YCB-621 CC (or clone) VS Yamaha YEB-381 5V Eb ?

[Steve Inman]

Just catching up -- the 621 3/4 CC and its clones (especially the Mack Brass 421) have come up in discussions on the forums more recently. I'm especially intrigued by the TU-421, and wonder how closely it would match the playing characteristics and sound of the Yamaha Eb -- and what the differences would be. For those who have played both, enough to opine, what would I gain, and what would I lose? A few details are included below, for your consideration. Thanks!


Some background: I have, and frequently use, a nice specimen* of the 5v Yamaha Eb, in a small church ensemble (a dozen brass and woodwinds), in quintet, and in a small community band -- marginally keeping up when I'm the only tuba. I play the Eb because I feel it blends nicely in the smaller groups, without being too loud / broad of a sound. I think the Eb has a very nice sound. But I make enough mistakes when switching back/forth between Eb and CC, that I usually play either CC or Eb exclusively for awhile, then switch, and play in the other key for awhile. The advantage of a 3/4 CC -- IF it had similar playing and sound characteristics to the Eb of similar size -- which I like -- would be that all of my tubas would be in the same key. The CC would handle the medium-low register more easily, but how well could it compete with the upper register ease that the Eb provides? Thoughts?

* This 381 Eb has a clever Lee Stofer 5th valve mod to allow for either the factory flat half step, OR with a bit of extra tubing inserted, a flat whole step 5th valve. The original owner (whoever they were) also extended the 5th valve lever so it can be actuated with the right hand thumb. Together, these mods create a very usable Eb tuba. With a Bach Megatone 7 (not a traditional Eb mpc 8-D ...) it projects very well for its size.

Thanks for your insights!

[bloke]

I can never make that 381 OEM fifth valve work as a adjusted semitone, as they seem to me to be built in the cracks.
Maybe others have more luck with them...(??)
When I sold one a few years ago, I set it up as a adjusted whole tone, because I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to buy it otherwise... so if Lee has set up one of those to have a separate plug-in slide as a adjusted whole tone option, I consider that to be a very good thing.

These Yamaha 321/381 non-comp top-action E-flat tubas are the same bugle taper as the English design compensating or non-compensating instruments - whether three valve non-compensating, three valve compensating, or four valve compensating. I believe I would just get a 3+1 compensating E-flat instrument (one that seems to work well) and call it done...(but that's what I did, so of course I would do it again ).

You also mentioned a YCB-621 or copy.
Decades ago, I bought one of those in new condition in a new condition case.. an actual Yamaha.. an for an extremely attractive price. I played one job on it the next week, and immediately sold it. I've never looked back, and each time I repaired one and played on it for a few minutes, I remember why I sold that instrument. I consider those to be the least successful of the three 621 instruments. I've never been able to sell a C version for as much as an F or B-flat version.

I realize that I'm not offering any leeway in my opinions (nor using words such as "perhaps"), and - obviously - you can take my opinions - or leave them...

[2nd tenor]

From the sides lines I read:

# That’s not a popular CC, that’s not an instrument bloke (an expert) would buy again, better not to buy one

# The Yamaha Eb bugle works but other valve sets work better, consider a compensated four valve Eb Tuba.
(John Packer sell a Eb four valve compensator that several players on here have and like).

[KerryAbear]

If you find a 3/4 CC to do the job or for any other reason decide to part with your 381 please let me know. I’m wanting to buy a 381 within the next year.

[Steve Inman]

With the YCB-621, it’s missing a fifth valve, which is a pretty big negative for a CC tuba, imo. I’ve only played one briefly a long time ago, and it felt a lot like the YFB-621 I owned sonically.

I wasn’t all that impressed with the YFB-621 upper register. It was okay up around F above the staff and then not really much more secure than the 188 I owned at the time. A bit sweeter sounding? Sure.

The Mack clone of the YCB-621 does offer a fifth valve and a slightly larger bell diameter option. Maybe that helps a bit?

A small CC that I’ve always liked in a “fake bass tuba” role is the Conn 2J. Problem is that now the newest one you’ll find is 50 years old, and comes along with the problems a 50 year old piece of machinery might have.

If the biggest issue is brain farts with Eb fingerings then F tuba offers a bit more similarity of fingerings to C and the YFB-621 is kinda close sonically to the YEB-321/381. If one could find a YFB-821 (the Bobo variant of the 621) for a decent price (doubtful) or if a clone exists, that might be a good option. Maybe?

These kind of situations are always a little tricky. Good luck on finding a workable solution.

[Breavdah]

For a long long time young brass players gobbled up Canadian Brass CDs. Most of which utilize the 621. It was the best way to actually hear a tuba being played, while also being entertaining. Non-savvy relatives could always grab one for your stocking, and local libraries had them. Sorta a pre-internet "viral".

On the other hand that 621 may have been heavily modified, and I think Chuck at one point damned it with faint praise. Still, to many ears, it's the most tuba-sounding tuba.

[bloke]

For its size, the C - >> in my experience << - is not the most fluid instrument (OK: slurring, though I'm not-at-all claiming that it can't be done), and isn't the most friendly regarding tuning.

Valve venting may very well help the slurring issue.. I've never drilled holes in the pistons on one of these and tried them after I've done that.

If - beginning decades ago - I played in a very high profile small brass ensemble that toured all the time and I stood up playing my tuba - and additionally wanted to be playing a tuba pitched in C, that was one of very few choices (other than a 184 and the old Getzen/King - that's probably heavier...and the 621 company - I would imagine - had more sponsorship money available). Additionally - with the ensemble playing all of its own arrangements, it would be pretty easy to write tuba parts around the lack of a fifth valve. Further, the lack of a fifth valve reduces the weight considerably.
(As much as a bunch of us old guys look back with beloved feelings towards our formerly-owned 184 C tubas, those instruments sported some of the same issues as the C 621.)

Possibly of Interest, the high-profile tuba player (referred to above) recently contacted me about one of those front-action compensating English-made E-flat tubas. I had already sold it, but told him where another one was for sale, and he bought that one. I'm thinking that he had never been an E-flat player, but - just like Jeff Anderson suddenly deciding to try out a 6/4 C in the San Francisco Symphony (after playing so otherworldly perfectly on his pt6 all these years) - I suppose he's just trying to keep things interesting, and maybe deciding to go down another tuba playing rabbit hole...??

[Steve Inman]

Part of that YCB-621 having years of exposure possibly has to also do with Yamaha having decades of deep pockets?

The YCB-621 prototype, iirc, was cobbled together by Schilke for Yamaha sometime in the 1980s. I’d reckon that Schilke didn't have larger forms and mandrels hanging around, so they sought out some extant tubas that met design criteria. Now I don’t know if they used an existing YBB-103 (no idea of its timeline) or they used an old Besson Eb. Maybe Yamaha had already copped the Besson design for bows and bell for the 103 and Schilke just reworked the valve cluster? Nonetheless, none of the YxB-621s seemed to have been a result of a clean sheet design.

Interesting history there. I’m also sure that the horns YCB-621s that fall into the hands of the gentleman using it as his main axe are better than average.

Poking around to yammer on about this topic jostled some neurons to remind me that I had played a YBB-621 about 25 years ago (???). And that I remember the YBB-103 being a better horn to play, lack of the fourth valve notwithstanding.

[bloke]

I'm not interested in too much speculation, but knowing what types of machinery is required to manufacture tuba bells and body bows, I suspect that Schilke music products "built" that instrument in the same way that many of us build Franken tubas.

In the same way that Kanstul twisted top-action valvesets around to make them into front-action, that valveset on the 621 looks to be the same sort of thing, and - at that time - Yamaha was offering four-valve top-action B-flat and E-flat instruments with .689 inch bore valvesets. I'm not sure of the timeline, but - as you point out - the 103 was already in existence, which features the same (as 621) bell and bugle... I'm not sure if they had moved on to the 104 (also the same) by then..??

At some point, Schilke reportedly put together a front-action C version of the 321 top-action B-flat - that has also been seen floating around between owners. Reports are that it's sort of like the 621 C (at least, as I view it) in that it's "interesting".

[Steve Inman]

Thanks for the replies so far. Very insightful. Any other input is most welcome.

A whole bunch of biographical background, that you may not care about: I have ended up favoring Eb tuba over the decades for playing in a quintet, a 10 piece brass choir, and other small ensembles. The brass choir always wanted the 56J over the 381 Eb, however. In the past, I played a BBb 186 (16.5 in bell?), an old HN White "KIng" Eb 3V (that was then sold to a gentlemen playing tuba with an orchestra in The Hague (who performed various frankentuba experiments on it), and bought an old Conn? Eb that was a 3V, with a 4th valve spliced in. I then moved to a Besson 983 Eb which worked well, but I never likes the extra resistance of the compensating 4th valve (hence I'm leery of the compensating Eb options). I then tried an older Czech F, where I learned about the rotary F quirks. I then tried a YFB-621 for a while, but it seemed too small of an option. I then played a 4V 186 CC for a few years, before buying Andy Smith's 56J, which I presently have. Along the way, I bought and sold a 381 Eb (sold to an orchestra player here in Indiana who is well known for also assembling very popular CC tubas from older horns). When I stumbled onto my present 381, I bought it, realizing the mistake in selling the first one. A few years back I also found a Marzan 4V solo model CC that has a nice sound, but isn't nearly as point-and-shoot as the 56J, so it's not getting much use at all. Hence, those are the various horns I'm familiar with.

I envision having something modest in size, that blends well with quintet and smaller groups, AND a potent 4/4+ horn that could be used for some quintet pieces and also a larger community band if I end up being the only tuba. I HAVE these horns at present (well, the 56J is at least 4/4), but in my dream world, they would both be in the same key.

("Burying the lede" -- So ... I recently tried a newly available 6/4 Eb in Chicago, hoping it might work as my "larger horn" (and I'd keep the 381 and be an Eb only player). I found that horn's lower register to be noticeably more difficult to play with any agility -- maybe because of the bore size? Maybe I'm a weeny player? Don't know. Fourth valve combination notes from BBb down didn't speak as easily as higher pitched ones. (Compared to it, my 381 and the so-called "Gnagey Eb design" play like a dream for me.) But the 6/4 didn't immediately seem to be a good choice for me. So, unless there's a 4V, compensating, front action, 17 to 19 bell inch Eb without a stuffy lower register somewhere, I've given up on the Eb only option. Well, there IS the Willson Erickson horn, but not sure it's in the budget, IF they ever show up FS .... So I'm presently exploring a solution with a 3/4-ish CC that would be a close substitute for the 381 Eb, to add to the 56J.)

There's the full background, in case it gives any other ideas to anyone -- hopefully not too derogatory regarding my thinking or approach.

Cheers!

[KerryAbear]

Well, I hope you find the perfect 3/4-ish CC so I can purchase that 381 from you.

[Resnikda]

The Mack Brass TU422 bore for its piston valves 1-3 is .689 and valve no. 4 is .707 That bore configuration seems popular, and is used by Packer JP179B Tuba and Schiller in a similar "Elite" model. The configuration is interesting to me as a weakening 82 year old amateur who wants to avoid lugging around a pretty good but heavy Chinese clone of a Miraphone 191. I have the impression that the .689/.707 configuration draws some inspiration from the Yamaha YBB 621, which seems to be a cousin to other Yamaha 621 models. Is that right? I bought the Schiller .689/.707 configuration model based on price, and as an amateur I am impressed with the good intonation, and relatively full sounding and in tune low tones, although the horn has some of the limitations of any 3/4 horn (no listener would mistake it for 4/4). I am curious who came up with the .689/.707 configuration in the first place, and who in (I assume) China makes such horns -- I'm pretty sure its not the usual suspect Jinbao. And, while I am asking, why do you think there is a lack of spit valves in these models (and certainly the Schiller) so that it becomes necessary to spin the horn to clear it? Thanks, DR

[Resnikda]

I have figured out the possible answer to one of my questions. See http://www.zoindustrial.com/products/br ... a/526.html My horn from Schiller may be the ZO ZTU-2500 3/4 BBb Tuba, Size:3/4, Key: BBb, brass lacquered, 4 front action stainless steel pistons, Leadpipe: rose brass, Bell size: 366mm (14.4”). Bore size: 16.8mm (.661”).

[Three Valves]

The Mack Brass TU422 bore for its piston valves 1-3 is .689 and valve no. 4 is .707 That bore configuration seems popular, and is used by Packer JP179B Tuba and Schiller in a similar "Elite" model. The configuration is interesting to me as a weakening 82 year old amateur who wants to avoid lugging around a pretty good but heavy Chinese clone of a Miraphone 191. And, while I am asking, why do you think there is a lack of spit valves in these models (and certainly the Schiller) so that it becomes necessary to spin the horn to clear it? Thanks, DR

I have the TU422 in BBb and I have not had to resort to spinning. Even if I did it would not be the issue a horn 10# heavier is.

The second valve will fill with spit occasionally. Though not so much so that I need to dump it mid concert.

I think the 16in bell on my Mack makes it sound more 4/4 than the 14in bell on others.

[KerryAbear]

Baltimore Brass has a small CC Wilson.

https://www.baltimorebrasscompany.com/p ... -tuba.aspx

[cjk]

Just catching up --
....

Hi Steve!!

YCB-621, all "IMHO":

* The leadpipe is too large for a small tuba. (maybe too large for a big tuba too)
* The tuba has to be approached like a large tuba even though it isn't.
* It seems to want a larger mouthpiece
* Isn't particularly easy to play due to the overly large leadpipe.
* doesn't slur particularly well
* missing a valve
* Intonation was more work than the Miraphone 184 CC I had, then there's the missing valve too.
* "meh" tone quality

I had one. I can see how some folks really dig it. I think it's a "good-ish" tuba, but never found it interesting enough to want to regularly play it. IIRC, the low register spoke really well, but hey, there's a valve missing, so we're back into "hassle" territory. I'm sure some people love it.

I expect you'll find a YCB-621 less interesting than what you have now.

If you're just interested in something new, you might consider MAW valves for your 56J.

All the best!

[cjk]

Baltimore Brass has a small CC Wilson.

https://www.baltimorebrasscompany.com/p ... -tuba.aspx

Steve Inman
Conn 56J
Marzan CC solo model
YEB-381 5V Eb

IIRC, the Marzan CC solo model above is a most likely a smaller CC made by Willson.

[Steve Inman]

Marzan solo model --Yes, this is indeed the smaller CC made by Willson. 17in. bell. IIRC a .636-ish bore. It has a nice sound, but needs some alternate fingerings, and some slide pulling -- more than I'm used to. I'm actually considering putting it up for sale, as my other two horns are very much point-and-shoot -- and I prefer playing them as a result. The good news is that ALL tuning slides are on the top of this horn, including the main slide -- very clever design.

The CC that Baltimore Brass has is a 19 inch bell, .750 bore horn -- much larger.

[Steve Inman]

Just catching up --
....

Hi Steve!!

YCB-621, all "IMHO":

* The leadpipe is too large for a small tuba. (maybe too large for a big tuba too)
* The tuba has to be approached like a large tuba even though it isn't.
* It seems to want a larger mouthpiece
* Isn't particularly easy to play due to the overly large leadpipe.
* doesn't slur particularly well
* missing a valve
* Intonation was more work than the Miraphone 184 CC I had, then there's the missing valve too.
* "meh" tone quality

I had one. I can see how some folks really dig it. I think it's a "good-ish" tuba, but never found it interesting enough to want to regularly play it. IIRC, the low register spoke really well, but hey, there's a valve missing, so we're back into "hassle" territory. I'm sure some people love it.

I expect you'll find a YCB-621 less interesting than what you have now.

If you're just interested in something new, you might consider MAW valves for your 56J.

All the best!

I have a couple of groups where my YEB-381 is ideal (quintet, small church ensemble). But I think I would do better if both of my tubas were in the same key. I am concluding that CC is that key. So I am starting to seek a viable alternative to the YEB-381 but in CC. The Mack Brass 5v clone of the 621, with the 16 inch bell is of interest. I would prefer to keep the 381, as I love the sound it lets me achieve. But, I don't think I have enough rehearsal time to stay fluent with both Eb and CC at the same time. Thanks.

[Steve Inman]

Update: I should be able to answer my own question with a great degree of certainty, sometime next week, courtesy of Tom and Jody at Mack Brass. Thanks to those who provided thoughts so far in this thread. Another update to follow in a week or two.

Cheers!