TromboneChat

Hi, what are your thoughts about narrow slide and wide slide on large tenor? Which one do you prefer? And why?

Personally I like the Conn 88H or Bach 36 width slide.

Depending on your hand size, a large span may be difficult to hold. Not a problem for me, but I have large hands.

There appears to be a small difference in the way wider or narrower slides respond, and which is better for you only you can tell. You will notice that I didn't say one was better than the other, only different.

I'm with Bruce - the 88H width is just right. I have played a mess of horns and those with the more Conn-like width work.

While I have not played enough horns with single v/s dual radius crooks to dive deep into the conversation, there is a difference. I think it fits into the original poster's trajectory.

If I was to name a modern horn that captures the just right width, it would be the 4147IB. Oh that's a player.

I like a wide slide due to my wide neck. 40 years and 80 lbs ago a wide slide felt unwieldy to me and seemed like more work/more air - psychologically at least. I didn't like them back then.

Depends on the horn, either can match.

I used to have a 42b with wide slide and couldn’t stand playing it. It felt to me, a bass trombone player, as if I’d put a toy bell on the slide; it just didn’t feel right to play in a different style with that wide slide in my hands.

I’ve never been bothered otherwise by playing a tenor if the slide is narrower; I have a Shires .547 in the Conn style with the smaller width slide and love playing it.

Well, there's so much more than just the slide width to consider. Comfort wise, either works for me. However the "wide slide" trombone most think of are Bach's, like the Bach 42, which not only has a wide dual radius crook, but it is oversized, and I believe the same diameter as a Bach 50 crook. There are other companies with wide slides that have a standard tenor bore crook, which is dual radius.

Narrow crooks can be either dual radius, or single radius, however I haven't seen much in the way of large bore single radius crooks except for those on King / Benge trombones.

Surely is important the ergonomic side, but I posted this question especially to understand in terms of playing which is your choice!

gbedinger wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:33 am I used to have a 42b with wide slide and couldn’t stand playing it. It felt to me, a bass trombone player, as if I’d put a toy bell on the slide; it just didn’t feel right to play in a different style with that wide slide in my hands.

I’ve never been bothered otherwise by playing a tenor if the slide is narrower; I have a Shires .547 in the Conn style with the smaller width slide and love playing it.

I get it, l really do. A good day when l got a new 42B 45 yrs ago; a great day when l sold it.

Thanks! Your words remind me of the saying about the two best days in the life of a boat owner: The day you buy it and the day you sell it.

A wider slide lets you have the axis of the slide more in line with the axis of your neck. It's better for me. I don't think the width is what changes the blow so much as the material and the shape/bore size. Case in point, I had a wide Edwards nickel slide crook that had the "tenor" 88H shape. This played really well. The same width brass "bass" crook, which is more square, is not even close. Same width, totally different results.

For some reason some people have started referring to the 88h as a narrow slide. I never felt that way about it. I always considered it medium. A 32h is a narrow slide. I'm having a wider crook put on my 32h, that's how I feel about that. But my 88h slide is just right. On the other hand, I play a 79h a lot, and that has a wide slide, much wider than the 88h. I like the 88h width, but I like the 79h width just a little more. I have a Kanstul bass and a Holton with even wider slides, and aside from allowing for bell clearance, I don't like the extra wide ones more.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:36 pm A wider slide lets you have the axis of the slide more in line with the axis of your neck. It's better for me. I don't think the width is what changes the blow so much as the material and the shape/bore size. Case in point, I had a wide Edwards nickel slide crook that had the "tenor" 88H shape. This played really well. The same width brass "bass" crook, which is more square, is not even close. Same width, totally different results.

I’d second this, having played Conn and Bach .547” slides as well, the best combination of ergonomics and playability I have found is an Edwards tenor slide similar to the T-STDN, i.e. tenor-style nickel silver crook. I also get on fine with the Conn slides, they’re not exactly narrow like a small bore or something, but I find the Edwards but a little bit better for my tastes.

gbedinger wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:13 pm Thanks! Your words remind me of the saying about the two best days in the life of a boat owner: The day you buy it and the day you sell it.

Ha yes, that's where I stole that from. Today's 42Bs have so many options I'm sure I could find one that I'd love. The Artisans are fantastic. This is now, that was then though. And I'm not in the market anyway.

I think the 88 is a narrow slide in a relative sense, not an absolute. Smaller bore horns are narrower, but it’s about as narrow as you can get a 547 horn. I think the nomenclature was popularized by shires, though as best I can recall, they’ve never called their T47 slides “narrow”. It’s just in comparison to the “wide” slide width.

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:50 am I think the 88 is a narrow slide in a relative sense, not an absolute. Smaller bore horns are narrower, but it’s about as narrow as you can get a 547 horn. I think the nomenclature was popularized by shires, though as best I can recall, they’ve never called their T47 slides “narrow”. It’s just in comparison to the “wide” slide width.

Shires offers different .547 slides - you can get a .562 crook like a Bach, a .547 crook in the same width, and a narrow slide with a .547 crook. I have colleagues that have each of these.

Jim Scott

A friend and I did back to back testing with lots of different Shires components just last week, and found that my usual set up of 7YLW bell, dual bore rotor and TW25 (wide .525) slide, really came alive and was by far the best combo with a T25LW slide, the narrower slide really focused everything and produced a fuller, warmer sound with more punch and clearer articulations. Interestingly, there were some other combos with different bells where the wider slide made more sense, so it’s always a balance and the horn as a whole.

Whatever the 88H is

CalgaryTbone wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:12 am

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:50 am I think the 88 is a narrow slide in a relative sense, not an absolute. Smaller bore horns are narrower, but it’s about as narrow as you can get a 547 horn. I think the nomenclature was popularized by shires, though as best I can recall, they’ve never called their T47 slides “narrow”. It’s just in comparison to the “wide” slide width.

Shires offers different .547 slides - you can get a .562 crook like a Bach, a .547 crook in the same width, and a narrow slide with a .547 crook. I have colleagues that have each of these.

Jim Scott

But have they ever labeled it narrow? Their current site doesn’t actually specify that a T47 or T25 is “narrow”. They just specify that a TW25 and TW47 are “wide”. My point is that, despite not labeling it as narrow, “narrow” is a natural descrptor when it’s in comparison to “wide”.

I have a custom wide slide on my .508 horn, and it makes a huge difference for me. It's about my neck and how the mouthpiece lines up on my embouchure. On narrow slides, I just can't make it "slot" because of the angles.

I really wish I could find altos that have wide slides. I may have to dig for a custom alto slide at some point.

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:26 pm My point is that, despite not labeling it as narrow, “narrow” is a natural descrptor when it’s in comparison to “wide”.

Not at all. Given that there are narrower slides, it makes more sense to call the 88h medium. Unless of course you believe that 547 is the only size trombone that exists.

It's the only size we're really talking about here, yes

hyperbolica wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:32 pm

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:26 pm My point is that, despite not labeling it as narrow, “narrow” is a natural descrptor when it’s in comparison to “wide”.

Not at all. Given that there are narrower slides, it makes more sense to call the 88h medium. Unless of course you believe that 547 is the only size trombone that exists.

I agree, mostly, but I can see why people started calling them narrow even though to the best of my knowledge, Shires has never called them narrow.

That’s said, I also think it’s reasonable to bucket small, perhaps medium, large, and bass into their own buckets. A standard width T08 is narrower than a T25 and there is no TW08. Virtually all smaller bores are narrower than “standard width” large bore and bass slides so it seems unnatural to carve out categories that effectively do not exist.

Yes, I say narrow slide just to get an idea of what I'm talking about. At the same time I can't say if 88h slide is narrow or not, maybe 42 Bach slide is oversized, who cares! Most important thing is how they sound! Everything must be in balance to sound great, but balance is extremely personal! It would be nice if someone maybe described switching from one model to another.

Danitrb wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:24 pm It would be nice if someone maybe described switching from one model to another.

Well we all eagerly await your writeup! I think it's something that you need to work through for yourself. A text description of an individual experience won't necessarily describe the experience a different individual would have. There are too many other variables, not just limited to physiology and even mouthpiece choice.

For me, I played an 88H for a long time. I switched to Edwards because it was way more predictable and stable. But it's a completely different horn, and I had to switch mouthpieces. I don't think the wide slide plays that significant a role in all that. The twenty five year period that switch spans is the culprit.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:28 pm

Danitrb wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:24 pm It would be nice if someone maybe described switching from one model to another.

Well we all eagerly await your writeup! I think it's something that you need to work through for yourself. A text description of an individual experience won't necessarily describe the experience a different individual would have. There are too many other variables, not just limited to physiology and even mouthpiece choice.

You're right! Things are personal, but we are in a forum and it is nice to hear opinions to get informations. Otherwhise for every question here, we could answer in the same way all the time.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:28 pm

Danitrb wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:24 pm It would be nice if someone maybe described switching from one model to another.

Well we all eagerly await your writeup! I think it's something that you need to work through for yourself. A text description of an individual experience won't necessarily describe the experience a different individual would have. There are too many other variables, not just limited to physiology and even mouthpiece choice.

For me, I played an 88H for a long time. I switched to Edwards because it was way more predictable and stable. But it's a completely different horn, and I had to switch mouthpieces. I don't think the wide slide plays that significant a role in all that. The twenty five year period that switch spans is the culprit.

I saw now the second half of comment, thanks for your feedback!

Are you trying to make a decision on something, or in the market for a new horn?

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:34 pm Are you trying to make a decision on something, or in the market for a new horn?

Maybe, but as you said only trying I can really understand what is best choice. Meanwhile it's nice hear yours feedback!

AndrewMeronek wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:26 pm I have a custom wide slide on my .508 horn, and it makes a huge difference for me. It's about my neck and how the mouthpiece lines up on my embouchure. On narrow slides, I just can't make it "slot" because of the angles.

I really wish I could find altos that have wide slides. I may have to dig for a custom alto slide at some point.

The Sonas Aural alto trombone has a wide slide, 81mm, just like a Bach 36 slide.

One thing to consider when you go to check out options is to have your current horn, current mouthpiece, and potentially a backup mouthpiece that you know you like in addition to your main mouthpiece. For example, maybe you have a few DE pieces, or maybe you have a Greg Black and some flavor of an Alessi mouthpiece. Bring them both.

I have two mouthpieces I mostly use on large bore. Both are based on a 6.5AL cup, widened to a 1.055" ID. Identical rim on both. The difference is that one, the L1-LW has a narrow throat, open backbore, light blank, and goes further into the leadpipe. The L2 has a heavy blank, open throat, and tighter backbore. I play both a wide Edwards 396-A and an 88H style Getzen with a medium width. The Edwards likes the L2, and the Getzen likes the L1-LW. What's nice about this is that by using these different mouthpieces, I get a very similar response on both horns, but I can enjoy the different sounds that each one produces.

All that to say, you might hate a horn that is actually very good simply because you're limiting yourself with one mouthpiece.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:47 pm One thing to consider when you go to check out options is to have your current horn, current mouthpiece, and potentially a backup mouthpiece that you know you like in addition to your main mouthpiece. For example, maybe you have a few DE pieces, or maybe you have a Greg Black and some flavor of an Alessi mouthpiece. Bring them both.

I have two mouthpieces I mostly use on large bore. Both are based on a 6.5AL cup, widened to a 1.055" ID. Identical rim on both. The difference is that one, the L1-LW has a narrow throat, open backbore, light blank, and goes further into the leadpipe. The L2 has a heavy blank, open throat, and tighter backbore. I play both a wide Edwards 396-A and an 88H style Getzen with a medium width. The Edwards likes the L2, and the Getzen likes the L1-LW. What's nice about this is that by using these different mouthpieces, I get a very similar response on both horns, but I can enjoy the different sounds that each one produces.

All that to say, you might hate a horn that is actually very good simply because you're limiting yourself with one mouthpiece.

I'm agree , thank you for your suggest!

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:26 pm

CalgaryTbone wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:12 am

Shires offers different .547 slides - you can get a .562 crook like a Bach, a .547 crook in the same width, and a narrow slide with a .547 crook. I have colleagues that have each of these.

Jim Scott

But have they ever labeled it narrow? Their current site doesn’t actually specify that a T47 or T25 is “narrow”. They just specify that a TW25 and TW47 are “wide”. My point is that, despite not labeling it as narrow, “narrow” is a natural descrptor when it’s in comparison to “wide”.

My colleague that had the narrow slide also had one that was .547 (including through the crook) and was wide like a Bach slide. They did have a different designation for the different slides, but I'm not sure what it was. I don't play Shires (Edwards), so I haven't researched it. Maybe Gabe or someone else that is or has been involved at the Shires shop would know.

JS

CalgaryTbone wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:38 pm

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:26 pm

But have they ever labeled it narrow? Their current site doesn’t actually specify that a T47 or T25 is “narrow”. They just specify that a TW25 and TW47 are “wide”. My point is that, despite not labeling it as narrow, “narrow” is a natural descrptor when it’s in comparison to “wide”.

My colleague that had the narrow slide also had one that was .547 (including through the crook) and was wide like a Bach slide. They did have a different designation for the different slides, but I'm not sure what it was. I don't play Shires (Edwards), so I haven't researched it. Maybe Gabe or someone else that is or has been involved at the Shires shop would know.

JS

This is seemingly becoming a chicken and egg style debate. I can confirm, that in the last 5 years at least, we have marketed the TW as the wider T, NOT the T as the narrow version of the TW. As far as I know, the first horns that Steve made were based on an 88H, so it would make sense that the width of an 88H handslide would be the "standard" on which Shires handslide width is based, therefore the W would be a modifier. The Q30's come with a TW slide.

T47 = 88H width
TW47 = 42B width
TB47 = Bass crook, 42B width

My personal choice is a T slide, but I grew up on Conns, and a TW feels big to me. I play a T25NLW with a Bollinger collar, and its the zippiest slide I've played.

JKBone85 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:00 am

CalgaryTbone wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:38 pm

My colleague that had the narrow slide also had one that was .547 (including through the crook) and was wide like a Bach slide. They did have a different designation for the different slides, but I'm not sure what it was. I don't play Shires (Edwards), so I haven't researched it. Maybe Gabe or someone else that is or has been involved at the Shires shop would know.

JS

This is seemingly becoming a chicken and egg style debate. I can confirm, that in the last 5 years at least, we have marketed the TW as the wider T, NOT the T as the narrow version of the TW. As far as I know, the first horns that Steve made were based on an 88H, so it would make sense that the width of an 88H handslide would be the "standard" on which Shires handslide width is based, therefore the W would be a modifier. The Q30's come with a TW slide.

T47 = 88H width
TW47 = 42B width
TB47 = Bass crook, 42B width

My personal choice is a T slide, but I grew up on Conns, and a TW feels big to me. I play a T25NLW with a Bollinger collar, and its the zippiest slide I've played.

Just to remember: I never asked about Shires slide specs.

Thanks - that clears it up!

JS

I brought the Shires specs up because they're probably the clearest about it from a nomenclature standpoint and also have "all" of the standard options. As pointed out by several others, when you say what the difference between "narrow" and "wide" is, you'll hear different opinions based on one's interpretation of the terms, most notably that no manufacturer that I'm aware of calls the 88 widths "narrow." (With the possible exception of Bach but that's in the context of something that is "by default" wide. I've only ever seen one advertised ever, that I can recall and it's obviously also custom.)

If you have a specific manufacturer you are considering, it's probably worth specifying that to direct the conversation. And also worth mentioning that the bass crook is popular, as noted by others - and frequently the same "width" as the "wide tenor" slide. As I mentioned above, the most likely manufacturer where you'll have people who have A/B compared "narrow" or "standard" width slides against "wide" and "bass crook" slides are Shires. I would be surprised if people's impression of Shires differed greatly from other manufacturers who have 88ish width crooks as well as slides with the Bach 42/50 width or Bach 42/50 width and internal crook dimensions.

FWIW, I find that contemporary horns that are inspired by horns of the past, unsurprisingly work well with dimensions similar to those they were based on. So on my Shires 2RVET7, a narrow slide and a rotor work great. On other horns I've had, like a Bach 42 bell I had, a Thayer and a bass crook works well. "Wide", but not bass, crooks tend to be a really popular choice for contemporary slides. I also find that I prefer a leadpipe with more resistance w/ wider or basscrooks and leadpipes with slightly less resistance with standard or narrow slides.

Danitrb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:23 am

JKBone85 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:00 am


This is seemingly becoming a chicken and egg style debate. I can confirm, that in the last 5 years at least, we have marketed the TW as the wider T, NOT the T as the narrow version of the TW. As far as I know, the first horns that Steve made were based on an 88H, so it would make sense that the width of an 88H handslide would be the "standard" on which Shires handslide width is based, therefore the W would be a modifier. The Q30's come with a TW slide.

T47 = 88H width
TW47 = 42B width
TB47 = Bass crook, 42B width

My personal choice is a T slide, but I grew up on Conns, and a TW feels big to me. I play a T25NLW with a Bollinger collar, and its the zippiest slide I've played.

Just to remember: I never asked about Shires slide specs.

Sorry I answered your questions along with someone elses?

JKBone85 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:00 pm

Danitrb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:23 am

Just to remember: I never asked about Shires slide specs.

Sorry I answered your questions along with someone elses?

"This is seemingly becoming a chicken and egg style debate".
I answered this. You guys can talk about shires specs, and it's fine, even If I don't asked it, but don't say "chicken and egg style debate"

For me the ergonomic advantages of a wide slide outweigh the sonic differences. Having said that, on a large bore tenor having a bass crook or a tenor crook makes more difference to me than narrow or wide. For a soloistic sound I like the tenor crook but the bass crook does play a little wider, darker if that is desired.

I think the chicken and egg style debate was primarily directed at my comments. If so, not an unfair comment, I wasn’t clear about why I was mentioning what I did up front and that was admittedly a bit of a diversion from the original topic at hand.

My chicken and egg comment was about Matt’s comment.

Further down in my post you will also find I prefer what most of us would consider, a narrow slide, because I grew playing on Conn’s and I like that width of slide. I feel it’s a bit more agile than what we would consider a wider slide. Speaking specifically to the Shires brand, the slide that is narrower than all the other slides is not indicated as such. Seeing as how there really is no industry standard for a wide or narrow slide, it’s useful to know different companies nomenclature so you can form a better idea of what you’re looking for.

Got a Bach LT42B and learned how to hate the wide slide. I even no longer want this large bore, it's a sound monster. Is it an easy fix to put a 36 slide on, I mean, just buy the connector tenon parts for the smaller slide and have them mounted for matching the 42 bell?

Thanks, John

JohnD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 9:53 am Got a Bach LT42B and learned how to hate the wide slide. I even no longer want this large bore, it's a sound monster. Is it an easy fix to put a 36 slide on, I mean, just buy the connector tenon parts for the smaller slide and have them mounted for matching the 42 bell?

I'm with you, never liked the 42B I was "forced" to buy for college. That yellow brass wide slide soaked up my sound and was a lot of work to play. Of course I weighed 90 lbs less back then....

I prefer wide slides with bass crooks. I even prefer a larger crook than the stock bach 42/50 made by M/K drawing in bending.

Narrow slide, wide slide ... I can adapt. The reason I purchased a Conn 88H in 1972 was because the slide, valve, and overall response were clearly superior to the Bach 42Bs I was comparing it to. I still love that trombone (perhaps last of the Elkharts!). It feels like ... me!

The slide width is only a big deal once it gets below a certain width. I don't get why some people seem to be obsessing over this dimension on horns that are not a problem. Although I have to say some of the really wide Holton slides seem excessive. It doesn't cause any problems, just bigger than strictly necessary. 30h and 32h are the ones I've played that have been problematic. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that stand out to me. Nice playing horns, but they're unmanageable because the neckpipe pushes on the neck too much.

I played my widened 32h on a gig this past week, and I gotta say, it's nice. I'm not stressin' about the neckpipe any more. In addition to not being uncomfortable, it plays great too.

Where I noticed a difference is not the width but the bore and the shape. A wide .547 crook that is single radius plays great, and is similar to a more narrow 88H style feel. A wide .562 bass crook that is dual radius, for me, plays terrible.

The round, narrow 3B crook - great
The square, narrow bach 16(?) crook - terrible

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:33 pm A wide .547 crook that is single radius plays great, and is similar to a more narrow 88H style feel

Where does that exist? I can only think of the 4B, but that's 88H-width.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:33 pm The round, narrow 3B crook - great
The square, narrow bach 16(?) crook - terrible

That's not because of shape, though. It's mostly that the Bach crook is waay undersized, for goofy parts bin reasons - when it's on an LT16M it's nearly 30 thou smaller than the outer tube ID - whereas the King is a straightforward match.

ithinknot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 6:45 pm

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:33 pm A wide .547 crook that is single radius plays great, and is similar to a more narrow 88H style feel

Where does that exist? I can only think of the 4B, but that's 88H-width.

I had an Edwards with a Conn style crook:

"The T-STDN is the standard .547″ single bore slide. This slide has a more rounded end crook similar to Conn slides. Quick in response, the T-STDN blows freely in all registers. A very centered tone can be achieved with this slide."

It was awesome. With Edwards you typically see the bass crook, though