TubeNet

I have been playing a Bill Bell Model Meinl Weston for the last six months while I was having a small York BBb converted to a CC tuba. I have played a converted York in the past. I like the sound and intonation.

My new York conversion tuba is finally ready. I have been playing it for the last two weeks in the practice room. I took it to an orchestra rehearsal yesterday expecting rave reviews from the music director. After rehearsal, he came to me and asked me If I was doing something differently? I told him that I had tried a new tuba at rehearsal. He told me to continue to use the Meinl Weston. He could hear me better. He thought that I was producing more sound. I was surprised.

So, there is a vote for one of the old tubas styled after the classic King that was used by Mr. Bell, Mr. Torchinsky and Mr. Novotny.

BUMMER!!! Hope you will eventually be able to use it; after all that waiting and expense, I'm sure that comment must have been a real downer Hang in there. There will be those that will hear it and appreciate it. Maybe just in a different setting.

Naptown Tuba wrote:BUMMER!!! Hope you will eventually be able to use it; after all that waiting and expense, I'm sure that comment must have been a real downer :cry: Hang in there. There will be those that will hear it and appreciate it. Maybe just in a different setting.

Thank you for your expression of sympathy.

I have always enjoyed both sounds, the York as played by Mr. Jacobs and the King as played by Mr. Torchinsky. Until recently, I had never really played the Bell Model Meinl Weston. I had always considered it too small (.690" valve bore) and assumed the low register would be stuffy. However, I was loaned this tuba to get me through the period while my York was being built. I am now a believer in the Bell Model MW and like it very much. I have the option to buy the tuba I was loaned. I am seriously considering it. I used the Bell Model MW on Tchiakowski 6 and Mathis der Maler with great results. We are currently preparing La Mer and Russian Easter Overture. I feel quite at home on the MW.

The York is also great. Thank you Bob Rusk for such fine craftsmanship and design. I will try to keep both of them if possible.

Let's see: King used the 11/16 inch or .687 bore. M-W uses the 17.5 mm or .689 bore. I sit next to a guy in lodge band who plays one. With the smaller bore, he definitely has more overtones to work with. The overtones blending and being reinforced with the band are probably what your director is hearing, as it is more difficult to hear actual fundamental. His tuba sounds good in concert, and great in the little practice room, while my broad Besson sucks major wind in the small practice room, but really fills up a decent sized auditorium. Keep working with both, maybe trying different mouthpieces, and you will come up with combinations that work for you, as have I with the Wick 1 for broad band (pun intended) applications, a Wick 2 for smaller or solo situations, and a Kelly 18 on my souzy for outdoor projection and presence.

I think we get way too hung up on bore size, which is only one measurement of a tuba. Many of the old Yorks had a similar or smaller bore size than the Bill Bell horns. The differences in brightness of sound are caused by many things. One being on the length of the leadpipe - where the bore starts. Also on the taper of the branches and finally the flare shape of the bell (moreso even than the final diameter). Even the thickness of the metal (although some will vehemently disagree with me, I stand by this.)
A .650 York may in fact sound "darker" / "less bright" than a .689 Bell MW. (and as far as .687 vs. .689 - the difference is virtually meaningless).

Some thoughts on the issue.

P.S. A few years ago there was a silver Bell King CC at Dillon's with a 5th rotor added. Anyone know who has it now?

You're right, as far as sound goes, the .002 is meaningless. For these two particular examples, the bell flare may be having the most effect, as I believe the M-W does not have a lot of flare and probably a narrower throat, lending to more overtones than the York bell.

I believe that there were both .689 and .750 Bill Bell rotary King tubas made, with the .689 being more common. I have seen several .689 examples, this is probably the nicest (5th added by Dillon's):

Just to address a point raised above, the Kings played by Messers Bell, Novotny and Torchinsky were all the .687 bore instruments, not the .750 bore models. All had 16" bells (though Mr. Bell's first one had a 15 1/2 " bell).

I don't have access to any specific stats, but my experience suggests that there were more .750 horns built, even in CC, than .687 bore horns. I have certainly been aware of more of them than of the .687 bore models. I have never personally seen a .687 bore BBb rotary King, other than a pit tuba.

There are reputed to have been only 7 or 11 (depending on who is telling) of the .687 bore CC's built. Given the ones I have seen and/or know to exist, that number strikes me as low, unless the number is limited to the initial run with small bells, in which case 7 seems likely to be accurate.


Mike Lynch

Just a side note...

If anyone has any doubts as to what the Meinl Weston Bill Bell Model can do, listen to any Empire Brass recording with Sam Pilafian playing. He played a number of MW Bell Models over the years and he never sounded less than phenomenal. Of course he could make a card board box sound good, BUT there are limitations on some instruments and I'd never heard any when Sam played MW Bell Models.

When I studied with him at Boston University I went to an orchestra performance where Sam was playing tuba. He played his Bell model and I could hear him very well.

Just depends on individual taste.

Mike
--
Michael S. Milnarik
http://www.innovatabrass.com
http://www.tubastudio.com
http://www.netew.com

I agree in the right hands a M-W Bell is a great horn for a small to mid sized brass ensemble, as I sit next to one in lodge band. But look at the pictures of the size, proportion and taper of the bugle and bows of the King version vs the M-W version. The King taper is "All-American" where the M-W is definitely Deutchelander. That is probably the main reason for the differences in tone between the two models. I do like the offset valves of the King version - almost gives it a Marzan appearance.

I have also heard that H. N. White got so frustrated making the rotary valves he said after the production runs he would never do it again. Can anybody confirm, dispel, or further explain whether this is true or not?