TubeNet

When Kanstul decided to make tubas in the York style, using the York bell technology, and I was asked which one he should make, I had suggested that the York 5/4 size tuba was the one which would be most likely to make a good all-around, do-everything CC tuba. And, I'd said that, although the Getzen/Boehm & Meinl 4/4 copy had had a market niche and the 6/4 York copies have had a market, the 5/4 size would come closest to meeting the needs of most tuba players, at least in the US. And, I'd flatly stated that American tuba players generally want a .750" bore valveset.

I am impressed by the model 90 CC that Kanstul has made for a couple of years now, which is a little larger than the CC Conn of old or the Getzen G-50/CB-50. But, the new Grand CC, which teeters on the border of 5/4 and 6/4, is the instrument I'd wanted in the first place.

Since it was nearly dark and 7 degrees outside when it arrived, I just took some quick, informal photos in the shop to give you folks an idea of what this instrument is, and looks like. The tuba is 40" tall, has a 19 1/8" bell diameter, approx. .745" bore through 3rd valve, a .780" 4th and a .805" 5th rotor. The body is approx. 19" wide. The low G on this tuba will affect the rotation of the Earth, I think, and the whole low register is powerful and secure.

It really plays like a York instrument, and for anyone that thought the 4/4 CC was not big enough or free-blowing enough, this instrument is the answer. It will be available for viewing and play-testing at the Capitol Tuba Conference at Ft. Myer, VA next week.

The biggest departure in response from the original York 6/4 on this instrument is the low register, which is powerful and open on this tuba. I don't think there has ever been an American-made tuba that played like this, and European tubas have only come so close to this standard. I would put this up against any other York copy I've ever played, any day.

Looks like a beauty, Lee! I'll be at the Army Conference next week. I'll swing by and give it a run-through. Can't wait!

Is that a York CC?

Dyin' to play one of these suckers!

I'd love to get my paws on the Kanstul Grand CC and BBbs and give em a whirl. Want!!

Can't wait to try these out next week!

tooba wrote:I'd love to get my paws on the Kanstul Grand CC and BBbs and give em a whirl. Want!!

Had a chance to give each of them a whirl this afternoon at the NAMM Show. I've played the CC a few times before and told the folks at Kanstul I thought the notes below the staff were just a bit stuffy to me. I can safely say they fixed that glitch to my total satisfaction after I played the sample they had at the show today. The BBb has similar problem but I am sure they will get it ironed out. They are very interested to know what we all think of how the horns play and make every effort to work on the issues and make them right! Both horns play extreme well in the staff and above!!!!!

Yes,
The York in the comparison photo is a CC. The Kanstul tuba is a little larger than a Reynolds Contempora.

From what I know about the instrument, it has a York reproduction receiver and mouthpipe, a valveset with a bore basically identical to that of a 6/4 York CC, and a body that, although closely modeled after the York CC, has been tweaked to remedy the weaker low range of the 6/4 York. The larger, more-open wrap of the body and taller bell section gives the impression that the tuba may be slimmer than the original 6/4 York, but the more I'm around it, the more I'm convinced that this is a lean, muscular 6/4 CC tuba. If there is any dimension that is smaller than the 6/4 York, it would be a difference in the bell throat, and most notably in the final bell diameter, which is 7/8" smaller. The Grand CC is 4" taller than the 6/4 York. I have attached two photos, which give some indication but do not tell the whole story. The Grand CC is more comfortable to hold and play.

Having played both CSO Yorks, the biggest difference is in response. Many years ago York #2 (originally #1, the older of the two) had the leadpipe changed, and other modifications that rendered it weak in the low register, particularly around low F. York #2, like the earliest Hirsbrunner HBS510's (Yorkbrunners), has sublimely sweet middle and upper registers, and the privileged tones work well enough that it can be played in the low range effectively without the 5th or even 4th valve. I believe that Mr. Jacobs did that, in fact.

The newer CSO York has it's original leadpipe and 5th valve, and plays much better in the basement range. CSO York #1 (the newer of the two) also is a little more dark-sounding to me, and at the same time has a little more edge to it's sound in the mid' and upper registers. The new Kanstul Grand CC is like that, and perhaps even a little more so, as well as having an absolute world-class low range. It has a dark-chocolate core to the sound, and enough edge to make it the definitive non-tubby sound for 21st Century professionals.

I was informed yesterday that the tuba I have differs from the actual production model in that the production models will have a one-piece bell, with no bell ring above the leadpipe. The instruments being made now have no bell ring ferrule.

If the Grand BBb is anything like the Grand CC, I cannot imagine the term, "stuffy" being in any way associated with it, or even spoken within 5 miles of it.

Lee-
I saw a post re. this horn in a different thread and it mentioned that the 5th valve was a 'controlled resistance' rotor--what exactly did Kanstul do with the 5th valve rotor? Thanks.

Regards-
Mark

I have encountered differing size receivers on different sized Yorks. The somewhat-rare smaller York Eb tubas used the old small-shank American Eb bass mouthpiece, the 4/4 York BBb and monster Eb tubas seem to all have what is our standard modern shank, the 5/4 BBb and CC seem to have a slightly larger shank that will accept either American standard or slightly larger European standard mouthpieces, and the 6/4 York BBb basses seem to have been pretty universally equipped with a receiver that is as large or slightly larger than the traditional Alexander large shank receiver. I have no knowlege of any York tubas ever being originally equipped with a tuning bit, except the sousaphones.

Current CSO York #1 has it's original, standard American shank sized receiver. CSO York #2 has what appears to be a customized receiver, which accepts a larger European shank size. Hirsbrunner may have made this receiver, I don't know.

Kanstul has started making reproductions of the York 5/4 receiver, which will accept most mouthpieces in use today.

The Kanstul controlled-resistance rotor is a design derived from their trombone line, where the rotor is large-enough to have a very gradually curved passage through it, maintaining the resistance to the level present in tubing with no rotor. I like the rotor because it fits tightly for great compression, and is lightweight due to a semi-hollow construction. There is also internal venting which may add to the clarity of articulation.

So...how much will they be, and when will they be available?

Thanks,

Mitch

So Lee, is the York you are playing a cut down BB flat?

This is a VERY nice looking tuba! The seamless bell will look even cooler! Not my style of tuba, but I'm willing to spend an afternoon trying to be convinced.

My predominant thought though is that this is probably WAY too big for most people who say "wow that's a cool tuba," and a poor choice for an only tuba.

Lee Stofer wrote:If the Grand BBb is anything like the Grand CC, I cannot imagine the term, "stuffy" being in any way associated with it, or even spoken within 5 miles of it.

Well, it is my understanding that when developing a new horn they have to work the bugs out of as they go. The sample of the BBb horn they had at the NAMM Show was, to me, just a little stuffy (my code word for too much back pressure) on Eb, D & C below the staff. All the other notes felt wonderful. When I play a horn I have my memories of playing my Holton 345 and York-Master for comparison. It could be just the horn they had on display and all the rest don't have a similar problem, who knows? But of the Kanstul CC horns I had a chance to play over the last several months, the first two had similar "stuffiness" on those same notes. The sample they had at the NAMM Show did not and played very well. I can only say what I experienced with as much honesty as I can. I have friends that work at Kanstul, I've known Zig and his sons for years, and I even host their website on my server, so I do not have any bones to pick with them. Just trying to be honest.... I like their horns a lot and they continue to get even better.

bloke wrote:Bugle-wise (if a bit larger than King) maybe it's about the same size as the old Reynolds Contempora.

I've had the CC horn next to my Holton 345 for a whole rehearsal, and it is NOT as big as my Holton. To me, it is more in line size wise to my York-Master. I would call the new Kanstul CC (and BBb) a VERY healthy 5/4 sized horn. But I am sure it will be debated much in the future...

Bandmaster,
I really appreciate your post, and did not mean to question your stated opinion. What I meant to say is that, although I do not doubt that a prototype would have problems, I would be surprised if one got out the door to be sold without a problem like that being fixed. That's too bad that one made it to the NAMM that way. And, it is encouraging that you say the Grand CC there played so well. I think that the bulk of the R & D has been focused on the CC at this point.

What I had heard so far was that, although the CC took a bit of work to get it "right", I had been told by a play-tester that the first Grand BBb he played was "great". I think that the good thing about this company is that they take all customer feedback seriously, and keep at it until the instrument meets or exceeds all expectations. Considering how well Kanstul's Martin-copy 5/4 BBb plays, I think the York-inspired BBb instrument will be ready for prime time soon enough.

And, you're right, the Kanstul is not as large as a Holton, a 2165 or a Neptune. All of those are slightly larger than the CSO Yorks in overall dimensions, and the Kanstul has a still slightly smaller bell, overall. But, that is why Kanstul has been referring to this tuba as a 5/4+ tuba. Personally, I think that it is the "just my size" tuba, as I tend to like large tubas, and feel like I could own this as my one-and-only horn. In fact, I plan to do just that. Yesterday, I learned that the MSRP for this tuba is $15,000.00, and the actual street price is $10,500.00.

To Paul; The York 6/4 CC pictured could be a cut-down BBb, but if so, it was done at the factory in 1936. It was here for a couple of weeks getting a bit of TLC, and is now in sufficiently good condition to take the stage again.

Lee Stofer wrote:There is also internal venting which may add to the clarity of articulation.

The term of internal venting is new to me, and I cannot imagine how an internal vent differs from a leak between main bugle and valve tubing. Please enlighten me.

Klaus

This photo will tell you what I probably couldn't in 10,000 words.

The Kanstul patented controlled-resistance rotor is quite a marvelous valve, lightweight, and seals very well. I have not discussed this with Mr. Kanstul, but I believe that the internal venting passages would relieve any pressure or vacuum in a valve tubing circuit before the valve comes to rest in either open or closed position, mush like how venting piston valves will clean-up the articulation tendencies as well as avoiding a "pop" when pulling a slide and then actuating a valve. The main thing I know is that it works, and quite well, as it will operate to at least as fast as I can operate it and probably much more.

Could they chain 5 of those together and make a rotary tuba?

Bort,
Kanstul is enough like a custom shop that, if you special-order it, I'm pretty sure they'd build it. One reason this project went ahead of some others is because a tuba player unbeknownst to me pre-ordered and paid for a Grand BBb and a Grand CC, therefore helping to finance the project.

Now that you mention it, if he built a large-bore rotor model with a valveset modeled after the pre-WWII King large-bore rotary tuba, complete with string linkage, that would be extremely sweet - hmmm, think I'd better talk to Mr. Kanstul about that!

Thanks for the photo, Lee!

My suspicion that no venting could happen in either of the playing positions was right, but then I hadn’t imagined the venting between the playing positions being assisted and made to happen a split second earlier than with massive rotors (where venting also happens between the playing positions. Looks like the peak of the puff/suck is muffled through the rotor design.

Klaus