TubaForum.net

York-aholic wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 2:46 pm Nice looking set of buttons, but shouldn't they all be clocked at the same angle? Mightn't that affect the sound?

I haven't yet pulled out the Ferree's Valve-Stem File.

oh yeah...You handed me yet another set (plus)...so I can I can build ONE MORE frankentuba...someday...

(Thank-you!)

edit: Hey...Aren't they already all "clocked" the same way...(??)

bloke wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 2:57 pm edit: Hey...Aren't they already all "clocked" the same way...(??)

Yeah, but it wouldn't have been funny otherwise.

Just a bit more on the "THIS put-together 4+1 Holton VS. the NEW-style 4+1 (Stofer work adding the 5th ?) King 2341:

I just got around to removing dents and cleaning the "new-style" King 2341 (pictured weeks earlier, next to my Holton) because my freeway-philharmonic is playing this weekend, and it's in the city where the King's owner lives...so I'll be taking it to him...

ONCE I OPTIMIZED THE KING (dent removal and cleaning), I found these to be my observations:

- The King sound is more "covered" (ie. The sound seems to be coming from "down in the bell, somewhere...sort-of like with a tall/5-4 Meinl-Weston 25 rotary) whereas the put-together Holton's sound seems to "jump" out of the bell more (more sparkle, more direct, more presence).

- The intonation quirks are extremely minor with both and only slightly differ.

- Being extremely biased (since I "thought of it") I really DO like my "adjusted semitone" 5th rotor set-up BETTER - with a B-flat tuba - than the C-tuba-advantaged "long whole tone" length. Reaching for the Holton's upper 4th slide (for "low E-flat") is just about as seldom as reaching for it to play a C-tuba's "low D"...and "having spot-on push-button 4-5 B's and E's" is quite luxurious.

- I don't particularly find the super-short height (nor minimal front-to-rear thickness) to be any advantage (though sorta cool) with the Holton, other than with packing in my Toyota, and ALSO having to include OTHERS' (repaired and brought back to them) instruments in my car to a gig (which happens more often than some of you may believe).

- I view the extra-large pancake (on the King) to be a structural weakness, no acoustical advantage, and a feature which begs for concentric bell creases (per my repair experience with new-style and old-style upright King bells). I believe new-style Kings should retreat to 19" diameter and additionally step the sheet metal gauge up by .1mm...but (well...) this is an "ain't mine" issue...so it's difficult to feel terribly concerned.

SUMMARY: The Holton SOUNDS BETTER (to me)...which sort of defines that

- This was worth doing, rather than (simply) adding a valve to a bargain-priced new-style 2341.

- I suspect that (in particular, with the extended low range 5th valve) it was a better idea to build this (only $1XXX cash outlay, but hundreds of hours...and still have not spent the last two or three days to polish and shoot it with clear) than to find a just-prior-to-shuttering-of-the-factory bargain-priced factory Holton TU331 (and add a 5th valve to it) as the bore on those is only .665", and (I suspect...??) that the bloke-built 11/16" (.687") bore is just about optimal for extra-low range response...and (likely) I would have had to tear a TU331 apart and properly align its slides, anyway (which - if "silver" - would have defined a cosmetic disaster)...

I don't want anyone to think I've got the "big head" - or anything like that - regarding this tuba that I just finished building...
...I just put these on here in case I misplace this instrument, so the person who finds it will return it to the right person.

Nice! Did you cut those out yourself? What material are they? They look like nickel to me.

brass…
Honestly, I forget the exact gauge that I picked up... I can measure it...
It’s about double the thickness of typical sheet brass used for making bows and bells.

I'm still looking at putting some sort of "label" on my Holton, but I'm not sure what I want to affix to it after so much of it is MY design (or corrective work). I don't have a "brand" and "Rackley" is a singularly terrible business name. I have goofed around with my Elephant image, and that will probably be what I go with. It fits the physical form of the tuba and does not contain my goofy name.

I do not want a name on it except for "Holton" but I want to leave something for the person who buys it after I die. I have thought of having the old WWII "KILROY" image engraved on some nickel silver and fitting it within the B&S MTS brace window". I think that would be funny and would show that the horn is not "stock" to an observant person.

I really want to use that nice brace, but I won't do the work needed to install it to my 1st slide until I know for certain what I want to show within that window. And there isn't really anything all that attractive to me, right now. So I am at a bit of a loss. I still like the enameled insert idea, but the elephant logo is pretty silly, and I can't think of anything else. I must be "too close" to this. I can't see the forest for all the trees.

I really like your "JS" idea. It is very nicely cut and installed, and it looks great.

bloke wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 2:03 pm

Excuse me Sir. I think you’ve picked up my tuba by mistake.

I beg your pardon, but it quite certainly is mine.

I must disagree with you. You see, it’s got my initials on it.

I bought this on Ebay for a couple bucks with the intention of putting on my Eb, but haven't figured out how or where to mount it (I like elephants...). I was inspired by a guy who had a brass eagle mounted to hold the thumb ring on his horn. I might steal bloke's idea with the initials, that's much simpler.

You could have fun with a W, @the elephant...

Nah, not really my style. Besides, to look right to me it would need to have a V on top.



(At least that would be German, though. My valve section is made from German parts.)

Here's what they look like in perspective:



==========================================

If I can get them perfectly positioned (as I did, c. thirty years ago, on the back of a York E-flat which most of you have seen), I'd love to mount these big honkin' no-wear-whatsover strap rings on the back. I've got both of their flanges completely "tinned" (concave flange surfaces completely super-thin coated with solder), so that they will solder on to the tuba all the way to the CENTERS of the flange surfaces (rather than the rings tearing off, due to the centers of the flange surfaces not being soldered).

*Stand-up gigs with a TUBA are just as cool (to me) as with a sousaphone, as long as I don't have to physically hold the thing...and I don't like any of those "rigs" that hold tubas which do not sport strap rings...I just like a simple Sears, Roebuck, & Co. strappity-strap...and - if I can't find one laying around here that I like, I'd wager that Green-Bean would make me one with a nice sliding shoulder strap...eh?



__________________________________________________
*...which reminds me: I have to head out at 9 A.M., tomorrow morning to play a (stand-up) graveside funeral...w/80% chance of rain...

the elephant wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:13 pm Nah, not really my style. Besides, to look right to me it would need to have a V on top.



(At least that would be German, though. My valve section is made from German parts.)

"Vaughan Williams-capable"...(??)

J. S. ??

You either know Jack $hit,

Or don't know Jack $hit;

And oddly enough, it means the same thing.

funeral update:
amazing...
- only the slightest hint of a mist, every few minutes (no actual rain)
- 70° and breezy
- generous pay
- offered us a fancy lunch (graciously declined)

What would make you choose the Thor for a gig over the JSHolton, and vice versa?

Since both (though remarkably different in shape, length, and specs) offer a good bit of horsepower and clarity...
probably "how the majority of the exposed passages lie on the instrument".

Here are a couple of random examples of old warhorses:

"Quintet" - Malcomb Arnold
☐ F tuba - a bit awkward
☐ E-flat tuba - slightly better, but then there's the "familiarity" issue
☐ C tuba - better yet
🖾 B-flat tuba - easiest button-pushing (for MOST passages encountered)

"Symphony No. 5" Prokofiev
🖾 B-flat tuba - duh: It's in B-flat.

========================
That having been said...IF I needed a C or B (below the staff) with tons of "grit", the C-tuba work-around (to avoid the "hollow" virtually-no-cylindrical-tubing sound) is to play the C with valves 1-3-5, and the play a B-natural with 2-4-5.
' funny how most all B-flat tubas don't seem sound "hollow" on that "open" B-flat nor A-natural...

GC wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:42 pm What would make you choose the Thor for a gig over the JSHolton, and vice versa?

A local TV station did a little spot on a small-town outreach orchestra-sponsored brass quintet gig, and this is a screenshot from that video.

This (possibly better than any previous pictures) offers the best visual concept of just how compact this 5-valve BB♭ 19-inch-bell instrument actually is.


The trombonist (principal in the orchestra) claims that it's broader-sounding and louder than the F tuba I typically use
with this quintet. Both may (??) be true, but I suspect that the larger issue is the 5-inches-shorter bell - combined with
the lower angle of the bell (which nearly points at his face, in quintet situations).

Your Holton looks a lot like this 1899 model 33 York.

Agreed. The smaller lower bow on the York is shorter, because (I’m seeing it correctly, yes?) that’s one of those high pitch/low pitch tubas, as can be seen (yes?) with the tuning slide gizmo. As my Holton was made well past that era, designers (York and Holton) lengthened the lower inside small bow, so that all of that extra cylindrical tubing wouldn’t be necessary to play at the lower pitch level.
...all: conjecture