If you could pick your horn's flaws....

[The Big Ben]

Where I am right now, it's intonation. From what I have read here on TubeNet, I'm not sure I could deal with the quirks of an Alex. My King 2340 seems to be fairly easy to play in tune and I like that right now.

Edit: Ah, crap.... I read it wrong. Good intonation is very important to me. I'm playing a BBb so a 'good' high range is not that important to me. So, if the high range was wonky, I wouldn't mind. (The King has a good high range as far as I can tell.)

[Biggs]

The player

[ZNC Dandy]

Intonation. It is the easiest to work around because I have the most control over it.

[Roger Lewis]

prefer to look at this as a weighted scale, on how much of each would you be willing to accept as, often to improve response you have to give a little on dynamic volume; to gain intonation you have to (normally) sacrifice a little in sound color; to get improved high range you have to sacrifice a little in resonance; etc.

What BALANCE of these things would you accept?

Just my warped, myopic little view of the world.
Roger

[windshieldbug]

I'd "pick" intonation, because with practice, mechanics and a solid ear you can play most horns... with most kinds of temperament!

[Tubaryan12]

I picked high range because I'm never up there anyway.

[adam0408]

Honestly, mechanical flaws. I am of the opinion that it is much more difficult to find a horn that is mechanically exactly what you are looking for than a horn that sounds great.

The valves on my 1291 are so tight that when they get any amount of grit in them they gum up. At the worst possible moment, I might add.

Intonation is a close second, but it really is not bad. The only real problem notes are the g (and the a sometimes) at the top of the staff and the d in the staff. Most of the things that are listed in this poll can simply be fixed by the player with enough work, unless of course you own a complete pile of garbage.

Why do I think a mechanically good horn is difficult to find? Well, I have played some good sounding horns that play in tune, and make me sound the best that I can, but they all have little mechanical flaws that could potentially cost a lot of money and be very difficult to repair without damaging the instrument and the way it plays.

For instance, there is a rotary Perantucci BBb at my school that plays wonderfully, has a nice open low register, and sounds great up high. However, the valves are a bit sluggish, and some of the slides are too tight. My piston 1291 has the opposite problem of the slides being way too loose. (that is however an easy fix with thicker slide grease)

To conclude: Everything mechanical is a compromise. To have exceptionally fast valves that are easy to push down, they have to be small in diameter, sacrificing internal tube size, and ultimately an open, wide sound. (sorry for the lack of technical terms) Slides that are easy to push in and pull out need to be loose, so they sometimes move when you don't want them to. Tight valves are nice because they don't leak air, but they gum up ridiculously fast.

However, in our playing, we need to never compromise. If we have a doggy low register, nine times out of ten, it is our fault, and we need to play a lot of snedecor low etudes. If notes are out of tune, time with long tones and a tuner is in order. Since every horn is a compromise, we need to learn to work around those compromises and produce a good sound regardless. Too many people waste their time (and money) looking for the right mouthpiece or the right horn that will fix their problems. Lets stop blaming equipment for our shortcomings and practice!

(there is a saxophonist in our Wind Ensemble who plays consistently flat. It is not the fault of his horn, although he may say that would be the biggest fault of his sax.) Excuses, excuses.

[Wyvern]

Working in reverse order - having good sound is to me the most important aspect.

Mechanically sound is to me essential. Nothing worst than a tuba where a valve sticks at that critical moment.

Response is very important, so it can be controlled to provide the desired sound.

Good high, or low register depends on the tuba and its intended usage. Good high register critical on the F, but good low on the BBb - but my experience is range is mainly dictated by the player anyway.

So intonation is the least critical. All tubas have intonation quirks to a greater, or lesser extent. As long as they are not too severe, I can live with those.

[iiipopes]

What BALANCE of these things would you accept?

Just my warped, myopic little view of the world.
Roger

Roger, as always, right on top if it. It is a balance of factors. I do tend to favor intonation over the others, because I play in concert bands with sections of tubas. So if there is a slight to moderate deficiency elsewhere, someone else will usually have that as a strength to offset and keep the section sounding good. But if you can't play in tune, all bets are off.

But I gotta disagree on the last point: if there is one thing you are not, you are not warped. Thanks for all your help and input.

[Dan Schultz]

60's Mirafone 186 BBb with five rotors and a bit of custom work. Hand assembled by me with meticulous care taken at each solder joint. No flaws! The limiting factor is sitting behind the horn!

[Rick Denney]

What BALANCE of these things would you accept?

I had a Miraphone with the usual excellent intonation. I started using a York Master instead, even though the intonation was not as good, because of the sound. The intonation on the YM for the range I'm asked to play is good enough, but it takes some work. The sound is worth it.

Then, I set the York Master aside as my main contrabass for the Holton. The intonation on the Holton is no better than the YM (read: excellent for a big tuba in general and a Holton in particular, but no match for the Miraphone). But the sound and dynamic range is better.

So, I gave up no-brainer intonation to get a sound with color, vibrancy, and depth.

Same with F tubas. My Yamaha 621 has no-brainer intonation on all but maybe one note. It's really excellent, and better than most 621s I've played. But the 621 lacked projection and power in a large ensemble, so I bought a B&S Symphonie. The B&S has the sound and projection, but playing it in tune requires much more attention. As with Wade's description of his Alex, the B&S can be played in tune, while some tubas with better native intonation cannot (at least not by me). So, for F tubas, I also accepted more difficult intonation management to get a more favorable sound in the required situation.

Of course, I still use the Miraphone and the Yamaha, but in situations where their sounds meet the needs.

And Dale is right, too. If any one of these characteristics consumed more work than I could provide, the horns would be unplayable by me, period. Question: "Should a tuba have good intonation or a great sound?" Answer: "Yes."

Rick "thinking we get strong where the tuba is weak, if we focus on the result" Denney

[Lew]

My main horn is a Besson 983, and I am happy with it in all of the aspects you list. I love the sound, response is great for me from the bottom to the top of my playing range, and intonation is consistent throughout the range. I chose intonation because the only issue I have is that it is very mouthpiece dependent and with the wrong mouthpiece it plays flat with the slide all the way in. I guess the main slide could be cut to address this, but I have found a mouthpiece that works for me and the slide is relatively short so I don't want to mess with it.