Difference in MAW valve?

[tjrwls907]

I am planning to wear MAW's valve on the 2165 of the current melton.
Can you tell the difference between the original valve from the instrument company and the valve of MAW??
Currently I'm considering buying this.
If you know any differences, please let me know!

[OhioTubaGuy]

I can’t help, but would love to hear some answers too.

[OhioTubaGuy]

A helpful video was posted by Chris Olka on a different forum:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=qdQUgtD ... 5nnjVxlzEE

[Lee Stofer]

Martin Wilk noticed, like many of us, that manufacturers have compromised piston valve ports in order to create shorter-stroke
valves - a notable exception being the old York 91 6/4 BBb, where Martin noticed that the stroke was a little longer, and the ports
were all fully-round throughout the piston, and he also really liked the sound and response of full-round ports. So, he developed the
first truly different tuba piston since Conn's short-action valves. instead of Conn's intentional non-round ports, Martin created a hard
nickel center port, open like a rotor port. With the port being very hard, he could then insert slightly longer upper- and lower ports,
and ball them out round, going around the center port instead of bulging into it, and he had built a valve that had both the desired
stroke and full-round ports. The immediacy of the response is enough different from that of a traditional valve that there is a slight
learning curve, although it is exciting to learn to play your instrument as a much better instrument.

On my Stofer 4/4 CC tuba, I have been using the MAW pistons and the MAW rotor as original equipment for several years now. The pistons
enhance the basic qualities of the instrument, and the MAW rotor opens up the lower register unlike anything else I've ever played. If
I were buyng a new piston-valve tuba, I would definitely want to have MAW valves in it if possible.

[mjrctuba]

I can't speak to the 2165, but I had MAW valved installed in my 2145 several years ago.
Although the difference is not drastic, the horn does speak a little better. Fellow members of low brass sections I agreed with one another that my horn seemed to have "more volume." As far as play-ability, there is a little less resistance, particularly in the fourth valve, which was pretty stuffy with the factory valves.
I'm personally glad to have made the upgrade. I would only recommend it if having an extra set of valves is something you can afford easily.

[2ba4t]

This all fascinates me as it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically.

I well remember decades of people insisting that the material from which instruments were made and their finish made incredible and magical differences to their playing qualities. Brass, red brass, lacquer, plated, you name it. Blindfold tests soon disproved all that but everyone insisted their choice was superior. And this was not manufacturers but hopefully unsponsored professionals. We have had of course the monster mouthpiece syndrome, the bits of metal strapped on syndrome, the heavy valve cap syndrome, the use of snake oil rather than valve oil syndrome etc etc. Plastic instruments should have destroyed all this but no, we continue to mistake the psychological influence of 'something different' making us feel it is better.

60% of patients would recover if they never saw a doctor. Of the other 40%, 25% would be cured by a placebo and nursing care controlling their diet and activity.

We make a buzz in the mouthpiece. This creates a shock wave (sound wave) of energy that hits the molecules of air in the mouthpiece. Like standing passengers in a crowded subway, the jolted molecules jerk forwards and bang into the molecules immediately in front of them. These molecules jerk forwards and bang into the molecules immediately in front of them. Now these molecules jerk forwards and bang into the molecules immediately in front of them.This wave of energy is transmitted through the closed tube to the bell. At the bell the atmospheric air pressure is greater and pushes back much of the energy down the bell to the mouthpiece. In that nano-second from the lips' outward buzz and the returning shock wave, the lips remain open but are then 'immediately' pushed closed by the returning wave only to make a new 'buzz'. NO AIR TRAVELS DOWN the instrument except for that necessary to escape as you empty your lungs. The energy wave is all that matters.

The shape and length of that tube do indeed control the sound. So bore and degree of expansion and bell size make the obvious differences between a BBb cimbasso, 150 year old narrow bore tiny bell BBb tuba and vast monstrous magnificent 8/6 BBb triple York style with 48 inch bell.

BUT the actual detail of the tube's twists and turns have very little effect unless there are leaks or very pronounced blockages or really exceptional contractions.

Remember those sound waves are jolted micro millimeter at a time. Sharp turns, uneven tubing etc have very little effect unless of course it is along extensive stretches. It is impossible that removing the bumps or twists in the valves could be noticed. If that were true then all rotary valves would blow much better than pistons and compensating valves would be a catastrophe: yet some of the best players use them and sound as brilliant as the others.

With all the respect in the world, I would be interested to see the results of some double blind tests - and players responses when they did not pay for the new valves and have a subconscious need to justify this.

This should distinguished from one genius's popular improvement of replacing the fourth valve with a larger bore rotary valve. This works because the wider bore allows more molecules to be jolted at that point as there is more static air in that wider pipe to be affected.