TubeNet

The reason is that the "6/4" label was first applied to piston Yorkophones, seemingly to distinguish them from rotary kaiser tubas.

The only labelled 6/4 rotary tuba that I know of is the Rudy Meinl, which dwarfs any other contrabass tuba, including my "6/4" Holton.

The average Yorkophone is indeed somewhat fatter than the average labelled 5/4 rotary tuba, particularly in the vicinity of the bottom and upper bows. But given that there is absolutely no standard for how these labels are applied, one should not expect consistency.

Rick "still thinking volume of air should be a standard measure" Denney

Scooby Tuba wrote:Before you know it, the woodwinds will be laughing at us. We can't have that!

True, but you'd have to be playing a .004/8 horn before you could compete with the backpreasure of an oboe!

Jonathantuba wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:The only labelled 6/4 rotary tuba that I know of is the Rudy Meinl

Don't forget the Mel Culbertson Neptune!

Is that labeled as a 6/4? Okay, then I stand corrected. Most of the instruments in that size class are not labelled in quarters (they are called kaiser tubas) or they are labelled a 5/4.

Of course, even the Culbertson is dwarfed by the RM.

I was thinking of examples such as the Cerveny 601, which would be able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Culbertson (at least in size) and is labeled as a 5/4.

The problem, of course, is the general meaninglessness of the quarter system. It was never really intended to have significance beyond a single manufacturer's product line.

Rick "noting that a Rudy 6/4 is indeed bigger than a Rudy 5/4" Denney