TubeNet

Depending on where you look, the Fafner is either listed as 5/4 or 6/4. Which is it?

N.B. I've only seen one in person and that was from a distance. It did not appear to be as big as a Yorkbrunner and only appeard to be slightly larger that a Miraphone 191.

Mark wrote:Depending on where you look, the Fafner is either listed as 5/4 or 6/4. Which is it?

N.B. I've only seen one in person and that was from a distance. It did not appear to be as big as a Yorkbrunner and only appeard to be slightly larger that a Miraphone 191.

Bigger, schmigger. It's a true kaisertuba, which a Miraphone 191 is not by a long shot.

Whether that's called 5/4 or 6/4 is a matter of nomenclature. If you want a rotary tuba in the huge class, the Fafner is plenty big enough. The only thing bigger is a Rudy 6/4, which is beyond huge all the way to mammoth, and much bigger than any other so-called 6/4 tuba.

No rotary tuba is going to look like a Yorkophone. The bell stack on most rotary tubas is is too tall, which means the diameter of the bottom bow will be less even if the taper dimensions are the same. It just won't look as fat, but that doesn't mean it isn't as big.

Rick "thinking most rotary 5/4's could be rewrapped to look like a piston 6/4" Denney

Why does it matter?

Definitely from the polemic corner of the ring:

No rotary tuba owes the name of a 6/4 tuba in the US sense of that term.

Said by a European raised in Germany!

Despite eventual similarities in bores and bore progressions (and there are some such similarities between the bell profiles of older Brit and Czech tubas) the big divide is between the Czech/German and the UK/US traditions.

The former coming up with inflated bass trombones, the latter (with a lot of French inspiration) coming up with inflated euphoniums.

I’m a dedicated collector and may even have a bit of insight in brass history, anatomy, and acoustics.

It is not by hazard that all of my basses (aside from a German piston helicon-shaped bass trombone in Eb) all are out of the UK/US school.

The York Master BBb is made in Germany, but it not even remotely approaches the German sound.

I have heard attempts of playing a US style 6/4, a Hirschburner, in the German fashion through a far too small mouthpiece.

Not an experience I want duplicated.

Some say German rotorphones are stuffy in certain ranges. Not my experience from personal tests. I just don’t find that they sound like tubas.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

i always think of the x/4 question in terms of "how much water would this sucka hold?".i believe a Fafner would hold just a tad less than a holton 345,but probably not by much...

bloke wrote:Wasn't the term "6/4" (as it relates to toobuhz) coined by Hirsbrunner when they were working to bring their York model to market roughly a quarter century ago?

Probably not the worst tracing of a source.

Would I take one if given to me? Yes!

Would I pay for one? No way!

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

If you have to classify it, with its @19 inch bell it's on the border. But since we don't have 7/4 tubas in our nomenclature, It would have to be a 5/4, as I would reserve the 6/4 moniker for two of the truly huge BATs: the Rudy Meinl 50 and the York, the former for its overall size, and the latter for its overall tone. I'd have to think about the Holton, for I believe physical size is not the determinate criterion. It is a combination of size and the tone you can get out of it.

iiipopes wrote:If you have to classify it, with its @19 inch bell it's on the border.

Don't get too concerned about the final bell diameter, though. You can have a King 4/4 (barely) with a 22" bell, or a vintage German Kaiser tuba (definitely 5/4) with a 17 1/2 inch bell. The final amount of pancake on the bell may be more for looks than sound when taken to an extreme.

True. My Besson has "just" the 17 inch bell, but I like it for its combination of intonation and blend much better than the 19 inch bell. I like the maneuverability of a 24 inch souzy bell better than a 26 inch. That said, on the Fafner the bell is more throat than final flare, with a profile similar to, but larger than, a lot of other German tubas, irrespective of make, which I believe you will agree tend to have less final flare to their bells than a lot of American tubas, like a King recording, that has a comparatively narrow throat and then the huge final flare to about 22 inches. Because of its throat, that's why I say it's on the edge. But final flare does make a difference, and, for example, the Rudy has both a large throat and a proportionally large flare. Now this thread would not be complete without reference to Rick Denny's fine article on the subject:
http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm

How does the Fafner's bell compare to a 2165 or 2265? I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that the prototype 2265 used a Fafner bell. Sound familiar to anyone?

Also, how does the Fafner (195) compare to the Hilgers model (197)? http://www.meinl-weston.com/197.gif Maybe it's just the picture, but for lack of a better phrase, the bell's a little "funny lookin'" to me...

Well, of course any manufacturer's prototypes usually start at least with some elements of existing models just to get them off the ground while specialized parts are being developed.

As for pictures, because anything circular is most prone to distortion in the photography process, I would not venture a guess at more detail than very general observations until I had one in my own hands. If any of my comments seem more than that, I tend to write in a "this is the way it is" style rather than a more roundabout style.

Isn´t the x/4 size-nomenclature a matter of relative rather than absolute size ? In that case one would have to consider how the horn fits in the particular firm´s portfolio.

From what I can see on the "TUBA!"-cover (you all know this CD produced by M-W) Melton has always had good-sized BBb tubas, even before the Fafner. (That silver horn Mr. Hilgers is holding looks HUGE, whatever the model may be.) When I was at Melton´s, they had a Fafner there, and I can tell you it looked bigger on stage with the Melton Tuba Quartet than it did leaning against the showroom´s wall.
5/4 here.

197:

Bell-46cm-18.1inch
Bore-21.5mm-.846

195:

Bell-48cm-18.89inch
Bore-21.5-.846
Height-105cm-41.34inch

HB-6:

Bell-48cm-18.89
Bore-20.5-.807
Height-105cm-41.34inch

new Alex-163:

Bell-45cm-17.7inch
Bore-20.5-.807
Height-103-40.55inch

The HB-6 looks very similar to a 197 and Alex, just different dimension.


My question is when are they going to be making the 197 and 195 in CC?

tubeast wrote:Isn´t the x/4 size-nomenclature a matter of relative rather than absolute size ? In that case one would have to consider how the horn fits in the particular firm´s portfolio.

That's Rudolf Meinl's approach. And they had a 6/4 in their lineup before Hirsbrunner copied the York and further coined the term.

But all of RM's tubas are proportioned. The proportions of the fat Yorkish BAT's and the tall Rudyish BAT's are different enough to make comparisons difficult, and thus sizing nomenclature based on comparisons also difficult.

Everyone has their own taxonomy, but in my opinion it doesn't really matter much. For the most part, it seems like so my ad hype without any basis in measureable effects, either physical or acoustic.

If we are going to be serious, and attempt categorizing the contrabass tubas that exist rather than trying to fit those instruments into pre-existing categories, I would suggest the following:

Small tubas: Tubas most useful in situations where the player wants a small instrument. Examples include a Yamaha 621, Weril, Conn xJ, Cerveny Piggy, and so on.

Normal rotary tubas: Tubas that are about 40 inches tall, give or take a couple of inches, and that have a 17ish-inch bell and a 4ish-inch diameter at the bell stack ferrule.

Kaiser tubas: Rotary tubas with similar proportions to above but bells in the 19-20" range, making them taller, wider, and of larger bore.

Normal piston tubas: As rotary tubas but with piston valves of whatever configuration, and usually bells in the 19" range. But the 4" or so bell-stack ferrule is similar.

Large piston tubas: As above but with bell-stack ferrules closer to 5 inches.

Grand orchestral tubas: Short (around 36-38") instruments with very wide tapers that have a bell diameter of around 20" and a diameter at the bell ferrule closer to 6". Valves could go either way, but most of these have pistons.

Rudolf Meinl 6/4: This one is in a class by itself.

You could have used the bell throat diameter, say a foot in from the bell, instead of the ferrule, and probably it would be more descriptive.

Most of the tubas I picture in the Large Piston category and also in the Kaiser Tuba category are called "5/4". But the Kaisers are very different and often significantly bigger. They do not make a broader sound--that seems to be the special domain of the grand orchestral tubas. But they do make a BIG sound.

The Conn 24J, Holton 345, and Yorkophones are all grand orchestral tubas even if they sometimes venture out of the specifics of my description. Yet I've seen "5/4" applied to the Conn. And I would put the Willson 3050/3100, PT-6 and Gronitz PxK in this category as well, even though they are often termed 5/4 and even though Gronitz calls theirs a kaiser.

The Fafner is a kaiser tuba, pure and simple. It's a different animal than grand orchestral tubas, and the x/4 system just doesn't describe it effectively.

Rick "wondering if an orange is bigger than an apple" Denney

iiipopes wrote:I'd have to think about the Holton, for I believe physical size is not the determinate criterion. It is a combination of size and the tone you can get out of it.

Why wouldn't the tone of the Holton be similar to the tone of the York, at least similar enough for this categorization? The problem we have, of course, is that most of us have only heard two people play the Yorks: Arnold Jacobs and Gene Pokorny. Gene could play a hosephone and make it sound bigger than I can make my Holton sound. But that isn't Holton's fault.

I suspect that Gene could play my Holton and make it sound like a grand orchestral tuba.

As soon as we start applying all sorts of subjective criteria, we no longer make any sense except to ourselves. These categories have only the barest influence on what a player can do with an instrument, and at best they describe what they look like. That's probably all we should expect from such categorization.

Rick "whose Holton is a grand orchestral tuba by any definition" Denney

While in Germany I played a guy's older hand made fafner in silver plate that made an incredible impression on me. Its the best sound and response I've experienced on something so big..Then again I haven't tried everything out there. But if i was in the market for a kaiser tuba, i'd be looking for one of those. But I imagine they don't pop up for sale too often. I understand they don't hand make them anymore. But that's me.

Also, the way my PT-15 looked beside it was pretty funny.

You can have the bows on a fafner hand made. It is like the difference between the 2155 and the 2000

195 fafner-not hand made

195/2 fafner-hand made bows

Rick, since you wrote the article on the subject, I defer.

DP wrote:The Holtons are about as unique as the Yorks, and have a distinctive sound all their own. Nothing (in my subjective opinion) matches the grandeur of the Holton sound.

No disagreement from me on any point you make. But the Holton is similar enough to the York for both to serve in a similar role, and for both to justify membership in the category "Grand Orchestral Tuba". And both are more like each other than either is like a Fafner, it seems to me.

Rick "recognizing Dale as a senior member of the Holton cult" Denney