Contrasting Shires Q40 vs Q41

[guidocorona]

Hi Andrew, I agree with you that marginal threading is not a deal breaker on a euphonium where everything else checks fine.... Just a bit annoying.... And I am sure that Shires will get their factory in mainland China to address the issue.

Hey Sean, delighted to hear that things might be moving on the Custom Series front, and that production perhaps might have started by February 2022.

Regards, Guido

[stevevaughn]

Hey all!

Just came across this thread and thought I would weigh in with my observations, having spent a lot of time with both the Q41 and the Q40. I had originally purchased a Q40, but found that it played quite flat across the board, even with the tuning slide all the way in. So I switched to a Q41 for the time being and Shires has been making some adjustments to the Q40 to address the issue.

I just got a new Q40 sent to me a few weeks ago and can happily say that the horn plays really well now! I've got a brass band concert tomorrow (10/3) that I'll be playing it on. I played the Q41 and the Q40 side by side in a rehearsal and the Q40 is really a great fit for me and what I do (brass band/solo work and doubling on tuba a lot). If anyone has any questions about Q40 vs Q41 feel free to ask! I was a die-hard Besson Prestige player until I picked up a Shires horn, and I feel that the Q40 gets a great Besson-like sound with a bit more core and evenness, and the upper register is drastically easier to play and more projecting than the Prestige was. People talk about the Besson valves being great, and I think the Shires valves are even better!

[davewerden]

I just got a new Q40 sent to me a few weeks ago and can happily say that the horn plays really well now!...

I love your comments! Please keep us posted as you get more insight.

Can you answer this? Ignoring the flatness of the earlier sample (if that is possible), do you feel Shires has improved the instrument in general from then until now? (This often happens with new products, but production line considerations necessitate careful considerations before changes are made.)
Thanks!

[stevevaughn]

I love your comments!
Can you answer this? Ignoring the flatness of the earlier sample (if that is possible), do you feel Shires has improved the instrument in general from then until now? (This often happens with new products, but production line considerations necessitate careful considerations before changes are made.)
Thanks!

Hey Dave!

Yes, I would say that Shires has been VERY active in terms of taking feedback and continuously improving the Q series euphonium line. That has been my experience so far! To my knowledge I am the only artist playing the Q40, so my feedback on that particular model may carry more weight. The difference in how this Q40 plays vs. the earlier model is really astounding, even if not accounting for the flatness like you said! I know early on the Q41 got a lot testing with the military band players, and I don't think the Q40 went through as much testing until recently.

Moving forward though I plan on exclusively playing the Q40 (until the custom line comes out probably, which I don't know when that will happen) so hopefully there will be more content out there showcasing the Q40 in the future!

In the meantime I will keep an eye on this thread and answer any other questions people have about the Q40 in particular!

[stevevaughn]

I still have a Q41 and now the Q40 at my house...So, since I saw someone requesting the Cosma earlier, here is a quick sample of the beginning of the 3rd movement; first on the Q41, and then on the Q40. Please excuse my wrong note at the end of the Q41 example , I did it in 1 take and from memory! Hope you find this helpful! Both samples were played with an SM4U.

[JTJ]

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!

[Richard III]

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!

Totally agree with this. You just convinced me the Q40 is a better choice for a full and expansive sound. Thank you for doing this.

[guidocorona]

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

[stevevaughn]

I'd be happy to post the link to the reprocessed sample on my DropBox if Steve gives me permission to do so.

Yes that would be fine with me! Thanks!

[stevevaughn]

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!

Glad you could hear that even with the frack on the high A!

Thank you for the kind words!

[guidocorona]

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

[mbrooke]

I prefer the Q41. It sounds sweeter, cleaner, and more agile

Mike.

I still have a Q41 and now the Q40 at my house...So, since I saw someone requesting the Cosma earlier, here is a quick sample of the beginning of the 3rd movement; first on the Q41, and then on the Q40. Please excuse my wrong note at the end of the Q41 example , I did it in 1 take and from memory! Hope you find this helpful! Both samples were played with an SM4U.

[guidocorona]

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

[MichaelSchott]

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.

[JakeGuilbo]

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.