cimbasso valveset bore

[Ben]

I have played a couple of 0.689 and the MW 41. I definitely liked the 0.728" better.

[Jay Bertolet]

Definitely prefer the .728" bore for the best balance between trombone-like sound and tuba player friendliness.

[Jay Bertolet]

The short answer is that I'm not positive one way or the other. My experiences have taught me that, under certain circumstances, the instrument I have (.728") takes more air than my Nirschl York. I would think that your .750" valve block may take even more. The reason I say that is that a lot of the feedback I use while playing mine is derived from the resistance I feel at the mouthpiece. Like Dan S. suggested, these things take a special kind of blow and I had a large learning curve figuring out how to manage that. Another headache is the forward facing bell. It was very difficult for me to get used to auditing the sound under those circumstances. For me, it can be very deceptive the amount of sound you're putting out and resistance at the mouthpiece is way more important in evaluating that than I'm used to on my tubas.

I would also be concerned about the larger bugle profile you might have if the valves are bigger. Since these things are mostly cylindrical, you'll have to start out with a bigger bore as well. On mine, the length of tubing between the mouthpiece and the entry into the valve block is staggering. I suppose you could make some of that up by doing some taper in that stretch but I could not predict how that might affect the horn. I would also worry about a larger starting bore equaling a more euphonium like bell. I feel like that could make the horn more like a "tuba on a stick" which kind of defeats the purpose if Verdi is the target.

My W.A.G. would be that you could use the F valve cluster at .750" and get an even more tuba player friendly product but you might have to be very conservative at the bell to maintain some semblance of trombone in the outcome. Sounds like an interesting project, good luck!

[Ben]

Joe,

I you are not going to significantly alter the bore profile by adding the valves later in the instrument, does it really matter which set is used?

[Ben]

Another thought... (commuting/phone)

Do you have a valve set lying around that will accept MAW valves? Might be a fun thing to swap out if the resistance of the instrument does not suit your fancy.

[UDELBR]

I just assumed this was one of Joe's trolls.

( and maybe it is at that...)

[Jay Bertolet]

It sounds like a very good plan to me. I assume you're thinking the thing will be in F? If so, depending on how much tubing you have in the bell section, there should be plenty of options for placing the valves to match the .750". On mine, the 5th valve (the last of the valves in the main bugle) is only about 7" from the coupling for the bell section. Since there is so much tubing prior to the valve section (prolly close to 4 feet or more) it seems like you would have plenty of room to find the space that could match, even if you started with tubing the same diameter as on my horn. You might just need a little more flare near the valve placement.

Let us all know what you think of your new backbore once you have some time to test it out. I am very happy with my Laskey 30F but it tends to be a somewhat bigger setup. It's great for things like I'm playing now (La Traviata) but I've been craving a setup that might be a little bit smaller/lighter for things similar to Bellini's Norma. I haven't had a chance to sample your products yet so I'm understandably curious.

[Norm Pearson]

.

[vlatuba]

I play a Haag as part of my job, which has a bore of 16mm, or about .630”. Smaller, yes, but the Hagman valves make up for what would otherwise be resistance on a larger bored instrument. Still feels like my head might explode at times, though, and I long for something more free blowing – if it’s possible.

I have the Haag and an older MW E-flat cimbasso at work. The MW is more tuba player friendly in how it blows, but that is it’s only advantage. Besides every valve combination feeling like I’m playing a different instrument, it feels and awkward to hold and play. The sound is also more tuba-like and that isn’t what I’m looking for.

I’d like to see what a horn plays like with the piston valve section and an open-ish (like a rotor cimbassso)wrap – unlike that of the G&P instrument, which goes quickly into a tight tuning slide and directly into the valve section.

Just a few thought beyond the valve section. Monschau got a lot of other things really right in his horn design. If I were to build my dream cimbasso (more tuba player friendly), I would include many of these features:

- Bell location – close to the player, around where a trombone player’s bell would be. Too many of the large instruments put the bell off in left field, literally.
- Main tuning slide kicker – spring loaded and sits right under my left thumb. A second main slide is on the bell section so no messing around with set screws to adjust the slide.
- Smaller paddle section. Monschau told me he is a sax player and built the valve section like a sax player would want it, with not nearly the hand spread one usually sees on a tuba.
- A really sturdy peg – solid brass rod about 1cm thick with a full sleeve that is rock solid. I played a piston valve instrument when I was trying out horns and the thing wobbled all over the place. Partly due to my height by putting the slick up high and partly due to the instruments body being shorter because of the wrap to accommodate the valves.
- Bell section attachment – has a standard thumbscrew set-up but the sleeve is notched so the bell never droops or needs to be cranked down too hard.
- Removable leadpipe – not that I have any others to use with it, but the option is there.

If you are interested in any specs or pics of this horn, I can send them to you. I’m curious to see what you come up with!

Cheers, Ed

[Bob Kolada]

I've got a one off Eb thing with a .562 bore that's really quite free blowing. Going off that and my old slide Kanstul contra I'd be more inclined to an open build .625-89 ish horn.

[imperialbari]

From which tuba model does a 6-valve block with a uniform .750" bore come?

[imperialbari]

So you going for this sound:

[UDELBR]

On mine, the length of tubing between the mouthpiece and the entry into the valve block is staggering.

I'd always wondered why some cimbasso makers do this: make such a loooong leadpipe. On tubas, a shorter leadpipe makes a more direct sound, which is what you'd want on a trombone-like instrument, right?

[Jay Bertolet]

I'd always wondered why some cimbasso makers do this: make such a loooong leadpipe. On tubas, a shorter leadpipe makes a more direct sound, which is what you'd want on a trombone-like instrument, right?

I wondered the same but then it occurred to me that a trombone is basically the same as this cimbasso design. The slide is an approximately similar length of tubing before the valve (if any) and then the bell section. I wonder if it has anything to do with the more cylindrical bugle profile. Maybe that whole longer/shorter leadpipe thing we see on tubas only works the way we know it on conical profile bugles.

[imperialbari]

I agree about the profile of the pre-valve-block tubing being more significant than the length of that tubing. Even if it may be long, the conical leadpipe portion may be short.

Dual bore cylindrical instruments are no novelty. The phenomenon is seen in tenor and in bass trombones with conical slide crooks. My own three samples happen to be from the upper end of the brass instruments' spectrum. A Scherzer Bb trumpet has the rotary valves in the branch opposite the bell after the conical main tuning slide. A Pfretzschner F alto trombone has a huge .500"/.547" dual bore, where a Conn 36H Eb alto trombone has a .491"/.500" dual bore before the Bb valve.

I only disagree with one aspect of bloke's plan. I wouldn't want to have the bore expansion happen at the entry into the valve block. I would want the waves getting a chance to stabilize before entering the problematic interiors of any rotor block. A conical bottom bow is harder to find or make than a cylindrical one, but then the expansion may happen before of after the main tuning slide. Which after all hasn't to be in the bottom bow. An inserted loop like with the 3rd valve slide of a YBB321 also would work.

Klaus

[roweenie]

Joe,

Did you ever get around to building your cimbasso? Did you use piston or rotary valves?

I'm in the planning/execution stage of building one, and I'm curious to see how you set up your leadpipe. (I'm not sure whether I should build it with a traditional tuba leadpipe, or maybe something more cylindrical).

Any photos of leadpipe set-ups from other cimbasso player's horns would be also greatly appreciated!

[roweenie]

Will the smaller set be piston or rotary (or is it classified information )?

Mine will have the venerable King .689 valve block as its valve nest. I'm just a little stymied as what I should be doing with the leadpipe (tapered with tuba receiver, cylindrical, etc....)

[Donn]

Trombones are of course cylindrical, since you're basically sticking the mouthpiece in the slide and the slide has to be cyilndrical. So to make it work out, they put a receiver "leadpipe" inside the tubing that incorporates some of the bore profiling that we get with a tapered leadpipe. And I gather the fancier trombone models (unlike mine) give you the option to easily replace that "leadpipe" with another one. If there's a contrabass trombone model for which you can get leadpipes, then it seems to me the ideal thing would be to bring your external leadpipe down to a sufficiently long straight section with the internal diameter that matches those leadpipes, and then you can just try out leadpipes and pick the one that suits you the best. (I don't know jack about this stuff, though, so take that for what it's worth. It occurs to me that the long straight receiver might be a bit of a problem!)

[PaulMaybery]

Hi Joe. Interesting project and one that might have some after-market value. Worked with a friend this summer, Steve Call from Utah. (Steve, Chuck Schulz and I did a novelty Cimbasso Trio) Steve has several Cimbassi. One in particular is Italian, Rampone & Cazzani I believe. I realize you are working on a project in F (Jinbao of which I happen to have one as well - so am familiar with its bore size at around .730.) But some thought on the narrow bore: Steve's cimy is in BBb and has a comparatively small bore. While I did not measure it at the time, it seemed about the size of a F Contra bass trombone, that being just under .600. The bell section was more like a euph with the double wrap. I'm sure the larger bell taper etc had something to do with giving it a fair amount of sound and resonance. My thoughts and intuition would be if you went that narrow on an F cimy, it would probably be rather tight sounding - maybe even stuffy. But it may on the other hand give it a timbre closer to a slide F contrabass bone with around .600 bore . If you are using a .730 valve set I would think the narrow bore from the MP be ahead of the valves in as 'long of a length' as possible, (with the valves as close to the bell joint as possible - more or less mimicking the slide of the F contra (the F contras that I have tooted had a dual bore with the second slide slightly over .600 /@.6.20. I get the idea somehow that the .730 bore of the Jinbao F/Eb cimy is intended to approach the sound of the BBbs but with the modern flexibility of the F. I suppose were I to try a similar project I would try to get as close to the F contra lead pipe and slide before entering the valves. How much taper on the tube just before the valves, would probably take some trial and error. Would a series of step ferules work as a preliminary method for getting into the ball park? (or simply telescope the tubing) Would love to hear how this all progresses. Am I correct is assuming you are trying to get closer to the slide contra sound?

[vlatuba]

I've finished the bulk of the work on a cimbasso valve section that can be attached to a Kanstul contrabass trombone bell. It's actually now a convertible contrabass trombone in F/cimbasso in F or E-flat.



I used a Conn 5J tuba valve section, .658 bore (thank you, Marty Nielan). I ended up turning the valve section 45-degrees as the original layout would have been excessively uncomfortable, a process that added far more work than I had planned on but the results are positive. I had to make several 45-degree knuckles and then needed to bend straight tubing to make the 1st valve slide. Good practice for both my silver soldering and tube bending skills... The only disappointment is a possible water collecting dip in both the first and fourth slides right near the valve cluster. I was able to avoid that problem on the third slide, but the 1st and 4th had curves in the tubing just too close to the piston casing to cut safely.

It plays quite well and is comfortable to hold. The pistons are fast and a real treat compared to the Hagmans on the Haag I use at work - those fast Verdi licks are far easier. I deliberately made this instrument to sound more trombone-like (the owner will be using it primarily in a trombone ensemble) so I went with a smaller bored valve section (only .009" bigger than the Haag) and tried to avoid tight curves as much as possible. The owner wanted an instrument in E-flat but the instrument would have been too long for the player to sit in a chair if straight so it needed a loop somewhere. I took advantage of that need and made the instrument dual pitched in either E-flat or F, by putting the main slide either in or out of a loop.

I put the valve section just off the leadpipe, unlike any other piston cimbasso I've played, to no ill results. I wanted the valves in a similar placement to most rotor valve instruments. I also wanted the bell closer to the player (I have both a Haag and a Melton E-flat at my disposal - the Melton bell is so far away from the player that I feel quite disconnected from what is coming out of the bell while the Haag is set much closer, like a trombone bell would be). The lead pipe is an Allied universal with a standard tuba mouthpiece receiver. It may not be Ideal but seems to be a decent starting point.

It's being test ridden by the owner for while so we can make any adjustments before I clean it up. It'll be getting more water-keys and a a fifth valve once I find one suitable for it.

There are more detailed pics on my website:
http://www.diefesbrassrepair.com/216221798" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Cheers, Ed