I have today among other instruments a Meinl-Weston 6/4 Cc and a B&S 4/4 Cc.
I also have a Conn 20j which I seem to use more and more.
Several times I have needed a 4th valve and therefore I have been looking for a 4 (or 5?) valve American Bb BAT.
Which tuba to choose - Holton, Martin, York, Conn??
I`ll guess that some of these are hard to find too.
Some of you have probably tried several 6/4 BAT`s and I would aprecciate some advice or experiences.
Roger Fjeldet wrote:But why a Holton for $ 7.000 when you can buy a 25j for $ 2.000 ?
Both are 6/4 Bb with 4 valves.
Is the Holton-tuba so much better??
I have never played a Holton to give an opinion on their playing, but must say I prefer the short action valves on the Conn over regular pistons. If the original poster likes his 20J, but just wants 4 valves, then a 25J would seem sensible. This one looks a good-in. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=34519
TUbajohn20J wrote:I'll second what Neptune said. That 25J is one sweet horn and I doubt find a better 4 valve BAT for the price.
I think the key words are: for the price.
I'm just waiting for Rick Denney to explain the difference between the 20/21/24/25J series and the Holton 345. He has owned (and liked) a 20J and presently has a Holton 345. To hold you while waiting, here's a paragraph with Rick's opinion- 2xJ Conn vs. Holton 345 (scroll to the bottom of the page):
My Trad Jazz group prefers the sound of the 6/4 Holton I just got from Dillons to that of the Conn 20J that Bloke sold to me this summer. The band manager told me that she thought the Holton blended extremely well with the other instruments but was very present in the mix. Both the Conn and the Holton are 3 short stroke pistons with detachable recording bells and have almost the exact same response to each mpc I have used in them. Both of them are a bit easier for me to use than is the 5/4 Rudy Meinl I also own. These horns are all BBb. The intonation on all 3 horns is very good - the low B on the 3 valve horns needs a little lipping down, as does the bottom 1234 C on the Rudy. The privilege or false tones an all of these horns are very clear and responsive. All 3 of these horns can really fill a hall which is why I prefer the larger tubas.
MISERICORDE, n.
A dagger which in mediaeval warfare was used by the foot soldier to remind an unhorsed knight that he was mortal.
- Devil's Dictionary - Ambrose Bierce
Here is size comparison picture of 26J (front action Conn) against Martin Mammoth which I took during my visit to the USA in 2009. It is clear the Conn is quite a bit larger, although the Martin is no small tuba - I would say similar in size to my Neptune.
I played both tubas in a chappel and with band and was amazed to actually prefer the 26J (although the Martin was very good). From what I had read on here I was expecting the Conn to be some sort of 'blunder-bas', but actually it had a beautiful rich tone - and I could easily play it quietly and with finesse. Although I did not like a 20J I also played anywhere near as much due to its top valve ergonomics, that seemed to blow very similar to the 26J.
I have never played a Holton 345, but hear they are even bigger in the bottom bow than the Neptune, so guess they have a good broad tone. Would love to try one some time!
For that matter, were all the modern 2XJ and 3XJ series horns all BBb? (Relatively modern, that is. My 1925 monster Eb was a 20J, but Conn recycled model numbers later on.)
Last edited by GC on Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JP/Sterling 377 compensating Eb; Warburton "The Grail" T.G.4, RM-9 7.8, Yamaha 66D4; for sale > 1914 Conn Monster Eb (my avatar), ca. 1905 Fillmore Bros 1/4-size Eb, Bach 42B trombone
goodgigs wrote:
BTW: I am quite confused by that picture of the straight bell Martin. I remember It as being much taller. Was there another model of 6/4?
That bell looks to be an aftermarket straight bell with nice engraving on it. Perhaps this Martin was originally equipped with a front-bell.
Timswisstuba wrote:That bell looks to be an aftermarket straight bell with nice engraving on it. Perhaps this Martin was originally equipped with a front-bell.
Timswisstuba wrote:That bell looks to be an aftermarket straight bell with nice engraving on it. Perhaps this Martin was originally equipped with a front-bell.
goodgigs wrote: BTW: I am quite confused by that picture of the straight bell Martin. I remember It as being much taller.
One thing I do not understand is how the bell could be shorter than the original and the tuba still play at pitch? I think these after-market bells are of a smaller diameter - 20" against whatever were the originals. Does reducing the bell diameter enable shortening stack while still maintaining pitch???
Neptune wrote:One thing I do not understand is how the bell could be shorter than the original and the tuba still play at pitch? I think these after-market bells are of a smaller diameter - 20" against whatever were the originals. Does reducing the bell diameter enable shortening stack while still maintaining pitch???
Just curious
I did an apprenticeship with Rene Hagmann and asked him the same question.
My understanding of it is that on brass instrument bells there is a certain point at which we can stretch out the diameter of the bell and not affect the pitch. However, by stretching out the bell the initial sounds (attacks) become more
« blatty ».
I wouldn’t doubt that this after-market bell (most likely 20 inch Kanstul) has a more focused sound than the original 24 inch bell.
GC wrote:Conn reused model numbers seemingly at random in later years.)
True. I would love to have one of these 26J's, also wouldn't mind having one of the "later" 26J's that looked like 10J's on sterroids. (3 top valve). But this 26J is a GREAT looking horn. I want one someday...or atleast get a beater 20J and have the bows flipped, add a 22K valveset, and a 4th valve to make my own "26J". Wow, the things I would do to get a Factory 4 front action 26J...
As the owner of a 6/4 Martin (Gnagey) BBb, I figured I'll pipe in my $.02.
I must respectfully disagree with anyone questioning the 6/4ness (is that a word?) of some of the large Martins. As far as I know, the bell on mine is original, a one-piece upright bell. I haven't measured it in a while, but, as I recall, it's 20"+ with a visually, aesthetically-pleasing appearance (to qualify that, I must add that I've seen horns with 20" bells that are mostly stovepipe with a lot of flare at the end; I would qualify mine as, respectfully, a Holton 345-type bell shape).
My Martin is wrapped more tightly than a Holton, so it has a smaller size to the body. But in its overall appearance, it usually receives a response of "Holy-crap-what-is-that?" While there are horns configured such that their overall height is taller, it's still respectable (over 37", if I recall correctly) in that regard, and simply thick in appearance. Next to a MW 2000 (5/4, by label) or 2155 (5/4, by label), it looks considerably larger with much thicker tubing. If you'd like measurements, let me know.
So, perhaps, without a definitive table outlining the requirements for x/4 sizing, I default to the fact that my Martin is a much larger horn than other horns labeled as 5/4 when side by side. Additionally, the Martin has made seemingly-dead rooms reverberate. I'd only had the horn a few weeks when I took it to an audition. The audition was held in a community college building, with our warm-up room being some sort of art room. About the worst warm-up room ever, but that's a different post. Other horns sounded kind of lifeless (more the room than the players or horns), but it was when I hit on a low F and the room rang for a second that every other player in the room at the moment (no kidding) put their horns down, walked over and started the, "So, uh, what is that?," and, "What kind of mouthpiece are you using on it," and "Can I try it?," conversation.
That's when I knew that I was REALLY glad I'd bought it.
I find it to be exceptionally responsive to the mouthpiece that's in it. I mostly use a sort-of-singular G&W Al Baer CC on it. Like that better than a PT-20 (old numbers) or Parke Ofenloch, which I've also used with satisfaction. I can also use a PT-19 (old number, an F mouthpiece) and it's a different horn yet.
My intention, when funds allow, is to graft a Gronitz PBK valve set onto it. I wouldn't dream of cutting it. I did once, but an experience in an orchestra (I was subbing for a friend) doing Pictures with it changed my mind for sure. Suffice it to say the orchestra really liked the sound.
My previous horn? A near-miraculous Hirsbrunner HB-2P. Still wish I'd never sold it, as it would be great to have a 4/4 horn like that. But I always felt it couldn't give me all I wanted in an orchestral situation.
I've not yet had the opportunity, since owning the Martin, to sit down with it in a hall with a Holton and a York available for comparison.
Anyone in Chicago with a Holton and/or a York 6/4 horn who's interested in a comparison, pm me.
Looks like I`m going for either a Conn 25j or a Holton 345.
Since I`m already playing a Meinl-Weston 2165 (6/4 Cc) and a Conn 20j I can not immediately agree with those who says that the Conn 2Xj is NOT a 6/4 BAT.
It takes a considerably amount of air to fill the Conn - more than on the M-W.
Even if you consider the step from Bb to Cc it`s much air spent.
If the York, Martin and Holton BAT`s really are bigger than the Conn 2xj I cannot see the point of the size, so my guess is that they are about the same.
Living in Norway makes trying the instruments before buying a bit difficult.
From the discussion on the forum I have learned that the quality on the Holtons are very uneven; They can be really good, but also really bad
The Conn 25j have a difficult intonation (almost always)
I could spend $ 7 - 10.000 on a Holton with the risk of getting a Tuba with bad intonation,
or $ 1,5 - 4.000 on a Conn with almost certain difficult intonation - hmmm....
From the outside it looks like it`s more status to own and play a Holton (and Martin + York) than a Conn, even if the Conn`s are just as good.
Mitch wrote:...
My Martin is wrapped more tightly than a Holton, so it has a smaller size to the body. But in its overall appearance, it usually receives a response of "Holy-crap-what-is-that?" While there are horns configured such that their overall height is taller, it's still respectable (over 37", if I recall correctly) in that regard, and simply thick in appearance. Next to a MW 2000 (5/4, by label) or 2155 (5/4, by label), it looks considerably larger with much thicker tubing. If you'd like measurements, let me know.
So, perhaps, without a definitive table outlining the requirements for x/4 sizing, I default to the fact that my Martin is a much larger horn than other horns labeled as 5/4 when side by side. ....
I really don't mean to be disagreeable or anything, but I think that Meinl-Weston labeled the 2000 and 2155 as "5/4" just to fit into their product offering at one time. The 2000 (or 2155) seems to be much the same size as many other instruments labeled "4/4".
At the time they came out, they had:
2145 = "4/4"
2155/2000 = "5/4"
2165 = "6/4"
While the 2155 *is* a bit larger tuba than a 2145, I expect that the 2155 was labeled as "5/4" for marketing purposes. Perhaps comparing a PT-6 or a Meinl-Weston Thor to your Martin might be more appropriate. The Martin will still be quite a bit larger, so the comparison would still prove your point.
If I were the original poster in this thread, I would, without a single doubt in my mind, be looking for one of the large Martins over any of the alternatives mentioned. The Martin will be easier to play and better in tune with itself.
