TubeNet

.

The pistons I get, but why the rotor?

BRSousa wrote:The pistons I get, but why the rotor?

Flat whole step for reaching low f.

bloke wrote:1/ If the bugle doesn't play in tune, reBay it and do nothing.

2/ If the bugle plays remarkably well in tune with itself from low-to-high, I personally would not go any larger than an 17-1/2mm bore valveset mounted on a 3/4-size tuba.

...or so doth the bloke sayeth

Do you think one bore is better than the other or will anything below 17.5 mm work?

bloke wrote:1/ If the bugle doesn't play in tune, reBay it and do nothing.
2/ If the bugle plays remarkably well in tune with itself from low-to-high, I personally would not go any larger than an 17-1/2mm bore valveset mounted on a 3/4-size tuba.

1. I completely agree. I fought with a (otherwise beautiful playing and sounding) Conn Giant for a few months but eventually sold it as I could not get used to the intonation (flat 2nd, sharp 4th, flat 5th). However, if the intonation is ok but you like the sound, low range,... you could add a main slide rod*. When you swap the horn from top action to front you might have enough length to have a long main slide. Do you know if the horn is high or low pitch!
2. The small Rusk York F's are probably the most common similar horns. I think these came mostly (only?) with .656 valve sets. My buddy's valve set was from a Conn 5J; I don't know where the rotary valve was from. I mentioned this in another thread, but Kanstul makes .655 rotary valves for their F contra. The C valve is .620 and the (2nd) Db is .655. You could also go with a .689 5th,... valve with a .656 piston set if you had it after the pistons. Either size will probably be fine as long as you don't have any weird bumps, and maybe even if you do. Both those little Yorks and the .689 621 F's have good low registers.

*My little King Eb is the perfect combination of good enough pitch and cheap enough price for me to be planning this out. Low D is pretty flat, Eb and D in the staff are -slightly- sharp, G are pretty close open and 2, D is about as flat as low D, and 12 E is slightly flat. The only other odd note is middle C. D 2 and Db on 1 are fine but 12 C is sharp enough to play it on 3 instead. 23 B is fine. The only unfixable note is that low D, Eb and Db are fine. If that D was fine I wouldn't even consider a slide rod as everything else is fine with some alternate fingerings and mild slide pulling, mostly for 123.

My horn and my old Conn Giant both had wonderful low C's; the Giant in particular was very resonat-y on that note. B-A were blah though especially B. On my little King C is great, B is monsterously fantastic (this is THE note to crank on on this horn), and BB and A are fine.

Bob Kolada wrote:

bloke wrote:1/ If the bugle doesn't play in tune, reBay it and do nothing.
2/ If the bugle plays remarkably well in tune with itself from low-to-high, I personally would not go any larger than an 17-1/2mm bore valveset mounted on a 3/4-size tuba.

1. I completely agree. I fought with a (otherwise beautiful playing and sounding) Conn Giant for a few months but eventually sold it as I could not get used to the intonation (flat 2nd, sharp 4th, flat 5th). However, if the intonation is ok but you like the sound, low range,... you could add a main slide rod*. When you swap the horn from top action to front you might have enough length to have a long main slide. Do you know if the horn is high or low pitch!
2. The small Rusk York F's are probably the most common similar horns. I think these came mostly (only?) with .656 valve sets. My buddy's valve set was from a Conn 5J; I don't know where the rotary valve was from. I mentioned this in another thread, but Kanstul makes .655 rotary valves for their F contra. The C valve is .620 and the (2nd) Db is .655. You could also go with a .689 5th,... valve with a .656 piston set if you had it after the pistons. Either size will probably be fine as long as you don't have any weird bumps, and maybe even if you do. Both those little Yorks and the .689 621 F's have good low registers.

What is the need for having the rotor after the pistons?

So you could have a larger progression, though the little Yorks and 621s both play fine with a leadpipe 5th. Who knows, a smaller valve after the valve set might even work fine.
Those small Yorks can put out some sound! I played in a Tuba Christmas in my old town recently and a guy I used to play with had his in the row behind me. Giant sound!

Ok, I have a pretty good idea what to do with the pistons. But, what about the rotor. What are the pros and cons of having the rotor before or after the pistons. Also, any bore recommendations?

The conventional wisdom regarding appropriate bore size has been stated above repeatedly throughout the history of Tubenet but I've yet to find a single example of a description of what exactly happens to these project horns when a larger bore valve section is used. I've searched high and low and haven't found a single reference to a larger bore actually being used on a finished project. I have the equipment and skills to do this myself but would love to learn from other's experiences. Does anyone have actual direct experience with a project gone awry? What was the body used? What valve set?

The Miraphone Firebird F is a very small bodied instrument with a notably LARGE valve section that is extremely successful and plays great! Why does it work when others supposedly don't work so great. The larger bore of the perantouched B&S F tubas in my opinion certainly changed the sonic properties of that body(and moved the response curve) but didn't cause actual acoustic harm to either the intonation or quality of the sound produced.

I have a sweet little YEB321 Eb tuba that I'd love to turn into a five valve front action horn. As it stands now I really appreciate the snappy poppy response and the bugle has very acceptable intonation. I find the sound to have a wonderful lyric quasi euphonium like quality that is very pleasing. This horn currently has 17.5mm(0.689") for the first three valves and 18.5mm(0.728") for the fourth valve.

Possible options I've been considering:
1) Cobble together a front action valve section(either 4+1 or five rotor) that attempts to stay similar to what is currently on this horn. Reuse the current main tuning slide. The goal would be to maintain the current properties of the horn for fear of messing up the acoustics of the tuba with a larger bore. Tubenet wisdom pushes for this solution.
2) Order the valve section and leadpipe for the MW2040/5 which is 19.5mm(0.768") and build a new tuning slide(the YEB321 tuning slide is graduated 18.5mm-21mm). Perhaps the current slide can be expanded on the small side. I like that much of the tubing math is done for me and at least on the MW2040 the entire valve section sits on the front of the body of the bugle so it should be an easy fit to rest on the front of the Yamaha body as well. I think the MW2040/5 is a pretty successful design in terms of sound and response but the bugle of the YEB has better intonation. Perhaps the larger bore would also give the sound of the YEB bugle a little needed 'girth' without being flabby.
3) Order the leadpipe and valve section from a PT15 F tuba and extend the slides to play in Eb. The bore profile is 19-21mm(0.748-0.825) This would mean also ordering a spare fourth valve slide at 21mm to use as a main slide. I have both the YEB321 and a PT15 next to each other right now so I'm able to compare the bodies. I really think I could make this work. The goal of this would be to maintain continuity in response between my PT6, PT15 and this project horn. I suspect it would play in a way that I enjoy but many Eb players would find annoying.

It's worth pointing out that the Miraphone Norwegian Star Eb has an extremely similar graduated bore taper to the PT15 but both starts and ends just *slightly* larger(19.6-21.2mm) which would create a headache with the tuning slide. It also is set up to accept a much longer leadpipe and a horizontal tuning slide. Both problems would very obviously add too much length to this bugle.

Thoughts are VERY welcome! I won't have time to actually deal with this for at least a year but would like to start tossing around ideas.

On a whim I just connect the valve section of my PT15 to the bugle of the YEB321 using the fourth valve slide of the PT15. The result seemed extremely successful. Response was still excellent top to bottom. Intonation unchanged. Sound still punchy but with a bit more weight. I might have already convinced myself of what I'd like to do but PLEASE share ANY experiences you might have.

joh_tuba wrote:I have a sweet little YEB321 Eb tuba that I'd love to turn into a five valve front action horn.

Dan Schultz did this for me and the results are excellent! He put a straight set of .689 bore valves from a King Sousaphone and I don't think the smaller fourth valve hurt the low range in any way.



Here's the project page he made for it: http://www.thevillagetinker.com/yamaha_ ... ersion.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

I believe Harvey Hartman built a similar horn very recently (yep... here it is): http://harvshappyhorns.blogspot.com/201 ... valve.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

As you mentioned, I like the sound and intonation on the Yamaha upright better than anything on the market. It seems silly that there are 621 BBb, CC, and F tubas, but no Eb. .. this horn fits that niche (I've mentioned this to a few Yamaha reps, maybe if we keep doing this they'll see that there is a market). Good luck and let us know how yours turns out!

--T. J.