TromboneChat

Hey guys.

Almost every piece of shires kit I see for sale at the moment is Q series. . . Although it’s good value, is no one really happy with it, or maybe people are hanging onto their old school “real” shires gear!

What’s the story?

You get what you pay for.

I seldom see a full horn. I think people are using it as a base and then replacing parts, possible on the used market, to get it closer to what they want.

Matt K wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 3:58 am I seldom see a full horn. I think people are using it as a base and then replacing parts, possible on the used market, to get it closer to what they want.

Yep - upgraded to a Brad Close copper seamed leadpipe. My Q36GR plays much better than the Shires Custom I tried out at the same time - also better than the 3 Yamaha 835x I also tried out.

As someone said "You get what you paid for". Even my wife, the professional pianist, asked why I was sounding so much better than "before". I just told her "You get what you paid for". Amazing, the wisdom one can amass here.

I've played a few really great Q instruments before. Johnstonbaughs from Pittsburgh came down to the local college and brought their Shires arsenal with them, and the Q tenor with a Thayer was the best out of anything they brought, in my opinion. I currently have a pretty stellar Getzen, but I would have considered picking up that Q if I had the money lying around. It was one of the only Thayer horns I've ever played that I not only liked, but LOVED.

I honestly wonder if Getzen/Edwards made a critical error when they decided to make the bell posts and slide receivers on the Getzens different from those on the Edwards models. They would have certainly lost some sales on full Edwards horns, but I bet a lot of people would have done exactly the same thing as people are now doing with the Q series, especially since their main competition was so nascent at the time.

While it's true you typically get what you pay for, it isn't a guarantee! And there's also something to be said about components that seem to be fairly universally popular, especially in combination, which is what the Q series represents, as well as some of the Getzen lineup, JP Rath, and to some degree all of the 8xxx series Yamahas.

brassmedic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 1:54 am You get what you pay for.

The Shires Q series are good horns, and honestly one of the best values on the market today. The Rath 00 series as well are really nice horns. Definitely better than spending too much money on an overpriced Bach 50B3O, IMHO.

At the price point they sell new for, they come in under the cost of just about all the U.S. brands for a double rotor horn.

The marketing behind Qs is to provide a professional quality instrument at an affordable price that can also be upgraded with Shires Custom series parts. There are some great Q horns that I've played that are fantastic and some that could use a different component to make it better.

High schoolers are buying Q series their first year of high school, getting through high school with it and either not pursuing music or getting a different horn because marching band wrecked it. There are so many Q series in circulation right now. They are just going to get cheaper too

Matt K wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 7:07 amI honestly wonder if Getzen/Edwards made a critical error when they decided to make the bell posts and slide receivers on the Getzens different from those on the Edwards models.

Being deliberately incompatible with yourself certainly is a design choice.

Matt K wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 7:07 am I honestly wonder if Getzen/Edwards made a critical error when they decided to make the bell posts and slide receivers on the Getzens different from those on the Edwards models. They would have certainly lost some sales on full Edwards horns, but I bet a lot of people would have done exactly the same thing as people are now doing with the Q series, especially since their main competition was so nascent at the time.

Maybe, but it's also two very different types of companies and marketing strategies. Most of the players I know who have an Edwards, Shires, or Rath, got fitted for their horn, and occasionally swap things out, but for the most part they just keep playing the same setup.

The Q-series being compatible with USA made Shires parts is something new, and also not really something that compares to Getzen and Edwards, who don't have trombones made overseas at a lower price point. The Getzen custom series are pretty much the same price as an Edwards when buying new, so there isn't the same kind of incentive to get one over the other.

I also have no idea what the Edwards sales numbers are, but recently both Getzen Custom and Edwards have been moving a lot towards non-modular designs with Harmonic pillars. They even have a T350 with the Harmonic brace now.

The Q series is the KIA of the trombone sales. This is not a bad thing, they have managed to find a quality at a price point. And there is some marketing behind it. This is why it works with today's consumer.

I had a conversation with Doug Bert (at The Brass Exchange) about this back in 2021. Even though he is a Shires dealer, he was not happy that Shires was saturating the market with the Q-Series horns. He felt that the Eastman Corporation was going the same direction that Conn-Selmer went……they used the Conn and Bach names strictly for profit. The production of high-quality instruments became a secondary priority.

I have played some Q-Series trombones that were excellent, but those are only a small fraction of what is out there. I have also played some that have been pretty bad. For me, about 80% are average to decent and appropriate for their targeted market……..good high school and college players. It’s just as others have stated, (with the exception of the 10% exceptional horns and the 10% that are dogs) you get exactly what you pay for.

Concerning the Getzen and Edwards issue with slide tenons (Getzen using Conn style and Edwards using Bach style), I have come to terms with that. I have my Getzen equipment that I have customized (there are some Edwards parts thrown in there) and I have my Edwards modular parts that are separate. I have an issue with the Getzen pro horns that have soldered-in leadpipes. Not only are they soldered in, some are threaded and screwed in prior to soldering. Fortunately, new parts can be bought to create a removable leadpipe system. But why create a pro-level horn in this day and age with a fixed leadpipe?

Crazy4Tbone86 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 8:42 am I have an issue with the Getzen pro horns that have soldered-in leadpipes. Not only are they soldered in, some are threaded and screwed in prior to soldering. Fortunately, new parts can be bought to create a removable leadpipe system. But why create a pro-level horn in this day and age with a fixed leadpipe?

Fortunately (for me) the Getzen 3508 "jazz" tenor trombone and the Getzen 3047AF large-bore tenor trombone are each provided with 3 excellent removable leadpipes.

Concerning the Getzen and Edwards issue with slide tenons (Getzen using Conn style and Edwards using Bach style), I have come to terms with that. I have my Getzen equipment that I have customized (there are some Edwards parts thrown in there) and I have my Edwards modular parts that are separate

I have too, as you’re well aware of my Getzen utilization

I’m quite happy with my medium and large bore Getzens now, one of them has a Conn SL4762 slide. At least it’s directly compatible with other vendors unlike Shires which is kinda almost the same if you aren’t picky.

I've played Shires Q trombones that outplayed the Shires Custom trombones next to them.
A new Bach 42AF sells for nearly M&W money.
A new Conn 88HNV is more expensive than a new Shires Q30 with rotor.
BAC horns exist.
And a Y-Fort, which plays circles around nearly any "established" factory horn, is a whole lot cheaper than all of them.

"You get what you pay for" is kind of just...not that accurate. And at this point I think you have much better odds at getting a great Shires Q than you do getting a great [insert Conn-Selmer model], and with the Shires Custom horns taking a hit in reputation regarding QC in recent years, it's not like they're a bulletproof option either.

Finetales wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 9:36 pm I've played Shires Q trombones that outplayed the Shires Custom trombones next to them.
A new Bach 42AF sells for nearly M&W money.
A new Conn 88HNV is more expensive than a new Shires Q30 with rotor.
BAC horns exist.
And a Y-Fort, which plays circles around nearly any "established" factory horn, is a whole lot cheaper than all of them.

"You get what you pay for" is kind of just...not that accurate. And at this point I think you have much better odds at getting a great Shires Q than you do getting a great [insert Conn-Selmer model], and with the Shires Custom horns taking a hit in reputation regarding QC in recent years, it's not like they're a bulletproof option either.

I concur concerning the Shire Custom vs Shires Q. And even Burgerbob, despite his love for the "you get what you pay for" trope, expressed his love for the inexpensive Y-Fort horns. So even acknowledged experts of all things trombone should be taken with a bucket of salt. Another case of the so-called and labeled "half-truths at best" syndrome apparently.

musicofnote wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 11:53 pm

I concur concerning the Shire Custom vs Shires Q. And even Burgerbob, despite his love for the "you get what you pay for" trope, expressed his love for the inexpensive Y-Fort horns. So even acknowledged experts of all things trombone should be taken with a bucket of salt. Another case of the so-called and labeled "half-truths at best" syndrome apparently.

I stand by the Y-Fort horns- they are the top model you can buy from them, after all.

And I stand by my Q comments as well. Lots of very, very sub par manufacture going on with those, with occasional good horns out there. Just like what people say about Bachs, oddly enough.

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 11:55 pm

musicofnote wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 11:53 pm

I concur concerning the Shire Custom vs Shires Q. And even Burgerbob, despite his love for the "you get what you pay for" trope, expressed his love for the inexpensive Y-Fort horns. So even acknowledged experts of all things trombone should be taken with a bucket of salt. Another case of the so-called and labeled "half-truths at best" syndrome apparently.

I stand by the Y-Fort horns- they are the top model you can buy from them, after all.

And I stand by my Q comments as well. Lots of very, very sub par manufacture going on with those, with occasional good horns out there. Just like what people say about Bachs, oddly enough.

Your comment was simply concerning the comment "you get what you pay for". You did not differentiate between any brands an d ignore all the horrid examples of top.-line horns you yourself and "fire tested". But nice try to deflect from what you've said here and in your videos, apparently, as you said in your v video, that you've never actually SEEN any substandard manufacturing of the Q series, "just a gut feeling", which counts for zilch. But YOU can get away with that. You're Burgerbob, trombone expert all need to heed.
That statement concerning bad Shires Custom next to great Q series is no outlier. Exactly what I experienced. And looking through the postings of others recommending Q series to potential buyers here and the people concurring that they are great value for money and almost ZERO bad first hand experiences with them - your "gut feeling" pales in comparison.

And you have a sample size of… 1.

i

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:41 am And you have a sample size of… 1.

Well, no, not concerning Shires +Q vs Custom. "Sample size" of 2 (me and Finetales) in this thread alone against a sample size of your ZERO, since you admitted in the video, it was only a gut feeling about Q-quality, not something you'd actually experienced.

OTOH, in that same video, you first accused Shires of picking out only the best horns in the shop to bring to the NAMM, but then went on to explain how one of them "best from the shop" was a bad horn. Unfounded accusations: claiming one of the horns these people representing Shires had picked out as the best of the best (accusation 1) was a bad horn (accusation 2 AND sample size of 1 at that exhibition).

Now as to "build quality", there is a huge "sample size" of people here on the Chat complaining about CONN/Selmer build quality, how so many are bad to mediocre horns. Even though THAT wouldn't fall into that "you get what you pay for" paradigm you so cheaply piled onto. With no first hand experience in that "bad build quality" of the Q-series you only know from your "gut feeling". IOW - "half-truths at best".

Your #IPLAYSHIRES is showing lol
Aidan is not wrong, slides and braces are all out of parallel on all the Q series I see. The Eastman labor is the obvious compromise on the Q vs Custom, I don’t think that’s a hidden fact. The axial valves have problems working, janky build quality and axials don’t mix. Not every horn, but way more common on the Q series.

Do we want to start talking about the “A” series or the Bravo series?

Finetales wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 9:36 pm "You get what you pay for" is kind of just...not that accurate.

Yeah, I agree with this part. You have to be careful where you spend your money, because you don't always automatically get your money's worth. You get better value from a used horn, for sure. The break-in for new horns is almost always painful in some way, whether it's valves or slide, it always takes time and often a couple of trips to the shop.

musicofnote wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 2:45 am i

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:41 am And you have a sample size of… 1.

Well, no, not concerning Shires +Q vs Custom. "Sample size" of 2 (me and Finetales) in this thread alone against a sample size of your ZERO, since you admitted in the video, it was only a gut feeling about Q-quality, not something you'd actually experienced.

I've owned 4 Shires basses, and 7 Shires valve sections for bass. One was a Q rotor set, my sample size of 1 that I've owned. It was clearly the worst made, and looking at the rotor cores, the most simple (they are not the same as the custom rotors). And yes, I've played a bunch of horns at shows. Overall, the custom horns are better than Q, with an odd Q that is pretty good (like your horn is).

It's not that hard to understand, I think.

Not being the same as a custom does not automatically make them worse. False equivalency and ignores my points completely. But then, you're changing your tune. No one said, that the Q series must be better than any others. But price alone is no criteria and the fact that admit, that not actually played a bad Q series negates your flip icon concerning the comment "you get what you pay for", because you admit, you haven't actually played a bad Q series. i remember the mix you bought and you actually said it's wasn't a bad playing horn. But then again - YOU get what you pay for. Like those Y-Fort horns you so love.

Hold on everyone. The point I was making was not "Shires Qs are better than Shires Customs!" (they're not, as a whole). I'm not trying to start a flame war, and I don't think anyone should argue against the average Shires Custom being better made than the average Shires Q. There are known QC issues with both at this point, but definitely moreso the Q line.

My point was only that "you get what you pay for" is nowhere close to a universal truth or the "gotcha" it is often touted as. How many TC threads have we seen where the unanimous opinion is "buy a used pro horn for less money than this new intermediate horn"? And it is still often not true even with only new horns - the Y-Fort line or the Yamaha YSL-448G are great examples.

More money spent does not automatically equal a better instrument, especially when you consider the retail prices of new Conn-Selmer instruments, BAC horns, etc. When the choice was only 42B or 88H, sure. But nowadays when some mediocre stock factory horns retail for as much as the best custom/boutique horns, and SOME Shires Qs play better than SOME Shires Customs, just spending more money (hooray capitalism!) isn't an automatic ticket to the good life.

What matters is being smart with that money. Take that $6k you didn't spend on a Peter Steiner model and go get yourself an M&W or Stephens that dreams are made of.

Elow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:57 am Your #IPLAYSHIRES is showing lol
Aidan is not wrong, slides and braces are all out of parallel on all the Q series I see. The Eastman labor is the obvious compromise on the Q vs Custom, I don’t think that’s a hidden fact. The axial valves have problems working, janky build quality and axials don’t mix. Not every horn, but way more common on the Q series.

Do we want to start talking about the “A” series or the Bravo series?

Q-series: such shite - which is why they are so often recommended here and elsewhere. As are the Rath 00 horns. All Chinese made shite and the Bach, Conns, are all terrific.
Your XXX is showing.
I guess all those threads of horrible Conn/Selmer build qualities are just IPLAYSHIRES folks mouthing off.
(sarcasm mode OFF)

Chill.

More accurate is more like: "You are not likely to consistently get good quality if you cheap out" since indeed, the amount you spend does not guarantee quality.

I don't know if Q parts are fitted for each horn or if they just assemble bells, then thayer/rotors, slides, etc. all separately and just attach them together; however, the parts not fitting together isn't inherently a sign of anything. I know Matt Walker has mentioned before that the components of his bell sections are built for that specific bell section. (Please do correct me if that statement isn't totally accurate Matt). So you can buy just a valve but the only way to guarantee precision alignment would be to build the valve with the bell it is going to be attached to.

In other words, modularity is allowed, but it isn't inherently compatibility. I've experienced vavles from almost every maker who offers them modular being slightly misaligned from bells and would expect that if I buy something to take it to a tech to heat it up a little bit to get all of the parts to gel together.

Now... if you're buying a fully assembled unit, I would hope that the parts are all working well together, but I have no idea to what extent that is actually in practice. I myself have a very low sample size of the Q sections, and it was from a vendor that I think is widely regarded as pretty good.

I have a question back on topic:

For those that have played Q series extensively, and Y Fort too: Are you suggesting that one or the other (based on your experiences) play better than the more expensive instruments only? Or are you assessing them as being superior in most/all regards? There are plenty of of VERY cheaply made instruments (not specifically Q or Y fort) that play very well but will simply wear out or have componentry fail to stand up to regular use.

I find that many people have a hard time assessing quality of build or fitment without reducing the argument to “made in china” or “costs more must be better”. In fairness, when the average player examines a slide how are they to know if the chrome plating is up to snuff? Or that the valve fitment is correct or “tight” enough?

Aidan removing cores is more than most ever do with their instrument and doesn’t really reveal how well the thing is made. Removing/reinstalling a modern Bach/Conn rotor valve is very easy, and the parts look to be made well, but they don’t play exceptionally well (nor exceptionally poorly).

pfrancis wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 11:03 am For those that have played Q series extensively, and Y Fort too: Are you suggesting that one or the other (based on your experiences) play better than the more expensive instruments only? Or are you assessing them as being superior in most/all regards?

Well, at the end of the day a lot of it comes down to the player. For ME the Y-Forts I've tried play better than 99% of large bore tenors I've tried at any price, but that may not be true for everyone. But there is also a degree of objectivity to how an instrument plays; certain characteristics of a horn like intonation, resistance, weight balance, etc. will be fairly universal. The Y-Forts generally feel abnormally easy to play to everyone that tries them, and this is true of the LA pros that have tried mine. No horn can match everyone's sound concept, but the mechanics are either good or not. You may not like the Bach 42 as a model, but most any player can tell a great 42 from a bad 42.

As for the Shires Q horns, I've sampled pretty much the entire low brass line and they've all played great. Ditto the Eastman ETB-848, which was so good I genuinely thought it was a custom Shires bass when I first played it. But I haven't played a bunch of examples of either line so I can't comment on consistency.

The other thing is that "more expensive instruments" includes many stock/factory instruments now, not just the boutique horns. There are still factory large tenors that are appropriately priced in the $2-4k range, and some play at their level (Conn 88HNV, Getzen 1047) while others punch above (Yamaha 448 and 882). But there are others that cost as much as the highest-quality custom horns available, and for the most part don't play any better than the factory horns in the $2-4k range. Then there are the Y-Forts, which even in maxed out spec still cost under $2k, yet can go toe to toe with any $6k horn that I know of.

If Y-Fort did a modular trombone...well, that would be very interesting.

There are plenty of of VERY cheaply made instruments (not specifically Q or Y fort) that play very well but will simply wear out or have componentry fail to stand up to regular use.

Time will tell how all of these new horns hold up. Shires Q, Eastman 800 series, Rath 00 series, Sierman, Maass, Y-Fort, etc. are all relatively new and need time to earn a long-term reliability reputation. Carol Brass is just starting to get there in the trumpet world.

As someone who happily owns and plays quite a few "typical" Chinese horns (my euphonium, British baritone, C trumpet, Eb/D trumpet, and pocket trumpet are all either Jinbao or JinYin, and I have owned others in the past), I feel that the Y-Fort is in another league of quality from any of those. It's obviously not perfect and the slide especially isn't at the same level as one from a good established brand, but it's a big step up from your typical Jinbao or similar (regardless of where you buy it from, including Wessex). For the most part, it feels on par with a factory horn from an American brand. While I haven't owned a Q, I felt the same or better about the ones I've tried.

But...time will tell.

(P.S. I also feel the need to note at this point that I am in no way sponsored by or affiliated with Y-Fort. I just really like their horns!)

pfrancis wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 11:03 am I have a question back on topic:

For those that have played Q series extensively, and Y Fort too: Are you suggesting that one or the other (based on your experiences) play better than the more expensive instruments only? Or are you assessing them as being superior in most/all regards? There are plenty of of VERY cheaply made instruments (not specifically Q or Y fort) that play very well but will simply wear out or have componentry fail to stand up to regular use.

I find that many people have a hard time assessing quality of build or fitment without reducing the argument to “made in china” or “costs more must be better”. In fairness, when the average player examines a slide how are they to know if the chrome plating is up to snuff? Or that the valve fitment is correct or “tight” enough?

Aidan removing cores is more than most ever do with their instrument and doesn’t really reveal how well the thing is made. Removing/reinstalling a modern Bach/Conn rotor valve is very easy, and the parts look to be made well, but they don’t play exceptionally well (nor exceptionally poorly).

Some good questions! Coming from a Bach 42GO and 50GO from 1992to about 2015. When I sold them in 2015, both had red rot on the slides, bells and flaking silver plate. Spent 2015 until last June with a Yamaha 822G which was built like a tank - no red rot, no flaking, rotors and slide perfect. Though, other problems cropped up which motivated me to look for better. BTW - my replacement tenor is a Rath R400 (the Rath Chinese made UK-factory QC'ed horn), beautiful instrument that did all I wanted it to in the orchestra, when I had to play 2nd instead of bass.

So my recent search for "the new bass": At one store I tried a Yamaha 835GD and a Shires Q36GR. The Yamaha was a disapppointment. It was ok, but not terrifically better than my 822g in the low and mid-range. But the high register simply closed off. The Q36GR responded like a dream from pedal f up to third space treble c and back. BUT ... the slide was in a horrid condition. It was literally impossible to play a b-flat arpeggio. Totally gummed up. I asked the tech to get it working, not having anything with me at the time to apply to it. "Well, you know how these demo horns are." And did nothing. So needless to say, I left. The next shop had 2 835s, a Shires Custom and a Q36GR. The Yamahas were similar or worse to/than the previous one in response and one Yamaha just did actually sound harsh/shrill. But the Shires Custom was horrid. It responded like blowing through a wet towel. No projection, no color, no core, just mush. The Q36GR however was like night and day in comparison. The slide was better than the other one I'd tried, still not optimal, but the response was just as good. Both the paddle, pedal and upper registers sprang from the horn. Pure joy to play - and I tried it on several mouthpieces - same thing with small variances, but still good. My Wedge S59 worked the best, even up to high c, which surprised me. The tech worked on the slide and kinda got it going. I've had to do some experimenting here at home and now, with the "proper" method of lubrication (the less, the better), it's like grease lightning for up to 2 weeks, generally around 10 days with no added water or lubrication. Too much and it gums up, so IMHO, the techs simply put too much lubrication on the slides in the stores. In the meantime I've added a Brad Close made seamed copper MV50 lead pipe that's even the next step up. In fact, I traded it out for the original Shires Nr. 2 for today's session and after 30 minutes, couldn't wait to get back to the copper one. Will keep you informed if I should pick it up someday and it springs apart like the BluesMobile at the Richard J. Daley Center in Chicago, due to it's inherently inferior Chinese materials and build, and lacklustre Shires QC.

Several comments have been moved and a warning has been sent out. The terms of service can be found here in case anyone needs a refresher:

viewtopic.php?t=5703

Subsequent exchange seems on topic, leaving unlocked.

pfrancis wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 11:03 am For those that have played Q series extensively, and Y Fort too: Are you suggesting that one or the other (based on your experiences) play better than the more expensive instruments only? Or are you assessing them as being superior in most/all regards? There are plenty of of VERY cheaply made instruments (not specifically Q or Y fort) that play very well but will simply wear out or have componentry fail to stand up to regular use.

Aidan removing cores is more than most ever do with their instrument and doesn’t really reveal how well the thing is made. Removing/reinstalling a modern Bach/Conn rotor valve is very easy, and the parts look to be made well, but they don’t play exceptionally well (nor exceptionally poorly).

You'll be pretty close if you think of the Q-series as an off-the-rack suit, the Custom series instruments as tailored suits, and the result of a fitting and endless waiting as a bespoke suit.

Off-the-rack suits may or may not fit you well. Tailored suits probably will fit you well. A bespoke suit is going to fit. For now. Until something changes, and if something does change significantly you're back at a tailor.

What you can do with an off-the-rack suit is have a tailor alter it.

And what you can do with a Q-series horn is...yes...alter it. You can put a custom leadpipe in it (small "c", because it doesn't have to be a Shires leadpipe--it just needs coarse threads). You can swap bells, tuning slides, hand slides, and valves with other Q's or Custom horns.

Now, to Aidan's comment on the Q valves vs. the Custom (rotary) valves: I have three questions, which he may or may not be able to answer. First, are the valves vented? Second, are the valve passages constant bore and circular in cross-section? Those are the essential features of Steve's original rotary valve (which was the basis of the Greenhoe valve). There are a number of ways to make valves with those essential features. One way is to create a vented shell that holds constant bore tubing. There are other ways. Finally, have you disassembled a Shires custom rotary valve of recent (let's say, post 2020) manufacture? (I ask because my sources at Shires say the Q and Custom rotaries are built from the same engineering drawings.)

As Matt Walker noted in another thread, while valve casings and rotors are (in theory) lapped together, theory and reality don't necessarily match. I'd place a small wager that theory is followed when Hopedale builds a rotary valve. I'd place another small wager that it's not followed so closely in the Eastman factory in China. Someone is probably sitting around with inside and outside micrometers measuring valves and casings and matching them up.

I wrote "You get what you pay for", in the context of the OP asking why so many players are dumping their Q Series gear. From the responses here, one would think I wrote: "The amount of money you spend is precisely commensurate, down to the penny, with the quality of the item you purchase, even when comparing dissimilar items, 100% of the time." Q Series vs. new Conn Selmer instrument? Apples and Oranges. Some of you need to calm WAY down. You buy a Bundy, you get a Bundy. You buy a Bach Stradivarius, you get a Bach Stradivarius. Go ahead and buy the Bundy if you want to save money. It's still a Bundy. Go ahead and buy a Chinese contra with fake Hagmann valves that seize up the second time you play it. Just don't complain about it.

Dennis wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:54 pm [

Now, to Aidan's comment on the Q valves vs. the Custom (rotary) valves: I have three questions, which he may or may not be able to answer. First, are the valves vented? Second, are the valve passages constant bore and circular in cross-section? Those are the essential features of Steve's original rotary valve (which was the basis of the Greenhoe valve). There are a number of ways to make valves with those essential features. One way is to create a vented shell that holds constant bore tubing. There are other ways. Finally, have you disassembled a Shires custom rotary valve of recent (let's say, post 2020) manufacture? (I ask because my sources at Shires say the Q and Custom rotaries are built from the same engineering drawings.)

The Q rotors are what I would call "plain." no venting or extra material removed. Sandhagen noted that the lips of the rotors actually occluded the ports on the set he has. They seem to play fine, but not like the real deal.

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:58 pm

Dennis wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:54 pm [

Now, to Aidan's comment on the Q valves vs. the Custom (rotary) valves: I have three questions, which he may or may not be able to answer. First, are the valves vented? Second, are the valve passages constant bore and circular in cross-section? Those are the essential features of Steve's original rotary valve (which was the basis of the Greenhoe valve). There are a number of ways to make valves with those essential features. One way is to create a vented shell that holds constant bore tubing. There are other ways. Finally, have you disassembled a Shires custom rotary valve of recent (let's say, post 2020) manufacture? (I ask because my sources at Shires say the Q and Custom rotaries are built from the same engineering drawings.)

The Q rotors are what I would call "plain." no venting or extra material removed. Sandhagen noted that the lips of the rotors actually occluded the ports on the set he has. They seem to play fine, but not like the real deal.

Thanks, Aidan.

Matt K wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 9:30 am I don't know if Q parts are fitted for each horn or if they just assemble bells, then thayer/rotors, slides, etc. all separately and just attach them together; however, the parts not fitting together isn't inherently a sign of anything. I know Matt Walker has mentioned before that the components of his bell sections are built for that specific bell section. (Please do correct me if that statement isn't totally accurate Matt). So you can buy just a valve but the only way to guarantee precision alignment would be to build the valve with the bell it is going to be attached to.

In other words, modularity is allowed, but it isn't inherently compatibility. I've experienced vavles from almost every maker who offers them modular being slightly misaligned from bells and would expect that if I buy something to take it to a tech to heat it up a little bit to get all of the parts to gel together.

Now... if you're buying a fully assembled unit, I would hope that the parts are all working well together, but I have no idea to what extent that is actually in practice. I myself have a very low sample size of the Q sections, and it was from a vendor that I think is widely regarded as pretty good.

Both the Custom and Q Series components are all fixture-built - bells are mounted on a fixture, tuning slides are built in a fixture, valve sets are built on a fixture. Greenhoe modular, and I assume by association M&W modular, are individually fit with the valve set being built on the particular bell and tuning slide it will be paired with.

Fixture building is a good idea for interchangeable parts IF the fixtures are intelligently designed, no changes are made to the designs, and the builders are aware of what steps should be taken in the build process to ensure that components are within spec. AND if there is QC done to ensure that components are within spec. The QC of component fitment was not something I saw a ton of attention paid to in my time there. My experience is that the Q instruments are typically more consistent in terms of component fitment.

Ideally all Shires components, Q and Custom alike, should be plug-and-play. That is not always the case. When turnover is high and you're busy training new builders and trying to ship product, some things can get overlooked.

The definition of "interchangeable" depends entirely on what the maker thinks an acceptable fit is.

hornbuilder wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:30 pm The definition of "interchangeable" depends entirely on what the maker thinks an acceptable fit is.

The cross-braces should align to the bell with no tension and, once the cross-braces are fully tightened, a parallel-built tuning slide should insert with no tension. That's about all there is to it.

Doing that to scale... Well, this discussion shows how that can go.

I can't speak to all q series, but I can say a set of rotors fell into my lap at some point, which needed a little TLC to be nice and tight, but with a little love they play great. I use them on my daily driver with no complaints.

The cross-braces should align to the bell with no tension and, once the cross-braces are fully tightened, a parallel-built tuning slide should insert with no tension.

Yes. But let's dig deeper. What is the acceptable tolerance for determining parallel? +/- how much?? Are tuning slides even measured for parallel after assembly?? Some shops rely entirely on the jig to establish dimension, with zero measurement or correction happening after the fact. Another consideration is how tight are the tubes?? A looser fit of tuning slide tubes allows a much larger range of "acceptable" when it comes to bracing alignment. But at what cost??

But yes, you're right. How to incorporate those features on a large scale, especially when you're (sometimes) dealing with techs who are relatively un/low-skilled, in shops with high turnover of techs.

It sounds like a lot of what we loosely refer to as "consistent" or "inconsistent" from a manufacturing standpoint could be attributed to that alone.

Bingo

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:16 am It sounds like a lot of what we loosely refer to as "consistent" or "inconsistent" from a manufacturing standpoint could be attributed to that alone.

Let me tell you about my Bach trombones... they should call the model the Stradivarious. I'm fairly certain they use undersized tuning slide inners because they are often so badly aligned they won't move otherwise. After getting a 42T bell section straightened out (which came with a warped outer slide form the factory), the tuning slide would fall inwards, even with the thickest grease. I needed to have the tubes slightly expanded. There was also some debris in the lacquer on the bell, and some areas that got missed on the valve tubing. Can't forget the piece of buffing wheel stuck between the F attachment tubing and the slide receiver, and this was around 2000, before the strikes and such.

Their slides don't have matching numbers on the inner and outer slides, which leads me to believe they are just made using a fixture, and not matched to one another at all. After I had the warp taken out of my 42T slide by Freddie at Dillon music, it became the greatest slide I have ever used. Let your hand off of it and it'll fly away.

The two "demo" bachs I got both had issues from original manufacture, but with the price I got them at, and how they played, it's not really an issue. I did notice however that all the Bachs I tried out recently had the mouthpieces stick out a bunch farther than what I was used to, and that the top of the receiver looked like it had been ground town slightly. I guess they cut off the excess leadpipe after they attach it, or maybe they just use a file to clean off solder slop?

So yeah....

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 9:47 am

Matt K wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:16 am It sounds like a lot of what we loosely refer to as "consistent" or "inconsistent" from a manufacturing standpoint could be attributed to that alone.

Let me tell you about my Bach trombones... they should call the model the Stradivarious.

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 9:47 am Their slides don't have matching numbers on the inner and outer slides, which leads me to believe they are just made using a fixture, and not matched to one another at all. After I had the warp taken out of my 42T slide by Freddie at Dillon music, it became the greatest slide I have ever used. Let your hand off of it and it'll fly away.

Bach slides are fixture built.

Bach slides are fixture built.

Yes. And they're not measured after assembly.

I've changed components on my Shires horns many times. What I liked in 2016 when I got my last Shires large bore doesn't work as well for me now. The way that I play has changed. My 2016 horn is still good, but it's no longer optimal for me. So I have a new slide and valve on order.