"I don't like pistons/rotors."

Tubas, euphoniums, mouthpieces, and anything music-related.
Forum rules
This section is for posts that are directly related to performance, performers, or equipment. Social issues are allowed, as long as they are directly related to those categories. If you see a post that you cannot respond to with respect and courtesy, we ask that you do not respond at all.
JC2
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:44 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by JC2 »

the elephant wrote: Sun Mar 30, 2025 3:09 pm 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>
That’s an interesting perspective. I don’t have a problem with either valve system as long as they’re good like you say.
I would however say I appreciate a very noticeable difference in how a rotary and piston tuba play and how they sound.

Mentally/conceptually it’s probably quite a good thing to play both types with the attitude of ‘they play the same’. This is a good idea for me to put into practice, I’ll incorporate this.

However some observations, I do find rotary tubas take more care and precision to slur cleanly. I find Pistons are more forgiving, I can blow straight through slurs with no burrs. Rotary tubas need a bit different technique to play well for me. Hard to describe in words, but rotary tubas won’t let me blow hard through big changes in valve length. I have to blow ‘wide’ and relaxed to get a good clean slur.

I play both rotary and piston at work and love them. Definitly wouldn’t say one is better than the other but I have to change my technique a little bit for best results.

Piston tubas I use:
Yamaha 822
Eastman 836

Rotary tubas I use:
B&S PT12
Rudy Meinl 4/4
Yamaha 841 Bb


Grumpikins
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:09 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by Grumpikins »

I have to say that this is an excellent conversation.

My own experience... I have played mostly piston valves instruments. And am most comfortable with them.

I did own a miraphone 186 for just over a year, 25 years ago. I had some difficulty with the rotary valves but I'm pretty sure that was due to them being maintained by people who were unfamiliar with rotary valve tubas. Myself included. Looking back I'm sure that tuba was more than adequate for my needs then and now. But I was brainwashed by my peers at the time. Not that I regret trading it. I would like to get my hands on another decent rotary tuba sometime.

I believe there is a noticeable difference in sound. Wessex has a video where Will Drueitt plays the same passage on several different wessex tubas and you can really tell which are piston and rotary. Listen to the video, then watch it.

In the topic about orchestras of the past having distinct sound characteristic applies to tubas as well. They should not all sound the same. Boring!
These users thanked the author Grumpikins for the post:
Lee Stofer (Mon Apr 07, 2025 8:41 am)
Meinl Weston 2145 CC
King Symphonic BBb circa 1936ish
Pre H.N.White, Cleveland Eb 1924ish (project)
Conn Sousaphone, fiberglass 1960s? (Project)
Olds Baritone 1960s?
Hoping to find a dirt cheap Flugabone
:smilie7:
User avatar
the elephant
Posts: 3817
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:39 am
Location: Yazoo City, Mississippi (stop laughing!)
Has thanked: 2214 times
Been thanked: 1618 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by the elephant »

The valves — again — do not function all that differently.

The differences between "pistons and rotors" are much more a factor of how the horns are shaped.

In the past, it would have been safe to say that rotary tubas used a "Germanic" design language (not "German"), with rotary valves being what could be purchased via the local cottage industry.

To use Rotary valves, the maker needs to have space to stack a series of them in a long, skinny row. Rotor casings, being made individually and joined by a ferrule using soft solder, are not only much "fatter" than a piston, but are also spaced out much more than pistons, because that ferrule must have adequate length on each knuckle for the solder to make a strong bond.

Pistons, on the other hand, are very tall and thin, and the traditional way of joining them into a set is to braze them together permanently. Each piston has a different internal layout. Usually, there are two sets of measurements, and the 3rd is the 1st that has been flipped around. (The knuckles are rotated to the needed positions at the time of assembly.)

The reason for this is strength, as the distance between the valves has to be tight. You cannot create a strong bond between two tubes that add up to the length of the knuckle between two pistons using a ferrule and soft solder.

Here is why this has to be: Pistons are operated by your fingers DIRECTLY. Rotary valves are actuated indirectly. THEREFORE…

Rotary valves can have a super-fat OD and can be spaced apart as far as needed, BECAUSE THE PLAYER DOES NOT HAVE TO PUT HIS FINGERS ON THE VALVES.

Look at a rotary tuba. Notice that the linkage system works to compress the space between the rotor stems to something closer to the human hand in span, then the levers do this again. You end up with a middle schooler's hand being able to easily manipulate four valves that are about eight inches apart.

OKAY… SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND?

Rotary tuba bugles developed as they did for a few reasons.

• A tuba must fit in an average-sized adult male's lap (the builder's main demographic) while giving easy access to the mouthpiece and the valves.

• A tuba's bugle must have adequate physical space to install a block of valves that also minimizes any damage to the acoustics of the straight bugle.

• The bugle must have bends at locations where nodes and antinodes are least affected by 180º bends. (Tight bends in tubing can be seen by the sound wave as a slight expansion of the tube's bore size and can drive pitches that have nodal points inside that curve somewhat flat.)

Because of this, piston and rotary tubas' bugles are shaped differently to accommodate their valves.

Next…

Because front/side piston valves take up very little room horizontally and vertically when compared with rotors — but require a great deal of DEPTH to install them (with access to the rear caps) — they end up in the center of the wrap where there is a big donut hole for them to live in. FA piston tubas tend to be rounder in shape (shorter/wider) when compared with Germanic rotary tubas.

Rotary tubas require a long, narrow "slot" in the bugle to install a stack of rotors (with access to the rear caps). Therefore, most older rotary horns are designed with bugles that are tall and narrow.

FA piston tubas have the entrance to the valves very close to the player's face, with the 1st port being angled toward the player, so they naturally have a very short leadpipe (anywhere between 14" and 20" being pretty common). If you have a natural-ish taper rate, this gives you middle-zized valves, the two most common sizes for FA tubas (with notable exceptions) being .687"/.689" and .750", which are not large at all.

Rotary tubas usually have the valves set over to the far side of the bugle with the leadpipe entering from straight above the valves or (on many very old BBb tubas) from 45º away from the player, with the leadpipe being close to three feet in length! If you follow a sensible taper rate, this sets the valves much farther along that taper and requires the builder to use LARGE valves.

Because (for many years) rotary valve makers were limited in the upper end of bore size by then-available tooling, they could not make rotors above a certain bore size. So the taper between the receiver and the first rotor in the stack had to be pretty moderate, so when you got out to the bell, the throat was fairly narrow, and a narrow flare was used.

FA piston tubas, with very little room between the receiver and 1st valve, ended up with slightly faster tapers, and had another foot and a half for the taper to develop after exiting the valves. These horns ended up both more round AND volumetrically "fatter" with sometimes stupidly large sousaphone flares on the end.

Add to all this (something so important to design that I am mentioning AGAIN) the fact that pistons are operated directly and rotors have a transmission system, and you can see that the valves themselves have little to nothing to do with how a horn plays. It is all these other MUCH MORE IMPORTANT factors that create the differences some of you think you are feeling due to "pistons or rotors". It is not the different valves you are sensing. It is that these two different types of valves REQUIRE two very different types of tubas. IT IS THE TUBAS THEMSELVES THAT DIFFER.

Even when you have horns available with piston and rotor versions (PT-6, Neptune, etc.), it is more due to the compromises that must be made to effect that massive change than the type of valves themselves. There are some key differences between the bugles of the PT6 and the PT6-P that no one seems prepared to acknowledge. Nope. It is the VALVES causing all those "piston versus rotors" differences, baby; the valves.

Yep. That must be it.

:coffee:
Last edited by the elephant on Fri Apr 04, 2025 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These users thanked the author the elephant for the post (total 5):
Grumpikins (Fri Apr 04, 2025 4:39 pm) • TxTx (Sat Apr 05, 2025 12:31 am) • BramJ (Sat Apr 05, 2025 2:07 am) • catgrowlB (Sat Apr 05, 2025 8:05 pm) • Lee Stofer (Mon Apr 07, 2025 8:45 am)
Image
User avatar
the elephant
Posts: 3817
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:39 am
Location: Yazoo City, Mississippi (stop laughing!)
Has thanked: 2214 times
Been thanked: 1618 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by the elephant »

Top action tubas are a thing unto themselves, and since most of them seem to be compers (or very old American tubas that share bugles with FA horns), I will not address them here.
Image
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 20842
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 4318 times
Been thanked: 4593 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by bloke »

It becomes problematic to build a functional piston (both geometrically increased surface contact and length of the valve stroke becoming issues) whereby the bore size begins to approach 8/10ths of an inch...
...so rotors to the rescue (if a really large bore becomes part of the equation).

short-stroke valves...particularly of the Conn design: all of that extra surface area tends to slow them down, unless more tolerance (slop) is built in. Additionally... being more massive, they tend to not return as fast. Notice that Conn never claimed that they were faster...' only shorter.

Those made today by them: no comment, other than "no comment".
These users thanked the author bloke for the post:
the elephant (Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:53 pm)
User avatar
MiBrassFS
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:25 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by MiBrassFS »

Just because I had them both laying here, Meinl Weston “Big Valve” pistons vs 20J “Short Action” pistons. Grams and millimeters. That’s how I roll!

MW = 107 grams, 92.66 mm tall, 29.15 mm diameter.

Conn = 90 grams, 90.40 mm tall, 31.00 mm diameter.

Conn feels a bit lighter and faster. A lot shorter travel! Both are in good shape with plenty of vacuum “pop.” Very different, both are easy enough to use.

Had a reason to dork around with the new caliper, too!

Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.45 PM.jpeg
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.45 PM.jpeg (77.88 KiB) Viewed 2493 times
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.30 PM.jpeg
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.30 PM.jpeg (74.71 KiB) Viewed 2493 times
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.33 PM.jpeg
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.33 PM.jpeg (56.33 KiB) Viewed 2493 times
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.32 PM.jpeg
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.32 PM.jpeg (59.95 KiB) Viewed 2493 times
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.31 PM.jpeg
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.31 PM.jpeg (49.95 KiB) Viewed 2493 times
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.31 PM.jpeg
Clipboard Apr 4, 2025 at 7.31 PM.jpeg (48.98 KiB) Viewed 2493 times
These users thanked the author MiBrassFS for the post (total 2):
arpthark (Fri Apr 04, 2025 6:10 pm) • catgrowlB (Sat Apr 05, 2025 8:06 pm)
gocsick
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:12 am
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by gocsick »

I've never felt the valves on the 20J as slow... In contrast the valves on the MW 20 are a bit sluggish compared to my son's Miraphone 186. Not enough to make me want to pay someone to modify them.. but definitely need to anticipate my fingering a bit.
As amateur as they come...I know just enough to be dangerous.

Meinl-Weston 20
Holton Medium Eb 3+1
Holton Collegiate Sousas in Eb and BBb
Conn 20J
and whole bunch of other "Stuff"
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 20842
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 4318 times
Been thanked: 4593 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by bloke »

gocsick wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 6:38 pm I've never felt the valves on the 20J as slow... In contrast the valves on the MW 20 are a bit sluggish compared to my son's Miraphone 186. Not enough to make me want to pay someone to modify them.. but definitely need to anticipate my fingering a bit.
I can't carry on an informed discussion with you about this, because I have no idea if any of the pistons are optimized and whether your perceptions are reality. This is no sort of insult (I respect your opinions a great deal), it's just that I'm not there with your instruments.

When I have Conn short action valves rebuilt, I can't have them built to the same tolerances as smaller diameter traditional tuba and sousaphone valves. Otherwise, when I oil them they almost will not go up and down.

I'm pretty sure I can play a 38K (traditional pistons .734" bore) with perfect valves just as fast as I can play a Conn 20K (short action pistons .734" bott) with perfect valves. Those are the closest comparison made by Conn that that there's any likelihood of finding one of each... Thus sort of talking around your 20J tuba and substituting for it a 20K sousaphone for a suggested ideal theoretical comparison.
User avatar
the elephant
Posts: 3817
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:39 am
Location: Yazoo City, Mississippi (stop laughing!)
Has thanked: 2214 times
Been thanked: 1618 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by the elephant »

After some work with those Ferree's slugs and sleeves to make them go up and down, my 24J has excellent, fast, quiet pistons. But it took a lot of work to get them there.

And, while very fast, they have an upper speed limit that my Nirschl-made piston sets do not seem to have. They are excellent when aligned properly, but definitely not quite as good. Nirschl set the bar very high for piston valve sets.
Image
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 20842
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 4318 times
Been thanked: 4593 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by bloke »

I think we also should think about the fact that side action pistons don't have to defy gravity on the return.
These users thanked the author bloke for the post:
the elephant (Fri Apr 04, 2025 10:02 pm)
gocsick
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:12 am
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by gocsick »

bloke wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:44 pm
gocsick wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 6:38 pm I've never felt the valves on the 20J as slow... In contrast the valves on the MW 20 are a bit sluggish compared to my son's Miraphone 186. Not enough to make me want to pay someone to modify them.. but definitely need to anticipate my fingering a bit.
I can't carry on an informed discussion with you about this, because I have no idea if any of the pistons are optimized and whether your perceptions are reality. This is no sort of insult (I respect your opinions a great deal), it's just that I'm not there with your instruments.

When I have Conn short action valves rebuilt, I can't have them built to the same tolerances as smaller diameter traditional tuba and sousaphone valves. Otherwise, when I oil them they almost will not go up and down.

I'm pretty sure I can play a 38K (traditional pistons .734" bore) with perfect valves just as fast as I can play a Conn 20K (short action pistons .734" bott) with perfect valves. Those are the closest comparison made by Conn that that there's any likelihood of finding one of each... Thus sort of talking around your 20J tuba and substituting for it a 20K sousaphone for a suggested ideal theoretical comparison.
I think I just made what my wife calls a "Steve"ism - where I feel I say something clearly but the rest of the word hears/reads what I actually said instead of what I meant.

More clearly - I never felt the valves on the 20J were slow. I actually think they are quite good. My MW rotors on the other hand feel a little sluggish compared with other good rotors. That appears to be a common complain on these 1970s MW tubas.. so I live with it and have learned to work with them.. because I like so many other things about the tuba.
These users thanked the author gocsick for the post:
bloke (Sat Apr 05, 2025 7:55 am)
As amateur as they come...I know just enough to be dangerous.

Meinl-Weston 20
Holton Medium Eb 3+1
Holton Collegiate Sousas in Eb and BBb
Conn 20J
and whole bunch of other "Stuff"
User avatar
MiBrassFS
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:25 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by MiBrassFS »

Clean and in good repair valves, piston or rotor, work well.

“I don’t like tubas that suck.”
These users thanked the author MiBrassFS for the post:
bloke (Sat Apr 05, 2025 7:56 am)
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 20842
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 4318 times
Been thanked: 4593 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by bloke »

Some people know that I owned a tuba with those same European pistons for quite a few years. They were terrible when I bought the instrument, but - knowing what was wrong (plural) - I didn't deter me and I didn't even try to negotiate a lower price.

Less than a half hour after I got the instrument home they were fine. Swapping them out with aftermarket pistons that weighed less defined the valve action as even nicer.
User avatar
jtm
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Has thanked: 754 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by jtm »

the elephant wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 2:03 pm
Rotary tubas require a long, narrow "slot" in the bugle to install a stack of rotors (with access to the rear caps). Therefore, most older rotary horns are designed with bugles that are tall and narrow.

FA piston tubas have the entrance to the valves very close to the player's face, with the 1st port being angled toward the player, so they naturally have a very short leadpipe (anywhere between 14" and 20" being pretty common). If you have a natural-ish taper rate, this gives you middle-zized valves, the two most common sizes for FA tubas (with notable exceptions) being .687"/.689" and .750", which are not large at all.

Rotary tubas usually have the valves set over to the far side of the bugle with the leadpipe entering from straight above the valves or (on many very old BBb tubas) from 45º away from the player, with the leadpipe being close to three feet in length! If you follow a sensible taper rate, this sets the valves much farther along that taper and requires the builder to use LARGE valves.

Because (for many years) rotary valve makers were limited in the upper end of bore size by then-available tooling, they could not make rotors above a certain bore size. So the taper between the receiver and the first rotor in the stack had to be pretty moderate, so when you got out to the bell, the throat was fairly narrow, and a narrow flare was used.

FA piston tubas, with very little room between the receiver and 1st valve, ended up with slightly faster tapers, and had another foot and a half for the taper to develop after exiting the valves. These horns ended up both more round AND volumetrically "fatter" with sometimes stupidly large sousaphone flares on the end.
I’ve seen (in admittedly limited experience) some rotary tubas with impressively long leadpipes and a tall wrap, but this prompted me to measure a Miraphone 188. You can reach the backs of all the rotors, so there’s definitely a slot, but the slot is only just tall enough for the rotors. Somehow, the whole wrap is short (not tall) and round. The leadpipe is about 20”. I’ve no idea what this does for the sound — is it more like a similar size piston tuba? — but I do find it super comfortable to hold.
John Morris
This practicing trick actually seems to be working!
playing some old German rotary tubas for free
User avatar
Sousaswag
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 300 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by Sousaswag »

But even then there’s so much variation. Look at the HB’s. Their HB2P (390) pasted a piston valve section on a (supposedly) rotary body. It features the super long leadpipe too.

The 5450/5450RA to me play almost identically. Duh. They’re based on the same body.

My own Willson 3200RZ and my old 3200FA-5 are also based on the same body and play pretty much identically.

If we’re talking traditional rotor horns (tall/thin) and traditional piston horns (short/fat) sure, there’s a difference, but it’s not going to be the valve type.

I think one can have a preference on what feel they prefer, but to say rotors are better or pistons are better isn’t a great argument. Those kids should look at the huge amount of pros playing on a piston C and rotor F, and then claim one valve type is better :laugh:
Meinl Weston "6465"
B&M CC
Willson 3200RZ-5
Holton 345
Holton 350
Conn Double-Bell Euphonium
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 20842
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 4318 times
Been thanked: 4593 times

Re: "I don't like pistons/rotors."

Post by bloke »

That's some good information, but all the additional surface drag is the main factor that I was trying to emphasize.

I've been aware of that those pistons in Buffet instruments are overbuilt, and even mentioned it when discussing York .750" bore pistons of nearly a century ago which were actually quite a bit longer but weighed quite a bit less...and the aftermarket Meinlschmidt pistons being noticeably lighter, which is why I like them, and not for any porting reasons.

I guess what I'm saying is given the same diameter, of course I would choose lighter and given the choice of diameters, I would choose smaller.

At the risk of being redundant, back when demigod, Dave Secrist, rebuilt 20K pistons for me, I would always remind him to make them with more a generous tolerance than with any other tuba pistons, because one time he sent some of these to me built to his typical amazing tolerances, they worked okay with no oil, but with thin valve oil, they quit going up and down... just too much surface drag - even when driven by those venerable Conn valve springs.
Post Reply