TubaForum.net

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:29 pm Were it that I were the seller - and someone paid that price to me, I would consider it to be a very good (and not-crazy-at-all) price.

donn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:08 pm It seems to me that a BBb tuba should be worth the most money, because it's the best, but whatever. Maybe more to the point, I wonder what's the highest price a (factory) detachable bell tuba is likely to ever fetch. Not that there's anything wrong with a detachable bell.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:57 am

donn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:08 pm It seems to me that a BBb tuba should be worth the most money, because it's the best, but whatever. Maybe more to the point, I wonder what's the highest price a (factory) detachable bell tuba is likely to ever fetch. Not that there's anything wrong with a detachable bell.

I do not disagree with your post in any way.

The things that typically cause C tubas to cost more (as we already know) are 5th rotors and lower production numbers...
...yet they are in somewhat heavy demand, as the parents of 17-year-olds buy “C tubas for kolij”, as their “extraordinarily talented” charges managed to make it into the back-ends of their local #2 honor bands, when in the 12th grade.

I view both my C tuba and my E-flat tuba as “fake” B-flat tubas, as both were clearly engineered to (as much as possible) mimic the sonic characteristics of large B-flat tubas as much as could be managed by their designers...
The “monster“ E-flat tubas - of the early 20th century - were designed for the very same purpose. (yes?)
My C instrument‘s advantage is that it responds a bit quicker - and with a bit more easily-accessible facility - than would an exact-equivalent B-flat, and the same with the E flat - except more so.
The “better for sharp keys/better for flat keys“ arguments/excuses are nonsense.

As more C instruments are designed from scratch - rather than being defacto factory cut-downs of B-flat models - intonation characteristics are improving with some newer models…but not with others (obviously: depending on the aural sensitivity of the design engineers, and/or a manufacturer’s willingness to - simply - “go with“ something that - in reality – is a failed design)...but a near-exact C equivalent of a B-flat is always going to resonate a little bit more - well... - “hollow“.

I might even go so far as to suggest that professional-grade 3/4-size B-flat and C tubas tend to serve some of their owners as “fake F tubas”...Back when I owned a model 184, that’s certainly how I used it.


How’s THAT for a nice long post for all sorts of people to find all sorts of things with which they can disagree and argue?
It nearly qualifies as a troll, yes? Are “simply—stated truths”, often, the most well-executed trolls, anyway?

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:57 am I might even go so far as to suggest that professional-grade 3/4-size B-flat and C tubas tend to serve some of their owners as “fake F tubas”...Back when I owned a model 184, that’s certainly how I used it.

jtm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:55 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:57 am I might even go so far as to suggest that professional-grade 3/4-size B-flat and C tubas tend to serve some of their owners as “fake F tubas”...Back when I owned a model 184, that’s certainly how I used it.

Reading some Bach cello suites today, as written, I agreed my C tuba was much too fake a fake F tuba. Maybe an 184 would be better, or maybe I should find a 180.