TubeNet

So, I'm in the market for an F tuba, and have been browsing the threads alot. I'm currently playing on a B&S F tuba (I don't know which one, but its the smaller one) which has big problems on the C and B a few spaces below the staff. I've noticed that people say the Yamaha 621 and the Firebird don't have these problems. My question for the tubenet population is this, why do the Yamaha 621 and the Firebird not have these issues though they are similar in size? What part of the architecture of the horn allows this to happen?

While I can't speak for the firebird, the leadpipe on the Yamaha is 1/3 to 1/2 the length on that of a typical F tuba; that puts much more conical horn past the valve cluster.

This is one of life's great mysteries . . . .

The two Yamaha F's have a completely different layout, as Marty said -- with the valves much closer to the mouthpiece. It is theorized that this has something to do with it.

The Firebird? Magic! There must be something with the taper of the leadpipe, the taper of the open bugle, the position of the valves, and a lot of trial & error testing. Whatever it is, they have found a way to build a rotary F tuba with a low C that's (from my experience) "almost perfect". The best low C on any rotary F I've played, and significantly easier to play than the others.

Why do rotary F's have a low C that is a challenge to play (most of 'em)? Refer to my first statement!

Why do a lot of people play rotary F's that aren't the Firebird? They prefer the sound, I suspect. So you'll have to decide if sound or low C playability is more important. With practice, it is allegedly possible to master the low C on most rotary F's. I would rather not get my "ideal" rotary F sound and have an easier low C (assuming the Firebird isn't my "ideal" sound). I figure the audience won't be able to easily tell the difference between one rotary F tuba and another anyway, but they will be able to tell if I flub the low C. So I'd be inclined to pick the one that doesn't require as much practice on the low C -- the Firebird.

Cheers,

You kept saying "rotary F tubas". Is that low C not a problem with piston F tubas?

josh_kaprun wrote:You kept saying "rotary F tubas". Is that low C not a problem with piston F tubas?

heh heh -- sorry for the incomplete explanation.

The Yamaha F tubas have a very secure low C (and neighboring notes) -- especially the smaller 621F, which I used to own. I've heard one person state a concern with the 822F's low BBb, fwiw, but I've tooted on an 822F and didn't notice any "difficult" notes myself.

I tried a MW 45slp (pistion) and thought it's low F wasn't much better than other rotary F tubas. So by saying that Rotary F tubas have this "issue", I don't mean to imply that all non-rotary F tubas do NOT have this issue.

Among the rotary F tubas, the only one I've played with a "decent" low C is the Firebird. Another poster recently lauded the low C on his Cerveny 653-5, which I've never had the chance to play. Some have said the low C on the Miraphone 181F is "okay", but imo it's not as "okay" as the Firebird.

I can't speak to the Willson piston F's low C -- a Willson owner will have to chime in here . . . .

Cheers,

Bob1062 wrote: Low C doesn't seem to be a problem if you're German though.
Check your ancestry, you may be screwed from the get-go.

Ach, du Lieber! Ich habe deutsche Grosseltern, aber ich habe noch Probleme mit die niedrige "C"....

Cheers,

Bob1062 wrote:Low C doesn't seem to be a problem if you're German though.
Check your ancestry, you may be screwed from the get-go.

A slightly different take on this can be found in this thread on page 3: viewtopic.php?t=22302&start=24

JHardisk wrote: Something that hasn't been mentioned but is the absolute cure to troubles with low ends of rotary F tubas... SLOW air. High volume, at a slow rate of pressure behind it. Think OOOOH with your oral cavity and feel like you're sighing. Open your jaw as wide as your chops will allow and exhale slowly. Your buzz needs to be quite efficient.

It bugs me when people complain about "no low register on rotary F's". Unless the horn is a real dog, the notes below the staff should not be a problem. Try playing it like an F tuba and not expect it to be the same as your CC tuba. They are different animals. This is especially true if you play a piston CC tuba.

I love the sound of "german" rotary F's. Think Michael Lind... Walter Hilgers... Any of the Melton tuba quartet guys.... insert your favorite rotary F player here... If they don't have trouble with the "dreaded low C", you shouldn't. Don't make excuses about the tuba not having a low end, and hit the practice room to figure out why your chops aren't sounding a good low C.

What people don't realize is often their problems are NOT with the equipment and are not solved by the newest gadgets and widgets available. They are often weaknesses overlooked in lieu of a quick fix/magic cure all product. Good old practice time can't be bested by any technology and reaps the best rewards.

Forgive me for the rant.. I should be practicing, myself. Cd's don't record themselves!

Best of luck!

While I posted an alternate viewpoint on this issue (Steve doesn't agree that rotary F tubas are "trouble free" when it comes to the low C), John's point is very well taken. The instrument can be played well by those who have studied with a teacher who has already mastered the instrument, and who also then practice it dilligently.

Cheers,

Steve Inman wrote:I can't speak to the Willson piston F's low C -- a Willson owner will have to chime in here . . . .

The Willson 3200 is like a mini-contrabass and the low C blows like a contrabass. Even the 3200R is excellent. The only thing holding back more people from owning them, I suspect, is that they sound more like a C than an F, and most U.S. players already have a C.

Oh, and the price.

Rick "always impressed with the Willson F's" Denney

I played a gold brass Firebird up at WWBW a couple summers ago. The low C was very playable for a rotary F tuba.
That was, for a rotary F tuba. If you are a piston CC player, you are still going to have an adjustment to make, but the adjustment is a lot easier on the Firebird.
However, the one B&S Symphonie I've played, which belongs to Mark Nelson, has quite a playable low C for a rotary F tuba.

A friend of mine who has a MW 182, basically identical to my 182, found that the tuning slide was way too short; that is, if you closed your eyes and centered the C in the staff and then looked at the tuner, it was 50 cents sharp. That's pretty sharp!! He got a tuning slide that brought the C in the staff down to pitch, and lo and behold the entire tuba became very, very playable. He was bemused that the tuba would be in productiong with a tuning slide that was that much too short, which probably interferes greatly with the number of people who would buy that model because of perceived problems with the low C.

I have not yet done more than find out that on my own 182, the C in the staff is also 50 cents sharp when centered. The next step is to go buy some plastic tubing and find out how much I need to add to the tuning slide and get a new one made. I'll also get to play his in a few weeks when I'm visiting Austin, and can give a report if anyone is interested. To me, this sounds more like a design problem than a German heritage problem. ":)"

MA

I suspect this horn was built for distribution in Europe where the pitch center runs A=445 and even a lot higher. Many manufacturers make two different tuning slides, to match the pitch where the horn will be shipped. I think that this horn in question originated in Europe and then was sold to someone here without the slide alterations.

Just clearin' the air.

Roger

Roger Lewis wrote:I suspect this horn was built for distribution in Europe where the pitch center runs A=445 and even a lot higher. Many manufacturers make two different tuning slides, to match the pitch where the horn will be shipped. I think that this horn in question originated in Europe and then was sold to someone here without the slide alterations.

I thought so, too Roger, but I've got a 184 CC 'fone that had the same high pitch center. I thought all the domestic Euro horns were 'phones...

Well, Roger, a bit of history. My friend bought his new from Dillon and mine used to be owned by Scott Mendoker, who traded it in at Dillon and I bought it from there.

MA, muddying the air again.

the elephant wrote:

MaryAnn wrote:. . . muddying the air again.

Muddy air? Eww . . .

Better "muddy" than "dairy"! (even if it's in London)

(that hurt!!!)

My Cerveny F is also built to be played in a much higher pitch (like the Germans do), but the tuning slide is about a mile long, so it's no problem to bring it down to A=440. Even quite a bit lower, if need be.

windshieldbug wrote:

Roger Lewis wrote:I suspect this horn was built for distribution in Europe where the pitch center runs A=445 and even a lot higher. Many manufacturers make two different tuning slides, to match the pitch where the horn will be shipped. I think that this horn in question originated in Europe and then was sold to someone here without the slide alterations.

I thought so, too Roger, but I've got a 184 CC 'fone that had the same high pitch center. I thought all the domestic Euro horns were 'phones...

OKAY -- here's the question that's just BEGGING to be asked about now:

How much of the "dreaded low C" problem on rotary F tubas is due to the 4th valve tuning slide not being set properly, being too short, etc? That would surely make it hard to center the note, right?

Surely it's not that simple ..... surely?

Steve Inman wrote:OKAY -- here's the question that's just BEGGING to be asked about now:

How much of the "dreaded low C" problem on rotary F tubas is due to the 4th valve tuning slide not being set properly, being too short, etc? That would surely make it hard to center the note, right?

Surely it's not that simple ..... surely?

<serious>
That could well be part (maybe a large part) of the problem ...
</serious>

... and don't call me Shirley!

I played both of those (Them Basses and National Emblem) last weekend and had a blast -- pun intended. Because in both of those marches the fun parts are doubled with the bones & euphs, I can see where an Eb or F would help solidify the texture quite nicely.

MaryAnn wrote:... A friend of mine who has a MW 182, basically identical to my 182, found that the tuning slide was way too short; that is, if you closed your eyes and centered the C in the staff and then looked at the tuner, it was 50 cents sharp. That's pretty sharp!! He got a tuning slide that brought the C in the staff down to pitch, and lo and behold the entire tuba became very, very playable. ...

I had the same problem with a Meinl Weston 32 CC tuba. The standard main tuning slide was for the European A=445 or somesuch. The solution: a call to Matt Walters at Dillon, and the purchase of what MW calls the long main tuning slide.

The Europeans practice ever-escalating pitch anarchy, no doubt heading toward A=500 or more! I imagine that in years to come, a European contrabass tuba will be the same size (and pitch) as a euphonium. On the Continent, they must be fans of Alvin & The Chipmunks.

Cheers,
Allen

Steve Inman wrote:

windshieldbug wrote:

Roger Lewis wrote:I suspect this horn was built for distribution in Europe where the pitch center runs A=445 and even a lot higher. Many manufacturers make two different tuning slides, to match the pitch where the horn will be shipped. I think that this horn in question originated in Europe and then was sold to someone here without the slide alterations.

I thought so, too Roger, but I've got a 184 CC 'fone that had the same high pitch center. I thought all the domestic Euro horns were 'phones...

OKAY -- here's the question that's just BEGGING to be asked about now:

How much of the "dreaded low C" problem on rotary F tubas is due to the 4th valve tuning slide not being set properly, being too short, etc? That would surely make it hard to center the note, right?

Surely it's not that simple ..... surely?

Shirley, (ducking!) it is not that simple. If it were a 4th valve slide problem then the C in the staff would be in tune and not 50 cents sharp.

I did notice at one point that if I plulled the 4th valve slide waaaay out the c become more manageable, but then I couldn't use 4th valve for anything else. No, I trust my very capable and experienced friend on this one, and besides in about a month I"ll find out for myself on his tuba anyway.

Also, my 184 CC from the 1970's is definitely not sharp; it is quite well in tune except for that pesky E in the staff, which is remedied by using 1-2 for it. I'll query Matt about a long tuning slide for the 182 F; my friend had to have one custom made though.


MA