Re: Re: A *new* question for Matt Walters...


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

Posted by Todd Morgan on April 05, 2003 at 02:24:46:

In Reply to: Re: A *new* question for Matt Walters... posted by Kenneth Sloan on April 04, 2003 at 22:35:03:

You are right about the valve set being the reason a rotary horn would be trashed. However, like mentioned in the "1960's/70's" post The rotary horns that I have seen trashed (a 1970's Mirafone) had a bell and bow sections that were beyond repair. The rotors themselves were still usable. So, one could Frankenstein the valve set from that horn and install it along with the bell and bows from a different horn.

I wonder if bore has something to do with it. I believe about 80%+ of Matt's Dillonized (at least of the ones I have seen) horns have a .689 bore (harvested usually from Conn sousaphones). Most rotary valve horns are .750 and larger. Perhaps bore doesn't matter.

-Todd


Follow Ups: