missed opportunities with mismatched bores..??

[bloke]

There's no reason to not like a good tuba, and there's certainly no reason not to like a great tuba, but (me: NOT being the most talented player in the world), I'm mostly attracted to amazing tubas. I've owned some great ones and good ones, but I've tended to hang on to some of the amazing ones for longer periods of time.

The specific topic is these medium-wide and wide-belled shorter tubas that are pitched in B-flat and C. I understand that many Americans are attracted to the C versions, I'm not trying to get anyone to rethink, and this post is going to embrace both, so the B-flat/C thing is not part of the topic.

The topic is various bore sizes tried out with these various fairly similarly-sized instruments.

Many of us know what the original .656" bore valvesets did with the 32-in tall 19 inch bell 4/4 York tubas and 16-in bell Olds/Reynolds tubas, and a few know what the .665" bore size did with the similarly-sized Holton tubas.
Most of us agree that .687" (11/16" - 17.5mm) valve sections work really well with King/Eastman instruments of that approximate (slightly larger) size, as well as the defunct extremely similar Getzen-sold C instruments, and that putting .750" (19mm) bore valve sections on instruments of that approximate size (as the Europeans have tried) might not quite work as well (ie. too large).
The thing that hasn't been tried is putting .687" bore valvesets on the Olds/Reynolds/Conn/Bach B-flat and C instruments, and the shame of it is that UMI/Conn-Selmer could have easily tried that out. Further, they also had an opportunity to try out .728" as well. I know that trombone doublers love that size tuba and love that smaller .656" bore size, because all tubas to them feel like they're blowing into a giant cave, but - to many tuba players - they feel just a little bit restrictive. I don't know if anyone who has put a King (.687" - 17.5mm) 4-valve valveset on an Olds/Reynolds/Bach/Conn 7/8ths size body with the 16 or 18 inch bells, but I can't help but wonder (??) if that might be the magic combination, and even more magical than new-style King B-flat or Eastman C. I don't plan to try it out, just to be clear, but I can't help but wonder about it.

Circling back around to the barely-ever-used .728" bore size, I can't help but wonder if some of these 4/4 size instruments made in Germany (whereby they've pasted on a .750" -.19mm - bore valveset) might play just a little bit better with a .728" bore valveset. (If Weril in Brazil could make such a valveset, I would think that the Germans could as well...)

Cutting to the chase, I'm just wondering what a King valve section (larger than what is on them: .687" rather than .656"...a half millimeter larger) would do to one of those 7/8 size tuba bodies, such as Olds/Reynolds/Bach/Conn.

[Bob Kolada]

I'd try one. I played a 20" bell Conn 56 (?) for a few years and thought it was the worst combo of stuffy and tubby. My understanding is Conn didn't really follow through on the original design but I don't recall why. Going off only these parameters I'd rather try a .687 3/4 horn than a .728ish 56/2341. I think I'd enjoy the sound and playability more. iirc Joe didn't you post a thread recently with a larger bore piston valve 3/4-7/8 Miraphone that would fit in here? Seemed like it would be a nice chamber group contrabass tuba.

[Tubajug]

I've got a Conn 14K valveset (0.734) I plan to add a fourth valve to, then put on a King body. I'm interested to see what that does.

[York-aholic]

I’ve got an O99 and a semi spare King cluster. If I get my current projects done I’ll tack weld it together and give it a play.

[bloke]

I’ve got an O99 and a semi spare King cluster. If I get my current projects done I’ll tack weld it together and give it a play.

All responses are appreciated, and this one is on target with that with which I am the most curious.
I've always thought that those instruments sound pretty good but are a bit restricted (preventing them from easily reaching their resonance potential, just as with the 32-in tall 4/4 York B-flat tubas - which featured the same restrictive-?? bore size from the factory).

I'm also curious as to whether some of these 4/4 European more-recently-made piston tubas with 19mm or 3/4 inch bore sizes might play a little bit better with slightly smaller metric .728" or that Buescher/Selmer .726" bore size. Of course, that's more difficult to make happen, but those Brazil-made sousaphones feature the .728" bore size, and - as their big first branches get a bunch of spider cracks in them, the thin silver plating on them wears down to the nickel plating underneath, and as the thin nickel plating wears off their brass pistons, I can see people harvesting those valvesets and getting them rebuilt for projects. Noted is that compensating B-flat tubas and the tall Yamaha instruments (which look like them) feature a .728" bore size...

... so my previous original (wordy, as usual ) post both wonders about some instruments benefiting from slightly smaller bore sizes and others benefiting from slightly larger ones.

[arpthark]

Tangentially related, but King, back in the day (1930s-40s, when the main tuning slide still came before the valve section) offered both a large bore and smaller bore option for their 1240/1241.

A lot of us have seen/played the 1240/1241 with its nominal .687" bore, but I have a larger bore version from 1932 that is clocking around .750" with my crappy calipers, which matches the bore of the big King rotary BBbs (sharing tubing?).

It's in the process of getting straightened out a bit now, but I plan to put it through the paces and, at some point, convert that 1st slide to be able to be manipulated while playing.

I just sold its much-more-common 30-year-old younger sibling that had the MTS after the valves and the .687" bore.

[TheHatTuba]

Not quite apples to apples (maybe not even apples to oranges), but can the comparison be made with the difference between the YBB-103 and YBB-621?

[bloke]

Not quite apples to apples (maybe not even apples to oranges), but can the comparison be made with the difference between the YBB-103 and YBB-621?

It very well could, but both of those are sort of well liked.

[PlayTheTuba]

Doesn't British or French tubas feature around a 0.728 bore size?

Although, I personally always wondered how a Yamaha 641 BBb with a bell from a 321 BBb plus a smaller bored valve section plus leadpipe would be like... Unless it would just be another 321 with a more compact bugle... At least in my mind it would make the 641 a better tuba.

Edit: Technically the Yamaha 321 BBb already feature a 0.728 bore size. But I'll stand my opinion.

[bloke]

I wonder if anyone has stuck a Yamaha 19.5mm piston valve set on anything other than the YCB-822?

[bloke]

I wonder if anyone has stuck a Yamaha 19.5mm piston valve set on anything other than the YCB-822?

Isn't most of Miraphone's piston stuff just about that size?

[matt g]

I wonder if anyone has stuck a Yamaha 19.5mm piston valve set on anything other than the YCB-822?

Isn't most of Miraphone's piston stuff just about that size?

You know, I have no idea. I never paid much attention to the specs on mirafone piston valve tubas.

[TheHatTuba]

Isn't most of Miraphone's piston stuff just about that size?

Including the F, sadly.

[Yorkboy]

Bloke, I’d love to be able to help you answer your question, only if I could lay my hands on some 4 valve .728 valve sets. I think it would be a good fit on several different horns. I don’t think Weril is in production anymore, and even then I don’t think they were of the greatest quality (?) I think there are some Wessex horns (helicons?) that sport that size, but they are notoriously uncoöperative in selling parts, and I won’t use a Chinese valve set in any event.

Now, Conn .734 would be a viable alternative, if only Conn Selmer would make them available. I believe the new King 4 valve sousaphone is around .734 bore. Tubing and crooks would also be less complicated to obtain.

I’ve researched getting a Yamaha 19.5/.768 set - they CAN be had, but are prohibitively expensive, and are probably only attainable by purchasing the individual parts (pistons, caps, casing assembly, etc). To my mind it’s not worth the expense, being so close to a .748/19mm set.

My personal experience regarding Four valve side action sets:

Conn .656 = not as commonplace, a tad small for most “normal” sized contrabass tubas (bass tubas not included)

King .687 = ubiquitous, (relatively) easily available, and adequate for most “normal” sized horns

xxx .728 = rare as hens’ teeth

Conn .734 = often attached to horns that are too valuable or expensive to part out, and the ones that aren’t have worn-to-hell valves

And, there’s the Willson .709/18mm which nobody has yet mentioned.

I just finished building a York 700 series BBb with a King .687 set and it’s an incredibly good match, but I think .728 might even be better…..?

[bloke]

I may have access to some of those valvesets that are .728" in a year or two or maybe less, but yes the quality isn't great but after a refitting job, they are plenty good good enough.

[matt g]

The Conn short action valves have a 0.734” “bore”, no?

I played a 4/4+ sized tuba that Matt Walters made years ago (1998?) that had a short action valve set on it. Great sound and very nimble tuba, but didn’t play quite as large as it appeared, iirc.

Seems like these would be plentiful if harvested from 20Ks that have perished in battle.

[bloke]

I became fairly good at pasting on matching fourth valve casings onto three valve blocks, but the short action fourth valve pasting is a little more awkward. Personally I just don't like the way those valves feel under my fingers - due to all the surface area, and I don't like taking them out and putting them back in. I'm certainly not against someone else using thar type of valves on their instruments, and I'm glad to sell short action sousaphones to band directors who think they're the bees knees...
... I guess what I'm saying is that the .734" standard style Conn pistons are much easier to deal with for tuba builds, and the fourth valve finger spacing is just as problematic as the execution in a fourth valve short action spice.