TubeNet

Ok, gonna show my ignorance of instrument design here...

The Conns and Martins that needed a bit to play in tune...

Why could you not just pull the main slide out about an inch and gain the same length????

Does this goof with basic properties of the bugle????

Can't tell you how they alter the playing, but the bits do allow the player to adjust the position of the mouthpiece receiver, both up/down and left/right. This can be helpful when playing a very large tuba such as the Martin Mammoth.

Hup

I have a friend with a 12J who uses a bit. He does not have enough tuning slide length to get in tune without it.

It's about where your face ends up, and whether you can see past the instrument and hold it properly. Sure, ditch the bit and pull the main slide out, but you'll be gawking like a one-eyed man peering around a lamp post.

Martin recording basses ("Mammoths") were designed from the beginning to use two sequentially fitted "bits" that form a smooth leadpipe entering the horn. Martin Sousaphones were made the same way. There were two variations of this part that I know of - one was two bits with tightening screws; the other was a kind of elongated "S" shape, which when rotated magically fit a lot of people quite well. Martin Wilk makes the correct replica parts for these horns, and they are worth every penny he charges. Using Conn sousaphone bits defeats the entire concept Martin's designers originated for these instruments. The Bundy Sousaphone bits come close, but Martin's are perfect. The tuning of the instrument can be done with main tuning slide, although I have my first valve slide lapped for a easy and quick pull for low notes that require a little more length. Other than that you just play it.

The Martin Company's idea was revived by Bundy over twenty years ago, and recently has turned up in Jupiter and Yamaha sousaphones.

Some years ago King made up some sequential bits for sousaphones for the Navy Band, and were kind enough to give me a set as well, which I used until I wore them and that sousaphone itself out. I no longer have this instrument, but it wouldn't take much reverse engineering to replicate them. They worked like a charm; with a pullable first slide (which King ditched because of marching band needs) that horn was playable anywhere. You could play the opening of the Ewald on its as legato and mellow as you liked. I doubt the current regime has interest in this idea today.

Conn 20J, 24J and 25J tubas were supplied with a Sousaphone-like bit unique to those instruments. IMHO Conn missed the boat with their sousaphone bits, as the jagged interior fitment contributes to that Conn "bark". As to "correct length" these instruments were supplied with bits and it was expected the player would use them to adjust for comfort. The instrument was scaled with the "bit" in mind.

Playing these horns without the bits, or in some cases the wrong bits throws off where vibration nodes hit in the horn. Kind of like walking into a darkened living room with rearranged furniture no one told you about. Uncomfortable because you're always off-balance.

Inserting bits into horns NOT intended for them usually causes some intonation weirdness. Oddly this problem seems to be solved in many cases by using a stand, putting a block on the chair under the horn to bring it to a comfortable playing position. I am long in the torso, and I have never had a horn that naturally "fit" my physique. I have relocated leadpipes but now am resigned to just using a stand for the Martin. I like that Hercules stand a lot and reviewed it elsewhere on this forum.

ALSO - bear in mind that these horns were originally marketed many years ago to be played in stands (no longer available) by string bass doublers in dance bands, etc. The adjustable leadpipe feature was an attempt to enable this. Now when we play shows we are expected to dump our horns on their bells during a four-measure rest and switch to something else. Another example of an achieved technology that was abandoned for no good reason.

Mark Heter