TubeNet

I have a little 3 valve york with top action valves. has anyone ever tried adding a 4th from another top action's 2nd valve (cutting the ports and adding it just behind the 3rd valve)?

TheHatTuba wrote:I have a little 3 valve york with top action valves. has anyone ever tried adding a 4th from another top action's 2nd valve (cutting the ports and adding it just behind the 3rd valve)?

That's basically the same approach I've used to add a 4th valve to a front-action or sousa valve section. It should be totally doable. However.... a conversion such as this is nearly impossible to quote.

No... I didn't say I WANTED to do it!

If you like the open bugle... you might consider just buying a 4V horn and integrating the whole valve section.

Unless York made a 4 inline top valve small Eb that is the same width across (proof of workability) space will likely be an issue. Better ideas might be-
-4 (and 5) on the side- a noncomp 3+1 tuba has a lot of out of tune notes you can't pull slides on since both hands are occupied
-a 4th rotary valve actuated by your right pinky or thumb, look for pictures of Howard Johnson's F tuba
-THREE dependent valves in the 3rd valve slide! check out Adam Peck's posts

Or you could buy a Jin Bao 981-clone, use the valve set in your York, and sell the big body to someone who wants to make a front action horn out of it.

The cheapest thing to do is to slick up one of the slides and possibly add a kicker or rod to it and learn to play it as is.

I understand the impulse to want to do this, but why? It doesn't add any value to this horn. It would make more sense to follow Dan's advice and drop a different valve set into it entirely.

For me, I cannot stand using 4 in line valves in a top action configuration BUT I am incredibly comfortable in front action. I think it is the arch of the hand involved in top action playing that does it to me.

Adding a 4th piston as you describe is doable but very difficult. Part of the problem is the fact that the exit from the new valve will be moved over some distance from where it used to be, requiring a dog-leg or a new first bow.

It's easier to add a rotary valve, because the exit is in line with the entrance.

If you like the horn, do it. A 4th valve adds a lot to the value of a tuba, and also adds a lot to your playing satisfaction, which is priceless.

http://galvanizedjazz.com/tuba/frugalhorn.html

Since there are no pix posted, this is speculation, but depending on how the tubing comes out and down from the 3rd valve, it may be an easy fit, or it may require significant reworking of the downpipe from the 3rd valve down to the first bow.

I respectfully disagree. There is no economic benefit to this. There is marginal, if any, utilitarian benefit to it, depending on the current intonation characteristics of the instrument. Unless the horn as is has really good intonation, a 4th valve is not going to add anything, and even with good overall intonation, we're talking about four notes that would benefit from the addition: F at the bottom of the staff, E natural at the bottom of the staff, and low BBb and AA natural. Yes, the 2+3 notes might also benefit since 3rd would no longer be pulled so far out that 2+3 is a little flat so 1+3 is lippable, but that is marginal at best.

I'd just play it for what it is, pull slides and lip accordingly, and purchase a 4- or 5-valve Eb if that is the playing direction desired.