Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: A Good Non-comp Euph

  1. #1

    A Good Non-comp Euph

    There's again been some talk about a good non-comp euph, one made to the highest professional standards, but without the weight and cost of the extra compensating plumbing.

    I personally would really like to have such an instrument, and given their ability to make euphoniums which are in tune with themselves, wish Adams would develop one (it could be for special order only).

    My question, for those who know the manufacturing issues, which I do not, is:

    Would having a top line valve set made to professional standards be the critical path? Or is someone already making high quality non-comp valve sets for euphs?

  2. I believe quinntheeskimo was selling a Hirsbrunner 3 +1 non comp, and Willson has the inline 4 non comp, Not sure if its their answer to the 321 or if its a definite pro model.

    here's the Willson. I will see if I can find the Hirsbrunner listing. The pictures seem to stay over time, which is nice:

    the eBay item number: Item #: 260835372492
    Last edited by coolguy684; 03-11-2013 at 10:57 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by JTJ View Post
    ...good non-comp euph, one made to the highest professional standards, but without the weight and cost of the extra compensating plumbing.
    It's always been an interesting question, but there is one factor that I haven't seen as part of the discussion: the input from expert players.

    I was pondering the issues involved. A non-comp valve set should be doable. Adams just started making (as far as I can tell) a line of marching brass. So there is probably a synergy there that could be leveraged.

    As far as the general plumbing goes, making it without the comp system would mean some additional tooling and templates, but I suspect it can be done.

    So take those two technical points and assume Adams could build a non-comp euph without too much trouble. It would be built to their high standards of assembly and design concepts... except for the input of experts.

    When they tackled a compensating euphonium, it was being sold and played in Europe before it made much of an impact in the USA. During that time they had European artists coming to the factory showroom to try out horns and got a lot of feedback. Most top-level players are going to do their most serious testing on compensating horns. If there had been a non-comp model on display, players might have tried it, but they probably would not have given it a real serious test. (Too many other horns to try that were more on target for what they wanted to buy.)

    Without a constant flow of expert advice, I don't see how the horn could improve they way the compensating model has. Now I'm not discounting the advice of serious amateurs, among which group might live some potential buyers. But the majority of serious amateurs also want a compensating horn, so the same problem exists - how do you get a large body of input on the non-comp horn?

    I'm not saying this can't be done! But it does make the burden a little tougher because I think the market is smaller. An Adams non-comp would still not be price-competitive with a Schiller compensating euph. Suppose it were $2k cheaper because of the simpler systems (just guessing). Would a non-comp in the $5-6k range be marketable, even if it were exceptional? I'm sure some might go for it, but it would be a limited number. How cheap would it have to be for success?

    I think it's a great idea, because a non-comp would be lighter and easier to blow. But I'm not seeing a likely path. There you have my thoughts (for today, anyway). What do you all think?
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  4. Perhaps the Yamaha 5th valve rotor could be incorporated into a viable pro-non-comp? But thinking on it, it appears that this would result in a copy of a 321 + 5th valve, but being made to higher standards and a larger everything (bore, bell, etc). Can anyone comment on the 5th valve of a 321, functionality compared with a normal compensating euphonium?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    I'm a little puzzled here. Certainly I'm willing to dismiss the various Cerveny non-comp euphoniums (or barytons or Kaiser barytons, or whatever) as not being "of the highest professional standards", though I'm far from sure what criteria something has to meet to to be in that category.

    But some time last year I came across an amazing euphonium performance on Youtube by a German musician, and when I tracked down his instrument it was a boutique brand (hand made, I think) non-comp euphonium (or baryton). Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the company that made it, but I do recall visiting their web site and eyeballing the cost -- which was certainly of the highest professional standard. Whatever brand this was, they actually did have a catalog, and so the instruments were not one-off jobs. I might be able to pour through all of my emails for the past year and find this (since I sent a link to a few people). But does this ring a bell with anyone. For some reason, I'm thinking the price of this horn was in the $10,000 or above range.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  6. #6
    Dave, unfortunately I think you are right. You probably would need the input of professionals to get the desired sound. And i am sure it would be more than just removing the compensating system, which probably would do unknown things to the euphs resonance and playability.

    Another point would be response: I imagine that non-comp smaller lighter valves would be faster and more responsive, which appeals to me.

    Gary, it may be that the Germans make an instrument which would do the job. Unfortunately it is just hard to find out anything about those instruments. But I just remembered there is/was an "Enrique Crespo" Meinl-Weston 51 euphonium, but I could not find it on Meinl's web site just now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Just curious whether one of the criteria is that the device has piston valves. 4 inline? 5 (4+1)? Front action? Top?

    http://www.brassreview.com/reviews/g...nl-weston.html

    Would, for example, the MW 49 count in addition to the MW 51? If so, then I've got to believe that there are some rotary valve instruments made in Germany that may now come very close to satisfying the criteria. Probably easier to find where to buy them and/or improve them than to start from scratch.


    But if piston valves are de rigueur, then clearly not.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Well, so far as I can determine the MW Model 49 is no longer available. I offer this as proof that the concept of the 4- or 5-valve (Model 49/5) uncompensated euphonium was a huge success and the entire inventory sold out. Clearly they are able to make these things and the tooling exists. The fact that they are no longer on the market points to some kind of conspiracy -- most likely among the "pistons and compensation is better" crowd. We are slaves of fashion.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ghmerrill View Post
    Well, so far as I can determine the MW Model 49 is no longer available. I offer this as proof that the concept of the 4- or 5-valve (Model 49/5) uncompensated euphonium was a huge success and the entire inventory sold out. Clearly they are able to make these things and the tooling exists. The fact that they are no longer on the market points to some kind of conspiracy -- most likely among the "pistons and compensation is better" crowd. We are slaves of fashion.
    It could just be that the 4 inline setup, rotary or otherwise, is unwieldy, and difficult to tune up (unprofessionally speaking) for the faster valve movement required of many technical pieces. Personally, I find the use of a pinky limiting, especially for the low sections in Holst works.If you really want a 4-valve non-comp horn, though, I'd spring for a Gebr. Alexander 151, or a 5-valve 151-5. But, I know that a few months ago, there was a considerable discussion held on TubeNet on the subject of piston v. rotary valves. Some people said that there is a noticeable difference between identical models of horns with different valve blocks (though I think that a. not all horns are made equal and b. the placement of the block in relation to the lead pipe\ main tuning slide and angles of the pipes coming off the valves might mess with the sound as well). The other idea that was spread was that there is not necessarily a "better all around"; it just depends on what fits your physique\ musculature. I'd love to get my hands on a rotary euphonium that's actually worth playing. However, I don't think that I'll actually pursue it with much vigor, because I feel that pistons fit me better.

    In relevance to the non-comp idea, I think that compensating systems have a very specific and infrequent niche that they fall into. It's good to be able to look at the low notes and say "Okay, I see the concert pitch note, so here's what the fingering is that falls in line with my usual chromatic scale". But, as stated before, I only really use the notes for Holst, tuba doubling\teaching, and the occasional jump down low in solo pieces. I think that a Miraphone non-comp would be fun, like the 1255 model, with such an open bore, and so little extra piping to push through for C and B natural in the staff as 4 and 2+4 respectively. However, that's about as far as I think it would go. I could get a lacquer 1258A for $450 less than the non-comp 3+1 model in silver, and I could have a complete and logical scale down to pedal Bb. I dunno. My thought on this are jumbled at this. I'll withhold my ramblings until there's further commentary.
    Last edited by DaTweeka; 03-11-2013 at 11:12 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by DaTweeka View Post
    It could just be that the 4 inline setup, rotary or otherwise, is unwieldy, and difficult to tune up (unprofessionally speaking) for the faster valve movement required of many technical pieces.
    Go on Youtube and start to work your way through all the blasmusik postings. I think you may change your mind about being able to play fast technical pieces with rotary valves.

    As a matter of fact, I prefer piston valves for playing -- not because they're faster (indeed, I've have frequently seen exactly the opposite claimed), but just because to me they feel better. But I much prefer rotary valves for maintenance.

    While I think the compensating system was a brilliant idea and has obvious advantages, and I much prefer 3+1 to 4 in-line, I also prefer how an uncompensated horn feels as you're playing it. The compensating horns (the good ones) are not really "stuffy", but there is that extra bit of resistance that introduces a lack of uniformity of a certain sort. Just a matter of taste and tradeoffs.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •