I am interested in player preferences as to large F tuba versus small F tuba. I’ve owned/borrowed/tried a variety of F tubas, and currently use the little Yamaha 621 F as a very respectable substitute on serpent, ophicleide, cimbasso and bass trombone parts (one would have to invest a great deal of practice time to arrive at an acceptable level on these instruments).
I might like a larger F for solos, but I also play a great deal of Eb.
Some players might have the skills to scale down the sound on a 4/4 or 5/4 sized ‘F, but that is not all that much fun, long term.
K.
large F versus small F
-
kathott
- bugler
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:01 am
- Location: Canada
large F versus small F
Last edited by kathott on Wed Mar 05, 2025 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Schmenge Kaiser EEb, 3 valve (two rotors, one piston), with a Kosicup mouthpiece (9.2 mm)
MESSAGES are checked Sundays
MESSAGES are checked Sundays
-
Easy Mac
- bugler
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:43 pm
Re: large F versus small F
EDIT: This is over-long. I apologize for that.
______________________________________________
I have (and have had) both. My first F was a 1974 irafone 180-5U with some real issues. I bought it from Dave at BBC when he first started that shop. he claimed to me on the phone that it was the best example of this model that he had ever played, so my opinion of these was set to Full Negative from that time on.
HOWEVER…
I got a LOT of use out of that tuba, performing in my orchestra and in the AIMS Festival Orchestra in Austria, even playing the RVW Concerto on one of my orchestra's Chamber Series programs.
Three pros for these that make me interested in one day getting another…
• the sound
• the volume
• the clarity
Sometimes you hear folks say the Conn 2xJ tubas cannot be played well below mf. (I have never experienced this.) You ocassionally hear this about other horns, too. My 180 could be played well at low volumes, but only so low. In fact, it was the LOUDEST tuba I have ever played, bar none. That little sucker produced some meat. I do not understand why this is.
Some cons…
• massive "low-C-itis"
• 23 combo was hideously out of tune through the overtone series
• the volume
Again, you could not get soft enough. I had a tough experience with the Strauß "Serenade" that left me confused. The tuba part is indicated for tuba or contrabassoon, and this tuba could NOT get into the ensemble in the softer parts. It made me feel like a ham-fisted clod on a few things. I had to quickly make a mute for it, which worked well.
My next F was an excellent YFB-621 that I used at work for well over a decade. I never, ever "bonded" with this tuba. I just never really enjoyed the thing. It did everything I wanted it to do, and OTHER PLAYERS liked the sound. ("It sounds just like a tuba to me.") I hated that sound. It was not what I wanted it to be, and I struggled with mouthpieces for about five years until I stumbled upon one that created a warmr tone for me, while also improving the low end volume. That horn never had a great upper register, and Bydlo was very difficult to play on that example, whereas it was a snap on my Mirafone.
I went to a Kurath F next. It is the extreme opposite of the spectrum for an F tuba. It is the biggest F I have ever personally played. It is one of those F tubas that seems like the builder wanted to create a small contrabass tuba, but only 12 feet long. Honestly, it plays like an excellent, large piston Eb tuba that is 200¢ sharp. I have done a ton of work to it to dial it down a bit, as it is too bog for solo work, IMHO. I did a solo recital on it, and all I could think about was how loud it was. Like the little Mirafone, it just dumps sound out of the bell, but it is a BIG sound, so above the staff it just feels "horsey" to me. (Yeah, I know. That is a very vague adjective, but it is the best I can think of in this specific case.) There is nothing wrong with the sound at all. It is just too tuba-ish when way up there. I guess I got used to the clear and clean sounds of the smaller F tubas when playing stuff like Berlioz or the Vaughan Williams. I don't really know what my deal is with this tuba. However, a much tighter leadpipe and a smaller mouthpiece seem to have helped in this regard greatly. The horn's low register has not bee affected at all by these changes, so it seems to split the difference better than it did, and I am playing the Broughton on it soon without any issues with the weight or color of the sound now.
I had an excellent Adams, but after the Kurath it was just too small. It was like the Yamaha, with better intonation and a much more colorful tone. I loved it. However, I use F exclusively in quintet, which is a large part of my contract, and I never fell in love wiht it in that setting. If I were a Uni prof who did a lot of solo recital work it would have been perfect for me, but my needs are better fulfilled by my Kurath, so that is where I am right now.
After nearly 40 years of F tuba playing with the smallest and largest examples I have to say that the larger horns suit my needs better, but I enjoy the smaller ones more. However, I am not a good enough player to make the low ranges of the smaller ones sound robust enough on below-the-staff walking basslines with a set drummer in a quintet to want to work that hard. And we play that sort of rep all the time, whereas the rep with bass bone/euph 5th parts that a lot of tuba players are saddled with (frequently much more "serious" rep) we only play on occasion, and I can swing them fine on the larger horn. So for me the larger ones win out.
I cannot cope with the dreaded low C issues with which many F tubas are saddled. My face does not lurch around and spasm and contort fast enough for me to ever be happy playing one of those horns. I see that issue as terrible engineering. It has been more or less solved by so many designs that to have as many stinkers still on the market is simply a sign of a lazy, complacent business. I think I know what causes it, and I understand why it is not fixed: it cannot be, due to the wrap of the bugle of these horns, and would require a total redesign, which would not be profitable. I think it would be more ethical (for makers who have a breakthough with this and create an F with a solid low register) to simply pull the stinkers from their catalogs. They won't, however, because the "fixed" F tubas generally do not sound like the stereotypical "singing" F tubas with the craptacular low ends. To fix the one issue you have to let the other one go. Or you have to invest far more R&D $$$$$$$ to get both qualities, and then you would have a super-expensive tuba that no one is willing to buy. HB/Adams has figured this out and produced tubas that are/were very reasonably priced for what you get. But most tuba players think paying 25% of what a bassoonist or violinist pays for a top-quality instrument is apallingly high. So paying the same amount would cause them to suffer a brain hemmorage. (We are spoiled by having such cheap instruments. We compare ourselves to trumpeters in this regard, which is truly stupid and shortsighted of us, since really top shelf trumpets cost a lot more than most tubas. We are woefully out of tough with this reality. I have a YamaYork. It was worth every penny I spent on it, too, despite the pain of paying for it. It is the best tuba I have ever played, bar none. and it cost me half of what our bassoonists and most of our fiddle players paid for their axes. It is all attitudinal. If we are willing to pay for genuine acoustical excellence makers will rise to this and start producing more horns like Adams and the Yamaha 826. Until we are willing to pay for this quality we will continue to get crippled instruments that are out piteously out of tune or have whole reginsters that play poorly.
Sorry. Off my soapbox. Anyway, I was intrigued by your post. I did not intend to answer you with far more than you wanted.
Yet here we are…
In the end, I agree with you about scaling down the sound. I dislike my Kurath for this specirfic thing, but it still serves my needs more than a smaller horn that handles lighter material better. In the end I intend to get a smaller F for that sort of stuff.
Or a cimbasso.
Maybe.
______________________________________________
I have (and have had) both. My first F was a 1974 irafone 180-5U with some real issues. I bought it from Dave at BBC when he first started that shop. he claimed to me on the phone that it was the best example of this model that he had ever played, so my opinion of these was set to Full Negative from that time on.
HOWEVER…
I got a LOT of use out of that tuba, performing in my orchestra and in the AIMS Festival Orchestra in Austria, even playing the RVW Concerto on one of my orchestra's Chamber Series programs.
Three pros for these that make me interested in one day getting another…
• the sound
• the volume
• the clarity
Sometimes you hear folks say the Conn 2xJ tubas cannot be played well below mf. (I have never experienced this.) You ocassionally hear this about other horns, too. My 180 could be played well at low volumes, but only so low. In fact, it was the LOUDEST tuba I have ever played, bar none. That little sucker produced some meat. I do not understand why this is.
Some cons…
• massive "low-C-itis"
• 23 combo was hideously out of tune through the overtone series
• the volume
Again, you could not get soft enough. I had a tough experience with the Strauß "Serenade" that left me confused. The tuba part is indicated for tuba or contrabassoon, and this tuba could NOT get into the ensemble in the softer parts. It made me feel like a ham-fisted clod on a few things. I had to quickly make a mute for it, which worked well.
My next F was an excellent YFB-621 that I used at work for well over a decade. I never, ever "bonded" with this tuba. I just never really enjoyed the thing. It did everything I wanted it to do, and OTHER PLAYERS liked the sound. ("It sounds just like a tuba to me.") I hated that sound. It was not what I wanted it to be, and I struggled with mouthpieces for about five years until I stumbled upon one that created a warmr tone for me, while also improving the low end volume. That horn never had a great upper register, and Bydlo was very difficult to play on that example, whereas it was a snap on my Mirafone.
I went to a Kurath F next. It is the extreme opposite of the spectrum for an F tuba. It is the biggest F I have ever personally played. It is one of those F tubas that seems like the builder wanted to create a small contrabass tuba, but only 12 feet long. Honestly, it plays like an excellent, large piston Eb tuba that is 200¢ sharp. I have done a ton of work to it to dial it down a bit, as it is too bog for solo work, IMHO. I did a solo recital on it, and all I could think about was how loud it was. Like the little Mirafone, it just dumps sound out of the bell, but it is a BIG sound, so above the staff it just feels "horsey" to me. (Yeah, I know. That is a very vague adjective, but it is the best I can think of in this specific case.) There is nothing wrong with the sound at all. It is just too tuba-ish when way up there. I guess I got used to the clear and clean sounds of the smaller F tubas when playing stuff like Berlioz or the Vaughan Williams. I don't really know what my deal is with this tuba. However, a much tighter leadpipe and a smaller mouthpiece seem to have helped in this regard greatly. The horn's low register has not bee affected at all by these changes, so it seems to split the difference better than it did, and I am playing the Broughton on it soon without any issues with the weight or color of the sound now.
I had an excellent Adams, but after the Kurath it was just too small. It was like the Yamaha, with better intonation and a much more colorful tone. I loved it. However, I use F exclusively in quintet, which is a large part of my contract, and I never fell in love wiht it in that setting. If I were a Uni prof who did a lot of solo recital work it would have been perfect for me, but my needs are better fulfilled by my Kurath, so that is where I am right now.
After nearly 40 years of F tuba playing with the smallest and largest examples I have to say that the larger horns suit my needs better, but I enjoy the smaller ones more. However, I am not a good enough player to make the low ranges of the smaller ones sound robust enough on below-the-staff walking basslines with a set drummer in a quintet to want to work that hard. And we play that sort of rep all the time, whereas the rep with bass bone/euph 5th parts that a lot of tuba players are saddled with (frequently much more "serious" rep) we only play on occasion, and I can swing them fine on the larger horn. So for me the larger ones win out.
I cannot cope with the dreaded low C issues with which many F tubas are saddled. My face does not lurch around and spasm and contort fast enough for me to ever be happy playing one of those horns. I see that issue as terrible engineering. It has been more or less solved by so many designs that to have as many stinkers still on the market is simply a sign of a lazy, complacent business. I think I know what causes it, and I understand why it is not fixed: it cannot be, due to the wrap of the bugle of these horns, and would require a total redesign, which would not be profitable. I think it would be more ethical (for makers who have a breakthough with this and create an F with a solid low register) to simply pull the stinkers from their catalogs. They won't, however, because the "fixed" F tubas generally do not sound like the stereotypical "singing" F tubas with the craptacular low ends. To fix the one issue you have to let the other one go. Or you have to invest far more R&D $$$$$$$ to get both qualities, and then you would have a super-expensive tuba that no one is willing to buy. HB/Adams has figured this out and produced tubas that are/were very reasonably priced for what you get. But most tuba players think paying 25% of what a bassoonist or violinist pays for a top-quality instrument is apallingly high. So paying the same amount would cause them to suffer a brain hemmorage. (We are spoiled by having such cheap instruments. We compare ourselves to trumpeters in this regard, which is truly stupid and shortsighted of us, since really top shelf trumpets cost a lot more than most tubas. We are woefully out of tough with this reality. I have a YamaYork. It was worth every penny I spent on it, too, despite the pain of paying for it. It is the best tuba I have ever played, bar none. and it cost me half of what our bassoonists and most of our fiddle players paid for their axes. It is all attitudinal. If we are willing to pay for genuine acoustical excellence makers will rise to this and start producing more horns like Adams and the Yamaha 826. Until we are willing to pay for this quality we will continue to get crippled instruments that are out piteously out of tune or have whole reginsters that play poorly.
Sorry. Off my soapbox. Anyway, I was intrigued by your post. I did not intend to answer you with far more than you wanted.
Yet here we are…
In the end, I agree with you about scaling down the sound. I dislike my Kurath for this specirfic thing, but it still serves my needs more than a smaller horn that handles lighter material better. In the end I intend to get a smaller F for that sort of stuff.
Or a cimbasso.
Maybe.
-
Sousaswag
- 3 valves
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:12 pm
Re: large F versus small F
I too am putting in my vote for the large F.
Look, at the end of the day, I don't want to change the way I play to get the best out of an instrument. That "low C" phenomenon is really present in the older rotor F tubas, but the new piston models are just lights out good in that range. The challenge then is to find a large F tuba with acceptable intonation, and really, the newer the better.
If you really want that solo horn that you're never going to play low stuff with, fine, go with that Alexander or Pt-10 and run with it. But if you want that large F to do your small gigs, quintet, solo stuff, brass band, etc, you'd be hard pressed to get away with a traditional rotary F tuba.
I've been through several bass tubas.
Eastman 864 - One of the prototypes, I think. Just didn't like dealing with the low register. Pitch was really good, though, and I liked the way it sounded.
Meinl Weston 2141 - This one was a real dog. Great response and playability but absolutely terrible intonation for me. It would be a real contender for an all around tuba if you find one with good intonation...
Willson 3200 - The piston version. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have sold this one. There wasn't really anything wrong with it. Pitch was manageable, low register was nails. But...
Willson 3200RZ - This one showed up for sale. I had to have it. As rare as it is in the US, I just had to have it. Don't get me wrong, I like it better than my previous piston version, but that's probably because I've had SO MUCH freaking work done to the thing.
I had previous damage almost completely repaired, that I didn't know about until I had the horn worked on a few times. Still waiting on Willson to send me a few replacement tubes that are replacing ones that are just bent up weirdly.
I had the thumb ring moved - Because it was in a terrible location originally.
I sent the valves to Martin Wilk, to have the extra mass cut out of them, because rotax valves are SO heavy. This is the best thing I've ever done to any tuba, ever. Totally worth it, and wouldn't go back.
Next, I will be replacing Willson's factory "rotohead" linkage that is unbelievably over-designed and finnicky to deal with. I'll be using Minibal stuff.
Could it use a first slide trigger? Well, maybe. Keep that in mind for the future.
It's still my favorite large F tuba, and I'm into it less than I would be the large Meinl 2250 or similar. Is it the BEST? Who knows. But for me and how I play, the large F tuba is the way to go. I think they do sound like "tuba" but isn't that the point of it? These are for people who don't want or need to sound like something the instrument is not. Just my 2 cents...
Look, at the end of the day, I don't want to change the way I play to get the best out of an instrument. That "low C" phenomenon is really present in the older rotor F tubas, but the new piston models are just lights out good in that range. The challenge then is to find a large F tuba with acceptable intonation, and really, the newer the better.
If you really want that solo horn that you're never going to play low stuff with, fine, go with that Alexander or Pt-10 and run with it. But if you want that large F to do your small gigs, quintet, solo stuff, brass band, etc, you'd be hard pressed to get away with a traditional rotary F tuba.
I've been through several bass tubas.
Eastman 864 - One of the prototypes, I think. Just didn't like dealing with the low register. Pitch was really good, though, and I liked the way it sounded.
Meinl Weston 2141 - This one was a real dog. Great response and playability but absolutely terrible intonation for me. It would be a real contender for an all around tuba if you find one with good intonation...
Willson 3200 - The piston version. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have sold this one. There wasn't really anything wrong with it. Pitch was manageable, low register was nails. But...
Willson 3200RZ - This one showed up for sale. I had to have it. As rare as it is in the US, I just had to have it. Don't get me wrong, I like it better than my previous piston version, but that's probably because I've had SO MUCH freaking work done to the thing.
I had previous damage almost completely repaired, that I didn't know about until I had the horn worked on a few times. Still waiting on Willson to send me a few replacement tubes that are replacing ones that are just bent up weirdly.
I had the thumb ring moved - Because it was in a terrible location originally.
I sent the valves to Martin Wilk, to have the extra mass cut out of them, because rotax valves are SO heavy. This is the best thing I've ever done to any tuba, ever. Totally worth it, and wouldn't go back.
Next, I will be replacing Willson's factory "rotohead" linkage that is unbelievably over-designed and finnicky to deal with. I'll be using Minibal stuff.
Could it use a first slide trigger? Well, maybe. Keep that in mind for the future.
It's still my favorite large F tuba, and I'm into it less than I would be the large Meinl 2250 or similar. Is it the BEST? Who knows. But for me and how I play, the large F tuba is the way to go. I think they do sound like "tuba" but isn't that the point of it? These are for people who don't want or need to sound like something the instrument is not. Just my 2 cents...
Modified Meinl Weston 2165
Willson 3200RZ-5
Holton 345
Holton 350
Bohm & Meinl 5520
Willson 3200RZ-5
Holton 345
Holton 350
Bohm & Meinl 5520
-
the elephant
- bugler
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2024 3:21 pm
Re: large F versus small F
Are you any relation to Jim or Bonnie Ott?
-
kathott
- bugler
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:01 am
- Location: Canada
Re: large F versus small F
the elephant, Quoted: Are you any relation to Jim or Bonnie Ott?
A coincidence that you have posted, as I was recently reading your remarks on pitch aspects of the Yamaha 621 F. My instrument rides high, requiring a generous pull of the MTS.
Incidentally, no relation to Ott. My Tubenet ID is just a nickname from the kids.
K.
A coincidence that you have posted, as I was recently reading your remarks on pitch aspects of the Yamaha 621 F. My instrument rides high, requiring a generous pull of the MTS.
Incidentally, no relation to Ott. My Tubenet ID is just a nickname from the kids.
K.
Schmenge Kaiser EEb, 3 valve (two rotors, one piston), with a Kosicup mouthpiece (9.2 mm)
MESSAGES are checked Sundays
MESSAGES are checked Sundays
-
the elephant
- bugler
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2024 3:21 pm
Re: large F versus small F
I had to run with my MTS out so far that my thigh would push it back in as I played, requiring me to pull it out every few minutes as I played.
I spliced-in about 4" of matching tubing between the rotor and end of the leadpipe. I also had to splice in a short knuckle to angle the leadipipe upwards. Had that not been done either the leadpie would have stuck out into space from the bell or the leadpipe would have needed to be annealed, filledwith a bending medium, reshaped, and cleaned out. I was unsure how the horn would play with this extension, or even if the extension would be the correct length, so I wanted to be able to reverse all the work and go back to the factory setup. If I did not like it after having bent the pipe — well, you cannot UN-bend a metal pipe!
Luckily for me it was the best single modification I did to that horn (which had mods all over it for ergonomics). The tuba played in tune with the MTS out about 1.5" and I could sit in a far less stooped and painful position. Fantastic.
Good luck to you!
I spliced-in about 4" of matching tubing between the rotor and end of the leadpipe. I also had to splice in a short knuckle to angle the leadipipe upwards. Had that not been done either the leadpie would have stuck out into space from the bell or the leadpipe would have needed to be annealed, filledwith a bending medium, reshaped, and cleaned out. I was unsure how the horn would play with this extension, or even if the extension would be the correct length, so I wanted to be able to reverse all the work and go back to the factory setup. If I did not like it after having bent the pipe — well, you cannot UN-bend a metal pipe!
Luckily for me it was the best single modification I did to that horn (which had mods all over it for ergonomics). The tuba played in tune with the MTS out about 1.5" and I could sit in a far less stooped and painful position. Fantastic.
Good luck to you!