Posted by Klaus on March 15, 2003 at 17:57:55:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rhetoric posted by ooh! ooh! me! on March 15, 2003 at 17:35:09:
Chuck's idea is technologically to elaborate for brass instruments' conditions.
However my favourite love/hate maker of brasses has had some very good ideas.
That maker is Besson/Boosey & Hawkes. I love them for their inventiveness and hate them for the bad execution of their ideas.
My 1967 Imperial Brit style 3 valve comp baritone has a double pear shape to its pistons. That is: the diameter of the piston is slightly larger at the top and bottom ends with the purpose to combine maximal tightness with a minimum of contact surface.
My maybe best trombone ever, a first generation Sovereign .547 with two tuning slides, one of them incorporating a 4th valve, had a very functional slide design:
The inner slide branches had been polished, probably before the plating, to have a spiral pattern running down them to the stockings. That delivered a much reduced contact surface, which was easy to grease for optimal speed.
Sadly I sold that trombone to a student. When I could afford to buy it back, his next teacher had allowed him to run it down very badly. No responsible greasing, lots of dents. So I let him keep it. Sad, sad.
Klaus,
who has some instruments wit extremely fast rotors, but who when it comes to larger brasses despises the distortion to the airpath, which is inevitable with the very rotor system.