Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57

Thread: Contrasting Shires Q40 vs Q41

  1. Regarding the two samples, I felt the second was more open and had a fuller sound palette. The first one sounded constrained or perhaps dampened.
    Richard

    1935 Conn 64I Baritone
    King 1130 Flugabone
    King 2280 Euphonium

  2. #42
    I said the timbre, to me, is more like Willson than Besson - 2950 or 2960, not 2900. More core, less rounded corners as previously described.
    Adams E3 0.6 with SS Bell
    K&G 3.5D
    ---------------------------------
    Founder and Solo Euphonium
    San Francisco Brass Band

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeGuilbo View Post
    I said the timbre, to me, is more like Willson than Besson - 2950 or 2960, not 2900. More core, less rounded corners as previously described.
    Thanks.

  4. #44
    I have some Q40 and Q41 samples out to a couple university professors and, with their permission, once they have had a bit of time on the horns I will hopefully be able to share their thoughts. I will say from my personal experience with these horns (primarily the Q41), I have never played a euphonium with a more solid 1+2 high B-natural. It just pops right out with minimal effort.
    Sean

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Summerville (SC)
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by stevevaughn View Post
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/vx0cte35p8...n%202.wav?dl=0

    Hey everyone, I would love to hear some thoughts on these 2 samples. I took the same excerpt from the Cosma, both are played on the Q40, but there's a modification I made between the 2 options. Let me know what you think of the 2 options, and which you prefer! I've uploaded the .WAV file to dropbox so you can listen to the uncompressed version.

    Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts! I will tell everyone what the modification was once we get some responses to avoid any pre-judgement.
    Hello Steve, as I mentioned several days ago, I do prefer sample 2 in your comparison on Q40... I found option 2 to be bolder and more emotionally impactful....

    What have you changed between the two? Mouthpiece... Recording technique... Other?

    For everyone's reference, I am reposting below the link to an up-sampled version of Steve's clip, which might yield slightly enhanced audible detail with some speakers or headsets:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvdewltwz2...0192K.wav?dl=0

    Do let us know!

    Regards, Guido
    Wessex EP104 Festivo + DC4, SM4U

  6. #46
    So what I found out from doing some of my own measurements and was confirmed by Shires is that the Shires large shank receiver was designed to fit Schilke/Shires/Bowman mouthpieces (as you might expect since they are an American company). I found that any Wick/Alliance/K&G type mouthpiece goes in too far and has been the root of a lot of the issues I've personally been having. The horn itself is really phenomenal, and when I plug in my old BB1 or Schilke 51D that I never play anymore into it, the horn plays extremely, extremely well!

    Option 1 is the excerpt played with the gap corrected using plumber's tape for my SM4U. To my ears (and feel) option 1 slots better and is more in tune, but I think the tape (and I had to use A LOT of it to correct the gap) negatively affects the resonance/sound.

    Option 2 is no tape (so a negative gap with the SM4U), and to my ears (and feel) the slotting is inconsistent as is the intonation and response. But the sound is certainly more resonant and full as most people have noticed.

    I've been in contact with Shires and their team (who have been really amazing with taking my personal feedback and helping to get the horn working for me). In the video that Fujiifilm posted back on page 1(https://fb.watch/63wWo8gha3/) James talked about the custom line having a modular receiver at about 53 minutes in. James told me any Q series instrument can be easily retrofitted with this receiver, so I'm going to have that done on my Q40 so that any Wick mouthpiece I use will work with the horn. Once those parts come in and I get the work done I think this instrument will be really great. I am also getting the trigger added on the horn as well (just my personal preference, but the horn can be played well without one).
    Steven Vaughn, D.M.A.
    Professor of Euphonium, University of Northern Colorado
    S.E. Shires Euphonium Artist

    Principal Tuba - Fort Collins Symphony
    Solo Euphonium - Colorado Brass

    Eastman 836
    MW 2182W
    Shires Q40

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Summerville (SC)
    Posts
    284
    Thank you Steve.... Truly fascinating.... Please do keep us posted about the performance of Q40 with your SM4U after the modular receiver has been installed.

    Is the large receiver of Q41 also optimized for American mouthpieces?

    In your Q41 vs Q40 comparison, were you playing both euphoniums using the taped SM4U mouthpiece?

    Lastly, havve you considered adopting a mouthpiece for Q40 more compatible with its current receiver.... E.g. BB1, Giddings Carbonaria, or other US designed MP?

    Regards, Guido
    Wessex EP104 Festivo + DC4, SM4U

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by stevevaughn View Post
    ...the Shires large shank receiver was designed to fit Schilke/Shires/Bowman mouthpieces...
    Perhaps that is one of the reasons Adams has the adjustable-gap receiver - saves money on plumber's tape!
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC4)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Summerville (SC)
    Posts
    284
    I found a patent submitted by Steve Dillon in 1998, since expired, on an adjustable gap receiver for brass instruments:

    US6087572A - Adjustable receiver for brass musical instruments

    Adams might be using this design, or perhaps a design derived from it.

    I wonder what mutual advantages and disadvantages might exist between an continuously adjustable receiver like Adams's and the modular design that Shires is working on for its euphoniums, which is likely to feature discrete adjustments instead of continuous ones.

    Regards, Guido
    mus
    Wessex EP104 Festivo + DC4, SM4U

  10. #50
    Lastly, havve you considered adopting a mouthpiece for Q40 more compatible with its current receiver.... E.g. BB1, Giddings Carbonaria, or other US designed MP?
    I prefer the sound I get on my Wick mouthpieces, so I’m not interested in changing mouthpieces.

    An interesting benefit of Shires’ approach with the fully modular receiver over an AGR is that you can get different bits to make the horn medium shank or large shank.

    In my previous audio comparing the Q40 and Q41 both examples were with no tape.
    Steven Vaughn, D.M.A.
    Professor of Euphonium, University of Northern Colorado
    S.E. Shires Euphonium Artist

    Principal Tuba - Fort Collins Symphony
    Solo Euphonium - Colorado Brass

    Eastman 836
    MW 2182W
    Shires Q40

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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