TubaForum.net

bloke wrote:...and I also wonder why K never made (at least, that I ever saw) any real front-action tuba valvesets, and everything appeared to be improvised from top-action valvesets

I have asked (myself) this exact same question.

I assume (?) it would have to do with available tooling, assuming he made his own valve sets, which I (again) assume he did.

Due to metallurgy, design, or both (or neither), I loved my Kanstul 90. For whatever reason, it made "the sound," and it was EASY to play. Great valves and craftsmanship was spot-on. Had it not been for injury, I'd still have it. If I ever get my shoulder fixed, I'd own another one. I'd also consider a Kanstul EEb (top or side action), but there aren't many of those around.

Someone told me the next best thing was an Eastman 632 or 832 CC. While they play very well, and the intonation is nearly point-and-shoot, they do NOT make the same sound as the Kanstul - they are missing that extra little sparkle/mojo. Is that because of a different alloy? Maybe. Design differences? Maybe. Placebo effect? Not hardly.

Maybe Eastman could actually do the York alloy thing with their piston tubas and we can have something that approaches the next best thing to a York...? Can we poke Chris Olka and Don Sawday with the sharp stick of encouragement?

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:35 am

bloke wrote:...and I also wonder why K never made (at least, that I ever saw) any real front-action tuba valvesets, and everything appeared to be improvised from top-action valvesets

I have asked (myself) this exact same question.

I assume (?) it would have to do with available tooling, assuming he made his own valve sets, which I (again) assume he did.

Yes, Kanstul made all of their valves sets in house. The 5th valve rotary valve found on their York CC tubas was an original design and patented by Kanstul.

matt g wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:29 pm

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:27 pm The question I have is whether brass makers back then had their own foundries for melting down and rolling sheet brass.

I think this is doubtful. Likely the reason a lot of these brass manufacturers were in industrial areas is/was access to bar and sheet stock.

That is what I was thinking. So, I guess the question becomes, what are the chances that York had a foundry that made it a "special alloy", or that it was just a regular one that they produced at the time.

A lot of the alloys made today are the same ones made 100 years ago, with various tweaks and changes made to improve performance. I don't know exactly what the composition of the "Kanstul Alloy" ended up being, but would the small amount that kanstul used really have been able to be "custom ordered" from any foundry and rolled out?

I've seen similar "recreation" attempts involved with a lot of electric guitar parts, as well as the aging and varnish material used for Stradivarius stringed instruments. Always the search for that "secret sauce" so they can recreate the magic.

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:35 am

bloke wrote:...and I also wonder why K never made (at least, that I ever saw) any real front-action tuba valvesets, and everything appeared to be improvised from top-action valvesets

I have asked (myself) this exact same question.

I assume (?) it would have to do with available tooling, assuming he made his own valve sets, which I (again) assume he did.

I’m guessing Kanstul didn’t make a sousaphone then either?

matt g wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:00 am

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:35 am

bloke wrote:...and I also wonder why K never made (at least, that I ever saw) any real front-action tuba valvesets, and everything appeared to be improvised from top-action valvesets

I have asked (myself) this exact same question.

I assume (?) it would have to do with available tooling, assuming he made his own valve sets, which I (again) assume he did.

I’m guessing Kanstul didn’t make a sousaphone then either?

I don't remember seeing one on their website, but I'm pretty sure they made other marching brass (of which I suspect was their "bread and butter").

Yeah, I was a “demo boy” for the early line of Kanstul contras when they were being marketed in Central Florida in the mid 1990s. The contra played well enough, and I’m guessing the branch routing on that block was “top action like” as well although I have zero recollection of the tubing. I do remember a main tuning slide ring that was smart.

I ask about the sousaphone because that would’ve basically necessitated a front action block. Having everything routed to the outside on a sousaphone would be even trickier.

Doc wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:50 am Due to metallurgy, design, or both (or neither), I loved my Kanstul 90. For whatever reason, it made "the sound," and it was EASY to play. Great valves and craftsmanship was spot-on. Had it not been for injury, I'd still have it. If I ever get my shoulder fixed, I'd own another one. I'd also consider a Kanstul EEb (top or side action), but there aren't many of those around.

Someone told me the next best thing was an Eastman 632 or 832 CC. While they play very well, and the intonation is nearly point-and-shoot, they do NOT make the same sound as the Kanstul - they are missing that extra little sparkle/mojo. Is that because of a different alloy? Maybe. Design differences? Maybe. Placebo effect? Not hardly.

Maybe Eastman could actually do the York alloy thing with their piston tubas and we can have something that approaches the next best thing to a York...? Can we poke Chris Olka and Don Sawday with the sharp stick of encouragement?

I had the conversation in person with Don (sort of randomly because he was fairly passionate about it) last week after getting my horn flushed at his shop, his opinion on the metallurgy topic we're discussing is that there's no special metals that make up any manufacturer's instruments and that's all placebo effect basically. Just combining red/yellow brass in the right combinations will either make the horn ring or not. Hopefully I am quoting him correctly but that's what I got out of the short conversation.

With that said Bill, I also agree that certain horns "have it" and certain horns "don't" and I don't believe in the placebo effect. But his argument seemed legit in how he described the metal issue, so I don't know.

matt g wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:00 am

Yorkboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:35 am

bloke wrote:...and I also wonder why K never made (at least, that I ever saw) any real front-action tuba valvesets, and everything appeared to be improvised from top-action valvesets

I have asked (myself) this exact same question.

I assume (?) it would have to do with available tooling, assuming he made his own valve sets, which I (again) assume he did.

I’m guessing Kanstul didn’t make a sousaphone then either?

No they didn't. I also remember asking Zig himself a few times why he didn't want to expand and start making fine quality rotary valves. With a Stoic and almost shocked look on his face he uttered "What for?" Do one thing and do it well.

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:52 am I had the conversation in person with Don (sort of randomly because he was fairly passionate about it) last week after getting my horn flushed at his shop, his opinion on the metallurgy topic we're discussing is that there's no special metals that make up any manufacturer's instruments and that's all placebo effect basically. Just combining red/yellow brass in the right combinations will either make the horn ring or not. Hopefully I am quoting him correctly but that's what I got out of the short conversation.

With that said Bill, I also agree that certain horns "have it" and certain horns "don't" and I don't believe in the placebo effect. But his argument seemed legit in how he described the metal issue, so I don't know.

Well, maybe the Kanstul is simply that correct York balance of red/yellow brass??? Maybe Don and Eastman could find that same correct York combination to create a VERY York-like ringer.

Find a picture online of one of the somewhat rare and quite odd-looking English Besson sousaphone valve sections.
If you cannot find any other pictures, I’m pretty sure there are two pictures of a very young Booker T. Jones – of all people – playing one at Stax Studios, while holding a lit cigarette.
It’s pretty obvious to me that those were also contorted from top-action valvesets.

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:42 am Find a picture online of one of the somewhat rare and quite odd-looking English Besson sousaphone valve sections.
If you cannot find any other pictures, I’m pretty sure there are two pictures of a very young Booker T. Jones – of all people – playing one at Stax Studios, while holding a lit cigarette.
It’s pretty obvious to me that those were also contorted from top-action valvesets.

Like this, I’m guessing:

Pardon the thread resurrection, but since another current thread has mentioned red brass and Kanstul's special alloy ...

The way I read this thread, as of last summer, no one really had any idea whether Kanstul was using some kind of red brass, or if it really is bronze. I'm guessing they have never actually said, in print, that it's bronze, and in any case it's lamentably common to refer to some kinds of brass as "bronze".

tbonesullivan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:27 pm These days, it's not that hard to find out the composition of a metal sample. One of the mods on the now defunct trombone forum had access to a gas chromatograph (or something like that) to test samples from mouthpieces.

I'd be looking for someone with an XCF gun - X Ray Fluorescence. Someone who deals in a lot of scrap metal might have one. They're a little spendy just to verify that there isn't any tin in the special alloy.

To be clear, I do not propose that it makes any practical difference. Not enough to care about, it's just a nice detail. In the absence of any compelling reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume it's brass.

donn wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:04 pm Pardon the thread resurrection, but since another current thread has mentioned red brass and Kanstul's special alloy ...

The way I read this thread, as of last summer, no one really had any idea whether Kanstul was using some kind of red brass, or if it really is bronze. I'm guessing they have never actually said, in print, that it's bronze, and in any case it's lamentably common to refer to some kinds of brass as "bronze".

Someone (known by many here) called up on the phone one time and reported that a shaving from one of those reddish Kanstul instruments came back (from a metal test) as bronze (some allow which prominently features copper and tin).

I didn't want to report it here, because I didn't conduct the test, I never saw the sample being taken from a Kanstul instrument, I never saw the test results, and I really didn't understand what motivated the person to have the metal tested (perhaps their own experience with Grand Rapids instruments, and their own immediate recognition at the lack of a color match...??)...though my own eyes had already told me that it (the alloy) likely had little to do with what was used to build brass instruments in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Someone brought one of their quite reddish hue C instruments into my shop - a few years ago - with some large dents in the bottom bow. At first, I judged the instrument's owner as quite careless - considering the large size of the dents...until I began removing them...which (well...) was really, REALLY easy to do.

One thing is for certain:

Every manufacturer has its champions.
Every manufacturer has its detractors.
Every manufacturer has its eye-rollers.

me...??
Regardless of how great or crappy I rate someone's bells, bottom bows, valves, alloys, or whatever, they can do something (whether extraordinarily well, not particularly well, or somewhere in-between) that I cannot do - that being: fabricating instruments from raw materials (whether or not those materials are what was claimed).