Should I rebuild this 1918 Conn Eb?

[Shockwave]

If you want to replace the valves with 4 front pistons in addition to an overhaul and a plate job, you're looking at thousands of dollars. For that much you could buy any number of other tubas that already have the features you want. The Conn monster Eb is a very unpopular tuba due to the intonation problems and the mysterious low Bb, so you could probably find one for a good price with the features you want. I've thought about adding a 4th valve to mine, but so far the false tones have fooled everybody and I enjoy a challenge.

-Eric

[Steve Inman]

I started my Eb experience with an H.N. White "King" Eb, of similar size to your Conn. The low register (low Ab down to the pedal Eb) was fairly good with the false tones, but they didn't "feel" quite as secure as the standard notes. But with practice, several folks use these notes to good effect. (My Eb fingered these notes with Ab= open, and the notes below that being fingered a whole step higher than you would assume, if I remember correctly. Experiment to find out how your horn responds.)

Typically adding a valve = $1000. Lee Stofer's web site has some fee info for certain tasks. I don't remember if it includes a major refurbishing job. www.tubameister.com His shop rate is included in the prices page.

I would suggest starting with what is often referred to as a "play condition restoration" only, and seeing how the false tones work out for you. The next step I would suggest is adding a 4th valve. Get an estimate from Lee (or any other decent shop) for the restoration, and you'll know the price of "step 1" and "step 2" of my suggestion. If that total price exceeds the price of a used YEB-321, then buy the Yamaha (a 4V horn, but smaller bell than yours) and enjoy it.

mtcw,

[tubatooter1940]

The horn doesn't look too bad in the photo.
I'd get a couple of estimates from people who do this kind of work often.
Most people like the King sound.

[Shockwave]

Actually, I think the real problem with the Conn monster Eb is that the whole horn is tuned flat. It's from the A-435 era after all. If I tune my keyboard about 30 cents flat, all the notes on the horn magically become in tune as the pitches are so easy to lip around. With the keyboard at concert pitch some of the notes are in tune, others can not be lipped far enough. A mouthpiece with less cup volume raises the overal pitch of the horn, so it makes sense that these instruments become manageable with a smaller mouthpiece, but I like the sound with a large mouthpiece. I shortened one mouthpiece shank by about an inch, but it's still a bit flat.

How does the King sound differ from the Conn sound?

-Eric

[Lee Stofer]

I once had a 1901 Conn Eb that played better than anyone would expect, and actually used it for quite a while as a 3-top-piston horn. It lent a really nice presence when playing the upper-octave parts in a concert band, sounded good in a dixieland band, and worked very well for selected pieces in brass quintet. Then, during my second assignment to Germany, I took that instrument as my project horn to the Rudolf Meinl factory for my internship, and the instrument received a side-4th valve, I learned how to make and install the inner- and outer slide tubes and ferrules, so the instrument became a 4-valve Eb with nickel-silver inner- and outer slides, and all of the smaller ferrules were nickel-silver. Additionally, since the original leadpipe was gone and my first leadpipe attempt was somewhat amateur-looking, Rudi showed me how to fit a new leadpipe to the instrument, and we used rose brass tubing. The tuba looked like a million bucks when we were finished with the complete restoration and probably tripled the resale value, but I found the 4th valve to be of little added benefit on this instrument. The priviledged tones still spoke better than the valve combinations in the low Ab-E range, but hey, it was one neat-looking horn, and the buyer just HAD to have a 4th valve.

[iiipopes]

No. Give it to me so I can relieve you of your dilemma.

[Dan Schultz]

If you want to add a 4th valve to clean up intonation issues, that's all a matter of personal choice and might be OK. Adding a 4th valve to expand the lower range on an old Conn might be a real dissappointment. I added a 4th piston to an old King Eb 'monster' a few years ago and it performs 'OK', but the only thing I use it for is to clean up the 1-3 and 1-2-3 combinations. The low end still stinks! If you think adding the 4th valve is something you still want to do after digesting all the info on the TubeNet, you might consider adding a rotor and extra circuit in the tuning slide. It's fairly easy to configure a linkage for a rotor.

[Donn]

O.K. You guys have convinced me that I would not be happy with the old Eb even with a fourth valve. I found Lee Stofers' and TubaTinkers' comments particularly valuable. I think it's time to get rid of the old Conn I've been dragging around for decades (Ebay?) and seriously consider a King 2341.

Well ... bear in mind that you have a big advantage over the rest of us - you can hear that tuba, compare it to a tuner etc. If it sounds good and plays in tune, you're going to be selling it for less than it's worth, because you're the only one in the world who knows that. To anyone else, it's an old, old, small bore Eb tuba with only 3 probably leaky valves, probably terrible intonation, etc. As you can see from responses so far.

[iiipopes]

If it really is a 435 horn and you want to play it as a 440 without much ado, just give it a good bath, take the valves for what they are worth, and if you really want to get it in tune, PM me and I'll give you the measurements on how much to shorten each valve slide. Then either you or your favourite tech can do it. I wouldn't worry about a replate. I'm playing a similar horn right now I have borrowed to do some octave doubling, and it's in about the same shape. Since it's borrowed, I can't do anything to the slides, and I won't touch any of the patina, even though it looks like a barnacled battleship.

[tbn.al]

The priviledged tones still spoke better than the valve combinations in the low Ab-E range, but hey, it was one neat-looking horn, and the buyer just HAD to have a 4th valve.

As the buyer of the 1901 Eb I can attest to the excellent quality of Lee's workmanship. I never could get those false tones to speak like Lee did but the 4th valve was great. Glad to see you are back posting again, Lee. When will you open for business?

[Steve Inman]

If you want to add a 4th valve to clean up intonation issues, that's all a matter of personal choice and might be OK. Adding a 4th valve to expand the lower range on an old Conn might be a real dissappointment. I added a 4th piston to an old King Eb 'monster' a few years ago and it performs 'OK', but the only thing I use it for is to clean up the 1-3 and 1-2-3 combinations. The low end still stinks! If you think adding the 4th valve is something you still want to do after digesting all the info on the TubeNet, you might consider adding a rotor and extra circuit in the tuning slide. It's fairly easy to configure a linkage for a rotor.

Dan -- what bore size did you use for the 4th valve? I assume 1-3 were .687 / .689 -ish.

Carl Kleinsteuber did this same thing with an old King Eb I sold him many years ago (it's the 2nd tuba shown on his tuba projects web page). He grafted in a set of Hirsbrunner CC valves and added tubing to make a CC horn. He later switched it back to Eb -- evidently with better results. But I bet the Hirsbrunner valves are much bigger bore.

Cheers,

[Chuck(G)]

Additionally, since the original leadpipe was gone and my first leadpipe attempt was somewhat amateur-looking, Rudi showed me how to fit a new leadpipe to the instrument...

That brings up an interesting topic, Lee. Most leadpipes you see nowadays are drawn from seamless tubing (at least I can't find a seam). On old (1960's and earlier) tubas I sometimes see seamed leadpipes, which probably were brazed up from sheet.

Did Rudi have an opinion which was better? I can see some advantage to the seamed version, as the wall thickness will be uniform.

[Dan Schultz]

If you want to add a 4th valve to clean up intonation issues, that's all a matter of personal choice and might be OK. ......

Dan -- what bore size did you use for the 4th valve? I assume 1-3 were .687 / .689 -ish.

Hi, Steve! The added 4th valve is the 2nd valve from a donor valveset. Same bore as the horn... .692. (that sounds odd... I think I reset the digital caliper!)

[hbcrandy]

I had a York Monster Eb tuba converted to front action with a five valve configuration. Bob Pallansch in Falls Church Virginia did the work.

Contact me off of the list at hbcrandy@hotmail.com for photos and further information.[/img]

[Lee Stofer]

Al,
The shop should be open later this month. The construction gives me little time to post here, but with the recent heat advisories, I have to take more breaks!

To answer Chuck (G)'s question, the 1901 Conn's original leadpipe was so rotten as to be unuseable, and I had gotten a generic replacement, back when I was just starting to try any repairs on my own. I noticed that the leadpipe sent to me was too small at the large end, so I called the supplier. They told me, "Oh, don't worry, the .020" gap won't make any difference, just fill it in with solder." I did not think that was right, so I decided to try to make it better. I had seen the Pilchuk (sp?) stepped leadpipes for trumpets, which seemed to work, so I took a trombone expanding mandrel and stepped the lower half of the leadpipe in increments until it was a tight fit into the ferrule, and it did seem to work quite well. When I was later in Germany and we did the custom work/renovation, Rudolf Meinl had a rose brass pipe for one of his kaiser baritone (large-bore rotary euphonium), and since the leadpipe was short on the Conn (had tuning slide before the valveset), this pipe, with only some cutting and bending, was a prefect fit. Although we did not discuss it at that time, I think that the Meinls prefer the seamless, drawn leadpipes. I did discuss this with Peter Hirsbrunner, Jr. at one point, and he was quite fond of his mouthpipe drawing equipment, that he said could make every one the same. Whether seamed or seamless, I think that the amount of bending, hammering,sanding and buffing makes the largest difference in wall thickness. When I fabricate a long, convoluted Alexander leadpipe, the inside of the radius of the bends is invariably thicker, and the outside is thinner, just because of all that bending and hammering to make it fit. On something like a Conn 5J ot a York front-action tuba, however, the leadpipe is a lot shorter and the bending is minimal, so the wall thickness is much more consistent.