I can't help but wonder...

[matt g]

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".

I think Matt Walters used a York bell from something “33 sized” for his own 4/4 CC that he built years ago (that’s only four valves). It would have a King valve set, iirc.

[Yorkboy]

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".

I think Matt Walters used a York bell from something “33 sized” for his own 4/4 CC that he built years ago (that’s only four valves). It would have a King valve set, iirc.

The King .687 set is what is most readily available, and closer to the original bore size of the 33 (.656).

I don’t believe Conn-Selmer is in the business of selling those valve clusters anymore (but I’d be happy to be wrong about this), so the next best source is finding a trashed 1241/2341 with good valves and harvesting its valve set.

I have also built a 33 with a Reynolds (also .687) set; it is very similar in its physical characteristics to bloke’s horn, and I also find it to likewise be a great player and the bore is a good match for the squatty 19” bell.

24A05F56-0D15-472B-AA55-5A3FE66BE266.jpeg (82.93 KiB) Viewed 487 times

I usually reserve the .750 bore for the York 700 or 6/4 BBb, as that was the bore they were originally supplied with.

FD73BE92-96A2-44DE-9074-9D8F40A3DBEA.jpeg (105.62 KiB) Viewed 487 times

07AC185E-7FE8-475C-ABC7-8D1829369F5C.jpeg (90.37 KiB) Viewed 487 times

[LargeTuba]

I don't know who, but I remember someone saying that the 33/700 have a very similar bugle. The biggest difference is the final bore and taller bell.

I'm in the unique situation where I have both a king valveset and a holton .750" valveset.

So maybe so experimentation is in order??

I was hoping to get a simple explanation of which one is better playing to save some time. But I now realize it's probably not that simple.

[Yorkboy]

I don't know who, but I remember someone saying that the 33/700 have a very similar bugle. The biggest difference is the final bore and taller bell.

I'm in the unique situation where I have both a king valveset and a holton .750" valveset.

So maybe so experimentation is in order??

I was hoping to get a simple explanation of which one is better playing to save some time. But I now realize it's probably not that simple.

Experimentation is always in order!

Yes, the differences in models (other than very slight occasional variations in ferrule placement) is exactly as you have described.

Which one is “better” is too subjective to say for someone other than one’s self.

[bloke]

Post a picture, please. “long mouthpipe“ is not something that I ever associated with Martin 6/4 tubas. I’d like to be educated.

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.

[York-aholic]

Post a picture, please. “long mouthpipe“ is not something that I ever associated with Martin 6/4 tubas. I’d like to be educated.

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.

I haven't measured. Might be similar to a York-a-phone, but I'd suspect longer than a Conn 20J (if one includes the Martin bits).

But yes, I'll measure/picture tonight...

[York-aholic]

Post a picture, please. “long mouthpipe“ is not something that I ever associated with Martin 6/4 tubas. I’d like to be educated.

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.

Didn't take pictures, but with a cloth tape measure from the outside wall of valve #1 casing to end of mouthpiece receiver:

Martin Mammoth with Martin Bits 17.25"
York BBb 6/4 15.75"
Conn 20J ? <-- anyone have a 20J laying around close by?

[DandyZ629]

My Conn 3J is the most responsive and facile instrument i've ever played. I believe it's a .656" bore and I wouldn't have it any other way.