|
Title: Conn
62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052 He uses an Edwards most of the time though........ Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
I have played all of the modern Conn 62H's... and I
have nothing good to say about them. It might be just me but they are
impossible to center, the slides aren't the best, and they break up at
high volumes. I would take a Conn 112 over the 62H. The yellow brass
Getzen sounds amazing. I have played it with Thayers/ rotors both dep
and indep and I loved them. Never had a chance to play a rose brass
bell Getzen. Z..
Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
I think I would take the 1062 out of that batch... I
tested one for a student and it worked well in the orchestra.
Chris Stearn Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
I don't think the topic header question quite makes
sense - the difference between 1052 and 1062 is not just independent vs
dependent - the 1062 is also dual-bore.
You have to try a decent-sized group of modern 62Hs before writing them off. Some (I would say about half, based on a sample of only 4) are gorgeous instruments if blown in the right way. The others are not. Slides - you have a good point - but for me the Conn tone quality is more important than a little slide scratchiness. But then, my sample is not large - one question that it can't answer that it suggests - modern 62H vs 62HI? In fact, the two that were not so nice were 62HIs, while the two that suited me better were dependent and CL, respectively (the CL example is my usual bass instrument - with a single bore slide - note that there have been a number of different flavours of 62HCL made available - over-large bell and dual-bore slide being two obvious issues with released versions). I was lucky enough to try an Elkhart 62H the other day. It was beautiful-blowing, big like a bass below the bass staff, compact like a tenor above it. This is the trombone that the modern versions of the 62H want to be - but they're built in a different time and place, sadly; they all have a more 'modern' vibe. Which is not bad, just different. I'd take the Elkhart if I had a choice, though. When I purchased my 62HCL (which was fitted with the dual-bore slide at that point - I changed it later, when it became clear that the effect was too slide-tuba), I had the opportunity to try it against a 1062 - I forget the options that were on it. I have not tried a 1052. I found the 1062 a very easy-blowing instrument that covered the whole dynamic range at all pitches with impressive ease with a genuine bass trombone tone. But after hours of trying mouthpiece and leadpipe combinations with these two instruments back to back, it became obvious to me that I was trying to make it sound like the Conn; there was something about the sound that was inherently different - the Conn had a warmth (that it still has after single-bore-ising) that the 1062 just didn't. But don't be confused by my waffle - if Chris thinks the 1062 is more likely to sound good in the ensemble, that's about as solid a recommendation as you'll ever find. Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
Just a couple of points.
To save money Conn Selmer used the bows from the 112H to make the wraps on the 62H. The net result for me is that there is far too much weight up by the bell flare and this makes the instrument fatiguing to hold as it wants to fall to the left all the time. I used to have a 1062 with a single bore slide so they are available. It was a great horn but I had a tax bill................ :/ BellEnd Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
I should have said more....
The reason I suggested the 1062 out of that bunch was... I've tried perhaps a dozen Conn 62H examples and only found a couple that I liked... and then I has not that convinced by them. Christian Jones in the Philharmonia has two 62H's and sounds like great on them... so there are good ones and you can get world class results on them. I've blown a few 1062's and liked them all. They did vary... and they lack some of the character of the Conn in some respects... but if I had to go out and buy one of the choices and use it next week, the 1062 would get my vote. I've only played one 1052, but preferred the 1062... and I've not played the 62Hi at all... but I found a 62HCL to be very much not for me... couldn't even get my face in it.... it was on the Conn stand at Frankfurt a few years back. I'm looking at this from the 'tool for the job' position... if you found a great example of a 62H you might enjoy the blow more than that of the Getzen... but that's personal too. I think the 1062 is more like a modern version of the Holton 169, whilst the Conn 62H is a version of the 112H... and nothing like the Elkhart 62H that it takes it's code number from. Chris Stearn Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
I tried a couple of 62H's briefly, one played fairly
well but they just felt weird, it'd take some time to get used to. I
played one 1052 for a couple of minutes, it seemed okay, but I'd have to
get used to the independent setup again. I haven't played a 62HI but
have a few 1062, which is the model of the four that I'd probably pick,
all things being equal, but that could be because it's more like what
I'm used to playing.
Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
Hello, and thanks for all of the replies so far!
Given all the other nods for the Getzen 1062 on this forum and
elsewhere, it has to be one great horn.
Now, do you like the red or yellow bell in the 1062? I hope to order both and send one back, but not sure if I can do that. The application will be in our Moravian church's trombone choir. We play mostly chorales and occasionally other pieces (e.g., recently we've played Locus Iste & Echo Canzona). Our membership currently includes:
Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
The sound is not really from the bell. I thought that
way when I got my horn... what it came down to was what bell allowed it
to be easier for me to make the sound that I wanted. With a red bell I
had to try harder. The Conn 62s I have played (and I have played at
least 15) all felt like large not balanced tenors. The horns weight is
all messed up towards the front on the standard 62H and 62HI. The
Greenhoe and CL versions were more balanced. Still felt the same way
though.
Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
Hi
I owned a 62H for three years,I slightly tweaked it by adding an Edwards SS No3 leadpipe and a Saur Brace,it really was a great instrument,if you understand it is not a monster blow everyone off the stage kind of trombone,I used it in lighter orchestral repetoire and in Big Band,and it was superb in trom 4tet..never had a problem with ergonomics.. I had an Edwards at the same time but never played it because I liked the Conn so much...traded the 62H in for a Shires dep thayer,but still miss it from time to time...Getzens are excellent all rounders and very hard to beat for bang for your buck. Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
I played some of the prototypes of the 62H when they
were being developed at UMI. I had a friend there who was the engineer
in charge of developing them. The 62H that I liked best had the
Christian Lindberg independent double valves on it, but not enough to
replace my Bach. The others I was not impressed with. At the time I was
playing a Bach 50B3 with a gold brass 10.5" bell, a Bach 1G megatone
gold-plated mouthpiece, a lightweight slide and a "D" slide on the 2nd
valve. I loved my Bach and thought nothing could touch it. A couple of
years earlier I had gone up to the Getzen factory and played the Bass
Bones there. I liked the horns especially the performance of the slides,
but not enough to give up my Bach. I asked the engineer at UMI if they
would consider putting a solid Sterling Silver bell on the Lindberg
version. I thought it would darken the horn while making a more
controlled, centered core to the sound. They finally did and I got to
play it for almost a year, I WAS RIGHT! It was a wonderful combination
and was exactly what I was looking for. It was like playing a slide
tuba!! I was playing bass trombone at the time in a british brass band
and it was a great horn for bridging the trombone and the tuba sections.
I gave up my Bach for it but later devoted my time to playing tuba
exclusively in another brass band. Don't have either the Bach or the
Conn anymore but would buy the Conn 62HCL with a sterling bell now in a
heartbeat! Caution: the 62HCL is the heaviest I ever played and you need
to keep your upper body, arms and hands in shape, or it will wear you
down. But still, even with that challenge it was worth it to play such a
great horn. I don't know if the Greenhoe version or replacing the CL
valves with the new Hagmann bass valves would improve the horn while
reducing the weight. Has anyone else ever played any version of the 62H
with a Sterling bell?
Martin Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
...
It was like playing a slide tuba!! ... Is this a good thing? Never much cared for that
ideal, myself. Even when playing tuba parts, I like a different
character to the sound. Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
In the brass band, some players like this. For me, the
approach loses more than it gains, but there are examples of players
making these kinds of sounds to general approval at the highest
(amateur) level.
Title: Re:
Conn 62H vs. Getzen 1062 or Conn 62HI vs. Getzen 1052
Christian Jones in the Philharmonia has two 62H's
and sounds like great on them... so there are good ones and you can
get world class results on them.
Chris Stearn
|