main slide set up with some makes of F tubas, et al

[bloke]

more commonly: with piston tubas
(This is a model that I sell, fwiw.)
With some models the connecting ferrule is stepped, so that this tube can be even smaller bore.
I more-recent theory is that more built-in resistance actually improves low-range response/security/reliability, rather than diminishing these things. Though a C instrument, the M-W model 5450 was one of the first modern-era instruments to test this hypothesis, and that model seems to hint at the theory's plausibility.

[tubanh84]

I more-recent theory is that more built-in resistance actually improves low-range response/security/reliability, rather than diminishing these things.

Out of all the horns I've played, I've never had a more accessible low register than on the new-to-me 184 I'm now playing. Given the size of the horn, and what I experience as I play it, there is more resistance built into the horn.

[bloke]

I more-recent theory is that more built-in resistance actually improves low-range response/security/reliability, rather than diminishing these things.

Out of all the horns I've played, I've never had a more accessible low register than on the new-to-me 184 I'm now playing. Given the size of the horn, and what I experience as I play it, there is more resistance built into the horn.

I owned a couple of those (prior to owning my own F tuba). I put a 5th valve on one, had a different 5th valve idea, sold it, and put a different 5th valve on the second one. That second one ended up being owned by Ron Bishop until his demise.

I also owned a mid-1970's 186C - with the small mouthpipe tube from that era. Based on ignorance/conformity, I put a larger mouthpipe on it - because my teacher's featured a (particularly large - larger than I've seen on 186's from any era) one. Mine played with a "clearer/cleaner" sound with that smaller 'pipe, and the low range wasn't as accessible with the (aftermarket) larger 'pipe. That era (1970's) was the "anything bigger is better" era. ' funny: The Europeans were somewhat resistant (at first) in buying into the "bigger is better" thing (though very interested in selling tubas to Americans), but - now - they seem to be those who are holding tight on to that concept. Admittedly stereotyping them, I believe Europeans (as traditionalist) are slow to change, but - once changed - are just as slow to change back or change again...but (evaluating my own stereotyping as I type this) I also believe that ALL humans tend to be this way.

Left over from the end of that 1970's era (and with no end in sight of the fad, apparently) are the "lap-sousaphones". I will admit, though, that there are two or three models - in that size range - that perform (and project - with clarity) remarkably well...two are B-flats: Miraphone 98 and Meinl-Weston 195/5P, and one is a C instrument (the *Yamaha CB-826S).

bloke "but I digress...quite a bit"
______________________________
*...which always tends to raise eyebrows - when mentioned as a viable choice, because those are priced at forty grand...but I would recommend relaxing those eyebrows, as new Heckel bassoons are $70K+.

[cjk]

I have this occasional temptation to acquire another 80's era 184 CC, have the bell replaced with a 15 inch Besson E-flat bell, and have it turned into a 6 valve (4+2 like a B&S F tuba).

I think it would be an absolute gas.

[the elephant]

My Kurath is like this, but the crook is still stoopid-fast in taper. Also, the 20 mm end chokes down to 17 mm, and that cannot be by design.

I had to open up both sides to smooth out the crazy "jumpy" taper through this section. The large side went from 25 mm to 25.6 mm to accommodate the Miraphone tubing. The small side went from a 20 mm rotor port down to 18 mm and then pinched down so that even an 18 mm ball had to be pounded pretty hard to get through by the water key. I opened up everything to match the 20.3 mm tubing so there is no radical shrinking of the bore. Resistance or no, this was just wonky work.

If I screwed the pooch by doing this I will just buy a new crook from Willson (or make one, but I am not thrilled by that prospect).

Anyway, Herr Kurath was doing this in the 1980s. My horn is a 1989 model, and his Kurath-branded F and CC were available for several years prior to this. I do not know whether all of them had this setup, however.

Resistance needs to be added at one end or the other, but not in the middle by squishing the bore down, as with my horn.

[bloke]

Do you suppose that any of that had to do with adapting a rotary tuba bugle design to accommodate a piston valveset of that particular bore size?

[the elephant]

He did not sell a rotary tuba at that time. He just had the two horns, or that was what he told me at TMEA the year he attended personally. (1990? 1987? It was one or the other. I had students make All-State those two years while the Kurath marque still existed.

I still think this *rare* lacquered horn was a test mule for the changes he wanted to make that led to him dissolving his partnership with those boys up in Michigan. I suspect that he, while searching for whatever he was searching for with his Rotax valve, decided to slap a larger rotary valve onto a bugle that had already had some goofy stuff done to it. So lots of bits and pieces ended up in that area that have all sorts of bore sizes that are out of order.

Whatever. The horn is already a little too loose in the upper register but tight on low Bb. I may put all the MTS stuff back to its original sizes, but the other valves all play better or at least the same. I am sure rerouting the entire 4th circuit will make things likewise better or at least okay-er.

The MTS is where the most alteration had to happen once I saw the nonsensical up-and-down-and-up-and-down bore from 4th to the dogleg. Amazing. I fixed a lot of this sort of stuff on the Holton that Mr. Rusk had done. It plays MUCH better now.

Sometimes you can look at a horn and see mistakes. This time they were quite well hidden, though.

Again, if I FUBAR the thing I'll talk to the current Herr Kurath and buy the parts he suggests.

Anyway, this is a fun project because of the successes so far. Many leaky tubes have been ditched, intonation is somewhat better but much more consistent. The response is about the same. In truth, I can't tell any sort of differences in that regard. It just plays really well, as it did before. And the bonus for me is that I really like how all the purdy nickel silver looks compared to the endless ocean of raw brass that has no break. Now it looks like a nice Chinese tuba, as you pointed out. Maybe Dick will want to have it copied for his BMB line? HAHAHA!!!

[matt g]

Regarding small bore: the YxB-621 horns are all pretty “yappy” in the low register. The YFB-621 I owned had a low CC (pedal C on a CC tuba) that sounded like a massive bass trombone.

[bloke]

Being very encouraged by the success of their comp. euphonium (which appeared, once the Blaikley patent expired), I believe they were striving to stretch out, and (rather than making stuff for others - such as that - albeit "well-made" - DEG crap) create their own pro line of instruments.

I remember seeing one or two of those Kurath piston F tubas with "PERANTUCCI" engraved on them.