TubaForum.net

GC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:00 pm

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:30 pm

GC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:22 pm Now THAT's interesting. I wonder how it plays?

Without a leadpipe, not at all!

Well. That's embarrassing.

Gives it an awfully clean look, though . . .

Without a bell brace, it probably offers quite a bit of flexibility...

.

Outstanding contribution! Thanks!

That is a lot of collating you did to put that together. Thank you.

Nice work, @LargeTuba!

There’s been a few interesting things done with 20Js down in Brazil. I think I posted something somewhere here in the forum? Not sure.

I'm asking because I really like the look of the Kniffen horn (I don't know who owns it now, but it has slowly become known by that name). It is a 36J with a Siegfried bell, and it "looks" right to me. I have heard mixed reviews of this tuba that Martin Wilk built and want to know what it is about the inner and outer branches that make it such an iffy horn to use in a project.

I suppose that, in the end, all those yorkophones that were cut or otherwise mangled in years past were just as iffy since so many of them started out as mediocrities.

The thing that interests me is that they are fairly plentiful and by no means "rare", so sacrificing one to experimentation will only engender the slings and arrows of the more kooky "BBb tuba preservation extremists" out there.

I have two 24J tubas, and both play rather well, but both have structural issues. I plan to build one out as "Our Tubaly Father CG Conn" intended. Then I'll have a complete bugle left over, and a complete Conn 4-valve section: essentially a 24J conversion kit. The 24J will be sold off, the valve section will be sold to some fellow with an unnatural attachment to his particular 20J (maybe it was his great grandmother's, or perhaps it was his home as a small child — seriously, whatever), and does not want to sell it but wants to "upgrade" the thing. (I can make this joke because I have been this stupid, too, heh, heh…) Then there will be the 24J leftover bell, which could end up making someone happy. Maybe.

In the end, I will have gotten rid of 1.65 24J tubas and be left with the bugle only. I have boxes of valves. I want to make something that is very big, but not as big as a Holton 345. I *really* like the proportions of that Miraphone bell and think it would make a great voice for this bugle. I imagine the real issue with these tubas is figuring out a suitable leadpipe, very careful shaping/rounding of the parts when restoring them, and (of course) very careful joint work when reassembling them — again, much like the success and failure of many Holtons, Yorks, et al.

No one here seems to know of something tangible that causes many of these horns to be unable to play softly when some are very good at it. No one seems to know why they have such indistinct, woofy articulation. I have several very specific ideas about all this stuff and think I could make something that plays well enough to sell at a decent price. I am just beating the bushes to see what specific information some of you may have regarding these horns. I should contact Sam Gnagey, I guess. (I think it was he who was mentioned earlier in this thread; I need to go back and reread it, I guess.)

Thanks for bumping this thread, @LargeTuba!

I agree with The Elephant that I think all the negative aspects of the 20j come from the terrible leadpipe.

The difference between the widely praised 6450, and the widley disputed 2165/2265, is mainly the leadpipe.
I get that they changed the location of the 5th valve, but the Thor has the same placement as the 2165, and the Thor plays amazing.





^here is a video showing both a Eastman 836 and a York Frankentuba. They clearly sound different, but I'm betting their bugles aren’t really that different. I’m guessing that the difference in tone is that the 836 clearly has a short “yorkish” leadpipe while the Frankenhorn has a long, German rotary style pipe.

I ain’t no pisycyst, but I’m thinking the short leadpipe of the 20j amplifies the input way too quickly. This sounds great at loud and simple passages, but ruins the tuba at quiet dynamics and makes it hard to play clearly.

So it looks more like a lead pipe problem than a bugle problem. The leadpipe needs to be longer. How about a Conn Giant Eb top action lead pipe with curly cue tuning? It would be a minimal alteration dropping the horn to near A. Then check the response and partials. OK? Then figure out where to bring it back up to Bb.

Wasn't this bugle configured with the curly cue lead pipe before the arrival of the short action valves? 1920s or 30s

Joe "Conn man" H.

OR...(??)

...the same thing that's wrong with many of the other old 6/4 American B-flats, except (as Conn's manufacturing was the most consistent) CONSISTENTLY "wrong with" rather than only OFTEN "wrong with".

I am not asking what is acoustically wrong with them. I am asking why more are not used for projects. Why are these not more popular franken-candidates? Why do people not like them?

They are easy to find and cheap. So why do we not see more project horns based on the outer and inner branches of the Conn 2xJ series?

There must be a reason.

I know for a fact that York/Holton "Monster" Eb tubas cut to F *very poorly* pretty much every time, which is why you do not see cut "Monster" York/Holton F tubas.

Is the 2xJ series a bugle that cannot be cut successfully (meaning it is not ruined acoustically in the process)? I hate the bells of these horns, but that Siegfried bell on the Kniffen tuba looks mighty spiffy, and being smaller than a true 6/4 BAT it seems that it would have more clarity with that Miraphone bell on it. So the real issue would be the leadpipe length and taper and what type of valves were pasted on the bugle.

I want to turn mine into a 5-rotor CC with the Miraphone bell. I have copied the ideas of Mr. Rusk and measured and marked the parts to be cut in the same manner with the same re-tapering work to make sure they fit each other well. But I am loath to pull the trigger. I cut that 186 BBb to CC and it is a very decent tuba. The cuts to it were really similar to the cuts made to my Holton, so perhaps Mr. Rusk examined BBb and CC 186s to see how they differ and then applied that to a York or Holton when he first started. If that is the case, then perhaps these cut locations (and percentages) can be used instead of guessing. Every branch is shortened on one end, but by differing amounts. Is this just so they fit a certain way?

Anyway, I want to know why I should not do this. (Please keep any BBb preservation nonsense out of this. This is MY tuba and it is a junked horn that I have no reason to "preserve". Like my cut 186, it was purchased as a non-fixable parts horn.)

So, I will ask again:

What is wrong with the Conn 2xJ bugle?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. As I was hinting at, I think with a better thought out leadpipe and a more tastefully sized bell, you could have a really good player.

I think the biggest barrier to entry shouldn’t be screwing up a 20j, but the time and cost.

New valves would be $3,000-$4,000
New bell: $2,000
Misc parts (leadpipe, thumb rings, trigger, 5th valve): $1000+
100+ hour commitment.

If your looking at the “time value of money.” That’s a couple grand worth of your time that could be spent on smaller, easier, and more lucrative project.

And it could turn out to be a dog. There are certainly some rusk-cuts that deserve to be in the trash.

I certainly wouldn’t mind watching you tackling this project, it would be cool to have this documented. I have found like 10 examples of a Conn cut to CC but I have yet to hear an honest review of them.

the elephant wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:37 am I am not asking what is acoustically wrong with them. I am asking why more are not used for projects. Why are these not more popular franken-candidates? Why do people not like them?

They are easy to find and cheap. So why do we not see more project horns based on the outer and inner branches of the Conn 2xJ series?

There must be a reason...
- - - - - - - - - -
...So, I will ask again:

What is wrong with the Conn 2xJ bugle?

(you won't like this...)

...so I will answer again: because the third partial is GOING TO BE terribly flat, so why bother?

Early on, in any of my (not often executed, but several - over the years) "projects", I test the tuning tendencies as SOON as I can.
If they suck (or even sorta suck - as they - sadly - do on quite a few production instruments) I stick the parts back in the attic...
That's the "big secret" why the crap that I stick together is always "good".
"no good time/money after bad", etc.

You automatically see that as a no-go, but I play that G 13 out of habit. If it can be played in tune 13 easily (alternate but no slide pull) then I don't care about that at all. It just isn't a problem. These two horns play that F 13 spot-on with no pulls, so we'll have to see.

Besides, with all the crappy modern horns that have the same issue and cost so much more that you could buy a 2xJ *and* a decent used car for the price of one new horn that needs to have G played 13, I see that as something to not even be considered. I am mainly talking about response issues, the supposed inability to play them softly, that sort of thing. (I have no issue with either clarity or low volume levels with these horns except in a very few, specific cases.)

My big fear would be to knock the octaves out of tune or make the scale worse.

So that does not adequately answer my question. I want to know why *others* do not hack and burn on these tubas if they are so popular. My answer to my own leg-yanking question wants to be that they are NOT popular at all today, just "kindly remembered through the fog of time". I do not think that many who tout (toot?) these horns actually PLAY these horns at a level where they can tell if they are good or not, or that they are good players who have not played one in a professional setting in many, many years and who would likely change their tune (there I go again) if they were given one to use on a quintet gig or in an orchestra. I think these are beloved but not actually used all that much. THAT is my point. I still plan to hack up the one I have here because with a good bell I think I could use it at work.

just an Idea to through out there, maybe the reason people don’t chop 20js up is because they don’t look like the CSO York. Maybe the reasons so many Holton’s and yorks are cut is the pursuit of not just the York sound but the York look.

Mienl Weston’s default valve block is York style. A York style valveset has been pasted on to just about every tuba, even if it makes very little sense. Looking at you Mr. Hirsbrunner.

All of the 20j projects I posted are all very unique and cool, but none of them look like the CSO York. Martin Mammoths are not York style, and I’ve only been able to find a couple examples of projects involving these.

Bingo.

I think I'm going to make what is essentially a big Miraphone tuba with Conn inner and outer branches. I don't care about what others think. HAHAHA!!!

A Mississippian, Mark Howle, took a 20J body, wildly expanded the large side of the bottom bow (I believe: with a muffler tool), inserted a Miraphone model 190 C tuba bell, pasted on a Nirschl a valve set and a Miraphone 21.2 mm fifth valve, and his son - who is now playing a similar-sized tuba in Montreal - played that instrument for several years in high school.
I’m pretty sure that Mark still has it, and he doesn’t live all that far from you. (“Hello Muddah; Hello Fadduh…”)

I met Mark in 1982 when he was one of the directors of the Alice (TX) HS band. He was one of the five judges at the TMEA Area/State contest for my area. When I first moved here (1993) he had just started working at UM and he invited me to see their band at the '93 Mississippi-Arkansas game at the big stadium in Jackson.

We played in a very good tuba-euph quartet for a couple of years, with Elva Kaye Lance and Ed Bahr on euphonium. Fun group, but a looooong time ago…

I was certain that you knew him, but I didn’t know if you knew about that (topical) Frankentuba.

Dr. Lance had me straighten out, tighten up rotor bearings and linkage, and shoot lacquer on some of their ancient old rotary tubas (the buffing and lacquering part: I would probably decline to do, today) quite a few years ago, and bought a couple more (nice-looking used Miraphones) from me.
She asked me about rebuilding the valves/casings on her Besson euphonium. I explained to her how involved a rebuild on the top action instrument is – particularly compensating. I told her that even if I felt like doing it for her as a favor (which I would’ve liked to have done), it would be an expensive favor for me, because the cash outlay would be high on my part (and this was before Dave Secrist retired).

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:43 pm A Mississippian, Mark Howle, took a 20J body, wildly expanded the large side of the bottom bow (I believe: with a muffler tool), inserted a Miraphone model 190 C tuba bell, pasted on a Nirschl a valve set and a Miraphone 21.2 mm fifth valve, and his son - who is now playing a similar-sized tuba in Montreal - played that instrument for several years in high school.
I’m pretty sure that Mark still has it, and he doesn’t live all that far from you. (“Hello Muddah; Hello Fadduh…”)

Yes! His tuba is on the list I made.

He lives in a suburb of chicago now. I sold him a Boosey and Hawkes Eb a couple months ago. He sold every tuba and got out of playing for awhile, but was getting back to it with my Eb and a couple others he recently acquired.

Who is the “he” in the post, immediately above?

Mark subscribes here, still lives in Mississippi, and I thought he still owns the tuba I described - as well as a five-valve 4+1 front-action York E-flat tuba…