TubeNet

As I am about to take my lunch break, I have been pondering this question. Why do Bell front tubas sound so good? Or maybe it's just me, but whenever I was at Bloke's mansion he played me some Eb tuba, a beautiful 59' Besson, and he had 2 bells, a recordings bell and an upright bell, now I will admit the more practical approach would certainly be the upright bell, but he played both for me and the recording bell for me and it had a sweetness, and a ring to it that the upright just didn't have?

Am I crazy, because he heard it to. So rather than the typical CC vs. BBb or Piston vs. Rotary, why not, Bell front/recording bell vs. the standard, or what has became the standard upright bell. I know this may not be a long thread, I'm just interested.

If anyone is interested. I played on a recording Bell King 2341? I guess would be the number it was made in the 70s or 80s. That was my first tuba in high school. Made all-state on it and everything. I miss that tuba.

Yes! There is a sweetness, at least I detect it too. Kings in particular. Why? I dunno. I have a 4v King BBb with both up and front bells. The pitch is different one to the other. I always forget which way, but it amounts to about an inch pull on the tuning slide - no big deal.

So technically this does effect where the nodes are in relation to straight vs tapered tubing. This is a good experiment as the basic horn, player and venue are constant and simply the bell is interchanged. A sharper/shorter bell will need more slide pull hence more cylindrical tubing. Not much, but it may make a difference. I notice this when I but a sousa bit in a tuba.
The whole taper of the recording bell may be appreciably different from the upright. Obviously the shape is different.

The sweetness - perhaps due the sound not bouncing directly off the ceiling and going back into the bell and messing with the sound wave. This is a very real and obvious phenomenon.

When I would practice on a certain bell up in my low ceiling basement(6/4 Chicago Holton Raincatcher Sousaphone), I would get distortion on certain notes as the bell was only about a foot from the rafters. (we do know that the sound waves from a tuba are completed nominally about a foot outside of the bell. I thought it was something wrong with the horn 'til I got in a different room with a high ceiling - then "no problem" There are a few variables to the science experiment that are not necessarily part of the tuba.

But I simply enjoy a recording bell, both for sound and appearance.

Paul "in this case not really sure what I am talking about" Maybery

I have recently, after 30+ years of playing gigs, been rediscovering the joys of playing on recording bell horns.

I like them, frankly, because I don't have to work as hard when playing one. The sound projects so much more easy, with far less effort. A large percentage of my gigs are traditional jazz, and also a 1920's "Nighthawks" style dance band, where I alternate with bass saxophone.

I've also been known to bring one occasionally to outdoor brass quintet gigs, especially graduations, with no complaints and even a few compliments.

The one caviat is in line with what Bloke said; since you can't hear yourself as well, it's easy to fall into the trap of playing louder than you need to, defeating the purpose in the first place.

Also, it's fun to see conductors sh*t a brick upon first sight of you......

Recording bells are more efficient, for several reasons. I've yet to play a detachable-bell instrument that did not play better with the recording bell than with the straight bell.

bloke wrote:

KiltieTuba wrote:What would Sousa want?

raincatcher

Reincarnation.

Most of the recording bells I've seen are a bit larger than their counterpart upright bells. King might be an exception since the recording bells are 22" and they made their upright bells in both 22" and 19".

Miraphone 186 recording bells are 22" while their upright bell are usually 16 1/2 or 17 1/2".

That 'sweetness' mentioned earlier might be due in part to the increased overtones.

Sort of scientific but just a thought.

Is increase in overtones related to the "diffuse" quality that some people ascribe to large bell flares, vs. "direct" with small bell flares?

lost wrote: I took one to a tuba christmas and lots of middle schoolers looked at me strangely from their upright yamahas. A generation lost.

You should have done a few "tuba blasts" at the kids; that would have been hilarious

Donn wrote:Is increase in overtones related to the "diffuse" quality that some people ascribe to large bell flares, vs. "direct" with small bell flares?

I think there is a relation. Larger bell flares tend to diffuse/broaden the sound and give more overtones. Recording bell tubas lean more toward sousaphone territory, sound-wise, because of the larger front-facing bells. But I have also found those larger bells to "blat" more easily than modest bells. But it's more complicated than that. Bell taper, size, and flare "lip" (the end of the bell) also play a major role in sound color.

I agree with all of the comments so far and I think a recording bell is ideal for "tuba as bass" situations. I regularly use a top action BBb Martin with recording bell and several leaders have expressed a preference for this over an upright bell. You can also really get a string bass type of sound going with a recording bell Martin if you approach it the right way. And if you're called on to solo you can do so with more ease on a recording bell horn, IMO.

KiltieTuba wrote:I think Dr. Young said that the sound waves reflect backwards at the end of a recording/sousaphone bell, because of that extra bend just before the "flare".

The sound wave reflects backwards at the end of the bell on ALL COMMON brass instruments.

In my current job we play several outdoor concerts a week. I have recently taken to playing a Martin Mammoth bell-front BBb on most of the outdoor (and some of the indoor) shows. The conductor just loves it, so I guess I'm stuck! This is all despite having an excellent work-owned Rudy BBb available.

There seem to be two conversations going on: one about bell-front and one about bell diameter. It seems to me that a wider bell with no other changes has more "bass" in the color and a smaller diameter bell is more direct/punchy. I often prefer the general timbre of a larger bell, BUT find them to be less easy to change tone colors with.

Very, very generally it seems to me that the combination of large bell-front, modest valve bore, and huge bows makes a very acoustic-string-bass-like sound that is great for bands (where you don't have eight basses adding that color and breadth).

The larger bore/smaller bell and bows combination found on many rotary horns seems to have more in common with the timbre of trombones and horns when "blend" is preferred over a contrasting, supporting sound. It also seems to have a wider color spectrum available, ie. it gets brighter at higher dynamics, but holds together, whereas on the Martin I have a consistent warm tone color at several dynamics, but there is a topping out point past which the tone gets splatty and/or the horn feels like it backs up on me (but the horn puts out plenty of sound, so I see no reason to need to overdrive it).

Sorry for the rambly post, typed on a phone. I was circling around a point somewhere in there... I'm always open to the idea that I'm totally wrong!

-T. J.

I agree with the theme of these posts here, especially about the sound of the recording bells. I have been a convert to recording bell horns for the last few years. (I own 4 of them, plus two sousaphones!) I really fell in love with them when I built my last Reynolds horn. This horn is just a wonderful player, and I have been playing as my "go to" horn lately. . About two weeks ago, I received an upright bell from Dan Schultz, (Very well done Dan!) that will fit either BBb Reynolds I have. I absolutely love the sound of the recording bell, and it has the fill the whole room with sound and presence that the upright bell does not produce. The upright bell works very well, but it does change the focus and projection of the horn significantly. I ended up using the upright bell for the last two concerts, and the directors were happy, but I missed my recording bell sound. (These were at the same hall, the last one was on Sunday. The hall is so lively that the directors wanted the less direct sound.) I will be going back to the recording bell for the next gigs, but now having both, it is just more versatile.

Steve

My Miraphone 186 from the 90ies has an exchangeable bell section. I like the sound of the recording bell very much and so do my bandmates. The look from a listeners perspective also is absolutely convincing.
On the negative side: Can not be put on its bell during tacet, thus always needs a stand. It doesn't fit into a gigbag, the recording bell section comes in a (very heavy) separate case. When playing standing it is difficult to balance (I tend to avoid that). Overall it is heavier. I bring it for outdoor venues or larger rooms with a high ceiling.
Anyone has an idea for a lightweight tuba case or gigbag for a 186 with 50 cm detachable recording bell?

Gerd

Sousaphone bag for the bell
Alteri top loader style bag (without the bell sleeve) for the body.
Works perfect.