TubeNet

Much of instrument design is built upon tradition and happy accidental improvements. As a rule we prefer to overcome obstacles in ergonomics and design rather than learn a new system from the ground up. As examples, look to the instruments of the Vienna philharmonic or the history of Boehm and Albert system clarinets, or the persistence of the French tuba in C.

Obviously, as the examples above suggest, with dedication anyone can overcome 'issues' and make compelling music on any instrument.

Accepting that current tuba designs are perfectly sufficient for a talented dedicated musician to make compelling music at a standard beyond what our target audience expects from us, and knowing what we know now about human physiology, ergonomics, and acoustics, please take a moment to day dream a theoretically more perfect tuba.

Is the current tuning system and finger patterns the most conducive to clarity, fluidity, and intonation or does a better system exist? Was Dr. Frederick Young or someone of his ilk onto something? Would a 3+3 finger pattern with a previously unconsidered tuning system offer more optimized ergonomics and a better shot at consistent intonation and even response? Should we be building tubas in the key of D with a double valveset ala french horns?

Pontificate at will!

Things I've thought of:

• * Scale a Bb Flugelhorn to Tuba size (move the valves in so they can be reached, put it on a rolling stand for playability).
  * Left Hand Fingering Rotary (Not just a conversion on a std front action rotary, but actually use alternate tubing routes for right hand tube pulls and proper ergonimics).
  * Substitute one of the t-bone rotary valve ideas for shorter action, better airflow. May only work on a graduated 4th or 5th valve, not useful for the std 123 valves.
  * Double Valve (French Horn style) for perfect tuning in BBb/Eb or BBb/EEEb.
  * Cimbasso-like tubing profiles for a more 'bright' sound in an upright/recording bell design.
  **Working off of this: Travel tuba in BBb - small enough to fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata. Can this be built, and still sound right? Would it need a 'screw' bell or 2 to work?
  * Has anyone really explored alternate materials? Brass tubing is something that any plumber worth his tools can work with. How about other materials? I have seen Flutes made of 10K Gold or plated using other 'precious' metals for corrosion resistance vs standard silver plating. Is weight and self supporting an issue here?
  * Why not a tuba in EEEb or FFF? Opposite of the 'travel' tuba.
  * BBb Sousaphone design that spreads weight to both shoulders.

Can anyone explain why the rotary tuba design usually involves ~2' of leadpipe wrapping around the bell and front of the instrument before reaching the 1st (or 5th) valve? Why is it so much longer than the leadpipe on a piston valved instrument?

Jim Self has Peg the Fluba, an F tuba modified so that it is shaped like a flugelhorn and has a stand to relieve the player of its weight. It can be seen on Jim's web site and is featured on some of his albums and live performances.

Double tubas in F/C were made for Tommy Johnson, I think by Rob Stewart[sp?]. I believe Jim Self has one of Tommy's old horns, but I'm not certain. You can search TubeNet for threads and pictures.

A tuba out of a gold alloy would be heavy as lead, prone to damage, and worth a bloody fortune. We've seen alternate materials here ranging from plastic and fiberglass to bronze alloys. I'm currently playing an antique contrabass Saxhorn made of nickel-silver, and these show up in other brass instruments occasionally. I believe the Conn 8D French horn is made of nickel-silver.

EEEb and FFF tubas have been made as experiments, but I don't know if any survive. They would be enormous, impractically heavy, ludicrously expensive, and of limited use. Pictures of existing BBBb and CCC tubas have been posted here within the past few weeks; they're all museum pieces of novelties.

I believe someone is currently working on or marketing a strap system that distributes part of a sousaphone's weight to both shoulders. I wish I'd had one in high school.

I want to see what a modern American rotary CC tuba would be like. Doesn't have to be a 186 copy, why not start with something 4/4 York sized, use a smaller bell taper, and make a rotary valve set. If they can make rotary french horns, they can make tubas.

It's important to note "what tuba"... there is still no "standard tuba" and every make (mostly) comes up with their own solutions to the problems we have regarding ergonomics and playing characteristics.

NB: Double tubas in Eb/BBb are quite common, made my Besson, Miraphone, Willson, Yamaha...

Some love the ergonomics of the 3+1s, some hate 'em. Same with certain front action valve angles, etc. Due to the size of our instrument and the variety of people, it's little wonder we do not have - and maybe never will have - a standard instrument; thus makers are frequently re imagining these already.

I will note, however, the originality of the "Orenophone". A very cool, probably more flexible instrument ergonomically. It's the most innovative layout since the King Pit tubas.

@J.C.: I don't think a compensating 4-valve instrument counts as a "double tuba". I think it's instead referring to a horn with a shift valve and two sets of tubing for each valve, like a double French Horn. Here's a link to Jim Self's page on the topic and pictures of the Robb Stewart-modified Yamaha 822 that Tommy Johnson had made. (And in Jim's text, he states that a Besson-system compensator could be considered a double tuba.) Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.bassethoundmusic.com/doubleTuba.html

I've often wondered if we wouldn't be better off from a tuning standpoint if we took a three-valve compensating set up and added a non-compensating fourth (and maybe fifth) valve for the low register. In theory everything down to 123, should be pretty close and then you can find the best combinations down low using the additional valve(s). The additional valves might be good as rotors and could be placed later in the bugle, rather than immediately after 1-3, if the maker/player wanted a larger bore 4th valve without creating an odd jump in bore size, especially if we are considering these as low-range-only valves.

Alternatively, I think a BBb tuba with a long whole step "fifth" valve, but no "fourth" valve could be played very well in tune through a useful register, 235 being generally better than 2-4 and either 12-5 or 3-5 taking the place of the fourth valve alone. This should, in theory get you a pretty decent low Eb and a possible low D with some pulls. You'd lose low Db, C, and, B, but many people/situations have no need for those notes. The trade off would give a horn that is lighter and, possibly, more ergonomic (no pinkie valve to creat a hand stretch) also possibly cheaper to build with no long 4th valve tubing to try and wrap into the body of the instrument.

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts that I'd love to try someday...

T. J.

Alter the third valve to play flat another half step. On certain tubas with very long third valve slides this can be done. Basically it tunes the third valve to equal the 23 combination, which is handy in certain fast passages. And in the normal cash register of the instrument who uses the third valve for anything other than the 23 fingering....

Schilke and some who followed him plotted out all the nodes in the trumpet. I believe this led to more in tune instruments, as moving the nodes, placing braces, etc., can put certain notes more in tune. I don't know that this has been done for the tuba. That it could help is substantiated by stories such as the one about the little dent put in one of the valve slides of a [Besson] euph to get a certain note in tune.

In addition to this, Pilczuk had great results with leadpipes for trumpets, cornets and flugels which had thirteen chambers in them, one for each chromatic note [yes, plus one]. I don't think anything like this has been tried on a tuba leadpipe, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. IDK whether Pilczuk had/has a patent on this idea. The rights are now held by repair guru Rich Ita and he could doubtless help with this issue. Rich would probably need some interested parties to gear up to make such pipes for tuba. . .

royjohn wrote:That it could help is substantiated by stories such as the one about the little dent put in one of the valve slides of a [Besson] euph to get a certain note in tune. .

dunno about pitch on the Besson euph in the slide, but my B&S F dented on the outer bow had a huge improvement in the trouble range.

As in engineering, there doesn't seem to be an original idea in my head...

Fluba looks interesting - about what I expected. Also saw a reference to a Contrabass Trumpet on that article (after googling Fluba). Guess that's been tried too.

About the sousaphone 2 shoulder idea - I like the overall playability of the Sousa (hence my name here - NCSUsousa). I'd be interested to see if anyone can create some kind of carrier system that helps spread the weight to 2 shoulders and improve the general posture for smaller kids. I'm not familiar with a 'toilet seat' design, but I'd rather not put that much weight above the shoulders anyway. The basic design of the Helicon is a very good starting point, so let's not re-invent that wheel more than necessary.

As to alternate materials - Brass is great, but it is weak for the outer section. I've heard about Carbon Fiber. Too expensive. I brought up the gold flute as an easy example. Also seen the clear plastic horn and the wooden horn. Any other materials? I almost double majored in Material Science (as a EE focus on semiconductors, not for ME reasons that would help with a Tuba) so I'm just wondering if there are any other ideas out there.

GC wrote:@J.C.: I don't think a compensating 4-valve instrument counts as a "double tuba". I think it's instead referring to a horn with a shift valve and two sets of tubing for each valve, like a double French Horn. Here's a link to Jim Self's page on the topic and pictures of the Robb Stewart-modified Yamaha 822 that Tommy Johnson had made. (And in Jim's text, he states that a Besson-system compensator could be considered a double tuba.) Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.bassethoundmusic.com/doubleTuba.html

The Stewart 822s are also compensating double tubas. There are compensating double horns as well

One additional idea - Electric Tuba.

Starting point for this idea: The electric string bass (not the rock-and-roll electric bass) is tall for ergonomic reasons, but is much thinner than the acoustic string bass. It also sounds reasonably close to an acoustic bass because it's simply picking up and amplifying the sound coming from a correct string. Not all that different from what the sound box does on an acoustic bass. They also store easier because they don't require a case that's 18-24" thick.

Could it be built with no moving parts (digital keys instead of real valves) on a much smaller scale, just providing an appropriate mouthpiece receiver?

Give an Electrical Engineer (who has studied electronics design, not just any EE) the frequency map of the open bugle, and they can create an equivalent electrical amplification circuit, or a digital version. All that would be left is to build accurate maps for each combination of valves so that each set of buttons tells the amplifier which amplification circuit to use based on which buttons are being pressed. Of course, digital systems would be able to compensate for the tuning problems inherent in using the same length of tubing for each valve in each register so that's probably the best way to go. With more research, the digital frequency maps for different instrument designs could be used in the same electric tuba.
The hard part is making sure that the input is correct from the mouthpiece to the electronics so it doesn't end up sounding like a bad synthesizer. The input would still need to be analog, using a mouthpiece, so that the technical aspects of playing a brass instruments come through.
The output also presents a problem - There would need to be a way to compensate for PA systems that don't have good bass response down into pedal range, otherwise those notes get lost in the amps and speakers.

I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

KiltieTuba wrote:I'm pretty sure Yamaha already made the electronic trumpet.

Unfortunately, the Yamaha EZ-TP just a trumpet-like synthesizer that uses a hummed pitch, recognized by a digital system as a particular note, then fed into a digital synthesizer to produce the corresponding trumpet note... Not what I'm going for in my post.
Also found the Morrison digital trumpet on a google search... That's quite nearly the opposite of what I'm suggesting. To use a breath controller to adjust output volume, but rely on left hand fingerings on a keyboard to determine the overtone series and selects the pitch from a digital library...
There are other 'wind' controllers that are similar to the Morrison.

These all suffer the same 2 flaws:
1 - REAL trumpets costs less. Why pick Trumpet?
2 - The output voice is digitally generated from a library of sounds based on a sensed or keyed pitch, but is based on a synthesized trumpet and not the tone being produced by the user's embouchure. This makes them novelty items that are useless as a practice tool for people who play a real trumpet and marginal at best for teaching elementary kids how to play.

At its core, a Tuba is just a mechanical band-pass amplifier. It takes an analog input (similar to a square wave with overtones) and produces an analog output (less square wave with limited overtones).
What I'm trying to describe is an electronic device that can accept that right input (vibrating air, square wave) and feeds the correct electronic output signal based on that input into an amplifier and speaker (or maybe just headphones for practice at home) system.

The reasons I think this might work for Tubas: Cost and Size (Yes, it really is all about the $$$)
Tubas are large and much more expensive than trumpets, but a digital (or even analog electronic) receiver/amplifier doesn't need to be so big. The cost wouldn't need to be too far different from the cost of the Morrison Digital Trumpet to be profitable.

The 'if someone can get this right' reason it could be a big hit: Flexibility.
Right now, you put your mouthpiece into a horn and only have the available amplification circuits presented by that horn. If you want to sound different, put your mouthpiece into a different horn.
With a digital tuba, the variety of amplification circuits is nearly infinite. Need a tuba that suits quintet? Select the circuit that matches your ____ (insert desired horn here). Want to imagine you're playing the CSO York? As long as someone the frequency map from that horn, then it's possible to make the digital amplification circuit match.

This is all just theory right now, but I think I could build it given enough $$ and time.... Neither of which I have....

Bob Kolada wrote:I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

As do I!

J.c. Sherman wrote:

Bob Kolada wrote:I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

As do I!

I'll second the motion. Can we put it to vote now?

Odins dog wrote:Alter the third valve to play flat another half step. On certain tubas with very long third valve slides this can be done. Basically it tunes the third valve to equal the 23 combination, which is handy in certain fast passages. And in the normal cash register of the instrument who uses the third valve for anything other than the 23 fingering....

This strikes me as an excellent idea. I also think I may remember reading about one or two pros who used 4-valve tubas and who made this modification themselves. Anybody know if I'm remembering correctly?

The Stewart 822s are also compensating double tubas. There are compensating double horns as well

Yeah, you're right. I still disagree about an ordinary compensator being a double tuba, but the Stewart 822s definitely count as both.

NCSUSousa wrote:

J.c. Sherman wrote:

Bob Kolada wrote:I like the idea of a 4 front valve tuba having the fourth valve on the thumb.

As do I!

I'll second the motion. Can we put it to vote now?

If you don't have arthritic thumbs, a thumb valve is a good thing ... if you *do* have arthritic thumbs (as I do), a thumb valve is worse than useless -- just extra weight and expense that doesn't do a damn thing for you.