Page 1 of 1
Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:50 pm
by Birdjosh
Hi all,
So after doing some research online about the differences all I've come up with are the physical and mechanical differences between the two styles of sousas. I was very curious as to the practical side, and not having any jumbo sousaphones anywhere in Canada that I know of have come here to once again consult you lovely knowledge filled people. What are the differences in terms of actually playing a jumbo? Does it take a noticeably larger amount of air? How much darker does the tone get? Is it even possible to play it standing for more than a couple hours at a time (assuming you are under 6'5" or short like me at 5'9")? Does it balance differently on the shoulder and pull more backwards than forwards?
Cheers,
Josh
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:29 am
by Steve Marcus
Birdjosh wrote:not having any jumbo sousaphones anywhere in Canada that I know of
TubeNet's Tubahead (that might not be the correct spelling of his screen name) from Canada (Toronto area?) had at least one Jumbo sousaphone a few years ago; he may have sold it/them.
What are the differences in terms of actually playing a jumbo? Does it take a noticeably larger amount of air? How much darker does the tone get?
I've played some Jumbo sousaphones that were not as efficient as others. Some of that may have had to do with their condition, but I believe it was more likely attributed to their design.
Warning: personal opinions ahead:
The 30" bell on a Buescher Jumbo made it seem to the player that the sound was coming from another room.
The 32" bell on the King 1265 looks cool. That horn puts out lots of sound. But I sensed that it is more of a "football field sound" than the warm sound for which the Conn Grand Jumbos were primarily designed--the dance bands of the 1920's and 1930's. Some prefer one, some prefer the other (Kiltie has owned at least two Jumbos and has his preferences for his applications.)
My Conn 48K plays very easily. It's much more air efficient than you might suspect. Even the 4th valve presents no stuffiness. The primary reason why I purchased it is that it does have a very big, warm, and round sound (much more so than a "standard" size 20K), but can also be played expressively and softly. I use it for virtually all of my non-classical gigs. Perhaps foolish--it is twice the weight of a standard brass sousaphone. But so far, no extra visits to the chiropractor.
Is it even possible to play it standing for more than a couple hours at a time (assuming you are under 6'5" or short like me at 5'9")? Does it balance differently on the shoulder and pull more backwards than forwards?
Measured on my doctor's scale, my 48K weighs 52 pounds. I'm 5'3" and, let's say, I'm not a kid. Yet I actually prefer to stand with the horn because I get better breath support playing the horn that way. I do have a Wenger sousaphone chair, but I rarely take that on gigs; it's more trouble/car space than it's worth, but it does serve as a sousaphone stand from which the Jumbo can be played with the neck and mouthpiece facing either the inside or the outside of the "ring."
In my experience, the Conn Grand Jumbo balances more easily than the King Jumbo. It's noteworthy that the designers of the Conn Jumbo intentionally placed the inner and outer bows in non-symmetrical fashion to more evenly distribute the weight. The original shoulder blade is still on my 48K, and I believe that it helps to spread the weight over a wider area of the shoulder. Yes, it does take a little vigilance to prevent the horn from losing balance, but holding the horn with the left hand occasionally is not a big detriment.
Here's an example of me moving around while playing the 48K in a performance with Mucca Pazza:
https://www.facebook.com/saved/?collect ... 21&cref=35
I truly enjoy playing the Conn 48K and have no plans to sell it.
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:00 pm
by iiipopes
This is about as close to a true A/B comparison as it gets. Some years ago I had access to and played both a 38K and a Cavalier (14K predecessor), both from the 1930's, that had the same conventional .734 valve blocks. To me, they had very similar intonation characteristics and breath support feel. No, the 38K did not require any more air to play than the Cavalier. Both were completely stock, with each having all of its original hardware, save a couple of bell screws, and matching serial numbers on all parts, including both bell and valves. Neither had any significant damage, only a few dings and re-soldered braces. The 38K did have a factory stock replacement receiver. I used the same neck and bits on both.
The low range, especially the transition to the privilege tones, on the Cavalier was grainy, as it is on most standard-sized souzys, but on the 38K it was so smooth you could not tell they were privilege tones all the way down from 1+3 low F to open Eb below that, 2-D, 1-Db, 1+2-C, to pedal open Bb. Only 2+3 Bnat needed coaxing. With the conventional (not short-action) valves, the 5th partials were not so flat that they could still be lipped, and nowhere across the range were alternative fingerings needed, on either souzy. On both souzys I did convert the upper bow of the 1st valve circuit to a movable slide for fine tuning as desired or to match intonation of the other low voices.
The rim diameter was the same 24 inches on both horns. But of course, the 38K throat and tenon was much larger diameter than the Cavalier, and of course the taper of the bugle of the 38K was a wider conical profile compared to the Cavalier.
The big difference was tone. The Cavalier, of course, had slightly less fundamental in the tone, but still good, solid, traditional souzy tone, as good or better than any sousaphone made currently. The 38K, well, no other word will do: it was seismic. I could feel the fundamentals, but not at the expense of the overall overtone structure, which was very consistent between the two instruments.
The Cavalier was not picky concerning mouthpiece selection. I usually ended up using a Kelly 18 on it, but every other mouthpiece I tried was at least acceptable. The 38K was picky about mouthpieces. To avoid intonation inconsistencies, the 38K liked the Perantucci PT82 the best, which is a mouthpiece designed for large taper bugle or 6/4 instruments.
The last surprise was the upper register: where a lot of tubas and souzys may have intonation or tonal inconsistencies in the higher register, or weak spots in the overall response, the 38K kept its intonation and tonality consistent to the top of and above the staff. The famous runs in the "The Thunderer," ending on top line a natural, were always as solid as a rock, with clarity and precision. The Cavalier was good in the upper register, but not quite as good as the 38K.
If only the 38K didn't weigh 35 pounds....
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:50 am
by iiipopes
I eliminate after-ring on a souzy bell by taking a length of clear plastic 5/16 o.d. tubing, slitting it lengthwise, and threading it onto the bell bead. I do this on my tubas as well. It does not damp down any tone, only the after ring, and has the bonus of being a great ding guard. If you can get it at a hardware store by the foot, the usual cost is about $2.00.
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:50 am
by Birdjosh
Thanks everyone for the info. I'm actually a bit surprised that the airflow is relatively unchanged given that for me I can notice a fairly large difference simply between a .562 and .578 bass bone slide. From the sound of it I might just have to find one to try in the future. Would be nice to compare horns and get a personal take on the horns.
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:11 pm
by Donn
I guess it may take a lot of experience with different tubas, to get to the point where you can guess "how much air" a tuba will take.
You know intuitively it isn't about the volume of the whole tuba - I mean, there's no way anyone on earth could blow air through a tuba, they're just much, much bigger than your lungs in any case, 6/4 or 3/4. It could be loosely related to the valve bore, but you have to bear in mind that valve bore is just an accident of where the valves occur in the "bugle" - the closer to you, the smaller they will be. It isn't like the trombone.
But then, maybe one trombone isn't necessarily like the other. I wish I could have a blow on the Conn bass trombone I had back in the '80s, because I remember it as an extravagant air hog, while my Reynolds doesn't seem to have that problem. My best guess is that there are a couple of factors - bore, leadpipe design, leaks/defects/poor alignment/etc., and most importantly you, the player.
My sousaphone is a 40K, same as the 38K mentioned above but 4 valves. It isn't in the jumbo category, but I would expect in the matter of air, it's similar to a 46K. You get used to it. I would expect the 46K to differ mainly in tone (and weight.) If you like full, rich tone, then go big, but I would say only if you want to play that way all the time. If you want to push into an edgier tone for some things, in my experience that sounds much better with a more 4/4 size tuba.
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:02 pm
by Dan Schultz
I don't play my 48K very much but one thing is for certain.... it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate this horn from the 'driver's seat'. The only way to know what this horn is doing is to record it.
I find the horn to be VERY efficient and generally get 'the hand' from the director any time I play it indoors OR outdoors.
Efficient you ask? It takes a heckofalot less energy to get a big sound out of this horn than to produce the same level out of any other sousa I now own or have ever owned/played.
The horn also likes to play at pp!
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:58 pm
by Donn
Do you think it's possible that another 48K might "take more air" than yours?
Apropos to this discussion, from a 2009 thread
Big King - note in particular the anecdote in the last two paragraphs
Todd W. White wrote:Well, as I understand it, the bell size, rate of flare, etc. - all the dimensions - are factored into the design, because everything affects the way the final "product" sounds. The rate of flare and diameter of the bell on the older KING "Symphony Bass" and the big Sousa's was selected after years of design efforts, plus a lot of trial and error, I am sure. Finally, they arrived at a size that met all of their design criteria. Today, there are all kinds of mathematical formulae for designing horn flare rates, be they for musical instruments, or, for example, horn-type loudspeakers. Back then, though, a lot of it was trial and error, with more math thrown in as the science of acoustics developed. Remember - the H. N. White Co. was the first (1916), and for many years the only, American band instrument manufacturer to have a Department of Acoustical Research, and it showed in their instruments.
When the air inside the horn is being pushed out of it, it meets with resistance, or impedance. The amount of impedance that the air column inside the horn meets when trying to escape through the bell will determine, in part, how easy the instrument is to "blow". Of course, there are other factors that affect "back pressure", but this part should not be ignored - the amount of resistance to letting the air out of the horn greatly affects this process, and this is especially true on large instruments like the tuba, because the waveforms are so large. So - the less resistance to the air column when it meets the outside air, the easier the horn is to play, and, of course, the the amount of distortion is reduced.
In the case of the big KING tuba's and Sousa's, the flare rate and bell diameter help minimize that resistance. In the case of other instruments where this has not been taken into consideration during their design, the results can be good or bad - if they're lucky, it works. If not, it works, but not so well.
Now - how do I know this to be true?
Well, I first learned about it while at the University of Arkansas as a tuba major from a now aged band director turned instrument repairman who had learned it from the very aged professional band instrument repairman he apprenticed under when he decided to stop teaching and start repairing. So, this oral tradition goes back at least 75 years.
While in college, I experimented with the big KING 1250 Sousaphones we had. They were mostly H. N. White Co. King's, and all had the large bell. I discovered that the bells of our 16 KING 1250's were all numbered - but their serial numbers, almost to the last instrument, weren't the same as the horn they were being used on. So, I went about matching the bells and bodies together. Once I got all of them with their "mate", I put them all back in their cases and waited to see how the section sounded at the next rehearsal. I didn't tell anyone else in my section, as I recall, about what I did - I wanted this to be a sort of "double-blind" test.
What I found out was exactly what the old man said - the bells and bodies, which were now properly matched to each other again like they were at the factory, with their mechanical resonances being the same again, were easier to play and were able to project much better than they were the day before. In fact, our Band Director, Mr. Eldon Janzen, told us at one point in the rehearsal, and not on a quiet portion of a song, either, that we were playing too loud! When I told several of my fellow section members commented about what I had done, they all said they noticed that the horns were easier to play. From that moment on, at least as long as I was there as Section Leader, we kept the bells and bodies matched.
Re: Jumbo vs Standard Sousa
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:55 pm
by Dan Schultz
lost wrote:I have no idea how Dan's sousaphone plays. I do know that having someone as respected as Dave confirm my opinion of needing a lot more air to play a jumbo left me feeling like my opinion had some merit.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The problems with personal opinions is that:
- No two sets of chops/lungs/oral cavity/etc are the same.
- Like I mentioned.... it's nearly impossible to properly evaluate ANY horn from only the 'drivers seat'.
I happen to like LARGE horns because.... for me... it takes less energy to make a large sound from a large horn that it takes to make a large sound from a small horn.
Don't ask me to describe 'large' or 'small' sounds because I'm NOT speaking of 'loud' or 'soft'.