TubeNet

There's been a lot of talk about the BAT's lately....what is a good large 5/4 or 6/4 horn....but with a small enough wrap that a smaller guy like me could hold it...

AND preferbly what sorta prices could I invariably find on something such as this? Because...well...I'm a poor college lad. Thanks!

What's your price range? These size of tubas are usually very expensive.

Look at the VMI Culbertson 6/4 CC Neptune. It's only about about $6,000 wich is relatively cheap for a 6/4.

Good Luck!

well, my price range could be between 6,000 and 9,000. I know they're expensive, BUT doable.

This has been talked about a lot.What are your musical goals?If you're planning on taking serious auditions,you'll need pt6 or 6p and pt10 or similar f or a yfb822.You can waste time trying to reinvent the wheel if you want to,but while you're inventing,your competitors will be practicing,listening,and studying.If you plan on being a teacher and playing on the side or just playing for fun,you can play any horn you can afford.My opinion...

If I were you, I would try to find some extra money and buy the "thor." It's a little out of your price range, but it sure has an amazing reputation lately.

Do a little research and then go and try as many tubas as possible.

Once again, good luck!

the elephant wrote:TA Neptune is a weird one, since it comes in both flavors and is a smallish 6/4 (in most peoples' opinions). So there is a Kaiser Neptune and a BAT Neptune, again, by my definition based on past usage in this community.

The Perantucci PT-7/PT-7P is another example of a 6/4 horn that comes in both flavors.

Of course, one could argue that the PT-7(P) is a Neptune with very minor changes, including the VMI brand name and the significant price difference.

the elephant wrote:What else is available in both types of valves?

I'm not sure it's a matter of the valve type. And I think it's the shape of the bell that affects tone more than the valve bore.

Tall kaiser tubas have more bell length above the bottom bow, so the bottom bow is usually a bit less wide even if the bell throat is just as large as a BAT. The flare is often smaller but not always by a large amount--maybe 18" instead of 20".

The BAT is shorter, so the bugle is wider at the bottom bow--it's closer to that big bell throat. Compare the Holton 345 (on the right) to the 5/4 Rudy Meinl in the picture below. Note that the 345 is a BBb tuba, and sits taller than a CC 345, while the Rudy is a C. If you cut the Rudy bell at the same point and started the curve of the bottom bow, it would be almost as wide as on the Holton. I suspect that and the bell flare have more effect on how the sound progagates out of the instrument, and I think that accounts for the effect you describe. BATs are shorter and wider than Kaisers.



I would also suggest that the sound of a good BAT should be colorful, meaning that it contains a range of harmonic content in particular proportions. But there is a lot of multi-path distortion in a BAT--many paths for the sound to take in that large a volume--and thus the resonance doesn't have quite as much gain or quite as narrow a band. Chuck would call it a lower Q, or resonance quality. That widens the pitch center, but without eliminating the harmonic content. BATs (or their players, both in their objective sound and in their mouthpiece choices) that seek darkness by eliminating upper harmonics end up with woofiness. They are not loud so much as present, which is a word you used well.

Kaiser tubas also have upper harmonics, but a characteristically different mix of them. Because their final bells are straighter, and because they have less volume, their propagation is straighter with fewer multipath effects. That makes them speak a little more clearly and produced a more direct sound with possible more projection and loudness, but with less presence.

The propagation is important--a wider tuba directs the sound in a wider pattern and I think that results in more multipath effects in the room as well as in the horn.

I absolutely agree that kaisers are more a part of the brass, while a BAT is more a part of the orchestra. I think that distinction was extremely important to Jacobs and the other performers who used such instruments early on. Their objectives differed explicitly, I think, from those of their peers (such as Bell and Helleberg) who used taller, narrower instruments.

And I think that's why sousaphones produce the broadest and fluffiest sound of all, even with all the harmonic content. The bigger sousaphones have the volume and multipath potential of a BAT, but with even a broader propagation pattern. The forward bell is the counteracting force because it reduces multipath effects in the room.

Rick "who thinks the differences are most apparent from the balcony" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:And I think that's why sousaphones produce the broadest and fluffiest sound of all, even with all the harmonic content. The bigger sousaphones have the volume and multipath potential of a BAT, but with even a broader propagation pattern. The forward bell is the counteracting force because it reduces multipath effects in the room.

Then consider a Conn Jumbo 4-valve raincatcher. According to Rick's hypothesis, that horn would have the "broadest and fluffiest sound of all" but retain more of the warmth and fundamental than a forward bell Jumbo because it would not have its multipath effects in the room reduced (unless, of course, the ceiling were only 9' high). I've played one and wished that I could discretely (that's an oxymoron--juxtaposing discretion with Jumbo sousaphone) switch to one of those BBb horns when playing Prokofiev 5 in concert or in an audition. Using 1-4 fingering, that low E-flat simply "rocks," to coin a phrase.

well, looks like I've learned a lot today. It seems that there a few people out there who are just as clueless as me. Though, likely I am not so clue less now. Thanks!!

wow.......i went back and read my initial post....and I suck at wording.

I obviously didn't know exactly what defined a BAT, but I also made it sound that 5/4's were one as well. The whole point of this thread was

1) Find out what big horns were out there
2) Learn about BAT's in general. -which, thanks to tubenetters, I think I have developed some understanding.

The horn you currently have now is no pipsqueak. It is a full 5/4 instrument capable of putting out a lot of sound. It is a tall horn with a 20" bell and large top and bottom bows. If the horn was somewhat shorter, like most "American" style horns, the bows would be even noticeably bigger, but the tall open wrap of the horn is slightly misleading.
Try using a relatively large mouthpiece and moving a lot of air through the horn (notice I did not say "pushing"). Are you taking lessons with a teacher who really knows tuba? Unfortunately, many brass teachers do not understand the concept of tuba sound and are stuck squeezing a tight airstream through the horn instead of moving a large quantity of wind.
When I had that horn, I always heard things like "big sound" and never wished for anything larger; in fact my situation was quite the reverse where I needed a smaller horn. The next owner after me made it to the semifinals of a very high profile major symphony orchestra audition with that horn. He ultimately moved on to an instrument costing 2-3 times as much. I think the owner after him sold it for the same reason as me - it was too big for many uses.
Instead of blowing 15K on a BAT you may never need, pair the instrument you already have with a decent F tuba and you will have what you need to last you through grad school and maybe beyond.

I have found an interesting thing about tubas in general. When I spend a few hours a day with a tuba mouthpiece on my face, most of them sound really good. When I don't for a period of time - either from playing almost exclusively another instrument (as when I sold the 1290) or not playing at all - most tubas become hard to play, don't get a big sound, and have intonation problems. Coincidence?

We have missed a minor point in the analysis, but one worth addressing. Our poster also has asked for some input regarding the ergonomics of playing a big horn. This has been a point of major concern for me in trying out tubas. Although I am a big person, and a heavy instrument is not so big a problem, nonetheless the comfort experience playing these big horns varies quite a bit from model to model. A well-made instrument stand is a fine equalizer, and a terrific investment, in my opinion. Whatever horn you settle on, I'd recommend you pay the extra $100 or so for a good stand.

jeopardymaster wrote:We have missed a minor point in the analysis, but one worth addressing. Our poster also has asked for some input regarding the ergonomics of playing a big horn. This has been a point of major concern for me in trying out tubas. Although I am a big person, and a heavy instrument is not so big a problem, nonetheless the comfort experience playing these big horns varies quite a bit from model to model. A well-made instrument stand is a fine equalizer, and a terrific investment, in my opinion. Whatever horn you settle on, I'd recommend you pay the extra $100 or so for a good stand.

You make an excellent point and I fully agree. One well-known poster has complained that the traditional yorkophones don't wrap the leadpipe around the bell enough, and the instrument must sit angled away from the player. Of course, it needs to sit that way to bring the valves within reach, too. I can't play my Holton comfortably with the tuba on my lap, because it all has to rest on my right leg and I have to keep it there with considerable tension.

Rotary kaiser tubas are typically designed so that the instrument is parallel to your chest, and therefore can rest fairly equally on both legs. The valves are definitely easier to reach.

Even so, I find that I must use a stand for all contrabass tubas, even my light Miraphone 186. It's not a matter of strength, but a matter of tension. Gene Pokorny advocates using a stand primarily to relieve the muscular tension required to hold the instrument up. When I use a stand, I don't find that any of my tubas present ergonomic problems related to size. Valve position is another matter, but most BATs have a vertical valve arrangement that works well enough.

Rick "who always uses a stand" Denney

Yes, I take lessons from a teacher. I'm enrolled at Michigan State and take from Phil Sinder...he know's his tuba pretty well i think.

Anyway, the big thing for me is..I mean, dont get me wrong, I LOVE the horn I play now. And I use the MF3 on it, which is quite nice. The only real thing I was looking into finding out was comparisons of this horn to others. That is, my Horn is "big" and produces big sound, though its not literally big. It is mostly a comfort thing and I find this horn not as comfortable as others. I wish to "eventually" find a horn that puts out the sound that I like, and what i like is similar to the 1290 I have now...but a horn that is more...me friendly.

Anyway, I'm getting an F horn right now...and after learning that, I will THEN upgrade my CC horn. But I figure, start now so I get ahead.

yeah, the 1291 are compact, but not the 1290 which I own...haha. The 1291 has a big sound, but it sucks up more air than most horn...I found it difficult to "figure out".

Basically, they took the 1290 and made it shorter and a tighter wrap...something about the 1291 "replacement" just doesn't do it for me. Plus, my 1290 had some work done on it.... it's good........vedy vedy good.

The above post gets my vote for the "Most informative post of the week" award.

Thanks, "E"!

Cheers,

The new 6/4 MW "Baer" is a very good horn, but about double your price. Closer to your max price, but not a "BAT" is the Thor -- a very good horn as well, but questionably a 5/4 (maybe?). A very powerful 4/4 perhaps?

Cheers,