Cerveny vs Yamaha

[Tom]

I won't make the mistake of saying that Yamaha is higher quality than Cerveny, because that isn't the case.

I had a Cerveny BBb at one time, perhaps the model you're looking into.

You might have some issues with the brass Cerveny builds with if you want to just have a "knock around" tuba. I think the Yamaha would take more of a beating than the Cerveny, but I like the Cerveny better overall than the Yamaha tubas (except YFB series).

[Tom]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think the "Cerveny sound" comes from the thin brass and the large valve bores.

The person to talk Cerveny with would be Jay Bertolet...he had a big 601 CC for a while and did a ton of work on it (I think it's for sale now by the current owner). He seems to know them in and out. Perhaps he'd lend his opinion of Cerveny stock equipment if you contact him.

[CJ Krause]

***

[cjk]

maybe i'm missing something here, but If you don't want to take your shiny new tuba to gigs, why did you buy it?

[Tubatoad]

Hey Wayne,
Personally I would take a good Cerveny, any model Cerveny, any day over a Yamaha.
The rotors are faster and the sound is warmer and the intonation is a lot better than a Yamah 641.

Amen to that - my Cerveny 683 BBb compact is all those things. I can't speak about Yamahas, but I love my horn. Others must like it too, as I keep getting invited back.

[Dan Schultz]

I have owned both Cerveny and Miraphone horns but have no experience with Yamaha rotaties except for just looking at them. Question,,, Does Yamaha build their rotary horns in their own plants or are they built on contract in Germany, Russia, or the Balkans?

[Billy M.]

I'm currently playing a Cerveny rotor BBb. I really like it, although it is dent proned with it's thin brass. But to agree with Charlie, I'd pick the Cerveny any day over the Yamaha 641. Better intonation, warmer sound, overall better horn. Just make sure you try at least a few Cervenys if you get the chance, some are brighter shinier gems than others if you know what I mean.

[cjk]

If you owned a shiny new Porsche, would you leave it parked overnight in the 'wrong part of town'?

Nope. I wouldn't park it anywhere except in my own garage. However, I would not hesitate to drive it through the wrong part of town. If I'm not in a tuba-friendly environment, my tuba goes in the case when not in use.


schlepporello. i'm wondering why you've narrowed it down to those two horns.
I'd be looking for a deal on a well used B&S stencil, Mirafone 186, 185, 184, any rotary BBb Meinl-Weston, or even a new tiny Weril before I'd pick either of the two you mentioned. Just my opinion.


Christian

[MartyNeilan]

There are places I will be playing at soon where it is a certainty that I will dent or scratch my horn. I'd like to be able to choose which horn I dent or scratch and yet still be able to play and sound good.

Faced with a somewhat similar situation, I bought a huge top action Martin. Not what you said you are looking for, but anyone who has ever owned one has loved them. The branches are large enough that it would take a few sledghammer blows to really close off the sound. The pistons are well protected within the body and not likely to become stuck with the kind of bump that can render a rotary valve DOA.

Just a suggestion!

[Rick Denney]

I have owned both Cerveny and Miraphone horns but have no experience with Yamaha rotaties except for just looking at them. Question,,, Does Yamaha build their rotary horns in their own plants or are they built on contract in Germany, Russia, or the Balkans?

I sort-of doubt that Yamaha outsources their rotary stuff. For one thing, they've been selling 641's for a very long time, and the political environment in most of those other places (excepting Germany, of course) was not favorable when they started. Another thing is that the Japanese seem to build vertical business structures, where they try to own or at least control their production and sales capability from design to retail distribution. But that may not be fully the case with Yamaha. They have certainly accepted design input from a variety of sources.

To the original question, Yamahas, even the relatively unpopular 641, are more consistent than Cervenys. But in the case of the 641, that may mean more consistently undesireable. I'd take a decent Cerveny any day.

I used to show up for Thursday-night beer-garden gigs in Austin with my Cerveny, which was similar to the current 681, I think. The brass is indeed thin and soft, so if you expect to knock it around, you'll have to live with a growing collection of dents. But even with dents that tuba sounded better and was easier to play than any Yamaha 641 I've tried. The hollow rotors were very quick, once I'd replaced the linkage, and the tuba had a good beer-tent sound that isn't too fluffy for small groups. And it would play Ab's.

Rick "who can count the dents he's added to all his other tubas combined on the fingers of one hand, but who put dozens of dents in that Cerveny" Denney

[runelk]

I'd take the Yamaha. They can take a beating, and keep coming back for more. Plus after awhile the Cervenys start to get clanky with the valve linkage.
I would think if you need a repair, Yamaha parts are more easily to get than the Cerveny's

My $ .02

Albert

[imperialbari]

...my big question is if the Cerveny's any better since I understand it's supposed to be a Miraphone clone.

A profoundly wrong understanding!

Basically all current designs of rotary tubas are based on original Cerveny designs.

The Miraphone tradition originates in the same area of northern Czechia, where Cerveny was and is seated. Reading the area history from ca. 1936 to 1946 wil tell you why Miraphone, MW, and Glassl are now in Bavaria.

Possibly the only rotary tubas not coming out of the Cerveny tradition were the now discontinued US made pre-WWII ones. One may (very) roughly say, that they were front-action piston tubas with a rotary valve set and a slightly different leadpipe.

Of course newer techniques like ball-and-socket (from the GDR) and mini-ball (from the West) have influenced Cerveny. But as useful these technicalities may be, they are not part of the basic tuba design.

When the question is about piston tubas, then the picture is the opposite. I never liked Czech piston tubas. They may have improved, but in my eyes they still have only one function: to rip-off the low end market in the West.

Klaus

PS: The only two tuba makers producing every single part in-house are Yamaha and Meinl-Weston (according to the owner of MW - after the acquisition of B&S/VMI and building a new piston valve production there). I would have thought, that the same went for Cerveny, albeit on a somewhat simpler level of technology.

[Rick Denney]

I'd take the Yamaha. They can take a beating, and keep coming back for more. Plus after awhile the Cervenys start to get clanky with the valve linkage.
I would think if you need a repair, Yamaha parts are more easily to get than the Cerveny's

My $ .02

Albert

Perhaps Yamaha parts are easier to get, but one can replace the Cerveny linkage altogether with hobby-shop parts for about $20. I did it almost immediately on mine, because the "improved" linkages installed by the importer were cheap garbage.

Rick "who would probably use the same stuff to replace the Yamaha linkage" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

Wayne, get yer linkage conversion parts at a hobby store. Just look for Du-Bro RC model linkage parts. About as robust as anything that comes out of a tuba factory and a fraction of the price. Connect them with some threaded rod (hardware store) and you're in business.

I've heard that the Yamaha 641 was supposed to be a copy of a classic Alexander design. I've had a chance to play a few 641's, but none of them play like my Alex.

If you want a knock-around horn, don't discount 3-valve BBb's. There are a lot of really good old ones out there (yeah, I've got a Martin as an "outdoors horn" too and love it).

[imperialbari]

Chuck, as you are the undisputed #1 poster on all engineering and physics related matters on this forum, then you surprise me a bit.

Of course 3 valve instruments are most relevant in rough performance environments, as they represent a reduced mass over 4 or 5 valve instruments.

But why don't you tell, that we also should consider, how we can reduce the impact of this given (reduced) mass.

The shorter the road the less acceleration, hence less speed, hence less momentum, hence less impact.

That is why we all should go for short stroke instruments, be they Holtons or Conns (or bass harmonicas), if we want to get our instruments safely at home.

Klaus

[Rick Denney]

This interests me, Rick. Where would I find linkage parts should I need them?

See here: http://www.rickdenney.com/valve_linkages.htm

And if your Yamaha springs are too stiff, see if they will unwind a turn without going slack. I suspect that any springs for rotary tubas could be made to work, for those that are wire springs and not clock springs.

Rick "who always gets odd looks from the hobby-shop clerks" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

You know, come to think of it, I haven't even seen a Martin in any configuration in my area.

Texas has been the home of some of the more remarkable big horns to be had. I thought I heard once that one of the schools (Sam Houston State?) had about 4 of the big Martins at one time.

[Jay Bertolet]

The Cerveny 641 Eb is a nice horn for what it is. Search the old TubeNet archives for multiple discussions of this horn.

I would also take the Cerveny (almost any Cerveny really) over the Yamaha. I've had the displeasure of working with several of those Yamaha BBb tubas and they are universally a nightmare. I'm sure there must have been some made that are good but I haven't seen any of those. I think the original poster made the right choice in picking the Cerveny.

My opinion for what it's worth...

[Lew]

Has anyone played or heard about the Cerveny EEb? I think it's the Cerveny 641. Haven't heard much on them.

I have played both the Cerveny 641 and 651 EEb tubas. Both of them played well, but neither really had the presence for me to allow them to be an all around horn. I prefer the 651 because of the larger bell. They both have a relatively large bore and were comfortable to play, but I didn't check intonation.