Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Tubas, euphoniums, mouthpieces, and anything music-related.
Forum rules
This section is for posts that are directly related to performance, performers, or equipment. Social issues are allowed, as long as they are directly related to those categories. If you see a post that you cannot respond to with respect and courtesy, we ask that you do not respond at all.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by Rick Denney »

Mary Ann wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:52 pm Even the best rotary F has, by virtue of how it has to be constructed, "that problem." The piston ones, for the same reasons, apparently do not. I understand why you would want a piston one. I played an early 45SLP and frankly it was not as good, except for the accessibility of "that range," as my MW 182. And it was a piston tuba.

Of course we can get back into the dropped mouthpiece dent and resultant fix of the nodes, but no maker has seemed even vaguely interested in applying that fix to a standard instrument. I mean, who wants a brand new shiny tuba with a dent in it, even if it does make it suddenly playable? Seems like someone could just weld an appropriately shaped piece of metal on the INSIDE at that spot and have the perfect rotary F tuba. Why am I the only one who talks about this?
I suspect that the reason for this is that the piston F's have the same bore in the fourth valve, while the most popular rotary F tubas have a larger bore in the fourth valve (at least). There is a reason for this. The rotary F tubas were intended as general-purpose tubas--they were the default tuba in German orchestras. Contrabass tubas were only used for certain works. A general-purpose F needs to sing in the high register but it also needs to play loud in the low register. Those larger bores in the longer valve branches had the objective of preserving the tone when played loud and low. But they do require a specific approach. The piston F's I've played (including the one I own) are easier in the low register but they don't sing as much in the high register. Once I learned how to blow that low C, the B&S is the most balanced F tuba I've ever played.

I have observed that the low C on an F tuba plays the same as the low F on a Bb rotary tuba. The Holton 345 has a larger bore in the fourth valve, and the low F on that (piston) tuba is more difficult to blow than on my Hirsbrunner, which has that same larger bore throughout the valves. Low F's veritably jump out of my smaller Bb tubas in comparison. Learning how to play the low C on a B&S made playing low F's on my rotary Bb tubas easier. Hmmm. We just get asked to play low C's more often and with more facility than low F's.

My first F tuba was a cheap rotary with four valves, so it was limited in repertoire application from the start. I bought it to learn F tuba fingerings and get some experience with bass tubas. The low F on it was oinky, but easy enough to blow. (I'd like to try that tuba again with what I now know.) My next F tuba was a Yamaha 621, which plays bigger than its looks and which has an easy low register. But it doesn't sing like a B&S, and it isn't as nimble in the upper register despite its small size. The B&S, once I committed to it, was a revelation--it had the nimble, singing quality up high like a small classic F, but a big sound in the low register allowing it to be used for a lot of orchestral lit. My first B&S was a 5-valve Symphonie, which I traded for a six-valve last-generation (unlabeled) Symphonie.

Rick "let low-C fear steer him away from the B&S for too long" Denney


User avatar
Mary Ann
Posts: 3038
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:24 am
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by Mary Ann »

I wonder what it is about the NStar that has its low Bb SO much easier to play than the "typical" rotary F's C? It is a bit "more stuffy" but entirely approachable (the 183's Bb also easier than an F's C.) I thought i had conquered the "rotary 4th valve resistance problem" until I played my friend's Firebird last summer only to find its C was a lot harder than the Star's Bb. I also remember many years ago when I had the MW 182, there was one (1) instance in which without warning that low C just floated out. I never did figure out what i did differently, but I think it has to do with the ability to play that note with very relaxed lips, almost like a pedal. So much fun to still have things to figure out, which is why I continue to even play instruments. And -- just as a comparison, tuba players are SO much more willing to talk about it intelligently than horn players, who won't even discuss what might influence playability.
User avatar
Sousaswag
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by Sousaswag »

It’s probably got something to do with the Star being a few feet longer than the comparable F? F tubas are so short they don’t really have a whole lot of room to taper as much as other sizes?

As far as F tuba bore sizes - it was always my understanding that piston valves do have that graduated bore as well. The Willson tubas list 18/19/19.5mm bore valvesets.

The 2250 MW however, only lists two bore sizes. If the big valves are all the same, isn’t it something like .748 valves 1-3, .787 valve 4, .805 valve 5?

I think the rotor F tubas are harder to play down there due to the body taper, as well as the 5th valve placement. I know that has nothing to do with low C, but it never made sense to me to put valve 5 first in the stack, and be the smallest.

We really only use that for low stuff, so when tubas like the 3200RZ, 4250/60/SLZ/6460 came out with those big low range valves, they are easier to get around down there at the expense of that traditional sound. They blow the B&S and Miraphone stuff out of the water, and you don’t have to re-learn something to be able to get a good responding tuba.

I know how to play traditional rotor F. I spent a lot of time with the Pt-10 and Eastman F. Once I switched to a larger bass tuba, personally, I said, “why am I having to remember how to play this tuba?”

The appeal of the piston F tuba to me is that you don’t have to do anything different when you approach this tuba from your big one. I just prefer that type of F, and F is really my main horn. I spend significantly more time playing F these days than C, and I appreciate how easy my F is to play!
Meinl Weston 2165
B&M CC
Willson 3200RZ-5
Holton 340
Holton 350
Pan-American Eb
King Medium Eb
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by Rick Denney »

Okay, I'm not getting it. Once I learned how to play a B&S, I never really had to think about it again. I just played it. I wasn't trying to blast it, but then I sort-of prefer not to do that with the big tuba, too.

Look, I'm a second-rate amateur with terrible fundamentals. World-class talent must not be a requirement.

My Yamaha 621 has all that ease of play, but it does not have graduated valves. It also can't use used as a general-purpose orchestral tuba like a B&S was designed to do.

I can't agree on the fifth valve placement affecting the low C one way or the other. I don't use the fifth or sixth valve on the low C at all. Low C is all fourth valve. And those two extra sets of knuckles aren't the reason.

Why do people often sleeve the oversized fourth valve on Holton 345's?

Rick "who doesn't have to think about that low C even after six months of not playing the Symphonie" Denney
These users thanked the author Rick Denney for the post:
arpthark (Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:39 pm)
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 19345
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 3854 times
Been thanked: 4105 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by bloke »

So many theories about instruments run into so many exceptions (instruments themselves and players of them) that show that those theories are only theoretical.
hubert
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:32 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by hubert »

Today I have seen a looking-alike "almost- copy" of the B&S MRP (PT10?) offered by the renowned shop of tubaspecialist Matthias Vogt at Leipzig in Germany. He is calling it a "Kingler Berger AW-755 F-Tuba". And price is Euro 4990, whereas the price of Erwin Schmid in Neubrunn (Germany as well) is Euro 2990.
Never heard of Kingler Berger....., at the Schmid-shop the tuba had no name, but when I bought it, it got the name "Erwin-Schmid-tuba" :eyes: ......At Jim Laabs it is called a Schiller Frankfurt...... :bow2: But finally, "What is in a name", as the famous father of English poetry said.......?? The Schmid plays rather well and that is what counts for me..... :tuba:
Best wishes for 2024,
Hubert
BRS
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2023 6:38 am
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Schiller/Laabs piston F PT-10P (?) copy

Post by BRS »

.
Post Reply