I can't help but wonder...

[bloke]

...which tubas (that are "OK" tubas) might be "really great" - and, perhaps, easier to control - (rather than just-another-19mm-bore valveset tuba pasted on to them) were the valveset bore 18.5mm or 18mm.

Just as one example, consider how fondly many think back to some Conn 10J tuba (89/128" --- .695" bore) that they played, back when they were in school.

' got an example of a model of a model of tuba (surely quite a few bass tubas, but - also - what about contrabass tubas) that you believe might benefit from a smaller bore valveset?

[tylerferris1213]

I think the Conn 2XJ/3XJ tubas could benefit from a smaller bore through the valves. The Martin mammoth (which is VERY similar in size) has a smaller valve bore, and I think it makes it a much better player. Just my 2 cents.

[KingTuba1241X]

Joe's been sniffing .687'' glue lately...welcome to the club, it's my favorite (next to napalm in the morning). To answer that question, I wonder what all these big York .750'' bores would be like with the smaller valve bore set?

[matt g]

My own opinion is that the valve bore on both of my horns is where it needs to be.

Top action horns tend to have a shorter leadpipe so maybe the big boy top action Conns would benefit. In similar ways, the YBB-201 and YBB-321 would probably benefit from having the same primary bore as the YBB-631. The 631 has a 0.689” bore whereas the 201 and 321 are 0.734” bore, but all sit on the same chassis.

The old MW-2145s with a 0.750” bore seemed to play well as a counter example.

[bort2.0]

Maybe the piston PT-15 or PT-10 F tubas? One of those was sort of a disaster, but I forget which.

[donn]

it's my favorite

Oh yeah, you were the guy who menaced my Kanstul BBb with the proposition of King size valves.

With the 3/4" valves it has from the factory, it's pretty strict about pitch, maybe not qualifying for "easier to control" in this respect. But my old Holton has 3/4" valves too, and roughly similar dimensions, and doesn't play the same at all. This makes me somewhat skeptical that there's a simple formula where a 1/16" difference in valve bore is a reliable gauge of any playing characteristic.

[bloke]

I’m thinking that Kurath uses some 18mm bore valvesets on bass tubas, and Yamaha has an 18.5 that they use on sousaphones, but most of the European manufacturers (and their Chinese-alikes) seem to be on autopilot for front-action piston being defined as 19mm.

When new models are developed, it seems to me that it would be worth a try to stick pre-made valvesets on them that are 1/2mm and 1mm smaller in bore, and let a few players – particularly players who greatly differ from each other but, yet, all play well - offer input.
I don’t view the “committee“ Japanese method to be the best approach, but I’m also not convinced that the “signature“ model approach is the best either. Contradicting what I just typed, I’m pretty sure that the reason that Yamaha‘s 6/4 C ended up out-playing all the others is because they kept sending prototype(s) to Chicago, and it kept being sent back with comments from the 6/4 guru, until they finally hit on it...so it also becomes fairly obvious that it also depends on whose “signature“, what things - to the signatory - define “good”, and how easily satisfied they are, yes?

[Yorkboy]

I’ve put both (.687 King and .748/19mm German manufacture) sets on numerous York BBb tubas.

One that I’m working on now used to have a .687 set on it but now has a 19mm set “pasted” on it, and I think it improved it considerably.

York used two different valve sets - .656 on the short 19” bell horns, and .750 on the taller 700 series horns and the monster BBb tubas. I don’t think this was done accidentally.

I guess it all depends on what you’re looking for - for me, there really is no right-or-wrong answers.

[2nd tenor]

I’m just wondering and maybe the answer is different for rotary and piston valves. Quite a few older Tubas have worn and leaky valves, there’s not much - or so I thought - that you can do with them except use thicker valve oil (eg. Yamaha Vintage valve Oil) to fill the clearance gap and supply more air.

New valve sets just don’t seem to be listed on-line but I’m wondering how available they are and where the details might be found? Any information would be appreciated.

[LargeTuba]

I’m just wondering and maybe the answer is different for rotary and piston valves. Quite a few older Tubas have worn and leaky valves, there’s not much - or so I thought - that you can do with them except use thicker valve oil (eg. Yamaha Vintage valve Oil) to fill the clearance gap and supply more air.

New valve sets just don’t seem to be listed on-line but I’m wondering how available they are and where the details might be found? Any information would be appreciated.

Most manufactorers will only sell to certified repair techs. Getting a valveset is even harder. Even a chinese one will cost +-2,000.

[bloke]

Rotary valves do supply a bit more resistance, and also present more challenges (with their "on/off" design) in legato playing.

[bloke]

The 19mm-bore front-action piston tuba craze began with Hirsbrunner having contracted Walter Nirschl to make a valveset which was a reasonable facsimile for the CSO York valveset.

Once Nirschl altered the knuckles between his (formerly slant-orientation) 19mm bore valveset to look like the CSO York valveset, Hirsbrunner began coming up with ways that they could get more mileage out of that same valveset (ex: by pasting it on to their rotary C model's bugle, etc...)

...and - at that point - the 19mm bore front-action piston tuba craze was "off to the races".


As curious as the intonation tendencies are with
this instrument, it's a shame - in my view - that they didn't
KEEP this model (rather than moving on to a short-mouthpipe
model) and - simply - invert that mouthpipe tuning slide UPWARD
for "tune-any-note" capability.

[iiipopes]

I never thought the 10J tubas were good tubas. Then again, maybe I suffered in only getting to play MacMillan-era instruments. Now, if the comment had been made about King tubas instead, I might have waxed a little poetic about them.

[bloke]

In the later 60's (in places where there wasn't much money floating around) about all we saw from Conn were a few 10J's and (mostly) 36K fiberglass sousaphones.
...Our schools never could afford 20J's...but seemed to have been able to afford one King sousaphone and one King tuba, decades previous - when the school first opened.
I like blowing through a 10J more so than I like blowing through the smaller-bore (front-action .658" vs. top-action 10J .695") front-action similar-sized Conn tubas.

I never thought the 10J tubas were good tubas. Then again, maybe I suffered in only getting to play MacMillan-era instruments. Now, if the comment had been made about King tubas instead, I might have waxed a little poetic about them.

[MartinMan]

I think the Conn 2XJ/3XJ tubas could benefit from a smaller bore through the valves. The Martin mammoth (which is VERY similar in size) has a smaller valve bore, and I think it makes it a much better player. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed

This is one of the reasons I like Martins so much:
The typical BAT bugle coupled with a comparatively small-bore valve section gives them a unique character that I don't find in other, more "typical" York/Holton style tubas.
Something about the smaller bore, couple with rapid expansion following the valves and the chunky bugle creates a big, full sounding horn, that doesn't hog air like you'd expect, is surprisingly agile, and with a smoother edge to the sound as opposed to a 20J for example.
Also (maybe also because of this, or maybe for some other reason) they tend to be the most in-tune of any 6/4 horn I've come across.

I know the sound and/or feel of them isn't everyone's cup of tea, so I hesitate to call the "the best", but they're definitely the best for me personally.

[tylerferris1213]

I think the Conn 2XJ/3XJ tubas could benefit from a smaller bore through the valves. The Martin mammoth (which is VERY similar in size) has a smaller valve bore, and I think it makes it a much better player. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed

This is one of the reasons I like Martins so much:
The typical BAT bugle coupled with a comparatively small-bore valve section gives them a unique character that I don't find in other, more "typical" York/Holton style tubas.
Something about the smaller bore, couple with rapid expansion following the valves and the chunky bugle creates a big, full sounding horn, that doesn't hog air like you'd expect, is surprisingly agile, and with a smoother edge to the sound as opposed to a 20J for example.
Also (maybe also because of this, or maybe for some other reason) they tend to be the most in-tune of any 6/4 horn I've come across.

I know the sound and/or feel of them isn't everyone's cup of tea, so I hesitate to call the "the best", but they're definitely the best for me personally.

Exactly! I also believe the false tones are significantly easier on the Martins vs other larger bore BATs. I've never played a 3 valve Martin that I couldn't play chromatically down to pedal Bb and lower.

[bloke]

resistance

[LargeTuba]

One that I’m working on now used to have a .687 set on it but now has a 19mm set “pasted” on it, and I think it improved it considerably.

I'm building something with a York 33 tuba body. I could very easily put in either .687" or a .750" valve set in (I have both). So, which one would you recommend? I'm trying to go for an orchestral tuba.

I don't really know what each valveset will "give me".

[bloke]

My just-completed Holton's bell and expanding bows are so very-very close to a York 33, that someone could attempt argue that they are the same (yet there are very small differences). I chose .687", because it was convenient and affordable. I had no interest whatsoever in using .750"/19mm.
The original (3-valve/top-action Holton valveset) was .665/17mm (as were the later-made front-action Holton "Phillips" 330/331 tubas), but (though I would have liked to have tried to keep the very same bore) there are no currently-manufactured 17mm front-action valvesets that I've seen anywhere...You also have access to some outtakes from an orchestra concert where the nearly-exactly-like-a-York-33-yet-with-a-.687"-bore-valveset tuba was played...

One that I’m working on now used to have a .687 set on it but now has a 19mm set “pasted” on it, and I think it improved it considerably.

I'm building something with a York 33 tuba body. I could very easily put in either .687" or a .750" valve set in (I have both). So, which one would you recommend? I'm trying to go for an orchestral tuba.

I don't really know what each valveset will "give me".

[York-aholic]

I think the Conn 2XJ/3XJ tubas could benefit from a smaller bore through the valves. The Martin mammoth (which is VERY similar in size) has a smaller valve bore, and I think it makes it a much better player. Just my 2 cents.

Especially since the smaller circa .720 Martin bore is comparatively farther down the lead pipe than the Conns.