TubeNet

That's great that you finally got to take pics and vid of the King Jumbo souzy.
Both Jumbo sousaphones have very full, huge deep sounds. But I prefer the sound of the second sousaphone in the vid, the King Jumbo, because it had a bit more core and clarity to the sound. The Conn Jumbo is woofy/tubby, and a little more "choppy" in comparison. The King has the clearer, more "tuba-like" sound.
If that guy had some time to really get used to both sousaphones, it would be even more obvious.

Fun

Cool stuff Ian!

They really are very similar. It isn't like the difference between a 20K and a 2350, where the 20K has a .734 bore and the 2350 has a .687 bore. Also these two horns (20K and 2350) have a much different shape in the bell and larger branches, where as these jumbos seem to be closer in shape to one another. At least close enough to make them sound similar.

KiltieTuba wrote: The Conn has an ever so slightly larger bell throat

The Conn bell section looks shorter to me in the picture, which would naturally make the diameter at the collar ever so slightly larger.

It makes mine look small by comparison ( )

BRSousa wrote:It makes mine look small by comparison ( )

How many times have I said that...

My wife always tells me that size isn't everything... she's telling the truth right?

How did the King compare in weight to the Conn?

Neptune wrote:How did the King compare in weight to the Conn?

The "Big Bertha" King 1265 Jumbo is a 4-valve sousaphone while Ian's Conn 46K is a 3-valve Jumbo. So if Ian and Jake did compare the weight of their two horns, the Conn 46K would be at a disadvantage.

It's funny how there are always different quotes on the weight of the same model. I weighed my 4-valve 48K Jumbo on my doctor's scale. The difference in weight between me holding the sousaphone and me without the sousaphone is exactly 50 pounds.

I've seen quotes as low as 43 pounds and as high as 54 pounds for the 48K. Perhaps this inconsistency in weight measurement is due to inaccuracy of the scale used, hyperbole in reporting, or--maybe there was some difference from horn to horn on these instruments.

Dan Tucker and I have compared our 48Ks up close. There are several visible differences in the wrap and how the 4-valve cluster fits in. Mine has 8(!) removable slides.

My first sousaphone was my 1928 Conn 26K in Eb. Before I really started doing tubas, I once met a Danish player of a postwar Conn BBb sousaphone. That BBb, also with 3 valves, was way lighter than my Eb. I tend to believe the reports on different weights, as the thickness of the sheet brass used varied over the years.

My 1946 28K is heavier than the 26K, but only because of its extra valve.

Klaus

KiltieTuba wrote: I would disagree, sir. The two sousaphones sound quite identical. In the video, yes the King sounds clearer, but try to understand that the Conn was much closer to the camera, so naturally it would seem choppy or woofy. The Conn is about as close to a massive concert tuba that you can get. I tooted some on the King off camera and found it to be a bit wider than the Conn. Figure that Jake had played the King before, but had never touched the Conn, so one would assume that he would sound better on an instrument he has played before compared to one he has not.
Had he had more time, I think it would be quite the opposite, the Conn would have the "more 'tuba-like' sound".

I should clarify myself.
Yes, I know he was closer to the camera with the Conn. But he got as close to the camera with the King in the last part of video.

Jake actually played better on the Conn - cleaner and better in tune - than on the King. But I still liked his SOUND better on the King. The two horns do not sound quite Identical - there is a difference.
Yes, the King has a slightly 'wider' sound, due to it's bigger bell. But it's also a clearer sound with more overtones and less "bottom fat" than the Conn. In other words, wide/broad does not necessarily = woofy/tubby. I still stand by what I said: The Conn has the tubbier sound......even if it is not quite as wide/broad a sound as the King.
Also, I had my singer/violinist friend watch the video and she thought the same exact thing.

too "who constantly thinks about and analyzes sound and would love to be a 'tonemeister' for an instrument maker " ba

Donn wrote:

KiltieTuba wrote: The Conn has an ever so slightly larger bell throat

The Conn bell section looks shorter to me in the picture, which would naturally make the diameter at the collar ever so slightly larger.

It's interesting that there are minor differences between just the Conns. In this picture... the gold 46K between the other 'jumbos' looks like the bell transition is a little shorter.


BTW.... I see 'Big Bertha' every year that my wife and I go to Purdue for Homecoming. I always get a chance to chat with the sousa guys. The big King doesn't get a lot of play time and often just lays outside the north end zone during the game.

Revisiting this....

Dan/Ian.....why does Bertha (King 1265) just look so much bigger than the Conn Jumbo? It is just purely the extra 4in in bell diameter and the change in the curve in the bell throat to get the rim out of the player's line of sight? Body-wise it sounds like the Conn is bigger with the exception of bore size....maybe I am just jaded by the fact the Bertha seemed huge for the 5 minutes I get to play it back in the day.

jc

MrBasseyPants wrote:Revisiting this....

Dan/Ian.....why does Bertha (King 1265) just look so much bigger than the Conn Jumbo? ....

It must be the larger bell.