Knowing what we know now...

[NCSUSousa]

One additional idea - Electric Tuba.

Starting point for this idea: The electric string bass (not the rock-and-roll electric bass) is tall for ergonomic reasons, but is much thinner than the acoustic string bass. It also sounds reasonably close to an acoustic bass because it's simply picking up and amplifying the sound coming from a correct string. Not all that different from what the sound box does on an acoustic bass. They also store easier because they don't require a case that's 18-24" thick.

Could it be built with no moving parts (digital keys instead of real valves) on a much smaller scale, just providing an appropriate mouthpiece receiver?

Give an Electrical Engineer (who has studied electronics design, not just any EE) the frequency map of the open bugle, and they can create an equivalent electrical amplification circuit, or a digital version. All that would be left is to build accurate maps for each combination of valves so that each set of buttons tells the amplifier which amplification circuit to use based on which buttons are being pressed. Of course, digital systems would be able to compensate for the tuning problems inherent in using the same length of tubing for each valve in each register so that's probably the best way to go. With more research, the digital frequency maps for different instrument designs could be used in the same electric tuba.
The hard part is making sure that the input is correct from the mouthpiece to the electronics so it doesn't end up sounding like a bad synthesizer. The input would still need to be analog, using a mouthpiece, so that the technical aspects of playing a brass instruments come through.
The output also presents a problem - There would need to be a way to compensate for PA systems that don't have good bass response down into pedal range, otherwise those notes get lost in the amps and speakers.

[Bob Kolada]

I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

[NCSUSousa]

I'm pretty sure Yamaha already made the electronic trumpet.

Unfortunately, the Yamaha EZ-TP just a trumpet-like synthesizer that uses a hummed pitch, recognized by a digital system as a particular note, then fed into a digital synthesizer to produce the corresponding trumpet note... Not what I'm going for in my post.
Also found the Morrison digital trumpet on a google search... That's quite nearly the opposite of what I'm suggesting. To use a breath controller to adjust output volume, but rely on left hand fingerings on a keyboard to determine the overtone series and selects the pitch from a digital library...
There are other 'wind' controllers that are similar to the Morrison.

These all suffer the same 2 flaws:
1 - REAL trumpets costs less. Why pick Trumpet?
2 - The output voice is digitally generated from a library of sounds based on a sensed or keyed pitch, but is based on a synthesized trumpet and not the tone being produced by the user's embouchure. This makes them novelty items that are useless as a practice tool for people who play a real trumpet and marginal at best for teaching elementary kids how to play.

At its core, a Tuba is just a mechanical band-pass amplifier. It takes an analog input (similar to a square wave with overtones) and produces an analog output (less square wave with limited overtones).
What I'm trying to describe is an electronic device that can accept that right input (vibrating air, square wave) and feeds the correct electronic output signal based on that input into an amplifier and speaker (or maybe just headphones for practice at home) system.

The reasons I think this might work for Tubas: Cost and Size (Yes, it really is all about the $$$)
Tubas are large and much more expensive than trumpets, but a digital (or even analog electronic) receiver/amplifier doesn't need to be so big. The cost wouldn't need to be too far different from the cost of the Morrison Digital Trumpet to be profitable.

The 'if someone can get this right' reason it could be a big hit: Flexibility.
Right now, you put your mouthpiece into a horn and only have the available amplification circuits presented by that horn. If you want to sound different, put your mouthpiece into a different horn.
With a digital tuba, the variety of amplification circuits is nearly infinite. Need a tuba that suits quintet? Select the circuit that matches your ____ (insert desired horn here). Want to imagine you're playing the CSO York? As long as someone the frequency map from that horn, then it's possible to make the digital amplification circuit match.

This is all just theory right now, but I think I could build it given enough $$ and time.... Neither of which I have....

[J.c. Sherman]

I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

As do I!

[NCSUSousa]

I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

As do I!

I'll second the motion. Can we put it to vote now?

[Uncle Buck]

Alter the third valve to play flat another half step. On certain tubas with very long third valve slides this can be done. Basically it tunes the third valve to equal the 23 combination, which is handy in certain fast passages. And in the normal cash register of the instrument who uses the third valve for anything other than the 23 fingering....

This strikes me as an excellent idea. I also think I may remember reading about one or two pros who used 4-valve tubas and who made this modification themselves. Anybody know if I'm remembering correctly?

[GC]

The Stewart 822s are also compensating double tubas. There are compensating double horns as well

Yeah, you're right. I still disagree about an ordinary compensator being a double tuba, but the Stewart 822s definitely count as both.

[Kevin Hendrick]

I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

As do I!

I'll second the motion. Can we put it to vote now?

If you don't have arthritic thumbs, a thumb valve is a good thing ... if you *do* have arthritic thumbs (as I do), a thumb valve is worse than useless -- just extra weight and expense that doesn't do a damn thing for you.

[eupher61]

Alter the third valve to play flat another half step. On certain tubas with very long third valve slides this can be done. Basically it tunes the third valve to equal the 23 combination, which is handy in certain fast passages. And in the normal cash register of the instrument who uses the third valve for anything other than the 23 fingering....

This strikes me as an excellent idea. I also think I may remember reading about one or two pros who used 4-valve tubas and who made this modification themselves. Anybody know if I'm remembering correctly?

That's the classic setup of a French C tuba, usually 6 valves.

[jacobg]

I'm all for the two shoulder sousaphone. We talked about it here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52001" target="_blank

And yes, we are reinventing the wheel here. But that's ok.

One of the remarkable things about the tuba is there is so much tubing it allows for almost infinite variety of shapes. But basically tubas come in three shapes: the rounded rectangle, the circle, and the orenophone.
How about a tuba shaped like a lobster bib? or a jetpack?

[Art Hovey]

In addition to this, Pilczuk had great results with leadpipes for trumpets, cornets and flugels which had thirteen chambers in them, one for each chromatic note [yes, plus one]. I don't think anything like this has been tried on a tuba leadpipe, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. IDK whether Pilczuk had/has a patent on this idea. The rights are now held by repair guru Rich Ita and he could doubtless help with this issue. Rich would probably need some interested parties to gear up to make such pipes for tuba. . .

The leadpipe of a trumpet is a significant fraction of the instrument's overall length.
In the middle and upper register of a trumpet there are nodes and antinodes in the leadpipe.
The leapipe of a tuba is a small fraction of the tuba's overall length. There are no nodes in a tuba leadpipe until you get into the very high register.

When "experts" discuss "nodes" in a brass instrument are they referring to pressure nodes, or velocity nodes? The two are very different from each other, and failure to distinguish between them reduces any discussion to pure mumbo-jumbo.

[Donn]

What I'm trying to describe is an electronic device that can accept that right input (vibrating air, square wave) and feeds the correct electronic output signal based on that input into an amplifier and speaker (or maybe just headphones for practice at home) system.

Wouldn't this play considerably different from the real thing, because there's no air-column feedback for a "slot"? I could be all wrong, but I have the impression that once a good note slots in, it conditions the whole system including my buzz. The instrument could be workable anyway, I guess? but it would be hard to recover the natural sound, if I'm right about that anyway. If you just more or less amplify the buzz pitch, the intonation will be kazoo-ey, if you use buzz pitch to select a pitch you're back to the Yamaha controller.

[royjohn]

Art Hovey wrote:

The leadpipe of a trumpet is a significant fraction of the instrument's overall length.
In the middle and upper register of a trumpet there are nodes and antinodes in the leadpipe.
The leapipe of a tuba is a small fraction of the tuba's overall length. There are no nodes in a tuba leadpipe until you get into the very high register.

Art, you're quite right and I hadn't thought about that. I still think the concept of tuned chambers might work and I definitely think that plotting out the nodes would help in designing tubas. . .perhaps folks do it already or are moving braces, etc., around without knowing exactly how this works.

As far as what kind of nodes, I think the nodes that Schilke plotted were pressure nodes, as I recall someone used sawdust or microphones to find spots where there was less vibration. That would be a pressure node, no?

My point was that designing based on the acoustics of the horn should produce improvements, if empirical juggling hasn't already produced all that can be done. Can you say that I'm wrong?

[NCSUSousa]

What I'm trying to describe is an electronic device that can accept that right input (vibrating air, square wave) and feeds the correct electronic output signal based on that input into an amplifier and speaker (or maybe just headphones for practice at home) system.

Wouldn't this play considerably different from the real thing, because there's no air-column feedback for a "slot"? I could be all wrong, but I have the impression that once a good note slots in, it conditions the whole system including my buzz. The instrument could be workable anyway, I guess? but it would be hard to recover the natural sound, if I'm right about that anyway. If you just more or less amplify the buzz pitch, the intonation will be kazoo-ey, if you use buzz pitch to select a pitch you're back to the Yamaha controller.

Edit - I've seen a little more of the research on brass instruments since this post. There's no way that I know of for this to work correctly and still give the proper air impedance feedback to the player's lips. Consider this a dead idea. Donn BTW is correct.

[Dan Schultz]

Sousaphone design that spreads weight to both shoulders.

That stick supporting the bell is going to get in the way on the football field! Maybe put a wheel on it.

[jacobg]

Can we take the toilet seat tuba and fold the bottom bow down over the back? So one doesn't have to worry about balance issues? It looks like it's going to fall over if you were walking around. It also seems like having both arms so high up would become tiresome.
Or, as I proposed in the last thread, put the entire tuba in a backpack, with only the valves and lead pipe up front.
And as I recall someone else proposed putting the valves in the back also, and controlling them remotely via bicycle brake cables.

[J.c. Sherman]

Can we take the toilet seat tuba and fold the bottom bow down over the back? So one doesn't have to worry about balance issues? It looks like it's going to fall over if you were walking around. It also seems like having both arms so high up would become tiresome.
Or, as I proposed in the last thread, put the entire tuba in a backpack, with only the valves and lead pipe up front.
And as I recall someone else proposed putting the valves in the back also, and controlling them remotely via bicycle brake cables.

Actually, I think rounding it over your back would lose the leverage gained. These are actually (usually) very well balanced, with the back bow acting as a counter weight; otherwise you'd be continuously bench pressing the thing!

[jacobg]

I realize that the toilet seat tuba might seem well balanced, but ponder for a second:
If someone asked you to carry a weight of 15-40 lbs, in any form, for 3 hours, what would be the best way to do it?
Isn't this exactly what outdoor backpackers have to do? And don't they choose to carry the backpack with two shoulder straps, loosely attached to their backs, with a frame that touches their butts, and a strap around their waist?
I'm using armchair ergonomics here, but it seems as if the butt acts as a third point to distribute the weight, and your upper back (rhomboid and deltoid) makes for a stronger base than the trapezius muscles adjacent to the neck.

[NCSUSousa]

I realize that the toilet seat tuba might seem well balanced, but ponder for a second:
If someone asked you to carry a weight of 15-40 lbs, in any form, for 3 hours, what would be the best way to do it?
Isn't this exactly what outdoor backpackers have to do? And don't they choose to carry the backpack with two shoulder straps, loosely attached to their backs, with a frame that touches their butts, and a strap around their waist?
I'm using armchair ergonomics here, but it seems as if the butt acts as a third point to distribute the weight, and your upper back (rhomboid and deltoid) makes for a stronger base than the trapezius muscles adjacent to the neck.

This discussion actually starts my thoughts down the path of building a backpack-like frame and straps then modifying a helicon/sousaphone design so that the entire instrument hangs off of that frame with the COG at waist height.
Adjustable straps are necessary so that the bell will fit above the player's head regardless of height (or so that the instrument body isn't below the player's hips for marching. With adjustment to the straps, a piano bench should be comfortable (no back interfering with the tuba).
Start with a Helicon with a lengthened mouthpipe. Rotate the valveset as needed for ergonomics.
Two options for the bell:
1 - Stay Helicon. Bell under the left arm, pointing forward. Not ideal for sitting in a chair in a group rehearsal, but should work fine on a marching field (as long as the bass drums aren't incorrectly placed).
2 - Modified Sousaphone/Recording Tuba. This time the bell needs a taller section between the gooseneck at the top and the right angle at the body. Make it tall enough to place the bell over the player's head (centered). This one's also tricky because of the length of pipe going up the player's back.

The design for bell option 2 may end up looking more like a twisted open paperclip with the final wrap going around 1 side to the bell behind the player before heading up. It also allows the player to put the instrument on from 1 side (clipping into the frame) instead of having to lift the entire thing over their head.

[David Richoux]

I'm pretty sure Yamaha already made the electronic trumpet.

I have an early 1970s version Steiner EVI electronic instrument (pre-MIDI) that sort of works, but there were a lot of ergonomic problems with it. Having just three key switches required another controller to set the octave, that is the big round rotating switch. It can play in tuba range as well as higher, but it never really seemed to feel right to me.

I haven't tried any of the later versions that are still in limited production...