How hard would it be to swap valves in a front action Martin

[MartyNeilan]

When I had my beloved top action Martin, I often fantasized about having the horn torn apart and replacing the worn valveset with a Meinl Weston 4 or 4+1 front action valveset. I even owned a 2145 at the time as a possible donor. Since this was a top action horn, it would have required an extensive amount of labor. However, on the front action Martins, it looks like it might not be too difficult of a procedure. Especially with the long tuning slide, there could be enough removed to make up for the extra length of the valve set. Have a look below and see what you think:


P.S. In one of my torch-and-hacksaw mindsets, I nearly attempted the procedure myself but decided that I would merely wind up ruining xx,xxx worth of horns and generate a lot more work for Lee S.

[MikeMason]

Just to share a bit of what i learned from my Holton valve replacement.It was really a breeze,from what Albert at Baltimore Brass said.The situation with the MW valves and a holton is a unique one though.Since they were both inspired by(copied from may be less accurate)the CSO Yorks,the new valves just had to be re-braced and soldered on.A new pipe also had to be bent to fit.I think if you stray from York inspired horns,the "easy factor" will probably go away.The holton-MW valve replacemtent really is a slam dunk.For around the price of paying a pro to add a valve to a 3 valve horn,you can have a whole new,state of the art,4 valve set that works great.Just my experience...

[The Big Ben]

Sooooo.... That one got yer mouth a-droolin', eh?

I'm gonna hafta try one of those American bigboys- my teacher has a 20J.

If you love that Martin sound, it could be a worthy project to put an upgraded valveset onboard.

[MartyNeilan]

Sooooo.... That one got yer mouth a-droolin', eh?

I'm gonna hafta try one of those American bigboys- my teacher has a 20J.

If you love that Martin sound, it could be a worthy project to put an upgraded valveset onboard.

Nah, I wouldn't waste my money on an overpriced, buffed to death refurb. I would rather find an old ugly one cheap and then go to town on it. I do miss the one I had, but being a 6/4, top action, bell front, BBb, it really was a one trick pony. With an upright bell pointing to the the "correct" side, I could see a lot more uses for it.

[MartyNeilan]

Here's what they look like:

http://www.oberloh.com/martintuba/martintuba.htm

According to Dan, the job is a lot more complex than it first appears. If it is a cool horn, I probably wouldn't do it myself.

I have watched that project progress, and it is a true work of art. However, the donor Martin was a top action. I am wondering if a front action would be any easier??

Marty, (if you can find one that's already front action) have you considered adding a rotary 4th valve?

Having owned one, I think I would want to go with the slightly larger bore of the Meinl valveset if I was going to go through all that trouble. I am also concerned that a rotor added to the stock tight Martin bore would make the horn just a little stuffy.

[MikeMason]

So Harold, how much would you say that Martin is worth completed?Do you know how that york at the end of the story turned out?Do you have Dan's restoration calendar filled for years to come?Where do you sell your completed horns(don't remember seeing many high dollar American BAT's for sale here).Making a profit on all 70 horns IS impressive...

[Art Hovey]

Something to watch out for when converting a top-action tuba to front-action: Many top-action tubas have rather small inner bows, i.e the first and second curved pieces of conical tubing coming out of the valve set. They don't leave much space for front-action pistons. Those bends usually have a larger radius on a front-action tuba. Give that some thought before you light the torch. If you can work around that problem you will have a fine instrument.

[Daniel C. Oberloh]

Something to watch out for when converting a top-action tuba to front-action: Many top-action tubas have rather small inner bows, i.e the first and second curved pieces of conical tubing coming out of the valve set. .

Art is not blowing smoke. My own way of working around this issue is to make replacement branches of the ideal radius and corrected length. I typically remake the No. 6 branch and dog-leg to the master tuning slide; this compensates for the length lost in the reconfiguration of the valve section and mouth-pipe. It is a serious amount of work. Assembling the valve section is a lengthy process as well, it takes a good deal of thought and reasoning before one starts chopping up tubes. You need to figure the layout and how it relates to the existing body. If the job is done with care, it can look darn near factory. The images below are of a 1930s York that I was working on until recently. The first image is what I started with. The second image was taken in a rough state(configuration not completed), during the time I was making corrections to the pitch. The first No. 6 branch I made was short so I put a tunable ''pig tail'' between the 4th valve and the master tuning slide. Though it played just fine, I did not like the look at all and thought the overall balance of the horn not to my liking. I eliminated the "pt", redesigned the 6th branch and then made a second one and that made all the difference. When the 6th branch was redesigned, I made the second and final mouth-pipe assembly (nickel-silver) to adjust the centering. The block I used here is for a new .750 bore MW 2165,. In addition to the 6th branch mouth-pipe and dog-leg, I made the slides, 4th valve branches and 1930s "York style" braces. I chose not use MW slide and braces primarily because there 3rd and 4th slides are way to broad and did not fit the profile/ outline of the tuba. I wanted the valves to be properly centered and did not want the slides hanging out over the side of the top bow. I made as many duplicate York style braces as needed (lots) because the owner wants his horn to look like a York, not "franken tuba". After the the pitch, balance and look were squared away, I took it all apart again, addressed the damage inflicted during the process and reassembled it one more time to make sure it was straight and square with itself and looked the way it should "Factory". I will post an image of the horn as it looked prior to plate as soon as I can.





This horn is currently being silver plated and I expect it back in the later part of June.

There are no slam dunks when attempting this type of work, but don't take my word for it. .

So you can see, there is a lot more to doing such a project then purchasing an existing valve set and slapping it on. A Martin is even more difficult, if you want it to look every bit as good as it plays.


Daniel C. Oberloh
Oberloh Woodwind and Brass Works
www.oberloh.com

[MikeMason]

Just reporting what Albert told me.My instructions to him were"make this horn into a good playing 4 valve".This was not art like you do to horns.For the instructions I gave Albert,it was a slam dunk in this instance.It took him very little time(comparatively) and went together easy.It plays very well and is handsome to my eye.NOT a work of art like the horns you put out,but very playable and within my budget at the time.There are certainly 2 very different,yet sometimes and to varying degrees,overlapping camps here.Those who want a work of art to cherish and play in community band,church,etc.,and those of us who primarily want to play the horn at or near a pro level.The second camp is often on a very tight budget,and will also cherish the horn if it does the job(as i have cherished my holton).The ever-escalating price of new horns makes these great sounding old American horns more and more worthy of consideration,even with the cost of retrofitting or rebuilding.Just my thoughts from my very limited(1 horn) experience.

[The Big Ben]

Just reporting what Albert told me.My instructions to him were"make this horn into a good playing 4 valve".This was not art like you do to horns.

And I believe that Marty was wondering about putting a new 4 valve set on a front action Martin. The very real problems Art, Dan, Harold and others refer to regarding converting a toploader to frontloader are known.

Can anyone comment on what Marty was asking: new 4 valve set onto a frontloader Martin? I gather it would be for his own use (not for resale), much like Mike has done to his Holton.

Jeff "Grabbing the helm of this thread" Benedict

[cjk]

The bore of the valves on those old Martins is kinda small, like .715 or .710. I'd measure carefully where the bugle starts past the main tuning slide. It may need to have some trimmed off of it to make it big enough to accept the larger valve set.

[cjk]

The bore of the valves on those old Martins is kinda small, like .715 or .710. I'd measure carefully where the bugle starts past the main tuning slide. It may need to have some trimmed off of it to make it big enough to accept the larger valve set.

As I recall, the medium-bore front-action Martin 6/4 B.A.T.'s have a remarkably fast taper in the bore between the valve block and the small side of the main slide. The small side of the main slide is quite large and the large side is huge.

I stand corrected.

[Daniel C. Oberloh]

The alteration details from three to four valve front action was touched on pretty well by Harold and there is more that I could go into but I will not bore you with the details. I will add that the Holton valve set was used to develop the MW set and that is why they work so well for the 340 to 345 conversion but the slide layout is not exactly right and looks a tad odd to my eye but thats probably just me. I used the block on the York because I liked its look and knew it would fit into the initial design I had in mind. If a proper Martin valve block were available for Marty's project it would still need mods to make it work as did my York project. Lets just say that it is a lot of work converting any of the old classics from one design to the other whether it be York, Conn, Martin, Buescher, King, etc.

My point here is that if you take on such a project, it still has to be figured out, all the parts need to be present and go together correctly and it has to work properly. It needs to be cleaned before and after the job is done and It needs to be braced properly. Whether it is polished and finished or just left raw, it still needs to be done correctly and well. If you are willing to accept half-assed that is your business but if you are going to look into having such a project undertaken you need to know what is involved and what to expect or you may end up very disappointed and stuck with a very expensive albatross.

I have included additional images of the York. I took these pics just prior to packing it and shipping it out for silver.










Daniel C. Oberloh
Oberloh Woodwind and Brass Works
www.oberloh.com

[MikeMason]

Dan,do you find that if you do a horn at a completely artist level of craftsmanship(as you always do) that it always plays great too?In other words does function always follow form?If so, I'm surprised we haven't seen one of your horns in a major symphony.That Martin in the right hands would be worth the price of some tickets to me....I just had a partial answer to my own question pop into my head.James Jenkins in Jacksonville ,Fl has a restored York BBb that he uses in the orchestra(w/original 22" bell !).I've never heard him in action with it though,and not restored by Mr. Oberloh.

[Daniel C. Oberloh]

I have always been a believer in the idea or form following function. The reality is that I don't start with any old crap horn available. I only use instruments that have a good sound to start with and a bugle with proper scale. Because I don't use questionable horns, I am able to focus on improvements like converting three to four and top to front action valves. I can also make changes to the mouth-pipe design and alter slides to facilitate responsiveness, intonation adjustments or correct pitch issues that may have previously existed in the original design. These alterations are made to an instrument that already has a great sound and make it that much more desirable to the modern musician. I can not take any credit for a horns quality of sound, that goes to the original designers and Craftsmen who produced the bell and branches. I can only take credit for improving the facility and functionality of a limited but great sounding instrument while not screwing it up and creating a tool that will allow the musical artist to express themselves to the fullest of there ability. There are a few serious players out there playing on horns I have restored. Most are not tubas but trumpets, cornets and trombones. There are a few very special vintage french horns and a smattering of double bells but for there owners its more about the music, not so much the tools. The first tuba I did like the ones you are talking about was completed in 1993 and was done for Mike Russell who is now retired from the Seattle Symphony. I think that because the majority of players in major orchestras use CC tubas and there are a lot of truly fine modern CCs on the market, such musicians have no real need for my services when it comes to vintage restorations. However, there are a number of serious players around North America that I have repaired and or rebuilt standard modern instruments for but in my opinion, nothing truly note worthy.

Artists level? Oh, you mean clean, straight, well fitted, properly aligned and neatly soldered, assembled in a sensible manor and actually finished and plated the way they would if they were new. Thats not Artsy, that just doing the job the way it is suppose to be done.


Daniel C. Oberloh
Oberloh Woodwind and Brass Works