TubeNet

Same thing happened to me when i took the 5th off my 52j

Kevin definitely knows his stuff, and he's reasonable.

Hi-
In removing a 5th valve, you could really modify things by having it made into a detachable 5th valve, with finger lever, etc. being removable--similar to a Trombone who has an F attachment detached and having a 'straight' horn for desirable pieces. I am sure the horn plays much different with 4 valves--but having a 5th valve for low pieces is handy. Just like a tuning slide trigger, I am surprised with all the new horns out there, nobody has thought of having a 5th valve being detachable for the desire of a 4 valve horn.

mark

jonesmj wrote:Hi-
In removing a 5th valve, you could really modify things by having it made into a detachable 5th valve, with finger lever, etc. being removable--similar to a Trombone who has an F attachment detached and having a 'straight' horn for desirable pieces. I am sure the horn plays much different with 4 valves--but having a 5th valve for low pieces is handy. Just like a tuning slide trigger, I am surprised with all the new horns out there, nobody has thought of having a 5th valve being detachable for the desire of a 4 valve horn.

mark

Mark -

That's a cool idea. I think I will try to come up with something myself.

MORE TO COME!!!

While you're at it, why don't you take off the 4th valve too?

bloke wrote:(Assuming it's true, and not another Jake-legend) I remember hearing about a repair-guy who removed Arnold Jacobs' rotor from one of his York tubas (telling him that it wasn't any good and needed to be removed) and Mr. Jacobs later seeing that valve on someone else's tuba.

.

As Jake himself told me, it was Carl Geyer, the famed horn maker, who removed it from York #2. Jake decided it wasn't worth keeping it without the 5th valve. Can't recall who he said he sold it to.

I had a Mienl Weston 32 which I bought from John Butler in Melbourne and removed the 5th valve ( A variable 1 or 2 step set up). Instead of replacing the valve with tubing I ran the lead pipe directly in the first valve. It served the added purpose of shortening the instrument the bit I wanted to get it up to pitch for me. It was a MUCH better player after that mod. I sold it to a young player in Melbourne in 78 - can't recall his name either.

bloke wrote:

Some may note that it has gone downhills for the landscape around your lake since you played into the Bush campaign.

K

bloke wrote:cjk,

I decided to remove all of my valves. ( I sold them on eBay.) I use this tuba for really-really casual gigs...' gigs that call only for open tones in the key of Gb.

Now you're talkin'! No more stuck valves or missed fingerings, lighter, freer-blowing ... it definitely alps.

Valveectomy. Nice.

We've heard about this on various occasions. As well there are a number of players out there playing non-compensating 4 valved horns.

I find it curious that we don't see tritone 4th slides more often as a standard option for the perfect 4th slide.

My first tuba was a 4 valved Conn CC with two 4th slides; P4 and TT. I remember my teacher advising against the TT slide, saying that it'd only confuse me when I make the move to a 5 valve horn.

Anyway, nowadays I quite often use the 1-3 combi on a 4 banger instead of the 4th valve; assuming the tuba allows for a gracefully moderate pull on the 1st slide to tune it down. In this way I can tune the 4th slide to a better intonation with the 2-4 combi. And more often than not I think; "wouldn't it be nice if I had a 4th slide tunable to the TT"

Cheers. Good luck with your weight loss.

-Pat

Having a proper professional detailed chem/ultrasonic cleaning and valve alignment often has the same affect as that described by the original poster.

Also, horns that have a lot of tension in them(either from sloppy assembly or from being 'knocked around and repeatedly repaired') often become dramatically more resonant after having the leadpipe and bell removed and put back on(even when placed back in seemingly the same place). The trend of lifting leadpipes is almost definitely an outgrowth of this phenomenon.

In the case of the original poster, I would strongly suspect the valve had very little to do with the change in how the horn played.

I agree. I wasn't advocating lifting leadpipes.

I'm delighted to see this thread so active and the different responses.... most of them directed towards the 'who needs a 5th valve' side of the issue.

There's not a week goes by that someone doesn't contact me about adding valves to tubas. Most of the time... the requests are a waste of time and soon end when folks discover the expense of such an addition.

How about a new thread about removing the 4th valve?

The posts above leave one with the impression that adding or subtracting a 5th valve is a plus or minus, depending upon the individual horn. In other words, it's a grey area, or, YMMV.

Is it a hard and fast rule that adding a 5th valve to a non-compensating tuba that is generally built with 4 valves detracts from the horn's performance in some way?

What if a new non-compensating tuba normally equipped with 4 valves is ordered from the manufacturer of the tuba with a 5th valve? Same or better results than doing surgery to a pre-existing 4-banger?

bloke wrote: ... ...
4/ As hours of consideration, time, effort, and funds have gone into the pursuit (and the same - or probably more - would be required to undo it) it is pretty easy to convince oneself that the pursuit was beneficial.

Not only does this apply to adding/subtracting fifth valves, I suspect it applies to a few thousand other things too.

Allen

Steve Marcus wrote:What if a new non-compensating tuba normally equipped with 4 valves is ordered from the manufacturer of the tuba with a 5th valve? Same or better results than doing surgery to a pre-existing 4-banger?

Several models of Miraphones (186, 191, 1281 Bb) seem to be the most popular tubas that are regularly purchased in both formats.


FWIW, isn't all that abrupt bending the reason for the "sound" of rotary tubas (as compared to similar profile piston tubas)?

Bob Kolada wrote:
FWIW, isn't all that abrupt bending the reason for the "sound" of rotary tubas (as compared to similar profile piston tubas)?

That and the fact that rotary tubas tend to have larger bores and have a few inches more cylindrical tubing / few inches less conical tubing in comparison to most piston tubas.

LJV wrote:

tooba wrote:

Bob Kolada wrote:
FWIW, isn't all that abrupt bending the reason for the "sound" of rotary tubas (as compared to similar profile piston tubas)?

That and the fact that rotary tubas tend to have larger bores and have a few inches more cylindrical tubing / few inches less conical tubing in comparison to most piston tubas.

And, in general, a much longer leadpipe.

Yep. That is where most of that extra cylindrical tubing is in rotary tubas. The spacing between the larger rotor casings gives at least a couple more inches too.

LJV wrote:

tooba wrote:That is where most of that extra cylindrical tubing is in rotary tubas. The spacing between the larger rotor casings gives at least a couple more inches too.

No.

On a large bore, 5 rotor contrabass, yes.

LJV wrote: No. There really shouldn't be much true cylindrical tubing in a leadpipe. It may look cylindrical to the eye because the taper slows, but ideally the taper should continue it's entire length save for the last bit. The rate of taper and where the rate of taper increases and decreases will effect pitch and response. The over all response will be effected by taper and length. Those long leadpipes on most rotary contrabass tubas contribute to the sound as do the shape/size of the bottom bow and bell stack.

The spacers in the valves sets has much less to do with the sound than do the valves themselves. Some of those pieces of tubing are actually tapered as many rotary tubas have a graduated bores.

(Can't type today...)

If we go by by that standard, then there is little to no true cylindrical tubing in most rotary tubas except in the valve slides. ALTHOUGH my ancient rotary BBb DOES have a few feet of TRUE cylindrical tubing after the valveset. Yes, AFTER the valveset. The wrap is very tight and the SAME diameter for many, many inches. Don't believe me? Send a PM and I will send a link to pics of the horn.
It's funny how literal people take things here. I should have specified slow-tapered-before-the-main-bugle tubing. Anyone with eyes can clearly see that, on average, rotary tubas have much more slow-tapered tubing throughout the leadpipe and valves before the main bugle of the horn COMPARED to the typical piston tuba.
I own both rotary and piston tubas, do you? If you do, look closely at the diameter of the rotor casings and the tubing between them. At least a couple more inches longer than a piston equivalent. And EVERYTHING in a tuba - from mouthpiece receiver to the bell - is part of the recipe for the sound it produces and how it plays. Even the little spacer tubing between the valve casings.