Design differences of late Truetones/New Aristo and Series I/II Aristos

Just lost 20 minutes of writing! Dang!
Short version:
Please nobody jump on me...but...er...parabola.
How it has been described to me by Rascherites is that the NAs had the "parabola" while the Aristocrats had the straight cone. This "parabola-like" flaring occurred was on the key side of the tube (according to a John Edward Kelly article that I can no longer find). There is a great thread on SOTW archives with Curt Altarac, Gayle Fredenburg and Paul Cohen discussing this parabola. Didn't seem like any definitive answers came out of that...there has just been a respectful silence on the parabola since. Anybody that has tried a NA next to an Aristocrat has to admit that the bore is totally different...however, I don't think anyone has uncovered the mystery yet. According to some, the new Keilwerths have the parabola though they do not advertise this and, to me, they still sound more like an Aristocrat than a TruTone or a New Aristocrat. Short, unverified answer, the key side of the cone flares out subtly like a "parabola" on the NAs and TTs. I wouldn't say this in public though.

I doubt it would be anything you could see with your eye.

Going back to the original question, I'm wondering what exactly you are looking for, wind.miller? It sounds like you want a discussion of bore size, tone hole placement, etc, but will that get you anywhere as to how these horns differ in terms of how they sound, or how they play? Which is the important thing, right?

From that perspective, I've heard that the TT & New Aristocrat have a similar sound, with the NA having more updated keywork. The series one 'Crat has a somewhat different sound, more focussed and a bit brighter maybe (?). I suspect the earliest Big B with the smaller bell is essentially the same as the series one. Although, you didn't ask about it, the later Big B/156 with bigger bell definitely has a different sound and feel. More "free-blowing," with a more spread sound. I think that is where a real distinction can be made--between the "series one" and later Big B/156.

I'm basing these observations on pretty limited data: I have TT alto, had a series one "Crat alto for awhile, and have a series one tenor and a 156 with big bell tenor.

JL said:

I doubt it would be anything you could see with your eye.

Going back to the original question, I'm wondering what exactly you are looking for, wind.miller? It sounds like you want a discussion of bore size, tone hole placement, etc, but will that get you anywhere as to how these horns differ in terms of how they sound, or how they play? Which is the important thing, right?

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. Guess as with anything like this I need to explain my terms. (Also, in my initial post, which I trimmed down, I might have stated that I was curious about the tenors only in this instance, but I must have edited that out. Sorry.... )

On the one hand, sound is important if a large number of players come to some sort of agreement on what to expect from Horn A with Setup B. But I'm not primarily interested in "how they sound" here because the player and setup are such huge variables that I doubt we can settle down to any lasting conclusions.

I don't want people running around with their digital calipers measuring points of their own choosing, either. I was hoping when I posted the query that there might be people on this forum who have already made some reproducible comparisons, having been led by their curiosity to search for physical explanations behind any widely acknowledged differences in intonation, timbre, volume. Also, at my own gut level, I have perhaps wrongly assumed that there are *practically* NO physical differences in the horns +/- the model transitions I asked about.

I've actually measured a few Buescher bores in multiple spots, but not any NAs because I've not had the opportunity.

Pinnman said:

My (admittedly vague) recollection is that there were at least three different sets of toneholes placements and/or tonehole sizes for the The Buescher/TT series vefore the NA.

Regarding the parabola, this one has been discussed before without any joy. A pity; it is one of these eternal enigmas that seem to be incapable of solution. One mildly tangential point here is that The Sarge at Worldwidesax claims that the parabolic curve was replaced when the Big B became simply the 'Crat model 156. No-one else has claimed any other difference between these two models, believing them to be the same. I think he is pushing it, but have never got round to e-mailing him to ask about it.

Click to expand...

Maybe the parabola topic should be carefully side-stepped here. My own personal "belief" is that makers built horn bodies with straight conical mandrels and that the tonehole side of the body is structurally the weakest and most prone to a mild buckling over time, creating the arch that many people see and describe as a segment of a parabola. But I'd be thrilled if I were proved to be plain wrong about this. There are people on SOTW who most certainly know a great deal about that; I'm not one of them. As to tonehole placement, I suspect Buescher and the other makers were constantly -- within any given model production run -- moving some around and resizing them, too, tweaking for better intonation and a desirable timbre defined by players of the day.

Necks on the late Truetones look very similar to those I've seen in pics of the NA tenors. Earlier Truetone necks are clearly not the same at all. Aristos had at least two necks as well, the shorter/fatter one on the early Series up to the early Big Bs.

I have to reiterate something; as per my initial post, I'm mostly curious about the physical differences delineating late Buescher Truetones from the NA model, and the Series I from the Series II. All about tenors only, here. I didn't really specify SN cutoff lines, assuming it wasn't necessary.

I've closely measured a Series II Big B and a 156 Aristo. They are identical, aside from the neck and the fact the 156 I examined had measurably thicker body tubing (Body only, not bow or bell.)

Boy I'd better get back to work or these thoughts about Bueschers may be my last.....