Best Piston F tuba on the market?

[Tubadork]

What say you TNFJ?
Bill

[T. J. Ricer]

For me and what I do it's the Yamaha YFB-821 "Bobo."

It's small enough for a true bass tuba sound, but big enough to carry in a large ensemble. Pitch is solid. Sound is pretty and colorful; the bit of extra bell flair warms up the sound, as compared to the 621 and there is none of the tubbiness you can get with over-sized bass tubas. The low range feels very consistent.

Just one opinion. I haven't found anything that made me want to sell this one. I also play Eb tuba, so my use of F tuba may be more narrow than some.

-T. J.

[bisontuba]

Lot of them on the market --depends what kind of F tuba sound you are looking for...ideally go to a store/company (Baltimore Brass, BMB, Dillon, Horn Guys, etc.)
and play test the different horns yourself to see what is best for you.
Have fun.
Mark

[Tubadork]

Hey,
I've played tons of them and have a pretty darn good 822. I would love to do a shoot out with my 822 a stock 822, a BMB 18" F, all three 2250's and maybe the 821.
Am I missing any other big piston F tubas?
Maybe that's a better question.
B

[gudge07]

I'm partial to the Meinl Weston 2182.

[JTCtuba89]

I have had a few Fs to date: a firebird, the bmb f, a 2260ra, and the 2182-w. I've tried most every one I could get my hands on and, as you can see, I switched between rotors and Pistons a few times based on the sound I liked. I think as we change our sounds concepts, sometimes the horn changes with us! I wanted to find a piston horn for clarity but wanted a really colorful (to my taste) sound like the rotor horns have. The 2182-w has been a real treat to play and it is everything I want in an f tuba. Clarity, even, no weird tendencies, full-projecting sound. It's a hefty price tag, but for me it was worth it. I've heard great things about a lot of piston Fs, the miraphones, other mienl westons, yamahas, BMB, gronitz, wilson, etc. but those playing them as all quite different in sound, so those horns fit them well. I've personally never found a draw to the 822 and do not care for the sound, but Carol plays one and she sounds fantastic. I originally liked my BMB but after learning to use my air differently, the horn didn't seem to fit well anymore and so I found something else. The rotor horns I loved, but I lacked the patience to relearn my technique on rotor valves Just depends. Taking a trip to one of the stores is a great choice, and if anyone can get to the regional/national/military conferences, the collection of horns that I've been able to try during those trips, I felt, was a solid sampling of what is out there.

[Tubadork]

Joe, you might be right.

Robert, we can talk price.



B

[Jay Bertolet]

I have a student that recently bought a used MW 45slp and that horn made a huge difference (positively) in how he sounds. He was playing a much smaller Cerveny F and the bigger MW horn not only improved his sound, it seemed to be easier for him in the high range. So much easier, he added something like a fourth to his usable range. While not an F tuba guy myself, I have been continually impressed with that particular design.

[Toobist]

I have a student that recently bought a used MW 45slp and that horn made a huge difference (positively) in how he sounds. He was playing a much smaller Cerveny F and the bigger MW horn not only improved his sound, it seemed to be easier for him in the high range. So much easier, he added something like a fourth to his usable range. While not an F tuba guy myself, I have been continually impressed with that particular design.

Yeah, I love the 45slp. A runner-up for me would be the 822s that I used to own. That was an incredible horn. Wish I'd known what I had when I had it.

[hockeyched]

I really liked the 2250 NP model, it seemed less open and more even to me of the 2250 models. Although I didn't personally like the Mr. p F tuba I tried, I have heard good things. Bottom line, play a bunch of them (ITEC next year or midwest in the winter are great places to get your hands on pretty much everything out there) and decide what you feel most comfortable on, then have someone listen or record yourself to see what it sounds like from a distance. Best of luck.

[cle_tuba]

Hello everyone ...
Have several tubas in F, always the perfect sound demand (if it exists), were tubes of pistos and also rotors ...
Among the tubas of pistos I had the Gronitz 125 PF, MW 2250, MW 2250 TL, B&S MRP-F, YFB822, YFB822S, and now lastly experienced the Adams Solo.
I loved the sound of PT9, but would like the bass of YFB822. The nearest tube of this was the 2250 and Gronitz ...
Now I think Adams exceeded all expectations ... so I just buy a ...
Best...

[PaulMaybery]

I suppose it depends. But then it usually does. For a larger piston, I love the BMB with the larger bell. The low end rocks and the top sings. Probably for a dedicated solo horn, it may not be the best choice, perhaps a bit more resistance might be better in that scenario. But it works for me. And it is still on the market. The valves are lightning and the blow is very open top to bottom. The feel and heft is akin to the larger Ebs like the Sovereign. For me very easy to play in tune. Low C is huge.

In an orchestra with full brass it can easily hold its own. In symphonic band it offers a great voice on the upper parts, with plenty of clarity and with a good size MP will blend wonderfully with the CC/BBb on the lower end.

[bort]

I don't remember which model it was, but I remember being blown away by a Willson F tuba before.

Beyond that, "piston" and "F" has always seemed to be a bit of a mismatch to me ("piston" is more American, and "F" is more German), in the same way that "rotary" and "CC" are a mismatch. Both are *common* combinations, but neither seems particularly logical in its origination.

I also have no first-hand experience, but find it interesting that Kanstul has not been mentioned here. Maybe too funny looking...? Or "good" but not the "best"?

[PaulMaybery]

Hey Brett. Interesting observation on the piston tubas basically being thought of as American compared to rotaries as German/European. When you stop to think about it, that is somewhat of a flip from the very/very early American makers who pretty much used rotaries from the 1850s up through the 1880s. The very/very early Europeans were using the Berliner valve (a form of piston) on the very early F tubas. (Those tubas were also front valves usually 5 valves) Then for whatever the reason, in the US pistons took over, not just on the tubas, but pretty much from cornets down. Was that Adolphe Sax's influence? (in American we pretty much used the Perinet piston.) All but the horn. Were they easier to make? I dunno. Col. Conn when he bought the old Isaac Fiske factory in Worcester, Mass (@1880) used Fiske's bell mandrels for some time. In 1886 he developed his patented "wonder" valve (piston) that was grafted on to it. OK. I'm digressing. The point I am trying to suggest is that there is a swing back to pistons on the F. Why? Perhaps to 'some' it is the preferred valve and thus a very marketable orientation. It does have some connection to the Chicago/York/Jacobs legacy and to those who enjoy being part of that camp. From what I understand, the BMB tubas intentionally are designed to emulated the York tradition. F tubas, have enjoyed considerable appeal in the USA for the last 3 or 4 decades. Evolution, I believe, can be a good thing. There is also the historical precedent for evolution in brass instruments. So I do not find the swingor evolution to a piston F, as opposed to the rotary F that much of a disconnect, but rather an expected development. So why not an American style F? Funny. I'm not really sure what I just said. But I do appreciate your original point.
Paul (who enjoys historical perspective - not that it really makes one play any better)

[bort]

Hey Paul, that's REALLY interesting stuff! And I think you're right -- evolution CAN be a good thing! Thanks for the post!

[MartyNeilan]

The best piston F tuba is a rotary horn.

(Sorry, just my opinion from having tried plenty of both.)

[Ulli]

[quote="MartyNeilan"]The best piston F tuba is a rotary horn.[quote]

Truely, and the best rotary F is the Cerveny Harmonia with the quint valve (654-6), isn'it, Marty?

[joh_tuba]

A few thoughts from a random nameless soul on the internet that doesn't particularly care about piston Fs but has an opinion anyhow.

The Gronitz F is a wonderful instrument that would be far more popular IF:
1) They were more common.
2) They were reasonably in tune(they are not).

The original Willson F is/was a great instrument that would be far more popular IF:
1) They were still imported into the USA.
2) Willson cared about marketing in the USA(aka a big name endorsed them)

The Yamaha 6xx and 8xx are perennially looked down upon by the 'real' F tuba players, myself included, BUT are likely played by a larger number of successful pros(was offered and kept a job that paid money) than we would ever like to admit. My theory: they aren't particularly 'special sounding' or in-tune BUT the response is extremely easy and predictable and *most importantly* the sound is hyper even and machine like through every register. To the ears of a non-tuba audition committee a Yamaha player likely just sounds more competent.

The 45SLP would be more popular IF:
1) The low end response was more appealing to those that can't be bothered to learn how to play a German Rotor F.
2) The sound was more like that of a German Rotor F and therefore more appealing to the rotor crowd.
3) Basically, this horn is built to appeal to a market that doesn't quite exist BUT it's probably one of the few F tubas that can legitimately be used for everything and do an acceptable job. They can produce a lot of sound with surprising wattage.

MW2250 and Petrouchka are cut from a similar cloth and I really can't imagine either standing the test of time.

The Besson 983 would be a much better instrument if they ditched the compensating nonsense and pitched it in the key of D so that the main tuning slide was actually useable. That still wouldn't fix the stupidly flat 6th partial though.

I agree.. most piston F players would be happier on a piston Eb. IF that's the question the only Eb I would consider owning is the PT22.

Ironically, based on the for sale forums and the interest from manufacturers in building and stocking them, non-compensating front action piston Eb tubas basically NEVER sell. There's a nice Willson Eb and PT22 that are listed in the For Sale section now for months. Anyone looking for a piston F really should just buy one of them and call it a day. It's noteworthy that Yamaha can't be bothered to make an Eb 6xx or 8xx, and the PT22 has been discontinued due to lack of interest.

[joh_tuba]

As a seller of tubas, I'm very happy with many other tuba players liking-very-much tubas that are not my personal favorites.
Otherwise, I'd be limited to successfully selling only a few tubas.

I like it because it allows me to buy notably better instruments for significantly less money.

[Rick Denney]

Hey Brett. Interesting observation on the piston tubas basically being thought of as American compared to rotaries as German/European. When you stop to think about it, that is somewhat of a flip from the very/very early American makers who pretty much used rotaries from the 1850s up through the 1880s. The very/very early Europeans were using the Berliner valve (a form of piston) on the very early F tubas. (Those tubas were also front valves usually 5 valves) Then for whatever the reason, in the US pistons took over, not just on the tubas, but pretty much from cornets down. Was that Adolphe Sax's influence? (in American we pretty much used the Perinet piston.) All but the horn. Were they easier to make? I dunno. Col. Conn when he bought the old Isaac Fiske factory in Worcester, Mass (@1880) used Fiske's bell mandrels for some time. In 1886 he developed his patented "wonder" valve (piston) that was grafted on to it. OK. I'm digressing. The point I am trying to suggest is that there is a swing back to pistons on the F. Why? Perhaps to 'some' it is the preferred valve and thus a very marketable orientation. It does have some connection to the Chicago/York/Jacobs legacy and to those who enjoy being part of that camp. From what I understand, the BMB tubas intentionally are designed to emulated the York tradition. F tubas, have enjoyed considerable appeal in the USA for the last 3 or 4 decades. Evolution, I believe, can be a good thing. There is also the historical precedent for evolution in brass instruments. So I do not find the swingor evolution to a piston F, as opposed to the rotary F that much of a disconnect, but rather an expected development. So why not an American style F? Funny. I'm not really sure what I just said. But I do appreciate your original point.
Paul (who enjoys historical perspective - not that it really makes one play any better)

Just to follow this digression a bit...

Considering the shapes in a Berlinerpumpen, I rather think the rotary valve is a closer successor than the Perinet piston valve, and Perinet was not working from a Berlinerpumpen, but rather from earlier designs like the Stoelzel valve. The Berlinerpumpen pushes in and out, but the passages are shaped like a rotary valve. The valve has two sets of passages turned 90 degrees from each other, and probably somebody in Cerveny's shop thought, "wouldn't it be easier to turn it rather than pushing and pulling all that mass?"

There really was no American F until probably the 1950's. All the 19th-Century bass tubas that I've ever seen were Eb instruments, and they were replaced in popular usage by contrabass tubas. Rotary tubas (really Saxhorns) of America seemed to be popular only up until the Civil War or soon after, and I suspect they were made for manufacturing convenience. But none of these were F tubas.

I've often wondered how America ended up with contrabass tubas with a bugle more in the German tradition and side-action Perinet valves, and I think these must have been an implementation of popular Perinet valves--already being made by the likes of Distin whose training had been in England--on bugle designs brought over by German immigrants.

The F tuba was popular as the default tuba in the German-speaking world and in the British Empire, with the former using rotary valves and the latter using Perinet pistons. The standard piston F of Britain, a five-valve Barlow F, was not compensated, and it was barely larger than a modern euphonium. According to Bevan, it entered the mainstream of British usage in the late 1800's, and prior to that time, the bass horn was a euphonium or an ophicleide.

I think one of the first American F tubas was a specially made King for Bill Bell, who used it to perform and record the Vaughan Williams Tuba Concerto in 1954. By that time, King had abandoned its rotary valves (which had been a nod to German tradition in any case), so it was made using pistons. Jacobs used a compensating Besson F for the RVW in the late 60's--a similar instrument to the one Catelinet had used for the premiere in England. At that time, F tubas in Germany seemed to fall into two camps--the Alexander style and the B&S style, representing both sides of the Iron Curtain. The B&S design was the more successful in my view, but Lind certainly sounded sublime using his Alex for the RVW, recorded in the 70's. I suspect that the Alex required what Alexes have always required: Daily play to keep all the things that the player has to do to overcome their issues firmly in habit. American tuba players did not play F tubas daily. By the early 70's, B&S F tubas were leaking into the West, and they have come to dominate what an orchestral F should be ever since, both here and in Europe (except England, where Fletcher moved the standard British practice to the compensating Eb as the default instruments). (Those who used F tubas prior to Bell's King used German instruments--Kilton Smith played a Kruspe and when Reiner wanted Jacobs to play an F, it was the Vienna sound he was seeking, and the instrument was a Dehmal. Both of these were like the Alex, unforgiving and demanding of devotion. Smith provided the devotion; Jacobs hid the instrument in a closet.)

I really think the Yamaha 621 took more from the British than anyone else (recalling the front-action Besson or Boosey Cavalry tubas of the turn of the last century--with a very fast tapering bell stack to a large throat and small flare), with a nod to Schilke's influence, given his involvement in the project (as brought in by the Canadian Brass). When it came out in 1990, it was revolutionary--a small F that played big in the lower register, could tolerate a contrabass mouthpiece, played below the staff with the same blowing characteristics as a contrabass, and played with a good scale and even sound even without daily practice on that instrument. It was what the American F tuba should be, an F tuba that could be played occasionally as a specialty instrument without punishing the player unduly. Its limitation was its size; there is a ceiling beyond which it will not go. That was Jim Self's motivation to work with Yamaha to create the larger 822, which at the time seemed gigantic. I can't think of any German piston F's that predate those two (Willson/Kurath may be an exception).

In summary, I don't see a York-based explanation to the desire for F tubas to have piston valves, except ex post facto.

Rick "who still has the 621 but has since learned to play an old-style B&S" Denney