TubaForum.net

I forgot that - at one time - I owned THREE C tubas (read down...I believe I ACTUALLY had FOUR, and all of them were very good instruments.)

In "Facebook memories" today, I encountered a picture (church gig) of a long string of heavy hitters all crowded in next to each other.
I re-shared that picture, and/but the picture (screenshot and re-hosted below) was something that I had placed in the "comments" as an answer to someone's inquiry (as I had used the smallest of the three - the one on the right - at that job).
EDIT: I guess I'll screenshoot that picture as well, and post it below the picture of the tubas.

(now: ZERO C instruments, as I now own two BB-flats - technically three - and yes, the third one is "viable"...the third being a Besson compensating B-flat with BOTH the 24-inch recording bell and the 17" upright bell)

From left to right - C tubas from 2014 picture - are:

- a Rudy Meinl 5/4 (5 rotors with a #2 slide trigger) mouthpipe tube was made 50% detachable, with the custom replacement tapering down to a smaller bore (around the bell) to-and-through the receiver. I gave this instrument a linkage upgrade; it originally had that "post-S-arm era" linkage which was always unscrewing out of adjustment. I'm pretty sure that instrument is still located in greater Atlanta.
- a highly customized (to more imitate the playing characteristics of a 6450) Meinl-Weston 2165 (was sold to someone in Long Island, NY, but I believe it's been resold)
- a 5450 (now located in upstate NY) I did a few things to it to improve playing comfort. This instrument is from the very first batch sent to the US, and is remarkably well assembled.




I'm thinking that I surely ALSO still had the formidable and venerable 5-valve Buescher C helicon (so that was a FOURTH C instrument).
At one time, that was my ONLY C instrument. (I performed the Walter Hartley Tuba Sonata with that instrument (with Dan Perantoni - unknown to me while playing it - in the audience). I had a fabulous pianist, Adrienne Park. He ran around to the stage door and complimented me. Needless to say, that felt really nice. I'm pretty sure that the helicon is still located in Oregon.


5450 action screen shot (fb 2014 - big "church gig" rehearsal)
LOL...I still had an age which began with a "5".

That bottom picture reminds me that no matter how wild and wacky the tubas of Tuba World are, piccolo trumpets are a close runner up in overall whackiness. I played with a guy once that had a tunable bell piccolo trumpet (cannot remember the brand), he said he had a WOODEN bell for it.

About ten years ago I was in a similar boat: from smallest to largest, I had a Mirafone 184 CC, a Rudi Meinl 3/4 CC and an Alex 163 CC.

None of those instruments were particularly easy to play in tune. I ended up selling them all and getting a Holton/King Sam Gnagey creation that @tubanh84 currently owns (and apparently even schlepped to Alaska) which was a very sweet horn, not too dissimilar from your Holton BBb.

The 184 was one of the very early 1960s models with the dogleg after the valve section. It had a very flat 3rd and 5th partial.

==

I'm not a full BBb convert, but playing my 3v York 6/4 BBb (B-grade piston plating wear and all) is really fun.

I’m going to further excommunicate myself from the “Kollij” circles by saying this, but the best contrabass tubas I have played on in the last several years:

Miraphone Hagen 497
Miraphone Siegfried
Alexander 164 BBb


The worst contrabass tubas I have played on:

Eastman 836 CC
Eastman 632 CC



(Normally when I am at conferences or stores I do play on the same horns I have tested to see if anything calls out as I’ve gotten older, if any improvements have been made, etc).

I'm kind of surprised to see the Eastman 632 on the list.. I played one at Dillon and liked it more than the 832. It felt much more stable.

Maybe that it just the variability in these horns... or maybe the one at Dillon was give over with a fine tooth comb by Matt.

gocsick wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 9:10 am I'm kind of surprised to see the Eastman 632 on the list.. I played one at Dillon and liked it more than the 832. It felt much more stable.

Maybe that it just the variability in these horns... or maybe the one at Dillon was give over with a fine tooth comb by Matt.

I didn't wan't to make the post just an "attack on Eastman CC tubas, but the 832 I thought had potential. It could have been the way the 632 was marketed--I played an earlier batch of them. The rep kept on saying "this is what the 5XJ series dreams of being" and was based off an original. I've played many of the 5XJ series as a lot of the undergraduates where I did my DMA had this model, all worked on by the designer of the horn, and after playing the 632CC on a few mouthpieces, I was convinced the 54J was still superior (I was never a fan of the 56J). The low range in particular on the 632 didn't project as much, was very tight. I won't go into maintenance issues with valves on this post.

The 832--guessing it was the 1st or 2nd generation---I commented that it would be a great "section" tuba. I could see a military group that wanted matching horns going with something like this, but I did have issues with this horn. The horn bugle and such made it seem ideal, as I was testing it out for a student who was wanting to switch to CC tuba, and I never looked at the specs (several people suggested that the horn would be the best fit for what he was wanting on his budget). I brought my mouthpiece, and immediately said "what is the bore on this horn?". I figured the bore would be a .748, or even .772 (as on my Miraphone 1291 CC) and when I played it, I noticed a very diffused, shaky sound as you said, and the rep said it was a .689 bore. Eastman said had experimented with larger bores and said it didn't work for the horn. It has a TON of potential, but if they aren't going to fix the bore to match the rest of the horn.

In other words on the Eastman front, I did play a piston F tuba that was quite good--I believe it was Scott Sutherland's personal horn model, and it played very similar to my Gronitz PF 125 in terms of color and tuning tendencies (4th space G being sharp, Eb being flat), quick response, good color. One of my friends had played my Gronitz and then when Scott brought it in for a day on a conference told me it played quite similar and I thought the same. My only comment was with my mouthpiece, it felt a tiny bit "veiled", but it had a much smaller bore and I figured if I went with a Sellmansberger 1 or 2 backbore, it would fix this (the horn wasn't as big as my Gronitz).

I found out recently that they scrapped the design of this particular F and went to one where they copied and "improved" one of the Hirsburnner F tubas. I have not played this one. I am disappointed they seemed to scrap the best model of any of their horns I have tested.


Other CC tubas I have played that were quite good that I don't own (or the rotor version of what I won):

Meinl Weston Ursus--my best friend has a non-vented one that is exceptionally good
Meinl Weston Thor--I prefer the smaller bell version. Very consistent sound top to bottom
Miraphone 188CC--Classic but solid
PT6/PT6P--These are VERY inconsistent. A REALLY good one is such a solid horn.
B&S 795--I think the sound and weight are very good. Not as good as the original 1920's York factory CC my teacher had. I had issues with tuning in octaves between the lower notes and higher notes--I was using a euro shank mouthpiece, but I do not think that was causing that. The rest of the horn had easy tuning. Having played on an original York (Very similar to Bob LeBlanc's, same model and era), they didn't possess amazing tuning in certain partials, but were the expected flat 5th, sharp 6th, etc.

I want to try the new Yamaha 623CC (and BBb)--I have not had an opportunity to try it.

Having been self-educated now with experience with the 32-in tall York/Holton bells and bugles (remaining in B-flat) with 11/16" bore King valve sections put on them, I really think they offer a more energetic sound compared to the 37" King (which features the same bottom bow dimensions as the York and Holton... so the King is not all that much larger of an instrument).

I think the problem is that the King can be shortened to C (for the C people) and still play fairly well in tune, but when one starts chopping on the slightly smaller York/Holton bugles (arguably, slightly better B-flat instruments than the King instruments when outfitted with King valve sections) and putting those in C, it gets really tricky to end up with an instrument with a good scale, whereas I believe those York/Holton instruments need to remain in B flat.

...the Eastman versions of a cut down to C King are very handsome (both the 6XX and 8XX), but they're just not for me, and weren't for me back one I was still playing C instruments... but they tune pretty well.

Eastman has a lot of stuff, and some stuff that plays pretty well. I think the best Jimbo stuff has caught up to them in quality, if not surpassed in some cases. I haven't kept up with what's going on with any of the other Chinese makers.

The 836 Eastman...??
I could never play one of those... too many intonation anomalies for me.

bloke wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 5:49 pm
I think the problem is that the King can be shortened to C (for the C people) and still play fairly well in tune, but when one starts chopping on the slightly smaller York/Holton bugles (arguably, slightly better B-flat instruments than the King instruments when outfitted with King valve sections) and putting those in C, it gets really tricky to end up with an instrument with a good scale, whereas I believe those York/Holton instruments need to remain in B flat.

The Getzen G-50 CC tubas turned out pretty great, and are pretty much 'modern' York/Holton 4/4 CC tubas as you describe.

That 2165 intrigues me every time I remember it exists. I can't wait to get mine finished up.

Also, re: the Rudy - Man, those are big. Like, really big. And the 2165 isn't small, either. Seeing those next to one another is very cool.

catgrowlB wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 6:22 pm

bloke wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 5:49 pm
I think the problem is that the King can be shortened to C (for the C people) and still play fairly well in tune, but when one starts chopping on the slightly smaller York/Holton bugles (arguably, slightly better B-flat instruments than the King instruments when outfitted with King valve sections) and putting those in C, it gets really tricky to end up with an instrument with a good scale, whereas I believe those York/Holton instruments need to remain in B flat.

The Getzen G-50 CC tubas turned out pretty great, and are pretty much 'modern' York/Holton 4/4 CC tubas as you describe.

Agreed. I think It's tricky (trickier than cutting down a King) but that one was a remarkable success.
Other times - when I've seen people do garage cutdowns of the vintage Y/H bugles, tuning was all over the place.

Sousaswag wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 7:06 pm That 2165 intrigues me every time I remember it exists. I can't wait to get mine finished up.

Also, re: the Rudy - Man, those are big. Like, really big. And the 2165 isn't small, either. Seeing those next to one another is very cool.

That Rudy is easier to play in tune than the heavily adulterated 2165. I really like what I did to the sound on that 2165, but the tuning characteristics remained the same...and they're about the same with all the 6450s that I've played in various elephant rooms. I remember opening up one of the. IRIS Orchestra concerts with the Copland Fanfare using that 6450. A tuba player in the audience told me that the tuba resonance was thumping him in the chest... which was exactly what I was trying to get that instrument to do. Having been practically given one of those original 2165 tone rings helped the instrument sound more like an instrument with a 2265/6450 bell, but it also jacked the instruments total weight up to 30 lbs. Somebody recently told me that they now own it, but I can't remember who told me that.
To summarize, the Rudy was easier to play in tune, and I liked the resonance of the heavily modified 2165 more.
The Miraphone 98 is superior to either of those instruments in both regards. That said, I'm in my 70th year and probably could have done more with the 98 (than I can now) 15 years ago. I don't have any really serious health problems of any sort, but I'm also not in denial that I'm aging.

The Rudy 5/4 BBb that I owned was extremely easy to play in tune, and due to the retrofit Miraphone 190 lead pipe (smaller diameter than Rudy OEM), it was just really easy to get the tuba to "go."

That Rudy is definitely a big fella, but it's easy to hold, easy to play, and quickly you forget how big it apparently actually is.

The few times I've played the 2165 variants, I was continuously reminded that they are big, thick tubas.

bort2.0 wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 8:38 pm The Rudy 5/4 BBb that I owned was extremely easy to play in tune, and due to the retrofit Miraphone 190 lead pipe (smaller diameter than Rudy OEM), it was just really easy to get the tuba to "go."

That Rudy is definitely a big fella, but it's easy to hold, easy to play, and quickly you forget how big it apparently actually is.

The few times I've played the 2165 variants, I was continuously reminded that they are big, thick tubas.

That’s where I know I’ve had success with my 2165. Removing all that unnecessary weight is a huge help in taking away that heavy and dead feeling. The leadpipe mod was huge. It’s not a challenge to play this tuba at all. I can’t for the life of me understand why Warren Deck wanted it to be that way.

The tuning - Not perfect, but for one of these big CC’s, I am okay with the minimal amount of work required to play it in tune. When it’s fully warmed up, the sharp tendencies are very minor.

^Very cool. I've always heard that the 2165 had a lot of potential for greatness after adapting it for people with normal lungs. That is, I've heard people describe it as, Warren Deck built that tuba for himself, and they made a bunch more to sell to other people.

The one 2165 that I remember playing had belonged to Scott Cameron, and it was for sale at BBC. This was like 20 years ago. It had great valves, a great sound, but physically it wasn't fun for me to hold. The bows and branches were all so thick, it was like holding... Well, I don't know what it was like. But it wasn't so much fun for me Also, I hate pulling slides, so most 6/4 CC tubas probably just aren't for me.

The Rudy is taller than the 2165 (but not as tall as a proper 45" kaiser BBb), so the bows and branches could gain their extreme volume* across more length, so the diameter wasn't quite so huge.

*volume of air, not decibels

arpthark wrote: Fri Jan 02, 2026 7:34 am About ten years ago I was in a similar boat: from smallest to largest, I had a Mirafone 184 CC, a Rudi Meinl 3/4 CC and an Alex 163 CC.

None of those instruments were particularly easy to play in tune. I ended up selling them all and getting a Holton/King Sam Gnagey creation that @tubanh84 currently owns (and apparently even schlepped to Alaska) which was a very sweet horn, not too dissimilar from your Holton BBb.

The 184 was one of the very early 1960s models with the dogleg after the valve section. It had a very flat 3rd and 5th partial.

==

I'm not a full BBb convert, but playing my 3v York 6/4 BBb (B-grade piston plating wear and all) is really fun.

It's still plays stupidly well in tune, even here in Alaska. That Gnagey is a cheat code. I took the last month off from work, for my first vacation in way too many years, and I practiced every day. Full on, exercises, scales, etudes in three octaves, etc...Got the pedal register dialed in again. There isn't really anything it can't do.

I may have a performance of Meistersinger coming up, and while my 184 is probably the most appropriate instrument for it, I'll be playing the Gnagey (see above: cheat code).

Both my 32-in 19-in bell B flat and the huge model 98 have some quirks when they are cold. I'm not a scientist, but I've sort of decided that I'm possibly right that the quirks are due to the farthest outer bows - particularly the big top bow and possibly the bell a little bit - remaining cold the longest.

With the huge tuba third partial F (as with many six quarter tubas) is slightly flat... At the tubas coldest perhaps 10 cents, but when this tuba is fully warmed up, that F is spot on... ie. no favoring, and I have to be a bit careful about not playing that third partial open F a bit sharp at that time, as - for the first five or minutes or so - I shall have been favoring it.
(Sometime, maybe I should make a quick and honest video of an electronic tuner picking up the open pitches of the 98. It's pretty astonishing...in a good way.)

The 32-in tall B flat tuba (with Holton/York bows and bell, and with a highly adulterated King 2341 valve set mounted on it) features a flat fourth partial B flat (until it's warmed up) and then that same B flat creeps up disproportionately (thank goodness) in comparison to the other open pitches, until it's only very slightly flat by nature and then very easy (so as one isn't even aware they're doing it) to favor up just a very small amount higher.
=======================
Predictably, as the bugle of the model 98 gets distorted in taper by adding cylindrical tubing, tuning anomalies begin to occur when cylindrical tubing valve circuits are added.

Mostly, the first valve slide pulls are predictable and proportional based on how much tubing is added, yet fifth partial open D is spot on, and the lower one descends into the fifth partial, the pitch gets lower - whereas second valve d flat needs a little bit of favoring (unless one was to push in the second slide which I'm just not going to do under any circumstances), first valve c requires pushing the first slide all the way in (and I've actually adjusted the circuit length for the first valve to accommodate this completely), but then adding one more valve to play 1-2 B natural defines that the first slide comes out perhaps 3/16 of an inch or less for a perfect B natural. (I've experienced similar effects with other Kaiser taper B flat tubas, yet - with most of the other ones - the whole string of 5th partial pitches begins with a badly flat open D and then gets hopelessly and irreparably worse, unlike what I described above with the model 98...so what I'm saying is that I don't use any alternate fingerings, and every valve combination I use on this instrument is found in the fronts of beginner band method books).

With the 2-3 combination, I have the third circuit set whereas the low F sharp and the F sharp up in the staff are tuned just about perfectly in the default position. The C sharp below the staff is very subtly flat, and - as with many brass instruments - the F-sharp at the bottom of the staff itself is flatter than the C sharp. Those of you have been on the repair forum have seen how I have addressed that issue by making that slide accessible with a left hand wrist push (while being able to keep my left hand fingertips on the #1 slide) and with an auto return spring for the #3 slide. If I'm playing some busy passages in the middle range of the tuba - and in a "sharps key signature", I'll probably just keep that #3 slide pushed in with my wrist.

With the 98, my workaround for B natural below the staff and C natural conflicting with each other (regarding the #4 circuit length) I simply play C natural with 1-3 and a pretty vigorous #1 slide pull (that slide having an aftermarket stop rod), and the #4 circuit pretty much tuned for 2-4 B-natural, which - serendipitously - is right at the same length required to play the double low range first partial pitches (very low E flat down to extremely low B natural) close to In tune (other than of course 5-2-3-4 double low C, which & if actually needed - I would probably play with third valve alone anyway).

...so the huge model 98: (as Napoleon Dynamite would say) It's got skills.

A lot of this is probably really boring, but maybe it helps someone with their tuning strategies on their own B-flat or C (simply transposing all of my comments by a whole step) instruments...
but if the open partials aren't as in tune as they are with this serendipitous Model 98, then I would predict more issues that would need to be addressed...

... As an example, I've yet to have played a model 836 C tuba whereby the #1 slide would retract enough to play first valve D up to pitch without serious favoring, whereby I might consider shortening that circuit, but shortening it in such a way that didn't shorten the slide tubes themselves.