TubeNet

Recording tubas fell by the wayside as better microphones and technology developed. I've actually had band directors tell me that they preferred upright bells because the recording bells were too 'in their face'. My thinking is ... aren't trumpets and trombones 'in your face', too!

That being said... I have two of them (a King 1241 and a Conn 24J) that I use regularly for Dixieland stuff and outdoor concerts.

To add to the excellent information already given, the seating arrangement of a band with one or more recording bell tubas becomes problematic. The percussion section cannot be set up behind them as the bell of one or more of these horns will block the view of practically the entire section. Having been in a section with five rotary upright horns and one recording bell, the recording bell must be placed on the extreme outside edge so as to not block the sightline. These tubas do very well in the outdoor concert and Dixieland situations as previously noted!

I really hate that the recording bells sort of went out of fashion. I would use a forward bell a lot with my 20J if I had one.. specifically for jazz or outdoor gigs. But the upright bell really makes that tuba resonate in a concert hall.

Here is a similar discussion, this subject comes up every so often: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19901

I think part of it is business.
My experience indicates that recording-bell tubas last a lot longer than upright bells in a school situation, because kids tend to slam the latter instruments down hastily.

Seems to me that an upright bell must be easier (less costly) to manufacture than a recording bell, and schools are going to have to replace them more frequently, so there is more money to be made by manufacturers selling upright-bell tubas. Therefore smart sales people play up the snob appeal, encouraging buyers to believe that upright bell tubas will make kids sound like symphony players.

When I was in all-state band 50 years ago there were six of us using recording-bell tubas (some of them more than 30 years old) and one new german-style upright which attracted attention because of its novelty and rarity. (My father considered it old-fashioned.) The MENC all-eastern orchestra that year had two recording-bell King tubas; one was mine.

Hey! I remember years ago at an all-state performance in Washington State, The Conductor asked a player to trade out his recording tuba! I don't know for sure, but I always was told that bass frequencies are unidirectional. But I have also experienced a difference in where one's sound "blossoms"! I used to play bass through a horn loaded 18" woofer, and my engineer claimed my "final" sound was 16' in front of my rig! The sound developed a lot closer when I switched to a modern front loaded 4x10 cab! I know the sound of upright horns seems to get "lost" when playing on stage without an overhead shell, so who really knows? I'd like to try a 24-J with both bells in the same situation, and see if anyone can really notice a difference! I bet you might not notice as much the further away from the horn you got!

When in the Michigan last year visiting a tuba friend we did experiment with playing his big Conn 26J using upright bell and recording bell in a chapel. I definitely was not expecting to like the sound from the recording bell - so was surprised that even I (who arrived bias against) preferred!

I think is a shame recording bells went out of fashion - particularly for outdoor use. Interesting that in the UK, it was only orchestral F tubas that had recording bells (presumably for recording) and they have never been used on band instruments.

tubaforce wrote:Hey! I remember years ago at an all-state performance in Washington State, The Conductor asked a player to trade out his recording tuba! I don't know for sure, but I always was told that bass frequencies are unidirectional. But I have also experienced a difference in where one's sound "blossoms"! I used to play bass through a horn loaded 18" woofer, and my engineer claimed my "final" sound was 16' in front of my rig! The sound developed a lot closer when I switched to a modern front loaded 4x10 cab! I know the sound of upright horns seems to get "lost" when playing on stage without an overhead shell, so who really knows? I'd like to try a 24-J with both bells in the same situation, and see if anyone can really notice a difference! I bet you might not notice as much the further away from the horn you got!

The conductor probably did not care for the increased presence of the articulation and the overtones. But then again, neither did Sousa. Remember that the first souzy was a raincatcher, the front bells coming later, as Sousa wanted the sound to waft over the top of the band.

And yes, due to the physics of sound, that fundmental does need all that room to develop properly. And again, the reason the sound "developed" a lot closer with the 4X10 is due to overtones, with their shorter wavelengths. That's why I use an SWR Triad for a cabinet with 1X15, 1X10 & horn, so it sounds more like a stereo speaker on steroids and can be used wherever, tailoring its response with the amp & eq to match the venue.

Next weekend I play in a St Pat's day parade, and then I'll know if I can use the 20 inch recording bell in a parade setting instead of a souzy, and possibly semi-retire the 38K to be used when I have to support 40-50 players outdoors instead of just 20 or so. yes, I love the seismic tone I can get out of the 38K, but my back is starting to not care for the 35 lbs of it.

And yes, having played both bells on my 186 in the same recurring seasonal gig, without a soundshell, the sound died in the stage curtains, sets and rigging with the upright bell and could not be heard off the front of the stage. But with the recording bell, I actually got "the hand" a couple of times. The Miraphone 186 recording bell is a shade under 20 inches, so it is very managable.

Finally, I played my recording bell for a gig tonight, again no sound shell, and the band got numerous compliments. Not that I'm that good (I'm not), but that the band could actually hear the bass drum and myself together directly to tie into instead of the reflected sound of the upright bell off the ceiling causing the split second delay.

I think upright bells are currently the path of least resistance due to conductors having had previous bad experiences with players misusing them and more importantly,teachers input based on Their teacher's input etc. Independant thought will tell someone what so many previous posters here have already said. Different bells work better in different situations. But as every little collgege now has a tuba expert students get spoonfed alot of rules based in the teacher's inexperience. It's like the "you must switch to a CC tuba to be a professional" mentality. Yes, nobody is going to win an orchestral audition on a bell front BBb. But they might on a BBb with a detachable raincatcher that comes off for a run of Chicago or outdoor concert. Times and tastes seem to constantly change and will continue to do so. If you are studying with Gene Porkorny and He tells you to get an upright C tuba well mabye he's grooming you as a sub and it would be in your best interest but that doesn't apply to that many people. Keep an open mind And Ear and do what you hear as the best sound for you. Ed

I liked the sound of my recording bell horn. I also had an upright bell. I preferred the upright for non-musical reasons. The recording bell was a little awkward to deal with when needing to put it down during a performance. I could have solved that with a stand but never bought one. I would think that the big Conns and Martins would be easier to deal with on stage mounted in a stand rather than held in the lap. In that case, either bell would be fine with me- whatever the conductor wanted. The upright bell was easier to get into my car when taking it from place to place without having to removing the bell from the horn. It was nice to be able to use either but, if I didn't have a removable option, I think I would choose an upright bell.

tubaforce wrote:.... I used to play bass through a horn loaded 18" woofer, and my engineer claimed my "final" sound was 16' in front of my rig! .....

Makes sense to me. The low frequencies from a BBb tuba are generated by a column of air that's about 36 feet long... 18 feet of which are INSIDE the horn and another 18 feet that's OUTSIDE the horn. Playing an upright tuba under any less than a ceiling that's less than 18 feet PLUS the height of the top of bell to the floor doesn't even give tuba frequencies enough room to fully develop. This is another good argument for using recording bell tubas in concert halls and other venues with low ceilings.... and a VERY good reason why Jonathan mentioned that Andy's tuba sounded good in church.

KiltieTuba wrote:

Josef Rieder wrote:Seems like the use of recording horns is a personal preference. I play my 24J in the orchestra and it seems to fit in pretty well. Speaking of playing in orchestral settings, I believe William Bell played a recording horn with the NY phil.

How long ago was that? My guess if they pulled one out now, there would be some rather interesting looks from the front...

Just think of the shock if Bill Bell was actually playing it...

TubaTinker wrote:This is another good argument for using recording bell tubas in concert halls and other venues with low ceilings.... and a VERY good reason why Jonathan mentioned that Andy's tuba sounded good in church.

Actually Dan, the church where we made the comparison has quite a high ceiling. See the attached picture.

It is also interesting to compare sound file profiles using upright and recording bell. Below they are for the same excerpt with everything in the set-up the same except the bell.

The difference the recording bell makes is quite substantial with greater dynamic contrast and enhanced tone!

Jonathan "who left the comparison, wishing he could get a recording bell for his Neptune"

TubaTinker wrote:I've actually had band directors tell me that they preferred upright bells because the recording bells were too 'in their face'

Interesting. The two conductors I spent the most time watching the past several years both PREFERRED my recording bell over the upright (this after hearing the upright first).

One asked what became of them all? The other said he'd like to have a section of them. Directors aren't necessarily aware of the latest tuba fashion, and my experience has been they don't all hear with their eyes either.

roughrider wrote:the seating arrangement of a band with one or more recording bell tubas becomes problematic......the recording bell must be placed on the extreme outside edge so as to not block the sightline

I won't argue with your experience, but can state in my situation I play the only recording bell tuba in a section of 5, with 2 upright tubas on either side of me. Only one tuba is marginally in front of tympani, as the rest of percussion is on the opposite back side of the stage from us.

Regarding the church, when I was younger and lived in another city I attended a church that had a very similar A-frame wooden ceiling. In spite of a slate floor and a stone wall up front, all that wood made just about everything, from voices to pipe organ, piano, brass and woodwind, really "woof," and lose definition. The only thing that ever had any real clarity in the room was a harpsichord. So I can see where an upright bell would just lose all definition in that room, and the front bell would retain the necessary definition to properly support any ensemble, from quintet, organ, to full congregational singing.

iiipopes wrote:Regarding the church......all that wood made just about everything.....really "woof," and lose definition.

A semi-pro Dixieland group with a small Eb tuba plays regularly at the church pictured. The clarity of ensemble is quite impressive, with no tendency to "woof". Having heard many ensembles at regional locales, the one pictured offers one of the most favorable "acoustic situations" I'm aware of.

Somebody needs to defend upright bells here.

The reason we don't want the tuba to be "in your face" like trumpets and trombones is because for most genres of music we have a different role. French horns have their unique sound in part because the bells point to the rear of the stage, which cleans off some of the edge and rattle of crisp articulation. With a tuba often providing the foundational tone of the brass, or even of the whole orchestra, the edge and sounds of crisp articulation (by which I do not mean the color provided by a full range of harmonic overtones) interferes with the sense of tonal presence. The tuba is a unique voice, but it is not usually a solo voice. The role of putting the point on the sound usually falls to the cylindrical brass. That's why diapason pipes on an organ are vertical, behind the other pipes, and often not even visible; but the high-compression trumpet pipes point right at the audience.

Those who defend forward bells for stage use say it's all in what the player can do. Of course. A good player can overcome anything. But it is extra work to shape the articulation to prevent any hint of the thump of an attack. Those who play them all the time make them work, but that doesn't mean it's the only way.

In many situations, that articulation sound is musically useful, and for those a bell pointed at the audience helps out. But even though I have forward bells on several instruments, I find I rarely use them except for novelty effect.

The King ad is ironic to me. I think they had long since discontinued production of rotary tubas, and it had been nearly 20 years since they had made a rotary monster (one of the great tubas of all time, in my view). It would have been more appropriate for Bell to be standing there with a 2341, but perhaps he would not then have been smiling.

Forward bells were really popular for a while for recording reasons, and conductors and players both got used to them. I suspect that now we are enjoying the omnipresent sound of big tubas with upright bells to a greater extent these days. Maybe I'm just not as good, but I know it's easier for me to get a cleaner blend with an upright bell than with a forward bell.

Rick "who played a King sousaphone all through school" Denney

Rick, I played a King souzy in high school, also. Nobody is dissing upright bells in this thread. Quite the contrary, my reading of this thread is simply to level the field back out that there are appropriate times and places for the recording bell: outdoors, no sound shell, and some others, after the time has now apparently, and thankfully, passed that they were looked down upon.

As I have also said, and a lot of the guys, we have both bells, and use them interchangeably.

Will they ever be used again in orchestra? Probably not, for the reasons you aptly point out, especially with the advances in hall and stage acoustic design and construction.

As far as the church acoustics, I'm glad to hear the church pictured above does have a good acoustic. Most churches, of all sizes, with wood ceiling A-frame construction tend to have a huge peak in the resonance in the neighborhood of @ 400 Hz that muddies everything. If this particular church has dealt with that, then I would like to know how so I can tell a couple of the other churches I have attended in past years how to fix it.

Rick, I must disagree on one point. Traditional pipe organ construction puts the pedal and lower manual diapasons in the facade so that the smaller pipes can be voiced stronger to carry and still blend, and so they don't "squeak" or lose their tone and presence as the scale ascends. The "flower boxes" and other case-less styles of pipe organ pipe arrangements that became popular in the 1970's tend to allow individual higher pipes to "squeak" and not necessarily blend, because everything has to be voiced differently, not just the largest pipes. The second reason they are put into a case is so as the ambient air changes temperature, it all changes relatively at the same pace, and not individual pipes from "hot spots" from being close to lights, ventilation ducts, etc.

Other than that, I am thankful I have both bells so I may play as the situation requires.

Just to give a slightly different point of view, I am a Middle School and High School band director as well as a professional tubist. Whenever my kids play the upright tubas that we have, Conn 5J, King 1140, Yamaha 105s, they cannot be heard. Whenever they play the Conn 20J or King Sousaphones, they can be heard. Two of my middle school kids prefer to play the sousaphones, and sound great on them. In the bands I teach, the rhythm is very solid when the bell front and sousas are played. In the right situation, these instruments can have a very positive effect on the ensemble they are played in.

My two cents,
Frank Ortega

Frank Ortega wrote:. . . Whenever my kids play the upright tubas that we have, . . ., they cannot be heard. Whenever they play the Conn 20J or King Sousaphones, they can be heard.
My two cents,
Frank Ortega

And that, friends, is the bottom line issue for the tubas in the majority of middle and high school bands.

(And if you don't WANT your tubas to be heard, you have a different problem.)