YFB 621 Opinions

[tubashaman2]

.

[tubashaman2]

.

[Matt G]

The YFB-621 is a horn that very few folks seem to fall in love with. They do well for a lot of people as a first bass tuba, because the low register is automatic. However, the high register on mine (specifically F above the staff and higher) offered no more security than any other decent contrabass.

Other problems:

-It doesn't match up well with trombone players who have a good sound.

-The timbre always seemed a bit "shouty"

-Potential (bad) pitch issues, like different tuning per octave/octaves not lining up

I sold mine because my 188CC had more flexibility. The 188 could sound more "typical" of the German F tuba sound with a Mirafone C4 mouthpiece. When I sold the 188 and bought a VMI 5198, I still didn't miss having the YFB-621. When I bought a York stencil 3V Eb off eBay for $300, I had found a much better bass tuba than my old YFB-621. It had fewer pitch issues, a better upper register, more carrying power, and better low register (with excellent false tones). I miss the York Eb more than the Yamaha F. Take my experience for what you will. Those YFB-621s will sound very good to you from the mouthpiece end and feel so open and easy, just like a contrabass. However, when you play a "real" F tuba, you'll find that the feed back is different, but the product out front is often better.

*Edit:

In regards to the Mahler 1 Mvt. 3 "Frère Jacques" excerpt: This seems to be the range where the YFB-621 offered the most intonation issues.

[MartyNeilan]

This is one of the times where "search the archives" will yield you a wealth of information, both on the current and the old tubenet. There seems to be a love-hate relationship with these horns, and everyone who has owned one has an opinion.
Mine was one of the first made, and was purchased at the suggestion of Don Harry. Dave Taylor once said, "You get a good sound on that horn" in the context of a brass quartet. Based on those comments, I would say that not all YFB-621's or all YFB-621 sounds are bad. Wade is about the pickiest person on this board when it comes to horns, , and he keeps going back to his YFB-621. Dylan, formerly MellowSmokeMan, sold his gorgeous Rudy F for a YFB-621.
Mine never sounded farty or blatty, but there is an obvious ceiling on the total sound that can be produced - however it is much higher than most people give credit. I added a first valve slide ring, but never had much intonation problems as long as I pushed in for G and kept it out for most everything else. I think I typically played 5th partial A 12 to avoid any lipping.
Play one. Record one. I think they are great quintet / small ensemble horns. I do prefer the sound of a "German F" on solos, but a lot of the timbre is controlled by the player and the mouthpiece - these horns can ber very versatile. I am not sure I would want to use my current F tuba as a do-all horn, but I wouldn't have a problem doing that with a 621 for all but the largest works - solo, quintet, band, orchestra, I used my 621 in all those environments and never received any complaints. This is one of the horns I really regret selling.

[Rick Denney]

The YFB-621 is a horn that very few folks seem to fall in love with.

I'm going to disagree with much of what Matt is saying (this seems to be my week to twist Matt's tail).

My own opinion of the 621 is that it is an absolutely rock-solid, go-to F tuba that will just do what you want it to do with a minimum of effort. It plays in tune (at least mine does), and it gets a solid, if not necessarily really colorful sound, at least with the mouthpieces most people use. It's good up high, it's good down low, but it doesn't have that ethereal floating sound. Matt's statement that it doesn't blend with trombones I find most inexplicable. I find that with a 621 I can imitate a bass trombone role in a brass quintet far better than with a bigger tuba. It makes a clear and distinct inner voice in a tuba quartet. Some people don't like the ergonomics, but they've always worked for me.

It's the only tuba I own that has paid for itself in pro gigs.

The only thing it won't do is punch through a large ensemble. It has a ceiling beyond which it will start to back up on you, but if you stay below that ceiling, it will do just about anything.

An orchestral F tuba it ain't, though I've heard it used as such with success. I find that I can't make mine penetrate through a high noise level as well as my B&S. For smaller groups, including most of the kind that pay, it works really well.

Even though I'm currently having an affair with my new (to me) 6-valve B&S, the Yamaha is in no danger of abandonment. The B&S does all the things the Yamaha doesn't do, but it doesn't do a few things the Yamaha does do, like hang from a harness for a standing gig comfortably for hours on end. The B&S really sings up high, and it growls down low, but the right-note coefficient isn't quite as high as with the Yamaha.

The B&S is the love relationship. The Yamaha is strictly business, but it gets the job done every time, and thus I'll always keep it on the payroll. I suspect 621's are in the hands of pros to a much greater extent than people imagine, and I don't see them up for sale particularly often.

Rick "know your requirements, James" Denney

[Matt G]

It plays in tune (at least mine does), and it gets a solid, if not necessarily really colorful sound, at least with the mouthpieces most people use.

It seems like quite a few of the examples of this model go flat right around the top of the staff. My copy was made around 94 or 95, if that means anything.

Matt's statement that it doesn't blend with trombones I find most inexplicable. I find that with a 621 I can imitate a bass trombone role in a brass quintet far better than with a bigger tuba. It makes a clear and distinct inner voice in a tuba quartet. Some people don't like the ergonomics, but they've always worked for me.

Rick, you and I agree on the sound it puts out. However, most trombone players don't like it because it doesn't have enough overtones to do what tuba players often do for tombonists (remove edge, mask intonation problems, etc). I have used the 621 as a "bass trombone" in quintet literature that would have sounded better with a "cylindrical" instrument with good success.

It's the only tuba I own that has paid for itself in pro gigs.

I could say the same about the 188CC I owned. It did so in multiples. Therefore the 188 is *my all-time favorite tuba.

The only thing it won't do is punch through a large ensemble. It has a ceiling beyond which it will start to back up on you, but if you stay below that ceiling, it will do just about anything.

I used to be able to get the 621 to cut through. I got the hand a lot quicker than anything else. Because it just sounded like it was being pushed to an extreme (it was) and got too bright.

Even though I'm currently having an affair with my new (to me) 6-valve B&S, the Yamaha is in no danger of abandonment. The B&S does all the things the Yamaha doesn't do, but it doesn't do a few things the Yamaha does do, like hang from a harness for a standing gig comfortably for hours on end. The B&S really sings up high, and it growls down low, but the right-note coefficient isn't quite as high as with the Yamaha.

My problem was that when I had my 621 (in my early to mid 20s) I couldn't afford to have a horn that wasn't being used. If I were still able to play with the situation I am in now, I would possible have a couple of contrabasses and bass tubas. My problem with it, ultimately, was that I found a $300 bass tuba that was better in almost all respects from the perspective of the audience.

Rick "know your requirements, James" Denney

Very true.

[Matt G]

Now, the tone itself is rather bland, lacking in the specific overtones that would give the sound *color* or brightness. It is very staunchly a fundamental-dominated tone that can sound very dark and dead depending on the mouthpiece. I have learned over the years which of my mouthpieces seem to bring out a somewhat more colorful timbre while avoiding the "giant euphonium" sound that many players groused about when these first came out. However, the mouthpiece search never ends with this tuba. I have seriously played on four over the eight years that I have owned this tuba. The two that I have stuck with for the longest time so far have been my Holton 12 and my G&W Bayamo. This tuba can handle quite a gigantic mouthpiece. However, the Bayamo makes the high register really flat. Anyway, what I have been using for the past few months is the "blokepiece" (version 1). It gets a better tone and also keeps the thing playable in the upper reaches and way down low. It is NOT a style of mouthpiece that I would have tried out of my own volition. I tried it out because Joe designed the combination of specs and they sounded very well reasoned to me. and my success with it shows me that I had been looking in the wrong direction for mouthpieces for this tuba all along. I have not switched off the blokepiece since taking it out of the box several months ago. (I have also started using it on my Holton 345, though not all the time. It works really well on my BAT and will probably end up becoming my only mouthpiece on that tuba as well.)

Wade hints at the issues I had with my 621. To get it to "feel" right at the chops, I was using a Bach 18, which is too damn big. When I popped the C4 in, the pitch issues were mitigated, but the low register lost oomph and the sound became too bright. When I put the C4 in my 188, I got a "close enough" to F tuba sound that was superior (IMHO) to the 621. I don't remember as many "F tuba" mouthpieces being on the market in 96-98 as there are now, and the 'Fone C4 was a common choice. I think I tried some PT mouthpieces and hated them tremendously.

Ironically, the York Eb with a big bell (19"??) played easier up high and with better pitch with a Dillon G3B than my 621 did with anything.

Honestly, I think the OP needs to get to a tuba shop and play a lot of F tubas. A lot. And then fly to another shop and play some more. Then again. The "sigma" (unit of standard deviation), if you will, seems to be higher with bass tubas. Seeing as how he has an F, he has a good place to start from. If I were still playing, I'd have probably bought one of the Cerveny F tubas Dillons had around 2001-2002. They were quite excellent. The MW 46 they had was great also. Most of the piston F tubas at that time sucked. The Yamahas (621, 822) were better than most everything else. The MW and PT piston F tubas seemed to be a bad compromise. Did not want. The market has changed significantly since then.

[Rick Denney]

I have zero problems with cutting through a very large group with mine.

I'm prepared to assert that the difference is not what's downstream from the mouthpiece.

I would also say that the intonation on the Yamaha isn't perfect, but it's consistent, predictable, and manageable.

And I totally agree on the mouthpiece. But using a big mouthpiece on this tuba requires strong chops to keep the sound clean. Or should I say that a tuba like this is less forgiving of a fuzzy buzz than a big tuba, which can blur those problems to some extent. For many years, I used a Warburton custom mouthpiece with a big, deep cup and a medium backbore. When I bought my first B&S, however, I got a Mike Finn 4 to go with it (the B&S can't tolerate a big contrabass mouthpiece, it seems to me) and when I tried it on the Yamaha, I realized that I just didn't have the chops to make the big mouthpiece clean. And the rock-solid low register wasn't quite as rock-solid with the MF-4 just because it's an F tuba mouthpiece. I learned a lot in a short time following that realization.

I'm giving the Sellmansberger Solo an extended test on the B&S, and my only problem with it so far is that it makes me sound a bit too much like me. I haven't played the Yamaha since I've been trying out that mouthpiece, but I really should give it a whirl. It has the big-mouthpiece bottom end but an F-tuba mouthpiece response up high--it might be perfect for the 621.

Accounting for our differences (hobbyist versus pro), I would say that our reaction to the instrument seems to be pretty similar.

Rick "whose 621 is #72, bought as a new demonstrator at TMEA in 1990 or 1991" Denney

[cjk]

I've always looked at the YFB 621 like a Toyota Corolla. Reliable, easy to live with, vanilla, not particularly exciting, a little small, but extremely good all around.

I prefer rocky road.