Page 1 of 1
Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:34 pm
by hrender
Re: Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:25 pm
by LeMark
FYI for anyone interested. That 5th valve is a flat half step, not a flat whole step
Re: Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:43 pm
by bort2.0
LeMark wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:25 pm
FYI for anyone interested. That 5th valve is a flat half step, not a flat whole step
I've lived with weirder 5th valves. :)
Re: Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:46 pm
by LeMark
I'm still not sure what the reasoning is for any maker to go through the trouble and expense of putting a 5th valve on a horn that doesn't even give it a full chromatic
Re: Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:14 pm
by LargeTuba
This tuba has been floating around Chicagoland for about three years now. Sold and bought about 4 times.
LeMark wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:46 pm
I'm still not sure what the reasoning is for any maker to go through the trouble and expense of putting a 5th valve on a horn that doesn't even give it a full chromatic
There was extra slides, but at some point they were lost.
Re: Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:43 am
by bloke
Mark posed a question.
Since I made a conscious decision to install this functionality same circuit onto a B-flat tuba, maybe I’ll offer a possible answer.
- With this length, 5-4 offers a solution to the 2-4 vs. 5-2-3 (too short versus too long) debacle.
- Those pitches are written far more often in tuba music than are double low B naturals and C sharps - actually: thousands of times more often. (B flat or C tuba)…
…Ironically, those very low pitches appear far more often in piano music than in tuba music.
- The valve combination - which involves this length of fifth slide circuit - offers a double low D (C instrument) or C (B-flat instrument) which is not a mile sharp. Though rarely written, these two pitches appear far more commonly than the other two I mentioned.
- Just as with me, I’m sure it’s not difficult for this factory to make someone an auxiliary slide - if an owner/player is more concerned about almost-never-played double low pitches than they are about two often-played ones.
- As far as marketability is concerned, it’s pretty obvious that someone bought it, and I predict that someone else will buy it.
You asked, and I answered from experience.
That tuba looks pretty new. I wonder if all the same things - generally speaking - are like they are with the older ones.
Re: Cerveny 601-5RX CC
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:00 pm
by bort2.0
I stopped by the shop today and met with Jim, who was kind enough to let me play this tuba for a little while in their large/open recital space.
I played this tuba and a Kanstul 90 CC.
The Cerveny -- pristine condition. If there was anything wrong with it, I sure never saw it. Tuba felt very solid and was easy to hold, not too heavy, and very well balanced. Didn't feel like I was holding a large tuba at all. Rotary linkage was nice and quiet. Not as thick or sturdy feeling as Miraphone or B&S or Rudy, etc... But I wouldn't say it seemed deficient.
It played well -- big full sound when you want it, and more tame when you want to hold back. I never got the intonation fully dialed in, all the slides were pushed all the way in... So that took a little doing. But, things lined up pretty well, with the usual things like 12 and 23 for E and Eb. Low register was big and easy, but it does take a good bit of air. This tuba really felt like it had a large bore.
I think it's priced well and a good amount of tuba for the money.
The Kanstul... Well that was my first time playing any Kanstul. HEAVY. A little short so it had to sit on my leg. Valves were awesome, just so so smooth and easy. Good ergonomics and not a long throw either. The rotor was quick and snappy, and the paddle was cool and small.
It played VERY well. Extremely responsive, effortless to get around in all ranges. Pedal range was a little tricky, but I think it was a mouthpiece disagreement more than the tuba itself. Needed a long pull for the 4th valve slide, but it wasn't hard to control or anything.
Very nice sound the jumps out of the bell, seems like it projected quite well. Definitely a 4/4 kind of sound, could be made to sound a little bigger, but its really a solid 4/4 horn. I liked it a lot.
It's a very "thick" tuba, in the same kind of way that I would describe a Conn 52J as being "thick." Not a bad thing necessarily, but seems like a lot of tubing hanging out that could get dinged up pretty easily.
Far out of budget, though (I think it was pretty high, TBH)
Edit: Forgot to mention -- the Kanstul has the fancy alloy bell, and the fancy floral engraving.