The Mr.Equipment Test Lab
Test #1- Student-model trumpets
The qualifier
The results reflect the opinions of five trumpeters in the Toronto area. Apart from delivering the instruments to the evaluators and recording the results, MrEquipment had no influence in the results of the test. The trumpets evaluated were selected at random, and apart from oiling, were not prepared for the tests in any way. It is important to remember that there may be anomalies (both good and bad) with any of these six instruments, although it is our opinion that a random sample of any manufacturer’s instrument should reflect that manufacturer’s overall quality. Also, these tests use brand new instruments, so you may want to ask your local repair technician or teacher for their opinion and experiences with the durability of any of these instruments.
Method
The trumpets chosen for the test were based
on popular models found in schools and school rental fleets in the Toronto area. A different geographical area would likely have a different selection, and
don’t complain because your brand of trumpet wasn’t evaluated- there will no
doubt be a wider selection in future tests. (Please contact us if you'd like to
submit an instrument in future tests.) The Mirage TR200 trumpet was chosen as
an example of the lower-cost Chinese instruments found at small music stores
and some mass merchants. Similar instruments (or the same instrument with a
different name) can be found all over, but we cannot say if they will be
identical to the Mirage.
All instruments were new in box provided by the manufacturer or local dealer.
The first panelist (Jason Logue) unsealed instruments to evaluate condition
“out of the box”.
Each panelist play tested the instruments alone in their own, familiar environment.
(Practice room, studio, etc), and it was suggested they approach the evaluation
as if they were trying trumpets for one of their students in a music store.
Each test began with a warm up on their own trumpet, followed by a blindfold
(or eyes closed) subjective evaluation of each trumpet (response, intonation,
tone quality), giving each a score out of ten. The same tests were then
repeated without the blindfold. The player could play whatever they liked to
test each trumpet, along with a two octave C chromatic scale tongued and
slurred as a control.
Each trumpet was evaluated and rated out of a possible “10” based on the
following criteria: (divided between the subjective-response, intonation, tone
quality and the objective –build quality, mechanical, and case).
The blindfold and non-blindfolded scores of the subjective tests were averaged
to obtain the subjective score.
Criteria
Objective
Build quality: overall design, comfort, balance, quality of
soldering, polishing and lacquering
Mechanical action: valve action, slide action, fit of main and valve
tuning slides, waterkeys
Case: durability, weight, portability, extra handles or straps, room for
music, mutes or accessories, how easilty it would fit into a school locker
Subjective
Response: ease of tone production in all registers and at all
volumes, consistency across registers
Intonation: how well the instrument is in tune with itself, and
consistency in all registers
Tone quality: combination of players own taste and their opinion of the
tone’s suitability for student’s situation (e.g. though some pro players would
find a trumpet “bright” for their situation, they felt that would be an asset
to a student)
The Results
|
Average Scores (out of 10) |
Bach TR500 |
Blessing B125 |
Jupiter 600ML |
King 601 |
Mirage TR200 |
Yamaha YTR2335 |
|
Subjective Criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response |
6.80 |
6.40 |
7.80 |
6.80 |
6.40 |
8.00 |
|
Intonation |
5.80 |
6.40 |
7.80 |
8.00 |
6.80 |
8.40 |
|
Tone quality |
6.80 |
6.40 |
7.80 |
7.20 |
6.60 |
8.20 |
|
Response (blind) |
7.20 |
7.20 |
7.20 |
7.60 |
7.00 |
7.40 |
|
Intonation (blind) |
5.20 |
7.20 |
7.80 |
7.80 |
8.40 |
8.00 |
|
Tone quality (blind) |
6.40 |
7.00 |
7.60 |
6.80 |
6.60 |
7.80 |
|
Subjective Score |
6.37 |
6.77 |
7.67 |
7.37 |
6.97 |
7.97 |
|
Objective Criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build Quality |
8.40 |
5.40 |
8.80 |
7.40 |
7.40 |
8.40 |
|
Mechanical |
6.80 |
4.60 |
7.60 |
5.20 |
8.20 |
8.20 |
|
Case |
6.40 |
5.20 |
8.60 |
6.20 |
8.40 |
7.60 |
|
Objective score |
7.20 |
5 |
8.33 |
6.27 |
8.00 |
8.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Score |
6.78 |
5.92 |
8.00 |
6.82 |
7.48 |
8.02 |
|
Ranking by evaluator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trumpet |
Average |
Jason |
Rank |
Richard |
Rank |
Jeff |
Rank |
Kelly |
Rank |
Brian |
Rank |
|
Yamaha YTR2335 |
8.02 |
8.25 |
3 |
7.17 |
1 |
8.50 |
1 |
7.92 |
2 |
8.25 |
1 |
|
Jupiter 600ML |
8.00 |
8.50 |
1 |
6.67 |
2 |
8.33 |
2 |
8.08 |
1 |
8 |
1 |
|
Mirage TR200 |
7.48 |
8.08 |
4 |
6.25 |
4 |
7.08 |
3 |
7.83 |
3 |
8.17 |
3 |
|
King 601 |
6.82 |
8.50 |
1 |
5.17 |
5 |
6.33 |
5 |
6.92 |
4 |
7.17 |
5 |
|
Bach TR500 |
6.78 |
6.00 |
6 |
6.67 |
2 |
7.00 |
4 |
6.92 |
4 |
7.33 |
4 |
|
Blessing B125 |
5.92 |
6.42 |
5 |
4.75 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
5.75 |
6 |
7.00 |
6 |
|
Ranking by criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ranking |
Score |
Response |
Rank |
Intonation |
Rank |
Tone |
Rank |
Build |
Rank |
Mech |
Rank |
Case |
Rank |
|
Yamaha YTR2335 |
8.02 |
7.70 |
1 |
8.20 |
1 |
8.00 |
1 |
8.40 |
2 |
8.20 |
1 |
7.60 |
3 |
|
Jupiter 600ML |
8.00 |
7.50 |
2 |
7.80 |
3 |
7.70 |
2 |
8.80 |
1 |
7.60 |
3 |
8.60 |
1 |
|
Mirage TR200 |
7.48 |
6.70 |
6 |
7.60 |
4 |
6.60 |
5 |
7.40 |
4 |
8.20 |
1 |
8.40 |
2 |
|
King 601 |
6.82 |
7.20 |
3 |
7.90 |
2 |
7.00 |
3 |
7.40 |
4 |
5.20 |
5 |
6.20 |
5 |
|
Bach TR500 |
6.78 |
6.80 |
5 |
6.80 |
5 |
6.60 |
5 |
8.40 |
2 |
6.80 |
4 |
6.40 |
4 |
|
Blessing B125 |
5.92 |
7.00 |
4 |
5.50 |
6 |
6.70 |
4 |
5.40 |
6 |
4.60 |
6 |
5.20 |
6 |
Your comments and suggestions are always welcome. Please send us an email at info@mrequipment.ca
COPYRIGHT © 2007 MrEquipment and Colin Murray