Re: B&M Symphonic


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

Posted by Rick Denney on June 05, 2003 at 13:51:46:

In Reply to: B&M Symphonic posted by js on June 05, 2003 at 13:01:58:

The B&M plays nicely indeed. I spent some time with it on the day I bought the Holton. It has a bit faster bell taper and a bit warmer response than my York Master. The detailing isn't as good as the YM (no nickel sleeves, etc.), and the arrangement isn't exactly the same (the inner bows run on opposites sides of the bell, the valves are higher (?) on the instrument, the first-valve branch has wider crooks, and the fourth-valve routing ain't the same).

But I played it when I was utterly consumed by Holton Lust, so I didn't check it for things like intonation and the like, though I didn't notice any obvious problems. And even were I focused on it fully, I would not have checked it in ways that you would think important. In short, it didn't ring my bell the way, say, the Meinl-Weston 2000 did, but it might have come closer had I not been so focused on buying the Holton.

I've never played a B&M C, though I sat and listened to Gil Corella try one out that was owned by a college kid formerly of our band who had returned last summer to sit in. He praised it extensively in ways he did not praise my YM, heh, heh, though he thought his G-50 might have had a bit more "punch". Still, though, I can't compare them.

Too many BBb buyers look for shine, and the B&M shows some experience. That's the only reason I can think why it hasn't sold yet.

Rick "who should have been paying more attention" Denney


Follow Ups: