The myth that BAT's are louder

[Wyvern]

It is obvious that many tuba players seem to think that playing a 6/4, or BAT is all about making a loud noise and generally dominating the group. I thought you might therefore be interested in some feedback I yesterday evening got from a trombone player.

Amongst my groups I play with is a large wind band and recently a new trombone player joined the band. A couple of weeks ago we played a gig with me on my old Haag rotary Eb. The trombones were on my left and therefore in front of my bell and this new trombone player came up to me afterwards saying that he did not want to be positioned there again as the big sound from my tuba was absolutely deafening

Then yesterday evening for a concert it happened the trombones were in the same position to my left. This time I was playing my 6/4 Neptune. When the new trombone saw that he said "Oh no, that is even bigger!"

When it came to the interval he came over to me and said, "Do you know, with that big tuba it is fine - although it is still loud, it is much more rounded in tone and not so obtrusive - I like it!"

So there, some feedback from a fellow musician in the band preferring a BAT

[jonesbrass]

. . . This time I was playing my 6/4 Neptune. . . When it came to the interval he came over to me and said, "Do you know, with that big tuba it is fine - although it is still loud, it is much more rounded in tone and not so obtrusive - I like it!"

So there, some feedback from a fellow musician in the band preferring a BAT

I think you've hit on something there I've been "discovering" for myself since I bought the Willson 3050. It's not so much a difference in decibel level as it is the difference in overtone profile of the tone. In other words, the BATs have a very different tone quality when compared to smaller european-style rotary horns. The BATs can get big and stay round at higher or lower decibel levels, whereas some of the other horns begin to bark and pierce as you get louder. Not a bad or good thing, just an observation.

[jeopardymaster]

Mike Thornton (Cinti Symphony Orch) bought a Willson 3050 about 10 years ago to replace his Alex, which has a lot of miles on it. A while ago we shared the section on a band gig. I asked him why he was back to playing the Alex. He told me the other guys in the brass section begged him to lose the Willson and bring back the old horn. The Willson was to their ears too woofy, without enough core. Couldn't tune to it as readily. Mushy. One of them even compared it to loose stool, if I remember Mike correctly.

That Willson had looked absolutely beautiful and he had sounded just great on it as far as I was concerned, by the way.

[Dan Schultz]

..... Amongst my groups I play with is a large wind band and recently a new trombone player joined the band. A couple of weeks ago we played a gig with me on my old Haag rotary Eb. The trombones were on my left and therefore in front of my bell and this new trombone player came up to me afterwards saying that he did not want to be positioned there again as the big sound from my tuba was absolutely deafening ....

I find it hard to believe that a trombone player is complaining about a tuba. Obviously he's never sat in front of another trombone! Put him in front of the timpani!

Joking aside... I've always found that a BIG tuba is more difficult to put an 'edge' on. I know some guys who can 'blow the bell off' even the big Cerveneys but the very worst horns I've seen for loud are the small tubas that guys try to get a big sound out of.

[TubaRay]

the very worst horns I've seen for loud are the small tubas that guys try to get a big sound out of.

Very true, IMO.

[Wyvern]

the very worst horns I've seen for loud are the small tubas that guys try to get a big sound out of.

Very true, IMO.

That would be me on my Haag Eb trying to provide bass to a 40 piece band on my own

PS The trombone player was from a brass band background where a section of 4 basses is the norm, so could not believe that such a volume could be emitted from one lone tuba!

[pierso20]

..... Amongst my groups I play with is a large wind band and recently a new trombone player joined the band. A couple of weeks ago we played a gig with me on my old Haag rotary Eb. The trombones were on my left and therefore in front of my bell and this new trombone player came up to me afterwards saying that he did not want to be positioned there again as the big sound from my tuba was absolutely deafening ....

I find it hard to believe that a trombone player is complaining about a tuba. Obviously he's never sat in front of another trombone! Put him in front of the timpani!

Joking aside... I've always found that a BIG tuba is more difficult to put an 'edge' on. I know some guys who can 'blow the bell off' even the big Cerveneys but the very worst horns I've seen for loud are the small tubas that guys try to get a big sound out of.

All exactly it.

[Dan Schultz]

..... Some folks just cannot stand when a bell is pointed directly into the hole that is in the side of their head that is facing you....

That doesn't bother me much. At least not as long as what is coming out of that bell is a reasonable semblance of music. Blasting, cracked notes, and overdone accents are NOT what I consider to be music.

[Wyvern]

Some folks just cannot stand when a bell is pointed directly into the hole that is in the side of their head that is facing you.

Generally I do not think tubas are anywhere near as bad in that respect as trumpets and trombones as our bells are at least at an angle upwards (unless it is a front bell tuba), so are not normally directly pointing at the other players ears. The trouble is that if that is where you have been positioned in the ensemble, then there may be no option about where one is pointing.

Having loud noises pointed at one is unfortunately an occupational hazard for musicians. If that is a big concern, then you just have to carry ear plugs. I have used on occasions when the cymbals are less than a foot from my head

[Sally Larsen]

Neptune wrote:

Having loud noises pointed at one is unfortunately an occupational hazard for musicians.

Try sitting in the crossfire of a soprano sax and tympani.

I see part of my job as a bass player is helping to focus the band. Hopefully, volume isn't the only tool available. I can certainly be obnoxiously loud, and it is far easier to do with the smaller bore horns (for me..some of you may be able to truly blat with a BAT), but the real lever is timing and intensity.

[Alex C]

There are different kinds of "louds." There's the loud Arnold Jacobs produced in "Alexander Nevsky" and the kind of loud Roger Bobo produced on an F tuba in "Rite of Spring." The biggest problem with BAT's comes when you try to play it like a smaller horn and force the sound. Spread is the ultimate result.

I understand that one of the tubists with one of the Big 5 American orchestras was playing a 4/4-5/4 tuba. He was told that it wasn't making enough sound and that if he continued playing that horn he would probably not get tenure. He immediately started playing BAT's.

That pretty much convinces me that nothing produces a more robust sound than a BAT.

I love my Nirschl 4/4. After a lesson, one of the major orchestra tubists told me it just didn't produce enough sound for his orchestra. I'd need a BAT.

Of course, I'm not telling EKolb anything. I'm just pointing out what continues to convince me of this fact.

[Alex C]

Wade, I only heard him play a B&S Symphonie Model F tuba once, everything else I every hears was on the York (It was the Berlioz Romeo and Juliet). It was plenty loud enough which is no surprise but very different.

I'm sure that there are other players who could speak to that topic with more comparitives than I but what about contemporary players. Like Mike Sanders who switched from an Alexander CC to a Yorkbrunner and Alan Baer who switched from a 1291/2 to various Meinl BAT's

There must be others I don't know who have made similar changes. Pitch in guys, tell us what you heard.

[tubaguy9]

I think that the thing with BAT's being louder, is that you can put more air through them without putting an edge on it.

[bigboymusic]

The key word that I have heard both Jake and Mike Sanders use is presence. The feel that the larger horn gives the overall orchestral tone color.

[tbn.al]

I posit that a BAT is not as loud in actual decibels as many Germanic tuba designs and that the tone fills a hall in a very different manner from those Germanic designs. This is a manner of perception and not reality, I think. BIG and LOUD are not necessarily tied to one another.

He (Mr. Jacobs ) told me in a lesson in 1995 that he liked the Alexander tone, though it differed from the sound in his head.

I am not trying to hijack the thread but the size issue for me has become 3/4 or 4/4. Since Roger proveded me with an affordable alternative, I have been playing the VMI 3301 with my quintet. I am find many of the same things "the elephant" describes in my comaprison to my other horn, a Mira 184. The sound to the audience, or a recorder, with the 184 is incredibly more robust than what I hear at the bell. And the Mira is the sound that I hear in my head, as Mr. Jacobs put it. What I hear with the 184 kind of matches what "the elephant" describes with his Alex, a specific of 5 voices. With the VMI I hear more of the tuba providing a fundamental basis for the rest of the quintet to build on. This is also what they are reporting to me. They complain that it is more difficult to tune and blend when I bring the 184. Fortunately the bugle of the VMI lets me change characteristcs pretty much at will so that I can get more individual presence when needed at pretty much any volume level.

As an aside, I am finding that the VMI actually uses less air than my 184. I can complete phrases I have to chop up on the 184. I can also play softer with adequate response on the VMI. All this is very interesting to me and also very new. I have only had 4 tubas available to me in my short, 6 year, tenure as an aspiring doubler. The first was a very good Lee Stofer 4 valve Eb conversion, followed by an antique 1/2, my current 184 and the church's VMI. My experience is therefore limited, but it does appear that the arguments I see hear comparing the BATs and the 4/4-5/4 are also appropriate with the what to play in quintet questions.

[OldBandsman]

For what it's worth...

The first night I used my antique King "monster helicon" it rained and we had to move inside. I ended up with the bell almost over the one of the tymps. We played some latin piece that got really cranking toward the end.

I suddenly had the feeling I couldn't get any sound outof the horn. Of course the tymp lady (she's got lots of muscle) was banging away on the same notes and rhythms I had. When I thought about it later, I surmise our sound waves were trying to cancel each other out. And that helicon has has the ability to speak forthrightly!

John Roberts

[sloan]

Let's not deny this:

On rare occasions, it is completely appropriate to overwhelm the orchestra. Yes, the over-the-top pandemonium should be controlled , but there is nothing that will bring a smile to a music director more than these rare called-for pandemonial "tuba moments"...

...and there is no more fun way to do it than with a fine BAT.

Let's not forget the many times that it is NOT appropriate to overwhelm the orchestra.

I sit "upstairs" in a seat that provides a good view and is acoustically wonderful. Every once in a while I have a conversation with the tuba player. It usually goes like this:

TP: the conductor wouldn't let me play that any louder than mf.

Me: he was right - I heard you just fine (except for those parts where hearing the tuba alone would have been wrong)

Exerting a "presence" that is loud enough to be heard while obviously restrained and under control is MUCH more effective on the audience than "LISTEN TO THIS!!! ISN"T THIS FUN???!!!"

Of course, BAT's are good at "restraint", too - perhaps better than they are at pure "LOOK AT ME, ME, ME!!!"

[Rick Denney]

...Like Mike Sanders who switched from an Alexander CC to a Yorkbrunner...

There must be others I don't know who have made similar changes. Pitch in guys, tell us what you heard.

I didn't miss a concert by the San Antonio Symphony during the time Mike made that change. I had been attending for at least a couple of years when he played the Alex, and then continuously after the switch until he left the orchestra (first to sub in Salt Lake City, and then for his current gig in St. Louis).

It was a long time ago, but I can still clearly hear the sounds in my head.

It should be pointed out that the SA Symphony played in Lila Cockrell Theater, a 3000-seat auditorium built for HemisFair '68. The hall is quite large, but the stage is dead and it's hard to hear oneself, even with the shell that the symphony used. It takes some effort not only to fill the hall, but to feel like your are filling the hall. I remember from my own opportunities to perform there that it is an intimidating place to play.

I usually sat right in the middle of the last row of the Mezzanine, right at the back of the auditorium. Acoustically, this was just about the best seat in the house--the orchestra always had a full, balanced sound in that spot.

When Mike played the Alex, the sound had force, but it clearly came from the stage. Any time he wanted to be heard, he was heard, and clearly. But I could close my eyes and point to where he was sitting, just as I could with the trumpets and trombones.

When he switched to the Yorkbrunner, the sound seemed to come from everywhere at once. It was like the difference between a spotlight and general room lights. The big-tuba sound didn't leave shadows. The word I've always used to describe that is presence. The Alex had projection, but the Yorkbrunner had presence. Loudness wasn't even a part of my thinking when comparing them. I think that's reasonably consistent with what Wade is saying.

The difference was not subtle. And it wasn't a strictly musical difference--Mike has always played with beautiful musicianship no matter what the instrument.

It reminds me of the difference between pressure and flow. You can put a nozzle on the end of a hose and create more pressure. The resulting stream has a lot of force behind it, and it will project a fair distance. When you remove the nozzle, the flow will likely increase, but the pressure will decrease. It might not project the same way, but it will get you wetter faster. If you want to be bathe something in water, you don't use the high-pressure nozzle.

I suspect the bell shape and size has a lot to do with it. My Holton has a 20" bell with relatively little flare and a huge throat. My York Master has a 20" bell with much more flare and a much smaller throat. The wide bells increase dispersion, and the big throat increases the bandwidth of the sound (the sound is more variably affected by the shape of the bell). The result is a broader dispersion over a wider range of frequencies around the central pitch, and I think that's what gives it the presence. The big bell of the YM has some of that quality but not as much as the Holton. My Miraphone has a 16" bell with a smaller throat than the Holton. But the curve of the bell flare is more spiral and less circular, it seems to me, and that is more like the difference between an exponential horn on a loudspeaker and a bi-radial horn. The bi-radial horns are used for near-field speakers, and the exponential horns are used for projecting sound over a distance.

There is a less tangible aspect to the difference in Mike's sound, though I suspect it is related. The sound seemed friendlier to me. It made me smile, and this was even before I had returned to playing the tuba, so I wasn't really perceiving it with tuba-player ears. That may be an aspect of the presence--it was more personal.

It should be noted that Mike never displayed a woofy sound--even on the Yorkbrunner the sound has had focus and clarity.

"Blend" is a subject I have some trouble with. Jacobs seemed to blend just fine with the CSO trombones in the recording of the CSO low-brass. The excerpt they played of, for example, the Berlioz recitative for brass, was a single, integral wall of sound, despite the wide difference between Jacobs's voice on the York and the trombones. I think the sound got that integration from two things: Consistency and togetherness of articulation (and release), and perfect intonation. I'm not one who believes tones have to match to blend--in fact--if they match too much they lose any quality of blending and merely sound like a single voice.

Rick "chasing that sound for 25 years" Denney