Why another 6/4 CC or another F tuba?

[Matt Walters]

In reply to Bisontuba's statement

Hoping that the F AND the 6/4 or 5/4 'portly' CC are both designed and developed with the assistance of Matt Walters!!!!

Thanks but, why? Not just Mark, but many people have asked the same of me. So here we go with some of my personal thoughts on 6/4 CC tubas and F tubas.

Not interested in investing my time in designing a 6/4 CC tuba for production at this time. It is my personal opinion that the world doesn't need yet another model of 6/4 CC tuba. I doubt there are 20 orchestras in the world that REALLY need a 6/4 CC. The number one thing I hear from the guys with the big horns and not getting the job is, "They said I didn't play cleanly enough." After a few years of rejections, the big horn gets sold. It is not good business to make something to sell that has a low actual demand and will have to compete with what is already a glut of similar used horns being sold at a discount because the market is saturated to start with. So in order to make a go of a new 6/4 CC tuba, it not only has to be cheap, it has to play better than the horns priced 3-4 times more expensive. That means more R&D time, plus more expensive tooling, plus more labor intensive quality control. Cheapest prices and best quality don't make a baby.

I'll give you that a 5/4ish CC is a someday that has some merit and I have something in mind.

Now for F tubas. Not at all interested in spending any more of my private time designing one. There must be somewhere between and 50 and 100 models of F tuba on the market. Why do people want yet another F tuba? Every artist wants an F tuba made for them. I've played most of them and guess what.....they all have to be learned in order to play well. I can tell you the new Mega Belch model F tuba is not going to be significantly better than what was already out there. The problems were just moved to another spot. Since there is less tubing to fix an intonation issue without screwing up something else, F tubas are inherently less in-tune and have to be learned to play in-tune. Before I wasted personal time finishing an F tuba of my own, I realized people will pay less for a F tuba conversion than they will a more practical CC or BBb tuba. If it takes me as long or longer to make a good F tuba and the return on the investment of my time is less that making a CC tuba, I choose to go home and spend time with my wife. Yes, decades ago I actually did some F tuba proof of concepts on my own time that turned out promising but they were no better than what was already available. I didn't want to waste any more of my personal time on it and never finished one. The Dillon F tuba that was supposed to be made by UMI was pretty good but disappeared. Last I heard it went to some artist in Spain to try and then was "lost". Also, in a money crunch, the F tuba is the first to go so used F tubas take a big depreciation and glut the market making it harder to get $10K for a new one when there are used ones for half as much. That said, I'm sure Eastman has plans for a F tuba just to fill out the line-up. I was not asked to make one for them.

The Eastman EBC-632 CC tuba that I did work on was designed based upon my York 4/4 CC tuba that I built on my personal time. I gave away 200 plus hours of knowledge earned on my own time to that project. I've lost track of how many times I changed the tapers in different branches of my York to get what I wanted. Because the bell and a bottom bow were different, I had to still make some changes to the 5th branch, tuning slide loop and leadpipe of the Eastman.

[bort]

...but everyone told Jonathan that Wessex should TOTALLY put out a 6/4 CC?

[Billy M.]

All hail the rise of the Eb!

On a more serious note, I remember us hashing out about the orchestral tuba and how up until the rise in prominence of a certain Chicago tubaist, the majority of professional orchestral tuba players weren't playing on anything bigger than an Alex 163 (considering 6 major metropolitan orchestras in the US during the middle to middle-late of the 20th century, 3 - Alex 163s, 2 - King rotor CCs, 1 - Miraphone 185 .)

Now that almost an entire generation has commenced since the passing of that prominent musician, even though his influence is widespread, perhaps music is being assessed in such a way as to bring back a more (for lack of better term) reserved viewpoint of the tuba in the orchestral landscape.

As for F tubas, I don't think I can really comment since I don't play F tuba.

[arpthark]

...but everyone told Jonathan that Wessex should TOTALLY put out a 6/4 CC?

If the price is right and it had an independent fifth valve, I think people would buy it, moreso than the BMB. But that's just my opinion. The trend seems to be bigger-bigger-bigger - how long until (as many have predicted) there is a backlash? I was in the camp that thought I needed a 6/4 CC tuba to win auditions and be a successful tuba player. I would have slobbered over a Wessex or BMB 6/4 if they had been available then. But now as I've settled into the semi-pro (or maybe just quarter-pro) camp, Matt and Joe's words ring truer.

Not giving up the Alex, though.

[Jay Bertolet]

The really great thing about our art from is that every one of us is free to make the choices we think will produce the best art and, ultimately, the best chance to make a living at this. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[Wyvern]

I predict that orchestral tuba players will gradually recede from 6/4 tuba acquisition and usage.

But what about in concert bands? There are far more concert band tubists than orchestral tubists and arguably the 6/4 is best suited for that kind of ensemble to provide a real solid bass foundation

[Donn]

I can tell you the new Mega Belch model F tuba is not going to be significantly better than what was already out there. The problems were just moved to another spot. Since there is less tubing to fix an intonation issue without screwing up something else, F tubas are inherently less in-tune and have to be learned to play in-tune. Before I wasted personal time finishing an F tuba of my own, I realized people will pay less for a F tuba conversion than they will a more practical CC or BBb tuba.

F tubas are inherently less in-tune ... interesting observation.

In principle, I mean very much as opposed to in practice, an F tuba is just one size, kind of in the middle of the range of the tuba family, with more tubing than say a euphonium but less than a contrabass tuba. You're well known for your conversions, from larger sizes, and I guess that's part of the context here - less tubing, because a lot of it was chopped off? But I'm guessing this is also another instance of the 6/4 conundrum - everyone wants the biggest F tuba ever, but the best F for intonation etc. would tend to be a rather modest size bass tuba?

[tubeast]

Seems to me there are multiple times as many models of trumpets than there are tubas.
No-one seems to be busying themselves with building 6/4 trumpets (similar to a valve-trombone with half the tubing). But still every year there are new 4/4 trumpets entering the market, and more often than not their makers claim to have found yet another "holy grail".

So to me, the answer to this thread´s title-question might read: "Just for the fun of it".
R&D-teams of the world´s big tuba manufacturers need to be entertained.
Big-Name tubists´ egos need to be supported with their own signature-models.

Mankind doesn´t NEED another generation of Corvette or Ford F 150.
But the world seems to be less fun without them.
We´d be driving Tin Lizzies or Trabants if it were different.

[Patrase]

Yes forget CC and F tubas. The world needs more choices of Bb compensated tubas. There are two Bb tuba players per brass band. How many brass bands are there in the world? Probably 50 for every pro orchestra. Think of the numbers! They are desperate for more choices. They need to have the low register of a maw valved 6/4 tuba and the responsiveness of a cornet whilst being able to be played perfectly in tune without slide pulling (alternate fingering is ok). I suggest box valves as a starting point https://brassandpipes.wordpress.com/" target="_blank

[roweenie]

This

My turn of the century small Eb tuba is substantially more in tune than most "monster" Eb's of old. It must be easier to keep tuning reliable if the bugle doesn't have to perform a steroid-like expansion

And I'll wager that the low register is much more centered than a monster E flat on the usual "problem" notes.

This phenomenon (center-less low notes) also occurs on some high profile 6/4 CC tubas, also (and, coincidentally, the same pitches, relative to the key of the instrument).

Basically, building a "monster" anything is trying to shoehorn the taper of a lower pitched instrument into the form of a higher pitched instrument.

[Steve Marcus]

Regarding the subject of this thread, I've often quipped that I seem to be the only serious tubist in the Chicago area who does not own a Nirschl-York 6/4 CC (obviously a result of the influence of Floyd Cooley teaching in Chicago and that the very horn after which the N-Y was modeled resides at 220 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago and has been played by AJ and GP). FWIW, I do have a 6/4 Neptune CC at my disposal which I play in orchestra and other large ensembles. Otherwise, what bloke stated may apply; in those large ensembles, I could "get away" with my fine 4/4 Nirschl CC. But I would definitely miss the weight and projection of the 6/4 particularly when playing Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc. There is also merit to AJ's statement that a good 6/4 horn such as the CSO York(s) serves as an "old man's tuba" (letting that statement be self-explanatory).

Matt Walters posted:

Not interested in investing my time in designing a 6/4 CC tuba for production at this time. It is my personal opinion that the world doesn't need yet another model of 6/4 CC tuba.

Matt already spent much time not only helping other manufacturers, but he has also created tubas from existing parts AND (unless I'm mistaken) designed a totally newly fabricated 6/4 CC: the Dillon 1185. Precious few of them have been built, and they have been sold on a custom order basis only. But every report that I recall about this horn is nothing short of magnificent (double entendre). I've never had the pleasure to even see one in person, let alone play one. But in photos, it even looks like an impressive, aesthetically balanced instrument.

Dillon 1185 .jpg

Matt, were the 1185's built from any existing bugles or was/is every part of a new 1185 sourced from and built on the tooling of an existing tuba builder? How many 1185's have you built and sold to date? IIRC, you were quoting approximately 9 months from time of order until finished product. Can one still order one of these? Just for reference for this discussion thread, what would the price of a new 1185 be?

bloke wrote:

I had FOUR really great 6/4 tubas (3 CC / 1 BB) sitting around here a couple of year ago...
They all played "great", offered different strengths...NONE of them tended to be the tuba that grabbed for any-gig-in-particular, and nor were any-of-them-in-particular the first tuba that I would select for practice-playing or recreational playing.

It has been observed that not infrequently, a tubist will play a smaller contrabass tuba for auditions (for the clarity that may be more challenging with a 6/4) but then purchase/return to a real 6/4 after (s)he has won the job.

Despite bloke's statement, there is at least ONE 6/4 tuba that he (and I--pending $$) would grab in a heartbeat--the Miraphone Siegfried 98.


Jonathan pointed out:

There are far more concert band tubists than orchestral tubists and arguably the 6/4 is best suited for that kind of ensemble to provide a real solid bass foundation.

+ 1

Patrase suggested:

The world needs more choices of Bb compensated tubas. There are two Bb tuba players per brass band. How many brass bands are there in the world? Probably 50 for every pro orchestra. Think of the numbers! They are desperate for more choices. They need to have the low register of a maw valved 6/4 tuba and the responsiveness of a cornet whilst being able to be played perfectly in tune without slide pulling (alternate fingering is ok).

AFAIK, there are currently only two primary builders of 4-valve compensating BBb basses: Besson (Buffet Crampon) and Yamaha (Neo series). Playing those BB test pieces with 16th note pedals and such would certainly be facilitated by the this type of horn.

So far, this discussion has referred to the York-style 6/4 tubas. But what about the BBb Kaiser tubas that are frequently played by quite a number of major and minor European orchestral tubists? While possessing the full bodied low range, the Kaiser tuba's tall bell and other aspects of its design contribute to a clear, focused sound (obviously the operator and mpc are factors as well). Yet not one manufacturer has "put their toe in the water" to cross the Atlantic or Pacific with one of these 6/4 Kaiser tubas for us to TRY in ensemble playing, Although elephant room sampling tells a tubist only so much about a horn, that would be a start if Buffet would bring a 197/2 to North America for (at least) trial purposes. I'm not aware of any such tuba in existence in this hemisphere.

[MaryAnn]

Well this pip is going to squeak without having read every single word of every single post/comment.
First, on the 6/4 CC topic: some years ago, maybe ten? Empire Brass came and did a concert with Tucson Symphony. I was quite near the front on the right side of the audience near where they were playing. The tuba was playing an Eb and I simply could not hear him. I decided he needed a bell-forward to get the sound out (am not knocking his playing, just the fact that the sound went up instead of out.) Nix nix nix on that (bell front) from a "what is proper in a brass quintet" standpoint. No matter that I in the audience could see him playing but not hear it. (Well, ok, I could hear it well enough to tell you that the fingerings were Eb fingerings.) The program ended with Stars and Stripes. The orchestral tuba, someone now retired and likely you've never heard of him, Mike Sherline, happened to be playing a 2155. You could hear him very clearly over the entire orchestra providing the drive for Stars and Stripes. Huge clear sound that to my ears was perfect. Last time I checked, the 2155 is a 5/4. If he could do that on a 2155 I don't know why someone would need a 6/4 but maybe I'm just a pip squeaking along about that.

Secondly, F tubas. This is not a sarcastic question. I of course play the horn, and my horn is very well in tune with itself. OK, it is not cheap junk but an E Schmid double, adorned with a Lawson ambronze bell and fitted on the other end with a Lawson mouthpiece. That thing is incredibly easy to play in tune, withOUT hardly any right hand movement. So....what is it about an F horn that makes it possible to construct one that plays so well in tune, while the F tubas I have played are just all over the map intonation-wise, as well as having honky/difficult notes that my horn doesn't have?

[southtubist]

I played a Miraphone 190 CC for a few months as my only contrabass tuba. I'm a pretty big guy, so it looked like a regular sized tuba when I played it. I guess that's one way of looking at it? I used it because I had no choice.

On every single recording except one, my Alex sounded bigger/louder, especially as I got below the low G. I can make my tiny F tuba sound big, and so can lots of other players. It's all in the mind- if you think you're going to sound tiny on a horn, you'll sound tiny. . . I've heard players who invested tons of money (instead of tons of hours in a practice room) trying to blast on 6/4 tubas only to sound really bad.

That Dillon horn is nice looking! I'd like to play one someday, just for the fun of it!

[Donn]

It sounds like basically the same recurring point of this thread - the normal classic parameters of tuba design were worked out generations ago, but today they're sort of irrelevant.

[MackBrass]

Unlike tuba players on tubenet who put most of their posting energy into equipment and equipment issues,

orchestras buy into the musician and the musician's music...not their equipment.

This thread has taken a minor sidebar, and I don't mind speaking to it.

An orchestra (obvious enough to me, even being completely out of the loop and hundreds of miles away) REALLY WANTED a particular (fine) musician. They went through their obligatory procedures, and sealed the deal with the person they had been wanting all along...whether 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, head/4, or hind/4...
...and God bless 'em. Everyone should be able to choose what they want, and for whatever reason...or for no reason in particular.
================================================================
Back to the topic...

To the contrary, I predict that orchestral tuba players will gradually recede from 6/4 tuba acquisition and usage. This fad began around 1980, and it ("WOW...Check THAT out!...That looks just like Jake's old tuba!!!") grew-and-grew. It's been 35 years. I see things receding towards normalcy. I'm beginning to see the same thing with other brass instruments. "The largest possible" of anything is rarely the easiest to use nor the most adaptable.

I was super careful to say player/horn. It's not a sidebar when the OP suggests the 6/4 horn is too difficult to control to pass an audition, yet that style horn is what was played by more than one tuba player at the recent big audition and the eventual winner no?

Logic dictates that type of sound wins, so then why not get a tool that helps you get there? So then there is a market for another 6/4

Actually most jobs in the past 10 to 15 years have been won on 5/4 tubas. Its not the sounds of the 6/4 that is preferred but its the control and musicianship that is desired. Is someone showed up and has the capability to win a job they could do it easily on an alex or any 5/4. Most 6/4 tubas are too woofy and frankly too big for just about 99% of the jobs out there. In the finals at an audition certainly the 6/4 looks impressive but it would be interesting to see what would happen if final rounds were done behind the screen. I take clarity, control and musicianship over any 6/4 any day. I own a 6/4 but if i were to ever take another audition it would be on an alex, wisemann or MRP.

Do some research and you will find there are a number of audition winners of big jobs that played the 1st or even 2nd round on 4/4 size tubas, there is a reason for that.

[Matt Walters]

Thank you Elephant.

It would be great if all these companies continued to put out new 6/4 CC BATs until one of them made one that actually plays well, and then sold it at a price that was not akin to gouging. When we get one of these and it is consistently well made all the other makers can give it up, as far as I am concerned, because most of them are pretty mediocre tubas, IMHO. Even my own beloved 345 cannot hold a candle to my cheapo JB 410, when judged strictly as a musical instrument and not as a tone mass generator. There is something wrong with that - also IMHO.

I have said for decades that tubas are pretty much finally getting up to the level of a really great high school trumpet. Finally.

I have my asbestos underpants on, so flame away, Freak Jury, flame away.

The answer is that it is not profitable at this time to make an awesome 6/4 CC tuba that plays GREAT at a CHEAP price. We stopped offering our Dillon DCB-1185 because even at $12K, I can generate more profit doing repair work instead of investing the time in making a bunch of parts yield a great playing tuba.

So let's look at making a new 6/4 CC tuba that plays better than what has already been made. Not just a new leadpipe better but from the bell back all new and improved.

Bell: 15 years ago Gerhard Meinl told me it cost the equivalent of $10,000 just to spin a new bell mandrel. Now your know why Meinl Weston re-used the same bell on so many tubas. Even in China it is an expensive all week process to make one and that is if nothing goes wrong. Now do that 10 times over to find the best sounding and in-tune taper. How many tubas at $3000 each do you have to sell just to get your money back on $150,000 worth of bell experiments. If you save money by copying just one that is already out there and say that is good enough, you now started down the path to making a copy of what was out there. To get your money out of that you need to repurpose that bell onto more tubas. So, a 6/4 BBb tuba has to be in the future. Can't sell those to schools as it is going to be too big. Damn, that big bell just excluded itself from the biggest market of business. Who else can afford a big tuba? Rich old people who's kids are grown and the house if paid off. Wait....they're getting too old to want to lug such a beast. Crap. Can we ever sell enough to recoup the cost of experimenting with new bell tapers for a 6/4 tuba? Even in China where it still takes a whole week to make a new tuba bell mandrel, doing that times 10 or more to see "What if we can make something that sounds better" is going to go over like a turd floating in a punch bowl.

Bottom bow: The labor in hand hammering a bottom bow is beyond most people's imagination. And then, how wide, how tapered, etc., etc. $$$$$ With enough experiments the bottom bow is now a perfect fit on your lap. Of course who is to say what width and thickness feels great to everyone. Get it right because the tooling to mass produce that bottom bow can't be cheap.

The branches: Okay. You made the basic sound that you want with the bell and a bottom bow that feels good on your lap. Read the article on Hirsbrunner making the top branch for his York copy. The work in making just that branch by hand was staggering. If you are going to make something NEW and BETTER, you will have to make several and compare them. And then make the tooling for that branch.
The smaller branches can be made quicker and are therefore easier and cheaper to replace trying to change intonation. Still a lot of time and money there.

Valve section: Do you copy the same crap already out there or make something better? What does that cost to experiment with different valve sections? This I really don't know but look at the price you guys are paying for just 4 MAW pistons. Oh, and no matter how perfect you make the valve section, there will always be an internet loudmouth that pushes sideways on the finger buttons causing the valve to stick whereas his old worn out horn that got used to him over the decades doesn't stick.

Leadpipe: Forget it. Everyone is of different heights and blow their air differently. Do you make a pipe that lets a great player play well and bend the notes or do you make a pipe that helps the hack player not sound so bad? Decide because even this last step will dictate who the customer is that will buy your new and improved 6/4 CC tuba.

What if after all that time and money the final product ends up not being any better than what is already out there? Maybe there are some basic laws of acoustics in dealing with a disproportionately enlarged bugle that the old timers already mastered by trial and error.

Who has pockets deep enough to design something totally new at a great R&D cost to build a product cheap enough that a small group of admittedly cheap customers (myself included) will buy it? How long will it take to make a profit? Now your know why the Chinese love to just copy what is out there. It's more profitable.

[Donn]

That's a post worthy of the tubenet hall of fame

(if we had one, maybe we should)

Maybe we should have a thread library. Another recent example, "G.D.R. B&S contrabass tubas", several very informative posts. The thread curator could re-title the thread, throw out most everything other than that post, and keep it up to date if anything relevant shows up in the live thread.

In any case, his mouthpiece shank dimensions post from years ago is a frequently referenced classic that would be another obvious candidate for enshrinement of some sort.

[bisontuba]

As an add'l thought, we have a 'clone' of a PT-6P in the Wisemann, a 'clone' of the PT-15 by JB and Packer, but surprised no 'clone' yet of a PT-6....
Mark

[barry grrr-ero]

It should also kept in mind that up until the last two decades, many American orchestras were playing in large and very 'dry' halls, lacking in bass response. Jeff Anderson uses a PT-6 in Davies Hall and gets plenty of projection. However, even though Disney Hall is smaller and has excellent acoustics, I think Norm Pearson sounds really good on his 6450. Personally, I always liked hearing Floyd Cooley best when he was playing the Holton 345. I was told that he used the Holton on the Nielsen symphonies that the SFS recorded for Decca.

That's my report from the left coast.

[bort]

Interesting point! Alan Baer always sounded great at Avery Fisher Hall, but I'm curious what might change after they finish the renovations there. I have to say though, I can't imagine it'll change THAT much. As picky as I'd like to think that tuba players are, all of those little-instrument folks probably go even more nuts about the minutiae that they think they can hear...