| I’ve spent the last couple of hours playing the WT with the #1 slide against my .470 bore Chicago. (After getting used to the WT, the only noticeable differences between the WT with the #2 slide and the Chicago are the Amado water keys on the WT and the slightly freer valves.)
Intonation: The WT has excellent intonation, although no better than the Chicago. Both play within a few cents of right-on from low F# to high E.
The “Blow”: The WT with the #1 slide has a more open blow than the Chicago. Both play more open than any other horns I’ve played with the exception of a couple of 45-50 year old Calicchios. With the #2 slide the WT and Chicago are very close. No two horns are going to feel exactly the same, but these two are real close.
Response: Excellent with both horns. Interval leaps, lip trills, slurs are easy. The WT with the #1 slide is more responsive below the staff. No question about it.
Tone: I don’t notice any significant difference in tone with either slide anymore. At this point, I have 4-5 hours on the WT. Guess I’ve gotten used to it. The excess brightness is gone. Now I just sound like me. Well, that’s what I expected, isn’t it?
Valves: The WT valves feel quicker than the Chicago. On the other hand, I can’t play “Flight of the Bumblebee” any faster. With both horns, I’m running 145-150 bpm.
The WT sure feels good, though.
So, what do we have?
The WT costs almost exactly twice what the Chicago 1070 costs. Is it worth it?
If I were a professional trumpet player, it definitely would be. No doubt about it. I’d be willing to re-cork my mutes and go for it. I’d leave the #2 slide in the closet forever.
As a fairly-serious amateur who plays 10-15 gigs a year, no. I can’t justify the cost.
Bottom line:
I’ve never played a trumpet I loved more.
I can’t afford it.
I wish I could!!!
John Lisbeth |