TubaForum.net

Thanks for sharing

The size range the professor identifies (as installed on this instrument) is still larger than 19.5mm, which seems to be the bore size that is installed on most of the 4/4 size rotary tubas. Further, the remainder of the instrument certainly shows itself as "kaiser".

I believe I might be just as curious as to how a really great 21.5mm bore kaiser b-flat might play (with a slightly scaled-down bore size - such as 20mm or 20.5...or possibly in that "Cerveny" bore size: 20.2mm), just as I'm curious as how those early/discontinued Yamaha 3+1 (YBB-631) compensating b-flat tubas (as I've never played one of those) play with an only *17.5mm bore size (rather than 18.5mm, which seems customary for that class of instruments).

I completely respect the view that a "kaiser" is "this, this, and this", but - then again - "this, this, and THAT" can also exist - whether-or-not someone is willing to classify it as just a different style of "this, this, and this".

_______________________________________
*...and - who knows...?? Yamaha may well have decided to make their first B-flat 3+1 comp. the same (smaller) bore size as their E-flat, because they didn't want to devote more time - that early in the game - to developing two completely different compensating tuba valve blocks...(??)

You are right. The bore is only one parameter. There are many more. And every company classify their tubas in their own way.
As far as i can say, doesn't matter if you name it Kaiser or not, the schediwy is a great tuba with very good intonation, good sound with a lot of core, and very balanced thru the registers.
So if i would live in the US, i would buy this tuba

Exceptionally good intrinsic intonation characteristics - with a kaiser - seem to be a bit of a rarity, and I’m always interested in slightly smaller bore sizes on fairly standard body shapes, because smaller bore sizes tend to promote smoother slurring and stronger low range response.
Having having lived through the 80s, I’m glad that the period where the embraced fallacy of “making everything as large as absolutely possible is the very best thing to do” has passed...and yes, I’m completely aware that the German kaiser b-tuba is a very traditional design, and has nothing to do with the 1980s. I will further admit to only having played a dozen-or-fewer of them over the years.
Most times - when I have altered the capillary portions of really large instruments to smaller (even when all I was able to manage to do on a Rudy 5/4 was to make a more normal-proportioned mouthpipe tube for it) - the sound emitted remained the same or stronger/more robust (in particular: low range sonority/response), and the amount of work required to get the sound diminished. (Typically at first, the tactile experience would distort my aural judgment, because I wasn’t able to “blow a ton of air through that thing”, but once acclimated, I realize that what I was usually experiencing was “working less for the same or more results”).
Wade has been using one of these instruments for a while - on loan from a friend, and - whether or not he particularly likes it (one issue being 30 actual/not-exaggerated lbs. of weight), it puts out a tremendous amount of sound, in proportion to the effort expended. That instrument’s first four feet of expansion have all been reduced.
Please don't confuse the rhetoric - here - as pontification. My posts are usually too conversational, and I completely admit to knowing LESS about kaiser b-tubas than most any other style of tuba.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:11 pm.......I believe I might be just as curious as to how a really great 21.5mm bore kaiser b-flat might play (with a slightly scaled-down bore size - such as 20mm or 20.5...or possibly in that "Cerveny" bore size: 20.2mm), just as I'm curious as how those early/discontinued Yamaha 3+1 (YBB-631) compensating b-flat tubas (as I've never played one of those) play with an only *17.5mm bore size (rather than 18.5mm, which seems customary for that class of instruments).............

FWIW, my ancient Alex BBb's bore is 19.98 mm, a bit less than a modern 163's 20.5 mm. When I had the valves redone, once it was back together they noted that it plays like a modern 163, "but with more focus". It blends well with the two more-recent 163s in my section though.

^ I like that "more recent" is still about 100 years between the two of those Alexanders. :)

My first reaction was that I probably would pass over any instrument that was a century old, but then suddenly remembered that my Buescher helicon - five valves in C - was converted from a 1923 four valve sousaphone, and that a couple of Buescher “concert” tuba projects upstairs are the same age.
The more likely project- of the two - dates to 1928.

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 9:45 pm ^ I like that "more recent" is still about 100 years between the two of those Alexanders. :)

Here are fotos of my 20.5 mm bore schediwy and of my schediwy kaisertuba I purchased last week

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2obf8oxeo85g ... xbYya?dl=0

T.Brunmayr wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:36 pm Here are fotos of my 20.5 mm bore schediwy and of my schediwy kaisertuba I purchased last week

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2obf8oxeo85g ... xbYya?dl=0

Gorgeous! Show them side by side! :)

T.Brunmayr wrote:Here are fotos of my 20.5 mm bore schediwy and of my schediwy kaisertuba I purchased last week

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2obf8oxeo85g ... xbYya?dl=0

Not digging the “crotch buster” keels, but those are beautiful tubas otherwise.

.

Only the leadpipe is red Brass.

Here's a side by side comparison

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yowa95aec3tpd ... 2.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wesle388xwu8q ... 9.png?dl=0


Here's my Schediwy, completely overhauled

It's too bad you don't have an older 186 with the 16 1/2 inch "point-and-shoot" bell to get an even better comparison.