Re: Re: Re: Re: York tubas


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

Posted by Mark on July 09, 2002 at 17:01:13:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: York tubas posted by Jay Bertolet on July 09, 2002 at 16:15:02:

Hello all.

Could it really be a "only if the tooling resurfaces" issue?

The technology is available and used daily to copy stuff to within a thousandth of an inch. Other than the sheer cost of doing this (I'm sure mandrels ain't cheap), what's to stop darn good copies from being made? The Hirsbrunner and Nirschl copies of the CSO Yorks are, by all accounts, darn satisfactory. Any "inconsistencies" are likely the result of human factors in assembly; It's pretty hard in this CSO York case to be sure, as there were only 2 of that famed horn made, and even they were different from each other! It is quite possible that the Hirsb./Nirschl reproductions are as or more satisfactory than would be available using the original tooling. If 100 originals (instead of 2) existed for comparison, I'll bet a lot of the superlatives about the CSO Yorks would be replaced with "Donatelli picked the best of the batch".

When my York was restored, several assembly flaws and shortcuts were discovered. Might'a been a "Friday" horn, off the same bench as the CSO Yorks. - But the sound is there.

'Point is that a lot of extra care likely went into the CSO Yorks. Clearly alot of genius went into the design, but their legendary quality is probably as much a product of assembly & tweaking as design.

Just some thoughts.

Mark "The carefully reconfigured/restored 4/4 York cranks now" Mazak


Follow Ups: