli tenor sackbut, a Meinl & Lauber bass sackbut in Eb, an alto cornetto, and several other "early music" wind instruments). The customisation was done at Bob Giardinelli's famous shop in New York City, where I was, at that time, teaching courses in engineering science, computational fluid dynamics, and other subjects (including foundations of musical acoustics) at a branch campus of the City University of New York. Giardinelli's lead technician, Jack Onqué, did the conversion and helped me with the detailed design of the independent finger-trigger linkage geometry. As a "back-burner" project, the work was often put on hold, especially when Jack broke his ankle and was "out" for quite a while due to complications. The practical results—equitempered pitch frequencies and corresponding slide extensions—were exactly as predicted by FHS/TRT theory, as expected!

As a result of my Bb/G-E-D continuously chromatic tenor trombone project, well-known bass trombonist Paul Faulise and Bob Giardinelli himself were so taken with the (apparently "new") idea of independent in-line dual-valves that they made several "in-line conversions" of dependent dual-valve bass trombones in the early 1970s. These conversions used the traditional F attachment with the thumb trigger, and either G (natural) or Gb with the finger trigger, giving "(flat) Eb" or D, respectively, for the double combination. Paul wrote up a short article strongly praising the advantages of what was (to all of us) a "new" idea in "Trombone Conversion", published in the Souvenir Journal of the 4th Annual New York Brass Conference for Scholarships, 1976—listed in the index simply as "GIARDINELLI". In the article, Paul gave musical examples—with notated slide positions and valve choices (contrasting dependent and in-line techniques)—that appeared later, in expanded form, in his now well-known method books for bass trombone. Commercially produced in-line dual-valve bass trombones with these (now conventional) tunings started to become available in the mid-to-late 1970s.

For a thoroughly researched and beautifully presented history of the evolution of (both dependent and in-line) dual-valve bass trombones, see Doug Yeo'a article, "EVOLUTION: The Double-Valve Bass trombone" in the ITA Journal, Volume 43, Number 3, July 2015. [I'll have a little more to say about an expanded chronology of in-line designs later.]

******
For clarification, I have never advocated for the use of a single-valve Bb/Eb combination—although continuously chromatic, the necessarily long slide-position shifts between B2 and Bb2 (and B1 and Bb1) and between E2 and Eb2 make this far too awkward for general use. A similar comment applies to a single-valve Bb/E combination—and in this case, there is no (in-tune) B1 within a reasonable over-extension beyond slide-alone seventh position. With an equitempered E attachment, the "theoretical" slide extension for an equitempered B1 would need to be 88 mm beyond slide-alone seventh position. And this is, indeed, borne out in practice! In the Bb/G-E-D and Bb/G-Eb-Db combinations, the (finger-trigger actuated) valve tunings, 20¢ sharp E and 7¢ sharp Eb, arise "automatically" from the optimisation procedure.

******
The picture of Bob Giardinelli holding a bell section with dependent valves (below) is heavily cropped from the original photo (by Bill Spilka). Just at the bottom, can be seen a pair of in-line valves. That second complete bell section is being held by Paul Faulise (cropped out of the picture), for direct comparison with the dependent geometry. The full picture, and another, appeared in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article, mentioned above. I've included a (much later) photo of Paul from an interview by Jack Schatz.




.

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:32 pm The picture of Bob Giardinelli holding a bell section with dependent valves (below) is heavily cropped from the original photo (by Bill Spilka). Just at the bottom, can be seen a pair of in-line valves. That complete bell section is being held by Paul Faulise, for direct comparison with the dependent geometry. The full picture, and another, appeared in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article, mentioned above.

I believe that is the prototype for the 112H, built by Larry Minick.

http://www.trombone-usa.com/faulise_paul_bio.htm

brassmedic wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:36 pm

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:32 pm The picture of Bob Giardinelli holding a bell section with dependent valves (below) is heavily cropped from the original photo (by Bill Spilka). Just at the bottom, can be seen a pair of in-line valves. That complete bell section is being held by Paul Faulise, for direct comparison with the dependent geometry. The full picture, and another, appeared in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article, mentioned above.

I believe that is the prototype for the 112H, built by Larry Minick.

http://www.trombone-usa.com/faulise_paul_bio.htm

I was about to post the same - it's obviously the 80s Minick in the Paul Faulise photo - and then I decided that wasn't actually what Sesquitone was claiming, though the wording is a bit ambiguous.

I think the suggestion is that in the heavily cropped photo of Bob Giardinelli, PF is holding up the second bell section.

Just to be clear, that picture of Paul was intended to be just that—for people who perhaps did not know him personally. Showing the trombone he's holding there is definitely not intended to imply that it was one of the Giardinelli conversions from the early 1970s. I'm currently at my summer lake cottage in the Northwoods and won't have access to the full-sized Bill Spilka photographs in Paul's "Trombone Conversion" article—showing Paul and Bob each holding up a different bell section and literally "pointing out" the differences between the two types of valve geometries—until I get back to Madison in October. In the meantime, perhaps someone else does. I've tried to edit the description of the heavily cropped Giardinelli photo for more clarity. I'm pretty sure the bell section held by Bob is that of an early Bach 50B2, Bb/F/Eb. The in-line conversion (with some rearrangement of the wrap layout) would presumably become the prototype for the 50B3. I trust this clears up any possible confusion. Thanks for your comments.

"A similar comment applies to a single-valve Bb/E combination—and in this case, there is no (in-tune) B1 within a reasonable over-extension beyond slide-alone seventh position. With an equitempered E attachment, the "theoretical" slide extension for an equitempered B1 would need to be 88 mm beyond slide-alone seventh position. And this is, indeed, borne out in practice!"

. . Apparently my video still isn't enough.

At least I get to see more of those charts! I love them!

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:50 am

. . Apparently my video still isn't enough.

Well... yes. I got my 42 out with an LT42 slide a couple days ago and tried this out. With an in-tune E pull and the slide falling off the end, I am still 45 cents away from a B. Even pulling the F attachment as far as it will go, it's still not there.

Can I lip it? Sure. But it's not on the slide.

In case anyone else besides me is kinda confused by the ETSP charts, Sesquitone did post a great explanation a few months ago in the Teaching & Learning forum: viewtopic.php?t=29939

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:26 am

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:50 am

. . Apparently my video still isn't enough.

Well... yes. I got my 42 out with an LT42 slide a couple days ago and tried this out. With an in-tune E pull and the slide falling off the end, I am still 45 cents away from a B. Even pulling the F attachment as far as it will go, it's still not there.

Can I lip it? Sure. But it's not on the slide.

Because Bach doesn't make their slide tubes long enough to get to E. I've said this before

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 9:52 am

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:26 am

Well... yes. I got my 42 out with an LT42 slide a couple days ago and tried this out. With an in-tune E pull and the slide falling off the end, I am still 45 cents away from a B. Even pulling the F attachment as far as it will go, it's still not there.

Can I lip it? Sure. But it's not on the slide.

Because Bach doesn't make their slide tubes long enough to get to E. I've said this before

My section is not a Bach, and it gets comfortably to E.

If you want an in-tune low C (or B), you'll have to think outside the Bachs.
These notes seem readily achievable on my Conn 71H (which has a longish slide) - but it's a bass, not a tenor.

The Doug Yeo article is great. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... i=89978449

There is a photo of the 1967 Strusel in-line conversion.
Timeline of the first in-line basses:

1967—George Strusel (Los Angeles) makes an inline
double-valve bass trombone conversion for Ken Adkins.

• 1973—Olds S-24G inline double-valve bass trombone
in B-flat/F/G/E-flat; Larry Minick (Los Angeles) makes an
inline double-valve bass trombone conversion in B-flat/F/G/
E-flat for Jim Prindle.

No mention of Giardinelli ever making one in either the Paul Faulise interview or the Doug Yeo article. It would be interesting to see the uncropped photo of the supposed Giardinelli 50B3 prototype and the Faulise article. And a photo of Sesquitone's dual inline tenor.

Sorry if I'm getting off topic.

My section is not a Bach, and it gets comfortably to E.

But yet in my video I am clearly playing an in tune low B.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 3:01 pm But yet in my video I am clearly playing an in tune low B.

Indeed you are!

And you're pulled to a slightly flat E. The 4th partial trigger E is noticeably flat compared to the open horn in 2nd position, and the 3rd partial trigger B in 1st is slightly lower than the one you play in 7th, though not by much... but as we both know, the 3rd partial (especially on the valve side) tends to be sharper than the 2nd.

So it's all as both the math and experience would suggest

The following FHS/TRT analysis is based on a Bb trombone sound-path length of SPL(Bb) = 2960 mm [Campbell & Greated, page 28]. The semitone factor, S, is the twelfth-root of 2, i.e. 2 raised to the power 1/12:

S = 2^(1/12) = 1.059 463

[I'm carrying several decimal places so that we don't get into roundoff error problems.]

The sound-path length for an equitempered E, 6 semitones below Bb, is, therefore:

SPL(E) = SPL(Bb) x (S^6) = 4186.072 mm

When the E is played in the seventh position (i.e. without an attachment actuated), the portion of the sound-path within the slide is:

SPL(E) – SPL(Bb) = 1226.072 mm

The slide extension is half of this, so 7th position is at approximately 613 mm.

If an (equitempered) E attachment is added, the slide-closed sound-path length is now 4186.072 mm. The complete sound-path length for B1, 11 semitones below Bb2, is:

SPL(B) = SPL(Bb) x (S^11) = 5587.736 mm

With the E attachment actuated, if a slide were long enough to reach B1, the slide extension would need to be:

SE(B) = [SPL(B) – SPL(E)]/2 = SPL(Bb)[(S^11) – (S^6)]/2 = 700.8379 mm

The required over-extension beyond (slide-alone) 7th position is thus, approximately:

OE(B) = 701 mm – 613 mm = 88 mm

—usually a bit too far to reach, even by "longish" slides (and normal arm lengths!).

******

Now let's apply a similar FHS/TRT analysis to the video demonstration. As Burgerbob and ithinknot have observed, the video's attachment E is audibly flat relative to the 2nd-position slide-alone E. This is not just a matter of different tone quality due to the different sound-path lengths. The core frequency of the attachment tone—for clarity, call it E* (E-star)—is 24 cents below that of the slide-alone E. Since there are, by definition, 1200 cents in an octave, this means that the attachment E* sound-path length, SPL(E*), is a factor of 2^(24/1200) longer than the equitempered E sound-path:

SPL(E*) = SPL(E) x (2^0.02) = 4244.508 mm

Now if a slide were long enough to reach B1, the extension would need to be:

SE(B) = [SPL(B) – SPL(E*)]/2 = SPL(Bb)[(S^11) – (S^6) x (2^0.02)]/2 = 671.6142 mm

This is "only" about 6 cm beyond slide-alone 7th position, which might be possible to reach on a "longish" slide.

However, hornbuilder has estimated that the video B1 (call it B*1) is found at perhaps 1 cm beyond 7th position, which, with the E* attachment actuated, would be at a total sound-path length of about:

SPL(B*) = SPL(E*) + (613 mm + 10 mm) x 2

Approximately 5490.5 mm.

The corresponding sound-path length ratio is therefore:

SPL(B*)/SPL(B) = 5490.5/5587.736 = 0.9826

Taking 1200 times the logarithm-base-2 of this gives the interval in cents:

i(B*, B) = 1200 log2(0.9826) ¢

—about 30 cents sharp. At this low frequency—f(B1) = 123.5 Hz, f(B*1) = 125.7 Hz—a normal human ear might not be able to discriminate between the two.

Note that if the over-extension beyond slide-alone 7th position were actually 3 cm—which is easily accommodated—the theoretical B1 found there would have a frequency of 124.7 Hz, only 18 cents sharper than an equitempered B1. This would be heard as "exactly in tune".

Conclusions:
(i) FHS/TRT theory explains the video precisely. In other words: "Bob's your uncle!"
(ii) With an equitempered E attachment, an equitempered B1 would require a slide long enough to reach 88 mm beyond slide-alone 7th position.

******
For convenience, I have once again enclosed relevant portions of ETSP Charts for (a) an F attachment, (b) an (equitempered) E attachment, (c) a "flat-E" (actually, sharp-Eb) attachment, and (d) an Eb attachment.

******
Reference:
Campbell & Greated. The Musician's Guide to Acoustics, New York: Schirmer Books, 1988.


.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 3:01 pm
But yet in my video I am clearly playing an in tune low B.

Matt, with all due respect, if you post a video claiming to be in tune you should probably check it against a tuner first
I get (rounded to 5 cents) F+10 E+10 E-15 Bb-10 B-25 B+5 B+20

Speaking of long slides, the "contrabass" design patented by Hans Kunitz, and later built by Alexander, had a full-length (F bass) slide with a necessary extension handle because, being an in-line design tuned F/C(thumb)-D(finger)-Bb(double), the Gb1 (linking to pedals) is played with the (contra) Bb double-valve combination, twice as long as 5th-position on a Bb bass (or tenor). By contrast, the modern Thein contrabass with "German" tuning, F/D(thumb)-Bb(finger)-Ab(double), can reach the Gb1 easily using the (contra) Ab double-valve, with a much shorter slide (not requiring a handle).

There is some confusion about the Kunitz tuning because in Doug Yeo's article, it is described as F/Eb/Bb/Ab, which is not a viable combination! The Alex, owned at the time by Alan Charlesworth (with the original Kunitz linkages), that I tried out at the ITF meeting at North Texas State University, was definitely tuned F/C-D-Bb; and this is how it was described in the original Kunitz patents, two (of the three) of which I have copies. And you can see this by the length of the attachment tubing in the patent sketch (not precisely to scale) and the picture of the real thing.

There is an interesting connection here with the Boosey & Hawkes "Sovereign" bass with in-line valves, tuned Bb/F(thumb)-G(finger)-Eb(double)—as described by Gavin Dixon in his wonderful article on the "Kidshifter"—involving George Strusel, Ken Adkins, Denis Wick and Ray Premru (see below). B&H held off producing this trombone until the Alex patent had expired even though these were two entirely different trombones with entirely different tunings, the only similarity being that the respective attachments had the same relative tunings.

PS I have included juxtaposed pictures of a (modern) Bach 50B2 bell section and the (early 1970s) bell section being held up by Bob Giardinelli (further cropped down) pictured in the "Trombone Conversion" article by Paul Faulise, showing that it was, indeed, a Bach bass in-line conversion that they were demonstrating. [I hope to be able to access the full article next week, and will include the un-cropped pictures of Bob and Paul enthusiastically showing off their "new" idea.]






.

Sesquitone wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 9:28 am
PS I have included juxtaposed pictures of a (modern) Bach 50B2 bell section and the (early 1970s) bell section being held up by Bob Giardinelli (further cropped down) pictured in the "Trombone Conversion" article by Paul Faulise, showing that it was, indeed, a Bach bass in-line conversion that they were demonstrating. [I hope to be able to access the full article next week, and will include the un-cropped pictures of Bob and Paul enthusiastically showing off their "new" idea.]

With all due respect, that doesn't prove that the bottom instrument in the photo is a Giardinelli Bach inline conversion; it only proves that the top instrument is a Bach, which we already knew.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything; I'm just describing what I know (to the best of my memory, which, admittedly, is not what it used to be—what is?). In the original photos by Bill Spilka (two of them in the article), Paul Faulise is holding up the in-line conversion quite close to the original dependent-valve bell held by Bob Giardinelli (seen above), which is the same in every other respect. Bob and Paul are literally pointing to where the two bell sections differ. As I recall (from being there), one of the conversions was tuned Bb/F-G-Eb, which corresponded to the dependent tuning Bb/F/Eb; the other was tuned Bb/F-Gb-D, corresponding to the dependent tuning Bb/F/D. This may have been a "first" in-line bass trombone tuning giving the D with the double-valve combination. [Of course, my alternative ("unconventional") tuning, with the thumb-trigger operating the G attachment and the independent finger-trigger operating a 20¢ sharp E attachment already gave a perfectly-in-tune D with both triggers actuated.]

I'm hoping my son can dig up the original article ("filed away" in one of my multitude of "piles" of brass instrument publications) and bring it to me this weekend. In which case, I'll scan the photos and post them here. I trust that will "prove" the point.

By the way, my original Conn 88H conversion, Bb/G-E-D, was stolen from our home in Staten Island in 1981—along with my beautiful Bb/G "Bolero", the Meinl & Lauber bass sackbut, a Bach 50B2 that was awaiting conversion at Gardinelli's (to Bb/G-E-D), and several other "early music" instruments. [I think the burglars probably thought that the consort of viols consisted of some kind of easily fenced guitars!] I wouldn't be surprised if the Conn and the sackbut are today nailed up behind some bar in some New York City dive as "decoration".

elmsandr wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:40 am One of my few general design annoyances is really long F attachment tuning slides that do not actually provide functionality for that length (looking at you, every Thayer valve section ever designed).

Cheers,
Andy

Fwiw, my standard shires bass thayers have an E pull, say I had a double to single valve converter and a single bore slide, instant light rep horn without much hassle