Rudolf Meinl vs

[bloke]

Did I just troll someone without even trying...??

[Sabut]

Is it only a troll if a person takes offense? lol I did get my answer/mission (go and play one)but of course we can talk tuba all day everyday any topic hahah

[Rick Denney]

MA, the Nirschl York like all Yorkophones has a 3/4” (or 19mm) bore. Not huge at all compared to large-bore rotary tubas like the Rudi and Alexander. I would not be so sure that your observations are explained by bore size. Can you buzz those really low pitches into the mouthpiece alone, without constraining the flow in any way? That’s the least possible restriction. Most people do not find that to be easier even if they can do it. But they can more easily do so with some flow restriction, because it provides some impedance to sustain the buzz.

Rick “plays bore sizes ranging from .679 to .840” Denney

[Sabut]

To add another comparison how are the Alexander tubas compared to the Rudy? Are they much more alike than a York copy and a Rudy?

[Sabut]

Rudy and Alex are far more similar to each other than either one would be to a York.

[Rick Denney]

To add another comparison how are the Alexander tubas compared to the Rudy? Are they much more alike than a York copy and a Rudy?

I agree with Matt. York-style tubas create a big, round tone that floats under the ensemble. Now, it's wrong to assume that they all sound the same, of course, because they don't. And some players work very hard to try and make them sound like other kinds of tubas, which I put in the category of not asking a cat to do a dog's job. But they are good at efficiently producing one class of sound product--a product that was popularized primarily by Arnold Jacobs in the Chicago Symphony. I think it was @dp that first used the word "blossom" to describe the York effect. My first experience with hearing it live by a quality symphony performer is that it was an enveloping sound that seemed present to me, even on the back row of the mezzanine, rather than a commanding tone that comes from "over there". The sound seemed to me "friendly" rather than "commanding".

The tall, large-bore rotary tubas are more directional and more penetrating, but less enveloping. They are boxers rather than wrestlers--they work by punch and projection more than wrapping and holding. (That's yet another dumb use of words that can't really be described in words.) dp's word is "column". These tubas can be louder.

Dangerously, I'm finding myself with time to kill this morning, so indulge me while I compose a historical synopsis.

Some instruments, like Joe's big Miraphone, are hybrids of these concepts. His tuba has the larger-bore rotary valve body feeding a Yorkish (or, rather, a Holtonish) bell. And the actual arrangement and shape of any given tuba may not produce the effect it looks like it should given those tendencies--individual design still counts. And that's where the Rudi and the Alex diverge. They are definitely members of the same class, but they are still quite different from each other in sound and feel.

And that applies to York-style tubas as well. Many tubas on the market derive from the original York that Jacobs used in Chicago. The first was the Holton, eventually with the model number 345. Holton first produced this tuba in the 50's as an accommodation to Jacobs when they wanted to sponsor the Chicago Symphony Brass Quintet and use him in advertising. And his angle was having a tuba on the market usefully similar to his beloved York that his students would be able to buy. (Only two of the Yorks were made, but when they were made around 1930, the category was known as the "orchestra grand bass" and that was the model name of the equally large and fat Conn 36J. Martin had the Mammoth, and even going back to the turn of the last century, companies like Keefer and Lyon & Healy made tubas with fat, short bells in this style. But the only fat American tuba still available in the 50's was Conn 2xJ, which orchestra musicians did not prefer, until the Holton came out. Conn stopped production of even that in the late 60's, and Holton stopped making 345 tubas in the early 70's. A few years later, Hirsbrunner had the opportunity to measure up Jacobs's York (with all sorts of adventures associated with that). The product of that exercise was the currently designated HBS-510 Grand Orchestral Tuba, aka the Yorkbrunner. These were the first York copies that were widely adopted by orchestra professionals. Later, Nirschl measured up the second of the Yorks used in Chicago and brought out his version. And Gronitz had a version call the PCK. Warren Deck worked with Meinl-Weston to create a copy of his favored Holton, and that led to the 2165. And so it goes--we now have many available copies and derivatives of the York design. Some are more successful than others. And some are more true to the way Jacobs described the York than others.

Tall rotary tubas have a much deeper history, of course, going back to the first really large contrabass tubas made by Cerveny prior to 1850. Before Jacobs came along, large rotary tubas were the standard of performance in many circles, and even American manufacturers occasionally made copies of them (King did so in the 30's, for example). They were popularized in American orchestras (versus Eb bass tubas and the like) by August Helleberg around the turn of the last century. He was the leading light in tuba circles in his day, and he played a large rotary Sandner that was copied variously by American makers of the day. But orchestra pros were much more of a niche in those days--the popular professional bands drove instrument popularity in those days, and those guys often used sousaphones that lean much more to fatness and wide bells.

The Alexander design emerged at the hands of Andreas Crönlein, who was the master instrument maker at Alexander until 1937. That year, Hess (in Markneukirchen) hired him away to establish and lead their brass instrument workshop. That workshop became (eventually) B&S under Communist rule after the war. So, the progenitor of the Alexander 163 and 164 shares DNA with B&S tubas. But all the traditional German-style rotary tubas derive from that original Cerveny rotary design, one branch of which moved towards taller bells and larger bores.

I have examples of most of these types, and I imagine that my experience with them reinforces the expectations for each type. My Giardinelli/B&S 101 and my Hirsbrunner are in the tall-bell rotary tuba category, but not necessarily with bore size quite as large as Rudi and Alex. My Miraphone 184 is also typical of rotary tubas, but at the small end of the scale to create a more compact but still penetrating sound. But I also have a Holton 345 (in my avatar) and an Eastman EBB-534 that is a copy of a new-style King 2341. These are shorter and fatter. They all fit the mold of those sound concepts in my view. But I doubt most audience members would notice anything specific other than their ability to hear the tuba voice in the mix.

Rick "much ado about nothing" Denney

[Mary Ann]

MA, the Nirschl York like all Yorkophones has a 3/4” (or 19mm) bore. Not huge at all compared to large-bore rotary tubas like the Rudi and Alexander. I would not be so sure that your observations are explained by bore size. Can you buzz those really low pitches into the mouthpiece alone, without constraining the flow in any way? That’s the least possible restriction. Most people do not find that to be easier even if they can do it. But they can more easily do so with some flow restriction, because it provides some impedance to sustain the buzz.

Rick “plays bore sizes ranging from .679 to .840” Denney

Because of my size, I am basically free buzzing inside ALL tuba mouthpieces. The rims sit on my face bones, not my lips. The "resistance" that works for me is basically open air; if I have to "push against the air" to play, that doesn't work for me; the air speed has to be enough to overcome the resistance against the lip flapping; since more lip is flapping down low, that for me is much harder than playing high (which is easy for me on tuba because of my horn chops.) Maybe bloke's concept about the taper of the leadpipe is worth consideration. You know, with (French) horns, people mess with leadpipes a LOT. I believe Lawson leadpipes are "pipes within pipes," and the inner pipe has tapers that cause the pitches to lock in better. Just like Lawson bells, which can make an extraordinary difference in slotting on an otherwise excellent horn whose maker is not so good at bell tapers. It seems that proper slotting = proper resonance, and proper resonance may = less resistance. (Another thing I think bloke said.)

And yes I can free buzz all the way below the pedals, easily. But when I have to push against air to make the lips flap, it changes everything. Horn is different -- I have an easy low range on horn down to the pedals, and with that, the buzz is obviously in the center of the lips. Because there is less lip that has to flap on a horn, its resistance is not problematic.

[Sabut]

@Rick Denney

Thanks for your history lesson. I love learning about the history of our instrument, the people who played them and where we are going. I love the way you describe the sound characteristics as well. By the way you described them, in my head I should just stick with a York style (I still want to test a Rudy). I love the more support sound than a column to stick out.

In your opinion, I know York only made the 2 Cs that the CSO has. Were their other tubas just as special. I think I remember a long while back seeing some larger piston Bb’ s floating around or being cut. Do any other tubas in the York line have that “special” sound? I’ve heard the CSO York a foot away from my head and while it’s a ton to do with the player it was amazing.

[bloke]

@Rick Denney

I'm not sure how many people are familiar with "that which I will discuss below"...
(though I know you are...)

York:
You're referring to 6/4-size tubas.

The next size down York was a 5/4 size semi-tall model (18/19" bell) and a 3/4" bore...

and the next size down from that (more common) was a squatty (32" tall) 4/4-size 18/19" bell instrument with a small (.656") bore.
The bore size and small mouthpipe defined these as "mellow" sounding (and sorta limited to "moderate" in the quantity of sound production).
When these are outfitted with (typically salvaged King) .689" bore valvesets (and PARTICULARLY when they are NOT cut to C), they offer a great deal more potential to be louder (and even "obnoxious" - if the player so chooses), but still have the capability of sounding "pretty". This is done to these old instruments fairly often but (also - simultaneously) cut to C - which tends to dampen their resonance (and ability to "make an ugly racket, if desired") slightly.

OK...This isn't a squatty 4/4 York, but it's a body-parts-interchangeable-with-York Holton (and - per typical: with a King valveset pasted on).
I apologize, as I KNOW I've posted these Bartok excerpts before...It was the first time I used the instrument (after putting it together) and there are BOTH examples of "pretty" and "obnoxious" within.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V0bXbd7aTg

bloke "only pointing out that York commonly offered THREE sizes of contrabass tubas, and just 6/4...and - I suppose - I might also be pointing out that - with just a little bit of change - the smallest of the three sizes is capable of making way too much noise."

OK...Everyone knows what a York (and knock-offs) 6/4 looks like, the video (linked above) shows the size of the York squatty 4/4 contrabass, but BELOW is a picture of the in-between York 5/4 size contrabass:

[Sabut]

@bloke

Thanks for posting that clip. It sounds amazing. Is that York or style of York in the photo close to or pretty much the new tuba Yamaha just came out with? If it is and has that sounds I’d be really interested to try and play one of those now as well.

To throw a tangent in everything and excuse my squirrel moment. How does the King tuba Bill Bell played compare? Does it fall in the more Rudy/Alex camp or the more York camp?

[bloke]

@bloke

Thanks for posting that clip. It sounds amazing. Is that York or style of York in the photo close to or pretty much the new tuba Yamaha just came out with? If it is and has that sounds I’d be really interested to try and play one of those now as well.

To throw a tangent in everything and excuse my squirrel moment. How does the King tuba Bill Bell played compare? Does it fall in the more Rudy/Alex camp or the more York camp?

It's a good bit like those (long discontinued) Getzen-sold G50 tubas, except all the parts are vintage and it's not chopped down to C, but standing in its original B-flat. The bell and expanding bows are Holton, but York and Holton both made instruments like this that were nearly parts- interchangeable - as far as the expanding body parts and bells were concerned. As with so many of these, it was formerly three valve top action, and with a smaller valve section bore size. The Holton versions featured a .665 inch bore size, and the York versions featured only a .656 inch bore size. again: This Holton has been converted to front action, and now features a (stolen from a King - as others have done) .687 inch valve section (and a .750 inch bore 5th rotor).

Beginning fifty years ago, I became a C player, but - as of a year or two ago - I've decided to be a B-flat player. My various colleagues tease me, and tell me that I've decided to "go amateur".
It's one of three B-flat tubas that are in the so-called tuba room, and there are no longer any C instruments in there.

In my recent experience, I'm finding that B-flat playing requires more player precision, but offers more sonic rewards.

Yamaha:
I suspect that new instrument that they've introduced is a good bit larger than this one. If you want to have a pretty good idea of the size of this Holton instrument, think of a new style King B-flat - yet with an added fifth rotor and slightly shrunk in the wash.

[Sabut]

The closest Yamaha to the Holton @bloke built is the YCB-822. And it’s not really close. The new Yamaha comes across as a spin on the 4/4 Nirschl, which is something of a hybrid design.

The King 2341 and the Eastman version are of similar DNA to those old York/Holton squat 4/4 tubas with a pancake bell. Agreed that the Getzen G-50 is closer.

The Eastman CC tubas that are based on the @Matt Walters design are based on similar bottom bows and bells as the old Yorks/Conns/Holtons and offer a fairly diverse sonic palette.

The one I have sitting in my basement that’s one of the ones Matt built years ago is possibly better than the mass-produced horns, as it offers very quick response, an open low register with lots of punch, and a nice singing sound in the mid/upper register. Probably close to Joe’s Holton, just a step higher in pitch. Sam Gnagey made a bunch (and is still making) similar horns as well.

I do think that this current class of tuba offers a somewhat different experience than the 4/4 German style horns insofar that their is more tonal variety. They also seem to respond to mouthpieces differently as well. The old two-piece 2341s could do this as well, but I think that the bell being 8-10 inches farther away made people lay on the throttle a little more than the newer style, and combined with the longer bell stack had a bit more punch to the sound.

The big 6/4 York tubas can also get some front on them, but it’s an athletic endeavor to do so. @Rick Denney covers those bases well in his post.

One thing to mention here is that us tuba playing peeps also have a large variety of cup designs that we can employ with horns. Typically far more varied than trumpet and trombone players. That makes for some other interesting variations on sound and we should be sensitive to matching the mouthpiece to not only the tuba but the context in which it’s being played.

With all of that being said, if I were poking around on a big Rudy or Alex, I’d probably use a Bach 7 as my initial point of departure. For those big piston horns, I’d probably use something more funnel-like (Helleberg or Geib) and probably shallower than the typical Helleberg as a point of departure.

[Sabut]

@matt g


Thanks for all of that info.

I was wondering in the spirit of this thread and comparing tubas. How does your 2165 compare to the Eastman and Nirschl York tubas? Have you ever had a chance to play them back to back? I’ve always had an eye for the 2165 after playing one in college.

[matt g]

@matt g


Thanks for all of that info.

I was wondering in the spirit of this thread and comparing tubas. How does your 2165 compare to the Eastman and Nirschl York tubas? Have you ever had a chance to play them back to back? I’ve always had an eye for the 2165 after playing one in college.

I’ve not played them back to back and I’ve only played the Nirschl copy of the York. The 2165 is a bit of a different beast. Not as “sweet” of a sound as the York clones and with more overhead before it has bite to the sound.

[bloke]

I believe those Eastman 4/4 tubas pitched in C are more the height and size of a new style King B-flat - more like 37 inches or so... and I tend to put them in the Conn 5xj and Gnagey size range.
The the York and Holton (32-in tall) things bows are also a bit smaller, once you get past the bottom bow.
I guess I'm posting to make sure that the King name appears as more of a comparison, because I've actually set a new style King next to my Holton, the King is noticeably larger (as well as the King resonance being a little bit less snappy), as is an Eastman C 4/4.
Something else is that larger Eastman 4/4 C tubas - and surely Matt's prototype - play better In tune in C than any of the 32-in tall York or Holton 4/4 size tubas that people have cut to C (at least, that I've played). That's one reason that there was no way I was going to cut my (nicely in tune as a B-flat instrument) Holton 4/4 to C.

... I would try to work "Rudolf Meinl" back into the discussion, but it's 10:30 at night and my brain is even duller than usual.

[Rick Denney]

One old symphony pro I know described the Yorkbrunner as making the most of what anyone could put into it, while the 2165 was designed to make the most of what Warren Deck could put into it.

Rick “maybe” Denney

[bloke]

More and more, I'm finding this to be useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV5Gh10u9mA

[Lee Stofer]

Very interesting post. . . .
Without going into a lot of detail, some of which I don't even have the answers to, I doubt that you will see another new Rudolf Meinl tuba
in the US. I have not received a response from the company for some time, so I am not an importer/dealer for Rudolf Meinl any more, and have not managed to even order mouthpieces from the company. If someone will not talk to you, there's not much you can do.

The last quote provided to me for a new Rudolf Meinl 3/4 CC tuba in goldmessing (rose brass, as requested by the customer), would have cost
the customer $24,000.00US by the time I had paid for shipping to the US, Customs/entry/brokerage, and delivered it to the customer.

This is one of the reasons that I agreed to discuss, then enter an agreement with Josef Lidl of the Czech Republic. They are responsive, their
factory is working 6 days a week to try to fill all the orders they are receiving, and they are now putting out tubas at a quality level that will
compare favorably with anything made in Europe or anywhere else, at affordable prices.

In my experience, I've played a lot of Rudolf Meinl tubas, both in the US and in Germany. They are great, but few are approaching perfection.
Many felt "stiff" when new, but seriously mellowed out and played much easier after 6 months of daily playing. It was not just me "getting used to
them", either. They were extremely dependable, had a sound that was unique and immediately recognizable, and served me extremely well during
my Army Band career and beyond. I also learned that you can't just throw any mouthpiece on it and expect to play well. Rudolf Meinl tubas were demanding, but the rewards were there. The 5/4 CC that I owned for over 15 years was the easiest-playing, most readily approachable Rudolf Meinl that I have ever played, and after restoring it and having it silver-plated, that 1984 Rudi 5/4 CC now belongs to Beth Wiese. I would venture to say,
having also played Nirschl York 6/4's, that, as wonderful as they are, my experience is that they were no easier to play than this particular Rudi 5/4.

In my new, post Rudolf Meinl era, enter the Josef Lidl tubas. I have been taking time to learn about, and play-test every model BBb and CC tuba that I receive, and carefully analyze what they do, or do not do. It has been so interesting to me that there are several models which do not seem very different, but their personality, or flavor is very different from each other. They each have individual tone qualities, blowing characteristics, outside dimensions and difference in receiver height, even. But, with every BBb and CC (and one F) that I've managed to spend time with in an ensemble, once I "figure out where the edges are", they are all well in-tune, reliable players with a very desirable tone quality and fine mechanical properties in regards to valves and slides. What's not to like about silent, quick rotors, and a well-designed tuba with no leaks that locks in pitches, blends and supports whatever ensemble you're in, and in general makes your life less complicated and more pleasant?

As much as I depended upon several Rudolf Meinl tubas in BBb, CC and F during my 22 years of daily pro playing, I am now convinced that, if they had then been available, the Josef Lidl tubas would have served me just as well, if not better. The Moldau CC tuba is very close to the size of the Rudolf Meinl 4/4 CC, or Melton Thor. I'll just say that you have to play it to believe what it will do. The output is close to that of the Rudi 5/4 CC, while having agility more like the Rudi 3/4 CC. This is now my favorite CC tuba, which is priced right, too. I don't need anything else.

[BRS]

.

[bort2.0]

The Lidl tubas look nice, although they still have that nearly-horizontal 5th valve paddle that I never liked on the Cerveny tubas. I'm sure that's not too hard to fix, but I've never quite understood it. Maybe it's just me!