It´s about Alex tubas - again

[tubeast]

Folks,
recently, Alexander tubas have been discussed more often than they used to on this forum, or so it seems to me.

I´m by no means experienced with their horns, so I have no idea what new Alexanders behave like in comparison to old ones.
From what I read on this forum, their tubas, as a rule, sound awesome/special but have intonation quirks that call for a dedicated professional to deal with.

So a set of questions has risen to me:
- how exactly are these quirks defined ? What is the standard pitch tolerance that a horn must be within on any given note in order to be considered "well in tune" ?
- to what ranges do these "Alex fingerings" Doc mentioned somewhere else apply, and what are examples thereof ? Is it well above the stave, within it or far below, where "4+x"- combinations are called for ?
- Has this been true with all generations of Alex tubas, or is there a certain era when horns in tune with themselves had been manufctured ?

Could some of You please elaborate on Your impressions ?

Thanks

Hans

[Jonathan Fowler]

My 163 has a few intonation quirks.

E and Eb just below the staff are a bit sharp as well as a few other 2nd valve notes. The horn is equipped with a 2nd valve trigger so this alleviates most of the issues. Also, to slots on the 163 are huge, so a sharp B natural can easily be played lower by adjusting the airstream.

A few of my students own similar model instruments - a B & S PT-5 and a 2155R. Both have great sounds, quirky intonation on 1/2 combos, and 2nd valve triggers.

IMO - the valve kicker fixes 95% of these typical issues. It has been said often before that a good ear and relative pitch make playing an Alex (or any other instrument) much easier.

My last 2 instruments were an HB-50 and a MW-2155. I found the intonation on the Hirsbrunner more difficult than the Alex because it's issues were mostly in the 5th partial. I'd rather kick a 2nd valve than use 1/2 and 2/3 for the 5th partial E and Eb. The intonation on the 2155 was spectacular, but I needed to ride it a bit to hard in orchestras to balance.

I think some Alex tubas are lemons, for sure. But they tend to get a bad reputation as far as their playability is concerned because there is so much choice on the market now. Many other instruments will play more in tune and are more reliable, but the term "Alex sound" doesn't exist without just cause.

Every instrument makes sacrifices in either sound, intonation or playability. Add to this the human element of physiological differences, preference and internal sound concept and you have quite a spectrum of what may or may not work for any given player.


I hope you find this somewhat helpful.


Jon

[iiipopes]

Think about it: the ones that play well will tend to stay with their current owners, and the ones that don't are more likely to end up on the market. So a few people will have played a good one, and many will have played the not-so-good ones.

[Tom]

Maybe I've noticed more Alexander talk in the last 4-5 years because I have one, but I would agree that despite the threads here all being about how the Alex has fallen out of fashion and such, Alex's are being talked about. I suppose that generates enough interest with some folks that the seed will have been planted and they will seek one out the next time they go tuba shopping. If for nothing else than to say they have "been there and done that."

We Alexander owners always get blasted for being quick to jump in to defend our chosen make, but here goes...

-I don't except that most here will believe this, but my Alex does not have intonation problems. I'm absolutely serious. I can play it alone or in an ensemble settings, use "standard" fingerings and everything is where it should be (in tune). That doesn't mean that it's a "point and shoot" tuba, just that I don't have to try to remember what alternate fingering works under what circumstances or to push or pull any given slide. You can even read about the impressions others have had after playing this Alexander by searching the archives for Alexander plus my user name.

-Every Alexander is different. There is a lot of "folklore" about why this is, but at the end of the day there are some known facts...

-All were handmade. All are large bore. Most (if not all) are extrememly thin. The leadpipes are large without much taper or a strong venturi.

-Some Alexanders are awful and are plagued with intonation problems. That said, I've played some MWs, HBs, and B&S tubas that were pretty awful, too. The point is that Alexanders vary widely and if you're buying, you need to put the time in on the exact tuba that is being offered.

-I don't believe the date of manufacture has much to do with an Alexander being good or bad. My tuba was built in the early 1980s and is a 4 rotor 163 CC. Alexander seemed to manufacture tubas most prolifically in the 1960s, or at least it seems that way based on what I've read here. The newest Alexanders are reported to be quite good despite having a slightly larger bell and redesigned "dog leg" and leadpipe.

I agree with everyone else that has commented here regarding their poor reputation for intonation and playability. Most of the people commenting here haven't ever played one...new or old. Some people have only tried one, but haven't ever spent any significant amount of time on one. Lots of folks are perpetuating what they've taken to be the gospel truth as posted on tubenet. Others are throwing out the opinions of their teachers as their own without ever having tried one.

This brings me around to an interesting thought...I don't know of anyone that has ever claimed to not love the Alexander sound after trying it. Anyone?

There is really no way to describe in writing what an Alexander sounds like. You have to listen to a fine player on one to understand what they are capable of and then you have to try for yourself to see what kind of sound you make on it. They don't sound like a BAT and (sorry, guys) despite all the advertising BS, they don't sound anything like a PT-6. I'm intriqued by--and even would say that I like--the rotor 2155 (and have played 3 or 4 of them), but don't think they sound like an Alexander either. To me the Alexander makes the contrabass tuba sound.

My Alexander is not for sale...don't ask.

[tubeast]

Thanks for Your informative replies.
The most important reason I asked:
I got my hands on a very nice little 157 dating from 1969.
I received it last Friday to try out and make up my mind if it´ll stay with me.
I guess it will. Actually it insisted on staying in my lap for about 12 hours over the weekend.
Great technical condition, well cared for during 4 decades in the pit.

Incredible ease of response, super soft and smooth slurs, and a warm, glowing sound that can be maintained at any range at most volumes. Playing Bordognis and some solo literature that has rested in the drawer for years was so much easier to make it sound decent.
Strangely, the sixth valve seems to be a second "valve #3" instead of a standard 9/8 or 5/4 tone.
Being used to my MW 46´s 5th and 6th valve with one and two semitones, respectively, will have to get used to quite new low-range fingerings.

Playing it to the tuner, I found it offered the same kind of pitch fluctuation I´ve experienced with my current F-tuba, most of it within 10 cents.

Will post pics coming weekend.

[Brendan Bohnhorst]

I guess that I should reply to this thread as I also own a couple of Alexander tubas. I have played a few that were great horns, but also a number of them that are horrible. They do very quite a bit form one tuba to the next.

Once in a side-by-side with another Alexander F we switched main tuning slides, and they fit. The two tubas were built about 15-20 years apart, but the assembly of the valve section hadn't changed in that time. One tuba had a much more open wrap and larger bell too...

Lets start with my Alexander F.
This tuba is a little smaller than most of the other Alexander F's that I have seen. Phil Sinder, of Michigan State, has one that is very similar to mine. Also a great horn! The leadpipe on my F tuba has a pretty normal sized receiver and for the last 3-4 years I have used a PT-64 on this tuba. I do have to move my first slide quite a bit on this tuba. I do use 3rd valve for "A" on the bottom of the staff, and "13" for "G" at the top of the staff. Otherwise everything is very close, within 5-10cents. I do not find that low range on this tuba to be any different than any other German style F tuba.

Alex 163 CC
I also have the 7/8ths step 5th valve on my Alexander CC. I do have an interesting extension soldered on the front that extends it to the "23" combo that old Mirafones used to come with. I never really use it, but it does give the tuba a solid C# right above the pedal C without having to pull slides like crazy. My 5th partial is also quite flat on this tuba, the only alternate fingerings that I use are very similar to what Ben posted. 5 for D, 52 for C#. That's pretty much it, my 3rd partial is very close (approx 5cents flat)