• FAQ  • Search  • Memberlist  • Usergroups   • Register   • Profile  • Log in to check your private messages  • Log in 

Bach ML 72 vs Bach L 72



 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Horns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Trumpetstud
Veteran Member


Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Posts: 202

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:56 pm    Post subject: Bach ML 72 vs Bach L 72 Reply with quote

How much difference in sound will there be between ML 72 and L 72? Also, I'm not talking about the lightweight L 72 but the heavier one (?)

Maybe it should be a different thread but the Martin Committee that Chris Botti plays (Large Bore with "larger bell" is what I read) how might that compare to the Bach L 72?

Asking for a friend. LOL

Thanks for the input.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goby
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The difference in sound will be negligible. You’re talking about a difference of .003” at the valve section between the Bachs. The horns might feel different (especially if the L bore 72 has a 43 leadpipe compared to an ML bore 72 with a 25 pipe), but to the listener, they should sound the same**. The Committee has a larger bell (by volume) and different leadpipe taper to any Bach, and the physical dimensions are different (tighter, vintage-style wrap) so it will feel different to you as the player. Generally, players perceive resistance in an inverse manner to how it is implemented (i.e. a smaller bore horn or tighter throat mouthpiece feels more “free blowing”) so going solely off of bore size or specs can lead you astray. Chris Botti plays a large bore Handcraft Committee, which is different from the “regular” Committee trumpet of the 50’s. The sound between Martin and Bach likely isn’t as drastic as people will make it seem like, although as the player, you’ll likely notice a more dense sound from the Bach, and have an easier time changing the timbre of notes on a Martin. Both a Bach 72 and a Martin are excellent choices for a rich sound, so you can’t go wrong there.

**This is assuming the horns are mechanically sound and in good condition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr_trumpet
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 2532
Location: Cope, IN

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Bach ML 72 vs Bach L 72 Reply with quote

Trumpetstud wrote:
How much difference in sound will there be between ML 72 and L 72? Also, I'm not talking about the lightweight L 72 but the heavier one (?)

Maybe it should be a different thread but the Martin Committee that Chris Botti plays (Large Bore with "larger bell" is what I read) how might that compare to the Bach L 72?

Asking for a friend. LOL

Thanks for the input.


I own and use both. I love the sound of a Bach 72 bell. It is perhaps the most colorful of all Bach bells.

The large bore 72 I own has a Malone MB2 leadpipe and MK tuning crook, and it honestly sounds more colorful than the ML 72, which has a standard 25 leadpipe. I play the large bore for solo and orchestral, and some quintet. I have found that I prefer the MKL 72 for quintet and concert bands. I played Taps at Gettysburg last summer on the large bore, and played Taps on Memorial Day this year on the ML 72. I was happy with both.

The ML feels tighter than the L. I warm-up every day on the 72 large bore, and only play the ML in band or quintet. The blow isn't as big a difference as the endurance. I feel the greater work sometimes on the large bore, but that is dependent upon a lot of factors.

I can use the Large bore 72 in a jazz combo and sound as rich/smokey as I want, or play with zing. It will never be mistaken for a Schilke B6Lb though!

Those are my experiences. I also own a 37ML and a 43* ML and I prefer the 72 bell.

Hope this helps,

AL
_________________
Dr. Albert L. Lilly, III DM
Artist/Clinician for Vincent Bach Trumpets (Conn-Selmer)
Principal Trumpet, Hendricks Symphony (Avon, IN)
Arranger/Composer; Lilly Music
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It makes me crazy when someone, especially someone accomplished, posts what amounts to saying I changed the entire top end, first 50%, of the horn's geometry, but it must be the 0.003" bore diameter effecting 36% of the overall length that makes all the difference. . .

Doing a little metrology, the cross-sectional area of that portion of the horn impacted by the difference in bore size (its not end to end by any means) is 1.3% larger. 1.3% sounds like a lot, until you do the math and find that its a total of 0.04 cubic inches of swept volume playing open.

Bach achieves the same effective outer diameter to the tubing on the L bore while altering the inner diameter (we're talking primarily untapered areas) by using thinner wall tubing stock. This saved VB the cost of making a whole additional set of ferrules, bending forms, braces, etc. The net effect of it was to make the brass tubing effected by this change approximately 7% lighter on a large bore than it is on the ML. While it is still a tiny fraction of the mass of the horn overall, its a lot more mass than weighted caps or a receiver - and we know the effect those mass additions can have. Additionally, changing the mass of the valve slides, particularly the proportionate placement, alters the resonant frequency of those slides hanging off the body and thus the interference to the primary wave those generate in the filtering process.

Any perception of how much air it takes is purely psychological. At a given delta pressure across the throat of the mouthpiece, the volumetric flow will be the same in the horn regardless of the bore being 0.459" or 4.59".

There is, and logically must be, a difference in the playing characteristics between otherwise equivalent ML and L bore Bachs, but it's what comes with the bore, not the bore, that makes the difference. Try them blind - you will like one better. Don't go into it preconceiving which, especially for non-sense reasons, or that's what you will pick.

(And the short answer on the Committee question is that its a vastly different horn. Which works for a given player depends on the player and the only way to find which fits better is to try them)
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com

2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Trumpetstud
Veteran Member


Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Posts: 202

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all for the input!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr_trumpet
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 2532
Location: Cope, IN

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OldSchoolEuph wrote:
It makes me crazy when someone, especially someone accomplished, posts what amounts to saying I changed the entire top end, first 50%, of the horn's geometry, but it must be the 0.003" bore diameter effecting 36% of the overall length that makes all the difference. . .


I'm not sure who this veiled attack directed at, so I will reply. I played the large bore 72 for over a decade as it came from the factory. The leadpipe and tuning slide were added much later. The horn played great from the factory, but as I played it, I felt it was tighter than another 72L I owned with a 25 reverse leadpipe. I literally sounded like the greatest trumpeter for 20 minutes on that trumpet, then was shot because it was simply too large a trumpet to play for me. The one I play (above) is the perfect balance of open feel, ability to color the tone, and response.

I got the MB2 to open up my large bore 72 a bit, and a large-bore single radius MK slide in bronze to add some additional color to the sound. Had I left the 72L as stock, it would have been used less because the only adjustment I ever made to play that trumpet in the "as made" stage of my ownership was to develop and understand the specific characteristics of the trumpet, and to have the right mouthpiece for it. Very few out-of-tune notes, the high A above the staff was always sharp on the factory horn, but had tremendous color in the high register.

The ML 72/25 is a factory horn, rounded tuning crook is a Bach. With the standard crook, it felt tight. Much tighter than other horns. Working with it, I found the rounded crook gave a little more open feel. It plays slightly tighter than the large bore, but it is clear in comparing this 72ML with my 37ML and my 43*ML that the 72 bell makes this horn play differently.

In truth, I playtested thousands of Bach trumpets for the local music store back in the day, and I found more variations of playing characteristics in the greater produced horns (37ML, 43ML) than I ever did the less produced horns (72ML, 65ML, etc.). I could find a very tight 37 that was simply not a characteristic representation of the horn, or I could find a 37ML that played very open and very close to a 72ML. These variances are a lot less prevalent today in Bach trumpets.

I hope that clarifies my point and your concerns.

AL
_________________
Dr. Albert L. Lilly, III DM
Artist/Clinician for Vincent Bach Trumpets (Conn-Selmer)
Principal Trumpet, Hendricks Symphony (Avon, IN)
Arranger/Composer; Lilly Music
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JWG
Veteran Member


Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at only two variables (valve block bore size and bell taper) can mislead you:

In terms of larger diameter valve block bores, the math tells you that there exists little difference:

0.459": pi x r^2 = area of 0.165384585 sq.in.
0.462": pi x r^2 = area of 0.16755354 sq.in.
0.468": pi x r^2 = area of 0.17193384 sq.in.
0.470": pi x r^2 = area of 0.17340665 sq.in.

There exists only about 2/1000 of a sq.in. difference between the Bach ML and Bach L bore sizes, or 1.3% difference.

There exists only about 8/1000 of a sq.in. difference between the Bach ML and the largest manufacturer XL bore size, or 4.6% difference.

Thus, larger bore valve blocks do not make a horn appreciably more difficult or easy to play. The only appreciable difference and advantage to larger bore valve blocks exists in the potential increase in energy output of the horn, because you have slightly more volume in the valve block and its tubing to allow more air molecules to vibrate further in order to assist in sustaining and supporting the standing wave that we perceive as sound and that reflects back and forth between the mouthpiece and the bell. For this reason, orchestral players tend to prefer larger bore C trumpets for the very modest increase in energy capacity versus smaller bore C's.

Your mouthpiece's specifications and lead pipe specifications will have a far greater effect upon resistance and sound color than the valve block's bore size (affecting standing wave vibration capacity) or the taper of the bell (affecting standing wave reflection angle), because the valve block and bell sit so far away from your point of contact with the horn where your lips vibrate sympathetically with the standing wave as it starts and whereafter your lip vibrations sustain and modify the wave.
_________________
Flip Oakes Wild Thing Bb and C with 1.5 TCC, XT, C, C-O, O, & L mouthpieces
Bach 183S (undersprung valves & straight taper pipe) with 1.5 Flip Oakes XF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr_trumpet
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 2532
Location: Cope, IN

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JWG wrote:


Thus, larger bore valve blocks do not make a horn appreciably more difficult or easy to play.


So you are claiming that players cannot perceive and find the difference in even the most minute change in the instrument (in this case the bore)? And that, were we to take two clusters, put the same leadpipe (exactly) and the same bell (exactly) on the clusters and then play test them, the differences would not be large enough for players to perceive?

While I can agree that the leadpipe and bell tapers have a far greater potential influence due to the great percentage of the trumpet they make up, I cannot agree that a large bore vs. medium-large bore differences are indistinguishable, nor that the effect is so small that it is not appreciable.

Yes, I am one of those guys that still believe that science cannot yet measure everything that human perception can...

AL
_________________
Dr. Albert L. Lilly, III DM
Artist/Clinician for Vincent Bach Trumpets (Conn-Selmer)
Principal Trumpet, Hendricks Symphony (Avon, IN)
Arranger/Composer; Lilly Music
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dr_trumpet wrote:
So you are claiming that players cannot perceive and find the difference in even the most minute change in the instrument (in this case the bore)? And that, were we to take two clusters, put the same leadpipe (exactly) and the same bell (exactly) on the clusters and then play test them, the differences would not be large enough for players to perceive?


I expect JWG will chime in, but I am going to say yes with a proper test design, but practically no, it's just too hard/expensive to isolate the variable (and that is before we get to the decreased sensitivity of the advanced player who compensates subconsciously issue). Two things:

First, creating such a test is extraordinarily difficult (though the tiny difference in the original Bach example would help, as impact to the nodal map is minimal). You would need to construct two identical cores using machined tubing where the wall thickness is engineered to maintain the same mass per unit length between the two. (this would make for two not so great horns owing to some metallurgy issues, but equal in this regard). You would then need to position all bracing such that the relation between the couplings and the nodal map is maintained - that map shifting slightly with bore. Uniformity in alloy, hardness, soldering technique, etc. of course are also all required and very hard to achieve in hand builds. And, you would need these test horns to have a tuning slide gap at the end of the leadpipe to create sufficient wall turbulence to negate any step-change effect difference such as you would see if using a reversed configuration in this test set-up. Only then are you isolating the variability to bore diameter.

Second, you have to likewise negate psychological bias. That means that the testing must be blind (blindfolded and wearing gloves, some test designs for this have gone so far as to hold the horn for the play tester), and having multiple copies of each bore size so as to defeat the expectation of a difference with each swap in horns (you can't fool play testers with the same horn unless there is a huge wait between in order to let the horn cool - pitch gives it away).

Dale Olson conducted research into this for his book Sensory Evaluation of Brass Musical Instruments, and found that a remarkable number of of characteristics are perceived by testers that turn out to be false (characteristics less subtle than we are talking about), and derive purely from their preconceptions based on what they think they are playing.

At the end of the day though, my objection is to terms such as "tight", "open", "big", "too large", and though I dont see it in this thread "too much air". These convey a difference in volumetric airflow that simply does not exist - a consequence of the unfortunate term "resistance" we use to describe how much energy a horn demands of us to achieve an expected dynamic at our ear. The reality is that at a given pressure difference across it, that little hole at the base of the mouthpiece cup is always going to flow the same volume of air per unit time (assuming constant barometer, hygrometer and thermometer, and no difference in the mix of nitrogen, oxygen, etc.)

Anyone who doubts this need only make a hose-o-phone out of 3/4" ID vinyl tubing from the hardware store and a scrap bell you can cut to fit. Tape your mouthpiece up (or step in with a couple sizes of tubing) and you will have a 0.750" bore trumpet with more "resistance" than you can imagine. Its the damping of the soft tubing, not the airflow.
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com

2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Horns All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group