TubeNet

Thinking lately of valve trombone for a double, I have skimmed through comments on this much maligned instrument here and elsewhere.

Why so much hating on this instrument? Supposedly out of tune and stuffy, despite plenty of great work done on valve trombone by jazzers.

I could see how a trombonist might be disappointed by intonation, since they're not used to the pitch compromises inherent in valves, and the air path is relatively funky if that makes any difference. But some critics say a bass trumpet or a `marching trombone' is a better deal - like they're any different, acoustically? If the valve trombone's hairpin valve loop shape is an acoustical problem, is it the same problem on a euphonium? When tuba players complain about intonation in the valve trombone, does that mean that it must be down there with bagpipes?

Donn wrote:Why so much hating on this instrument?

Most valve trombones use a trumpet valve block with a bore of about .460 or so. That should make any valve trombone stuffy.

And most use three valves. That should make any valve trombone out of tune. In jazz, you can avoid or bend the bad notes--the standard of sound is different.

I suspect a valve trombone with a valve bore of .525 and four valves would be a lot more playable than the usual offering. But it still won't sound like a trombone--the slide imparts a particular sound that can't be imitated using valves, without even considering special slide effects.

I played third bone in a swing band once upon a time using a valve trombone. It worked, but I was wishing for something that blew a little more openly (but that would not require me to have actual slide skills, heh, heh). The people who do the best work go in with a pea-shooter concept.

Rick "who traded that valve trombone for a euphonium" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:
Most valve trombones use a trumpet valve block with a bore of about .460 or so. That should make any valve trombone stuffy.

And most use three valves. That should make any valve trombone out of tune. In jazz, you can avoid or bend the bad notes--the standard of sound is different.

OK, so today there must be very little to it, if there ever was.

Manufacturer blurbs claim .481-.486 bores about half the time (Bach, King, Getzen, Jupiter) and .500 the rest (Blessing, Yamaha, Weril, Holton?)

And it's not like it's the only brass instrument limited to three valves.

I think most valve trombones are designed for trumpet players, who don't seem to mind the small bore and stuffiness. The Maynard Ferguson "superbone" is an example. The least-stuffy valve trombone that I could find was a Conn, but I still wasn't happy with it. The King "flugelbone" also plays pretty well, but you have to support its entire weight with your left hand, which becomes tiresome. Here's my solution, which I have described here before:

http://www.galvanizedjazz.com/tuba/Bassbone.html

For answers, just look at how the modern trumpet has turned into a cornet by any other measure.

The issue, I suspect, isn't the instrument, but rather, how the instrument compares to a properly played slide trombone. Note also, that there are no compensating valve trombones available.

Art Hovey wrote:

Looks like a smart setup. You can use the slide for glissandi and effects and the valves for playing in tune.

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

I play a Holton Superbone (TR395) made famous by Maynard Fergusonb. It has a very small bore (.485-ish) and seems to have a trumpet-style valve block. The length of the valve section subtracts one position from the slide section (which only goes to 6th position). OTOH, when I play it with a 6 1/2 AL it sounds very nice and sweet. I can get a classical sound or a jazz sound, with or without an edge. What I cannot do is get a very large FULL sound. The horn is just too small. I also find I have to blow the trombone much differently than euphonium. I am glad I learned Euph first, since I think it is easier to go from a relaxed open embouchure to a more focused one rather than the other way around.

The horn is stuffy if played entirely on the valve section. Play low B-nat (1-2-3) and you will know why. OTOH, it plays on the slide section very nicely and I am learning slide technique as I go.

Doug

The best valve trombone I've come across was an old 1885 Boston. It had a wonderful tone and the intonation was superb. They sell on ebay for just a few dollars. King flugabones are nice instruments, but my favorite along those lines is the marching baritone.


-Eric

I've only played old valve trombones, but it seems like they all had very flat intonation even with the tuning slide all the way in they were still flat. Is there a reason for this? Do the modern ones have the same issue?

Brian Davis was a jazz euphonium grad student at UNT. He made it into the One O'clock band on valve trombone, after the professors said a valve trombone would NEVER be in THIS band! There are some funny stories about his problems with not having a slide, but he did play the hell out of that horn, and nobody denied him his rightful place in that band. Someone might think to ask him what the horn he played on was.

From what I understand, a good valve bone is very difficult to find. I just went with an old peashooter and learned it like a new instrument. You'll save time and money.

By the way, if your trombone is a .485 bore, wouldn't a .465 bore at the valve block be about the same, if not better, than if it went to .525? Either way, Bernoulli's principal states that it's going to add pressure once the tubing goes smaller. If the valve block is .525, then that's a larger difference to go .485 - .525 - .485 than would a .485 - .465 - .485.

Just my thoughts.

Nick

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.

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.

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

BopEuph wrote:...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

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

Shockwave wrote: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!!

ken k wrote: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.

Rick Denney wrote: 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.

Donn wrote: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

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