Re: Tuba Quality


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on November 11, 2002 at 12:26:50:

In Reply to: Tuba Quality posted by Tracy B. on November 10, 2002 at 14:15:31:

This is a good question and I'd like to expand on it. The notion of quality is not well understood by any of us, at least in objective terms. But let's see if we can break it down.

Design. A well designed tuba has the potential of bring great, while a poorly designed tuba cannot be made wonderful by any amount of craftsmanship. A design is measured by how well it meets the design requirements, and the requirements are measured by how well they satisfy the needs of players. The problem here is that different players need different qualities, and so result in different sets of requirements. For example, a Rudy Meinl 5/4 tuba and a Yorkbrunner are designed for similar applications (big orchestras), but clearly the requirements for the design were different, which grew out of the different needs of their users. Both may represent equal quality of design, in terms of how well they meet their requirements.

Construction. Some tubas use a few machine-made parts, and some use a lot of machine-made parts. No tubas are entirely hand-made in the sense that each part is built from scratch. Some construction methods create problems, and others create different problems. No method is perfect. But the weakness of any given method can be overcome by proper understanding of the problem and by including a corrective process. For example, if machine-forming a bottom bow leaves high residual stresses, annealing will eliminate those stresses. There is no assurance that hand-hammering provides any higher quality, as a production technique, than machine forming, and it is much less consistent even when done by a master.

Assembly. All tubas are assembled by hand, even those from the Far East that have bird names. They may be assembled with high residual stresses or not, and they may have blobs of solder or loose joints. It seems to me that the high internal stresses are the most likely to cause problems.

Tweaking. This final adjustment phase can make a significant but subtle difference in the tuba--a difference many of us would not notice but that would be critical to the best players. This includes identifying and repairing any assembly inconsistencies or problems, and fine-tuning the mechanisms to work smoothly. This process includes making tuning slides fast, valves perfectly aligned, and so on, and even includes the tweaks that solve some subtle response problems, such as chamfering tuning slides or adding (or moving) stiffeners.

Appearance. Some tubas are thought to be great tubas because they are so beautiful. They include lots of precious metal, careful polishing, fancy engraving, and so on.

Any of these categories can vary with a given instrument. Some instruments are beautifully constructed, tweaked, and finished, but still have problems which can only be laid at the door of design. Some have a wonderful design, and are adequately constructed but not beautiful. Some manufacturers have a reputation for consistency and others don't.

As an example, I have played a number of the new King 2341's, and I find them very inconsistent. Some have a dead feeling while others are alive and responsive. This is likely an assembly problem, because some might have to be forced into shape during assembly which leaves high residual stresses. It could also be a construction problem, because the pieces are too inconsistent to allow routine assembly, and the budget does not allow the many extra hours required to resolve those inconsistencies. None that I have seen are what I would call beautifully finished. But all will agree that the design is a good one, and the price is excellent. The same was true for the old Kings. I helped pick one out for my wife's uncle last December. It was anything but beautiful, but it was the most alive old 2341 (actually, it was a 1241) I'd every played. I love the good-deal formula: High functionality plus poor appearance equals good price.

Most Yamaha models are known for being quite consistent, and I think their construction of parts is where they achieve this consistency. I doubt that their assembly people are any better than their counterparts at King, but the pieces are probably more consistent to begin with. Again, none of the Yamahas are what I would call beautifully finished. The famous early runs of the better Yamaha instruments--like my #72 F tuba--are often claimed to be handmade, but I rather expect that they get a bit of extra tweaking rather than anything like hand-hammering (excepting the prototypes, of course). Yamahas are also known for having a bland sound, and that seems to me entirely a function of design.

I'd bet that Rudy Meinls have more hand-hammering on them than Yorkbrunners, and I expect the difference in them is entirely in the needs they were designed to satisfy. Alexanders, I'd bet, have much more hand-hammering than either, and their variability I'm sure relates to that.

Hirsbrunners are known for being consistent, but they are not universally regarded as the best horns made. But they are all beautifully finished. Those models that aren't as highly regarded are probably lacking in design more than anything.

I know you didn't include price in your consideration, but I think it's critically important. So, let's sum up: Quality is based on design, construction, assembly, tweaking, and finished appearance. At the highest price points, you should expect the best of all four categories. At lower price points, pick the ones that are meaningful to you, but don't expect them all. A friend is buying a new King, and he rejected the first one delivered because of bad finish problems (as well he should have). I told him that for the price, he'd have to be very fortunate to get a King that didn't have some minor finish flaws. Design is an up-front cost that will be amortized over the entire production run, so difficult designs are reserved for higher price points, though some tubas turn out well with less design, or by piggybacking off the design of a more expensive instrument (the King is an example here, too). Construction, assembly, tweaking, and finish are per-unit cost items. At the lower price points, they all suffer.

Rick "who thinks artisans and manufacturers have different definitions of quality" Denney


Follow Ups: