TubeNet

I'm looking to sell my tuba soon and want to find out as much as possible about it first. I Googled the serial number and found an old TubeNet listing claiming that it is a handmade horn but I want to be able to verify that. So my question is, how do I verify that it was indeed made by hand?

If you told us what it is, when you believe it was made, and the serial number range (you can put xx in for the last few digits if you are concerned about sharing the full number), we might be able to determine to what extent it may have been handmade.

And, "handmade" needs to be defined a bit...do you mean hand hammered bows from sheet brass? It is probably the most widely accepted definition of "handmade," though you should keep in mind that all tubas are hand assembled, so some people cite that as their reasoning for claiming "handmade."

Anyway, more info will help all of us determine the answer to your actual question.

Visit an instrument factory - every aspect of brass musical instrument construction requires "handmade" craftsmanship. Small parts (screws, ferrules, etc.) are made with CNC technology, but bells, bows, valve blocks all require hand assembly.

Production horns are assmebled on jigs - which accounts for consistency. Mandrels in better facoties are nickel-plated so any wear can be spotted, the forming tool plated back to spec, and consistency maintained.

If you're looking for Kindly Old Geppetto tapping together horns in any modern factory you will be disappointed.

Mark Heter

Thanks guys. I emailed Yamaha and they said it was hand hammered but there were still machine made parts.

FYI: Here's a good video showing the production of a King 2341. This would be an example of a production line tuba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Ke7X9TImRE" target="_blank

A difference between the factory horn and handmade is that the main bows on a handmade horn are substantially hammered to shape by the builder whereas the factory built uses a hydraulic process called hydroforming to make those parts.

Some people will say that handmade/hand-hammered bows & bells resonate better with more color in the sound as opposed to 'factory/machine' made bows & bells. But I want to know why. Noone has really described WHY handmade/hand-hammered is better for sound.
Is it the hammering and getting the metal just the right thickness (filing) that contributes to that?
I own several very old tubas that are obviously handmade from sheet brass.....you can see the 'teeth' in the tubing, and there is a slight 'wavyness' to the metal.
I am wondering if the slight 'wavyness' or 'ripples' in the brass from being hand-hammered contribute to the resonance. All I know is that in general older tubas tend to have better sound color/texture than modern tubas. And I don't think it's just the tubas' geometry either...

Maybe those that have new Yamahas can just knock a few dents in several places on their tubas - esp. the bell - and then have them 'hammered' out to better 'color' the sound j/k j/k


(bump)

With all tubas and indeed all brass there is a degree of hand hammering. Lets talk tubas. The large branch is made in two pieces soldered together. The parts are stamped on a press. before presses the parts were hammered out of flat sheet. much faster much cheaper much more consistant. Hand hammering is almost a lost art and very costly. in general the only parts made this way are the one or two large branches, The bottom and upper bow. Even on older instruments the smaller branches are flat sheet folded around a mandrel a, soldered and bent. Modern manufacturers are now using water expansion to make the large branches. Tubes are formed dimpled and put into a hydro forming press where they are blown out to size.
Bells , Tuba bell were made in two ways . first the German method which involves soldering in a triangle of brass into a folded sheet than hammered and spun. The "American method , a bell flair is spun on a lathe then soldered to a stem that has been folded on a straight mandrel. The two parts are hard soldered together then spun on a full length mandrel. other than the soldered seam there is no hammering. Hand hammering a tuba bell the way a one piece cornet Bell is made would be a massive job. no one does it

Ray

tooba wrote:Some people will say that handmade/hand-hammered bows & bells resonate better with more color in the sound as opposed to 'factory/machine' made bows & bells. But I want to know why. Noone has really described WHY handmade/hand-hammered is better for sound.

[etc]

My understanding is that the brass is much thinner, and this contributes to the resonance. My Sonora B&S stencil is from the period where all the horns from that factory were handmade, and the brass is very thin and dent-prone. In fact, many of these old stencils seem much worse off than their counterparts from the same period, and this seems to be the reason. But it is EXTREMELY resonant and and "alive."

pigman wrote:With all tubas and indeed all brass there is a degree of hand hammering. Lets talk tubas. The large branch is made in two pieces soldered together. The parts are stamped on a press. before presses the parts were hammered out of flat sheet. much faster much cheaper much more consistant. Hand hammering is almost a lost art and very costly. in general the only parts made this way are the one or two large branches, The bottom and upper bow. Even on older instruments the smaller branches are flat sheet folded around a mandrel a, soldered and bent. Modern manufacturers are now using water expansion to make the large branches. Tubes are formed dimpled and put into a hydro forming press where they are blown out to size.
Bells , Tuba bell were made in two ways . first the German method which involves soldering in a triangle of brass into a folded sheet than hammered and spun. The "American method , a bell flair is spun on a lathe then soldered to a stem that has been folded on a straight mandrel. The two parts are hard soldered together then spun on a full length mandrel. other than the soldered seam there is no hammering. Hand hammering a tuba bell the way a one piece cornet Bell is made would be a massive job. no one does it

Ray

I wish I could give information as concisely as this excellent post

My understanding is that the brass is much thinner, and this contributes to the resonance. My Sonora B&S stencil is from the period where all the horns from that factory were handmade, and the brass is very thin and dent-prone. In fact, many of these old stencils seem much worse off than their counterparts from the same period, and this seems to be the reason. But it is EXTREMELY resonant and and "alive."

This has me wondering about brass horns that have much thicker metal like my Boosey&Hawkes Imperial euph. Because of the thick brass used and the very thick silver finish my horn is incredibly heavy when compared to almost any other euph made. In band I sit between a guy using a Mack Brass euph and a 26 year old Besson . Both have the big 12" bells as opposed to my just over 11" bell and neither have the very lovely warm sound that I love so much about my Imperial.
Because my horn Is built like a tank it is also very dent resistant. This one was built in 1984-ish and was a school instrument in the UK for many years until I acquired it. It has only a few minor dings in it. That's a tough horn !

LJV wrote:OBN makes a great point. Brass instruments are complex systems. Thin bows are only a possible small piece in a large puzzle. Without careful assembly and good basic design, those bows won't make a superior instrument. Attention to detail (and hopefully not just serendipitous luck) are key in producing a great instrument. I've played feather-weight tubas that didn't resonate at all and played tanks that would resonate if a light breeze hit the mouthpiece.

+1... And yes, that's interesting about the old Boosey. Did you think maybe you're just better at making good sounds?

Brass instruments are very complex systems acoustically, due to all the variations. There is a balance between thickness and hardness of metals, and that interrelationship makes a big difference in how the instrument resonates and projects. Add to that the variations in bore and taper, bracing, whether the valve guides were put in exactly the right place, and how carefully the instrument was assembled, and there are so many possible outcomes as a result.

To further complicate the matter, on many top "hand-made" instruments, where branches were made from two pieces, brazed together, hammered, filed, sanded and hand-burnished, they then put those parts into a mold and blow them a little to ensure absolute consistency of the outer dimensions of the parts.

Since players tend to want the sound of a very carefully-crafted instrument, and the consistency that modern industrial processes can provide, there will always be a combination of the two, and those that combine them the best will make the best instruments.

bloke wrote:I very strongly suspect that an overwhelming percentage of the difference perceived by players who might (theoretically) have an opportunity to actually - back-to-back - play two same-model (and, by some fluke, identically-shaped interiors) tubas where one would be "hand-made" and the other would be mostly hydraulically-formed... [taking a breath for huge, run-on sentence] ...would be physical sensation differences.

I suspect that even the most critical ears would hear (assuming no player bias and equal-quality A vs. B "runs" at a phrase of music) the same player playing the same instrument, whereas the player would "sense" a more physically-vibrant instrument and would perceive that they are "lighting up the room" with the more-vibrant (likely the hand-made) of the two instruments.

I doubt that many have stumbled across these opportunities, but I've both briefly played the regularly-used CSO York tuba (a very thin-walled - due to overhauls - and physically vibrant instrument) and I've heard Mr. Pokorny - in Orchestra Hall - play that instrument back-to-back against the "final" prototype Yamaha York copy (several a-list excerpts). Mrs. bloke was in attendance as well. Mrs. bloke claimed a preference for the Yamaha, and (admittedly, as I suppose my ears are not as keen) I only heard "Gene playing the tuba" (as the two tubas sounded virtually the same to me).

This is what I've considered as well. Recently I concurrently owned a very new Cerveny 681-4 and an Amati (I think 481-4) that I'm beginning to think is from the 1970's or 1980's. These instruments are _very_similar and came from the same factory. The two obvious differences are both the finish:

1. The metal finish of the Cerveny is much more consistent. My background in the machine trades makes me think that the processes or tooling have changed at some point between the creation of these two instruments.

2. The "finish" as in the protective coating: The Amati has a very thin (or perhaps non-existent) lacquer finish. The Cerveny has a thick presumably epoxy (catalyzed lacquer/whatever?) finish.

Even when being played by someone with virtually no chops (me), the Amati feels much more "alive". So much so that I decided to keep the Amati and sell the Cerveny. I've wondered if anyone except the person behind the wheel would have noticed this difference.

With all of that said, even if the difference is only apparent to the player I think that there is an advantage to the instrument that feels better: I know for a fact that my playing is much more free and expressive when I'm playing a flute or guitar that feels "just right" (e.g. more resonant, louder, darker, whateverer). Even if this perception is nothing more than feedback through the hands augmenting the sound.

Thanks everyone, for this most interesting discussion!

Perception = truth to the player but it may not for the listener
ScottM

bloke wrote:I have a tuba that "feels" (physically) a bit like a brick, but I've been "messing" with it over the past couple of years, and believe it (though still *feeling* like nothing-much-at-all) finally *sounds* and aurally *responds* just as I've wished for it to.

In the past, I owned a *very* physically vibrant tuba (which I sold to a student who recently was hired into a somewhat high-profile job using that instrument). When I owned that instrument, I caught myself "enjoying" it (the physical vibrancy) too much and not paying enough attention to the aural (the only thing that matters). Obviously, my former student didn't get hung on that trap.

Everyone makes decisions based upon what is important to them. The feeling that an instrument responds and sounds "right" seem to be the ticket for you and so brings your playing to a higher level.

My guess is that your student has her chops together in terms of timbre and intonation so is able to allow the vibrance of that instrument to bouy her playing.

Are we over-anthropomorphizing large collections of brass tubing yet?