TubaForum.net

Pretty trashed, but the price is low. Might be worth getting if you're itching to try your dent removal skills.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Reynolds-Conte ... 4709471188

That picture truly accentuates the almost comical height of that bell...

Other than that, they are very well made horns, although I've always thought the valve set bore (.687) is a tad small for a bugle that size (very similar to the York "tall-bell" 7xx tubas).

With that said, I've pondered the possibilities of someday converting one of those to CC (I'll bet you could lose at least 8 - 12" out of that bell alone....)

although I've always thought the valve set bore (.687) is a tad small for a bugle that size

Is that why many of the frankenhorns created use the King .687'' on larger bugles? I think it's the perfect size for ease of breathe management and sound production and works really well with the big bugles and it seems pretty popular.

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:06 am

although I've always thought the valve set bore (.687) is a tad small for a bugle that size

Is that why many of the frankenhorns created use the King .687'' on larger bugles? I think it's the perfect size for ease of breathe management and sound production and works really well with the big bugles and it seems pretty popular.

They're popular because they're the most readily available - ease of breath management could be why they are readily available, but I think it's more because there's a gazillion trashed King tubas out there to harvest them from - conversely, I don't think anyone would be readily tempted to harvest a valveset from a York 71x tuba for a project horn.

Although .748/19mm sets seem as common as dirt these days, if you don't have an "in" with a source for them, they are not so easy to come by.

The Reynolds tuba has a larger taper than the King 124× - 234× tubas, more like the York (actually a tad larger), that's why I made my claim. Personally, I've never had any issues with a bore that large, YMMV.

F. A. Reynolds worked for J.W. York at one time, and it's pretty obvious where he got his design ideas from. Why he didn't use a .750 set "back in the day" (like York did) is open for speculation. (My theory is that he sourced his valves from H. N. White, which is where he went after he left York).

IMO frankenhorn builders are using the smaller ".687" because it works, and works well to produce a very desirable sound. The bonus is that there are a few sets of valves floating around on trashed horns as you mention which is great. I would still love to have something like Stryk's Lion & Healy with a BBb King valveset on it. Norm Epley built something very similar that's not being used at the moment I'd love to own.

Selection of a valve bore isn't as arbitrary as one might think.

For example, "medium" horns (such as the ones built on Holtons and Yorks using King parts, like Sam) are perfect candidates for a .687 set because on the original horns, the size of the dogleg is .750, exactly the same as is the large size of the MTS on the King, which makes a seamless fit.

On the "larger" or "monster" York and Holton tubas, (of which I've built several), the dogleg is usually around .807, which makes a difference of @ .057 where the large end of the King .750 MTS starts. The King MTS will not fit without some sort of adaptation - not impossible, but it leaves you with a sudden change of bore at a sensitive point in the horn.

Does it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not - everyone feels a horn different ways. After all, Mr Rusk made several BBb to CC conversions, and I'm sure those tapers were all over the place - yet, some of them still play well, regardless. Personally, I like to try and keep the bore as consistent as is possible, which means using valves that are consistent in size with the original construction - that's just the way I do things.

At present, I only know of a few examples of "large" horns (6/4 contrabasses) using the smaller King valves (maybe one or two in addition to the ones you've already mentioned). Maybe there are others, I just don't know of them. FWIW, I've been curious to learn how those builders solved the sudden change in bore size (fitting that larger dogleg tubing into a tube that is too small to fit without shrinking it somehow) - that would be very interesting (I would suspect making a new dogleg, as Uncle Beer did on his King monster E flat, or maybe making a new MTS crook with a sharper taper, ie going from .807 to .687).

Out of curiosity, what do you like to do when you build tubas? Have you ever found a good reliable source for .748/19mm valves? There are projects where I could have used a King set, but delayed it until the larger sized set came available.......and I'm certain I'm not the only one. I'm sure there are many here who would like to know where to find them.

Not too sure about what certain builders do about that dogleg, I wonder if Tabor is here to tell us his method? I've not had too much play time on .750'' bores (only piston horns like a Holton 345 BBb and a St. Pete) that had that size bore and they were, for me..too open blowing and required a lot more air to sustain than the smaller bore .687'' of the King. I suppose everything changes with rotary valves, because as large as .830'' on the St Pete 202's are very easy (very close to the .687''). So why does .750'' feel so differently? Maybe I need to try more horns of that bore, but it wouldn't be even on my list even if someone gave me a free valveset of that bore.

KingTuba1241x wrote:Not too sure about what certain builders do about that dogleg, I wonder if Tabor is here to tell us his method?

My question was somewhat rhetorical. I know exactly what needs to be done - I was curious how others would address it.

KingTuba1241x wrote:Maybe I need to try more horns of that bore, but it wouldn't be even on my list even if someone gave me a free valveset of that bore.

I think you'd change your mind when you learned how hard they are to get and how expensive they are. Of course, if someone happens to hand you one, I'm first in line

Long story short: the horn's taper directly dictates the bore. Using anything else means you need to change the taper, which I don't like to do.

Meanwhile, here's some of the 6/4 horns I've built (all 3/4" bore):

I think you'd change your mind when you learned how hard they are to get and how expensive they are.

Oh for resale purposes, of course I would Not for my personal horn (change my mind, let me play a REALLY good playing example).

I think I like the logistics and set up of the middle horn the best, I assume all are in CC? Lead pipe height, angle relative to bell it looks the best.

No, they are all in BBb.

With all the CC options out there today, cutting a really good horn would not be a very good idea, IMO.

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:32 am No, they are all in BBb.

With all the CC options out there today, cutting a really good horn would not be a very good idea, IMO.

100% agree on that. What is the middle horn exactly?

That’s like murderer’s row of 6/4 BBb tubas, @Yorkboy!!!

Would it be okay to use that in the future to promote the website?

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:38 am

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:32 am No, they are all in BBb.

With all the CC options out there today, cutting a really good horn would not be a very good idea, IMO.

100% agree on that. What is the middle horn exactly?

It's a York, with an original York 4 valve set.

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:41 am

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:38 am

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:32 am No, they are all in BBb.

With all the CC options out there today, cutting a really good horn would not be a very good idea, IMO.

100% agree on that. What is the middle horn exactly?

It's a York, with an original York 4 valve set.

An un-original 5th valve ?

Oh, sorry, yes the 5th valve is modern

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:55 am Meanwhile, here's some of the 6/4 horns I've built (all 3/4" bore):

@Yorkboy

I'd love to see your process creating these amazing things.