TubeNet

Hi,

Traditionally, the modern contrabass trombone is/was tuned in F, with valves in D and Bb. I do know of the Bb and C contrabasses, but that is not my point of discussion here.

So, I did notice something in the few available videos on internet where the instrument is played. More and more the Kanstul and Haag instruments are being played, despite their other valve tuning.
These are tuned in F/C/Db/A, what I think is (by far) the best option. I do not want to discuss what option is best, it's just that I do not understand that only these brands use this tuning. (I do not know of expensive costum instruments like Thein of Rath...)

But why oh why is it not possible to make a decent F/C/Db/A instrument that is affordable?
All chinese/asian/whatever brands like Wessex, M&M, Dillon ... sell the F/D/Bb/Ab option. I personally think if they would sell the F/C/Db/A option, like Kanstul (typical American brand), those instruments would sell immencely good! I do know of some bass trombonists that would like to buy such a chinese instrument as a student model before actually buying a 10000,- instrument, but they do not because of the rather unpractical tuning. The main issue here is most of the time that they (and I) want the first valve to be a quart valve, not a third. They do have Hagmann valves, so why not optional tuning?

Am I the only one here that thinks that, or is this a more common known problem? Or is there a cheap F/C/Db/A on the market?

Short story: I want a F/C/Db/A contrabass trombone that is affordable.

Affordable is relative. What's not affordable about a Kanstul? If you save $150 a week you can pay for one in a year. Or if your dealer offers 36 month financing, your payments would be in the range of $250 USD per month. If you borrow against a home equity line of credit, a Kanstul can cost as little as $27 per month interest. My credit union offered me a 7% fixed rate credit card with a $20K limit. Or maybe you find a used Kanstul at 1/3-1/2 off the new price. Have you talked to a dealer about special ordering a Kanstul and what price can they can really do if you prepay?

Money rules how we run society. We all need to learn some tricks of managing money and debt, and then we can have what we really want. Please don't settle for a piece of junk. The poor quality remains long after the low price is forgotten.

Something else...How many more makers will release a nice instrument like this if it's immediately copied and then they never sell any? Is it worth their future investment in unusual instruments? Are you contributing to that situation in a positive or negative way? Are you willing to support these makers? If not you, then who?

You're entitled to own whichever instrument you want. I'm not convinced that we are all entitled to own that instrument _right_now_ and at the lowest price. Quality, price, delivery. Pick any 2.

-F

If the question is why aren't such instruments available at an "affordable" rate in YOUR preferred tuning, while something like http://www.jimlaabsmusic.com/band-orche ... _9159.html IS available at an "affordable" rate, then the answer likely lies in what the demand is or would be for such an instrument.

Even in your own plea, the demand seems quite "soft". You would like a cheap one mostly so you could just try it out and then infer that the more expensive one is what you want so that you can then proceed to buy it. I think there's too much wrong with this scenario and its assumptions to deal with in a short space.

Perhaps this question is better posed in the trombone forum -- where people might have a better idea of the real and potential markets for the "student" model.

Since this IS a tuba forum:

As a tuba player, if you had the choice of purchasing either a contrabass trombone or a cimbasso, which would you choose and why (other than the obvious gliss capability)?

Contrabass trombone. I'm not great with a slide, but it's easier than trying play in tune with valves alone.

Donn wrote:Contrabass trombone. I'm not great with a slide, but it's easier than trying play in tune with valves alone.

Theoretically, yes. Practically ... maybe not if you've got enough valves? The cimbasso must also be easier to hold while playing. But the trombone does seem as though it would be a bit more versatile and can provide effects that the cimbasso can't.

(I've just spent an hour doing slide exercises on an independent bass, and "not great with a slide" doesn't begin to describe it.)

I bought a used, like new (until the shipping company got a hold of it...) Kantsul some years ago for 5 grand. I had some issues with some of the designs but it was a good horn. I'd keep an eye out for one. I also played a very nice, responsive Chinese contra at the Army conference a few years ago. Great sound, awesome low range, good slide; the valves were a bit slow but I think it was pretty fresh out of the box.

Steve Marcus wrote:Since this IS a tuba forum:

As a tuba player, if you had the choice of purchasing either a contrabass trombone or a cimbasso, which would you choose and why (other than the obvious gloss capability)?

I prefer the sound of a contra, but cimbasso for sure. A tuba player playing cimbasso on contra parts works far better than a tuba player playing a contra on cimbasso parts.

Valves please. I double on bass trombone, but I would never call myself a bass trombonist in the "top flight" sense. You guys with slide technique amaze me. But then I have spent 50 years trying to perfect valve technique and what it takes to play a valve tuba in tune.

So I would opt for the cimbasso first over the contra. My cimmy is in F. Historically the Italian opera orchestra used all valve trombones, so a valved cimbasso (trombone grande) made sense. It is much easier to hold than a contra (with the slide pointing straight out) And, the parts in those Verdi scores get pretty wild now and then are really go best with "fingers."

I am toying with the idea of getting a BBb contra bass bone. With the double slide, the positions are the same as a standard Bb trombone. The BBb overtone series lines up nice with the other trombones. They are not that expensive. Around 1500. I can see lot of use for it in orchestra for pops concerts on tuba parts in modern show music etc. And with my limited slide technique I think I could manage basic tuba parts on the BBb Contra.

The F contra is not quite the same bugle (excuse me, not bugle but trumpet) as the cimbasso, and to me seems more like an extended bass trombone. A lot of this has to do with the chosen mouthpiece and the lead pipe. In the old days, the bass trombones were in G, F or Eb but the bore was not necessarily as large as the contra.

There's my two cents worth.

Steve Marcus wrote:Since this IS a tuba forum:

As a tuba player, if you had the choice of purchasing either a contrabass trombone or a cimbasso, which would you choose and why (other than the obvious gliss capability)?

Does this seem like a logical idea?

Buy a contrabass trombone (like the Schiller), and construct (or have constructed for you) a valveset that can be screwed onto the bell joint, and have the "best of both worlds", two horns in one?

Just a theory....

But that's dangerous thinking. If you have 1.5 horns, why not get another plain bell to make it 2? Then you might want to add another half a horn to play the chimp in Eb. Then you're gonna want to finish that...

Bob Kolada wrote:But that's dangerous thinking. If you have 1.5 horns, why not get another plain bell to make it 2? Then you might want to add another half a horn to play the chimp in Eb. Then you're gonna want to finish that...

Yes, indeed, dangerous thinking, run amok

Wasn't there an American maker who offered a tenor trombone as convertible from slide to valve? To me, it doesn't seem like such a bad idea for the contrabass trombone, and might be actually more useful than the former.

The only obstacle(s) I can see is the F attachment, and the bore size at the bell-to-slide joint.

To those 'Frankensteiners' out there. A BBb Contra with a 3 valve section attached on the slide portion makes sense and leave the FF attachment where it is. An angled transition between the bell and the lower valved half would help, thus basically turning it into a BBb cimbasso, a very practical instrument. Just harvest a 3 valve section from a marching euphonium or small tuba, (preferable front action) some straight telescoping tubing, some crooks and knuckles, a pile of flange and rod braces, a sousaphone mouthpipe, and "voila," you're in business. Sounds easy, but it always does. Oh, be sure to put a second tuning slide up top, lapped nicely, so you can pull it when using the FF valve. If the garage were not such a mess right now, I might tackle this tonight. "Yeh, Right!!!

Hi Paul,
Check out Jim Self"shttp://www.jimself.com/hardware.htm web page, he has exactly what you have proposed to make.


Dave Hayami

PaulMaybery wrote:To those 'Frankensteiners' out there. A BBb Contra with a 3 valve section attached on the slide portion makes sense and leave the FF attachment where it is ...

Yeah, and add maybe four or five helium balloons because you're going to need some significant help in holding that thing up.

Hi Gary. Floor pegs and or neck straps.

Dave Hayami wrote:Hi Paul,
Check out Jim Self"shttp://www.jimself.com/hardware.htm web page, he has exactly what you have proposed to make.


Dave Hayami

There are quite a few versions of the BBb cimbasso. Not a bad horn at all. With the angle at the bell and mouthpipe, and a strap or floor peg, a very amiable instrument to play.

This would not be difficult to 'Frankenstein" in any sense. Harvest a a Chinese 4 rotary euph with a .590 bore (same as the Jin Bao BBb contra) valve set for 500 bucks, a bunch of telescoping tubing, some misc. parts and you're there. I know this works as I've work with one every summer now for the past 5 seasons. You're tempting me to clean out my garage in the midst of a Minnesoto blizzard and put one of these together. Write back in April. We're having an Alberta clipper at the moment.

There is no way you'll want a .590 bore on a Bb chimp. I vote for .689.

Ya know, .590 is the bore on the BBb contra (double slide) and actually a smaller bore is on the Rampone/Cazzani Italian BBb cimbasso.
We use this one every summer and it is a monster of a horn, so I don't think for one bit that it would be a problem. The trick is that the small bore combined witht the longer length and larger (euphonium sized) bell actuall functions well together. One would not think so, but it does. Similar to all the narrow cylindrical tubing on the french horn.

My F cimbasso has something like a .730 bore and for a horn that short, it offers some nice resonance. A good combination.

I do see your point, but I do want this to sound like a contra trombone and not a slide tuba. Just sayin'...