Another York Question

[clagar777]

Does anyone have (or can you make) a picture of the original CC Yorks and the copies together for easy comparison...(Nirschl, Yama, HB...and even MW 2165)..Also, what are some horns that are similar but not "copies"?

Thank You.

[imperialbari]

All of these instruments are fairly rare, maybe with the exceptions of the Hirsbrunner and the MW2165, so the chance of seeing a photo with all of them lined up isn’t that big.

MW directly admits to have involved inspiration from Conn in the 2165 design. There is an MW text telling about Warren Deck, a repairman himself, being dissatisfied with one of the branches (I seem to remember it being the one with the outer top bow), whereafter MW sent him a revised version of that branch, which WD then installed himself during late night hours).

As I have understood the Hirsbrunner concept (and after all I have discussed it with the owner himself in German at a convention in Denmar), their concept to some degree is an "interpretation" of the spirit of the York. Since then they have compromised on the elaborate work of an original type York bottom bow.
This is no criticism, as I would very much like to own a Yorkbrunner, if I were in a better playing shape.

I’m not as closely informed about the Nirschl and the Yamaha projects, but as I understand these, they are more faithful in the copying aspects. But then even the two original Yorks are different, and they have to some degree been changed from their original state (added 5th valve, extensive buffing).

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[windshieldbug]

When were the CSO Yorks built?

[brianf]

When were the CSO Yorks built?

Early 30's

[windshieldbug]

Merci. They're oft discussed, but I had always wondered what time period of the company they fit in exactly!

[Bandmaster]

OK, I did a little searching and found comparible photos of all the CSO York copies. Unfortunately I could not find a photo of the York from the same view point, sorry. So here they are...

Both of the famous CSO Yorks:


All the York copies:

[Kevin Hendrick]

... I did a little searching and found comparible photos of all the CSO York copies ... here they are...

Great pics -- thanks, Dave!

[iiipopes]

Well, well, well! Fantastic comparison and kudos on all the hours of research this must have taken. I've learned more in the past five minutes of digesting this thread about Yorks than all the rest I've read about them in the past few years. Thanks.

You know, if you want to make a York, you have to make a York. It's no wonder to me that all the copies are deficient in one aspect or another. there are noticable differences in the valves, the wraps, even the flare of the bells, because all of the companies are either using some of their standard parts, or trying to make it "better." OK, Yorks had some intonation disparities, which have been attributed to everything from hand forming of the bows and their "inconsistencies," to unenlightened pre-scientific, pre-mathematical, pre-CAD design. But the TONE! If you are going to copy a York, you have to COPY it, not make a reasonable facsimile: the overall design, the wrap, the valves, the metal composition, even if you have to run a shaving through a spectrometer, the design and placement of braces, the leadpipe length, taper, formation, the... well, you get the picture. The only way it is going to sound like a York is to absolutely duplicate even the microscopic aspect of the formation stresses of the metal, the composition of the solder...in short, EVERYTHING.

Then, if you have intonation issues, you can start changing one item at a time until you get what you want.

To make some overly simplistic observations:
Holton: the mouthpipe is different
MW: they used their stock valve block - notice that unless you are malformed, the 4th finger doesn't have a chance.
HB is close, but the bracing is different; hence, the resonance characteristics will be different.
The Nirschl is very close. As it should be. And is.
The Yamaha is the antithesis of the York, regardless of its specs, with hydraulic forming, etc.

Now I know this isn't cheap. To really do this probably would take at least a quarter million if not up to a million dollars of R&D to REALLY duplicate everything. But if you really want a York, that's what it takes. You can't decide you can make it "better," or that you have a "better" way to make it. The ideosyncracies are what make it what it is. If you want state of the art intonation, you must compromise on something else. The question is how far you are willing to compromise.

[clagar777]

-Bandmaster- Awesome side-by-side...exactly what I was looking for...thank you!

[Alex C]

To make some overly simplistic observations:
Holton: the mouthpipe is different
MW: they used their stock valve block - notice that unless you are malformed, the 4th finger doesn't have a chance.
HB is close, but the bracing is different; hence, the resonance characteristics will be different.
The Nirschl is very close. As it should be. And is.
The Yamaha is the antithesis of the York, regardless of its specs, with hydraulic forming, etc.

The real differences between York and the copies is not caused by something as subtle as placement of the braces or tubing wrap. It is in the critical areas or bore size and taper.

Holton, for instance, brought in Jake's York and took measurements. The had to create 80% of the instrument, which matches the York very well. The problems occur in the other 20%.

Several of the large bows were "similar" to bows that Holton already made, so rather than make new mandrels for those parts, they just used what they had. Unfortunately, the tapers in these mandrals was not at the same rate of taper York used. They "fit" but it really hurt the performance of the horn.

Holton didn't even measure the York leadpipe. They went through some trial and error production and came up with three leadpipes. Almost every 345 they made had leadpipe #2. Leadpipes #1 and #3 had either better intonation and worse sound or worse intonation and better sound. Hence, leadpipe #2.

The difference is not in the exterior appearance of the York and Holton leadpipes, it is in the rate of taper.

A former Cleveland area tubist found a BBb York and substitued the three of the bows in question (including the bottom bow). He said the change was dramatic. When he put the York bell on he said it was magic.
---
Hirsbrunner makes a fine instrument, no doubt. Several tubists in big time orchestras use them.

But when Hirsbrunner saw the different bore sizes around the fourth valve they had to change it. The York fourth valve tubing is larger than the rest of the valve block (which is .75"). I don't think the fourth valve ports match the bore of the tubing.

The main tuning slide coming out of the block is back to .75", after the larger fourth valve tubing. Hirsbrunner changed the bore size so that it was more "logical" but they missed the point. (Want to copy the York? Simply copy the York!)

BTW, Hirsburnner had a "fix" for the fifth valve tubing in the early 1990's.
---
M-W originally copied a Holton, not a York. They have worked hard to make the 2165 play well but their horn will never sound "American." I think it is in the metal they use. Maybe they don't want it to sound American. It's a good horn.
---
The Nirschl is a great copy, completely hand made. He apparently made the fewest changes to the CSO York. IMHO, the Nirschl is the best interpetation of a York.

However, you can get a great one or you can get a not-so-great one. You have to be pretty experienced with 6/4 horns to know the difference.
---
I haven't played, or even seen, the YamaYork. I understood that it was handmade and not have haydralic forming. Don't know.
---
There's not a lot of voodoo involved in making a good copy (though there is some). So if you want to make a York copy, get a CSO York and copy it.

[iiipopes]

There's not a lot of voodoo involved in making a good copy (though there is some). So if you want to make a York copy, get a CSO York and copy it.

My point exactly. Even though my observations were limited by the pictures, and I definitely have not had the privilege of playing a real York, I believe we are similar in the bottom line. I just believe more attention to detail is required than just the primarily the bell, as bloke seems to believe, or primarily the bore and taper, as you seem to state. I believe it is the synthesis of all of it.

[Alex C]

I believe that the bell is hightly important. It is the voodoo portion of making a York.

I've heard stories about the York factory. Pop Johnson used to hang sheets of brass from the ceiling and hit them with a rubber hammer; the sound was used to determine which would be used for tuba bells and which could not.

Of course, it's a only a second hand story and who knows if it's true... but there's magic in those York bells.

[iiipopes]

I can believe that, with the inherent variances of thickness and alloy. It would be similar to a violin maker tapping a piece of spruce for the top and a piece of maple for the back to get the right resonance. But it is still the whole picture. A Strad violin still needs more than its spruce top to be a Strad, it needs the body, the soundpost, the bridge, neck, etc. as well as a player to bring it all together.

My Jaguar E-type is a quirky car, but it runs great and looks fabulous. But it wouldn't be a Jaguar if it had a Chevy bow tie block and Delco electrics, it would just be a bunch of GM running gear with pretty sheet metal.

[windshieldbug]

But it wouldn't be a Jaguar if it had a Chevy bow tie block and Delco electrics, it would just be a bunch of GM running gear with pretty sheet metal.

What's an E-type without the prince of darkness?

[iiipopes]

But it wouldn't be a Jaguar if it had a Chevy bow tie block and Delco electrics, it would just be a bunch of GM running gear with pretty sheet metal.

What's an E-type without the prince of darkness?

I won't get off thread, but somewhere a thread will pop up on topic and I'll tell about all the different ways I've improvised and gotten home due to that very thing!

[Donn]

It would be similar to a violin maker tapping a piece of spruce for the top and a piece of maple for the back to get the right resonance.

Except that the spruce top of a violin is the source of the sound, and the bell of a tuba isn't. A rubber tuba could be played like a brass tuba and the sound would be similar. A rubber-bodied violin could not be played like a wood one.

A rubber tuba would also be easier to take along on the airplane, too.

I'm not saying material makes no difference, only that it isn't the principle sound generating part of the system. It isn't clear to me what role it plays.

[iiipopes]

With due respect, I must defend my analogy and disagree with Donn. The source of sound for a violin is the bow going across the strings, as modified by the fingering of the fingerboard. The sound is transmitted via the bridge to the spruce top which resonates the sound along with, to a lesser degree, the back by transmission from the soundpost. The tuba bell resonates the sound produced by the lips into the mouthpiece, as modified by the valves and the rest of the tubing, and transmitted via the same tubing and bows to the bell.

[Donn]

The tuba bell resonates the sound produced by the lips into the mouthpiece, as modified by the valves and the rest of the tubing, and transmitted via the same tubing and bows to the bell.

Yet a fiberglass sousaphone can sound quite similar to a brass one, even though a piece of fiberglass isn't going to ring when you bang on it. Wood flutes and clarinets sound quite similar to metal flutes and clarinets.

The body of a wind instrument isn't generating or transmitting the tone, its principle function is to form a chamber that simply contains the sound. That's why a soft rubber tuba probably wouldn't really work very well, because it would provide poor support to the air column. And it's why a flute can be acoustically dead wood, or live silver, and produce a sound that's so similar you'd need good ears to tell the difference.

[iiipopes]

What does and does not resonate, and the comparative qualities thereof, is not the issue. The issue for the analogy is that as a violin maker chooses his spruce by the way it resonates, Pop Johnson chose his brass the same way because the function of a violin top and the function of a brass instrument bell are the same.

[iiipopes]

Part of the mystique can also be explained by the mystic himself, Rick Denney:
http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm
and
http://www.rickdenney.com/the_tuba_sound.htm