Bore size in relation to Bell size

[Jerryleejr]

Ok so my 289 has found a new home. I’m probably gonna order a Willson 3400 compact in lacquer (let the wait begin).
To replace my Bb I’m looking at a king 2341 or possibly a YBB 621 which brings me to the point of the post.
King has a .687 bore with a 20” bell
The Yamaha has a .689 bore with 14.3” bell
Would the 621 be to similar to the Willson? I’ve owned a 2341 before and really enjoyed it. Really wanting 2 horns for options not just 2 horns in 2 different keys.
Not playing in large groups and even if I do I wouldn’t be the only tuba.

JJ

[groth]

King 2341 should have a 19'' bell, and will be a good all around "point and shoot" tuba no matter what your needs are. The smaller Yamaha will be better for quintets and solo work from home.

[Jerryleejr]

King 2341 should have a 19'' bell, and will be a good all around "point and shoot" tuba no matter what your needs are. The smaller Yamaha will be better for quintets and solo work from home.

Conn Selmer is listing a 20” bell maybe a change? and I’ve owned a 2341 previously no complaints. Intrigued with the compact Yamaha...

JJ

[groth]

King 2341 should have a 19'' bell, and will be a good all around "point and shoot" tuba no matter what your needs are. The smaller Yamaha will be better for quintets and solo work from home.

Conn Selmer is listing a 20” bell maybe a change? and I’ve owned a 2341 previously no complaints. Intrigued with the compact Yamaha...

JJ

Oh yes, those newer short 2341's with the one-piece bell. Yep 20''. I was thinking the detachable style.

[2ba4t]

Look at the original Cverney patent for their first CC tuba, about 1845 I think. Look at all the old CC and BBb instruments that Wagner etc actually knew.

All tubas had narrower bells then because that is how they had developed from the old helicons, ophicleides and Sax and Wieder's ideas of instrument families from soprano cornet to contra bass. Their sound is far more focussed and 'grunty' (a la John Fletcher) than our 'upright sousaphones' ( a la Bloke).

It is useless repeating my heretical views about vast bells. And I also love that sumptuous velvety AMERICAN sound - but it is not what composers before 1940 expected. We just say that they would have wanted that huge softer sound. OK, OK ... I give in. But ... but .... this thread is correct in scrutinising how much bell size and/or bore affect the sound. The wider and flatter bell rim means that the sound waves excape in a more diffuse fashion. It gives especially F and Eb tubas a wonderful French horn like softness. The wider bore along the bugle - and that bore opening earlier - produces the 'mellower', less distinct Saxhorn sound of the British tubas and the new style short and fat F tubas every one is building. The now discarded Miraphone and Cverney chimney tubas had a very different sound.

[GeoffC_UK]

Eq.1
Bell size & shape + Wired rim + Base material (brass type) + Surface coating (plain, lacquer, silver) = Overall stiffness = Harmonic response = Sound you hear = Sound others hear.
Eq.2
Mouthpiece size and internal shape + throat + tuba bore = venturri effect = Harmonic response = Sound you hear = Sound others hear.

I’m not suggesting the above is true, just that there are many variables that lead to the sound produced by one player or another.

My rough rule would be:
Smaller bells = soloist or small ensembles
Larger bells = large bands and big ensembles

My application of this rough rule:
I was offered a 15”, 17” and 19” Besson tuba and chose the 19” ‘cause it looked good.

[toobagrowl]

If you are talking about the capillary section of the tuba (leadpipe/mouthpipe and valveset sections) regarding 'bore', it mostly affects response and how much 'horsepower' you can give the horn. The bell and its size and taper have by far the biggest impact on the tubas' overall sound color. Of course, the easy answer is: "all parts have an effect on everything" -- there are other factors in play, but you get the idea.