NAMM report

[circusboy]

I spent a few hours at the NAMM Show in Anaheim on Sunday and thought I’d let you all know what I learned. Please keep a big IMHO in front of all of this.

First stop, the Kanstul booth. I got to play with the brand-spankin’-new ¾ CC with the detachable bell. It’s quite compact—maybe 32â€

[Bob Mosso]

My first time to NAMM, wow!!!

I brought my Denis Wick 4AY, a large shank adapter and a tuner... here's some comments on the euphoniums.

The brass Wilson 2900 was a bit disappointing, it felt stuffy high and low, it's tone was dead, maybe there was something wrong with the horn. The silver 2950 was much freer blowing, I loved the sound, but some notes were flat, some sharp, ... all over the place, but not more than 20 cents off.

I loved the thumb triggered tuning slide on the top of the line Besson, every horn should have one. There wasn't one particularly bad note, "but some notes were flat, some sharp, ... all over the place, but not more than 20 cents off".

The Yamaha 842 didn't have any major flaws, intonation was okay, perhaps once accustomed to the horn intonation could be very good. I expected a brighter sound and faster response... The 642 must of had it's valves in incorrectly, unable to blow, and since I've played a 642 before I didn't take the time to swap the valves around.

The MW551 seemed very stuffly down low and the 3rd partial F was a bit sharper than I would like.

The copper bell Kanstul sounded great, responded great, had the least stuffy lower range of all the compensated horns I tried, the high range was easy to play and slotted easily... my favorite except the 3rd and 6th partial Fs were more than 30 cents sharp, when I tried to bend the Fs down I'd loose the note, I could only bend them to about +10 cents. I guess a pulled 4th valve is required for all Fs on the Kanstul.

All of the compensated horns felt stuffy to me, down low with lots of valves pressed. Probably because I normally play on a Yamaha 321. I found the low range much easier to play on the non-comp horns.

I've played the King 2280 before and this one didn't change my opinion, it's a great non-comp, very free blowing, and great intonation. Consider the King and Yamaha 321 if you're looking for a non-comp.

The biggest surprise was the Jupiter non-comp 321 clone. Consider it a 321 with better slotting high notes. I've played an older Jupiter and didn't like it, this one I loved! Intonation was the best of any horn I played, no joke. Yes it has a small shank, just plug in a 4AY and you'll be happy.

Bob

[JohnMCooper]

I too saw and played the Piggy for the first time at NAMM. Of all the horns I tooted on, this is the one I felt most comfortable on. For me, it seemed like it would make real nice all-around horn. I also played the big Kanstul horn, never did get a good feeling on that horn. I thought it was me until talked to someone else that had the same feeling. I also saw and played on the King 2341 for the first time, really liked that one too. Played on some nice bass bones and some bad ones too!

[Lee Stofer]

I just received the new Kanstul 3/4 CC yesterday afternoon, the sister of the one shown at the NAMM Show. This instrument is better-laid-out and much more responsive than the prototype #1 I showed at the Washington, DC Conference last year. Also, the detachable bell has been changed from a french-horn-style screw attachment to a sturdy locking-pin arrangement, with one stainless set screw. To attach the bell, one would insert it, turn the bell about 3/16" clockwise, then put in the set screw.

The bell flare case is the same size as the Kanstul fluegelhorn case, and the body case compares to the size of the body case for the old King 2341. The instrument has some mass, but is not heavy for a 5-valve horn.

The instrument is comparable in size to the old Conn 3/4 CC tuba, but has the craftsmanship and response of a first-line handmade pro instrument. I will have it in Washington, DC.

The silver-plated compensating euphonium with the removable lacquered bronze bell arrived yesterday, too. It is a truly gorgeous work of art, which plays as wonderfully as it is beautiful.

Did anyone at the NAMM show try out Kanstul's 3+1 non-compensating euphonium? It is rather lightweight, has the same bell, branches and leadpipe as their top pro model, and plays well enough that my oldest daughter is bugging me to get her one. I'd like to hear opinions on the Kanstul non-comp euphoniums, both the 4-top-piston model and the 3+1 model.

[euphdude]

I'd like to hear opinions on the Kanstul non-comp euphoniums, both the 4-top-piston model and the 3+1 model.

My knowledge of the Kanstul noncompensating euphs is somewhat dated (2002), but I played the 4 valve in-line horn (don't think the 3+1 was available yet), and I still say it is the best non-compensating euphonium I've ever played. With a large shank receiver, it was very responsive with a huge sound and flawless workmanship. I didn't have a tuner with me when I tried it at the NABBA competition, but I didn't detect any obvious intonation flaws. Lee, do you know how much these go for? Any difference in price for the 4 in-line versus the 3+1 arrangement?

[iiipopes]

On to the Conn-Selmer booth. Got to play on the 56J, which I rather liked, but for the long-throw piston valves. Also got to hear Jesse Chavez play on it, which sounded a lot better than me playing on it. I then had a long chat with Michael Kamphuis, Director of Marketing—Background Brass. He told me that the current plan is to completely revamp the Conn and King low brass lines, making Conn the pro line and King the student line. He explained several tweaks that’ve already happened to current models; they seemed to be well thought out. I look forward to seeing where the company goes.

I, for one, don't. Just another example of the cyborg assimilation and gutting of a famous brand.