TubeNet

I was wondering if Holton (or other older American makes for that matter) made a 4/4 Monster BBb with front action valves.

I have a Holton Monster Eb with front action valves that I absolutely love (I'll probably get rid of my VMI 3301 and play this one exclusively), but would really prefer a BBb version. I know that there are top action BBb horns by these manufacturers, but my preference is front valve.

Thanks in advance,
Joseph

UTSAtuba wrote: I have a Holton Monster Eb with front action valves that I absolutely love

Pics are obligatory.

The answer is yes. I know that Martin, Conn, King and Buescher all made what would now be called a 4/4 BBb front action horn. I know little about Holtons specifically but most manufacturers offered top and side action BBb models with the 4th valve being an option for an added cost. I'd be surprised if Holton didn't do this as well.
Now FINDING one is another thing!

UTSAtuba wrote:
I have a Holton Monster Eb with front action valves that I absolutely love

Same here I have posted many times about my prized Holton Eb.....probably to the point of driving some tubenetters nuts

k001k47, here are pics of my horn:

http://picasaweb.google.com/11780677980 ... 7996737170" target="_blank" target="_blank

That 4/4 Holton BBb that KiltieTuba posted has the same exact bugle as the Elkhorn-made Holton "Monster" Eb tubas. My Holton "Monster" Eb tuba is an earlier Chicago-made horn. The bugle & bell are a bit different between the Chicago and Elkhorn Holtons. Dave also has an old Chicago Holton Eb tuba with top action valves. I plan on buying this horn :
http://picasaweb.google.com/10000776753 ... dHoltonEEb#" target="_blank" target="_blank

Can it be a "Monster" but only be 4/4?

^That's what I am thinking. I don't think you can really call a 4/4 BBb tuba a "Monster" if the proportions are the same as the "Monster" Eb tubas. I think we sometimes get carried away with the "Monster" term anyway for "fat" Eb tubas as they would be considered 3/4 or compact 4/4 tubas if they were in CC or BBb.
As an example, a few weeks ago in concert band rehearsal I asked one of the tuba players which part I should play. He said "well since you have the smaller horn, you should play the top part". This was only said because my horn is in Eb. I would have been perfectly fine playing either the top or bottom part. This particular tubist plays on a Miraphone 185 CC. Even though that tuba is much taller and has a larger bore than my Holton Eb, the bows, branches and especially the bell of the 185 are quite a bit smaller than my Holton. My Holton Eb has a larger, rounder sound than his Miraphone 185 CC; they are completely different animals.
So some people judge a tuba's size by how TALL it is, while others judge on the proportions of the tuba's bell and bugle.

If one defines "smaller'" or "larger'' for tubas in terms their respective volumes then an Eb with large branches could eaily have more volume than a skinny BBb - volume is driven by the tube's radii cubed whereas the tube length is a linear function of height - just sayin'.

pwhitaker wrote:If one defines "smaller'" or "larger'' for tubas in terms their respective volumes then an Eb with large branches could eaily have more volume than a skinny BBb - volume is driven by the tube's radii cubed whereas the tube length is a linear function of height - just sayin'.

Almost right.

Volume varies linearly with length and as the SQUARE (not the cube) of the radius.

As this side of the pond I am not familiar with 'Monster' Eb's, how do they compare in size and tone to a Besson Sovereign Eb with 19" bell?

Neptune wrote:As this side of the pond I am not familiar with 'Monster' Eb's, how do they compare in size and tone to a Besson Sovereign Eb with 19" bell?

The size and tone of old American "Monster" Eb tubas are somewhat similar to Besson/B&H Sovereign Eb tubas. The bows may be slightly fatter on the old American Eb's, but everything else is pretty similar to the British Eb's from bell size to bore size. My Holton Eb has a 19.5 inch bell, if I remember correctly. Have no idea what the bore is, but it's smaller than the .687 bore of my King raincatcher Eb - I just compared the 2nd valve slides of both horns. Weird thing is that the Holton is a freer/quicker response horn than the King.
I'd say the Besson has a bit brighter "punch" to the sound compared to an old Holton or York Eb. The darkest and mellowest tuba I have ever tooted on was an old silver plated York Eb at the Tuba Exchange years ago. It was a sweet horn, but a little TOO dark & mellow a sound for my tastes. But I have always thought of old Holtons and Yorks to have similar playing and tonal qualities, with the Holtons having a slightly more husky, clearer sound.

The old catalogs show contrabass tubas that have the Monster designation as being similar to modern 6/4 tubas. The Monster Eb tubas were about the same width as 4/4 contrabass tubas.

Thus, the CSO York used a bell and bows adapted from York's Monster BBb Bass, as shown in their 1920's catalog. I'm sure Holton did likewise.

4/4 contrabass tubas were never described as "monsters" in any of the old catalogs I have seen. The "Monster" designation seems to have faded in the 30's.

For Jonathon: The Monster Eb basses that I have played had a broader and more colorful sound than a Besson EEb Sovereign, even one with the 19" bell. But they also have intonation issues galore, and I'm guessing that the taper was just too fat for its length when adapting the 4/4 Bb bass branches for use with the Monster Eb Bass. The Besson was purpose-designed to be an Eb instrument, and the fatness of its taper seems to be later in the bugle.

Rick "thinking 'Monstrous' might be more appropriate for some examples" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: The Monster Eb basses that I have played had a broader and more colorful sound than a Besson EEb Sovereign, even one with the 19" bell. But they also have intonation issues galore, and I'm guessing that the taper was just too fat for its length when adapting the 4/4 Bb bass branches for use with the Monster Eb Bass. The Besson was purpose-designed to be an Eb instrument, and the fatness of its taper seems to be later in the bugle.

Rick "thinking 'Monstrous' might be more appropriate for some examples" Denney

^I have no problem playing my Holton Eb in tune with any of the groups I play with. If there are intonation issues with the horn, it is ME. In fact, I play my tuba better in tune now than I did when I was studying tuba in college. Most or all of the old "Monster" Eb's just need a new leadpipe/mouthpipe and some slide cutting to the 1st and 3rd slides and then they will play in tune just fine with a little slide pulling of the 1st slide. That's what was done on my horn.
Years ago, Toby Hanks tooted on my Holton Eb and said: "name your price, seriously" and I said: "I'm keeping it ". He kept commenting on how well my tuba played. I have owned it for over 13 years now and play it exclusively. And yes, it does indeed have a beautiful, colorful round sound.

Lee Stofer told me a few years ago that he felt that large horns, particularly the large Conns, suffered from a reputation for bad response and bad intonation that was undeserved. He felt that the big horns, when free of dents and wrinkles in the leadpipe, valve tubing, knuckles, and bows played as well in tune as any modern tuba.

The Conn 2xJ and big Holtons went out of production in the '70's. The monster Eb's disappeared in the '30's or '40'. The ones that are still around are mostly the worse for wear. But when properly restored, they can be startlingly good and provide a sound that's as modern and solid as most new instruments.

Tuba players in particular are expected to play on abused instruments that nobody else would put up with just because of their expense and the fact that most kids and college students can't afford their price or upkeep. Many of them have understandable resentment of the old horns they're forced to play, but bad experiences with bad horns shouldn't condemn all the oldies.

Several of my brass band friends are gravitating toward restored antiques and are devoted to them. I'm having more fun with my antique monster Conn Eb's than I've had in my entire playing career, warts and all, and the intonation of these beasts once properly restored is excellent.

GC wrote:Lee Stofer told me a few years ago that he felt that large horns, particularly the large Conns, suffered from a reputation for bad response and bad intonation that was undeserved. He felt that the big horns, when free of dents and wrinkles in the leadpipe, valve tubing, knuckles, and bows played as well in tune as any modern tuba.

The Conn 2xJ and big Holtons went out of production in the '70's. The monster Eb's disappeared in the '30's or '40'. The ones that are still around are mostly the worse for wear. But when properly restored, they can be startlingly good and provide a sound that's as modern and solid as most new instruments.

Tuba players in particular are expected to play on abused instruments that nobody else would put up with just because of their expense and the fact that most kids and college students can't afford their price or upkeep. Many of them have understandable resentment of the old horns they're forced to play, but bad experiences with bad horns shouldn't condemn all the oldies.

Several of my brass band friends are gravitating toward restored antiques and are devoted to them. I'm having more fun with my antique monster Conn Eb's than I've had in my entire playing career, warts and all, and the intonation of these beasts once properly restored is excellent.

I agree - which is why I'm putting some $$ into bringing a 1930's Conn 36J (4 front valves) into shape. Bloke has already worked some magic in re-arranging some of the valve tubing, and is about to correct wear and tear in the top bow and the valves. I can already tell that, when done, this will be a first class instrument.

I've already made sufficient changes that it would no longer pass for "original" (actually, to the experience eye, that boat probably sailed 20 years ago). I'm contemplating a modification that I'd like opinions on. The current tuba has a removable straight bell (and can, of course, be converted to bell front). In practice, I tote it about with the straight bell more-or-less permanently attached. So...what are the pluses and minuses of converting this to a fixed bell - and what are the reasonable options? In particular, will the removal of all the hardware necessary to make the bell interchangeable have any significant effect on the sound? And, would that change be good...or bad?
'

Have you considered putting a Kanstul York-style replacement bell on the horn? They custom-make them to order. It won't be cheap, though.

GC wrote:Have you considered putting a Kanstul York-style replacement bell on the horn? They custom-make them to order. It won't be cheap, though.

That seems to be one option. The question is: what do other people have to say about this
option?

Something I considered a while back for my Marzan. Probably costs too much to be "worth it" though... to me at least. There are other Marzans out there if I desire one with a 1-piece bell (which I do). That said, there are not many Conn 36J's floating around, so it could be more worth it to you.

Purely guessing, maybe around $2k start to finish?

sloan wrote:The question is: what do other people have to say about this
option?

I doubt you'll ever know without trying it. But it's an expensive experiment.

On the other hand, there will be other benefits. A one-piece bell will be considerably lighter, and will probably look better (except for the engraving), unless the current bell is really pristine.

I tried my York Master with a Kanstul bell replacing the bell that came with the instrument. The Kanstul was a hair less wide (maybe 19" instead of 20"). It sounded good, and perhaps better than the original, but for my usage of that instrument not better enough to be worth what it would cost. For those who have only the front bell for their York Masters, and who want an upright bell, it's a high-quality alternative.

Rick "thinking a York/Holton shape might make a prettier tone than a Conn shape--or not" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:I tried my York Master with a Kanstul bell replacing the bell that came with the instrument.

As in, the new bell-up detachable bell, or a 1 piece bell/stack?

bort wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:I tried my York Master with a Kanstul bell replacing the bell that came with the instrument.

As in, the new bell-up detachable bell, or a 1 piece bell/stack?

Detachable, of course. I directly compared the YM upright bell with the Kanstul upright bell.

I have also compared my YM with an older B&M Symphonic with a one-piece upright bell. I somewhat preferred the latter. I suspect the bell ring on the YM is a little small, and constrains the bell geometry from having as big a throat as it really should have. But that is a matter of shape more than mass or mechanical connection.

Rick "not willing to conduct the experiment with that instrument" Denney