Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Euphonium Testing - Saturday 3rd October 2020

  1. MikeS,

    My experience with my 2001 Sovereign 967 was similar to yours. It was well built (musta been a good day) with a good sound and the valve action was fantastic. However, I did NOT like the floating leadpipe for two reasons. First, I greatly prefer the newer leadpipes that are "straighter" )Adams, Sterling, Prestige), allowing me to keep my right elbow raised and my fingers straighter. The Sovereign leadpipe wrapped too far around the bell for me. Second, I found the horn "over responsive" in the 2nd and 3rd partials compared with the rest of the range. I prefer thee response to be even as you move from low to high and back. So I had the leadpipe, receiver, and bell brace removed. We replaced these with a York Eminence 4052 leadpipe and receiver with a Sterling mid-brace. The bell brace had to be fabricated to fit the original solder pad. Net was the horn played pretty much like a Prestige w/o the trigger.

    Since I play a Wick 4AL, I found the pitch tendencies were similar to my 2007 Buffett-Besson Prestige. It was "wicked" sharp on the concert Eb4 and F4 (6th partial) above the staff and the concert G3 (1-2) in the staff. These issues were solved with alternate fingerings using 3rd valve for the G, 1-3 for the Eb, and 1-2 for the F. I considered my very late production horn to be a "good" one.
    Last edited by daruby; 10-10-2020 at 12:11 AM.
    Adams E3 0.60 Sterling bell - Prototype top sprung valves
    Concord Band
    Winchendon Winds
    Townsend Military Band

  2. #12
    Oh there were good ones, just proportionally not many. At the end we were sending nearly all of them back, and almost everything was R stock flawed in one way or another.

    I’m glad my experiences weren’t universal. The biggest problem I had, ergonomics aside, was the fact the 967GS vibrated too much. Certainly I’m no scientist or acoustician but I always though the GS sounded thinner and brighter than the model it replaced.
    Nowt

    Retired

  3. Hello everyone,

    This is really interesting to read all of these comments! I have spent quite an extended period testing all the latest range of Euphonium's and I honestly feel that all instruments I tested were really well made and there was a consistency with each brand of instrument.

    I often wonder what changes the Euphonium may go through over the course of the next twenty or thirty years.

    Best Wishes,

    Micah Dominic Parsons

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    338
    I wonder if they have tested the new Prestige leadpipe on the Sovereign as an experiment, since according to Steven Mead, he barely has to use the trigger on his Prestige anymore to manage the sharpness of some notes.
    It would most likely affect the response and sound though, so I'm not sure if they're even willing to experiment with that.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NYC metro area
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by daruby View Post
    [snip]It was "wicked" sharp on the concert Eb6 and F6 (6th partial) above the staff and the concert G4 (1-2) in the staff. [snip]
    Doug, it looks like you're using a note designation that refers to the partial on euphonium/trombone, which is one I haven't seen before. When I first saw your notation Eb6, I was thinking scientific notation, where C4 is middle C on the piano, so the sixth partial notes are Eb4 and F4 (anyone who can play Eb6 on a euphonium deserves a medal). Is your notation a common one, or did you develop it yourself?
    Dean L. Surkin
    Mack Brass MACK-EU1150S, BB1 mouthpiece
    Bach 36B trombone; Bach 6.5AL and Faxx 7C mouthpieces (pBone on loan to granddaughter)
    Steinway 1902 Model A, restored by AC Pianocraft in 1988; Kawai MP8, Yamaha KX-76
    See my avatar: Jazz (the black cockapoo; RIP) and Delilah (the cavapoo) keep me company while practicing

  6. Dean

    I was referring to partials. So Eb4 and F4 are 6th partial, then the 4th partial G below is G3, and 5th partial tuning Bb is Bb3? Our pedal range (1st partial) is therefore B0 to A1? And my total stable range is B0 to Db5 with an Eb5 on a good day. Love it.

    Many thanks, I am educated! And updated my post.

    Doug
    Last edited by daruby; 10-10-2020 at 12:19 AM.
    Adams E3 0.60 Sterling bell - Prototype top sprung valves
    Concord Band
    Winchendon Winds
    Townsend Military Band

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NYC metro area
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by daruby View Post
    [snip] And my total stable range is B0 to Db5 with an Eb5 on a good day. Love it. [snip]
    Doug
    I'm glad I could contribute something useful. And I love the term "stable range!"
    Dean L. Surkin
    Mack Brass MACK-EU1150S, BB1 mouthpiece
    Bach 36B trombone; Bach 6.5AL and Faxx 7C mouthpieces (pBone on loan to granddaughter)
    Steinway 1902 Model A, restored by AC Pianocraft in 1988; Kawai MP8, Yamaha KX-76
    See my avatar: Jazz (the black cockapoo; RIP) and Delilah (the cavapoo) keep me company while practicing

  8. I was also pleased to learn that our lowest fundamental is 30-ish Hz B0. That is pretty low.
    Adams E3 0.60 Sterling bell - Prototype top sprung valves
    Concord Band
    Winchendon Winds
    Townsend Military Band

  9. #19
    Regarding the future of euphoniums, how about this? Non-compensating, three valve, light weight? Responsive, powerful, with a beautiful tone? And in perfect tune? Is this too much to ask for?
    It seems to me that we are offered designs which are full of ‘work-arounds’, in the attempt to make them sound decent across the whole range they are now expected to play in. Complex, heavy, and more difficult to play.
    I’m sure a good composer could come up with a tune worth playing, in the mid range of the instrument (where, to be honest, most players feel comfortable), rather than ‘pushing the envelope’.
    Just a thought.
    P.s. can’t wait to read reviews of the Adams Sonic!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    3,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Ian View Post
    Regarding the future of euphoniums, how about this? Non-compensating, three valve, light weight? Responsive, powerful, with a beautiful tone? And in perfect tune? Is this too much to ask for?!
    I think due to the science it’s too much to ask to get a 3v horn with perfect intonation. The valve system is an imperfect design in that it changes the length of tubing the same amount without regard to what partial you’re playing... and also due to needing to play with just intonation. A 3 valve compensator (auto compensating?) would be good compromise I think - but with limitations in the low range.

    See Dave Werden’s explanation on compensating and how valves affect pitch:
    Last edited by RickF; 10-10-2020 at 02:35 PM.
    Rick Floyd
    Miraphone 5050 - Warburton BJ / RF mpc
    YEP-641S (recently sold)
    Doug Elliott - 102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank


    "Always play with a good tone, never louder than lovely, never softer than supported." - author unknown.
    Symphonic Band of the Palm Beaches
    El Cumbanchero (Raphael Hernandez, arr. Naohiro Iwai)
    Chorale and Shaker Dance
    (John Zdechlik)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •