Small bore Yorks

[gionvil]

Every once in a while I see pop up for sale few York Bb 4 pistons upright tubas, with the relatively small bore of 0,655 which maybe was common at the time when they were built, but now bores are normally much bigger on piston horns. I'd like to ask York experts how do they play. Do they share some of the carachteristics of their bigger sisters ? Is the small bore a limit or they have a good low register?

[lost]

The difference between .655 and .687 (king 2341) looks huge on paper, but .032 of an inch isn't that bad. Slightly more resistant but can be pushed for a big sound.

[edfirth]

If you're looking at the one at Baltimore Brass I owned one exactly like it. Yes, it had the sound characteristics of the big boys. I couldn't overblow it, the sound just stayed the same except louder.These are probably about 100 years old so the valves would need to be looked at....or just use sewing machine oil and precision aligned and if you do those two things(unless there's a leak or something like that) they are incredible instruments. I owned mine a long time ago. Before I had ever heard about valve jobs and I sold it and have regretted it ever since.Kanstul copied that top banger and I got to hear all about Gene Porkorny playing the prototype onstage at orchestra hall with Mike Roylance, Bob Carpenter, and Tom Treece in attendance. And everyone liked it alot. so yeah, they sound like Yorks. Ed

[bloke]

Tendencies can always be overridden somehow, but smaller bore sizes - combined with larger bell sizes - tend to generate less brash sonorities. This combination also tends to allow easier bending of out-of-tune pitches.

Curiously, larger bore sizes don’t tend to add all that much potential for higher decibel production.

The engineers on the board will always attack me for posting things - based on decades of observations - without any quoted scientific theory behind them, but here they are, anyway.

An example of something at the opposite end of the sonic spectrum (from a York 19 inch bell instrument with a .65X inch bore size) would be a Russian or Czech tuba with a 15 inch bell and a .83X inch bore size.

[Yorkboy]

Recently, I decided to experiment with an E flat York monster that I was converting (no pictures, so you'll have to trust me).

I tried both a Conn 5J (.656) set, and a Reynolds (.687) set, and what I found was the 4th valve low range (low A natural down to low E natural) slotted noticeably better with the smaller valveset, especially the usually most problematic notes, A natural and A flat. Also, the larger set gave more of a "woofy" and "breathy" tone, while the smaller set had more "zip" and "edge".

(Adjectives describing sound are very subjective, YMMV).

With that said, subsequent generations oftentimes seem to take the stance that previous generations were Neanderthals, and that we can always figure out better ways of doing things; in my opinion, those "smaller"* horns were supplied with that .656 bore for a specific reason, and it wasn't done randomly.

* Anybody who has taken these Yorks apart will immediately realize that substantially, the only difference (other than the bore, of course) between the "smaller" Yorks and their .750 "tall-bell" cousins is THE BELL ITSELF.

Tendencies can always be overridden somehow, but smaller bore sizes - combined with larger bell sizes - tend to generate less brash sonorities. This combination also tends to allow easier bending of out-of-tune pitches

[bloke]

Yorkboy is a person (though he does not over-post, as do I) to whom all should pay attention.

He is elite-trained, has mastered a wide-range-of-styles (including additional mastery of some woodwinds), and is marvelous player, who also does superb jobs of "building" (restoring, and then enhancing) century-old tubas - which are worthy of the benefits of such restorations and enhancements...

...so (I'm just sayin') when he posts, pay attention.

His observations and statements are about as close as you're going to get - here - to "science".

[tubanews]

Yorkboy is a person (though he does not over-post, as do I) to whom all should pay attention.

He is elite-trained, has mastered a wide-range-of-styles (including additional mastery of some woodwinds), and is marvelous player, who also does superb jobs of "building" (restoring, and then enhancing) century-old tubas - which are worthy of the benefits of such restorations and enhancements...

...so (I'm just sayin') when he posts, pay attention.

His observations and statements are about as close as you're going to get - here - to "science".

If you gave me 3 guesses you would owe me 5 bucks, after the first guess

[Yorkboy]

Wow - bloke, thanks for those kind words. Truth be told, 99.7% of what little I know has been gleaned from years of experience shared by folks like you on these forums....