TubeNet

I've become very interested in this question, and I'm not trolling the board or trying to start a flame war. I've searched the archives a lot, and I've come up with the following synthesis of the BBb/CC argument.

BBb:
-- Pros: most useful for band material (flats over sharps), readily available, used by orchestras in Europe
-- Cons: looked down upon by US-based orchestras and teachers as amateurish

CC:
-- Pros: most useful for orchestra material (sharps over flats), quality of available equipment is generally higher, most U.S. teachers recommend to their students
-- Cons: more expensive

What else am I missing? And of the many arguments bandied about, I don't see much in the way of XX horn has a brighter/softer/better sound quality, etc... What else to add to the list?

Some people say that CC has better response, since it is a shorter bugle than the BBb. I think that's more of a matter of the instrument design/maintenance than anything else. For a lot of people in the recent past who switched to CC, they probably never actually played on a really good BBb. That's certainly what happened to me, going from a broken POS to a B&S PT-3. Huge difference, even aside from the key. So why did I switch? When I got to college, the tuba that was available to borrow was a PT-3. I could use that or not play tuba. The choice was easy.

For me, the "pro" of CC isn't because of the ease of sharps over flats, it's that you have an even starting point for everything. I've always thought that playing CC (no sharps, no flats) is like counting starting at 0, and playing BBb is like counting starting at -1.

Also, for your con for BBb, I completely agree with it, but not in the sense of "they're right, it's amateurish and people should look down upon them." More like, what a pain in the *** that some people will look at your BBb and say those things. Especially for a college student, it's easier to just get a CC and move on. The less time and effort you spend explaining yourself (or feeling like you need to explain yourself), the better.

bort wrote:
For me, the "pro" of CC isn't because of the ease of sharps over flats, it's that you have an even starting point for everything. I've always thought that playing CC (no sharps, no flats) is like counting starting at 0, and playing BBb is like counting starting at -1.

....

Especially for a college student, it's easier to just get a CC and move on. The less time and effort you spend explaining yourself (or feeling like you need to explain yourself), the better.

Two helpful points.

Because the particular instrument you can most easily play in tune and otherwise like the sound of yourself playing, and that costs in the range of what you want to spend, happens to be a CC. That's what finally got me to switch.

I have always played BBb and I have no interest in a CC. However, I have met many many tuba players at UNT and all of them were CC.

My only addition is that there isn't as strong of a market for a BBb here in the US. I am thinking about selling mine and I know it will be a long road since the market is dominated by folk wanting a CC horn.
I wonder if that is why one may be cheaper than the other. Less demand for it.

I've been holding out by playing BBb and F. It might be my Germanic roots.
I think the CC pressure weeds out the use of student horns (by design), and a lot of nice top line BBb horns too (as a side effect).

I think the comments about the lack of market demand for high-end BBb horns is interesting. In Leto's list, there are no BBb tubas listed (as far as I can tell). Obviously, they're not very much in vogue in terms of orchestral auditions currently, but I wonder whether that's always been the case? And whether if you go down a rung or two to regional/local orchestras (even if they're not "professional" but do require competitive auditions), you see something different.

Lots of good observations, thank you all.

.

I learned CC because I hadn't played tuba in 4 years and I wanted something that would actually force me to practice (and force me it did). Now I practice for the joy of becoming a better musician... and who knows what the future holds?

I'm a bit surprised -- I figured there was some great reason to switch to CC that I was overlooking, but nothing so far has popped up other than (a) that's the way it's always been and (b) circumstance (e.g., needed to borrow a horn, or needed to motivate myself with something new).

I've never played a CC tuba myself, but in listening to others, BBb sounds "darker" while CC sounds a bit cleaner and crisper, but I've never heard the same player play both to compare, and I think the player is the biggest factor in the equation (obviously; along with the microphone). I googled for videos and found these. Same player, different room (Mack Brass guy on Jinbao tubas). I would agree that the CC sounds a bit crisper, but not a ton so.

CC: beginning around 1 minute in - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1139dSZU-fE" target="_blank

BBb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyPiBBvDZUM" target="_blank

Just something I've been thinking about.

Here is a commercial for Meinl-Weston tubas, where Roland Szentpali compares a CC and BBb tuba (skip to about 4:20). It's kind of interesting, but I think comparing a piston CC to a rotary BBb isn't a direct comparison. Are the observed differences because of CC/BBb or piston/rotary? I think it's some of both.

Very cool, thank you for posting that. Honestly, I could tell that the BBb tuba was a *bit* darker, but the difference was not nearly as pronounced as I might have thought in that comparison. As you said, it might be a bit unfair to compare rotary vs. piston, and forgive my ignorance, why is that? Rotors = darker sound?

Rotary vs. piston? and BBb vs. CC? are the two great unanswered questions of the tuba world. The only real answers are based on personal preference. Everyone has a sound in their head that they are trying to match. With the wrong tuba (for that person), it can be a lot of work and trouble trying to shoehorn a tuba into that sound. With the right tuba (for that person), making the right sound takes very little effort, and more of the player's energy and focus can go into being musical. And for other lucky people, they can do just about anything with any tuba, and whether it's hard or not, they make it look easy.

Nothing is absolute about any of this, the exact tuba and player make as much difference as anything else. But as a tuba player, I think rotary and piston tubas sound and behave pretty differently from each other, and I wouldn't expect many audience members to notice much of a difference for similar-sized tubas.

I think rotary tubas sound more direct and not as woofy. On the other hand, rotary tubas are usually easier to make the sound crack and bark, and sometimes it's challenging to attain the same roundness of sound and presence that you can get with a piston tuba. I also think the differences are pretty apparent at higher volumes, when you really lay into a note and get a good "burn" on it. If you compare some brass-heavy pieces with American and German orchestras, you should be able to tell a difference.

It's all kind of hard to explain, but if you get to spend some time side-by-side with different kinds of tubas, you'll understand the differences better. For me, rotary CC is the way to go (sorry Sousa).

bloke wrote:Even if they had been the same exact models of Bb and C, there still would have been countless factors that would keep any comparison from being "fair", much less "scientific".

bloke wrote:Even if they had been the same exact models of Bb and C, there still would have been countless factors that would keep any comparison from being "fair", much less "scientific".

Sure. I was more interested in a general comparison. Maybe one day I'll play both back to back and see if I can tell a noticeable difference.

bloke wrote:Even if they had been the same exact models of Bb and C, there still would have been countless factors that would keep any comparison from being "fair", much less "scientific".

I would also expect some factors that keep the comparison from testing the hypothesis. I mean, if we're saying, hypothetically,

• there is no tonal difference between CC and BBb tubas with the same model number

... and you hear a difference between Miraphone 186 in the respective keys, I would have to ask whether it may have suited Miraphone to insure that difference by design, hoping to appeal to different markets for those keys. I.e., yes, because they wanted them to sound different! If you can't guarantee this didn't happen, then the test is only about whether the CC and BBb 186's sound different. And likewise for rotary vs. piston tubas.

I think it more or less is preference. Considering I just had this argument with another player, to say CC is "better" is crap. There are many great made CC's and now there are more "pro" model BBb's hitting the market. It is more about preference and what you are comfortable with than saying CC is far superior. I know I am beating a dead horse with this but the stigma of BBb being the amateur instrument needs to go away. There are some great playing BBbs out there and not to mention great uses (brass band ect). Play what you sound and feel great on, end of story.

ehlutzcem wrote:The choice to stick with BBb was easy for me, since I still play euphonium and am too lazy to learn two sets of fingerings.

I play CC because I also play TC Euphonium and am challenged to learn two sets of fingerings

Why play Titleist Pro V1s? (if you're not a pro-in-the-making)

I would say the main advantage of CC is in orchestra where the music often goes into higher register. The CC being tone higher makes that more comfortable and the CC more of a multi-purpose tuba.

I think the difference in tone is more that of different styles of tuba (e.g. American 6/4 v Kaiser), rather than of pitch.

The CC/BBb comparisons demonstrated by Gene Pokorny and Tony Kniffen in their presentation at ITEC were for me inconclusive of the tonal difference made by pitch. I preferred CC for some excerpts and BBb for others. I guess that was more a matter what tone of individual tuba I felt more appropriate for that particular music...Tony Kniffen well demonstrated how F tuba can be perfect for Bruckner 4