TubeNet

I agree about the over use of the .750ish bore valvesets also that it's a result of the obsession with the York-like designs. It would be nice to see a little more diversity on the market as far as piston tubas go.

I know I sound like a broken record talking about Martin tubas, but this is why I appreciate the .710-.720 range that the mammoths feature. I think it splits the difference between the .689 type bores and the .748 type bores quite nicely, and makes a horn of that size much easier to handle, in my opinion. I think a valveset with this bore could be a good fit for a large CC tuba as well.

The old Conn Donatelli had a bore of about .734 if I'm not mistaken, and I also think this would be a good option for a 4/4 or 5/4 CC (as you alluded to with the Weril/Yamaha/Jupiter comment).

Yorks really are fantastic and deserve their reputation, don't get me wrong, but I also believe that modern manufacturers should also start looking at some other great historical manufacturers for design inspiration (i.e. Conn, Martin, Buescher, etc.) Good Ol' Elkhart, Indiana is a goldmine for great tuba designs.

I don't believe a .728/18.5 mm vertical side action cluster is currently in production (Conn was close with the .734, but I don't think they make them anymore).

If it were available, I'd fall in line to get (at least) one.

(Come to think of it, I think the Wessex 4 valve sousaphone is .728, but I wouldn't count on them to sell just a valve set/cluster).

The BBb York tubas I own (both 5/4 & 6/4) all sport .750 or .748/19mm bores, and to my certain knowledge, give me no troubles regarding intonation .

And yep, all the Martin BBb tubas I've seen have .718 (23/32") bores.

This is a very interesting thread. After many years playing .728, .689 and .750 tubas I really feel that now the best for me is the .728 or possibly .734 bore. Which piston CC tubas are available on the market new or used with the latter bore size? Are the Bohm & Meinl - Marzans .734?

The ergonomics don't mean much to me, either - I'd take a .728 bore side action set, regardless of orientation - I was just commenting that the only one I see in current production is the one used on Chinese sousaphones.

https://m.thomannmusic.com/thomann_shf_ ... ii_fib.htm" target="_blank




(At @ $1500, I wonder what the quality of the valves would be.....)

The only difference I can see (or have seen) is that the vertical set poses less challenges to fabricate a 4th valve circuit top-pull crook, than the sousaphone/angled variety (not impossible, just a little more involved).

FWIW, every piston B&M/Marzan I've seen is .748/19mm in bore (and very well constructed, too).

I'm surprised anyone would ascribe particular properties to a difference of 1 mm in the principal valve bore. Given a fairly wide variety of leadpipe lengths, bugle tapers, graduated valve bores, etc., it's no surprise that the same valve section can fit a wide variety of tubas.

Donn wrote:I'm surprised anyone would ascribe particular properties to a difference of 1 mm in the principal valve bore. Given a fairly wide variety of leadpipe lengths, bugle tapers, graduated valve bores, etc., it's no surprise that the same valve section can fit a wide variety of tubas.

Maybe so, but 1 mm difference in bore can change volume cumulatively, especially when talking about roughly 158" (all four valves added together, in BBb) of length.

Any given bore valveset can be adapted to any given size bugle, but different sizes will affect the end result, as will any other thing that changes the volume displacement of the instrument.

Why would trumpets have been marketed as small, medium, and large bore for over 100 years, if there were no difference?

roweenie wrote: Why would trumpets have been marketed as small, medium, and large bore for over 100 years, if there were no difference?

Even if such marketing made no sense, you ask? Ha ha. But I'm sure it does. Certainly trombones are defined by bore - as they're more or less cylindrical over a good part of their natural length. The trumpet is arguably a valved member of the same family, and at any rate is far more cylindrical than the tuba, so when we consider the trumpet bore, that has a very considerable influence on the whole instrument.

Well, I'm no mathematician, but my rough ciphering says the difference in displacement between bore sizes of 19mm and 18mm of cylindrical tubing on a BBb tuba is 114.5 cubic centimeters....does that mean anything? I don't know, but having experimented with pasting different bore size valve sets onto the same horn, I have empirical evidence that bore size does make a difference in the final outcome, YMMV.

Hmmm. How about measuring the effective bore? The same bore size block is going to play "smaller" if the leadpipe is longer, say like a typical rotary BBb with the long looping leadpipe, than a shorter straight-in leadpipe. Has anybody factored that into the equation? For example, the historical Besson bore was .730 for the BBb New Standards, but because the leadpipe was so short, it played much larger. And the Miraphone bore on the 186 was historically .770, but with the really long looping leadpipe played much smaller. And the Conn .734 for the 14K and similar souzys, well, as observed, plays just right (and we all wish Conn would develop a next generation 4/4 "Donatelli" or similar). I do agree on the Martin: some years ago I was in a music store that had an old Mammoth on display, and they let me play it. I was surprised at the response and intonation. But at the time I owned both the Besson I used to own and had just gotten the Miraphone, so I did not need another tuba!

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Swapping different sized valve sets on the same tuba, there should be a difference. But comparing different tubas, which seems to be the point, the size of valve set relates to the overall outcome in unpredictable ways, depending for example on where the valve section is located in the bugle. If I had designed a tuba, with .748 valve bore, I'd be somewhat resistant to the idea the design could be improved by the simple expedient of reducing the bore size by .022 in, without changing anything else, so it would really mean going back to the drawing board for a new design altogether - and at that point, it's no longer just about the bore size.

It would be great if there was more choice available to makers - unfortunately the options have shrunk. I think Willson still make their pistons in-house, Bauerfind is now owned by Adams, and MW have moved to use only using their "Big Valves" on their tubas for cost reasons.

As a result some tubas that used to have smaller valves are now a bit compromised in their design, and often the newer versions have a bit less character.

Trumpets aren't conical.

Whenever something becomes super common it becomes boring. So yeah, the super-common .748" valve bore and the widespread proliferation of York-a-phones and York-inspired tubas are boring to me.
I thinking at this point, both have just about been "maxed out".

Sure, I'd like to see more tubas with the .718", .728" and .734" valve bores. My old POS "practice tuba" YBB-201, and Selmer Signet sousa both have the same .728" valve bore; my Elkhart Conn 14k sousa has a .734" valve bore. They were all old instruments I rescued, got parts for and fixed up, and they all play very well for 3v BBb instruments.

Joe, I agree with you. Bore sizes should be looked at in newer designs. If the bugle works, bore size could be smaller on some instruments, but not all. This is a point that many tuba makers should be thinking about, in my opinion. My old BBb York Master had the same bore on the fourth valve as the first three valves, and had a better low FF than most horns I have ever played. Go figure. Seacrest out.

Donn wrote:Trumpets aren't conical.

Well, yes trumpets are. Just not to the extent of other brass instruments. But all brass instruments have to have a degree of conicity, or the overtone partials structure that we rely on to play more than one octave won't line up to anything near what we consider Western tonal music. But don't just take my word for it:

https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/u ... /Brass.pdf" target="_blank

Donn wrote:Trumpets aren't conical

Wow, I totally misread that - I thought he wrote, "trumpets aren't comical"....

(I was assuming he hasn't met some of the trumpet players I've worked with over the years.... )

There seems to be considerable interest within this thread in tubas with a bore size around .726” - .734”. I recently went looking through websites of current manufactures specifically for BBb horns in this range, which is the same as my Conn 32J BBb (.734”). The one I found of interest to me is Jupiter’s JTU1110, their four-pistons-in-front horn. Woodwind and Brasswind says it has a .732” bore, but Jupiter’s website says it’s .732” - .788”. Cascio Music says the same thing of Jupiter’s XO CC tuba, with four pistons and a rotary (.732” - .788”). This leads me to wonder if all four pistons on both horns are actually .732”, and the rotary of the CC horn is .788”. I should have the opportunity to find out the first weekend in February – I’ll be going to a rehearsal at a high school, and their band has a set of JTU1110s. Their director has already agreed to let me try them, since I may be interested in finding one on the used market. My 32J has many good qualities, but I’m wondering if would be more satisfied with a comparable sized horn that isn’t so mammoth.

Conn 2J CC wrote:There seems to be considerable interest within this thread in tubas with a bore size around .726” - .734”. I recently went looking through websites of current manufactures specifically for BBb horns in this range, which is the same as my Conn 32J BBb (.734”). The one I found of interest to me is Jupiter’s JTU1110, their four-pistons-in-front horn. Woodwind and Brasswind says it has a .732” bore, but Jupiter’s website says it’s .732” - .788”. Cascio Music says the same thing of Jupiter’s XO CC tuba, with four pistons and a rotary (.732” - .788”). This leads me to wonder if all four pistons on both horns are actually .732”, and the rotary of the CC horn is .788”. I should have the opportunity to find out the first weekend in February – I’ll be going to a rehearsal at a high school, and their band has a set of JTU1110s. Their director has already agreed to let me try them, since I may be interested in finding one on the used market. My 32J has many good qualities, but I’m wondering if would be more satisfied with a comparable sized horn that isn’t so mammoth.

Having played one when visiting a friend of mine at his school, yes, the regular 4 pistons are .732, at least on the BBb. The European version of the web site has listed 18.6mm.

iiipopes wrote

Well, yes they are

Come on guys, you know Donn meant trumpets are "mostly" not conical. Sure, there's a flared bell, but probably 80% of the instrument is cylindrical (if you include the valves.)
What most struck me in the linked article about brass acoustics was this

Professional brass players may have from 3 to 10 different mouthpieces. As a general rule, the better the player is, the fewer the number of mouthpieces used, but most players
have at least two or three that are regularly used.

This was referencing the trumpet specifically. Multiply that number by 10 or 20, and you might be getting close!

TubaKen wrote: Come on guys, you know Donn meant trumpets are "mostly" not conical. Sure, there's a flared bell, but probably 80% of the instrument is cylindrical (if you include the valves.)

Well, to be precise, the trumpet belongs to an acoustically distinct branch of the brass family, along with trombones, which is generally considered to be "cylindrical", where the tuba belongs to the "conical" family. If there's any dispute about that, it's news to me.

The question of exactly how cylindrical, is perhaps more interesting for brass instruments that don't fall directly into those two categories - or where it's a matter of dispute. Cornet and French horn might be examples of the former; I'd put British baritone in the latter. I know there are those who insist that it's "cylindrical", but it looks to me to be essentially the tenor member of the saxhorn family, below the alto horn. Here I think we return to the question of the importance of valve bore: the baritone's bugle gradual expands along its length, as can easily be seen on casual examination, even if it doesn't expand anywhere near as much as the euphonium, so the valves are invariably small relative to the average diameter and have to be installed near the small end, at a location where the bugle diameter is smaller. A valve trombone's valves on the other hand are, like the trumpet's, routinely installed at about the midpoint, and valve diameter is definitional for these instruments.