TubaForum.net

https://reverb.com/item/96904951-getzen ... al-cc-tuba

They've had some interesting horns there recently!

What's interesting is that they list it as having 4 valves. But it does indeed have the 5th thumb rotor.

Excellent all-around CC tubas

I always thought they were too short and the bell was too close to your head. The sound was real pretty under the bell, but hard to tell how it projected out front. They weren't bad* but I never really liked them, and I never could really get comfortable with them.


*The quality of the silver plating was bad, though.

Who made the valves on these?

arpthark wrote: Tue May 12, 2026 3:27 pm Who made the valves on these?

Getzen/Allied Supply made the piston valveset and the smaller branches. Meinl-Weston made and supplied the bell, larger/outer bows, and the 5th rotor & linkage for those tubas. All those parts were then assembled and finished by Getzen.

That's what I understand from it anyway

catgrowlB wrote: Tue May 12, 2026 4:14 pm

arpthark wrote: Tue May 12, 2026 3:27 pm Who made the valves on these?

Getzen/Allied Supply made the piston valveset and the smaller branches. Meinl-Weston made and supplied the bell, larger/outer bows, and the 5th rotor & linkage for those tubas. All those parts were then assembled and finished by Getzen.

That's what I understand from it anyway

I guess Meinl Weston really was a division of Getzen.

SN 30082 puts it about half way through the production run of these, so it SHOULD be a pretty good horn. If not, it's the bones of a VERY good horn after all the established mods and changes. Had I not acquired one a few years ago this would be getting an offer from me.

I've only played one, and thought it was pretty cool.

People freak out about the location of the 5th valve (same as Yamaha) but (hey...) I wonder if they ALSO pay attention to the playing characteristics.

York-copy bell-and-body/King valve section...great combination.

(factory) cut to C...?? OK, as long as the tuning isn't crazy.

Eastman version? They seem fine. I just noticed the resonance, when I played one of these "Getzen" ones.

I'm probably wrong, but...

- It's going to be difficult to convince me that Getzen made much of any part of those.
- It's going to be even more difficult to convince me that King (back when they were still building quality valvesets) did NOT build the valvesets...if not quite a bit more of those instruments...

...and so what (regarding what I believe) ?
Based on the only one that I've ever played, they're good tubas.

People who swap out the bell with a Grand Rapids bell...
I can't imagine one of these being much improved.

I played one of these for a couple hours years ago, and I was also really impressed. Played a lot bigger than it looked. Very open, clear sound. Poppy low register.

Years later I play one of the Gnagey King/Holton tubas. Very similar. Also plays a lot bigger than it looks. Also very open with a clear sound and poppy low register.

I'm not an instrument maker or repairer, and I don't spend a ton of time worrying about measurements of the horns I play. But I have a running theory that this is a much better size for a CC-tuba-length tuba than the .750 bore 6/4 monstrosities. At least intonation-wise.

bloke wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 3:08 pm People freak out about the location of the 5th valve (same as Yamaha) but (hey...) I wonder if they ALSO pay attention to the playing characteristics.

It woulda been great if they hadn't put this big ol', totally unnecessary "step" into the 5th throughout the entire production run. Causes "early reflections", which directly affect response. No bueno.

This model is my 'daily driver', and I'm really enamored of the whole concept: Bell & bottom bow of a monster Eb, the rest tapered to either CC or BBb length. So is Matt Walters; it's why he based the Conn 5XJ, King 2341, and Eastman 632 on it. Resonance is great, intonation is good. Only thing I'd add is an upward-facing main tuning slide (like Marzan), and mainly just cuz I think it's just such a great idea!

Rather than looking at the mouth pipe suddenly being smaller and basing an assumption that it's bad on its looks and measurements, has anyone taken one apart, made a duplicate with a more consistent bore, made both of them quickly detachable and re-attachable, and then A/B'ed them?

Could there be a difference between "theoretically good and bad" and "actually good and bad"?

Could there are also be "both good" as well as "little perceivable difference"?

The model 5450 C tuba's mouth pipe inserts into a .748" bore number one piston with approximately only a .728" bore at its large end.

A whole bunch of people play tubas with their mouthpieces sitting so far back from the choke point that they've revealed almost a half inch to as much as 5/8 of an inch (occasionally even more, particularly with the King and Eastman) of receiver reverse taper in the very beginning of the instrument, and they seem to like it.

I've heard of people talking about shrinking down part of the bore of their fourth circuits of their six quarter C tubas to supposedly improve low range response.

I'm just pointing out other things that are sort of similar and related, which no one seems to dislike.

The Getzen-marketed tuba (which I don't even know if they were particularly interested in selling, but they needed it to round out a fifth instrument for their Canadian brass line at the time - so they copied a cut-down that was put together by a tuba player who lived down the freeway from them, yes?) that I played, played well.


If we want to get into what acoustically works better and what doesn't work as well, the more I play my BB-flat 6/4 tuba (even though the bore requires me to really pay attention to my air, because it's 21.2mm - and I'm not a thirty year old man, anymore - with the intonation and resonance characteristics of this model having captured my imagination) and then I go back and play C instruments in this size range after repairing them the more I become convinced that chopping instruments of this size down to 16 ft bugles is mostly not very good idea. ... I'm becoming more and more convinced that - if a tuba is to only have a 16 ft long expanding bugle - it should probably limited to smaller sizes.

bloke wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 6:57 am Rather than looking at the mouth pipe suddenly being smaller and basing an assumption that it's bad on its looks and measurements, has anyone taken one apart, made a duplicate with a more consistent bore, made both of them quickly detachable and re-attachable, and then A/B'ed them?

Could there be a difference between "theoretically good and bad" and "actually good and bad"?

Could there are also be "both good" as well as "little perceivable difference"?

I'd played on it for a year or so as is, as well as BIAS-ing it. The production horn had response issues in the mid range. I saw no reason to make the leadpipe changeable, so just took it off, made a normal ferrule (factory one is stair-stepped by several millimeters), and fixed it. Instant improvement, and BIAS confirmed my own experience of playing the horn. Lee Stofer also makes this obvious change on the horns he produces.

In addition, BIAS showed my leadpipe mod added 12% to the 'resonance factor': the amount of acoustic energy returning from the bell back to the mouthpiece, back to the bell (etc. The action which form standing waves inside the instrument, which is how brass instruments work). A substantial improvement, and I can sense it when I play.

"Early reflections" (inconsistencies of the interior wall of an instrument) do have an effect on the instrument's function. Mismatched bores, blobs of solder, etc. Are to be avoided. Here's an image from the BIAS manual showing bore inconsistencies.

I don't poo poo charts and graphs and what they demonstrate - not at all, but - as much as I don't attempt to argue with them and their mathematics - I also question individual preferences and individual valuations based on playing, as the next person may prefer some characteristic useful that the very next person (also competent) detests.

I will concede that I didn't spend very much time playing it, and you played one for a year, and I very much respect your playing prowess. As to the general bugle, you know that I built myself a B flat with the same bugle. As to mouth pipes, I'll agree that some of them are screwy. I question the .500" (remarkably small, though I have to admit larger than the exit bore of almost all tuba mouthpieces) choke point in the Eastman knockoff of the King (yet with a fake Euro receiver - which creates an epic mouthpiece setback, as well as a wumpa-bumpy capillary bore), and I suspect that - were I to measure a King - I would encounter the same measurements). That said, tiny mouth pipe capillary bores (with the resistance they offer) greatly assist in favoring pitches in tune, but don't offer many other benefits (in my own anecdotal, non-scientific, non-chart-and-graph experience).

Getting back to a side topic, I tend to suspect that - just as much as I tend to suspect that Getzen found it to be a nuisance to supply a C instrument for Mr Dahlenbach (simply to boast Canadian brass sponsorship and endorsement...and notice that it didn't take them too long to ditch the model once they lost the sponsorship), I tend to suspect that - in the very same way - Holton was sort of annoyed by having to create a 6/4 C instrument for Mr Jacobs (in order to unanimously capture the endorsement of the Chicago Symphony principal brass players). Yes, they still had their six quarter tooling laying around from back when they built a fairly similar model, but they never built one pitched in C before, and they had to start over from scratch on the bending of the top bow, as their attempt at a York knockoff (knock off of a one-off, no less) had to feature a narrower bend on the top bow compared to the model that they had made in the past. Additionally, it has to be true that building 6/4 instruments (handmade, as obviously Holton was not interested in mass producing them) was a whole hell of a lot of trouble, as well as being disruptive to profitable production.

If I was anywhere near Houston and shopping for a tuba, I would probably drive down there and check out that one.

UncleBeer wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 3:58 am

bloke wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 3:08 pm People freak out about the location of the 5th valve (same as Yamaha) but (hey...) I wonder if they ALSO pay attention to the playing characteristics.

It woulda been great if they hadn't put this big ol', totally unnecessary "step" into the 5th throughout the entire production run. Causes "early reflections", which directly affect response. No bueno.

One of Lee's recommendations was to replace the lead pipe with a particular one (he gave me the part number) from Allied and then taper the flare of the lead pipe with a trumpet bell mandrel. BIG difference.

I rolled with mine at a graduation job yesterday. It's the Easy Button of tubas for me to play (YMMV).