TubeNet

Add to the mix... unsuitable mouthpiece

cup width
cup shape
throat size
backbore
shank size

(but can I still tell you to go to hell and use the search, anyway?)

The whole "science" of tuba intonation is just a bunch of trial and error voodoo,IMO.My Thor is the most in tune horn i've ever owned but I had no problem playing my holton in tune.Just had to be a part time trombonist with my left hand.I often feel like I betrayed a friend by selling old Frank...

Could this have anything to do with playing in equal temperament, which is not natural?

Anyone here an expert in just intonation?

Not to disagree with Mike, but there is software that manufacturers can use to produce instruments that are as in tune as they can be.

I believe Rudolf Meinl uses it. They're evidently redesigning horns with it. I've played a couple newer 5/4 CCs which no longer have the nasty sharp 6th partial. My piston Rudolf Meinl has a pretty much in tune overtone series. I pull for 1+2 combinations and pull the fourth slide out a bunch for the low D a whole step above the fundamental. My open Es are just fine.

I believe that Miraphone uses some kinda software to design horns too. The Norwegian Star, Starlight, and Firebird are all impressively in tune

Meinl Weston's 45SLZ was reportedly the first tuba they designed via computer and coincidentally, it's the most in tune tuba MW makes.


--Christian

Christian,you are more than welcome to disagree with me. At your own peril

You may be right but for the first 160 years of tuba making,it was trial and error voodoo...

Oh, I figure there's still a lot of trial and error instrument making, I just meant to point out that it's possible to design very in-tune instruments and that it's not ALL trial and error anymore.

However, if most tuba players are tolerant of very out of tune instruments, why would the manufacturers bother with the extra effort to make their products play very well in tune?


--Christian

cjk wrote:However, if most tuba players are tolerant of very out of tune instruments, why would the manufacturers bother with the extra effort to make their products play very well in tune? --Christian

Don't confuse "tolerant" with "accepting." There are still concerts to be played, practice to be done, lessons to give/take, etc., and we all gotta have a horn of some sort to play. But, for example, I still hate having to use alternate fingerings on middle line D on my BBb 186.

Edit: and for, I would say most, tubas, don't forget to have them cleaned properly, checked for dents in the wrong places, braces properly secured in the right places, and leaks taken care of as best as possible, as these steps will relieve the majority of intonation problems.

I've been wondering that same question and my theory is it has something to do with the attempt to graduate the taper through the valves. Outside of the regular fit and finish that can kill a horns playability. Because though the tuba, like the horn, is a conical instrument, when they try and keep the taper going through the valves, what they actually end up doing is stair stepping the bore, which I can't imagine provides an ideal harmonic series. In the F horn the only places that taper are the mouthpipe and outer branch/ bell flare. And horns don't have near the intonation issues of tubas, at least that are caused by the horn. I'll admit the longer the instrument the more chance for intonation problems, especially when we get into valve combinations. I think keeping a constant bore through the valve section would go a long way towards better intonation.

Scooby Tuba wrote:

cjk wrote:Meinl Weston's 45SLZ was reportedly the first tuba they designed via computer and coincidentally, it's the most in tune tuba MW makes.

I like the 45SLZ, but I'm not sure I'd agree it's the most in-tune tuba MW makes anymore...

Ok, so the most in-tune tuba MW makes would now be ... ?

NDSPTuba wrote:I've been wondering that same question and my theory is it has something to do with the attempt to graduate the taper through the valves. Outside of the regular fit and finish that can kill a horns playability. Because though the tuba, like the horn, is a conical instrument, when they try and keep the taper going through the valves, what they actually end up doing is stair stepping the bore, which I can't imagine provides an ideal harmonic series. In the F horn the only places that taper are the mouthpipe and outer branch/ bell flare. And horns don't have near the intonation issues of tubas, at least that are caused by the horn. I'll admit the longer the instrument the more chance for intonation problems, especially when we get into valve combinations. I think keeping a constant bore through the valve section would go a long way towards better intonation.

So what you're suggesting is that having a progressively larger bore valves (what some manufacturers would call graduated bore) on a tuba causes intonation problems? If you have some type of reference to that, I would be genuinely interested in reading it.

I can't imagine that stuffing cylindrical tubing (be it graduated or not) in the middle of conical instrument really helps an instrument's overtone series.

tuben wrote:What gives?

Seriously, outside of the challenges of the overtone series, why are certain tubas more 'out-of-tune' than others?

Amount of straight tubing?
Rate of taper?
Placement of braces?
Placement of bends/bows? (interfering with nodes?)

If this has been a topic recently, tell me to go to hell and use the search.


RC

Robert,
while perhaps not 100% on topic (maybe 99%), this article might interest you, especially the paragraphs about taper:
http://www.baadsvik.com/english/tubapages/miraphone.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank

--Christian

tuben wrote:What gives?

Seriously, outside of the challenges of the overtone series, why are certain tubas more 'out-of-tune' than others?

Amount of straight tubing?
Rate of taper?
Placement of braces?
Placement of bends/bows? (interfering with nodes?)

If this has been a topic recently, tell me to go to hell and use the search.


RC

The taper design is mostly it, but there is no one characteristic of the taper design that dominates. The notion of even conicity or straight tubing her or there means little outside the context of a particular instrument. The one thing I've learned from my reading is that a conical bore throws out all regular notions of resonance, and instruments that look like tubas could be designed with utterly unmusical harmonic partials quite easily. That's what leads to the notion of trial and error.

Yes, there is software that will execute (or optimize) a taper design for intonation. But depending on such assumes that intonation is the only important fact. The software I've seen does not include sound, response, playability, or anything else but intonation in the optimization. So, even the results of that will have to be used in a trial-and-error process to achieve an instrument that is successful in all ways.

And there's one common experience that suggests taper design isn't everything. We have all experimented with different examples of the same model only to find that they did not all have the same intonation tendencies. So, what accounts for those differences? Presumably, all the examples of the same model have the same taper design. It could be a solder blob, a leak, an ill-fitting ferrule, tension in the assembly, or whatever. It could be any of these in any given case. It takes a lot of fiddling and finish work to identify and resolve these issues during the manufacturing process.

But, mostly it's the taper design.

Good reading: The Physics of Musical Instruments by Fletcher and Rossing.

Rick "noting that this has been discussed in the past but without a clue as to how to search for it" Denney

AS long as you have valves and slides your going to have cylindrical tubing. Bore or rate of taper is the only thing that will affect intonation. Brace placement will only affect response. If you think trumpet vs. tuba as far valve combination discrepancy, the amount of of discrepancy will be the same but the amount of slide pulling needed to correct it will be 3 times as much. It's been my experience that a most people can do a lot if the bugle of the horn is decent.

I'll leave the egghead stuff to the eggheads, but I have not had any mouthpiece changing make a significant difference with intonation tendencies on any of my horns.

BTW has anyone else noticed a tendency of the King 2350 sousaphone to have a crazy flat (20 cents +) low G and Gb (three ledger lines below staff)? There are some signifcant dents in the bottom bow of mine, could it be a nodal thing?

I have generally been lucky with tuning of my tubas in that I need to do very little slide pulling to usually play well in tune (although my 182 F does need some alternative fingering).

However earlier this year I tried out an old B&S PT-3 with my concert band. Tuning on it was all over the place and despite slide pulling I was getting glares from the conductor and my mate on bass could not make out why he could not pitch in octaves with me. He remarked "your tuning is usually so good - I could not make out what was going on!"

Now the PT-3 is very similar to the PT-20, but with smaller bell, so I do not understand how my PT-20 can have excellent tuning, while that particular PT-3 was 'difficult' to put it politely.

I have just gained access to a VMI-3301. It is amazing how liberating an "in tune" tuba can be! I love the sound my 184 gets and it is so easy to cart around, but this VMI is beginning to get more of my attention because I can simply push a button down and out comes the right note and in tune besides. If my 62 year old arthritic body can manage the weight of the VMI on a regular basis the Miraphone may be in trouble. I don't know what VMI did, other than copy a great CC, but the intonation is wonderful.

cjk wrote:Not to disagree with Mike, but there is software that manufacturers can use to produce instruments that are as in tune as they can be..... --Christian

In theory, a tuba CAN be designed that COULD be in tune. Unfortunately, there are may more variables that just the acoustical mechanics involved. I spent several years in the field of acoustic design as it applies to automobile horns. Trust me... there will still be a good deal of prototyping and development... I don't care what kinds of software you can afford.

I suppose one could simplify all of the intonation issues by having a seperate bugle for EVERY note... including the flats and sharps. Then, you would have to develope a truck to carry it!

Scoob,your post subject is on my mind currently regarding my f tuba low register intonation.I'm getting better at playing the notes,but its a bit"fretless" down there.The pitches can be bent a half step pretty easily.I think this won't work for my quintet where I'm supposed to set the intonation much of the time.Great for matching others.Not so good for setting the pitch.I can play a note where it feels right and be 40c off.I can play watching a tuner or with a drone and line everything up pretty easy.Pick a low A out of thin air-could be waaayyy off.It's nice to be steered at least close to a slot.I'm starting to lose hope on using my f for quintet,but it's still great for solos and high orchestra.I guess it'll be the Thor for now.

bloke wrote:... I'm always looking for a tuba that is magically in tune with no adjustments.

Even the most in-tune tubas available - if they were somehow suddenly transformed into oboes/clarinets/flutes in the hands of professionals - would be scoffed at...if not just plain ol' LAUGHED at.

... and none of *those* instruments have valves ... hmmm ...

That post doesn't really sound like DP...