TubaForum.net

When I played a kanstul Eb at TMEA years ago I noticed it had wide slots. Wasn't going to pay thousands for a horn with that but now I have a York monster (that the kanstul was based on) and the slots might be even wider.

Does make it frustrating when I'm trying to chart the intonation of the horn for using the MTS stick. I think it would be better in an ensemble where I had a pitch reference, but my chart is a mess right now. When I play a note randomly and without reference, the pitch could be anywhere in a 15 cent range

The good news is nothing is way off, but moving an inch here or there with the stick is what I'm shooting for. I only have 2 inches of travel distance total on the slide
I have maybe 8 notes (3 in the normal playing range, middle Bb and B natural, and F in the staff, the rest are way above the staff) that I'll be moving the MTS all the way in for, and 4 notes that require me to move it out. (both 2-4 combinations, and G in the staff and the C above, both of which I could use 3rd valve for most of the time) I'm going to put F# at the bottom of the staff as a "maybe" for moving the slide out

Everything else is good with the MTS centered, which is shocking considering the Monster's terrible intonation reputation.

If the slots were narrower, you'd need to move the stick farther, but it would be easier to know how much to adjust?

jtm wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:56 pm If the slots were narrower, you'd need to move the stick farther, but it would be easier to know how much to adjust?

Yeah., it would be nice if it locked in better, but I've only been playing the horn for a few days, so maybe in a month or two things will settle down

Small bore compared to body size equals wide slots, most of the time. The trade-off is limits on the quantity of sound.

yeah, this is the first time I've ever owned what I could call a small bore/ big body tuba.

literally the opposite of my cerveny piggy that I played for 20 years, so it takes a bit to get used to

99% of my playing in my life has been on rotary instruments with at least a 795 bore, and usually 835

The genuine Mahillon tubas (and not the German copies) are larger bodied than those 4/4 York tubas, yet their bore size is only 5/8 of an inch. I don't think the Germans had the courage to copy that bore size.
Howard Johnson was a high note hero, particularly considering that he was playing a B flat tuba, but the 5/8 of an inch bore didn't hinder him, in that regard.

High notes rock on this york. The lower you go, especially below low Bb, you start to feel a bit of resistance. It's getting better though, but it will never feel as good as my piggy

When I played the Wessex tubby I felt a little resistance in the low range. It was less than this york, but I'm pretty sure it's a larger bore horn

I'd love to use a mouthpiece a little smaller in Diameter than my bloke solo, but when I try one, it's frustrating to play in the low range and I reach for the solo again

The small one that I just cranked out features a 32.3mm inside diameter on the rim. I just don't offer anything smaller than 32mm or so, particularly not when most of the stuff is modular, and going smaller than that would really distort the angle from the rim surface down to where the cup part begins.

With the throat on that new brass one piece mouthpiece also being small, it's sort of prevents a player from trying to jam a bunch of air down into a small instrument. I'm sure using terminology such as I did in the last sentence makes the engineer and physics types cringe.

That 0 throat I bought makes the air really back up, so I'm still using the #2 throat, plus the p Shank fits the receiver better

I do like the solo, I've had it for 10 years now, reaching for the 32e is like hitting the EZ button for the high register, but it comes with a cost

' never really considered those 18"-19" bell York/Holton B-flat or E-flat instruments to be "high note specialty" tubas.

The bells don't do much to promote that range.

Rather, I've always viewed them as "small tubas with bells which allow them to sound larger than they actually are".

In any case, this one behaves like one would expect a bass tuba would, and fortunately the intonation on it is better than expected

I've liked Eb tuba for years, but avoided the large ones until recently, when I played @UncleBeer's large and magnificent Eb, and that got me wanting to buy or build one for myself

This one isn't as good as his by a long shot, but I'm still enjoying playing it

Of all the monster E-flats of ninety-or-so years ago, the York ones were the least out-of-tune. You are aware that I had one and fixed it all up...

I would have never bothered with any other makes... with the exception of an older than that era Conn which I sold to our friend who retired from the West Point Academy band... at least I sold him the bell, same body, and a Willson E flat valve set to go with it. I did enough tests with that Bell and body to realize that it was a winner. Not to be confused with the Conn monster E-Flats of the 1930s. This was much earlier and a good bit different, though also large.

I had always heard that the extreme conical expansion made the horns incompatible with usable intonation, but I have to say, this one is better than either my little Conn I owned with a 14"bell, or my last Frankentuba with a 16 inch bell

I have that Kanstul Eb so out of curiosity I set down with a couple of mouthpieces and the cellular phone tuner. The winner, somewhat to my surprise, was the Marcinkiewicz H4. (I think "H" stands for "Helleberg", though it's hard to see any resemblance, and "4" means it's the shallowest of 4 depths.) According to the Marcinkiewicz chart, that's 33.6 mm internal diameter, 8.33 mm throat bore; it feels large, but as usual cup diameter measurement is to be taken with salt. It goes rather far in - the shank is only American, not Schilke-American.

Not a super easy mouthpiece - the mouthpiece that went closest to the pitch "on its own" was a Conn 2 - but the Marcinkiewicz seemed to be most willing to go where I needed it to go. I didn't go about this real scientifically or anything, but it adds up with what I've always thought about the H series - very responsive, somewhat demanding.

As a person who designs and has mouthpieces made to sell, maybe some people have noticed that I will often speak up for a production mouthpiece almost before I will tout my own. The H4 is a pretty useful mouthpiece, but one needs to figure out what it does best and what it doesn't do best. I don't own one, but had one a long time ago.

Tried a schilke 69c4 tonight (very close to the bobo solo)

Nice rounded rim and comfortable, seems to center notes on the york a bit better than the bloke solo, but the two are really close to each other. I may have to play in a large room to get an idea of which one is better.

Thinking maybe the 69c4 is close to the new smaller mouthpiece Joe is offering? I'll have to go back and read that thread again. I got this one for next to nothing, So I can't complain

I still have the Kelly mouthpiece due to arrive on Tuesday, but at this point it would have to be magically amazing for me to keep it instead of sending it back

Continuing in the vein of mouthpieces from my collection that turn out well with the Kanstul Eb, the very best is my Conn 3. Of course, unobtainable and it seems that nothing like it has been made since, but there you go. The bass tuba mouthpiece in the excellent Conn Precision line.

The saga continues


Got the X-small in the mail today. It's interesting

Smaller diameter by 2mm than the bloke solo and the schilke 69c4, which makes it the upper notes lock in and sing, but with a brighter tone than either of the others

What surprised me is that it has a larger throat than the schilke, which gives it the low notes more similar to the bloke with the #2 backbore, something the schilke didn't have

The rim is wide with a sharper inner edge. Tales a bit to get used to, but I'm not ready to send it back. Who knows, I might wind up keeping it. It's not without charm

If you have some time @LeMark and do not mind, are able to take pictures of the Kelly x-small, Schilke 69c4, and the Bloke Solo? It would be cool if a "normal" or common sized tuba mouthpiece can be included with the pictures too. To have a nice visual comparison of how different or unique those mouthpieces are. Hopefully, the lighting and camera lense do not distort the mouthpieces too much.

Saw them in half along the axis, please, and line the insides up side by side. Like Mike Finn's tuba series (his was easier though because he milled the mouthpiece bores into a block, rather than try to dissect a mouthpiece shank without distorting it.) You can really maximally see what's going on that way.