TubeNet

If you had the choice of either the 36J (Standard Pistons) or 345 BBb instruments, both with an upright bell, which way would you choose and why?

And as an optional question? Would you keep the Conn bell front and get the Kanstul 21" Upright as the optional bell, versus the standard Conn 25J bell at 24" diameter?

All input is very welcome.

345. No question. The original poster should make this a poll.

cjk wrote:345. No question. The original poster should make this a poll.

Is this the original poster referred to?:

KiltieTuba wrote:.... If the 36J has short action valves then I'd take it over the 345. .....

The 34J and 36J are not short-action horns.

Yes, the Holton has the sound, and that's the main difference. The examples I've tried also have greater dynamic range (particularly on the soft end).

Holtons may or may not have intonation issues that are easier to manage. But a Holton with a well-tuned third partial is easier to manage than the typical Conn BAT.

(Given Ian's stated proclivities, I think we need to put his responses to questions like this in a particular category. He is not alone in that category, else the Rudi 6/4 would have never found even a limited market. But not every BAT aficionado is there with him.)

Rick "who has admittedly played few Conn BATs in really good condition" Denney

The Conn 36 and 34J's that I've played tend to have more even intonation than the Holton 345's that I've played. The bore size of the 36J's is a tad smaller which I think gets more character in the sound as well. However, I think the main problem with the Conn 3XJ is in the taper of the bell. If one were to put a 2165 Bell, or a Kanstul/Holton one piece reproduction bell on the Conn 36J, I think that this would be a horn to be reckoned with! Of course, there would still be the problem of the flat 3rd partial. The York 91's and Martin Mammoths don't have that problem at all.

My Two Cents,
Frank Ortega

What are the factors in selecting one instrument over another?

- tonal quality and consistency
- rock solid intonation with minimal slide pulling/alternate fingering
- dynamic range: how wide overall, and how easily controlled at both extremes
- efficiency/ease of playing/producing good tone with least amount of air and effort
- ergonomics: the same horn might be much more comfortable for one player than another
- appearance: two considerations:
1. fit and finish
2. balance of dimensions, structure (horn construction as a work of art [more polite way of labeling "subject of horn dorn"])
- prestige/cache
- investment value (will the horn appreciate, depreciate, or remain the same)
- other criteria (please chime in with other considerations)

With all of the above considered, it might be remembered that, to a greater or lesser degree, one horn of one model might behave quite differently than another horn of the same model (with all other variables such as player, mouthpiece, venue, etc. remaining constant).

If one must make a selection sight unseen, the 345 would seem to have more mystique than the 36J in late April 2010.

The first tuba that I owned was a 25J with the original 24" upright bell. I played it in the last Master Class that Arnold Jacobs conducted at Northwestern University. David Fedderly teased me in a good-natured way by commenting how it looked like I was playing a "trash can." So much for balance of visual form, cache, etc. Had I been playing a good 345, I'm certain that no such comment would have been made. By contrast, when I regretfully sold the 25J to help me afford my Nirschl 4/4 CC, there has never been any question about the high quality of the Nirschl for any of the criteria listed above.

The only real answer to the 345/36J question is to A/B them side by side, both under the bell and at a distance in a hall with good acoustics.

I rather use my 26J and my 34J i love them . would not part with either of them

Rick Denney wrote:

Rick "who has admittedly played few Conn BATs in really good condition" Denney

You will in January. Mine is currently in major surgery - and will return in July for a valve job.
I think you'll like the result.

Go for the sound, not the image.

My 36J has a godly sound. Funny enough, I think a part of that has to do with the bell. My 40K sounds better with this bell, and so do a 38K and a Holton 130 I once owned. The nice thing about a bell front is that you can choose the direction of your sound, even point it up if you want!

Having said that, I tried out two different 345's which were/are for sale. The one with the upright bell played lovely and the one with the front played questionably.

Proofs in the pudding, not the myth. Try the horns, make a choice, have fun. Or buy both and sell the one you don't want later.

Cheers,
Patrick

Many tuba players hold their tuba at about an 75-80 degree angle. If you by chance hold your tuba in this way, then you'll notice that by turning your front bell to the side it'll be facing upwards. It should now also be pointing up at about an 75-80 degree angle, albeit in the other direction (angle) your horn is slanted at.
Saves money and lugging around an extra bell. Using a bit helps to fine tune the most comfortable angle and the flexibility of being able to adjust my bell angle to fully optimize my sound quality/projection is priceless!

-Pat

My personal issue with bell fronts is not where they point the sound. As I have said in previous threads, as an educator, I prefer the kids playing bell fronts because you can actually hear them! For my taste, the Conn 2xJ and 3xJ series' seem to have too wide a flare on either the upright or bell fronts. Once again, the Holton and Martin Bell Fronts have a wider taper and less flare. To my ear, this creates a more centered, fatter sound. Of course this is barring you get one of the crazy 30" bells that those companies put out as novelties. This is why I suggested putting a Kanstul repro one piece Holton Bell on a Conn 3XJ. It would probably be unmatched in tone. From what I understand this should also help with the 3rd partial problem, but don't quote me.
I recently played a Donatelli BBb (34J?) with a 20" upright, one piece bell that was out of this world.

TTYL,
Frank

KiltieTuba wrote:What's this "sound"? The stereotypical "York" sound or something else? Yea, the Holton is based off the York, but Conn at least has it's own design (maybe). If they can be endorsed by the great bandmasters of the early 1900s, that's good enough for me.

I can't describe it, but I know it when I hear it.

The Holton is based on the York in general configuration only. The bell mandrel was NOT copied from York, but was Holton's standard big horn bell mandrel that might have originated 50 years before or more. Holton and York made stuff for each other, and it is not impossible that York used bells made by Holton at some point, or that both of them used mandrels they jointly developed. In fact, Holton and York were partners in the 1890's.

Conn's big tuba designs have no more claim to venerability than do Holton's.

Rick "the venerable" Denney