Re: Short Action vs. "Regular" Piston Valves


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lee A. Stofer, Jr. on October 29, 2001 at 09:11:54:

In Reply to: Short Action vs. "Regular" Piston Valves posted by Short Action Cook on October 25, 2001 at 19:37:36:

Being a long-time Conn-artist, I must offer my $0.02.
Conn was not the only company to try short-action valves. Holton experimented with a system for bass instruments where the leadpipe forked into two tubes of half that diameter before entering the valve section, resulting in an extremely short action. I have seen one of these instuments and it is bizarre looking, with miniature double tubes going between the piston casings. The project was dropped when they found out that it had awful resistance and stuffiness. As an owner of both a 2XJ with short-action valves, and a 34J with standard pistons, I'll tell you that the 34J is slightly stronger in tone, and slightly more open, but with a horn that big, how much will you miss a little power?!! The other, and most noticeable thing about the 34J is that it is much more tiring to my valve hand in long performances. One additional note; if you play a 2XJ or 3XJ tuba and have intonation difficulties, consider that they were designed to be played with one tuning bit. The original, I'm told, was a little different in angle compared to a Conn sousaphone bit, but the sousa bit works fine. I've found that my 2XJ and 3XJ are both much better in tune with one bit, and it also allows for adjustment of the angle of the mouthpiece. Better in tune, more comfortable, what more could one ask for? ;^)
Lee Stofer


Follow Ups: