Contemplating on ruining a tuba

[cthuba]

Just curious, but the idea of replacing a rotor with a larger 4th or 5 valve rotor to my Bruckner to improve my ability to get some “fuller” volume on my pedal D’s and E’s has sparked my head. Likely a bad idea.

My curiosity was sparked by Miraphones idea of putting these XL rotors on the Siegfried and 1293.

I would imagine that one does not simply add a larger rotor to a rotor tuba without effing up the current setup amiright?

Thanks

[the elephant]

It needs to fit properly, without messing with the natural taper very much. To go larger you need to move it farther down the line, so to speak. Adding a rotor normally does not do anything negative, but it can add resistance in a negative way if the horn is already "stiff". It also adds a little length (about .75" to 1"), which will have to be added to your MTS pull.

My experience in adding valves has been minimal, but always an improvement (heh, heh… so far…), even when adding two to a three-valved instrument. My 5-valved F *loves* its new 6th valve. I have played horns that were sort of mildly screwed up with the addition of a valve to what ought to be an obvious location. (I have played several Piggies that were made less good by adding a 5th rotor above 1st. I suspect the weird wrap of the Piggy has something to do with that, though.)

Have you nailed down the size rotary valve you want to use? That will dictate where it has to go in the wrap, and then you have to sort out how feasible it would be to 1.) install the valve, and 2.) rig up a linkage between the valve and a lever.

You can order new valves from Miraphone. The valves are surprisingly affordable. Note that they only come with the case, rotor, and back bearing plate. You have to order the rear screw cap, the cork plate and its two screws (they come in a set with the bumpers), the stop arm (in the material and style you want), and the stop arm retaining screw as SEPARATE ITEMS.

You might be able to order from Jürgen Voigt, too, but I think they have moved to business sales only. If you can still order from them as an individual, you will have to do it via email as their store no longer calculates shipping to the US. Email them and you can get what you want.

If you decide to do this, please post a lot of documentation, ESPECIALLY IF IT DOES NOT WORK OUT. This sort of hands-on information can be very helpful to others.

Good luck!

[the elephant]

Oh, and under no circumstances should you alter parts that are on the horn. Until this is something you can do without advice from others, I would only use replacement parts, whether new or "new to you". You *must* be able to reverse this if it does not work out to your satisfaction.

MUST.

DAMHIK…

[bloke]

I own a Siegfried (model 98) and view the #4 larger rotor body with likely larger "scoops" in it (same bore size) on as mumbo-jumbo.

It wasn't a factor in whether-or-not I would buy the model 98, but I believe that more air resistance probably is more of an assist to low range response than is less resistance. As an example, "double-low F" (off the left end of the piano keyboard, and not that I NEED to play it)...I can easily play it on my .689" bore cimbasso and my .687" bore (OK, with .748" bore 5th valve, located under the dogleg on "the other side") Holton B-flat 4/4, but requires more concentration and "embouchure help" with larger bore tubas.

I've not spent ten minutes total (in elephant rooms at festivals) with the model you own, but - if there are playing characteristics that don't appeal to you, (maybe?) play some other things and (maybe?) consider selling and buying something else.

...I happen to know of a C tuba for sale (beautiful condition) with an extraordinary low (as well as everything-else) range.

[bort2.0]

Why not try a bigger mouthpiece first?

On my Willson, when I had a lot of low stuff, I'd either use a PT-88 or a Tilz WH-B2.

[cthuba]

Thanks for the input ya’ll.

Interesting point Bloke with how increasing the bore does not mean an easier or more secure low register.

I can hit these notes very consistently from p to a conservative forte, but once I get into FF I feel as though that it may not be projecting and it’s a delicate balance between a full sound and a bark. I’ll try a larger mouthpiece to see what it does.

[hubert]

As you undoubtedly will know, Miraphone recommends a TU31 mouthpiece with the Bruckner. I am aware, that their recommendations do not work always and for everyone. But did you give it a try? Who knows.....(Diameter 33,0 mm, bore 8,3 mm, medium deep).
Hubert

[matt g]

As you undoubtedly will know, Miraphone recommends a TU31 mouthpiece with the Bruckner. I am aware, that their recommendations do not work always and for everyone. But did you give it a try? Who knows.....(Diameter 33,0 mm, bore 8,3 mm, medium deep).
Hubert

I own one of these and use it on my smaller horn. It’s a good piece. It works fine on the big tuba as well. Dunno about the horn in context here.

I would try a mouthpiece with a moderate throat but open/appropriate backbore. That horn might not have enough resistance in the low register, like @bloke hints at, to give enough resistance to “lean on” when playing loud. A good mouthpiece setup can help out.

[bloke]

Thanks for the input ya’ll.

Interesting point Bloke with how increasing the bore does not mean an easier or more secure low register.

I can hit these notes very consistently from p to a conservative forte, but once I get into FF I feel as though that it may not be projecting and it’s a delicate balance between a full sound and a bark. I’ll try a larger mouthpiece to see what it does.

You might try a random mouthpiece with a SMALLER throat.

Even if other playing characteristics suffer (but the low range security improves), you might learn something about the effects of smaller mouthpiece throats and (I believe more tubas need to be built with) smaller bore capillary portions.

ie, I believe more tubas (all sizes) would benefit from mouthpipe tubes that begin only around .530", rather than beginning at .560" or even larger.

My 40-year-old F tuba (bore sizes 17 - 21 mm, and 16-1/2" bell) offers a much richer (prettier, more interesting) and more focused sound (and no-problems with "low C") than so many others...Its mouthpipe bore begins at/under .500".

[Sousaswag]

Doing major surgery to a new(ish) model tuba is never a good idea to me. Whatever you do to it that ruins even the way it looks will make it much harder to sell in the long run. If there’s something you’re not happy with, try something small like a mouthpiece as others suggest, otherwise maybe consider just getting a larger tuba. The Miraphone 129x series tubas aren’t particularly big, imo.

[Tubeast]

Upon seeking the holy grail, here´s a list of actions I would try in Your situation, in order of MY perception of practicability:

- Just ignore the itch. Your Es and Ds project just fine and nobody besides You will notice or applaud a change in sound.
- Try a huge MP and INVEST SERIOUS PRACTISE TIME. Don´t write it off if it doesn´t work out within a week.
(This actually worked for ME to the point I successfully trusted Houser MP to make one to specs I had tried on a cheapo MP in a crude garage-job)

If that´s no good:
- Trade Your horn for one with the desired sound capabilities with YOU on the steering wheel.
(Been there, done that. Traded a perfect B&S 4097 for a WILLSON 6400 RZ5 BBb and rarely look back).

Bottom of list:
- Mess with an acutely designed quality instrument.
Turning it into some kind of frankentuba may alter sound, but intonation as well.
Besides: While this work is being done, what backup horn will You play? Does THAT ONE offer the sound quality You hunt for?
To me, the fun that comes with fixing stuff that ain´t broke may be intriguing but hardly worth time, sweat, money and the risk of agony if it JUST WON´T work.

[bloke]

[cthuba]

Hey all!

My go to mouthpiece has been a Dillon h3 for the past couple of months (somewhat similar to a conn/ Wessex chief) and now switched to a PT-88+. It fixed the issues I had with the lower notes.

I have found that I have exchanged a more darker sound for a less dark sound and cleaner articulation. My lady says that she hears little to no difference in loss of warmth, and that my low register does sound cleaner.

And so. When I find a mouthpiece that perfects my low register it then becomes my main mouthpiece. At least that was my teachers philosophy with tuba mouthpieces.

[TheDoctor]

Doesn't the Bruckner already have a bore that expands significantly?
Were you thinking of replacing the tuning slide tubes as well, to match the new bigger bore valves, or leave slides as is?
If the latter is so, I'm no professional tuba designer, but my guess is it would indeed ruin the playability

Do valves bores even match with slide tube diameter across most manufacturers? I suppose I could Google that, but I'm pretty lazy can't be bothered to do it

[russiantuba]

This was back in 2010, after playing the 1293 when it came out. I was told I could replace the valve and tubing on my 1291 to get the larger 5th rotor. I thought it played smoother when transitioning down.

I have not done this yet.

[LargeTuba]

Do valves bores even match with slide tube diameter across most manufacturers?

They don’t, but factory Miraphone parts are really easy to get.

[jtm]

... I believe more tubas (all sizes) would benefit from mouthpipe tubes that begin only around .530", rather than beginning at .560" or even larger.

My 40-year-old F tuba (bore sizes 17 - 21 mm, and 16-1/2" bell) offers a much richer (prettier, more interesting) and more focused sound (and no-problems with "low C") than so many others...Its mouthpipe bore begins at/under .500".

It's too bad there's no easy way to experiment with different sizes (for most tubas). Also, how do you measure the bore size, where you can't reach the inside?

[bloke]

...how do you measure the bore size, where you can't reach the inside?

Make the assumption that the wall thickness is roughly .6mm, multiply that by two (1.2mm or 47/1000") and subtract 1.2mm or .047" from the o.d. to get the likely i.d.

Using this method allows me to pull the correct size drilled dent balls right up to dented areas without wasting a whole bunch of trial-and-error/guessing and time-wasting. ...oh yeah, and - if a dent is on a curve, and the tubing wasn't quite round to begin with - I get the average, pull the drilled ball through, and end up rounding AND un-denting the spot. (time/speed: I prefer "fixed-and-paid" to "still fixing".)

[Doc]

Sounds like you solved the problem.

My first recommendation was going to be testing mouthpieces (cheaper than major tuba surgery), as the Bruckner is a frigging hammer in the low range. If the mouthpiece choice doesn’t help meet your sonic goals, you need something larger in the low range - a 496, 497, or 98 is in your future. Maybe a Fafner. Or if it simply MUST be CC: Thor or Tuono.

I wouldn’t say a 6/4 York style CC is a bigger/better choice than those for low range playing, just different.