TubeNet

I don't plan on doing it myself, I'm just curious.

Usually poorly.

There are many ways to approach it. Basically, it involves removing two feet of tubing out of the instrument from...somewhere. Often, the outer branches are reshaped, and the smaller main branches are shortened and retapered. A common enough outcome is a very short main tuning slide, and an inner bow that seems a lot more inner than we might be used to seeing.

It's not cheap to do it correctly, so it takes a really special instrument in the first place, one that would be otherwise uninteresting to pros who might fully appreciate (meaning: realize) its potential. I recall a breakdown in costs--$2000 for the required overhaul, $2000 for the cut, $2000 for the silver plate, and whatever the carcass cost. And that was 10-15 years ago. At a time when top-action Bb Yorks and Holtons were available for a few hundred dollars, perhaps it made sense. But the few of those that remain fetch higher prices now, and there are really excellent CC instruments of similar size and much better function that are probably cheaper than what a nice conversion would cost. Bb tuba players are also willing to spend more on really excellent old instruments than they once were, and pros are more willing to use Bb tubas as they are, if they are great tubas.

So, we don't hear too much about current conversions, though some conversions of the past still circulate. Most would rather buy, say, an Eastman, ZO, or Wessex yorkophone, already in C and already a known quantity, than take the risk on a conversion that will cost what it cost whether it turns out or not.

And that's the risk part. A great Bb tuba may be a dog after the conversion. Or it may be great. Usually it's "okay" at best. A crappy Bb tuba will never make a great, or even okay C. The preponderance of probability aims in the negative direction, but you have to spend much of the money to know.

And, I dare say, those who really know how to do it can spend their time more productively working on new designs.

If you want an idea of the steps involved, performed by a moron with a saw and a torch, then read this:

https://www.rickdenney.com/cutting_Eb_tuba.htm

Rick "who names that tuba 'Solder Practice' and who needs more of it" Denney

Great story...

If you can dig up some pictures of Sam Gnagey's horns and compare them with a old style King 1241/2341 BBb, you could see what needs to be done. Sam has made many of them. Generally, a "Sam Gnagey CC" is a King 2341 body with an "Eb Monster" bell and bottom bow from the early part of the 20th Century plus a 5th valve. Owners rave about the intonation and the sound. He has made other sizes and types but I think this 4/4 CC horn is what he has made the most of.

From what I've seen out there, what you start with is just as important as how its done. There are plenty of good cut Tubas out there. It often was easier to cut a High PItch BBb tuba or Eb tuba down to CC or F than to try to make it longer.

A new hacksaw blade and a lot of b@ll$....

The Big Ben wrote:If you can dig up some pictures of Sam Gnagey's horns and compare them with a old style King 1241/2341 BBb, you could see what needs to be done. Sam has made many of them. Generally, a "Sam Gnagey CC" is a King 2341 body with an "Eb Monster" bell and bottom bow from the early part of the 20th Century plus a 5th valve. Owners rave about the intonation and the sound. He has made other sizes and types but I think this 4/4 CC horn is what he has made the most of.

I've never thought of that particular mod as being a drastic "cut to CC" situation - the combination of the different parts gives you something very close to being in CC without much branch cutting involved. The taper is therefore pretty much in tact, which is probably what helps with the performance quality.

York - King CC https://imgur.com/gallery/Mi0UhU4" target="_blank

bloke wrote:90+ year old Buescher 4/4 instruments may (??) be some of the few that might actually play better (as opposed to "just about as well" or "worse") after being shortened.

The exception that proves the rule?

Rick “risky” Denney

bloke wrote:90+ year old Buescher 4/4 instruments may (??) be some of the few that might actually play better (as opposed to "just about as well" or "worse") after being shortened.

Two feet of cylindrical tubing - a cutter's dream......

simplified.... cutting anything Bb to C involves removing 12% of the tubing from the open bugle and all of the tuning circuits. 16 feet divided by 18 feet = .88. 100% minus 88% = 12%

BBb tuba = 18 feet. Bb euphonium = 9 feet. Bb trumpet = 4 1/2 feet
CC tuba = 16 feet
Eb tuba = 13 1/2 feet
F tuba = 12 feet

Nothing is exact. How much to cut depends somewhat on bore size and tapers. It's lots easier to leave the tubes a little long and trim to tune.

roweenie wrote:York - King CC https://imgur.com/gallery/Mi0UhU4" target="_blank" target="_blank

That is a great lookin' horn roweenie! I'll bet it plays great! I've been planning on mimicking your 5th valve placement/routing/etc. on my Eb project.

Don't forget that you also have to cut your gigbag/case to CC.

That is also a bit tricky to do well... (i speculate, not having ever cut anything to CC)

May I humbly suggest that perhaps, depending on what you want, it might be worth thinking outside the box.
If you have the most humungous vast BBb and want to create a parallel humungous CC - logically why not just enjoy the huge BBb?
If you just want to experiment - cool, enjoy.
If you want a cheap good CC - sell the BBb and buy a good Chinese. Test it first. If it's a good'un it'll blow better and cost less than most [risky] BBb conversions to CC jobs - except those of the ultimate genius techs like Mr Gnagey.
If you want a more nimble instrument then consider being an absolute heretic - like me. Take a big EEb and experiment. First, just make a straight-bore CC tubing crook to add to the main tuning slide. Sorry it works. I did it. Then if the thing blows OK consider removing the old main tuning slide and the next section of main tubing to the bell. Then, spend 10 years learning how to use cerebend. Then make a new, expanding CC main tuning slide smoothly matched to a new tapered next section towards the bell. This new section will even out the expansion from the beginning of the main tuning slide for about 4 feet plus towards the bell. This must be easier than reshaping bows and sections as you try to squeeze and reduce them from a BBb to a CC.
I am very happy with my EEb 983 'converted' into a small CC with just a straight bore CC crook. You have to add bits to the 2nd and comp slides. But it purrs and growls like a CC and the ease of the octave from say EEb to EEEb is fabulous. Especially the low GGG, FFF to EEE. You can play a 19th century opening piece as an EEb and then pop in the crook and play a Prokofiev/Shos. etc main course as a CC. Or if you wind band wants a richer bass sound.
By the by, I sold most of the stable despite having my ad removed from tubenet. I am sure I thoroughly deserved it and was very naughty and did not follow the instructions precisely.

'Don't forget that you also have to cut your gigbag/case to CC.'

This is a deeply serious point. But one solution might be to roll it exactly 12% faster or using it only 88% of the time.

2ba4t wrote:Take a big EEb and experiment. First, just make a straight-bore CC tubing crook to add to the main tuning slide. Sorry it works. I did it.

Interesting - the way I figure it, you'd need to add @ 3 feet of cylindrical tubing to make this happen. I wouldn't have thought this possible without having a MTS that could double as a prop stick.

Can you post some pictures? I'd very much like to learn how this is done.

This is my current toy. I just did a p/x for this beautifully clear-blowing Schiller F American Heritage 6v from a wonderful man. It is heavy - but an excellent horn over 4 octaves. The bottom - CC downwards - rings out. [And yes, bloke, the 5th - long 2nd - valve means that F# and BB are perfect and the 6th - long 1st - gives a good solid BBb - so I see 'why 6 valves'. But I am going to lengthen the 6th to a quint for the F# and BB. This will then avoid so many valves down for BBb to FFF#.] So, the 2010s intonation problems seemed solved. Now you can see from the photo that I am experimenting with adding straight tubing to the main slide. This photo shows it going down to DD. Yes, I had the wound dressing put on in Triage. This is actually a potential Eb crook which blows perfectly and extends to DD and CC by simply pulling the slides further out. I am using old valve tubing from dismantled Russian war tubas. The CC F-tuba really blows well - with lots of sticky plaster.

IMPOSSIBLE!!! No, just think of the Beethoven French horns with crooks from C alto down to C# [practically]. There is the inventionhorn, and the Orchesterhorns. Yes, the shortest crooks were seen a 'bright', the medium length as 'rich' and the long ones as 'sonorous' whatever. But they blew.
And this is my beloved Cerveny F with its Eb crook. This really blows better than most Ebs I have used. I had a Cerveny Eb 641 twin of it until recently and both blew excellently. Yet, I could not tell any difference between the F with this crook and the true Eb. I suppose a real musician would. Yet, I went through the VW and Mozart clarinet and Bach cello etc. All sounded equally bad.

The trick is, for a gruntier sound, to extend the really wide tubing they now use on the bell side of the main tuning slide. For the Schiller, I wanted a silvery light solo horn, so I extended the narrow tubing on the valve side. This is astonishingly narrower than the other end of that very slide. This rapid expansion in the main tuning slide seems to be acceptable to the Law of Physics. So, good enough for me. This is the Cerveny slide compared to the Schiller "Frankfurt" [boo, mis-selling etc etc] Am.Heritage slide. That is some expansion in less than 12 inches! Any wise comments??

Thanks for posting those pictures.

I can see how you added the length without extending way beyond the bottom bow - effective, and quite clever, but not quite my "cup of tea".