TubaForum.net

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:41 am I don't dislike RM tubas, but I've owned all three sizes with five valves in C length, and I'm personally sort of over them.

I believe - as people get older, they get over a lot of stuff. They figure out what they like more and what they like less. Younger people will judge them as grumpy and set in their ways, but what they don't realize is that the older people have looked into most of the things that the younger people are looking at, and have already made their personal decisions based on experience. It's not that all old people make the same decisions about the same things, but they all make their own decisions and - at a certain point - pretty much stick with them, typically.

I'm not stuck on certain brands and models, but I'm unstuck on certain ones. I am stuck on a couple of requirements for tubas (which have nothing to do with size or length, and not even - within pretty wide parameters - sonic characteristics). I just made a really wild change later in my life, but what some people realize is that I've been thinking (and openly talking) about it for a decade.
It's just that desire and pricing never met, until recently.

New models of tubas are introduced from time to time, but - for quite a while - most all of the newer models seem to be based on a theme. The theme is to put together something that will very easily produce (not a wonderful, but) marketable sound - whether or not the player has a nice sounding embouchure buzz, a very short learning curve to achieve this (such as three minutes in an elephant room, etc.), and the trade-off typically being a requirement of extra physical work to play most of the newer models. The idea seems to be that all tubas need to be set up for a uni-approach to playing, rather than each tuba requiring less work but - rather - a particular type of work from its player. This seems true with most newer models, and particularly true with newer models built in F length.

This is a very interesting take to me. II'm not new but I'm new back to the tuba search. These things have been on my mind. My current tuba is a circumstance of what I could afford but it has served me well. But at the same time I don't have access to test any tubas so it was a sight unseen purchase. I'm sure if I was in a shop or connection with a ton of tubas the one I wasted with could have been different. Ever since playing my teachers 3/4 Rudy I've been interested in them. They are just so few and far in-between that It's hard to get to one to test them for any period of time. Would you know, does Rudolf Meinl send tubas to NAMM or any of these other events ?

I'm interested on your take on F tubas as well, as I will start looking for one soon/have been. Although I think this could lead us down a wormhole of German v, Japanese v, Chinese manufactures.

@aarongsmith

Thanks for your input. I would have loved toe hard a comparison between the Rudy and all the York copies. Have you had a chance to sit in a orchestra with each? If you did how did you feel like the blend with the section/over all orchestra feel and sound?

Sabut wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:39 pm Have you had a chance to sit in a orchestra with each? If you did how did you feel like the blend with the section/over all orchestra feel and sound?

Not all of them unfortunately. Although, I have used a Baer and an 836S in orchestra. Both did well, especially the Baer. They definitely have the presence and breadth of sound. Neither earned an complaints. However, neither have earned as many compliments as the Rudy.

Blend and projection are not an issue on any of the three. Although I like the way the Rudy's grit blends with the bass trombone on quick, marcato attacks.

There was a guy selling a really nice 3/4 CC in New York if you are open to that size. My 3/4 CC I sold is one that I regret to this day.

@aarongsmith

That's good to know the Eastman wasn't completely left behind. That's what I'm currently on.

I'd love to have a 3/4 Rudy. They are really magical tubas. But I'd want the 5/4 for my main big C tuba. Unfortunately I feel like that's going to be really hard to find haha.

It was mentioned in another thread that someone tried a true funnel cup and was unable to make a sound -- that the air just disappeared. When comparing all these instruments, is whether it is a "air hog" matter to you? Or do you have so much air that that isn't a huge factor? The one time I tried a Rudy "3/4" (that thing was HUGE) it sucked the air right out of my lungs. Then just a while back I got to try that Nirschl which was ridiculously large, and it did NOT suck the air out of my lungs: I thought well phooey I have been avoiding big tubas based on just one exposure. So I try a nice 3/4 BBb only to find it sucks the air out of my lungs. HOW do you figure out ahead of time what this factor will be? (Someone suggested that larger bores are easier to blow and do not "suck out the air," but I don't have enough data to have proved that for myself.)

I ask because I simply haven't seen that discussed wrt comparing tubas.

It has been discussed, but mostly with waving arms.

The instruments that suck air seem to me to be those that don’t provide enough impedance to control what I’m giving it. So, they demand too much current. Resonance reinforces the buzz, and that’s what most people think of when they say “resistance,” I think. But resistance is formally back pressure.

Yes, I’m using electrical engineering terms, like this: The audio signal is trying to create a voltage swing at a frequency, but without resonance the circuit will draw too much current to create that voltage swing, and the voltage will sag. More current may overcome the symptom but the problem is insufficient impedance to load the signal.

Tuba terms:

The buzz is trying to create a pressure swing at a frequency, but without resonance the bugle will draw too much air flow to sustain that pressure swing, and the pressure peaks will sag. More air may overcome the symptom but the problem is insufficient resistance to control the buzz.

Hint: It’s not about the size of the tuba. A large bore might still be resonant and easy to blow. But a small bore usually either provides enough back pressure or enough impedance to sustain the buzz. But only the impedance from strong resonance will create a big sound. Simple resistance will lower resonance (in circuits a resistor lowers Q) and seem stuffy. It may be perceived as sucking air because of what it takes to create a big sound. Or it may be perceived as just being stuffy. A big bore won’t seem stuffy, but if it’s not resonant to provide the right impedance it will seem hollow, which is the air-suck indicator for me.

Does that make any sense at all?

Rick “resonant” Denney

Sabut wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:35 pm ...
I'm interested on your take on F tubas as well, as I will start looking for one soon/have been. Although I think this could lead us down a wormhole of German v, Japanese v, Chinese manufactures.

Maybe prepare yourself to hunt for a well-kept B&S Symphonie?

Rick might come back and say that I don't get it at all, but it seems like a really common fix to this problem by bringing the mouthpipe tube down to a smaller size where it meets the mouthpiece.

Again, the pictured 5/4 RM C that I had was a lot of work to play, but it was less work than some really large tubas in that it was easier to play in tune, so I was working harder with my input but much less hard with my tuning remedy strategies.
Once I fabricated a second/smaller front half of the mouthpipe tube - so as the original and my replacement were swappable, just about all of the issues having to do with having to work too hard to make a sound with that instrument disappeared. I'm a big ugly ogre with great big lungs - and all that mess, so I could play it either way, but I much preferred playing it with a smaller capillary portion to blow through... and the difference in sound was negligible to nil (yet with less effort) once I adjusted to the smaller capillary mouthpipe portion.

Rick played my Miraphone 98 for just a few minutes when I was first trying it out and hadn't even handed the money over to the previous owner. I believe that he would agree that it's one of those really big instruments that's well balanced in the way he describes... and the memory of playing them years ago (when they were a new model and on display at shows) is why I had thought and thought and thought and thought about buying one over the years. ... yet it's all the things that postmodern tuba players think make an instrument undesirable: huge bore size, rotary valves, and that pedestrian B flat open bugle...
... oh yeah and it has a fifth rotor, which - unlike any of the other four - makes it play stuffy.

They are very different instruments. I’ve played both quite a bit.

Nirschl York. Far easier to play in terms of facility, versatility, clarity especially cleanliness of legato playing. Typical York 6/4 sound- voluminous, beautiful, open and round.

Rudolf meinl. Far more work to play, difficult legato playing, air hog in the low register. The benefit, and this is pretty subjective, is the sound. Typical german sound that’s a bit hard to describe- dark and muscly but also a really great blend with contrabasses.

Whatever floats your boat, but most people would gravitate to the nirschl these days. If you want a a big contrabass sound, the 6/4 York copy is the least work. If you want that German sound at the cost of ease of use then the Rudy will be fantastic.

@JC2

Thank you for that break down. I think at this point I’m sold on a Rudy after reading all the replies. Or should I say I’m sold on the idea of tracking one down to play test.

Not a bad choice. Might as well give it a try!

I will add, the 3/4 is just about the finest “normal sized” tuba that I’ve played. I would love to justify having one around.

They’ve got exceptional clarity without a whole lot of “fluff” that you get from the 19”- 20” bell tubas.

I get wanting the 5/4. I’ll keep my eyes open. If you’re not on Facebook, it might be worth checking the tuba groups there too. The smaller Rudy’s come up from time to time, but again it’s been a while for a 5/4.

@Sousaswag

Thanks! I appreciate you input and for keeping an eye open for me. I doubt we’ll see one pop up for a longgg while. But I’ll be crossing my fingers. Do you know if Rudolf Meinl sends tubas to conferences?

Sabut wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:35 pm @Sousaswag

Thanks! I appreciate you input and for keeping an eye open for me. I doubt we’ll see one pop up for a longgg while. But I’ll be crossing my fingers. Do you know if Rudolf Meinl sends tubas to conferences?

Best bet is to reach out to @Lee Stofer who is the USA importer for Rudolf Meinl. I’m sure he’d be happy to let you know what availability at conferences will be if he’s at them.

To be a bit more specific, the 4/4 and 3/4 Rudolf Meinl (at least the C) tubas (which most people would each classify as a "quarter" size larger) both usually feature 6th and 8th partial pitches which are challenging to play, being that they tend quite high (ie. sharp). I haven't found that to be the case with the 5/4 version.

matt g wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm

Sabut wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:35 pm @Sousaswag

Thanks! I appreciate you input and for keeping an eye open for me. I doubt we’ll see one pop up for a longgg while. But I’ll be crossing my fingers. Do you know if Rudolf Meinl sends tubas to conferences?

Best bet is to reach out to @Lee Stofer who is the USA importer for Rudolf Meinl. I’m sure he’d be happy to let you know what availability at conferences will be if he’s at them.

Thanks for the lead on this will do.

Also on a side note. I know we are talking about Rudys but I saw you post selling your meinl. If I had the money I’d want it. I played one when I was in college for just a few days and fell in love with it!

@bloke

Thanks for that call out. Figuring out the quirks of new tubas are always a fun time. Hopefully I can experience it on a Rudy lol.

Here's my experimental data: (and please understand I'm not knocking the Hagen, just why it didn't work for me in particular.)
I couldn't even get notes to play at first using the 4th valve. So I tried just blowing (no buzz) so I could figure out what was going on. Starting with open bugle and proceeding through adding length via single valves, one by one, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 4th, there was increasing resistance with each, and the 4th, which I was trying to use in the low register that couldn't even get a buzz to go at first, was noticeably resistant just to blowing air, like I had to actually blow something out of the way. (I did somehow work that out over a few days, have no idea how, but low range notes were of very short duration because of the air requirement.)

Then I did the same thing with the Star for comparison. Same *pattern* but much less feel of resistance.
I played the 183 last night and it is more resistant than the Star with 4th valve engaged. My 184s felt about the same, and I was good to G below the staff on those, but adding valves didn't work too well for me in terms of resistance. I liked the 2+3 5th valve because it didn't add as much resistance to valve combinations as 2+3 did.

Bore sizes:

Mfone 183 .708
Mphone 283 (NStar) .772 to .835 in the valve section

Mfone 184 .708

Mphone 494 Hagen .740

So the NStar has the biggest bore AND is easiest for me to blow. Is that bore, wrap, bugle length? I dunno, but I think bugle length is a pretty significant factor. Anybody know the bore of the Nirschl York model? If that is a huge bore then I think I have at least part of the answer. Also don't know the bore of an older Rudy 3/4, which also was an air hog, way over my limit.

I don't know how much the wrap has to do with the resistance, or the resonance. The NStar and the Hagen have a very similar sound, and the other three have a very similar and quite different sound; it seems the mFones have a different sound than the mPHones, at least the one's I've played. Tube length has to have something to do with it, or you'd think I wouldn't hit the wall at BBb while still being able to play every CC I've ever run into. I have never yet played a BBb mFone but want to. I don't know if newer versions of the 282 are a Fone sound or a PHone sound.

It would be worth going to the Army conference if I were a young thing on my way up, to get the perfect contrabass. Given I'm not a young thing on my way up but an old thing on my way down, I'm probably just playing with myself.

As an alternative to the DC workshop, I might suggest TMEA in San Antonio the following week. The hotels are so close to the convention center (one is connected) and it's surrounded by restaurants.

It's the largest educators convention in the world

(Realizing that I'm surely one of the worst offenders...)

Our topic captions really don't mean much, do they?

Well I think the OP got the answer to his question and it is so "normal" for threads to take off in other directions, I don't even bother worrying about it any more.