TubeNet

Last week I had the opportunity to compare the JinBao 700 EEb to a classic Fletcher style Besson 981 from the 1980's owned by the bass trombone player in the orchestra.

I played short study on each and wonder if you can tell the difference in sound? Which do you think is the Besson 981 - the first, or second played?

Sorry for the vehicle noise outside during part of second - I did not have time to re-record

Listen here - https://www.humyo.com/DzgkRRP/Music/H2% ... c_nZN4liBQ

Both the owner of the 981 and myself were surprised how similar they played.

PS Apologies in advance to those that think this should have been posted in 'Sponsors' section, but that would not allow for responses - in fact there is no poll facility!

Hi-
I vote #2 as the Besson.
mark

Very interesting, and I will await disclosure with even more interest. I wouldn't know what a Besson sounds like, and so I'm not voting. However, I can say that I thought the second one was MUCH nicer. To my ears, the first sounded a bit stuffier and the second seemed to "sing" more with a "fuller" sound across the range. Just my naive impression (listening through quite decent digital headphones).

Hello Jonathan I think that the Besson was the first tuba played and the JB was tuba number 2 do I win a prize.
I preferred the sound and tone from the second one more it was more pleasing to my ear.

I will wait a week before disclosing which is the Besson, but very interesting the responses so far

981 first. Although would love to hear a pro/top band player do the same test (no offence).

With internet audio? Not a good test IMO.

AndyCat wrote:981 first. Although would love to hear a pro/top band player do the same test (no offence).

I would also love to hear with top pro playing and also using the most suitable mouthpiece. I only had my F tuba mouthpiece to hand which may not be ideal for a compensated EEb - but the rare chance to try JinBao against one of the best 1980's 981 (as we know the later ones are no where near as good) was too opportune to pass up.

bump for this post, this has been interesting to follow (and I am awaiting the eventual answer)

Alex C wrote:With internet audio? Not a good test IMO.

Not fully objective, uncontrolled, not remotely scientific, and not something to solely base a purchase decision on. But internet audio is not all that bad (if you don't use the little pseudo-speakers in your laptop). People are otherwise quite willing to comment on the tonal quality and expression of various pieces posted on the internet, and even to offer suggestions for improvement on that basis. And so I don't think such a comparison is completely without merit. (Actually, if I were to do something like this I would be sorely tempted to do it in several selections -- in one of which I would use the same recording of the same instrument as both parts of the comparison . But this isn't all that serious, and I presume won't be taken too seriously except perhaps by those with an overwhelming fear of the Asian Instrument Invasion.)

I don't have the remotest idea which is which. I could flip a coin, and that is all.

It does seem to me you may have found the second one to have more readily manageable intonation.

Whether this speaks in favor of that one being the Besson, as some would expect, or of it being the Jinbao, because that might be more interesting, or of the first one being cold, or of the second one liking you more, I just have no idea.

Looking forward to the revelation of the truth, though, for curiosity's sake.

I listened to this again last night, this time with headphones. I believe the biggest difference between the two recordings is not the tubas, but the microphone placement.

I have to agree with Mark & Marty. Microphone placement plays a BIG part in how a tuba sounds in a recording. The slightest movement can really change the sound. That given, I think Jonathan tried to keep the mic and tubas in the same spot for the recording. I think the JinBao is the first one played with the Besson being the second example.
I say this because the first one had a slightly smoother, more 'vanilla' sound with the second one having a little more liveliness & brightness in the sound. I actually prefer the first 'vanilla' one more - the second one was a little too treble-y for my tastes. But again - mic placement could have that type of sound difference impact. I could be wrong...

This is exciting now when it seems that about half of the votes goes to each instrument...
However,

talleyrand wrote:...It does seem to me you may have found the second one to have more readily manageable intonation...

and

MartyNeilan wrote:...I believe the biggest difference between the two recordings is not the tubas, but the microphone placement...

The microphone placement is something that can make huge differences in the recorded sound but I wonder if it is really possible that it could have some impact on the intonation? The Doppler effect is a factor but I doubt that the distances to the microphone differs so much that it will affect anything in this case?!

It will be very interesting when Jonathan reveals which one is what. I am not at all sure of anything but I really guess the 1st one is the Besson...

Both recordings were done with the Zoom H2 in the same position and me sitting in the same chair. I cannot swear bell angle was identical for both, but I would not have thought enough different to affect the sound much.

Below is screen shot of the two recordings (in Audacity) to compare visually which I always find interesting when comparing sound from tubas.

I will reveal all after the poll closes on 29th August

I'm not going to offer an opinion on the horns, but these tests are fun in general.

However, I will offer a caution about what to make of the results. There are several factors that could create a false impression.

The Zoom is a decent recorder, but even a full-blown studio setup with pro mics can have a "preference" for one sound over another because of the mic's response characteristics and dynamic range. I doubt this is a big factor here, but it is possible.

Somewhat more important can be the player's comfort level with each of the instruments. It takes me a long time to get "into" a new horn, and I'm not sure I could play two horns alternately, even for an extended time, and feel confident I was getting the best out of each of them. One may just be more comfortable for me, which is not a bad way to decide between them. But if one is a horn I have used for years and the other is newer, the newer one will be at a disadvantage, possibly. I might need to leave the older one alone to really get used to the new one.

An audible factor in a comparison exists if the player has limited air capacity. Whichever horn requires the least air will sound the best. But if you are deciding which horn to buy, then it's a valid part of your comparison. I generally like to use a lot of air, so I might not mind the extra effort, and I might even find a benefit in the extra "handling capacity" of the horn that requires more air.

And perhaps the most important factor is the acoustic quality of room. Even when using my very own ears instead of a microphone, if I am in a small room (or a medium-size room that is really reflective) I will almost always prefer the sound of the horn with the smaller sound. If I am in a large hall, my impression would usually reverse. I played a Besson 967 for a lot of years because I liked the sound in a concert hall. But a Yamaha 301 the Band had for a while sounded better to me when I was comparing them in a practice room! So it is possible, or even likely, that a recording in a small room would favor the sound of the smaller-sounding instrument. That's because the smaller sound is generally "cleaner," and the horn with a larger sound might have more air mixed in the tone. That extra air can be fine in a large hall because the air doesn't get out to the audience nearly as well as it will find its way to the microphones of your recorder.

But there are some things you can hear in a recording environment like yours. Certainly the horns sound different, although I agree with a previous poster that thought the mic placement sounded different. I'd be curious what your own conclusions are.

The Audacity screen shots tell us nothing about intonation or tone quality, but they do show a significant difference in dynamics. I think a lot more samples would be needed to decide whether that difference is due to the instrument or the player.

If it really is due to the instruments, the next question is whether one prefers a horn that exaggerates dynamic contrasts, or one that suppresses them?

Art Hovey wrote:If it really is due to the instruments, the next question is whether one prefers a horn that exaggerates dynamic contrasts, or one that suppresses them?

The biggest difference I have ever found is comparing PT-15 F when I first got to my then MW 2040/5 Eb. The PT-15 could shoot the latter out the water in dynamic contrast. How that be, I cannot say?

By contrast the difference between these two compensated Eb's is not so great.

Bump; to keep it near the top

Bump to give you last chance to vote