bloke wrote:...fundamental-heavy sound possible
I believe this to be a misnomer. I suspect that the type of sound you believe to be "fundamental-heavy" is actually anything but. Sometime, you should go into a physics lab and listen to the sound of a (audible - low frequency) "pure" sine wave.
I was chatting with the trombonist (who is really a hornist) in our Barnum pit orchestra, and he was describing his desire in college to obtain the darkest sound possible. Any hint of edge was shunned when he played horn. He's young and I think represents what may be the biggest fashion trend of them all among brass players.
I thiink there are several factors at play here. One is that orchestras are striving for more dynamic range than the instruments can easily produce. I think this is so they can sonically compete with amplified music, and with the high levels of ambient noise to which we are all accustomed. They are trying to achieve the same energy level that they can when the CD is playing in their car loudly enough to overcome road noise. This has led to the cult of loud, whith the emphasis on heavier and more well braced instruments to provide greater sound level without as much of the timbre associated with loud playing.
Trombones are a good example. The old pea-shooters produced a lot of edge when played at what today would be considered only moderate volume. But the sense that they were loud came as much from the change in timbre as anything, and I think that change in timbre was what the composer was usually looking for more than the ability to bury the orchestra. Now, the sound level is much higher to get the same timbre, because the equipment is so much bigger. This has led to the notion that that change in timbre is actually to be avoided most if not all the time. My colleague is demonstrated this principle. He brought a bass trombone instead of a jazz tenor, because it is easier for him to play. But there are lots of very edgy glissando effects in this musical, and if he gets the timbre the part needs, he causes injuries. The jazz tenor would get the right effect and still be in balance.
With tubas, the biggest equipment is really no bigger than it was 75 years ago, though at that time it was bigger than 75 years before that. But many more players are using the bigger equipment for many more applications (myself included). And we are all doing this for the same reason: We want to be able to play louder before getting to that edgy loud-as-possible timbre. Added to that motivation is the notion that the tuba should be a distinctly different sound from the trombones--a notion popularized by Jacobs as much as anybody. Thus, where the trombones have edge, we want roundness.
You are absolutely right that when we say "darker", we don't really mean "rich in fundamental". I think the tuning of the overtones in the sound have as much to do with the perception of depth and darkness as their relative strength, and clearly the upper harmonics are essential in producing all the needed difference tones. When people use that term, I think they mean "louder without edge". Of course, that is a technique issue as much as an equipment issue. I learned this early when Mike Sanders damaged my hearing on the tuba I brought to a lesson--a tuba I thought would limit me on the size of sound I could produce.
The thing I like most about the Holton is the openness and resonance of the sound, and that is definitely enhanced by a wide-open range of harmonics that are well-tuned to prevent any muddiness. It has that quality even when played very softly. But I've played plenty of big tubas that didn't have that characteristic, at least with me at the controls.
Rick "who thinks 'fundamental-heavy' has 'woofy' as its nearest synonym" Denney
)
