acoustical principles & the valve trombone

[Sam Gnagey]

The cimbassi that we make are truly F or EEb contrabass valve trombones. They're dimensions fairly accurately are the same as the Bach 50B bass trombone expanded to .687" bore with the appropriate length and larger bell section. They don't respond and feel like any F or EEb tuba because they're cylindrical. There's lots more resistance, and because of that you really have to push the air in a more intense and focused manner to get good results.

[jeopardymaster]

I played a King 3B with a valve section and a slide section in high school. Sold it to help finance my first tuba, but always regretted the loss. This summer I finally pulled together in 2 purchases the pieces of a replacement instrument - a 3B with F attachment and a 3B valve trombone. Having the trigger aids intonation somewhat, but valve slide access is insufficient (nonexistent) to bring low Eb to C in tune. I use alternate fingerings and lip, but after years of playing the slide (with admittedly marginal technique), it's suboptimal. But I can get by with it if I have to play tenor.

And that is the ultimate disadvantage of the valve trombone, IMO. If you don't have time to develop/maintain good slide facility, you can manage with a valve trombone, but unless you're really effective with it, someone else with a slide is going to be able to eat your lunch.

Meanwhile, Sam's cimbassi are amazing. For reference, that bell section in his picture is the bugle from, of all things, a marching baritone.

[ken k]

I think it was Deg who used to make a "Jazzbone" which was a valve bone but they used a much larger valve bore. I believe it was used in some marching bands for awhile back in the 80's??? But it still had a regular style bone bell. It is very dim in my memory. Every now and then one pops up on ebay and I am tempted to buy it .

k

[Rick Denney]

...Either way, Bernoulli's principal states that it's going to add pressure once the tubing goes smaller....

Not quite. The Bernoulli effect explains that the pressure drops in a narrow section. It's the velocity of the fluid that increases. That's why venturis (smooth narrow sections) are used to draw additional fluids in--they create a partial vacuum. For those who are old enough to know what a carburetor is, that's how it works. It draws gasoline into the air stream using the vacuum in a venturi.

But a brass instrument is not designed for moving air. It's designed for moving sounds, which is a series of pressure fronts in air. Disturbances of the inner shape cause those pressure fronts to reflect back to the mouthpiece, at least in part. Those reflections can be poorly timed (depending on the location of the fault) and can interfere with the desirable pressure fronts coming FROM the mouthpiece. That's why most instruments are designed and maintained to minimize or eliminate disturbances on the inside surface of the instrument.

The best valves would have the same bore as the through tubing, or would be a different size only after considerable experimentation to demonstrate that no harm is done. Sometimes those reflections are, after all, beneficial.

Were I designing a valve trombone, I would want something with a bore in the symphonic range, or even in the bass trombone range. A bass valve trombone in Bb using euphonium valves sounds about right.

Jazz players still use .485 and .500 trombones, and want the sound those trombones produce. Through good fortune (and not because I know how to play them) I have one of each in straight tenor trombones--a .485/.500 dual-bore Olds and a .500 Conn 48H. But a large-bore valve bass trombone would be an instrument I would actually use--it would be wonderful for certain renaissance quintet works. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to spend real money for one, of course.

Rick "who played a Bach Mercedes valve trombone in a swing band some years ago" Denney

[windshieldbug]

Played with the right attitude, I always thought the small bore English baritone would make a good substitute for a valve trombone.

The best valve trombone I've come across was an old 1885 Boston.

Those Boston Musical Instrument Manufactory valve trombones have a brief conical mouthpipe before the cylindrical trombone tubing, just like (mostly) the English baritone. And I agree the BMIM's play well. I love mine!!

[OldsRecording]

I think it was Deg who used to make a "Jazzbone" which was a valve bone but they used a much larger valve bore. I believe it was used in some marching bands for awhile back in the 80's??? But it still had a regular style bone bell. It is very dim in my memory. Every now and then one pops up on ebay and I am tempted to buy it .

k

I used to have a DEG valve 'bone- absolute piece of crap. Yes, it was indeed out of tune and stuffy, and it was a mistake to buy it. In marching band in college, I played an Olds Marching Trombone- it was coiled up Flugabone-style, but much better playing than a Flugabone.

[Donn]

But a large-bore valve bass trombone would be an instrument I would actually use--it would be wonderful for certain renaissance quintet works. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to spend real money for one, of course.

You probably know, Cerveny makes a 4 valve F bass, with a .56'' bore, at a fairly modest price. I think the complaints I have read have mostly been about ergonomics. I remember in the '80s you could find Miraphone instruments like that too, listed in catalogues, but I have never seen a picture or heard anything about them.

[Rick Denney]

You probably know, Cerveny makes a 4 valve F bass, with a .56'' bore, at a fairly modest price. I think the complaints I have read have mostly been about ergonomics. I remember in the '80s you could find Miraphone instruments like that too, listed in catalogues, but I have never seen a picture or heard anything about them.

If one came my way for a price that fit the cash in my pocket, and played halfway decent, I'd buy it. That's about how important it is to me, heh, heh.

Rick "already overstocked" Denney

[Art Hovey]

Weril also makes valve trombones in C.
Don't know if they are any good, though.

[Worth]

Lots of good thoughts in this 2007 thread that cover the spectrum. The JP is a .525 measured at the second slide.

[hup_d_dup]

Lots of good thoughts in this 2007 thread that cover the spectrum. The JP is a .525 measured at the second slide.

By JP do you mean John Packer? .525 would be interesting, but their website lists it at .484.

https://www.jpmusicalinstruments.com/pr ... cker-jp135" target="_blank

Hup

[Worth]

Lots of good thoughts in this 2007 thread that cover the spectrum. The JP is a .525 measured at the second slide.

By JP do you mean John Packer? .525 would be interesting, but their website lists it at .484.

https://www.jpmusicalinstruments.com/pr ... cker-jp135" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Hup

OK my bad, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, John Packer, but a mistake by me, measuring bore..... It measures .485 on the INSIDE of the second valve slide leg.
.525 was the measurement on the inside of the main tube that the leg goes into.

[greenbean]

...
Further, (unlike tuba players) I'd wager that 99% of trombone players would strongly resist learning "C" playing slide positions (even though many of them apparently view it as "cool" to learn Eb slide positions).
...

Perhaps closer to 100%! I can't think of any advantages to using a C slide trombone. What would I get in return for the effort of learning to play it?

[greenbean]

- shorter slide positions
- quicker response
- one additional slide position for a full perfect 5th in playing slide range
- just as with trumpets/tubas: mimicking the sound of the Bb, yet with (often) less work

Thanks for your your ideas. But... I still can't think of a single reason why I would play a C trombone!