TubaForum.net

I never got why kanstul did this. I can see the point in the 4/4 tubas that also had a top action version. But I see no point in doing this with a .750"-782" valveset. It just looks funny.

Those tubas could have been much better had Zig been willing to use a purpose-designed front piston porting layout and not the horrible kludge they *did* use. How sad. I think they might still be in business had they done this. Oh, and intonation issues… well, whatever…

I have one of their CR rotor valves, and it managed to go from working perfectly to not working at all simply by being in a box for fifteen years, dry, packed well, etc. I have half-century old Mirafone rotors that work perfectly after 15 years in a box. Heck, I have 50 year old Mirafone rotors that were dumped unpadded into a box with many others, resting metal on metal, getting jostled and banged about for many years as the box was moved around or picked through. In most cases any damage was fixable in under an hour, netting a perfectly good valve. This Kanstul CR valve has never been used, but the skeletonized rotor is so fragile that a few bumps in that box have caused the two outer plates of the rotor to be permanently misaligned so that the valve is effectively junk.

Just my 2¢…

the elephant wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:09 pm I think they might still be in business had they done this. Oh, and intonation issues… well, whatever…

Interesting story, when Zig died his son took over the buisness. He cut all the lucrative stenciling ties. He wanted to focus on Kanstul rather than Conn or Blue.

I can't personally vouch for this information, but I was told this by someone who is in the Instrument manufacturing buisness.

A lot of tubas made in the late 1800's and early 1900's look as if they used the same valves sets on both their sousaphones/helicons and front valve tubas. On the tubas this puts the valves high on the horn and at a comfortable angle for the right hand. I assume this is not what you're talking about, though . . .

He is speaking more about top action valves with ports that point downwards, or, in the case of Kanstul, marching tuba valves with ports pointed mostly toward 1st valve (or toward the rear of the tuba) being adapted to use for front valves whereby some ports point toward 1st and some point toward 4th via the use of little fiddly bits of tubing to redirect the slide circuit in a usable direction.

The Kanstul set does not make a good concert tuba set without a lot of small compromises in air routing/flow because the ports are (IIRC) all on the backside of the set, rather than having a slide exit port on one side and the reentry port on the other. It is difficult to work with a setup like that, as can be seen in some of the tortured-looking Kanstul tuba valve section slide circuits. The main flaw, to my way of thinking, was how the main slide hooked up to the 4th valve. Anyone with an eye to design (rather than to brand loyalty or loyalty to a personality) notes that the Kanstul tubas have this issue.

Zin flat out refused to discuss a purpose-designed set of piston valves for use on concert tubas, preferring to have that tortured Kanstul look, since many of his horns were convertible from shoulder to lap play. He was geared more to the marching side of things. I asked him why he did not offer an non-convertible valve section option for these otherwise very good bugles that used a proper concert tuba valve set and he said that his valves were superior to other sets being made. Later, his man Charles (I think?) manning the booth told me that to develop a new set of pistons would require an outlay of cash and time that Mr. Kanstul was unwilling to expend, and that what they had was "good enough for most tuba players", and that turned me into an instant and permanent non-Kanstul customer for good.

Whatever, it was Zig's baby to do with as he pleased. His tuba sales were never as big as his trumpet and flugelhorn sales, from what I heard. I don't think he ever seriously courted the pro or "pro wannabe" tuba market. Tubas cost a lot to make, and trumpets do not. Since there are approximately 500 bazillion more trumpet players willing to spend a few grand versus the very few tuba players willing to drop more than ten grand, I can see why he stopped development of tuba valves and declared that his were "good enough for tuba players".

I loved Zig's work for Olds and King, and all he did for the drum corps activity, and I think his own brand trumpets, flugels and trombones were mostly really top shelf gear, but I never had anything more than a passing interest in a Kanstul tuba, sad to say.

All of the “big five“ trumpet and trombone sections still play that brand, correct?

Someone of Mr Kanstul’s reputation would have had no problem sourcing as many highest quality (aka German) 19mm/.748 sets as he wanted; I always wondered why he didn’t avail himself of them, either.

Maybe it was a matter of pride, aka “made in America”?

I don’t care for the looks of the tortured top-action-shoehorned-to-side-action at all. That one feature alone put me off of Kanstul tubas from the get-go. It also shows an unwillingness to build and instrument as it is supposed to be. This might sound pompous (and if it does, please forgive me, because I’m sincerely trying to be self-deprecating here), but if I can do it, so can a company that builds them for profit.

“the elephant” wrote:Mr. Kanstul was unwilling to expend, and that what they had was "good enough for most tuba players"

Besson (UK) did the same thing with their sousaphones, as well as their (rare) front-action compensating euphoniums...and the Willson 2975 as well, yes ?

I consider myself fortunate to have a front valve Kanstul Eb. If it's a top-action valve block, I'll have to take your-all's word for it. The valve circuits are all attached on the same side, as is true for the 2nd valve on many front action tubas; the 4th valve connects to a 5th valve, not the main slide, so whatever that issue may be, it doesn't obtain here. There's a little problem with drainage, but not as intractable as I remember with the 1st valve on my old King 1240. Otherwise ... I gather whatever the problems may be, they would not be experienced while playing. The valve caps aren't my favorite, I will say that.

I have not worked on many recent-vintage California-made tubas.

With one of them, I was really alarmed at how thin (just about “foil-thin”) the sheet bronze was in the bottom bow - which showed up at my shop (not surprisingly) badly dented.

Another one arrived more recently with a piston valve that had not been reliable since the instrument had been uncrated by its buyer - who purchased it new. The casing didn’t feature a dent, but was actually slightly curved, with the only remedy being tearing the instrument apart, having someone like Dan Oberloh hone the casing, and then building up and truing that piston to the new larger dimension...all of this, and then soldering the instrument back together. I’m just not sure that the instrument itself would be worth the cost of that work, particularly after suffering all of the *cosmetic damage that would be defined by doing all of that work.
_______________
*undeniably, with humans being such visually-oriented creatures…in spite of any rhetoric we read - in platforms such as this one - where people claim to “only care about the sound“

Pistons seem fine on mine. The bottom bow seems normally robust to the casual observer, but it's a different bottom bow, naturally, than the contrabass tuba you were probably looking at.

donn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:17 pm Pistons seem fine on mine. The bottom bow seems normally robust to the casual observer, but it's a different bottom bow, naturally, than the contrabass tuba you were probably looking at.

Being manufactured on the other side of the Rockies (just as some west coast folks report that "We hardly ever see any fill-in-the-blank make tubas, out here"), my experience with them is so seldom as to be anecdotal...and I'm sure that most of them are OK.

Those contrabass bugle piston sets (their porting was mapped for use on GG contras with four valves) function well enough, but the air pathway leaves much to be desired. On the smaller horns it is not such an issue, but they sure make for some structural compromises with bracing and the routing of slide tubes. Not for me, thanks. If I were to build a horn I start with the valves, bell and outer branches, and I would not choose those valves because of the complexity they would add to my design work to make a good valve section.

The Yamaha 621 series is another example of this.

The Jupiter JCB-482 BBb tuba does this as well with an odd(ish) 18mm bore size.

It's not an option, but I vote "don't care".

If I liked the tuba they were attached to, I'd probably like them. If I did not, then I would not.

Compared to your average rotary tuba, drainage sucks on piston tubas regardless of where the ports are.

If a top action tuba played well, then the valve block were just oriented differently to have a front action version of the same tuba, wouldn't one expect it to play pretty much the same?

the elephant wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:09 pm Those tubas could have been much better had Zig been willing to use a purpose-designed front piston porting layout and not the horrible kludge they *did* use. How sad. I think they might still be in business had they done this. Oh, and intonation issues… well, whatever…

I have one of their CR rotor valves, and it managed to go from working perfectly to not working at all simply by being in a box for fifteen years, dry, packed well, etc. I have half-century old Mirafone rotors that work perfectly after 15 years in a box. Heck, I have 50 year old Mirafone rotors that were dumped unpadded into a box with many others, resting metal on metal, getting jostled and banged about for many years as the box was moved around or picked through. In most cases any damage was fixable in under an hour, netting a perfectly good valve. This Kanstul CR valve has never been used, but the skeletonized rotor is so fragile that a few bumps in that box have caused the two outer plates of the rotor to be permanently misaligned so that the valve is effectively junk.

Just my 2¢…

My Kanstul 1662i bass bone with 2 rotors was very difficult to reassemble so that it worked properly. And even after they started working, they developed a weird condition where oil would cause something inside to swell or bind. So I stopped cleaning, stopped oiling, and just play them, and they're ok. Great valves when they work, but very finicky to keep working.

cjk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:54 pmIf a top action tuba played well, then the valve block were just oriented differently to have a front action version of the same tuba, wouldn't one expect it to play pretty much the same?

The ports point in the wrong direction to be used for front action, and frequently, even if you cut them off and rotated them (not something most DIYers would be willing to do) the porting would not necessarily work because some of these sets have the long slide (3 and 4) ports on the same side, like the Kanstul marching tuba piston set that they used for all their tubas. It makes for some (as I said) torturous tube routings to get the slide where they need to be AND accessible while you are playing.

Yes, you could do this. No, you shouldn't unless a lot of head scratching is done first to ensure that what you end up with after the surgery is not a horrible kludge. And finally, NO, it would not play the same if you cut off and rotated all the ports to point in the needed directions, because then it would be a different valve set, so there is no guarantee that it would "play the same" as all the tight bends would be different than designed. It *might* and it *might not* play the same. It also *might* play VERY differently. It is a risk that you take in order to do this sort of goofy work we re talking about.

The cost to rebuild a worn set of pistons (today) and then report the casing set is nearly the same cost for a new valve set that is designed to be front pistons. Keep in mind that the days of $300 valve rebuild are gone forever. It is more like a grand today. And the time for a technician who can report a valve set to a usable state is going to be a lot of hours at a high rate.

I would do this work in a heartbeat — for myself. I would never offer it as a service because I could not do it in a reasonably cost-effective manner.

“bloke” wrote:undeniably, with humans being such visually-oriented creatures…in spite of any rhetoric we read - in platforms such as this one - where people claim to “only care about the sound“

I don’t believe you’ve given us your opinion on the poll topic, but knowing you as I do, can I assume it matters somewhat to you, as it does to me?

I build tubas (for fun, not for profit) and when I build one, you can be sure that I certainly DO care how they look and how they sound. I believe it shows attention to detail and an effort to make something that looks correct. To me, it’s a matter of taking pride in a “job well done”.