Pistons vs. Rotors, a simple survey

[prodigal]

I guess this is a bloke-worth troll, but do you prefer pistons or rotors for your main valves (4 pistons plus 1 rotor doesn't count!).

As for me and my horns:

5 rotors on the tubas, and 8 pistons in the truck to get them down the road. I grew up with Miraph(f)ones for tubas, and used up sousaphones, so I'm biased.

[the elephant]

I have no preference whatsoever. Valve type has never once influenced a decision to buy or not buy an instrument. Valve CONDITION, however…

[2nd tenor]

I’ve never used rotors on a Tuba and there’s surely good reason why something so complex to make as a piston is fitted to so many tubas. On Trombones I have used a rotor and (imho) some work better and have better airflow than others. If I were voting, which I’m not, then I think I’d vote for pistons.

[bloke]

I prefer excellent/light/fast.

[bloke]

Until the mid-80s,
Most American School tubas either three front action or top action pistons. Many schools owned nothing but sousaphones or maybe one tuba and a bunch of sousaphones "back in the day".

Miraphone, rotary valves, upright bells had been cool with equipment geek oriented band directors for at least a decade, but most school systems really didn't have any money until the '80s.
Around that time they started loading up on rotary valve tubas - mostly Miraphone and Meinl-Weston... But also some Czech and communist German stuff.

Around the same time, Hirsbrunner (of course, Holton was first) made the second knockoff of the CSO York 6/4 C tuba and Walter Nirschl made a valveset for it.
Everyone thought it was so cool but almost no one had $10,000, so they started pasting the same valve section on their smaller models and offering those for maybe six to eight thousand dollars.

...and then for front action piston valves for American professional and wannabe professional players was off to the races.

I'm thinking back in the 1940s and 1950s, top tier American tuba players (and I'm not implying top-tier pay, they didn't make much) either played European instruments with rotary valves or King tubas with rotary valves.

[Grumpikins]

I only had a rotary tuba for about a year. Miraphone. Fought with them all the time. Took it to a repair tech, he said they had been installed incorrectly. They were better after, but still hung up a little bit. Then I traded it towards my Cc. Thing is, even though the rotars hung up sometimes, I really liked that tuba. Honestly, that tuba would have been sufficient for almost everything I have done. I'd like to find one cheap that i can fix up. But that will have to be a goal for down the road.

As to the question. I guess I prefer piston valves because they are easier for me to maintain because they're what I'm familiar with. But, I like having different tubas because of the different sound characteristics of the different types. Therefore I also want a rotary tuba in my stable.

Make sense? I'm confused now.

[bloke]

A couple of decades ago, I had an entry level Fiat which was a very small car with a manual transmission. It was always breaking down.

I later bought a Toyota Camry with an automatic transmission.
I never had a lick of trouble with it.

Based on these experiences, I never buy really small cars anymore and choose medium large cars and with automatic transmissions.

.

[Charlie C Chowder]

I am from the Bloke era of school Horns. I played sousaphones until I was a senior in Hi school, then I got the one and only tuba, a 20j conn. The nest year they got the Miraphnes 286s. I was jealous! I wanted a rotary with a passion. But I was not a music major and Vietnam was calling. I switched to Classical guitar. When I started clowning I bought a sousaphone, and then my York. But then I found a Armadi and bought it, then a Mariphone, and moved the Armadi. I then found moved to Slant rotor Marzan. As bad as I play It makes no matter to me. It is the sound that I get and the mechanics do not seem to matter. In my house seven out of eight are Pistons.

CCC

[Casca Grossa]

My hand pain dictates I use small bore rotors.

[MiBrassFS]

.

[Schlitzz]

Obviously, on my bass, contrabass trombones, it’s rotors. Baritones/euphs, pistons. I should note that it’s been debatable what I like for tubas. A real poll, would be about allowing the viola players to have ice cream.

[Grumpikins]

The other day I was looking at new baritones, I came across this website. From the site, they are a younger couple passionate about more traditional instrument manufacturing. They started thier shop and thier products look amazing.

Start – Meisterinstrumente Kroning
https://meisterinstrumente-kroning.de/?lang=en#top

They make a tenor tuba that caught my attention. It looks fantastic.. rotary. Check it out.

[tadawson]

Way back when I used to play a piston Conn sousaphone, and was good with. When I first played a 186, it was like a light coming on . . . On my personal 186, light and quick, with great feel, and seems to only asks for oil every 30 to 60 days. I've never looked back .

But then again, my sample size is small . . . 3 or 4 sousas, and the same number of Mira[f/ph]ones . . .

[Sousaswag]

I have and use both.

It’s been more common that my big tuba has pistons, though.

I like Wade’s thought - I prefer valves in good condition.

[catgrowlB]

I don't really mind either way -- I like both rotors and pistons as long as they operate well and are smooth.
You have to oil pistons much more frequently than rotors, but otherwise are much easier to maintain and are 'direct action' valves. On rotors, you have many more moving parts involved, including linkage.
That said, I probably lean more towards piston preference because most of my tubas/sousas are piston

[Snake Charmer]

The only rotary horn I own is inherited (an 1920s oval Eb alto), all others I bought myself are pistons.
I love the simplicity of a direct action piston valves and until now I was able to find horns which work for me ergonomically. The ergonomics of rotaries are most times compromised by tradition or cost cutting, I played only two which I really liked from the feel. This means from handling feel, I don't find a difference in playing quality.
Even in different piston systems I have (Perinet, Berlin, Sax hybrid) I find no real differences I can blame on the valves as I could't test the different valves in similar horns.
When a valve works good I'm fine, as long I can push it without hurting myself

[acemorgan]

I loved the feel of the of the Mirafone I played in college (first experience with rotors) and then the Mirafone I later owned. I convinced myself that I was able to play faster than I ever could with pistons.

But the ergonomics of having to support it with my left arm (and arthritic shoulder) led me to sell it and downsize. With top-action Eb tubas and a euphonium, I have much better body mechanics.

They have all served me well, and I find my fingering speed is as good as it ever was .

So, I'm fine with either. I just really don't understand the appeal of front-action pistons. But to each, his own . . .

[windshieldbug]

I suspect that the truth lies more in bore profile and wrap than it does in the minute differences in valve type actuation and the performer's perception thereof.

[rodgeman]

I prefer rotory valves for my tuba - especially for removal of water via the water key.

[je]

I suspect that the truth lies more in bore profile and wrap than it does in the minute differences in valve type actuation and the performer's perception thereof.

This. I wanted the darker tone of conical bore, so I settled on piston valves. It seems to me that rotary valves could be used with a shorter leadpipe than is typical, but maybe sharper bends of rotary valves vs pistons makes a larger bore through the valve block a necessary tradeoff? Whatever the case, I chose based on sound rather than on mechanical details.