TubeNet

Has anyone ever played one of these?

http://kanstul.net/pages/instruments/ccbb.html

They also make a contrabass trombone (in F).

http://kanstul.net/pages/instruments/tr ... 1690m.html

Lee Stofer is in the process of developing a new CC with them, you may want to give him a holler.
http://www.tubameister.com/

After the move is complete, I will be offering my new line of mouthpieces. I will also be working with Kanstul in the development of a 5-valve CC tuba. I will provide more details as they become available.

As far as the contrabass trombone, there has been a lot of talk on this on the trombone.org forum. Steve Ferguson of hornguys.com was very instrumental in developing this.

My buddy and I drove up to Anaheim to sit down with the Kanstul horns a few months ago. We'd never played them before, and since the factory's less than 1/2 hour away, we figured why not? We played all of their horns over the course of an hour or so, and brought along our two horns for a little side-by-side (Gronitz PCM and a rotary Willson 3050).

The horns seemed pretty well made. The sales manager was kind enough to give us a full tour of the factory, and we were quite impressed with their manufacturing capabilities. Their tubas are made to order (not big quantity production instruments), as the space they have for putting these things together is pretty limited. Building tubas takes up a lot of room!

So how do they play? So-so. Their little 3/4 CC isn't a bad axe, but their various size BBb horns didn't impress us much. Kinda stuffy, some notes pretty out of tune, others that don't want to center up. Bore on their largest horns is only .689, which might account for some of the response problems. Not the worst horns we'd ever laid our hands on, but they were obviously outmatched by the Gronitz and Willson. I know, I know - not the fairest comparison in the world, but if you're going to produce a "tuba-shaped object", then you never know what it's going to be measured against.

Ergonomics on the concert horns aren't bad, but I sure wouldn't want to march around with one of those shoulder tubas for very long (either the straight marchers or the convertibles).

Now, my own editorializing...

Kanstul has long been known for their corps bugles. Tubas were added to the lineup because if you're gonna offer the full spectrum of instruments, you gotta have basement dwellers. Perhaps a "necessary evil"? The convertibles and concert tubas were born of these earlier instruments.

My general impression of the Kanstul tubas is that they lag far behind the rest of the fleet. Their trumpets and flugels are literally world-class, and in working with great players like Steve Ferguson of Hornguys, the quality of their trombones is coming up too. Nobody's doubting Kanstul's ability to execute!

Tubas kinda seem like the little red-headed step-child in the family - decent student-quality horns. We spoke to Zig about working with Kanstul to create a professional-quality 4/4 horn. Several local players, whose names you'd recognize, have expressed willingness to help shake down prototypes. The challenge is obviously developing all the tooling for the valveset, and then finding the space to actually build the things. Zig said that if we could find someone else to manufacture everything past the main tuning slide, he might consider doing the valvesets and final assembly.

So the net net? A poor design - even well-executed - is still a poor design. Kanstul tubas have some redeeming qualities, but I wouldn't necessarily put playing up near the top of the list. And in the light cast by the rest of the product line-up, they definitely show some warts. Given Kanstul's formidable manufacturing capabilities - quite possibly the only major producer in North America worth mentioning (not including "boutique brands") - if the design could be re-worked from the ground up, I think they might have some play there.

So there it is - my $.02, FWIW. As always, your mileage may vary...

...Dave

TubaTuck wrote:His only concern with this manufacturer is that, regardless of type-trumpet or tuba, the valves must always be "worked in".

The manufacturer says this is because of tight tolerances but he is suspicious of this answer. However, after short break-in period, the valves work well.

Ziggy Kanstul makes valves for some very fancy trumpets, so the statement's probably true.

poomshanka wrote: Ergonomics on the concert horns aren't bad . . .

Thanks for a very insightful and thorough assessment of the Kanstul tubas. However, I must differ on one point -- ergonomics. I bought a new 3/4 CC in Jan '03, as the result of an impressive play-test at the TBA convention in July '02. Subsequently, I played it in our faculty quintet at Baylor for abt a year and half. In retrospect, I have not owned (or played) a more in-tune instrument since my very first tuba -- a 1970's Mirafone 184 CC. Additionally, the Kanstul had a much fuller-sounding low register than the 184, and unlike the Mirafone, the Kanstul was built like a tank. Matt Gaunt, Jay Krush and Joe Sellmansberger (Bloke) also tooted on the horn, and all of their comments were favorable (with one exception: Jay felt that the middle-upper register was a bit of a tightrope walk. I felt the same way until I stopped trying a deep cup mouthpiece and went w/a medium cup w/smaller throat). My only complaints (and the reasons I eventually sold the horn) were my inability to balance the quintet at full volume and mostly, poor ergonomics. Valves 1-3 were perfectly in line, and valve 4 was offset. Most tubas have either 2-4 in line w/an offset 1st valve, or all 4 valves are offset (to fit the natural curvature of the hand). The only way to play the Kanstul w/out cocking my wrist upwards was to either tilt the horn to the right (blocking everything from sight except the backside of the bell) or play w/very poor hand position (i.e., using the middle of the finger for vlvs 3,4). In short, it appeared as though someone had simply taken an oversized trumpet valve set, added a 4th valve, and then made a tuba, without any regard for (or knowledge of) tuba ergonomics. Too bad, in my opinion. Potentially a very good chamber horn, but only if the valve cluster were rotated 35-40 degrees counter clockwise (and maybe try a bell w/a larger throat and/or flare).

Gravid wrote:However, I must differ on one point -- ergonomics.

Didn't spend the kind of critical time with the horn that you obviously have. Interesting how the quirks reveal themselves over time!!

Yeah, it's too bad the one horse they might conceivably have in the race at this point has to be hobbled with odd layout. I had the exact same problem with my current axe, and in the end had to drop some buxx at Robb Stewart's shop to make it go away.

I guess what doesn't make sense to me is that none of the gentry here in town have had any hand whatsoever in helping to develop these horns - hence the "tuba-shaped object" assessment. Truly a shame given the quality of the workmanship. If you're going to go through all the motions of building a horn, why not start out with a solid design?

But what do I know anyway? Just another TubeNet gasbag...



...Dave

I have played not one, but about 12 Kanstul tubas in the last year, and spent quite a lot of time with about 3 of them. All I can relate is my experience with them, which has been overwhelmingly good.

I was not overly-impressed with the 4/4 BBb marching tuba-bugles, but then I have not been overly-impressed by any of that genre. The three that I played were well-enough made, and played as well as any I've tried from any manufacturer.

I spent some time with the 3/4 CC tuba over a five-month period, and had two prominent Atlanta-area professional tubists play-test it, also. Both of these tubists have an Elkhart Conn 3J CC in their arsenal, and each of them compared it favorably to their Conns. One player said that the lower register was more open than on his Conn, and that the upper register had slightly more resistance, both of these differences making it an easier-to-play instrument. When I did a brass quintet recording project with the 3/4 CC, I was concerned beforehand about the possiblity of the instrument sounding brighter than I wanted, but I took this instrument anyway because the intonation was so good. In the playback, the instrument sounded darker and larger than I had imagined, and everyone was happy. There are plans in the works where I will fit a 5th rotor to a Kanstul 3/4 CC, and maybe do a couple of other tweaks to maximize their potential. If any of you have/are experiencing hand problems with the valves (which I have not), feel free to tell me about it.

I have had experience with about a dozen of the Kanstul 5/4 BBb tubas this last year. The instrument is based on the old Martin Mammoth design. Do not be fooled by the .689" bore. I like large tubas for band and orchestral use, and I would characterize this instrument as being the most satisfying-to-play large American tuba built since the 1950's. In my experience, the workmanship is really good, the valves are really good, and the tune-any-note main tuning slide is one of the most intelligent fine-tuning mechanisms ever made. These instruments have valve compression comparable to that of a top-line pro trumpet, while other new American tubas and some German piston tubas have very little-to-no compression. I had some really, really good gigs last year playing a lacquered 5/4 Kanstul BBb. These included an orchestra gig, one band job, and several dixieland gigs, and it did it all well. Volume, tone quality, ease of playing, valve/hand position, and intonation were not an issue at all for me with these horns. I plan to purchase one for my own personal use, if that tells you what I think of these instruments. They do need a short break-in period, but it is really worth it.

Lee, didn't Howard Miyata have a lot to do with the design of the big 5/4 BBb?

Of course, with Kanstul having worked for Olds/Reynolds, his tubas bear more than just a passing resemblence. The reason for the small .689 bore is that in the early days Reynolds was hired away from York by H. N. White, and helped develop the full line of horns while H. N. White worked with Thomas King on the trombones. The classic King Master Model cornet with its underslung tuning slide arrangement was developed by Reynolds (later used on the Reynolds Contempora and Argenta), and the .689 bore was larger than York had used up to that time (well before the Donetelli CC was commissioned). So when Reynolds left King he took with him (probably from memory) and used the designs he helped develop. Some King and Reynolds souzy parts will actually interchange. But I don't believe that after Reynolds came out of retirement and joined Olds that anything was ever done by Olds/Reynolds in development past the initial stages of getting a marketable tuba, hence the design quirks, which have carried over into the Kanstul line.

If anybody else can add or correct more detail, please.

Yeah, I always wondered why Zig Senior didn't just recreate some old Reynolds recording basses. Those tubas were great!

Re the timbral/projection issue, my concern w/the Kanstul 3/4 CC lies not so much in the sound produced up close (or into a microphone) as in the sound that's projected out into the hall, past the first few rows. In this regard, I think a slightly larger bell might serve the horn well.

How right you are! We just did a Gabrieli double quintet in a large hall last month. I tried my 3/4 Kanstul in one rehearsal just for fun, but it just couldn't cut it. Resorted to my 5/4 Mira. which totally fit the bill. I usually think of my Kanstul as an "overgrown euph." I do like it, as it does have it's place in smaller rooms with a quartet or quintet and it does play very well in tune.

Yes, the Kanstul 3/4 CC IS a 3/4-sized instrument, not a 4/4 or 5/4, so it does have its limitations, but adding a larger bell would not make it a 4/4 tuba. A 4/4 or 5/4 CC is not offered now, but the possibility has been discussed.

Lee Stofer wrote:Yes, the Kanstul 3/4 CC IS a 3/4-sized instrument, not a 4/4 or 5/4, so it does have its limitations, but adding a larger bell would not make it a 4/4 tuba.

I've never played or owned a tuba that didn't have some limitation(s), regardless of size. Most (if not all) 6/4's have pitch issues and quirky response, but the payback is tone color and projection; 4/4's (good ones, that is) usually have average to slightly-better-than-average intonation, response, timbre and projection, but nothing that's really outstanding; and 3/4's -- such as the Kanstul 902 -- usually have outstanding intonation and mobility (and in the case of the Kanstul, low register response), but they tend to be monochromatic in sound and often fall short in ability to project past the first few rows without the sound becoming even more compact. I suspect that a slightly larger bell might improve the projection aspect of the horn, thus making it an even better 3/4, not a 4/4. However, I still think the angle of the valve cluster is the primary issue with this horn.

I must say I have my biases also, but if you played my Besson and some of the King's I've played, you would raise your opinion of 4/4's, maybe not all the way to outstanding, but at least up from average.