TubeNet

Ok, I just purchased a 1921 Conn Bb Monster Bass for a great deal. Got the horn home, pretty good sound, Bb's are pretty on, low register is awesome, highs are awesome. So as we all know, it has the droopy f right below the staff. Every other note is workable, but even 1-3 it is fairly flat. Still like it, but if this is a horn I would like to use for summer bands and dixie, is there at least a moderate cure for this? Change in lead pipe maybe? I'm going to experiment with mouthpieces today.

That's why my couple hundred that got this doesn't offend me!

Problem fixed and has made the new owner very happy....
Wick 3 small shank......

I give notes with less than stellar intonation the quarter note played as eight note and eight rest treatment!!

bigboymusic wrote:Problem fixed and has made the new owner very happy....

IMG_1789.jpg

Wick 3 small shank......

Did it drastically change the timbre?

Is this a good time to discuss why "alternative fingerings" basically adding length to distance traveled, sharpens the pitch instead of flattening it??

Talk about counter-intuitive!!

Different partials.

I sat in with the concert band for a bit today with the Wick. The tone quality is 'slightly' a different feel, but remains nice and broad. It's not my old 36J dark resonant old Conn sound, but a very pleasing warm 'heirloom' sound as they say... As I expected buying a 100 year BAT, it's just learning where (like Bloke said) the horn wants to sing and getting it to sing where I need it.

Being that the life of this horn will be dixie/pep band/circus marches.... I can live with the trade offs....

$375 well spent...

Have the partial series with 1st valve alone and 2nd valve alone been checked, along with 2+3 combination checked to make sure none of the individual valve circuits are flat which could exacerbate 1+3 still being flat, when the tendency of 1+3 is to be a little on the sharp side unless a slide is pulled or there is compensation otherwise?

My instinct tells me that the third slide is probably a little long. 1-3 is spot on for C, low F as well, but 1-3 F is 40 cents flat and the D in 3 which is usually good is also 40-50 flat. 2nd valve series is fine...

but that's just a large 4/4 right? much smaller than 2xJ? interesting it would be so similar.

I don't think it's accurate to paint all old-school American 6/4 horns with the same brush. Some makes sport superior tuning over others.

The taper on each individual brand varies, and therefore their tuning proclivities will also vary.

Is it possible that the closer we get to "point and shoot" intonation, the further away we get from "interesting tone color"?

In support of bloke's statement, almost every old-school tuba I've seen (regardless of key) sports a 3rd valve circuit that is longer than it theoretically needs to be (with the Conn/Olds/Bach small .656 bore 4/4 horn being one of the most egregious examples of this).

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

FWIW, I theorize that the "Conn flat 3rd partial" occurs somewhere in the taper between the bottom bow and the bell throat.

My ca. 1941 Holton runs if anything a bit sharp, on 3rd partial F. More likely it has been in tune when other notes wanted to run flat, but at any rate, it isn't flat. (I've had other intonation issues - but they seem to be going away, now that I've been playing it for a couple years.)

For that matter, I believe one could find examples on Tubenet of Conn 2XJ players who don't have this issue. I'm not saying it's a myth - unless we're saying it reliably happens anytime someone picks up an old Conn or other Big old American Tuba, then it's a myth.

I've owned a 50's Conn 20J, 30's Martin Mammoth, your Holton and currently have a 1928 Conn 38K. None of them had the infamous flat 3rd partial F. All of these has recording bells. The only flat note on any of them was the 3rd valve 5th partial B in the staff (Holton and Martin).

If we're now talking Conn 20J and it's family, it's necessary to check soldering on the bell and bows, valve alignment and leadpipe dents as well as significant dents elsewhere before deciding that the horn itself is faulty. I believe it was Lee Stofer who stated that if the Conn 20J is set up without leaks in the tubing, dents in the leadpipe and around the valve slides, and with good valve alignment (which is tricky with these short throw valves), it just doesn't have a flat fifth partial (the F).
royjohn

royjohn wrote:I believe it was Lee Stofer who stated that if the Conn 20J is set up without leaks in the tubing, dents in the leadpipe and around the valve slides, and with good valve alignment (which is tricky with these short throw valves), it just doesn't have a flat fifth partial (the F).

bloke wrote:As far as the 20J-25J tubas are concerned, I don't view them as "faulty", but that - simply - their textbook-fingerings F and E are very consistently considerably flatter than is useful in music.

If you and Lee Stofer, and one of his good playing condition 20Js happened to be in the same room, it would be great if you could give it a toot and report back on the flat F.

The reason that intonation is so unpredictable on so many tubas is that there are so many solder joints that can leak. Many tubas have varying degrees of leaking solder joints throughout, and even if they sound pleasant-enough tone-wise, they will tend to have appalling intonation. Add to this the fact that solder joints tend to decay after 100 years or so, and that in 1920 the music world was just getting around to standardizing the pitch standard to A=440, and now there is an even greater likliehood of 100-year-old tubas playing out of tune.

There is no shortcut to having a very fine instrument that does everything well. I had thought at one time that virtually all older horns played poorly because of design elements, but that thought was blown out of the water when I disassembled, repaired and reassembled an 1859 Eb bass saxhorn for a Civil War Reenactment Band. Once reassembled, clean and play-tested, I realized that this instrument had a sound that would be welcome in any modern ensemble, really warm and resonant, and with surprisingly good intonation. If a given tuba does not have a good, resonant sound, does not play in-tune (or both), then faulty solder joints (leaks) and dents are my prime suspects, as well as long 1st/3rd slides, etc.

A 1921 Conn standard BBb could play as well as anything else out there, but after a $7,500.00 complete restoration, it would no longer be a cheap deal tuba.

Lee Stofer wrote:If a given tuba does not have a good, resonant sound, does not play in-tune (or both), then faulty solder joints (leaks) and dents are my prime suspects, as well as long 1st/3rd slides, etc.

That's interesting - long slides? We're giving people credit for the ability to design and realize a conical bore bass a century and a half ago, and it has always made sense to me that, at least once you get to the mass manufacture stage, it should be rare that a bad instrument design goes into production. But then, how could they possibly get the slide lengths wrong? Yet I hear this about even relatively modern tubas, like '60s.

I'm assuming everyone tunes 3 flat, for use only in combination.

By the time you've got a small enough mouthpiece to "correct" (easier lip up) pitches, you've neutered the 6/4-ness of the thing. Like a 454 going thru a wussy carburetor.

TheGoyWonder wrote:By the time you've got a small enough mouthpiece to "correct" (easier lip up) pitches, you've neutered the 6/4-ness of the thing. Like a 454 going thru a wussy carburetor.

That depends on why you choose to play a 6/4. I haven't played every tuba in the world, but when I've played on the larger ones with a small mouthpiece, they still sound pretty good to me - and nothing like a 4/4 tuba. There are plenty of players who report better results with relatively small mouthpieces, on big tubas, and I bet they give up nothing.