TubaForum.net

Hello all,

as a student about 30 years ago, I was fortunate enough to start my amateur F-Tuba experience on a M-W46 with 38 cm / 15" goldbrass bell.
Back then, this and its larger sibling the 46S (42 cm / 16.5" bell and , I believe, slightly larger bore) had been on the market for a while already.
Do we know when these came out and when they were taken off the catalogues?

Since that time, the fluctuation of tuba models entering and leaving the manufacturers´ portfolios has sped up a great deal.
Also, my impression is that nowadays most new models come out as signature models closely tied to specific large-name tubists that supposedly had major impact on the design of these models.
Back in the day, these collaborations existed and may have been advertised, but not quite to the extent that I observe today.

I wonder if stories about these two models, their design and reception among pro musicians are out there...

And how about current use: Are these still around in pits or studios?
If so, what features are still attractive?
If they aren´t: What made people want to move on?

Edit: The 46 I bought many years ago and the 46S I own today both were bought simply because they happened to be available and affordable on the used market when I needed them. I didn´t specifically seek out THESE horns and would have settled for other brands/models of same quality, but maybe other specifications.
They proved to be good horns to develop with as a musician and were fun to play, so I never looked back in both cases.

Here's my "and that's all I know about that" Forrest-Gump-ish post:

The small/old-old model:
I've encountered one or two of those that I thought were easily negotiable.
I believe Matt Walters owned one of these anomalies which played quite well (not badly out-of-tune).

I only know of one person - Matt Good - who plays the later/larger 46 model.
On a radio/internet (something?) broadcast, he and that tuba sounded really good on the humorous solo in Pétrouchka.
Getting even more specific...The solo sounded slightly "distant" over the radio/internet, but (when I blew the hell out of that same solo, a few years ago) those in the orchestra were extremely complimentary (seemingly: sincerely so...??) but a trombone player up in a balcony (as extra brass were placed up there for a previous piece on the program) made the same comment about my resonance during the same solo.

personally...??
I find that more-recent-era "big" F tubas (with larger capillary mouthpipe diameters, beginning-bores of 3/4" or more in their valvesets), and oversize (18" and larger) bells tend to take away much of what an F tuba offers - sort of like the old 1920's/1930's "monster E-flat" tubas (which - fairly obviously) were designed as "cheater" tubas - attempting to sound like contrabass tubas (yet lacking contrabass tuba resonance) - and most all of which sported serious intonation problems.

"I can't play a low C on this thing":
I don't view myself as any sort of "talented" person nor "quick study", but (playing all sorts of instruments - and with a "decent" sound...ie: "sort-of properly" - in order to make certain that I've ACTUALLY repaired them completely), I believe I've developed a "feel" for "what an instrument needs" in order to resonate. Attempting to play many F tubas as if they are large contrabass tubas will offer just about the same amount of success as attempting to play a (ex: .48X" bore) valve trombone AS IF it is a bass trombone or a euphonium (or a tuba).

(Other than a couple squirrely pitches) I don't mind playing an old Miraphone model 80 F tuba, and (due to more squirrely-intonation pitches) I do tend to mind playing one of the old/small M-W 45/46 F tubas...again: unless it happens to be one of the few "really good intonation" anomalies - such as the one Matt Walters formerly owned.

larger model 45/46 current production:
I have no idea if this is still true, but a Buffet/B&S rep. told me once that they will make most any model (even back to the ancient William Bell Model) IF customers FIRMLY ORDER some of them. Obviously, they're going to build (whether backordered or only anticipated orders) models which they fully expect to SELL. With their new (people are more "agents", now, than "dealers"...or whatever is going on...??) thing, just see me here (while typing this) shrugging my shoulders...and - with Asia-made instruments ranging from "being shiny and almost being tubas" (obviously: good enough for many consumers) to "being remarkably well-built/and nice-playing tubas" - I'm sure all western manufacturers have had to rethink their business plans and modus operandi.

background:
fwiw: I consider myself to be extremely comfortable playing F tuba, don't personally view it as a "double" (nor something I have to "get back into") and I also sightread best when playing F tuba (even it I haven't played the F tuba for a couple of months).

this post:
Just as with the Forrest Gump movie, you know NO more than before, and all I did was type stuff that doesn't offer any useful insights.

I think the 45 is the model that is currently available.

MW has a bunch of tubas you can buy that are not in the catalog. So it might be worth asking.

You can even buy a 2265!

re: studio use:

Rex Conner bought one for the Kentucky tuba studio back in the 70s (or maybe donated his old one when he retired in 1980). Maybe @Jperry1466 remembers it. As recently as the 2000s this is what students learned F tuba on. It was fondly called "flowerpot" because that's about all it was good for. It was a 46 but with the sixth valve paddle snapped off and the valve taped open so that it was essentially a 45. 4+2 configuration.

Other folks I went to school with (of the big F tuba persuasion) hated it, but I was quite enamored by it and ended up buying a working vintage 46 for myself that I used for a few years. It was a wonderful little tuba. Reminded me of an Alex F, but not quite as nice sound, although still much preferred to tubby quasi-contrabass sounding F tubas in my tastes.

I find it funny that MW literature referred to this model as a "6/4" size F tuba when it is actually even smaller than a PT-10. The MW website still listed the old-style 46 as recently as a couple years ago, but it might have been removed. As far as I can tell nothing had changed between the copy I owned from the 60s or 70s and the specs detailed online.

arpthark wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:37 am re: studio use:

Rex Conner bought one for the Kentucky tuba studio back in the 70s (or maybe donated his old one when he retired in 1980). Maybe @Jperry1466 remembers it. As recently as the 2000s this is what students learned F tuba on. It was fondly called "flowerpot" because that's about all it was good for. It was a 46 but with the sixth valve paddle snapped off and the valve taped open so that it was essentially a 45. 4+2 configuration.

Other folks I went to school with (of the big F tuba persuasion) hated it, but I was quite enamored by it and ended up buying a working vintage 46 for myself that I used for a few years. It was a wonderful little tuba. Reminded me of an Alex F, but not quite as nice sound, although still much preferred to tubby quasi-contrabass sounding F tubas in my tastes.

I find it funny that MW literature referred to this model as a "6/4" size F tuba when it is actually even smaller than a PT-10. The MW website still listed the old-style 46 as recently as a couple years ago, but it might have been removed. As far as I can tell nothing had changed between the copy I owned from the 60s or 70s and the specs detailed online.

And a PT-10 is the same size as a 186, other than the fact that (if you measure down the mouthpipe of a 186) the PT-10 is larger/sooner than a 186 (as is a B&S PT-8)

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:54 am Here's my "and that's all I know about that" Forrest-Gump-ish post:

The small/old-old model:
I've encountered one or two of those that I thought were easily negotiable.
I believe Matt Walters owned one of these anomalies which played quite well (not badly out-of-tune).

I only know of one person - Matt Good - who plays the later/larger 46 model.
....

IIRC, I believe that Matt Good stated that he played the 45SLZ, significantly preferring it to the 45SLP version (again IIRC).

There has been quite the smorgasbord of MW "45" and "46" models.

Way fewer of the B&S models, just sayin'.

Okay ..the five valve version. I apologize for sort of thinking of the rotary versions - the five valve version, the six valve version, and the piston version as all being the same- since they are all different valve sections mounted on the same bell and bugle.

I shouldn't really think of them as the same though, because - with the piston version - I've always had to grit my teeth to attempt to play those in tune.

I believe the 45, 45S and 45SLZ/SLP all had different bugles and valve sections.

45 - small by modern standards, in vogue in the 70s, straight bore (I wanna say .709")

45S - I've seen one of these with S linkage so likely around in the 80s, slightly larger

45SLZ - big tubby thing

45SLP - ergonomic nightmare (mouthpiece meet forehead)

edit: I re-read the above post and realized only the 45SLP/SLZ were being compared, so feel free to disregard

Regarding body sizes:

MW 46:
18.5mm bore on all valves but the 4th, which has 19.5mm.
38 cm bell, reasonably slim bottom- and top bows

MW46S:
18.5-21.5 (!) mm graduated bore
42 cm bell, more girth at the bows.

For fun´s sake:
B&S Apollo:
19-21 mm graduated bore
45 cm bell, fat bows.

arpthark wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:37 am re: studio use:

Rex Conner bought one for the Kentucky tuba studio back in the 70s (or maybe donated his old one when he retired in 1980).

I remember it and Mr. Conner's comment during a lesson was, "it's quite a terrible horn" or an equivalent assessment. He told me that he would assign it to one of the tuba majors, Ken Meadows, but I don't recall hearing Rex or Ken play it. I was there from 1970-1975.

DG

FYI, here is a nice overview of the different models:

http://www.palaciodatuba.com/English/Tu ... Melton.htm

arpthark wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:44 pm I believe the 45, 45S and 45SLZ/SLP all had different bugles and valve sections.

45 - small by modern standards, in vogue in the 70s, straight bore (I wanna say .709")

45S - I've seen one of these with S linkage so likely around in the 80s, slightly larger

45SLZ - big tubby thing

45SLP - ergonomic nightmare (mouthpiece meet forehead)

edit: I re-read the above post and realized only the 45SLP/SLZ were being compared, so feel free to disregard

Only two "bugles" that I believe I've seen:
the old smaller one with variations and the later large one with variations. I think it's confusing that they labeled the newer larger ones 45 and 46 just like the old smaller ones.
Again, since I tend to take things apart because people bring them to me busted, I tend to look at things differently, probably.
... but Miraphone is guilty of some of the same type of confusion with model numbers.

Yeah. 45-S might just have a larger bell and valve section as opposed to a completely different taper. I think Matt Walters owned a nice version of the S.