TubeNet

I once played a big Cerveny that had virtually no resistance. I could sustain a note for about 4 seconds. It also resonated so much, I thought it would crumble and shake itself apart in my hands.

"no thanks".

Can't that be addressed by using a mouthpiece with a tighter backbore?

It can help, but may not be enough by itself. I owned a Cerveny 601 CC that was like putting a vacuum cleaner to to my lips. It was impossible for me to play it anything other than loudly, and I found a buyer for it after a year. The Dillon G3 that came with it had little resistance, so I tried a half dozen other mouthpieces with smaller throats and bores. They helped, but weren't enough.

Some people with good lip control can handle and like free-blowing horns. Some of us need a bit of resistance for good control and tone. For some of us a mouthpiece may be enough to tame a monster; for others of us, no.

Then again, the guy I sold the Cerveny to was able to control it beautifully . . .

lost wrote:Maybe I need to trade up my trusty helleberg? Any board suggestions?

Keep it, would be one board suggestion. The standard Conn 120 Helleberg isn't supposed to have a large throat, anyway, and the odds are that the fairly minuscule variations between throat diameters in normal tuba mouthpieces aren't on their own a very good indication of how they're going to play. The Conn 7B Helleberg has a distinctly larger throat, but I've never heard anyone suggest it takes more air to play; old Conn mouthpieces got even larger in the throat as they got smaller and shallower. The ever popular Bach 18 is supposed to have a much bigger throat, as big a throat as the 24AW, according to the manufacturer, and it seems no one knows or cares if that's even true.

I'm not saying the mouthpiece doesn't matter, it probably does, only that you can't spec the mouthpiece this way.

the shallower mouthpiece can do a little, but only so much before it feels like it's just throttling everything back.

It seems like leadpipes with a lot of soldering to the bell can have more resistance, and a good kind of resistance, than totally floating leadpipes. that could be the simplest way to bring things back the other way.

I have no suggestions about how to solve the resistance problem, but I am very curious about what fixing of issues on which of your tubas led to the question... Possibly in another thread?

I've been wondering what a 25J would be like with a tighter leadpipe, longer solder joint to bell, an inch or so longer (eliminating bit), and smaller receiver such as a King.

As is, yes it's like playing a shopvac. It'll take more and more air, until you suddenly achieve dreaded Conn Roar.

More air
More practice
Smaller mpc could help
Using a bit as well could help

I never had a problem playing my 25J softly, but the leadpipe had been replaced before I bought the horn. Replacement might solve your problem (or not). I miss that horn, but not the weight; as I got older and punier, hauling that beast up and down several flights of steps to a rehearsal hall became too much.

The manufacturers were building horns to take resistance out. That's the whole reason for the "big piston" Meinl Weston. Take resistance out. In reality they needed to build resistance IN. Have you played a Thor? Resistance was built into the horn. Same with the Miraphone 1293. The build theory was wrong. Resistance helps the embouchure do the job. The lack of resistance makes the embouchure do all the work. The fine muscles and nerves of the embouchure will not take that stress for very long without major fatigue. The resistance helps.

Just my $0.02.
Roger

Roger Lewis wrote:The manufacturers were building horns to take resistance out. That's the whole reason for the "big piston" Meinl Weston. Take resistance out. In reality they needed to build resistance IN. Have you played a Thor? Resistance was built into the horn. Same with the Miraphone 1293. The build theory was wrong. Resistance helps the embouchure do the job. The lack of resistance makes the embouchure do all the work. The fine muscles and nerves of the embouchure will not take that stress for very long without major fatigue. The resistance helps.

Just my $0.02.
Roger

What he said! Can even cause permanent damage.

Roger Lewis wrote:The manufacturers were building horns to take resistance out. That's the whole reason for the "big piston" Meinl Weston. Take resistance out. In reality they needed to build resistance IN. Have you played a Thor? Resistance was built into the horn. Same with the Miraphone 1293. The build theory was wrong. Resistance helps the embouchure do the job. The lack of resistance makes the embouchure do all the work. The fine muscles and nerves of the embouchure will not take that stress for very long without major fatigue. The resistance helps.

Now, if we can just get ALL the manufacturers to pay attention . . .

Yes - manufacturers, listen up! The resistance should be "just right"! I don't want to hear any more excuses!

They could, of course, find all the consultants they need here . . .

It sounds like you did some major work on your instrument over the summer when you did not play. This also sounds like you had a major change in the way the horn plays. I suspect the two are related.

Did you unsolder anything? If so, you may have resoldered and not closed the tubing. New horns have this, the most well known maker of bass trombones regularly sends out new instruments with ferrules unsoldered in the valve tubing.

Bottom line, nobody can tell what's wrong with your horn over tubenet. I'm sorry, it's true. You need to get to someone who knows what they are doing and get real help. I suggest a repair tech or a person who plays tuba for a living.

Never really experienced a horn being too free blowing.
Have played some old large leaky monsters that seems to suck the air out of you, but as for "free blowing", I've always looked at that as a good thing

When I had my Mphone 184 CC, I thought gee I could get a bigger sound with a bigger tuba. So I play-tested a Rudy 3/4 CC, with shipping from across the country. Also a 188; they both were just too big for me. The Rudy in particular sucked the air out of my lungs, and I wasn't getting much sound out of the 188. My MW 182 F was almost as easy to play as my (french) horn, which of course is more resistant than any tuba out there. So I learned that whatever I play, it works better with resistance. My NStar in the picture (that looks almost like a BAT on me,) is just damn near perfect, but becomes less and less perfect the bigger backbore I try. So I stick with my PT64S, having tried everything else under the sun and had none of it work as well.

Balance is the key!
I've had a few large instruments in my time. Some well balanced some too open some too resistant.
The B&H Bb is one of the stuffy ones. great for playing quietly but not that good for loud.
Melton Fafner, far too open for me. Just too in efficient with the air.
I now have (and sell) the New Cerveny 693 6/4 BBb. And I must say the more I play it the more impressed I am!
It whispers beautifully and if you are strong enough it has a sound like dropping a depth charge! The articulation is really sweet too.
I've seen threads where people have taken large Cerveny Tubas and swapped out the valves for BIGGER bore. I'm not sure that's the best idea.
Bigger is not always best!

I was really impressed by the 793 (same but red brass). For a huge horn, it really has good, balanced resistance and is easy to control. Great intonation and dark tone.

What musicians refer to as "resistance" is very important to the function of a brass wind instrument. Engineers work with impedance which is a combination of factors which result in what we refer to as "feel". As mentioned, the easist way to balance this is through use of an appropriate mouthpiece.

As for the "B & S" "Big-Valve" piston set, I was responsible for this at the time the new production facilities were being built up in Markneukirchen. We started with a valve bore of 19.00 Mm, very close to famous York "750 bore". Many "B & S" and now "Melton Meinl-Weston" piston valve sections use 19.00 Mm for the first three and 20.00 Mm for the fourth valve. Since then other bores have been added, smaller depending on the instruments for which they are used.

Resistance is not something determined solely by the mouthpiece or valve bore. This is determined by the instrument as a complete entity. Instruments for beginners have quite a lot of resistance. This makes them easy to play but limits dynamic range. Instruments for advanced playes and professionals are engineered to have a strong fundamental component, maximum dynamic range and efficiency over several octaves. One has only to look and listen to see what fine artists are using to achieve the remarkable results for which they are noted. The rule of thumb is "large instrument - smaller mouthpiece" and "small instrument - larger mouthpiece". There are many fine mouthpieces available so that the "resistance challenge" can be quickly rectified.

Over the years I have been responsible for the manufacture of thousands of tuba mouthpieces. Without extensive discussion I can only say that sound quality, resonance and dynamic range come first. If those factors are positive and with good breathing and tone production on the part of the player, what we refer to as "resistance" is not too significant. Reducing throat bore or tightening a backbore does not always relate directly to more. Changing such dimensions can have adverse effects on sound quality and intonation. As with the game of Chess, one moves can affect many others; much prudence based on experience is necessary.

Best bet for anyone is simply borrow and play as many mouthpieces as possible. The ones with which the most music can be made will come out on top.

Bob Tucci