King 3b+F

[hyperbolica]

When I get a new to me horn, I like to record my initial thoughts here. Not so much because I think anyone will actually read them, but because I'll probably want to refer to them later after the honeymoon period has worn off.

I recently bought a 3b+F from a TC member. It's the kind of stuff I normally buy - not pristine, and a little less expensive than the item might otherwise be. I sold 4 other horns the same week. 24h, 6h, 356g and an 83h bass. The 3b+F was meant for quintet playing where I need a horn to have presence but be on the brighter side to blend with the trumpets and not bury the horn. I had been using a 3508, but I really need a valve in the quintet. I had also been using an 88h w/525, which is hard to beat in any situation.

I've never been a big King fan. I recognize they make pro instruments, and some pros rely on them to make a living. I don't question that. But for me, they just strike me as a student instrument. The first learners horn I had was a 605. To me, all the best Kings are weird niche horns. Like the 6b, 1480 and this 3b+F. The regular 3b is obviously a mainstream horn, but I don't really get along with that model.

Anyway, I played the 3b+F at home just to get a feel for it. It took a few cleanings to get the old slide lube off, and the valve needed some oil to quiet down a little. It had probably been in the closet for a while. But mechanically, it cleaned up very nicely.

It took a while to settle in to a mouthpiece. DE D+3 contributed too much to the brightness, the E4 was too dull. E3 was almost right until I played it again the next day. D+4 did the trick. It's still on the bright side, but it has enough weight to not get out of control. Of course all of this has to be measured against my struggles with the bass trombone. I can't really equate that to other brand sizes, but according to Doug's mouthpiece comparison chart, it would be between a Lindberg 4 and a Schilke 52. That sounds big, but the small shank must make it work. Doug's stuff is sometimes difficult to compare to other brands. It's not a bad thing.

Then I got to play it in tbone quartet, and it didn't really shine in that application. I was on a lower part, and it didn't fit. Not that anyone should expect it to. I usually play a big bass or big tenor for that part, but one chart just had a high 4th part. The sound of the 3b+F is kind of bright. Certainly brighter than my former 522 79h. The 79h could pull off lower parts. It was darker than my 88h in many respects. But the 3b+F just isn't. 1st or 2nd parts in quartet.

Some people use the same horn for orchestra and quintet. Doesn't make sense to me, but lots of pros do it. I'm not afraid of having my own opinion. These are probably the same people who would play 547 on lead in big band, if they played in big band.

Anyway, yesterday I took the 3b+F to quintet, and wow, was that the right setting for the horn. It played remarkably in tune, actually sounded good when playing with the tuba, and sounded like a 3rd trumpet when it needed to, while not burying the Fhorn. Bright, clear, tromboney sound. There are groups where you can't easily distinguish between the horn and the bone. In these situations, it's easy for the horn to get lost. That happens in our group, until now.

I checked the intonation on this instrument, and the typical Conn tuning characteristics are not there. That will take a while for me to get used to. The high D is playable in 1st position. High F is not as sharp as I'm used to, and high G is just about in the right place. High Bb and C are good. Double F works, not that I need it to.

The sound just on its own is a little unsettling to me. I'm a lifelong Conn player, and that's what I tend to expect from horns. Kings seem to always be on the brighter side than their competitors. I have previously auditioned a 3bF for this job, and it just didn't gel. I mean it did at first, but as I got used to it, it just felt like heartburn. That's not a good description, but it's the thing that came to mind while playing it. The 3b+F sounds bright, and until I get used to it, that sound is probably going to grate on me just a little. The blending sound is glorious.

So yeah, initially it's a great horn. I hope it continues to grow on me, and I get more comfortable with the sound of the horn on its own. If you get a chance, and you have a need for something bigger than a 3b but smaller and brighter than another standard 525, give the 3b+F a chance. They aren't exactly growing on trees, but if you don't need the F, it may be easier to find one.

[Burgerbob]

My 3B+F (rose bell) was a pretty good player, but actually brighter than my 3B/F. It had a broader sound by a bit, but somehow brighter. I'd like to try one with a yellow (or sterling!) bell at some point. I judged it to be just more work than my 3B/F with no real upsides for my work.

[DerekMcC]

Thanks for the review. The 3b+ is one I wish to try one day. I am still on my quest for "The" horn for me.

[Finetales]

Glad you're liking the horn in the quintet!

[AtomicClock]

What was/is used in the famous quintets? Canadian, Empire, American, Boston, Triton, ...? I've always assumed a symphonic .547 is pretty standard.

[Burgerbob]

What was/is used in the famous quintets? Canadian, Empire, American, Boston, Triton, ...? I've always assumed a symphonic .547 is pretty standard.

Almost always a .547.

[hyperbolica]

Yeah, I asked someone who plays in Boston Symph and in one of the US/Euro traveling quintets what hardware changes they made between symph and quintet, and they said none. Playing second parts in a big hall or pop tunes in a recital hall - same workhorse. It seems like something lighter is called for in the quintet.

@Finetales - yeah, there's further to go in the "getting to know ya" phase, but I think it's gonna work just fine. I'll probably find other places to use it as well, although the 88h w/ 525 gets most of the general player sort of gigs.

[BGuttman]

I started on a .547 in my quintet but shifted to a Bach 36 with F. Better blend with the horn. When I played the 3rd part I used my Conn 36H alto with someone on a Bach 42T on the 4th part.

There was a quintet out of (I think) San Francisco called "The Brass Band" who had the trombone on the 3rd part and an English Baritone on the 4th. The trombone in this case was a King 3B.

I had a chance to play a 2125F Anniversary Silver Sonic but I was unimpressed with the horn. King appeared to be going through some kind of doldrums about then.

A lot of reports here seemed to indicate that the 2125F played like a larger 3B rather than a smaller 4B; and not really a replacement for a Bach 36B or Conn 79H.

[hyperbolica]

A lot of reports here seemed to indicate that the 2125F played like a larger 3B rather than a smaller 4B; and not really a replacement for a Bach 36B or Conn 79H.

I'm not a King afficionado, and only a little experience on 3b. I've spent a lot of time on 79h, however. I can see the 3b comparison, but I didn't care for the 3b I had, and I'd rather compare it to something I liked.

[Finetales]

Personally, I have played in quintet on everything from .508 to .547 and it's all worked great. With the right setup (horn, mouthpiece, approach) anything in that range can be great in quintet IMO. But I do think .525 is the Goldilocks quintet size. We talk often on here about .525s being the "jack of all trades, master of none", but I think it is the absolute best choice for quintet and certain other single-trombone settings.

Of course, most of us aren't playing nearly enough quintet (let alone getting paid to play quintet) to justify a purchase just for that. But once you have a .525 you can find other uses for it. I've used my King 607s on tons of stuff, both live and in the studio. And I just got back from using my Willson .525 on a folky gig with 3 brass, flute, 3 strings, rhythm section, and vocals. It felt just right!

A lot of reports here seemed to indicate that the 2125F played like a larger 3B rather than a smaller 4B; and not really a replacement for a Bach 36B or Conn 79H.

The 36B is a small big horn and the 3B+F is a big small horn. They definitely aren't the same design philosophy, but IMO you can still use them for the same things. The 3B is such a versatile design already, and the .525 version is just as malleable and versatile, so you're not really losing out on any utility over a 36. The 3B is also famous for working happily with any mouthpiece ever, and you don't lose that trait by increasing the slide bore by .017.

[hyperbolica]

Personally, I have played in quintet on everything from .508 to .547 and it's all worked great. With the right setup (horn, mouthpiece, approach) anything in that range can be great in quintet IMO.

Yeah, I've used 48h 500 bore, and it works for certain tunes where you're essentially a 3rd trumpet. My current quintet has some specific limitations with the horn player which drive my equipment choices on bone. He just gets buried if I play something too big

But I do think .525 is the Goldilocks quintet size. We talk often on here about .525s being the "jack of all trades, master of none", but I think it is the absolute best choice for quintet and certain other single-trombone settings.

Agree again. But not all 525s are the same. Shires 525 I played was fully as big as a Bach 547. 3b+ is definitely on the small side.

The 36B is a small big horn and the 3B+F is a big small horn. They definitely aren't the same design philosophy, but IMO you can still use them for the same things. The 3B is such a versatile design already, and the .525 version is just as malleable and versatile, so you're not really losing out on any utility over a 36. The 3B is also famous for working happily with any mouthpiece ever, and you don't lose that trait by increasing the slide bore by .017.

I agree with all that. My former 3b had some issues. It just didn't sound/feel right to me. The plus version is more comfortable to play. Aside from fiddling around on bass, most of my playing for the last 15-20 years has been on 525.

[JLivi]

The 36B is a small big horn and the 3B+F is a big small horn. They definitely aren't the same design philosophy, but IMO you can still use them for the same things.

I've heard this every time a medium bore trombone (3b+, 36b, 79h etc) is brought up. It always confused me until I finally got the chance to play a 36b to compare to my 79h.

When I was at midwest this year, I was at the Greenhouse booth and the trombone guy was telling me the reason for that is because the mandrel that the 36b is built on is the same one as a 42, but instead of making the bell 8.5" they cut it down to 8". Whereas for the other medium bore horns, they use the mandrel they use for an 8" bell, like King 3b+ is built the same a 3b would be.

I'm not sure if that was common knowledge already and I was just ignorant to it, but it intrigued me.

[JohnL]

When I was at midwest this year, I was at the Greenhouse booth and the trombone guy was telling me the reason for that is because the mandrel that the 36b is built on is the same one as a 42, but instead of making the bell 8.5" they cut it down to 8". Whereas for the other medium bore horns, they use the mandrel they use for an 8" bell, like King 3b+ is built the same a 3b would be.

I'm not sure if that was common knowledge already and I was just ignorant to it, but it intrigued me.

It's been bandied about here from time to time. Bach used the existing 36 mandrel for the 42. I suspect he didn't think there would be much demand for the larger bore horn, so he didn't want to sink much money into the project, and tooling is expensive.

We talk about the 36 being a "medium-bore", but .525" was considered pretty large back when it was first introduced.

If you ever get the chance, try a Bach 34 sometime. You might find it enlightening.

[JohntheTheologian]

Disneyland had a brass quintet years ago-- maybe they still do, but my recording is old-- called the Make Believe Brass.

I consisted of an Eb cornet, a Bb cornet, an English baritone, a large bore trombone-- at least the picture on the cover looks like a large bore King-- and a helicon-- not sure what it was pitched it.

A very interesting sounding quintet.

[Dennis]

What was/is used in the famous quintets? Canadian, Empire, American, Boston, Triton, ...? I've always assumed a symphonic .547 is pretty standard.

Achilles L. in the Canadian Brass uses a Shires Sauer model with the dual bore slide.

[Finetales]

It would be interesting to collate information on different .525 models into three categories:

1) uses a .547 mandrel, either cut to a smaller diameter (e.g. 36) or left as is (e.g. Yamahas)
2) uses a smaller horn mandrel (e.g. 3B+/607)
3) uses a unique mandrel designed for .525 from the start.

I would assume that the first category would be like 90% of all .525s, but maybe not.

[UATrombone]

As I understand from many previous posts, 36 mandrel WAS originally designed for .525" (so, category 3).

[Blabberbucket]

As I understand from many previous posts, 36 mandrel WAS originally designed for .525" (so, category 3).

Yup, the 36 was designed and produced nearly 20 years before the 42 and was considered a large bore instrument when it was released.

[hugheddy]

Yes. I always thought of the 42 as an enlarged 36 -- the main difference being the .547 slide and its large shank mouthpiece receiver vs the .525 and its small shank.

John Swallow played a 36B with the NYBQ as did Ron Borror with the ABQ. They both did extremely well with it.

[Finetales]

As I understand from many previous posts, 36 mandrel WAS originally designed for .525" (so, category 3).

Yes, but retroactively I think it's more than fair to put it in the first category even though the .525 was designed first. The 42 taper is not just appropriate for a .547, it's on the larger side of .547s (think about the 42 taper vs. an 88H for example). Hence why we think of the 36 as a "small big horn", as that taper is really solidly in large bore territory (and hence why the 36 works very well in contexts you might use a large bore in).

My point with the three categories was to find .525 bells that were designed to fit in between that maker's small horns and large bore horns in size. The 36 doesn't qualify for this as it uses the same taper as the 42 (or more accurately, the 42 uses the same taper as the 36). Perhaps one of the rarer Bachs like the model 30 would qualify.