Downsizing

The bulk of the musical talk
UTSAtuba
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:40 am
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Downsizing

Post by UTSAtuba »

skeath wrote:...and a big, American sound that will shame a lot of more expensive German tubas.
:evil: :evil: :evil: SHAME THEM!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

Image
User avatar
Kevin Hendrick
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 3156
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Location: Location

Re: Downsizing

Post by Kevin Hendrick »

UTSAtuba wrote:
skeath wrote:...and a big, American sound that will shame a lot of more expensive German tubas.
:evil: :evil: :evil: SHAME THEM!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

Image
LMAO -- ain't that a "Shatner-shot"? I can hear it now:

"CONNNNNNNNNNNN!" :lol:
"Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent." -- Pogo (via Walt Kelly)
TYA
bugler
bugler
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Downsizing

Post by TYA »

Rick Denney wrote:
TYA wrote:So does this mean the King 1241BBb can produce the same or larger sound as the Willson 3050CC?
It's you who produces the sound, not the tuba. A 3050 is a large tuba, and with the right horse blowing it, will rock the earth. A 1241 can be beautifully resonant and sound bigger than it is, but if you blow it the same way you'd have to blow a 3050, you might not like the result. They are very different instruments. The 3050 (and 3100) maintains a lot of detachment from the player, and you must have a strong sense of what's happening out front. A good 1241 feels far more intimate.

The 1241's I've played have been more consistently good than the later 2341's with the detachable bell. The newer 2341 is better than either, in my opinion. But I have compared a 2341 (new style) with my Holton, and there is no comparison in depth and breadth of tone. The 2341 plays much larger than it is, but it's still a smallish 4/4 tuba instead of a 6/4 BAT in the grand orchestral style. At some point, size does matter.

The 3050 was the go-to instrument for quite a few orchestra pros, though I think many of them complained that it was a lot of work to play. Many have switched to other instruments, but probably not to smaller instruments.

Rick "no free lunch" Denney
Thank you for you insight and I agree with you the 3050 is very detached from me. Yes the sound is big and everything but recently i played a mirafone 186 and although the sound wasn't as big it was in my opinion more beautiful which is the sound i want. If you say the King is more intimate I'm guessing it has more of that lovely sound I want. Also with a tuba like this I think if I put a ton of time in the practice room I can also get that huge orchestra sound. Thank you again.
TYA
bugler
bugler
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Downsizing

Post by TYA »

Does anyone know how the ergonomics are on york tubas? Like a 5/4-6/4 BBb york? Are the worse then the Willsons? Thank you
ckalaher1
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Downsizing

Post by ckalaher1 »

I'll second the comment on the Bruckner.
I had a chance to spend a little time on one at WWBW and was pretty impressed. The horn played great in all registers and had a nice scale to boot. Ergonomically speaking, I found the tuba to be very comfortable to play and hold, but I'm a bigger guy at 6'3" 245 lbs.

I know it's based off of the 191 Bb, but to me this tuba seemed to be the next step in the evolution of Miraphone rotary CC's. I'll be in the market for a CC in the Spring, and I will give the Bruckner VERY strong consideration. When I played it in comparison to the THOR that they had there, I simply thought the Bruckner had a more pleasant sound, and while it didn't cause anything to happen on the Richter scale like the THOR, it more than held it's own. A really nice, worthy orchestral instrument that seems to be flying under the radar.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: Downsizing

Post by Rick Denney »

TYA wrote:Does anyone know how the ergonomics are on york tubas? Like a 5/4-6/4 BBb york? Are the worse then the Willsons? Thank you
Depends on the York. Most of the 6/4 Yorks Bb tubas with front-action valves are three-valve instruments with smallish bore sizes. Those that have been converted for orchestral use vary all over the map--the guy doing the conversion may or may not have nestled the valves tightly into the body. The Holton imitations of the 6/4 York, in both Bb and C, pushed the valves far out to the front of the instrument, and it wants to fall forward even when using a stand. Most of us who play them think it's worth the trouble, heh. My Holton is easier for me to hold than a Willson 3100, but others have said just the opposite. Mine also provides a lot more player feedback than the Willson. Some of the newer Yorkish designs (for the big Yorks) are a bit more compact. Most of the big Yorks only wrapped the leadpipe partially around the bell, and they must be held so that the body extends out from your chest at a 45-degree angle. That makes using a stand all the more important.

The 4/4 Yorks are different, and more manageable. But they are not necessarily the end-all of 4/4 tubas, either. When you play one, bring your tuner. There are a couple of models of Bb and C tubas on the market that are very closely modeled on 4/4 front-action Yorks, including the Weril-made Nirschl and the B&S PT-606.

Rick "who has to keep the Holton upright with his left hand" Denney
Post Reply