TubeNet

First off, Merry Christmas. Second...

I'm about to blow my mind if I don't get this answered. Ok ok, I do not want to start some unnecessary BBb vs. CC discussion (PLEASE NO!!! ), but I was going through harmonic series(s) in my head and was wondering why F# (the one right below the staff) is the 4th partial on BBb [2-3] and 3rd partial on CC [2]? I realize that fingerings will be different on both horns (duh), but most of the harmonic series(s) line up with their respectable pitch (ie. Bb in the staff is the 4th partial for an open bugle on BBb and 4th partial for first valve on CC).

It seems to me, with F#...and now that I think about it, G as well... lies better on the harmonic series to its corresponding valve (lower partial) than it's BBb "counterpart"...

Now, before all hell breaks loose, I AM NOT saying CC is better than BBb. I am way past that. I am just wondering what I'm missing in this crazy game of harmonics and partials and such. I guess what I'm asking is what pitches would be found on one horn that would fall on a lower partial on another? (above scenario)

So guys...put me out of my misery!

Joseph

Merry Christmas, Joseph!
Different notes can fall on different partials in different tuba pitches. It must be like that because the highest 3rd partial possible on Bb tuba is an F, and on C tuba is is a G. So two tones (F# and G) are available as 3rd partial on CC but not on BBb. Other examples can easy be found. The low C is 2nd partial on CC, but third partial on valve 4 on BBb. That's just tubarithmetics ( if in doubt see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic.

Happy christmas days and have fun with your instrument!

Gerd

Man, maybe you shouldn't be driving a car....

Simplest way to look at it-

3rd partial (fingered open) on C tuba- G
3rd partial (fingered open) on Bb tuba- F

4th partial (fingered open) on C tuba- C
4th partial (fingered open) on Bb tuba- Bb


THEREFORE, with textbook fingerings the F# at the bottom of the staff is in the 3rd partial on a C tuba (half step below G, fingered 2) and in the 4th partial of a Bb tuba (2 steps below Bb, and fingered 23).


If you don't get this, I worry for you..... DON'T ever think of partials or fingerings lining up the same on different pitches of tubas. You're far too smart for that (? ) and it doesn't even work anyways.
Don't feel bad about it. A lot of "good/lots of private lessons/...." players have similar problems.

Thanks for replying, guys. I'll try not to think about it too much. Basically, I had read an older thread on the ridiculous BBb/CC debate and noticed that someone mentioned something along the lines about partials lining up better on...

You know though, I've learned that it doesn't matter if you're playing BBb/CC/EEb/F/N/W/CV/ or whatever tuba, as long as it sounds damn good, that's what counts.

Joseph

ben wrote:Hey Joseph,

I think you may have misunderstood what the posters meant by "lining up" - it refers to general intonation trends of a horn across its partials. The key of a horn here is much less a factor than the design of the horn (bell shape, taper/bore profile, mouthpiece selection!!!). There are some models of horn where intonation within the harmonic series are out due to "design flaws". The Conn 21's and Holton 345's typically have flat 3rd partials... there are many horns with general intonation trends due to design factors.

There are a few cases where maufactures have (from what I understand - this is theory and conjecture) not precisely scaled the the BBb vs CC designs of the "same model" of horn. These are usually small perturbations that help enable mass production and keep costs down. But these small changes can cause differences between the way the same model horn in different keys plays across partials.

Does that clear things up.

That does clear things up. I am at peace

Joseph "is not going to die...just at peace " Guzman

Although, fingering-wise: the 4th partials of a BBb tuba do line up with the 3rd partials of an Eb tuba, and the 4th partials of a CC tuba line up with the 3rd partials of an F tuba, and the 3rd partials of a BBb tuba line up with the 2nd partials of an F tuba.

I just look at the music and listen to the note. The fingering will take care of itself if you try a few and see which one works the best. I learned this from a fine teacher. Another one told his students, "don't think, just play". He could defend this better than you would expect.

What are you all talking about when you talk about partials??? is there any place that explanes all the different terms you musicians use??Thanks......................bigbob

bigbob wrote:What are you all talking about when you talk about partials??? is there any place that explanes all the different terms you musicians use??Thanks......................bigbob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_s ... s._partial

windshieldbug wrote:

bigbob wrote:What are you all talking about when you talk about partials??? is there any place that explanes all the different terms you musicians use??Thanks......................bigbob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_s ... s._partial

I immediately distrust any discussion of harmonics and partials that contains a picture of ideal strings ... and no pictures of real (or even idealized) brass instruments.

the weasel words all appear to be there - but the casual or first-time reader is bound to
be misled.

Think of a bugle call- the open pedal is the 1st partial, whatever pitch your tuba is in the open note right below the bass clef is the 2nd,.... The "false partial" is one that some tubas have anywhere from a 4th to a 6th below the 2nd.

Bob Kolada wrote:Think of a bugle call- the open pedal is the 1st partial, whatever pitch your tuba is in the open note right below the bass clef is the 2nd,.... The "false partial" is one that some tubas have anywhere from a 4th to a 6th below the 2nd.

Well....that's where it gets sticky. "Partials" are frequencies that actually occur (look at the Fourier Transform and see a peak). "Harmonics" are theoretical beasts - for brass instruments they are a design goal - not a given, by any means.

It's entirely possible that a given instrument will have a "first partial" that is NOT part of the harmonic series. Be careful about trusting your ears. That "false tone" just might be the actual "first partial" (which just might sound a bit strange because the overtone structure doesn't quite match your expectations). That "fundamental" just might be a complex sound that includes all of the harmonics EXCEPT the first one - which will sound to your ear just like a complex sound that includes all of the harmonics.

When you play a "note", do you want:
a) a pure tone of the right frequency f, or
b) a complex sound with all frequency peaks at f, 2f, 3f, 4f, ..., or
c) a complex sound with frequency peaks at f, g, h, i, j, k,..., [question: what does this "sound like"?], or
d) a complex sound with frequency peaks at 2f, 3f, 4f, ...[question: what does *this* "sound like"?]
???

a) is for electronic music freaks
b) is for Yamaha freaks
c) is for Alexander freaks, or "false tone" afficianados
d) is for those who like to play off the bottom of the piano

The theory that looks so nice for ideal strings is very useful - it makes musical sense, and those who believe in the Fairy Tale can make good use of it as a model that gives them correct answers to many interesting questions. The only problem with it is that it's simply not true for brass instruments with bells and mouthpieces. A major goal of a tuba designer is to make the tuba behave AS IF the theory actually applied. It turns out that this is very difficult and very complicated.

If the model works for you - by all means use it. Just don't try to push too hard on the extremes (e.g., the "first partial"). Don't be shocked when a particular partial doesn't quite match up with the "harmonics".

If you want to be completely confused by the REAL world, I have found that Figure 8.19 in Fletcher & Rossing is an excellent starting point. [and notice that this is *before* we add the mouthpiece]

Dr. Young??

f) The Princeton Band