LefreaQue Band sizes

[GaryEuph]

I am interested in purchasing LefreaQue plates for my euphonium and i was wondering what size bands I should purchase for them. I am going to be using the same setup as Steve Mead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyiONFHMovY

[Jasonium]

Just want to let you know these LeFreque plates are pretty controversial. I’m of the camp that they do absolutely nothing.

[ChristianeSparkle]

Holy s***, so that's what hanging on the eupho of the first chair in my community band.

[davewerden]

I'm not convinced that the plates are a good idea overall. There are two doubts that I have:

Do they do anything?

On first reading about these it could be hard to believe the little plates could affect a euphonium much. However, I suspect they could indeed have some kind of effect. My experience with Adams has started me thinking more about that. Miel Adams prefers to build euphoniums with no 4th-valve lock and with no trigger (although he has accepted that many people want a trigger). His feeling is that these attachments dampen the vibration of the horn, which affects resonance. As I played the Adams for a few months I began to respect that attitude more and more. So carrying Miel's feelings to these plates, I suppose they could affect the horn in some way, even though they are not attached as "securely" as soldered-on triggers or 4th-valve locks. The advantage of the LefreaQue plates is that can be easily removed if you feel they are detrimental.

OK, so they do something. Is it a plus with no minuses?

Here is my larger hesitation about the plates. In the many years I have worked with Besson/Sterling/Adams on improving the instruments, I have seldom run across a change that did not have both positive and negative effects. For example, Sterling changed the large branch taper at one point to help bring the 6th partial Eb/E/F concert more in tune. It did that. But it also made the 3rd partial F and F# concert a little sharp. Because the 3rd partial was more easily controlled, the changed was a gain overall, but it was not "free." I suspect the plates may fall into that category. Any time we compare stuff, from mouthpieces to instruments, we are looking to see if the new item we're testing improves things for us - often a specific thing that troubles us. But that is a narrow concept to evaluate. Much harder is evaluating whether the new item has a negative effect in some way that may not show up in our testing.

So in fairness, here is Besson Artist Aaron Campbell discussing the plates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1_7TQ4UW1M&t=199s

[RickF]

I only use LeFreque plates as a mpc bridge, the 41mm size. The band size that works for euphonium mpc receiver are 55mm long. Mine is now 59mm long since it’s stretched a bit. I wasn’t convinced that these would really make a difference. Tried this set and had my wife listen as I played something... once without plates then with the mpc plates. She said playing with the plates I sounded a bit louder - or a bit more projection. The ‘G’ concert above the staff seemed to slot better with these plates.

For more information on band size check out “Just For Brass” website here:
https://www.justforbrass.com/lefreque-elastic-bands

[miketeachesclass]

I'm with Dave on this one.

I've used the LeFreque on my marching baritone, my besson prestige baritone, and a miraphone 5050 (before switching to adams... the AGC doesn't allow for the plate to act as a MPC bridge).

In my experience (whether psychosomatic or not... that's an argument for another time), I felt like slots were more solid, and narrower. The MP actually felt like it vibrated less freely, and I felt less feedback on my chops.

I don't feel like there was any appreciable or even noticeable difference in sound. This was all about how things felt on my face.

Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. It's definitely different, but "good"? I'm not as sure.

YMMV, as always.

I'm not convinced that the plates are a good idea overall. There are two doubts that I have:

Do they do anything?

On first reading about these it could be hard to believe the little plates could affect a euphonium much. However, I suspect they could indeed have some kind of effect. My experience with Adams has started me thinking more about that. Miel Adams prefers to build euphoniums with no 4th-valve lock and with no trigger (although he has accepted that many people want a trigger). His feeling is that these attachments dampen the vibration of the horn, which affects resonance. As I played the Adams for a few months I began to respect that attitude more and more. So carrying Miel's feelings to these plates, I suppose they could affect the horn in some way, even though they are not attached as "securely" as soldered-on triggers or 4th-valve locks. The advantage of the LefreaQue plates is that can be easily removed if you feel they are detrimental.

OK, so they do something. Is it a plus with no minuses?

Here is my larger hesitation about the plates. In the many years I have worked with Besson/Sterling/Adams on improving the instruments, I have seldom run across a change that did not have both positive and negative effects. For example, Sterling changed the large branch taper at one point to help bring the 6th partial Eb/E/F concert more in tune. It did that. But it also made the 3rd partial F and F# concert a little sharp. Because the 3rd partial was more easily controlled, the changed was a gain overall, but it was not "free." I suspect the plates may fall into that category. Any time we compare stuff, from mouthpieces to instruments, we are looking to see if the new item we're testing improves things for us - often a specific thing that troubles us. But that is a narrow concept to evaluate. Much harder is evaluating whether the new item has a negative effect in some way that may not show up in our testing.

So in fairness, here is Besson Artist Aaron Campbell discussing the plates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1_7TQ4UW1M&t=199s

[franz]

I've been using them for 3 years: the impression I got at the beginning on my Prestige is that the sound I get is brighter, with more focus, more precision in the attack, more projection and a better pitch, which was also confirmed by my section friends, who then also bought the plates. However I did not find the same positive effects on the trombone and the baritone; I must therefore deduce that not all instruments can have any appreciable effect that, however, I doubt that is noticeable to the listening audience. If you want to try them I suggest you buy the size 41mm to place between the receiver and the mouthpiece and the 76mm to be applied on the upper arc. The size 33mm to be placed on the second slide curve, in my opinion, is useless. I advise you to buy, as I did, the cheapest brass or red brass: the others plated in gold or silver or solid silver, cost an eye and give nothing more than the brass ones. If, for purely aesthetic reasons, you want them in silver or gold, you can always, as I have done, have them plated for a few euros from a galvanic laboratory.

[ghmerrill]

In my experience (whether psychosomatic or not... that's an argument for another time), I felt like slots were more solid, and narrower. The MP actually felt like it vibrated less freely, and I felt less feedback on my chops.

I don't feel like there was any appreciable or even noticeable difference in sound. This was all about how things felt on my face.

I think that this is an interesting and valuable observation. In addition, it comports substantially with common sense. I don't think I've been unclear in the past about my own view's being that the alleged effects of these plates are likely illusory and self-deceiving (no disrespect intended here -- just a point about objectivity and empirical results). But this observation about the FELT difference makes sense and is consistent with my own experience using a different, though in some ways quite similar, device.

For me, the device in question is a Stork BT 1.5 "heavy blank" bass trombone mouthpiece. I got this as part of my mouthpiece search when I started playing the bass trombone seriously, and I've kept it because I really like it, both in terms of how it sounds on the horn, how it works (articulation and such), and how it FEELS. If I didn't have my DE mouthpiece, this would be my first choice, and it's in my case as my "backup".

The feeling and result in using it is pretty much what Mike describes with his experience in trying the LeFreque plates. The slots were more solid and narrow (or at least FELT more solid and narrow), and it definitely did "vibrate less". There was (as brass players are wont to say) "less feedback" from the mouthpiece. Less vibration = less feedback ... and (I suggest) ... = less distraction. Now imagine -- since we seem to be prone to imagining various things in the LeFreque context -- what the EFFECT on your playing of less distraction might be. The effect MIGHT be purely subjective, but it also MIGHT be objective and genuine -- if, for example, the reduction in distraction (resulting from less "feedback") causes you to play with a more precise or uniform embouchure and breath control. And all of this from the simple dampening of vibration reaching the player's lips. Eh?

So this story has the result not that the attachment of a heavier chunk of metal to some place on your instrument magically affects the sound (in ways that are highly debateable and seem impossible to establish objectively), but that it affects your PLAYING -- and in a fairly understandable way. And that makes sense, and people have been saying things like this about heavy weight mouthpieces for quite a long time -- though perhaps more in the tuba and trombone worlds than the euphonium one?

And yes, in a direct sense it's all about how things feel on your face (or maybe through your hands if you stick lumps of metal in other places), but there can in fact be an understandable objective consequence to the sound that comes out of your horn because of how you react to that "feel". And I can make sense of all that.

I still can't quite make sense out of spending the money required for these specific lumps of metal -- particularly if based on a kind of "mystical result" feeling about them. But if you've got the money to do it, then why not?

[miketeachesclass]

Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, Gary.

For me, I was curious (and admittedly, have always been a bit of a gear head), and I found a set of the silver plates used. I figure if I hate 'em I can sell them for much of what I've got in them.

I'm of the opinion that anything that makes us feel better about our playing isn't a waste, but I also adore empirical data. So these things drive me crazy!

In any case, I don't miss the LeFreque on my Adams. I do still use it on my British baritone much of the time. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it blinked out of existence though. The thing I always say when people ask me about it is "it definitely does SOMETHING to my playing. Whether that's 'good' or not is debatable". It's an interesting experiment nonetheless.

I think that this is an interesting and valuable observation. In addition, it comports substantially with common sense. I don't think I've been unclear in the past about my own view's being that the alleged effects of these plates are likely illusory and self-deceiving (no disrespect intended here -- just a point about objectivity and empirical results). But this observation about the FELT difference makes sense and is consistent with my own experience using a different, though in some ways quite similar, device.

For me, the device in question is a Stork BT 1.5 "heavy blank" bass trombone mouthpiece. I got this as part of my mouthpiece search when I started playing the bass trombone seriously, and I've kept it because I really like it, both in terms of how it sounds on the horn, how it works (articulation and such), and how it FEELS. If I didn't have my DE mouthpiece, this would be my first choice, and it's in my case as my "backup".

The feeling and result in using it is pretty much what Mike describes with his experience in trying the LeFreque plates. The slots were more solid and narrow (or at least FELT more solid and narrow), and it definitely did "vibrate less". There was (as brass players are wont to say) "less feedback" from the mouthpiece. Less vibration = less feedback ... and (I suggest) ... = less distraction. Now imagine -- since we seem to be prone to imagining various things in the LeFreque context -- what the EFFECT on your playing of less distraction might be. The effect MIGHT be purely subjective, but it also MIGHT be objective and genuine -- if, for example, the reduction in distraction (resulting from less "feedback") causes you to play with a more precise or uniform embouchure and breath control. And all of this from the simple dampening of vibration reaching the player's lips. Eh?

So this story has the result not that the attachment of a heavier chunk of metal to some place on your instrument magically affects the sound (in ways that are highly debateable and seem impossible to establish objectively), but that it affects your PLAYING -- and in a fairly understandable way. And that makes sense, and people have been saying things like this about heavy weight mouthpieces for quite a long time -- though perhaps more in the tuba and trombone worlds than the euphonium one?

And yes, in a direct sense it's all about how things feel on your face (or maybe through your hands if you stick lumps of metal in other places), but there can in fact be an understandable objective consequence to the sound that comes out of your horn because of how you react to that "feel". And I can make sense of all that.

I still can't quite make sense out of spending the money required for these specific lumps of metal -- particularly if based on a kind of "mystical result" feeling about them. But if you've got the money to do it, then why not?

[DaveBj]

I put a set on my "Schiller", kept them there for six months, and then one day took them off all at once. I couldn't tell any difference. I put the top-bow plate set on my Dolce yesterday, just to see if it made any difference in the 5th, 6th, and 8th partial tunings. I will report back.

[RickF]

When I was considering getting some of these, I spoke with the late Bill Ricker of Quick Horn Rinse. He suggested I should try the mpc bridge size first since it made the biggest difference in his opinion. I think he was right.

[Fishlips]

Has anyone tested the LeFreque plates using audio spectrum analysis or other empirical measures? Have there been any blind or double-blind studies? It seems these might help remove the subjective nature and speculation involved in evaluating a product that may or may not have an impact on the vibration of the air column in the horn.

I tend to suspect that the placebo effect is in play, but I can't prove it. In the meantime, I will continue to rely on long tones, as well as a pocket-full of Magic Tone Beans, which I hope to soon bring to market!

[Clayton M.]

I found a set of 41s to try. I am, however, not sure I can get the things to touch my mouthpieces the way Steven Mead suggests, due to the shape of my (oddly enough) Denis Wick SM mouthpieces. We shall see, when they get here, how they work for me.

As for Magic Tone Beans: are they effective in the pocket, or does one have to eat them during a performance? I was taught that eating and playing a wind instrument does not go well together.

[Fishlips]

Magic Tone Beans are best used if kept in one's pocket or nearby in a Bag of Holding. However, despite this recommendation, reports from my vast customer base indicate that "the more you eat, the more you toot." Individual results vary and no empirical data is available.

[davewerden]

Has anyone tested the LeFreque plates using audio spectrum analysis or other empirical measures?

Alas, I don't think that is the answer either. It's very hard for a human player to play a passage identically twice in a row. Dr. Richard Smith was with Besson in the 1980's, before leaving to form half of the Smith-Watkins company making quality trumpets. When I visited the Besson Edgeware factory in 1980, he was telling me about experiments using automated methods to produce a tone from a trumpet, which could then be accurately repeatable. That would show something in a scientific sense, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to equate to real playing.

Have there been any blind or double-blind studies? It seems these might help remove the subjective nature and speculation involved in evaluating a product that may or may not have an impact on the vibration of the air column in the horn.

That would be the most interesting. As I see it, the problem would be switching between the "A" and "B" conditions. You would have to do it immediately, which means you'd need to 2 identical horns, one with and one without the plates. Finding 2 horns that are that closely matched could be a tough problem.