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