TubaForum.net

Bloke, that horn is coming along QUITE nicely…..I (more than) suspect you are quite a bit more picky than you let on to………

matt g wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:24 pm That’s good news about 124 being a good low Eb combo, @bloke. I’m wondering now how the C in the staff plays. If it’s a hint flat, is it worth a subtle trim (like 3/8 to 3/4 of an inch) to give a little wiggle room for low Eb and C in the staff?

FWIW, on the BBb horns I build, I usually aim to make the 3rd circuit so that Gb and Db are as close to in-tune as possible (usually a compromise between the two), as there are no real alternate fingerings to those notes (the older American builders tended to build #3 longer so that C2 was closer to being in tune, at the expense of other third valve combinations). So, I build #4 so that C2 is right on, with enough pull to make the B below in tune, using 2-4. For Eb1, a decent pull on #1 (@ 8-9” total) makes a 1-4 combo work pretty well, and is even useful to play C2 as 1-2-3 (although I usually add a flat 5th valve anyway )

Isn't that the 3rd valve elbow with no water key?

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:25 pmI hope (??) the instrument's owner will excuse me from not installing one on the #4 piston-exit elbow. With the Holton valveset, that elbow is buried quite deeply within the plumbing maze, might be a bit of a challenge to line up perfectly, solder, drill, and (even) install, so...

I find that the top-mounted Willson euphonium guides are (more than "adaptable", and actually) compatible with old Holton metal guides, so here's 1-of-4 of them in a swap-out. (One of the Holton retaining screws - having been in place for about a half century - is stuck pretty good, so that's going to present a little bit of a challenge.)

I've seen some others (and have done this myself) fill in that artifully-machined location for the Holton guide, drill a hole in the side, and tap it for the side-mounted guides but (simply) using Willson guides and re-using the Holton screws is so much less work for the same results.

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Those are real nice! I can't believe how close that vent hole is to the stem

I was just looking through some before pics and seeing them side-by-side with the (not-quite-yet) after is very striking.

ridiculous to (attempts at) sublime

Just ordered these blue abalone MOP buttons to use as finger button inserts... we will see if I get them to work or not. A little bit of bling

If they are too domed, you're not out much.

tubaing wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 9:17 pm I was just looking through some before pics and seeing them side-by-side with the (not-quite-yet) after is very striking.

Das ist viel besser!

Always amazed me:

- how “craptastically” (not my term but quite appropriate) built some of those Holtons were

- how such big horns had such dainty brace rods (3/16”)

Some of those 3/16” socket flanges had obviously been broken and have had replaced with (also 3/16”) Conn.
There was evidence that part of the original assembly was really off (cockeyed), but I can’t credit all of the goofy assembly to the factory, with those replaced socket flanges in place.

3/16” brace rod does a good job of holding 20K sousaphones and 20J sousaphones together.

It’s instructive that those rods are never bent - when those instruments are dented in 1 or 2 inches.

The German in us wants to make everything “plenty strong“, but I’ve tried to overcome that tendency and make things “plenty strong ENOUGH” (rather than making tubas any heavier than they already are, and/yet - related topic - I personally view *.5mm-thickness sheet metal on tubas as impractically thin - and with no sonic benefit, just for what it’s worth).
______________________
* My personal theory about Europeans’ (actual/original) choices to make some tubas out of material this thin, is (was) simply to make them easier to carry for marching. I believe we forget that the instruments that we consider to be “fancy concert instruments“ are the same ones they use(d) for everything - including marching. Further, I believe that the only reason that so many of the “kaiser” tubas were made of .5mm material was to keep their WEIGHT down, rather than to have them “resonate“ in a particular way.

All good points. However, although the rods themselves aren’t bent, I’ll wager the (proportionally smaller) sockets they rest in show up bent or even broken, occasionally, especially when they are unusually long. The finished product as shown above (with drastically shorter brace spans) looks plenty strong to me.

I’ve got no beef with thin braces per se (I’ve used them and will continue to use them) but I would at least hope that nobody finds this acceptable (especially when one considers these horns were originally marketed for institutional/school use):

You know that I’m not seeking any argument, but - over the last 45 years - I’ve replaced about as many King/Olds/Reynolds socket brace feet as Conn. I haven’t replaced as many (3/16”) Holton, because they are not as common…YET, I’ve been able to collect Holton brace feet in my Holton parts drawer, because so few ever seem to break.
Disproportionately, I have replaced tons of Jupiter.
Since we are not souping up these instruments to send out to middle schools, the desire for titanic bracing is probably actually even less important, as opposed to any real necessity.
It’s funny how stuff doesn’t tear up, if it doesn’t get torn up. (reflexive axiom?)

Agreed.

As an interesting side point, I’ve actually seen DRILLED 3/16” brace rods, especially on earlier Holtons and some Conns.

Yes…probably salvaged from discontinued soprano saxophone manufacturing stock… and I’ve never seen that stuff bend, either.

also...
I'm not so sure that the 345 tubas were actually "marketed" at all.

They were in the catalog, but I really don't recall them being promoted.

The best I can tell is that
> Holton - like J.W. York - had molds to build 6/4-size tubas. (duh: We've all seen the pre-model-345 instruments.)
> Holton - like King Musical Instrument and the Cleveland Orchestra - wished to be able to say that the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's principal brass played ("played"...well...at least once ) Holton instruments.
> For Mr. Jacobs, Holton pulled out their (larger than York) molds, reconfigured the valveset to mimic the one-off York 6/4 C tuba, gave a C instrument to Mr. Jacobs, and (so-as to not appear to have made only one for advertising purposes, and because C tubas were - mostly - anomalies) also made a B-flat version, and put C and B-flat versions in their brochures...but (again) *I really don't believe that they were interested in selling them - just as *I don't really believe that Yamaha is particularly interested in selling YCB-826S tubas.
After all, the 1970's pricing of the CC-345 was just as high (when inflation is considered) as is the current price of the YCB-826S.
________________________________________
*I'm of the opinion that production manufacturers reluctantly build a few "hot-shot" models in order to PROMOTE THEIR NAME, and to increase the sales of their school instruments...and - back when companies were owned by individuals or families - it was probably additionally an "ego" thing.

Was the 345 really $7,500 back in 1974? I had no idea.

I have an ad (date unknown) that has it priced somewhere around $900 (can’t remember the exact number off the top of my haid)

(In 1979, my brand-new King 1241 was around $1800, including both cases )

Once – in a very hot upstairs display room that was way too small, there were two Yamaha 826C tubas on display.
I asked one of the two Yamaha reps how interested they really are in selling this model, and they said they were very interested in selling them…but I suspect they misunderstood me, and thought that I meant those two that they had there on hand, which obviously needed to disappear.
I suspect (??) that - candidly - corporate is really not interested in making those at all.

OK...
back here...again.

Mrs. bloke held this behemoth at funny angles - on my upper legs...sort of away from my lap/belly, and I finished the big bottom bow joints, soldered the two contact points (between the inside lower bow and the bottom bow - to avoid buzzes), finished soldering on the upper bell brace, and soldered the large end of the mouthpipe into the valve block ferrule. If something was missed, I'll see it upon final clean-up.

I drove her nuts asking her Stax Recording Studio trivia (about which she knows nothing and about which she cares nothing).

I need to get the remaining three nylon valve guides installed/working smoothly, and then (basically) clean up all the solder joints, acid-green, vent the pistons, and final assemble (just "valves and slides") the instrument.

I hope to be able to keep on task.

OK...
"Putting a finish on this instrument" has been put on the back burner...possibly later.
(I think that's a great idea...There's a HUGE difference - regardless of a player's age/experience/maturity) between handling a "huge beat-up instrument" and handling a "huge/no-dents instrument". I think it would be good for this instrument's owner to spend some time teaching themselves to handle this thing, possibly - then - have some tiny dinks re-removed, and then - after that - consider a finish.

...so we're down to tedium:

Here are the
- nylon valve guides
- piston vents
- synthetic spacer washers (with a hole punched in each washer, because Holton -
breathtakingly - drilled the top piston vent holes right underneath where the washers go)

These Holton pistons really don't "measure up" (pun intended) to Bauerfeind (etc.), so the "throw" of the pistons had to be approximated. ...actually, not all that bad, just not...well...precise.
The "average" throw "seems" (??) to be about .930"




Neither the casings nor the pistons were rebuilt - in conjunction with this job.
A pet peeve of mine is "complete dent removal - leaving the valves crappy".
These valves aren't "pretty", but they're really NOT worn, and the plating IS here...
They're actually "just fine".
IF I wanted to own a 345, these valves would NOT be an issue with me.

Remaining - for the (so-called) "reveal" - is major clean up (NOT a small job), and it should be ready to go.

All that's really left to do is to clean up some solder joints, buff out some lightly-sanded large solder joints, give it a once-over with "white-buff" or "yellow-buff", clean off the buffing dirt, put it back together, and (to avoid damage) stick in in this old oem/rare nearly-form-fitting 345 case (that the instrument's owner is taking home to restore - in exchange for their huge ProTec bag.
Notice the bottom bow connectors: Just as Wade and I have struggled with in previous photographs, they are STRAIGHTER than they appear, though (yes) a big goofy because (well...) consider who built these things, and their general reputation for (lack of) symmetry. The FRONT picture is a better representation, and the camera lens distorted the tuba less (for whatever reason) in that picture.

The tuning characteristics are VERY similar to those of my own Meinl-Weston 5450...' very easy to deal with.
ie. the OPPOSITE of a "dog"...a "god"