TubaForum.net

I’ve been thinking a lot about the terrible construction of Holton 34X tubas, and the wild amount of variation with them.

I’ve also been reading a lot posted here and what’s left on the old forum about them.

My question: How come some of these horns exhibit good pitch on that open F, but some are notoriously flat? Not just Holtons, but Conns, big Martins, etc. Where does the weirdness exist?

With my tuba being nearly 60 years old, I know that taking it completely apart, de-denting the large bows, rounding them out, and re-soldering everything carefully and slowly would probably help it out.

(NO, I’m not going to be doing this anytime soon. I’m paying a lot of money on my main tubas to consider more work right now)

However, does this quirk come from poor assembly? Would doing what I said above bring that note up?

If NOT, then where is the problem in these tubas? The mouthpipe? In the taper of the horn somewhere? Someone explain this to me! I’m genuinely curious, and interested.

I have what may be a sort of case study that eliminates some variables:

A regular HN White King 1240 with a .687" bore. No flat F.

A large bore pre-WWII King 1240 with .750" bore. King quit offering this option around the time they phased out their monster rotary tubas. This tuba shares its outer bows with the normal 1240, but the mouthpipe tapers up to .750" in the same distance the regular 1240 tapers up to .687", i.e., the rate of expansion is faster. Pretty flat F, and also a pretty flat fifth partial.

The Conn 20J tubas also feature a short mouthpipe that quickly expands to .775", and they are notorious for this feature.

If I had to guess, it would be that the rate of expansion in the mouthpipe has something to do with it.

I think about my old Alex 163's flat third partial G, though.
The 163 has a very long German style mouthpipe, but you could drive a truck through it; it started out huge Alex receiver size and then tapered up to the big .8xx" bore. I've heard that modern Alexanders do not have the old intonation issues; maybe they corrected that taper or something. I have no idea.

Also, my large bore King has immaculate valves with 100% plating intact, and they were aligned, so the issue is not leaks or misalignment.

Also on the topic of third partials and mouthpipes, I recently had the pleasure of playing an older Miraphone 181, a model of F tuba that is notorious for its screamin' high third partial C (I have played many where this note is 30-40c sharp). This one has had the mouthpipe lifted off the bell, and that tack has alleviated, if not completely eliminated, that issue.

And that makes me wonder.

The 2165 I just bought is scarily in-tune, which is not a reputation they normally have. It does have a smaller mouthpipe. I suspect a genuine SLP pipe.

The Holton mouthpipes are pretty large, but they’re pretty long, too. I wonder if that Allied A220 might clean things up as well. I don’t know what voodoo magic we can use on these old tubas.

Being a 3 valve tuba, limited as it is, needing a slide cut, the other notes are mostly fine, but that F is such an important note, and harder to center with 1-3.

My pistons definitely aren’t leaking either, but I wonder if it’s a combination of old solder at the large body joints and the large mouthpipe.

On my Martin Mammoth, that F is sharp. The E right below it is flat. The rest is very good.

Regarding the 2xJ Conns, I had often heard that the flat F was a design choice compromise made to make other, less easily managed pitches more in tune. I seem to remember some official or documented info on this, but can’t scare it up at the moment. The research lab was involved in a lot of stuff along these lines. It’s a shame that much of their work has evaporated with time.

MiBrassFS wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 7:40 pm Regarding the 2xJ Conns, I had often heard that the flat F was a design choice compromise made to make other, less easily managed pitches more in tune.

If that is the case, it was a pretty good design choice. On my 20J (and the few other 2XJs I've played) the F has been pretty good played both open and 1+3 when played with a single tuning bit and when the valves are properly aligned (mine is <10 cents flat and very easily lipable). C3 and G3 are the problem notes on mine and I will often play them 1+3 and 2 respectively. If the valve alignment is off, the intonation is terrible.

I was actually complemented by a few players around me at Tuba Xmas this year about how good the sea monster sounded.

gocsick wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 8:09 pm I was actually complemented by a few players around me at Tuba Xmas this year about how good the sea monster sounded.

Pretty sure that's a B-flat monster and not a C monster.

Okay, I'll show myself out.

Booooooo!

Lee Stofer told me years ago that the key to the old 2XJ Conns was to make sure that there were no dents in the leadpipe, the valve knuckles and the valve tubing. Otherwise, the old Conns played reasonably well in tune. The 25J I bought from him was quite serviceably in tune. I could use 1+3 or lip the F into pitch. D in the staff and C were very close to pitch. I would have that horn still had I not gotten too puny to haul it up and down stairs.

I believe that he had replaced the leadpipe, too, and I have no idea how it was different from the original.

I seem to remember Bloke sometime in the past attributing the flat 3rd partial on the big Holtons to the top bow being too large. It does seem to be a common factor. I'm not of the school that believes the leadpipe has much effect on how overtones line up; pretty sure that's determined in the large bows: rate of flare.

Am I wrong in thinking that someone experimented with inserting brass shims in the large bows of a 6/4 tuba to try to tame some of the intonation characteristics?

As I think about it, Carl may well be right. As a corollary to the mouthpipe taper being the issue, I also recently played a tuba that had a "bellectomy" and was a sort of mishmash between a vintage Pan-American/Conn 10J-like smaller bore BBb thing (.700" bore, ish?) and a soldered-on front-facing Hager (York/Pan-Am) bell. That tuba had a fairly short leadpipe and I would describe the tuba as small 4/4 sized, and it had one of the flattest third partial Fs I have ever encountered.

A lot of words to say "I dunno."

It would be sort of interesting to compile a list of all the tubas that display this issue and take measurements of the rate of taper and try to determine if they all have something in common.

UncleBeer wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:38 am I seem to remember Bloke sometime in the past attributing the flat 3rd partial on the big Holtons to the top bow being too large. It does seem to be a common factor. I'm not of the school that believes the leadpipe has much effect on how overtones line up; pretty sure that's determined in the large bows: rate of flare.

I wonder if there are models that share the same valve sections and leadpipes but different bow sizes, flares, and or wraps. The only one that comes to mind is the MW20 and MW25, the only difference is the bottom bow and bell flare. I think the 20 was considered to have better intonation than the 25. Neither are American, piston, or particularly large though.

@arpthark I believe Wade mentioned something like that in his own Holton 345 thread.

This is all good information, but what I still don’t understand is why some 345’s don’t exhibit that characteristic, namely, the tuba bloke fixed in his twin-spin thread.

So, if ALL 345 top bows are too large, that would mean all of them theoretically should exhibit that flatness.

What is it about that one and some others that is different? That tells me there’s got to be something about them that is F’d in some way that isn’t F’d on the horns with good pitch.

(NOT disagreeing with anyone here, just posing more questions)

Yeah. I guessed at something, but I don't know anything. Modern manufacturers who use computer programs to minimize and compromise inherent tuning flaws know things.

There are some six quarter tubas that hint at playing the third partial flat when they are cold, and then as the entire instrument is warmed up that partial is no longer flat at all. It's not my imagination or anyone's else. Whether it's the big top bow or another area that is large, it's obviously somewhere out in the larger part of the instrument that gets warmed up enough so as that partial is no longer flat on some models. On other ones, it's just so very flat that there's nothing that can be done with additional warmth of the air in that area of the instrument. This is what I believe, and it's not what I know. I don't know.

I'm not particularly clever, and I'm not very analytical. I'm just good at posting a bunch of words quite often.

The 2xJ are pretty notorious for having an F below the staff that tends flat.

Maybe I’m forgetting, but I don’t remember 2165s being all that bad regarding the G at the bottom of the staff. I do know that they tend to get lumped into the “flat third partial because it’s a 6/4 BAT of American style” category.

I’m also a bit suspect regarding some of these claims overa because:

There have been several “medium sized” C tubas in the past with sharp third partials, as the overtone series would often tend to. Then players hop on a 6/4 C and play with the embouchure that compensates for a sharp third partial on a tuba with wide(r) slots and now the note is low. This is in addition to players expecting to play all contrabass tubas with one mouthpiece.

Basically, absolutes aren’t absolute when it comes to 16+ feet of tubing with bunches of variables involved.

Also, it’s really tough to judge a horn’s Bb intonation tendencies when it’s been cut to C.

In my experience most 2165 tubas - as well as the similar 6450 tubas - are some of those were G starts out pretty flat when the instrument is cold and then creeps up as it warms up. For me, the G still end up about 5 cents flat at best, and - if not given particular attention - it's still pretty easy to play the G flat.

bloke "5 (or even - more commonly with these) 10+ cents ain't much, but it also ain't nuthin'."

Every horn and every player is different, as we know.

But, with such a large sample size of 2XJ’s, 34X’s, and other big tubas (and sousaphones) with that note being flat, it has to be something in the design of those tubas.

It just doesn’t explain why some don’t exhibit this characteristic.

It is true that moving from a small tuba to a big one will take some learning time. I’ve been playing on BATs most of this year, and still don’t feel quite used to them yet.

I’m going to do some fiddling around, and some asking around, to see if we can find a concrete answer to this question. I have access to my own 2165, 340, and someone else’s 20J, and yet another’s Martin Mammoth. When I get some time this summer I’ll see about getting them together to compare pitch and design characteristics.

Sousaswag wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 2:39 pm But, with such a large sample size of 2XJ’s, 34X’s, and other big tubas (and sousaphones) with that note being flat, it has to be something in the design of those tubas.

It just doesn’t explain why some don’t exhibit this characteristic.

Yes, one exception is enough to invalidate the theory. Unless you want to argue the inverse of Stofer's story, and say the exception is caused by dents or something that make it play in tune. I'd find it easier to believe Stofer on the subject.

That doesn't rule out contributing factor, though. It wouldn't be real surprising if extra large tubas could be extra sensitive to leadpipe dents, etc.

If you have a tuba like this, try tuning to F, as some bands do. I'm curious to see how that would work out.