TubeNet

I played the Conn F prototype several years ago, and liked it. However, it seems like I have not heard much since that time. Does anyone have any information regarding this?

I spoke with a Conn sales rep. a few weeks ago at the Eastern Trombone Workshop. He said that as of right now there is no further progress/work being done to develop the Conn F. But that in the future it may once again become a possibility.


This is the Yamaha F (821) that you may be talking about. I do not know of another. This is from Hidehiro Fujita's web site who if the only artists I know of that is using it so far. Basically looks like a 621 Bell with a new valve section to me.


My only othet thought about the Yamaha F tubas is that many seem to feel they sound too much like "Contra Bass" tubas and not enough like "Bass Tubas" so perhaps give a look into some other models (i.e. Meinl Weston, Miraphone, Perantucci, etc..etc..) and see what you think.

if you don't like the low register on the 822 you REALLY won't like the low register on the rotary f's...

cmutuba wrote:... I am also quite familiar with the Yamaha 621 F, and especially fond of the low register. However, I am not a big fan of, in my opinion, the rough ergonomics and the again, in my opinion, smaller sound. ...

This is a comment that always seems to confuse the heck out of me. I have a hard time understanding why one would want to use an F tuba that sounds "Huge" I have a CC that sounds sweet in the upper range for that. I would understand a large F tuba if that were the only horn used but most times in the US this seems not to be the case.

As far as carrying with a large ensemble, I have always found that an F (that sounds like an F - to me, clear, clean, light) does that because of the sound characteristics it has to start with.

I always thought that a quick rule of instrumentation was that an Euphonium sound was that sound to the forefront of the ensemble, the Basstuba the sound from within the ensemble and the Contrabass tuba the sound behind-building the ensemble.

There is also a rule in cattle genetics that applies. In cattle we say do not try to design genetics for extremely high growth in a breed that has been develeoped for hundreds of years for low birth weights as the two are genetic contridictions. Instead use the best high growth breed when you want growth and the best low birth weight breed if that is most important to you. Turning a breed into something it is not always gets you in disasterous trouble in the end as you end up more often with the worst elements than the best.

The same applies to tubas in my mind.

MikeMason wrote:if you don't like the low register on the 822 you REALLY won't like the low register on the rotary f's...

DITTO

Although a Meinl Weston 45SLP might be considered to have a nice low register for an F.

The ergonomics of the 621 bothered me so I think I understand what the original poster may be talking about.

I sold my 621 several years ago because playing it gave me tendonitis in the right arm. After going through 3 other small (F's and CC's) tubas I eventually bought another 621 but... I had to remove the thumb ring to play it comfortably.

It's a versatile instrument and will probably suit your needs until you win the Cleveland audition. If you don't win the audition, you'll still have an great little F tuba with an excellent low register.

Maybe removing the thumb ring will solve the ergonomic problem for you also.

I bought a 621 CC back in Dec. and I am having problems with discomfort in the area between the thumb and first finger. I don't feel the discomfort when I don't use the thumb ring. I was thinking of just removing it also.

If you need excellent ergonomics and the sort of sound that is the result of much R & D work and handmade craftsmanship, get a Willson, Rudolf Meinl or Hirsbrunner F tuba. No one makes better F tubas than these, and you will not ever have to regret having bought one. Eb tubas can frequently match or surpass the playing capabilities of an F tuba, so that approach should not be overlooked, either.

Finally, there are instruments out there that can be modified and improved. The Meinl-Weston 45S-LP is an awfully-large F tuba, and I'd always not cared much for them, but I took one in last summer and did some valve re-working. THAT became a very fun-to-play instrument that didn't wear out my right hand. That instrument promptly sold, and is in use in a major symphony orchestra today.

Doc,

you sure have a point here: IF you got a nice horn that was built for three-thumbed aliens, rather stick with ists great sound and have it fixed on the ergonomic side. But I think this applies to USED instruments. Redoing the valve positioning the technician may take care of any wear (clack clack)-problems along the way, and you´ll be all set with a horn just as good as new, and maybe better.
The one thing I wouldn´t want, though: order a horn, pay 10.000+ euro, wait for weeks ´til it arrives, haul it to a repair shop, have it modified, pay for that, wait until it´s back, live with imperfect finish everafter.
IF I´m going to spend 10.000 euro and more on a brand new lump of brass, I´d expect it to fulfill my needs regarding a tuba, and ALL of them. That´s injustifiably expensive otherwise.
Tubas are by no means mass products, or so the manufacturers want us to believe.
Why don´t the manufacturers offer ergonomic options (XS, M, XL versions referring to the player´s size)?
This wouldn´t mean extra work once the design process is over, just a certain amount of extra parts in stock. If that costs 100€ more, fine.

Well, at price ranges at about four months worth of monthly income (that´s netto, of course, ´cause it´s the money in your wallet that counts) I´d say a tuba is the typical example of a major private investment. With those and considering quite a few manufacturers in the market, it damn sure is the tuba-maker that better be turning MY head instead of ME turning THEIRS.
If I were a freelance pro, buying a new tuba would be directly comparable to the situation our customers are in.
Geez, I work at a manufacturer of true investment goods (try out www.liebherr.com), and BOY do we need to turn our customers´ heads, reacting to any kind of custom thing they want to have added.
One even wanted an on-board restroom with his crane.
I guess choosing between maybe two different leadpipes to be built in on primary assembly of a horn shouldn´t be that big a deal for a manufacturer.
After all, Meinl-Weston, Miraphone and Rudy Meinl are a 1.5 hour drive apart, at the maximum. If you know what I´m saying.
Making a secondary adjustment / replacement is a different story, of course. That´s where people like Bloke come in, and that´s where lots of work needs to be paid.

Hans

MikeMason wrote:if you don't like the low register on the 822 you REALLY won't like the low register on the rotary f's...

How true! But you know I still don't get it....the G below low C on my 184 CC tuba is the same "place" in the harmonic series as is the C below F on my F tuba. But the C on the F tuba is horribly sharp and stuffy, while the G on the CC tuba is in tune and free-blowing. Since the instruments are so similar, both 5-valve rotaries, I do wonder if it is simply stubbornness on the part of F tuba makers that makes them not want to change the wrap so it works. Like, "We have all learned to play these difficult instruments and we are SO much more manly because of it, so YOU need to do the same thing in order to join our manly club."

MA

Mary Ann, i agree with everything you said but have no answers. the truth for me is, even though the low c and b on the 822 are solid notes, the BBb,A, and Ab still pretty well suck. so, i guess you get 2 more decent notes than rotary Fs,but stilln not really a solution...if i had an hour or 2 extra per day to play those 3 notes it would get better,but,alas,the day job...

MaryAnn wrote:

MikeMason wrote:if you don't like the low register on the 822 you REALLY won't like the low register on the rotary f's...

How true! But you know I still don't get it....the G below low C on my 184 CC tuba is the same "place" in the harmonic series as is the C below F on my F tuba. But the C on the F tuba is horribly sharp and stuffy, while the G on the CC tuba is in tune and free-blowing. Since the instruments are so similar, both 5-valve rotaries, I do wonder if it is simply stubbornness on the part of F tuba makers that makes them not want to change the wrap so it works. Like, "We have all learned to play these difficult instruments and we are SO much more manly because of it, so YOU need to do the same thing in order to join our manly club."

MA

You think that has anything to do with it? I wouldn't have thought so. It seems like the manly sorts are going for F tubas that play and sound like contrabasses, leaving those fiddly rotary F tubas for the girly men.

The pre-Parantucci B&S Symphonie doesn't have the manly modifications of later models, but if you look at it, you realize why rotary F's are not like rotary contrabasses. The first clue is that it fits in the same gig bag as my Miraphone 186. Even though it's not considered a huge F tuba by today's manly standards, it's still pretty darn big. An F tuba in scale would be even smaller than your M-W 182. And the mouthpiece would need to be two-thirds the size, too, as well as the length of the valve block's portion within the bugle. If you did that, you might find the low C works fine, within the context of the sound of such an instrument.

To get to that 17" bell, and to still sound like an F, the Symphonie has to start small and grow fast. Thus, the bore of the 1st and 5th valves is quite small--.670ish. But you could roll a quarter through the fourth-valve tubing. The conical taper is quite pronounced through the valve section, something that is not done on contrabasses. They do this so that they can get to that big bell throat. Finding the right taper design ain't easy. The old Symphonie doesn't blow the low C the same as the Yamaha, but it does work as long as you don't push too hard. But it will soar, floating over a large ensemble easily--something the little Yamaha won't do. It handles the low register about as well as any rotary F, while still being true to the F tuba concept.

Thus, the explanation is that F's are designed for a different role than C's and BBb's, with the result that they have different sets of strengths and weaknesses. If you took your 184 CC, and scaled down all its dimensionless ratios exactly to an F bugle, it would likely play the same. Those ratios woud include bell diameter to bugle length, bore to bugle length, mouthpiece diameter to bugle length, mouthpiece volume to instrument volume, valve block length to bugle length, etc. But it would not look much like any current F tuba. Yes, it would sound a lot like a euphonium. But a euphonium is so outscaled compared with a tuba that it would be more accurate to say that a euphonium sounds like a properly scaled F tuba.

A contrabass built on the same scale as a euphonium would have a 24" bell, a 1.16" bore, and a 2" mouthpiece. That's why F tubas that are scaled more like F tubas (such as the 621), are thought to have a euphonium-like sound to go with their tuba-like response, while those that sound like tubas are disproportionate taper designs with the resulting quirks.

Rick "who thinks the world is not ready for an F tuba with an 11" bell, a .58 bore, and a 1" mouthpiece, unless it's called a euphonium" Denney

Doc wrote: MaryAnn,

Have you tried a Gronitz P125? Best F tuba low range yet, except maybe for the Yammie. MW 45slp ain't too bad, either. For free-blowing low range, I like the Gronitz best of all. Worth a try, if you haven't already. It's also not the ergonomic beast the 45slp and Yammie are. Much easier to handle, IMHO. I'll still take the MW sound. Size isn't my worry, but, of course, I'm gorilla, remember?

Doc

Nope, haven't tried one. I have played a Yam 621, which didn't work ergonomically, and I have played an old B&S Symphonie, which I would own if I could find one and concurrently sell my 182. THe 45SLP also did not work ergonomically. But I basically never play F any more....only place I'm playing right now is in a brass band, and the CC works just fine on the Eb part, and they need me to bolster both the beat and the low register. So I doubt I'll be F shopping any time soon, especially since I have this urge to get a bigger CC.

MA

Rick,

My comment on "manly" was basically a reaction to the response of the MW guy in Bloomington a couple summers ago, when I asked about F tuba low ranges. Let's just say that his demeanor led me to the "manly" concept.

MA