Posted by Todd W. White on March 07, 2003 at 00:13:52:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: King 2341 Info Needed posted by Rick Denney on March 06, 2003 at 12:17:01:
No need to be sarcastic - I used the caps for emphasis because, unless I'm mistaken, HTML is not allowed in our posts...I wasn't yelling...
Several points:
1. I do not "worship" these horns - I worship God, but not a horn. The fact that I really like them doesn't constitute "worship," and it's insulting for you to infer that it does.
2. I did NOT say the 1241's were perfectly in tune. I merely stated that they were often so close that they required little, if any, of the adjustments needed on other horns.
3. I initially asked a question that you never answered regarding which era 1241 you were talking about as being inferior to the 2341 - I think that any discussion on this topic would have to have these parameters defined, otherwise we're watering a lawn in a rainstorm to even talk about it. I tried to make the question easier to understand by those who are unfamiliar with the instruments in question by stating that there are differences in the quality of the 1241, depending upon the era in which it was made. So, please tell me which era you're talking about, and we'll discuss your original post.
4. I do not see anything that I have stated as being a contradiction: I never said that ALL of the 1241's were perfectly in tune, and, therefore, needed no adjustments, so I didn't contradict myself when I advised that people ought to get a horn that plays closely in tune, then learn how to lip it when/where necesary. This would, of course, include times when one is playing with others, not just alone in front of a tuner.
5. As to which era 1241's were better - I've already stated the answer to that: my experience has been that the 1241's made during the H. N. White Co. era - especially from the late 50's on through when the company changed hands (early '70's, as I recall) were, overall, better instruments than the later ones. The closer they got to the merger with Conn, et. al, the worse they got. My reason for asking you which era was simple: if your experience with the 1241 has been limited to the ones of later manufacture, then I would be in agreement with your statement. If you were broad-brushing all of the 1241's, then I would have to disagree...
6. As to Mr. Bell's design assistance with the H. N. White Co. on the KING tuba's and sousaphone's - he was a stickler for quality, and, as such, his involvement DID lead to a wildly successful series of instruments. But, I would agree, not all endorsements - especially today - are what they are cracked up to be...
7. One more thing: regarding bell size - most people are not aware that the bell of a brass instrument is an acoustic transformer. As such, it matches the impedance of the air column inside the horn with the impedance of the open air...this was the reason for the large-size bell on the big KING tuba's and sousaphone's (a principle that was not unknown to C. G. Conn, Martin, and other manufacturers, as well). When they changed the size of the bell on the 1241, it messed the horn up a LOT - one the ones I have played, I believe it also affected the tuning quite adversely.
Incidentally: did you know that, in the old days, KING tuba's and sousaphone's had matched bells/bodies - they matched the mechanical resonance of the body of the horn with the bell that was being attached to it. This made for excellent projection and intonation. It also made it easier to blow the horn.
Todd W. White, Tuba
Tulsa Community Band
Sapulpa Community Band
Section Leader, University of Ark., 1978-83