TubeNet

tubafreaks7 wrote:Ok, heres one I just know someone can answer. Why do CC tubas sound and play better than BBb horns? ...............but the C horns are even easier to play. Why????

Perhaps it is beacuse you have not played one of the many really good BBbs yet.

I found the Miraphone 1291 and 191 BBbs to be superior to the CC version when I was actively comapring horns last year. I also had a chance to play a friends large Gronitz BBb and found it to be a tremendous horn as well.

I love the horn I chose but would have had no problem choosing the BBbs I just mentioned over their CC counterparts.

tubafreaks7 wrote: Why do CC tubas sound and play better than BBb horns?

For the same reason that size 10 shoes fit better than size 12's.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who is just observing that one size does not fit all.

tubafreaks7 wrote:Why do CC tubas sound and play better than BBb horns?

I guess I didn't get that memo.

C tubas have two feet less tubing than BBb tubas, and thus the player has two feet less tubing to blow through and resonate. So, on certain notes (actually very few), the instrument is shorter. On most notes, though, the tubing length is the same or even longer on the C because of tubing added by the valves.

It has been said that instrument makers lavish their best attention to their C tubas because that's what Americans are willing to spend $7000 and up for. That's true in many cases, but not all. And part of the reason we think it's true is because the companies that make high-end BBb tubas for German orchestral tuba players don't import them into the U.S. except by special order. The Meinl-Weston Fafner is one exception; the Rudy Meinl is another; the Miraphone 191 a third.

But it is also true that BBb tubas often avoid the squirrelly pitch problems that plague many C tubas.

The notion that C tubas are easier to finger or tune in sharp keys is more a statement about players than instruments. Those German tuba players don't seem to have that problem, for example.

And there are some great BBb tubas. I'd put my Holton up against any CC grand orchestral tuba when measured by what comes out the bell with a good player (you can't blame the instrument for what I put into it). Some may be better, but many will not be as good. Of course, Holton couldn't come close to matching the construction quality and consistency of a Hirsbrunner, but the sound and response is first class.

The King 2341 is a great tuba that stands up in playing quality to its sibling Conn 5xJ. But, of course, it's aimed at a lower price point and doesn't have the same detailing or attention to detail in construction.

Go try a good King 2341, a Rudy Meinl 5/4 BBb, and a Meinl-Weston Fafner, and then come back and say that CC tubas sound and play better than BBb tubas.

Rick "who thinks the main difference is that BBb tuba players are not willing to spend as much" Denney

tubafreaks7 wrote:OK, the best BB horns I played were a Mirafone 186 and an old monster 4 valve sousa. In the case of the Mire 186's they have the same bore size but the CC is two feet shorter. So the bore is proportionately larger on that CC. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sorry to those whom I offended by saying that the CC sounded better, you made me feel stupid. I should have said "In myopinion..." but I thought that went without saying. I havent had the chance to play on any real classy BBb tubas.

In my opinion, you have no right to be offended. You are never too young to learn that it is dangerous to extrapolate from limited experience, and that danger doesn't get any less just because you express your extrapolation as "an opinion".

So, instead of "in my opinion, CC tubas play and sound better than BBb tubas", try "the two supposedly good BBb tubas I've tried don't play and sound as good as the several CC tubas I've tried. Why would that be?"

The first statement exposes lack of experience and ignorance (I did NOT say stupidity) whether or not you preface it with "in my opinion." The second statement provides a context for your opinion so that people actually know why you have that opinion. The responses might have been less pointed.

A little humility goes a long way.

But I would like you to stand behind a screen while listening to a good player try out a Miraphone 186 in BBb and in CC and see if you can really tell the difference in how they sound. Yes, they feel a little different, but I'll bet you can't hear the difference with a good player well-practiced on both.

Rick "who has conducted this experiment" Denney

you made me feel stupid.

After a Rick, Chuck(G), or sometimes even a Bloke post, lots of us feel that way as well. You are in good company.

Mr. Denney, you mentioned that the Holton BBb will sound just as good as a large CC. I'll ask you this then. Let's compare the large Holton BBb to the large Holton CC. If both have near identical sound characteristics and the CC responds better and with less effort, perhaps we have explained why people buy CC tubas today. The same observation that tubafreaks7 presented at the begining of this thread. It is safe to say that some BBb tubas play better than some CC tubas and vice versa. I think it is also safe to say that some F tubas play better than the previously types of tubas (the same will hold true with Eb too).

I think the choice of most orchestral tuba player for CC tuba over BBb is response. The proportionality of bore to tubing is easy to experience away from a tuba. Take a straw, or preferably something longer, blow through it, cut some of the length off. You will notice a difference in the resistance, this then is probably the reason behind the better response.

This is my opinion from ideal circumstances. There are people who have purchased or will purchase CC tubas because Mr. X plays one, or Mr. X owns one, and in those cases they might end up with a CC tuba that's worse than most BBb's. One can only hope they payed less money for it.

The difference in response is real, but it doesn't seem like a convincing argument by itself.

So, if you find that a CC tuba has faster response than a BBb, then what about an Eb? Wait, faster yet would be an F! How about a Euphonium? You get the drift: Pretty soon we get to the piccolo trumpet!

Clearly, tubas are compromises, and there are good musical reasons and player preference reasons for all of the different ones available. It is also true that fashions and national traditions influence choices.

Have fun picking out the tuba(s) that you find ideal.

Allen Walker

Rick Denney wrote:C tubas have two feet less tubing than BBb tubas, and thus the player has two feet less tubing to blow through and resonate. So, on certain notes (actually very few), the instrument is shorter. On most notes, though, the tubing length is the same or even longer on the C because of tubing added by the valves.

Allen wrote:So, if you find that a CC tuba has faster response than a BBb, then what about an Eb? Wait, faster yet would be an F! How about a Euphonium? You get the drift: Pretty soon we get to the piccolo trumpet!

Maybe I missed the memo, but doesn't any note require the same length (give or take the bugle proportions) to produce, especially from the same starting point (mouthpiece). What you're discussing seems to be bore/bugle proportions and sizes, even when you take into account alternate fingerings for intonation purposes. If I'm wrong, I'll just slink off.

I'm curious, would my development as a tuba player been stunted if I had started playing again on a CC tuba instead of on a BBb?

I'd say no, your development was not affected by the choice of a BBb tuba over a CC. What was affected was the quality of tuba you could buy for a given amount of money -- even if that amount was a large one, but especially if you were spending in the $2000-$4000 range.

Look at your CC choices in, for example, the sub-$3000 range. Well, there's the Weril 680, and.... hmmm... maybe a used Cerveny? Okay, how about the $4000 range? At that point there are a few decent CC instruments you can get "well used", but not a wide selection. Now, look at the BBb choices in the < $4000 range. Probably 90% of the BBb instruments can be gotten used in this range, and several REALLY good new ones. I'd say that more than half of all used 4-valve BBb tubas sold used go for less than $3000, and an awful lot of those go for less than $2000.

If you're going to be a pro, you need every advantage. If the best instrument costs $3000 more than one that's almost-but-not-quite as good, you pay it. If you perceive that the cachet difference of playing a BBb vs. a CC might affect peoples perception of your playing (whether it really changes the sound or not), you get a CC. BUT an amateur just wants the best tuba he can get for a certain sized fist-full of dollars. That's just about always a BBb.
_________________________________
Joe Baker, who once owned a CC tuba, but doesn't expect to ever own another.

ThomasP wrote:Mr. Denney, you mentioned that the Holton BBb will sound just as good as a large CC. I'll ask you this then. Let's compare the large Holton BBb to the large Holton CC. If both have near identical sound characteristics and the CC responds better and with less effort, perhaps we have explained why people buy CC tubas today....

Maybe. But I've fooled around with a lot of CC grand orchestral tubas, too, including a few Holtons (I think they were all conversions). I don't think I'd be prepared to say that as a class they respond easier, but then variability across the Holton line probably would overwhelm any difference based on a small difference in bugle length.

I think the choice of most orchestral tuba player for CC tuba over BBb is response. The proportionality of bore to tubing is easy to experience away from a tuba. Take a straw, or preferably something longer, blow through it, cut some of the length off. You will notice a difference in the resistance, this then is probably the reason behind the better response.

Again, maybe. In the case of some instruments, the difference is noticeable. But I suspect that most players (at the time the comparison is being made) compare the BBb open harmonics with the CC open harmonics, which is not a completely fair comparison. If you actually look at the fingerings required across the scale, you'll find that on only a few notes does the C allow you to play a lower partial with less tubing. Most of the time, the tubing length is the same (with the C adding more valves) or longer (with the C playing a higher partial with more valves). Thus, it's only on a handful of notes that your CC straw would be shorter. Low C is one of those, which is why the comparison isn't necessary that fair.

This is my opinion from ideal circumstances. There are people who have purchased or will purchase CC tubas because Mr. X plays one, or Mr. X owns one, and in those cases they might end up with a CC tuba that's worse than most BBb's. One can only hope they payed less money for it.

I daresay that most switched to CC because their teachers encouraged them to or because they saw that pros in general do so. It seems like the average age for such as decision is high school these days, and often the comparison is made between a battered school horn and a new CC.

I would play a CC if one came my way that 1.) I could afford, and 2.) that moved me so much that I couldn't help it. I've played several CC tubas in the second category, but those particular instruments were never in the first camp. But by being patient and being ready to strike when the opportunity came I was able to get instruments of similar qualities to good CC tubas for prices I could afford, and the main reason for the low price was that extra coupla feet of tubing (and some dents).

Rick "prepared to spend 12,000 for three tubas, but not for just one, and certainly not all at once" Denney

How many tubists in professional orchestras play Bb? Maybe 1 or 2? The numbers speak for themselves. Craftsmen don't (ok, shouldn't) pick tools based on what everyone else says but on what they find to be most sutible for the job. Based on supply and demand, you would expect to see C tubas more in demand in the USA because of the vast majority of Cs in use by our mentors/artisans. High demand = prices go up.

I've been told that many of the technology advances in tuba production
go for C tubas instead of Bb tubas because of the C trend. This will answer part of the 'why are C's more expensive'. If you look to the technology and electronics sector it is plain to see that research and development transfer directly into pricing of the product based on how many hundreds of man hours, equipment and prototypes that were used to get to the final product. Why else does you cell phone cost 200 for a basic one which probably cost $30 to manufacture (of course meaning not with a contract... go try to just buy a cell phone and you'll find this out if you didn't know already. that's why they sell insurance) I'm pretty sure that if you do your research as I have spent way more time than I like to admit and have actually written a few papers at various points in my college career that also point to most of the advances occouring to C tubas before you see them show up on Bb. Al Baer designed the 1291 as a C, yes the Bb came out first, but I know Al was still working on tweaking the tuba long after the Bb came out.

The only reason that Bb is taught in grade school is because it's one less set of fingerings that the band director has to learn. Look at the large difference of students starting out on Bb compared to starting out on Eb (which, as I understand, used to be more common to see). I've also had discussions with my friends that are either music ed majors or were and they have said they just never really talked about that much in their classes. So prehaps the amateur Bb trend is a product of people taking short cuts (this last sentence is my opinion and I expect there will be people that disagree so don't get bent out of shape).

My 2c
Jim

rascaljim wrote:How many tubists in professional orchestras play Bb? Maybe 1 or 2? The numbers speak for themselves.
...

That's true in the US, but not in Europe. I belive that the majority of orchestral players in Germany use BBb tubas. I do think that it's more based on tradition than anything else.

windshieldbug wrote: Maybe I missed the memo, but doesn't any note require the same length (give or take the bugle proportions) to produce, especially from the same starting point (mouthpiece). What you're discussing seems to be bore/bugle proportions and sizes, even when you take into account alternate fingerings for intonation purposes. If I'm wrong, I'll just slink off.

You're right on most notes, of course. Where the partials overlap, one instrument might play a different partial than the other. A low C on a C tuba is a second-partial of the 16-foot length, while that same C on a BBb is the third partial of the 18-foot length plus the length of the fourth valve. This happens on B ad C in all octaves, F# and G starting at the bottom of the staff and going up, and Eb and E on the staff and higher octaves. A good F#/Gb on the staff is easier to find on a C than on a BBb.

But it goes the other way, too. If it is desirable, as is often stated, to play the instrument using the least amount of added valve tubing and the most conical open bugle, then the Bb has an advantage over the C (but not the Eb and F, which jumps a whole partial up). In the lower octave from low F to F at the bottom of the staff, a Bb tuba uses more valve tubing only on the B and C, and uses less on all other notes. In the middle and upper octaves above that, it's a wash with each of Bb and C having six notes in each octave that use less valve tubing.

Rick "who thinks most of the difference is comparing a beat-up school BBb to a new pro-model C" Denney

How many tubists in professional orchestras play Bb? Maybe 1 or 2?

A bit of a sweeping, incorrect, statement there. Maybe in the US, yes. In Europe, Russia etc. there are more Professionals using BBb's than CC's.
The player in one of the St.Petersburg orchestras plays a BBb St.Pete, a clunky one, and sounds great.

In reference to my above post I was refering to US for all examples including trends.

It is true that in Germany you are REQUIRED to play Bb. I've been told by a few different people that I will be removed from the stage if I try to use a C tuba.

If Bb is so much better and nobody can even get a job on one over there with a C, how come all those guys over in Germany aren't winning ANY jobs in the US on Bb.

Sorry to be confrontational
Jim

rascaljim wrote:I've been told that many of the technology advances in tuba production
go for C tubas instead of Bb tubas because of the C trend.

This is true for the tubas commonly sold in the U.S. But it's a chicken-and-egg question. The fanciest Meinl-Weston BBb that is easy to buy in the U.S. is a Model 25, and that's not going to give your 2000 much to worry about, heh, heh. But the Meinl-Weston Fafner in its rare hand-made version is the BBb equivalent of your 2000, and it may well find a larger orchestral following than the 2000 on a world-wide basis. And it's just as expensive.

The same could be said for the Rudy Meinl BBb tubas, which I suspect are made to the same standards as their C tubas, though not to many are imported to the U.S. Their high-end BBb tubas are as expensive as their high-end CC tubas.

Clearly, the market favored C at the high end. But other markets still favor the Bb and the manufacturers just sell their high-end stuff where there are high-end buyers for that product.

There are certainly more great CC tubas on the market, but that doesn't mean a Bb player can't find a world-class instrument to play. And for the most part he won't have to spring for the 5th valve and it will save him a buck or two (or 1000).

Of course, there are also some expensive CC stinkers on the market, too. At least most of the BBb stinkers are cheap, heh, heh.

Rick "who thinks price point affects detailing and finish more than design, but who also knows that price points are the same at the top of the market" Denney

I suppose this BBb versus CC question should be defined in the future to discuss the context of the question (ie amature vs professional, orchestral vs band)
There's always going to be variables. I don't have my CC tuba blinders on that make Bb tubas invisible, but I know for my purposes I woudn't even consider going back to Bb, but I'm sure as heck not gonna tell my friend that plays in a navy base band to stop playing his Bb.

here's another 2c
Jim

rascaljim wrote:If Bb is so much better and nobody can even get a job on one over there with a C, how come all those guys over in Germany aren't winning ANY jobs in the US on Bb.

Are they trying? Maybe they get a better deal over there. As you know better than me, orchestral tuba players over here don't get a wonderful deal. I know that Europe as a whole supports the arts with more lavish government funding than here.

Rick "thinking correlation does not prove causation" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Where the partials overlap, one instrument might play a different partial than the other. A low C on a C tuba is a second-partial of the 16-foot length, while that same C on a BBb is the third partial of the 18-foot length plus the length of the fourth valve

I realized, of course, that was possible right after I hit the submit button... and YOU did get that memo...

but whilst I slink off, allow me to toss out that it is just a product of the application... that and the "imperfection" of the equal tempered scale. Bands play in flat keys (predominantly; yes, there are exceptions, but bear with me) because of the predominance of Bb and Eb keyed instruments makes it easier. Orchestra pros, regardless of the horn used, tend to "purify" the intervals in chords by ear, confusing the he** out of a tuner-based approach (unless you have a programmable tuner, which takes us pretty far afield on another day's subject). The orchestral trumpets are often (not always I'll admit, but often) in C for the same reason; orchestras do not follow this "flat key" approach.

Now the trombones (which are most often in Bb, and the tubas are unhampered by written key, but whereas a trombone is capable of infinite adjustment, the tuba is affected by it's constructed key. And how many slides the tubist can grab. Which is one reason that while I was working, I loved my Marzan slant rotor CC, because it was as easy to "shade" as a trombone. Without changing the bugle proportions.

Slinking off now...

blockhead wrote:

Rich Deadman wrote:Are they trying? Maybe they get a better deal over there. As you know better than me, orchestral tuba players over here don't get a wonderful deal. I know that Europe as a whole supports the arts with more lavish government funding than here.

Rick "thinking correlation does not prove causation" Denney

yo' fulla bulla. They can't afford the plane ticket to come over.

That doesn't mean they ain't getting a better deal. It's a fairly low threshold, and the discount fares are designed to take pot-bellied 'mercans like me over there, not the other way around, though the strong Euro might turn that around.

Rick "who doesn't think it's because they are scared or unable to compete" Denney