YamaYork at Dillon Music

[russiantuba]

Enough people have figured out that I'm not a particular fan of Yamaha to realize that I'm not shooting the breeze when I state that the YCB-826S 6/4 C is clearly the best of all of the York 6/4 knockoffs. If something's the best, it's the best... the playing position is bizarre (as with all of those), but it's the best.

The only other tubas of theirs that I might mess with would be the 621 F tuba - as an emergency F tuba to play one gig out of town where someone had one to loan me...

...as well as the discontinued model 631 compensating E-flat which is/was a very nice instrument. The 321 E-flat blows well, but - as I've said before - I don't see much use for four non-compensating valves on a tuba (as there's so little advantage - compared to three valves, that the 4th valve might as well be left off, and let the advantage be less weight to carry around) and particularly on a bass tuba, the lowest sort of usable pitch being a quite sharp a natural with 2-4 and then (hit-and-miss) the 2-3-4 G-natural and then - finally - the fundamental E-flat.

I had a good older model 621F I later sold to Sam Pilafian who used it as his main horn when he joined Boston Brass.

I’ve played a yamayork. It played better than all the other 6/4 huge horns, albeit 12 years ago, but it still sounded like a foghorn. If I were going the 6/4 CC route, I’d prefer an Alexander 164, Cerveny 6/4 rotor, and if it HAD to be a piston and I had one of those jobs that would require it because a conductor hears with their eyes, I would do a Gronitz PCK.

[bloke]

@russiantuba

I've gone over and over those things myself too many times, and people are tired of reading those opinions from me. Some of those things that you listed otherwise - though - would work me to death as far as playing them in tune. I've owned a couple of those things you mentioned, so I am speaking from experience.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

I've never been to Germany/Austria (so I'm willing to be called out for speaking from ignorance), but (I tend to suspect) that - were their words for "piston" and "C" used in conjunction with "kaiser tuba" - many of those tuba players would look askance.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

Yeah I get the marketing, but they are not as large as a 195, 197 or 98... and nor are they as large as the smallest Yorkophone (which is the Yamaha 826). I was studying with Gene during the time period that Yamaha was sending him different body prototypes with the same valve section pasted on each one. (I remember one that was about Holton 345 size, and was way too woofy... The 345 size is much more suited to B-flat.)

The early ones obviously weighed much less, but those Gronitz pck things are just about exactly the same size (having set them side-by-side) as a Willson 3050.

I borrowed a Willson 3050 for the better part of a year back when I really was shying away from owning a contrabass tuba again, and later I owned a pck for about 2 years and then sold it to a (very successful) student. Actually, the first C I actually owned (after ridding myself of the last ones that I owned in the early eighties) was that Buescher 5-valve helicon that I built.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

I suppose (??) we can assume that is one picture and not two, and that those instruments were somehow supported together at that angle, or - if laid on a floor - the photo (unlike what appears) was taken from precisely the center point of the two instruments - and from far enough away to only minimally distort.

I don't like being redundant, and - yet - I don't mind being shown to be wrong as much as I mind being redundant...(yet - with apologies - here goes: )

- I borrowed a 3050 for the better part of a year.
- I owned a PCK for (??) two or three years.
- I had them set side-by-side more than once.
- I owned a heavily modified 2165 for about the same amount of time.
..(6450 is different from 2165 in that the bell throat is smaller, the bell diameter is smaller, the mouthpipe, main slide, and dogleg are smaller - along with less significant differences.)

I don't necessarily trust the interwebs, but the bell diameter of the 6450 is listed as 480mm, whereas the PCK bell diameter is listed as 500mm.
The difference (to those who speak SAE) is a little bit more than 3/4th of an inch.

It's not particularly accurate to mark off bell diameters in a picture with a piece of paper and a pen, but that's what I did, measured them - and then transferred those hand measurements to this little diagram (so that they could be viewed by others).

Measuring the best I could manage (and striving to not measure with prejudice) in the picture the 6450 bell diameter measures (again: the best I could manage) only 93% of the PCK bell diameter, whereas - according to specs - the 6450 bell diameter measures 96% of the PCK bell diameter...

...and the forum hosting of this picture is larger than the picture I created in my computer, but I have no control over that.

PCK Baer bell diameters.png (4.18 KiB) Viewed 1568 times

bloke "admittedly, argumentative, because (again) were I somehow compelled to own a tuba of that genre, it would be a YCB-826S (which I would probably be financing, whether used or new...and ALL 'fancy' tubas are - relatively - inexpensive...Go ahead: Call for price: https://www.mmimports.com/product-category/bassoon-instruments/new-bassoons/heckel-bassoons )"

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

yeah...
I believe I'm suggesting that the 6450 pictured size - compared to actual - is roughly 3% undersized.

(Complicating what I was trying to demonstrate is that I had to go around the corner and through the woods to demonstrate it.)

When I owned that 2165 (which was pre-Buffet - which was back when B&S/M-W/Melton/F. Schmidt/etc. was owned by Mr. Meinl, and they were nearly as customer-friendly as Miraphone, back then), I purchased the 6450 main slide, 6450 dogleg, and bent-and-tapered myself a 6450-ish mouthpipe tube (all: smaller than 2165). @UncleBeer also generously sent me a 2165 "tone ring", which shrunk the bell throat to more resemble that of a 6450. It was a "good" tuba", but the Holton-345-like (below pitch) lower G and (above pitch) upper F drove me just a bit nuts (same issues on both similar models, as I've played plenty of factory 6450 tubas). yes: I had to slightly alter the 6450 main slide bow's large-side, as I left the 5th rotor (.5mm bore larger than the 4th circuit bore) in its original position.

The PCK's upper G (oddly flat) drove me just a bit nuts, along with it being just a bit too eager to "growl" in the low range (though the low range was extremely accessible...At that time, I didn't have my mouthpiece tinker toys...The 5450 - which I purchased just after that - had the same low range "growl" issue, but I remedied that by adding 3mm of height to my threaded rim - without changing any other aspects of the mouthpiece.)

Of the YCB-826S tubas that I've played, they seem to offer intonation very similar to 5450 intonation (mostly "Miraphone-like"...an easily-favorable flat 5th partial with few other issues), yet without the low-range "growl" tendency, and without the tubbiness of some of the larger York 6/4 C knockoffs.

(The stuff posted in blue is - maybe/probably - of interest to others, whereas everything else (in this post an my previous one) - is mostly tedious/argumentative...but - speaking of argumentative/tedious/repetitive/boring - my 98 is better than any of those things. )

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

I try (and fail, as what in life is NOT political?) to avoid politics, but championing models of tubas here (and - certainly - championing individual versions of models) is - in reality - far more political (again: on this site) than any Trump-vs.-Biden rhetoric.

I wish I could claim that - having changed out many mouthpipes with others of significantly-different tapers and countlessly more mouthpieces - that doing either ever budged a partial (tuning-wise) an iota (though it may have made them more easy to favor).

Sadly, I fear that tuning characteristics of tubas more lie in the really-expensive-to-change-out parts of the instruments.
ex: For those who have played both a PT-6 and a PT-7, think about how radically different their tuning characteristics were/are (after - in effect - changing out the bottom bow and bell).

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

"Political" always (regards of scope) refers to (among other things) territory and money.

When people - here - openly discuss/list the specific shortcomings of various makes/models, that (in my experience) quickly becomes very political.

...the saxophone fb page comment in the "Repairs" forum here:

Different sax players began having pissing contests with each other regarding the quality of black leather pads - as well as the qualifications of repair-peeps who choose to install them.
(which was becoming so f'ing ridiculous, that I deleted my original question - so that their idiotic arguments - with each other - would disappear.)

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

Saxophone pads? How about flute pads! Is ANYONE truly qualified?

observation (which may be false, but - nevertheless - it's mine)...

The more likely a musician is to be in the spotlight (playing solos or prominent solo lines) the more nutty they are likely to be.

I choose go to lunch with trombonists, section trumpet players (trumpists?), bass players, and section string players...and baritone saxophonists are usually OK - as long as they don't own an alto, tenor, or soprano.

flute pads...??
How much extra do most people charge (prior to clamping) to wet them with yellow food coloring?
S..........r? fine...Y'all just go right ahead on.

[UncleBeer]

I wish I could claim that - having changed out many mouthpipes with others of significantly-different tapers and countlessly more mouthpieces - that doing either ever budged a partial (tuning-wise) an iota (though it may have made them more easy to favor).

Sadly, I fear that tuning characteristics of tubas more lie in the really-expensive-to-change-out parts of the instruments.

Yep. Aside from overall length of leadpipe changing overall tuning, in my experience, leadpipe changes can't change how the overtones line up. That happens farther down in the more conical sections.

[bloke]

I wish I could claim that - having changed out many mouthpipes with others of significantly-different tapers and countlessly more mouthpieces - that doing either ever budged a partial (tuning-wise) an iota (though it may have made them more easy to favor).

Sadly, I fear that tuning characteristics of tubas more lie in the really-expensive-to-change-out parts of the instruments.

Yep. Aside from overall length of leadpipe changing overall tuning, in my experience, leadpipe changes can't change how the overtones line up. That happens farther down in the more conical sections.

' astonished that - yet another living soul...now: two lone souls...?? - embrace TRVTH.

' curious: Have you also found that a different mouthpiece may flatten sharp pitches (or sharpen flat pitches), but - at the same time - sharpen/flatten entire instruments by just about precisely the same amount? (If so, we've won the Daily Double.)

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.