TubeNet

Throughout this net there are several references to a 3/4, a 4/4, and a 5/4 tuba. I understand this is a size designation with 5/4 being oversized and 3/4 being smaller. Does someone have a standard dimensions ( bell diameter, bore, height, etc.) for the different sizes. I suspect it varies by tuba type such as an Eb will be different than a BBb for example. Also, what specifically are the characteristic and use differences. Bigger sound would be an example. Any opinions???

Unfortunately there is really no way to definitively answer your question. These designations are not actually used by most manufacturers and there is no standard meaning for any of them. Rudolph Meinl is one of very few companies of which I am aware that actually designates their tubas using these sizes, and their sizes are larger than most. For example, what they call a 5/4 would be considered a 6/4 by most people based on the bell and body size. Their 6/4 is huge, larger than most other currently made large tubas. Meinl-Weston has tubas that they refer to as 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 4/4, and 5/4 sized, but their 5/4s are smaller than the Rudolph Mienl 5/4.

These designations are also used differently for tubas in different keys. A Besson 983 is considered a 5/4 sized EEb, although it would probably be considered a 3/4 size if it were in BBb and were the same size. When people here refer to a 6/4 (also commonly called a BAT) they are generally referring to any tuba that has a large bore, large bell (at least 20") and very large body tubing. The quintessential 6/4 tuba in my mind would be the Conn 20J and the others in that series. The King 2341 to me represents the typical 4/4 tuba, but it does have a 20" bell.

How's that? Clear as mud.

http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm

Summary: There is no standard and no consistency. For manufacturers like Rudolf Meinl who makes instruments in a series of sizes but all of the same basic shape and proportion, it's a way to keep them sorted out. For those manufacturers whose line includes tubas of different shapes as well as sizes, it gets confusing in a hurry.

And the inconsistencies can be laughable. I've seen C tubas describe as 5/4 that were smaller than typical 4/4 Bb (and C) tubas. I've seen instruments called "compact 5/4". What the heck is that? And people will argue based on throat size, bell diameter, bottom bow size, height, bore, general fatness, or even, Lord help us, sound.

The bottom line is that tuba sizes and shapes vary in too many dimensions to characterize their size using a single description. There is no standard, and manufacturers make it up as they go, often for marketing reasons more than anything else. When we use the term, it is nothing more than a vague indicator.

I prefer more traditional descriptions when possible, including "grand orchestral tuba" rather than "6/4" to describe the typical American BAT with front pistons; "kaiser" rather than "5/4" to describe large rotary tubas (some of which are as big as those 6/4 instruments); or "orchestral" F to describe the typical large F tuba for orchestra use. In the latter category, the old B&S Symphonie is now considered "small", when it actually defined the "orchestral F" category. It's small because the bore through the first valve is 17mm instead of 18mm, like the "big" PT-10. Uh, what? I would be happy with "small," "medium," and "large", which might be needed only to know which gig bag to buy.

Rick "thinking the quarter system's precision implies accuracy" Denney

I'd like to echo Rick's statements above. The manufacturers are, in my mind, overselling the sizes of the tubas they make. Most of the "5/4" tubas are in fact 4/4 tubas, and so on.

So the designation is a marketing thing. You may get an idea about the size of a horn within a companies offerings, but that would likely have little relationship with instruments from another company. The general feeling is that there are some models of horns, such as the Conn 20J, are 6/4 or BAT instruments. To put it in numbers, if I had an Eb with a 20 inch bell, was 34 inches tall and had a 17.5 mm bore into the first valve, I likely would have a BAT. (I can guess what BAT stands for.) Have I got this right???

Interestingly, when people talk about large Eb tubas, such as the one you describe, they don't typically refer to them as BATs. That designation is usually reserved for something that is big in an absolute sense rather than relative to other instruments of the same key. Something is a BAT when a flute player walks by and says, "wow, that's one big a** tuba." At which point the smart tuba player asks her out.

Lew wrote:Interestingly, when people talk about large Eb tubas, such as the one you describe, they don't typically refer to them as BATs.

Nor do the x/4 sizes work very well with bass tubas, in my opinion. I mean, from a broader historical perspective, aren't most modern bass tubas at least 5/4? which makes things confusing.

opus37 wrote:To put it in numbers, if I had an Eb with a 20 inch bell, was 34 inches tall and had a 17.5 mm bore into the first valve, I likely would have a BAT. (I can guess what BAT stands for.) Have I got this right???

No Eb tuba can be a BAT. But it can be a "Monster", which is what Conn called instruments of the dimensions you described.

When someone says "Monster Eb Bass", a picture of the that instrument just floats in my brain. But if that tuba had another loop of tubing and was pitched in Bb, it would not be a BAT. It would be a 4/4, or a "compact 5/4", or some such BS. When I want to speak English, such as to real people who do not play the tuba, I call 4/4 instruments "full-sized tubas". If it's bigger enough to warrant a different description, it is a "large" tuba. A BAT has to draw attention to itself.

A BAT is measured in absolute terms. It can't be "big for an Eb tuba", it just has to be big.

Rick "thinking the natural response of most tuba players to flute player praise is, 'Will you marry me?'" Denney

I love the sense of humor that some of you guys have here. But Rick's last line makes me wonder if there is a perceived (by flute players, anyway) relationship between the size of the tuba and the size of any particular part of the tuba player's anatomy?

alfredr (wondering if my tuba's not big enough)

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "thinking the natural response of most tuba players to flute player praise is, 'Will you marry me?'" Denney

So it seems -- I know a number of tuba (and euph) players who are happily married to flute (and other high woodwind) players.

alfredr wrote:I love the sense of humor that some of you guys have here. But Rick's last line makes me wonder if there is a perceived (by flute players, anyway) relationship between the size of the tuba and the size of any particular part of the tuba player's anatomy?

alfredr (wondering if my tuba's not big enough)

It's not the size of your bugle -- it's how you play it! They're more likely looking at your hands, anyway ...

alfredr wrote:I love the sense of humor that some of you guys have here. But Rick's last line makes me wonder if there is a perceived (by flute players, anyway) relationship between the size of the tuba and the size of any particular part of the tuba player's anatomy?

No, flute players do not perceive such. But we believe they do. Perception is truth. Without this fundamental male delusion, Corvettes would not exist.

Rick "who has big hands--another theory dashed" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "who has big hands--another theory dashed" Denney

This is really more (less?) information than I want to know.

Mark wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "who has big hands--another theory dashed" Denney

This is really more (less?) information than I want to know.

What? Someone postulated that flute players might be impressed by big hands. I have big hands, and it never impressed a flute player of which I'm aware. QED.

I have no idea why flute players would care, but there you go.

Rick "" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:No, flute players do not perceive such. But we believe they do. Perception is truth. Without this fundamental male delusion, Corvettes would not exist.

Indeed, "compensation" at the social level means something entirely different than for the valve combination length...

Rick Denney wrote:

Rick "thinking the natural response of most tuba players to flute player praise is, 'Will you marry me?'" Denney

Been there, done that.

Side benefit - it's always easy to find the picc part to S&SF.

Speaking of which - the Marine Band played in Birmingham last night. 4 piccolos, front and center, and IN TUNE!
Will wonders never cease?

Somtime back someone suggested a better way to measure tubas would be by volume of the open bugle. Such as I have a 15 quart tuba or a 17 quart tuba. Of course for the rest of the world I guess we would have to use liters. This is also helpful in knowing ahead of time how much beer you can transport in said tuba.

sinfonian wrote:...how much bear you can transport in said tuba.

Bear? Beer? Both?

You know, I've always wanted to try something.

Get a 17" viola and string it and tune it like a violin and you would have a 6/4 violin.
Take a 1/8 cello and string it like a viola and you would have a 6/4 viola.
Take a 1/8 bass and string it like a cello and you would have a 6/4 cello.
Since most bass players play a 3/4 as a "full sized" bass, have them bring out the true 4/4 double bass and let's see what happens.

Woodwinds, you're on your own.

Just having a weird moment.

Roger

I've played a couple of those instruments, at a very casual, poking around at the shop level. Terrible. But it's super easy to build a viola or string bass that doesn't play well, whatever size, so it doesn't prove much.

edit:

Chemung Music wrote: The Instrument in my picture is an Alto Violin or more commonly called a Vertical Viola. I made this instrument by using a very small one 10th cello and converting it to a vertical viola with the appropriate strings. The vertical Viola is a member of the violin octet.

5/4 > 4/4 > 3/4