I want to know about my old Amati tuba

[bloke]

No one but me seemed/s to ever encounter a C piggy like the ones I encounter, but everyone I've ever played featured a second space C that was sky high - even higher than most second space C's on most F tubas.

Yeah the (better than Cerveny?) JP knockoff of the Cerveny Arion (B-flat) is probably my favorite JP tuba to sell. I just really like selling things that I personally judge to be really great.

I would describe the Arion as a piggy version of the 681 B-flat.

[arpthark]

No one but me seemed/s to ever encounter a C piggy like the ones I encounter, but everyone I've ever played featured a second space C that was sky high - even higher than most second space C's on most F tubas.

Yeah the (better than Cerveny?) JP knockoff of the Cerveny Arion (B-flat) is probably my favorite JP tuba to sell. I just really like selling things that I personally judge to be really great.

I would describe the Arion as a piggy version of the 681 B-flat.

I did own an octave+ pig several years ago that featured the thermometer bulb 2nd valve slide and that was a bit taller than the average Piggy, estimated to be made in the late 60s or early 70s. It also required a significant pull on the MTS to get everything down to pitch (except the squirrelly sharp C in the second space of the bass clef).

My current pig is newer (80s?) and does not feature the sharp C, and in fact requires the MTS to be pushed almost all the way in for me to get it up to pitch -- fairly flat-natured in that regard. 2nd valve kicker and a couple alternate fingerings eliminates virtually every tuning discrepancy, and 124 low F is right on the money. Far from perfect, but that's not the allure for me.

In effect, I actually traded a JP Arion copy for the Piggy. (JP --> Miraphone 190 --> Piggy).



But to the overarching point, yeah, there's no real denying that the CC Cerveny instruments don't play in tune as well as the BBb Cerveny instruments.

[bloke]

I guess as with Alexander, though I'll probably trigger some people by saying this...

[LeMark]

My 601 CC played MUCH better in tune than the 601 BBb I bought last fall.

[Tombass]

Thank you for posting.
I decided to close this post because I learned the following from everyone's information. I'll try to investigate again to see if I can gather more information.
I'm really thankful to you!

◯What I learned thanks to everyone
Model number: ABB481
Year of manufacture (estimated): Early 1990? ~1992
Price (estimated): $4000
Others: The serial number is unreliable, and nickel silver is used for the outer slide of Cerveny.

[bloke]

I've played no recently-made Czech instruments, as they (via reorganization and whatever has been occurring) seem to be receiving a renewed level of attention. For all I know, several of the currently-made Czech instruments are remarkably good.

I also haven't played all that many of the older ones (built during my lifetime, but decades ago).

I have found all the 601 tubas (both lengths, and I've only played a few of each) to be challenging to play in several ways.

I have found (as with Miraphone 186) the Czech 681 types of B-flat tubas are reasonably (easily) manageable, but (as with other non-Miraphone/similar-to-186 instruments) clearly "alternatives". The C versions of the 68/681 tubas are usable, but (again, based on the few that I've played - which were made decades ago), I would probably compare them to the most mediocre of the Miraphone 186 tubas that I've played (and the Miraphone 186 C tuba that I bought new in 1974 - a mediocre instrument - comes to mind).
clarification: I would probably buy a no-brainer-priced Czech-made 681 B-flat type of instrument to "flip", but - with any other Czech instrument - I'd probably only buy to flip if I could play it before buying it.

I'm a "tuning" person, with that aspect of an instrument being (probably) 1, 2, and 3 on a list of (??) ten-or-so aspects to be judged.

I don't mind having up to 6 valves on board and occasionally moving a single valve slide, I don't mind having 5 valves on board and constantly moving a valve slide.

Moving a main slide constantly - for me - is a non-starter UNLESS it's set up as a comfortably-reachable/left-hand-operable one, and none (including Marzan - whereby such a slide is "way over there") are set up in this manner.

A tuba needs to be more than a "cool" or a "wow, listen to that sound" tuba to turn my head.
Being a blue-collar tuba player, trombone sections expect me to show up, play, blend (pitch), and not ruin their beautiful chords.
Further (after five decades of so-called "professional"/paid playing), I've just have enough of the legion bend-over-backwards-to-get-the-thing-to-play-in-tune instruments (which are found in all price ranges, and which have been offered by many-if-not-most manufacturers).

Were I to find myself near a display of new and new-model Czech tubas, I certainly would not pass up an opportunity to try them out.

[LeMark]

As stated before the only thing consistent about Cerveny is the inconsistency

Of the two 601 CC tubas I've had time to play in the last few years, one needed a MTS stick (flat low C and a sharp middle Bb)

The other one didn't need a stick at all. I should be said that it's my opinion that the 18" bell 601 horns play better than the 20" bell models


As far as the older model 68 CC, the one I had in college had a flat middle D that I had to play 1st valve, and Low Db was so sharp that 2-4 wasn't really and option, so I played it 1-2-4 with a long 1st valve pull

The only note on the one I have now (might sell it tomorrow) that I don't consider acceptable as is is the High C is a bit flat when played open, but pops in tune when played 1st valve


I've played far worse intonated instruments from every maker, including miraphone. The sound is magnificent, in my opinion far superior to the 186 that is based on the 68.

This opinion only applies to older cerveny tubas, not a fan of anything in the last 30 years. Based on the engraving I saw in the posted catalog. And the style of linkage and spatulas on the silver horn in this thread, I believe it's actually older, probably a 1970's vintage

I'm also not sure where the $4000 price came from. If this is a 1970's vintage, it would have sold for less than $1000. For current valueas a 4 valve CC tuba, it would be difficult to get more than 2500 for it. Maybe 3000-3200 if it had a 5th valve

[bloke]

These days, there are fewer new models of tubas that are remarkably wonky (with these amazing/not-understood-by-a-mere-bloke acoustics-research based computer programs/logarithms which are able to predict intonation characteristics based on size/rateS of taper, valveset bore, and location of valveset...damned complicated logarithms).

When I see Chinese models which (at least, to me) are obviously pasted-together parts of copies of other models, I (candidly) don't expect those to offer easy intonation, but don't know (as my biases, opportunities, and waning interest in road trips makes it difficult to test those). When I see reinvented models of Czech tubas, I just don't know anything about them either (as even TMEA is a 12-hour one-way trip, rooms/food are crazy-expensive, and more factors...such as "needing to get my work done, and the need to avoid turning down gigs").

I'm pretty sure that these amazing computer programs/logarithms are remarkably beneficial...
I've never played a kaiser or "American" 6/4 (as my tuba is a B-flat hybrid blend of both styles of instruments) - previous to purchasing the one that I've chosen to purchase - whereby I could simply play it, with no alternate valve combinations, put my hand on the #1 slide, base its position c. 1-1/2 inches out (would have been 1 inch, had I not taken about an inch away from that circuit), and move in-or-out from there for natural acoustical exceptions (such as 1st-valve C, its neighboring B-natural, C below the staff (which I choose to play with 1-3, and perhaps one or two more 1st-valve-involved pitches)...
...some models (such as 2155) either were "lucky" models (amazingly good intonation), or (maybe...??) were quietly "fixed" later - via the use of these algorithms...and why is such an excellent 4/4+ C tuba (particularly the version with the conservative-size mouthpipe tube) no longer routinely produced?
...and there are a few old-old designs that were either luckily or relentlessly trialed-and-errored towards remarkably fine intonation, some of which are the King 4/4 tubas and sousaphones.

bloke "When (particularly if a 5-valve instrument) the 4th-valve (B-flat tuba) C or (C tuba) D is quite flat - when "low G or F" is in tune with the 4th valve, that makes me smile. I smile because that offers me a 2-4 valve combination which offers forth a C (or C tuba: D) which is nearly perfectly in tune."