TubeNet

The trombone and euphonium people are spared from worrying about what key to play; I expect that is an advantage. Some trumpet players carry a wagon of gear around and I am skeptical about that. When I read the posts about things being easier to finger, I get a lot of laughs from relating this to woodwind players.

I must agree with the elephant...and add that no manufacturer would risk putting out a dud BB-flat that institutional buyers, especially, would be disappointed with. That would be a very, very costly mistake long-term.

Remember the Yamaha tubas of the 70s that featured poor soldering, red rot, and sticking valves as standard equipment? That sure gave me a case of pause when I bought my Yamaha euphonium in '94...which eventually had to be replaced under warranty. Had I finished my BME and gone on to direct a school band, you can rest assured that I wouldn't be taking bids for Yamaha brass.

Crappy ol' school horns are in BBb.

Al Baer, people on YouTube and Dr. Tuba Professor at State University College use a CC.

Therefore...

Funny comparison.
I did a workshop way back in the 80's with Mel Broiles from the Met Op Orch while they were here on tour in Minneapolis. Mel was playing Bach trumpets and had a case full. His observation, which he took considerable time to explain, was that the Bach Bb Trumpet was great, the C not so great, the D more not so great, BUT the Eflat Trumpet, well, seems like getting to that harmonic series had its benefits. Part of the issue with the C versus the Bb was the amount of shared parts, bell, valves, tubing etc. By the time they got to the Eb it was basically a completely new horn that seemed to work well. Again an F cut from the "loincloth" of the Eb would begin the cycle all over again. Designing and building instruments from scratch was not easy. Math, accoustics, trial and error and now computer CAD programs for design all figure into the equation. But it boils down to whether a maker can afford the R&D and the tooling.
So it stands to reason that many BBb that have weathered the test of time, have yielded very fine offspring. I'm also not so naive to think that there weren't plenty of BBb 'dog's' out there and they still keep re-emerging. But yes there are tons more BBbs so it stands to reason there are likely more good BBbs than CCs. Just math and numbers.

the elephant wrote:The R&D money goes/went into BBb tubas. That is where the sales money is. The market for BBb tubas, worldwide, is massive when compared to CC tubas. The CC tuba has a lot of acoustical catching up to do. This is happening, albeit slowly.

+1. I've long contended that most tubas originated as BBb designs and when the US market demanded CC tubas (for some odd reason) ... European maker simply 'cut' their horns.

I've played Eb and BBb tubas for sixty years and have NEVER met a CC tuba I cared much for.

lost wrote:

Stryk wrote:Are BBb tubas just better ?

Yes.

I say "no"... But BBb is always a good note on a CC tuba.

I wonder if this could be narrowed down to rotary tubas. The idea of rotary (European) and CC (American) being forced together is a bit unnatural. Kind of like a piston F tuba, it's a weird mix of both styles.

It's been a little while since I have played a high quality BBb, might be interesting to try one again...

bloke wrote:bassoons:
- long bore (easier to play with most any reed style / dark sound / generally cost less money / more flexible intonation / more pay-to-play musicians use these)
- short bore (livelier / quicker to respond / ask for a superbly-made reed and a superb operation / generally cost more money / OCCASIONALLY offer intonation as flexible as the best "long bore" bassoons / more paid-to-play bassoonist use these)

' sound familiar...??

*production model pro-line long bore: http://www.wwbw.com/Fox-Model-I-Bassoon ... 43165.wwbw
*production model pro-line short bore: http://www.wwbw.com/Fox-Model-201-Basso ... 43155.wwbw
___________________________
*Neither of these are uber-custom models. Both are "regular" pro models.

======================================================
You keep your old Alex Bb with the beautifully-engraved kranz & caps.
I'll keep my tricked-out M-W 5450.
We'll both be happy.

bloke "BETTER tubas are 'just better'."

----------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: When (ref: Mr. the elephant's correct observation...as "R&D" and "T&E" are often one-and-the-same) C tuba R&D is shortcutted, and a C tuba is a FACTORY RESULT of shortening a Bb tuba, the results...well...are not going to be ...well... "researched and developed" (nor "trial and error-ed"). Further, "gimmick" C tuba designs (radically curved tapered parts, or who-knows-whats...) probably will appeal to students, etc. (up to, perhaps, age 25) but likely won't be often seen in the professional realm, or - even - at the top of the food chain on the audition trail.

an astonishing exception to many-decades-of-BBb-trial-and-error: The Miraphone 98 with astonishingly superb intonation / response / resonance / flexibility / clarity...EVEN WITH its extraordinarily large SIZE

....WWBW does have a used/ demo Siegfried....

Isn't the reason old Alex CCs (like mine) have wonky intonation because they basically cut the Alex BBb and put in a shorter lead pipe without really changing the taper?

bort wrote:I wonder if this could be narrowed down to rotary tubas. The idea of rotary (European) and CC (American) being forced together is a bit unnatural. Kind of like a piston F tuba, it's a weird mix of both styles.

So piston C tubas like Gronitz PCK, Kanstul 5490, Conn 54J, Kallison DS etc. would have better odds? I don't know if it makes sense to see pitch (C vs Bb) as a "style", but it does seem like valves come with other design choices - particularly, piston valves seem to be installed closer to the small end of the bugle, which might make them less particular about how long the rest of the bugle is.

Has the Conn 52J line been discontinued?

Donn wrote:

bort wrote:I wonder if this could be narrowed down to rotary tubas. The idea of rotary (European) and CC (American) being forced together is a bit unnatural. Kind of like a piston F tuba, it's a weird mix of both styles.

So piston C tubas like Gronitz PCK, Kanstul 5490, Conn 54J, Kallison DS etc. would have better odds? I don't know if it makes sense to see pitch (C vs Bb) as a "style", but it does seem like valves come with other design choices - particularly, piston valves seem to be installed closer to the small end of the bugle, which might make them less particular about how long the rest of the bugle is.

My point is, if the question was "are rotary BBb tubas better than rotary CC tubas," then I would very much understand the R&D argument. I think the only reason rotary CC tubas exist is for export markets (from the German companies). Same with piston F tubas, I doubt you see many of those in Germany. Both types of tubas seem like they started as reverse-engineered afterthoughts (like the old Alex CC's mentioned above, or the previous "slap the big valve set on it and call it done" B&S F tubas). Things have come a long way with both types of instruments, but I think it would be an interesting question to discuss.

bort wrote:My point is, if the question was "are rotary BBb tubas better than rotary CC tubas," then I would very much understand the R&D argument. I think the only reason rotary CC tubas exist is for export markets (from the German companies).

So we're talking about the universe in which all rotary valve tubas come from Germany (and Czechoslovakia?) In this universe, C piston tubas come from Germany and the US, with the Germans far outnumbering Kanstul. In the German cases, the same situation obtains, the market for these tubas is just as external as for the rotary tubas, so the same issues with indifferent development with the same consequences?

Dan Schultz wrote: when the US market demanded CC tubas (for some odd reason) ... European maker simply 'cut' their horns.

I've got a (possibly mistaken) factoid in my head that the first contrabass tuba made was a European rotary CC. No?

CC-tubas are simply BBb-horns lacking an appropriate length of tubing ?
With generations upon generations of CC-tubas, supposedly the result of extensive R&D combined with T&E processes in collaboration with all kinds of U.S. Tuba giants, I truly doubt that.

There have been quite a lot of CC tubas out there that don´t seem to be spin-offs to BBb models of the same manufacturer:
Neptune, PT6, PT20, MW 2045, 2165, BAER, YamaYork,...
I´m having a hard time finding BBb-models that parallel these famous CC-tubas OF THEIR ERA, created by the same manufacturers at the time or before these CC-horns had been conceived.

So maybe this is what it boils down to:
BBb SIMPLY IS better than CC.
If it weren´t, why suspect laziness (or cost-optimisation) on the side of manufacturers to explain whatever it is that bothers you ?

bloke wrote:' kinda funny how "most Bb sousaphones" actually sound better than "most Bb tubas" encountered in schools.

bloke "...but I can't possibly embarrass/disgrace myself by showing up at the spring concert band contest with sousaphones. Sousaphones, after all, were only good enough for Sousa and HIS band."

Pssh, whatever... Joe, that was *band*. We're talking *wind ensemble* here...

It's B-flat or No-flat!!

bloke wrote:How many models of C tubas are currently made in the USA ?

Don't know about that. But... from the advertising I see, most ALL of them are 'German Engineered'!

Michael Bush wrote:

Dan Schultz wrote: when the US market demanded CC tubas (for some odd reason) ... European maker simply 'cut' their horns.

I've got a (possibly mistaken) factoid in my head that the first contrabass tuba made was a European rotary CC. No?

On a vacation to Luzern, Switzerland many years ago, the itinerary included a visit to Wagner's home "Tribschen" On display were many historical instruments as well as paperwork - correspondence. Seems it was 1849 when Wagner corresponded with V.F. Cerveny with regard to building a contrabass tuba in CC. The instrumented was to be used to support the 4 Wagner tubas in his forthcoming 'Ring Cycle" which back then was basically still in Wagner's imagination, but yet he was laying the ground work. Wagner was also planning for a BBb contrabass trombone to support the trombone section.
When we consider that the first tuba by Moritz was in F it makes sense that the larger tuba be in CC. There were military band reasons for the Eb and Bb instruments which is yet another story for another day.

When we are talking about the tuba in the orchestra, at least a couple generations back, and in some American orchestras, (not all) the CC was favored, again for several reasons. But one reason, related to me by my old teacher Abe T.) was that a CC generally needed to be custom made and in some musicians eyes/ears this translated to a 'better' instrument than the mass produced BBb tubas. The tuba that pros used in the concert band tradition of the time, in the more or less style of Sousa and company, were large BBb instruments with a more "woofy" and broad sound. These days the sound of the BAT has become customary in orchestras (thanks to AJ)
But as far as BBbs go in my mind, I never found one that I was in love with. But then I've played CC for 40 some years. Most BBbs that I've played have serious intonation issues that are for me too inconvenient for orchestral playing. The sharp 3rd & 6th partial and the flat 5th. Also the 2/3 combinations are either very flat or sharp depending on whether its Gb or Db. With the more ambient sound of the BBb, these idiosyncracies tend to 'blend' into the sound scape of the band and line up pretty much with the same pitch idiosycracies as the other Bb instruments.
But yes, in general and at a basic level, the BBb is easier to make work for most people in a band setting and BBbs seem to dominate the tuba population. But there are good reasons why the top pro players prefer the CC. I always felt that there were timbre issues that put me at an advantage over BBb players, and when you are the only tuba in an orchestra that means at lot. You need to have an exceptional sound and a CC can help set you apart. Maybe that's just ego.

Paul makes some well-said points, but I have met quite a few CC tubas with sharp 3rd and flat fifth partials along with the 23 combination discrepancy. Virtually every PT tuba I have tried suffers the sharp third partial and Ab/Eb problem, including my beloved long-gone PT-6 rotor and PT-20 piston. My own CC instruments have a slight (~5c) discrepancy between Eb and Ab - the best are the Miraclone and the Alex. I am not saying Paul is incorrect, as he is much much more experienced and wiser than I, but suggesting it is perhaps a "tuba problem" and not just a "BBb tuba problem." Flat fifth partials seem to affect many, many brass instruments.

Ah, the perennial CC/BBb debate rears its (ugly) head, yet again......

I've played CC tubas that are great, and BBb tubas that suck.

I've played BBb tubas that are great, and CC tubas that suck.

The York "tall-bell" BBb models (712 and 716) I've played (and I've played a lot of them, and own more than a few of them) feature the best intonation I've ever experienced, BBb or CC, especially in regard to the ubitquitous "flat 3rd partial F".

As far as intonation, in general, is concerned, no horn is perfectly in tune with itself, and no horn, however expensive or perfect, plays itself. The old-timers understood this, and dealt with it accordingly.

"There are no loaves and fishes." - Theodore Roosevelt