I liked the Q40 better. There was a little more bloom and complexity in the sound, especially when the melody shifts up an octave towards the end of each sample.
Nice playing too!
I liked the Q40 better. There was a little more bloom and complexity in the sound, especially when the melody shifts up an octave towards the end of each sample.
Nice playing too!
Thank you so much Steve for recording the excellent comparative sample. I concur with JTJ and with Richard.... Richard and I seem always to be on the same page
I too seem to prefer Q4 for its harmonic complexity, bloom, and expansive and bold tone..... Both Q40 and Q41 sound wonderful, but I find Q40 to sound even more emotionally immersive.
The difference between the two euphos became even more evident after I reprocessed the original MP3 file to WAV, and then upsampled it to 192Khz... Most revealing media player for listening to this clip on my W10 machine turned out to be the standard Windows Media Player.
I'd be happy to post the link to the reprocessed sample on my DropBox if Steve gives me permission to do so.
Regards, Guido
M5050L - DC2&3, SM2&4U, BT16, Carbonaria Heavy & New
Wessex EP104 Festivo - available
Carolbrass CCR7772 Bb cornet - Available
Steven Vaughn, D.M.A.
Professor of Tuba & Euphonium, University of Northern Colorado
Principal Tuba - Fort Collins Symphony
Euphonium - Fountain City Brass Band
Eastman 836 CC Tuba
Meinl Weston 2182W F Tuba
Besson 2052 Euphonium
Steven Vaughn, D.M.A.
Professor of Tuba & Euphonium, University of Northern Colorado
Principal Tuba - Fort Collins Symphony
Euphonium - Fountain City Brass Band
Eastman 836 CC Tuba
Meinl Weston 2182W F Tuba
Besson 2052 Euphonium
Thank you so much Steve.... I posted the DropBox link to the reprocessed Q41 to Q40 comparison clip below...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wop1a42bnx...92KHz.wav?dl=0
Best regards, Guido
M5050L - DC2&3, SM2&4U, BT16, Carbonaria Heavy & New
Wessex EP104 Festivo - available
Carolbrass CCR7772 Bb cornet - Available
Mike's post highlights that euphonical beauty rests in the "ears of the beholder"..... Particularly when comparing two top flighters like Q40 and Q41.... Thus a question to Steven Vaughn...
In your opinion and for your professional purpose,
* In which areas do the Q40 and Q41 differ from each other?
* What are the individual most salient/greatest strengths of each model?
Best regards, Guido
M5050L - DC2&3, SM2&4U, BT16, Carbonaria Heavy & New
Wessex EP104 Festivo - available
Carolbrass CCR7772 Bb cornet - Available
Steve, thanks so much for the comparison. There is a roundness to the Q40 that lends a richness to the sound. It’s more vocal sounding, if that’s a proper term than the Q41.
I too am of the opinion that the Q41 just sounds better. I had the chance recently to compare a (brand new large shank) Q41 and (older) Q40 also and there was no comparison, the Q41 was leaps and bounds a much better horn. The intonation on the Q40 was completely out the window, the particular model I had was really sharp, not flat like in Dr. Vaughn's case. It was also stuffy and unresponsive. The Q41, on the other hand, was bright, agile, compact, beautiful. It floated and responded and resonated. It held up well next to my Adams, but I left that play session actually more impressed with the Adams that I have than either of the two Shires. I was able to color the sound on demand with the Adams and the difference in sound between the Shires and Adams in a larger room was no comparison - the Adams opens up and fills the room, the Shires sounds like other horns. Could be the bell material, could be the room. The intonation was better on the Q41 than my Adams though, but I've been struggling with intonation since the main tuning slide repair. I have a gold lacquer Prestige on order - I look forward to seeing how this horn compares.
Adams E3 0.6 with SS Bell
K&G 3.5D
---------------------------------
Founder and Solo Euphonium
San Francisco Brass Band