Euphonium Triggers - tone and clarity

[euphdude]

Hi Folks - I've seen several threads over the years detailing the pros and cons of having a trigger - with most of the discussions about balancing the need to improve the intonation of certain sharp notes versus the increased complexity, maintenance, belly guard, etc. associated with these systems. That isn't what this thread is about!

Over the years, there have also been a number of discussions about adding weight here and there, and the resultant impact on the tone and/or response, e.g., different weight mouthpieces, valve caps, or the Lefreque plates. I saw a video of some new plastic water catchers that Steven Mead was recommending a couple of years ago, and he mentioned that these didn't have the sound/response disadvantages of most of the clip-on metal water catchers. And the whole time I was reading all of this, I wondered to myself - why is no one talking about the change in your sound for instruments that have triggers versus those that don't? In my mind that additional weight is bound to have some impact. Well, lo and behold, Yamaha is now making the following statement in describing the features on both the triggered 842 and Neo euphoniums:

Also, the additional weight of the trigger system helps to achieve a greater depth of tone and clarity of articulation.

What say y'all?

[TheJH]

Iirc, Besson has described the Sovereign WITH trigger as having a darker tone because of the extra weight for a while now, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

I also think it's about the positioning. If I attach the water catcher on my Willson, the instrument feels VERY different to play because of the way it attaches to the bottom valve caps (it kind of clamps itself onto the nipples, thereby reducing the free vibrations in the valve block), even though it barely weighs anything. I don't notice such a thing on my Sovereign which has a heavier, spring-loaded gutter, just as an example.

So who knows if it actually matters in the end, either for the feel of playing vs the actual effect on the sound.

[RickF]

I sure don't know the definitive answer on this but I know that weight in *certain places* can sure help. The addition of a heavy 4th valve bottom cap can help with tone or response. That makes sense to me because the 4th valve is sort of 'hanging out by itself' so to speak so additional weight there may help response. The addition of LefreQue plate(s) in certain places may help too. I happen to use a LefreQue plate across my mpc and its receiver, which helps a bit. I tried one a few years ago thinking it was a bunch of hooey. I did a blind test with my wife listening from another room and she said she could hear my sound just a bit better with the plate attached, so I've kept it. A heavy 4th valve bottom cap on my Yamaha 641 helped a lot where I could get 4 more pedal notes, but on my M5050 a heavy cap didn't help at all. In fact got in the way of me emptying the valve trough.

Regarding a MTS trigger mechanism I've never owned a horn with a trigger so no experience there. I suspect it might depend on the horn itself but not sure.

[iMav]

The linkage and trigger mechanism is annoying to maintain and deal with in general.

I’m a fan of the heavy bottom caps. However, I have not had the chance to test the same model horn with and without trigger.

[tokuno]

I'm a trigger fan and thought I was happy with my one, but with this news, I look forward to adding enough extra triggers to get the depth of tone and clarity of articulation of David Childs . . . my horn's gonna look like a piano, but I'll keep adding them till I get there.

[aroberts781]

I'm a trigger fan and thought I was happy with my one, but with this news, I look forward to adding enough extra triggers to get the depth of tone and clarity of articulation of David Childs . . . my horn's gonna look like a piano, but I'll keep adding them till I get there.

Thanks for the LOL, tokuno.

Also this thread explains why I noticed a significant decrease in my tone production when I switched from a 4-valve Schiller to my 3-valve New Standard. Now I know it was just the lost mass from the fourth valve! (j/k)

In somewhat seriousness, I think euphdude's initial post is thought provoking. The added weight and weight distribution must have some affect.

[davewerden]

In somewhat seriousness, I think euphdude's initial post is thought provoking. The added weight and weight distribution must have some affect.

Absolutely. That's why Miel Adams would prefer to build euphoniums without a trigger. The times I have tested one that had a trigger, it did respond and sound different from the non-trigger version. The difference was not too bad, but it was there.

It may have to do as much with the particular attachment points and weight distribution as it does the actual weight. Moving to an Adams with thicker metal does not cause as much disruption because there are no extra attachments to inhibit vibration and the weight distribution doesn't change much.

[euphdude]

It may have to do as much with the particular attachment points and weight distribution as it does the actual weight. Moving to an Adams with thicker metal does not cause as much disruption because there are no extra attachments to inhibit vibration and the weight distribution doesn't change much.

I think Dave brings up a great point here. The bulk of the weight of the trigger system and braces is centered around the 3rd valve slide, but of course it attaches to the main tuning slide. And the location and/or absence of those braces has certainly been demonstrated on euphoniums - I recall when Yamaha was designing the 842, their sales rep told me that they moved the brace from the main branch attaching to the bell to be more like a Wilson (I think that meant higher up) whereas the Neo’s brace is further down to be more like a Besson. And on trombones the whole “edge bracing” concept (which means the bell has less bracing on it - I think invented by Edwards) supposedly allowed the bell to vibrate more and improve response.