Conn Professional 56J CC Tuba anyone?

[sloan]

You can get a lot of aftermarket "build quality" for $4000.

And, you don't have to pay to have the stuffy 5th valve removed (which, of course, you don't need on a BBb - because no one expects BBb players to play in tune)

[Rick Denney]

You edited out the "(imagined or real)" when quoting me.

No, I didn't. It's still there. But it's not germane to the point I'm making. Nor is a point of disagreement between us. We mostly agree, but I'm just turning the process around because that's how it's done.

Cost and price are two completely difference financial concepts only loosely related by the fact that the former must be less than the latter in order to make money.

Lots of folks wander through life thinking that manufacturers set prices on the basis of adding a fair profit to their costs. That's the way services are calculated, not products, and then only in a regulated market such as government contracting. In an initial production meeting, the first thing you decide is the relationship of price point and volume of sales. Then, you set cost goals based on living within the price points within that relationship. Then, you do your engineering to find a way to build the product at that cost. When you've figured out your costs, you reconsider your business model again--in the real world, the model gets evaluated many times to determine the true market. (That's what Yamaha has been doing with all this talk--gauging the real market before committing to speculative production.)

I told this story once before, but it's been a while so I'll try it afresh. Let's say that I start a tuba factory, and I'm going to sell a RickBAT. Let's further say that I've done my market study and determined that if I sell my RickBAT for $1000, I'll sell 5000 tubas. At a price of $5000 I might expect to sell 500 tubas. And if the price is $10,000, I can expect to sell 150 tubas. And if I charge $20,000, I might sell 60 tubas. The total revenue from those sales models would be $5 million, $2.5 million, $1.5 million, and $1.2 million.

Now, I have to do my design work and decide what my production costs will be at any given quality level. Let's say that to support the $20,000 price, my production costs (including marketing, distribution, amortized R&D and startup costs) are $8,000 per tuba. At a quality level supported by a $10,000 price point, my costs might be $5000. A price point of $5000 might require $2000 in production costs, and a price point of $1000 might also require $2000 in production costs. So my cost floor precludes the $1000 price point right off the bat.

That leaves $5000, $10K and $20K price points. Subtracting production costs, my net operating income would be $1.5 million, $750K, and $720K. Selling three more tubas at the $20K price point would make it more productive than the $10K price point.

On the face of it, though, I can't make a business case for selling at the $20K price point without engaging wishful thinking, and that end of the market is riskier and I'm not sure I can really sustain that quality level anyway. I get more net operating income by selling at the $10K price point, and I'm more comfortable delivering those goods. I'll call that product the RickBAT56J. Now, it turns out that I still have plenty of production capacity left, so why not use it to produce tubas at the $5000 price point? That would net me another $1.5 million, but to do so I need to sell the RickBAT in a lower-quality version to fit that production and sales model. We'll call that tuba the RickBAT2341, and we'll put it in a key that schoolkids use and we'll sell it to schools.

But if I'm Swiss and large-scale production is not allowed by my socialist government, or if I'm disinclined to build that kind of factory because my owners don't want to make the up-front investment, or if I own the company and just don't want to, then I'll look at my production capacity at the quality model I've committed to. Let's say that the most number of tubas I can build is 60, but my craftspeople are the best in the business. If that was the case, I'd be a pretty poor businessman to sell them for less than $20,000. Poor businessmen usually end up out of business, which leaves their employees out of work and their customers without a RickBAT at any price. (Why do you suppose the Germans do not build economy cars?)

Do you think someone like Steve Dillon or Dave Fedderly undertakes to turn an old York into a modern orchestral BAT without first considering the price he can get? The reason my Holton is still a Bb is because it was too expensive as a Bb to support the price point Dave would have been able to get for a converted Holton. He started with the price point and worked backwards. That's how it's done.

And those Holtons that have been restored with new valve bodies into great Bb tubas would never have happened without there being at least a small market of Bb buyers at the $6000 price point.

The reason we don't have new orchestra-grade 6/4 Bb tubas is that Bb buyers will not support a sufficiently high price point. Thus, the orchestra-grade Bb tubas are of the Kaisertuba type, because that's where the market is for people who will spend that much on a great Bb orchestral tuba. Those people are in Germany and Russia.

So, you don't take a King 2341 and ask what's better about a Conn 56J to make it more expensive. You take the CC tuba buyer and you add the features and quality expected by CC players at that $8000 price point. Then you see if you can find a way to produce a lesser sibling targeted at a lower price point and a market with lower standards. Remember, the Conns came out first.

There's a reason Yamaha has four different grades of instruments--the 100 series, 300 series, 600 series and 800 series. They are aimed at difference price points. But the price points were there first.

Rick "figuring Gerhard Meinl is spending more time exercising his business degree than his sheet metal skills" Denney

[ubertuba]

Rick is a real live genius. (bows down)

[Mike Finn]

a buyer who knowingly accepts that as "fact" is just plain stupid.

I love my new King, although it was hand picked for me by a pro whom I trust... I guess ignorance is bliss.

no one expects BBb players to play in tune

That's a relief! I wish I had know that sooner, I wouldn't have spent all that time practicing Bloke's long tone thingie when I could have been playing fast and loud orchestral exerpts at conferences! (But I'd probably need a CC tuba for that stuff, right?)
Seriously, when did we go from bashing BBb tubas to bashing the people who play them?
MF

[sloan]

To MF: do you recognize the tuba in my avatar?

Actually, the picture is now out of date: I use MF3 on my King 2341, and often sit right next to someone using a MF3 on his Conn 52.

When did we move to bashing BBb players? I think it was Tuesday.

[Mike Finn]

Dr. Sloan, I thought there might have been a hint of sarcasm. And I can't really argue with Dale's point either; anyone paying too much for something of poor quality has made a bad decision. I guess I don't feel that "junk" and "stupid" are accurate terms for describing the new Kings and their owners. (I'm sure you'd agree.)
Glad the MF3's are still working for you gentlemen! I'd love to add your pic to my gallery, if you're interested: http://mikefinnmouthpieces.com/gallery.html
In the original spirit of this thread, I've finally got a new mpc coming out, the MF5, which will feature the same rim as the MF3 but with a slightly shallower cup. I've been playing the prototype for a week now, and it seems to really make a difference in projection. (More on that, and other news once I've renewed my banner here.)
All the best!
MF

[pjv]

Interesting. About the projection thing. My rotary euro-tuba experiences are an old Miraphone 186, a Hirsbrunner, a great frankentuba (B&S intestines, hand-made bell from Muncke in Cologne) and a B&S-F. The american horns were all Conn's; '50's 2J (nickel inside bell), 56J, and a BBb bell-front 36J.

Aside from the players responsability to project his sound, I felt that the euro-horns blended great, but I had to work much harder to "stand out" when I needed to. No problem in an orchestra, but soloing in a big band was a real pain. When I made the switch to US tubas it became much easier to isolate my sound for a solo.

Projection. Your constants are; tuba type+mpc+bore size+players technique. Add this to ensemble type+hall accoustics. These are the major variables, I believe.

The question was about the 56J, a fine tuba. This 4/4 tuba could work very well depending on; the mpc+"your personal sound"+the ensemble type+the hall. The tubas fine, the mpc has to match and sit properly in the leadpipe (not too far in, not too far out, just right). If you just bought it, give yourself about three months of playing and practicing to get to know each other. Than change the mpc (ya, unless you know beyond a shodow of a doubt that somethings wrong).

"The right tool for the right job". My 2 cents.

[DanClouse]

I played a conn 54j for a number of years, and I agree with what a lot of people are saying, both in quality, and the characteristics of the horn. I got mine before the price hike brought the horn's retail value up to 8k, so I didn't mind the concstruction issues. The horn played well, so I didn't mind that I had to have a few braces resoldered, joints reset, etc.

As for the 5xJ and projection, I found a general rule: if the mouthpiece makes a warm and interesting sound, it's probably not projecting well. If the mouthpiece makes kind of a raucous and obnoxious noise on the horn, you might try to work with it.

I started with the Dillon/Sheridan 2 because it made such a pleasing sound, it slotted well, and it felt good. I played that for a while until it became apparent that I wasn't getting the power I thought I was. (Shame on me when the orchestra conductor asked for MORE tuba and I had no more to give)

I eventually switched to the R&S heavy wall. The Helleberg style mp gave me a lot more projection, and the added weight helped keep everything centered. I did a blind test with a small committee of peers in a big hall to see what sounded best/projected best, etc. Oddly enough, the 2nd place finisher was the Kellyberg plastic mp.

I sacrificed some accuracy with the MP switch, especially in the high register, but not enough to worry about in the long run, especially since I could be heard through an ensemble after the switch.

Those are my thoughts on the 5xJ.

[Rick Denney]

Does Conn-Selmer follow the biz model Rick speaks of? Will they only produce something if it falls within their model?

Absolutely. Is their business model accurate? That's a whole other story, though generally both of the instruments being discussed have been quite successful.

That a hard tool bell mandrel (i.e. cut in steel) costs @ US$125,000 and a bottom bow tool (for hydraulic expansion will cost @ US$100,000?

That's why both instruments were constrained to use the bells and bottom bows of previously produced instruments.

And that's also why the Yamaha 826 and most other high-end tubas have a hand-made bell and bottom bow. Many of the European Yorkophones use the same bell for that reason. And that bell mandrel doesn't have to cost anywhere near that much for a limited-production item. You don't need hardened tool steel for a mandrel that will only be used for a dozens (or even hundreds) rather than tens of thousands. And I'm not sure B&S hydroforms their bottom bows even now.

Rick "wondering if Peter Hirsbrunner or Walter Nirschl spend $100,000 for a bell mandrel for their Yorkophones" Denney