This is a long post. It is about playing characteristics and other nonsense. There is no "build thread" content. Sorry for that. Please save yourself some time and skip this if you are not interested to know what I am currently thinking about and planning for this tuba.
WR
_________________
Okay, so I have now spent enough time playing the two 186s side-by-side to pass on a little bit of the old judgment, here.
The cut horn is *exactly* as I had anticipated. It has a smaller and less loud sound than the CC, which seems to prove my theory on why the top bow and inner branches on the factory horn are visibly fatter: By shortening the BBb by two feet, not only is the pitch raised by two semitones but the loss of overall fluid volume makes the horn much smaller in tone. It is less broad, less projecting, etc. It is like a large 185 now, with perhaps slightly less weight, as a 185 can pack some heat.
I believe that fattening these parts to increase the fluid volume of the bugle without lengthening it does a very good job of imitating the tone of the BBb 186. Once these adjustments have been made the CC regains lost some of the lost weight and breadth of tone. Everyone who has played both a BBb and a CC 186 knows that the BBb horn has more guts and that the CC feels "lighter", and that is true. However, if these bows had not been blown out a little bit the two horns would not be nearly so similar, probably needing to have two different model numbers.
Intonation is surprisingly good on this tuba, but it is noticeably different from the factory CC. The tendencies vary between the two, with the factory horn being much more of what one would expect, and the cut horn being unusual, but not bad at all. (I have used it on several gigs, now.) I suspect that if the bows were a bit fatter like the factory CC branches that the intonation would line up to be very close to the factory CC. By that, I mean to say that I do not suspect any of the pitch differences to be due to my assembly work, but an effect of the differences in fluid volume of each part.
My next experiment with this tuba will be to dump the large 188 leadpipe and trial the other two that I have on hand, one being a modern 186 leadpipe and the other a N/OS leadpipe made in 1978. They were smaller in that era, and this one has a slightly smaller receiver size and an Alexander-style leadpipe-as-receiver/receiver-as-sleeve setup. Both should be interesting. If the 1979 leadpipe proves to be the winner then this tuba could become my new quintet instrument. It is that good.
The next stage (probably over a year from now, unfortunately) will be to give modern CC inner branches a try. (I do not intend to use the larger CC top bow.) I do not see issues with my goofy 5th slide setup, and my cobbled-together 4th circuit works really well, so those will not change. I am, however, concerned that my cobbled-together 5th pretzel is causing some issues, and a proper CC one will be way too large for my cut BBb 4th branch, as a proper CC 4th branch will be too large for my cut 3rd branch. I think I can make a CC 3rd branch fit my smaller, cut BBb top bow, however, as it would be large enough for my tools to make the tapers and end sizes match.
The intonation shakes out like this…
C in the staff is sharp. I do not know whether the same Bb was sharp on this horn before it was cut. I actually never played this horn before it was repaired and then cut. I wanted to assemble it as a BBb *first* to see what I had, but I ended up cutting the branches rather early in the process. Oh, well…
The C#/Db in the staff is very sharp, played 12, but 3 lines up nicely if I do not want to pull out 1st.
Bottom line G is actually very close to in tune.
4th line F is in tune, and the D below it plays in tune without a slide push. Open E is fine, too. Eb needs to be played 23 in most keys, though. Top space G and Gb are fine. The top line A and Ab are sharp, but only a bit; 3rd is flat, so 12 with a short pull is fine for A, and Ab lips easily. B natural on top of the staff is still flat, though, as on my factory CC.
The Eb/Ab 23 situation is not as goofy as on most tubas. I do not really *need* to move 3rd to get them all. If bottom space Ab is a tad flat everything else in that series is pretty good to go.
2nd valve B below the staff is flat while the one on the second line is a bit high like the other notes in this partial.
Below the staff E and A need to be played 3rd, low G is 4th and the Gb is fine without a slide pull. However, the Gb 24 is a little flat if the Db 24 above it is in tune.
In general, it feels like I have a small leak in one of the joints of my 2nd valve, which could be causing the strange high and low notes using that valve. Plus, I think I can *hear* a small leak when I play bottom space A as 12. It has to be in the valve area itself, as when played 3rd everything seems to be normal. However, just playing 2nd valve does not make this sound. I will soap-test this tuba sometime this coming week.
Alignment of the body is not where I want it, and the garland I put on is laughably ugly inside the bell. Once I'm done testing on it I will see if I can fix everything.
I may offer this tuba for sale after playing on it for a season in the orchestra. I love it and am quite proud of what I have done to it, but it is not dissimilar enough from the factory CC to merit keeping it, and it is not similar enough, either. It is a tough one for me as I assign a great deal of personal value to both tubas. I actually *like* this tuba more, but the factory horn is just great in large ensembles, and my job requires that. If I can get them more similar in intonation and the smaller leadpipe works well then it could become my quintet tuba, but it is harder for me to master two nearly identical tubas than to master two very different ones. I get confused when they are really close. Wildly different horns (like a CC and an F) are quite easy for me to keep straight in my head as I read music. But I had a three-year period of time where I had four CC tubas that I used at work, and it was a nightmare. I ended up selling off most of them in the end.
So that is where I am on this tuba. I will have more to add to both of these build threads before long. I have not worked on either horn in some time because I have wanted to PLAY them both to see what I have.
Finally, after all that rot about the two different styles of 5th levers, I have to admit that — as currently installed — I like the new one better. This is after many hours in the woodshed with both horns. I think I still prefer the old lever, but I need to reposition the thumb ring to make me happier. I do not have a thumb ring on this tuba, so my hand can find the lever easily. On the factory CC, the thumb ring seems to be too high for me. I will mess with that soon. Anyway, my "lever hate" was unfounded. I still think the parts were poorly cut at the factory (misaligned screw holes, etc.) but I would indeed purchase the new lever again if it was miraculously less expensive, which I seriously doubt. I still greatly prefer the look and weight of the older lever. And, if I do move the thumb ring bracket down an inch or so I might still prefer it in all ways. But to be honest I no longer
dislike the new lever at all. In fact, I rather like it.
Though my oddball 5th valve and slide circuit work very well, they look weird, and not in a fun, goofy way. I think what I have is ugly. I now have an excellent 5th valve unit that I made here at the house. I may decide to purchase the parts I cannot make here and do the 5th over correctly. Not sure. It works well as is. It just bugs me whenever I look at it.
That is all.
I plan on getting back to work tomorrow, wrapping up both projects for the time being.
Then it is back to the Holton 345…
