King/Holton compact 4/4 BB-flat comparisons...

[bloke]

I've posted extensively about this project in the repair forum, but I'm posting this here (not about the project's undertaking) but to compare this instrument to the similar "new-style" King 2341. This project began as the rarely-encountered Holton 1960's "student" model BB-flat, model 560.

Though I have a few more (in boxes...in the attic), I REALLY drag my feet - when it comes to building myself new "project" tubas. A decent job (for a picky consumer: me) requires hundreds of hours of my time - hours that I should be devoting to TCB (repairing OTHER people's instruments, home/vehicle maintenance, etc.)
--------
This is one of my rarely-taken-on (and just-completed...other than a finish...perhaps later) "projects".
It's a very compact (a scant 32" tall) 4/4 BB-flat based on a rarely-encountered "student"-model (very similar to York 33) HOLTON tuba from the 1960's.
For comparison, it sits next to a customer's King 2341 (which some may recognize as one to which Lee Stofer - I believe - added a 5th rotor).
========
Here are some comparisons:
HOLTON - 19" bell
KING - 20" bell
-----------
KING - 34" tall
HOLTON - 32" tall
-----------
KING - 11" thick (back-to-front)
HOLTON - 9-1/2" thick (back-to-front)
-----------
KING - 24-1/2 lbs. - w/mouthpiece inserted
HOLTON - 23-1/2 lbs. - w/mouthpiece inserted
-----------
KING - "long whole-tone" 5th valve
HOLTON - "long SEMI-tone" 5th valve
-----------
KING - 2 water keys (plus aftermarket "anti-King-spin" water key)
HOLTON - 6 water keys
-----------
KING - longer capillary (mouthpipe/tuning slide)
HOLTON - longer bugle (expanding bows)
-----------
KING - good sound/good intonation
HOLTON - good sound/good intonation, and (with apologies to Conn-Selmer, but...) considerably more "horsepower", and more "slippery" slurs



...began as:


The original "student" model was remarkably similar to a York 33,
other than the slightly larger Holton bore size: .665"
I strongly suspect that the bell's/bows' tooling was dusted off to
create the decades-later "Phillips" models 331 and 330,
which was ALSO a .665" bore instrument (though front-action).

[Yorkboy]

Thanks for that comparison - I’ve been wondering about this exact thing. The King bell is @ 2” longer than the York/Holton 19” bell (and the York 7xx bell is about another @ 2” longer than the King bell).

On a similar tangent (but appropriate regarding your comments and observations):

Reasons why the (old-style) King tuba makes a good palette to build a CC tuba:

- shorter bows (both overall length and height) than a York/Holton 19” bell 4/4 BBb tuba

- plentiful capillary tubing that can be omitted

- super long bell and stack (compared to the squatty York/Holton 19” bell)

[bloke]

this gent ↓ , speaking from MUCH more experience (re: these models) than me...

Thanks for that comparison - I’ve been wondering about this exact thing. The King bell is @ 2” longer than the York/Holton 19” bell (and the York 7xx bell is about another @ 2” longer than the King bell).

On a similar tangent (but appropriate regarding your comments and observations):

Reasons why the (old-style) King tuba makes a good palette to build a CC tuba:

- shorter bows (both overall length and height) than a York/Holton 19” bell 4/4 BBb tuba

- plentiful capillary tubing that can be omitted

- super long bell and stack (compared to the squatty York/Holton 19” bell)

King made a (also, somewhat rarely-encountered) big- (20-inch...??) belled E-flat tuba...
I wonder if the bell mandrel from that instrument was dusted off for the "new style" 2341...(??)
(I do NOT know how tall that E-flat tuba bell was...)

[Yorkboy]

King made a (also, somewhat rarely-encountered) big- (20-inch...??) belled E-flat tuba...
I wonder if the bell mandrel from that instrument was dusted off for the "new style" 2341...(??)
(I do NOT know how tall that E-flat tuba bell was...)

My gut feeling is “yes” (there’s one on my current almost-finished project - you’ve actually had it in your hands), but I would defer to someone like J. c., who is far more knowledgeable about Kings than am I.

I haven’t measured it exactly, but it’s @ 2-3” longer than this York 19” bell:

0D65E885-603E-4021-A5A8-D9D53E3C6064.jpeg (89.69 KiB) Viewed 691 times

[bloke]

Wow…so that sure does seem likely.

How does that King play, compared to that York?

[Three Valves]

Compact BBb Frankentuba...

[Yorkboy]

Wow…so that sure does seem likely.

How does that King play, compared to that York?

That’s obviously not the correct mouthpipe (being used to check overall intonation). I’m still waiting on the 5th valve before I bend the final one.

With that said, initial observations - like a 700, but with better false-tones. With the 19mm/.748 bore and the York taper (the only part on that horn that is King is the bell) it’s kinda like a King on steroids, with a surprisingly big low register.

IIRC, Matt Walters played a pivotal role in the design of the Conn 52J (until they disregarded his wisdom ), which I’m sure uses the same bell as the new 2341, so he likely would have the definitive answer.

Comparison to the 33 is difficult to explain - is almost like apples and oranges due to the different bore sizes.

[bloke]

What pleases me about this thing is that it is such a powerhouse in such a small package…that...combined with the incredibly friendly intonation characteristics.
I’m sure that it produces plenty of sound to play any Tchaikovsky or any Prokofiev with any orchestra…really...and the fact that it produces more overtones than most of the 6/4 things contributes to it’s audibility.
The only thing that I’ve played that would offer yet another number on the knob (ie. an “11”) would be a really outstanding Holton BB345.

[grayax]

IIRC, Matt Walters played a pivotal role in the design of the Conn 52J (until they disregarded his wisdom ), which I’m sure uses the same bell as the new 2341, so he likely would have the definitive answer.

I believe it was the other way around. They used the bell from the Monster Eb on the 52J to save money on tooling costs. When the 2341 was redone, they (the development team) had to use the same bell.

[Yorkboy]

IIRC, Matt Walters played a pivotal role in the design of the Conn 52J (until they disregarded his wisdom ), which I’m sure uses the same bell as the new 2341, so he likely would have the definitive answer.

I believe it was the other way around. They used the bell from the Monster Eb on the 52J to save money on tooling costs. When the 2341 was redone, they (the development team) had to use the same bell.

Yes, that is correct.....I thought that’s what I said (at least that’s what I wanted to say - sorry for the confusion.

PS - I sent you a PM - did you get it?