c. 1980 - present paste-on Euro tuba piston valvesets

[Matt Good]

: do you really believe that the 20mm bore in 4th valve loop of most of these paste-on European paste-on valvesets REALLY helps the low range response

No

...or do you suspect that the larger volume in the 4th valve loop is either a benefit-neutral or actually possibly a DETRIMENTAL feature...??

Detrimental, Yes

Wouldn't you REALLY love to (somehow..??) be able to A/B your OWN TUBA (or one that you're interested in buying) with a STRAIGHT 19mm valveset bore (1-2-3-4) vs. the typically-supplied 19mm 1-2-3 / 20mm 4th...??

Yes

[iiipopes]

This is an area where a lot of physics research is definitely needed. The reason is that tubas, indeed all brass instrument, function on static wave theory and not flow theory. So the compressions and rarefactions that we call antinodes and nodes have to line up at the right places at the right time to get what we call pitch, resonance and tone.

So if a compression wave is going happily down a tube, whether cylindrical or conical, and has an interruption or discontinuity, of either bore or direction, it can foul up the nodes and antinodes, causing tuning, intonation, or playability (stuffiness) problems. This can happen even when the bore is getting progressively larger, in the name of being more "open." But it's not necessarily more open if the larger valve causes a discontinuity of the stasis.

I believe that may be why the non-matched valve port diameter to different diameter tubing may work. The stasis through the ports is maintained, while the different diameter tubing may cause a slightly different resonance.

As to flow theory verses static wave theory: for example, on my Besson, when I push 1+3 down together, just like on almost every other brass instrument, you can feel the added resistance just blowing air throught the horn. But in playing, yes, 2nd ledger line C feels a tad stuffy, but low F is every bit, if not more of an open blow, than low open BBb, or any other note for that matter.

Hey -- until more research is done, it's no worse of a wild-a$$ guess as to why things work or don't work as anything else! If only Renold Schilke had been a tuba player instead of a trumpet player!

[tbn.al]

Didn't mean to get you off on a tangent, Joe. It is interesting, though, that my first college teacher was living with Schilke and working in his shop(basement) during the time that most of the testing was done for the first Schilke trumpets. All the time I was around him, 20 years, and as far as I know until this day, he has played a Bach 37, C trumpet. I didn't particularly like my 621 either, but you will have to pry my 60 out of my cold, stiff, fingers.

[Alex C]

I don't believe the 19/20mm valve sets have any particular advantage. I do believe that this type valve block, when organically designed with the rest of an instrument, offers some positive performance outcomes. There are numbers of examples still in existence as proof.

As far as the valve set in question as a "paste-on" item, the major advantage of it is that it is readily available.

Parts are not magic - good design can be. Gronitz and Sam Gnagey somehow seem to be able to put parts together and make a very fine instrument but whether they are legendary instruments or not remains to be seen.

In the 1990's, one manufacturer began designing the 'second generation' of 6/4 tuba. One of the first changes they made was to eliminate the larger 4th valve tubing and the result was less than satisfactory. However the valve block would not have improved it. I talked to the owner of the company who said he believed it must have been a mistake that the larger tubing was attached to the valve set. His reason for saying this was because the ports of the 4th valve were not larger than the other valve ports.

Pop Johnson knew what he was doing when he designed the two large York CC tubas. His inclusion of the larger 4th valve tubing is an essential element to that design. How or why it works on those horns, no one can (or will) tell you.

[DavidK]

My 1932 King has a .750 bore through all 4 valves and great playing/blowing characteristics top to bottom. For a compact horn it has a really meaty low register.

My Holton 345 has the larger .8XX bore 4th valve. It is out on loan at the moment, but can't say yea or neigh on whether that larger bore "improves" the playing characteristics on the Holton. It has a good low end and doesn't seem to have any "falling down the basement stairs" or "sucking the breath out of you" characteristics.

During the first year the we both got our Holtons, I exchanged emails with Rick Denney. Rick had shared thoughts on possibly putting inner sleeves inside the 4th valve tubing on his Holton 345 to bring it down to .750 all the wyat through. But he also noted that to complete the effort would require altering the crooks in the tuning slides. That would basically require retubing the entire 4th valve circuit. I think he like it fine just the way it is!

Rick, I think the engineer's analytic door was opened for your type of input a few posts up!

[Timswisstuba]

I think instrument low register response is determined more by the bugle taper rather than a larger 4th valve. In most tubas with larger 4th valves, I have noticed little response difference between playing low G (on a CC tuba) with the 4th valve or 1-3.

[Timswisstuba]

When I owned a Gronitz PCK, I found myself keeping my hand on the 1st slide and (mostly) playing it as if it were a 3-valve tuba...because 1-3 seemed BETTER than 3.

It could also be a question of how the 4th valve circuit is routed. I think we both agree that a consistent valve bore is a good thing.

[Timswisstuba]

When I owned a Gronitz PCK, I found myself keeping my hand on the 1st slide and (mostly) playing it as if it were a 3-valve tuba...because 1-3 seemed BETTER than 3.

It could also be a question of how the 4th valve circuit is routed. I think we both agree that a consistent valve bore is a good thing.

Here's another example:

Nearly always, the "dreaded low C" on B&S 6-valve F tubas plays BETTER (read: "great") with "6-2-3" (considerably smaller bore tubing) compared to "4".

So what your saying is smaller tubing is better, which I agree with, but consider this: What do you think your low G (which is an excellent note played 5-6-3-4 on my B&S Symphonie) would sound like if it didn't have a tapered bore in the valves?

I think that the answer to your question differs from tuba to tuba and perhaps low response is more of a question of bugel taper rather than 1mm more in the 4th valve.

Tim "whose 4th valve on his Symphonie B&S is so filled with crud that there probably isn't any bore size difference anymore" Sullivan

[tubaguy9]

If only Renold Schilke had been a tuba player instead of a trumpet player!

With all due respects for the dead and their extraordinary life accomplishments,

- I just don't see (and never have seen) legion trumpet players clamoring to own and play Schilke trumpets.
- The tuba that was (supposedly) designed by Schilke (the 621 Yamaha) certainly doesn't ring my bell.

The study of physical (ie: "pertaining to physics") effects of various changes are interesting and useful, but "A vs. B" or "A vs. B. vs. C" feedback from players (just as with an optician who could, theoretically, measure your eye and write a prescription...but who cannot do this in reality) is likely always going to carry the most weight.

bloke "a curmudgeon"

Maybe some of the reason that trumpet players don't do that is the fact that the Schilke valve sets are really made by Yamaha...
(heard this from someone in the repair industry that really knows instruments and their history...)

[Rick Denney]

The physics of the matter will be hard to discern. The resonance and harmonic alignment of a tuba cannot be described using the traditional organ-pipe model. The taper design changes everything.

The larger bore for the fourth valve is part of that taper design, it seems to me. If the design of the rest of the instrument is consistent with it, it should work. If not, it shouldn't. That has little to do with instrument size or pitch, it seems to me.

It also seems to me that the smaller piston instruments that have impressed me the most have a smaller bore. For a 6/4 instrument, a 3/4" bore is pretty small. Just compared with, say, a Rudolf Meinl or Alexander 5/4 instrument. But the 3/4" bore seems a naturally good size to make a 6/4 instrument resonant, colorful, and playable (in the sense of Jacobs's "old man's tuba" description). The .670-690" bore of 4/4 piston tubas seem to me a naturally good size, as evidenced by the King 2341, the Getzen G-50/CB-50, and so on. The Yamaha 621 may have never run Joe's bell, but nobody can argue that it doesn't have playability beyond most F tubas, particularly in the low register where one would expect the need for a large bore on a large instrument.

Yes, I've wondered whether the .810" bore on the fourth valve of my Holton isn't making low notes that use the fourth valve more difficult rather than easier. The low F on a Holton requires the same sort of care as the low C on many F tubas. My York Master's 3/4" bore continues through the fourth valve and the low F on that instrument requires no special treatement. But I would be unwilling to assert that the .750" fourth valve can claim the credit for that ease.

In the end, I suspect it's the design of the overall instrument that seems to matter the most. And the valve bore (including the larger fourth) may or may not be well-integrated with that design. I think the value of that approach has to be evaluated instrument by instrument.

Rick "realizing that most of the subject tubas are designed by experiment, starting with the valve block" Denney