Question about replaced rotary valve linkages

[bort]

I realize this would be better with pictures...

I've noticed that on a lot of tubas with non-original rotary valve linkages, the linkages are not always parallel, and sometimes have odd bends or other shapes... whereas on the original linkages, the rods are all straight and parallel to each other.

Is there a particular reason for this? I've seen the non-parallel linkages done by repairmen who clearly know what they are doing, so it's not like it was a mistake or sloppy work. Right?

Just seems to me like straight and parallel linkages not only look the cleanest, but might function the best as well. Is it really just not all that important?

Any thoughts?

[Dan Schultz]

Rotor links are often bent to create clearances... especially so the link does not strike the stop arm.

Of course, 'S' links need to be pretty much on the same plane when looking across them. Ball links are more forgiving.

From an engineering perspective.... is does not matter one bit what goes on between the lever and the stop arm (within reason, of course). The force vector is the same without regard to the shape of the link. The force vector is a straight line between the lever and the stop arm.

[bort]

Thanks guys! Very interesting and good to know!

I'll admit, I think the parallel/on the same plane stuff looks better, but as with most things tuba-related, the only thing that truly matters is the sound.

[bort]

Yes, Joe, you do... and I keep telling you that my motivation for asking these things is NOT because I think my valves feel heavy, sluggish, etc. I was merely curious why retrofit/replaced valve linkages look "so-so" in a lot of cases. And now I have my answer.

Replacing the linkage on my Willson back to factory parts is primarily for my own vanity. The rest of the tuba is in incredible condition, but the valve linkages and the braces that attach the paddle bar are not original, and just plain don't *look* nice with the rest of the tuba. There are a few other things here and there that show evidence of various work and re-work, and while they are certainly functional as-is, it sure would look a whole lot better to have them replaced.

Nowhere is there a complaint about slow valves.

[bort]

Whoops, my mistake. Let's try again: Joe, why are my valves heavy and sluggish? Is it because the linkage rods are not parallel to each other, and NOT because of the extra mass and blah blah blah with the Rotax valves? Well, close enough.

Anyway, even though it sounds a little silly, I'd still prefer to replace the assembly with new parts, and restore the horn to it's original location. FWIW, when I bought this from Norm, I think he had considered ordering parts from Willson as well, but decided against it in the interest of time and costs. And for me, I'd probably have already ordered the linkages from Willi, except my timing is off, and the folks in Flums are busy enjoying their month-long summer vacation right now. Must be nice!

[bort]

PS -- Joe, I do appreciate your input and the time you take to share your thoughts. But I really have no other motivations with this other than those above. Any problems that exist with my playing, I can assure you, are NOT because of the speed and mass of this tuba's valves.

[bort]

...and yes, I've dealt with more than a couple of those tubas with those patented valves. They require ...well... a manly sort of player...and yes, I believe you to be up to the challenge...but no linkage system (straight or cockeyed, as long as it does not bind) is going to change their characteristics.

Again , I'm just curious about linkages in general -- there are several pictures of other tubas on recent threads right now with non-original linkages, so that's what made me think to ask.

As for Rotax valves? Oh, who knows. I did not buy this tuba specifically because of its Rotax valves, nor was I detracted by its Rotax valves. I was attracted by the fact that it was a true 5/4 sized rotary tuba, which is VERY well made, and (oh yeah) sounds great. Again, anything that is bad about the sound coming out the bell is all because of *me*, and not because of the tuba. Maybe a better player would notice some kind of difference, but for me, it's as good as it gets!

[bort]

But what about non-parallel linkages?

Kidding...

I mean, maybe if I play this next to a Miraphone 186 I'd notice a difference between the rotors, but to be honest, in daily use, it just hasn't been an issue to me, not even a little bit. And not to the other previous owners of this tuba either. As with anything else, I'm guessing personal preference rules the day here.

And when I wonder why more of these don't exist, I remind myself that a big part of it is the $20k+ price tag -- a price range that has very few shoppers and allows for nearly every other option to be considered.

BTW, I drove through this town yesterday. Perhaps I should play my tuba there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manley,_Minnesota

[Rick Denney]

The rotary Willson F tuba (I'm guesstimating...) costs DEALERS around $12K.
My next guess, then, is that few dealers are willing to stick their necks out to order (even) one.
Thus players are almost never able to evaluate their playing characteristics.
Thus the level of "chatter" (on sites such as this) regarding this model is low.

fwiw, the (again: rare) Willson ROTARY F tuba offers "very good" (not "the world's greatest", but "very good") intonation and is - hands-down - "the world champion" as far as low range power/security/resonance is concerned.

I can agree with that. I had an opportunity at an Army conference about a decade back to sit with a 3200R for a good while. I thought it was really a wonderful F tuba. I think Kenyon Wilson ended up with one of these. It had all the bottom end for which the piston Willson F tuba is known, but it sounded like an F tuba instead of a small contrabass.

Rick "whose definition of 'good' usually means 'easy'" Denney

[vespa50sp]

I realize this would be better with pictures...

I've noticed that on a lot of tubas with non-original rotary valve linkages, the linkages are not always parallel, and sometimes have odd bends or other shapes... whereas on the original linkages, the rods are all straight and parallel to each other.

Is there a particular reason for this? I've seen the non-parallel linkages done by repairmen who clearly know what they are doing, so it's not like it was a mistake or sloppy work. Right?

Just seems to me like straight and parallel linkages not only look the cleanest, but might function the best as well. Is it really just not all that important?

Any thoughts?

I did the du-bros uniball conversion on my old Eb. It doesn't look the same as it did with S-links, but the price was right and it sure got rid of the noise. The linkages are fairly parallel to each other, but the angle of the linkages are a bit more severe between the keys and rotors. I'm happy with how it turned out.
http://www.rickdenney.com/valve_linkages.htm" target="_blank

[bort]

<sidebar>

Sometime when I have a chance, I'll have to pop one of my rotors out and take a look. You've told me this before, just haven't actually done it yet.

More/less/same resistance... who knows without an A/B test, which is pretty much impossible to control every other factor. It works for me, and that's all that matters. Over and out!