Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Besson Euphoniums - Euro vs. Large & Bell Up vs. Bell Front

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia
    Posts
    277

    Besson Euphoniums - Euro vs. Large & Bell Up vs. Bell Front

    I am interested in gaining a better understanding of the pros and cons of the pre- and post-1974 Besson New Standard euphoniums (pre-Sovereign era) - specifically how each affects the quality of sound produced.

    For the sake of this discussion, presume the player is using either a Denis Wick 4AM or 4AL mouthpiece as applicable.

    The first is that of the euro shank (pre-1974) vs. the large shank (1974 and later).

    The second is that of bell up vs bell front configurations.

    Thank you in advance for sharing your experiences and opinions.
    David
    David Shinn
    Peninsula Concert Band
    Yorktown, Virginia



    1971 Besson 181 ‘New Standard’ Euphonium (3+1 compensating) ~ Alliance DC3M
    1971 Besson 176 ‘New Standard’ Euphonium (3 compensating) ~ Alliance DC3M
    1979 Besson 755 'New Standard' Baritone (3 compensating) ~ Alliance DC5S
    1894 Besson ‘Doublophone’ Euphonium (3 + 1 changeover) & Original Leather Case


    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/davidshinn....ibextid=LQQJ4d
    Peninsula Concert Band: https://www.peninsulaconcertband.org/

  2. #2
    I had a medium shank New Standard. LOVED the sound. It was the horn I played in college and I got one later in life. Wish I'd kept it, but euphoniums have come and gone in my stable and I don't have the space to keep them all. I used a 4AM on that horn, use a 4AL on my Sterling. I like the Sterling's sound a bit better (richer), but the New Standard was superb as well.
    Sterling Virtuoso Euphonium, Denis Wick 4AL

  3. David,

    My experience with the New Standard includes a 3 valve medium shank bell-front (horn dates to mid-1960s), and two medium shank 4 valve bell up horns (one 1968, the other 1970 or '71). I played these horns off and on from 1968 - 1974, interspersed with Conn Connstellations. The sound of the 4 valve New Standard was like poured honey in comparison with the Connstellation. I loved the bell up positioning (more later) since the sound filled the ensemble and I could hear how I sounded rather than having to guess as I did using the directional Conn bell position. The medium shank horns generally had VERY good pitch except the 6th partial concert Eb, E, and F. Using the Bach mouthpiece, I was able to lip the 6th partial down, but I must admit my "ear" was not well trained at that age. Response was terrific and to this day, I like the lighter, smoooth sound of a well played New Standard.

    Regarding medium shank vs. large shank:

    In 1968-74, the Wick mouthpieces were not available (at least to me) so my comparisons on mouthpiece were between the Besson 10 that came with the horn (an AWFUL mouthpiece) and a Bach 6 1/2AL using the tenor shank adapter that came with the horn. I used the 6 1/2 AL and loved playing these horns. In 1980, I purchased my first Sovereign 967, a round stamp that I kept for 27 years. The pitch on the Sovereign was no where near as good. Sixth partial was horribly sharp and there were other pitch anomolies in the middle range as compared with the New Standard. The Sovereign was also more work to play (note comparisons still using 6 1/2 AL). It did not have the easy response that I experienced on the two New Standards. The Sovereign did have a larger sound, but somehow didn't have that "quicksilver smoothness" that I loved with the New Standard. Now, I do NOT attribute these differences to the receiver shank size, but instead to the radical change in lead pipe and bell size. I would expect that the differences due to just the receiver size between medium and large were fairly minimal. I have used a Wick 4AY with large shank adapter and a Wick 4AL in my Bessons and Sterling just to compare and indeed the difference, while audible, is not very significant. That being said, if I were to purchase and restore a New Standard, it would have to be a medium shank. I would use a Wick 4AM.

    Regarding Bell up vs Bell Front:

    The bell front New Standard was largely an export model targeted at the American marketplace. These horns were thought more suitable for use in marching bands and the traditional outdoor wind band concerts where directional projection was thought to be important. In both cases, I think the bell front Bessons were ill-suited for purpose.

    In marching use, the three valve is the only horn to really be considered as the bell front 4-valve is just too heavy. The Besson, due to its upright valve layout, is VERY awkward to march with. When not playing and holding the horn at parade rest in the right arm with the lead pipe up, the bell points to the left and the lyre holder is across the body. You have to flip the horn 90 degrees as you bring it to the playing position to bring the horn across the body rather than just naturally raising the horn to your face as you would with a valve front horn. This move in a fast paced (150 bpm+) 8 to 5 marching band could throw the music off of the lyre easily. Further, the 3 valve horn had just a simple hook attached to the 1st valve to serve as a thumb rest. When playing one-handed (turning folio pages or holding your music) the entire weight of the horn was on your thumb. Unlike a valve front, bell front horn, the horn cannot be held against your body with the right arm while using the right hand to play.

    In concert use, I also do not like the 4-valve bell front. While it is a beautiful horn and can project a lovely sound, it is hard for the performer to hear and feel the sound the way one does with the bell up horns. Further, the lead pipe on the bell front horns is lower on the body of the horn due to being attached below the detachable bell ring. This means you have to hold the horn higher and cannot easily rest it on your lap. When standing for solo work, this is not as much of an issue. The 4 valve bell front is easier to deal with than the 3 valve since it has a full hand rest rather than just the 1st valve hook, thus allowing more flexibility in hand and finger position on the right hand and a more secure grip on the horn.

    So my conclusion is that in both the marching horn case and the concert horn case, the Besson bell-front horns were ergonomically inferior to the alternatives. This difference was most pronounced in marching. The overall sound quality of the bell front horns was good, but it was harder for the performer to experience that due to the projection away from the body.
    Adams E3 0.60 Sterling bell - Prototype top sprung valves
    Concord Band
    Winchendon Winds
    Townsend Military Band

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia
    Posts
    277
    Greatly appreciative of your responses!!

    Also very thankful to David Werden for creating a venue to promote, educate, and encourage euphonium players!
    David
    David Shinn
    Peninsula Concert Band
    Yorktown, Virginia



    1971 Besson 181 ‘New Standard’ Euphonium (3+1 compensating) ~ Alliance DC3M
    1971 Besson 176 ‘New Standard’ Euphonium (3 compensating) ~ Alliance DC3M
    1979 Besson 755 'New Standard' Baritone (3 compensating) ~ Alliance DC5S
    1894 Besson ‘Doublophone’ Euphonium (3 + 1 changeover) & Original Leather Case


    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/davidshinn....ibextid=LQQJ4d
    Peninsula Concert Band: https://www.peninsulaconcertband.org/

  5. #5
    I’ve owned a 1968 Besson New Standard, and two B&H round stamps, including the one made for Lyndon Baglin.

    It’s not surprising given the regard that both these euphoniums are held in that in my list of favourites they occupy first and second place (the new instruments are well down the list).

    The round stamp edges it for me because of the larger bore and the flexibility in sound and I prefer the ergonomics. I currently play a round stamp / New Standard hybrid which is about as perfect a euphonium as I could wish for.

    The New Standard I sold to a friend and it’s still in use, and in great condition. Lovely instruments and I’m very glad I had the opportunity of owning a good one.

    Both instruments have their foibles but I must stick my neck out and say that the fabled issues with a round stamp aren’t anywhere near as severe as they’re made out to be. Top G needs some attention but F# is good, top F can be sorted by pulling the slide 5mm and that’s about it, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t have a problem with middle A (some people report it’s really sharp but on my Euph it isn’t) and top B is a little dull but a bit of vib corrects that. Certainly it has fewer intonation issues than any of the new Besson Prestige hooters I’ve owned, apart from in the altissimo register but euphoniums shouldn’t really play up there anyway.

    I don’t think you can wrong with either round stamp or New Standard as long as you’re thorough - there certainly were “Friday afternoon” instruments especially with the last B&H asovereigns: and they’re certainly better built than most new instruments. For brass bands, and their peculiar love of extreme dynamics a larger bore Euph is better, hence my current choice. If I had the chance of picking up a really decent New Standard I would hand the cash over straight away.

Posting Permissions

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