TubeNet

I've seen it mentioned often enough on the tubenet to remember that the Conn 20J and large Martin tubas were designed to be used with one or two sousaphone-style bits between the mouthpiece and receiver. Was the Holton BAT also designed this way? I was playing a 345 earlier today and noticed that the receiver swallowed my mouthpiece shank. The horn played very precisely but the tone was a bit on the hollow and farty side. I then added the tapered first bit from my King sousaphone, which fit the receiver in the tuba perfectly, and suddenly the instrument had a beautiful sound and a deep, resonant low register. Also, the ergonomics were much better and the forward bell could actually point forward.

It just seems like this horn was designed for a tapered tuning bit, so does anyone know for sure? If it was designed for a bit, does that apply to just the forward bell version, or also to the upright bell version?

-Eric

Eric,
You may be onto something here. A customer will be bringing me one of those recording Holtons for repairs in the near future, and while it is in the shop I'll check that premise out.

I have not seen anything indicating that the upright-bell model Holtons were equipped with a tuning bit, although the upright Conns did use one.

Hi,
one of my teachers, Paul Scott played a big Martin (with an upright detachable bell, I think that it's one of two uprights ever made) and his had 2 bits. What a great horn! If you need to know anything about Martins, he's got a bunch of them.

Bill Pritchard
Yeah i know the original posting was about holtons, but I think I have a case of Martin fever lately.

Shockwave wrote: It just seems like this horn was designed for a tapered tuning bit, so does anyone know for sure? If it was designed for a bit, does that apply to just the forward bell version, or also to the upright bell version?

The Holtons have always had a very large receiver, and it needs a mouthpiece with a European shank. But, near as I can tell, it was not designed for a tuning bit. I play mine with the main slide pulled about 3/4", which is about right, it seems to me. A single bit would require the slide to show only about 1/4", which doesn't seem right. Two bits would not work at all.

My Holton does not produce a woofy tone in comparison with my other instruments (I say it this way to acknowledge that my tone sucks equally on all instruments). But I use one of two mouthpieces that seem specifically equipped to combat woofiness: a PT-48 and a Laskey 30H. The former is a little more bowl-shaped and provides more edge, and the latter is designed with a bit of resistance. The Holton Revelation mouthpiece that was provided with the instrument is monstrous, and it is indeed woofy compared to the others. Also, my Doug Elliott T6, which is a big cup and a big backbore, gets a little woofy on the Holton (though it is ideal for the York Master). I would suggest trying a mouthpiece with a little less volume--the big tubas don't need so much mouthpiece--or a bit less depth.

Also, the Holton was modeled on Arnold Jacobs's York, which was and is not used with a tuning bit.

That said, it may be that Holton thought of the recording basses as competing with the big Conns, while their upright tubas were designed to mimic the York. If so, they may have designed the former to work with a tuning bit, as did comprable Conns and Martins. If so, I would expect the leadpipe to be shorter.

Rick "unable to answer definitively, but guessing confidently" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:
My Holton does not produce a woofy tone in comparison with my other instruments (I say it this way to acknowledge that my tone sucks equally on all instruments)...... I would suggest trying a mouthpiece with a little less volume--the big tubas don't need so much mouthpiece--or a bit less depth.

Rick "unable to answer definitively, but guessing confidently" Denney

The leadpipe on this horn is approx. 17.5 inches from the beginning of receiver to beginning of the ferrule at the valves. Looking at my collection of pictures of BATs, the angle of the mouthpiece receiver on this horn seems to be in line with most tubas, it just seems odd that they would design it so that the bell points to the right and blocks your view. Even if it wasn't designed for a bit, I'm going to use one anyway.

With regards to woofiness, that was the greatest surprise when I first played this horn. I expected a big, bottomless, deep tone but what came out was a compact tone more akin to a very loud 3/4 CC tuba than the 6/4 BBb the Holton is. It's definitely easier to play a compact sounding horn, and that seems to be the sound popular with the orchestral and studio players, but what I really want is the big, bottomless, woofy sound. My mouthpiece is an old Vega, similar to a Conn Helleberg but with a more gradual entrance to the throat. It works great on my BBb and Eb tubas, but on the Holton it just seems too small.

Have you noticed that when using a shallow mouthpiece on a tuba, the placement of the tongue while playing affects the sound to a great degree? Also, when using a shallow mouthpiece, the high notes are very easy and you can't feel the air pressure from resonance building in the mouthpiece during low notes. I find both those things to be the case when using my helleberg-style mouthpiece on the Holton, so I'm trying to obtain a deeper mouthpiece, maybe a Revelation 52 or Reynolds Dr. Young model. I've never seen those, but have heard that they're the woof kings. Are there any current production woof-pieces? I've never actually had a tuba mouthpiece with a nice rim (or intact plating, for that matter).

-Eric

Shockwave wrote:...I find both those things to be the case when using my helleberg-style mouthpiece on the Holton, so I'm trying to obtain a deeper mouthpiece, maybe a Revelation 52 or Reynolds Dr. Young model. I've never seen those, but have heard that they're the woof kings. Are there any current production woof-pieces? I've never actually had a tuba mouthpiece with a nice rim (or intact plating, for that matter).

I have a Revelation 52, and it is a trash can with a shank attached. No, it's not for sale (I'm keeping it because it was the mouthpiece supplied with the BB-345). Yes, it gets a woofy sound. But the king of all woofy-sounding mouthpieces is not the true Dr. Young, which you can only get from him, but rather from the Reynolds "Dr. Young". It's shaped like a French horn mouthpiece with a glandular condition. It'll really suck the air out of you.

Why you'd want a woofy tone is beyond me. I want a big sound, but with clarity and color (sounds like a diamond ad, eh?). Neither of the mouthpieces I use could be called shallow, but the Laskey is deeper and narrower than the PT-48, and the latter has a bit of a bowl edge despite being a Hellebergish design. The PT-48 provides more edge to the sound, but both provide more clarity than my other mouthpieces.

A PT-50 with the throat drilled out a bit might give you want you want in a new mouthpiece. Or a Doug Elliott T cup with a T7 shank, though that one will not be as woofy as the old ones mentioned above.

Rick "who wants to bark but not woof" Denney