What are you talking about, bloke?
I haven't really liked old/vintage/1960's Besson 3+1 compensating euphoniums for quite a while, and probably not 1970's versions much better - if any better.
but bloke, Brian Bowman played one.
yes...and he came to my high school with the Navy Band around 1973 or so and was playing one, but within a very short number of years (just about the time the Blaikley Compensating System's patent ran out) he was playing another make.
They play flat down low, and sharp up high.
but bloke, it's up to the player to play in tune, by the way, does the instrument feature it's original intermediate shank? Dr. Bowman believes that changing the shank size to large ruins them.
I actually removed the "euphonium" shank, pulled another (identical) one from the drawer, put it on the lathe, reamed that spare out to large shank, and A/B'ed the two shanks with similar mouthpieces (though intermediate shank vs. large shank mouthpieces, obviously). Both played the same...sorta crappy...and it certainly is up to the player to play in tune, and it's up to the player to choose an instrument whereby this isn't such a tremendous struggle.
It's also difficult to get a really full/rich sound.
Yes bloke, but you're only a doubler...
...so why is it so easy to to produce a full/rich sound with (and with apologies to those who sell them) even most of the Jinbao ones, compared to one of these?
Well, maybe technology has moved along.
I think that's probably true, but I suspect that I might have a better chance of getting a full/rich (ok...but not "world-class"
) sound out of one of these old Besson instruments, were the valve tolerances better (including those which are in original condition, and not worn from age).Again, bloke, technology has moved along.
OK, but King baritone horns, tubas and sousaphones from the same era (comparing new-condition to new-condition) certainly featured pistons and casings with closer tolerances than Besson.
...but we LOVE our vintage Besson euphoniums.
Yes. I know you do.
