TubeNet

I've been pondering the idea of maw valves for my wisemann. They don't really exist. I spoke to Martin Wilk this week at itec. I played the 2155 bloke had with maw and an older pt6p with maw at Martin's booth. Both great players with easy slurring,especially the pt6p which had the easiest ascending slurs I've experienced. I went and tried a stock pt6p which had all the usual "bumps" in the slurring. I decided to go ahead and measurements were made for a set of valves. I already like my wisemann and didn't find anything I would really trade it for(yamayork not withstanding,though it had bumps in its slurring too,and I believe it could benefit from a set of maws too). I'm hoping the maws will give me those slurs and the easier response they are known for. I'm sending the horn to him in July and will report back

I go to school with a guy that has put a set of MAW valves into his Wisemann (his casings were actually a close fit and just needed the valves to be lapped in which is not how I have heard the fit for anyother Wisemann but he was lucky) and they greatly improved how his horn played without a doubt. I have them in my PT6P and love them for all of the reasons that you mentioned plus they really opened up the horn across the entire range. Similar observations were made of the Wisemann with the MAW valves, so hopefully you will see the same!

Martin tried them,but too much wiggle for mine.

I thought an option was to send Martin W your valves and he will convert them. Is that the case?
I can see some folk would want to keep their original valves also...

He seemed to prefer the idea of making a new set. Possibly thinking of future sales to other wisemann owners? Fine by me either way. I would submit,though on limited evidence, that the change these valves make in a horn is that something special people are looking for when they upgrade to a premium or hand made model of a horn,without actually buying a new horn. We'll see...

I have just installed oversized MAW valves in my Wisemann and am very satisfied.
The standard diameter of the MAW valves is 27 mm. The valves of my Wisemann 28,88mm. I ordered oversized MAW valves from Meinlschmidt in Germany, measuring 28,90 mm. I had to wait a few weeks longer than for standard valves, but last week they were sent to me. After a bit of handlapping the valves fit perfectly. Costs were about the same as for standard valves. Delivery was perfect, with nylon guides included.
Hubert (The Netherlands)

Wow, your valves are huge. Mine measure 28.7274mm.

28.702mm is the standard maw diameter.

I am very sorry. Ken and Bloke are fully right about the standard diameter of B&S/MW valves. Even without drinking I went totally wrong, when typing 27 mm!!
Very sorry again,
Hubert

For those in the know (or just those who like to guess!), are many Symphony pros getting into MAW valves or not so much? Just wondering!

Bloke,

I have not had success rebuilding (plating and resizing) stainless pistons. Have you done this with success?



Dan'l

I'm surprised that these haven't caught on with the King 2341 or Conn 5XJ crowds. They vastly improve those models.
My BBb Martin Renowned is of similar size with the same .687 valve set plays almost as big as my Mammoth with the Maw valves.

Frank Ortega wrote:I'm surprised that these haven't caught on with the King 2341 or Conn 5XJ crowds. They vastly improve those models.
My BBb Martin Renowned is of similar size with the same .687 valve set plays almost as big as my Mammoth with the Maw valves.

I've thought about it for my 52J. I like it, but not sure I love it enough to spend a couple Gs on it rather than save for a different horn that I might prefer over an improved version of my own.

Have you been able to try a set? I know Martin had an Eastman with MAW valves to try out at last years' army conference.
It's similar, but I think it would be more dramatic on your 56J.

Are MAW valves significantly lighter than the MW/B&S big valves?

Sorry for diverting the OP’s purpose of this thread:

I am too old to make significant investments in modifications of my instruments, which however doesn’t keep me from thinking in desirable projects.

I could imagine the MAW principle being of benefit for the valves of compensating instruments after the Blaikley system. The many ports of the 3 first pistons loosing the narrow lip of metal between the pairs of ports belonging to each passage very well might further the lack of rigid straightness reportedly happening with somecurrent MAW valves.

I have only kept the visual imagination from when I was good at 3D math 50 years ago (which was before personal computers and CAM/CAD applications). I could imagine the cylindric tubing used to make the pistons being strengthened by an inner structure of more than one piece of stiff metal.

The cross section of that structure could look like a cross, a triangle, or a square, each inside the circle given by the tubing used for the piston.

This structure would have to be cut through where necessary to allow for the airpath passages. These cuts should be as precise as the cuts through the piston main tube. The walls of the airpath passages should be soldered to the inner structure to support the wanted rigidity.

This of course would raise production costs. Another drawback of my suggestion would be the added weight. The weight of the inner structure could e minimized by careful selection of metal for the structure. Thickness of the sheet metal also could be optimized. Holes could be cut in the sheet metal in patternes not compromizing the rigidity of the combined structure.

Costly & cumbersome for sure, but I assume that pistons staying absolutely straight will improve the longevity of themselves as well as of their respective casings. Even these improved pistons will wear, but if basically straight they will be more likely making a replating worthwhile.

And then the said inner structure might be made out of a carbon fibre material that by help of CAD software has been made as porous as possible without compromizing its rigidity.

Klaus