TubeNet

Now that's a tuba - great looking horn. What would be the difference between the 3XJ and 2XJ series of horns?

This is bigger than a BAT... it's a H(uge)AT. Though some of those old HATs are C(rappy)ATs, but its mostly due to leaks and bad compression.

Which was the source for the upright bell?

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:Which was the source for the upright bell?

Klaus

Probably mated to the body when the tuba was re-habbed ca. 1990. It was purchased from a major dealer/repair house around that time (or, so I have been told). I bought it a few years ago from a section-mate who had it stored away in its two cases. The bell has many mysterious "features" - but it works. For one thing, there is NOTHING on the inside of the bell for the set screws to get any sort of purchase on - no holes, no groove...nada, zilch, bupkis. Just a pure friction fit - which makes it a tad less secure than I would like. Bell and body have matching numbers stamped on them, but it's fairly clear that the bell is a lot younger than the body and it's fair to guess that the two parts were joined together when the tuba was econo-repaired sometime around 1990. No telling how many times it's been in the shop for major overhauls. There is VERY FAINT engraving on the bell that appears to be inconsistent with a manufacturing date of 1934 indicated by the serial number on the valve set.

Joe has been gradually correcting the many errors made along the way. Last year, the #1 and #3 slides were reversed and shortened (which greatly improved the intonation). This year, the top bow was replaced (I'll let Joe tell the story here, if he wants) and the valves replated (I think Joe might use too many profanities if he were to tell *that* story).

Two years ago, I played this at an outdoor July 4 gig, and my conductor frowned. Last year (after the #1 and #3 slide surgery, but with the original top bow wrapped in tape to seal the leaks) she smiled. I'm expecting a big hug this year...I'll let you know on July 5.

Joe gets credit for the fine repair/reconstruction/redesign work. I'll take a little credit for
recognizing the potential (and being stubborn enough to insist on bringing it back to life).

Waiting eagerly to get it back in my lap...

sloan wrote:Joe gets credit for the fine repair/reconstruction/redesign work. I'll take a little credit for
recognizing the potential (and being stubborn enough to insist on bringing it back to life).

Waiting eagerly to get it back in my lap...

before and after pics?
To show off bloke's work, of course.

bloke wrote:It "looked" fine "before"...It just didn't play very well "before".

btw, If someone has a (priced to sell) c. 7-1/4" diameter male bell collar (only) for a 38K/20K/(maybe?) 22K, 20J, 21J, 24J, 25J that has a groove cut into it, Dr. Sloan might be interested in talking to you.

Joe is correct on both counts. In its previous re-incarnation, it was very pretty. I didn't bring it to Joe to make it LOOK pretty (although, that's always nice, too). I'm much more concerned about "does it help a poor hacker like me sound reasonable".

It would also be nice to have the bell a bit more secure on its perch. Maybe then I could pick up DirectTV on that satellite dish.

Where did I put that Duct Tape?

bloke wrote:the 24J-25J tubas are (except for having top-action/short-action valves) just about the same, but the "front-action experience" (angle the sound bounces off the room in relation to the player's position) of playing the 36J makes it sound a bit different from the player's perspective.

Lets not leave the Conn 26J completely out of the discussion, which has front-action, short-action pistons (with the added benefit of 1/4-inch less "press" to change a valve.....or 1/2-inch less "total" travel for every note change).

bloke wrote:surely requires someone with quite a long pinky finger to reach over to mash that 4th piston's button..

The "look" is deceptive, perhaps partly because the 36J photo is slightly smaller scale than the 26J. Two photos were combined into one for the post, as you'll notice by the absence of much of the bugle in the 36J image.

Valve stems (and thus finger buttons) on Conn short-action valves are not centered over the pistons, but rather moved "together" to closer, more ergonomic positions. The entire width of the valve button "spread" on a 0.773 bore Conn 26J is just 10 cm (measured center of #1 valve stem to center of #4 valve stem). When comparing the relative angles between the 3rd and 4th valves on the 26J and 36J, the 26J 4th valve is angled slightly more to accommodate a shorter "pinky" reach. Also notice how the 26J valve buttons form an ergonomic arc (like the relative lengths of fingers), rather than having the first 3 valve buttons in a straight line.

By comparison, a 0.720 bore Martin Mammoth "standard-action" valveset spread measures 9.4 cm.

So the short-action Conn requires slightly less than 1/4-inch more total finger spread, index to pinky, than a significantly smaller bore tuba.

Would be interesting to compare a similar "spread" measurement from the M-W 0.748 valveset, as well as stroke length to change valves. On occasions when I've played those M-W "big valve" valvesets, my impression was the stroke is ridiculously long (compared to what I'm accustomed).

.......how about similar spread and stroke measurements for the very popular Miraphone 0.835 piston valveset (1291 BBb, etc)? Now that's a valveset that makes my pinky ache.....

Having played the 26J owned by 'mammoth2ba' I can say just how comfortable the short action valves fitted are to use. I do not normally like large piston tubas simply because I find the valves uncomfortable (one reason I play a rotary Neptune), but really enjoyed the gig playing the 26J. I just think it is a great shame that such valves are not available on any 6/4 CC tubas!

For the sound of the 26J - fantastic (and even better with recording bell)!!!

The 2xJ series used short-action valves, which were not used on 3xJ instruments. That's the only reliable difference. There were front-action and top-action version of each, and each came with upright or recording bells (some fixed).

Considering the relative height of this instrument versus it's player, I can't wait to watch him walk in with at next year's Army conference. I'm figuring that having this instrument in playable condition will force him to drive instead of fly.

Rick "word has it the third partial on this one is not flat" Denney

bloke wrote:A somewhat large person with large hands doesn't notice a problem, but some will encounter a problem.

I measured the short-action Conn 26J piston to be 5mm larger diameter than the 36J long-action piston, so the extra pinky "reach" between valve 3 and 4 centers (and valve buttons as they're spaced on the 26J) should be radius 2.5 + radius 2.5 = 5mm (presuming the connecting ports are similar lengths).

I concede that it would be up the individual player then, whether 5mm (0.197") constitutes an uncomfortable additional reach between valves 3 and 4. If one deems that significant, then one should likewise consider that the stroke length is 6.35mm shorter on every valve. Another nice aspect of the Conn short-action valveset is that the 4th valve is positioned lower than valves 1-2-3 which seems to increase ergonomic comfort compared to other piston valveset manufacturers.

I'd still be interested in knowing what the total spread and stoke distances are on the M-W "big" 0.748 and Miraphone 0.835 piston valvesets.

(I know some of you can make these measurements)

Rick Denney wrote:
Considering the relative height of this instrument versus it's player, I can't wait to watch him walk in with at next year's Army conference. I'm figuring that having this instrument in playable condition will force him to drive instead of fly.

Rick "word has it the third partial on this one is not flat" Denney

It will be there.

But, your memory fails you - it was there in 2010. Alas, at that time the intonation was (for me) "not-so-good". That improved somewhat on the first trip to Williston. In 2011, it had been re-admitted for major surgery (so, we've both had valve jobs).

Flying vs. driving...since it comes with two cases, and I'm a Delta SkyMiles Gold member, it just might be feasible to fly. That's "2 free bags", right? I don't get charged for bags, or for overweight bags. The problem is that I would then need a native bearer and an elephant to get the cases from National to the Virginia Suites. There's also AmTrak to consider; I tried to take the train last January, but AmTrak cancelled my booking (scheduled repair work on bridges between Birmingham and Atlanta).

The 3rd partial improved considerably after the first surgery (the main bugle was shortened a bit, I think - I use one or even two bits, primarily to get a comfortable playing position). Discovering, and sealing with tape, the massive web of spider cracks in the upper bow probably helped here. I suspect (and Joe claims) that the removal of all leaks (new transplanted top bow and re-plated valves) will also help.

Essentially - after the first surgery I no longer needed to use 1-3 for bottom-of-the-staff F. The open F wasn't perfect, but it was close enough (that is, it was no longer closer to E than F). [actually, before re-doing the #1 and #3 slides, 1-3 didn't help all that much - it was flat, too!!!]

Joe reports (I'm summarizing, so don't blame him if I screw up) that the scale is a bit stretched (highs tend high, lows tend low) and the 3rd partial is a bit flat, but not disastrously so. So...perhaps careful mpc selection might help a bit? Or, would a Blokepiece Symphony be just the right touch?

bloke wrote:Having not played a 26J, logic tells me that the #1 and #3 stems can be crowded towards the #2 stem, but with a #4 stem, there's a fly in the ointment.

The fourth valve is tucked in on the ones I've seen, so that it gets it under the finger by being closer along the finger's axis, rather than being closer to the third valve. Along lines parallel to the fingers, the distances are similar, even if there's a bit more stretch from 3 to 4 as a crow flies.

Chuck G. has a frakentuba made by Larry Minnick that has Keefer outer branches and a four-valve short-action valveset. It is one of those tubas that looks wrong but plays and sounds right. My fingers fell on those valves more easily than on the York Master.

Rick "who's fine with the Holton spread after installing Yamaha buttons" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: My fingers fell on those valves more easily than on the York Master.

Before, or after, you installed the cheater flange on the 4th valve?

I have a very short pinky finger, and I never had a problem reaching the 4th valve on my old 25J. I doubt there'd be a problem on the 36J.

[quote="bloke"]
There really was no 3XJ series per se, but the 3XJ tubas that WERE similar to the 2XJ tubas were these:
The 30J was an early-1930's top-action design with a recording bell very similar to the (to come later) 20J. The 30J had three regular (long-stroke) top-action pistons.
The 34J was a four regular (long-action) valve version of the 30J (the predecessor to the short-action 24J, I guess...)
The 36J tubas were made in the '30's and featured four front-action regular (long-action) pistons and a recording bell.[quote]

Also I believe I have seen ( or heard of) a 32J, which is the 3 valve version of this 36J.

My 1930 36J plays beautifully. Bought it some years back from Rob Stewart's shop.
They're great horns. I especially like the recording bell since you can turn it in any direction to get the best sound out of the hall, even upwards!
I also use the bit. It makes it real easy to find a comfortable playing position on about any chair (well, almost any chair).

Have fun with your 36.

sloan wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: My fingers fell on those valves more easily than on the York Master.

Before, or after, you installed the cheater flange on the 4th valve?

Before. I was at Chuck's house purchasing the York Master, and had an opportunity to play a number of instruments in his collection.

The issue with the YM is that the leadpipe wraps a bit too much around the bell. Where I have to hold the instrument isn't really compatible with its slanted valve arrangement. My hand approaches at the wrong angle. The Holton is more York-like (and King-like) with the valves lower and arranged vertically. My hand approaches those at the correct angle.

But my ergonomics are just weird, I guess. I never had a problem with the Yamaha 621 F valve arrangement that most consider to be a violation of OSHA requirements.

Rick "whose hands are NOT small" Denney

Joe,

Did you do a re-wrap on valve slide #1? It looks nice. I have thought about this as a possibility for improving my similar horn.

Tabor

Tabor wrote:Joe,

Did you do a re-wrap on valve slide #1? It looks nice. I have thought about this as a possibility for improving my similar horn.

Tabor

#1 and #3