TubeNet

lost wrote:Many tubists think you should buy one only if you need one.

Every pro I have talked to says this: "If you aren't required to use one for your job, don't buy one."

I still wish I had the cash to buy a Siegfried.

Make sure it fits in your car.

My Neptune fit in the trunk... just barely. It was such a pain in the ***, I sold the horn for something a little smaller.

For me it has been a "love-hate" issue. I'm not a spring chicken any more, so lugging it around is not fun, even with a handcart and a mini-van. The up side is that in a large ensemble the presence of the sound is magnificent. The sound does not break up when the horn is pushed. I have no issue filling the instrument, but the mid to high register especially when one is trying to blend with other players, who are often barely supporting their sound, can be treacherous. On mine the slots tend to be pretty wide, which means you can play in tune with relative ease, however, those slots are not all that secure. It is easy to chip notes or even get frequent air balls when you are fatigued. A huge horn with a large MP will bring on the fatigue quickly. Not quite the problem in orchestral playing with all those rests, but in symphonic band literature, the playing is more continuous, hence a bit more tiring. Here is where and when I would prefer a 4/4 tuba or even smaller. But then you loose the other benefits. It is not, at least for me, an 'all-purpose' instrument, even in spite of my attempts and desire to make it so. In the right place and the right music it is a wonderful instrument. When I am on my game and feeling great, there is nothing better, but those days are a bit more sporadic than they used to be, and I am often sitting there with the 'beast' in front of me, wishing it were smaller. The solution: schlepp a 4/4 and the 6/4 BAT to the gig. I've done that several times and it is not so much fun either. The down side of schlepping multiple horns is the time it takes to pack up, and I usually wind up missing the first round of beer after the gig. "Travesty"

Stryk wrote:

Mark wrote:

lost wrote:Many tubists think you should buy one only if you need one.

Every pro I have talked to says this: "If you aren't required to use one for your job, don't buy one."

I still wish I had the cash to buy a Siegfried.

The last thing I *NEED* is another tuba, but I want one - at least I think I do

Just one more! It can't hurt anything.

Curmudgeon wrote:

bloke wrote:IF you own one of these that is in new condition - and are needing a quick $7000 - you might want to contact me.

Ignore him. $7500 ready and waiting.

$7,501!

Nice in a BIG concert band to add an extra magnitude of phatness to an already good tuba section. Needs to be at least 70 members, or at least 3 other tubas. I don't see it being useful in orchestra as you're unlikely to blend with the trombones, and a tuba entrance should sound like a tuba not like somebody randomly turned the subwoofer on. Maybe that's okay sometimes.

The other specialty application is string-bass type parts where the roundest possible sound is desired. I do both of the specialty applications, so my 25J works for me. Wouldn't recommend it to everybody. It's not the funnest to play, you have to be very disciplined, using big slow air and letting the big horn do the work.

Like everybody says on tubenet, a flawless leadpipe and one tuning bit make intonation doable on big Conns but it still takes constant awareness.

I have a rotary Neptune. I would call it a small 6/4 or large 5/4, but it still weighs a ton! You probably wouldn't want a BAT as your one and only ax. I only do Oktoberfests and community band concerts now, so I have no intention of adding a smaller tuba. No brass quintet gigs - I hate them! If I had wanted to be a baritone player, I would have taken up the Euphonium.

I'll probably pick up en 'eefer' (Eb) again someday, but I'll want a rotary valve one. If I ever do I would set up the fifth valve as a 'tritone' valve, sounding the low A natural. Otherwise, low end fingerings are a nightmare.

Pro's: Endurance and projection. The large bell section does the work for you.

Con's: Size and weight. Slides need to be in good working order (you'll need them). Also, a good mouthpiece match is essential. I use a baby jogger to cart Neptune about.

Barry Guerrero (rotary VMI Neptune; Sellmansberger three-piece m.p. that fits Neptune properly; three wheel baby jogger)

I've played next to some really strong players who have happened to have had 6/4 tubas, or sometimes just 5/4 tubas. I always ended up playing the bottom octave despite my Alexander 163 being much smaller. Why? My Alex isn't like any other Alex. . . It sounds like a 6/4 tuba and has no limit to volume, like, it never breaks up or gets edgy. I think it's magic or something. Anyway. . .

In the past I spent a lot of time playing an old Miraphone 190. Like, this thing was ragged out. I found it in the bowels of the instrument rental room and immediately realized what it was. So, I took it to the shop and cleaned up the valves and then fabricated an entire 5th valve lever/paddle assembly. At first I couldn't get it to play right, but after some practice I was having a blast. The slots were HUGE- like, I could lip stuff over a half step and not change the tone at all. There was very little resistance, and the projection was excellent, so it was easy to make the conductor mad. I giggle a little when I listen back to some of my old recordings.

I recall that the F at the bottom of the staff just seemed to not exist, so you had to buzz it exactly right and pull the #1 slide all the way out. It felt really bad, but the sound was the same in the hall, so I don't know what that was about. The low range was actually pretty easy to play- definitely easier than a PT6 or my MW 2145. I miss that tuba- it gave me a lot of great memories.

southtubist wrote:In the past I spent a lot of time playing an old Miraphone 190.

CC or BBb?

Donn wrote:

southtubist wrote:In the past I spent a lot of time playing an old Miraphone 190.

CC or BBb?

CC, with the 2-step 5th valve. Great horn, and I found my Sellmansberger Symphony to be a good match for it.

I love my big old Conn. 32J with limited compression in the valves, and an asthmatic player and yet it still has an incredible presence. The three groups I've played in love the sound I get, and I get many compliments. The downside is that if I don't roll down the windows on my car I can't get it in the backseat, and the trunk is just out. I will say as a trombone player I almost never noticed intonation problems, because I had trouble distinguishing my sound from the others, and I was beginning to feel tone deaf. With this horn I know when I'm off, and I've learned to utilize my valve slides on the fly. On a good day, when my air support is adequate I'm more in tune, and other than standard low brass quirks like the F just below the staff intonation is adequate. I still love my trombones and euphonium but this horn is fun to play, and everyone seems to want to talk about it and hear it.

southtubist wrote:

Donn wrote:

southtubist wrote:In the past I spent a lot of time playing an old Miraphone 190.

CC or BBb?

CC, with the 2-step 5th valve. Great horn, and I found my Sellmansberger Symphony to be a good match for it.

I guessed it might be CC, based on your enthusiasm. I had the BBb ... think I did anyway, it's long gone. If I had it back, I think maybe I could play it better today, but I'm not dying to find out. From my vague memory of what it was like, I have a hunch it may not have fit the 6/4 ideal that people are thinking of. Are the Rudolf Meinl 5/4 and 6/4 models like that - yes very large, but no not really so much like the York-inspired models in terms of tone and other auditory phenomena?

Donn wrote:

I guessed it might be CC, based on your enthusiasm. I had the BBb ... think I did anyway, it's long gone. If I had it back, I think maybe I could play it better today, but I'm not dying to find out. From my vague memory of what it was like, I have a hunch it may not have fit the 6/4 ideal that people are thinking of. Are the Rudolf Meinl 5/4 and 6/4 models like that - yes very large, but no not really so much like the York-inspired models in terms of tone and other auditory phenomena?[/quote]

Well, as far as I know, the BBb version wasn't as good. That's all I've ever heard about the 190.

My sound on my 6/4 Conn was pretty similar. I mean, I always sound like me on whatever tuba I'm playing. I can even make my F tuba sound like a 6/4 tuba if I want to. The big Miraphone was much more playable than the big Conn, but I find my Alex to be extremely easy to play once the right buttons are pushed. The low range on that old Conn was spectacular. . . The low F could shake a 5,000 seat concert hall at pianissimo.

Jason Smith has this thing he does that he demonstrated in a master class earlier this year at SERTEC, where he uses a decibel meter to show how much work it is to get lower notes heard out in the hall with a huge tuba. It sounds great under the bell, and to the player it "feels" or "seems" or "sounds" efficient. But if the audience is the audience, it is a ton of work. The goal, if I understood him correctly, is to encourage people to enjoy playing 4/4 tubas as a rule, because they are are, in fact, more efficient, in spite of what "everyone knows."

I would also say from personal experience that 6/4 tubas are a ton of work to schlep around. Is the weight and volume difference worth it (whatever "it" turns out to be)? After a while, it wasn't to me, but all of us have to answer that one for ourselves.

Then why did Arnold Jacobs refer to the 6/4 York as "an old man's horn?"

Steve Marcus wrote:Then why did Arnold Jacobs refer to the 6/4 York as "an old man's horn?"

My guess? Because he was an old man, and it was his horn.

A 6/4 tuba is a luxury... if you're getting paid, it may be a very nice luxury. If you have the benefit of a full-time, salaried position, it could potentially be a requirement. But that is rare.

If you need "11", the Miraphone "Siegfried" is beyond superb... unbelievable is closer. The 601 Cerveny, depending on your point of view, is a bargain 6/4 writ large. An Alex 164 is the ultimate efficiency machine, unless you require the "American Sound", then I'd nab a 4v BMB 6/4.

My "11" is a King Monster BBb. But my MW 2000 is more than enough for any situation. A 1291 King Monster is a gift... a .750 bore, short-action masterpiece.

That said, I've supported many an orchestra and band (with choir even) on my Eb Imperial. x/4 =/= dB. I can get more power on a small bass tuba... a good one will always be heard above the din... after all, they don't hamstring a concert soloist.

In the end, find a sound you like with playability you love and go play! That's the secret.

J.c.S.

Your experiment won't fill the craving.

The sound quality of a good grand orchestral tuba is just different from an Alex 163, which to me is the quintessential column of sound that I associate with German instruments.

I've told this story in the deep past, but I've been so occasional on Tubenet that probably most have forgotten it. When I started attending the San Antonio Symphony, the year was 1982 and Mike Sanders was playing an Alex 163. A couple of years later, he switched to one of the early hand-made Yorkbrunners. So, same player, same hall, same orchestra, same conductor, similar repertoire, but...

...vastly different sounds. The Alex was irrepressible, commanding, and thrilling sound, that came from "over there". I sat at the very back of the mezzanine of that hall, and in those days the San Antonio Symphony played in a forbidding 3000-seat concert hall. I could close my eyes and point to the tuba. The Yorkbrunner, on the other hand, was ever-present, intimate, and enveloping. That, without in any way being fuzzy or fluffy or woofy. The clarity was just as great as with the Alex. When I closed my eyes, the tuba sound seemed to come from everywhere.

Also, it has a liveliness to the tone color, which is what most seem to me when they use the phrase "color". It was warm and even friendly.

I don't think the Yorkbrunner was as versatile as the Alex.

I have played a Holton BB345 in a concert band for over a decade. The notion that it is too much for a medium-sized band seems to me sort-of nutty. It's not too much unless the player is too much, and too much overblown sound is bad no matter what instrument is producing it. But the presence of the sound can be so compelling that it distracts from other important stuff in the ensemble, and that's what I think people who have experience are saying, though it has never been a problem for me.

Bands are louder than orchestras, but loudness isn't the issue. A demonstration using an SPL meter would be worthless in my mind, with respect to those who think they are useful. The weighting isn't correct for measuring the whole tuba spectrum, because it's weighted to the frequencies that cause ear damage (the prevention of which is the reason those devices exist).



The usual A weighting is at -28dB at the fundamental frequency (58 Hz) of a low Bb, for example. That means a 58 Hz sine wave has to create 5000 times as loud to swing the needle to the same point as a 1000 Hz sine wave. Even when selecting the C weighting, the microphone in the meter often can't hear as well in the lower range, particularly at higher SPL. But my experience at the back of Lila Cockrell Theater in San Antonio demonstrates that the size of the sound means more than its sound pressure level--size being how much air in the hall is getting excited, not merely how excited that little bit of air is getting, or at what frequency.

Aesthetically, it's not about volume, but about control, propagation and color. Great players get that from any instrument, but the question is, with how much effort?

One final point: Large tubas cannot be lumped into a single class, or even two classes (Rotary and Piston, or whatever). Two extremes which I have experienced: Resonant and non-resonant. The resonant models are easy to play, the non-resonant models are difficult to play. The resonant models make a lot of sound (NOT loudness) for a given input, and actually can play pianissimo without losing presence. The non-resonant models seem to struggle to get under mezzo-forte. My Hirsbrunner HB-193 is as resonant as my Holton, though they have quite different qualities otherwise. I once owned a 20J that (perhaps untypically, as I heard 2xJ fans insisting) that just didn't seem to ring. I have played a King Monster (the 1291 that J.C. mentioned above) that just sings. And I've played Holtons sucked the air out of me without much effect. Good tubas are good tubas, and bad tubas are bad tubas, and examples of each are often available with the same outer shape and even brand on the bell.

Rick "who thought the BMB 6/4 tubas about as good as anything readily available and affordable these days" Denney

Terry, you should try to get ahold of an Alexander 164. Everything you like about the 163, just dialed up to 11.

FWIW, the BMB 6/4 is a ton of tuba for the money. That said, it's kind of pick of the litter for Holton 345's right now -- there are two at BBC (for $4k) , and at least two on the board here (for a little more, and a lot more, than $4k).

Very few.

Ben Vokits used to post here pretty often, but not too much these days. He has both a 163 and a 164. There is a VERY noticeable difference in size (and sound) between the two. From what I understand, the 164 isn't the easiest tuba to play, but if you keep up on it, it's AWESOME.