Re: Re: Detachable Bell CCs


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

Posted by Lew on September 08, 2001 at 12:54:26:

In Reply to: Re: Detachable Bell CCs posted by Second part... on September 08, 2001 at 12:32:50:

I know that many professional French horn players seem to prefer a removable bell. I think that is mostly for convenience, not for the sound impact. I think that the desirability of the damping effect of a bell collar would depend on the characteristics of the horn with a single piece bell. I know that when I play the new King 2341, it has a fuller sound than on the older King 2341 with the detachable bell. In this case the bell collar seemed to be damping too much of the vibration and removing it allows the horn to open up.

Jay Bertolet has mentioned the wires he had added to the inside of his Cerveny 601 to focus the sound. In this case the metal was so thin that it needed to be dampened. What is the difference between these two horns? Well for one thing the King is made of much thicker brass than the Cerveny. It seems to me that the thickness of the brass on the King was enough to negate the need for additional damping of a bell collar. Maybe this is why most professional tubas today are made with a one piece bell. They are made with thick enough gauge brass that the collar will hinder the sound.

I believe that the other reason that tubas used to be made with detachable bells was because the big recording bells that were popular were easier to transport off the horn. It also allowed players to switch bells for different playing situations. Now that almost nobody uses a recording bell in a professional group, that point is moot.

I am not a professional, but I don't think that I would consider converting any of my single piece horns to a two piece. I got them because I like the way that they sound as is, so I wouldn't want to mess around with that. I do have a large Holton with a detachable recording bell that I am happy to leave the way it is.


Follow Ups: