What do (don't) you consider a BAT?

Tabor · Post by **Tabor** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:45 am

I was wondering what some of the other people on the forum consider to be a BAT (or don't). Do big rotary tubas (like the Cerveny 601/701 or the Mirafone 190) count in your book, and which ones? What about the Mirafone 191 or the PT-6? What is the "cutoff" in your opinion?

-T

Paul S · Post by **Paul S** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:51 am

Any (production) Yamaha - NOT a BAT
can not think of any Miraphone BAT
MW2165=BAT
MW2155=NOT
PT7=BAT

Yamaha 621F & GR-41 - GR-41 is Chunky but is NOT a BAT
(no way just a 4/4 though) more the tough looking "Dodge Ram" of tubas

Shockwave · Post by **Shockwave** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:14 pm

Matt G · Post by **Matt G** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:08 pm

The Besson 994 on the left is not a BAT it is a 4/4.

The Frankentuba on the right is.

Besson Bore: .730/.787
Frankentuba: .750

Besson Bell: 19"
Frankentuba: 19 3/4"

What makes all of the difference is the bell throat and the larger bows of the horn.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

Take note especially where the ferrule connecting the bottom bow and bell is on the two. This is a sizeable difference.

Even better (Sorry for drop in resolution, I used a cheap digital camera and I no longer have the MW to reshoot):

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

The Meinl Weston 32CC is a 4/4.

It is put next to the same frankentuba for comparison.

The bore is .778 with a bell of 17 3/4"

However the bottom bow, bell throat and branches are of comparable size to the Besson, just wrapped a little tighter.

FWIW, the bell on the Frankentuba is a Mirafone 190 bell.

I would have to slightly disagree with LV and say that the PT-6 it an F-BAT. A Fairly Big A$$ Tuba. I was close to buying a PT-6P once ( a very fine horn in my opinon) and I played it for a good bit. But I would say it is close, but not quite in the league of a Rudy 5/4 (huge)BBb or a Cerveny 601 or the old Mirafone 190.

But alas, these numbers are so confusing.

On the old tubenet, there was mention of displacement tests for sizing. This would be more accurate. However, I think that judging the sizes of the bows, branches, and bell throat are a fairly decent measure.

GC · Post by GC » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:17 pm

Some other definite BATs:

Holton 345
Cerveny 601 (like holding a vacuum cleaner to your lips)
Conn 2xJ, 3xJ
MW Fafner, BBb Hilgers (seen above)
Yorkbrunner, 6/4 Nirschl, Yamaha "Monica" (all copies of Jacobs CSO Yorks)
5/4 Rudy Meinl BBb & CC

BEAT [ B(loody)E(normous)AT ] ---> 6/4 Rudy Meinl BBb (arguably the largest production tuba on the planet)

Dylan King · Post by **Dylan King** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:09 pm

My Yamaha 3/4 621 F next to the Yorkbrunner 6/4 CC B.A.T.

scottw · Post by **scottw** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:28 pm

-------or, as we've seen whenever this topic came up before:
If the conductor says, "That's a good-sounding tuba," it's a 4/4.

If the trumpets say, "Man, that's a big tuba," it's a 5/4.

If the bass trombonist says, "That's freakin' awesome!", it's a 6/4, a.k.a. BAT.

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:44 pm

The York Master on the left (bore .750 and 20" bell) is not a BAT. The Holton BB-345 on the right (bore .750 and 20" bell) is.

Also see: http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm

Rick "thinking the bottom bow is the first thing to look at" Denney

Lew · Post by **Lew** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:53 pm

Rick Denney wrote:The York Master on the left (bore .750 and 20" bell) is not a BAT. The Holton BB-345 on the right (bore .750 and 20" bell) is.

Also see: http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm

Rick "thinking the bottom bow is the first thing to look at" Denney

Even considering the bottom bow the differences between the York Master and Holton don't look that significant in your photo. Maybe the York is almost a BAT? I consider my Martin a BAT. I don't have a photo handy, but it is about the same size as a Conn 20J, with a 24" recording bell. I also think that the M-W Fafner is approaching BAT in size. Sitting next to one in rehearsal most weeks, it dwarves my Besson 983. I would put the Rudy Meinl 6/4 in definite BAT category. The differentiators, at least in my mind, are the diameter of the bottom bow and adjacent tubing and the bell diameter. I don't really consider bore a determining factor. A Cerveny "piggy" has a bore of 0.827", but I don't think that anyone would call it a BAT.

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:23 pm

Lew wrote:Even considering the bottom bow the differences between the York Master and Holton don't look that significant in your photo.

Oh, but they are. Consider how far a four-inch ball will roll into the Holton versus the YM, or a six-inch ball. The YM will catch the six-inch ball just below the bell attachment ring, while the Holton will provide room for it clear down into the bottom bow.

Pictures show diameter, not area. A 25% increase in diameter ("not that much" in a picture) is a 56% increase in area.

The YM is on the border between 4/4 and 5/4, but only considering that instruments like the new King 2341 are considered 4/4. A Miraphone 186 bell will fit in the YM, according to my measurements, if you trim a bit off the narrow end.

Rick "noting that the difference when it's sitting in your lap is rather profound" Denney