TubeNet

About 10 years ago I heard Dr. John Marcellus, professor of trombone at Eastman perform on his home-built double bell trombone. He was also Principal Trombonist of the Nat'l Symphony Orchestra for 13 years. His second bell was smaller like a cornet or trumpet. Main bell looked to be about 9". If I remember correctly he played, "Colloquy" (Goldstein). Just found a picture:

Seen lots'o folk do this over the years by replacing a slide on the F attachment with a bell...

Quick, patent the "hat" design before someone else on the TNFJ does!
(It was your idea, after all! )

If you look at picture #4 of 8 on the Schiller website, you can see that the valve either works as an F attachment or as a bell toggle... I wonder how heavy the additional Bell makes the horn.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ln7fmpCywDU/S ... _tromb.png" target="_blank


He's got a youtube video of him playing it.

Like trombone players really need more encouragement? LOL

I find my 88H heavy enough without adding a bell to it. This doesn't address the positive or negative affects on the sound of course.
The Conn double bell euphoniums aren't that bad an idea. Practically speaking: with its .563" bore they might play better if they had Ben built with a large bore lead pipe and an 90G type of bell.

Imagine, if you will, that Schiller double-bell section wed to a Holton Superbone valve/slide section.

Now, there's an instrument with 1001 uses.

Too stuffy.
.484" bore on a valved tenor instrument (and with that tight rap!) might be the problem.

As some famous or semi-famous person said, "build it and some (idiot) will come to it!"

Joking aside, the smaller bell on the 2-bell euphonium was intended for reinforcing trombone lines. Circus bands used them for that reason. If you're going to do the opposite with a trombone, might it not make more sense to do it cimbasso style, meaning that rotary valves could be employed, and with the bulk of the weight resting on the floor?