TubeNet

bloke wrote:bloke "who may have a couple of these instruments sitting about"

Planning for retirement? Probably a better investment than the ones I have right now.

Chuck"who has lost 68% of his portofolio in 14 hours and 58% of his home value in the past 18 months but still optimistic"Jackson

Bob1062 wrote:

KiltieTuba wrote: The tone, not sure about yet, only got to use my marching band mpc, can't find my helleberg at the moment. It has a much fuller and darker tone than the B&S or the Yamaha 321. Even with my super shallow cup mpc, the air "noise" wasn't nearly as present as on the other tubas.

What is your marching mouthpiece? It seems that could get rid of any tubbiness at all. Does it work that way, or is it just too much?

Holtons are never tubby, but they can get woofy with too big and deep a mouthpiece. They do not need a big mouthpiece to make them sound big, because they already are big. I used a PT-48 for a long time in my BB-345, and it worked very well to minimize any tendency to woofiness. That mouthpiece is large, but not as deep as many that people use these days, and it has a bit more of a bowl shape. Lately, I've been using a Stofer Geib, which is a traditional mouthpiece for American tubas. It is outstanding on this instrument, with great clarity, control, and focus. No hint of woofiness at all.

Rick "whose attempts with really big and deep mouthpieces lost all focus" Denney

KiltieTuba wrote:Lastly, after having such a organ-like tone and foundation coming from the Holton, it makes me want a larger bored sousaphone (like a 48K), I mean the King is nice a big and definitely has one hell of a dark sound, but there is something about the bore size that irks me. So much so that I emailed DEG about a 4-valve sousaphone block, only to find out that the price of just the valves and tubing would cost more than what I payed for the sousaphone, and thats without the assembly of the horn. Also it would just be bear-awesome to have a the beastiest of beastly sousaphones from Conn.

Without bashing King at all, I think you could put whatever valve section on your sousaphone, and it still would be lighter in sound than the large Conn sousaphones. King and Conn have, at least had, different signature sounds. I consider that a richness of choice rather than a fault with either maker.

The organ like sound already is there in the Conn 40K, even if it is smaller than the 48K. I ascribe that immense resonance not only to the bore profile, but also to the heavy sheet metal, and the weight of the 4th valve. Sadly these factors also are what make the 40K a less than obvious choice for marching. I have any room left for it.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

so what is the history of these instruments? when were they made, etc?
they look like a very cool BAT to have.
ken k

On Rick Denney's page, if you scroll down to the section about his Holton 345, you'll see a couple paragraphs on the history of the 345.

http://www.rickdenney.com/tuba_collection.htm

There is one old posting in the old TuneNet discussing history.

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/jun2003 ... 37759.html

Bandmaster wrote:There is one old posting in the old TuneNet discussing history.

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/jun2003 ... 37759.html

It is truly embarrassing to see how, even when shown the way by much more knowledgeable folks than me, I can systematically misspell a name for weeks and never realize it. I remember being corrected on Donatelli's spelling (obviously after this thread) and feeling pretty stupid. I made the same mistake with Perantucci, and was shown where I still had the remains of one of those misspellings on my web site. Sheesh.

By the way, I don't think we've ever really resolved the historical progression in American orchestras from ophicleide to fat contrabass. But the thread you linked missed an important point, and that was that the instruments likely followed a migration of the perceived role of the tuba voice in an orchestra's sound. That, I think, is still at the root of regional choices that persist today.

Rick "who needs to upload a newer pic of the Holton on the web page" Denney

[quote="the elephant"]
While the machine is off I will look at my options as to what to do about the 5th valve; it is currently located in the leadpipe.

Elephant,
please let us know while you do that.. From your words I understand your Holton is a Rusk conversion like mine, and I wonder if there could be any different option to make the trigger more easy to reach.
Thank you
Gion

Wade, I am very reluctant too in moving the 5th valve, and I will try to do something on the lever, though I have no thumb ring and the throw is even more than 1"... Actually I am getting used to it, but as you said it makes things harder on the fast passages in the lower register, I need to keep the thumb always stretched open..
I would very much appreciate if you can post some pictures of your modification, I'll post mines soon.
Thanks, Gion

Hey Kiltie,

If you use the original plywood Holton hard case, here is a suggestion.

Completely remove the square mouthpiece/accessory box from the corner.

If you have a slip and the case lands on the bell end, then your bell will probably collapse and wrinkle and in the process, that box will leave a huge dent straight across the upper bow of your horn. (Like the dent in mine ) @#$%#@& UPS !! never did settle any of my shipping claims on that horn. Harumph.

But it still plays pretty dang good!!!

Bandmaster wrote:There is one old posting in the old TuneNet discussing history.

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/jun2003 ... 37759.html

That is an exceptionally interesting thread on the old TubeNet I had not come across before. Thanks for posting the link!

here is the picture of my 5th valve lever... Any suggestion?

gionvil wrote:here is the picture of my 5th valve lever... Any suggestion?

This is how I would do it. It will provide an arc of movement on the button that will match your thumb, and the shorter the crank length between the button and the hinge with respect to the crank length between the hinge and the ball joint, the less the throw. And the the ball link needs to be in line with the movement of the stop arm to keep it light. It is the hinge points that determine the mechanics, so bend the bits any way you need to clear your hands.

With the rotary valve as configured, however, I think the hinge must be below the valve and not above it to work as you want with the minimum of complexity.

This approach will happily use the same ball link and hinge as what you already have. All you'll need is some brass square stock and a bit of soldering. It will be easier to construct by taking the leg from the hinge to the ball link, and instead of butt-brazing it to the hinge, use a piece of square stock bent at 90 degrees, so that it runs along the rod from the button to the hinge. Then you can just solder it to that rod. That would be very strong and stiff.

Bob could have made this easier by clocking the stop arm and bumper plate 90 degrees clockwise from its current position, but that would require fabricating a new stop arm and drilling/tapping new holes on the top of the rotary valve casing. What complicates this is that the path of the stop-arm connection is at right angles to the path of the button.

Rick "who would require a thumb ring for this tuba" Denney

I am just extrememly happy that you have a 345 that hasn't been mercilessly cut down to a CC! P

maybe it makes me shallow, but I just LOVE the red insets on the finger buttons!

KiltieTuba wrote:

Neil Bliss wrote:maybe it makes me shallow, but I just LOVE the red insets on the finger buttons!

If only the interior of the bell was gold, it would be the perfect combination

I'm liking the way you're thinking...perhaps red insets and the outsides in gold, though?

...why?
i was thinking sinfonia colors...