Tweet
As part of the “Beta Boys” euphonium testing team, I had the opportunity to work with the Wessex Sinfonico euphonium for a week or so.
Since John Morgan has given us a set of videos demonstrating the Sinfonico and Dave will produce his Grammy-winning demos, I’ll spare you my own screeching. Instead, I’ll comment on my very positive experiences with it during the trial period. Pictures will follow as soon as I can take time off a monstrous Finale project.
*First, a word about Wessex: I called James with a couple of questions and had a nice discussion. My questions, of course, were answered completely. As a former professor of business administration, I have been consistently impressed by the concern at Wessex for customer service and quality control. All evidence points to the fact that customers can purchase from Wessex with total confidence.
*TONE QUALITY: The Sinfonico has a full, resonant tone, as you heard from John and will hear from Dave. It’s perhaps a bit lighter than my NEO, but it blended very well with the other euphoniums in the Indianapolis Brass Choir—one gold-lacquer Prestige, one Adams, and one Hirsbrunner. The compensating range was full and responsive. I’d put the Sinfonico in the tonal category of a Hirsbrunner, which is certainly a compliment.
*DESIGN: As you see in the photo, the Sinfonico is slightly longer and a bit narrower than my NEO and the location of the mouthpipe is a bit different. Per Ann’s request, I have included a picture of the Sinfonico being held while I’m seated; I’m a bit over six feet tall. I am very fond of the 11-inch bell on the Sinfonico, as I feel it projected nicely without edge when I played it on a couple of tunes with the Brass Choir in its rehearsal last Thursday. The Sinfonico blended well with horns (French, not tenor), trombones, and tubas when I played it in rehearsal. Given the interchangeable receivers in the mouthpipe and the straight-shot tubing from the third valve into the fourth (see photos), the Sinfonico reminds me of a Hirsbrunner except for the smaller bell. The straighter third-fourth- valve tube in the Sinfonico should lead to smoother response in the compensating register. Conversely, the Sinfonico’s mouthpipe is more angular than my NEO; I’m not sure what the acoustic consequences of that are—if any—but I certainly didn’t feel or hear any consequence. I found the Sinfonico to be a well-developed concept.
*CONSTRUCTION: An inspection of the Sinfonico exposed no visible solder blobs, misaligned slides, or plating issues. All slides moved smoothly and easily, but I did have a SLIGHT bit of difficulty with threading on the second and third valves, but was able to remove and replace the caps with a small bit of drag in a spot or two. I can confirm John’s experience with the fourth-valve latch not retracting all the way, and it did fall back on the valve stem once or twice. If that’s all I have to gripe about, then Wessex has a real winner here. I also noticed that there was no brace midway between the tubes of the long third-valve slide as there is on my NEO. There are, however, TWO braces connecting the third-valve slide to the body of the horn, whereas my NEO has only one. I felt no lack of resonance anywhere on the horn, let alone on the third valve. The Sinfonico’s mouthpipe is braced differently from my NEO as well. I have come to learn that bracing decisions can influence response, and the Sinfonico certainly responds admirably in all registers at any dynamic level. So the well-designed concept of the Sinfonico has certainly been well executed.
*VALVES: Very smooth with no drag and no signs of poor machining. I also noticed that there are fewer/smaller “bumps” inside the caucades than I am accustomed to seeing. That HAS to help airflow through the valves and improve response.
*TUNING: I found no egregious intonation problems with the Sinfonico; the “usual suspects” of quirky intonation were easily lippable. I found the high B to work ok—for me--with third valve and the D above it—for me--with force and 1-2. Tuning was fine from the pedal register up to double-high B flat. Compared to my NEO, the Sinfonico doesn’t appear to be terribly sensitive to mouthpieces; I used the included Wessex mouthpiece, a Wick 4AL, a Mead 3.5, and a DC4 (see picture). No one mouthpiece provided any significant advantage or detriment, and response/tuning remained constant across mouthpieces.
*ACCESSORIES: Wessex is very generous in its inclusion of TWO main tuning slides and the three sizes of interchangeable receivers. While John preferred the longer slide, I found the shorter slide to fit me better, but I have needed to shorten MTSs on almost every one of the 856 compensating euphoniums I have ever owned. THANK YOU, Wessex, for this courtesy!! While John noted some difficulty in removing the receiver, I had no such difficulty (we had different horns to test). The included 4Y mouthpiece is in the 26mm class with a slightly larger throat than the 4AL or DC4. The 4Y’s exterior bears a slight resemblance to a “Dr. Young” tuba mouthpiece but (fortunately) does not duplicate its inner structure. See attached photo of DC4, SM 3.5, Wessex 4Y, and Wick 4AL. The case is well made and padded in the “soft hard case” style and holds the horn well; the outside pouch can hold music and accessories comfortably. John’s folio must be larger than mine, which fit ok into the exterior pouch.
*CONCLUSION: The Wessex Sinfonico is an excellent instrument…it’s one of those instruments for which one is tempted to say “it’s a fine horn for the money.” NO. It’s just a fine instrument, period…well-designed and well-constructed. I second John’s opinion that the Sinfonico would serve well as one’s only euphonium. I also appreciate Wessex’s devotion to “kaizen”-style continuous improvement. Thanks to Jonathan and James for allowing me the pleasure of working with the Sinfonico!
Since John Morgan has given us a set of videos demonstrating the Sinfonico and Dave will produce his Grammy-winning demos, I’ll spare you my own screeching. Instead, I’ll comment on my very positive experiences with it during the trial period. Pictures will follow as soon as I can take time off a monstrous Finale project.
*First, a word about Wessex: I called James with a couple of questions and had a nice discussion. My questions, of course, were answered completely. As a former professor of business administration, I have been consistently impressed by the concern at Wessex for customer service and quality control. All evidence points to the fact that customers can purchase from Wessex with total confidence.
*TONE QUALITY: The Sinfonico has a full, resonant tone, as you heard from John and will hear from Dave. It’s perhaps a bit lighter than my NEO, but it blended very well with the other euphoniums in the Indianapolis Brass Choir—one gold-lacquer Prestige, one Adams, and one Hirsbrunner. The compensating range was full and responsive. I’d put the Sinfonico in the tonal category of a Hirsbrunner, which is certainly a compliment.
*DESIGN: As you see in the photo, the Sinfonico is slightly longer and a bit narrower than my NEO and the location of the mouthpipe is a bit different. Per Ann’s request, I have included a picture of the Sinfonico being held while I’m seated; I’m a bit over six feet tall. I am very fond of the 11-inch bell on the Sinfonico, as I feel it projected nicely without edge when I played it on a couple of tunes with the Brass Choir in its rehearsal last Thursday. The Sinfonico blended well with horns (French, not tenor), trombones, and tubas when I played it in rehearsal. Given the interchangeable receivers in the mouthpipe and the straight-shot tubing from the third valve into the fourth (see photos), the Sinfonico reminds me of a Hirsbrunner except for the smaller bell. The straighter third-fourth- valve tube in the Sinfonico should lead to smoother response in the compensating register. Conversely, the Sinfonico’s mouthpipe is more angular than my NEO; I’m not sure what the acoustic consequences of that are—if any—but I certainly didn’t feel or hear any consequence. I found the Sinfonico to be a well-developed concept.
*CONSTRUCTION: An inspection of the Sinfonico exposed no visible solder blobs, misaligned slides, or plating issues. All slides moved smoothly and easily, but I did have a SLIGHT bit of difficulty with threading on the second and third valves, but was able to remove and replace the caps with a small bit of drag in a spot or two. I can confirm John’s experience with the fourth-valve latch not retracting all the way, and it did fall back on the valve stem once or twice. If that’s all I have to gripe about, then Wessex has a real winner here. I also noticed that there was no brace midway between the tubes of the long third-valve slide as there is on my NEO. There are, however, TWO braces connecting the third-valve slide to the body of the horn, whereas my NEO has only one. I felt no lack of resonance anywhere on the horn, let alone on the third valve. The Sinfonico’s mouthpipe is braced differently from my NEO as well. I have come to learn that bracing decisions can influence response, and the Sinfonico certainly responds admirably in all registers at any dynamic level. So the well-designed concept of the Sinfonico has certainly been well executed.
*VALVES: Very smooth with no drag and no signs of poor machining. I also noticed that there are fewer/smaller “bumps” inside the caucades than I am accustomed to seeing. That HAS to help airflow through the valves and improve response.
*TUNING: I found no egregious intonation problems with the Sinfonico; the “usual suspects” of quirky intonation were easily lippable. I found the high B to work ok—for me--with third valve and the D above it—for me--with force and 1-2. Tuning was fine from the pedal register up to double-high B flat. Compared to my NEO, the Sinfonico doesn’t appear to be terribly sensitive to mouthpieces; I used the included Wessex mouthpiece, a Wick 4AL, a Mead 3.5, and a DC4 (see picture). No one mouthpiece provided any significant advantage or detriment, and response/tuning remained constant across mouthpieces.
*ACCESSORIES: Wessex is very generous in its inclusion of TWO main tuning slides and the three sizes of interchangeable receivers. While John preferred the longer slide, I found the shorter slide to fit me better, but I have needed to shorten MTSs on almost every one of the 856 compensating euphoniums I have ever owned. THANK YOU, Wessex, for this courtesy!! While John noted some difficulty in removing the receiver, I had no such difficulty (we had different horns to test). The included 4Y mouthpiece is in the 26mm class with a slightly larger throat than the 4AL or DC4. The 4Y’s exterior bears a slight resemblance to a “Dr. Young” tuba mouthpiece but (fortunately) does not duplicate its inner structure. See attached photo of DC4, SM 3.5, Wessex 4Y, and Wick 4AL. The case is well made and padded in the “soft hard case” style and holds the horn well; the outside pouch can hold music and accessories comfortably. John’s folio must be larger than mine, which fit ok into the exterior pouch.
*CONCLUSION: The Wessex Sinfonico is an excellent instrument…it’s one of those instruments for which one is tempted to say “it’s a fine horn for the money.” NO. It’s just a fine instrument, period…well-designed and well-constructed. I second John’s opinion that the Sinfonico would serve well as one’s only euphonium. I also appreciate Wessex’s devotion to “kaizen”-style continuous improvement. Thanks to Jonathan and James for allowing me the pleasure of working with the Sinfonico!
Comment