TubaForum.net

Someone is being very nice to me, and has offered to let me consider purchasing their set of MAW valves (made to fit King valve casings) in the compact Holton B-flat tuba that I built (documented on this site)...a tuba which is very similar in size to a York 33 or a Holton 331 "Phillips”, except the bore size (as a King valve "block" was utilized) is a bit larger (.687", rather than .665" or .650").

So far, I can only "test" the open pitches, because the fit isn't quite perfect...but I have found one difference (again: SO FAR).

Before, the F above the staff (a high-tessitura pitch for a tuba, and particularly high for a large-bell-diameter tuba) before did not focus - unless quite above pitch (ie. "sharp"), and - before - the highest pitch "of use to me" on this particular instrument was the adjacent E-natural.

With these valves, the F offers a good focus, and focuses best (as with the 6th partial F, an octave lower) only slightly sharp, and can easily be "favored" in tune.

As ALL I'm able to test - at this point (until the pistons are fitted to the casings) are "open" pitches, I'm reporting that everything else is no-better/no-worse.

I'll report more, once I get the pistons in motion.

Though I admit to being human, nursing biases, and misinterpreting things, I believe that I am about as good as anyone at noticing small differences in playing characteristics (though "noticing" is NOT AT ALL scientific).

Of course, "what I might notice" ONLY pertains to this ONE (oddball/one-off) tuba.

I got these pistons fit into my King valve block - which is mounted on my custom Holton compact 4/4 tuba. So far, I haven’t noticed much difference (other than reported in the previous post), but an advantage is that they were barely too tight in these particular King casings, whereas the original King pistons were ever so slightly loose, and this gave me an opportunity to end up with closer valve tolerances.

I will offer a hint to anyone who is fitting these Meinlschmidt-made MAW Martin Wilk-designed pistons into a tuba:

I noticed while hand-lapping them in - which took some time - that these valves are pretty bend-resistant (ie. tough - as the outer tube is stainless steel), but they can slightly flex (as I witnessed), due to the big open “C” shape in the center port...
...so no one should ever consider spin-fitting them into casings, as the upper edge of the “C” shape (if a piston ended up being flexed) could easily catch on the top or bottom edge of the piston-fitting part of the casing and gouge it, and then transfer a gouge right back to the piston…so any fitting should always be done by hand (as was my method) - at least, in my opinion. If this verbal description of the situation is not clear, the main point is to HAND-fit and to NOT spin-fit these pistons.

If I notice any response differences with these King-fitting MAW pistons, I’ll report it in this thread. I did notice some very nice differences with the larger B&S size MAW/MS pistons in my large C tuba.

Oh yeah... I do believe that I reduced the piston to casing tolerances by part of a 1000th of an inch. I actually can feel more piston/casing contact when depressing the valves, if that makes any sense.

I take it "spin fitting" uses a lathe or machine of some kind??

again: certainly not with these particular pistons - as they are prone to flex. (again: only flex, and not bend)
I employed a homespun method of suspended pumice powder, along with some thin oil.
I worked the pistons up and down in the casings from both ends while turning the valves different ways and pressing against different sides of the casings.
=========
I wasn’t certain about this until this morning, but I’ve also noticed that the fourth partial open pitch - a.k.a. “tuning note“ - is now higher.
With this particular instrument, that’s good news because, before: that open pitch was low, in relation to the other open pitches.

Three Valves wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:22 am I take it "spin fitting" uses a lathe or machine of some kind??

These tuning things could just be from tightening up the instrument...??

Do these also fit in a King 2341? Like, in a 2341 that needs a valve job?

“bloke” wrote: I wasn’t certain about this until this morning, but I’ve also noticed that the fourth partial open pitch - a.k.a. “tuning note“ - is now higher.
With this particular instrument, that’s good news because, before: that open pitch was low, in relation to the other open pitches.

That partial is typically low, at least on the squatty York (BBb) 33s I’ve encountered, and likely so on the similar Holton model.

I’d wager a bet the closer tolerance is what caused your change in intonation.

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:34 am Do these also fit in a King 2341? Like, in a 2341 that needs a valve job?

Yes, that is what they are purpose-made for.

If your valve casings are not too worn, you may get away with new stock pistons from Conn-Selmer.

Now that the valves are tighter, your mouthpiece is able to fix all the intonation issues.

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:39 am

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:34 am Do these also fit in a King 2341? Like, in a 2341 that needs a valve job?

Yes, that is what they are purpose-made for.

If your valve casings are not too worn, you may get away with new stock pistons from Conn-Selmer.

Thanks! I meant to add, old or new style 2341, but I meant old... (and think that was assumed).

The fit improvement is only "smidgey", but who knows...??
I know that a crack in a slide tube/mouthpipe tube or a leak in a water key cork messes things up badly (far worse than "the difference between a Helleberg and a TU-23"...or "between an 18-inch pancake and a 19-inch pancake"...so I'm willing to entertain the possibility that slightly "tightening up" the instrument now allows the sound column to vibrate at the frequencies at which it is more prone/*wont to be vibrating.

The original #1/#2 pistons seemed "easy-fitting" to me, but - otoh - I could not coax any lateral move out of them whatsoever.

The MAW #1 and #2 pistons (prior to fitting them) would insert into the casings all the way, but only with a bit of force.

Each MAW valve took about (not "a minute or two") but about ten minutes (a fairly long time - thought admittedly doing it by hand) to fit into their respective casings. When the work was completed, the casing interiors were all nice and "yellow" (ie. obviously contacting the MAW pistons "nearly everywhere") in nearly all casing surfaces (leaving only small traces of "brown", here and there). ...so (though not a "classy" precision honing job) the piston-to-casing fit is now (surely...) a bit closer with all four valves. Since the King 2341 1990's valveset was (surely...??) a school-salvage instrument, there were little pings all around most-exposed (1 and 2) casing's exteriors. I'm sure that some of those little pings had transferred within as sub-miniature "dentletts" - which were all lapped away as well.

OK: the forever-asked and forever-mocked "B-flat vs. C" question
I'm beginning to see that a B-flat tuba (with an FF-semitone 5th valve) plays BETTER/EASIER in four/five sharps (ie. B-major/E-major/C-sharp-minor, etc.) than does an equally nice-playing and equally in-tune-playing C tuba.
I'm not going to post recordings, but I'm pretty d@mned pleased with that I hear - coming out the bell, when playing the low/slow/sorrowful lines from Prok's R&J, his 5th Symphony, Wagner's "Ride" and "Dragon solo", a couple of Holst excerpts (including "band" Holst excerpts) and (yep: in particular) "Fountains"
___________________________________________
* (possibly clarifying for some) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wont (as it dawned on me that - being "old" - the use of this word has begun to become archaic.)

OK...

As is true with my Markneukirchen-made large C tuba (with MAW valves installed) the slurs are definitely easier.

One of my 'test passages' (for "how easily a tuba executes slurs") is the speedy little *D-major run in the last movement of the Malcolm Arnold Brass Quintet...Unlike with the oem pistons, with the MAW pistons I do not have to "favor" things with my face to execute smooth slurs.

*this lick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo
These young guys are really good with the notes, but really don't "get" the stylizing involved in playing c. 1960 movie music, do they?

Are the Eastman EBB-534 valves similar enough to the King valves they copy to permit use of the MAW valves with fitting?

Rick “just as a matter of curiosity” Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:24 am Are the Eastman EBB-534 valves similar enough to the King valves they copy to permit use of the MAW valves with fitting?

Rick “just as a matter of curiosity” Denney

I read on this very forum that Martin Wilk has MAW valves for the Eastman 632 and 836. The 632 is a 534 shortened to CC.

viewtopic.php?t=2177