Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cimbasso poll

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

Posted by Jay Bertolet on July 24, 2002 at 13:18:43:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cimbasso poll posted by Chuck(G) on July 24, 2002 at 10:13:11:

And let's not forget the very early versions of the cimbasso that looked very much like a wooden ophicleide. As Klaus stated, the term is vague. If I remember correctly, there is still considerable debate as to the exact meaning and derivation of the word. Nobody seems to be able to precisely pinpoint the origin of the term.

I also think that the cimbasso should have a smaller bore, but not too small. That Orsi horn looks like an interesting design but I bet it doesn't work as well as the trombone style design. The key is to produce a horn that sounds like a trombone. That is the greatest strength of the cimbasso in this context, its ability to blend with the three upper parts. This was the basis of my presentation at the recent ITEC. Everybody there could clearly hear the difference in blend and overall section sound quality with the cimbasso versus the tuba.

My opinion for what it's worth...

Follow Ups: