TromboneChat

Like I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I collaborated with Egger in the last year to develop a new model of bass sackbut. As promised here is some more detailed info!

The instrument is based on what Egger already offered, a copy of the 1612 bass trombone by Isaac Ehe, so it shares some parts with the other models. We incorporated design elements from other bass trombones from the same period. The bell section can be entirely disassembled, and different bows, crooks and bits are used to achieve a wide spectrum of tunings and performance pitches, which negates the need to have several instruments or to limit oneself to playing only F bass or D bass.
(It also arguable negates the need for a "classical" bass, as although it is a baroque model and smaller than the currently available "classical" bass models, it essentially has the same bell size and shape, and a slightly larger bore than the extant Viennese classical bass trombone in G. I've used it for Haydn and Beethoven alongside a "classical" tenor and alto with very good results.)

Here it is with all the bits and pieces:



As you can see, there are two different back bows (one is a half-step shorter than on the original), two different crooks (one is a whole-tone crook, i.e. G to F, the other is to put the instrument in D), two different tuning slides for the longer crook (the longer one is an extra half-step longer, used only for D and C at 440 and below), and a pair of bits that insert on either end of the back bow to reach intermediate pitches like 430 in G or F. The bell stay is hinged.

It can be set up to play in the following tunings and performance pitches (some of these overlap, and I'm not mentioning E and Eb tunings as that mostly overlap with F and D, respectively):
-G (without tuning slide) at 466, 452, 440, 430, (with tuning slide) at 415, 392
-F (without tuning slide) at 490, 480, (with tuning slide) at 466, 452, 440, 430, 415, 392
-D at any increment of pitch (no gap) from 490 down to 415
-C (small contra as described in Prætorius) from 490 down to below 440
(-Theoretically can be set-up as a contra AA at 466 with only 5 position, but I don't have a mouthpiece that can make that work.)


Here is is in G at 466:



In G at 452:



In G at 440 or F 490



In G at 430 or F at 480



In F at 466 or G at 415



In F at 452 (or G at around 400)



In F at 440 (or G at 392)


In F at 430 (or D around 500)



In D at 490 or F at 415; long tuning slide with extension down to D at 466



In D at 466 or F at 392, long tuning slide with extension down to D at 440



In D at 440 or C at 490, extension down to D at 415


In C at around 470, extension down to 440



In C at around 450, extension down to about 420



The crooks have a brace that can be removed or attached more or less tightly by adjusting the set-screws.

Congrats Maximilien, sounds great!

Very general question:
When developing new sackbut models, to makers and artists want innovation or more and more authenticity?

Authenticity for me could be things like being closer to the original in terms of e.g. bore, bell taper, materials and treatment of materials as well as visuals.
Innovation could be things that in the end make playability easier, e.g. a valve ((!) I know you baroque guys hate them ), chrome-plated slide, long waterkey, more comfortable handgrip, balance weight if needed or similar things.

I assume it's kind of inbetween, but focus is on authenticity as innovation partly would make the instrument lose its authentic characteristics.

Maximilien: Except for the picture of the brace, I can't see any images. Not on Vivaldi, Firefox, or Chromium. When I copy the URL into a blank page I get a "do not enter" symbol.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:18 am Maximilien: Except for the picture of the brace, I can't see any images. Not on Vivaldi, Firefox, or Chromium. When I copy the URL into a blank page I get a "do not enter" symbol.

Same for me too.

JS

Pix all bwoken

Pictures should be fixed now!

MStarke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:02 am Very general question:
When developing new sackbut models, to makers and artists want innovation or more and more authenticity?

Authenticity for me could be things like being closer to the original in terms of e.g. bore, bell taper, materials and treatment of materials as well as visuals.
Innovation could be things that in the end make playability easier, e.g. a valve ((!) I know you baroque guys hate them ), chrome-plated slide, long waterkey, more comfortable handgrip, balance weight if needed or similar things.

I assume it's kind of inbetween, but focus is on authenticity as innovation partly would make the instrument lose its authentic characteristics.

Well, it's usually both: making something more historical while also making it more playable (or at least not less playable). With this instrument, it's quite obvious: having the bell section come apart and be all friction-fit with a less stiff construction is more historical (and changes the feel and response in that direction), while at the same time making it much more practical, cost-effective and better adapted to today's requirements than what is generally available until now.

I don't really think of adding major modern elements as innovation – those elements you mention are the norm on a modern trombone and in brass-instrument making, and they have also been available on sackbuts for a very long time (even valves!). Heavily modernized sackbuts (or sackbut-sized modern trombones) were in use at least as early as historical copies.

Another question is: how do we define playability? It tends to be from a modern trombonist's perspective and ignoring what the trade-offs might be, instead of from the perspective of what that instrument might be used for. Just as an example, slide action can indeed be better on chrome-plated inners. But if this better slide action comes at the cost of reduced ability to colour the sound and of somewhat locking the feel and response in a way that makes it more difficult to play with historical techniques, is playability, overall, actually improved? There is no right or wrong answer, it depends on what your musical goals are and how much maintenance you want to have to do. I have chrome inners on my tenor, but I wish I didn't – for me, and the playing I do, unplated brass inners would mean improved, not worse playability. So I would say that innovation on this front was succeeding to make unplated slides with such smooth action that you don't have to sacrifice either (that's already the case with all the top sackbut makers).

This is amazing! New dream bass sackbut unlocked.

Wow! Impressive! And cool pics too! I know next to nothing about why different tunings would be useful or necessary for the bass sackbut player, but it looks like you’ve got it covered!

(It also arguable negates the need for a "classical" bass, as although it is a baroque model and smaller than the currently available "classical" bass models, it essentially has the same bell size and shape,…)

This is interesting, and different from what I have gleaned from my limited reading of sackbuts. On modern trombones, one prevailing assumption is that the bell size and shape greatly influences the sound. From the pics I’ve seen, Classical trombones have a different bell profile than pre-Classical ones: the spout is similar, but the throat remains narrower longer, and the flare is more pronounced—a “tulip” shape (Classical) as opposed to a funnel (Renaissance). However, I’m guessing that a Classical trombone mouthpiece would have a greater effect on sound than the bell profile.

Very impressive now that I can see the photos. Congratulations on this collaboration. This should make you the go-to sackbutist in all of Europe, Maximilien - you can play with anybody!

So many pitches! What determines the pitch that the ensemble tunes to - the pitch of the organ, or possibly the keyboard?

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:59 am Pictures should be fixed now!

MStarke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:02 am Very general question:
When developing new sackbut models, to makers and artists want innovation or more and more authenticity?

Authenticity for me could be things like being closer to the original in terms of e.g. bore, bell taper, materials and treatment of materials as well as visuals.
Innovation could be things that in the end make playability easier, e.g. a valve ((!) I know you baroque guys hate them ), chrome-plated slide, long waterkey, more comfortable handgrip, balance weight if needed or similar things.

I assume it's kind of inbetween, but focus is on authenticity as innovation partly would make the instrument lose its authentic characteristics.

Well, it's usually both: making something more historical while also making it more playable (or at least not less playable). With this instrument, it's quite obvious: having the bell section come apart and be all friction-fit with a less stiff construction is more historical (and changes the feel and response in that direction), while at the same time making it much more practical, cost-effective and better adapted to today's requirements than what is generally available until now.

I don't really think of adding major modern elements as innovation – those elements you mention are the norm on a modern trombone and in brass-instrument making, and they have also been available on sackbuts for a very long time (even valves!). Heavily modernized sackbuts (or sackbut-sized modern trombones) were in use at least as early as historical copies.

Another question is: how do we define playability? It tends to be from a modern trombonist's perspective and ignoring what the trade-offs might be, instead of from the perspective of what that instrument might be used for. Just as an example, slide action can indeed be better on chrome-plated inners. But if this better slide action comes at the cost of reduced ability to colour the sound and of somewhat locking the feel and response in a way that makes it more difficult to play with historical techniques, is playability, overall, actually improved? There is no right or wrong answer, it depends on what your musical goals are and how much maintenance you want to have to do. I have chrome inners on my tenor, but I wish I didn't – for me, and the playing I do, unplated brass inners would mean improved, not worse playability. So I would say that innovation on this front was succeeding to make unplated slides with such smooth action that you don't have to sacrifice either (that's already the case with all the top sackbut makers).

Thanks for your thoughts! I can totally understand this. The very last bit would be interesting - to see what the unplaced slides would do to a modern trombone.

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:50 am Wow! Impressive! And cool pics too! I know next to nothing about why different tunings would be useful or necessary for the bass sackbut player, but it looks like you’ve got it covered!

(It also arguable negates the need for a "classical" bass, as although it is a baroque model and smaller than the currently available "classical" bass models, it essentially has the same bell size and shape,…)

This is interesting, and different from what I have gleaned from my limited reading of sackbuts. On modern trombones, one prevailing assumption is that the bell size and shape greatly influences the sound. From the pics I’ve seen, Classical trombones have a different bell profile than pre-Classical ones: the spout is similar, but the throat remains narrower longer, and the flare is more pronounced—a “tulip” shape (Classical) as opposed to a funnel (Renaissance). However, I’m guessing that a Classical trombone mouthpiece would have a greater effect on sound than the bell profile.

The choice of tuning is depending on the music. If it's a higher bass part where I want a bass sound but there are lots of high notes and not much low ones and nothing below D, or if I'm playing the bass of a choir while there's another lower bass somewhere else, then I might play in G. Otherwise for most of my playing I'm in D. Then F is practical for some later things when you start seeing weird keys (playing in F minor on a G or D instrument is pretty nightmarish, for instance), and for classical where I might choose G or F depending on the piece and whether or not I expect to need a tuning slide.

For classical instruments you're right that "classical" trombones currently offered have much more of a flared bell. Those are however copies of German protestant church instruments from Saxony. Yet most of the classical music we play is Austrian, where they made instruments that were much closer to a sackbut in shape, just with larger tenors (and they also still used very old instrument when they were still in good condition).

Posaunus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:51 pm This should make you the go-to sackbutist in all of Europe, Maximilien - you can play with anybody!

I'm not pretentious enough to think that

Posaunus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:51 pm So many pitches! What determines the pitch that the ensemble tunes to - the pitch of the organ, or possibly the keyboard?

The performance pitch is indeed usually dependent on the pitch of the available instruments. When using positive organs they are tuned for us, we like to play in 466 whenever possible (the instruments work better at the higher pitch, thinking of the tenor in A instead of Bb), but of course we often do 440. When playing with (historical) church organs, then it's all over the place. There are organs in Italy in the 480s and 490s. A concrete example of contexts where this is very helpful: I recently did a tour of 8 concerts with historical organs in North Germany, where we had one concert at 466, one around 455, and all others between 473 and 478. I would normally have needed to borrow or rent two instruments on top of mine, but with this system I could play the same horn every day.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:12 pm

Posaunus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:51 pm So many pitches! What determines the pitch that the ensemble tunes to - the pitch of the organ, or possibly the keyboard?

The performance pitch is indeed usually dependent on the pitch of the available instruments. When using positive organs they are tuned for us, we like to play in 466 whenever possible (the instruments work better at the higher pitch, thinking of the tenor in A instead of Bb), but of course we often do 440. When playing with (historical) church organs, then it's all over the place. There are organs in Italy in the 480s and 490s. A concrete example of contexts where this is very helpful: I recently did a tour of 8 concerts with historical organs in North Germany, where we had one concert at 466, one around 455, and all others between 473 and 478. I would normally have needed to borrow or rent two instruments on top of mine, but with this system I could play the same horn every day.

Your chameleon bass sackbut is ingenious - you can play with almost everybody.

I sure makes me glad that we "modern" players long ago standardized on A440!

That’s very impressive and beautiful, thanks for the pictures and descriptions.

Another question is: how do we define playability? It tends to be from a modern trombonist's perspective and ignoring what the trade-offs might be, instead of from the perspective of what that instrument might be used for. Just as an example, slide action can indeed be better on chrome-plated inners. But if this better slide action comes at the cost of reduced ability to colour the sound and of somewhat locking the feel and response in a way that makes it more difficult to play with historical techniques, is playability, overall, actually improved? There is no right or wrong answer, it depends on what your musical goals are and how much maintenance you want to have to do. I have chrome inners on my tenor, but I wish I didn't – for me, and the playing I do, unplated brass inners would mean improved, not worse playability. So I would say that innovation on this front was succeeding to make unplated slides with such smooth action that you don't have to sacrifice either (that's already the case with all the top sackbut makers).

I’m curious about how chrome plating affects the sound and the coloring available with non-plated inners. Also, how long will a slide last, especially a long one like that?

johntarr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:51 pm I’m curious about how chrome plating affects the sound and the coloring available with non-plated inners. Also, how long will a slide last, especially a long one like that?

After trying otherwise identical slides at Egger both on tenor, alto and bass, my impression is that chrome-plated slides play a little bit more "locked-in" response-wise, with the sound a bit more focused. I'm not sure why, I guess because of the extra mass (although that's a very small amount, so not quite sure). They are a bit easier to play, where the unplated slides are just a bit less focused, but conversely more flexible in the sound colour and response. They need a little bit more effort to control, but also offer more possibilities. Now, we're talking about a very small difference, and for most occasional players that difference wouldn't be worth the extra maintenance to avoid oxydation and preserve slide action. When it's your main instrument, a lot of that maintenance gets taken care of by normal day-to-day use and care.

That's an excellent idea and execution--well done! I wish more models would allow for the build-it-yourself-as-needed aspect. Even at only one pitch, they sure are easier to transport when they break down that much. Now if only we could invent a folding bass slide for these stupid Airbuses with the short bins...

How long is the slide? Long enough for 7 positions in D at 466? If so (or even if 6), how is the balance with the shorter builds? Price vs. an equivalent historic or MDC Ehe?

baroquetrombone wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:49 pm That's an excellent idea and execution--well done! I wish more models would allow for the build-it-yourself-as-needed aspect. Even at only one pitch, they sure are easier to transport when they break down that much. Now if only we could invent a folding bass slide for these stupid Airbuses with the short bins...

How long is the slide? Long enough for 7 positions in D at 466? If so (or even if 6), how is the balance with the shorter builds? Price vs. an equivalent historic or MDC Ehe?

Egger makes only one size of bass sackbut slide (that is, the original size of the Ehe slide), and it's the same for their instruments in F as for those in D. It has 6 positions in D. Side note: I've only ever seen one instrument with a slide long enough for 7, it was a custom Meinl with an extra long slide, very unwieldy. I don't know of any original that has 7 positions in D.

Balance is slightly tricky - I use a counterweight for the shorter tunings as you can see on the pictures. (G at 466 has a shorter bell bow than a tenor!). Ergonomics are best in D, good in F especially with the weight on, and passable in G with the weight.

Price, I don't know — I'm not sure if what I paid for the base setup is fully representative since it was the first one and a prototype. But the crooks that are extra compared to the normal model (alternate back bow, F crook, tuning bits for 430) should add up to around 1800 sFr (in Standard brass, obviously more in "Historic" or MDC). I'm not including the D440 long tuning slide in that figure, as people usually already get that anyway with the existing model, or other extras like universal joint on the slide handle or counterweight.

(Mine is "Standard" since we weren't going to do experiments and trial and error on the new bell section tubing with the fancy expensive stuff! Only the bell flare itself is MDC on mine)

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:35 pm Egger makes only one size of bass sackbut slide (that is, the original size of the Ehe slide), and it's the same for their instruments in F as for those in D. It has 6 positions in D. Side note: I've only ever seen one instrument with a slide long enough for 7, it was a custom Meinl with an extra long slide, very unwieldy. I don't know of any original that has 7 positions in D.

Yeah, just curious. It seems like it would be fairly easy to do (for 466) without much of a drawback. The Meinl ALMOST gets there. Not that I've needed an Eb in D very often anyway.

What are the inner tubes made of?

If they're chrome plated nickel silver, they would play "very" differently to bare brass inner tubes.

Plated brass tubes shouldn't play noticeably differently to non-plated brass tubes.

??

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:03 pm What are the inner tubes made of?

If they're chrome plated nickel silver, they would play "very" differently to bare brass inner tubes.

Plated brass tubes shouldn't play noticeably differently to non-plated brass tubes.

??

I think they offer both. I'd have to ask them next time I'm there.

baroquetrombone wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:48 pm Yeah, just curious. It seems like it would be fairly easy to do (for 466) without much of a drawback. The Meinl ALMOST gets there. Not that I've needed an Eb in D very often anyway.

The custom Meinl slide I played that had 7 full positions in D was substantially longer (certainly a few inches), and required a longer handle that was just beyond the limit of comfortable and practical. Really felt like playing a small contra more than a bass. It was amazing for low bass parts in big polychoral music, but I couldn't have played any kind of nimble chamber music or solo on it. Also made the length of the case totally impractical to carry and travel with.

In any case the slide couldn't be any longer without making it impossible to set up the instrument in G (the bow for G at 466 is at the extreme limit of how short it can be made).