About F Tubas...

[MikeMason]

Mary Ann, i agree with everything you said but have no answers. the truth for me is, even though the low c and b on the 822 are solid notes, the BBb,A, and Ab still pretty well suck. so, i guess you get 2 more decent notes than rotary Fs,but stilln not really a solution...if i had an hour or 2 extra per day to play those 3 notes it would get better,but,alas,the day job...

[Rick Denney]

if you don't like the low register on the 822 you REALLY won't like the low register on the rotary f's...

How true! But you know I still don't get it....the G below low C on my 184 CC tuba is the same "place" in the harmonic series as is the C below F on my F tuba. But the C on the F tuba is horribly sharp and stuffy, while the G on the CC tuba is in tune and free-blowing. Since the instruments are so similar, both 5-valve rotaries, I do wonder if it is simply stubbornness on the part of F tuba makers that makes them not want to change the wrap so it works. Like, "We have all learned to play these difficult instruments and we are SO much more manly because of it, so YOU need to do the same thing in order to join our manly club."

MA

You think that has anything to do with it? I wouldn't have thought so. It seems like the manly sorts are going for F tubas that play and sound like contrabasses, leaving those fiddly rotary F tubas for the girly men.

The pre-Parantucci B&S Symphonie doesn't have the manly modifications of later models, but if you look at it, you realize why rotary F's are not like rotary contrabasses. The first clue is that it fits in the same gig bag as my Miraphone 186. Even though it's not considered a huge F tuba by today's manly standards, it's still pretty darn big. An F tuba in scale would be even smaller than your M-W 182. And the mouthpiece would need to be two-thirds the size, too, as well as the length of the valve block's portion within the bugle. If you did that, you might find the low C works fine, within the context of the sound of such an instrument.

To get to that 17" bell, and to still sound like an F, the Symphonie has to start small and grow fast. Thus, the bore of the 1st and 5th valves is quite small--.670ish. But you could roll a quarter through the fourth-valve tubing. The conical taper is quite pronounced through the valve section, something that is not done on contrabasses. They do this so that they can get to that big bell throat. Finding the right taper design ain't easy. The old Symphonie doesn't blow the low C the same as the Yamaha, but it does work as long as you don't push too hard. But it will soar, floating over a large ensemble easily--something the little Yamaha won't do. It handles the low register about as well as any rotary F, while still being true to the F tuba concept.

Thus, the explanation is that F's are designed for a different role than C's and BBb's, with the result that they have different sets of strengths and weaknesses. If you took your 184 CC, and scaled down all its dimensionless ratios exactly to an F bugle, it would likely play the same. Those ratios woud include bell diameter to bugle length, bore to bugle length, mouthpiece diameter to bugle length, mouthpiece volume to instrument volume, valve block length to bugle length, etc. But it would not look much like any current F tuba. Yes, it would sound a lot like a euphonium. But a euphonium is so outscaled compared with a tuba that it would be more accurate to say that a euphonium sounds like a properly scaled F tuba.

A contrabass built on the same scale as a euphonium would have a 24" bell, a 1.16" bore, and a 2" mouthpiece. That's why F tubas that are scaled more like F tubas (such as the 621), are thought to have a euphonium-like sound to go with their tuba-like response, while those that sound like tubas are disproportionate taper designs with the resulting quirks.

Rick "who thinks the world is not ready for an F tuba with an 11" bell, a .58 bore, and a 1" mouthpiece, unless it's called a euphonium" Denney

[MaryAnn]

MaryAnn,

Have you tried a Gronitz P125? Best F tuba low range yet, except maybe for the Yammie. MW 45slp ain't too bad, either. For free-blowing low range, I like the Gronitz best of all. Worth a try, if you haven't already. It's also not the ergonomic beast the 45slp and Yammie are. Much easier to handle, IMHO. I'll still take the MW sound. Size isn't my worry, but, of course, I'm gorilla, remember?

Doc

Nope, haven't tried one. I have played a Yam 621, which didn't work ergonomically, and I have played an old B&S Symphonie, which I would own if I could find one and concurrently sell my 182. THe 45SLP also did not work ergonomically. But I basically never play F any more....only place I'm playing right now is in a brass band, and the CC works just fine on the Eb part, and they need me to bolster both the beat and the low register. So I doubt I'll be F shopping any time soon, especially since I have this urge to get a bigger CC.

MA

[MaryAnn]

Rick,

My comment on "manly" was basically a reaction to the response of the MW guy in Bloomington a couple summers ago, when I asked about F tuba low ranges. Let's just say that his demeanor led me to the "manly" concept.

MA