Curious about Holton TU331 “Harvey Phillips”

[DonO.]

Denton Big Brass has one of these now for $4500 in silver plate. Looks like a good price and sweet condition. If one of these had been available I might have considered it instead of my King, but there wasn’t one. They don’t seem to come up very often.

I am curious about the design of the horn. When you Google it, the first thing that comes up is the review by Norlan Bewley. One thing he said that caught my eye was that he says he would set the 4th valve slide way out, using it only for low Eb and below, not as an alternate for 1-3 as most of us do. Instead, he preferred using 1-3 and 1-2-3 without using 4. He doesn’t say so in the review, but apparently he found the intonation for those fingerings acceptable? I read another article about this tuba, I can’t recall where, might have even been this forum, stating that Phillips and Holton deliberately designed it to be played in this way, as a three valve horn with the 4th valve used for low register only. This brings up a lot of questions in my mind. Is this really how Harvey Phillips played? Is it even possible to design a 3 valve tuba to play that well in tune? If it is possible, why doesn’t every manufacturer do it?

As usual, any wisdom offered here would be greatly appreciated!

[UncleBeer]

There's more info on its development over at the other, totally useless forum. Most of it by Norlan.

[matt g]

A lot of the old 4 valve USA made tubas were set up like that. The fourth valve is a “register key”.

Harvey played on Conns before that Holton and the 2J and 3J have a similar philosophy. This means that the third valve is tuned flat, and nearly unusable as an alternate for 1+2, but then, in the case of the 2J/3J, D below the staff is close to in tune, usually a slight pull on 1. Then Db is a ~3” pull or so. But then low F is 1+4 with about the same pull, maybe less. Unfortunately low E may be flat, with not much to alter on the fly. Eb is 1+3+4 with a decent pull. Low D is pulling 1 and 4 with all valves in play. Db above the fundamental C is false tones only.

As long as the player knows this is the setup, it’s usually not a big deal. However, it is in stark contrast to the way European horns are set up where the approach is the fewest valves possible per note.

[LeMark]

I dont see how you can make 1-2-3 in tune without torpedoing the intonation of 2-3

Even on 3 valve compensating instruments, that's a major issue

[donn]

This brings up a lot of questions in my mind. Is this really how Harvey Phillips played? Is it even possible to design a 3 valve tuba to play that well in tune? If it is possible, why doesn’t every manufacturer do it?

I've seen accomplished players (i.e., not like me) here indicate that they play one or both 1-3 notes that way, vs. 4. I don't ask why. Could be they started that way and have seen no good reason to change, could be it works better with the specific tubas they play.

As for me ... I started that way, and I think of it as a valve instrument not a slide trombone, so I like to tune the 4th valve considerably longer than 3+1, and of course 3 considerably longer than 1+2, but I prefer 1+4 instead of 1+2+3 if it's convenient. In terms of the math, if you have a tuba that puts out pitches in accordance with the math as I understand it, you can certainly get pretty close this way. Or you can tune the 4th valve to 1+3 and get pretty close.

I'm surprised that 3 valve compensators would have any problem with 1+2+3 - that's more or less the whole point, isn't it? Though 4 valve compensators would be no better there than any other tuba.

[bloke]

The system that everyone's seems to be describing (unless I'm misunderstanding) is probably more simply explained in that - with three valve American tubas ( at least up through the 1970s) - the first valve is slightly too long as a compromise between 1and 1-2, and the third valve is quite a bit too long - as a compromise between 2-3 and 1-3/1-2-3. The fourth valves were added with no consideration to addressing any of these compromises (nor eliminating them) until the last two or three decades or so.

Old-school wind band players always refer to the keys of D-flat and G-flat major as " dark ". I've always wondered if the reason they described them as such is because 2-3 on the low brass valve instruments was quite flat, and the higher instruments followed suit in their tuning.

This response in the thread has nothing to do with the model that is offered for sale. Even though there was actually a 331 here recently, I didn't play it very much and didn't study how the tuning was set up, so I have no comment about the model for sale.

[LeMark]

The problem is when you use the 3rd valve as a the compensating valve and you play the combo of 2-3, it kicks in the extra tubing on the backside of the 2nd valve that makes 2-3 flat. 1-2-3 is fine

Sometime in the 60's Besson shortened the length of the 3rd valve circuit, which made 1-2-3 slightly sharp.

[bloke]

The problem is when you use the 3rd valve as a the compensating valve and you play the combo of 2-3, it kicks in the extra tubing on the backside of the 2nd valve that makes 2-3 flat. 1-2-3 is fine

Sometime in the 60's Besson shortened the length of the 3rd valve circuit, which made 1-2-3 slightly sharp.

Whether the Blaikley three valve compensating system or four valve compensating system, there are compromises in the compensating. Tubing length ratios in regards to tuning a 12-note scale are too complicated to be addressed simply with a little bit of gadgetry, and that doesn't even take into consideration individual instrument tuning quirks. This is also why I suspect that "the amazing 7 rotary valve King pit tuba" still probably has intonation issues.

[Grumpikins]

I couldn't tell you any more than you already know about that horn. I do really like the setup of the horn visually. I like horns with a short bell stack. I would love to play on one someday. I think its sad that selmer (steinway?) has bought all those brands and turned them into junk. IMHO. I would love to see them separated and independently manufactured in the US again.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk

[bloke]

I have looked at the 331 model enough to realize that it's basically the same bugle and bell taper that Holton made for a most of a century in various forms (and similar enough to the York 4/4 bell and bugle that some continue to suspect that they were both made in the same place, but I'm not one of those people). I believe the last previous resurrection - prior to the 331 - was in the 1960s, when that bell taper and bugle were offered as a three valve top-action student instrument, with the 345 being offered as a professional instrument. I'm fairly sure that the accompanying bore was always .665", because that is a size that ends up telescoping down from other tubing that they used on larger instruments, just as with the European manufacturers and their telescoping sizes.

.665" it's sort of interesting, because it's larger enough - compared to .656" - to notice, yet smaller enough than .687" to notice.

Again, I really haven't spent much time playing the 331 at all.

[matt g]

I dont see how you can make 1-2-3 in tune without torpedoing the intonation of 2-3

Even on 3 valve compensating instruments, that's a major issue

Agreed. But that’s the typical approach.

Also, the three valve approach usually gets the 1+3 combo close (a little flat) but the 1+2+3 combo is usually pretty sharp.

I think the other notion is that with all of that extra cylindrical tubing in play, it’s easier to lip notes in tune (seems to be the case for many) so bending the worst offenders into tune was a thing.

A lot of those early players manipulated slides with a much lower frequency than people do now.

[bloke]

Quite a few older mouthpieces seem noticeably smaller, and with noticeably smaller throats.

A couple of Bach mouthpieces were probably some of the few exceptions:
> 24AW: not particularly wide, yet deep, large-throated (though issues to which I'll not explore, here)
> 7: wide and deep, with a medium-large throat

Smaller mouthpieces tend to allow for a bit easier mouth-favoring of pitch, at the expense of the type of resonance and quantity of loudness to which we've grown accustomed (first: beginning in the 1970's in recordings and - later - imitated in live performances).

common (band) director comment/philosophy - prior to that era: "The basses should be felt, but not heard."

My tastes (and mouthpieces) tend towards typical modern tastes - yet without overrunning the ability for players (other than mythical super-humans) to control them.(...and yes, I move slides - when an instrument asks me to, and I tend to walk away from tubas that ask too much of that, or which offer problems which can't be solved by moving slides - other than by moving the main slide).

STILL: nothing here that has anything to do with the model 331 tuba

[bloke]

Getting back to the OP…

Not a lot of these were sold. When the 330 rolled out, CC tuba seeking people weren’t looking for a horn in this configuration en masse. Note the lack of sales from the CB/G-50 and even the 5xJ from the same timeframe. Add to that, 4V CC tubas are a little less practical.

With respect to the BBb version (331), well, the market already had the King 2341, and I think it sold for half the price? Holton even had competition from itself with the YBB-321 stencil they sold with darker lacquer. Also for way less money and the Yamaha has better on paper specs (like bore and bell size) for band directors that won’t know any better.

Probably the final problem with the 331 is that the main dude they were using to market it with had retired and wasn’t nearly as “popular” compared to all of the cool young pros coming on the scene.

Basically, there wasn’t a great market for the horn nor a prominent spokesperson relative to all of the other stuff going on at the time.

Edited: model numbers

[bloke]

Yes, the player associated with the model had all but (??) retired, and was a C instrument player.

As I recall, there was 330/331 advertising which boasted them as being the first computer-designed tubas.

I might recall a photograph of outlines of the branches on a computer screen (in the same barely-recalled ad), but (again, it seems obvious to me) that the compact-statue 4/4 molds that Holton had used (on and off) for decades were pulled out yet again, and for the last time (unless Conn-Selmer has retained them, and might choose to pull them out yet again...??)

Were I offered one or the other (B-flat or C) for some "couldn't refuse" type of price, I would certainly choose the B-flat - and not only because I've been on a "B-flat kick", but because there's no "easy" way to play a commonly-written-in-music "low F" (nicely) with a 4-valve C tuba.

[bloke]

Harvey Phillips had retired in 1994 and the Holton twins didn’t show up until 1998/1999.

The first time I saw one, it was in one of those huge Guitar Center owned places (Musician’s World? I dunno) and it was tagged at $9500. This was when I had a student buy an old style King 2341 for something around $3000 new from Dillon’s because they were closing out that inventory.

According to Norlan Bewley’s posts, Conn-Selmer was involved with making the last 331 that was made, upon request, for Norlan. So I imagine they still have the mandrels, jigs, and forms needed. They are probably sitting in a pile in the back of a storage room.

Before those ever get used again, you’ll probably have a better chance of seeing the 2xJ series being revived.

[bloke]

I played a 331 just long enough to quickly compare it to my own (similar shape, size, and the same make) which previously one of those "student" three valve 1960s top action instruments. I definitely had a preference, when playing the two back to back.

[Bob Kolada]

iirc the King 2280 euph is to be played in a similar way- pull 4 for low range and ride the 3rd valve slide kicker to clean it all up. I'd like to play the OP horn someday, seems like a nice horn for contrabass in a quintet or for strolling jazz. I'm a big fan of bass tuba and bass trombone (particularly a large horn with a contrabone mp) in quintet but do see a compact Bb as being a useful horn there.

[UncleBeer]

The consignment TU331 at Denton Big Brass just dropped to $4,000. FYI...

Holton 331.jpg (126.13 KiB) Viewed 930 times

[bloke]

Someone not close by (but not too far away) has both a 330 and a 331.

I had already played their 330, because I know from whom they purchased it, and it had been to blokeplace.

I played the 331 back-to-back with the same-size/probably-built-with-many-of-the-same-bow-tapers-and-bell-mandrel that was used to originally build my Holton B-flat (tooling which probably dates back roughly a century).

I expected my B-flat Holton and their 331 B-flat Holton to play similarly. They did not.

Before I converted mine from a three valve top action with a .665" bore to a 5-valve front-action with a .689" bore, mine played basically the same as it did later, so it wasn't the difference in bore size that made the 331 and my Holton play so differently. (??)

Here's something which explains the .665" perennial Holton bore size:

If you take the outside slide tubing (that fits over the .665" bore inside tubing), that outside slide tubing fits perfectly inside Holton's .750" bore slide tubing, so - just as with so many other manufacturers - their slide tubing was telescoping.