Are BBb tubas just better ?

[arpthark]

Has the Conn 52J line been discontinued?

[bort]

I wonder if this could be narrowed down to rotary tubas. The idea of rotary (European) and CC (American) being forced together is a bit unnatural. Kind of like a piston F tuba, it's a weird mix of both styles.

So piston C tubas like Gronitz PCK, Kanstul 5490, Conn 54J, Kallison DS etc. would have better odds? I don't know if it makes sense to see pitch (C vs Bb) as a "style", but it does seem like valves come with other design choices - particularly, piston valves seem to be installed closer to the small end of the bugle, which might make them less particular about how long the rest of the bugle is.

My point is, if the question was "are rotary BBb tubas better than rotary CC tubas," then I would very much understand the R&D argument. I think the only reason rotary CC tubas exist is for export markets (from the German companies). Same with piston F tubas, I doubt you see many of those in Germany. Both types of tubas seem like they started as reverse-engineered afterthoughts (like the old Alex CC's mentioned above, or the previous "slap the big valve set on it and call it done" B&S F tubas). Things have come a long way with both types of instruments, but I think it would be an interesting question to discuss.

[Donn]

My point is, if the question was "are rotary BBb tubas better than rotary CC tubas," then I would very much understand the R&D argument. I think the only reason rotary CC tubas exist is for export markets (from the German companies).

So we're talking about the universe in which all rotary valve tubas come from Germany (and Czechoslovakia?) In this universe, C piston tubas come from Germany and the US, with the Germans far outnumbering Kanstul. In the German cases, the same situation obtains, the market for these tubas is just as external as for the rotary tubas, so the same issues with indifferent development with the same consequences?

[Michael Bush]

when the US market demanded CC tubas (for some odd reason) ... European maker simply 'cut' their horns.

I've got a (possibly mistaken) factoid in my head that the first contrabass tuba made was a European rotary CC. No?

[tubeast]

CC-tubas are simply BBb-horns lacking an appropriate length of tubing ?
With generations upon generations of CC-tubas, supposedly the result of extensive R&D combined with T&E processes in collaboration with all kinds of U.S. Tuba giants, I truly doubt that.

There have been quite a lot of CC tubas out there that don´t seem to be spin-offs to BBb models of the same manufacturer:
Neptune, PT6, PT20, MW 2045, 2165, BAER, YamaYork,...
I´m having a hard time finding BBb-models that parallel these famous CC-tubas OF THEIR ERA, created by the same manufacturers at the time or before these CC-horns had been conceived.

So maybe this is what it boils down to:
BBb SIMPLY IS better than CC.
If it weren´t, why suspect laziness (or cost-optimisation) on the side of manufacturers to explain whatever it is that bothers you ?

[bort]

' kinda funny how "most Bb sousaphones" actually sound better than "most Bb tubas" encountered in schools.

bloke "...but I can't possibly embarrass/disgrace myself by showing up at the spring concert band contest with sousaphones. Sousaphones, after all, were only good enough for Sousa and HIS band."

Pssh, whatever... Joe, that was *band*. We're talking *wind ensemble* here...

[Three Valves]

It's B-flat or No-flat!!

[Dan Schultz]

How many models of C tubas are currently made in the USA ?

Don't know about that. But... from the advertising I see, most ALL of them are 'German Engineered'!

[PaulMaybery]

when the US market demanded CC tubas (for some odd reason) ... European maker simply 'cut' their horns.

I've got a (possibly mistaken) factoid in my head that the first contrabass tuba made was a European rotary CC. No?

On a vacation to Luzern, Switzerland many years ago, the itinerary included a visit to Wagner's home "Tribschen" On display were many historical instruments as well as paperwork - correspondence. Seems it was 1849 when Wagner corresponded with V.F. Cerveny with regard to building a contrabass tuba in CC. The instrumented was to be used to support the 4 Wagner tubas in his forthcoming 'Ring Cycle" which back then was basically still in Wagner's imagination, but yet he was laying the ground work. Wagner was also planning for a BBb contrabass trombone to support the trombone section.
When we consider that the first tuba by Moritz was in F it makes sense that the larger tuba be in CC. There were military band reasons for the Eb and Bb instruments which is yet another story for another day.

When we are talking about the tuba in the orchestra, at least a couple generations back, and in some American orchestras, (not all) the CC was favored, again for several reasons. But one reason, related to me by my old teacher Abe T.) was that a CC generally needed to be custom made and in some musicians eyes/ears this translated to a 'better' instrument than the mass produced BBb tubas. The tuba that pros used in the concert band tradition of the time, in the more or less style of Sousa and company, were large BBb instruments with a more "woofy" and broad sound. These days the sound of the BAT has become customary in orchestras (thanks to AJ)
But as far as BBbs go in my mind, I never found one that I was in love with. But then I've played CC for 40 some years. Most BBbs that I've played have serious intonation issues that are for me too inconvenient for orchestral playing. The sharp 3rd & 6th partial and the flat 5th. Also the 2/3 combinations are either very flat or sharp depending on whether its Gb or Db. With the more ambient sound of the BBb, these idiosyncracies tend to 'blend' into the sound scape of the band and line up pretty much with the same pitch idiosycracies as the other Bb instruments.
But yes, in general and at a basic level, the BBb is easier to make work for most people in a band setting and BBbs seem to dominate the tuba population. But there are good reasons why the top pro players prefer the CC. I always felt that there were timbre issues that put me at an advantage over BBb players, and when you are the only tuba in an orchestra that means at lot. You need to have an exceptional sound and a CC can help set you apart. Maybe that's just ego.

[arpthark]

Paul makes some well-said points, but I have met quite a few CC tubas with sharp 3rd and flat fifth partials along with the 23 combination discrepancy. Virtually every PT tuba I have tried suffers the sharp third partial and Ab/Eb problem, including my beloved long-gone PT-6 rotor and PT-20 piston. My own CC instruments have a slight (~5c) discrepancy between Eb and Ab - the best are the Miraclone and the Alex. I am not saying Paul is incorrect, as he is much much more experienced and wiser than I, but suggesting it is perhaps a "tuba problem" and not just a "BBb tuba problem." Flat fifth partials seem to affect many, many brass instruments.

[roweenie]

Ah, the perennial CC/BBb debate rears its (ugly) head, yet again......

I've played CC tubas that are great, and BBb tubas that suck.

I've played BBb tubas that are great, and CC tubas that suck.

The York "tall-bell" BBb models (712 and 716) I've played (and I've played a lot of them, and own more than a few of them) feature the best intonation I've ever experienced, BBb or CC, especially in regard to the ubitquitous "flat 3rd partial F".

As far as intonation, in general, is concerned, no horn is perfectly in tune with itself, and no horn, however expensive or perfect, plays itself. The old-timers understood this, and dealt with it accordingly.

"There are no loaves and fishes." - Theodore Roosevelt

[Rick Denney]

Random comments...

I'm not so sure I agree that Bb tubas actually do benefit from all the additional R&D, or that they actually do receive more R&D. I don't get the sense that instrument manufacturers worried that much about perfect intonation with instruments they sold to schools or school-age children, or offending school buyers. I have played many student instruments that should never have been perpetrated on innocent children.

Granted, they may benefit from the lessons learned making crappy Bb tubas that have since lapsed into well-earned obscurity. Or, maybe it's natural selection--when they luck into a good instrument, it's popular and they keep making it, while their dogs are not allowed to have offspring. And I do think school instruments are cost-engineered--where can we dispense with a brace, how to arrange these tubes so that our machines will make the parts easily and quickly, how can we share parts and materials with other instruments in the line, etc.

When York made the famous Chicago Symphony instrument on special order, they were surely modifying existing Bb parts in doing so. And they were modifying the parts used to make instruments preferred by professional band players to make that woofy sound they are accused of making. Did they just get lucky? Perhaps. Is the scale on that instrument really wonky compared to the Bb Monster Bass whose parts it used? Not so sure--I've played a few Bb Monster Bass tubas that seemed rather wonky to me. Was it the time Pop Johnson made sure was devoted to that bespoke instrument for the Philadelphia Orchestra that made the difference? I'd put my money on that one.

There have been a lot of F tubas made by US manufacturers over the decades, all of which seemed to be shortened versions of Eb tubas they were already making (or had made). The examples that I've played can be evil, and I wonder if they didn't get the sort of time that Johnson put into the Chicago York. But there are many rotary F tubas with intonation that is as good as it gets with any tuba, and it's probably because they are the instruments with 160 years of trial and error behind them. I actually think we've messed that up in recent years trying to make F tubas more like C tubas.

Lots of big C tubas have a flat third partial, but then so did lots of Bb tubas of that size (the Conn 2xJ was famous for it). So, is it better to have a flat F or a flat G? Not sure it matters, to be honest.

In terms of ancient history, Wieprecht and Sax were both trying to peddle systems of instruments to the military bands of the day. If they received the contract to outfit, say, the Prussian Guard, they needed enough diversity of instruments to cover all the parts. Wieprecht's instruments tended to C and F, near as I can tell, while Sax's tended to Eb and Bb. Given that Wieprecht's first bass instrument was in F, and that he was successful selling to the Prussian Guard, one does not need to wonder too much why the rotary F became the default orchestral instrument in Germany. (Rotary valves are quite similar in conception to the Berlinerpumpen used in the first Wieprecht/Moritz instrument, despite superficial appearances.) The bigger curiosity is why France ended up with the small French tuba, which was pitched in C but otherwise similar to Bb baritones that became euphoniums, and why England, with the strong French influence on its instrument choices, ended up with a Barlow tuba in F rather than in Eb. British tuba players used the F-vs.-Eb debate to be snobby with one another for decades. Bevan quotes a conversation in his first edition, written in the 70's: "I will put my symphonic F tuba in the back seat while you can put your band Eb bombardon in the boot" (or something like that). Fletcher put an end to that, about the same time that French tuba players abandoned the small French Tuba in C. But most instruments sold as part of the Sax legacy were in Eb or Bb.

In the New World, we ended up with a mix. English immigrants preferred the Perinet valves and top-action instruments, while German immigrants preferred rotary valves and front-action instruments. This resulted in hybrids: Front-action tubas with pistons and top-action tubas with rotary valves (as seen among the saxhorns of the Civil War era).

When I play a C tuba, I get intonation all over the map. When I play a Bb tuba, it's pretty much in control (at least by the standards I'm capable of attaining). I'd be willing to bet that if I had played C tubas for the last 45 years, the reverse would be true. But, given enough time, I might transition from one experience to the other.

Also, I have owned Bb tubas which have attracted comments such as "that sounds like a C tuba" and "is that a C tuba?" from qualified observers (i.e., professionals). But I'll bet that putting my Holton Revelation 52, the toilet bowl that came with my Holton BB-345, into just about any grand orchestral C tuba would make it very woofy indeed.

Rick "...in no particular order" Denney

[roweenie]

As far as intonation, in general, is concerned, no horn is perfectly in tune with itself, and no horn, however expensive or perfect, plays itself. The old-timers understood this, and dealt with it accordingly.

Call me an old new-timer.
Call me someone who dismisses most of the US-made 1920's oversize Eb tubas, because of the generally bizarre and challenging intonation characteristics.
Call me someone who has played enough tubas to know that some of them are quite easy to coax over to the center line (on most any pitch) while some others (and "price range" doesn't seem to have much to do with it) might be labelled as nearly hopeless.

Though there are still (some: expensive) tubas that I would clearly label as "something for someone other than me" made today, there seem to be more easily-usable tubas make today than were made forty years ago.

I agree with everything you say, but with a caveat.

Horns that sucked 100 years ago still suck, and horns built yesterday that suck will still suck 100 years from now (if they still exist, that is). In point of fact, I would argue that the "sucky" survivors we are left with are not necessarily a good indicator of what our predecessors had to deal with, as the better ones have been, more than likely, worn out and scrapped over time from year after year of hard and extensive usage.

Yes, we have advanced somewhat when it comes to R&D; however, there are older horns that are the equal of anything considered "top-shelf" being built today, so have we really learned anything substantially new? I just don't know for sure; maybe some of the "heirloom" manufacturers just got lucky......

Also, it seems as though (although this is certainly not a hard-and-fast rule) many of the horns built today with superior intonation achieve this at the cost of "color" of sound. I'm not a scientist, but I have to wonder if part of an older horn's sound may be a product of its less-than-perfect intonation traits. For me, a trade-off of superior sound for near-perfect intonation is one I'm willing to subscribe to.

All this said, even the best horns being built today need to be "coaxed" on some notes - it's just a simple fact of physics.

[Jess Haney]

Crappy ol' school horns are in BBb.

Al Baer, people on YouTube and Dr. Tuba Professor at State University College use a CC.

Therefore...

I would definitely say this is an inaccurate statement as I own a great BBb. The BBb vs CC is all about preference but to say college wants CC only is no longer a viable statement. Brass bands are popping up all over the U.S. and many players are switching over to BBb and selling their CCs. (at least in my neck of the woods) But to state one is superior is inconsequential since both have their quirks.

[Michael Bush]

Crappy ol' school horns are in BBb.

Al Baer, people on YouTube and Dr. Tuba Professor at State University College use a CC.

Therefore...

I would definitely say this is an inaccurate statement as I own a great BBb. The BBb vs CC is all about preference but to say college wants CC only is no longer a viable statement. Brass bands are popping up all over the U.S. and many players are switching over to BBb and selling their CCs. (at least in my neck of the woods) But to state one is superior is inconsequential since both have their quirks.

I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying...

[arpthark]

Yes, sarcasm, oops. I've played many fantastic tubas, in BBb and CC. I was poking fun at the mindset that many students (and teachers) have about absolutes.

[Art Hovey]

In a conversation with Warren Deck many years ago he mentioned to me that he had never played BBb, but would like to get one . . . -if only he could find a "good one".

Don Butterfield stated that the work Warren did on Fred Geib's Conn CC made a "vast improvement". But then a few years later people were saying it was nearly unplayable.

[MaryAnn]

Well, I have found that some people tend to be more flexible and can switch instruments almost at random. Other people tend to really groove into a particular instrument and have trouble dealing with even a small change. Could be the two gentlemen who hated each others' instruments were of the non-flexible type. I think the level one plays at might dictate grooving into a particular instrument in order to achieve that level.

[Three Valves]

This reminds me of the time I switched basses with John Entwistle.

His action was too high, tone was way off, I have no idea how he made anything but noise out of it!!

[Michael Bush]

There have been some good deals on nice BBb tubas lately. Someone got an open-box Fafner from Music123 recently for $3256. I nearly pulled that trigger myself, but decided to sleep on it. Got up the next morning and it was gone. Just as well, because going back to BBb at this point would be a headache, and I love my CC. But if you want a BBb there have been some great opportunities recently.