Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

  1. #1

    Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    The only Pro-level horns these days are compensators.

    But I think it would be nice to have a horn out there which is built to the standards of the top horns, but without the extra compensating tubing. It could be 3+1

    There is still the Yamaha 621, I think, outside America. But I've played one of those, and its sound is too light.

    This is (was?) the Willson 2704. Never knew anyone who played one of these. Might have been sort of what I am looking for.

    The Yamaha 321 is not quite it -- overlooking the fact that this is the symphony doubler's horn. Rich irony there.

    Nor the King 2280.

    I think I am looking for big bore, big bell, robust constriction, but without the weight and extra cost of compensation, which is really only needed for a few notes in the pedal range.

    I'll betcha Sterling could make me one. I wonder what they would charge?

    John

  2. Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    John has hit on what amounts to a riddle. (Although I think I understand that yearning for something simple and sturdy that gets the job done in grand fashion.)

    I'd say that there are few top-flight non-comping 4-valvers out there because the 4th valve F-circuit only brings four notes into better tune: concert F and E at the bottom and concert B and C (a fifth higher). And those 2/4 valve notes, the B and the E, still have to be lipped down to get 'em in tune. At least, so it was on the two non-compers I've played, the Yam 321 and Jupiter 570.

    (Oh, I guess I should not overlook that the 4th valve could be used to control the sharp 6th partials that plague so many horns.)

    But what I'm saying is that the UNcompensated 4-valve concept is saddled with some unresolved compromises, which amounts to a problem for professional-level instruments, since a pro horn should be as uncompromised as possible.

    How about a first-rate 3-valver with a long-throw trigger on the 3rd valve? That would bring some troublesome notes into line with less complexity and expense.

    Or, consider this: some months ago, there was a thread under Euph-Misc. titled "old Besson 3-valve compensators" where the merits of that configuration were kicked back and forth. As I recall, Fsung noted, probably correctly, that a revival of this design would likely be cost-prohibitive. Still, I can't quite abandon hope for a resurrection of this design in updated 'pro' specs; would this not fill the bill exactly? Simple (relatively), sturdy, capable of maximum effect with minimum resources ... exactly what John is thinking of.


  3. #3

    Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    Right, I believe you have hit on what I am looking for. A three valve compensator built to the quality standards, bore and bell designs of the top horns would do just fine: Sterling, Besson, Yamaha, Willson, whatever .... and would be a formitable instrument, expect when you happen to need a few of the pedal range notes. Now a euph performance major or pro player might not want such an instrument. But an enthusiastic amateur like me would enjoy a somewhat simplified euph which does not compromise on sound quality or dynamic range.

    Besides, the low pedal range just sounds inferior, even in the hands of the very best players. If you want an F tuba, well then, just play one.

    John

  4. #4

    Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    For what it's worth,

    One of my old teachers, Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe, had a Yamaha 321 with a large bore receiver/lead pipe, hand hammered bell, and a fifth valve where the fourth valve slide would normally be. It's been years since I played that horn, but I remember that it played quite well. She played this instrument in the Tokyo Kosei Wind Ensemble with great success.

    -euphisto

  5. #5

    Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    John and others,

    I couldn't agree more. I love the lighter weight and I swear many of these noncompensating euphs play more in tune overall than the compensators (without triggers). With the exception of the newer Besson valves, I always preferred the speed and ease that one could achieve with the lighter, smaller, non compensating valves. One of the best euphoniums I've ever played was the non-compensating Kanstul euphonium. Large shank, large bell, very fast valves, and outstanding response...I only playtested one at NABBA in the noisy exhibit hall, hardly a good place to make a concrete decision, but I did REALLY like it. And since then, they have introduced one in the 3+1 configuration, non-compensating. The problem is my local dealer can order it, but it is a nonreturnable item because these are made to order, which has made me hesitant to go for it.

    Don't get me wrong, I switched to the euph because of the Bach cello suites and my inability to play them well on trombone. I love being able to play low C#s and Ds in tune on a compensator - that are frequently required on these pieces. However, this is the only time I can honestly say the compensating system is really justifiable for me. I've come across the need to play a few low Ebs and perhaps a couple of low Ds in banding literature, but they could easily be lipped into tune with a noncompensator. Since I switched to euphonium, I've come across a nice version of the Cello Suites taken up a fourth, literally rendering the low compensating register unnecessary.

    If a manufacturer came up with a decent 3+1 noncompensator with great valves, large bore, and a large bell, I would be all over it.
    - Scott

    Euphoniums: Dillon 967, Monzani MZEP-1150S, Dillon 1067 (kid’s horn)
    Bass Trombones: Greenhoe GB5-3G, Getzen 1052FDR, JP232
    King Jiggs P-bone

  6. Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    Is this not what the new Besson international is? Very similar to the old Besson 700. I played on one of these for many many years and loved it to bits - but noticed a HUGE difference in sound and response the minute i changed over to a compensating euph with a bigger bore. Some people still use the 700's, but for brass banding or military banding the rest of the instruments have become so big that the sound of the smaller bore would be lost - thus the reason they aren't as popular

  7. #7

    Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    The old Besson international horns (no longer made to the best of my knowledge) had much of what I wanted in a horn, noncompensating, large bore, large shank receiver, 3+1 valve setup. But, it was not up to the quality of the Sovereigns or Prestiges. The valves felt cheap and crude. The tuning slides didn't have a nice professional feel either and a couple on the sample I tested were out of alignment. I thought the horn had a decent tone overall, but I didn't think it was a really nice instrument.

    What I want is a noncompensating horn that has the same nice touches seen in the top of the range compensating instruments.
    - Scott

    Euphoniums: Dillon 967, Monzani MZEP-1150S, Dillon 1067 (kid’s horn)
    Bass Trombones: Greenhoe GB5-3G, Getzen 1052FDR, JP232
    King Jiggs P-bone

  8. Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    Nah, they're still made - but publicly known as the Besson 1000. They have defnately gone down in standard from the 700 days - they're made in china now. If you can pick up a Besson 700, they are WELL WORTH IT. But they are so rare, you are unlikely to find one

  9. #9

    Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    Yeah, from what I've read, I think many of the much older Besson 700 (like early 80's) series were professional quality and included both compensating and noncompensating instruments. That is what I'm looking for. However, the more modern Besson 765s and 7065s that were made until the dissolution of the Besson Music Group were NOT of professional quality in my opinion....certainly not in the league of the Sovereigns. From what I understand, the much older Besson 700 series compensating and noncompensating instruments were of equal quality.
    - Scott

    Euphoniums: Dillon 967, Monzani MZEP-1150S, Dillon 1067 (kid’s horn)
    Bass Trombones: Greenhoe GB5-3G, Getzen 1052FDR, JP232
    King Jiggs P-bone

  10. Why Not A Good Non-compensating Euph?

    A quick chat with someone about instruments see's me recalling seeing a euphonium that was identical to the Besson 700 i played for years. This was last year, while i still had my 700 (it was a year ago last week). The Instrument in question is called a JP. I don't know if you americans can get them over there, but in Britain they're pretty popular in students. Intermediate Pro's seem to be taking to them too, so they can't be all that bad. Seemingly they are manufactured by the guys who used to make Besson. A lot of manufacturers are now a days...hmmm

    http://www.johnpacker.co.uk/

    And the Instrument in question: http://www.johnpacker.co.uk/instruments/101759.htm

    I have played it, and i struggled to find anything that was really "bad"

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •