TubeNet

Links:
http://www.cerveny.biz/tuben/f_tuben/cfb653-5px.php" target="_blank
http://www.cerveny.biz/tuben/f_tuben/cfb_651_5gprtx.php" target="_blank

How are this tubas compared with the YFB-621?
What do you prefer for quintet and solo playing?

I´m interested in opinion about CFB 651-5GPRTX, I think it´s some bigger but the price on this online shop is too much cheaper than cerveny´s page.
http://www.thomann.de/es/cerveny_cfb_65 ... _ftuba.htm" target="_blank
WOW!

This is only partially relevant, but here goes.

I recently tried out a Cerveny CC tuba for 3 days. It played well, had good intonation, great high range, mediocre low range. I turned it down because of the sound. It was "tinny" and neutral; no weight or color at all. It played like it was made of sheet metal. You can work around most tuning problems, but not this.

You get what you pay for.

Sandy Keathley

Comparing any Cerveny F tuba to the Yamaha 621 F tuba is like comparing apples to oranges. Everything is different, the sound, the playing characteristics, the ergonomics...

To me, the Yamaha YFB-621 is a working tubists instrument. If you have to pick up your F tuba and go play a gig, nothing beats the 621. Every note responds, the pitch is consistantly better than any other model and it's relatively easy to play, easy to transport and reasonably priced in the used market. The most common complaint about the 621 is size, it's said that it is too small for an orchestra or band setting. There is also a common gripe about Yamaha tuba sound, but I think there is no sweeter sound than playing a low C on F tuba and having the sound pop out like a big horn.

The Cerveny F tubas I have played had funky low registers. You will have to spend the time to "learn" to make it work. I have played two older Cerveny F's which had remarkable sound quality but the intonation is something that you also have to "learn." They are somewhat bigger than the Yamaha, too.

You should fish around Tubenet and look for the elephant's posts on his Cerveny vs. his 621. He has good comments (with pictures!) comparing them.

OK!
Thank You for your reply´s.

IMHO, the CFB-653 is an excellent horn. I've had mine for over a year, and I've had a LOT of experience playing F tubas of various makes and models for both paid and unpaid gigs. I believe it is the best F tuba Cerveny offers. There is a new Cerveny F out, which I have not tried, which is much larger (~17" bell), which I would like to try, but have not.
For me, it is a real "point and shoot" horn. No funky low range, no funky high range, no "dreaded low C." For a smaller horn, it really puts out some sound. The construction quality and fit and finish are very good. It has typical tuba intonation (ie. "nobody's perfect"). For what they're charging, it would be a mistake not to try one.

I also play the 653....excellent horn. Say's me and others who have played it. I won't repeat all that jonesbrass has said, but it's all true.

Really...it's an awesome horn and considering it cost half as much as a new horn that plays equal or worse...it's a good thing to give a try.

I didn't realize there was a new bigger F Cerveny F out..... I wanna try...

The new Cerveny F is the CFB-662. Specs can be found here, but no picture yet:

http://www.cerveny.biz/tuben/f_tuben/cfb_662-5px_.php

17.71" bell with kranz
5 valve rotary
0.708"-0.795" bore
40.16" tall

Does anybody own a 753? Ferguson music sells them, although none are in stock right now. http://www.hornguys.com/tubaf.htm" target="_blank
It looks like the construction is exactly the same as the 653 mentioned above, but I may be wrong. Just wondering if anybody has any opinions on how the 753 compares to the 653.

I had thought someone mentioned before that the 753 was merely the rose brass version. It does look the same as my 653 and the specs are the same as well.

(edit) there is also a bell garland in the picture

I just sold my 653 to one of my students, yesterday. It is a wonderful instrument that I was sorry to have to sell (I need to remodel a bathroom). It has a good sound, workable intonation, nice valves and good slotting. It was fun to play the cello suites on it. It just was never going to replace my B&S.

BTW, I tried the larger one at Dillons about two months ago. It was fantastic. Better pitch and more along the lines of the tradtional german F tuba. It also slotted very well.

averagejoe wrote:Does anybody own a 753? Ferguson music sells them, although none are in stock right now. http://www.hornguys.com/tubaf.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank
It looks like the construction is exactly the same as the 653 mentioned above, but I may be wrong. Just wondering if anybody has any opinions on how the 753 compares to the 653.

Same as Brooke said, same horn as a 653, rose brass with other bells and whistles. The 653 is a different model than the other Cerveny F's that have been around in this country for a while.

I believe it's an illogical conclusion to dismiss the 653 out of hand based upon trying another model or pitch of Cerveny instrument one time or for a few days. That's like saying you hate all Melton horns because the 3-banger upright piston version you tried in 1970 was a turd.

If the new 662 plays as well as the 653 series, but with more headroom, I think another purchase is in my near future . . . Thanks for the info, Tom.

I own a 653-5 and am completely happy with it in my arsenal as a light solo instrument. I also have a Yamaha 822 for quintet and mid-sized stuff as well as a C for big stuff. The Cerveny is definitely not big enough for quintet work, but it is a great value for the price. It's colorful and fun, with fewer pitch quirks than the big Yamaha. It balances very well with a grand piano in just about any style, but doesn't have the heft to carry through a see of other brass. Hence, the 822.

I used to own the smaller Yamaha, but as good as that horn is, for *ME* it's not big enough for quintet or colorful enough to keep as *MY* ONLY solo tuba. It's very good on some things, but for other things it doesn't offer a lot of personality.

LJV wrote:RE: the 653

How do folks deal with the main tuning slide hanging below the bottom bow?

Do you find that your leg/stand/chair pushes it in?

Looks like a great smaller F and I'd look closer if it weren't for this issue.

Is it, indeed, an issue?

\

It isn't an issue while playing. The horn is small and even though I'm a small guy, it works well on my lap. So the chair shouldn't really push it it since it likely wont rest on the chair. If it was the rest of the chair, then this could be a problem. My lap doesn't seem to push the slide in.

The slide doesn't tend to get pushed in while playing. However, I do have to re-pull it out every time I get it out of the gig bag.

If you're out in EL sometime, I'd let you hoof a bit on the horn and see if it is a problem for you.

DanClouse wrote:The Cerveny is definitely not big enough for quintet work, but it is a great value for the price.

Interesting, as other than a solo instrument, I use my Cerveny 653 for my brass quintet, Southern Brass Project, and for concert band gigs when my 3050S is just too big. The funny thing is, I actually have to back off the 653 a little in quintet in order to balance the group . . . otherwise my sound is too big. Never had a complaint in concert band, either. As a matter of fact, the director didn't even realize it was an F tuba until I told him.

jonesbrass wrote:

DanClouse wrote:The Cerveny is definitely not big enough for quintet work, but it is a great value for the price.

Interesting, as other than a solo instrument, I use my Cerveny 653 for my brass quintet, Southern Brass Project, and for concert band gigs when my 3050S is just too big. The funny thing is, I actually have to back off the 653 a little in quintet in order to balance the group . . . otherwise my sound is too big. Never had a complaint in concert band, either. As a matter of fact, the director didn't even realize it was an F tuba until I told him.

Those were my thoughts as well. Of course this horn can have a WIDELY varied set of effects depending on the mouthpiece. With my small Conn mpc, I get a very direct sounds (thought results in almost perfect intonation). With my PT-65 it gets a very nice round sound with lots of color. If I was to use my F in quintet, I would use the PT and I'm sure it would work. I've used this horn in quintet before and never had a huge problem.

pierso20 wrote:

jonesbrass wrote:

DanClouse wrote:The Cerveny is definitely not big enough for quintet work, but it is a great value for the price.

Interesting, as other than a solo instrument, I use my Cerveny 653 for my brass quintet, Southern Brass Project, and for concert band gigs when my 3050S is just too big. The funny thing is, I actually have to back off the 653 a little in quintet in order to balance the group . . . otherwise my sound is too big. Never had a complaint in concert band, either. As a matter of fact, the director didn't even realize it was an F tuba until I told him.

Those were my thoughts as well. Of course this horn can have a WIDELY varied set of effects depending on the mouthpiece. With my small Conn mpc, I get a very direct sounds (thought results in almost perfect intonation). With my PT-65 it gets a very nice round sound with lots of color. If I was to use my F in quintet, I would use the PT and I'm sure it would work. I've used this horn in quintet before and never had a huge problem.

Cool. I'm using a Giddings & Webster Caver on mine . . . lovin' it!

Thanks for the info guys. I was a little apprehensive about bumping this thread back up, but it looks like there was still discussion to be had. I wish that I lived near Dillons so that I could try all these horns out.

I got to play a 653/5 recently (finally!!) and it was fantastic! Big, fat, colorful sound, great intonation, great low C, awesome low A and lower (maybe starting at Bb? cannot remember though I have noticed this on other rotary F's), great valves, and a lot of fun to play. I used to really love the 621, but for the price or even overall I think the 653 beats it out.
Bass clef C was fine open. Treble clef F seemed to be off though I noticed similar problems with different horns in that room that didn't emerge when playing in a larger room.

The one thing I didn't like was how the 5th valve tubing got in the way of me reaching the first slide. MY way around that would be to buy an older 4 banger and have the 5th added (possibly after the main slide?), or order a 5 valver with the tubing arranged differently somehow.

It played better than the piston Hirsbrunner Eb I was on for a while. Though that thing could really get "interesting" on a fff low F.


Low C was a little different but was still a great note. It felt like the same pitch on my (very free blowing) rotary bass trombone (hit it right and destroy the world!). That is, a bass trombone with a slide and 2 rotary valves as opposed to one with Thayers or a 4 valved one.
D and Db were a tiny bit off, but not a big deal.


I want one! However, I am lining up an Eb bari sax and a large Eb tuba (and a tiny backup Eb, mostly for jazz really) and already have a large bass trombone. I'd then have 3 instruments that sound (basically) the same and another that plays in the same range. And that's not counting the cimbasso or contrabone I'll "need" to get one day.

I'm tall enough that I play small front valved tubas on my RIGHT thigh, and I did notice the main slide issue. A stop rod should fix that problem easily.

Has anybody played or have any pictures of the new Cerveny F?