TubaForum.net

iiipopes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:17 pm

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:08 pm

jtm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:10 am iiipopes is right: the Yamaha bell sounds good, and it barely counts as a frankentuba.

Why do you guys say "barely" just curious? If the horn has hard parts from a different manufacturer or custom made parts (even just a bell which is a large part of the horn) it's pretty much "Franken". How many different parts was the actual Monster of Dr. Frankenstein made of?

Part of the frankentuba kitch is that the parts are disparate, hence my examples. For instance, on mine, it is a German body and an English bell, not parts from, say, a Reynolds and an Olds, or a Bundy and a Selmer, which are essentially the same instrument, just like GM A-body cars are.

Not sure how an English bell and German body are completely not in comparison, despite them being from across the channel and a few hundred miles inland from each other. They are both metal and the same relative shape and dimensions. Now if you put a Monster E flat York style bell on the Miraphone, wow...that would be an abomination.

A 1970’s Miraphone 186 B-flat tuba with a detachable recording bell, then, is an abomination, because that flair is very similar to the flair of a large diameter York bell.

Lots of patience, a willingness to experiment, and a lack of fear of making a mistake.

As the Tuba Tinker once appropriately said, every "frankentuba" is basically a prototype, meaning sometimes they work, sometimes not so much

When I build a horn, I try to make it look as though it could have come from the factory (including as many vintage parts, tapers, bores, etc., as is practical), meaning inspired by the original manufacturer.

As to the criteria for labeling something a "Frankentuba", that topic has been hashed about more times than I care to think of.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:45 pm A 1970’s Miraphone 186 B-flat tuba with a detachable recording bell, then, is an abomination, because that flair is very similar to the flair of a large diameter York bell.

You guys keep talking it up like that and I might decide to keep mine.

jtm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:01 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:45 pm A 1970’s Miraphone 186 B-flat tuba with a detachable recording bell, then, is an abomination, because that flair is very similar to the flair of a large diameter York bell.

You guys keep talking it up like that and I might decide to keep mine.

If I make it back to my laptop, I will post a picture here to demonstrate to you that my post above was sarcasm.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:45 pm A 1970’s Miraphone 186 B-flat tuba with a detachable recording bell, then, is an abomination, because that flair is very similar to the flair of a large diameter York bell.

Visually yes. But it's still all Miraphone.

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:49 pm Lots of patience, a willingness to experiment, and a lack of fear of making a mistake.

As the Tuba Tinker once appropriately said, every "frankentuba" is basically a prototype, meaning sometimes they work, sometimes not so much

When I build a horn, I try to make it look as though it could have come from the factory (including as many vintage parts, tapers, bores, etc., as is practical), meaning inspired by the original manufacturer.

As to the criteria for labeling something a "Frankentuba", that topic has been hashed about more times than I care to think of.

In the Automotive Industry/Aftermarket Parts and Racing circles, they sometimes call tinkering with and modifying parts in attempts to make something "better, stronger, faster" etc...destroying a million dollar idea. Sometimes obviously altering something makes it "better" for the operator in some way.

Here is a 186 (formerly sporting a hopelessly ruined bell) on which I soldered a 186 recording-style bell flair.

It's short, and York-shaped. The main slide has been extended, to make up the couple of lost inches in length.

(This is a barely-begun and long-sidelined project, which I'll get to completing sooner-or-later.)

It does not sound like a "regular" 186, but sounds very good (as one might guess: more mellow and "York-like"), and plays in tune as well as a regular 186.

I might leave the recording mouthpipe - particularly if this is sold to a middle school or person who is shorter of stature.

That actually looks decent. Patina is great too. It needs neck bolts though.

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:37 am Here is a 186 (formerly sporting a hopelessly ruined bell) on which I soldered a 186 recording-style bell flair.
...
I might leave the recording mouthpipe - particularly if this is sold to a middle school or person who is shorter of stature.

What is the recording mouthpipe? From the front, it looks like the one on my 186 (with removable recording bell).

The recording version's mouthpipe (as pictured) drops down low - across the bell.

Ah. Thanks. I'd never looked at a plain 186 enough to notice the difference. No wonder it seemed a little low.

Regarding the "abomination" crack, This was one of the best tubas I have ever played. I was still four years from dropping the money to set up my shop, and this horn had a LOT of physical issues but played very well. Had I been tooled up I would probably still own it. But alas, it was not to be, heh, heh…

It was a 1980s era MW 32 with the entire valve section rerouted to accommodate a York Monster Eb tuba bell made in 1941. It was "rare" in that it was never plated by the factory. (I do not recall having seen a whole lot of brass York tubas from that era.)

This is one I regret selling, but I never have the funds (nor the need) to buy it back. I do, however, miss it. So does our bass trombonist. This was his favorite of all my horns to play next to in the orchestra.

Wade the York bell looks normal on MW in this age of bigger is better. The valves qualify franken.
Joe haha 186 Conn pancake profile IS definitely, franken.:fluffycloud:
I've considered a few frankentubas never could pull the trigger.

'Sepp "Commander of Igortubas" Jagger

"Abby something..."

What is required for a frankentuba?

Structural mods that stand out, a non factory abnormal appearance.
Abby something...

the elephant wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:34 pm Regarding the "abomination" crack, This was one of the best tubas I have ever played. I was still four years from dropping the money to set up my shop, and this horn had a LOT of physical issues but played very well. Had I been tooled up I would probably still own it. But alas, it was not to be, heh, heh…

It was a 1980s era MW 32 with the entire valve section rerouted to accommodate a York Monster Eb tuba bell made in 1941. It was "rare" in that it was never plated by the factory. (I do not recall having seen a whole lot of brass York tubas from that era.)

This is one I regret selling, but I never have the funds (nor the need) to buy it back. I do, however, miss it. So does our bass trombonist. This was his favorite of all my horns to play next to in the orchestra.

Wade, I'm trying to figure out the valves. Can you explain how the arrangement worked?

Rick "agreeing that the bell looks a lot more normal on this tuba than the recording bell does on the Miraphone, but then Miraphones never looked right with recording bells even when they pointed forward" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:14 am Wade, I'm trying to figure out the valves. Can you explain how the arrangement worked?

Rick "agreeing that the bell looks a lot more normal on this tuba than the recording bell does on the Miraphone, but then Miraphones never looked right with recording bells even when they pointed forward" Denney

Looks like the valve for the second key is at the bottom. 1st, 3rd, and 4th keys link to their valves in the usual way, and 2nd must go round back somehow.

I believe (and maybe - ?? - I made this same remark on multi-color/pc-net) that I've seen this particular formerly-Wade's tuba sometime in the past.
(I believe someone had showed it to me - and met me at a gig - who was either considering buying it or selling it to/from some owner-after-Wade.

I don't remember how it was set up, but it looks (my attempt to interpret the picture...??) like the 5th valve is last, that the 5th valve's circuit is a GG semitone, and that the right-hand thumb linkage for it is routed underneath the other rotors...but I've been really wrong before, so please allow me to quote Emily Litella, if I find that I need to.

(If -??- I'm correct about the location/length of the 5th circuit, the valve combination for "low F" on such an instrument is 2-4-5, with the valve combination for "low F#" and B-natural being 4-5. The Ron Bishop-bought Miraphone 184 (that I bought "new" and customized) featured an added-on 5th rotor that offered either a GG semitone or a GG wholetone (but did NOT offer the old-style Miraphone "2-3" length)...so I have some (albeit distant past) experience with a 5th valve that is a GG semitone. That was my very first 5-valve tuba, and I put that valve on there JUST in time to cover those low pitches in the (complete opera) "L'amour des trois oranges" (Prokofiev).

bloke "who just can't seem to avoid *stream-of-consciousness posts"
_____________________________________________________
*

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:14 amWade, I'm trying to figure out the valves. Can you explain how the arrangement worked?

The 5th slide was shortened to be a 1st and physically did not get relocated. The original 1st was removed and 2/3/4 were detached from the bugle as an assembly and moved up. New braces were used where needed. The first was moved to the bottom, becoming the new 5th, and it was shortened to be a flat half-step. I think this less common interval was chosen strictly for space reasons.

The 1st linkage received this wonky treatment to route it behind to connect to the reward-facing 5th-cum-1st rotor. 2/3/4 remained unchanged. The linkage from the thumb lever down to the new bottom-of-the-stack 5th location used a clever (but still wonky) linkage that was heavy in feel. He flipped the rotor so it would work with his hidden linkage.

It was a good design to make the 1st slide work with the much larger (and closer/lower) bell flare. That is the *only* reason I can fathom why all this work was done to it. It played well but was in need of a valve section rebuild using new rotors that faced the correct direction and with a flat whole step 5th.

I would love to get this horn back for a rebuild to straighten out some of this mess. I would probably put the valve section back to the way it was as the MW 32 is a known-good player. The issue was that the 1st slide pull was too long for that bell. It would have been MUCH EASIER if the tech had just shortened the pull of 1st. Still, it was clever. I only sold it because of the 5th interval. I had a four-valved 163, a 2265 with a flat whole step 5th and this with a flat half step 5th. I am too dang stupid to work using three horns that all have different fingerings in the low register. I ended up settling on the flat whole step for my CC horns and now all of them use this, even if I have to add it or modify an existing slide circuit.

I would add that I have seriously considered putting one of these original York Eb bells on a MW-32 if one ever falls into my lap. I liked this combo that much.

Yeah, it's looking more clear to me now. The second-valve pull ring is now visible--my brain didn't see it before. I just couldn't figure out why the first valve needed to be turned backwards.

Rick "still can't really figure that out" Denney