"I don't like pistons/rotors."

[bloke]

suggestion #1:

Those of you who've written off one or the other, consider that it could have been...
- the angle at which the buttons or levers (on the one, two, or six instruments you tried with one-or-the-other type) met you fingers
- (simply too much) spring tension, crappy rotors, or crappy pistons (based on my experience, there are quite a few of these...and even more COULD - after some attention - be serviced back into excellent rotors or pistons)

suggestion #2:
- Keep an open mind, in order to avoid overlooking a really great instrument which might actually end up being a "perfect fit".

suggestion #Addendum:
- Maybe (??) all tubas aren't meant to be held/cradled at the same playing angle. (extreme example of this) Attempting to hold-and-play top-action tubas as if they are side-action...really uncomfortable.

bloke "Maybe (??), consider the part in red first. I won't/don't tolerate any of this, and I'm fine with either type of valves...with 'valve system type' being fairly low on my personal list. note: I'm not selling anything, here, and I'm not trying to stir up a ruckus...only suggesting to (regardless of which) maybe continue to give all tubas - in a particular requirement (length/size) range - a fair shot."

[the elephant]

I simply don't notice any sort of *real* difference between how the two play. None. I am perfectly happy with either type of valve. However, they must work perfectly at all times. I own both, will always own both, and have never figured out why some folks are so vocal about disliking one or the other. I think that is absolute silliness based on physical appearance and some bizarre form of the placebo effect.

I love good rotors.

I love good pistons.

Too bad that there are so many examples of each that are not very good. A lot of that is due to an inattention to proper cleaning (lime/hard deposits) and setup (linkages, bumpers, etc.), so that functionality and "feel" are negatively affected.

"Rotors slur better."

"Pistons slur better."

Balderdash!

I have repeatedly read both opinions on this site, typed with great personal conviction, and it is largely nonsense. If valves work properly, they all play largely the same. If they do not play largely the same, then they are not functioning properly.

Many years ago, the two types differed enough for even stupid guys like me to notice it, but this was not because one was better at something than the other. It is the opposite: the differences were due to their shortcomings. Now, due to advances with CAD, those shortcomings have been more or less corrected (factory venting and weight/friction reduction, for example). So today they play much more alike than unalike — because those shortcomings have been minimized.

</rant>

[bloke]

subtopic: tuba legato/slurs:

A guy - who most likely regard as an "important" tuba player (btw...NOT a Jacobs disciple, and - possibly - not even a particular fan of Jacobs) LEARNED something from Mr. Jacobs that they then passed on to me:

for less "mechanical-sounding" slurs at slow tempi, move the valves (pistons or rotors) SLOWLY, but (well, duh) keep the "buzz" going.

Mr. Jacobs did not "teach" them this, but they OBSERVED Mr. Jacobs doing this (specifically: when playing the Mahler 1 solo on "the big C".)

...This goes against everything most all band directors (and against what - likely - most studio teachers) teach.

[russiantuba]

I remember every time I have tried the Miraphone 281 Bruckner CC, I have stated that if I didn’t know it was a rotor horn (as in someone else pressing the valves), I would assume it was a Miraphone 1291.

Part of it is good horn design. It seems like some older models have taken rotors off of a certain model and put a piston valve set.

[bloke]

The Holton adaptation of their old 6/4 model into one that more physically resembled the CSO York (more vertical oriented valve section like King, and a narrower upper large bow) - and reintroduced as the (mostly) B-flat and (rarely) C version of the 345 model - never seemed to catch on, but - for some reason (actually hype in an edition of the T U B.A. Journal c. 1980) when a Swiss factory made a knock off of the CSO York, pistons suddenly caught on like wildfire, and they began pasting that same Walter Nischl-made valve section onto their (same Swiss factory) rotary C normal-sized model. Even though it was sort of awkwardly pasted together, the normal sized one sold like wildfire as well, and the piston craze was off to the races. Since then, it's never stopped.

As I recall, the Holton 345 tubas in the 1970s were priced at $7,500, which at that time seemed to me to be a fortune, but when the Swiss made their C-only yorkophone, they were introduced at $10,000. Go to an inflation calculator and check out $10,000 in 1980 versus the equivalent amount in 2025... I'll save you the trouble: about 42,000 bucks.

[catgrowlB]

^ I still like and have a soft spot for Hirsbrunners. I know there are more 'refined' Yorkaphones out now, but I still really enjoy Yorkbrunners.

As for rotors or pistons, I like em both as long as they are well built. For old rotors, a lot of the time the linkage needs to be tightened and oiled first.

My favorite piston valves are vintage replated/rebuilt HN White (King) valves. The pistons and casings are smooth and tight, the lower and upper caps are classy, yet beefy. And the old/vintage (mother-of-pearl) valve buttons are also nice.

[bloke]

^ I still like and have a soft spot for Hirsbrunners. I know there are more 'refined' Yorkaphones out now, but I still really enjoy Yorkbrunners.

As for rotors or pistons, I like em both as long as they are well built. For old rotors, a lot of the time the linkage needs to be tightened and oiled first.

My favorite piston valves are vintage replated/rebuilt HN White (King) valves. The pistons and casings are smooth and tight, the lower and upper caps are classy, yet beefy. And the old/vintage (mother-of-pearl) valve buttons are also nice.

I can understand the nostalgia, but - having owned the 4/4 thing they made (for a year) with the same intonation tendencies, I could never figure out - really - how to play a tuba with the E-flat below the staff M.I.A.

[iiipopes]

I have played both. Currently I play a Jupiter JTU1110 because it has good tone and intonation, the valves fit my hand a little better, and most importantly, the piston bore is about the same as my Conn *real* 36K so it is a tad easier to switch back and forth depending on whether the gig is outdoors or indoors. When I played my Bessophone, I had a fitting with my tech to position the receiver to the height and overbite of my embouchure and set the paddles to my hand. Pistons? Rotors? They both play well. It all comes down to personal preference, so long as one is not completely deprecated in mentioning the other.

[Sousaswag]

I like my rotors better now that they’re as light as normal rotors.

I’ve complained on and on about Willson rotary tubas and actually did something about it. Your point about spring tension and weight is spot on for both valve types.

My other previous rotary tubas? Never had an issue with the valve type. I sent them on for other reasons.

[the elephant]

My lack of understanding is not that some people have a genuine preference; it is my being unable to "get" all the people who simply refuse to try one or the other based on some half-baked, single experience they had in high school. They always tend to make wild, inaccurate blanket statements that fairly scream that they lack any experience with good examples of both, and then dismiss one or the other in the same manner that little children will hate on a food item based on how it looks. "Lima beans look gross to me. I hate them." "I won't try cauliflower because it looks like tiny brains!" "I won't ever buy a rotary tuba. I greatly prefer pistons because rotors just look clunky to me."

People like this are present here in this community, and the old TN community is overrun with them.

We have a bumper crop of them nationally, based on some of the politics on both sides right now. People can be so damnably stupid. Not unintelligent, but stupid. If you don't know the exact definitions of both words, you need to look them up. I am being very specific here. It is like the difference between a problem and a dilemma.

To my way of thinking, the chief difference between the two types of valves is that a piston valve's stroke length cannot be adjusted. The geometry of rotary valve lever systems gives a good repair guy infinite adjustment based on the lengths of each part of the lever/linkage system; he just needs to do the math and make the new parts.

I am currently shortening the stroke length of the 5th/6th levers of my Kurath because I have never used my left fingers for valves, and they are underdeveloped and weaker/slower than my right fingers for this task. Shortening the stroke length will allow my slightly slower fingers to "arrive at their destination" on time.

It is also easier to dial in spring rates on rotary levers than with pistons, but with pistons, swapping out springs is far less work.

In my opinion, the whole piston versus rotor debate is less about how they play and more about adjustability and the ability to alter things. Also, it is far easier to add a rotary valve to a horn than it is to add a piston valve.

15-year-old toobah playuh: Man, I *hate* rotary valves!

Me: Why?

15yo: Because they SUCK! That's why.

I can't stand people with brains that function like this, regardless of age.

Anyway, pistons are stupid. I like rotors because they look freaking cool.

[bloke]

...a much better expression of what I was trying to put forth in the original post. Thanks.

I don't know if anyone's willing to embrace any of the following, but there are also the fill in the blank brass players who think every mouthpiece they use on their different versions of their instrument need to have exactly the same rim, and - pertaining particularly to tuba players - every instrument they own has to have the same relative valve setup.

Hell... I've got six different types of valve configurations (and that ignores whether they are piston or rotary) on my various instruments that I use pretty regularly, and the different valve configurations actually help me to remember which instrument I'm playing, rather than confuse me. Something else I believe people underestimate is their bodies' and brains' abilities to adapt, and when they see other people who adapt to all sorts of different things very well, they consider those people to be savants or talented or gifted or something, rather than it occurring to them that they themselves could become just as adaptive.

a micro-example of the general point:
The mouthpiece (that I'm distributing to roughly twenty people as a limited first run) features a interior spacing for my lips which is almost a half a millimeter less than the spacing I've been using for decades, and the rim contour itself is also slightly adulterated. I like it fine. I think it makes it a little easier for me to control things and - otherwise - big whoop.

afterthought about rotary valves:
Wade made some really great points, but/and another thing about them is that several things have to work just so for them to be right there under your fingers and working so well with the human hand that the human isn't aware of the valves. My own rotary instruments are like this, but not many of my customers' tend to be. I do some rudimentary things to make theirs not horrible and they think I've performed miracles, but usually work I've done on others rotor systems are just addressing the obvious rather than dialing them in or doing what I've done to mine to sort of make mine as if the "racing engines" version of rotary valves... and I know damn well that Wade's valves are like that too..

I also encounter some really disappointing piston systems that people bring in, and often they're not even asking me to do any work on their valves, but they actually just want me to straighten out their bell and change the length of some slide or something.

I do agree with the general motive for the invalid reasons people give for stating that they only like one or the other, those reasons being that they don't want to be aware of the valves while they are playing music, but both systems can be made to be like that... okay, as long as they are built to work that well in the first place, which admittedly many are not.

[the elephant]

I am guilty of the "similar setup" thing. I am working to make my Holton work like my Kurath.

However, it is because I like this layout so much…

… and my workable choices are rather limited…

As I said in an earlier post (perhaps in another thread), I like it better when my horns have different layouts or valve types, as my dyslexia is less of a problem when I have a "different-feeling" tuba in my lap. I tend to remember which fingering system to use. This is of benefit when switching between the several CCs that I use, but it is a lifesaver when I have to switch between a CC and my F.

[bloke]

I can't keep up with either you or Mark. I save a post to make sure that my phone or laptop doesn't eat it, and then I go back and fix it, but - by the time I've fixed it fairly well - one or the other of you has read it and responded to it before I fixed it. LOL

[MN_TimTuba]

I'm no professional, nor do I play for anything "important". I just play a fair variety of instruments and I play a lot. I'm not intending to argue, discredit, or anything else, just feel like sharing my preferences.
I currently have both rotary and piston tubas and a rotary tenor tuba. I grew up on pistons. I play a lot of solos - church, dixieland, and accompanied by concert band, and I stand when I solo.
So a few years ago I sold my Holton 345 to friend Daniel in Germany, then had the funds to purchase a gorgeous gold brass rotary M-191-5 from Lee Stofer. Loved the sound, loved the ease of play, loved the low range, and others loved both the deep rich sound and the beautiful color. After a few months, though, I realized that (in my mind) the rotors potentially needed more time-consuming care than the pull 'em out, oil 'em, shove 'em in pistons. That kind of bugged me. Then I did my first solos with it, and had to wear a tuba harness to feel comfortable. That really bugged me. Sitting was just ok, but because the rotors are so close to the bell I always felt like it was tipping over. With pistons my right arm extends well around the front of the horn and it feels secure. I like that. Probably should have kept the 191 longer than 6 months to really get to know it and feel comfortable with the rotor upkeep, but when the opportunity came to trade it back to Lee for my current 5 valve Lee-tweaked 2341 I jumped at it. Playing the King felt like coming back home to the Reynolds I started on, the Olds and Yamaha 621's in my band, and the 345 that I'd had for decades, so I made the swap.
I still enjoy my rotary M-183 Eb and my Jin Bao rotary tenor tuba, and upkeep on them has been extremely minimal. Like I said, I probably should have kept the 191 longer, but here I am with a King that I do really like.
To sum it up, I guess my preference for pistons has nothing to do with the feel of the rotors or the pistons, but everything to do with the hand/arm position. Whether or not that's valid, it's what does it for me. For now, anyway.
I retire at the end of this year, and I'm considering purchase of either a Piggy-type BBb or CC (I'm comfortable with both) or a Yamaha 621-type as a retirement gift to myself. Just for fun and easy-totin'. As always, the considerin' and the shoppin' are maybe more fun than the buyin'.
So, that's me.
Tim

[bloke]

I suspect that the shape of the instrument - in relation to where the finger levers are mounted on it - had a great deal to do with the discomfort, and it had less to do with what type of valves it had.

There aren't that many tubas that are easy to cradle and play while standing, period... and it might have also had something to do with the shape of the instruments itself in relation to how your arm curved under it.

I thought about the possibility of standing and playing my 32-in tall 19 inch bell Holton B flat (front-action). I found two matching really heavy duty tuba strap rings with nice thick brass flanges braised to them. I put them in the two ideal spots for a standard straight nylon strap (in order to place the mouthpiece square on my mouth)... One of those spots ended up being a pretty weird place, but - well - it's a sort of funny shaped tuba. Just the fact that it's such a heavy little tuba was the main issue. It was pretty comfortable but even though my shoulder took the weight of it, it's a 24 lb tuba. The fact that I put a fifth valve on it and caps on both the upper bow and the bottom bow added some weight, obviously. (Originally, it was one of those old three valve top action "cute little" things. When it was beat up straight out of the shipping box and top action, I actually played a quintet recital on it and stood up for a couple of things, but it weighed a lot less. LOL.

[arpthark]

"I don't like pistons/rotors."

Solution:

[MikeS]

(@arpthark was a minute quicker on the trigger)
Frankly, I find all this talk about spring tension and adjustments to be daunting and yet oddly boring at the same time. Many years ago our French horn colleagues came up with a system that eliminates the need for all this fussiness. I say, free yourself from the tyranny of valves altogether! Fast technical passages could prove a bit more challenging*, but think of all the money you will save on valve oil. You also might need a crook management assistant while playing but, hey, nobody laughs at piano players that have somebody turning pages for them.



*Alternatively, you could have a 64’ C tuba and play everything up where the partials are closer together. Less crook swapping for a nominal gain in size and weight.

[Mary Ann]

For me, it is hand size, ergonomics, and lack of any extended time on a piston anything. I don't "hate" pistons, have no idea how they play differently (and I'm sure they do, because I can tell the valve timing difference for slurs between two (French) horns) -- but if your hands are so small and lacking in strength that you need to be able to whop valve levers like piano keys, you're likely to find that rotors work a lot better for you. I have yet to get a finger stuck between rotor paddles. My British Sterling euph has fine intonation and a fine euph sound, but for me trying to play fast on it just doesn't work.

[MiBrassFS]

"I don't like pistons/rotors."

“I don’t like tubas that suck.”

[bloke]

"I don't like pistons/rotors."

“I don’t like tubas that suck.”

We're on the same page. I've owned quite a few different tubas over the years...(I think it would be challenging for me to try to remember every tuba that I've ever personally owned.) I like piston valves just fine, and they certainly have fewer moving parts that have to be perfect, even though they have a huge one that - if it doesn't fit perfectly - you end up with nothing.

Looking around the room (and this is the first time I've even thought about this), the big B-flat, the F tuba, and the F cimbasso are all rotary, the short B-flat - which is frankly not used as often as the big one - is piston.. (that's the one that I put together myself) and most all of my auxiliary instruments - such as euphoniums and compensating E-flat and B-flat tubas of course - are piston instruments... But I think most Americans don't even think of top action compensating tubas as being piston instruments, because they (as a group thinking mob) are so dismissive of them. LOL.