TubaForum.net

The Wessex Gnagey 4+1 non-comp Eb is giving me a great playing experience.

For the last 10 years, I have played a Besson 982 3+1 comp Eb - a great tuba. Since the Gnagey was introduced, I have tried it at the Army conference every year and experienced just how free blowing it was and how high and low notes were easily reached. Last year I finally made the purchase and wow!

The high register indeed sings and the low register is powerful and much easier to reach than the comp horn. The Gnagey is not as heavy as other Eb tubas and seems to remain in tune with itself with most any mouthpiece I try. Currently I am playing the Gnagey on Tuba-1 parts in a tuba quartet.

Wessex constantly sells out of these (I had to wait 7 months) and I have only ever seen 1 for resale. If you are OK with a non-comp Eb, I think this tuba deserves consideration.

I spent a day with Mark Carter (aka Mr Tuba) at his shop in South Wales a couple of years ago and went through all his stock of larger EEbs including an Alexander, a Norwegian Star and Starlight, a Mirafone Ambassador and a Meinl Weston 2040 5 valve...after playing a Willson 17” 3+1 EEb for a couple of decades (also test fired a newer 19” version for comparison - I still preferred my older horn out of the two as it seemed more focused).

I walked (drove actually) out with the Meinl Weston. Why? It had the best intonation and depth/ breadth of sound for me, a good top end and a decent bottom end “cash register” without the resistance of the compensating system allowing me to get away without a larger contrabass instrument in all but the biggest ensembles since. I still use the Willson for band use but the Meinl Weston is the default orchestral instrument for me currently. If you can get the opportunity to try one, then do. It’s worth it.

Wessex constantly sells out of these (I had to wait 7 months) and I have only ever seen 1 for resale. If you are OK with a non-comp Eb, I think this tuba deserves consideration.
[/quote]

I tried one in their store, and I absolutely loved it. I would have decided to buy it on the spot if my wrist hadn't felt like it was resting gently in a medieval torture device.

I tried one in their store, and I absolutely loved it. I would have decided to buy it on the spot if my wrist hadn't felt like it was resting gently in a medieval torture device.

Yes, I have heard that before about the Gnagey, but that is not my experience. Just adds credence to “play before you pay” concept or ensuring a solid return policy.

Honestly, my goal is eventually a Yamaha 631, or a Besson with a 17 inch bell. Compensating with a 17 inch bell pretty much.

Stealing the thread: I just didn't buy an old Conn-like 3 valve 3/4 Eb tuba on ebay because I asked the seller to check the intonation. Fortunately the seller was honest; it had "stretched" intonation just like the 3/4 Eb I had that ended up at Salvation Army. If the upper range is tuned, the low range is impossibly flat, and if the low range is tuned, the upper range is impossibly sharp. He also said it was at 438 instead of 440. Checked by an advanced player who likely did not play at the top of the slot.

Yet....there is a pro in the local brass band who plays what appears to be one of those and it must be something "slightly" different because no human could play the above in tune without a main slide kicker, and he did not use a main slide kicker and played beautifully in tune. Anybody know if there is such an animal out there that is possible to play in tune without a main slide kicker?

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:34 pm Anybody know if there is such an animal out there that is possible to play in tune without a main slide kicker?

In principle, sure - that's really what we ought to expect, since the laws of physics and the fundamental principles of music haven't changed all that much over the centuries. We can't assume that our forebears just made do with instruments that didn't work and only with the advent of Chinese manufacturing do we have the ability to play in tune without extra gimmicks.

From that perspective, it's remarkable that this intonation problem would exist at all. If we could account for that, it might lead to the answer to your question. I can tell you that my little Eb tuba seems to play in tune just fine, but that's no real help - we don't really know that it would work for you, for one thing.

I should say that I've certainly had the A=435 problem. No acoustician here, but my guess is that the stretched scale sounds like the kind of thing that might happen if the effective length were changed significantly in some way - as might happen with a pitch conversion, or a very wrong mouthpiece. The closer you get to our era, the less likely these phenomena, I'd think.

Oedipoes wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:23 pm

If something like that miraculously became available, that would get my attention.

I was looking around for this model vintage for quite some time, until this one came up for sale...old stock from some disappeared band, quite cheap...bought it specifically with the intention to have it overhauled completely, turned out great!

I'm only slightly jealous.

tobysima` wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:29 pm Are there any bore qualities that ensures the horn will play in tune on a comp. Eb? Is 0.69" the magic number? Or is there something better?

No different than the "magic bore numbers" on BBb or CC tubas: .687, .708, .734, .750, .770, the larger Cerveny and Alex bores, and all the millimeter designations and equivalents. The key is to have the proper bugle length and taper to match the bell flare. That's why Besson pre-Sov eefers needed the "Fletcher cut": they made the bell larger without thinking about what it did to the effective bugle length, affecting the pitch. To keep the relative taper of the bugle, that's why the cut was complicated, instead of simply removing so much tuning slide or other quick-fix. The taper of the bugle is important so the partial series will line up in pitch to our Western diatonic ears. Slower taper = wider spaced partials; quicker taper = narrower spaced partials. And then there is the issue of where to put the bends and where to place the braces to stay out of the way of the nodes and anti-nodes....

Oedipoes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:34 pm Norwegian Star.
Perfect valves, very direct response, good tuning, great sound.
Except for brassband...

+1

New to this Forum. After absence from playing Tuba for about 6 years, started again last year during Covid lockdown.
Sold my 283B 5 valve Gold Brass Norwegian Star back then.
A great Tuba and regret selling this one.

Tested soms years ago at the German Musikmesse the Melton 2040/5, Miraphone Norwegian Star, Star Light and Besson front piston Eeb.
NS was the Tuba for me.
Melton 2040/5 at second place but found the valveblock high placed on the instrument.
Used till then for over 20 years several Besson Sovereign Eeb top piston Brass Band models.

Played last year a borrowed C Tuba and have ordered a late eighties, early nineties Hirsbrunner HB 188-5.
This is the tuba Baadsvik played at his first 2 recordings.
Got it for testing a few weeks ago after a complete overhaul. New leadpipe, new Meinlschmidt valves etc.
Tuba is now back to Germany for Silver plating and a few adjustments.
First impression is great, good tuning, plays easy over the entire register. More open than the NS in the low register and WOW what a sound.

I believe that choosing an E-flat has to do with what one plans to do with it.
I use mine as a “fake B-flat tuba“, because its combination of really good intonation, a big fat bell - whether detachable recording or detachable upright, and fluid/easy facility all define it as the obvious choice for playing a two or three hour jazz band job, where I am playing constantly and pointed to the play solo choruses, quite often.
For me, there are also a couple of really oddball reasons to pick it up and carry it to a job. Recently, I played a brass choir concert where the unprogrammed encore was “Stars and Stripes”, and the arrangement was one of those silly ones that feature of the tuba playing the piccolo park… Well...E-flat fingerings define that A-flat solo as mostly first and second valves, so of course I grabbed that instrument to play that solo. For the same sort of reason, I could also imagine myself taking it to a brass quintet recital to use on (perhaps?) one specific piece - where some wild fast runs of valve patterns defined that E-flat tuba was the easiest workaround for those patterns.
———
Otherwise - as I’ve been an F-tuba player since the early 1980s, I have an amazing F instrument that I use as a “legitimate“ bass tuba. Were it that I was a person that used an E-flat tuba formally as a bass tuba, I would pick out a different E-flat tuba.
————-
All of that having been said, over the decades I have owned several tubas (C and E-flat lengths) that required struggling to play them in tune, and have grown intolerant of that group of instruments. Tubas that require struggling for good intonation have become non-starters for me, and I would pick out “any E-flat tuba that is easily able to be played in tune, and of any style/configuration” over “any style/configuration of E-flat tuba that is difficult to play in tune”...and (again) I have encountered several models of E-flat tubas - over the decades - that offer quite a few intonation challenges. For whatever reason, most of those challenging models seem to not be compensating models... I have also played some non-compensating E-flat tubas that offered very fine intonation, but none of those fell into the “fake B-flat“ category, which (again) is the type of E-flat tuba that (explained in detail, above) interests me the most.

One of the best players I know is now an Eb-first guy, and he tells me the Kanstul is the Holy Grail. I think it's the model 66 - I believe Willie Clark owns one - and it looks like the Getzen CB/G-50's in terms of layout. I don't think very many were made and I don't recall seeing one for sale in a very long time, but that's enough for me to place it as the 1 seed.

kingrob76 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:23 pm One of the best players I know is now an Eb-first guy, and he tells me the Kanstul is the Holy Grail. I think it's the model 66 - I believe Willie Clark owns one - and it looks like the Getzen CB/G-50's in terms of layout. I don't think very many were made and I don't recall seeing one for sale in a very long time, but that's enough for me to place it as the 1 seed.

This.


Amazing horns. Copies of the york monsters.. They don't appear a lot and there is a reason why.

There are actually two 66 models, 66-T and 66-S. For "top" and "side" valves; 66-S also has a larger 4th circuit (.689) where I think the 66-T is the same (.656), and a 5th rotor (.710). Conventional wisdom is that the 66T is more manageable, but I don't have any problem that I'm aware of with the 66-S, and of course it's nice to have a 5th valve. I can't judge how it compares with the competition, but I'm sure it's up there somewhere, if you like that large bell flare sound.

I must be in the minority. when I played a 66 I found the slots too wide, and I just couldn't get a handle on if it actually played in tune or not. If you like this sort of thing, then yeah, it's great.

Yes, it is kind of like that (was it the side valve version?), but not so much as to create a problem for me. You don't mean that you couldn't clearly hear the pitch, right? just that the tuba isn't particularly rigid about pitch.

Yes it was the side valve version and it did not have rigid pitch, it seems like many notes just could be bent a little bit too far up or down for my taste. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem when playing with a group, but it would have annoyed the hell out of me during practice time. I do find with my own con tuba that for all the fretting about intonation while I practice, things seem to lock in pretty well with a group because I have a pitch reference to match

I'm glad to see I was in good company loving the NStar. I still don't think I could lift it repeatedly for a rehearsal, although I seem to be going in an uphill trajectory right now...anyone tried the Bombino? Clearly it's not in the class you're talking about, but....they are now available again and I'm having an awful time keeping my hand off the credit card. And Wessex would not be happy if I sent back yet another tuba after trying it.

I don’t believe that 2 make a majority - and I don’t really get excited about critiquing makes/models in public forums (what if I had to sell one, someday…??), but someone spoke my thoughts, just above/below...
Having owned a pretty nice four-piston York E-flat with a fifth valve - now sitting up in New England, I think - those just don’t remind me of the York that I owned.
What is really good though, is that something that Matt Walters has said more than once:
Every single tuba ends up having someone’s name on it.

LeMark wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:53 pm I must be in the minority. when I played a 66 I found the slots too wide, and I just couldn't get a handle on if it actually played in tune or not. If you like this sort of thing, then yeah, it's great.

fwiw: Underneath the silver is yellow brass...not bronze.
Hey...I liked this tuba, but I probably would not rate it as "the best E-flat, or even EEE-flat".

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:35 pm I'm glad to see I was in good company loving the NStar...

...yep. I was never excited about the old 1960's-1970's Miraphone concept of a rotary E-flat tuba, but those that they're currently offering are pretty nifty. Compared to what's invested in my dandy-playing 1958 3+1 Besson, though, I'm not sure that I'll be spending my next spare $14K on one of those Mira-283's.

Has anyone tried the wessex Dubabe? Looks like a copy of the bigger Miraphone Eb.

Also, Bloke, that thing looks awesome!