Another York Question

[Bandmaster]

It would be similar to a violin maker tapping a piece of spruce for the top and a piece of maple for the back to get the right resonance. But it is still the whole picture. A Strad violin still needs more than its spruce top to be a Strad, it needs the body, the soundpost, the bridge, neck, etc. as well as a player to bring it all together.

A lot of violins are made of the same stuff to the same specs. They did discover, a couple of years ago, that Stradivarius soaked the wood he used for making his violins. He used a secret recipe to brew the brine in which he marinated the spuce. The researchers are now trying study the wood to see if they can recreate his recipe.

Maybe Pop Johnson soaked the brass in beer? What do you think?

[Rick Denney]

Part of the mystique can also be explained by the mystic himself, Rick Denney:
http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm
and
http://www.rickdenney.com/the_tuba_sound.htm

Of course, the "York" in question is a York Master, made by Boehm and Meinl and with little more than passing resemblance to anything made by Pop Johnson. Fine tubas, yes. I think you'd be hard-pressed to name a 5/4 BBb tuba that is better, with maybe one or two exceptions. But vintage Yorks, no.

My Holton is more like a York than is the York Master.

Speaking of my Holton, I wonder at what it is that makes that instrument combine good intonation and sound. It may be because it's a Bb. I dunno. But it has a zip to the sound that keeps it from getting woofy nearly to the same extent as most of the (far more expensive CC) BAT's I've tried. And the PT-48 mouthpiece is the sure cure for woofiness with any of the really big tubas.

Of course, I have no idea how it compares to the CSO Yorks.

As to the notion that it's the leadpipe, we should recall that the leadpipe on Jacobs's primary York was replaced at one point with one of a different taper. So, if the York magic wasn't just an artifact of Jacobs's artistry, then it wasn't the leadpipe. I think I go with Bloke that it's the bell. And I think it's the bell shape more than the metal. In my thinking, shape is by far the strongest influence, followed by working method (with its resulting residual stress), followed by weight, and then followed by brass formulation. I have a feeling that the way Holton made bells wasn't a lot different than York's bells, though I highly doubt anybody at Holton rapped the brass sheets to see which one had the ring.

Maybe the brass used on mine would have passed the Pop Johnson test through sheer luck. It doesn't matter to me. I've played big tubas with York outer branches and they did have an impact on me.

Rick "wondering if some BAT's are happier as Bb's" Denney

[imperialbari]

A lot of violins are made of the same stuff to the same specs. They did discover, a couple of years ago, that Stradivarius soaked the wood he used for making his violins. He used a secret recipe to brew the brine in which he marinated the spuce. The researchers are now trying study the wood to see if they can recreate his recipe.

The list of theories about the secret recipe behind the instruments by Stradivarius is endless.

Around 500 years ago Europe suffered, what has been called a mini-ice-age. The general average of temperatures dropped.

The effect on the wood, which Stradivarius used, was, that the trees had grown slower and hence had a denser grain structure.

Maybe Pop Johnson soaked the brass in beer? What do you think?

I doubt that. And I doubt, that the brass used by York was different from the brass used by the other makers of the pre-WWII era, which especially in the US was not a rich one.

Today every self-respecting maker uses an array of special alloys in trumpets, horns, and trombones. Some makers use gold brass in euphoniums. Gold brass tubas are not common.

In the old days the makers used a brass alloy very available and not too expensive, because it was made in large quantities to national specifications varying from country to country. It was the alloy used for the powder holding cylinder (with the bottleneck) of military riffle cartridges.

By metallurgical standards the worst of these specifications was the one of the US. I have heard from the production manager of a huge British maker, that exactly this "bad" US brass was the reason, why they couldn’t compete in making trumpets and trombones sounding as well as those of the US makers.

I have two Conn sousaphones from 1928 and 1929 (I also have one from 1943, which I however haven’t tested for real yet). The two older Conns have this hall filling organlike fundamental (in an ensemble sense of this word) sound, which Rick Denney tells of in his article linked to a bit higher up this thread.

The same goes for my York Master BBb, which RD also writes about. Only mine is a bell front version, which according to experiments carried out by Chuck Guzis on my suggestion, probably is the original design of the York Master, as it is much easier to play in tune in the bell front version. The hall filling quality also is the hallmark of my Besson 981Eb comper with the fast expanding leadpipe inspired by John Fletcher.

I love both of these two tubas, as they never demanded me to play really loud or bring them to their "breaking-up" point. They laid out the foundation of the bands effortless. I have a very small lung capacity, but an extremely efficient embouchure allowing me to play long phrases. In the brass band I very often took the 981 an octave down from the written notes, as the BBb part was not so well manned soundwise.

The only time I have had to push my York Master, was during an encore of a concert, where the director pointed to me to help him accelerate the tempo to a speed never tried by the band before.

But back to the American tuba sound: My ever so beloved German and British made tubas miss the special “somethingâ€

[tubeast]

I don´t get it, people.
Usually the story goes: "If you try to imitate somebody or something, the best you can get is a more/less good copy of the original."
The idea usually brought across goes along the line of "Why not do your own thing and be yourself", usually including the possibility of being better in the process.
Is this supposed to be untrue in this case, all of a sudden ?

One day somebody might search the archives and find a letter in which Mr. Jacobs stated that he was desperately searching for better horns than the CSOs. Agreed that mentioned tubas are responsible for a great sound, I´d say doing something SIMILAR with slight, controlled changes would be the way to go to get SUPERIOR horns.

As a manufacturer I´d probably agree to create a model that follows concepts (overall size, tone colour, agility...), especially if there´s a market for that type of horn. But I doubt I´d be flattered at all if somebody told me my product was hailed to be "Dang close" to two INDIVIDUAL horns of a different make.

Usually the copying of a particular design is looked down upon, taken as an indication of lacking skill, honesty, creativity... you name it. I haven´t read anyone complain about how all these manufacturers come up with what can be considered basically the same horn. And on first glance, you really can´t tell a difference on the pics.

[Donn]

[quote="imperialbari"]But back to the American tuba sound: My ever so beloved German and British made tubas miss the special “somethingâ€

[Art Hovey]

The late Bill Ratzenberger lived not far from me, in Bridgeport, the "brass city". He was a trumpet player, a restauranteur, and a mouthpiece maker. (He made the original "Jet-tone" mouthpieces.) He was very interested in the qualities of different materials, especially the brass alloys used for making trumpets and trumpet mouthpieces. He told me the story of his visit to the factory where French Bessons were made, having heard a lot about the special brass that they used. When he was being shown the shipping and receiving area a new shipment of brass was just arriving. He got a big kick out of seeing where it was from; it was BRIDGEPORT BRASS!

[Chuck(G)]

I may also suggest the compositon of the bell rim wire as a contributor to the 'York' sound. This comes to mind because of a conversation I had with Lee Stofer a while back dealing with construction techniques over the years, particularly in reference to 20's vintage horns.

That changed over the years, in my experience. The pre-1900 Yorks have much thicker rims.

[iiipopes]

Gibson mastertone banjos are the same way. The pre-war ones have superior tone to the post-war ones. Finally, one was used as the object of spectrometry. Yes, it turned out that the rims were recycled cartridge brass, a very impure form of brass.

When brass was first discovered, it was before zinc was purified, and was only available in its natural mineral form. It couldn't be purified or alloyed in the "conventional" manner, because the zinc would evaporate before alloying. So, the first method of making brass was to melt copper, throw in as much zinc mineral as possible, and get the lid on tightly to the caldron to prevent the zinc from escaping. After it was either stirred or swirled to get as much mixing as possible and cooled, 1st generation brass was produced. The copper naturally combined with enough zinc to make approximately an 82 percent alloy. Call me crazy, but I think that brass instruments should be made of a similar alloy for best tone, as it is closest to a natural process and (ok, here's the leap in logic...) resonance.

[Lee Stofer]

Howdy folks,
After reading three pages about the "York Mystique", I'll try to put in my $0.02.
Many instruments, both modern and antique, were made of good parts, but were not consistently soldered-together well in the ferrules that form the joints between the branches of tubing. As an example, about four years ago, I had the privilege of repairing one of the very worst-playing Alexander 163 CC tubas ever made. Upon disassembly, I found most of the joints to have serious leaks where the instrument was not assembled correctly. After de-denting and cleaning all the body parts, I took the time to carefully tin (coat with solder) the interior of all the ferrules and tin the joints, reassembled it so that there were no leaks, and the result was an Alexander tuba with amazingly-good intonation, a powerful sound on all notes, and even response. The new rose brass leadpipe probably did not hurt, either.
With the Yorks I have had the opportunity to work on, I have found that they were more carefully assembled than any other make. I have not found a single bad original solder joint on any York, no matter how old. Add to that the fact that there were small, subtle things that they did in the building of the Yorks that made them fit together better than anything else I've seen, and York tubas are likely to be exceptional-sounding instruments. There was more to the mettalurgy and hand-building of the parts than I know, but I will divulge one thing I have noticed that I have not seen in the copies. The original York tubas and euphoniums that I have restored in my shop, including Jim Self's horn, were all yellow brass instruments that had a rose brass bell. Underneath the silver on the Chicago Yorks' bells, I believe that they are made of rose brass. And, to my knowledge, no manufacturer has made a 6/4 York copy with a rose brass bell. I believe that when someone makes a modern piston valveset shaped and ported like the original York valvesets, and when someone goes to the expense and effort to hand-form rose brass bells for yellow brass bodies, truly exceptional tubas will be built.

[TubaTodd]

Howdy folks,
After reading three pages about the "York Mystique", I'll try to put in my $0.02.
Many instruments, both modern and antique, were made of good parts, but were not consistently soldered-together well in the ferrules that form the joints between the branches of tubing. As an example, about four years ago, I had the privilege of repairing one of the very worst-playing Alexander 163 CC tubas ever made. Upon disassembly, I found most of the joints to have serious leaks where the instrument was not assembled correctly. After de-denting and cleaning all the body parts, I took the time to carefully tin (coat with solder) the interior of all the ferrules and tin the joints, reassembled it so that there were no leaks, and the result was an Alexander tuba with amazingly-good intonation, a powerful sound on all notes, and even response. The new rose brass leadpipe probably did not hurt, either.
With the Yorks I have had the opportunity to work on, I have found that they were more carefully assembled than any other make. I have not found a single bad original solder joint on any York, no matter how old. Add to that the fact that there were small, subtle things that they did in the building of the Yorks that made them fit together better than anything else I've seen, and York tubas are likely to be exceptional-sounding instruments. There was more to the mettalurgy and hand-building of the parts than I know, but I will divulge one thing I have noticed that I have not seen in the copies. The original York tubas and euphoniums that I have restored in my shop, including Jim Self's horn, were all yellow brass instruments that had a rose brass bell. Underneath the silver on the Chicago Yorks' bells, I believe that they are made of rose brass. And, to my knowledge, no manufacturer has made a 6/4 York copy with a rose brass bell. I believe that when someone makes a modern piston valveset shaped and ported like the original York valvesets, and when someone goes to the expense and effort to hand-form rose brass bells for yellow brass bodies, truly exceptional tubas will be built.

Very interesting post!!! Would you say that the average new (or newish) tuba assembled in either the US or abroad would benefit from being disassembled and reassembled with attention being made to the soldering?

In a semi-related question...my Conn 56J has a bum note that no matter what fingering I use, no matter if I lip the note up or down, the pitch will crack. The note happens to be E in the staff. If I play an Eb it is usually pretty good. If I play an F it is usually pretty good. At first I thought it had something to do with the accoustics of where I practice, but I began noticing the problem everywhere. Could this accoustic problem be the result of funky assembly?

BTW I don't have the cracking problem on any other note AND the E problem only happens at the octave mentioned.

When in college I had the pleasure of trying out several of Matt Walter's custom horns. One studio mate had a York based horn. One studio mate had a Conn based horn. One studio mate had a Buscher based horn. All of the horns were GREAT! The attention to detail and craftsmanship proved to produce a quality horn.

This observation and your insite in this post have lead me to believe that you hit the nail on the head about WHY Yorks sounded so good.

[Paul Scott]

The brass used by at least some American manufacturers was definitely different before WWII. I had a small sample of metal taken from my 1936 Martin analyzed at a foundry and it's composition was basically 80% copper to nearly 20% zinc, (there were trace elements of lead and antimony as well). This category of brass is called, (no kidding) "low brass", and one of it's listed uses is for "musical instruments". It is my understanding that the standard brass used in instruments since WWII is 70% copper to roughy 30% zinc, known as "cartridge brass". I assume that brass production was geared entirely to the war effort from late 1941-45; is it possible that there was simply a lot of "cartridge brass" left over that could be used more conveniently/inexpensively?
Low brass does not seem to be in production today, although it can be ordered from a large foundry....by the ton!

[iiipopes]

Lee has more eloquently stated what I posted earlier about getting EVERYTHING copied exactly.

[Tom]

Many instruments, both modern and antique, were made of good parts, but were not consistently soldered-together well in the ferrules that form the joints between the branches of tubing.

This makes me wonder if this is a large factor in hand-made instruments being usually considered better. Maybe much greater care is taken with their assembly, so they are more consistently good? This would explain why some people find the MW 2000 a lot better than the 2155 while others find the latter just as good - it depends if they are comparing to a well, or poorly assembled 2155

I've been following this thread with interest, but am not well versed enough with 6/4 CC tubas, York tubas, or metallurgy to contribute much to that side of the discussion, however issues of Meinl Weston 2155s vs. 2000s is something I'm fairly up to speed on, being a MW2000 player.

I've written several times in the past about my observations and experiences with the MW2155 and 2000, each time basically pointing out that there are a lot of differences between the two models.

I first would like to point out that tubas have to be assembled by hand, in other words, the assembly of the 2155 and 2000 is the same (within reason, of course). "Handmade" only applies to the way the parts are made, in that instead of hydraulic formation of bows, mechanical means of making bells, and drawing tubes, it is all done by hand or as close to it as possible. The result of the hand working is that the parts of the 2000 do not have a uniform thickness (hydraulic formed bows, etc. are "supposed to" in theory) and that the brass is "thinner." I don't know for sure if the 2000 uses thinner brass from the start or if the hand working makes it so, but it is notably lighter and thinner than the 2155.

I've gone on the record more than once as saying that I wish Meinl Weston would not claim the 2000 to be based upon the 2155 since it just makes everyone think they rebent the leadpipe, flipped the 5th valve 90 degrees, had some fancy evgraving done, and decided to rebadge it as the model 2000 and sell it for $5000 more. This is not the case.

The 2000 is far more different than 2155 than most people realize. The 2000 is a copy of Warren Deck's last 2155 that he had been tearing apart and reworking for quite some time. It has been my observation (visual and playing side-by-side) that the taper of the 2000 is very different than the taper on the 2155. Yes, they share the same specs on height, bell diameter, valve bore, etc., but it's what happens in between that makes the 2000 special.

The differences in the 2000 start at the leadpipe. It's smaller, takes a different path (ie, more of a "sweeping curve"), and has a different venturi. The receiver is larger than I've encountered on stock 2145, 55, or 65 tubas as well, for what that's worth. Having done some playing on some Meinl Westons of the same model with different leadpipes, I've come to the conclusion that leadpipes have a lot to do with the way a tuba plays, so much in fact that I feel the leadpipe can make or break an otherwise nice tuba. My experience is that they are often too large.

The valve block on the 2000 is very similar to the 2155, but is a little different because of the way the leadpipe comes in to it and the way the 5th valve follows it, although there are more similarities than differences here.

The flipped 5th valve allows for a wider 5th slide on the back of the tuba.

The tuning slide is different too, it sits higher up in the body and is (at least on the ones I have seen and played) a little wider on the 2000.

The physical weight (gauge of the brass?) of the 2000 is far less than that of the 2155, and the bracing on the 2000 is different than the 2155, too. My F tuba weights about as much as my 2000 does. This does make a difference in the way the horn plays. The 2000 is just more "lively" and is designed to ring, whereas the 2155 comes off as a bit "dead" sounding to my ears.

The intonation on the 2000 (when I play it) is far better on the 2000 than any of the 2155s I've played. I believe the valve slide lengths may have been adjusted slightly on the 2000, but I think it really comes down to all of the "little things" coming together to make a tuba with a great sound and great intonation that just about plays itself.

I have found that some 2000s are better than others, and found the same when playing 2155s, although I would call both set of 2000s and the several 2155s I tried to be reasonably consistent from one horn to the next.

So, for me the 2000 ended up not only way more $, but way better.

The 2155 is not a bad tuba though. I was simply fortunate enough at the time to have the means to give the 2000 a serious look, and am pleased that I did.

[sloan]

When in college I had the pleasure of trying out several of Matt Walter's custom horns. One studio mate had a York based horn. One studio mate had a Conn based horn. One studio mate had a Buscher based horn.

Are you sure that was three DIFFERENT section mates? Or, was it the same section mate on 3 consecutive rehearsals?

[Paul Scott]

Bloke,
The Martin isn't (and wasn't) silver plated, but that's an intriguing thought re low brass possibly allowing a better "bond" with silver plate. The very tiny piece of metal that was used in the analysis came from a tuning slide.
I suppose it could be argued that they may have used "low brass" only for parts of the horn that needed to resist rotting the most, (tuning slides would qualify, I would think). But I tend to think that they used the same brass throughout.

[TubaTodd]

Are you sure that was three DIFFERENT section mates? Or, was it the same section mate on 3 consecutive rehearsals?

In the words of David Unland: "I resemble that remark!!!!" All kidding aside, it really WAS 3 different section mates. I did have 3 different CC tubas in college, but none of them were Dillon horns......ahem....and none of them is the horn I own now.

Judging by your previous post I think I may know the section mate you may be aluding to. I do recall "them" playing a different horn in a few consecutive rehearsals. One of those horns was a 2165. That means in a section of 5 tuba players.....TWO of us were playing 2165s.

Back on topic, I believe there may have been ANOTHER Dillon/Buescher purchased in my studio after I graduated. If I recall correctly there was 1 Dillon Eb (I forget the brand of bugle and bows), a Dillon/York 4/4 CC (I played on this one. It was NICE!), a Dillon/Conn CC (Played it once. Very nice horn. EXTREMELY similar to a 56J), Dillon/Buescher CC (didn't get to play it) and finally another Dillon/Buescher. Wow, five custom horns in one studio.

[Rick Denney]

I may also suggest the compositon of the bell rim wire as a contributor to the 'York' sound. This comes to mind because of a conversation I had with Lee Stofer a while back dealing with construction techniques over the years, particularly in reference to 20's vintage horns.

I don't think this is it. Bob Rusk routinely trims 22" bells on the old Monster BBb basses to the 20" bell common to grand orchestral tubas when he makes his conversion. He rolls the rim the way modern rims are rolled, near as I can tell. Maybe he uses the same wire that York used.

And I wonder how subtle variations in the alloy could have much effect. They are mechanically identical to modern brass--the same stiffness, the same strength, and so on.

Rick "who thinks it's the shape and the construction" Denney

[iiipopes]

Again, one more item that if you are going to copy it, copy it exactly, as it is the synthesis of the sum total of all of these little details, like straws in a bale. A single straw weighs next to nothing, but bundle enough of them together and the bale weighs quite a bit.

[Paul Scott]

According to the winners circle scale at the old Longacres racetrack, she weighs in at 35 pounds. A friend in LA has a 1963 4 valve Martin like mine that comes in at about 37 pounds. I don't really recall a difference in the playing characteristics despite the age difference.

I've noticed this phenomenon too. A student of mine has a big 4-valve Martin like mine, (mine is from 1940, his is from 1956 or so). The '56 is noticeably heavier than the '40-something my student and I joke about all the time-that '56 is HEA-VY. The two don't play that differently, IMO. I've heard others say the same thing about earlier Yorks (lighter) vs. later models (heavier).

[Chuck(G)]

I've noticed this phenomenon too. A student of mine has a big 4-valve Martin like mine, (mine is from 1940, his is from 1956 or so). The '56 is noticeably heavier than the '40-something my student and I joke about all the time-that '56 is HEA-VY. The two don't play that differently, IMO. I've heard others say the same thing about earlier Yorks (lighter) vs. later models (heavier).

Yes, but around 1950, Martin went through a major change in the way bells were fabricated. Old Martin bells are 3-piece, not 2--and the metal is nearly uniformly thick throughout the entire bell flare.