TubeNet

Beware of generalizations - my .562/.578 bass trombone (largely cylindrical) takes significantly more air than my .709 F tuba (almost completely conical). In the same range, I can hold a phrase twice as long on the tuba than on the trombone. BTW, my current mouthpieces on both horns have identical backbore - 8.0 mm.
Also, I seem to be able to articulate faster on my 6/4 Martin than on my 4/4 Meinl Weston.
Go figure!

TubaGrandad wrote:So the question is for those who have experience with narrow-tapered tubas; are they "easier" to play?? An easy example would be in the Miraphone or Rudy lines where there are a few models of increasing size.
Is a Cimbasso easy to play compared to ......?
BATs are known to be tricky to handle right? Folks usually play them for 'the sound', not for their ease of playing?
Is a Sousa easy to play etc.?

The narrowness of the taper is just one of many parameters that affect ease of play, and in my view not the most important one.

But let's posit the hypothesis: Narrow tubas are easier to play.

We will define "easier" in the simplest way, as being easier for me to hit the notes I want to hit, and the dynamic and with the articulation I desire. You excluded sound from your criteria, so I will, too.

Now, we can proceed analytically or empirically. Analysis would require good models of what is easy to play, and since my simple definition 1.) isn't actually simple at all, and 2.) not likely to be the same definition anyone else would use, we'll have to set aside the ability model it. That leaves us with the empirical approach.

For the hypothesis to be proved true, we have to test the population of tubas to see if it can be demonstrated not to be false. Thus, a statistically significant sample of contrary examples would disprove the hypothesis. From the scientific method, this is our "experiment".

From my own sample: In BBb, I own a Miraphone 186, a York Master, and a Holton BB-345. The Miraphone is the narrowest of the three, until you get to the bell throat, where the York Master is a bit narrower to accommodate a bell attachment ring. See here.

At all dimensions except (fractionally) the valve bore, the Holton is by far the fattest of the lot.

Which instrument is easier to play?

For notes from F on the staff and up, except for G and Gb on the staff, the Miraphone is the easiest to hit notes. For the low F, E and other low notes that use the fourth valve, the York Master is the easiest to hit those notes. For all other notes, the Holton is easiest to hit notes.

For dynamic range, the Holton, far and away, is the easiest instrument to play both softly and loudly. Everyone predicts the loud part, but I can make that instrument speak at a ppp much more easily than the other two.

For articulation, it depends on the articulation desired. For clean attacks, the Holton is easier, followed closely by the York Master, though the YM always seems to attract complaints from the conductor that I'm behind, while the Holton does not. The Miraphone makes clean attacks, but with a bit of piercing quality that is sometimes desirable and other times not.

Then there are the other criteria that interest players that are better than I am to a greater extent. How easy is it to bend notes? The Holton is easiest, and the Miraphone the most difficult. How easy is it to play in tune without adjustments? The Miraphone is easiest, and the York Master the most difficult. How easy is it to play fast, technical passages? The Holton is easiest, surprisingly perhaps, but all the instruments do pretty well there (considering the low standard set by the player).

For another example, I submit an old (mid-1920's) Besson three-valve compensating tuba with which I have enough experience to form an opinion. It was more difficult to hit the desired notes than any of the above, more difficult to play softly, and far more difficult to play in tune without adjustment, especially those 2-3 combinations that were terribly flat. That Besson was by far the narrowest of the bunch.

Now, are my tubas representative enough to be significant? That's a good question, but for that I draw on my experience playing tubas at conferences and in stores.

Among big tubas like my Holton, I've played many that were like driving an overloaded concrete truck. I've played some that seemed to play themselves. There was an early Yorkbrunner that I played at the 1986 ITEC that left a permanent impression (positive)--it was remarkably easy to play--much easier than the narrower Cerveny rotary tuba I owned at the time. There was the Rusk-converted York that Dave Fedderly brought to the Army tuba conference three years ago that was the reason I was ready with checkbook in hand when the Holton became available. So, while more of the big tubas seem hard for me to play than not, the set of those that are easy to play is definitely not null.

Among largish full-size tubas like my York Master, I've played a number that were exquisitely easy to play. One was a frankentuba assembled by Larry Minnick and now owned by Chuck G. Another is every example of the Meinl-Weston 2000 that I've been priveleged to try out.

Among small tubas, I find the King 2341 to be easier than my Holton in the high register, but more difficult in the low register. It's a great tuba. I've also played tubas of similar taper and size (including some poor examples of older 2341's) that were completely dead.

Thus, I find no correlation between "narrowness" and "ease of play". Bore would yield the same result, as would bell diameter, valve type, or finish.

But take the combination of taper design, bore, bell shape and size, and possibly valve type (or the anciliary effects of using certain valves), and you have something. Figuring out how that combination works, though, is not trivial. Defining the desired objective is even harder.

In the end, some tubas are easy to play, and some require more effort. Of the former, in some cases the ease of play does not overcome other limitations (i.e., sound), and of the latter, some reward the extra effort.

Rick "apologizing for letting the research report he is finalizing leak into Tubenet" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ...
For the hypothesis to be proved true, we have to test the population of tubas to see if it can be demonstrated not to be false. Thus, a statistically significant sample of contrary examples would disprove the hypothesis. From the scientific method, this is our "experiment".
...

A very good and well thought out response as usual, but this is a very positivist research perspective. According to many theorists (Karl Popper most notable among them) you don't need a statistically significant sample of contrary examples to disprove a hypothesis, all it takes is one. Of course for that one to really disprove the theory there can't be other, unmeasured/accounted for factors affecting the result.

Also according to Popper, you can never really prove a theory to be true, you can only have not yet shown it to be false. I still agree with your conclusions regarding the initial question.

Just some personal observations from having owned and built a bunch of instruments.

It seems that the intonation of an instrument is largely determined by the taper of the first 10 or so feet of tubing after the valves. In particular, this is where most errors are made when cutting an instrument to a higher pitch. This particularly shows up when one looks at BBb and CC instruments that are built using pretty much the same large branches, but differ primarily in the tubing around the main tuning slide. In my experience, old BBb Alexanders play more in tune than CC Alexes. Same for B&M Marzans, where the CC version has almost all of the difference in tubing squashed into the first branch after the tuning slide with really lamentable results. The BBb versions play very well, but the CC versions are an intonation nightmare.

A larger bottom bow accentuates the bottom end, but taken to excess, makes the instrument sound "woofy". The bell shape appears not to have too much to do with intonation--I've replaced the bell on a detachable-bell BBb model with a straight cylinder of brass and the intonation didn't shift noticeably. The tone quality, however, was a different matter.

At one time, I owned a beast of a rotary BBb with a bore of 0.900" and a 22.5" bell. You'd think that the low register would be awesome--and you'd be wrong. The bottom bow was as small as that on a Besson 983 Eb tuba with the result that the middle and upper register screamed, but the low register was somewhat indistinct.

But when taken to excess, a final taper seems to destroy resonance. A friend has a monster Belgian 19th-century piston BBb (0.810" bore) that ends in a bottom bow the size of a stovepipe. The sound is really terrible--sort of reedy and wheezy. I've not fooled with the horn too much to see if there might be other problems, but I do remember that I was unpleasantly surprised when I played it.

I've replaced large bottom bows with smaller ones and found that this can be quite beneficial for some instruments. The tone evens out and warms up quite a bit. But you lose the "knock the walls down" low register boominess that some find so endearing in horns like the Conn 25J.

So, if I were to generalize--taper close to the valves affects intonation, taper close to the bell affects low-frequency resonance.

My empirical observations and nothing scientific or philosophical about it.

Lew wrote:A very good and well thought out response as usual, but this is a very positivist research perspective. According to many theorists (Karl Popper most notable among them) you don't need a statistically significant sample of contrary examples to disprove a hypothesis, all it takes is one. Of course for that one to really disprove the theory there can't be other, unmeasured/accounted for factors affecting the result.

It's those unaccounted other factors that lead me to suggest that the contrary examples be representative. The hypothesis was that narrower tubas were easier to play. An easy-to-play fat tuba doesn't disprove that, unless there is a more-difficult-to-play narrow tuba. And then, is it the narrowness that makes it so, or the wadded-up candy wrapper that was thrown down the bell, or the poorly designed bottom bow?

But if the prejudgment is that the hypothesis is true, a single contrary example is not as convincing as a range of contrary examples. Even as a researcher I'm generally less interested in theory than persuasion. I want to present the null hypothesis (that narrowness is not related to ease of play) as convinvingly as possible. (It should be noted that while I review papers for journals all the time, I don't write them that often, heh, heh.)

Chuck wrote:A larger bottom bow accentuates the bottom end, but taken to excess, makes the instrument sound "woofy". The bell shape appears not to have too much to do with intonation... But when taken to excess, a final taper seems to destroy resonance.

I think Chuck has really described trends well, but even then these are tendences that cannot be depeneded on in every case. I've played tubas with enormous bottom bows that are woofy, and those that are just as big that are not. And I've also found that mouthpiece choice has a big effect on woofiness. Coupled to the enormous bottom bow on my Holton, however, is an even more enormous bell throat, which necessitates a substantial taper in the bell stack. The instruments I've played that have really resonant low registers have substantial tapers in the bell stack, and I wonder if that's a more important characteristic than the size of the bottom bow.

For example, the York Master has a fairly straight bell taper. The low register is strong and speaks easily, but not particularly resonant. In contrast, the two tubas I own with the most low-register resonance are the Holton and the Yamaha 621 F tuba. Both have bell throats much larger than the diameter at the bottom bow, even though they are at opposite poles in overall size.

But I like the notion that taper close to the valves affects intonation to greater extent, while taper in the outer branches affects tone and resonance.

Chuck and I have discussed the possibility of putting a Miraphone 186 bell on the York Master to see if its faster bell-stack taper would warm it up and add resonance. The throat on the Miraphone bell is quite a bit larger than on the YM, though I think it will fit in the bell-stack ferrule at just about the right place. Chuck's Keefer/Minnick, which has, as I recall, quite a bit of taper in the bell stack but a normal-sized bottom bow (for a 4/4 tuba), is quite warm sounding and it speaks easily in all register.

Rick "unwilling, though, to experiment with his good tubas" Denney