TubeNet

Hello all,

As the proud owner of a new Miraphone F tuba, I am encountering all of the things that seem to be common to many F tubas in terms of intonation and issues with the low C, etc. My question is... why? What is it about F tubas that makes these conditions appear in such a broad manner across makes and models of instruments? Just why is the "dreaded" low C so dreaded? What is that tuba manufacturers have managed to sort out in CC and BBb horns that illudes them on F instruments?

How are these issues solved?

For reference I am playing a Mira 181. The thing sounds lovely! ...if I could just get the thing under control.

Take lessons, ask your teacher. Just kidding!

I always thought part of the problem is that the notes are "low on the horn" but not "low in our minds." Sure, I'll think different on my CC tuba when I get a low G, Gb, F... those look and sound low. But "low" C, B, Bb? Those aren't low, those are such familiar notes. Low C? I *own* that note! But...you have to remember where you are harmonically on the horn, and feed the air to the tuba. Blow too hard and it'll back up on you and not sound right. Conversely, the pedal F on my F tuba is far easier to honk out than the same note on my CC tuba... on the 4th valve. Hrmm...

I'm sure there's a physics-based reason for it too. But I'll let other people chime in on that.

I am guessing it's just because of the physics of F tubas I am not a big fan of F tubas in general in part because of their low range. I much prefer a good Eb tuba for multiple reasons. But you know what? On my old Eb tubas I do have to 'finesse' the low range a bit like you do on F tubas........it's just much less dramatic. The 4th valve Bb below the staff on down are slightly 'unstable', but not nearly as bad as most F tubas.
The Yamaha F tubas have a more stable low range than the other F's, but their sounds are more 'vanilla'. The piston MW 45SLP is a good compromise F tuba - more colorful and interesting sound than the Yammie F's, but more stable low range than the rotary F's.

Well, I rarely (if ever) see an ad for a CC tuba that says "intonation is good and it has a solid low G".

If I could get a low C out of my Mira the way I can get a low G out of my PT6 then I would be a happy camper. My question was more generalized though. These things seem to be a condition of many F horns to the point where most of the for sale adds for Fs seem to include some mandatory verbiage about the state of intonation and the condition of the low C or other notes in that range.

I profess much ignorance to the technicalities and I intend to solve my problems with more practice, but I remain curious. I gotta work it out before I play Symphonie Fantastique this spring.

bort wrote:Take lessons, ask your teacher. Just kidding!

I always thought part of the problem is that the notes are "low on the horn" but not "low in our minds." Sure, I'll think different on my CC tuba when I get a low G, Gb, F... those look and sound low. But "low" C, B, Bb? Those aren't low, those are such familiar notes. Low C? I *own* that note! But...you have to remember where you are harmonically on the horn, and feed the air to the tuba. Blow too hard and it'll back up on you and not sound right. Conversely, the pedal F on my F tuba is far easier to honk out than the same note on my CC tuba... on the 4th valve. Hrmm...

I'm sure there's a physics-based reason for it too. But I'll let other people chime in on that.

Bort's responses always seem to be the most logical on the board.

I agree, as usual.

Think about it, most tuba players hardly ever encounter resistance in their playing and resistance is the big "uh-oh" in the tuba world. We try to build horns with as little resistance as possible.

On a CC tuba the open fundamental (technically the second) is the freest note on the entire horn. We do, as bort was saying, associate that CC with the freeness and open feeling.

On a F tuba, the CC is fourth valve! Now, fourth valve is more free blowing than 1-3, but it will never compare to the feeling of an open harmonic on a BIGGER horn.

Counter this with how frequently we hear the C in F tuba music and it is much worse.

djwesp wrote:Counter this with how frequently we hear the C in F tuba music and it is much worse.

That is a good point. But it reminds me of a recent poll about using F tubas in quintets. I also bought my F with the hope of being able to bring it to small ensembles more often as well and there will be every chance that that lower range will need to be rock solid in a quintet or small ensemble situation. As I recall there was a lot of support for the clarity of the F in a quintet.

Thank you for your responses so far. I don't pipe up often around here, but I do appreciate your thoughts.

bort wrote:I always thought part of the problem is that the notes are "low on the horn" but not "low in our minds."

That at first seems to make sense, but then why does not the same apply to Eb tubas - at least not most of them?

No, there does seem to be something in the F tuba design (maybe the fact it has one less loop) which means the low C, B, Bb 'feel' different. But it is just a 'feel'. I have recorded my PT-15 quite a bit and cannot 'hear' any difference to those notes - they are as strong and clear as any others. Once one realises that, then one no longer worries. I feel quite happy playing in the low register on my F and the more you practice low register playing on F the more confident you will be.

bloke wrote:2nd partial with the 4th valve being a "dead" pitch isn't just an F tuba problem. It happens fairly often with compensating euphoniums as well as Eb, BBb, and CC tubas.

The two possible solutions are

1/ exquisite control of air/embouchure
2/ eBay

I agree with Bloke on this one. Here's a additional thought: do the German professional tubists talk about the "dreaded low C" like we do? It sure doesn't seem like any issue at all when I hear them play in that range. Is part of "our" collective issue that most of us spend our formative years on contrabass tubas, and once we add the bass tuba we freak out about the response on low C and Bb? Those are VERY common notes in a common range for the tuba, after all.
I've owned four F tubas: a Musica, an older M-W 45, and my current Willson 3200S and Cerveny 653. I have yet to experience a "dreaded low C" on any of them, or any other F I've tried. Typical intonation issues are also not what we're used to. Second-space C is generally an "in-tune" note on CC or BBb tuba, but tends to be a tad sharp on many F tubas. This note corresponds to the slightly-high first line G on many CC tubas or F on BBb's. They seem to be the same overtone or "partial" tendencies we have on our contrabasses, we're just not used to tolerating or humoring them as much.

For the short time I owned a F tuba, I had no big problems with the "low C". It was like any other new horn I got my hands on...you just have to get used to it.

Oh, and I agree with Joe. That "C" is no different than the G on a CC, a F on a BBb, or Bb on an EEb tuba. That's just the nature of the beast...

Joseph

jonesbrass wrote:I've owned four F tubas: a Musica, an older M-W 45, and my current Willson 3200S and Cerveny 653. I have yet to experience a "dreaded low C" on any of them, or any other F I've tried.

I had a Musica that sounded like a squealing pig below the staff. I replaced it with a Yamaha 621 that sounded like a tuba below the staff. There is a difference.

But there are some contrabass tubas that rock and roll on their low F/G, and some that require a fairly special blow to get them to resonate powerfully. My Holton is in the latter group. If I hit that low F properly, the building may get shifted off its foundations. But I can miss a little and have it just not speak at all.

By contrast, the low F on my York Master just happens. Push the button and blow.

My Yamaha F tuba is like the YM--the low C is automatic. But that instrument extracts a toll for that ease in other ways. Just as my YM, great tuba though it is, cannot move earth the way the Holton can, the Yamaha just doesn't have that classic B&S Symphonie sound, which to me defines what an F tuba ought to sound like. The low C on my B&S is no more difficult than the low F on my Holton. Both are worth the effort to figure out.

I think I might be able to do useful things below the staff on that Musica at this stage of my tuba-playing development. But it certainly would not be automatic.

Rick "all instruments have trade-offs" Denney

I duno. Brass makers just do it to f**k with us

Playing low C on F tubas isn't terribly hard to play in tune. To put into awkward perspective, I'd liken it to extremely malleable metal: F2 would be the exact opposite. The low C is very easy to bend either way and rarely holds it's form, so you have to force it into shape.

I believe it to be the physics of horns, don't want to get too specific about it because I'll feel like I don't know what I'm talking about. (do I ever know what I'm talking about? ) That note seems to be unstable on all tubas, as other users stated. I suppose it just feels like hitting a false tone. You really have to feel and hear the note right "in the center". Take your mouthpiece,cover the shank opening slightly, and start buzzing some music: note how the buzzing is less clear and harder to center in lower ranges (for me at least: I guess my low chops are just bad).

Professionals and pseudo-pros wouldn't too concerned with "the dreaded low CC" because they hit notes the way a pro golfer makes contact with a golf ball (with a two-iron, mind you), and average joes like us (granted, there are many talented players on here) well... don't.

Sit next to someone with a CC tuba and play CCs all day long, that might help.

I play in a Civil War band, on a Wiedermann F tuba built about 1860. It plays incredibly well and violates just about every current F tuba design theory. It looks small - plays big, works low-works high, has a great low C - has a great high G#. Why? I honestly don't know but will be arranging to get some measurements off it in the not too distant future.

I'll try to post a picture of it tonight. I can't do that from work.

Roger

Roger Lewis wrote:I play in a Civil War band, on a Wiedermann F tuba built about 1860.

I'm looking forward to the picture. I've never seen an F tuba of that era that was used on these shores. All that I have seen were over-the-shoulder bass saxhorns in Eb. When I played in the Heritage Brass in Dallas many moons ago, I used a modern F because I didn't want to pay all that for an over-the-shoulder Eb and then still have to contend with it being an Eb. I could possibly have been persuaded to use a vintage F, except that it would have needed five valves to play all the music we used.

Rick "who saw only Eb and Bb instruments in the excellent music display at Gettysburg" Denney

Thank you LJV. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

My best to you and the family.

Roger

Notice the short leadpipe on the Wiederman F tuba. Also notice the short leadpipe on the Yamaha. German-style rotary F tubas generally have leadpipes that are almost twice as long. I wonder if that could be the source of the dread?

A similar correlation becomes apparent when you compare the low F on a YBB-641 (rotary BBb) with the same note on a Conn 20J.

Art Hovey wrote:Notice the short leadpipe on the Wiederman F tuba. Also notice the short leadpipe on the Yamaha. German-style rotary F tubas generally have leadpipes that are almost twice as long. I wonder if that could be the source of the dread?

Seems plausible.

Though I think my old F helicon's receiver was about 2 feet from the valves, without causing any Low C problem that I noticed. (I haven't played a German F, so don't have any basis for comparison.) I don't say "leadpipe", because that stretch of tubing has a tuning slide, so it doesn't have the slight taper I think I would expect in a real leadpipe? Same dimensions as current Cerveny model, it had a medium bore and fairly tight bell cone, the bell was not fat. My 1926 Eb Giant Bass, also with tuning before the valves, has a miserable low Bb, and of course it is on the fat side.

Like Rick said, it's all a trade off. I have owned 2 F tubas and played several others. I had a MW 45s for a few years and it was a very nimble light sounding horn. But the low C and Bb were particularly "stuffy". But I was also doing a lot of practicing at the time and by the time I got to my top playing ability (before I sold it) those notes were not such a big deal to me. Was i just used to it, or did I just learn to play it better. I don't know. Now I own the Miraphone 1281 (Petruschka). The low C and Bb are way more open - actually pretty close to how my C feels. But I am having more intonation issues with this horn and it is not quite as "nimble" of a sound. As for why all this happens - I guess you would have to ask the manufacturer how the various F tubas are designed. I think there might be something to the idea that as Americans, we just are not as used to playing F. But there has got to be something about the design of the horn that makes it so.

Stefan

Art Hovey wrote:Notice the short leadpipe on the Wiederman F tuba. Also notice the short leadpipe on the Yamaha. German-style rotary F tubas generally have leadpipes that are almost twice as long. I wonder if that could be the source of the dread?

There are exceptions. Most contrabass rotary tubas have a leadpipe that wraps around the bell and up along the upper bow before coming down into the valves. But the B&S F tubas have always had a leadpipe that crossed the branches and directly entered the fifth valve from the side. Their leadpipe is really not much longer than on the Yamaha.

That isn't to say that the length of the leadpipe isn't a factor, but it may be overwhelmed by other factors, or the factors that affect the situation might interact in ways we don't understand. For example, an overly large bore throughout the instrument might contribute to a hollow feeling. When I compared B&S F tubas with the old Symphonie bore plan (17mm through the first valve) with B&S F tubas of later design like the PT-10 (18mm through the first and second valves), the PT-10 also felt and sound more hollow, and that exacerbated the problem on the second partial. That is ironic, considering that the change was intended to help correct that problem, though I really think the main goal was make the B&S sound more like a contrabass to fit the American tone concept.

When I compare my contrabass tubas, I don't really see any correlation between leadpipe lengths. My Miraphone has a strong low F, as does the York Master. The Miraphone has a long leadpipe and the YM a short one. The Holton, with its short leadpipe, has a more challenging low F than either. But the Holton also has a larger bore on the fourth valve branch.

Then there is the Steve Hoog Effect. Steve has an older B&S that has a special dent, the presence of which he insists corrects the low C issue altogether. Assuming he's not insane (a grand assumption, I admit), his experience suggests that the taper design of many tubas have an issue with a node on the second partial when the fourth valve is used. Given the wavelength changes in a conical instrument, figuring where those nodes really should be by analysis probably isn't easy, and I don't recall where that dent resides on Steve's F. But most rotary F tubas have a similar plan: Following the valves, there is a down-facing tuning slide, an upper bow, a bottom bow, and the bell stack. Bigger F tubas have a lot of expansion relative to their length--probably more like a 6/4 contrabass in terms of taper in the outer branches. The relevant nodes for the bugle-plus-fourth-valve on the second partial might be in a similar spot. I would think that as likely a possibility as the leadpipe length.

Rick "wondering if solving the problem undermines other important F-tuba characteristics" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: Then there is the Steve Hoog Effect. Steve has an older B&S that has a special dent, the presence of which he insists corrects the low C issue altogether.

Rick Denny wrote: "wondering if solving the problem undermines other important F-tuba characteristics"

Get the dent, find out?

I don't suppose there would be any reasonably economical way to empirically map the nodes, for a particular note in a specific tuba. I'd be happy to take a dent for the cause, but would have to know where to put it, so at the minimum I'd want to know where his dent is in acoustical terms, and the corresponding acoustical location in mine. (I guess even location of nodes might not be enough information, but it would be a start.)

Donn wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:I don't suppose there would be any reasonably economical way to empirically map the nodes, for a particular note in a specific tuba. I'd be happy to take a dent for the cause, but would have to know where to put it, so at the minimum I'd want to know where his dent is in acoustical terms, and the corresponding acoustical location in mine. (I guess even location of nodes might not be enough information, but it would be a start.)

Here are a couple of links:

A picture plus some discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28732&p=249963

A corroborating opinion:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27190&p=316059 (Look down the page for Bloke's post.)

Rick "for your reading pleasure" Denney