New Tenor Tuba Model

slipmo · by **slipmo** » 2025-06-03 7:49 p.m.

Last year, Thomas Zsivkovits (Schiffko) and I were hanging out and talking about his recent collaboration on a new signature Oval Baritone ~~[url]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.vfcerveny.cz/en/products/ro ... cep-531-tz">https://www.vfcerveny.cz/en/products/rotary-valve/barytones/cep-531-tz</LINK_TEXT> with the fine folks at Amati/Cerveny. He was telling me how great the old factory is, how old school it feels, and how much they really care about making brass instruments the traditional way.

At the Brass Ark, I often get requests for 5-valve “tenor tubas” (sometimes more appropriately known as upright Spanish baritones or kaiser baritones) that tend to be well suited both sonically and visually for the tenor tuba orchestral repertoire. This style instrument was made popular by the late Roger Bobo, who famously introduced the Alexander 151 and "decreed" it a tenor tuba. The problem with most of the models out there is that they can be outrageously expensive, and since it's such a specialized design for only a handful of pieces, it’s hard to justify that kind of cost.

With Thomas’s project going so well and the first instruments being met with great enthusiasm, we asked Cerveny if they would collaborate with The Brass Ark on a more reasonably priced 5-valve tenor tuba built to my specs and in consultation with Thomas's guiding hand. It needed to be bigger, it needed to have 5 valves with the 5th valve as a half- or whole-step option, it needed a main tuning trigger, and it had to be high quality and handmade.

Here’s what we came up with. Hope you enjoy this first one!

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-06-03 8:12 p.m.

Oh boy... need to go try this.

bitbckt · by **bitbckt** » 2025-06-03 8:31 p.m.

Dying to know how it plays.

pfrancis · by **pfrancis** » 2025-06-03 8:47 p.m.

Looks cool, cerveny is a solid manufacturer under represented in the US right now. Why half step as an option for the fifth valve? Tuba players have all but settled on a flat whole step in the states, I rarely see anything other than that or traditional German style which would be a flat minor third. That said, love seeing the user swappable slides, always a nice feature for player choice.

slipmo · by **slipmo** » 2025-06-03 9:19 p.m.

[quote="pfrancis"]Looks cool, cerveny is a solid manufacturer under represented in the US right now. Why half step as an option for the fifth valve? Tuba players have all but settled on a flat whole step in the states, I rarely see anything other than that or traditional German style which would be a flat minor third. That said, love seeing the user swappable slides, always a nice feature for player choice.[/quote]

These upright euphs can have a lot of nuance, especially in the lower register. So I figured its easy enough, why not offer both half and whole step and then you can pick how you want to tune your 5th valve depending what gives the player the best alternate fingering combinations.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-06-03 11:24 p.m.

What does that upward pointing valve lever do? Alternative for the 5th valve?

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-06-03 11:26 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]What does that upward pointing valve lever do? Alternative for the 5th valve?[/quote]

tuning slide trigger

Kevbach33 · by **Kevbach33** » 2025-06-04 1:01 a.m.

How often will one encounter low B? If I had a 5 valve Bb instrument (tenor or contrabass tuba), I'd much rather have :bassclef: :line2: and :line0: be in tune than need access to that low B. So having the flat half step is nice for that.

If I encounter more low B's, I'll just use the comp euphonium. Not like I've used mine in public... (No opportunity yet)

Nice looking instrument!

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-06-04 1:57 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="BGuttman" post_id="277625" time="1749007489" user_id="53">
What does that upward pointing valve lever do? Alternative for the 5th valve?[/quote]

tuning slide trigger
</QUOTE>

Is it connected to the main tuning slide? I can't tell where the linkages run to.

SoVTTb · by **SoVTTb** » 2025-06-04 3:21 a.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="277626" time="1749007576" user_id="3131">

tuning slide trigger[/quote]

Is it connected to the main tuning slide? I can't tell where the linkages run to.
</QUOTE>

Looks like it does, and there’s a thumb screw on the linkage to set your MTS where you want

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-06-04 4:36 a.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="277626" time="1749007576" user_id="3131">

tuning slide trigger[/quote]

Is it connected to the main tuning slide? I can't tell where the linkages run to.
</QUOTE>

Yes, there is a long rod running behind the valve section. This Design or similar is somewhat standard nowadays for good/"highend" rotary valve tenorhorns and baritons and works really well and reliable despite it might look a little bit odd with this long rod. It's nice to have it as you can always play perfectly in tune. I have it on my tenorhorn as well.

[quote="Kevbach33"]How often will one encounter low B? If I had a 5 valve Bb instrument (tenor or contrabass tuba), I'd much rather have :bassclef: :line2: and :line0: be in tune than need access to that low B. So having the flat half step is nice for that.

If I encounter more low B's, I'll just use the comp euphonium. Not like I've used mine in public... (No opportunity yet)

Nice looking instrument![/quote]

for playing in tune you have your tuning slide trigger available ;) So I can imagine I would prefer the availability of the low B but of course I will probably never have a real use case for this.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-04 8:01 a.m.

Including a lyre holder seems an odd choice. Does it (a lyre) have use cases other than marching band?

dukesboneman · by **dukesboneman** » 2025-06-04 8:06 a.m.

Is it Bb horn?

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-06-04 8:26 a.m.

[quote="dukesboneman"]Is it Bb horn?[/quote]

It sure looks the right length for Bb.

For those of you who are concerned about low B Natural, with 5 valves you have enough tubing at your disposal to get there.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2025-06-04 10:49 a.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]Including a lyre holder seems an odd choice. Does it (a lyre) have use cases other than marching band?[/quote]
Beer hall!

slipmo · by **slipmo** » 2025-06-04 11:55 a.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]<QUOTE author="AtomicClock" post_id="277644" time="1749038505" user_id="17161">
Including a lyre holder seems an odd choice. Does it (a lyre) have use cases other than marching band?[/quote]
Beer hall!
</QUOTE>

Had to get all of the potential uses covered :) gotta recoup the instrument cost any way you can!

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-06-04 11:58 a.m.

Cool! I want one. I don’t need one. I can’t afford one. I want one.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-06-04 12:27 p.m.

[quote="slipmo"]<QUOTE author="elmsandr" post_id="277660" time="1749048594" user_id="147">

Beer hall![/quote]

Had to get all of the potential uses covered :) gotta recoup the instrument cost any way you can!
</QUOTE> I can definitely see this as part of a local brass / Oompah band.

Also looking at the current Cerveny lineup, virtually all of their Kaiser tubas have lyre holders. Probably also have the two rings on the back.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2025-06-04 12:44 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]Cool! I want one. I don’t need one. I can’t afford one. I want one.[/quote]

Me too

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-04 1:09 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]Cool! I want one. I don’t need one. I can’t afford one. I want one.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-04 6:03 p.m.

Oh, my.....

<EMOJI seq="2764" tseq="2764">❤️</EMOJI>

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-04 6:06 p.m.

Every time I think silver plate looks better, I see something like this. And vice-versa. I guess the grass is always blingier on the other side.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-06-04 7:14 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]Cool! I want one. I don’t need one. I can’t afford one. I want one.[/quote]

So say we all!

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-06-04 7:47 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]Every time I think silver plate looks better, I see something like this. And vice-versa. I guess the grass is always blingier on the other side.[/quote] Would you really want to hide that beautiful rose brass bell under silver?

I have a silver plated Perantucci / Sterling Euphonium. The body is, I believe, all nickel silver, with a gold brass bell. But it's completely silver plated so no one will ever know.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-04 8:00 p.m.

For about 20 years I played a Cerveny CBB 781-4R tuba: <LINK_TEXT text="https://www.vfcerveny.cz/en/products/ro ... cbb-781-4r">https://www.vfcerveny.cz/en/products/rotary-valve/tubas/bb-tubas/cbb-781-4r</LINK_TEXT> It was incredibly beautiful and had a wonderful sound. I slicked up that 1st valve vertical tuning slide so it could be used to dynamically tune any pitch involving that valve, and thereafter rarely used the 4th valve. It also was something of a dent magnet (that 90% copper red brass!) that made me constantly paranoid in most groups.

Finally I sold it (with only a couple of small dents near the bottom of the bottom bow) and went in the EEb direction. I'm still not sure that was the best move. It was such a great horn.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-06-04 8:06 p.m.

This might be an indelicate time to bring this up, but Wessex also has a handbuilt 5 v tenor tuba. Missing the mts trigger, I think.

<LINK_TEXT text="https://us.wessex-tubas.com/products/bb ... nium-er700">https://us.wessex-tubas.com/products/bb-rotary-tenor-tuba-baritone-euphonium-er700</LINK_TEXT>

I haven't had the pleasure to play either, but the Wessex is featured in a short youtube video where it has a more tub-ish sound than a euph or baritone.

Has anyone played this other instrument?

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-06-04 8:31 p.m.

at more than $3k, I'd rather just get the real thing.

Dennis · by **Dennis** » 2025-06-04 9:29 p.m.

[quote="hyperbolica"]This might be an indelicate time to bring this up, but Wessex also has a handbuilt 5 v tenor tuba. Missing the mts trigger, I think.

<LINK_TEXT text="https://us.wessex-tubas.com/products/bb ... nium-er700">https://us.wessex-tubas.com/products/bb-rotary-tenor-tuba-baritone-euphonium-er700</LINK_TEXT>

I haven't had the pleasure to play either, but the Wessex is featured in a short youtube video where it has a more tub-ish sound than a euph or baritone.

Has anyone played this other instrument?[/quote]

Yeah, I spent about half an hour with it at NABBA in early April. It didn't come home with me, and I had cash in my pocket.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-06-04 10:30 p.m.

[quote="Dennis"]

Yeah, I spent about half an hour with it at NABBA in early April. It didn't come home with me, and I had cash in my pocket.[/quote]

Well, that says something. Did you write that up somewhere else?

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-06-04 10:35 p.m.

[quote="hyperbolica"]This might be an indelicate time to bring this up, but Wessex also has a handbuilt 5 v tenor tuba. Missing the mts trigger, I think.

<LINK_TEXT text="https://us.wessex-tubas.com/products/bb ... nium-er700">https://us.wessex-tubas.com/products/bb-rotary-tenor-tuba-baritone-euphonium-er700</LINK_TEXT>[/quote]

This slipped past me actually, it's cool that they've done one too. While it's a little more than half the price, I would assume it's not in the same league as the Cerveny - every new Cerveny instrument I've tried has been exceptional.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-06-05 7:15 a.m.

[quote="Finetales"]

This slipped past me actually, it's cool that they've done one too. While it's a little more than half the price, I would assume it's not in the same league as the Cerveny - every new Cerveny instrument I've tried has been exceptional.[/quote]

Sometimes, especially for a non-primary instrument, "not as good" could still be "good enough". Unfortunately, from a report I've heard separately, the Wessex doesn't seem to make it up to the actually usable baseline that you have to get to. I'd love to get a report on the Cerveny.

I did get a Wessex Festivo several years back because I was looking for valves down front instead of up top. I'm a little concerned that the line of the paddles on the Cerveny would put your wrist at an angle. I might rather see something like the Marzan tuba. But I'm sure you can find a way to play it comfortably.

CraigF · by **CraigF** » 2025-06-05 7:28 a.m.

Hey everyone, new user here. I’m not a Trombone player but play other middle/low brass. I signed up just for this thread. My first Instrument being French Horn, I am partial to rotary valves.

A few questions about this new Tenor Tuba.

Is it a variation on the 533?

You said, “it needed to be bigger”, in what way is it bigger? Bore, throat, wrap?

What is the bore size? Dual bore? Graduated bore?

Thanks

tromboneVan · by **tromboneVan** » 2025-06-05 8:26 a.m.

Beautiful looking horn, Noah! I don't even really play valves and you got me wanting one.

sungfw · by **sungfw** » 2025-06-05 9:06 a.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]

I have a silver plated Perantucci / Sterling Euphonium. The body is, I believe, all nickel silver, with a gold brass bell. But it's completely silver plated so no one will ever know.[/quote]

The body is yellow brass. There are (or used to be) a few posts in the forum over on Dave Werden’s site by people who visited the shop with photos showing euphs and other instruments in various build stages.

Custom Music (at the time, the exclusive US importer) only stocked silverplate, but the entire Sterling Virtuoso and Sterling Perantucci Symphonic lines were available in raw brass and lacquered brass as well. Given that Sterling was a small shop that made most parts (including, in the Sterling Perantucci era, valve blocks and pistons) in house, and that their primary market was British brass bands, I’m skeptical that they would have used much, if any, nickel sliver in their production, much less made entire instrument bodies out of it.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-06-05 11:06 a.m.

I used to have a raw brass Sterling Virtuoso euph with rimless bell. It was the most steampunk euph ever!

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-05 11:20 a.m.

[quote="Finetales"]I would assume it's not in the same league as the Cerveny - every new Cerveny instrument I've tried has been exceptional.[/quote]
When I sold my Cervany 781, I got a Wessex Champion (Eb compensator, Besson clone). While it was wonderful to play (sound, intonation, valves, etc.), it definitely wasn't in the same class as the Cerveny in terms of workmanship, materials, and fit & finiish).

slipmo · by **slipmo** » 2025-06-05 11:41 a.m.

[quote="CraigF"]Hey everyone, new user here. I’m not a Trombone player but play other middle/low brass. I signed up just for this thread. My first Instrument being French Horn, I am partial to rotary valves.

A few questions about this new Tenor Tuba.

Is it a variation on the 533?

You said, “it needed to be bigger”, in what way is it bigger? Bore, throat, wrap?

What is the bore size? Dual bore? Graduated bore?

Thanks[/quote]

Welcome to the forum!

This is a variation on the 533 but this one has a special new/old stock bell on it that was found at the factory, they only had two of these bells left over because the original mandrel was lost. If this model is a successful collaboration, we will spend the money to have a new mandrel made to produce more. It is a different taper than the current 533 and more suited for this application which is why we used it. Additionally this model has a different leadpipe taper on it that comes from Thomas's signature model. This one takes a euro shank mouthpiece.

I want to also offer these in all yellow brass with kranz and also a fully nickel silver version at some point (but that may be a ways away)

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-05 11:47 a.m.

[quote="slipmo"]I want to also offer these in all yellow brass with kranz ...[/quote]
:good: Classic Cerveny and old world elegance. :lol:

bitbckt · by **bitbckt** » 2025-06-05 12:09 p.m.

A large shank mouthpiece receiver would be a nice option for wider appeal, I would think. As wide as the market for such an instrument is, of course.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-06-05 12:44 p.m.

For reasons I can't explain or understand, i find myself drawn to things like this. Rotaries and a tall bell. I did a tuba stint and was drawn to the miraphone 186 and Alexanders.

Aside from a couple of famous solos, what is the use case for these things? Is it just for the timber difference from a euph? Those that want one, what do you intend to use it for?

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-06-05 12:45 p.m.

[quote="sungfw"]The body is yellow brass. There are (or used to be) a few posts in the forum over on Dave Werden’s site by people who visited the shop with photos showing euphs and other instruments in various build stages.

Custom Music (at the time, the exclusive US importer) only stocked silverplate, but the entire Sterling Virtuoso and Sterling Perantucci Symphonic lines were available in raw brass and lacquered brass as well. Given that Sterling was a small shop that made most parts (including, in the Sterling Perantucci era, valve blocks and pistons) in house, and that their primary market was British brass bands, I’m skeptical that they would have used much, if any, nickel sliver in their production, much less made entire instrument bodies out of it.[/quote] I'll have to take a look again when I get home to see what materials were used. I should get it out more often to play it. I forget exactly when, but I was told the body was Nickel Silver, though I could be mistaken.

The tuning slides must all be silver plated then.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-05 12:52 p.m.

[quote="hyperbolica"]Aside from a couple of famous solos, what is the use case for these things? Is it just for the timber difference from a euph? Those that want one, what do you intend to use it for?[/quote]
Well, if you play regularly in a "German Band" in the US, I think it would be very cool. Otherwise, I think it's more an objet d'art. And let's face it ... it's debatable whether you really NEED it for those couple of famous solos.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-05 12:57 p.m.

[quote="slipmo"]This style instrument was made popular by the late Roger Bobo, who famously introduced the Alexander 151 and "decreed" it a tenor tuba.[/quote]

What was the Alex 151 used for before Bobo issued his decree?

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-05 1:13 p.m.

Well, Alexander lists it as a "Baritontuba", but I think there's not much to make of the 'tuba' part of that. It's definitely (structurally) a part of the tuba family (but so is the Flugelhorn and the Euphonium). In fact, the 151 does not reside in Alexander's categories of tubas, but of "› Instrumente › Tenorhörner & Baritone". That is, it's a "bariton(e)". That's historically how it's been used. It was originally designed for Spanish Banda (folk band) players.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-06-05 1:35 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]And let's face it ... it's debatable whether you really NEED it for those couple of famous solos.[/quote]
I've always wondered whether the "tenor tuba" Holst was thinking of when he wrote The Planets is the same thing as the "tenor tuba" Mussorgsky was thinking of when he wrote Pictures at an Exhibition. I suspect not.

That said, I can certainly imagine a discussion running along the lines of: "Well, they're both really good players, but this guy will play the part on euphonium while other guy has an actual tenor tuba."

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-05 2:13 p.m.

[quote="JohnL"]That said, I can certainly imagine a discussion running along the lines of: "Well, they're both really good players, but this guy will play the part on euphonium while other guy has an actual tenor tuba."[/quote]

I read a report (I think on the old Tubenet) of a guy who was playing "Pictures" in an orchestra on a euphonium and was told by the conductor that a "tenor tuba" was required for the part. He replied "Just a moment, I'll get my tenor tuba," took the euph outside, came back inside with it, and played the part to the conductor's satisfaction.

Now perhaps this story was apocryphal, or perhaps it was not. But even if was, it remains true that most people can't (especially in a passage like that) tell exactly what instrument it's being played on. And it's often played on a CC tuba (or an F, or an Eb, or even a BBb). You will also see claims that Ravel scored it for "a euphonium or a tenor tuba". There's a lot of sloppiness in the historical reporting here.

The notion of an "actual tenor tuba" suffers from a reputation of extreme ambiguity or vaguery. Historically, the term “tuba ténor” in Ravel's time was used to refer to a "small tuba" (conical board) in Bb (not contra-bass BBb) -- I.e., what we would call a "euphonium"

(I wonder how many times this discussion has occurred over the past 100 years. :lol: )

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-06-05 3:29 p.m.

[quote="JohnL"]I've always wondered whether the "tenor tuba" Holst was thinking of when he wrote The Planets is the same thing as the "tenor tuba" Mussorgsky was thinking of when he wrote Pictures at an Exhibition. I suspect not.

That said, I can certainly imagine a discussion running along the lines of: "Well, they're both really good players, but this guy will play the part on euphonium while other guy has an actual tenor tuba."[/quote] Well, remember that Pictures at an Exhibition was orchestrated by Maurice Ravel, so there's a good chance that he was thinking about a French C Tuba, which has Six Valves, and is pitched a whole step above a "Euphonium".

Holst wrote it for "Tenor Tuba", but most likely being in England, had the Euphonium in mind, which is pretty much a tenor tuba. British style Eb and BBb compensating tubas are all part of the same family. If i recall, the evolution of the tuba was in some case convergent, as the concept was arrived at by multiple designers who began at different starting points. In some cases there were competing designs in the same market.

This reminds me of parts marked 'Ophicleide" and discussion of whether they were actually performed on ophicleide during the time period they were written.

sungfw · by **sungfw** » 2025-06-05 3:49 p.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]I'll have to take a look again when I get home to see what materials were used. I should get it out more often to play it. I forget exactly when, but I was told the body was Nickel Silver, though I could be mistaken.

The tuning slides must all be silver plated then.[/quote]

Initially, the slides on my 1065HGS were lightly silverplated, but the plating on the first, third, main, and comp slides has long since worn off.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-05 3:56 p.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]Well, remember that Pictures at an Exhibition was orchestrated by Maurice Ravel, so there's a good chance that he was thinking about a French C Tuba ...[/quote]
This is very unlikely. The French C Tuba was not referred to as a "tenor tuba" but a "tuba en Ut" ("tuba in C"). It was simply THE tuba for the French.

Dennis · by **Dennis** » 2025-06-05 5:32 p.m.

[quote="JohnL"]<QUOTE author="ghmerrill" post_id="277786" time="1749142363" user_id="2941">And let's face it ... it's debatable whether you really NEED it for those couple of famous solos.[/quote]
I've always wondered whether the "tenor tuba" Holst was thinking of when he wrote The Planets is the same thing as the "tenor tuba" Mussorgsky was thinking of when he wrote Pictures at an Exhibition. I suspect not.

That said, I can certainly imagine a discussion running along the lines of: "Well, they're both really good players, but this guy will play the part on euphonium while other guy has an actual tenor tuba."
</QUOTE>

Mussorgsky composed Pictures, but it's a piano piece that's been orchestrated at least half a dozen times. The Ravel orchestration is the most widely performed of the various orchestrations. Ravel wrote Bydlo for a French C tuba, which was basically a six-piston valve extra-large bore instrument pitched in C a step above a euphonium.

There is little doubt that Holst was writing for a Bb euphonium. Outside of British brass bands and handful of even more obscure traditions, tubas are notated at pitch in bass (very, very, very occasionally tenor) clef. The player is expected to pick the tuba (F, Eb, C, Bb) and know the fingerings for the chosen instrument. Holst's tenor tuba part is notated in Bb treble clef, sounding a major ninth lower. That is, it's exactly the transposition used in a British brass band.

As long as I'm on it, Strauss wrote for tenor tuba in Ein Heldenleben and Don Quixote. The parts are Bb bass clef (sounding a major second lower) occasionally going into Bb treble clef sounding a major ninth lower. Apparently Strauss's original intent was to use a tenor (i.e. Bb alto) Wagner tuba, but he wasn't happy with the result. He gave leave to use what we would call a euphonium on the part and was apparently much happier with the result.

CraigF · by **CraigF** » 2025-06-05 9:09 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="tbonesullivan" post_id="277802" time="1749151754" user_id="7063">
Well, remember that Pictures at an Exhibition was orchestrated by Maurice Ravel, so there's a good chance that he was thinking about a French C Tuba ...[/quote]
This is very unlikely. The French C Tuba was not referred to as a "tenor tuba" but a "tuba en Ut" ("tuba in C"). It was simply THE tuba for the French.
</QUOTE>

Ravel marked the part as simply "Tuba" not "Tenor Tuba". So, it is very likely he had the French C Tuba in mind.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-06-06 11:35 a.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]This is very unlikely. The French C Tuba was not referred to as a "tenor tuba" but a "tuba en Ut" ("tuba in C"). It was simply THE tuba for the French.[/quote] All of the scores I see simply say "tuba". However some publishing companies could have chosen to call it "tenor tuba".

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-06 11:40 a.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]However some publishing companies could have chosen to call it "tenor tuba".[/quote]
I'm not sure what this means. Do you have examples?

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-06-06 12:17 p.m.

As a mere trombonist, I've never understood the differences between tenor tubas, "Wagner" tubas, euphoniums (euphonia?), English baritones, American baritones, small tubas, etc. And I'm probably too old and dense to learn. So I'll just keep sliding along. ;)

JohntheTheologian · by **JohntheTheologian** » 2025-06-06 12:43 p.m.

Having played euphonium in a British brass band, I understand the differences there. I even played 2nd baritone for one concert when our regular player couldn't make a gig and there was an important baritone duet that needed to be covered. Playing an English baritone was interesting since it felt like the horn was barely there compared to my 4 valve euph. It seemed like the difference between playing a bass trombone and a small bore tenor.

I also know how to explain to most older Americans with wind band experience the difference between a British euphonium and the older American baritone-- which is really a slightly smaller bore 3 valve euphonium with front valves and a front facing bell. In American wind band literature baritone and euphonium nomenclature seem to be used rather interchangeably.

However, I do admit to being a bit lost when I look at the continental horns. The Germans and Czechs seem to call what looks like an oval rotary valved euphonium to me, a "bariton." The French have things that they call saxhorns in tenor and baritone voicings. I can't really figure those all out.

ghmerrill · 2025-06-06 12:46 p.m.

Tubas:

Euphoniums
(real) tubas (i.e., large bore, conical bore except -- generally -- through the valve sections) These include the usual family in F and Eb (bass tubas) and in C and BBb (contrabass tubas). There are some sub-contrabass tubas kicking around as well. Harvard owns a really big one.
Some horns that are sometimes referred to as "American baritones" but are really euphoniums because they're large conical bore instruments.
"small tubas" -- actually including the Flugelhorn, which is the soprano voice of the tuba family
Sousaphones (though not generally referred to as tubas)
Helicons (though not generally referred to as tubas)
The French C tuba

Not tubas: (pretty much anything else, but specifically ...)

Wagner tubas (they're really French horns that Wagner perverted into a different overall form)
English (or other -- genuine -- baritones) -- these are cylindrical bore

The still recognized fundamental source on this is Donald W. Stauffer's "A Treatise on the Tuba" (a revised/expanded version of his Eastman 1942 MM thesis). You can still find copies of this book if you look hard enough. I got mine -- autographed by Stauffer!! -- in 1992.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-06 12:51 p.m.

[quote="JohntheTheologian"]However, I do admit to being a bit lost when I look at the continental horns. The Germans and Czechs seem to call what looks like an oval rotary valved euphonium to me, a "bariton." The French have things that they call saxhorns in tenor and baritone voicings. I can't really figure those all out.[/quote]
Saxhorns are not tubas -- but they are tuba-like and are generally mentioned as close relatives.

Some of those instruments labeled "bariton" are baritones and some (most?) are actually euphoniums. There's a whole other nomenclature involving "tenorhorns", "baritones", and "euphoniums" that is best avoided if you're on the western side of the Atlantic. I once had an excellent instrument repair tech (though specializing in woodwinds) insist that my oval euphonium was a "tenorhorn" -- because it "looked" like a tenorhorn. Couldn't budge him from that view with any amount of demonstration or rational argument. On similar grounds, many people will insist that a Wagner tuba is a tuba or is some kind of baritone or euphonium -- because it "looks like" those (although it actually "looks" -- a little bit -- like a mirror, or left-handed image of a bariton or euphonium that someone got the bore size wrong on.

JohntheTheologian · by **JohntheTheologian** » 2025-06-06 3:10 p.m.

Gary, thanks for the detailed update-- helpful.

One small question/quibble?

Having played a British baritone, as mentioned above, on a couple occasions, I was under the impression that they were still slightly more conical than say a trombone. Sort of like a tenor voiced cornet as compared to q tenor voiced trumpet that the trombone resembles.

Is that accurate from your research? At least in my experience a British baritone sounded a bit more mellow than most trombones do, although quite different than a euphonium. The bore size obviously makes a difference, but I think there is actually a bit more conical tubing in a British baritone.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-06 3:53 p.m.

I don't know enough to answer that question with much confidence. And there is some variance among those instruments -- in terms of the point at which the tubing begins to go conical, or at which point a larger size of cylindrical tubing may be used.

It's often said that the diameter of baritone tubing "remains consistent throughout". Yamaha even says this on their web page (<LINK_TEXT text="https://hub.yamaha.com/winds/brass/what ... euphonium/">https://hub.yamaha.com/winds/brass/whats-the-difference-between-baritone-horn-and-euphonium/</LINK_TEXT>) that describes the differences in the two instruments). But in fact just looking at a typical baritone you can see that this doesn't seem to be true, and the tubing (while remaining cylindrical) may increase between the leadpipe and the bell section. But that increase is accomplished in incremental "steps" rather by employing conical tubing where one end of the tubing is wider than the other. At least that's what I'm seeing. Note that a trombone may exhibit the same characteristic (think of a dual bore slide, or of different bore tubing through valve sections -- while the change from cylindrical to conical tubing occurs just prior to the bell.

So exactly where the designer does things in terms of bore increase or change from cylinder to cone will have an effect on the timbre. My oval euphonium is indeed a euphonium (according to how its model is described and according to the criteria typically used for classification), but it doesn't sound like my large (Yamaclone) euphonium did because of these differences. The Amati oval euph sounds slightly (but distinctly) more like a trombone or baritone.

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-06-06 5:03 p.m.

[quote="JohntheTheologian"]However, I do admit to being a bit lost when I look at the continental horns. The Germans and Czechs seem to call what looks like an oval rotary valved euphonium to me, a "bariton." The French have things that they call saxhorns in tenor and baritone voicings. I can't really figure those all out.[/quote]

In Germany the three most common instruments are the "Tenorhorn", the "Bariton" and the euphonium. The first to usually are build in oval form (straight variants do exist but are really not common any more) and with rotary valves. The difference between the tenorhorn and the bariton is that the bariton has a wider bore and a wider tubing and bell, usually has a fourth valve added. But the line between both of them can get blurred, they are very similar. Wider tenorhorns with four valves exist as well as Baritons with three valves. You get it. The euphonium is just the euphonium, same as everywhere. All three get used in wind bands interchangeably and mixed but the euphoniums are more common in symphonic context and the baritons are used mostly for the second parts whereas the tenorhorns are more common for the first parts.

Both of Bariton and Tenorhorn are usually not great in the low register especially when played by not so good players.

Of course there are many more instruments, usually by far less common in genral, like the kaiser baritone (which is an even bigger bariton) or the bell front baritone (which often comes with pistons instead of rotary valves) and many variations of all of them. I think nomenclature at some point gets a bit arbitrary. For example the tenorhorn in austria sometimes gets called "bassflügelhorn". And to come back to the original topic I guess for example you could call a straight kaiser bariton a tenor tuba as well.

Hope this was helpful.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-06 7:17 p.m.

One thing that should emerge from this is that there is a "technical nomenclature" (and associated hierarchical classification system) used by theorists and academics (for various specific purposes) -- on the one hand -- and a "colloquial nomenclature" used by a broader group of musicians on the other. These two nomenclatures are not entirely consistent with one another. Don't expect them to be, and don't expect to be able to merge them in a sensible way. :)

But I LOVE the "bassflügelhorn" designation!!

CraigF · by **CraigF** » 2025-06-07 6:47 a.m.

[quote="slipmo"]It is a different taper than the current 533 and more suited for this application which is why we used it.[/quote]

Thanks for the Welcome.

The bell does indeed look old school. I think it will give a more traditional sound. It remains to be seen if that's what people want. We've gotten used to that big fat modern sound.

marccromme · by **marccromme** » 2025-06-07 1:02 p.m.

[quote="Kevbach33"]How often will one encounter low B? If I had a 5 valve Bb instrument (tenor or contrabass tuba), I'd much rather have :bassclef: :line2: and :line0: be in tune than need access to that low B. So having the flat half step is nice for that.[/quote]

With a flat whole step 5th valve you have both, a very good

B natural and E natural ... :bassclef: :line2: and :line0: with 235, and a fine Eb with 24. In addition, you have an in tune B natural and E natural with 24 plus trigger.

So, having a flat whole step 5th valve is better. .. more in tune combinations than a flat half step.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-08 6:47 p.m.

Clifford Bevan devotes many pages of his book The Tuba Family (2000, 2nd edition) to the dizzying whirlpool of nomenclature around tenor tuba, baritone, euphonium, tenor horn, and so on. Well worth a read.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-08 7:34 p.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]Clifford Bevan devotes many pages of his book The Tuba Family (2000, 2nd edition) to the dizzying whirlpool of nomenclature around tenor tuba, baritone, euphonium, tenor horn, and so on. Well worth a read.[/quote]
Maybe, but it appears to be unobtainium (if you ignore, possibly, one or two possibilities in the range of $600+ -- and those I view with some skepticism). Even most of the university copies around here are the 1978 edition. However, Duke University seems to have a copy of the 2nd edition. Might be worth a trip at some point.

Do you know of any source where a copy is currently purchasable?

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-08 7:49 p.m.

I have had a similar experience, but I eventually found that Cliff used to take orders by email and post them out from his home. He self-published it using his Piccolo Press business, and that's how I got my copy three years ago. Sadly he died in December 2024, so I'm not sure what's happening with his business. I understand someone, possibly Craig Kridel, was hosting a mirror of the website for him, after his piccolopress.info domain expired some time in 2023 (piccolopress.co.uk is an unrelated publisher in Scotland). Craig runs the Berlioz Historic Brass site, and there's details of The Tuba Family on ~~[url=https://berliozhistoricalbrass.org/tuba_family.htm]~~this page. It might be worth contacting him about it.

Luckily, snapshots of the old piccolopress.info website survive on the Internet Archive, e.g. ~~[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20230708182531/http://www.piccolopress.info/tuba_family.htm]~~this page for the book.

Otherwise if you're lucky you might be able to get your local library to interloan it from Duke for you, save you a trip.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-08 7:53 p.m.

Ha - it was Craig Kridel, it looks like there are things being done about keeping it all afloat somehow.

https://berliozhistoricalbrass.org/piccolo.htm

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-08 10:35 p.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]Otherwise if you're lucky you might be able to get your local library to interloan it from Duke for you, save you a trip.[/quote]
I chortle at your jest, sir! The thought of the local (county) library managing an interloan transaction with Duke defies imagination. You overestimate the degree of civilization in this area. However, Duke is only a 30-minute drive away, and going by there at some point to look at the book isn't really burdensome, and I've done that in the past.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-08 10:53 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]The thought of the local (county) library managing an interloan transaction with Duke defies imagination.[/quote]

Well, here in Taxachusetts, I just put in an ILL request for the copy at Berkelee. We'll see if it goes through. I've never tried going out-of-network before.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-08 11:03 p.m.

I'd be really surprised if that works. The only thing that bothers me about retirement is that I don't have the access to journals and other publications that I did.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-09 11:31 a.m.

If you're a frequent enough contributor to Wikipedia, they give you access via the Wikipedia Library project, which has been really useful. I can also get it through my university alumni account, but that doesn't catch everything; but the two overlap.

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-09 12:13 p.m.

I'm not a Wikipedia contributor. I never thought of a university alumni account -- since those days were in the dark ages. Not sure what that would get me since I'm a good distance from the two universities that might support that, although they do provide digital access for alumni as well. However, I've not been anxious to become involved with alumni organizations. Other approaches seem simpler.

There do seem to be a number of places that have the 1st edition of Bevan's book (at least half a dozen in this general area). So the local library MIGHT be able to get one of those. At least that exercise might prove to be amusing (if not depressing).

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-09 12:29 p.m.

[quote="JohnL"]<QUOTE author="ghmerrill" post_id="277786" time="1749142363" user_id="2941">And let's face it ... it's debatable whether you really NEED it for those couple of famous solos.[/quote]
I've always wondered whether the "tenor tuba" Holst was thinking of when he wrote The Planets is the same thing as the "tenor tuba" Mussorgsky was thinking of when he wrote Pictures at an Exhibition. I suspect not.

That said, I can certainly imagine a discussion running along the lines of: "Well, they're both really good players, but this guy will play the part on euphonium while other guy has an actual tenor tuba."
</QUOTE>

There really was never such a thing as a "tenor tuba." Holst wanted euphonium, my theory is he wrote tenor tuba on the part because he wanted to indicate that he didn't want it played with a lot of vibrato in a band style. The Strauss tone poems and Janaczek Sinfonietta were originally intended for tenor Wagner tuba, although performance practice has been to play it on a ovalform baritone or euphonium and they really do work better that way. Pictures was intended for French tuba. The idea of using one of these Spanish-style baritones as a tenor tuba because it resembles the German-style bass and contrabass tubas that some tuba players use, really came from Roger Bobo as Noah alluded to in his original post. I don't necessarily object to there being a euphonium/baritone family member that's intended for tuba players to be comfortable with, but nobody should be thinking it's the historically correct instrument for any of these pieces.

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-09 12:36 p.m.

[quote="JohntheTheologian"]

Having played a British baritone, as mentioned above, on a couple occasions, I was under the impression that they were still slightly more conical than say a trombone. Sort of like a tenor voiced cornet as compared to q tenor voiced trumpet that the trombone resembles.

Is that accurate from your research? At least in my experience a British baritone sounded a bit more mellow than most trombones do, although quite different than a euphonium. The bore size obviously makes a difference, but I think there is actually a bit more conical tubing in a British baritone.[/quote]

That is correct. The British-style baritone should be just as dark as euphonium, but it should have a different formant or vowel sound than euphonium does. The pre-sovereign Bessons and the student model Yamahas (YBH-301, YBH-621) are a little more cylindrical and have slightly smaller bells than the more modern Bessons and the instruments that are inspired by them, but the British baritone is definitely a conical instrument. The increase in bore size just happens a little later and is a little more gradual than euphonium is.

In fact, cornet is not really all that much more conical than the modern trumpet is. Robb Stewart has an article on his web site where he analyzed the bore of several popular cornet and trumpet models and found that some of the trumpets are more conical than some of the cornets. I think the big differences are the wrap and the leadpipe and receiver. It's mostly about how the player approaches the instrument than the mechanics of the instrument itself.

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-09 12:46 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]What was the Alex 151 used for before Bobo issued his decree?[/quote]

Spanish bands

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2025-06-09 1:11 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="tbonesullivan" post_id="277802" time="1749151754" user_id="7063">
Well, remember that Pictures at an Exhibition was orchestrated by Maurice Ravel, so there's a good chance that he was thinking about a French C Tuba ...[/quote]
This is very unlikely. The French C Tuba was not referred to as a "tenor tuba" but a "tuba en Ut" ("tuba in C"). It was simply THE tuba for the French.
</QUOTE>

The part is labeled simply Tuba.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-09 1:34 p.m.

Just to add to the confusion there was a cylindrical instrument made by H.N. White/King called the trombonium, similar in form to the baritone horn, with a front-facing bell intended for marching. I'll be working on the ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphonium]~~euphonium, ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuba]~~tuba and ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritone_horn]~~baritone horn Wikipedia articles over the next few months, because they're all currently in various states of terrible-ness for one reason or another. Clearing up and explaining the historical origins and regional variations of all the zillions of names will be part of the goal.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-09 3:24 p.m.

There was also the Conn Trombonium, which was a complete, standard 8H bell section, with a valve section attached.

https://ebay.us/m/GdAURA

Can't attach photos...

Darn it Noah. Now I'm drooling over the oval Baritones on the Cerveny page. That 4 valve big bell horn in red brass is a thing a beauty!

CalgaryTbone · by **CalgaryTbone** » 2025-06-09 4:24 p.m.

[quote="bitbckt"]A large shank mouthpiece receiver would be a nice option for wider appeal, I would think. As wide as the market for such an instrument is, of course.[/quote]

Even better - use a set-up like the old Hirsbrunner euphoniums. The receiver for the mouthpiece (just before you reach the leadpipe itself) was threaded. Those horns came with 3 receivers to take small, medium and large shanks. They looked a bit like adapters that trombones use for small mouthpieces in a large horn, except that they had threads to screw into the horn securely. I remember trying one of the Hirsbrunners and the 3 different fittings (along with the change of mouthpiece) changed the sound of the horn. The small shank fitting steered it more towards an American baritone/euph. like the old Conns; the medium had a brass band vibe; the large shank put it securely into the tuba family. I always thought that was a smart feature.

I just was looking at one of those Hirsbrunners on eBay recently. Of course, only the large receiver was there, and the seller didn't know exactly what it was.

Jim Scott

bitbckt · by **bitbckt** » 2025-06-09 4:34 p.m.

[quote="CalgaryTbone"]<QUOTE author="bitbckt" post_id="277781" time="1749139754" user_id="9927">
A large shank mouthpiece receiver would be a nice option for wider appeal, I would think. As wide as the market for such an instrument is, of course.[/quote]

Even better - use a set-up like the old Hirsbrunner euphoniums. The receiver for the mouthpiece (just before you reach the leadpipe itself) was threaded. Those horns came with 3 receivers to take small, medium and large shanks. They looked a bit like adapters that trombones use for small mouthpieces in a large horn, except that they had threads to screw into the horn securely.
</QUOTE>

Yeah, my Schagerl Wunderhorn has the same system. That would be a fine way to solve the problem.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-06-09 6:05 p.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]Just to add to the confusion there was a cylindrical instrument made by H.N. White/King called the trombonium, similar in form to the baritone horn, with a front-facing bell intended for marching. I'll be working on the ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphonium]~~euphonium, ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuba]~~tuba and ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritone_horn]~~baritone horn Wikipedia articles over the next few months, because they're all currently in various states of terrible-ness for one reason or another. Clearing up and explaining the historical origins and regional variations of all the zillions of names will be part of the goal.[/quote]
:idea: Please don't forget American tenor horns. I can provide an image of a Conn front action bell up tenor horn.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-09 7:36 p.m.

[quote="JohnL"]:idea: Please don't forget American tenor horns. I can provide an image of a Conn front action bell up tenor horn.[/quote]

Happy to oblige, there's the whole E♭ alto/tenor horn on top of all this too, of course, which Bevan also covers well. The easiest way to provide an image that we can use on Wikipedia (it can't be © All rights reserved) is for you to upload it yourself to Commons using the super easy ~~[url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard]~~upload wizard, which lets you provide a description, caption, and choose one of several open licenses, including public domain, or Creative Commons CC-BY which lets you require attribution, etc.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-06-09 9:35 p.m.

As long as we're seeing how muddy we can make the tenor Bb waters, there are also the bass trumpet, bass flugel, fiscorn, kuhlohorn, wunderhorn, tenor cornett, tenor cimbasso, valved ophecleide, all the marching variations, valve variations, etc.

When the cimbasso starts looking like the popular instrument in the group...

<YOUTUBE id="vykqIxblKfc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vykqIxblKfc</YOUTUBE>

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-06-10 11:56 a.m.

A lot of of this naming confusion is either marketing, tradition, or regional differences.

Valve trombone = valve trombone in trombone shape

Flugabone/marching trombone = valve trombone in trumpet shape

Trombonium = valve trombone in baritone shape

Cimbasso = contrabass valve trombone, usually (but not always) in L shape

Tenor cimbasso = bass valve trombone in cimbasso shape

Bass trombonium = bass valve trombone in baritone shape

All are trombones.

Euphonium = British-style tenor tuba

Bass saxhorn, French tuba = French-style tenor tuba

Rotary tenor tuba = German-style tenor tuba

American baritone horn = American-style tenor tuba (and a bad one, at that)

Marching baritone = American-style tenor tuba, but in trumpet form and actually good (sometimes)

Marching euphonium = British-style tenor tuba in trumpet form (and possibly the loudest brass instrument on the planet. Source = the Southern University euphonium section)

They're all tubas. Exact same difference as British Eb/Bb tuba (Eb/Bb bass) to German rotary Eb/Bb tuba. No French bass/contrabass tuba equivalent because they used the French (tenor) C tuba for everything. Since then the bass saxhorn is the only French-style tuba to still be made.

I think Holst wrote "tenor tuba" on the Planets part because he wanted to be as "legit" as possible for the orchestra, hence why he also wrote score/part instructions in German/Italian rather than English.

I also find it interesting that nobody has tried a modern, 5/4 or 6/4 York-style American tenor tuba (I would assume front action pistons, 5 or 6 valves). The American baritone was just...bad (I've tried all the best models, sorry :idk: ), and I don't believe it represents the potential of an American-style tenor tuba very well.

British baritone horn = British Bb tenor instrument

American tenor horn = American Bb tenor instrument

German tenorhorn = German Bb tenor instrument

Alto and bass cornets = essentially the same thing as alto/baritone horns, but in compact bell-front form with smaller flares and leadpipe differences

All are conical. The whole "baritone is cylindrical, euphonium is conical" trope is entirely inaccurate. They're just not as wide as the tubas.

Flugelhorn = flugelhorn (technically a form of soprano tuba, but modern tubas have gotten so large while flugels have stayed pretty much the same that I think it warrants a separate category. I know, I know, "infantry saxhorn"...flugel existed long before Adolphe Sax slapped his name on it :lol: )

Kuhlohorn = flugelhorn with a shorter/wider wrap

Modern corno da caccia = flugelhorn with a horn wrap

Jestaedt "soprantenorhorn" = flugelhorn with an upright oval wrap

Bass flugelhorn = bass flugelhorn

Fiscorn = bass flugelhorn

British tenor horn = Eb alto horn

American alto horn = Eb alto horn

Charcheta/"Eb baritone" = Eb alto horn

German althorn = at least the Cervenys are actually alto tubas, not alto horns. Dunno about other makes, but my Cerveny althorn plays and sounds like a higher euphonium.

[quote="CalgaryTbone"]Even better - use a set-up like the old Hirsbrunner euphoniums. The receiver for the mouthpiece (just before you reach the leadpipe itself) was threaded. Those horns came with 3 receivers to take small, medium and large shanks. They looked a bit like adapters that trombones use for small mouthpieces in a large horn, except that they had threads to screw into the horn securely.[/quote]

The new Besson 969 Sovereign euphonium has interchangeable receivers as well. I know it has small and large, haven't seen a medium.

JohntheTheologian · by **JohntheTheologian** » 2025-06-10 5:40 p.m.

Finetales, that's a great and informative discussion, clarifying that my instincts were correct about the British baritone. Always nice to have instincts confirmed. :)

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-10 6:26 p.m.

Here's another fairly detailed account of this amorphous distinction -- from a reliable source and with specific models and measurements as illustrations of the mechanical differences -- and playing demonstrations of each "type" of horn: https://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-bareuph.cfm. Note the use of "mostly cylindrical" versus "mostly conical", and examples of the inconsistent distinction of the two "types" of instrument, along with use of the terms "true baritone" and "true euphonium".

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-10 6:58 p.m.

[quote="Finetales"]Flugelhorn = flugelhorn (technically a form of soprano tuba, but modern tubas have gotten so large while flugels have stayed pretty much the same that I think it warrants a separate category. I know, I know, "infantry saxhorn"...flugel existed long before Adolphe Sax slapped his name on it :lol: )
[/quote]

Except the flugelhorn came from bugles, and the tuba was developed as its own instrument. So while they have grown into an ad-hoc family due to an approximate proportionality of the tapers of the instrument, they didn't start that way.

And the euphonium came from bass members of the saxhorn family as well as from the sommerphone, which was definitely influenced by moritz's tenor tuba (which never really caught on) but it wasn't specifically conceived of as a member of the tuba family, although it has grown into that.

At some point the whole thing just got messy. I like your idea that there are these universal concepts that keep getting re-used in different styles according to different national traditions, but you have to admit that an american baritone is quite a different instrument than a french saxhorn basse although they both are descended from saxhorn family instruments. The french being a development of Sax's saxhorn nouveau design and the american being an early 20th century redesign by american manufacturers like conn. And the british euphonium is also a development of french saxhorns by companies like boosey and co in the 1870s, getting more and more unique and specialized even though they started out looking pretty much identical to what courtois and couesnon were making. Euphonium is often is thought of as a development of the german instrument but the early german instruments have small bells and look more like a weiner tuba or a danish or swedish instrument. Are all these regional variations different instruments? You could make a case for saying yes, and you could make a case for saying no. They certainly can sound very different. They often have different repertoire. What about things like cornophone, orpheon, antoniophone, schreiberhorn, etc. These were all thought of by their inventors as new and unique inventions but by your definition they are all just variations of tenor tubas with slightly different bore profiles, bell sizes, and wraps.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-06-10 10:47 p.m.

[quote="bbocaner"]What about things like cornophone, orpheon, antoniophone, schreiberhorn, etc. These were all thought of by their inventors as new and unique inventions but by your definition they are all just variations of tenor tubas with slightly different bore profiles, bell sizes, and wraps.[/quote]

Well, I think they are! In the name of marketing (especially around the turn of the 20th century), endless variations of all kinds of brass instruments were tried, and often had a new name to further make them stand out. Holton called their sousaphones "Holtonphones" for a time. Harry B Jay called their uniquely-wrapped, bell-front, pre-Don Elliott mellophones "Columbiaphones". And so on...but a different wrap and a different name doesn't necessarily mean it's truly an entirely different kind of instrument.

If antoniophones, orpheons, etc. were all truly different instrument types and not just variations on an existing species, the brass family would be one of the most convoluted entities in existence. But I think the reality is a lot more simple than that.

Of course! American baritone is very different than bass saxhorn. But they are quite a bit LESS different than, say, a Meinl Weston 182 and a York 6/4 CC, and everybody would agree those are both tubas. The tuba family especially has room for an incredible amount of variation.

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-06-11 4:30 a.m.

great overview but it is still rough and not complete in some sense. Stuff like the bass trumpet which can be everything from a very narrow alto trumpet to a different shaped valve trombone to a very wide tenor flugelhorn and everything in between are hard to characterise in general. Everything is just an approximation in my opinion and naming is all over the place.

The similarities are certainly obvious when you consider that all these instruments can be played by the same player with no or a very short adaptation phase. Nevertheless, the differences are not small when compared to the (slide) trombone family for example.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-11 9:28 a.m.

[quote="Nomsis"]great overview but it is still rough and not complete in some sense.[/quote]
It can't be complete in the sense that many people hope for. This is because any system of classification (including taxonomies and ontologies) is developed for a purpose: there are pragmatic goals and interests in creating that system and how it's intended to be used. The system is developed and designed to address or solve a certain set of problems, or to otherwise facilitate a set of goals. Those goals may pertain to analysis of the things in the system, design of those things, expectations of various sorts in terms of where the entities in the system occur, specific and relevant (for one purpose or another) goals that we have in creating that system, etc.

But those goals will conflict -- depending on the purpose for which the system is created. And so each such goal-/pragmatically-based system of classification will appear to be "incomplete". The oldest examples of this are to be found in biology, and various problems in the history of biology pertaining to taxonomies -- but that's only one example. Astro-physicists and others face similar challenges. Remember that a few years ago Pluto got demoted from being a "planet" to being a "dwarf planet".

If you look at the disputes, examples, and counterexamples we've seen here in considering where and how to draw lines between "baritones" and "euphoniums" and "tubas" and other similar instruments, you'll see these conflicts in goals and interests. And keep mind that that "similarity" itself has a number of different senses.

Could you create a "super ontology" that accommodates the variety of (sometimes conflicting) goals, interests, and senses of similarity that we have in talking about these instruments? Yes, but it would be complex and highly "multi-dimensional" in terms of different similarity relations and "inheritance" relations, relations of pitch, historical design, of structural similarity, etc. Not a simple tree or even directed acyclic graph structure. And it certainly won't be developed, or even articulated, in forum like this.

Just look at the history of the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology Foundry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBO_Foundry) and the arguments that have raged within it over the past 20 years -- and consider that many people hotly dispute some of its foundational assumptions. And if you want to see some nasty arguments over how to go about classifying things in "the right way", just follow that history. :lol:

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-06-11 11:20 a.m.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-11 1:47 p.m.

Yup -- been there in several different ways. :lol: ANSI vs. ISO, medical systems of classification (ICD-9, ICD-10, Read Codes, SNOMED, MedDRA, Gene Ontology, Unified Medical Language System, ...), etc.

I once gave a presentation to an international meeting involving phylogenetic classification, the Field Museum Tree of Life project, and other areas of biological and medical classification. In it, I used the example of the Russian Bassoon (neither Russian nor a Bassoon, of course), as an example illustrating challenging issues in developing useful systems of classification. They loved it. :lol:

jonathanharker · 2025-06-11 2:09 p.m.

[quote="Finetales"]A lot of of this naming confusion is either marketing, tradition, or regional differences.[/quote]

More or less spot on except the small French C tuba with 6 dépendant valves is not the same as the bass saxhorn, which is indeed more-or-less interchangeable with the euphonium. The first six-valve instruments appeared in 1892 from Courtois as an evolution from older forms with 3-5 valves, which were in turn intended to replace the ophicleide, then well-established in French orchestras. (Bevan, pp. 342–347)

Bevan's The Tuba Family book, apart from covering this whole area in great detail, is also an entertaining read. Not so much cover to cover, but to just dip into; there are amusing quotes and anecdotes sprinkled throughout. In Appendix B there is a glossary of all the names and synonyms for all the valved bugle family instruments that runs to 22 pages (pp. 527–548).

Another great tuba book is Jack Adler-McKean's The Techniques of Tuba Playing. He has also recorded a podcast on the history of the tuba and tuba-adjacent instruments with Louis Kline, ~~[url=https://historyofthetuba.substack.com/]~~The History of the Tuba Podcast.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-06-11 2:11 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]Yup -- been there in several different ways. :lol: ANSI vs. ISO, medical systems of classification (ICD-9, ICD-10, Read Codes, SNOMED, MedDRA, Gene Ontology, Unified Medical Language System, ...), etc.

Gary Merrill

- - - - - - - - - -

1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Bach 12c)

Speaking of classifications ... what "Standard" does your Olds trombone adhere to?[/quote]

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-11 2:24 p.m.

[quote="Posaunus"]Speaking of classifications ... what "Standard" does your Olds trombone adhere to?[/quote]
Just the standard standard, as far as I can tell.

jonathanharker · 2025-06-11 2:25 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="Nomsis" post_id="278291" time="1749630645" user_id="14893">
great overview but it is still rough and not complete in some sense.[/quote]
It can't be complete in the sense that many people hope for. This is because any system of classification (including taxonomies and ontologies) is developed for a purpose: there are pragmatic goals and interests in creating that system and how it's intended to be used. The system is developed and designed to address or solve a certain set of problems, or to otherwise facilitate a set of goals. Those goals may pertain to analysis of the things in the system, design of those things, expectations of various sorts in terms of where the entities in the system occur, specific and relevant (for one purpose or another) goals that we have in creating that system, etc.
</QUOTE>

Let me introduce y'all to ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornbostel–Sachs]~~Hornbostel–Sachs...! For what it's worth, the euphonium is ~~[url=https://vocabulary.mimo-international.com/HornbostelAndSachs/en/page/2166]~~423.231.2 "Valved bugles with wide bore" while the narrower-but-still-conical bore baritone is ~~[url=https://vocabulary.mimo-international.com/HornbostelAndSachs/en/page/2168]~~423.232.2 "Valve horns with wider bore"

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-11 2:59 p.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]Let me introduce y'all to ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornbostel–Sachs]~~Hornbostel–Sachs...! For what it's worth, the euphonium is ~~[url=https://vocabulary.mimo-international.com/HornbostelAndSachs/en/page/2166]~~423.231.2 "Valved bugle with wide bore" while the narrower-but-still-conical bore baritone is ~~[url=https://vocabulary.mimo-international.com/HornbostelAndSachs/en/page/2168]~~423.232.2 "Valve horns with wider bore"[/quote]
That's great. Once you've assigned numbers to something, that gives it a high degree of precision and clearer meaning. :)

This is why ICD-9/10 codes are so great in classifying your diseases and medical conditions. Should you need it, the ICD-9 code for ""Death due to a non-military horse-drawn vehicle accident" is E827.x (where the specific value of 'x' indicates the sub-category of the injured party in the accident). Subcategories include those for riders of animals, occupants of the vehicle, etc. Of course the E287 category is a sub-category of the "Other Road Vehicle Accidents" category. The sign of a really carefully developed classification scheme is always occurrences of categories whose names beging with "Other ...". :?

Alas, ICD-9 isn't as detailed as one might like. So if you're killed by debris from a falling satellite, you would need to use the E916 code for "Struck accidentally by falling object". Care must be taken in assigning codes/categories: if you are in fact killed by an actual spacecraft falling on you, you would need to use a code in the E845 range ("Accident to spacecraft") being careful to distinguish between whether the accident involved "ground crew" or "other person". I leave you to puzzle out why a satellite isn't a "spacecraft" from ICD-9's perspective (perhaps it's stuck in a 1960s view of what a satellite is?).

Of course ICD-9 is now "officially" outdated (though still widely used) in favor of ICD-10. So you would really want to use the ICD-10 classification system (in circumstance where you could), and code the event as V95.40XA ("Unspecified spacecraft accident injuring occupant, initial encounter"). That's unless the spacecraft exploded on impact, in which case you're in a completely different situation.

As you can see, assigning numeric codes to categories is extremely helpful and lends precision to the result. But I'm not sure that the Hornswoggle codes really achieve what is necessary in this regard.

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-12 4:15 p.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]

Let me introduce y'all to ~~[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornbostel–Sachs]~~Hornbostel–Sachs...! For what it's worth, the euphonium is ~~[url=https://vocabulary.mimo-international.com/HornbostelAndSachs/en/page/2166]~~423.231.2 "Valved bugles with wide bore" while the narrower-but-still-conical bore baritone is ~~[url=https://vocabulary.mimo-international.com/HornbostelAndSachs/en/page/2168]~~423.232.2 "Valve horns with wider bore"[/quote]

It doesn't differentiate between, say, a baritone horn and a tenor Wagner tuba. Which I hope we'd all agree are different instruments.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-12 8:19 p.m.

[quote="bbocaner"]It doesn't differentiate between, say, a baritone horn and a tenor Wagner tuba. Which I hope we'd all agree are different instruments.[/quote]

Oh for sure, heh... I posted it in the spirit of how we were discussing how rubbish the standards and controlled vocabularies often are.

ghmerrill · 2025-06-12 11:19 p.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]Oh for sure, heh... I posted it in the spirit of how we were discussing how rubbish the standards and controlled vocabularies often are.[/quote]
I'd go more with "often have been," although I definitely have a certain degree of affinity to your more general view.

A fundamental problem with controlled vocabularies is just that: they're controlled vocabularies -- which means (a) that they are vocabularies (collections of terms), and (b) they are controlled -- which means that people are required to use those terms (and as the controlled vocabulary dictates). This turns out (surprise!) to not be such a good way to represent knowledge or support the making of inferences based on evidence and various complex relations. The justification for it is that it enhances communication (at least in certain ways) because everyone is using the same "language" (set of terms). But in the case of science, and knowledge more generally, this is unacceptably constraining, and can in fact be dangerous (and "wrong" in certain clear senses of this term). Bad scientific and epistemic methodology, at the very least.

The Hornsbostel/Sachs system is anchored firmly in that tradition. So it's a historical curiosity more than anything else -- a footnote in the checkered history of "information science". Maybe even a noble effort -- like the chemists' Phlogiston Theory prior to the 18th century and the work of Priestley and Lavoisier. :roll: Everybody knew it was fundamentally flawed. They just didn't have anything better. :lol:

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-06-13 9:43 a.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]<QUOTE author="bbocaner" post_id="278442" time="1749759327" user_id="206">
It doesn't differentiate between, say, a baritone horn and a tenor Wagner tuba. Which I hope we'd all agree are different instruments.[/quote]

Oh for sure, heh... I posted it in the spirit of how we were discussing how rubbish the standards and controlled vocabularies often are.
</QUOTE>

Imagine trying to describe/pigeonhole modern electronics using a 1950s electrical engineering vocabulary/glossary!

:amazed:

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-06-13 4:12 p.m.

As hilarious as the organological discussions of this instrument are, we still haven’t any idea of what a tenor tuba is.

I think the term “tenor tuba” might be more helpful if we think of it in terms of its function, rather than its origins or familial relations. In a very rough comparison, it would be like the physiology of the instrument (its use and purpose) rather than its anatomy (what it looks like or where its located).

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-06-13 4:13 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]As hilarious as the organological discussions of this instrument are, we still haven’t any idea of what a tenor tuba is.

I think the term “tenor tuba” might be more helpful if we think of it in terms of its function, rather than its origins or familial relations. In a very rough comparison, it would be like the physiology of the instrument (its use and purpose) rather than its anatomy (what it looks like or where its located).[/quote]

Easy. It's this!

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-13 4:24 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]As hilarious as the organological discussions of this instrument are, we still haven’t any idea of what a tenor tuba is.[/quote]
To the contrary, we have too many ideas of what it is. None of them can plausibly be said to be "wrong" without adding specificity to the characterization. And when you do that, you rule out things that you (or others) don't really want to rule out. There are just multiple (and not unreasonable) senses to what "tenor tuba" can/may/should be taken to mean. Such is the nature of natural language, especially used in disparate environments, as a medium of technical analysis. :lol:

And there ARE limits. At least we're pretty sure that a tenor tuba isn't a tenor saxophone. :roll:

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-13 4:27 p.m.

[quote="slipmo"]Had to get all of the potential uses covered :) gotta recoup the instrument cost any way you can![/quote]

How about potential players? There's a lot of 3+1 euphonium players out there with weak, uncoordinated pinkies. Maybe (over) engineer an optional linkage that goes from 4 to the left index finger?

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-06-14 12:11 p.m.

I was actually trying to steer the conversation towards how this thing—tenor tuba, flicorno, blatweasel, whatever—is used. Examples:

Spanishmarching bands: anyone have any English info about these? This seems to be an untapped DMA dissertation, or perhaps an article in HBS Journal.

Strauss: Don Quixote

Holst: tenor tuba or euphonium?

etc.

LeoInFL · by **LeoInFL** » 2025-06-14 4:02 p.m.

I'm curious as to what is sounds like and where it would fit in, say, a tuba choir. The bore and conical flare from the last U-bend to the bell seem to put it sound-wise between a cimbasso and a euphonium, but I'm just guessing. I would think this would sit atop a tuba choir as the highest and brassiest voice (relatively). It might be nice for some very light chamber stuff, or maybe ophicleide parts?

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-15 2:41 p.m.

How does Cerveny make those oval bells? That would take a very fancy lathe. Can you make a bell without spinning it?

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-15 2:52 p.m.

Ummm ... try throwing this at ChatGPT: "How are the curved bell sections on oval euphoniums made?"

It will also offer to show you pictures of the process.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-15 2:56 p.m.

GPT answers are unreliable until vetted by an expert, which I am not. But I put in your prompt, and it didn't clear anything up. It looks like it was written by someone who doesn't know the answer, but is faking it anyway.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-15 3:08 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]GPT answers are unreliable until vetted by an expert, which I am not. But I put in your prompt, and it didn't clear anything up. It looks like it was written by someone who doesn't know the answer, but is faking it anyway.[/quote]
I thought the response seemed accurate, based on what I know about tube bending, and consistent with what I see in terms of the bell in my oval euph. But, hey, let's see what the experts here who've actually seen it done have to say.

tromboneVan · by **tromboneVan** » 2025-06-15 5:20 p.m.

It'd be perfect for Ein Heldenleben & Don Quixote, etc.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-15 9:46 p.m.

At the 3.50 mark.of this video, it shows the spinning on a saxophone bell in the Yamaha factory.

<YOUTUBE id="wavo9QwVo4g">https://youtu.be/wavo9QwVo4g?si=sw_1QguqMx6WR_Ej</YOUTUBE>

Oval Baritones would be spun similarly. Not shown in this video, but done in most factories, is the drawing of the bell onto the mandrel, before the flare is spun. Infact only the last 6-12 or so inches of the bell flare of a baritone would be spun.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-15 10:06 p.m.

I think the real question is how that curve is put on bell section (in both the saxophone case and the oval baritone case). And if the flare at the end is spun (which seems right), wouldn't that be done before the section is then curved into its final form?

So what would the sequence be? ...

1. create (straight) conical bell section.

2. Spin the bell flare.

3. Curve the bell section from base to flare

???

That all makes sense. But how is 3 accomplished? Ah!... I just found this: https://www.robbstewart.com/bending-tubing. So I guess that's how the sweeping curves are put into those oval baritone bells as well -- and the ChatGPT answer (though brief and without much detail) seems to be "vetted" by an expert.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-15 10:10 p.m.

See the 2.50 mark of this video

<YOUTUBE id="XUZe3crZZBE">https://youtu.be/XUZe3crZZBE?si=TZ2BG3LVyLptocvt</YOUTUBE>

Bending a tenor tuba bell after spinning would be a real challenge! It "may" be done, but it would surprise me.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-15 10:21 p.m.

That is so cool!! However, I don't see any evidence of a seam in my oval baritone. Does that just get compressed away as a result of that swaging?

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-15 10:28 p.m.

Is it yellow brass? The brazing material can be difficult to see on yellow bells. What brand is the horn?

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-15 10:30 p.m.

It's a 1965-ish Amati.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-15 10:35 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]At the 3.50 mark.of this video, it shows the spinning on a saxophone bell in the Yamaha factory.[/quote]

Thank you. Shortly after asking my question, I realized it stood for many familiar instruments as well. Imagine spinning a Sousaphone bell!

bbocaner · 2025-06-16 12:35 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]How does Cerveny make those oval bells? That would take a very fancy lathe. Can you make a bell without spinning it?[/quote]

oh they spin them, I've seen it done at Meinl Weston. They have multi-part mandrel that screws together and the bell is put on the lathe so that the flare turns straight and the tail wobbles around in the air. There's a cage that goes over the bell tail so they don't get hurt by it. And then they turn it around so that the tail spins straight and the flare wobbles around. They go back and forth between the two orientations until it's done.

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-16 12:40 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]See the 2.50 mark of this video[/quote]

This is essentially the way they do the oval baritone bells as well, although they aren't made in halves like this, but this video doesn't actually show the spinning.

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-16 12:51 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]Ummm ... try throwing this at ChatGPT: "How are the curved bell sections on oval euphoniums made?"

It will also offer to show you pictures of the process.[/quote]

That's NOT how it's done. You can bend a trumpet bell tail after it's been spun, you can bend a horn bell after it's been spun. You cannot bend an oval baritone bell after it's been spun.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-16 1:10 p.m.

[quote="bbocaner"]They have multi-part mandrel that screws together and the bell is put on the lathe so that the flare turns straight and the tail wobbles around in the air. There's a cage that goes over the bell tail so they don't get hurt by it.[/quote]
I think I get this part and can visualize it. But it appears to assume that the tail is already curved. How, exactly is that curving accomplished? Using the technique of the two longitudinal halves that are swaged together?

And then they turn it around so that the tail spins straight and the flare wobbles around.

But what does this accomplish? If the tail spins straight, what is being done in this step?

Or does this all assume the original curved formation (in two parts) of the (longitudinal) curved bell section on a large mandrel?

Sorry, I'm just not seeing this.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-06-16 1:12 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Is it yellow brass? The brazing material can be difficult to see on yellow bells. What brand is the horn?[/quote] YEP. Kanstul used something the exact same color as yellow brass for all of their brazing, so finding the seam on their yellow brass bells is quite difficult. I have to pretty much look at the reflection until I can see the line. On the kanstul I have with a rose brass bell, the brazing line is easy to see.

On all my other trombones that have a brazed seam, it's very easy to see.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-16 1:14 p.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]On the kanstul I have with a rose brass bell, the brazing line is easy to see.[/quote]
Yeah, on my red brass Cerveny 781 tuba, the seems were evident.

bbocaner · by **bbocaner** » 2025-06-16 1:56 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]I think I get this part and can visualize it. But it appears to assume that the tail is already curved. How, exactly is that curving accomplished? Using the technique of the two longitudinal halves that are swaged together?[/quote]

No. I didn't see this done first-hand, but the bells I saw being made were one-piece bells with one seam.

This video doesn't show the entire process, but it does show him working on an oval baritone bell at 13 seconds and then hammering it at 17 seconds and then at 19 seconds it's already spun and he's just buffing it -- so they skipped A LOT, but you can kind of see where they are going with the hand hammering. I suspect there are a series of mandrels he hammers against where the curve is introduced (and it's just the last 8 inches or so on a oval baritone bell)

<YOUTUBE id="CcBrLtTHYow">https://youtu.be/CcBrLtTHYow?si=dGZ8zEMGTtNR0Gy_</YOUTUBE>

But what does this accomplish? If the tail spins straight, what is being done in this step?

you know, the more I think about it the more I think they weren't actually doing this, that this step might have been done with a series of tin rings like you see in the saxophone bell video. But either way, the idea is to get the bent tail of the bell smooth and reduced to the shape of the inner mandrel. And then the flare is done with spinning.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-16 2:27 p.m.

Muddying the waters perhaps, but at 1.20 or so in this video, Marcus Teinert talks about drawing seamless tapered tubing for tuba branches.

<YOUTUBE id="N9kmgUhFN84">https://youtu.be/N9kmgUhFN84?si=Tz-OI_msW9cFZTp9</YOUTUBE>

Getzen do similar for their student/step-up trombones.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-16 6:29 p.m.

[quote="bbocaner"]you know, the more I think about it the more I think they weren't actually doing this, that this step might have been done with a series of tin rings like you see in the saxophone bell video. But either way, the idea is to get the bent tail of the bell smooth and reduced to the shape of the inner mandrel. And then the flare is done with spinning.[/quote]
Yeah, at least this makes more mechanical sense to me. It's the whole longitudinal bending of the conical section that seems most problematic to me. But brass is very malleable if you take it slowly and in small increments. You do need to be wary of work-hardening, or maybe anneal at a certain step (though I'm not sure that would result in a good fabrication process and result). Use of "dies" (and "progressive" dies) for brass forming has a long history.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-16 8:08 p.m.

Annealing happens "numerous" times in the fabrication of most parts on brass instruments. It is not a "one and done" type deal. And sometimes it is only a portion of the part that is annealed before the work is performed.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-06-16 9:36 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="AtomicClock" post_id="278073" time="1749437633" user_id="17161">
Well, here in Taxachusetts, I just put in an ILL request for the copy at Berkelee.[/quote]

I'd be really surprised if that works.
</QUOTE>

I just got the ILL. Now I just have to figure out how to read 500 pages in 4 weeks.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-16 9:52 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]I just got the ILL. Now I just have to figure out how to read 500 pages in 4 weeks.[/quote]

I'm impressed.

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-06-17 4:10 a.m.

I have thought about this for the last couple days and have (re)watched virtually all factory tours and similar stuff available. It's a pity but this step is always skipped. However my current thesis how it's done is as follows:

- The bell starts the same as every one-piece/"hand-hammered" bell, it is cut out from a flat brass sheet according to some template. It is brazed/seamed, the seam is rolled and the bell gets hammered into rough shape. confidence level: high

- including the bent. confidence level: medium, execution order might vary with the next steps.

- then the bell is spun over a mandrel. confidence level: pretty sure the bells are spun, execution order might vary

- the rest of the bell is formed using the tin ring method, probably there is a mandrel for the complete bell, curve included. So the tin ring can used into the spun section to make for a nice transition between the drawn and the spun part of the bell. confidence level: highly speculative, additionally the execution order might vary, maybe the curved part is drawn before the bell is spun?

Another completely different approach would be to make it a two piece bell consisting of the outer straight part (spun) and the curved inner part (tin ring method?) and then braze them together. I can't see any benefit though because I think it still must be somehow drawn/spun onto some mandrel after brazing for a nice transition. Tubas are made with this method and then spun after brazing.

addon: This is how the next part of the instrument (Anstoß) is bent in a very manual approach:

<YOUTUBE id="FthF1XlsRIE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FthF1XlsRIE</YOUTUBE>

<YOUTUBE id="ohJuTAdHAxk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohJuTAdHAxk</YOUTUBE>

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-17 9:07 a.m.

I'm so very happy I don't build tubas..

Nomsis. The order of operations is the bell is formed on the mandrel, including the bend. Then the bent tail is drawn, then the flare is spun. The drawn section and spun section over lap some, so the bent part does not get spun.

Bending with lead is Old School. It is still done in the smaller shops. There is a video of the Alexander company, showing both lead bending a bell, and freeze bending a bell. They also use hydro forming to finish their freeze bent bells. I expect they do the same for their Wagner tubas and baritones

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-19 12:56 a.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]I just got the ILL. Now I just have to figure out how to read 500 pages in 4 weeks.[/quote]

It's a fun read! By all means read it cover to cover if you want, but that's pretty hardcore – maybe start with a chapter that interests you, and work your way forwards or backwards, or look something up in the extremely well organised and thorough index at the back to get started. It's basically the tuba bible.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-19 9:22 a.m.

[quote="jonathanharker"]It's a fun read! ...[/quote]
How different is the 2nd edition from the 1st? The 1st seems to be much more readily available in more places.

jonathanharker · by **jonathanharker** » 2025-06-21 3:23 a.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="jonathanharker" post_id="279026" time="1750308963" user_id="15591">
It's a fun read! ...[/quote]
How different is the 2nd edition from the 1st? The 1st seems to be much more readily available in more places.
</QUOTE>

It's much more detailed and has many corrections and new bits; the scholarship is more up to date (more about the history was known in 2000 than in 1978) and it is more than double in size (639 vs 303 pages).

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-29 12:24 p.m.

Just saw this reel from Miraphone, bending oval tuba branches!

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19URex642W/

dukesboneman · by **dukesboneman** » 2025-06-29 12:44 p.m.

Slipmo,

Could you post a video of it being played? I`m sure we`d all love to hear it.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-29 12:45 p.m.

Hmmm ... beefy Germans beating on forms and mandrels with hammers of Thor. Old school. :lol:

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-29 1:12 p.m.

<EMOJI seq="1f642" tseq="1f642">🙂</EMOJI> at least they're not bending with lead! Those branches are filled with an ice solution, which is "considerably" easy to manipulate than lead. These hammers are rubber, too, so perhaps not quite in the realm of Thor.. <EMOJI seq="1f642" tseq="1f642">🙂</EMOJI> I know Alexander and Voigt use hydraulic forming after the bending occurs, I expect Miraphone do too.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-06-29 1:20 p.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]I know Alexander and Voigt use hydraulic forming after the bending occurs, I expect Miraphone do too.[/quote]
Yeah, but I bet it's an advantage to advertise "hand-hammered construction". :lol:

Is Cerrobend any better/easier than pure lead? Or are you including that in what you mean by "lead" (since it's close to 30 per cent lead) ? Clearly the ice offers some real advantages for brass instruments.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-29 3:50 p.m.

Hand hammering is still involved, even if hydraulics are used to finish the part.

In my experience, lead and cero are essentially interchangeable, from the workability perspective.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-06-30 11:24 a.m.

A tangent on a tangent:

Many years ago, Conn used hydraulic pressure to finish the insides of tubes after bending. I think it was used mostly on small crooks like you’d find on trumpets. Does anyone use that process anymore?

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-30 11:54 a.m.

Yes. Many companies use hydraulic forming. Conn have used it for many, many years! It is used generally for larger, tapered crooks that cannot be balled out. The J bend on the Conn 62 for example. Tuba branches. Trombone tuning slide crooks. Alexander uses it on French horn bell tails.

Hydraulic forming is referenced in this video from 1937

<YOUTUBE id="GWk0XHRCl5E">https://youtu.be/GWk0XHRCl5E?si=ACYuQ65wusnRpj8q</YOUTUBE>

Smaller cylindrical crooks (trumpet, horn, trombone valve section crooks) are bent then balled out.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-06-30 2:04 p.m.

What a terrific video - from 1937! So many craftsmen and artisans in Elkhart who spent their working lives creating these wonderful instruments. A time gone by, methinks.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-06-30 4:09 p.m.

Yes. But having said that, having pulled apart "a lot" of old Conn's, they weren't all exceptional quality. Plenty of misaligned parts, gaps under ferrules, and poor solder work . These were Peace Work employees, generally speaking, so the more "things" they got done, the better. They were still "factory made", after all. Yes, there were Craftsmen there, particularly in this video from the earlier years, but later on, in the 50's-60's onwards, there were many who were "factory line workers".

Seeing the footage of the Stenberg brothers is really neat, though! Those guys are legends! Real craftsmen!

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

New Tenor Tuba Model