Re: Re: Re: Tuning Slide In Leadpipe??


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by C(G) on January 24, 2004 at 01:14:56:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Tuning Slide In Leadpipe?? posted by Mark Heter on January 24, 2004 at 00:39:19:

Mark, to my way of thinking, it makes little difference where one puts the (tapered) tuning slide--if you stick it after the valves, you've still got the same situation when you pull it out--the taper changes. I happen to think that the taper after the valves can make a bigger difference than a change in taper in the leadpipe.

I've got a remarkable BBb made from an old Keefer body, Conn SS valve section (0.734 throught he first 3, 0.770 through the 4th valve)--and the tuning slide in the leadpipe. The horn wasn't one of my creations, but was put together by the late Larry Minick. It's one of the best-playing BBb instruments I've ever owned--big warm sound, nimble articulation, really good intonation--and very easy to play. By conventional wisdom, everything's wrong with the horn--the short-stroke valves, the tuning slide in the leadpipe, you name it. Yet it works wonderfully--runs soic rings around my BBb Alex 163 and is right up there with the big Martin. If I didn't like the way it played and sounded so much, I'd have sold it years ago, because it's got to be one of the ugliest horns I've ever seen.

On a day where I had more time than sense, I substituted a leadpipe and tuning slide for the original setup. Not one bit of difference in the feel or sound, except that the intonation degraded slightly. I put it back the original way.

So, I'm not completely sold on the "tuning slide in leadpipe=bad" school. I believe that fine instruments can be constructed in this manner.

This, of course, means nothing about how the Conn referenced in the original post plays. Just that it shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand.




Follow Ups: