TubeNet

Just yesterday, I was sittin' with Roger Lewis at WWBW (his new stompin' grounds .... er--his OLD stompin' grounds ... no wait ... his NEW, old stompin' grounds ... well, anyway ....) where I ventured with my 56J and my Yamaha 381 Eb, with intent to determine once and for all whether Pi/e was the correct scaling factor for the "size" of a 1292 CC, or if ("42"/10)/4ths better explained the answer. Then there is always "13" -- which when divided by 10 is also close.

I played Miraphone Norwegian Star Eb, a 188, a 1292 and a MW 2145, along with my 56J and 381. I listened to Roger play the Firebird vs. Norwegian Star side-by-side, as well as most of these other horns.

Thoughts:

1. Roger is a great guy, full of insight and helpful advice, and a great asset to the tuba tootin' community.
2. Roger is a great player.
3. The Norwegian Star is slightly but perceivably larger in sound than the Firebird -- a smidge bigger / heavier / darker in sound. But the Yamaha 381 (at least mine) has a more capable low register -- tending towards a 3/4 CC-ish sound down low, while sounding closer in "size" of sound to the N.S. in the upper register. If I played Eb in quintet and in solo settings, I'd probably get a N.S. as it is consistent with my "German rotary bass tuba" preferences. However, as I'm an amateur who doesn't play solos, the 381 is a better choice for me for lighter quintet fare.
4. The 188 and the 56J seemed to put out about the same amount of sound. The character of sound was decidedly different. My 56J was a little easier for me to play in the lower register, but I haven't played a rotary CC for quite a while -- so I'm sure **I** am factored into the equation somewhere. The focus and character of the 188 may be better heard in the house, but in the WWBW tuba room, the broader bell of the 56J caused me to perceive these two horns as "about the same size" -- with respect to sound output. This seemed to be about the same when Roger played each of these.
5. The MW2145 had a lot of core to the sound -- it was surprising how much sound this horn could produce. The advertising is accurate. Although smaller than the 188 and 56J, it seemed to me that the 2145 had a more powerful sound due to the significant "core" it had. I do agree with those who say the 2145 would be a great "do it all" 4/4 horn. My impression was that it was easily equal to the 188 in sound, and had significantly more core than my 56J. I would have to call it a 4/4 tuba, even though it's bell dimension made me wonder before playing it. (I would have voted for 7/8 previously, I suppose.)
6. However, the 1292 still seemed to have a bigger sound yet and for me was easier to play. More sound, easier sound, great low register, easy upper register. Obviously a step up from the 188 and 56J in terms of "weight" of sound produced. But from a couple of previous "Thor" tests, the 1292 doesn't produce the same amount of sound as the Thor -- imo. And the 1292 isn't nearly as large as a PT6 I played last summer.

Conclusions: depending on the 4/4 and 5/4 tubas you use for your comparison, you'll find the 1292 to be either a "bigger 4/4" or a "smaller 5/4", I would think.

Cheers,

tubashaman wrote:As I said, a miraphone 188 is a 4/4+ and the miraphone 1291/1292 is a 5/4 minus

Right you are. But if someone is convinced a Thor is a 5/4, then they'll think a 1291 is a 4/4!

So, for even more fun ... see my post in the related "1291 4/4 or 5/4" thread!

... Hey! -- is a Thor a 5/4 or .... (sorry) ...

Cheers,

Greg wrote:I agree. Consequently, no matter what anyone points out, we will have this same discussion again!

Unless, of course, Roger lets me throw the horns in the parking lot. Then, once and for all and with a great deal of precision, we will know the sizes of these horns. All in the pursuit of science, of course....

Jeff "Of course they are all under warrantee" Benedict

Rick Denney said:
While visited Dillon Music recently, I asked if I could take some pictures of the tubas they had in comparison with my own York Master. The York Master is what I have measured and called a 4/4 tuba, but after this comparison I'm revising that determination and calling it a 5/4 tuba.

ok, that being said, My YM CC can be determined a solid 5/4.
So, now a side by side with a 1292 CC (sorry for awful awful picture quality.. it was on a cell phone)




The YM is only a few inches taller than the 1292, but most of that is in the Bell stack (around the collar) The bell is about 2 inches bigger as well, but almost completely in flare, not in throat.

I would say that the 1291(2) is as the Miraphone website describes it, a "compactly wrapped 5/4"

and one other thing, I have to disagree with 'tubashaman' about the 188 being a 4/4+, since it's the step up from the 186 (universally agreed upon as a 4/4) than that is Mira's 5/4

I posted in the related thread:

Regarding the 1292 that I played yesterday, it is probably around a 9/8 or Pi/e sized tuba. That probably makes a 1291 a 9.5/8 size horn. But it depends on the 4/4 and the 5/4 tubas you use for comparison.

How about:

186/188/2145/52-6J/etc = 4/4 = "1"
1291/2 = 5/4 = 1.25x
"Thor" = 5.5/4 = 1.375x
"Baer" = 5.75/4 = 1.44x
"Neptune" / 2165 / Holtons = 6/4 = 1.5x
Yamaha 826 / CSO York / Yorkbrunners -- 6.5/4?

Since I've never played any horns in the final category, I have no idea if that's correct. And we'll get as many assessments for these size numbers as we have members on this board, I suspect.

My point is that the numbering system offers a little help, but is not definitive. Go see, play, compare the horns and listen to the sound. Decide which one sounds bigger/smaller to you. Pick the one that fits your needs.

If you say your YM is a "solid 5/4", I'd suggest it may be in the 5.5/4 area. There's no doubt (from the pic) that it's physically bigger than the 1291/2. Here's where the 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4 system breaks down. It can't adequately comprehend bore, bottom bow, bell taper, bell diameter. This x/4 code is "more of a guideline, really." Arrrr!

For those of you who like this kind of stuff, start a new thread and list your "top dozen" horns in size order from small to large. Beside each horn, indicate if it's 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4 .... 3.5/4, etc. See what you can come up with, and see how arbitrary this becomes!

Here's an example (everything referenced to 186CC, with a few bass tubas thrown in for fun):

Besson 777 Eb -- 1/4
Yamaha 621F -- 1/2
Yamaha 321 Eb -- 2/3
Miraphone 184 (new one) -- 3/4
Conn 2J -- 3/4
Miraphone 186 -- 4/4
Conn 52J -- 4/4
Miraphone 188 -- 4/4
Conn 56J -- 4/4
Miraphone 1291/2 -- 4.5/4
Thor -- 5/4
York Master -- 5/4
PT6 -- 5.5/4
Baer -- 5.75/4
Neptune -- 6/4
Holton -- 6/4
Yamayork -- 6/4 [edited for those who missed the "example" comment above!]

If a thread of this nature ends up in consensus, then we will have truly solve one of life's greatest tuba mysteries!

Have fun!

Scooby Tuba wrote:So...?

Are you are peace? Do you have what you seek and have become one with it?

I am at peace. I do not yet have what I seek. But I know what it is that I seek. In time I shall become one with what is sought. But first I must contemplate the sound of one lip flapping ....

Cheers,

Hate to disagree Steve, but Yamayork 7/4???

All I know is I've spent a bit of time with the Man and my 2165 looks enormous compared to the York.

So, with that in mind, am I an owner of the 8/4 2165

Back to the Thor VS 1292, I just had a student make this decision for himself. He went with the thor over the 1292 because of the size of the sound.

rascaljim wrote:Hate to disagree Steve, but Yamayork 7/4???

All I know is I've spent a bit of time with the Man and my 2165 looks enormous compared to the York.

So, with that in mind, am I an owner of the 8/4 2165

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't an 8/4 actually be TWO horns?

http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm

Tubas come in all shapes and sizes. Different shapes make it difficult to evaluate size, and size alone confers no particular acoustic result amid all the other possible effects.

Thus, the instruments are what their manufacturers label them to be, and it comes to us to sort it out. The quarter system is a way for manufacturers to explain their line to their potential customers, and in that vein, a 188 described as a large 4/4 and a 191 described as a compact 5/4 makes sense.

Using the pictures in web page linked above, I tried to determine whether my York Master is a 4/4 or a 5/4. I could not make that determination on the basis of the labels applied to other instruments.

Rick "it is what it is" Denney

Steve Inman wrote:

How about:

186/188/2145/52-6J/etc = 4/4 = "1"
1291/2 = 5/4 = 1.25x
"Thor" = 5.5/4 = 1.375x
"Baer" = 5.75/4 = 1.44x
"Neptune" / 2165 / Holtons = 6/4 = 1.5x
Yamaha 826 / CSO York / Yorkbrunners -- 6.5/4?

Since I've never played any horns in the final category, I have no idea if that's correct. And we'll get as many assessments for these size numbers as we have members on this board, I suspect.

My point is that the numbering system offers a little help, but is not definitive. Go see, play, compare the horns and listen to the sound. Decide which one sounds bigger/smaller to you. Pick the one that fits your needs.

Here's an example (everything referenced to 186CC, with a few bass tubas thrown in for fun):

Besson 777 Eb -- 1/4
Yamaha 621F -- 1/2
Yamaha 321 Eb -- 2/3
Miraphone 184 (new one) -- 3/4
Conn 2J -- 3/4
Miraphone 186 -- 4/4
Conn 52J -- 4/4
Miraphone 188 -- 4/4
Conn 56J -- 4/4
Miraphone 1291/2 -- 4.5/4
Thor -- 5/4
York Master -- 5/4
PT6 -- 5.5/4
Baer -- 5.75/4
Neptune -- 6/4
Holton -- 6/4
Yamayork -- 7/4

If a thread of this nature ends up in consensus, then we will have truly solve one of life's greatest tuba mysteries!

Have fun!

Let's see... it all started with the CSO Yorks, so if they are 6/4 in size and Holton made the first copy, shouldn't it be a 6/4 as well? As are all the other copies that followed? Yorkbrunner, Nirschl, YamaYork and the 2165/2265 (which is really a copy of a good Holton). I always thought copy meant "the same as." How can a Holton be a 6/4, the York a 6.5/4 and the Yamaha be a 7/4 if they are supposed all be the same? I have played on the YamaYork and it is the same size as my Holton. The 7/4 that I know of is the big Rudy BBb the Lee Stofer had for sale a while back.

Both the original CSO Yorks:


The Copies:

rascaljim wrote:Hate to disagree Steve, but Yamayork 7/4???

All I know is I've spent a bit of time with the Man and my 2165 looks enormous compared to the York.

So, with that in mind, am I an owner of the 8/4 2165

Back to the Thor VS 1292, I just had a student make this decision for himself. He went with the thor over the 1292 because of the size of the sound.

1. There is no disagreement -- my list was an example of the type of list I suggested. Once I get beyond the scope of my actual experience, its accuracy will certainly be suspect. Feel free to edit and correct it as is appropriate!

2. I assume the Thor was purchased "because of the size of sound" in that it was BIGGER than the 1292. That was my thought when playing those two horns side by side. However, my quest has shifted to the "other side of the coin".

I went up to WWBW curious to see if a 2145 might be the smallest CC available that would cover my quintet and other small-to-medium sized ensembles. I think that it indeed would. I was very impressed by this horn. However, I left WWBW convinced that instead I should be looking for the BIGGEST CC possible that would not be too big for my quintet.

I fear that the "weight" of sound that the Thor is capable of creating would not be the appropriate choice for quintet, but "maybe" the 1292 would fit. I do thank others who have contacted me to suggest that the Thor can work okay in a 5-tet. I suppose with the right mpc (C4?) it might be brightened up a bit? However, I'm leaning towards a 1292 as the horn of choice for the above "enlightened" perspective. Before buying anything, I'll probably try again with a 1292/Thor comparison and try each with a couple different mpcs. However from an older memory of such a brief check, the 1292 played more easily for me, and had a bit more pleasant sound to my ears -- and I believe is "big enough" for the larger groups I play in. We'll see ....

Cheers,

Steve Inman wrote:

For those of you who like this kind of stuff, start a new thread and list your "top dozen" horns in size order from small to large. Beside each horn, indicate if it's 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4 .... 3.5/4, etc. See what you can come up with, and see how arbitrary this becomes!

Here's an example (everything referenced to 186CC, with a few bass tubas thrown in for fun):

[snip]

If a thread of this nature ends up in consensus, then we will have truly solve one of life's greatest tuba mysteries!

Have fun!

Please note -- this was NOT the actual list -- it was an EXAMPLE. I have never seen the CSO York. I have never seen a Yamaha 826. For someone who has seen and played a good sample of all of these horns, please embark on fulfilling my request -- go create the "real" list!

I look forward to seeing it. (However, from the photos posted so far, the Yamaha CSO York copy still looks like it has a beefier bell flare to me!)

Cheers,

Steve Inman wrote:(However, from the photos posted so far, the Yamaha CSO York copy still looks like it has a beefier bell flare to me!)

Naw. These pictures are all subtly different in the position of the camera, and have different angles and perspectives that will make the sort of comparison you are making difficult.

These are all 6/4 tubas, plain and simple. The Gronitz and 6450 are almost as big, and really fit in that category, too.

But none of them are really appreciably bigger than, say, a Rudi Meinl 5/4. That the Rudi is a 5/4 and the Holton a 6/4 says more about shape than size, and is more a matter of definition than difference.



I think it was Hirsbrunner that first put "6/4" on a tuba description, and they did that probably just to distinguish the Yorkbrunner from their kaiser tubas they had previous labeled as "5/4". As always, it's a label used by manufacturers to describe differences in their own line. There is no objective measure.

The instruments give meaning to the terms, not the other way around.

Instead of a numeric code, I would prefer less precise but more accurate word categories. Such as:

1. Solo/Chamber--all instruments intended for solo and chamber settings. This would include most current 3/4 and small 4/4 instruments, and would say as much about sound and application as physical size. Diverse examples: Miraphone 184, Rudi 3/4, Conn xJ.

2. Ensemble--Most standard instruments would fit here, such as a 186 or a 56J or a 2145 (and I think that 2145 is on the big end of what works in most quintets, unless the other four players are beyond mortal).

3. Orchestral--I'm thinking of instruments like the Alex 163, Miraphone 188, and Meinl-Weston Thor, to name three extremely diverse examples. The 1292 would probably land here, too, as would a Rudi 4/4 and a PT-6. People buy these to play in orchestras, not brass quintets, right?

4. Grand Orchestral--all Yorkophones and other fat American-style tubas intended for large works played in large ensembles in large settings, in the CSO/American band style. (THAT will get me in trouble, heh, heh.)

5. Kaiser--Rudi 5/4, Alex 164, etc. As above but in the Berlin style.

There would still be overlap, of course, and gray areas. But I contend that describing a 6450 as a Grand Orchestral tuba conveys more useful information than arguing about whether it's a 5.5/4 or a 6.2/4.

Rick "duck and cover" Denney

tuben wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Instead of a numeric code, I would prefer less precise but more accurate word categories. Such as:

1. Solo/Chamber
2. Ensemble
3. Orchestral
4. Grand Orchestral
5. Kaiser

There would still be overlap, of course, and gray areas. But I contend that describing a 6450 as a Grand Orchestral tuba conveys more useful information than arguing about whether it's a 5.5/4 or a 6.2/4.

Rick "duck and cover" Denney

Brilliant.... I only wish it would put an end to this endless discussion.

RC

Yes -- I think that pretty well covers the contrabass family.

Surely with bass tubas you could fit them into:
small -- solo instruments primarily -- 182F, 621F
medium -- should work in a medium sized orchestra or in a quintet okay (insert your choice here -- I tend to think Firebird / Norwegian Star)
large -- definitely good for large orchestra and definitely good for quintet and brass choir (822F, Pre-PT B&S, Hilgers 6/4 ...)
???
Of course there are differences between a 6/4 Hilgers or a B&S and, say a 822 in sound quality. Not sure about quantity, however.

Oh -- and re: Rick's list --> is that a 5.5/4 Kaiser or a 6.2/4 Kaiser ...???


(quack quack)

wchoc86 wrote:great system, but what about bass tubas? seems to me like mw says everyone of it's f horns is a 6/4. while other manufactures don't use it at all for basses.

Bass tubas have more variable application, it seems to me. They are standard orchestral instruments in Europe but not in America, where they are specialty instruments.

But perhaps this would work well enough:

1. Chamber. Examples: Yamaha 621, Besson 983, Alexander F, MW 281.

2. British Ensemble: Besson 981/2

3. German Orchestral: B&S Symphonie, Rudy Meinl, Willson 3200R, Miraphone 181/281/283, VMI Apollo

4. American Orchestral: B&S PT, 45SLP, Yamaha 822, Willson 3200/3400, MW Kodiak

The main difference between German and American orchestral tubas is whether they act as mini C tubas rather than as maxi F tubas. The British category gets "ensemble" because of the influence of brass bands--the compensating Eb tuba gets used more in brass bands than in orchestras.

Of course, these have nothing to do with where the instrument is played, but for what sound and application it was intended for. I'd be happy to define my 621 as a chamber F and my Symphonie as a German orchestral F.

Any can be used as a solo instrument depending on the literature and the performer's objectives.

Rick "still waiting for the ax to fall" Denney