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