Posted by Jay Bertolet on August 04, 2001 at 10:01:30:
In Reply to: Cerveny CBB 693 Bb posted by Alex on August 04, 2001 at 08:31:03:
It sounds to me like you're on the right track. I've had much the same experience with my Cerveny ACB-601. My observation has been that certain makes of instruments use a thinner gauge of metal. Why that is (economics, cosmetics, etc.) I don't know but my personal observation has been that instruments using a thinner gauge of metal have better (faster) response at the expense of projection and loud dynamic playing. Conversely, instruments made of a thicker gauge of metal usually project great and hold together very nicely at the louder volumes but can be challenging to play at softer dynamics. At least this seems to me to be true with all other things being equal. My 601 fell into the former camp and I made modifications to it that helped to alleviate the excess vibration I was getting due to the thin metal. In my case, soldering 3/8" half round wire stock to strategic points on the tuba did the trick. There was a very noticable difference after the process! However, I didn't do all the modifications that were suggested because some of them seemed to me to be overkill. For example, I did not add mass to the leadpipe or tuning slide. I found that dampening the larger diameter tubes provided the most noticeable difference. I also didn't experiment with moving braces around. I know that brace placement can be an issue that affects response and intonation. When I purchased my Nirschl York copy, I spoke at length with Warren Deck about the differences between the older ones (like the one I purchased) and the newer models. One of the items that came up was the number and placement of posts between the 4th valve tubing and the top & bottom bows, located opposite the bell side of the instrument. The older model used three, evenly spaced posts. Some players complained that the high C, just above the staff, was very flat and a hard note to center. The newer models eliminated one of those posts and changed the placement of one of the remaining posts. Warren seemed to feel this fixed the problem with the high C. Ironically, I have never felt that the high C on my horn was problematic in any way so this modification isn't one I'd consider yet.
I couldn't begin to suggest how you would go about finding which posts you might move on your tuba to achieve a certain result but I would suggest talking to other professionals who use that model and see if they have done some of this research themselves. You also might consider something more substantial than a belt to dampen the bell. The original MW 2165 had what they called a "tone ring" installed inside the bell. This was nothing more than a large donut of metal that was soldered inside the bell. Other have had the bell cut to make it a detachable bell. This required the installation of a collar on the bell for the two halves to attach and the extra weight of that collar worked in much the same way to deaden the bell.
You are quite correct in stating that these adjustments are highly personal. Every horn has a different mix of strengths and weaknesses and the final arbiter of any results you achieve from modifications is the player himself. Also, what works for you may not be what others may prefer. Just as long as you get what you want, I consider the process a success.
My opinion for what it's worth...