TubeNet

I had ordered a new Adams Custom euphonium early in the Summer. The factory is getting a lot of orders for horns and it took them a while to finish mine and ship it here, but it arrived the other day safe & sound.

I ordered the brushed finish for a change from the "shiny" horns I have played most of my life. Many of us are familiar with the "satin finish" horns. That was also a non-shiny finish, but was produced in a different way. Satin finish is (or "was" - I'm not sure if techniques have changed) produced by sand-blasting the metal before plating. This produced a very uniform dullness over the instrument's surface. Often these horns had bright highlights on joints, slides, etc. But for the brushed finished, the surface is brushed (surprise!). This produces minute striations over the whole surface. In some lights the effect is similar to a satin finish. But in normal room lighting or certainly under performance lighting, the striations produce some very nice "channeling" of the light, making "waves" on the surface that move as the player moves. It's a great effect!

I ordered the horn with the same metal configuration as the one I had previously. It has a sterling silver bell, gold brass on the large tubes, and yellow brass on the smaller tubes. Normally I would have chosen to use only one color besides silver for my visual preferences, but there are performance reasons for using the combination of yellow and gold brass. It does make for an interesting appearance. And more for feel than appearance, I chose to add valve buttons with wood insets (rosewood, I think). They feel very nice on the fingertips!

It was tough to get good photos in the light I had available, but I think the pics below will give you an idea of the overall appearance. Once I get the horn broken in, I'll give you a report about the performance, intonation, etc.

tuben wrote:Where is that Schantz organ located?

Now THAT's a follow-up question I did not expect! But I should not be surprised; I have pretty diverse interests myself.

It's the organ at All Saints Lutheran Church in Minnetonka, MN. You can learn more about the specifics here (including the stops), if you are curious:

http://allsaintsmtka.org/?page_id=1203

Here is a recording of me playing with the organ (Bist Du Bei Mir):

http://www.dwerden.com/music-videos/eup ... m?vid=1072

What mouthpiece do you play?

blastemokid wrote:What mouthpiece do you play?

In the photo is a Wick Ultra 4, but I also play a Wick 4AL pretty often.

Cool and different looking horn.

No one's asked "how does it sound and play"? Sterling is unique for a euphonium, so I'm very curious for a comparison to whatever instrument you used before!

bloke wrote:

J.c. Sherman wrote:No one's asked "how does it sound and play"? Sterling is unique for a euphonium, so I'm very curious for a comparison to whatever instrument you used before!

I'm sure it plays "good". Look who's playing it.

Most likely sucks less than a 12 year old "Jean Baptiste" (smart *** ; ) ...

However, I would be interested in observations on what a sterling bell does to something in the tuba family; never even heard of King trying it, so I'm fascinated. Sterling silver has a pretty profound effect even when used on a mouthpiece, mouthpipe or bell of a trombone, and makes quite an change in a trumpet and cornet too. But this is new... and I'd love to just here why he chose silver over brass.

Sterling silver is denser than the other materials typically used for low brass, and as such it give a really nice, dark sound with lots of core and lots of power-handling ability. At the recent ITEC I had a chance to try the standard brass, red brass, gold brass, and other samples of the sterling silver. My favorite is still the SS, but I also liked the red brass sound quite a bit. It seemed to handle power as well as SS and still had a pleasant tone, even if was not quite as dark.

In the Adams series you can choose 5 thicknesses of metal, and that choice is also critical. This horn is .60, and I compared it carefully to a .55. The .60 is as heavy as I would want to go - I think the others are a little "stiff" in their tone comparatively. But they also make a .50. If you wanted the utmost in responsiveness and still a quality sound, that might be a good choice combined with the SS bell. The .55 is a very nice balance. The .60 still has excellent response, though not as "easy" as lighter ones, and it can handle quite a bit more punch when you really need it.

And another cool deal. The Adams Custom comes with a Bonna case, which is perhaps the most compact and practical hard case you can get for a euphonium. It is very light and very sturdy. It comes with removable shoulder straps and a removable music case. The case is included with the price of the horn, so it makes the Adams very competitive in pricing among the top brands. The case is available in black or blue from Adams.

My forum has several photos that show the case. You have to be logged in to see the full-size versions, but the thumbnails are visible and will probably give you the general idea.

http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthread ... e?p=116497

bloke wrote:How similar to Hirsbrunner are these?

Well, I talked with Miel Adams a bit about this very issue. It is confusing because the tubas are using HB tooling, although the manufacturing process is much different. Adams uses a uniform thickness of metal from leadpipe to bell, for one thing. But tubists at ITEC who tried out the tubas thought they seemed Hirsbrunner-like, except the horn seemed to resonate around them much more - they said they could "feel" the sound.

But the euphoniums are not using the HB tooling. One way to see a difference is to look at the tuning charts I've done. Start on this page, then choose Hirsbrunner AND Adams. You will see a graph with both plots on it, and they are very different:
http://www.dwerden.com/Intonation/

The response could remind you of a Hirsbrunner because it is quite free. The Adams is even more responsive in all ranges except perhaps the ultra high register. (I think there the HB's ultra high range was among the best I've ever tried.) The easiest way to tell is the tone. The Adams has a warmer, more musical sound, which is partly what won me over. The HB had a very nice sound; it was a bit sterile for my tastes, but was very open and neutral.

Another clue: Look at the tubing design on the following two photos (follow the links). Check out the position of the bell joint. It is much higher on the HB, actually above the 4th valve brace, while the Adams has a lower seam which is below the brace. Also, look at the width of the 4th valve slide - wider on the Adams. There are other differences in bracing.

http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthread ... h-for-sale

On this one, look for the full-length photo:
http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthread ... m-Arrived!

It's confusing because HB made both tubas and euphoniums. So does Adams. Adams uses the HB mandrels, etc. for tubas. But Adams does not do so for euphoniums.

I assume that the five different metal thicknesses are only for the bells.
-Pat

pjv wrote:I assume that the five different metal thicknesses are only for the bells.

No. One of the first things I learned about the company when I met Miel Adams at ITEC 2010 was that they insist on the metal being the same thickness throughout the length of the horn. Then this year I learned that even the valve blocks have to made special for each thickness - no "one size fits all" there either.

Wouldn't this mean that in order to make one euphonium in 5 different metal thicknesses they would need five different sets of tooling in order to maintain the same bore size in all five instruments?

-Pat

Pat - I don't think so, because the tooling I've seen is built to control the inside of the tube. That's a major difference between the type of construction Adams uses vs. what most large companies use. On the instruments I've played previously, most of the tubing is shaped by placing a tube inside a form, and then forcing fluid in under high pressure. This forces the tube into the shape of the form. The form keeps the outside of the tubing consistent, but if you used thicker tubes, it would reduce the inside dimension. At the same time, since our instruments' tubing is ultimately tapered, it means the tube wall will be thinner at the widest end because it had to stretch more on that end.

When you hand-form sheet metal around forms, you control the inside dimension. If you use thicker tubing, the outside will be thicker but the inside will be to specification.

Keep in mind I am not an engineer and I did not have a chance to see each step of the operation. I think I have the general idea, but I may not be describing it well. However, there are some YouTube videos you can find that show the making of a trombone with similar techniques (where metal is shaped around a form). I have to think most of the steps at Adams would be similar. [What I witnessed in the making of the bell may be unique to Adams, but I can't share that part of the operation.]

She sure is a beaut. Love the brushed finish and the rosewood insets, very unique.