TubaForum.net

So, I bought one of these and it’s on the way. It’s a musik Barth Stuttgart stencil that has been asked about on the forum before (or maybe old forum). I’ve always been curious about the Kaisers and decided to pull the trigger on this affordable option. It’s due on Wednesday or Thursday. I have a great c and f that can do any professional playing that may come along, although I do hope to use it in the orchestra for some things. I’ve read most of the archives on both forums and there was a lot of great information there. So just wanted to start new chatter about this model. Things like: adding a 5th valve, slide strategies, main tuning slide gadgets, mouthpiece selection, suitable rep to use it for, etc. I’ve corresponded with Bloke and know his opinions, but any new ideas welcome. If it’s not a keeper for me, I’ll pass it on down the line, as we all do.

With a FOUR valve Kaiser B-flat, a comfortable left hand access to the #4 slide could prove to be very handy for tuning B and E, and I would tend to hook a vertical main slide to a right hand thumb trigger - rather than hooking anything to a first valve slide. (This might require rerouting the #4 circuit, as well as changing its range of tuning so as most of the way in is about right for C and F, and farther out are just about right for E and B.)

If a particular Kaiser is squirrelly enough that the main tuning slide needs to be moved both in and out from center tuning, perhaps something that fits fairly snuggly over the thumb’s last joint – and that offers a slight click sensation at center tuning point - might be pretty good… probably better than some self-centering spring mechanism, as those never seem to quite work properly.

Finally, Kaiser B-flats don’t particularly “like“ for the D and the D-flat in the staff to be played with 12 and 23. Even if they are in tune with those fingerings, they are usually pretty treacherous.

Yes, I have corresponded with you, but you haven’t asked me questions whereas these were the answers.

I posted a reply on the other forum. I thought I posted it here, whoops.

Anyway, basically, sound is like a mega 186. I think the Kaiser sound is BEST when a companied with a German style brass section... But it should work just fine here unless you have a really picky baas trombone player or other brass section that expects the York style sound of the 836. They are very different from each other.

Trombone players tend to like more clear-sounding tubas, in my experience.

The best of them tend to be more conscientious about tuning than many tuba players, and – just like anyone else – they find it easier to tune to a clear type of sonority than to a fog.

bloke “ obviously, with no offense intended towards any of you foghorn players out there“
———————
Postscript:
I actually did take a 90 B-flat to a couple of orchestra rehearsals, and received this feedback from the bass trombonist…
He had trouble hearing it, because the tuba itself is 46 inches tall, and my lap - sitting in the chair - probably added yet another 10 inches to how high in the air the bell opening was…quite a distance up above his ears.

I had one a long time ago, probably mid '80s manufacture. I wasn't unhappy with it, but I wasn't a skilled enough tuba player for that to mean anything. I'm told the subsequent owner sounded great on it.

The 190 bell on an old Holton 6/4 body was kinda the best of both worlds… buoyancy when relaxed and core when pushed.

I’d also echo the notion that this big of a Bb is going to lack precision on D/Db in the staff. A tuning doohickey that actually pulled the MTS in might be better for these big ones. Probably for the upper register as well.

With a pull ring on the 4th slide so that it’s close to the first slide and a kicker for the second valve slide, you’d probably have most all of the bases covered. Low B natural might not exist in the normal valved stuff, but might be “good enough” with 2+3? If you had something that had a lot of low B naturals programmed, just haul in the 836. Can’t win em all!

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:45 pm Trombone players tend to like more clear-sounding tubas, in my experience.

The best of them tend to be more conscientious about tuning than many tuba players, and – just like anyone else – they find it easier to tune to a clear type of sonority than to a fog.

bloke “ obviously, with no offense intended towards any of you foghorn players out there“
———————
Postscript:
I actually did take a 90 B-flat to a couple of orchestra rehearsals, and received this feedback from the bass trombonist…
He had trouble hearing it, because the tuba itself is 46 inches tall, and my lap - sitting in the chair - probably added yet another 10 inches to how high in the air the bell opening was…quite a distance up above his ears.

There sure is a good foghorn representation in most of the world’s great orchestras(I was going to say many of, but I think if someone researched, most would be correct). Yes, correlation is not necessary causation.(stolen from the science world). As always, your opinions are valued, if not always agreed with.

matt g wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:28 pm The 190 bell on an old Holton 6/4 body was kinda the best of both worlds… buoyancy when relaxed and core when pushed.

I’d also echo the notion that this big of a Bb is going to lack precision on D/Db in the staff. A tuning doohickey that actually pulled the MTS in might be better for these big ones. Probably for the upper register as well.

With a pull ring on the 4th slide so that it’s close to the first slide and a kicker for the second valve slide, you’d probably have most all of the bases covered. Low B natural might not exist in the normal valved stuff, but might be “good enough” with 2+3? If you had something that had a lot of low B naturals programmed, just haul in the 836. Can’t win em all!

Yep! That’s the benefit of multiple horns. Low b is super sweet on the c. 2nd valve plus shift. Pops right out. Unlikely to happen, but with modern composers, never say never.

I’ve stated over and over again that I believe tuba players (COULD - not necessarily DO, because quite a few of them are remarkably good players) get away with a lot more than anyone else does in a symphony orchestra – regardless of how great is the orchestra.
I’m pretty sure that if a concertmaster showed up with a violin the size of a viola, something would be said… but – with the tuba – it just doesn’t really matter.
That having been said, I believe that the really large tubas that sound really good are SOME of the B-flats, because the longer bugle supports the larger size better. Many (most?) of the huge B-Flats are still not a walk in the park to play in tune, and some of them that are pretty easy to play in tune seem to be anomalies – as others of the same model and length don’t perform as well. I’ve also stated (over and over) that the one 6/4 medium large bore piston c tuba (York style) that I think works better than all the rest is the Yamaha (826), because it’s a bit smaller than all the rest (as well as being a bit easier to play in tune. Yeah, it cost more than some other tubas, but considerably cheaper than a really really top notch bassoon (i’m thinking that a new Heckel bassoon is around $60,000 bucks with a ten year waiting list) or most any good fiddle.)
Maybe I put too much emphasis on intonation, but - since I suck at it, I guess I’m just really attracted to instruments that don’t suck at it.

matt g wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:28 pm I’d also echo the notion that this big of a Bb is going to lack precision on D/Db in the staff. A tuning doohickey that actually pulled the MTS in might be better for these big ones.

I don't know if it was imprecise, but I remember that the fifth partial ran flat. As it does to a lesser extent on my tuba these days, but I would think it's probably easier to just use another couple valves and the 6th partial, than it would be to go for the up-kicker.

I fully plan to have a main tuning slide rod installed if possible, which I think it will be due to vertical alignment. I have that on my f and though a pain at the beginning,wouldn’t be without it now. Only limited by my own ear.

Mine tuned at 440 quite far out (on an even longer-than-than main slide - a main slide that was exquisitely well-aligned).

All the way in offered an in-tune open D and in-tune 2nd valve D-flat.

With a right hand thumb trigger with a default OUT (to A=440) position and a re-plumbed 4th circuit with a thumb ring on the 4th slide and a default IN position (with - again - a tuning range which would be IN for F/C and OUT for B/E) that instrument could be played in tune pretty well.

I'm thinking that a few (not many) of the other pitches could benefit from the main slide being pulled in (from the OUT/mostly-in-tune) position a bit.

I don't see any need to move the #1 slide with this system.

Low E-flat would be main slide IN and 124.

Low D would be main slide OUT and 234.

I suspect I know would lower pitches would be, but (well...) so what?

I’m just remembering that maybe G at the top of the staff could also benefit from being played with only 2nd valve and the kicker bringing the MTS in. Possibly Ab could be played open as well?

Just saying, if you could rig the slide to pull in with positive depression of the thumb piece, it seems like it could be a win-win on a big horn like that. I get that all of that big tubing is pretty sweet for resonance in the mid and bottom end, but it’s a lot of volume to manage once you’re getting up at the top of the staff.

Having owned both, I much prefer fatbastard, and - adjusted for inflation - they cost the same (1974 - 2022), brand-new.

In 1974, a "good deal" on a 4-valve 186 C was about $2000, so I figure a special-ordered kaiser model 190 would have been about $3000.

1974 $3000 - adjusted for inflation - is about $18.000 in 2022 Monopoly money.

https://www.miraphone.de/bbb-tuba-55.html

US outlets quote higher (and don't have any). That having been said, fb has an extra valve, so...

In no way equalizing the 2 horns. The amount I paid works in my scenario. I don’t plan to hang up my c. I’d like to hear more of you playing FB. Some Bach or excerpts might be informative.

When the topic of model 190/90 vintage B-flat tubas comes up in a discussion, older people think of the C version, and that (20”) bell is absolutely totally different - and much shorter.
The C version – I believe – was designed for USA export mostly, and the bell was sort of Holton 345 shaped. The B-flat version features more of a classic Kaiser bell, but I’ve seen them all the way from a scant amount over 17 inches in diameter to up to over 18.
Mike’s looks like the larger one.
———
Comparing the much later developed model 98 or the 497 to the 90, I tend to believe that Miraphone employed that bugle taper computer program on the later models - which helps find the best compromises for intonation. That technology was not available in the 1960s - 1970s.
I tend to believe that the same thing happened between the design of the (rotary) Meinl-Weston 2155R and the later 5450 – which was first introduced as a piston model. They’re obviously the same instrument, but with the bugle taper altered to play much more easily in tune.

I still think the 90 can be played in tune – and without lipping – if those strategies outlined in an earlier post are executed.

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:45 pm Trombone players tend to like more clear-sounding tubas, in my experience.

The best of them tend to be more conscientious about tuning than many tuba players, and – just like anyone else – they find it easier to tune to a clear type of sonority than to a fog.

I have also found my preference drift further that direction, the better I get as a bass bone doubler.

I don’t know what’s become of him… The last that I knew him he was teaching in Louisiana somewhere at some university…but I had a friend - who is a fine trombone player - named John Lindsay, and quite a few years ago he was talking to me about playing in a orchestral low brass section with a guy with one of the – new with that time, as far as the fad is concerned – gigantic C tubas. He told me about tuning slightly sharper and slightly flatter to the sound of the tuba, and how both seem to sound about equally good and equally bad, which he found to be a little bit troubling.

Of course, I can’t possibly know, but I tend to suspect that - besides the gigantic instrument, that player was using one of the super deep cup mouthpieces which were also prominent during that time as a new fad.

Trombone players also tend to prefer to play trombone trios or trombone quartets with all trombones rather than three trombones and a tuba.

That having been said, when I make it clear that I don’t mind bringing my cimbasso (contrabass valve trombone), their eyes light up, and they absolutely do want to play quartets.