Nice CSO York Photo

[Liberty Mo]

If someone wanted to make an exact copy of the CSO Yorks, and assuming they had access to the horns as apparently Hirsbrunner and others did, why are there differences? Were the copies supposed to be improvements made to the CSO York design?

I would figure that exact measurements could be taken, a metallurgist could figure out the composition with relative ease, and a true EXACT copy could be made, minus the internal buildup of human particles of course. Any object made of metal, no matter how complicated, could presumably be created in its exact form if enough RD is devoted to it.

I am just curious. Did Hirsbrunner set out to make an exact copy or was the CSO York meant to be a starting point and then improved upon. This question would also apply to the Nirschel, Meinl Weston, and Yamaha versions too. Are these exact copies?

If players wanted to own the CSO York, and presumably this fueled the demand for the copies and development of copies, then why didn't someone build the CSO York?

Just Curious?

[cambrook]

How does the "Yorkbrunner" compare to the Nirschl? Which is closer to the York - in sound and 'playability'?

[Liberty Mo]

[quote="bloke"]

I think someone has already come up with something a bit more interesting, and (frankly) at a lower price point...through production curves seem to be quite low (Hamburg...)

What is your impression of the Gronitz compared to the others? Is it an issue of $$, quality, playability, or a combination? I do not know of many people who have had the opportunity to play or hear all of them in a "testing" environment. My only question would be about the air supply needed for these big horns. Does playing a 6/4 horn require one to sacrifice the quality of the airflow, for example does 8 measure phrasing decrease to four measure phrasing? I understand it depends on the musician’s ability, but as someone who has not played one, does the horn size affect the amount of air needed to support the sound?

....more curious as this thread develops....

[Matt G]

If someone wanted to make an exact copy of the CSO Yorks, and assuming they had access to the horns as apparently Hirsbrunner and others did, why are there differences? Were the copies supposed to be improvements made to the CSO York design?

I would figure that exact measurements could be taken, a metallurgist could figure out the composition with relative ease, and a true EXACT copy could be made, minus the internal buildup of human particles of course. Any object made of metal, no matter how complicated, could presumably be created in its exact form if enough RD is devoted to it.

I am just curious. Did Hirsbrunner set out to make an exact copy or was the CSO York meant to be a starting point and then improved upon. This question would also apply to the Nirschel, Meinl Weston, and Yamaha versions too. Are these exact copies?

If players wanted to own the CSO York, and presumably this fueled the demand for the copies and development of copies, then why didn't someone build the CSO York?

Just Curious?

A big part of what you are missing is that there are two York 6/4 CC's. The Hirsbrunner is a copy of one and the Nirschl is a copy of another, I believe #1 and #2 respectively.

The Nirschl is an extremely close approximation of the current York. The metal thickness, design, spacing of all braces, everything you can measure is nearly identical to the York it copies. In addition every Nirschl is handmade whereas Hirsbrunner has employed some modern hydraulic equipment in the process. The Hirsbrunner is also an "improved" copy so there are some differences.

The Meinl-Weston 2165 is a copy of the Holton copy of the York with hints from other builders, namely Conn, thrown in. It was also sepcifically built for one guy, a guy who could move walls with his power. This horn was never meant to be a copy of the York. Just a big 6/4 with extra oomph.

Where Yamaha picks up is that they probably employed higher technology to copying the York. Yamaha has become quite adept at copying numerous things over their lifespan, and the York copy is no exception. While the Nirschl copy is quite good, there is variation amongst the horns produced. The Yamaha will likely have much less variation.

Why are there so few companies looking to produce York copies? Because there are only so many people who are going to pay circa $20K for a tuba.

Gronitz and Willson both offer 6/4 horns as does VMI and B&S. The Gronitz PCK and VMI Neptune are probably the "Value Leaders" of the group and both offer decent sound and scale. The Willson is probably over $10K by now new, but is still cheaper than others. There are a few guys using this horn professionally and they make a good sound. The B7S PT-7P is probably the most rare of the others, mainly because it appears to be very close to the VMI Neptune in build and design, but commands a well over $10K price. None of these horns claims to be a York-a-like, but they offer some of the same group of benifits with a much lower price of admission.

Because of the market demand not being there, you will not see anyone jumping into this segment soon. Those Yamaha copies have got to be 4-6 years old by now, and Yamaha still has no real commitment to enter this segment.

[Liberty Mo]

Matt,

Thanks for the information. I do not want to imply nor set the thread down the age old "why don’t manufacturers develop 6/4 horns/cost of development" lines or dead horse "when is Yamaha going to put the York copy in production" line.

I am aware that there are two Yorks, but was not aware that the current copies used both. Do some of the copies use both incorporated into one design or are the a copy of one or the other?

I was just curious as to how exact the current copies are of the original, and are they meant to be exact or improvements?

In the end it doesn't matter, but the picture comparison of the York Gene Pokorny was holding with the Yorkbrunner has me wondering....

[Ed Jones]

I wouldn't bet the farm that the Gronitz PCK is a "value leader" in large tubas. Current price (according to the Gronitz website) is 8608 euros. Add 436 euros for laquer and that brings it close to $12,000.

[Matt G]

I wouldn't bet the farm that the Gronitz PCK is a "value leader" in large tubas. Current price (according to the Gronitz website) is 8608 euros. Add 436 euros for laquer and that brings it close to $12,000.

Holy Mackerel!

Last time I had checked out a price on one of those things it was around $8500. That exchange rate is a killer right now. Man, I should have invested in some euros a few year back. 50% rate of return over three or so years ain't too shabby! Thanks for the correction. The Gronitz is still under the amount of the main copies and priced comparably to the Willson, so still in the segment. The VMI Neptune is the only "Value Leader" in the segment now!

[Matt G]

I am aware that there are two Yorks, but was not aware that the current copies used both. Do some of the copies use both incorporated into one design or are the a copy of one or the other?

Hirsbrunner is the copy of York #1 and the Nirschl is a copy of #2.

From looking at pictures only of the Yamaha, I would say it is a copy of #2, but that is hard to say.

#1 and #2 have a 3" difference in length IIRC. If you stand a Yorkbrunner next to a Nirschl York, they look a good bit different.

The Nirschl is meant to be an exact copy. Yamaha usually tries to improve the design. I believe the Hirsbrunner was meant to be an exact copy, but there may have been some shortcuts taken due to manufacturing constraints.

FWIW, I don't think anyone has tried to fuse #1 and #2 together to create a "hybrid". I think that mainly stems from the opinion that one plays much better than the other. Think about the fact that Arnold Jacobs didn't mind sending one off for an extended period of time to get it copied should be a hint. I think the Holton copies were based off the same York as well, for possibly the same reasons.

[Rick Denney]

If players wanted to own the CSO York, and presumably this fueled the demand for the copies and development of copies, then why didn't someone build the CSO York?

Apparently Nirschl did, as others have said. And Yamaha. Holton is probably closer than many think, at least in terms of manufacturing methods, because it's likely that Holton and York used the same tooling for many of the big branches during parts of their histories, at least.

But I want to make a point about the various big tubas patterned generally around the York instrument. The York instrument is not perfect, but it provides an effective balance of manageable issues and sound that fits a certain concept that many want. It is also extremely efficient by all reports, magnifying what the player provides.

One noted symphony player suggested that the York concept is one of taking what a player has and making the most of it, while the 2165 concept was one of taking everything Warren Deck could give it. These seem to be quite different objectives: The first, the classic "old man's tuba", and the second, the "powerhouse player's tuba".

I'm not exactly sure what it is about certain of the big tubas that makes them efficient in the Yorkish way compared to other big tubas that are not. Most of us don't even know what that is, except by description. It would seem that most any measureable dimension is very similar between all of them. Is it the details that make the difference? Perhaps.

But I do know the difference exists. My Holton, though it is a BBb, is modeled on the York. It lacks the quality of craftsmanship of either the York or any of its other copies, and it's lived a hard life, but it still has the flexible sound and extreme efficiency that fits the descriptions of the York concept. Believe me, if I can make a sound on it, it's efficient. I cannot make a good sound on a 2165, at least not on the occasions I've tried.

It doesn't require that one take 8-bar phrases and turn them into 4-bar phrases. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's still a big-bore tuba and it takes more air than something like a King 2341, but it gives a bigger result, too. It's quite efficient when you back off.

Another noted player suggested to me that some BAT's sing with any amount of air, and others suck you dry just to make a sound. Many of the Holtons I've played (and both of the 2165's) have been more to the latter than the former. But there are some that possess the magic. What is that magic? I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure, but when they experience it, they have an instrument unlikely to be on the market again any time soon.

The point is, many different players have found that effect on many different instruments. Mike Sanders found it on one of those early hand-made Yorkbrunners. Floyd Cooley found it with the Nirschl. Norm Pearson has found it with the Yamayork. Alan Baer found it with the Gronitz. Gene Pokorny exhibits it with the original York. These same players might not find it on the instruments used by others on the list.

So, part of what is elusive about the York concept is in the players themselves, and part of it is in the instruments.

I think people go into playing a big tuba because they have a reputation for being efficient, i.e. "old man's tuba", but they still have to fit their sound concept into what the tuba will produce. The best of the big tubas are flexible in that regard, peprhaps. But I still remember Mike telling me at one of my lessons (just a year or two after he got the Yorkbrunner) that it had taken him nearly a year to really undertand the Hirsbrunner. He said he could make his Alex do almost anything, but he had to make it happen. In contrast, he told me his strategy with the Yorkbrunner was to relax and let the horn to the work. That had required some time. I do know that the difference from out front was not subtle. With the Yorkbrunner, Mike had a presence and a sweetness in his sound that contrasted dramatically with the commanding, almost brooding sound he had with the Alexander. This difference was apparent to me from the first time he played it with the symphony. It's the main reason I wanted lessons from him.

Thus, I think the reason many of the replicas differ from the York is that people are comparing the definite example of the replica to their idea of the York. The fact that some seem to have that efficiency and others don't seems to me less a matter of design than sample variation. There are Holtons that have it, as well as Yorkbrunners, Nirschls, Yamahas, and Gronitzes. And there are perhaps examples of some or all of those that don't.

Rick "long a student of big tubas, but never a master" Denney

[Getzeng50s]

ill boost my post count and say i liked rick's post too

[Tubaryan12]

bloke "who won't comment on this further in a p.m., either, so forget it"

I think I speak for a good number of TubeNetizens when I say " that is just cruel to leave us hanging like that"

[Dylan King]

I find the Yorkbrunner quite comfortable to play. It also works great for stopping bullets shot from the crowd into the orchestra. With a 6/4 tuba, you are probably the most bulletproof person in the band.