Redesigning The Euphonium

[davewerden]

We need to keep in mind the situation in almost all instruments today. How much innovation has there been in trumpets? A modern trumpet looks like the ones from 100+ years ago. Given the larger number of trumpets being made, why haven't they shown more change? To some extent it's because there is no perceived need for change...rightly or wrongly believed. In trumpets, Adams has probably made the most creative changes, but I'm referring to the shape, not the playing qualities, and it's only a special model that most people are not getting.

As much as the current design, which I play, is "standardized," I think there are some ergonomic problems. The side valves cause more strain on the muscles and tendons than front valves, for one thing. And DO we accept the idea that the upright side-firing bell is creates the "correct" euphonium sound? It can be very hard to project from your chair to the audience on some stages. If the band is in a horseshoe setting with euphs on the audience's right, the bells point more backward than forward. Given a common stage design with light bridges above the stages and short curtains between them, sound going up into them is pretty well absorbed. And as soloist in front of the band, we can be at the mercy of reflective surfaces that can bounce any fuzz in the sound right to the audience. Most trumpets point straight out, but a Dizzy Gillespie design points the bell up about 30 degrees. Sergei Nakariakov points his horn about 45 degrees down. That mellows the sound. The American bell front design has about that kind of offset. Something to think about, assuming we are willing to upset the tidy arrangement of current euphonium sections!

NOTE: I have not requested that Adams make such a euphonium, and have no current plans to do so.

Here are some photos of Adams horns made for Christian Scott and Gino Goss:



Here are photos showing bell angles for Sergei and Dizzy:

[Magikarp]

I’m not sure that round stamp and prior model sound is ideal in today’s world of concert and especially brass banding.

Why ever not? A good sound is a good sound. If you mean they don’t produce the bland overschooled, homogeneous university sound you’re right. I know of at least two top echelon players who would play round stamps if their bands allowed it. If a round stamp is good enough for Lyndon Baglin and Stephen Lord it’s certainly good enough for anyone. The intonation issues are exaggerated, in my opinion, having owned two and played many.

If I had to get rid of my Adams, I’d replace it with a round stamp, and certainly not Sterling or Geneva or Besson.

[TheJH]

I’m not sure that round stamp and prior model sound is ideal in today’s world of concert and especially brass banding.

Seeing that the Round Stamp is still the euphonium that a lot of modern horns are modeled after (the Geneva euphs, for example), I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. The biggest general change that happened after the Round Stamp is that bore sizes got a bit larger (from 14.7mm to 15mm flat, and a conical redesign of the 4th-valve loop compared to the cylindrical 4th-valve loop that the Round Stamp had, also increasing bore size through there). Some people still use the Round Stamp (or large shank New Standards) in army bands.

[CousinJack]

I’m not sure that round stamp and prior model sound is ideal in today’s world of concert and especially brass banding.

I think it's certainly not in concert bands and soloist work, and euphonium development, especially from Besson, has favoured soloists. I think it is an argument to be had in brass banding - modern euphoniums of that ilk do sound great on their own and in solo/soli settings, but from my listening and playing experience they're harder to blend with the characteristic saxhorn sound of the brass band and sometimes struggle to float over the sound of the band when playing countermelodies. This is my experience though. I mention this because being easy to blend and to float across the band texture is something Yamaha and Geneva are trying to ensure their instruments do. Of course lots of this is down to individual players but I do think some modern instruments make perhaps too wallowy a sound

[CousinJack]

To clarify, the top-sprung system on Doug's horn does not shorten the piston travel. I suggested it for Adams to try out because it eliminates the issue of springs getting sideways in the bottom and causing noise (and also eliminates the need for plastic coated springs).

The prototype ALSO had short-action valves, which could be done with the standard spring design as well. To accomplish this, the tubes have to go to an oval shape as they enter the piston. In the piston, the oval is horizontally positioned, which reduces the vertical space needed to fit all the holes in. That shortens the piston travel.

I agree that if Adams can make them work without losing the horn's playing qualities, it would be a real boon!

Ah I see - this makes sense. No idea why I thought the length of travel came from which side the springs are placed on rather than the combined vertical height of the many tubes that go in and out of the valve block!

[comebackplayer]

Violinists often say the same--their instrument has changed very little in the last five hundred years. They've added a longer neck and chinrests and shoulder pads, but it's a very similar instrument.

I do wonder with technology change where there might be even more customization possible in the future. A lot of the things that are annoying on euphonium are things specific to the player--a leadpipe that sticks out too much or is too high or low. Maybe in the future you'll be able to order an instrument with a wider valve spread or a more elongated body, etc.

There are some innovations that cross instruments--for instance leadpipes that let you adjust gap or heavyweight valves. It is interesting to me that some innovations don't cross over. Some trumpets now are quite heavy (2x the norm), but as far as I know no one has made a 25lb euphonium with heavy bracing.

[comebackplayer]

On the weight/size question, I also think it's possible that with stainless valves and carbon fiber bells there could be really nice lightweight student instruments some day. Plastic is pretty terrible, the cheap euphoniums are quite bad, and it's a lot for a parent to spend $1500+ on a 3 valve euphonium. I wonder how changes in materials and manufacturing will affect the field in ten or twenty years.

[MichaelSchott]

Why ever not? A good sound is a good sound. If you mean they don’t produce the bland overschooled, homogeneous university sound you’re right. I know of at least two top echelon players who would play round stamps if their bands allowed it. If a round stamp is good enough for Lyndon Baglin and Stephen Lord it’s certainly good enough for anyone. The intonation issues are exaggerated, in my opinion, having owned two and played many.

If I had to get rid of my Adams, I’d replace it with a round stamp, and certainly not Sterling or Geneva or Besson.

Not saying it’s not a good sound. It’s a great sound but it’s too small of a sound for today’s bands, especially brass bands. I know many here play in these ensembles and they often require huge volume. I’m not sure I’m a fan of the direction championship brass banding has taken but the test pieces require massive sound at times. Mouthpiece size has gone up in parallel.

[TheJH]

Has it really though? Steven Mead played on a 3AL and SM3 in the 80s and 90s which are still the 'large standard' option next to the 4 size which is the 'normal' standard.

I think that the main issue is that yes, everything else is getting way louder, and the euphonium is struggling to keep up because there's a point where it's gonna be too big to keep playing properly, or to keep the sound characteristic enough. As I said earlier, if a euphonium becomes too big, it's... just a small tuba instead of a euphonium. And this was already a criticism when the Sovereign with its larger bore was *introduced* in the mid-70s.
I have no idea how to make the euphonium even louder without plugging in an air compressor to do the breathing *for* us.
And quite frankly, I don't *want* it to get louder. You want louder, you put in an extra trombone or smth. Euphs are not meant to blast FFFFFs out of their bells imo.

[comebackplayer]

Michael and the JH, I've only just moved to compensating euphonium last summer but am struck how much bigger (broader? diffuse?) the sound is. I can see how people would have mixed feelings about it. But on OP's question, I am curious if anyone has ever upsized a euphonium. Is a 6/4 front-facing euphonium possible? What would it sound like? How many more decibels could you get out of a euphonium if you wanted to?

[davewerden]

Mark me as on the side of being wary of too large a sound. I heard a recital a few years ago at an ITEC by a euphonium player who, I think, was using a huge mouthpiece. He was playing a Willson 2900, so that's why I think it is mouthpiece related, because I know basically what the horn sounds like for most players. I have a good ear for tone colors, but I would have sworn this was a tuba recital if I had my eyes closed. There were maybe 3 or 4 short phrases that would have clued me in, but otherwise it was quite a nice tuba sound for a recital hall. That is not what we should strive for.

Besides, we currently have a choice, in the Miraphone 5050, that has an enormous tone. It's probably on the outside edge of good euphonium sounds. For ME, that tone is wonderful on the Holst 2nd Suite, etc. but not what I want for my overall performance style. We also have a couple choices that are smaller and brighter, and many choices that fall in the middle. If we are designing a new horn, where should the target sound lie?

A consideration that should stay on our radar is our limited supply of air, greater is some and lesser in some, but limited nevertheless. Let's start with the horns I used through public school, the American style small euphonium. Bore was about .560". The next step was the classic Besson, bore about .580". My Adams, and most other new compensating horns, come in around .592". And the 5050 is .610". You could calculate the percentage increase in bore diameter, but the real effect is the increase in bore area. Here is the progression of area:

Conn/King/Olds/etc: baseline
Besson early @.580, increase was 7%
Most modern comp horns @.592, increase was 4% over early Besson
Miraphone 5050 @.610, increase of other new comp horns was 6%
The 5050's increase from the American horns was ~19%

I'd bet a dollar that human lung capacity has not kept up with those increases. BUT...if we want to get a larger sound, there are apparently other ways.

The Besson 967 had a larger sound than the New Standard, but bore was identical. Leadpipe and bell were changed to accomplish this.

My Adams E3 has a bigger sound than my Adams E1 did; both have the same bore.

So if we consider the human element, we should try to avoid larger bore sizes as we redesign. Our ability to play longer phrases would be enhanced by keeping bore sizes reasonable, and as I human being, I want that to be considered!

[MichaelSchott]

Thanks Dave. I moved from a 2900 to an E3 with SS bell because I couldn’t put enough air through the Willson (among other reasons). Maybe that’s me but I don’t have that issue with the Adams and I did not change mouthpieces.

[comebackplayer]

My new euphonium has a 12.2 bell and a 0.590"~0.660" bore, and it does feel more tuba-y. On violin it's clear that you could double the volume of the instrument and keep the same string length, but the timbre would change a lot. I don't know where the drawing line is on euphonium. I think TheJH's line about everything else getting louder is probably true (the growth of C and piccolo trumpets in US orchestras, larger tubas, bigger bored trombones, etc.), but how do players respond?

[ivanhouston]

If the Euphonium got too much larger, it would probably sound a bit like the Wessex Compensating British F Tuba, which is described as being like a bass Euphonium.

[massmanute]

Frankly, I think some of the goals I mentioned above might be solved by the old American design with front valves and a curved, adjustable bell! It is ergonomically superior in some ways and the player can control the directionality. If such a design were the group's recommendation, adoption among existing serious groups could be slow because of the mismatch with current instruments, and brass bands might find them wholly unacceptable (unless the overall shape of tenors, baritones, and basses were to change at the same time).

I also think the front valve design is ergonomically superior.

One thing that might be good is if there were some kind of system (a second trigger?) that raise the pitch. There are several notes on my horn that are hopelessly flat, at least when I play the instrument.