TubaForum.net

LargeTuba wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:00 pm The 730 looks a little more like the CSO York.

The CSO York first bow looks a lot less "fat". Was this a custom mandrel then?

York-aholic wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:17 am

LargeTuba wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:00 pm The 730 looks a little more like the CSO York.

The CSO York first bow looks a lot less "fat". Was this a custom mandrel then?

Don't know, but I doubt it. The two CSO Yorks are not exactly alike. I believe I read that they are different in height.

Alex C wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:52 am Wow. There are a lot of comments that differ from what I know first-hand about the CSO York tubas.

As to comparing the York Model 91 to the CSO Yorks, they are vastly different but they have much in common. If you have a Model 91 BBb York, don't cut it to make a CC York, that doesn't work well. The dozen or so tubas that Rusk cut to CCs sound great but they don't compare well to either the York CC or BBb. Back in the 1970s when there was no other 6/4 CC to own, Rusk's tubas were great. The "modern versions" of the Yorks vary in quality but none of them play or sound like the CSO Yorks.

I found the #1 York to be beautifully in tune, remarkably responsive, and with a sound that verged on glorious even when I played it. Not many horns compare to that. I have not played #2.

I consider Richard Barth to be a great source of information about the York because he had many years of association with Mr. Jacobs and he used "York No. 1" as the basis for his BMB 6/4 tubas. He had even measurements at one time.

From our conversations and my own study, here's what I know. Both CC York tubas were made for Philip Donatelli. I know the bore sizes and the number of valves.Few people know more.

I think it demeans the engineer, Pops Johnson, to say that he 'cut down' a BBb tuba to make the CCs. No one alive today knows the process Johnson used to make the CCs but both were completely hand made. That includes building the main tubing. Having a hand made bugle would preclude the necessity of scrounging through the parts bin to cut something down. In addition, cutting the BBb bugle down would have disrupted the rate of bore increase, and that is not apparent in the #1 CSO horn.

The number of people who have actually seen both CSO Yorks together is actually quite small. The number of them who have measured the two tubas can probably be counted on one hand. The number who have played both is probably even smaller because at some point in the 1990s, #1 became unplayable.

Walter Nirshl has worked on both CSO tubas and has measurements but he keeps that kind of information close. Walter was asked to build a new leadpipe for No 1. After much discussion it was decided that the new leadpipe would change the horn too much. The rebuild was not done.

I don't know the names of others who have measurements and information on both tubas. So conjecture all you want, but very few know enough to have good information and it is unlikely that they will share it.

BTW, I think a good Nirschl is about as close to the CSO Yorks as has been made. When I ordered one, I didn't like it and took it to a nearby orchestral player who said frankly, "this horn in a dog. I wouldn't use it as a practice horn." So you have to be choosy if you want that sound. Lots of people do well on other horns and don't sound like a York at all.

lost wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:59 pm The 730 6/4 monster had slightly different tapers than the 91 monster. 730 was slightly smaller. Thinner brass too. As Yorkaholic alluded, the CSO york must be a reworked 730.

As it was, the 730's weren't even listed in their catalogs in the early 30's when the CSO Yorks were purportedly built, so I'd wager most of it was custom.