TubeNet

Hello tubeneters, had some free time this past Friday, so I thought why not let y'all hear some stuff? Critique it after watchin video. Thanks.

http://youtu.be/GXPxA8UltD4

Bump

Really? Dude, I think most people have not commented out of kindness. No disrespect intended, but that is some really blatty stuff. I know that is kind of the southern marching band style, but to most folks it sounds pretty over the top and rather bad. Again, no disrespect just telling like I see it.

I remember that song!

Really? Dude, I think most people have not commented out of kindness. No disrespect intended, but that is some really blatty stuff. I know that is kind of the southern marching band style, but to most folks it sounds pretty over the top and rather bad. Again, no disrespect just telling like I see it.

It's pretty hard not to take that first sentence as a knock.

Yes. Your sound is very blatty. Most of us have been here.

Listen to good sousaphone players and hone in on that particular sound(Youtube?). Think of it as more as warm and round and less jagged and using air as means to fill the instrument rather than force it though.

Perhaps a private lesson with well versed player may help you better than this website.

using a phone to record audio is rarely a way to get good comments on tone!

It is possible to play loud on a souzie without splatting, especially a metal souzie. Your softer sounds are not horrible, by any means. Think about it this way, the "splat" takes up a lot of energy that is wasted, so the played note is not nearly as full-sounding as it would be without that splat.

Work on long tones, play them all sorts of dynamic levels and try to match tone quality at every level.

Time, though, is something that is unaffected by air or sound. The first tune (sorry, I don't recognize any of these) was all over the place, but only after you started with the second part of the form, where the line changes. It sped up quite a bit, then even more later on. Work with a metronome and it will get a lot steadier. If the metronome drives you nuts, it's because your time isn't solid.

keep workin' and havin' fun!~

Blatty huh...I wouldn't think it'd be blatty but I guess different things sound different.
And Chtuba: I don't take anything personal, lay it on me. I'll take it just fine.

Again, sorry if I sounded like an ***. Producing a good tone at a reasonably loud volume will actually sound "louder" than a sound with poor quality at unreasonable (blatty) volume because the better tone contains more core (fundamental pitch). The "blat" is the result of acoustic distortion and is not only unpleasant to listen to (in my opinion) but will not help support the band by providing the tonal "foundation" that is needed. Likewise, an ensemble with good intonation will sound "louder" than one with poor intonation. Therefore, strive for a sound that exhibits a good,full, round tone at all dynamic levels.

Its ok man. Then again, like one poster said, I am playing with a HBCU type sound/style in the video. So I could see why this would ignite Immediate negative reaction. I can play with a pretty darn good concert sound, looks like I'll need to record something for y'all of me playing an étude or something. I got a book full of etudes to play so that shouldn't be too difficult.

We had a player in our section who sounded like that when he got close to forte. He's in his 20s and was using the same mouthpiece he got (I believe) in high school. When he tried a slightly larger one (31.5 mm to 33 mm) with a bigger throat, the blattiness/edginess went away. This left him with a clean forte and fortissimo and The Section was much stronger.

I know I've suggested this before, but if I were you I'd try some larger MPs to see if they help your sound. Some may not agree with my position on this, but at least it can't hurt to try.

That is a different mouthpiece that I'm playing on as opposed to my good schidmt y'all have seen in previous videos. The mouthpiecw I'm using here is a Schlike Helleberg II. Fells bigger to me, but I might be wrong.

It is bigger but not by much. I dug up the message where you measured the Schmidt, whose inside rim diameter was 1.283" (roughly 32.6 mm). This is just a bit bigger than a Conn Helleberg 120S at 1.279"/32.5 mm.

According to the Schilke online catalog:

http://www.schilkemusic.com/files/2011S ... atalog.pdf" target="_blank

their Helleberg II is 32.76 mm which converts to 1.289 ".

Brook Mays may not be your best option if this is the biggest they have.

I see. I had played on a Pt-86 one time on my Sousa, the middle/low register, amazing sound, really thick. Upper register, is a little shaky. Gotta really be focused on it. What's your opinion on it? I think it's bigger then the Helleberg II and has a deeper cup.

Haven't tried the 86, but at 33.7 mm it's the biggest Perantucci makes. Close behind that are the 48, 49 and 88 at 33.5 mm. It's not as deep as the other three though. I have a PT-88 Mega (heavier than the "+" versions) which I like.

The Perantucci brochure I have does say that the 86 favors the low and middle registers. My question is, when you tried the 86, was your sound clean or blatty?

Heavy_Metal wrote:Haven't tried the 86, but at 33.7 mm it's the biggest Perantucci makes. Close behind that are the 48, 49 and 88 at 33.5 mm. It's not as deep as the other three though. I have a PT-88 Mega (heavier than the "+" versions) which I like.

The Perantucci brochure I have does say that the 86 favors the low and middle registers. My question is, when you tried the 86, was your sound clean or blatty?

For the most part it was pretty clean, the timbre was really different compared to other tubas. I'll see if I can post a video of me playing on it within the next couple of days, that's if I can use the mouthpiece with permission of the onwer. Never really honed in on the difference it made. But it sure made a difference. I'll send a vid to ya by PM pretty soon.