TubeNet

My opinion is that yes, there can be just plain "bad" examples out there of otherwise identical instruments.

It can be caused by variations in material and workmanship: bows/branches/slide legs trimmed too long or short, bad solder joints (that may not be obviously leaking but still aren't good), or questionable assembly (often not seen by the naked eye) such as forced fitment or loose fitment.

There are also things like nodes and anti-nodes and a whole host of other acoustic properties that can be completely different from one example of an instrument to the next.

This is why it's important to try before you buy. Some makes and models are known to be very consistent, but there are still "good" "better" and "best" examples - even of something like a Miraphone 186. It because of the human factor and inevitable margin of error that exists in almost all things.

EDIT: or maybe this is better explained by telling you to go play 4 different Alexander 163 tubas - doing so will likely demonstrate the huge differences between otherwise "identical" tubas.

lost wrote:I feel like I need to know specifically why a horn sucks rather than just writing it off as a "bad one." Can a bad horn be analyzed and saved?

Tom wrote:It can be caused by variations in material and workmanship: bows/branches/slide legs trimmed too long or short, bad solder joints (that may not be obviously leaking but still aren't good), or questionable assembly (often not seen by the naked eye) such as forced fitment or loose fitment.

There are also things like nodes and anti-nodes and a whole host of other acoustic properties that can be completely different from one example of an instrument to the next.

So ... some of these can be analyzed and saved - bad solder/assembly - some might be more difficult, both to analyze and to correct - dimension problems with branches. (And then there's the nodes and anti-nodes, but ... that's just the effect end of the cause-and-effect relation that starts with the dimensions and assembly, right?)

How about metallurgy? Some people are convinced that alloy composition matters, and wouldn't work-hardening, tempering, that sort of thing, affect the properties of the metal even more? Do manufacturing techniques insure consistent thickness from one bottom bow to the next? I personally doubt that any reasonable variation in metal properties would be enough to account for "airy, weak, less responsive", but maybe not everyone would agree.

Well, sure...you can tear down a "bad" horn and carefully repair and reassemble. But...you don't REALLY know what you're going to end up with when you're finished until you're finished. Could be better, worse, or the same.

Metallurgy can and actually probably does matter, but isolating those factors to prove it is virtually impossible.

If your specific symptoms are "airy, weak, non-responsive" then I would say there are probably assembly issues or mechanical issues going on with the instrument. In my opinion metallurgy would not be a factor in this case.

Tom wrote:Well, sure...you can tear down a "bad" horn and carefully repair and reassemble. But...you don't REALLY know what you're going to end up with when you're finished until you're finished. Could be better, worse, or the same.

I think that's the question -- if we can identify the 98% likely causes, and make sure to eliminate each one, then all it takes is some work and you can make every dog into a ... wolf, antelope or whatever non-dogs are. If there's a significant class of non-identifiable and/or non-correctible causes, then it's better to sell it to some other sucker who thinks if 163s are great tubas, then a 163 will be a great tuba.

I'm pretty sure there have been some compelling anecdotes here of Alexanders, Holtons and other classic tubas that have been rescued from the canine category by reassembling badly soldered joints.

The light and tin-feeling new tubas we once got in HS (late 70s) sounded light and tinny.

Coincidence??

YES! I have played MANY bad horns from otherwise GREAT horn builders. Offline, you can contact me and I'll tell you of my experiences.

perhaps one that is built on a friday?

Surely there are some of you who are old enough to remember the old Chevy 283 engine. Most all of them ran well but there were a few that performed LOTS better than others. It was all a matter of how the tolerances stacked up. Same is true with anything that is manufactured... including tubas.

A few small differences can stack up to make a big difference in how the horn performs. One valve being out one degree on radial alignment won't make much difference. But... if all four are out a degree it begins to take its toll on the performance.

There are many, many things than can go wrong in the final assembly even though all of the parts are fairly consistent. The big problem with many of the horns on the current market is that the parts are not consistent because the models are constantly changing rather than to take the time to perfect them. Also... there are A LOT of sloppy things going on at final assembly.

Yes... there are such things a 'Friday' and 'Monday' tubas. Same as there were (are) with automobiles. At least the automotive industry worked to correct problems throughout the ten year or so platform instead of trying to constantly reinvent the product.

There was a day when music instrument makers worked very hard to improve the quality of their products. The game today seems to be focused only on the 'bottom line'.

Joint fitment, solder blobs or gaps (no matter how much you check for leaks), and residual stress affect the final product. Not all are easy to find, and the last is perhaps the hardest of all. When the parts of an instrument are forced into the assembly jig and soldered in place, the instrument will be fighting itself and it will affect how it feels in your hands (which for most players is a significant feedback mechanism even when it shouldn't be). Sometimes, that residual stress is caused by how the part is formed, which is harder to fix. Solder blobs, edges, and gaps can introduce strange resonances when in just the wrong spots. Some of these issues might be harder to detect than one might think.

It takes some expertise to diagnose and correct such faults.

For a new instrument, it's probably easier to ship it back and say "Next!". But many unusual older instruments have been improved by finding and repairing such issues.

Rick "noting that, just possibly, the better example is so because of a favorable assembly fault" Denney

TubaTinker wrote:
Yes... there are such things a 'Friday' and 'Monday' tubas. Same as there were (are) with automobiles. At least the automotive industry worked to correct problems throughout the ten year or so platform instead of trying to constantly reinvent the product.

There was a day when music instrument makers worked very hard to improve the quality of their products. The game today seems to be focused only on the 'bottom line'.

That being said, GENERALLY speaking, are long lived tuba models less likely to be duds than newly designed models??

Like a Porsche 911 vs. a Panamera??

I'm only an amateur, but I have taken apart more than a few York tubas. I've taken apart a few Conns and Kings, too.

(Here I go sticking out my neck)

Not that I have a great deal of experience, but the York tubas I've "dissected" feature what I would consider to be consistently quite shoddy workmanship (this has been echoed by a well-respected and extremely talented mechanic who I will not name here). And even yet, they have a quality of sound that is highly sought after.

I think great design can mitigate quite a bit of poor workmanship.

bloke wrote:A bunch of folks here seem to buy into minutia-cause/huge-effect.

I'm sure everyone would agree there are minutiae that are just minutiae, which implies that there are sloppy, imperfect tubas that play well. Maybe you could find cases where a tuba plays OK despite rather gross defects - I don't know, big holes in the bell, bottom bow caved in. But what do you think the odds are, that airy, weak, non-responsive tuba has a leak somewhere - from the factory, dang shoddy workmanship.

What about the REALLY bad player with the wobbly sound of a "Church soprano"? You know....the one that plays every tuba in the store or at the conference and says they are all "Dogs" because he can't get a good "tone" on it like he can on his peashooter 3 valve Eb that he's had for 50 years.
I can't count how many times I've had to hold my tongue because one of those guys stops me and asks "Don't you have any good horns here?"


Since you can't buy even the sheet brass in Aircraft Grade tolerances and almost everything is done by hand, there will always be variations between particular instruments.

If we are talking about examples of the same model playing drastically different from each other, I am inclined to blame it on manufacturing inconsistencies.

bloke wrote:fwiw, I've played PLENTY of good-playing tubas with caved-in bottom bows and holes in their bells.

Every good-playing tuba I've owned has had at LEAST one hole in the bell.

In terms of minutae (sp?), for me, it's more like "fixing things I didn't know were broken." Or, in TubeNet slang... "tweaked."

I took a student to a seller to purchase a new euphonium. I had called in advance and they had three horns laid aside for us. All three were the same model. The first horn played okay but was nothing spectacular. The student then played about a dozen notes on the second horn and it played terribly. He then played the third horn and the sound was a solid beautiful sound. You can guess which horn we took home. I wonder which school got saddled with the second horn. We told the seller the second horn had issues but I am pretty sure it was just put back in stock for sale with no activity on the part of the seller.
It just reinforces the fact if at all possible you need to try the instrument before you buy it, and it may help to take a musician friend along to tell you what they are hearing.
Scott M

Matt, as usual, you've got your finger on the pulse like few others I know. I've heard it said more than once that this great player or that great player could "make a garden hose sound good".

With that truth being said, I will mention a York 712 tuba that I own that had a valve guide, drilled and tapped at the factory, off horizontally by over 1/8", to the point that the bore going though the main windway of that piston (#3) was effectively reduced by at least .125.




Even before it was rectified, it was (is) the best tuba I've ever owned, and I've owned a lot of horns and have been playing tuba for more years than I care to mention.

Bob "who believes a great design can sometimes overcome egregiously bad construction".

(with apologies to Mr. Denney et al for stealing their byline)

...and/or "I wonder how many of the next folks who ran 'the euphonium gauntlet' picked your 'terrible' one as their 'amazing' one (after the spit valve cork was replaced)."

FWIW - I checked the horn over carefully and did not find an issue with the water key. I am suspicious there was something done improperly in the manufacturing process as it played stuffy and unfocused. That is why I told the seller of the issue. I hope they fixed it but wouldn't want to bet on that. Supposedly one of their tech's had already checked the horn prior to sale.

ScottM

IMO, there are few truly "bad" horns out there. I mean, yeah, if the tuba is poorly designed and built to begin with, then I guess you could say "it sucks". But some "crappy", beat-up tubas can play/sound good if they are properly repaired. Heck, I've tooted on several "school" tubas (mostly BBb, and some pretty beat-up) and have been surprised at how well some of them played Keep in mind there are many different tubas for different playing situations, so you cannot use the same standard for every tuba.

And I have found that as I have progressed as a player, the more tubas I like -- even some I previously didn't like.

People test a melon at the store, but buy a horn without trying it first.