TubeNet

I know this is an inane topic, but why is it that every single mother-loving used Rudy that I have ever seen has a creased bell?

KiltieTuba wrote:

daveinem wrote:I know this is an inane topic, but why is it that every single mother-loving used Rudy that I have ever seen has a creased bell?

Even new ones?

The new used ones...?

My only guess is that they are tubas that get used a LOT. And when tubas get used a lot, no matter how careful you are, things get dented, bent, etc. Not a big deal...

I wonder how much this has to do with the RM sound.

GC wrote:I wonder how much this has to do with the RM sound.

I have no direct experience with this BUT a respected tuba repair guru told a story of overhauling a miraphone and in the process thoroughly annealing the bell. The resulting horn was 'dead'. The repair guru, on a whim, then rolled the bell to 'work harden' the brass. It was believed that doing this brought the horn back to life.

I wouldn't run out and have my horns bells needlessly work hardened in pursuit of some mythical improvement BUT it's *possible* that the distinctive Rudy bell shape combined with 'springy work hardened' brass contributes in some small way to the overall sound.

That said, most tuba bells have a bit more parabolic shape(which is easier to roll dents out of) AND don't come from the factory as 100% 'annealed pudding' or they would all collapse under their weight in no time.

tuben wrote:(my experience with Rudy's is limited)

Could this because most highly desired Rudy's (like Alex's) are older tubas? Longer lives = more chances for bell damage?

Also, is Rudy bell metal thinner than many others?

My sense is no. Sure, there are plenty of older Rudys around but they are still making them. One of the nicest ones I ever played was a horn that Lee Stofer showed me 10 years ago. It was newly made and an awesome player. I have lots of experience with RM products. I grew up near the old Custom Music store located in Royal Oak, back when they had the "Tuba House" behind the store. I frequently walked there after school to try out the newest deliveries. My first CC came from a former employee of Custom. It is a 60s vintage RM-10. I still have that horn and it makes a great sound but has lots of tuning idiosyncrasies that make it harder to use. Much like Alexander tubas. I don't think the bells on these horns are any more or less thin than on others. In fact, my impression is that they may be a bit thicker. And that may have something to do with why they show scars. It may be harder to roll them out than a thinner bell.

bloke wrote:If - in a video...or some patter...a manufacturer (if that manufacturer even makes their own bells...??) tells you that it's because of the sound...ok...sure...it's because of the sound.

This is the real question. I don't know the answer. Considering that I've played tubas with thicker and thinner bells than the RMs, my guess is that this aspect of the horn doesn't really define the sound. It may make enhancements in specific elements of playing (such as the sound not breaking up so easily at higher volumes) but I think the quality of the RM sound is more a function of the shape of their bugle than anything else. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it!

Hi-
I was told years ago by someone from Europe that Rudi's brass formula for their horns had a higher amount of zinc in the 'brass formula' than most other horn makers. Whether this is true or not and whether this contributes to the problems described above, I don't know--just what I was told......
Mark

Is it just the bells that have this issue?

I was told years ago by someone from Europe that Rudi's brass formula for their horns had a higher amount of zinc in the 'brass formula' than most other horn makers.

Zinc = the cheap part of brass.
Copper = the expensive part.

Annealing produces softer brass, easier to shape and less likely to ring like a bell.
Work-hardening makes the brass harder, stiffer, and springier, more likely to ring like a garbage can. (Very annoying.)

I have watched Rudolf Meinl build tubas, including spinning bell flares, and there is nothing cheap about it. Those are just about fightin' words around me, but I'll take a deep breath . . . .

The most ordinary Rudolf Meinl 4/4 4-rotor tuba takes a minimum of 380 man-hours to build, as they are truly hand-built in the old way, as well as being tweaked by a couple of modern processes added for consistency. Multiply those man-hours times any sort of decent labor wage, and you'll see exactly why they cost what they do, as do Thein, Adams, Meinl-Weston-handmade and anything else that is really handmade by skilled western workers. And, Rudolf Meinl has held the line on quality, refusing to "cheapen up" his instruments to cut prices and sell more volume. I'm impressed by each new instrument I see from them, for each new instrument seems to be better yet. I would caution against criticizing their pricing, as their prices have been historically pretty stable. What has changed for Americans is the value of our Dollar, so anything imported except electronics has gone up drastically in the past decade. I find that comparing the price of a professional model hand-made tuba to the price of a nice smaller import car will give a fairly accurate gauge. In 1978, when I bought my first Rudolf Meinl 3/4 CC tuba, it cost approximately the same as a Honda Civic. Compare the price of a new Honda Civic, or your favorite comparable import car, which also is subject to the same currency issues, and see if a new pro tuba really is that expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Rudolf Meinl and J.W. York bell flares share some common characteristics. They are hard, very hard, and were spun that way on purpose. When done right, the "live metal bell" speaks very clearly and projects very efficiently, and is hard to over-blow. J.W. York bells normally are not severely dented, even when neglected for years, but they may very well have cracks, as the hard metal is necessarily brittle. If a repair technician indiscriminately rolls the living daylights out of a Rudolf Meinl bell or a J.W. York bell, the most likely result is cracking. Rudolf Meinl does use a different metal alloy than at least most of the manufactured instruments, but there is nothing cheap about it. From my time spent around Diespeck in Bavaria, the constant concern in the minds of the Rudolf Meinls is striving to maintain the highest standards of brass instrument making, to give their professional customers the very best available anywhere.

Over the past two years, when a Rudolf Meinl has come in to my shop for bell repairs and the rest of the instrument is still very much like new, I have found that the best cosmetic option is for me to slip the bell off the instrument with everything else still in place, do the necessary dent work, strip the lacquer, lightly buff the bell, reinstall it, do some hand-polishing, and re-lacquer the bell. Part of the cosmetic problem with creases on the Rudolf Meinls, particularly the older ones, is that the lacquer is not very forgiving and shows prominently where it has been damaged. So, a new lacquer job is at least half of the solution.

Yes, for years Custom Music Company sought to keep prices lower by buying Rudolf Meinl tubas and selling them with American-made woodshell hard cases that really did not fit all that well. When I sell them, I offer them with a nice German molded case from Jakob Winter that fits better, or a real top-of-the-line German woodshell hard case that really fits, is very durable, and looks like a million Bucks, too. Just ask Russ Dickman about the hard case for his Rudi 4345 rotor CC (and the horn, too, for that matter).

Is there any way to reinforce a previously damaged Rudy bell so that it doesn't get immediately rewrinkled? Bottom bow gaurd wire on the outside of the bell? My work-supplied Rudy is subjected to some rough conditions (truck travel, loading and unloading a few hundred times a year, etc) and I'd like to get it built up in some way... Or should I just leave the wrinkles instead of further weakening it with repairs?

T. J.