TubeNet

This thread is inspired by the recent "Neptune" - thread launched by Jonathan.
I´ve been owning this MW46 for fifteen years now. It´s the first horn I ever bought, being a freshman student of mechanical engineering, simply because I figured the 3/4 3-valved BBb tuba I had been playing was not suitable for the kind of music I had been up to.

Her name is "Chantal". This is MY TUBA. There are many tubas, but this is mine... You all know how this creed goes.
She´s like 20 years old. I´ve had her valves redone last year, so they finally have ball bearings. I simply KNOW her up and down, meaning that I´m ready to accept any bet that if I´m able to sing a song, I´ll be able to play it on that horn.
She sounds beautiful, which means that she´s not trying to pretend to be a contrabass tuba. My other horns don´t (and probably never will) have names.
She´s just great for Alpine Band Music and Jazz (errrm... fooling around).

This horn is out of date and out-volumed by many modern horns, many of which come from the same company. I´ll still maintain that this is one of the great F-tubas there are.
Any other MW46-users out there wanting to share their spirit ?

Cheers

[Tubeast, I'm not trying to hijack your thread... ]

My only experience around one of these was 2 weeks ago, when I stumbled into a small music shop in Midtown Manhattan (expecting to find no tubas)...turns out he had a big Kallison and a MW-46 prototype, which had supposedly belonged to a late member of the NY Phil, and was sold to the store owner by his wife. I'm not sure who the tubist in question was, but it looked like a nice horn, though the price seemed kind of high.

If the guy didn't have a big, bushy-haired cat roaming around his shop (I am very allergic), I'd have tried it out. Instead, I walked out with scratchy eyes and unable to breathe.

6/4 F

J.c. Sherman wrote:6/4 F

While Meinl Weston may refer to the 45 and 46 as "6/4" F tubas, that designation is quite comical.

Not really... compared to the YFB 621 or the MW 182.

F's are smaller than CCs, so they're sizes correlate, but don't line up to each other...

J.c.

J.c. Sherman wrote:Not really... compared to the YFB 621 or the MW 182.

F's are smaller than CCs, so they're sizes correlate, but don't line up to each other...

J.c.

The YFB 621 and MW 182 are small F tubas. "3/4" at best.

A MW 45 or 46 (15 inch bell, .728 bore, no following letters) is a normal sized F tuba, "4/4" sized at best. MW can call them whatever they like, but they're still smaller than a B&S. I could see arguing that a 45S (or SLZ or SLP) is a 6/4 sized F tuba, but I still think that's funny since they're still quite a bit smaller than the truly big F tubas like the Willson or the B&S/VMI Mel Culbertson "Apollo".

cjk wrote:

J.c. Sherman wrote:Not really... compared to the YFB 621 or the MW 182.

F's are smaller than CCs, so they're sizes correlate, but don't line up to each other...

J.c.

The YFB 621 and MW 182 are small F tubas. "3/4" at best.

A MW 45 or 46 (15 inch bell, .728 bore, no following letters) is a normal sized F tuba, "4/4" sized at best. MW can call them whatever they like, but they're still smaller than a B&S. I could see arguing that a 45S (or SLZ or SLP) is a 6/4 sized F tuba, but I still think that's funny since they're still quite a bit smaller than the truly big F tubas like the Willson or the B&S/VMI Mel Culbertson "Apollo".

I have to agree with cjk on this one: the way the "?/4" line up for these particular M-W F's doesn't make much sense. Yes, F's are smaller than CC's, but my Cerveny 653 is just a hair "smaller" (.709 bore, 14.2" bell) and wouldn't be described by most as a 4/4 F.

All that aside, size is what it is. It doesn't have anything to do with how it plays . . . most of that is in the hands of the player.

cjk wrote:The YFB 621 and MW 182 are small F tubas. "3/4" at best.

A MW 45 or 46 (15 inch bell, .728 bore, no following letters) is a normal sized F tuba, "4/4" sized at best

Whatever. But compare that 621 or 182 to any typical F tuba from 50 or more years ago, such as a Dehmal, a Scherzer, or an Alexander, and then tell me they are small. They are small only in comparison to modern, monster orchestral F's. Some people think of the Alexander 163 as a small tuba, too, but that's true only in comparison to a Yorkophone.

Yamaha calls their 621 a 3/4 F tuba, but they call the Bb and C tubas that use the same outer branches 3/4, too. Nuts to that.

But as we all know, arguing about the quarter system for the size of tubas is like arguing about the size of our, well, you know. Without knowing the true average, guys end up comparing themselves to the freaks they see in, um, movies.

Rick "who has played F tubas that were smaller than modern euphoniums" Denney

Allthumbs wrote:That sound stuck with me, which may help to explain the new gold brass tuba

I too think there is something special about the sound of gold brass tubas, despite the scientific theory saying that just can't be so. The reason for my gold brass Eb!

Going back to the M-W 45/46, although they may not physically be big, they do seem to have a broader tone than your average F tubas which might explain the 6/4 designation. When I compared a 45, a B&S PT-15 and my 2040/5 Eb - the 45 had the broadest tone of the three.

Rick Denney wrote:

cjk wrote:The YFB 621 and MW 182 are small F tubas. "3/4" at best.

A MW 45 or 46 (15 inch bell, .728 bore, no following letters) is a normal sized F tuba, "4/4" sized at best

Whatever. But compare that 621 or 182 to any typical F tuba from 50 or more years ago, such as a Dehmal, a Scherzer, or an Alexander, and then tell me they are small. They are small only in comparison to modern, monster orchestral F's. Some people think of the Alexander 163 as a small tuba, too, but that's true only in comparison to a Yorkophone.

Yamaha calls their 621 a 3/4 F tuba, but they call the Bb and C tubas that use the same outer branches 3/4, too. Nuts to that.

But as we all know, arguing about the quarter system for the size of tubas is like arguing about the size of our, well, you know. Without knowing the true average, guys end up comparing themselves to the freaks they see in, um, movies.

Rick "who has played F tubas that were smaller than modern euphoniums" Denney

UmmmmKay, My point is that calling a relatively small F tuba "6/4" is funny, not to argue the often irrelevant quarter system.

How many players actually play 50 year old F tubas? Are 50 year old F tubas really relevant today? Nope. They may be relevant to collectors, but how many of them are actually worth playing? Very few. Dehmals and Scherzers end up in the hands of collectors instead of the laps of players for a reason.

There probably are 50 year old Alex Fs around that are worth playing. Alexander F tubas are quite similar in size to the MW 45 (not 45S, not 45SLP, not 45SLZ, just "45"). Would you really call an Alexander sized F tuba "6/4", a size description allegedly coined for CSO-York-a-like humongophones? I must be the only one that sees humor in that.

I formerly owned the 1923 Boosey F tuba that Klaus now owns. That 85 year old tuba was comparable in size to a yfb621. I also owned a 35 year old 6 valve Cerveny F tuba. It was only very slightly smaller than a MW 45, but similar in size to a yfb621. I still think the MW 45 (not 45S, not 45SLP, not 45SLZ, just "45") is a very "normal" sized F tuba (but smaller than most built today).

cjk wrote:I still think the MW 45 (not 45S, not 45SLP, not 45SLZ, just "45") is a very "normal" sized F tuba (but smaller than most built today).

Like I said: Whatever. I'm not arguing that the description is correct or even reasonable. But even your description above loses the context for this instrument. It's smaller than many orchestral tubas on the market today, but so is a MIraphone 188 CC compared to common orchestral contrabasses. Should we reclassify that?

But it's still a large F tuba in the context of F tubas that were in common use (and that still are) outside the narrow orchestral application. It's bigger than both the Miraphone 180 and the Alexander that defined the standard F at one time. It's MUCH bigger than Meinl-Weston's 182, which is about the size of traditional F's of old (in other words, that's a standard F as of about 50 years ago). When I look at someone playing a 46, I don't think "small F" to myself. I think "big F". When I see someone playing a WIllson 3200, I think "what a monster."

There are people out there who describe my Symphonie as a "small" F. That's just nuts--it has the same outer branches as a PT-15 and it fits comfortably in the gig bag I use for my Miraphone 186.

Rick "who thinks the 621 is normal sized, for an F" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:
Rick "who thinks the 621 is normal sized, for an F" Denney

Amen...

J.c.

Rick Denney wrote: But it's still a large F tuba in the context of F tubas that were in common use (and that still are) outside the narrow orchestral application. It's bigger than both the Miraphone 180 and the Alexander that defined the standard F at one time.

You've mentioned that the MW 45 is bigger than an Alexander F a couple times now, but they're actually about as close to the same size as two different manufacturers' instruments can get.

The MW45 is one centimeter taller (~ .4 inches), has the same bell diameter, and has the same bore except for the fourth valve, which is slightly larger on the MW45. I have also seen Alexander F tubas with this same feature (larger bore 4th), but I believe that most do not have it.

Actual references:

As far as the Alex goes, we can look at cases:
http://www.hornguys.com/tubacases.htm" target="_blank
which says:
Alexander 154-157, 166, 167 -- Bell x Length = 15 x 38.5
15 inches is 381 mm.
38.5 inches is 977.9 mm
That case is sized to fit pretty much any Alexander F tuba. Some Alexanders that are quite a bit older have slightly less bell flare and are a bit taller, but not much. They've been the same basic design for a very very long time.

http://www.musik-alexander.de/gebr_alex ... index.html" target="_blank or this http://p30983.typo3server.info/93.0.html" target="_blank shows this about the Alexander 155 or 157:
# bore 18.5 mm
# bell Ø 380 mm
# overall length 970 mm

http://www.melton.de/blech/meltonftuben.htm" target="_blank shows this about the MW/Melton 45:
Bohrung: 18,5mm (4. Ventil: 19,5mm)
Schallbecher: 38cm
Gesamthöhe: 98cm

Christian

cjk wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: But it's still a large F tuba in the context of F tubas that were in common use (and that still are) outside the narrow orchestral application. It's bigger than both the Miraphone 180 and the Alexander that defined the standard F at one time.

You've mentioned that the MW 45 is bigger than an Alexander F a couple times now, but they're actually about as close to the same size as two different manufacturers' instruments can get.

And both of these are about the same size as the Miraphone 180. So, yes, "6/4" for the 45 is a senseless description.

So, let me ask this: Is the 45SLP a different instrument altogether (I mean other than the valves)? Because that guy seemed MUCH bigger in my hands than the Alex I tried at the Army conference a few years back. That Alex seemed in my hands about the same size as my 621 but with a different shape (though bigger than the 182, which also seemed about the size of the 621 and a not-so-different shape). The Symphonie is a monster by comparison. I see that Miraphone is describing the 181, which is more the size of the B&S, as a 5/4, presumably to distinguish it from the 180. I would have thought the SLP had the same basic outer branches as the rotary 45, and the SLP seemed more in that size class. I'm on dialup or I'd go look it up--you have my curiosity up now.

My categorization has been thus: Old traditional F's and British orchestral F's: small F tubas. Miraphone 180, Alex, Musica (like the one I used to own), Yamaha 621: normal F tubas. 45SLP, B&S, 181, HB-12, 822, Willson 3200: big F tubas. Yes, there are variations within these categories, as there are in any tuba size taxonomy. You'll go get measurements for these and show me where I'm wrong again, though, because it will turn out that one of them that seemed normal in my hands has larger dimensions than one that seemed big.

Rick "who was wrong once before" Denney

I would put the Miraphone 180 in the small category with the Besson and 621...

And an Alex F is WAY bigger than a 621. Speaking as someone who played one for most of his college years and much afterwards, there is a HUGE difference in size and sound between these two.

And "senseless" is a bit strong wording for my tastes. As a manufacturer or maker, I think you can call anything whatever you like. It's true that in general a "quarter" designation is not very helpful. It's principally used for Contras anyway, and not as helpful on the other members of the family.

What’s the difference between a marching trombone and a bass trumpet? The maker gives it a different name. Now there’s a whole lot of argument in trombone circles on this, but even the German instruments closely resemble 19th century trombones in bore profile, and most marching trombones bear a striking resemblance in bore profile to modern American style bass trumpets. The maker’s intent is what seems to determine its taxonomy.

The "quarter" system works much the same way. I usually evaluate it by bell throat principally. And by product, not physical size. Does it sound BIG? 5/4 or 6/4. But a manufacturer can call it whatever they want by their determinations of what they think they have created. Call it pride of authorship or artisanship. They get to name what they make. It's up to you to take that title, ignore it, and play the thing

J.c.S.

Rick Denney wrote: And both of these are about the same size as the Miraphone 180. So, yes, "6/4" for the 45 is a senseless description.

So, let me ask this: Is the 45SLP a different instrument altogether (I mean other than the valves)? Because that guy seemed MUCH bigger in my hands than the Alex I tried at the Army conference a few years back.

Yes. The 45SLP is a much bigger instrument. The 45SLZ (45S-LZ) is also a much bigger instrument. That's why I was being very specific when I said:

cjk wrote:... MW 45 (not 45S, not 45SLP, not 45SLZ, just "45")....

I do find the MW F tuba model numbers that start with "45" (or 46) to be confusing at first. The different 45x-xx models are as different from each other as the CC models 21xx (2145, 2155, 2165, etc...).


Christian

J.c. Sherman wrote:And "senseless" is a bit strong wording for my tastes.

I mean "senseless" in the strict sense, as in "it makes no sense". If a label is confusing to a sophisticated buyer (and I put myself in that category deserved or not), then it's senseless. And clearly I was confused by the labeling--the 45 is much smaller than the instrument I was visualizing based on my own experiences with M-W F tubas.

(To Christian--why a "45" and a "45S" should be "small" and "large" is, well, senseless, at least to me. At least with 2145, 2155, and 2165, there is one obvious digit that denotes size. I don't think I've never held a 45, and that I just thought I had, confused by the labeling.)

Rick "thinking most manufacturers get tangled up in their own labeling eventually" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: (To Christian--why a "45" and a "45S" should be "small" and "large" is, well, senseless, at least to me. At least with 2145, 2155, and 2165, there is one obvious digit that denotes size....

agreed. It only makes "sense" to me because I've seen and played most of them side by side.

Christian