Can anyone describe to me the differences between the two Burke low D composite models, the EZ vs the Pro ?
I have a Burke low D composite EZ, and in general I like it very much. I love the tone and the very light weight.
But I read somewhere that the EZ model is a compromise, intended to please beginners and people with smaller hands, and that the Pro model has more volume and better tone.
So… even though I like my low d EZ, now I am wondering what I might be missing.
The difference between the viper and the ez has to do with hole size and spacing of the left hand holes only. Mike has posted on this topic before but I can’t find his explanation. The differences are not big. I personally don’t think you are missing much at all by playing the EZ model. What is the vintage of your Burke EZ composite? I’ll keep searching for Mike’s posting on the EZ.
I have owned a half dozen or so Burke low D’s since 2000 prompted by various re-designs. I currently own and play three different Burke low D’s on a regular basis. Each has their high points. The present Viper design is the most versatile, IMHO. I do own a composite EZ low D and have played the pro versions. I have had this EZ model since 2000 or 2001 and have not seen a reason to replace it as the newer models arrived. They sound similar overall (duh!). You wouldn’t notice any huge differences in volume of individual notes but the Viper may be a “tiny” bit more balanced.
I have a viper in aluminum and my wife has a viper EZ in aluminum. The only difference I can see, is that the bottom hole on the EZ is smaller and higher up the whistle than the non-EZ. This makes the bottom hand stretch less on the EZ. Moving the hole up would sharpen the pitch of it, so the hole is made smaller to bring the pitch back into tune. I can hear a definately weaker sounding E on the EZ as a result of that hole being smaller. My wife is quite small (5’2") and the EZ model is much easier for her to handle. The trade off is that she can play the EZ model but with an E that is of less volume and more out of balance with the rest of the instrument. You have to give up something (volume of the E) to get something (easier playability). Hence, the EZ model.
(edit) Had I noticed the above reference to the earlier thread, I would not have posted this. As usual, it has all been said before, but I must admit that the difference between the two is not “tiny”, but noticeable to my ear.
Thanks all!
I tried to Search before posting, really I did, but I think I just used too many search terms… I shouldn’t have included “composite”
Unlike the Vipers, I think that when it comes to composites, there are more differences than just the low D hole. My composite EZ (2002) has no brass tuning slide, but I believe the composite Pros do. I read that somewhere.
It’s weird: I have an Alba low D vibe, and Burke low D composite EZ. The holes are slightly closer on the EZ. But, I find it easier to cover the holes on the Alba. That is, I have no problem getting clean notes on the Alba, but on the Burke EZ sometimes my fingers just don’t quite cover the holes. But, the Burke’s holes are (slightly) closer, so it ought to be easier.
Maybe the difference is that the Burke’s holes are more… rounded? Chamfered? Something like that. Perhaps I’ll ask Mr Burke if he can make me a Pro composite and not chamfer the holes as much.