TubeNet

It really isn't new to vary bore size. The pre-1900 Cerveny BBb I once had had graduated bores through the four valves.

Ken Herrick wrote:It really isn't new to vary bore size. The pre-1900 Cerveny BBb I once had had graduated bores through the four valves.

As did all the Couturier horns...

bloke wrote:not testable...
Therefore any theories or opinions will remain pure conjecture.

Well, it may be testable, but who wants to unsolder a perfectly good 4th valve with its circuit and encounter unnecessarily the risks of reassembly involved, if the person involved is not in the R&D department of a brass musical instrument factory?

This may be something to propose to the good folks at Wessex, as they are very careful and thorough in their R&D when developing a new model. For example, they completely re-engineered the 4th valve circuit of their 4-front-valve compensating euph after player trials and feedback.

bloke wrote:

iiipopes wrote:

bloke wrote:not testable...
Therefore any theories or opinions will remain pure conjecture.

Well, it may be testable, but who wants to unsolder a perfectly good 4th valve with its circuit and encounter unnecessarily the risks of reassembly involved, if the person involved is not in the R&D department of a brass musical instrument factory?

This may be something to propose to the good folks at Wessex, as they are very careful and thorough in their R&D when developing a new model. For example, they completely re-engineered the 4th valve circuit of their 4-front-valve compensating euph after player trials and feedback.

It's not testable - not even subjectively (via gathering of opinions, which are not scientific), because the larger-bore and smaller-bore circuits could not be instantaneous interchanged on the same instrument...and (even if two same-model instruments were built with two different 4th-circuit bore sizes) - as many of us have experienced - two same-model instruments (with all of the same bore sizes and all of the same everything) can play differently - certainly differently in the "low range".

Re-read my post. I didn't say it was testable, I said it may be testable. The mechanical logistics, for example, a quick-release valve set, Jupiter style, might work, or something else, or it might not. From a conventional unsolder-resolder perspective, I agree with your view that it is not. That is why I suggested this may be an R&D project for a manufacturer.

Ok, all things being equal, let's explore the actual ($) value of a larger bore 4th valve - - - -

Is this now expected by prospective buyers? Would a uniform bore through all 4 valves be a "deal-breaker" for some? (I suspect for some it might be preferred?)

(And, before someone says it, I'll add that I understand that, in the "real world", how the horn plays, of course, is most important - however, sometimes perception is just as important, if not sometimes more important...)

I've got a few BB flat 6/4 "lap sousaphones" that have exceptional "low ranges", and they all sport a .748/19mm/.750 bore 4th valve (and an .807/20.5mm bore 5th).

My rephrased "value" question is referring to marketability.

I read on the internet that F tubas with all five valves stepped a mm larger than the previous one are always best. ;P

roweenie wrote:I didn't know the 345 had this feature too - the ones I've seen didn't.

True, my experience is limited to BBb horns - I've never had an issue with "stuffy" low registers.

FWIW - my 1966 345 BBb has a much larger bore in the 4th valve. I could pull out the calipers and measure, I suppose, but for now, I do know that the 4th valve tuning slide will swallow the other 3, and is too large to inadvertently insert into the other slides' places.

It does have the common 6/4 Holton tendency to require embouchure adjustments when working your way on down to the basement, but once you 'get it', the resulting output is impressive, so it's a trade-off, I guess.