My Willson 3200RZ Repair Thread

[MiBrassFS]

The diagrams are inaccurate, because those rotors are typical size/diameter rotors which feature overall diameters which are nowhere close to two times the diameter of the bore of the tubing connected to them. Putting the material on the outside in order to make the round holes simply takes additional passageway bore away from them.

Were it that the passageways were truly the same bore as the tubing connected to them, they would overlap each other by quite a bit. Notice the little tan football shapes on the outsides which actually take away bore.

Those giant diameter rotors made out of aluminum that they were sticking on Conn 88H trombones for a while (Lindberg...??) are actually "full" bore through them, but they have their own mechanical and other problems.

The tan footballs take away (oddly shape, casing wall dependent…) “bore” and (the intention is to…) remove turbulence. That’s their purpose.

Better? Worse?

[Sousaswag]

Here’s what I understand from that diagram - all they do is constrict air differently, and add extra weight because of that.

[bloke]

The diagram is inaccurate, and way over-representative of the size of the passageway.

[MiBrassFS]

The diagram is just for illustration for people who never fiddled with a Rotax valve. It wasn’t meant nor was it represented as a drawing of an actual Rotax valve. It’s just there to show the bits and pieces as well as the principle of turbulence reduction (often the point of Fluid Dynamics studies) in play.

Maybe think of them as “Anti-MAW” valves!

One seeks to improve adding material, one seeks to improve by subtracting material.

[bloke]

The diameter of the rotor body - in relation to the indicated diameter of the tubing - is way out proportion, and - just in my own opinion - misleading. The channel through the rotor is not where close to that wide.

again: The actual diameter of those rotor bodies is less than 2X the diameter of the tubing connected to the rotor bodies.
I don't know any other way to describe/express it.

As far as turbulence/fluid dynamics, not only are those really not much of an issue, but - when the diameter of a passage in an illustration (which is supposed to be related to those topics) is wildly distorted - it really doesn't contribute much of anything positive to any discussion (again: in my opinion). Who created and published the diagram?

rotor channels.png (10.89 KiB) Viewed 21282 times

I'm not angry with anyone, but this issue is a pet peeve.

[MiBrassFS]

Yeah. I noticed. Peeve noted!

I also understand how these different valves work (or don’t…). I’m not disputing your points. Inserting them into or subtracting them from a system will either be a positive, a negative, or just neutral. All valves are a compromise proposition. Some more than others.

Again, looking forward to the results here.

[the elephant]

ROTAX valves are a gimmick using the Venturi effect to make it FEEL as though the valve design increases flow while reducing resistance when it actually increases resistance and makes the horn play better (or at least not worse) while feeling "better". Most players dislike the feeling of resistance in the low register without understanding that it makes the low register work better. The Venturi effect can add resistance while making it "feel" better when you play.

It is a gimmick, and a very clever one at that. However, it makes the valves function (mechanically) poorly, IMHO. And Willson linkages have always sort of sucked, making that overall clunkiness even worse. These were the shiznit when they were new, but people are figuring out that they are a gimmick, and the magic is wearing off as we collectively figure this out.

If one could easily and cheaply slap some Miraphone rotors on it, I am 100% certain that the horn would play the same. It would, however, feel different. I also suspect that the low range would "open up" a little at the same time.

I suspect that a lot of the innovations applied to tubas starting in the late 1980s up through the early 2000s were made specifically to make the tubas feel better to buyers in elephant rooms at conventions. However, I also suspect that a lot of these feel-good innovations are responsible for a lot of the tuning weirdness we experience in the ensemble with these same designs.

What I'm saying here is that I have long suspected that since the advent of CMC's push in the late 1980s, tubas have been built more for playing by yourself (hopefully in a huge, noisy space where it is hard to hear pitch clearly) and less for excellence in an ensemble where it will be used by the owner. No one ever test-drives a brand new tuba in an orchestra. Because you can't, under normal life circumstances. Gotta go with the money, folks, and the money is in what sells in the elephant rooms around the globe.

ROTAX is just another gimmick. The design uses flowery words and not-quite-accurate images to sell us on "increased flow volume", which is actually the opposite of what is happening (which is increased flow feeling). These valves are the Pocket Rocket of the valve-maker's world. @bloke ought to appreciate that comment, even if he disagrees with my entire line of thinking, here.

[MiBrassFS]

A couple of years back Getzen used Rotax valves on some of their trombones (T396 and B502, I think…). I wonder how the heck that ever happened?!

———————————

Does anyone know which Willson tuba got Rotaxed first? The 3200 and 3400 are pretty big bass tubas. Did the Rotax valve tame (choke?) them a bit and give better player “feel” and feedback accordingly? In essence, the right place for a “wrong” valve. It would make sense and possibly align with what Wade posted above…

[the elephant]

The advent of the ROTAX valve seemed to be at the same time the Kurath F became the Willson 3200. The Kurath Cc was dumped, and the Willson 3050 came out soon after. Willson already existed (since the 1950s, I hear), and the two (only?) Kurath tubas were likely ginned up for CMC by request. (A guess.) At some point, WK was unhappy with CMC/PT, and either CMC/PT or WK dissolved the partnership. This unhappiness stemmed from alterations to the two Kurath tuba models. I cannot remember whether CMC or WK wanted them, but the other party resisted, and this eventually led to the dissolution of the partnership. I heard that WK wanted to make some changes and that PT resisted them. However, Occam's Razor tells me that the opposite was probably the case. However, if what I heard was the case, perhaps the ROTAX valve was one of the intended changes, and perhaps the PT team did not like the valve. Who knows? I certainly don't.

During all this, the engraving on the bells changed, but I can never get a clear, straight story from anyone who *should* know. I have heard they were originally released with "KURATH - PERANTUCCI" on the bells and that after the dissolution of the partnership, it was changed to "KURATH", which is what is on my horn's bell. My horn was made in 1989. So after the engraving was changed, I suspect he tried to take these two horns to market by himself, separate from the already-existing family business. I think that "Willson" may have been the family business and that his father (Grandpa Willi?) named it that, though the cutsie "Willson" may have been a more recent change by Daddy Willi from something else. Either way, he was at TMEA in 1990, selling his two tuba models from a booth very close to Fred M's CMC booth with Mr. P himself there in his plaid polyester jacket and huge cookieduster.

The occupants of the two booths seemed not to be able to see one another.

So my guess is that this is when the "KURATH" engraving was first used. I think the F became the 3200 with the addition of the ROTAX valve shortly after that, and the excellent-but-unholdable CC was shelved. The DEG SuperMag contras made by Willson used the same bell and bottom bows as the excellent CC tuba, so he got some mileage out of them. But the 3050 is shorter and fatter, if you can believe that. (The Kurath CC was a tall tuba lacking any place for your left hand if you needed access to the 1st slide. You could not ever really reach the 1st slide except over the top bow, which was about ten miles above the player's lap. It was a great player, but very difficult to adjust pitch as you play, very lap heavy, and very unbalanced.)

I think he had patented the ROTAX valve a few years before all this. Maybe 1985? (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?)

So maybe it was Kurath-Perantucci, Kurath, and then (with the addition of the ROTAX valve and other changes) Willson. All of this seems to have happened between 1985 and 1995, IIRC.

I sure would like to read something on this from an actual authority who was there and knows the dates and intentions. It is a muddled, murky, and confused story, to be sure.

[the elephant]

An alternative would be Kurath first, and the PT boys liked them and picked them up for distribution through CMC, then adding "-Perantucci" to the bells, THEN the split, with a name change right away, along with the addition of the new valve, which was a huge advertising ploy, so it makes sense that he would rebadge the horn as a part of christening his new valve.

Hey, I'm just making this up through the combination of bits and pieces of fact that I have collected over the years and a LOT of hearsay.

But I'm swinging for the bleachers anyway.

[bloke]

I don't disagree that they increase resistance. I have no argument. I would put forth it the D shaped bore pinching caused by rotary valves adds enough resistance without adding a little bit more, as well as more friction and more weight on the part of the valve that where you don't want more weight, which is around the circumference.

...and they call for stronger springs, whereby I adamantly dislike unnecessarily strong springs.

Nothing nothing Wade said is incorrect.

[MiBrassFS]

@the elephant Thanks for that great info and perspective. My first hand experiences with all those entities didn’t really start until @ 1995.

———————————

I think of the Rotax valves as providing a “piston valve-like” condition in a rotary valve package. I think that was their intent with the target result being more consistency when matched with pistons. Seems to work well as a 5th valve after a big piston valve set. I wouldn’t be against trying a standard rotor in the one instrument I own that sports a Rotax, but I sure wouldn’t want to negatively affect how very well it plays for me. It doesn’t annoy me that Rotax valves exist.

In the end, the results here really won’t be completely informative for my single Rotax situation, but I’m still looking forward to learning about the results.

I’m kind of sorry I missed the “plaid suit and cookie duster era!” Sounds a bit… entertaining!

[Sousaswag]

@the elephant that’s some awesome information. Some here will remember I’ve owned BOTH piston and rotary 3200 F tubas, even had them in the same room for a while.

The single rotax didn’t bother me at all on that piston F born in 2002-ish? It responded as well as anything, but still when one engaged that valve there was a noticeable weight difference compared to other thumb valves (duh).

The ALL rotax tuba bothers me. It responds and plays again as well as anything, but the physical weight is just too much. I’m certainly interested to see how the tuba’s response changes with this modification, if at all.

I do intend on changing the springs out ASAP when I get the valves back. With the saved weight, heavy springs can go. That, and a few of them are bent to $h!t.

Once my Holton 345 is built and back in my hands, I’ll turn my attention to the horrid linkage on this F tuba.

[Sousaswag]

Martin has my valves, thank goodness. I’m so excited and ready for this to finally get done. I’ll update when I hear back!

[Sousaswag]

The valves are DONE and on their way back to me already. Wow! Exciting!

[arpthark]

Quick turnaround! Martin is the man!

[MiBrassFS]

Excellent! Looking forward to the after shots.

[Sousaswag]

I sure will post some. I'd bet they arrive Monday.

Martin did mention this:

"The valves are better now than factory! At some point you may want to consider the rotation of the valves (which way they spin) when they are becoming engaged. That's a job for another day."

I assume then he means changing the way some of them rotate so they all spin the same direction? Is there a perceived benefit there?

[MiBrassFS]

I imagine that’s exactly what he’s referencing. Some people feel that having all the rotors turn with the air flow and not against it is of some benefit.

[Sousaswag]

They're back! I'm kicking myself for not weighing these before the surgery. Whatever.

I won't be able to post much about them until Friday. I was just able to swing home today to meet the UPS guy and sign for them before running back to work, and tomorrow I have rehearsal on CC tuba. Oh well.

But... They're here, back in my possession. Yahoo!

[