Sousa vs. Kanstul

[Leland]

I haven't heard many, at least not without knowing specifically what model that a section is using. But, the pre-1970 Kings I've heard do project really well, and rarely get that splatty sound that often can come from Conn 20Ks. The Conns' sound looks like it comes from the grass itself, while these Kings come through the band.

Those new King tubas -- assuming they're the ones that Phantom Regiment debuted last season -- are really, really good in terms of projection. They sound a lot like the K90 contrabass bugles that corps used for years, some keeping them even after upgrading the rest of their hornline to 3-valve horns.

The large Kanstul tubas also project exceptionally well, and if they're equipped with the "Tune Any Note" option (AND it's put to use), intonation would not be an issue.

They're all good, but I'd make a decision based on what kind of marching you're really going to be doing. There are things that each style of instrument does better than the other.

[phoenix]

My Marching Band, the North Penn Marching Knights, use Yamahas that are excellent sousaphones. Good tone and projection, shaky tuning if it's not tuned properly. Great horn though.

[Lew]

Better still, there is a High School in the Richmond, VA area (I can't remember which) that uses 4 valve Cerveny helicons in their marching band. The sound projects as well or better than any convertables I have heard and they're a lot easier to march with. Sousaphones have a broader sound and although it won't be as obvious, will provide a better foundation.

[Bandmaster]

After attending hundreds of marchig band and drum corps competitions over the last 30 years and playing tuba for the last 35 I have had a few occations to listen and compare horns. The King brass sousaphones have the darkest sound, the Conn is brighter which may be why it "seems" to project a little further. The Kanstul BBb 5/4 Contrabass sound really nice but is a little more directional. Sousaphone bells, being larger in diameter, can radiate sound at a wider angle (even backwards to some extent). I once found an old H.S. White sousa in my old marching band's storage garage and cleaned it up and brought it to a rehearsal. It was obviously smaller bored than the pre-1970's Kings we were using. We had a full rank of sousaphone players so we tested it by allowing each player to use it on a run through of our parade routine. I walked down the street ahead of the band and the further away I got the louder that old H.S. White sounded. It was amazing, and it didn't seem to matter who was playing it, it was just projected better! Years later when I directed my own marching band someone donated an old silver Olds sousaphone to the band and my players would fight over who got to play it. It just played great. I still have it out in my garage and pull it out from time to time for special occations.

Don't forget the difference the mouthpiece makes! Using a Conn-Helleberg or larger mouthpiece would make any sousaphone sound better. Too many high school players are not using the best possible mouthpieces. They tend to use whatever is lying around the band room. Too many times they are junkers.

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference. What KIND of sound do YOU like? I tend to like the darker sound, so my vote is for the older King sousaphones.

[imperialbari]

But, the pre-1970 Kings I've heard do project really well, and rarely get that splatty sound that often can come from Conn 20Ks. The Conns' sound looks like it comes from the grass itself, while these Kings come through the band.

Funny text!

I will not deny that the Conn 20K's may sound splatty, when the players don't provide the quite well developed air support needed for these large instruments. Then the full spectre of overtones will not be supported with sufficient energy. The sound will splat around among hapzahard and unintegrated areas of the overtone spectre.

Sound may have a look to it when watched via Helmholtz type experiments or via graphs on diverse meters. I never saw it emerge from the grass itself.

If one, however, experiences the sound of the sousaphones coming out of the ground, then one should congratulate the players to their fine playing and to their choices of good instruments. They have achieved, what people pay a lot of money to get out of the sub-woofer of their surround-sound outfits.

What is the purpose of a marching show: to impress the not necessarily very smart guys in the press box or to deliver a musical (and visual) experience for the public?

Too much projection actually can ruin that musical experience. The slide trombone came late into use in one of our finest marching bands: the boys guard of the Tivoli gardens (that is the band, which Michael Lind tells about in his interview with Daniel Perantoni).

I still remember that band following the old Danish practise of letting the clarinets marching the front rows. It is a great experience to hear the warm and singing sound of a 3 or 4 part clarinet choir coming towards oneself. The brasses easily can be heard, but the overall balance is much better, than when the trombones are in the front.

And should the sousaphones sound like a downwards extension of the trombone section anyway? Shouldn't they rather provide a full foundation for the full band?

Klaus

[Leland]

If one, however, experiences the sound of the sousaphones coming out of the ground, then one should congratulate the players to their fine playing and to their choices of good instruments. They have achieved, what people pay a lot of money to get out of the sub-woofer of their surround-sound outfits.

My description, unfortunately, wasn't meant to be entirely positive. They had this big, wide sound that was indistinct, and any somewhat fast passages got lost in the noise. By "from the grass itself", I meant that it seemed like it got filtered by the rest of the band, and that I felt like I had to look through everybody else to find that sousa section's sound.

[GC]

Don't forget the difference the mouthpiece makes! Using a Conn-Helleberg or larger mouthpiece would make any sousaphone sound better. Too many high school players are not using the best possible mouthpieces. They tend to use whatever is lying around the band room. Too many times they are junkers.

This comment on sousa mouthpieces has a lot of truth (especially the part about junk mouthpieces), but I think you need to be careful automatically recommending big mouthpieces. One of my area schools got a new section of Yamaphones a few years back, and the section sound was not good. Their tone was blobby, lacking in pitch definition, and their intonation was poor, especially on high notes. They were all using really large mouthpieces; when they went to good quality mouthpieces with a more mid-sized cup the sound of the whole section improved radically.

Large mouthpieces do not work well for many people. In spite of its wide adoption, some players cannot get a good sound on a Conn Helleberg or other large mouthpiece. Some feel that you can work your way into a large cup, and this often works. Sometimes is doesn't. Most people who use mouthpieces that are too large for them have washed-out, characterless, bottom-end-only tones.

Much of projection comes from harmonics. A sound that's lacking in brightness won't carry well. At the same time, a sound that's bright but lacking in fat doesn't provide needed supporting depth. A full-range sound, deep but containing character and some brilliance will blend, project, and fill space far better than a dull, fundamental-only sound. And, of course, overblowing and getting blatty may make you louder, but your sound loses depth and definition. A properly toned, tuned, blended section provides better support than blastmeisters every time.

[Leland]

To me, a Conn Helleberg isn't a large mouthpiece -- but that's "to me". Additionally, I don't think that all mouthpieces work correctly with a given horn. The King sousie that I used in college just wouldn't blow right with my PT-50 -- it felt like I was blowing against a wall. Popped a Conn Helleberg in there, and it played great. I could even put more air through, even though the Conn mouthpiece was smaller than the PT.

Much of projection comes from harmonics.

Yes, absolutely, and the comments about character & blend were spot-on.

Have we heard those "bass CDs" that people play in their multi-thousand-watt car stereos? The "featured voice" of those albums are bottom-octave bass notes & beats, and honestly, they're devoid of tonal character, at least in the sense that they have no harmonics. They're just sine waves, and they're pretty boring at any volume below Really Loud. But, if you play the Gene Pokorny orchestral excerpt CD in the same audio system, the sound is MUCH more interesting and larger in appearance, although there's a lot less volume in actual fundamental frequencies.