Re: Instrument Design / Construction question
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:45 am
You actually have the answer to your question as your "location": one never knows!
As I believe you would find with an organ pipe - a larger bore takes a bit shorter length than a small bore to produce the same pitch.
The basic variations in design, including bore, taper, number of branches etc. seem to be largely determined, at the early stages at least, by a familiarity with a previous design which produces a result approximating what the designer is striving for.
Just as a personal example, when I first saw pictures of the current King 2341 I thought that should be a good tuba as the tapers seemed to mimic those of the old King .750in bore rotary monsters. I have never played one of the new ones and it would be different but, it seems, from what I have read that it is true.
When Ren Schilke was designing for Yamaha in late 60's early 70's he used the Besson as a template as many at that time considered them to be among "the best". I would have chosen others.
I spent a fair amount of time in Carl Geyer's shop in the second half of the 60's and up to 71. In a way, designing a brass instrument, as I picked up from that experience, is like designing an airplane. A plane that flies well "looks" like it will fly well.
It seems that the "perfectly designed" by computer Holton Phillips model tubas were not so perfect after all. Conn, many years ago, did a lot of research on the effects of placement of braces in search of the perfect tuba. Did they achieve that goal?????
Fred Marzan did a lot of experimenting with tubas built with few or no bows - LONG pipes - in search of the "perfect" bore and taper etc. funny things happened when bends had to be included to make them manageable to handle. Then there is Dr Fred Young and his experimenting. I think it was good he did it, even if some others disagree.
We now have the likes of Sam Gnagey, blending parts of different instruments to make nice ones. Lee Stofer and Matt at Dillons make some very nice instruments as do some others.
Back we go to the opening part of this. It depends what you seek and unless you have a lot of money to experiment and keep making new tooling, it is most likely that your design will be very similar to something which you feel produces results approximating what you want and make small adjustments.
What will make YOUR idea of perfection, which won't be everybody's idea of perfection?
Well, one never knows - at least not until you try and possibly find out.
As I believe you would find with an organ pipe - a larger bore takes a bit shorter length than a small bore to produce the same pitch.
The basic variations in design, including bore, taper, number of branches etc. seem to be largely determined, at the early stages at least, by a familiarity with a previous design which produces a result approximating what the designer is striving for.
Just as a personal example, when I first saw pictures of the current King 2341 I thought that should be a good tuba as the tapers seemed to mimic those of the old King .750in bore rotary monsters. I have never played one of the new ones and it would be different but, it seems, from what I have read that it is true.
When Ren Schilke was designing for Yamaha in late 60's early 70's he used the Besson as a template as many at that time considered them to be among "the best". I would have chosen others.
I spent a fair amount of time in Carl Geyer's shop in the second half of the 60's and up to 71. In a way, designing a brass instrument, as I picked up from that experience, is like designing an airplane. A plane that flies well "looks" like it will fly well.
It seems that the "perfectly designed" by computer Holton Phillips model tubas were not so perfect after all. Conn, many years ago, did a lot of research on the effects of placement of braces in search of the perfect tuba. Did they achieve that goal?????
Fred Marzan did a lot of experimenting with tubas built with few or no bows - LONG pipes - in search of the "perfect" bore and taper etc. funny things happened when bends had to be included to make them manageable to handle. Then there is Dr Fred Young and his experimenting. I think it was good he did it, even if some others disagree.
We now have the likes of Sam Gnagey, blending parts of different instruments to make nice ones. Lee Stofer and Matt at Dillons make some very nice instruments as do some others.
Back we go to the opening part of this. It depends what you seek and unless you have a lot of money to experiment and keep making new tooling, it is most likely that your design will be very similar to something which you feel produces results approximating what you want and make small adjustments.
What will make YOUR idea of perfection, which won't be everybody's idea of perfection?
Well, one never knows - at least not until you try and possibly find out.
The metalworking aspect ain't rocket science, and making tubas doesn't require the same fine tolerances that trumpet-building does. The rest is motivation, a smattering of knowledge, and some trial & error (the guys at the Melton factory admitted to me that fully 3/4 of their prototypes end up as failures; either taken apart or hidden away).