TubaForum.net

Thanks, Y#3. This is something I have also been wondering about. bloke and others talk about how the Yamayork is a bit smaller -- so is that smaller, even, than the original Yorks?

It would be helpful for my own nerdy interests if we could get a lineage of the 6/4 Yorks and Yorkalikes, how York 1 and York 2 differ, which Yorkalikes were based on York 1 and which were based on York 2, which one was damaged/repaired on the way to Switzerland, and which ones Gene and AJ preferred during their tenures at the CSO. If this info is available elsewhere on the web, please educate me.

I don't have much to add regarding the Martin sousaphone part of the equation, but I know the 6/4 Martin BBb has been touted as having really good intonation. I wonder if that model has been considered in recent spates of cloning/copying R&D.

edit: I got a bit caught up in my own post at the expense of Y#3's. it is interesting that, despite similarities in bore, layout, and BAT-ness, the Eastman and Yamaha 6/4 CCs exhibit a different taper. @YorkNumber3.0, are you saying the rate of taper is different? More gradual? I am intrigued by this.

According to Gene, Yamaha sent him different versions (different body tapers) for him to evaluate, and the one (a reject) that I saw had a silver plated valve section (raw brass body) soldered to it, so my assumption was they used the same valve section with different body tapers when they sent them to him. I was also under the impression that the particular body was not the first one that they had sent (which would be the obvious assumption, based on the valve section). At my lesson, he told me that one that they had sent sounded too dark, he was going to return it and tell them, along with his evaluation. I listened to him (at Ravinia) use it - after my lesson - to rehearse the Strauss tone poem, "Til...."
I believe his evaluation was correct. Gene was at the top of his game and played it really well, but the sound (though I would use an F tuba to play that piece, but whatever... He was testing that instrument in all sorts of situations) wasn't particularly defined - to my ears (lacking presence) with that particular version.
Perhaps a year or more later, prior to a concert I was up there again with Mrs. bloke, and he did a pre-concert demo (for some of the fancy contributing patrons, but he told the ushers to let us in) of the York tuba and the Yamaha back to back. We were sitting in the mezzanine (at the hall, obviously). I thought they both sounded like Gene playing the tuba, and Mrs bloke liked the Yamaha (final version, obviously) considerably better.
With the Eastman interpretation, I've noticed that the first slide movement range to tune various pitches it is fairly epic. When I've played them, I wasn't quite able to push the #1 slide in enough to play first valve D in tune without favoring it a little bit. That's something that's pretty easily remedied. Leaving things too long on tubas seems to be a pretty common thing, as I had to remedy the same exact problem on my big B flat, which is that I couldn't push the first slide in enough to play C in tune without favoring a bit. That was the second thing I remedied on my Miraphone 98.

C tubas:
I don't know a whole bunch about it much of anything, but I formed an opinion over a bunch of years that C tubas work out better when they are medium sized. I've lucked out putting some instruments together from parts several times. I don't know why I've gotten so lucky, but maybe it's because I've sort of tested the way they played before they actually became instruments, and didn't bother to pursue projects that didn't look like they were going to pan out...?? ... but I might try my luck one last time - if I live long enough - and build a medium large sized C tuba for myself out of some stuff that's sitting around here that I've sort of been holding onto for such a project. I've never absolutely loved any of the 6/4 C tubas that I've owned, and I've owned several. Having played a couple of Yamahas, hands down they were better than any I've ever played of my own or on display in various elephant rooms. Additionally, the Yamaha first slide tuning range requirement was still fairly wide - but under control, and I could play first valve D in tune out of the box. Based on Gene's feedback of that really big one that was really woofy-sounding and also based on their appearance, I suspect a lot of the success of the 826 is the fact that it's a little bit smaller than some of the rest, and actually features its own C taper rather than a cut down B flat taper. I don't view them as dorky, but I guess all tubas are pretty dorky... other than when those guys in New Orleans brass bands are doing larger than life things with sousaphones out on the street; that's pretty amazing. I do judge "C tuba for college" as being pretty darn dorky.

If (I don't keep up with stuff like this...??) those 826 tubas are still being made - and they haven't doubled the price of them (as has happened to gasoline and ground beef), the price is becoming more and more reasonable - as dollars are becoming more worthless.

Trolls are fun, aren't they Dale?

Okay: definition of terms...(attempting to improve communication)

I'm talking about how far out the first slide has to be pulled for the sharpest pitch played by that valve vs. how far in that slide has to be pushed in to play the flattest pitch played by that valve.

If that's three inches of range, that's quite a bit, if it's two, that's pretty darn good. The 836 - just as with my 98 - has demonstrated to me that it needs more inward range then is built into the instrument at the factory. Again, that's not a big deal, particularly if an instrument has a lacquer finish.

I've never paid much attention to "so-and-so plays a..." I do pay some attention to "so-and-so says...", when it comes to playing tips, but I don't cling to them if they don't seem valid - after giving them a really good try (just because it was so-and-so).

I have watched videos of some full-time employed tuba players who I've seen move that first slide around in ways that are inconsistent or don't even make any sense at all. It is really hard to do valves, music, and also do slide microtuning, particularly when things get moving along pretty quickly. That's when I've seen nonsensical first slide movements in videos. I don't blame anyone. It can really become confusing, our hand is there, and we feel like we ought to be doing something with that slide. Finally, don't think that I'm speaking of any individual person or whoever the person is that you choose to not identify by name. I've seen it with several such players. admission: I catch myself moving the first slide in the wrong direction at the right time more than just a little bit... I'm working on it.

... so if I need to move my first slide four and a half inches to get both low G and second space c in tune, that's offering me more of an opportunity to microtune...thus, a superior instrument?

Man, I've been going about this all wrong.

I play C below the staff with 1 & 3, so my #1 slide tuning range is about 2 and 1/4 inches... from that pitch into second space first valve C (first slide all the way in).

(So far, I've not encountered any tubas whereby [C tuba] 4th valve D was as sharp as 4th valve G or [B-flat tuba] 4th valve C was as sharp as 4th valve F...
... thus the decision to play C with 1 & 3, and with the 1st slide pulled a good bit.)

When I bought the thing, I didn't expect that I would only have to move the #1 slide that far to cover everything, but I'm sort of tickled that that's about all I have to move it. I was a little bit annoyed that I had to drop the slide assembly down a half an inch to be able to tune C (second space), but at least I didn't have to pay somebody else to do that for me.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, I'm only using different words to describe the same thing to make sure that I'm understood. I can't possibly disagree with someone else's views on instruments or playing, as long as it's their instruments and their playing.

I have a lower trolling then most people, and less of a negative connotation.

Whenever someone prompts someone else to type a bunch of words in a text box (as I was obviously prompted to do, based on the voluminous texts above that I left above ) to me that's good enough to be a troll, and again: I don't always or maybe actually I seldom find trolling as being particularly bad.

YorkNumber3.0 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:26 am Seems as though epic movement on Eastman (or YamaYork) 1st slides is only exhibited by a hand full of like-minded users. The highest profile 836 user, formerly a 826 user X 2, moved those 826 first slides as much or more than he now trombones his 836 first slides. It’s an individual approach to playing seeking to be in the center of each pitch all the time through constant length adjustment regardless of style or length of tuba. Valid and efficient or not is an individual opinion.

The person you’re referring to probably sets up slides in their neutral position a bit differently than others.

Whether me or someone else or anyone else, it just seems to me that (C tuba) 3rd space D is (probably) going to be just about the flattest commonly-played pitch (that involves the #1 circuit) and that circuit's slide should (hopefully) be able to accommodate that - unless someone's willing to constantly deal with favoring that pitch (and most of us probably favor quite a few pitches).

I'm not lambasting Eastman for that circuit being a little bit too long for the instrument's flattest pitch - at least, on the versions of that model that I've played. Again, my 6/4 Miraphone (double the cost) needed to be shortened in just the very same way for the very same reason...and other models as well - certainly King (with circuits 1, 2, and 3 all being just a hair too long - pushed in all the way). I suspect that most manufacturers pay attention to players who offer them advice on "the best compromises for blah, blah-blah, and blah-blah-blah" rather than "to absolutely eliminate this issue, you're probably going to have to..."

I don't sell Eastman, but I LIKE Eastman just fine, and I LIKE the Eastman people. I'm NOT running down Eastman. This set-up is (again) COMMON.

I sell JP stuff, and I've reported some circuit length issues to them. It took awhile, but they changed them. I also did several things to my B&S (Meinl-Weston) 5450...and probably would have done one or two more things, had I not sold it.

I bought a (remarkably low priced, which was the first thing that caught my interest) Meinl-Weston euphonium. I loved the sound off the bat, but the intonation was comical...YET I immediately was able to figure out what to do to make it not-comical. (One of the compensating circuits - remember: this is a EUPHONIUMm and NOT a tuba) was FOUR INCHES too short. now: fixed. I'm playing the two lower G's with 3rd valve, sometimes adding a valve on "upper" E-flat, and no wonky trigger-thingie...It's (now) really easily played in tune.

I'm probably about the most annoyingly picky tuba owner there is (at least regarding these sorts circuit lengths types of issues).

Maybe someone can remind me how a professional musician at any level spending 12+K of their own money on their tuba is similar to a High School spending the same scratch of the public’s money on it’s tubas and not doing so is not damanding excellence or setting high standards for the students.

Seems like getting the most out of what you got is a good life experience.

But I’m just a cotton chopper so….

Particularly in the last couple of decades, I've seen some public school children with some REMARKABLY super-custom-professional provided-free equipment.
I know of a backwater river town (probably three hours away) whereby the band director asked some tuba player friend, "What are the best B-flat tubas there are?" and was told Meinl-Weston "Fafner" model 195-5P...so (since the taxpayers bought 'em and - duh - taxpayers (who continually are asked to surrender higher-and-higher percentages of their earnings/private property) were never told about how over-the-top fancy/expensive they are, and since it wasn't his money - he got 'em.

Something tells me that those 195's have yet to have produced sounds and songs that I heard (fifty years ago) coming out the bell of a fiberglass 36K...

...and I've walked into band rooms and seen these (price is PER DRUM)
https://www.percussionsource.com/214661
(of course) being played out of tune, with dents, and with snare drum stick jabs in their heads.

One point about slide pulling on York tubas. I often move my slides for response and evenness of sound than purely for intonation. To save time I’ll just explain a couple of pitches but there’s many others.

4th valve D along with 4-2 C# can be played 1-3 and 1-2-3 with a long pull on the first slide. The latter is often easier to slur smoothly through and has a more even sound compared with the surrounding notes.

Here’s some others that I use in the low register with varying slide pulls. Each one can be beneficial depending on the passage.

Low G 1-3, 1-2-5 or 4
Low F# 2-3-5 or 2-4
Low F 1-3-5 or 1-4 or 5-4

I could play the thing in tune without moving the slides but I get better results when I’m monkeying around with the slides. It’s up to you if you think it’s worth the effort.

Just watch Chris Olka or Sergio Carolina play their 8X6 tubas. You can learn a lot by observing how they use valve combinations and manipulate slides.

I view "better intonation" and "evenness of sound" as the same, when it comes to this particular topic.

With lipping (up or down) the sound is not as good, as we're forcing the pitch away from where it prefers to resonate.

Lengthening or shortening the instrument (well duh) eliminates the need for lipping, and (both of these two things) [1] we can vibrate our lips in the way we should (without pitch-bending tension), and [2] the instrument is then quite "happy" to resonate at the desired pitch.

--------------------------------------
typical example, since this issue often goes "un-repaired" (tubing-length-wise)...
With so many tubas, the 4th partial pitch with the valve combination 2-3 often sounds like crap, BECAUSE
[1] it's often flat
[2] we're lipping it up (thus it doesn't resonate as well)
[3] the #2 and #3 slides are quite often inconvenient to manipulate (and #2 typically doesn't have any significant push-in range available anyway), so we are prone to lip rather than to correct the tubing length

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:04 am I view "better intonation" and "evenness of sound" as the same, when it comes to this particular topic.

With lipping (up or down) the sound is not as good, as we're forcing the pitch away from where it prefers to resonate.

Lengthening or shortening the instrument (well duh) eliminates the need for lipping, and (both of these two things) [1] we can vibrate our lips in the way we should (without pitch-bending tension), and [2] the instrument is then quite "happy" to resonate at the desired pitch.

--------------------------------------
typical example, since this issue often goes "un-repaired" (tubing-length-wise)...
With so many tubas, the 4th partial pitch with the valve combination 2-3 often sounds like crap, BECAUSE
[1] it's often flat
[2] we're lipping it up (thus it doesn't resonate as well)
[3] the #2 and #3 slides are quite often inconvenient to manipulate (and #2 typically doesn't have any significant push-in range available anyway), so we are prone to lip rather than to correct the tubing length

I think you might have slightly misunderstood what I'm saying. With all the alternate fingerings I'll pull the slide to the correct point where I'm not lipping the note.

Take below the staff D as an example. On my York copy I can play it in tune and in the centre on 4th or 1-3 with a long pull. The 1-3 combination has a slightly different sound compared to 4th due to the difference in bore size of 1-3 vs 4th. It's also easier to slur into D from surrounding notes that use combinations of the first three valves.

Is it necessary to use these whacky fingering and pulls? Not really, but it makes me sound a little bit smoother and more even for certain passages.

It seems quite clear that you're not a fan of the 6/4 York design, which is great! Everyone has different tastes. It seems like you prefer tubas with minimal playing maintenance. I view the York copy as a 'requires daily maintenance to see the benefit' type of instrument.

I typed so much crap as a response (much of it - probably - self-absorbed) that I decided to post it off-site - so that people would only be "assaulted" by that blather if they click this link:

https://i.imgur.com/sB3MTrf.png