TubeNet

The Yamaha 201 is a standard 4/4 tuba.

Yeah, you'll probably want to see it to make sure what size it really is.

Also, you may want to check out some other specs about the instrument which may give further indications of it's size. Try comparing instrument height, bell diameter and even bore size. These will help in deciding how big the instrument actually is.

It is the 3 valve version of the 321, which I don't think anyone would call a 3/4. Since the bell and body are the same as a 321 I would call it a 4/4.

yeah... a 201 is big. It's not a cute little tuba.

bloke wrote:

I'm just saying, don't get caught in the sizing game, it can get very confusing.

Without getting confused, I'd say that a YBB-201 is BIG...

...AND UGLY

As Joe says... the YBB-201 is not a small tuba. I had two of them about three weeks ago. One I sold and the other I parted out. In fact, I put the bell on a Miraphone 186. Here are some of the specs of the YBB-201:

Bell size: 17 1/2" diameter (similar to Miraphone)
Bore size: .720
Piston diameter: 1.040"

The overall height is about 42" and basically dwarfs a Mira 186.

Bigger tubas than the 201 may be available, but few will be as difficult to hold as this one. It seems to me that it was designed before the word ergonomics was invented. Am I alone in this opinion? How do fellow 201 players feel about this?

It's kinda the band standard for a big horn here.
I didn't think it was bad... certainly not nearly as horrible as the early 102's

As Lew said, the 201 is a 3 valve version of the 321. Back in the early 70's, Schilke presented a clinic at SUNY Fredonia where I did my undergrad work among other things. He designed many of the Yamaha instruments that are available today and eventually sold the patents to Yamaha - I don't know the details on that. He brought the prototype of the 321 with him to Fredonia. My tuba prof., Rudy Emilson and myself, played it and liked how it played, but we both thought that it was an uncomfortable instrument to hold. Mr. Schilke said that was the major complaint he was getting about the tuba and he was thinking of redesigning it. I guess he decided not to.

Dutch wrote:Bigger tubas than the 201 may be available, but few will be as difficult to hold as this one. It seems to me that it was designed before the word ergonomics was invented. Am I alone in this opinion? How do fellow 201 players feel about this?

I buy and sell lots of low brass.... especially school-type horns. I play every one that comes through the shop for at least a couple of hours, and I can tell you that I regard the Yamaha YBB 201 as probably the most uncomfortable horn I've had in my hands. Funny... the guy I sold it to LOVES it. To each his own.

TimWilliams wrote: If I had a little offset tuning bit like a Sousaphone, then I could sit it on my leg and reach the mouthpiece... where's my mandrel bending machine?

Hi, Tim! You want me to bring a couple of tuning bits along to tomorrow's gig?

The best position I figured out is using a sousaphone tuning bit with a 30 degrees bent. The tuba then rests on a woodblock on my chair. The tuning bit also nicely compensates for the very short tuning valve (compare this to the enormous slides of valves 1 and 3 !).

The best position I figured out is using a sousaphone tuning bit with a 30 degrees bent. The tuba then rests on a woodblock on my chair. The tuning bit also nicely compensates for the very short tuning valve (compare this to the enormous slides of valves 1 and 3 !).