Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1072812 Posts in 71143 Topics- by 18855 Members - Latest Member: Disco
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumHorns, Gear, and EquipmentInstruments(Moderators: tbone62, slide advantage) Conn 88h...does it have a big sound like bach 42?
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Conn 88h...does it have a big sound like bach 42?  (Read 3682 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
machoman689
*
Offline Offline

Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Joined: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 116

View Profile
« on: Apr 03, 2004, 09:10AM »

hey all,

i'm just wondering if the conn 88h produces a big wonderful sound like the bach 42 does?
Logged

Will "Torry" Holt
YES...a person CAN play football and play in the symphony band too....and be very good at both...
ghellquist
*
Offline Offline

Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: Jan 3, 2002
Posts: 367

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Apr 03, 2004, 10:41AM »

Yes. And no. It all depends on the player. A good player can make a big wonderful sound on just about any horn.

Both horns are professional level, large bores of the kind currently favoured by most musicians for orchestral use. For jazz usage, first chair big band or jazz solo, most players would probably preferr a smaller size horn.

To some degree it is also about the "fit" between the player and the horn. This "fit" is what makes the player decide on one horn when selecting. Some of the worlds great players use Bach 42, other players use Conn 88h.

Gunnar
Logged

Middle aged bass trombone owner
Dan H.
He doesn't know how to put this, but he's kind of a big deal

*
Offline Offline

Location: Saratoga Springs / Potsdam, NY
Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 2600
"Conquer the devils with a little thing called love"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: Apr 03, 2004, 12:15PM »

machoman,

I find that the sound of the 88H is very flexible, meaning that it is easy (for me at least) to color the sound the way you want it. The 88H was designed to be that way. The Bach is just the opposite, however, as it has a very solid sound which requires more effort to change. Which one's better? It all depends on your preference.

So to answer your question, yes the 88H can have a big sound like the 42. But it doesn't have to.

Try an 88H out- see what you think.
Logged

- Daniel Havranek
fin

*
Offline Offline

Location: Grand Blanc, MI
Joined: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 610

View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: Apr 03, 2004, 02:13PM »

I've heard plenty of Bach 42's that didn't have a big sound, especially lately listening to several solo and ensemble competitions.  It is entirely dependent on the player.

I think it is easier to have a "big" sound on a Conn, but it is a different sound than the Bach.
Logged

so you want to jump out your trick bag....and ease on into a hip bag....but you ain't exactly sure what's hip..............
Paul Hill

*
Offline Offline

Location: Tucson, AZ
Joined: Oct 9, 2000
Posts: 1629

View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: Apr 03, 2004, 05:33PM »

Hi Will,

My thoughts about the 88H/42B and the 62H/50B are about the same:

I feel that Conn's produce a more "lively" sound that is easier to "color" while the Bach's have a consistently "stable" sound. A Bach may not sound as "vibrant" as a Conn but they hold up to extreme volume very well and are extremely consistent (which is why many orchestral musicians prefer them or something made to "Bach-like" characteristics).

The attributes of either horn can be viewed positively/negatively, dependent upon your perspective. Totally agree, too, that much of this is player dependent. I don't know what to say about a "big" sound, though. I have heard Bach's play plenty "big" - perhaps the overtones inherent in the Conn bells gives the allusion of a "bigger" sound? There are plenty of folks who can produce a full, rich (big?) sound on a Bach...

Personally, I like the "flexibility" of a Conn (which is the reason that I own several of them and my Shires is basically a 62H clone). I have owned/played Bach's and liked them, especially for orchestral situations but, generally, I find them somewhat "stiff".

Your best bet is to spend some time on both instruments and draw your own conclusions.

Best Regards,
Paul  Hi
Logged

Bass Trombone...A State of Mind!
David Gross
*
Offline Offline

Location: Sudbury Massachusetts
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Posts: 3377

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Apr 03, 2004, 05:41PM »

I agree with Dan and Paul. The 42 gives you a big, consistent orchestral sound. The 88 gives you more control over the sound but maybe not quite as big. Nothing wrong with either one - it's all a matter of what kind of sound you want.
Logged

Dave

Money talks. Mine says "Bye bye!"
Warpedcow

*
Offline Offline

Location: Apple Valley, MN
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 104

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Apr 03, 2004, 08:33PM »

I've heard that the new 88HK and 88HK-CL are much better at rip-roaring during loud orchestral passages - I play an 88HY-CL and I think it's great at huge dynamics, but you have to be careful!  On the other hand, a good Bach (which I think is hard to come by) is very easy to blast away on, and also sounds good, though a little different than the 88H.  Anyway, the 88HK is the new model with a 9-inch bell, modeled after an old famous King bell of some sort I think - I'm trying to find an 88HK nearby to try out, if you have access to one, try it!

Cheers,
Dave
Logged

David Adolphson
Principal Trombone
Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale
colin

*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Dec 29, 2000
Posts: 1002

View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: Apr 04, 2004, 04:11PM »

In the past I've mainly played Kings (3B+ & 4BF) and for the last 3 years a Conn 88HO. I did try a straight Bach 42 for 6 months around 4 years ago because I felt my 4B was too bright but found the Bach very difficult to play.

With hindsight I think my problem may have been with my expectation over the years that a trombone sound brightens up as you get louder. As the Bach 42 has a more consistent sound, I blew harder and harder and felt it unresponsive. I persevered with it for 6 months expecting to adapt to the instrument but I never did. I have sat next to players who have had wonderful sounds with the Bach but to play personally I found it felt very dull and disappointing.

I enjoy the response I get from both my 4B and 88HO and prefer the sound on the 88 although I am still tempted to try other horns.
Logged
Warpedcow

*
Offline Offline

Location: Apple Valley, MN
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 104

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Apr 04, 2004, 04:21PM »

Quote from: "colin"
With hindsight I think my problem may have been with my expectation over the years that a trombone sound brightens up as you get louder. As the Bach 42 has a more consistent sound, I blew harder and harder and felt it unresponsive. I persevered with it for 6 months expecting to adapt to the instrument but I never did. I have sat next to players who have had wonderful sounds with the Bach but to play personally I found it felt very dull and disappointing.

I enjoy the response I get from both my 4B and 88HO and prefer the sound on the 88 although I am still tempted to try other horns.


I think that a trombone should "brighten" as you get louder.  But the brightness needs to be balanced with darkness as well - you need the right amount of both.  When you do, the change of the sound when increasing volume becomes EXCITING rather than shrill or harsh.  I've heard all kinds of instruments (Conn, Bach, Rath) that we're played with this exciting change of sound, and I've also heard those same instruments sound too dull or too harsh.  I'd say it mostly depends on the player, so use whatever works for you, though I must say I've never heard anyone play a tenor Edwards with a sound that I like.

Cheers,
Dave
Logged

David Adolphson
Principal Trombone
Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale
down8ve

*
Offline Offline

Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Joined: Dec 4, 2002
Posts: 50

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Apr 05, 2004, 05:51AM »

Quote
I think that a trombone should "brighten" as you get louder. But the brightness needs to be balanced with darkness as well - you need the right amount of both. When you do, the change of the sound when increasing volume becomes EXCITING rather than shrill or harsh.

 I'd say it mostly depends on the player, so use whatever works for you, though I must say I've never heard anyone play a tenor Edwards with a sound that I like.


(Welcome to the forums, oh warped one) ;-)

THIS IS A PERSONAL OPINION ALERT
We can say all we want about how the player makes all the difference, but we should not be afraid to state how certain instrument configurations point the musician in certain directions.

Thick, yellow instruments hold up under extreme volumes better than a 42G, but the price paid for that exchange is NOT worth it, IMHO.  There were a lot of sections that exchanged 42Gs and Elkie Conns for sledgehammers in the early 90's.  

My experience was in Cincinnati, and I remember the first recording I made with them without the old Conns (Respighi Transcriptions/Telarc 1995).  The sound of the section was good, but there was something missing.  It was hazy, fuzzy.  By the Mahler 3 recording in 1998 we had fallen into the volume trap associated with these instruments, leaving the rest of the orchestra behind (or ahead, depending on your personal goals).  

As the bass bonist on those recordings, I became less and less impressed by my sound, especially on the Mahler.  I have since sold that equipment and am pursuing a different path.  It helps that I get to work from time to time with an orchestra that prefers old-style Bachs and even old Conns.  Gee, they sound like part of the ensemble... imagine that!

My advice it to find an instrument that is a LOT of fun to play and doesn't screw up the blend and balance your ensemble.  Never buy an instrument that coaxes you into working hard.

Scott
Logged
dj kennedy

*
Offline Offline

Location: chester illinois usa
Joined: Dec 17, 2000
Posts: 12138

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Apr 05, 2004, 07:22AM »

BBIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Logged

XXXXooOOOOOXXXXXXXXX
LUCKY  LUCKY LUCKY  !!!!!!!!!!
Dan H.
He doesn't know how to put this, but he's kind of a big deal

*
Offline Offline

Location: Saratoga Springs / Potsdam, NY
Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 2600
"Conquer the devils with a little thing called love"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: Apr 05, 2004, 05:55PM »

you said it dj
Logged

- Daniel Havranek
jazztbone722

*
Offline Offline

Location: Miami, FL
Joined: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 346
"I play music"


View Profile
hmm
« Reply #12 on: Apr 05, 2004, 07:08PM »

Well even though im asking for advice on what horn to get, i can tell you that i like the sound i get on the Conn 88h(school horn, has the lindberg valve on it); pretty quick response however the valve has a strange timbre to it, almost like a mix of a really mellow trombone and a french horn, but a good portion of that is my playing(though i dont really get alot of that sound on other horns).nonetheless its truly your preference of horn i suppose. if you are a "Big" player you can get that sound you want to acheive from lots of hard work. IMHO you can get a big sound on whatever horn you are playing on with the right tone reference in your head.
Logged

K.R.Moore
some sort of trombonist.
Logan Chopyk
*
Offline Offline

Location: San Diego
Joined: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 6

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Apr 09, 2004, 04:23PM »

Hey,  you don't need to decide between Bach and Conn.  Just get a SHIRES.... mmmmmmm.  Doens't that sound nice?  Shires....    Shiressssssss..... Amazed
Logged

- Logan
Edward_Solomon
Vintage trombone aficionado

*
Offline Offline

Location: London, UK
Joined: Nov 9, 2001
Posts: 1834
"Freelance semi-pro bass/contrabass trombonist"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: Apr 09, 2004, 04:52PM »

Quote from: "down8ve"
By the Mahler 3 recording in 1998 we had fallen into the volume trap associated with these instruments, leaving the rest of the orchestra behind (or ahead, depending on your personal goals).  

As the bass bonist on those recordings, I became less and less impressed by my sound, especially on the Mahler.  I have since sold that equipment and am pursuing a different path.  It helps that I get to work from time to time with an orchestra that prefers old-style Bachs and even old Conns.  Gee, they sound like part of the ensemble... imagine that!


That is exactly my experience, too. From 1997 to 2004, I played on an Edwards bass trombone, but also became increasingly dissatisfied with the sound of it, especially after having recently obtained an old Conn 70H B flat/F bass trombone. With the assistance of people like Chris ("blast") Stearn, I soon came to realise that it had all gone wrong and that I needed to get back to basics. I sold the Edwards bass trombone last week and am now pursuing alternatives. I have tried the Rath R9DST (very impressive, but expensive) and the Conn 62H (new model, also quite impressive and a lot less expensive). The comments I have had from tenor trombonists have been very positive as they prefer the more focused sound and better blend of a bass trombone that doesn't dominate and overpower the tenors or the rest of the ensemble. At least for Scott and me, it looks as though the tide is beginning to turn... One day, hopefully very soon, others out there will begin to realise that the trombone really isn't a very important part of the sound of an orchestra - mostly colour and texture, rarely anything of great significance in the overall scheme of things. Then we'll all get back to basics.
Logged
Logan Chopyk
*
Offline Offline

Location: San Diego
Joined: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 6

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Apr 09, 2004, 10:44PM »

How can you say that trombone isn't an important part of the orchestra?  I don't know about you, but I think some of the best orchestra pieces have really awsome low brass parts.  In the orchestras I'm in, the trombone has a very large role.  In most of the London recordings I have, I've noticed that I can't hear the low brass very well.  That could just be the recording people, but I've started to think that British players don't like to play with as much balls as American players.  Think that might be true?
Logged

- Logan
FSU bone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, TX
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Posts: 290

View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: Apr 09, 2004, 11:15PM »

Quote from: "Warpedcow"
I must say I've never heard anyone play a tenor Edwards with a sound that I like.

Cheers,
Dave



So you must be the one person that doesn't like Joe Alessi?  Don't know
Logged

Sean McCarthy
www.annieontour.com
Edward_Solomon
Vintage trombone aficionado

*
Offline Offline

Location: London, UK
Joined: Nov 9, 2001
Posts: 1834
"Freelance semi-pro bass/contrabass trombonist"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: Apr 10, 2004, 02:07AM »

Quote from: "Logan Chopyk"
How can you say that trombone isn't an important part of the orchestra?  I don't know about you, but I think some of the best orchestra pieces have really awsome low brass parts.  In the orchestras I'm in, the trombone has a very large role.  In most of the London recordings I have, I've noticed that I can't hear the low brass very well.  That could just be the recording people, but I've started to think that British players don't like to play with as much balls as American players.  Think that might be true?


Sorry, but that's just rubbish. The vast majority of the orchestral repertoire has really very little music of prominence for the trombones in comparison, say, to what the horns, oboes, clarinets, first violins, cellos have to play. Yes, there are nice moments, but that is all they are - moments. Somebody else has the melody most of the time and all you need is a crass trombone section that puts its oar in when it gets its few seconds of importance to ruin a well-balanced orchestra. You know what? It's not about the trombones, it's about the music.

Thinking of the core orchestral repertoire, there is relatively little of really great import in the music of Mozart, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Ravel, Debussy, Saint Saens, Elgar, Britten, Vaughan Williams, Walton - even (dare I say it) Richard Strauss and Mahler. Most of the time the trombones (and tuba) are simply there to add extra colour and weight. Remember that it's about the music, not about the trombones.

Now on the subject of British trombonists, there is not a single one out of the professional orchestras that could not match the sheer decibels that American trombonists can produce. But as I have already said, it's not about the trombones, it's about the music.
Logged
lyrictenor1
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 49

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Apr 10, 2004, 02:17AM »

WORD!

Thanks, Ed!  We need more people who think like us in the trombone world!  Good!  It's about the music.


BTW, Logan, I still like my 88h better than your Shires (and my own old Shires- 88h setup) ...and yes, I've played your horn...but that's all irrelevant.  You gotta play what works for you.  I feel like I get the colors I want out of my 88h along with great response and ease of playing...different strokes for different folks...

~Joe
Logged

Introibo ad altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
TimS
*
Offline Offline

Location: New York, NY
Joined: Apr 30, 2002
Posts: 1405

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Apr 10, 2004, 08:55PM »

Quote from: "Ed_Solomon"
Thinking of the core orchestral repertoire, there is relatively little of really great import in the music of Mozart, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Ravel, Debussy, Saint Saens, Elgar, Britten, Vaughan Williams, Walton - even (dare I say it) Richard Strauss and Mahler. Most of the time the trombones (and tuba) are simply there to add extra colour and weight. Remember that it's about the music, not about the trombones.


I agree that it's about the music, not the trombones.  But what would that music be without that "extra" color and weight?  Every instrument in the orchestra is important to the overall sound.
Logged

Tim Shneier
NYC-based freelancer
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: