King 4B vs Conn 88H

[John]

hello.

I'm curious about your preferences for large bore trombones.

and I bring you a fight between 2 large bore trombones

King 4B vs. Conn 88H

Which is the best?

you decide

[Posaunus]

Conn 88H (especially Elkhart) by a TKO.

A bit closer fight: Conn 88H vs Benge 190 or Benge 165F (King 4B on steroids).

[hyperbolica]

I've played other 547s, but nothing beats my 88h Elkhart. 4B is nice for those who don't know any better. There's nothing wrong with the horn. It just doesn't have the range of personality of an 88h. A good 42b is probably a better orchestral horn, if you're going to compare specific situations. But for everything else, solos, chamber music, band, whatever, give me that 88h. Of course I'm kind of biased because I learned on this horn, and I'm attuned to its way of playing. Benge are nice horns too, but I just gravitate toward that classic Conn feel. Even Shires and Edwards (please don't crucify me for saying this) feel a little boring. The one modern 547 that isn't boring is a Rath. Well, Schagerl and Stomvi that I've played have been fun, but again, I'm kinda partial to the 88h. Olds made some nice 547-ish horns, and so did Holton. All of these are totally worthy horns, I just got lucky in that my parents bought me an 88h before I could really handle it, and I grew into it like an old shoe. Nothing else fits quite right.

[Thrawn22]

A 4B will do well in a section of 4Bs or the benge since they are if similar design. An 88H however can blend better with other makes of similar size imo.

[Finetales]

4B is a nice wind ensemble horn.

[Pezza]

Out of the 2 I'd have the Conn 88H, (I'd prefer an 8H)

But I'd have a Bach 36 over any of them.

[MrHCinDE]

Depends on the context of the question:

The 4B can be a nice horn and on the small sample size I’ve tried the slides were excellent, like nearly all King horns I’ve ever tried, which I couldn’t say about all 88h.

Having said that, I prefer the warmer sound and flexibility of an 88h for symphony orchestra and solos but for wind band, brass band or 3rd in big band it’s basically a draw and down to individual taste, I’d happily play either in those applications.

So overall as a new instrument, 88h FTW.

Used prices for 4B always seem surprisingly low to me, for anyone wanting a large bore tenor on a budget they are a great option so in the used market based on price/performance I’d go with the 4B.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

Oh my......your question has certainly touched a nerve with me. But at least I can recognize my bias.

My vote is for the Conn 88H! I played a King 4B for many years in high school and college, mostly because I grew up in an area where almost all high school players were encouraged to play King 4Bs when stepping up to a .547 bore horn. I did well in high school with the instrument.....large fish in a small bowl. However when I went to a conservatory (smaller fish in a larger bowl) I struggled to keep up with the sound of the Conns and Bachs that were all around me. My teachers were very patient with me and never pressured me to switch equipment.......I really wish they would have. A few years after college (this is still prior to the "boutique age" of instruments that included the introduction of Edwards and Shires instruments), I investigated the options available on .547 bore trombones. I settled on a Bach 42 with very specific features. The new instrument allowed me to advance quickly with the "sound" that I wanted to produce. I guess you could say that I am still a little bitter about how my King 4B did not allow me to play the way I wanted to play. My sincere apologies to the King 4B fans out there. If the King 4B works well for you, knock yourself out.....you are probably more gifted than I am!

It has taken me 35 years to figure out all of this, but I truly believe that the King 4B has many features that make the sound brighter, more narrow and less flexible than other .547 bore horns. Here is the list:

*The leadpipe throat on the King 4B is in the .445 - .450 range, extremely tight. Most other .547 bore trombones have leadpipe throats in the .468 - .480 range.

*The outer slide is only available in nickel silver. While nickel silver slides can help to make articulations more crisp, they also tend to brighten the sound.

*The slide crook has an inside diameter of .561 inch......very tight. For comparison, the I.D. of a Conn 88H crook is .578, the Bach 42 crook I.D. is .600 inch.

*The bore of the King 4B rotary valve section is .547 inch. Almost all other .547 bore slides are paired with a rotary valve section that has a .562 bore, including the Conn 88H.

*The throat of the bell on a King 4B is very narrow and then it suddenly flares out near the end of the bell. If you place a King 4B and Conn 88H side by side, the narrowness of the King 4B bell throat is very discernible to the naked eye.

Again, my apologies to those who like the King 4B. I actually know a couple of players who sound great on their 4Bs. For those players who are like me and do not naturally produce a large, sonorous sound on any instrument you play........I believe the King 4B could potentially be a frustrating instrument to play. What is Salieri's line at the end of Amadeus? "Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you.....I absolve you. I am your patron Saint!" and I also recommend the Conn 88H so that your chances of sounding mediocre are lowered.

[heldenbone]

While not intending to argue for/against Crazy4Tbone86's points earlier in the thread, I note that using a 5G or 5GS as the situation dictates reveals the 4BF tonal flexibility. My own instrument was improved noticeably by the addition of a counterweight and having the bell cut and threaded. Attacks became more immediate, without that "bloom" to the formation of the sound, and the sound color stays centered and well controlled with very loud playing. All this is to say that there is a good orchestral instrument "in there."

[OneTon]

I put a lot of time in on an 88H and loved it until it got stolen. Then I started using gold brass Bach’s with lightweight nickel slides for straight and f attachment large bore tenor. And still do. Considering the positive experience that I have had with the King 2B and Duo-Gravis, I would at least try a King 4B if I had to get another large bore tenor.

[Posaunus]

All this is to say that there is a good orchestral instrument "in there." [in a King 4B]

I think you're right, but the "good" is well-hidden. To me, the Benge 190 and 165F (sort of souped-up King 4Bs) address most of Crazy4Tbone86's issues, and bring out a lot of what's inherently good in a King 4B. Big improvement in my modest opinion. I wish that Conn-Selmer had continued production of these trombones!

[Crazy4Tbone86]

....and please remember that I actually know people who get a great "symphonic" sound on their King 4Bs. Granted, these people can also get a huge, dark sound on a .500 instrument. In other words, "the player" is a huge variable when it comes to tone quality.

I am extremely sensitive to trombone equipment. A change in the throat of a mouthpiece by .003 inch or a similar change in the leadpipe can make or break my success on an instrument. That is why the King 4B was such a bad match for me. It is a shame that it took me seven years to discover it was a "miss" for me in so many categories (leadpipe, outer slide material, slide crook, valve bore, bell throat). By the way heldenbone, I actually used a Bach 4G mouthpiece the majority of my time on the King 4B.....and my tone was still brighter than the Conn and Bach players around me using smaller mouthpieces.

It could very well be that the King 4B is a "hit" in those categories for some players seeking a rich, symphonic sound. My teaching experience has shown me that trombonists who can "play big with small equipment" are out there, but in the minority. That is why my advice for the general public is to go a different direction when looking for a large bore horn......Conn 88H, Bach 42, etc..... Yes, this is purely my opinion. Please take it or leave it as you wish.

[2bobone]

There is a reason that they make chocolate AND vanilla. Just sayin'.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

There is a reason they they make chocolate AND vanilla. Just sayin'.

Exactly!

[Thrawn22]

There is a reason they they make chocolate AND vanilla. Just sayin'.

Exactly!

I like strawberry myself.

[Posaunus]

I like strawberry myself.

No, Matt - you clearly like Conn!

[spencercarran]

All this is to say that there is a good orchestral instrument "in there." [in a King 4B]

I think you're right, but the "good" is well-hidden. To me, the Benge 190 and 165F (sort of souped-up King 4Bs) address most of Crazy4Tbone86's issues, and bring out a lot of what's inherently good in a King 4B. Big improvement in my modest opinion. I wish that Conn-Selmer had continued production of these trombones!

Particularly odd the Conn-Selmer is still making the King 4BF, but not the Benge. As far as I know the 4BF has never sold all that well.

[Matt K]

To be honest, around that time period I'm somewhat surprised CS didn't consolidate some of the models a little more. For instance, they persisted in using the Bach rotors on 42Bs when they could have been using 88 rotors. Could have instead dropped the 4B and expanded say, the Conn lineup to have 4B bells or 88H bells and a choice of a few of the leadpipes. Easier said than done I suppose, but an interesting counterfactual history exercise nonetheless.

[tbonesullivan]

To be honest, around that time period I'm somewhat surprised CS didn't consolidate some of the models a little more. For instance, they persisted in using the Bach rotors on 42Bs when they could have been using 88 rotors. Could have instead dropped the 4B and expanded say, the Conn lineup to have 4B bells or 88H bells and a choice of a few of the leadpipes. Easier said than done I suppose, but an interesting counterfactual history exercise nonetheless.

I remember reading here recently the design leadership of Bach was very much not into making any changes from Vincent Bach's original designs. Kind of the "if it needed that VB would have made it that way" thing.

Changing the size of the valve would also have required making changes to the gooseneck and/or slide receiver to accommodate the larger valve. Mind you, they have no problems doing that now on their "new" models, but they still offer the original, unaltered, Bach 42B, They also still offer the Bach 50 with some archaic valve configurations as well, without split triggers. I don't understand Bach a lot of times.

[Thrawn22]

I like strawberry myself.

No, Matt - you clearly like Conn!

I played a 36G bell last night I'll have you know.

[imsevimse]

I'm a collector and at one time I so much wanted to find a good 4b but the ones I found wasn't a good match. I own two Conn 88h. One from 1955 (Elkhart) and one from 1979 (Abelene). Both Conns are real good. I do like King trombones and own three King 3b's. At the time I was on search for a 4b, whenever I found one I did not like it very much. That's about it.

/Tom

[Matt K]

I think the 5B is closer to what most people expect out of a tenor. The 4Bs I’ve played - some of which were really good - still were on the brighter side but in such a way that I would have almost always chosen a good medium bore over them or a different large bore. Although now that I think about it, isn’t the 88hk bell the same bell as the 5B but with a different stamp? I’m not sure how much different a 5B is from that mode Conn.

[Pezza]

I use my 5B as a small bass. Never liked it as a tenor.

[Thrawn22]

I think the 5B is closer to what most people expect out of a tenor. The 4Bs I’ve played - some of which were really good - still were on the brighter side but in such a way that I would have almost always chosen a good medium bore over them or a different large bore. Although now that I think about it, isn’t the 88hk bell the same bell as the 5B but with a different stamp? I’m not sure how much different a 5B is from that mode Conn.

I think the K bell is a copy of a Holton.

I liked 5Bs as a bass horn.

[Burgerbob]

K bell is a 5B bell, AFAIK. Definitely not a bass bell, and the 5B is a 4B right up until that flare, including the "small" valve section.

[Matt K]

Leadpipe too? Interesting. The 5B I’ve played (not to be confused with the older 536/547 model I can never remember) seemed to be more different than just that .5” on the bell. But yeah, I’m be never picked up a 5B and wanted to use it as a bass.

I do have an 88HK bell now fitted for shires tenors incidentally and even with the larger bore size rotor and tubing, definitely not something I’d want to use as a full time bass. That said… I have a bass tuning slide receiver part that I’m thinking I might swap in… thinking the bell itself might be a decent small bass bell when paired with that bass tuning slide with the much larger throat. But I’m not sure if it’ll fit to be honest. Even the 6B tuning slide is substantially larger than the 5B tuning slides.

A long time ago I also had a 9” Holton bell fitted for shires. I sold off the 6B I had to try to make an everything tenor. The valve section I had made turned out fantastic and I used it for a number of years. But even with a 562 slide, the 9” bell didn’t cut it for most of the bass playing I did with the smaller tuning slide even in the same way the 6B I sold to find it did. I really wanted it to work. I had plans for a case that I could carry a few bells and slides so I could have “everything” I’d need in essentially a suitcase.

[Thrawn22]

I do have an 88HK bell now fitted for shires tenors incidentally and even with the larger bore size rotor and tubing, definitely not something I’d want to use as a full time bass. That said… I have a bass tuning slide receiver part that I’m thinking I might swap in… thinking the bell itself might be a decent small bass bell when paired with that bass tuning slide

Every time I've brought up making a pocket bass with a K bell to a tech they point out it wouldn't work because the bell taper is narrow because the K bell was designed to be a tenor bell. A small bass horn would be like a 5B or Olds single rotor tis model with 9.25 in bell with dual bore slide.

[BGuttman]

I had a 5B and never once did I feel it to be "bass-like". It was a large tenor. OK for some 4th bone parts, but not for more contemporary Jazz Band bass. Also a little small to balance in orchestra against 2 0.547" bores (like 2 4Bs).

[Crazy4Tbone86]

K bell is a 5B bell, AFAIK. Definitely not a bass bell, and the 5B is a 4B right up until that flare, including the "small" valve section.

Yes, the “K” bell (the “K” is for Allen Kofsky, who played the bell for many years in the Cleveland Orchestra) is the same as the 5B bell. I have seen them in yellow brass, gold brass (some call it rose brass) and red brass.

The same bell in gold brass was cut to a diameter of 8.5 inches and used on the Benge 190 and 175 models. The only difference between the 190 and 175 bells is that the 190 was annealed one more time at the end of the bell spinning process. Both the 175 and 190 models played larger than the King 4B and 5B because the rotor section was a full .562 bore. I always thought the valves on those Benge horns were pretty good, as long as the knuckles didn’t get crushed/crinkled (it happened a lot).

I see that some have commented that they were never comfortable playing the 5B as a bass. This makes absolute sense because the rest of the horn was exactly the same as the 4B…….built rather small.

A 9” bell does not always translate to a bass trombone. Think about all of those Germanic trombones that have bell diameters over 9” but have a bore size of .500 or lower. The bell is only one part of the equation.

[imsevimse]

K bell is a 5B bell, AFAIK. Definitely not a bass bell, and the 5B is a 4B right up until that flare, including the "small" valve section.

Yes, the “K” bell (the “K” is for Allen Kofsky, who played the bell for many years in the Cleveland Orchestra) is the same as the 5B bell. I have seen them in yellow brass, gold brass (some call it rose brass) and red brass.

The same bell in gold brass was cut to a diameter of 8.5 inches and used on the Benge 190 and 175 models. The only difference between the 190 and 175 bells is that the 190 was annealed one more time at the end of the bell spinning process. Both the 175 and 190 models played larger than the King 4B and 5B because the rotor section was a full .562 bore.

Interesting! I have never liked the 4B or the 5B and consider the Benge-trombones to be as "better" Kings. King 2b, 2b+, 3b, Benge 170, 175, 175f, 190C and King 6b are what I consider to be my best "Kings". I know the Benge is not really King, but they play and sound like King trombones.

/Tom

[Finetales]

It's always curious to me that plenty of people talk about using the 5B as a bass (or even outright call the 5B a bass trombone), but nobody ever thinks of the Benge 190F/175F as anything but a tenor.

The 5B/K bell has a larger than normal throat, but a bass bell it is not.

[Posaunus]

The same bell in gold brass was cut to a diameter of 8.5 inches and used on the Benge 190 and 175 models. The only difference between the 190 and 175 bells is that the 190 was annealed one more time at the end of the bell spinning process. Both the 175 and 190 models played larger than the King 4B and 5B because the rotor section was a full .562 bore. I always thought the valves on those Benge horns were pretty good, as long as the knuckles didn’t get crushed/crinkled (it happened a lot).

Brian & Tom,

You're half right. It was the Benge 165F that was the same as the Benge 190 (both 0.547" bore, but with a different wrap and leadpipe as well as the bell annealing difference). The Benge 175 is a different trombone, with a 0.525" bore.

I have a very nice Benge 165F which I like (it's a backup to my Conn 88H). [I've never has a knuckle problem - is it my small hands or the 90°bell-slide angle I use?] Valve works well. Definitely plays better than a King 4B or 5B, even though it was made in the King factory.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

Yes Posaunus.......probably a senior moment. You are correct, the intermediate Benge .547 bore model was the 165F. Pretty sad that I got the wrong model......I just had a 165F in the shop about 2 weeks ago!

The Benge 165F that was recently in the shop did have the "knuckle problem" that is common with King and Benge horns. Below are the "before" and "after" photos of the knuckle repair. Not all King/Benge knuckles end up looking that pretty in the end. On many of them, the metal tears on the knuckle directly adjacent to the rotor. The third photo is the same 165F rebuilt with an open wrap and X bracing. I think the 165F is nice playing horn when reconfigured like this.

https://trombonechat.com/download/file. ... w&id=15852

https://trombonechat.com/download/file. ... w&id=15851

https://trombonechat.com/download/file. ... w&id=15850

[Matt K]

What causes the knuckle problem on Kings like that? My 605F has a little bit of that going on

[hyperbolica]

What causes the knuckle problem on Kings like that? My 605F has a little bit of that going on

Marching.

[Crazy4Tbone86]

LOL…yes I have seen many horns become victims of marching band activities.

Essentially, it is a design flaw. The gauge of the metal is too thin. If the player puts the tip of the slide on the floor/ground too aggressively, the weight of the bell section has enough inertia to crumble the tubing in those knuckles.

Instrument Innovations does a good job of addressing that problem. The gauge of the metal in the Instrument Innovations rotaries is significantly thicker than the King/Benge horns. The knuckle metal is so thick that they sell specific ferrules to accommodate the gauge difference between the knuckles and the attachment tubing.

[JohnL]

Essentially, it is a design flaw. The gauge of the metal is too thin. If the player puts the tip of the slide on the floor/ground too aggressively, the weight of the bell section has enough inertia to crumble the tubing in those knuckles.

I've seen more than a few mangled knuckles on Conns and Bachs (and a few Holtons), too. It's not just a design issue, it's also the way the instrument is handled. Kids will use their shoulder as a stop on the horns up; eventually, that regular abuse takes its toll.

[tbonesullivan]

I've seen more than a few mangled knuckles on Conns and Bachs (and a few Holtons), too. It's not just a design issue, it's also the way the instrument is handled. Kids will use their shoulder as a stop on the horns up; eventually, that regular abuse takes its toll.

IMHO, marching bands should stick to straight trombones with all the choreography they often do. Don't even talk to me about "Trombone suicide" routines.

[Matt K]

That makes sense, I was wondering if it was also something "wrong" with the way the rotors were setup or something and it does seem like it's a little bit of both. Does have me wondering about some kind of adding some kind of "structural" support brace on my Kings even if I'm not going to be marching with it

[spencercarran]

Essentially, it is a design flaw. The gauge of the metal is too thin. If the player puts the tip of the slide on the floor/ground too aggressively, the weight of the bell section has enough inertia to crumble the tubing in those knuckles.

I've seen more than a few mangled knuckles on Conns and Bachs (and a few Holtons), too. It's not just a design issue, it's also the way the instrument is handled. Kids will use their shoulder as a stop on the horns up; eventually, that regular abuse takes its toll.

Yep, my 180 had a trashed rotor knuckle because someone marched it. The solution is to not use F attachment trombones for high school marching band.

[Posaunus]

The solution is to not use F attachment trombones for high school marching band.

Or perhaps also for some of the more "aggressive" college bands?

[BGuttman]

I've seen some modifications where a straight piece of brass was soldered to the knuckles bridging the curves. Minimizes the stress on the knuckles when maneuvered.

[JohnL]

I've seen some modifications where a straight piece of brass was soldered to the knuckles bridging the curves. Minimizes the stress on the knuckles when maneuvered.

I've seen similar reinforcement. Usually after some damage has been done.

[Thrawn22]

I've seen some modifications where a straight piece of brass was soldered to the knuckles bridging the curves. Minimizes the stress on the knuckles when maneuvered.

I've seen similar reinforcement. Usually after some damage has been done.

I bought a horn with a sloppy reinforcement. Luckily it was a preemptive measure and not a repair.

[SquareTube]

I do have an 88HK bell now fitted for shires tenors incidentally and even with the larger bore size rotor and tubing, definitely not something I’d want to use as a full time bass. That said… I have a bass tuning slide receiver part that I’m thinking I might swap in… thinking the bell itself might be a decent small bass bell when paired with that bass tuning slide

Every time I've brought up making a pocket bass with a K bell to a tech they point out it wouldn't work because the bell taper is narrow because the K bell was designed to be a tenor bell. A small bass horn would be like a 5B or Olds single rotor tis model with 9.25 in bell with dual bore slide.

For reference, when I was at Greenhoe, we had an 88HK set up with a dual rotor tenor valve section. I heard a number of people (including top echelon pros) remark that if they were to buy a 2nd horn that day, it would be that K-bell double tenor. A nice option for early Romantic works. I can't recall if it worked best with the SL4762 slide, but certainly a possibility.

Nate

[Matt K]

You’re referring about bass trombonists right? I think that’s just a rephrasing since it isn’t unusual for a bass trombonist to use a larger tenor for those works, especially when you have a downsized tenor on 2nd and an alto on principal. So from that frame I’d totally use it as a bass, although I’d normally say I’m playing tenor for the third part. But that’s admittedly a pretty pedantic distinction I’m making.

It would seem the 88HK is also good for “trombone 4” books where it’s a 4th tenor for the most part but indeed if we’re calling that bass then yeah I don’t think anything larger is necessary.

But where it doesn’t work, at least for me, would be more contemporary works where the low range is prominently featured. Much too bright, at least for my ability, and much less nimble in the register than I’d prefer. (Referring to how easily the notes speak, not necessarily ease of access to notes at a convenient position as I did have a double tenor previously).

[btone]

I just read this thread and the poor King tenors really took a beating. I've never thought much of 4B's but I did have a silver 5B for a while that played very well. It really surprises me to hear they had a small rotor because it played pretty open down low. Way better than a Bach 42b. Maybe the 5B had a more open lead pipe? I sold it to a student who played bass and tenor. He sounded good low and high using a 4G. Wasn't there a well known early big band bass trombone player who played a King Symphony dual bore with 9" bell? Did he play with Stan Kenton?

[skaskaster]

I just read this thread and the poor King tenors really took a beating.

I know that feeling. I have a 4b from late 70s', and when I was studing classical music - I loved that bone. Maybe on FFF it was not the best one, but on p-mf-f it was REALLY good with benge 6 1/2 and bach 5gs I had then. When I moved to the jazz at academy I was the only trombone player there, so I was on the 1st chair (the others were from the classical course of study) and had to play very high there. Sooo... to be on the same level (or try to be on that level) as the 1st trumpet - I used the mouthpiece small shank converter and played on the King 11m piece - and it worked. The only thing that relly bothered me is mouthpiece reciever - using big shanks was OKey, but reciever didnt fit perfectly with that small shank converter, and it made some intonation problems there, but still, it worked
Now I play music that require small bore and I use my 6h, but I love my Sonorous, and i will never sell him.

p.s. I don't get why some people say that Benge large bones better than Kings. I know that they were made at the "same factory" (not the same factory, I can't describe in english that situation), but AFAIK, Benge bones were maximum "the same", but not "better" than Kings

[BGuttman]

Bart Varsalona was the 4th trombonist in the Kenton band who played prototype bass parts on a 5B for Kenton. He blended quite well with the smaller bore horns playing the higher parts. Again, a 4B or 5B is kind of bright compared to the Bach and Conn instruments usually played in orchestras, but the Cleveland Orchestra used them for many years, and when I joined my orchestra the principal was playing a 4B (and he sounded quite nice).

[imsevimse]

p.s. I don't get why some people say that Benge large bones better than Kings. I know that they were made at the "same factory" (not the same factory, I can't describe in english that situation), but AFAIK, Benge bones were maximum "the same", but not "better" than Kings

If they play better or not is ofcourse individual.

I confess 'm one of them who like the large bore Benge a lot more than I like the large bore Kings.
The small bore Kings are great, all variances such as the 2b "Silvertone", "Liberty", 2b, 2b+ and all the different 3b's (except 3b++ that I've never tried) but I've never liked the larger King tenors and as a collector I've tried a few 4b's and 5b's in hope of finding a good one. Then I found the Benge brand and read about the relation to the King brand. I don't know what they were thinking at the time but I think the Benges should have been under the same name "King" because they are really King-alike Benge is the best of Conn and King, that's what I think. The rotors are larger which I think is one reason they play more open, and the trigger mechanism is like a Conn, much more comfortable.

The King 6b 'Duo Gravis" again is great for a bass. I've never tried a King 7b or 8b so I can not tell. Again the Benge 290 bass is great.

/Tom