TubeNet

bloke wrote:So far, these are the only two Conn-made sousaphones that I've seen with a .687" bore.

What is it with the elderly tubists and their sense for numbers and pitches? The two of us have had our troubles in that area recently, not all of them in public.

In the 1968 catalogue even the lighter 10K BBb has the 0.734" bore.

But I own proof that Conn made 0.689"-bore sousaphones over two decades or more. Only they were in Eb.

My 28K is made for the US army in 1946 at a point of time, where the Eb basses already appear to become out of fashion as members of the US school bands. It may be here on TN that a poster said that Conn continued making Eb sousaphones as long as they had leftover pre-WWII parts.

A .689" 4 piston block hardly would make sense on the Conn BBb frames, whereas a .689" 3 piston would not create un-fullfilled dreams of an efficient 4 valve BBb sousaphone.

What I try to hint is that the two Continental Clarion BBb sousaphones may have been a Conn attempt of making good and marketable use of overstock Eb parts. All the Conn’s that I have seen documented, maybe aside of the 46K/48K’s, use the same necks. Eb and BBb Conn sousaphones have different lower leadpipes. Putting longer loops on the piston blocks would be easy-0

The bore adaption from the .689 block to the larger BBb frame may have happened in the legs to or from the main tuning slide.

By using an unusual model name Conn freed themselves from customer expectations based on other, more standard, models.

Klaus

bloke wrote: These look exactly like any other 14K, except the bore size is .687", *NOT* .734".

Is it possible to adjust for individual horn idiosyncrasies to draw generalized conclusions about how the playing characteristics compare to a .734 14k?

Bloke wrote: Well, I can assure you that they will still blatt.

Well, that's good. Wouldn't want to tinker with a signature quality. But given the recurring bore threads here, I'm intrigued by the possibility of comparing similar horns whose main difference is bore size, within scope of the horns' design intent.

I.e., less interested in a comparison of the two sousaphones playing Bydlo or Poulenc, but am interested to know if there were significant, or at least noticeable differences in one or more of efficiency, articulation, intonation, evenness, attack, flexibility, blattiness, volumetric ceiling or the other qualities that have arisen during bore discussions, as appropriate to the contemporary, quotidian sousaphone use-case.

That said, my request was more one of idle curiosity and the possibility of adding potentially meaningful data to an (arguably non-meaningful) ongoing discussion, and being an amateur's amateur, I don't know whether it's a reasonable request, or something that is so self-evident to a good tubist, that it's a throw-away request.

From your original answer, I suspect the latter - that it's kind of moot, or at least not worth discussing - but if you did notice a difference, I'd be curious to know, even if to you it's not meaningful or relevant to your playing interests. If not, though, no worries. Meant no offense.
Cheers

tokuno wrote:...as appropriate to the contemporary, quotidian sousaphone use-case.

Mmmm. Impressive! I haven't seen "quotidian" used correctly in a sentence since before William F. Buckley died.

Rick "wondering if Bloke will bother to look it up" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

tokuno wrote:...as appropriate to the contemporary, quotidian sousaphone use-case.

Mmmm. Impressive! I haven't seen "quotidian" used correctly in a sentence since before William F. Buckley died.

Rick "wondering if Bloke will bother to look it up" Denney

Wasn’t William F. Buckley a student of bloke’s?

Klaus

I've seen them and worked on them. But just to split hairs, they were the standard Cann .693" bore. What is very interesting is that they fit in a the casing of a .734" bore Conn 14K. Because of this, they are .693" bore with less blister in the ports of the actual valves than the .734" bore valves. So, they really don't play that much smaller as they aren't as choked off in the valve pistons.

Rick Denney wrote:

tokuno wrote:...as appropriate to the contemporary, quotidian sousaphone use-case.

Mmmm. Impressive! I haven't seen "quotidian" used correctly in a sentence since before William F. Buckley died.

Rick "wondering if Bloke will bother to look it up" Denney

Isn't Quotidian an Amati stencil made by Jin Bao?

bloke wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:
Rick "wondering if Bloke will bother to look it up" Denney

What's to look up? It's used here quotidianally.

Rick "that's a 'yes'" Denney

FYI:(From Merriam-Webster)

Main Entry: quo·tid·i·an
Pronunciation: \kwō-ˈti-dē-ən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English cotidian, from Anglo-French, from Latin quotidianus, cotidianus, from quotidie every day, from quot (as) many as + dies day — more at deity
Date: 14th century
1: occurring every day <quotidian fever>
2 a: belonging to each day : everyday <quotidian routine> b: commonplace , ordinary <quotidian drabness>
— quotidian noun

OldsRecording wrote:FYI:(From Merriam-Webster)

C'mon, Bill, anybody can look it up.

Rick "who had read about it in a book about grandiloquent words" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

OldsRecording wrote:FYI:(From Merriam-Webster)

C'mon, Bill, anybody can look it up.

Rick "who had read about it in a book about grandiloquent words" Denney

Hey- I was just providing a service for those too lazy to Google 'Dictionary' or even- -actually pick up an actual dictionary.