If my eyes do not deceive me that would be the 22b New York Symphony early model with top sprung valves.
That is a peach and very desirable.
If my eyes do not deceive me that would be the 22b New York Symphony early model with top sprung valves.
That is a peach and very desirable.
I feel your pain Dale and I know they can be quite tricky.
They changed the design of the valves and the guides many times and made it slightly simpler as the decades moved on.
The early valve guides had the pegs in different locations in the valve blocks and that made it difficult, later they made the pegs all in the same location so that was slightly better but the guides could still jam and be problematic to position correctly.
Once you have the knack I find them simple to align and fit.
I prefer the Crysteel valves now to the more regular top sprung valves with internal springs in a cage that are in common use.
For all members of the Conn club who own and play instruments with Crysteel clickless valves a word of warning.
Beware of the cork on the top of the valve moving around and causing the valve to stick or hang.
The cork should be glued on to the top of the valve for trouble free valve operation.
I do agree with the sentiments and the arguments opposing the locking of threads but I would like to say a word or two in support of Barliman2001
It is clear to me that Mr Barliman wants to act in the best interests of the site but it is difficult to see what that might be.
The site is filled with ancient threads dated 2019 that see little or no action since 2019 as though the site suddenly took a nosedive in that year and is stuck now in a time warp.
The temptation to clean things up so that the site appears to be fresh dynamic and appealing to new members and inviting of new posts must be a strong one so I would agree that some kind of action might be helpful but I have no idea what the most appropriate action might be,
Mr Barliman has taken action and I support that decision to act although I have no idea what the best way forward might be.
The members have spoken now and Mr Barliman has shown he is receptive to members opinions and I cannot ask for more than this.
I am sure that together we will find a good solution to this thorny question that will be acceptable to all the members and presents the site well.
Speaking personally I really like the site the members and the organisation so I live in hope and have a measure of confidence that a good way forward will emerge from these discussions.
@Dr Go
No the original Olds Super is an early model of Super and was quite different from the slightly later version of the Super manufactured a few years later.
The change was around 1938 and 1939.
There were several changes, the tone ring was much wider on the earlier model, the bell mandrel was different between the models and the angle of the second slide was flipped from forward to back.
I have no idea why the bell mandrel was changed and what difference that made sonically, but I suspect the two instruments play differently, much as the LA model of Ambassador and the Fullerton model of the Ambassador also play quite differently.
Robb Stewart in his excellent web page on the subject goes into great detail about the specific changes to the Super model in those years with images of both models of Super showing the changes although the bell mandrel change is not an obvious one from the images.
https://www.robbstewart.com/wright-hall-quinby-soprano-1
I deeply suspect that the earliest Super was based upon closely copying the pre war french Besson trumpet as many manufacturers did at that time - I believe that Bach Conn HN White Shilke among others closely copied the pre war french Besson design.
Most of the other manufacturers copies of the Besson design had rear facing second slide but the original Olds Super was unusual in more faithfully copying the forward facing second slide in that first incarnation of the Super.
Interestingly the Mendez which was later claimed to be a close copy of the french Besson had the rear facing second slide as all the Bb Olds instrument models had by that time.
Even Besson swapped the slide direction round in different instruments with some forward some rearwards and some straight out so there was no real consistency here even in Besson.
Hornucopia shows several french Besson Brevetes with second slides pointing in all directions and many towards the bell as in the early Super.
The water however gathers in this configuration and is not easily dumped and all subsequent models post 1939 in the Olds lineup have rear facing second slide possibly to allow for more efficient clearing of moisture during performances.
There was often no other option than to yank the second slide to clear water satisfactorily in the forward facing design or do the instrument spin method both of which are less than desirable during a performance.
Besson themselves reversed the second slide between different models as earlier discussed although the Besson manufacturing history is somewhat confused with Besson uk and Besson France both selling Bessons but with Besson France manufacturing the parts that were assembled in England and then sold as english Bessons often with english valve blocks fitted and not french valve blocks.
It is even said that stashes of Besson instruments that were hidden from Nazis when France was under German occupation were being discovered for many years after the second world war and released into the market with serial numbers that were inconsistent so we cannot assign years to instruments around that time. But that is another story.
I dont believe this is likely to be a conversion from a Bb
It looks like the spit valves on this instrument are more conventional spit valves typical of the Special, but the Ambassador spit valves are underslung spit valves.
The end of the mouthpiece receiver is of course Fullerton Ambassador, being hexagonal.
The second slide appears to be set at a right angle to the body of the instrument whereas on Ambassadors the second slide is angled strongly back towards the mouthpiece receiver.
Due to these differences I would guess that it is not a conversion from a Bb instrument but is an independently designed instrument.
But this is supposition on my part.
For me the right angle of the second slide most strongly says this is a different instrument than a Bb Ambassador.
Olds as far as I am aware only changed the angle of the second valve in one other instrument and that was the Super, the very early supers had the slide angled towards the bell and later supers reversed this and angled the slide towards the receiver as in the mendez and the recording.
I am unaware of any other Olds with straight out second slide.
This straight out slide perhaps was needed if this was built as an Eb and required a shorter second slide than a Bb and tooling made it convenient to set the slide straight out.
I would defer to more knowledgeable members on this however.
Old thread I know but I just saw this and had to speak.
This use of old bullets or perhaps the brass spent cartridge cases to manufacture a brass instrument is for me a wonderful use of old brass that has a bad history and could perhaps be healing for the community.
I wholeheartedly approve of such an enterprise.
I see a parallel here with Besson post 1918.
It is believed and well publicised that after 1918 brass was in very short supply in Europe in general and in France in particular, having been swallowed up in armaments manufacture.
Besson it has been said adopted a policy of acquiring all the spent brass shell cases that were littering the fields of battle and the trenches.
These shell cases were then used to manufacture their instruments.
The instruments played with a beautiful sweet tone which has in part been attributed to the characteristic annealing effect of the exploding propellant when the guns were fired.
To me both physically and emotionally the two enterprises, Josh Landress use of modern spent cartridges and the Besson use of spent shell cases fit well together.
If this were nothing more than an excellent and peaceful use of war material that would be enough but I feel that it demonstrates that we can turn away from war and move on and this re-use of these materials illuminates a beacon of hope that we can bring order from chaos and healing from misery.
This is not cheap advice
This is expensive advice paid for in full from a lifetime of study of growth and of effort
The words reek of quality and importance.
Thank you for sharing those very wise words
It was a coincidence or rather an observed correspondence or alignment.
Having said that I believe all things are connected in one way or another and these connections are not always obvious but it takes sometimes wisdom or clarity of thinking to understand and reveal the connection.
We all if we are lucky can contribute to the accumulated knowledge and reveal the synergies that surround us.
Thank you for your contribution.
@ Trumpetplus
I like your concept and postulation.
I am not going to claim any expertise so my words are just speculation, however this is my thinking.
Sound travels in waves, radio travels in waves, radar also travels in waves so we can perhaps compare the behaviour of all these waves to your concept and see if there is any agreement.
Light is reflected by a reflective surface, radio waves are reflected by the heavyside layer allowing them to travel around the earth, radar waves which for many decades were assumed to only travel in straight lines have been discovered to be reflected in a similar manner to radio waves and incoming targets can be detected over the horizon.
Why then should we assume that sound waves cannot act in a similar manner to these other waves and be reflected by a suitable surface.
Light, radio, radar, and sound, all can be reflected by a suitable dish reflector so we know they all can be reflected.
Furthermore light waves pass along the length of an optical fibre and around the bends in that fibre by bouncing around within the fibre exactly as you have laid out in your drawing. I find this to be compelling evidence that you are correct.
Your concept therefore neatly obeys the behaviours of many other kinds of waves and aligns with other work and knowledge of the behaviour of these many other waves.
We cannot prove this concept without extensive research of course but it looks right and has a simplicity and beauty.
Simplicity and beauty is very important in nature, with the DNA double helix for example, before Watson and Crick the explanations offered of the structure of DNA were all excessively complex and convoluted in their attempt to explain a complex system. Watson and Cricks double helix was both simple and beautiful.
Simple and beautiful in nature is often right.
For all these reasons I choose to believe your concept.
Thank you for sharing it.
@Trumpetplus
I am building a healthy respect for your thoughtful and well considered replies that display a great deal of technical knowledge and experience.
I would love to read your thoughts and reasoning as to why the crooks have less effect than the tuning slide.
I have a suspicion that the location of the tuning slide in the wrap may have a bearing on this in relation to the location of the nodes and where they fall in relation to the standing wave.
Let us not forget as well that the tuning slide end is not the only sharp bend in the instrument, the passageways within the valve itself also bend the airway sharply and is often overlooked.
These instruments are very complex and it is of no surprise that confusion can easily strike us when we least expect it.
It is a pleasure discussing these characteristics with you and other members too of course.
Thats an excellent reply trumpetplus.
My position on this is I agree with you, and I would argue that your reply confirms my position somewhat.
Consider the extra bends introduced by using valves. Compare that to the change in shape of the tuning slide.
If the tuning slide shape change introduces changes to the tone, and I agree it does, then how profound must the changes be when introducing even one extra bend of 180 degrees when using one valve.
Do you hear huge differences in tone and timbre when depressing one single valve and adding 180 degrees of bend into the wrap.
What of the cornets that had a replaceable leadpipe to change pitch that had a 360 degree bend in the leadpipe did they sound like a tenor horn when using that leadpipe.
Something does not add up here .
Maybe I am missing something or I am tone deaf.
But a rising scale on a trumpet whether it has a c shaped slide or d shaped slide sounds very much the same in timbre and tone as I ascend.
Does it change hugely for you when you play a rising scale.
Perhaps that is my problem, when I hear a rising scale played on a trumpet all notes sound aligned in timbre and tonality, they all sound similar to each other but rise in pitch, and other musicians must then hear notes that vary hugely in timbre and tonality and probably dont even sound like they come from the same instrument.
I have to say that I am disappointed that manufacturers in 150 years of development have been unable to make any instrument with a consistent tonality throughout its range but we are where we find ourselves.
Hi Jolter,
I understand your position and I wont disagree with you that there will be a difference in nuance of tone when using different valve combinations, but that is not what I am talking about.
Declarations have been made in the past many times that the reason a shepherds crook cornet has a very noticeable richer and deeper tone than a trumpet is due to the extra 40 degrees or so of bend that the shepherds crook introduces into the wrap.
So if that is true, that 40 degrees of extra wrap makes a noticeable richening of tone then adding more bends must make the change even more profound. Double the wrap bend must double the tonal change, ten times the wrap should make ten times the tonal change.
So if the 40 degrees of extra bend substantially makes the tonal difference between cornet and trumpet what might an extra 180 degrees make tonally and what would an extra 360 degrees make and what would an extra 540 degrees of bend make.
an extra 540 degrees is 12 times the amount of bend than the shepherds crook alone introduces.
If it is true that 40 degrees of extra bend introduces very noticeable richness and darkness to the tone, then simply depressing three valves should change the tone massively and yet it does not.
Are you really suggesting that a trumpet played open sounds like a trumpet and with three valves depressed it suddenly sounds like a trombone or a euphonium and with two valves it sounds like a flugel and with one valve it sounds like a cornet.
The difference in tone should be expected to be huge, not slight.
The argument is that an increase in bend of the wrap caused by the shepherds crook is responsible for the richness of tone of a cornet. That makes no sense to me and I hope you might revue my words based on this.
Or is my hearing so bad that I cannot tell the difference tonally between a trumpet and a trombone.
Bends alone do not change tonality immensely or hugely, I am sure of this, but if you are hearing immense and huge differences in the timbre and tone of your instrument when using different valve combinations I would be very interested in exploring why that might be.
As far as I am concerned the instrument should sound very much the same when playing different notes.
Or maybe we are simply talking about different things and there is a slight misunderstanding between us.
May I ask are you supporting the view that the 40 degrees of extra bend in the wrap that the shepherds crook introduces, is responsible for the tonal difference between cornet and trumpet. If not then we are not in disagreement at all.
Thanks for the warm welcome trumpetplus
I had no intention of causing trouble I just saw something that clashes with my experience
As for experiments there can be experimentation without formal experiments.
The experimentation I speak of is many side by side comparisons of instruments of varied and various types and of varied construction with valve blocks in a variety of positions.
Never have I found that the instrument varies in tone richness as various valve combinations are used, as it should do if the amount of bend in the tube determines the richness of tone. I think that theory is clearly incorrect.
I have seen tones varying in instruments that have valve blocks in different locations in the tubing, sometimes in support of the theory but at other times in complete opposition to the theory and that is not how a good theory should behave. It should be consistent reliable and predictable.
If there is a theory then that theory must be supported consistently by experience and be repeatable and perform the same way every time, any failure of the theory either makes the theory incorrect or calls for further investigation at the least.
If the facts dont support the theory then either the theory is not correct or there must be another explanation.
I stand by my words, I presume your contention is my opposition to the statement that a valve block position closer to the bell yields darker tones than a valve block positioned further away from the bell, and my opposition to increased bends in the tube yielding darker tones.
I have given my reason for rejecting the theory for both, I have seen instruments with valve block closer to the bell with brighter tones than instruments with valve block further away.
In my experience from observations with instruments of all types and a lot of different designs, not as much experience as some have and certainly not as much as a good tech might have but enough experience that I should be able to see clearly whether or not the theory holds true and gives predictable results, and in my view it doesnt.
I have seen however countless examples of correlations between
heavy instrument and dark tones
mouthpiece changes and predictable tone changes
bell shape and predictable tone changes
rim shape and predictable tone changes
oral cavity changes and predictable tone changes
embouchure changes and predictable tone changes
the theories all hold up well in these other areas we can make predictable changes and these changes result in the expected brighter or darker tones.
What I will say is this, under certain circumstances of design and size of bell flare in a cornet for example the valve block must by design be closer to the bell, but if the bell flare is such that the horn plays darkly, the darkness may be interpreted as being a characteristic of the valve block position, whereas it is in truth a characteristic of the bell flare.
Could this go some way to explain why valve block position appears to affect darkness in cornets compared to darkness in trumpets.
We can compare like for like in trumpets as I have done but cornet to trumpet is not a like for like comparison. Is there a way of comparing 2 cornets with different valve block positions that might show the effect of moving the valve block.
And critically how much does that contribute to the tone.
Apologies for the length of this post
I got a lot more from your earlier comments kehaulani, but thanks for commenting
I have done a great deal of experimentation and I do not accept that the position of the valves has any relationship to the tone.
If that were the case then my peashooter with valves closer to the bell should be darker sounding than my balanced model with valves further away from the bell.
Nothing could be further from the truth the peashooter with small and thin bell flare sounds much brighter than the balanced model.
I do not accept that the number of bends in the wrap has any effect on the tone.
If that were the case then when I play open the tone would be much brighter than when playing with all valves down.
I am after all considerably increasing the amount of bend in the tubing when using the valves. 360 degrees played open and fully 900 degrees of bend with all three valves depressed, and no change whatsoever to the tone.
What does affect the tone is all of the following:-
the shape of the bell flare,
the size of the bell,
the thickness of the tube wall,
the material the instrument is made of,
the position of the braces,
the weight of the valve block,
the presence or not of a rim wire,
the mouthpipe shape and design,
the mouthpiece weight,
the mouthpiece size,
the mouthpiece cup shape,
the mouthpiece cup depth,
the size of the oral cavity,
the embouchure,
the tonal concept in the head of the player,
These are the real differences between trumpet and cornet
I would bet my life and all I own on this.