TubeNet

Was curious this morning:

Given the abundance of York clones in existence along with variance in manufacturing processes, there have to be some that are better playing, overall, than CSO York #1.

Understood that there is no easy and objective way to really rank all of the clones and the originals, rather it’s something to ponder.

My thoughts, which are wholly conjecture, is that the York is likely in the upper percentiles, but there are likely really good clones out there that are simply newer and with a possibly better scale along with the characteristic sound.

Now that there are so many reproductions being assembled, the quantity of happy accidents, along with miserable turds, is likely to increase if we simply assume all of the variables of “what makes a tuba great” to be normally distributed. We have accounts of YamaYorks being variant (and under probably the best quality control), Nirschl Yorks being variant, and the old HB-50 having disparate examples (although that’s a clone of #2).

Basically, as these horns continue to get cranked out, provided manufacturing efforts are consistent, there’s a better chance that a horn or two that’s better than the original will show up at someone’s doorstep.

And yeah, “better” will always be a squishy topic.

YORK-aholic wrote:Also with the 2 original Yorks, one had its leadpipe replaced and one had its fifth valve replaced, both without Mr. Jacobs foreknowledge. I don't remember if it was one horn that had both replaced, or if it was one item on each of the two tubas.

So, did they play "better" when they were new?

Well, I'm sure it played better after Hirsbrunner repaired it, and took the measurements for the Yorkbrunner horns. I also think the two CC Yorks were slightly different in measurements. Jacobs acquired the second quite some time after the first.

I wonder what happened to the tech who took off the 5th valve. Apparently Jacobs recognized it, when he saw it stuck on someone else's tuba!

They might been “one-offs” to a degree, but York was already making huge BBb tubas (like that monster in your avatar) and doing so with their standard gauge sheet brass, whatever that gauge may have been.

Topic related: is it better to say "York clone", "York-inspired", or just "York" nowadays when referring to other brands?

Clorkspired

So are the valves on the Yorks made out of sousaphone parts?

Deleted

bloke wrote:Though the audio compression is severe, there's a recording (extraordinary playing - just as one would expect) of Tchaik 4 on youtube...Chicago Symphony/Barenboim...
It wasn't immediately after Mr. Gene was hired, but decades ago.
I have never viewed either Mr. Gene nor Mr. Jake as "careless"...not at all...but some pretty good dents - in the York tuba - are easily seen in that picture...
...much like the dents that some have ended up with in their very thin-walled Gronitz PCK tubas (sure: and other thin-walled tubas, such as many Czech, etc.)

Those horns are often being handled as freight and simply being carted around as such. I’m pretty sure the players were more than careful.

I think as interesting as the instrument comparison is player comparisons. Any given tuba player might prefer one of the two CSO Yorks over the other, for reasons unrelated to Mr. Jacobs's preferences (or to Gene's), so it stands to reason that any given player might prefer one of the copies over the originals.

The question is which instruments are true to the concept espoused by Mr. Jacobs, that of being a highly efficient "old man's tuba", and of being the "Stradivarius of tubas". For the latter, I expect he particularly valued the musical potential of the instrument--dynamic control perhaps being a key element of that. On the efficiency topic, I've played a variety of them over the years, and some take what you have and magnify it, and others demand more of you. The more recent crop tend to be the former. The original "copy"--the Holton 345--could go either way in that dimension. Mine is efficient, but I've played them that are not. I suspect it has to do with residual stresses from assembly and from shaping the branches.

So, I expect Mr. Jacobs would be impressed with the variety of good choice we have today in that type of instrument, and he might even consider some new ones of his own simply to have more options that fit his concept for situations where he wouldn't want to risk the York.

Rick "recognizing that Jacobs had no instrument to compare it to, until long after he had fully mastered the one he owned" Denney

bloke, agreed, I was simply pointing out for those playing at home that horns like those Yorks are getting handled by more than just the players.

I also agree, to an extent, with Rick in that you can sit five York clones in a room with five different players and each one will like a different horn. Unique individuals are unique and all that.

Basically, I guess the true benchmark would be having Mr. Jacobs available to blow through myriad examples of myriad clones and see where things stack up. Mr. Pokorny would likewise suffice as he’s had 30 years of experience with the original as well.

It’s an interesting proposition (to me at least) that there may be a horn “better” than the original out there based on how many have been made.

lost wrote:

Matt G wrote:bloke, agreed, I was simply pointing out for those playing at home that horns like those Yorks are getting handled by more than just the players.

I also agree, to an extent, with Rick in that you can sit five York clones in a room with five different players and each one will like a different horn. Unique individuals are unique and all that.

Basically, I guess the true benchmark would be having Mr. Jacobs available to blow through myriad examples of myriad clones and see where things stack up. Mr. Pokorny would likewise suffice as he’s had 30 years of experience with the original as well.

It’s an interesting proposition (to me at least) that there may be a horn “better” than the original out there based on how many have been made.

Randomly thought from this post. I watched a sound research study on Stradivarius violins paired against the best violins made today, and blind listeners seemed to pick the newer models. That doesn't make the Stradivarius violins any less valuable. An original is an original, even if it tales on mythical proportions.

I agree. Stradivarius violins set the stage for modern violin design and craftsmanship. Add to that they are now centuries old. They absolutely have value for those reasons. Similarly, the Yorks should have a similar value scaled to interest.

But that study reinforces the notion that modern manufacturing and design can turn out a better playing tuba than the prototype. And that’s okay.

.