YamaYork at Dillon Music

[bloke]

- Mr. Schilke taught himself to play the trumpet remarkably well, he - from experience - noticed which makes played better than others (ie. "What if I made a trumpet like this really good one, but changed a few little things and see what happens?") and he learned how to build bells really well, and built other parts and made them fit together well.

- Mr. Lawson taught himself to play the horn remarkably well, he - from experience - noticed which makes played better than others (ie. "What if I made a horn like this really good one, but changed a few little things and see what happens?") and he learned how to build bells really well, and and built other parts and made them fit together well.

- Today (me: offering no explanation nor making any implications/claims about those two lines of instruments), not all that many - percentage-wise, in the professional realm - are seeking either of their instruments.
- Neither built gigantic instruments that (after not very many feet/inches of length) were already three feet in diameter...ie. the acoustical nightmares (which vary infinitely, if not comically) known as tubas.

I could blather on about the whys and wherefores of tuba mouthpieces (since I have designed some that a few people seem to like), but I never claim that I know why stuff works well (it's trial-and-error), and nor am I going to refer to acoustical principals in order to attempt to quote them in order to defend my already-designed (by trial-and-error) mouthpieces...there are just way to many variables (including every single operator).

I can taper/bend mouthpipes that - often - I like better the o.e.m. mouthpipes, but don't post graphs 'n' stuff on why I like 'em better (because - truthfully - I really don't know. Like those who came before me, I look towards those that I've seen/used on other instruments - those that I liked a bunch, and - mostly - copied those that I liked (again: trial-and-error).

Am I belittling those names you dropped?
- not at all, they were great players and made really good stuff. To this day, a large percentage of players (though a smaller percentage as time goes on) seek out Schilke piccolo trumpets.
- I respect what they did, can't play the tuba as well as they played their instruments, and can only fabricate a minuscule fraction of the things that they could fabricate...

When someone refers to a highly-accomplished person in order to defend a principle/belief system/narrative, does an alarm go off in my head?
- always

Am I necessarily obligated to buy into all of various successful makers' rhetoric regarding brass instrument acoustics?
- I don't believe I am. I can certainly notice that they make extremely fine instruments, but I don't feel obligated to (also) accept their rhetoric as to why they are so good.

As time has passed, more people have developed some really interesting/amazing devices that can show so many more things that could be shown during the lifetimes of those excellent makers. Those devices don't tell instrument makers how to make ideal instruments, but (again) those devices allow makers to play around and experiment (again: trial-and-error) with better/earlier guesses of what may well be the possible results of subsequent trials.

Look at Miraphone: More-and-more, their newer models (and not just the huge one that I chose to buy) play remarkably better (almost astonishingly better) in tune than some of their older models.
Look at B&S/M-W: They pulled the horrific rotary model 2155 off the market, but (I suspect after some new acoustical measuring tools were developed) later came back with a piston model (and later a rotary model) with (mostly) the same shape/size body (5450), but - rather than horrific intonation - offers remarkably good intonation...
...and many other examples...

Something tells me that - in order to accomplish those things - they didn't rely on the writings or verbal rhetoric of either that particular trumpet maker or that particular horn maker, nor Mr. Jacobs, nor Mr. Hilgers, etc...

I'm old enough to remember (via advertising, charts, and rhetoric) when trumpet players were removing their very nice-playing mouthpipe tubes from their instruments and replacing them with mouthpipe tubes with steps in them (rather than smooth tapers) with the claims being that each of those steps tuned a particular pitch/partial.

An overwhelming majority of trumpets made in Chicago feature (claiming acoustical considerations) "reverse" mouthpipe tubes - which bump out larger, rather than bumping in smaller at the adjustment end...so (assuming those claims are legitimate) why aren't most all professional model trumpets fashioned in that manner?

...and I'm noticing that you failed to mention a person - an advisory person for a very prolific instrument maker - who froze instruments, but (according to what I've seen reported) would never do it without also cleaning them.

Anyone - whether they choose to post anonymously or to identify themselves - can allow themselves to be triggered by sidebars as much as they choose to be triggered - and I can certainly troll out even more rhetoric for the entertainment/amusement of the TFFJ and the silent majority, but the fact remains that Yamaha makes THE BEST 6/4 C York knockoff, and Dillon Music ACTUALLY has one for sale.

[Dents Be Gone!]

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

[Mary Ann]

well, whilst the two of ya'll are yammering at each other -- I'll give my little Lawson bell testimonial again. When I acquired my Schmid double, which is not a piece of trash, it came with a Schmid bell that the original owner had purchased with it. She is a horn player many will have heard of, and she went to the factory to choose a horn. Couldn't get used to it, nor could the next owner, both 8D players. So when I got it, my then teacher, also an 8D player, referred to it quite unkindly, calling it "slippery," meaning, I presume, that it did not slot well or at least did not slot like an 8D.
However, ergonomically it worked better for me than any other of the plethora of horns I had played to that point in time. Shortly thereafter, my good friend who played a Lawson for ten years in the traveling road show Phantom of the Opera, told me there was a Lawson ambronze bell for sale with a Schmid ring and that I should jump on it. I did -- and suddenly the notes that were "slippery" with the original Schmid bell, slotted like nobody's business. Not just on my horn, but on other Schmid horns that other Schmid players tried it on. I play on a Lawson cup because it just works better. I haven't felt the need to try a Lawson leadpipe, but I bet based on the number of people who have used them, that they have a benefit. I believe there is a sleeve inside the leadpipe that has tapers in it, and Walter Lawson was, in my mind, one of those geniuses with brass instrument design. I had the pleasure of meeting him many years ago at a horn camp to which he brought his mouthpiece for people to try.

[bloke]

Mouthpipes feel different.
Mouthpieces (subtly) sound different.

To significantly alter intonation characteristics, the larger portions of instruments - inevitably - need to be changed out.

I actually do pay attention to cause/effect (not from trial-and-error in building trumpets/horns - because I don't build those, but from comparing stuff I've repaired and/or sold for a few decades).
As just one example, I believe I've noticed that - where the bow occurs in the bells of most B-flat trumpets (of the typical/most-common/prolific "French Besson" shape) - when that bow area is significantly larger in bore (compared to most others) the fifth partial tends to sag.
...An institutional teacher brought an (Indiana-made) new professional trumpet to me - quite a few years ago, which played "funny" - both the intonation of open pitches and the response of valve pitches.
1/ The bell bow was located at a different place along the taper (funny length of the straight part) and
2/ The valve pitches were all out of focus (ridiculously loose fit of the #3 and #1 slide assemblies).
He wanted me to "fix" it.
Finally I made him understand that it wasn't "fix"-able, so (and - at that point - I lost respect for that person) they sold it to a student (AFTER that company sent them a free replacement).

horn mouthpipes:
There are certainly differences, but I'm pretty sure (having installed so many boutique ones for so many people, and messed around with - ie. played - most of those horns before/after swapping pipes - before telling customers that their instruments were ready to be picked up) they don't affect intonation very much at all (but sure: they absolutely affect the way that horns feel).

Blessing:
made an out-of-tune marching mellophone (widely infamous). Randy Johnson told me (I assume he was telling me the truth...??) that they went back and paid Walter Lawson to design a new mouthpipe for that model...(to me) no better than before.

on gullibility:
A customer (after a concert) handed me a Rauch horn (at just about the top of the "ooh-ahh" makes, these days) and another mouthpipe.
They had (barely) bent the o.e.m. mouthpipe (at the end of the overpart) and bought a new mouthpipe (big bucks) to replace the original (rather than the simple repair required - simply by a couple of seconds of carefully bending by hand.
The replacement mouthpipe was purchased by them from someone who claimed to have made the mouthpipes for Rauch (huh?).
me (looking at it) said, "This doesn't look the same at all," but they wanted it installed.
I contacted them during the swap and let them know that I was going to have to move braces (not even the same curvature, in addition to not the same taper, nor - apparently - level of workmanship...ie. obvious-to-me "issues").
I've had a good look a couple of Rauch mouthpipes (a family member owns/plays a Rauch horn, in addition to the o.e.m. mouthpipe for that particular horn being right there in my hand).
After handing back their horn - along with the original mouthpipe, I suggested to them that I suspected they would soon be putting the original back on the instrument.
I believe I heard later that they did just that.
>> I'm not claiming that mouthpipes don't make a difference, and I'm not claiming that just any old mouthpipe will play as well as any other.
It's really easy to favor pitches (particularly with horns), and it's really easy for someone (regardless of skill level, as I've seen it from high school students to extremely accomplished players) convince themselves that this-or-that is the result of this-or-that.

I started posting here after you went after someone else.

I admire the fact that you admit that you were attempting to troll me as well.
It's sorta hard to troll a troll, and - as promised (in spite of the guilt trip) I've delivered yet more rhetoric (again: for entertainment purposes only).

NOT Schilke, NOT Lawson, NOT Blessing, NOT Rauch, but YAMAHA...It's a YAMAHA C tuba...the best in it's size/style class...at
DILLON MUSIC...a RARELY OFFERED MODEL, and at a reasonable price.

[UncleBeer]

Well, I guess everyone else (dummies like Schilke and Lawson) is wrong. More TRVTH from bloke!

Theirs was a different era; when physicians recommended the healthiest brand of cigarettes.

[bloke]

A former principal in Memphis had a Lawson horn.

You know those models of tubas that everyone raves(d) about, but you have to work your butt off in order to play them?

That's what he was talking about, when he sold it and bought something else.

Come to think of it, that's a lot like a Wilson 3050; the similarly-sized Gronitz I bought offered relief, but only in the fact that it weighed less, thus it was easier to balance.

[Dents Be Gone!]

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

[Dents Be Gone!]

A point I’d like to make:

At this point, the Yamaha isn’t really a York copy but rather “York inspired”. They’ve been tweaking the design on the 826 for over two decades now.

I do wonder if Walter Nirschl has made any changes to his design over time?

All of these big tubas vary a bit simply because they are big and small changes can propagate into playing differences.

[bloke]

Tuning is important to me, and I like it to be easy. That's why - even though I'm not a big Yamaha Corporation fan and nor am I a Yamaha school band instruments fan, I matter-of-factly admit that this model is the best of all of those of this genre.

Given the choice of having to favor an open pitch 30 cents, 15 cents, or 5 cents, the choice seems obvious to me.

I've seen videos of those "6/4 C tuba contests", they sort of remind me of those sousaphone section contests, but whatever. People comment on the "type" of sound various models make (after playing just about everything at triple forte) and yet there's never a tuning device in the foreground of those videos, which might be eye-opening.

"I prefer the sound of the blah blah."...etc.
-------------------
You know - when I'm doing the typical octave thing with a bass trombonist, I prefer sound of iron octaves over difference waves... and something else: For those who really dig "loud", in-tune octaves are a lot louder.

tuning devices clamped onto brass instruments:
I know a fine brass player who has even finer connections and ended up in a really big-time high paying orchestra. They had one of those things clamped to their instrument all the time. They also cried after concerts if they missed a note. Those things are a huge distraction from playing... not recommend.

The most in tune school bands around here seem to have rejected that tack, and use drones for tuning. I don't pretend to know how the brain works, but years and years of tuning guitars taught me where the pitch e was, and I could tune without a tuning fork or any other device, because I "knew" e. This tells me that those drones might possibly promote pitch memory. When I get really intense with one of my or more of my tubas for a number of weeks (and I don't have the luxury of doing this very often), I'm pretty sure I begin to learn pitches, because - when I happen to glance over at the tuner after weeks and weeks of intense practicing - I tend to almost never be very far off at all. I don't embrace the "playing by feel" (ex: "An in-tune F feels like this") thing at all, because I don't always feel the same.

I believe that so-called "perfect pitch" people simply are really good rememberers. Interestingly, those who claim it don't always seem to be the best musicians - not even necessarily the most in tune, and of course the ability to turn a phrase has nothing to do with the ability to remember a pitch.

[arpthark]

Since monster Eb tubas have the bells of big BBbs (an instrument a perfect fourth lower) and the conical expansion of the bugle is too rapid and causes intonation issues, should companies actually be putting R&D money into developing a tuba in low GG that uses the bell and bottom bow profile of a 6/4 CC tuba, but with a more gradual conical expansion?

Eastman, Jin Bao, et al, I will be anxiously awaiting my consultation fee check.

[Mary Ann]

Well, maybe I should spend that violin insurance money and buy this, just to have it?

[bloke]

Well, maybe I should spend that violin insurance money and buy this, just to have it?

Matt has also surely played some of these in the past, as have I. I'm sure he would be very candid on the telephone regarding how this one stacks up against others he's played.

One problem I have with putting up digital pictures is that they always tend to look a little bit better than the instrument itself actually looks. I usually feel like I have to post something like "This instrument looks very nice, but not quite as nice as these pictures."

I'm sure Matt will also be candid about the cosmetics of this instrument to someone who's serious about considering purchasing it.

I don't doubt that they have slightly altered the model over the years, but most of the alterations I'm sure occurred with the various body prototypes that they sent to Gene before any marketing occurred.

================
sidebars: (nearly unrelated to this post)
If there's one thing nice about the 5.5/4 Gronitz PCK (not in this classification of instruments, but whatever) it's that the mouthpipe wraps farther around the bell than all of these York-style 6/4 tubas, and the player doesn't have to hold the instrument at an awkward 45° angle in order to play it.

It was stated by someone that none of these various models are copies - but are interpretations, yet none of the interpretations seem to have considered testing out removing just a couple of inches from the bugle somewhere, so that the instrument can be held more comfortably.

[Yorkboy]

The other flavor of 6/4 horns, inspired by the early Holtons have a sensible leadpipe angle.

[bloke]

I'm not trying to be argumentative...but I have a couple of 345 B-flats here - and they (short mouthpipes, though not as short as the C ones) need to be held somewhat 45-angle-ish.
The (two or three) >factory< 345 C instruments that I've played or repaired were more exaggerated (significantly shorter mouthpipes) in their 45-angle-ish playing position.

I believe the C versions of the York-like 6/4 C tubas generally "struggle" to be short enough to play in C.


reference: compare to Miraphone 186 playing position

[arpthark]

I'm not trying to be argumentative...but I have a couple of 345 B-flats here - and they (short mouthpipes, though not as short as the C ones) need to be held somewhat 45-angle-ish.
The (two or three) >factory< 345 C instruments that I've played or repaired were more exaggerated (significantly shorter mouthpipes) in their 45-angle-ish playing position.

I believe the C versions of the York-like 6/4 C tubas generally "struggle" to be short enough to play in C.


reference: compare to Miraphone 186 playing position

I played a BMB 6/4 CC at a conference once -- those are inspired by the Holtons, yeah? I remember the horn was very awkward to hold at that angle.

Why has no one made one in B yet, specifically for RotV?

[bloke]

@arpthark

I'm not sure if I understand your comment...(so this reply might be nonsense and/or non sequitur...


...but (piston) Jonathan has introduced a couple of Holton 6/4-like B-flat things, yes?

(rotary...??)
FatBastard/98 (bell dimensions nearly perfectly - whether or not intentional - trace the dimensions of a 345 bell.)

Years ago, some handsome European guy (I'm not good remembering at names, and certainly not long-term) enjoyed showing off his (one-off?) rotary M-W 2165....

[arpthark]

@arpthark

I'm not sure if I understand your comment...(so this reply might be nonsense and or non sequitur...


...but (piston) Jonathan has introduced a couple of Holton 6/4-like things, yes?

(rotary...??)
FatBastard/98 (bell dimensions nearly perfectly - whether or not intentional - the dimensions of a 345 bell.)

Years ago, some handsome European guy enjoyed showing off his (one-off?) rotary M-W 2165....

Basically saying, contra @matt g's comment above, the BMB 6/4 (a "Holton-thing") had that odd-angled mouthpipe, at least from what I remember. But I haven't played a real Holton 345, neither BBb, factory CC, nor Ruskified cut job.

Also making a joke that the makers of these odd-mouthpipe-angle C tubas could extend the mouthpipe a bit, which would pitch them in B, and then advertise them as a Ride of the Valkyries horn.

edit to add Jozsef Bazskina w/ 2165-Z:

[bloke]

got it...and thanks for filling in the blank and the bonus pic.

(You know that I built a B slide for my last C tuba, and have built an A slide for my currently-owned B-flat tuba...Why not find out what happens?
It's not as if it costs much. both: played OK)

[York-aholic]

Well, maybe I should spend that violin insurance money and buy this, just to have it?

Wait, WHAT?

Did I miss something, what happened?

(Yes, trying to take thread off the rails, but genuinely am interested)

[Mary Ann]

There is a thread about that -- my 1903 Italian violin (I was a violin pro when young, and had that violin since 1966) was stolen in June of 2022. I collected considerable insurance on it from Clarion. It has not been recovered. I have, though, pretty much spent the insurance on a wonderful Cor Anglais, getting my NStar back, and a lap harp, so it was a bit of a joke to re-spend it.

And, I would have to also purchase a sherpa to carry it around for me, based on the Nirschl experience.