So What's Wrong With the Conn 2xJ Bugle?

[the elephant]

I have read for years that these horns are not worth the effort to turn into fixed, upright-belled horns with front valves. I have not seen any attempts to install rotary valves to one. I have not heard anything but random, whispered rumors about how they play when cut to play in C. These horns are a cipher for me.

I have my own ideas about how these tubas play and sound; I will keep them to myself unless they end up being worth contributing to this thread. I want to read some discussion by others about these horns as a collection of components in this thread.

So, firstly: the needed tuning bit. A nice idea, but the bits suck, and IMHO the leadpipe needs to be a single piece, in this case. It is VERY SHORT, so it tapers up to .770" way too fast, as I see it. This could contribute to their hoot-o-phone rep for soft dynamics. Probably not, but it could.

Next, the bell collar: I have played about 25 examples of the 2165 family of horns. Many of them had the tone ring. Many did not. I felt the tone ring did not work at all on a lot of the horns, making them "indelicate war hammers" instead of musical instruments. In a few cases I liked the ring a lot, so who knows what it is that I am associating with the rings. Anyway, the rings were an attempt (according to Gerhard Meinl when I spoke with him in the early 1990s) to see if a detachable bell horn has any acoustical advantages over a one-piece bell due to that added weight right in that area of the bell. He did not mention the Conns, but the King 2341 came up as an example. (Apparently, "someone" involved in the design process was convinced that this was a needed thing, so it was added.) Whatever. Soldering one into the bell is something that can be reversed if it turns out to be a mistake. But a detachable bell will *always* have that knot of weight right there. So, is that a good or bad or neutral thing?

Also, the sheer, silly size of the bell flare. I detest large bells and how they sound. I just can't stand them. There seems to be a sweet spot, and these horns seem to be from the era when they still did not have this dialed in, fully. I will admit that I dislike old, Bohemian/Germanic "flareless" bells just as much. The big bells are like lobbing peanut butter balloons while the super-small bells are like tossing darts at the audience. The archetype for a BAT bell seems to hover between 19 and 21 inches, with 20 seeming to be very common, and 19 being a close second.

The large, two-piece bell on the Conn 2xJ series of horns, IN MY OPINION, is the source of many of the things I dislike about them. I have only seen one horn where any real money and time were spent to really trick out one of these, to include a very nice bell. I hear a lot of salesmanship jabber about how great a horn it is, but it ends up on the block for sale far too often for this to be completely true. I also hear rumors that once you clear up stuff with a better bell that the intonations issues become much more clear and defined, in a bad way. Things that were always out but that were very easy to lip suddenly became very tightly slotted, and occasionally irreconcilable. Is this true? Does anyone really know?

So, I hate the bell, I absolutely blame the too-short leadpipe for some stuff, and I do not really like the valves or their orientation, and I do not play BBb tubas anymore. So why am I kicking over this log? I want to know if anyone has experience with the bugle in projects, meaning the bottom bow through the main slide. I like these because they are like a BAT, but smaller. It seems that this set of parts *should* make a mini-BAT (akin to the Gronitz PCK or the Kalison Pro 2000), that, with the correct bell could be an excellent CC tuba. The issues that Holton 345s have when cut seem to stem from the horn having too much fluid volume for the length of the open horn. These Conn bugles seem to me to be an alternative to this, with a bugle volume more appropriate for a 16' pipe. So why do they not seem to work out? Is the taper just too funky?

Could it be that the parts were designed poorly? (From C.G.Conn? BLASPHEMY!)

I have two of these, and both are good players. Not great, mind you, but they have decent intonation (after a lot of resoldering of joints and cleanup internally) and they have that foghorn sound I just love, but the response is good, charity is good with the right mouthpiece, and overall they do not suck. The bells are really tall, and there is a lot of slow-taper or cylindrical tubing in the main horn that trimming to the branches would not have to be excessive, and re-tapering the ends would not be difficult. But I do not want to chop one up unless I have a bell that I *know* will work with this sort of taper and that offers excellent clarity and color. The Kniffen horn has a Miraphone Siegfried bell. Has anyone played this tuba? Has anyone seen any other 2xJ horns with different bells that seemed to make the sound less band-section-like and more orchestra-solo-voice-like and that did not ruin the intonation or slot it so tightly as to make it hard to play well in tune?

I plan to restore the better of these two horns as an unlacquered 24J and sell it to fund a bell for the other one. (Alright, TBH I will cut up the better of the two as the lesser seems to be about as good as most of the fans of these horns seems to want to spend money on.) Again, I am looking at two years out, and need to find a bell, or I need to be waved off in no uncertain terms because it will end up being crap. (No, I will NOT restore it as a 24J. Period. It will be made into something, But maybe not a CC tuba with front valves. So don't wave the "history" flag at me. That is bunk with these tubas, which are dead common in many places and not worth much money unless in stupendous condition. Thanks.)

This is a thread to discuss the reasons why these horns never turn out to be good project instruments. Is it because they just stink, or is it because no one has yet found a good use for them where stuff works well? I am mostly interested in intonation and tone issues. I like how they play but dislike the sound. I have not had intonation issues with them like others, but I admit that I have not played many of them with others, so I don't know how easily they are lipped to fit into well-tuned chords in different inversions. I really like the inner and outer branches, though, and they seem like they would be more popular to screw around with. That they are not is why I am asking these questions.

Thanks. I will enjoy reading anything any of you decide to share, especially photos.

[bloke]

A friend of mine - quite a few years ago - cobbled together a 6/4 C tuba with a 190-C bell, a 20K bugle, an Allied 'pipe, a Nirschl valveset, and a 190 valve for a fifth valve.

When I saw it/played it - though they seemed to be tickled with it - it wasn't something that I personally would have found to be useful, particularly not after I (typically) spend 200 - 300 hours on "projects" (when I trick myself into "getting involved" with one of them), but here's my thing:

I don't have that many spare 200-300 hours-es to risk, and - if something starts out factory-funky - and I have no crystal ball available to me which could reveal how useful/playable it might end up being, once morphed into something else - I'm just not sure that I want to chance losing that spin.



...and I was absolutely delighted with the results of a 50-year-old 5-valve 186-C restoration/update/bling-out I undertook - not too long ago (amazing playing characteristics, thanks to dumb luck...but admittedly neither a franken nor a cut-down)...but then - when it came time to cycle that piece of equipment into my routine gig-age, I discovered that I really didn't need it.

All of that having been said, I've encountered several models of production ($XX,XXX) instruments (of which several hundred have been produced) that remind me very much of failed frankensperiments which - once those failures reached their R&D finish lines, their manufacturers obviously decided, "OK...We're going with that".

[the elephant]

That bell would not have been one of my choices, based on the few of those instruments I have played. I know, inconsistent, and for years no one liked them. You seem to have one of the only "good" ones out there in the wild. But "once bitten, twice shy" as they say, so I am not even willing to entertain the idea; I am more like "thrice bitten" in this case.

Which is the Miraphone that you are s gaga over? Was it the Siegfried? Kniffen had Martin Wilk use one of those, and it seems like that bell is more in line with the idea behind that bugle. Also, Tony's horn was the front, full-stroke version: the 36J, maybe? I can't remember. Are the inner and outer branches significantly different from the 2xJ series? The three 36Js I have seen over the years look to be the same, but I have never had a 2xJ and 3xJ next to one another for comparison.

[LargeTuba]

You should talk to Norm Epley, he cut a 20j to CC. I think he told me it ended up just being okay. I also know that Sam Gnagey also cut one to CC and I think I remember someone on the old forum saying it was just okay.

Honestly If I were you, Id sell both and get a Martin Mammoth. It seems those cut much better. Stofer, Gnagey, and Empley have all had good success cutting one.

I would still love to see you tackle this projects. If anyone can make it work, I'm imagining it would be you.

[the elephant]

Just my own limited experience, is that the 2xJ offered more edge at medium and loud dynamics than it’s plus-sized counterparts while offering less clarity at soft dynamics. In other words, it wasn’t helpful in achieving at least the reduction in edge the big tubas often offer, even though many offer less clarity at soft dynamics than 4/4 horns or bass tubas (this is usually an acceptable trade depending on repertoire).

To Joe’s point, investing hundreds of hours into a well-done cut with iffy prospectives is a pretty big risk. Compound that with Chinese-made 6/4 CCs starting to saturate the market to the point where used 2165s can be had for $7000 (one is on the other site for $7500 and has been on sale for a while...) with a “known recipe” of improvements, I think that a 2xJ project would be qualified as a labor of love. Love that might not be reciprocated...

If I had to make a guess, the reason 2xJs weren’t being cut up like Holtons, Yorks, and other 6/4 BBb tubas of days gone by is that they were sonically inferior to begin with. Mainly pros were paying for these horns 20-40 years ago to fill a void without having to pay Hirsbrunner prices and/or wait for availability (I think pretty much every HB-50 was spoken for before it was made or shortly afterwards). Nirschl came along in the early 90s and undercut HB prices with a higher fidelity copy. Most of these were sold beforehand also. Yamaha followed suit about 10 years later. Meinl Weston, and B&S, offered and sold “cheaper” 6/4 sized CC York-like tubas as well.

Cerveny and Rudy Meinl were making plus-sized rotary valved tubas all the while in decent quantities.

The point of my rambling is that the economics to cut a 2xJ probably haven’t been there when there’s been almost always something else available of better quality albeit at a higher cost.

That all being said, there’s a distinct possibility that a reconfigured and updated 2xJ bugle with a better bell and front action pistons (without bore distortion) could be a helluva player and the right horn for someone in a particular situation.

Another question, would a 190BBb bell work? I had a (pre 345 but 6/4) Holton body with a 190 bell on it and that horn made a fantastic sound. I wish I’d have kept that one and had a better valve set put on it.

[bloke]

Front-action one-piece upright bell 36J Conn tubas sport a more “professional“ look (though slides are not top-accessible) than 25J’s, but they impress me no more…and usually are found with very leaky valves, due to their age (and often with factory raw nickel silver pistons, which may have been plated with nickel sometime in the past by some shop, but NOT rebuilt - to actually remove the wear).

SOME Holton 345’s offer a usable 3rd partial... One - that is going to be on my bench in about three days to restore for a customer - is one of those…not even hinting at flat, but I’ve just never encountered a 36/2XJ where those pitches were usable, and every one I’ve ever encountered demanded playing those pitches on the fourth partial...but you already know that “minimal slide pumping“ and “Belwin Band Builder fingerings” - as of a couple of decades ago - moved up to #1 and #2 on my “requirements list“. You also know that I’ve recently been flirting with B-flat tubas (as so many of us - “over here” are victims of the “see tubah for kolij” mentality - not understanding (when we first got into that) that every alternative involves some sort of trade off.

I cut those Buescher 4/4 things only because they seem to end up being BETTER C instruments than B-flat, because of their (factory) epic-length capillary-portion designs (roughly two-feet too much off “cylindrical stuff to blow throw“, prior to encountering their valvesets). Finally, I have found that with our typically limited sets of tools – it’s very difficult to change the tuning characteristics of tubas’ bugles, whether they are left as they were made, or molested with hacksaws. B&S was able to revisit the horribly out-of-tune (but amazing response) 2155R bugle, “fix” it, and market that redesigned bugle with a piston (later: also rotary) valveset as the “easy button” (and power-packed) 5450...but I don’t have the equipment (nor knowledge) here to diagnose and reconfigure a bugle like that.

I read your post once pretty quickly – and might have missed some subtlety in the way a sentence was worded, but I believe you stated that you’re not going to explore being a B-flat tuba person...and the Miraphone 98 (just as a reminder, but I think you knew this when you were typing) is a B-flat.

When my friend stuck that 190-C bell on to that 20J bottom bow, he had to have a muffler shop expand the bottom bow to receive that bell. It’s pretty shocking...

WERE I to absolutely demand of myself that I own a 3/4 inch bore 6/4 C tuba - that wouldn’t work me to death when playing it (and I’m personally past the 6/4 thing), I would choose a weeknight pizza job (working myself to death with a CAR - rather than working myself to death with a challenging-intonation TUBA (having acquired and financed a - very-manageable - Yamaha 826) rather than suffering with any of the other options out there. 826 tubas present issues, but the negotiating of those issues is reasonable and limited.

[Yorkboy]

I had, at one time, a Conn 34J (?, 4 valve side-action BBb, one-piece bell) with a 22” pancake; the F below the staff was unusable, in that lipping it up was a major chore. Extremely heavy, to the point I felt like I was playing into a 60 lb bag of cement.

The bell was changed to one of Meinl Weston manufacture; I don’t remember the model, but this was well over 20 years ago. It changed things slightly, but not enough to justify the expense and trouble.

After 40+ years, I’ve personally never found a Conn that really “grabs” me (and earlier on, I tried many). Very well-made instruments, for sure, but just not my cup of tea.

(When I sold it, because of money issues, I had the buyer agree to sell it back to me if he was going to sell it at all; in retrospect, I’m glad he reneged on his agreement.)

[LargeTuba]

I just realized, if you replace the bell and cut down the VERY long Conn tuning slide you could probably loose 12"+ inches, making actual cutting easier.

[the elephant]

You should talk to Norm Epley, he cut a 20j to CC. I think he told me it ended up just being okay. I also know that Sam Gnagey also cut one to CC and I think I remember someone on the old forum saying it was just okay.

Honestly If I were you, Id sell both and get a Martin Mammoth. It seems those cut much better. Stofer, Gnagey, and Empley have all had good success cutting one.

I would still love to see you tackle this projects. If anyone can make it work, I'm imagining it would be you.

I'm not interested in Martins. I am curious in these two Conn's I have here in my shop. I want to know what it is that causes these horns to "fail" when cut or even when having valve sections swapped while keeping the in BBb. Why don't more people put good bells on these horns to clean up how they play?

This has bugged me for many years, and now that I have two in my sights I am even more curious. They have issues when in good shape. For some these issues are more like characteristics rather than problems, but some guys hate these horns. Again, what it is about these horns that makes them so popular with some and so unpopular with others. I am not talking about the recording bell or the short action pistons. Those are replaceable. Is that it? Are the horn's outer and inner branches good project material when other stuff is plugged into the big and small ends?

I might cut one of them. It has no real value. I got it for under a hundred bucks and then fixed the valves to like-new, but the leadpipe is in about five pieces and none of the slides pull without a great deal of effort. The bell is trashed. But when I test the OTHER one I have (same price) and then swap the good parts into the badly beat one they play about the same, with the beater being a little better throughout. With both horns having such a low value (sellable price in AS-IS condition as well as sellable price if completely restored) versus viewing them as so many very nice old parts sitting here covered in cobwebs, it is hard not to think of them as fun learning projects. But I do not want to cut one of them only to discover that - with a new bell that costs about ten times what I paid for the entire horn - in the end, it will be shiny, pretty junk.

I like to learn, but I need to keep the "tuition" as low as possible if you know what I mean…

[the elephant]

36J Conn tubas… [stuff]

I am not a fan of those horns. As I said, I really do not care for most Conn products. I am seeing valuable parts going unused and chances to educate myself slipping by me as these horn carcasses sit in cardboard boxes. I'm not really interested in using them, but I might be able to put them into the hands of someone who can't afford something new. Maybe…

You also know that I’ve recently been flirting with B-flat tubas.

Me, too. I am wondering why these horns are not cut to CC as much as the more "exciting looking' Jake-o-phones. I will likely replace the valves and bells and leadpipes but keep them in BBb. I have a suspicion that the right bell (heretofore undiscovered) could make the needed difference in clarity and evenness of projection. The bell is the voice of the horn, for the most part. A better bell would be like giving it a new voice, so one that can focus these beasts could give new life to a lot of them out there for far less money than a PRC BAT, even with the funny valves and horrid leadpipe.

Wouldn't it be cool if you could get a beater 20J for cheap, spend $400 getting it cleaned up and in top mechanical shape, and then drop on a bell for another two grand and have a viable big horn that is not stupid-big like my 345? Just an idea. Tubas have become too expensive. (So has everything else, but I cannot do anything about groceries or rent. I *can* discover information that can be spread for free that might save folks a lot of money. Having been on partial Unemployment for the past year with zero prospects (56, fat, slow, medical issues, propensity for throwing idiot office children out of windows, etc.) I need to find small, alternative income streams, and the Gnagey way seems to be one of many such small generators — if I work hard. I am working on others, but this one would be fun. If it works out. (I know that it probably won't, but it is fun to try such things.)

I believe you stated that you’re not going to explore being a B-flat tuba person…

No, I am not a BBb tub guy. That does not mean that I have not seriously considered a return to the Revered Home Key. I have nearly done that twice since arriving here in the land of stinking magnolia pollen. I nearly dumped CC wholesale when I bought one of Ev's old Alexander 163s from him in the late 1990s — veeeeery close…

Stuff about the key of the Miraphone…

The bell is not in a key. The bell is a shape and a length and an OD at the small end. It can be used on any key of horn, so long as it fits. It may not work well on an F tuba, but might be grand on an FF subcontrabass. It would work fine on a CC horn. Just like my Holton's BBb bell works fine as a bell on a CC tuba.

When my friend stuck that 190-C bell on to that 20J bottom bow, he had to have a muffler shop expand the bottom bow to receive that bell. It’s pretty shocking...

I am not a fan of the 190 sound, and the bell is very tall. If I were to cut a 2xJ to CC it would need to have a much shorter bell than what it came with. The Kniffen horn *looks* right and that bell makes a great sound. I wonder whether it cleaned up the clarity and projection. I cannot imagine that it did not greatly improve the 36J he put it on, but I think he stopped short by keeping the Conn valve set on the beast. I think better valves could have made that horn a winner. Just a gut feeling. I love that Miraphone bell in those branches. (I am sure you have examined those photos, as many of us have.)

…I’m personally past the 6/4 thing…

I am not. My orchestra's brass section is not. My music director is not. They love the 186 when I deem it prudent to use that horn, and they go bonkers for the Holton on things like Prokofiev 5 and other loud, fat, singing parts like that piece. When the tuba is a soloistic voice the huge, colorful Holton gets the nod. When I need to be a baseball bat at the bottom end of the brass section baseball bat I use the quite loud, narrower, colorful 186. Both are enormously colorful sounds, with different strengths and weaknesses, and I need both to do my job. I tried for years to do all this with just my Alex, but it was frequently too small or too large, etc. The 186 paired with the 6/4 gives me a better way to get my job done. What you call "extra work" is not a problem for me. We work differently. I need the BAT for the BAT tone, not for volume. It is not too big unless I play like a pig. The 186 is actually a louder horn out in the hall. I will never be "past the 6/4 thing" as that would greatly limit what I can offer at work unless I want to do a lot of what *I* consider to be "extra work".

[the elephant]

I just realized, if you replace the bell and cut down the VERY long Conn tuning slide you could probably loose 12"+ inches, making actual cutting easier.

I have mine already marked out. It would be a far easier series of cuts than a 345 BBb-to-CC job. This is why I suspect that using JUST THE BOWS AND BRANCHES could yield a nice horn. The bells of these are junk, for my purposes, at least. The leadpipes are an acoustical travesty. I dislike the valve sections, too. Replace all those with better stuff and the potential rises very fast. To my way of thinking, the issues are locating a bell that works well with this bugle, and whether this bugle has serious pitch issues that the umbrella-belled originals mask. I have heard that they do indeed hide issues, again, so that when a bell that gives more clarity is installed it magnifies and tightly slots these issues, making the horn a big meh-o-phone.

I am hoping someone with real experience with the Kniffen horn can step in and comment at length. (Calling Tony Kniffen. Mr. Kniffen, please pick up the blue courtesy telephone.) Also, there is at least one owner after him who has sold this horn. Why? Does it sound like a foghorn? Is the scale useless? Are the high or low registers faulty? Do the chicks not dig it?

[bloke]

A mechanical retro fitting fitting issue could (??) be that the large side of the 2XJ bottom bow (I’m thinking...??) is smaller than Yorks / Holtons, and their knock-offs...so finding a one-piece upright 6/4 that stabs into one of those bottom bows might be tricky.
I have no idea if RM 5/4 bells would fit (??), but I find them to be (physiologically) brittle, expensive, and (well...) sorta Conn 36J-shaped (and please don’t “freak”, RM apologists; I’ve owned ALL THREE sizes of the rotary C’s).

[the elephant]

… finding a one-piece upright 6/4…

It just needs to fit. If it fits and the taper matches it will be a Conn-sized bell, which, with the silly pancake lopped off, is more of a 5/4 horn, anyway.

As I said, Martin Wilk fit a Siegfried bell to one of these horns with no issues. (Well, again, a 36J. Is the ferrule for the bell of the 36J a different size than that of the 24J? This is another piece of information that I would like to see in this forum as a searchable archive.

Do you know these two ferrule sizes? Are they the same or not? I think they are, or they are very close. When I have had a 36J (or whatever it is) in my hands it never dawned on me to take some quick measurements for future reference. I really should have done that, since these 3xJ horns are rare. I wonder just how much the 36J outer and inner branches differ from those used on the later-made 2xJ branches. (The 3xJ horns were made way before the short-stroke valves had been introduced, yes? Someone, please correct me if I am wrong. I am trying to fill in gaps in my storehouse of information, here.)

In case no one here knows of the horn that has my interest piqued, here is a file of photos in my Dropbox. Click the link!

Here is the Kniffen Tuba (that he no longer owns).

[LargeTuba]

Those cottage cheese valve buttons always gross me out

[matt g]

@the elephant, glad to see those photos! That is an interesting looking horn.

From my eyeballs, it seems like the upper bow has a lot of expansion rate over its length but yet the stovepipe between it and the bottom bow has very little expansion rate, and the bottom bow is similarly “slow”. It’s like a 6/4 upper bow and inner branches, then with a reduced expansion rate to get to a 5/4 bell ferrule.

Again, just my eyeballs.

[hrender]

FWIW, the proportions of the Kniffen horn look "right." I last played a 2xJ in 1979, I think. The college I went to had two (a 24 and a 25) that were the only "school" horns. Playing on them was what convinced me to buy my own horn. Not a fan of the Conns.

[the elephant]

@the elephant, glad to see those photos! That is an interesting looking horn.

From my eyeballs, it seems like the upper bow has a lot of expansion rate over its length but yet the stovepipe between it and the bottom bow has very little expansion rate, and the bottom bow is similarly “slow”. It’s like a 6/4 upper bow and inner branches, then with a reduced expansion rate to get to a 5/4 bell ferrule.

Again, just my eyeballs.

Joe thinks that in some cases the large side of the top bow bend being so stupid-large on many BATS might just shove a node (or whatever you sciency guys want to label it) for the flat 3rd partial G on CC examples over enough to account for being upwards of 40¢ flat. I tend to agree, after having done some work on my two 186s. The cut-to-CC top bow is a lot different than the factory CC top bow in diameter. But I am too lazy (and poor) to do the sort of experimentation on my own dime.

In the case of the photographed horn, the large side seems to taper too fast, as if they had dialed in the sizes and tapers of the sides of the bugle but <oopsie> the big side started out too big, so hey, why not just over-taper the top bow to make it fit? (Imagine that in the voice of old C.G. himself.)

I am willing to try and make that short top bow, with the taper rate "evened out" a bit on that side, and then roll the straight piece to mate the top and bottom bows. It is so much easier to do this with this design than with a normal top bow. This horn is pretty easy to monkey around with, TBH.

If I make new parts then the old ones can be re-installed if the experiment fails. I am not saying that making the top bow would be easy, but it would be a piece of cake compared with making a normal top bow.

[MN_TimTuba]

In case no one here knows of the horn that has my interest piqued, here is a file of photos in my Dropbox. Click the link!

Here is the Kniffen Tuba (that he no longer owns).

That is actually a very nice-looking, well-proportioned tuba. New valve buttons - like the Yamaha Pro - would be a nice finishing touch.

Tim

[the elephant]

FWIW, the proportions of the Kniffen horn look "right." I last played a 2xJ in 1979, I think. The college I went to had two (a 24 and a 25) that were the only "school" horns. Playing on them was what convinced me to buy my own horn. Not a fan of the Conns.

Same, more or less. Not a fan after having one issued to me in the Army and at one institution early in my life. And I agree, the horn *looks* right as shown in the photos. I need to contact Mr. Wilk and interview him about the work done to this tuba and what he thought about the project as a whole.

The thing is, on my horns (from 1967 and 1969) most of the branches are untapered during the last 1.5" on both ends. Removal of 12" of cylindrical tubing and the use of a shorter bell (like the Wilk/Kniffen tuba) leave another 12" to remove, and on both of my horns, this would be easy and require almost NO re-tapering. It is almost like Conn had considered making these in CC at one point, and then never changed the branches back to being a continuous, purely BBb taper. Yes, I know that this is an impossibility, but it is really odd that both of my former high school trash cans here have this "feature". It is like they are DARING me to cut one to see what happens.

[bort2.0]

That Kniffen tuba always looked amazing. Not sure what the intonation is like. I'm happy to just look at the photos and move on.

The 2xJ always seemed like a funny looking tuba to me. Too tall. Bell too big (upright or recording). Upright valves. In all ways, just not my style.

In college, I showed up and needed to borrow a tuba. Was told I could use the PT-3, and have to learn CC fingerings, or I could still play BBb but had to use the 25J (or whatever) with the two piece/two hard case/etc. Forget that, Id much rather struggle for a day or two and learn CC fingerings. So glad I did. Never liked the big Conn tubas for myself, but I don't mind listening to them.