King 1240

[arpthark]

... is so much fun to play. I have a friend's .687" bore fixed bell and my own .750" bore removable bell horns here, both from the same era (pre 1940s, main tuning slide before the valves). Both lots of fun, but the smaller bore horn definitely has more sizzle and is a little easier to play. Considering flipping the first slide and trimming the third slide on mine and just using it as the ultimate summer outdoor concert horn for when I can't do fiberglass sousaphone.

Here's a pic from last summer before I got it fixed up a bit and replaced the bad solder jobs. It lived outside as a yard decoration for a long time!

[bloke]

You might consider (yes) shortening the #1 and #3 circuits, but - making lemonade out of a lemon - reconfigure that main tuning slide to face upward, comfortably meet your left hand, and have a (much more comfortable than Marzan) "tune-any-note" instrument.

WERE IT THAT I myself had a "tune-any-note" instrument (and not fooling myself into viewing myself as someone "who can hear the grass grow"), I believe I would have a parallel square lyre-stock rod (attached to the bow of that slide, and with a very subtle hook on the end of it) which ran along one of the "tune-any-note" slide's outside slide tubes and gently bumped against the determined-to-be center-tune spot...The "bump" thing (on the outside slide tube) could even be moveable.

[York-aholic]

Since you’ve got both bore horns there, can you comment on which parts are the same vs different please?

Ie, are the bells the same, bottom bow, top bow, etc.

I’m very interested on how far down (in?) the horns use the same parts.

[matt g]

Just a pontification:

The post above mine on the similarity of the different bore sizes on a similar bugle to some extent makes me wonder what it would be like if someone grafted on a modern ~0.750 inch (19mm) onto an old 1240 horn that was setup as a 3/4” bore horn originally.

[arpthark]

Since you’ve got both bore horns there, can you comment on which parts are the same vs different please?

Ie, are the bells the same, bottom bow, top bow, etc.

I’m very interested on how far down (in?) the horns use the same parts.

That's a good idea -- I should find some time later this week to do some comparisons, including photos, if the owner of the "normal" 1240 is cool with it.

I can sort of see why King quit offering the larger bore ones for sale after they moved to the MTS after the valves design. I would say the sound of the .750" is about 20% broader than the sound I can get out of the .687", but the tuning characteristics are not fantastic. The larger bore allows some really strong playing without breaking up (kind of my only complaint with the .687" bore horns) and a fantastically satisfying low range below low Bb -- at the expense of a really, really flat 5th partial (registering as a sharp C# in my tuner instead of a D) and slightly flat 3rd partial. The mouthpipe just seems too big to me. I don't know offhand if the MTS bore is also .750", but if it is, that means the horn gets up to that large bore very, very quickly and then stays that way through a lot of cylindrical tubing in the MTS/mouthpipe before entering the valve section.

The entire horn rides a bit low, so I think if it were shortened, the tuning problems would be alleviated a bit, but it's another reason why Joe's tuning-on-the-fly MTS would make a lot of sense for this tuba.

I am still amazed at the condition of the valves on this thing:

[bloke]

Besides tune-any-note, you could also make it into one of those sax-whatever things.

(chick-magnet)

[York-aholic]

Besides tune-any-note, you could also make it into one of those sax-whatever things.

(chick-magnet)

[PlayTheTuba]

I wonder if a hodge podge of the modern King 2341 BBb tuba leadpipe combined with the King 2350 Sousaphone main tuning slide would work? Well, keeping the og factory look/design in mind.

Wouldn't a tuning rod or stick be easier to install... Or would that actually be harder and more complex due weight, angle...?

[arpthark]

Had a chance to do some photos of my large bore, .750" King (ser. # points to ~1932) and my friend's more normal-er .687" King (~1935).



The bore of the MTS before the valves on each matches the bore of their respective valvesets, so the .750" King gets large very quickly and stays that way. Almost everything is larger on mine, even the receiver. Besides having a similar layout, the tubas are pretty different from the mouthpipe until this point in an inner branch:



So to answer @York-aholic's question, there are virtually no shared parts between them until this point in the bugle. After that point, all parts measure the same or are least fairly close. Bell size on both is 22". Similar engravings, but a few more Art Deco-ish accents on my earlier model.

Check out the size difference in the pistons:

[York-aholic]

Cool. Thanks for looking.

So, bell, stack, bottom bow, top bow, and secondary bottom bow are the same?

I'd think it is pretty unusual to have the two next to each other to compare. Thank you again.

[arpthark]

Cool. Thanks for looking.

So, bell, stack, bottom bow, top bow, and secondary bottom bow are the same?

I'd think it is pretty unusual to have the two next to each other to compare. Thank you again.

One more loop of tubing and you've got it. I can never remember/never understood how tuba "branches" are numbered, but if we are talking large end to small end: bell, stack, bottom bow, top bow, that whole second loop of big tubing, and the third loop of tubing (tertiary bottom bow, using your terminology) up to the bottom crook are the same on both models. From that point inward, the proportions are a lot different.

I'm going to work on getting the valves aligned a bit better before I make too much of a judgment on the intonation of the larger one, but it's definitely not point'n'shoot. Great sound though.

[York-aholic]

Very cool. Thanks for comparing.