TubeNet

Surely you can check if [c] by just pushing tuning slides in without tuning bit, not worry about tuning and just see the response?

Not from a top player’s perspective:

With stuff very likely already available in your workshop, you surely might get to know whether the elimination of the main tuning slide gap is the reason behind the positive effect. Simply measure your standard pull and put two such lengths of adequate tubing into the slide receivers as gap fillers. It may be a two-steps process, as the filled gaps may influence the overall pitch (likely sharpening it), so that you may have to add to the filler tubing or (against my expectations) may have to cut it shorter.

And yes, pitch cannot be ignored in any playing matter, and certainly not in response evaluation. Response by some players (if not by all) being perceived as the time until the full overtone spectrum is part of a stable system of standing waves.

Another possible reason for the improved response may be two matters concerning the bit itself.

The Conn bit is designed to not being conical. The receivers of the bits and of the necks are the same, so by principle the Conn bits are cylindrical albeit with some imperfections whether stacked or used alone. This ever so short portion of cylindrical tubing may be the reason for the standing waves becoming stable a bit sooner.

By adding tubing to the narrowest end of a mostly conical system the overall inner volume of the tuba is also diminished, which may be another factor contributing to a faster response.

Klaus

Although it's not a 6/4 I had the same experience with a 2155. Ed

I got the same effect on my 6/4 BBb's using one of your Imperial mpcs drilled out to an 11mm bore. I get the same effect as well with the Dr. Young-Reynolds mpc and the Lehmann custom mpc which both have about a 10mm backbore.

I don't have a 2165, but it's close.... I just got out one of my Conn sousa tuning bits and tried this out on my BBb Holton 345 6/4 tuba. Dan Oberloh installed a reciever that can accept either standard or Euro shanks equally well, at least I don't notice any problems switching mouthpieces with different shanks. With a standard shank mouthpiece plus the Conn tuning bit the Holton does respond a little nicer on notes below low Bb, but not as nice from F at the bottom of the staff and higher. With a Euro shank mouthpiece and the tuning bit I noticed no improvement in the low range. Probably due the the gap formed when the larger shank inserts less into the tuning bit. I hope this info helps....

Hey Bloke, long time no talk.

I read your request and although I am by no means a cutting edge tuba player with a MW 6/4 horn, I did try this on my work-owned Nirschl 6/4 today.

The results I got were not to my liking. I used the 1st bit (mouthpiece end) of a new style king sousaphone. The fit was very good and the angle made the horn almost feel like holding a regular tuba. That was the good.

The bit did not help the low end at all. In fact it made the slotting of anything below low G squirly as heck. The overall sound also tended to be a little more dark and diffuse.

HOWEVER, I just got home and put the bit in my RM50. Initial impression is WOW. I'm going to put some time in on this combo and report back later.

Thanks for the idea. I really wish it worked on the Nirschl. The angle is great.

First of all, I would like to voice my shock that this thread has seemed to have died. The results I got are very interesting. A big thank you to Bloke for starting this thread with (what seems to me) a very easy test that produces some very real results.

Second of all, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Cam and I think all "improvements", gadgets, doohickies, mouthpiece changes, trends in freezing/hyper-exact valve alignment, duct tape, leather belts, flush mounted water keys, beveling of inner slides, and so on is fun and all............but worthless. But that's just me. You milage may be different. My belief is that the bell rim, bell stack, and bottom bow diameter along with the thickness of the brass are the real reason tubas sound different and have different abilities. Am I a caveman? Maybe. I am often wrong but never in doubt.

The following results are from two solid weeks of daily experimentation on two different 6/4 BAT's.

Now, for this experiment.

I do not own a 2164, 2264, or 6450. I have a RM 50 (greatest sine wave producer on the planet IMO) and a 6/4 Nirschl. I have a King and (thanks to Bloke's suggestion) Conn sousaphone bit assembly. As I said above, I did not like the King bit in the Nirschl, however the King and Conn bit had a positive impact on the low range of the RM50. Also the Conn bit improved the attack and solidity of low Eb, D, and Db on the Nirschl.

Conn bit/Nirschl tuba - First of all, I should say that I like this tuba the way it is. If I could change anything I would make low Eb through low Db pop out like they would on an f tuba or a smaller 3-loop CC (Thor). The Conn bit goes a long way toward making this part of the horn perfect. The sound is as rich as normal on those notes, they just come out a heck of a lot better on the front end. The overall range of the instrument seems to suffer little because of the bit. In the staff playing as well as above and below seems normal. When the low range is approached from above there is less waiting for the attack. I have always had the problem of "wooooofy" attacks on low E on down to Db when approached from in the staff or higher playing. This bit is not a complete fix for my own physical limitations, but it does help.

Conn bit/RM50 sine wave producer - OK, let's get it out in the open........I love this horn. Some people hate them, I love them. With that said I would still like to solidify the attack on the same low Eb-Db cash range. The Conn bit had the same results on Rudy as it did on Nirschl. However, the 'in the staff' range had a funny, dull feeling to it.

End result: I am going to leave the Nirschl alone. After 13 years of playing on it I would have to say that any positive benefit I would get out of the Conn bit would not help very much playing in a concert band. The Rudy however will be getting this bit stuck in a lot in the coming months. I am very interested in spending more time with the setup.

Please keep in mind that these tests were done on two DIFFERENT instruments that Blokester did NOT ask about. I just thought that the idea he came up with was interesting and was very easily tested.

WHY DID THIS THREAD DIE? It is a very easy experiment. I would like to hear some other's thoughts on this. Heck, cram it into you Cerveny F or hacked-up King/York/Holton-phone and see what it does. Just post the results.

Thanks Joe for the idea.

I'd like to participate but I lack the bits to plug into my 164. I am very curious.

Bloke... Any theories as to why that "pre tuba-bore" shape would be (albeit) sometimes beneficial?

You are the one with the hell box, I only have the hell destiny of doubting you on this one. I have studied the pre-CAM-CAD way of making blueprints, including perspective drawing. So I know that visual evaluation of tapered tubing has every chance to act as a trompe-l’oeil trick.

I took a well used Conn bit sitting as one of two in the 40K. And I am fairly convinced the tapered end of the bit is only tapered on the outside. In other words: the inner bore is cylindrical, whereas the outside taper is a result of the wall thinning towards the tip.

For you to check by means of your caliper and possibly also by means of some cylindrical tubing fitting inside the tip of the bit.

I do not say the one or two bits sequence of tubing is perfectly cylindrical. Rather it is cylindrical with small inner bulbs and narrows, but it is not reversed conical. I tend to believe that the absence of a flaring in this early stage of the tubing creates a resistance over the more normal flaring. I also tend to believe this works positively on the fast establishing of the upper partials. Thereby contributing to a sense of fast response and of aliveness.

Klaus

Decent question- why does this seemingly almost inconsequential bit cause such a difference in such supposedly high end horns?
Better question- why does bloke ALWAYs seem to default to that Popeye image?

Perhaps an analogy is in order.

For your reading enjoyment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_chamber

This would also explain why the effects are only positive within a certain frequency range (depending on the horn, bit, etc).

Full Metal Ratchet wrote:Perhaps an analogy is in order.

For your reading enjoyment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_chamber

This would also explain why the effects are only positive within a certain frequency range (depending on the horn, bit, etc).

Very cool. I new to think about this in the above context. Thanks.