TubeNet

My current "big tuba" is a 1980s Alexander 163 CC. I've had it for a few years and have mentioned it in various threads on Tubenet. It has a larger-than-modern-"euro-shank" receiver, but it's not that super oversized Alexander receiver that is always talked about. Though they could work in a pinch, modern euro shank mouthpieces don't really fit. They wobble around a bit and the response just isn't right. So, I had my repairman make an adaptor so that I could use a modern euro shank mouthpiece. It is an improvement, to be sure, but still not quite right. I ended up with a Doug Elliott Alexander ("A" shank) mouthpiece shank and things started work. It fit right and fixed the response issues.

So, tonight it occured to me that those that play Alexanders now seem to be doing one of two things:

1. They use a Doug Elliott mouthpiece setup to fit the oversized receiver
2. They change the leadpipe and have a modern euro shank receiver fitted

However, Doug Elliott didn't start manufacturing/selling mouthpieces until 1981 and I find it hard to believe all of the Alexander players of yesteryear were immediately ripping their leadpipes off because the receiver was too big for anything on the market.

My question is what were the options for Alexander owners in the 60s and 70s (and into the 1980s) prior to Doug Elliott coming onto the scene? Did all of the different firms offer Alexander shanks or was selection seriously limited? Was everyone just using a mouthpiece that shipped with the horn? Were players having adaptors fabricated?

Just curious!

You are forgetting about two different options as well:

1) Alexander does make mouthpieces that have the same shank as their tubas. They're huge, and most players just don't like how they sound.

2) As long as I have known people who play Alexander tubas, they all have had adapters made by repair technicians that are just pieces of brass that allow a smaller American/European mouthpiece to fit and not slide around. I know I've made about 5 of these myself.

Hope this helps as well.

don't they do that for trombones and euphoniums as well still today?

Tom wrote:However, Doug Elliott didn't start manufacturing/selling mouthpieces until 1981 and I find it hard to believe all of the Alexander players of yesteryear were immediately ripping their leadpipes off because the receiver was too big for anything on the market.

Most who changed out the leadpipe on an older Alex 163 did not do so to intall a leadpipe for a smaller receiver, it was done to add a stronger venturi to increase resistance since those leadpipes were too damn big in the first place.

-Matt

One successful (i.e. currently employed) tubist I know, had the shank of his mouthpiece wrapped with medical adhesive tape so that it fit the Alexander receiver. It was the largest receiver that I have ever seen but it worked fine for him, he won his audition with it.

Without doubt, a lot of the complaints about Alexander intonation stem from (terrible pun, I know) the ill-fitting mouthpiece receiver. These horns do not have intonation up to the standards of today's better horns but they are not as bad as their reputation.

"Back in the day" most of the Alexander's imported by Custom or Giardinelli had a larger receiver, but not the monster receiver that the earlier imported horns had. That is how most players coped with those horns.

I have seen the Alexander mouthpiece for the large receiver, I wonder that anyone could play it. It was very wide and very shallow.

I think most Alexander's are very playable if the leadpipe and receiver is replaced (almost any available leadpipe/receiver is an improvement over the monster receiver) and if the instrument is taken apart and assembled by a repairman who will take the time to solder it back together correctly.

Alex C wrote:I think most Alexander's are very playable if the leadpipe and receiver is replaced (almost any available leadpipe/receiver is an improvement over the monster receiver) and if the instrument is taken apart and assembled by a repairman who will take the time to solder it back together correctly.

Interesting. When I bought my 163 it had recently been dropped on its bottom bow by one of the former owner's students. I wanted to have that fixed as well as a bit taken off the first and second valve slides. When I came to pick it up my repairman said, "It's a real pleasure to work on a horn that was built right in the first place." He said he had never worked on a tuba that had less stress applied during assembly or seen one that was as clean inside.

I'd generally heard the theory that the intonation bug in the CC 163's was the dogleg after the main tuning slide. There was, or so some say, a need to expand the bore too quickly in the CC version, it being a place where tubing was shortened from the original BBflat. Wherever the truth lies I still think that with a few "alternate" fingerings my Alex is easier to play in tune than any other biggish CC I've played.

Hi-
If you want to try something interesting, take an old Alex--CC OR F--and put an Adjustable Gap Receiver (AGR) from Matt Walters on it--and 'find the sweet spot' with the installed AGR--you will truly be amazed (and you can also use either an American or European shank mouthpiece too)!! You have a classic horn brought into the 21st Century--it is that easy! The horn 'centers' and the pitch is fantastic--my 2 cents worth.

BTW, anyone have any old Alex catalogs and/or any older pics of orchestral tubists with their Alex's--which you might post on Tubenet?

Regards-
mark
jonestuba@Juno.com" target="_blank

jonesmj wrote: If you want to try something interesting, take an old Alex--CC OR F--and put an Adjustable Gap Receiver (AGR) from Matt Walters on it--and 'find the sweet spot' with the installed AGR--you will truly be amazed (and you can also use either an American or European shank mouthpiece too)!! You have a classic horn brought into the 21st Century--it is that easy! The horn 'centers' and the pitch is fantastic--my 2 cents worth.

This is indeed interesting. I am familiar with the AGR device.

However, at least on my Alexander, the receiver is nothing more than a sleve fitted over the end of the leadpipe so that it can be braced on the bell. It is not a receiver like most modern tubas have. Possibliy irrevelant, but my receiver has virtually no taper on it at all.

So, wouldn't installing an AGR mean that I would either need a new leadpipe or would need to irreversibly trim the original leadpipe in order to get this to work?

EDIT: Does your tuba have the AGR installed with the original leadpipe?

Matt Good wrote:

Tom wrote:However, Doug Elliott didn't start manufacturing/selling mouthpieces until 1981 and I find it hard to believe all of the Alexander players of yesteryear were immediately ripping their leadpipes off because the receiver was too big for anything on the market.

Most who changed out the leadpipe on an older Alex 163 did not do so to intall a leadpipe for a smaller receiver, it was done to add a stronger venturi to increase resistance since those leadpipes were too damn big in the first place.

-Matt

This makes sense.

What kind of leadpipes were being installed?

Miraphone?
Cerveny?
B&S ?
Something custom/generic?

Hi-
To answer a question, yes, I have AGR's installed on both my old CC and F Alex--a terrific improvement for each (NOTE: both Alex's have their original leadpipes still on the horns, but have had the original receivers removed and the AGR's installed). I can't say enough of how much the AGR's have improved the horns--Matt Walters created a great item for tubas (I also have had one installed on my old 1960 Mirafone CC tuba-and it works great). I had a repairman install them, so I defer to either a repairman (Bloke?) or Matt Walters himself to explain how they are installed.
In the old days, thanks to Don Harry, we had the original leadpipes removed, we all ordered from Mirafone old Kaiser BBb 190 leadpipes, & they were cut and bent to fit the horn--many times by Bob Pallansch--for our Alex CC tubas.
BTW, for mouthpieces that leak on horns--not for such large receivers like old Alex's, but just mouthpieces that usually need a piece of paper around the shank to keep water from leaking, try 'plumber's teflon tape'--wrap it around the upper part of the mouthpiece shank, and instant seal. It may wear off after some days, but very easy to replace-and a cheap fix.

Regards-
mark
jonestuba@juno.com" target="_blank

Alex C wrote:
"Back in the day" most of the Alexander's imported by Custom or Giardinelli had a larger receiver, but not the monster receiver that the earlier imported horns had. That is how most players coped with those horns.

I have seen the Alexander mouthpiece for the large receiver, I wonder that anyone could play it. It was very wide and very shallow.

Mine is a Giardinelli import and has the receiver that you describe. I have an old Hablowitz mouthpiece I purchased in Europe that fits the horn perfectly, which also matches the description of the one you've seen...very wide and very shallow.

Mine is definately bowl shaped, but I've seen a couple of even older (marked Alexander) mouthpiece that were just about squared off where the cup meets the throat/shank area. Most unusual. The owners told me they were shipped as original equipment for their 1960s 163 tubas.

If anyone out there is interested, you can read more detailed information about my Alexander 163 here and here.

gred wrote: Try the piece that was made to match the horn:

163 tuba: 34 (7.6mm throat, deep cup)
33 (7.4mm throat, medium cup)
32 (7.2mm throat, medium flat cup)

All three Alex pieces have a rim that is very similar in contour to, but somewhat “softer”-feeling than, my C4. The 33 is actually almost exactly the same diameter as the C4, but it’s shallower and the throat is narrower. The 32 is even shallower still. The 36 is deeper than the C4 but shallower than the TU29.

I think that all three of the Alex pieces play awesome(ly)! With the big leadpipe/bore, I’ve found that the shallower cup and tighter throat combination help response, pitch, and intonation of the horn with itself. I also really like the tone qualities that are produced by the three. My favorite is the 33 and it’s similar to what I get with the C4 except up to pitch and better in-tune. The Elliott piece played great, too, but the bore is sooo big that I don’t think it was quite ideal.

So in summary, I don’t think that the leadpipe is too big, nor do I think that the Alex pieces are unplayable. In fact, I think they are the best option, if you can get them. Is it such a stretch to think that the piece made for the horn would be the best (and that we don’t need to go on all of these “crusades”)???

I've got an old Hablowitz mouthpiece (marked with a GBH logo) that fits my Giardinelli import Alexander perfectly. Remember though, mine has the larger-than-euro-but-not-kaiser-sized receiver. I would describe it as being very wide (at least 33mm, perhaps a bit larger than that even) and very shallow (significantly more shallow than a C4). The rim is C4ish, but perhaps even a bit wider. It has a very tight thoat. Unfortunately I do not have any means of measuring any of these things, or I'd post more than just my general descriptions.

When using the Hablowitz mouthpiece, the tuba is much easier to control, the response is improved, and the pitches slot easier, but I think some of the magic in the sound is lost when compared to the Doug Elliott setup I've got (R cup, R5A shank, and custom SH-II style rim). Using the Doug Elliott is more like using a SH-II with a bigger throat and backbore designed to fit an Alexander. I like the sound of this setup, but would be interested to see how different Doug Ellliott components worked, too.

Thanks for the comments everyone. It was interesting to read about how different players have managed their Alexander tubas over the years, especially about what players were doing sometime between 20 and 40 years ago. It was particullary interesting to me to note that, based on these comments, mouthpiece adaptors were on the scene from the very beginning and that many used "low tech" methods to correct their mouthpiece shank issues (tape, paper, etc.).

And though I didn't start this threat looking for things to do to my Alexander (I really was curious what had been done over the years), switching out leadpipes and installing AGR receivers sounds like something I'd love to try...but I don't think I have the courage to do that at this point. I think my "old school" Alexander 4 rotor CC with original leadpipe sounds and plays great and am hesitant to mess with it. I have even avoided having a 5th valve installed because I don't want to screw up how the horn plays. I think that if I ever did this, I'd order a new leadpipe along with the 5th valve so that I could have it switched back if I didn't like it.

As for intonation (I kinda knew this thread would touch on that at some point), my Alexander is excellent. I set the valve slides and the main slide in reasonable positions and do just fine with conventional fingerings. I can use alternates, but don't have to just to get by. No slides have been cut on mine. I think that the dogleg is a factor (rate of taper), but I think the leadpipe (and receiver when used with an ill-fitting mouthpiece) is a big part of the equation, too. There are tons of stories about building Alexander tubas that range from a craftsman built one "good one" while training three apprentices that built the "bad ones" to "when a CC was ordered they would just redo the tuning slide and dog leg." However, the one thing that consistently comes up besides their general inconsistent build quality is that the leadpipes were not measured or tapered very carefully, if at all. Probably not the only thing that makes a good Alexander "good" or a bad one "bad," but seems like it could have a very serious impact.

My Alexander is not a Yorkbrunner or a Thor or a PT-6. It is "old school," but I'm happy with it and really love the sound. It is neat to hear from others that have spent time with an Alexander (lots of them) and especially from those that still play them (not as many). Thanks for indulging me.