Another York Question

[iiipopes]

Lee has more eloquently stated what I posted earlier about getting EVERYTHING copied exactly.

[Tom]

Many instruments, both modern and antique, were made of good parts, but were not consistently soldered-together well in the ferrules that form the joints between the branches of tubing.

This makes me wonder if this is a large factor in hand-made instruments being usually considered better. Maybe much greater care is taken with their assembly, so they are more consistently good? This would explain why some people find the MW 2000 a lot better than the 2155 while others find the latter just as good - it depends if they are comparing to a well, or poorly assembled 2155

I've been following this thread with interest, but am not well versed enough with 6/4 CC tubas, York tubas, or metallurgy to contribute much to that side of the discussion, however issues of Meinl Weston 2155s vs. 2000s is something I'm fairly up to speed on, being a MW2000 player.

I've written several times in the past about my observations and experiences with the MW2155 and 2000, each time basically pointing out that there are a lot of differences between the two models.

I first would like to point out that tubas have to be assembled by hand, in other words, the assembly of the 2155 and 2000 is the same (within reason, of course). "Handmade" only applies to the way the parts are made, in that instead of hydraulic formation of bows, mechanical means of making bells, and drawing tubes, it is all done by hand or as close to it as possible. The result of the hand working is that the parts of the 2000 do not have a uniform thickness (hydraulic formed bows, etc. are "supposed to" in theory) and that the brass is "thinner." I don't know for sure if the 2000 uses thinner brass from the start or if the hand working makes it so, but it is notably lighter and thinner than the 2155.

I've gone on the record more than once as saying that I wish Meinl Weston would not claim the 2000 to be based upon the 2155 since it just makes everyone think they rebent the leadpipe, flipped the 5th valve 90 degrees, had some fancy evgraving done, and decided to rebadge it as the model 2000 and sell it for $5000 more. This is not the case.

The 2000 is far more different than 2155 than most people realize. The 2000 is a copy of Warren Deck's last 2155 that he had been tearing apart and reworking for quite some time. It has been my observation (visual and playing side-by-side) that the taper of the 2000 is very different than the taper on the 2155. Yes, they share the same specs on height, bell diameter, valve bore, etc., but it's what happens in between that makes the 2000 special.

The differences in the 2000 start at the leadpipe. It's smaller, takes a different path (ie, more of a "sweeping curve"), and has a different venturi. The receiver is larger than I've encountered on stock 2145, 55, or 65 tubas as well, for what that's worth. Having done some playing on some Meinl Westons of the same model with different leadpipes, I've come to the conclusion that leadpipes have a lot to do with the way a tuba plays, so much in fact that I feel the leadpipe can make or break an otherwise nice tuba. My experience is that they are often too large.

The valve block on the 2000 is very similar to the 2155, but is a little different because of the way the leadpipe comes in to it and the way the 5th valve follows it, although there are more similarities than differences here.

The flipped 5th valve allows for a wider 5th slide on the back of the tuba.

The tuning slide is different too, it sits higher up in the body and is (at least on the ones I have seen and played) a little wider on the 2000.

The physical weight (gauge of the brass?) of the 2000 is far less than that of the 2155, and the bracing on the 2000 is different than the 2155, too. My F tuba weights about as much as my 2000 does. This does make a difference in the way the horn plays. The 2000 is just more "lively" and is designed to ring, whereas the 2155 comes off as a bit "dead" sounding to my ears.

The intonation on the 2000 (when I play it) is far better on the 2000 than any of the 2155s I've played. I believe the valve slide lengths may have been adjusted slightly on the 2000, but I think it really comes down to all of the "little things" coming together to make a tuba with a great sound and great intonation that just about plays itself.

I have found that some 2000s are better than others, and found the same when playing 2155s, although I would call both set of 2000s and the several 2155s I tried to be reasonably consistent from one horn to the next.

So, for me the 2000 ended up not only way more $, but way better.

The 2155 is not a bad tuba though. I was simply fortunate enough at the time to have the means to give the 2000 a serious look, and am pleased that I did.

[sloan]

When in college I had the pleasure of trying out several of Matt Walter's custom horns. One studio mate had a York based horn. One studio mate had a Conn based horn. One studio mate had a Buscher based horn.

Are you sure that was three DIFFERENT section mates? Or, was it the same section mate on 3 consecutive rehearsals?

[Paul Scott]

Bloke,
The Martin isn't (and wasn't) silver plated, but that's an intriguing thought re low brass possibly allowing a better "bond" with silver plate. The very tiny piece of metal that was used in the analysis came from a tuning slide.
I suppose it could be argued that they may have used "low brass" only for parts of the horn that needed to resist rotting the most, (tuning slides would qualify, I would think). But I tend to think that they used the same brass throughout.

[TubaTodd]

Are you sure that was three DIFFERENT section mates? Or, was it the same section mate on 3 consecutive rehearsals?

In the words of David Unland: "I resemble that remark!!!!" All kidding aside, it really WAS 3 different section mates. I did have 3 different CC tubas in college, but none of them were Dillon horns......ahem....and none of them is the horn I own now.

Judging by your previous post I think I may know the section mate you may be aluding to. I do recall "them" playing a different horn in a few consecutive rehearsals. One of those horns was a 2165. That means in a section of 5 tuba players.....TWO of us were playing 2165s.

Back on topic, I believe there may have been ANOTHER Dillon/Buescher purchased in my studio after I graduated. If I recall correctly there was 1 Dillon Eb (I forget the brand of bugle and bows), a Dillon/York 4/4 CC (I played on this one. It was NICE!), a Dillon/Conn CC (Played it once. Very nice horn. EXTREMELY similar to a 56J), Dillon/Buescher CC (didn't get to play it) and finally another Dillon/Buescher. Wow, five custom horns in one studio.

[Rick Denney]

I may also suggest the compositon of the bell rim wire as a contributor to the 'York' sound. This comes to mind because of a conversation I had with Lee Stofer a while back dealing with construction techniques over the years, particularly in reference to 20's vintage horns.

I don't think this is it. Bob Rusk routinely trims 22" bells on the old Monster BBb basses to the 20" bell common to grand orchestral tubas when he makes his conversion. He rolls the rim the way modern rims are rolled, near as I can tell. Maybe he uses the same wire that York used.

And I wonder how subtle variations in the alloy could have much effect. They are mechanically identical to modern brass--the same stiffness, the same strength, and so on.

Rick "who thinks it's the shape and the construction" Denney

[iiipopes]

Again, one more item that if you are going to copy it, copy it exactly, as it is the synthesis of the sum total of all of these little details, like straws in a bale. A single straw weighs next to nothing, but bundle enough of them together and the bale weighs quite a bit.

[Paul Scott]

According to the winners circle scale at the old Longacres racetrack, she weighs in at 35 pounds. A friend in LA has a 1963 4 valve Martin like mine that comes in at about 37 pounds. I don't really recall a difference in the playing characteristics despite the age difference.

I've noticed this phenomenon too. A student of mine has a big 4-valve Martin like mine, (mine is from 1940, his is from 1956 or so). The '56 is noticeably heavier than the '40-something my student and I joke about all the time-that '56 is HEA-VY. The two don't play that differently, IMO. I've heard others say the same thing about earlier Yorks (lighter) vs. later models (heavier).

[Chuck(G)]

I've noticed this phenomenon too. A student of mine has a big 4-valve Martin like mine, (mine is from 1940, his is from 1956 or so). The '56 is noticeably heavier than the '40-something my student and I joke about all the time-that '56 is HEA-VY. The two don't play that differently, IMO. I've heard others say the same thing about earlier Yorks (lighter) vs. later models (heavier).

Yes, but around 1950, Martin went through a major change in the way bells were fabricated. Old Martin bells are 3-piece, not 2--and the metal is nearly uniformly thick throughout the entire bell flare.

[MartyNeilan]

All the York copies:

You missed the copy by Monke (apparently only 2 were made)



RC

Since some of those horns listed above are either copies-of-copies, or very loose interpretations, would the Kalison K2001 also be considered in this family? The valve wrap and bracing is a little different, but the overall body is about the same:

[MartyNeilan]

It does look like the York-horns, except for the bell which appears to be quite different.

It does?? (maybe a hair smaller)

[Chuck(G)]

I have to disagree with Lee about the assembly of tubas. I have disassembled at least a dozen of them and have seen nothing that indicates that any special assembly techniques have been used. In fact, in many cases I have been disturbed to see how poorly they have been assembled in many cases.

From the photos I've seen of the York workshops, even the most backwater Chinese tuba factory of today would probably cleaner and better organized.

[Paul Scott]

Sorry, I'm not too good at working the "quote" feature here. But regarding Chuck Gs post about Martin bells, the weight differential is in the main body of the horns, (both are detachable bell models). I assume you're talking about the recording bells going from two pieces to three pieces. The '56 horn is a LOT heavier, not just "oh, it does seem a bit heavier" but "holy crap, that's heavy"! The only visible difference in design is a different 4th valve wrap on the '56, involving an extra tuning slide, I believe. Not enough extra metal to create that kind of weight, though. I'll leave it to the experts to figure out why, I just know that there's a BIG difference in weight between these two horns, even minus the bells.

[Chuck(G)]

Sorry, I'm not too good at working the "quote" feature here. But regarding Chuck Gs post about Martin bells, the weight differential is in the main body of the horns, (both are detachable bell models). I assume you're talking about the recording bells going from two pieces to three pieces. .

No--I'm talking about the upright bells--and not the great big ones, but the 20-inchers. Very unusual construction. From one I've heard, Martin underwent some substantial manufacturing changes around 1950.

The mandrels, of course, absquatulated with the disgruntled employees when the shop suddenly closed. I hear tell that you can still find one holding up a birdbath in a backyard in Elkhart...

[MartyNeilan]

Is the 2001 a 6/4? Obviously I've never seen one.

The bell/bottom bow connection diameter is at least a full inch smaller. The bell tapers very quickly. It is a very big horn but it tapers like a giant version of the Yamaha 621 series: medium-large-ish bows and a fast tapering bell.

Without filling it with bee...water to measure the total displacement, based on Wade's assessment it sounds like 5/4 would be a better characterization.

[Paul Scott]

Chuck,
I took a look at my detachable upright belland I see what you mean about 3 pieces. I see a two-piece clamshell "stack" reaching nearly 6" up, which is then attached to the remaining bell flare, (which was spun from a single sheet, I assume?). Does this mean that I have a pre-1950 bell? Sorry to derail the original thread a bit here but I'm always curious about these details.

[Chuck(G)]

Chuck,
I took a look at my detachable upright belland I see what you mean about 3 pieces. I see a two-piece clamshell "stack" reaching nearly 6" up, which is then attached to the remaining bell flare, (which was spun from a single sheet, I assume?). Does this mean that I have a pre-1950 bell? Sorry to derail the original thread a bit here but I'm always curious about these details.

I have only what I've been told by people who should know. The 3-piece bells were formed one one piece as the tail (as you might expect) , but the flare was formed of two hand-hammered/shaped pieces over a mandrel and then were joined to each other and the tail almost completely shaped to finished dimensions. Spinning was supposedly minimal.

At least this is what I've been told by knowledgeable sources. Could be part urban legend, but these folks had no reason to tell me a tall tale.

[Chuck(G)]

Has anyone tried to run down the old order books from, say, Chase Brass, and see if York or Holton ordered from them and exactly what alloys were ordered?

[Chuck(G)]

Now that would be a worthy project for a truly dedicated York-aholic. I am not that into tubas to do the work, but would read every last word if it showed up here or was published. So would a lot of folks here, I would bet.

I believe the archives of American Copper and Brass before 1978 are at UConn, if anyone cares. American bought the sheet operation of Chase back around 1998 or so. According to the library, there's a 160 feet of them.

[WakinAZ]

Not to take this topic off-topic (gasp) and spare "harold"/shawn another reprimand, where do you guys get those great smilies?

Eric "smiling" L.