Contrasting Shires Q40 vs Q41

[stevevaughn]

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).

[guidocorona]

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

[davewerden]

...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!

[guidocorona]

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

[stevevaughn]

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.

[guidocorona]

You are right Steve, a modular receiver design which can accept both large and medium MP shanks has likely broader applicability than an Adjustable Gap Receiver that accepts only large shanks.

Regards, Guido

[davewerden]

I thought about this for Adams. Making a custom receiver for medium shank is no problem - it would just need a different barrel on the AGR, BUT...I think that would be less than perfect.

FOR EXAMPLE:
I assume on a horn like a Willson 2900, the end of the leadpipe is made to match the diameter of a medium-shank mouthpiece (which of course is smaller in diameter than a large-shank mouthpiece. Retro-fitting a large receiver would allow it to use a bass trombone shank, but wouldn't there still be a mis-match between the ending diameter of the mouthpiece and the diameter of the beginning of the leadpipe?

SOOOOOO, in the Shires example, wouldn't the modular receiver have the same mis-match?

It would be a minor thing, and is probably better than an adaptor, but it seems to me that if a horn's leadpipe is designed for one size of shank, the only perfect match would from the comparable-sized mouthpiece. Am I missing something?

[dsurkin]

[snip] it seems to me that if a horn's leadpipe is designed for one size of shank, the only perfect match would from the comparable-sized mouthpiece. Am I missing something?

It makes sense to me that the taper from shank all the way to the valve set should be optimized for a particular shank. I suspect this is part of the thinking behind the Monette trumpet models that use an integrated (i.e., non-removable cup and shank with screw-on rim) mouthpiece.

[spkissane]

I gave Mike Colburn a set of Shires euphoniums for him and his students to demo, and here are his thoughts, shared with permission:

I have had a few chances to play the Shires euphs, and find them to be very fine instruments! I founnd myself a bit more comfortable on the Q40, probably because it seems to more closely resembles my Willson 2900. I thought both horns performed at their best with the provided Shires mouthpiece, which I would recommend using, at least initially. I found both horns to be super responsive, and thought they had a warm and consistent tone quality through the basic range of the instrument. Intonation was very consistent, and the notes centered very easily. I wasn’t able to achieve the same level of comfort in the extreme registers (above high B-flat and in the pedal register), but that would probably come in time. The finish and construction appear to be top notch, and both horns feel sturdy and solid. In closing, I think these are horns that are very competitive with other professional models euphoniums I’ve tried, and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend them to a student looking for a top quality professional level instrument at a price point well below some of the more expensive models on the market.

[guidocorona]

Thank you Sean for posting Col. Colburn's excellent report... Valuable findings from a professional with impecable credentials!

For context, here is an in depth interview with Michael Colburn:
The Michael Colburn Interview - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JOQ9OfPdsA

Are you expecting further Q Series reports from college profs or other euphonium professionals?

Regards, Guido

[spkissane]

Thank you Sean for posting Col. Colburn's excellent report... Valuable findings from a professional with impecable credentials!

For context, here is an in depth interview with Michael Colburn:
The Michael Colburn Interview - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JOQ9OfPdsA

Are you expecting further Q Series reports from college profs or other euphonium professionals?

Regards, Guido

I'm sending the set of horns to the Ball State tuba/euph studio next. Matt Lyon is primarily a tuba player, but he's definitely a fantastic one. I'm also going to be hosting an Eastman/Shires tuba-euphonium day in March at my shop with a couple special guest performing artists - will hopefully be able to live-stream it!

[guidocorona]

Thank you Sean.... That's fabulous!

Please keep us posted.

G.