Tuba prices: are we are being ripped off VERY BIGLY?

[Big Toot]

Does this topic really matter other than it being a pretty standard TNFJ question? You are only ripped off bigly if you feel you have been ripped off. Who really cares if you play a Yamayork with MAW valves, metal strips, a tone ring, AGR, that's been frozen and a Monette...an ugly old 80/20 sheet brass 6 valve F tuba with a fifth valve slide kicker, or a stock, off the shelf Miraclone from China with a 24AW. If you enjoy making music on your chosen horn, that's all that matters. Maybe instead of spending time on here posting about what tuba is best, use that time to practice. Gene Pokorny is still going to sound better than 99% of the TNFJ if he was playing on a 30 year old middle school owned YBB 103 and the 99% were playing on individually customized Yamayorks. My 2 cents...

I'm reminded of the quote "it's a poor workman who blames his tools." Can't remember who said it. I sound little better than crap on my cheap little tuba, but that is hardly the tuba's fault. I knew a woman in college who was a phenomenal tuba player. Simply one of the best I've ever heard, and she did it on a 3-valve King student model that was beat to hell. That's not to say that a better horn doesn't yield better results, but the right player can make anything sound good, in my experience, which is why I am determined to make my tuba work for me and make the sounds I will it to make instead of putting a second mortgage on my house for a $40k model.

[2ba4t]

Dear tbonesullivan and all,

I have repeated all the following in various places on tubenet. Please do your own research on google. These are the challenges I sent to Monette who produce fabulous instruments and mouthpieces and have contributed greatly to playing and attitudes. I merely dare to question the reasons for their well-deserved success.

And it does matter because people who are not as fortunate as others have to pay vastly inflated prices or think they do. It is no good just saying, "I can afford best steak - so should everyone else." I am not suggesting you give away all your money to buy poor tubists horns or even have any sympathy. That would be snowflakian.

The evidential probity is apparent from the scientific methodology used. All is basic fact. No qualified physicist will tell you otherwise. But 'Convince a man against his will, He's of the same opinion still.' [Mind you she wrote 'Frankenstein' ... !]

Everything is indeed perception - if you can afford it. Anyway, you said: "I would really like to see this evidence you used to "disprove" concepts such as ...": Here it is:

SHANKS:
How far a mouthpiece slides in will affect playing. Pure science tells us that this is because the returning sound wave from the bell must synchronise with the next nano-vibration of the lips perfectly [ – at A – 440 times a second]. Secondly, sound waves are strongly affected by the constrictions placed on them by the walls of a tube. This battle within the mouthpipe and mouth piece is as important as the shape of the bell. So, your shorter shank could scientifically make a difference other than purely psychological.

However, centuries of empirical experimentation must have already isolated the optimal proportions. The Law of Probability proves that. No new technology has come specifically to alter mouthpiece shapes and lengths. OK they worked by hand – we have computer driven machines. Your great grand parents were just as intelligent and discerning as you. Unless you have evidence to the contrary – scientific evidence not human reactions – those ‘top notes suddenly ring out so clearly and easily’ might partially be because the air column is slightly shorter, and therefore sharper.

VENTURI
This can be proven scientifically simply not to make any difference. Yes, Venturi was a clever man and the effect does exist – but only on the ‘flow’ of air, a gas or a liquid. BUT the air flow has nothing at all to do with the sound – zilch. The ‘air flow’ in a brass instrument DOES NOT, and CANNOT affect the playing. What is happening is that you need to breathe out to make the buzz and then that air needs to escape – so it does so through the instrument. Once the buzz is made, air flow is utterly, utterly irrelevant (see SmithWatson experiments etc). No air flow, no Venturi: So there cannot be a Venturi effect. Period.

BULK/MASS:
Innumerable studies have proven scientifically that, yes, the body of an instrument vibrates, but that this does not in any way change the sound quality. Nor do types of brass alloy, copper, silver or gold. Blindfolded players again and again and again cannot tell the difference – except the pure weight in their hands. Sound is affected by length, bore, degree of expansion, bell, mouthpiece, mouthpipe and that player’s specific way of doing it. Nothing else. Period. See "The effect of material in brass instruments a review, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 8, 91-96 (1986) (R. Smith)" https://www.smithwatkins.com/administra" target="_blank" target="_blank ... A-1986.pdf"

PERFECTION OF MANUFACTURE:
You write: “adjusting the weight of a trumpet’s finger buttons or valve caps by as little as 1/10th of one gram, so that we can ‘dial in’ the perfect and most even response from every part of the entire system.” It is scientifically true that a smooth and correctly configured air column is vital. The sound waves that pass through the air column and thus jolt the molecules must do so in a leak proof and smooth-walled tube. [Valves are a terrible – but necessary interruption.] It is simply not true that more than that is necessary. So, the weight of valve caps, special sound plates, tiny hammerings at certain misunderstood ‘nodes and antinodes’ along the tubing, incredibly perfect joints, placing of braces etc etc are all utterly, utterly irrelevant, scientifically.

[peterbas]

deleted

[TheTuba]

I'm confused by your position. You said airflow has nothing to do with sound, but then go off on a tangent that explains why the material doesn't matter as long as certain dimensions are met, and those dimensions are ABOUT/NEED airflow. And airflow having nothing to do with sound also makes no sense. Let's say for example you had a blocked lead pipe. According to you, airflow does not need to occur to produce sound on the instrument. Good luck trying to play a simple F on that tuba. So going by the fact that airflow DOES matter to produce sound, we can also say that Venturi can occur. I'm still genuinely confused about the rest of your arguments, but I don't know any information on that so you may be right for all I know. Also, this topic has gone somewhat off the rail.

[Donn]

"Flow" is usually used for a net movement of some volume, not necessarily a lot but some. There is some air flow in tuba playing, because that's how the initial sound is produced, but outside of its very important role in the buzz, it doesn't have much to do with the sound. peterbas is I think implying that resistance or something created by a Venturi effect after the mouthpiece exit could play a role, like other mouthpiece parameters can, in production of that buzz.

There are also some weird phenomena that I believe go under the name "Helmholtz resonance", that can change the effective column length for wavelength generation. Happens in woodwind mouthpieces, as you may have noticed when sax players tune with what seem to be ridiculously minute adjustments to the mouthpiece. If there were a big cavity in there, after the mouthpiece exit, that could do all sorts of things (which is to say, I have no idea), but we wouldn't call that a Venturi effect, because it has nothing to do with flow. Actually, there's barely any cavity at all, and what there is is rarely anything like the diagram. The tuba bore matches the outside of the shank, not the inside of course, so there's a little step out there, that's all.

[2ba4t]

Enough time in the Muse's garden. Everything I know (or rather think I know) is from google and available to all.

[peterbas]

deleted

[The Big Ben]

Enough time in the Muse's garden. Everything I know (or rather think I know) is from google and available to all.

You give up easily.

[Wyvern]

As someone that actually has tubas made in China I can comment on the pricing. Chinese factories make tubas to varying quality for varying prices. The dealer can specify what quality they will accept and the factory gears their work to those requirements. The prices quoted by original poster are about as cheap as it gets - using poor materials and no quality assurance at all - with seller that must be retailing almost as a hobby, the profit margins are so low. For Wessex that price would not even cover production price and shipping to the UK! Nothing for profit, running costs of a business, paying staff wages, premises, tax, exhibiting, quality assurance, research and development, etc - you get the picture.

If what you tried played well, then that was more down to luck than anything else, as we can be certain zero quality assurance by a musician took place at that price.

For Wessex, I insist on the very best materials (such as German brass), precision of build, good finish (4 times as much polishing as other Chinese made tubas), double thickness silver-plating, etc - then every one is quality assured against a list of criteria by an experienced player including play testing at the factory before accepting. All that makes our tubas double the price of the cheapest, but then still less than half the price of European or Japanese made.

But then you have got to remember that the established brands are sold through a dealer network, and of course those shops have got to make a living too, so that is bound to add to the retail price. Compared to woodwind, or string instruments, brass are really a very reasonable price - even the most expensive.

For the buyer you have got to consider your budget and priorities - and whatever interests try before you buy (or ensure there is good return policy), as the most expensive is not necessary the best, shown by the number of professionals that are now buying Wessex and Eastman in preference to the ‘top’ brands because of how well they play, and not because of what name is on the bell.

[roweenie]

the established brands are sold through a dealer network

Aren't you (the "middleman") technically speaking, a dealer also?

(Not a criticism, just looking for clarity)

[tbonesullivan]

Dear tbonesullivan and all,

I have repeated all the following in various places on tubenet. Please do your own research on google. These are the challenges I sent to Monette who produce fabulous instruments and mouthpieces and have contributed greatly to playing and attitudes. I merely dare to question the reasons for their well-deserved success.

(too long to quote here)

I wasn't aware that there were centuries of peer-reviewed scholarly data regarding the acoustics of brass instruments. Considering that until the 20th century, instruments were mainly bade by skilled artisans, and not scientists, somewhat leaves me doubting almost everything you wrote.

Yes, people were quite intelligent long ago. If you study mathematics in college, maybe by your senior year you are dealing with problems that weren't solved in the 18th and 19th centuries. However in terms of manufacturing, the world was completely different. And musical instrument design was just that: design. They weren't "engineered". They were designed by people who were part of a long-term tradition, which had determined specific traits using trial and error.

You say that

It is simply not true that more than that is necessary. So, the weight of valve caps, special sound plates, tiny hammerings at certain misunderstood ‘nodes and antinodes’ along the tubing, incredibly perfect joints, placing of braces etc etc are all utterly, utterly irrelevant, scientifically.

Yet at the same time, if someone puts their finger lightly on specific parts of my trombone, the character of the sound changes. These are things that people have found experimentally, with their own experience, and your entire stance seems to be "it's all in their head", simply because there is no way to describe it scientifically at the present time.

I would argue that the problem is that science literally has no way to effectively experimentally quantify the unit that is a person playing an instrument.

[Wyvern]

the established brands are sold through a dealer network

Aren't you (the "middleman") technically speaking, a dealer also?

(Not a criticism, just looking for clarity)

No, because we are developing the tubas and not just selling. Our tubas would not exist without Wessex development and overseeing production (and we do more of that than you probably realise). The factory is in effect a contractor working for Wessex.

[tbonesullivan]

No, because we are developing the tubas and not just selling. Our tubas would not exist without Wessex development and overseeing production (and we do more of that than you probably realise). The factory is in effect a contractor working for Wessex.

It should be noted that this is hardly an uncommon arrangement. The iconic Thompson Submachine gun, well, the Company that designed and owned it, Auto-Ordnance, never made a thing. They hired companies like Colt, Savage, etc to make them. There are lot of "contract breweries" that make beer for other people, because they have the recipe and did the research, but don't have the brewing capacity.

In the world of high end electric guitar amplifiers, there is a company in California that pretty much makes contract boutique amplifiers for other designers. Tone King, Friedman, Diezel (north america) etc, and now the famous Soldano, all get their amplifiers built there. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement, that keeps the designers from having to build a new factory from the ground up, and gives Boutique Amp Distribution something to sell, while at the same time saving themselves from dealing with the design process.

And, about that "design process", or "tooling up process". The cost of an instrument is more than just the cost of labor and materials. There's the development cost, overhead, tooling costs, etc etc etc.

[roweenie]

No, because we are developing the tubas and not just selling. Our tubas would not exist without Wessex development and overseeing production (and we do more of that than you probably realise). The factory is in effect a contractor working for Wessex

Yes, I know that several of your offerings are unique to your firm (and you have made it abundantly clear, though many of your posts since you started your concern, your strict attention to quality control), but you don't own the factory, nor manufacture personally the instruments you sell - that by definition makes you a middleman, or also known as a dealer:

noun
1. A person or business that buys and sells goods.

Not to split hairs, but you buy them from the factory (regardless of who designs them) at a specific price, and you sell them to others, at a specific mark-up (which is a perfectly acceptable practice, especially since you assume the risks). However, to imply that your system of merchandising (sales accompanied by design) is one of the reasons why you can offer your instruments more cheaply than the "established brands", through their "dealer networks", is not entirely accurate.

I might be able to concede the point and call you an "importer", since you have greater control over the product than just a dealer - - - but since you also are retail, you basically still operate on the same model (ie. mark-up) as would a dealer.

[tbonesullivan]

Oh boy. In case you weren't aware, there's a HUGE company called Foxxconn, that is a contract electronics manufacturer. They are worth somewhere around a trillion dollars. Something around 40% of consumer electronics worldwide are made partly or totally at one of their factories. This includes items such as the iphone, ipod, ipad, most video game systems, etc. They also make numerous parts, which are then shipped to other companies for final assembly.

By that definition, Apple is simply a dealer and/or importer aka a middleman. I'm pretty sure there are many who would challenge that assessment.

Also, direct to customer sales is nothing new, and the fact remains that at every step of the trip to market, there is a mark up. Less steps: less markups. However it is not a model that many companies take. There was a U.S. manufacturer of pro audio equipment called Carvin that worked this way for many years. Their gear was good, made in the U.S.A. and very competitively priced due to not having extra markups. However they unfortunately could not compete with the flood of gear coming from overseas, which could easily out compete them price-wise even with the dealer markups.

[2ba4t]

Big Ben as usual you are right.

BUT how much time should one spend discussing matters which have been proven absolutely with those unwilling to research? Everyone has a right to every opinion - but often opinions and responses can change with thorough scrutiny.

tbone sullivan, peterbas et al - Please, please examine https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/brassa ... mouthpiece" target="_blank" target="_blank. and other sites.

As to "centuries of peer-reviewed scholarly data regarding the acoustics of brass instruments. Considering that until the 20th century, instruments were mainly made by skilled artisans, and not scientists, somewhat leaves me doubting almost everything you wrote" - please do not believe anything I wrote. But do yourself the favour of researching it and proving it wrong.

I have never met so many stupid people as I did in academia. Research and peer review is a racket. You write papers quoting the guys reviewing it, come to conclusions which fit in with the establishment, etc etc etc. I married the only really brilliant and honest academic I ever met.

[tbonesullivan]

Frank Holton did experiments using bell material, and found that regardless of the material used, whether it was wood, brass, etc, the sound produced was the same.

This either tells us that the centuries of material experimentation by brass instrument designers is completely wrong, or that the testing that Holton did was not able to measure the aspects of bell material that made them different.

Do I think that there is a large amount of snake out out there? You bet your buns I do.

Do I think that it's ALL snake oil? Definitely not. Whether it's just on the player side of the horn, or in things like "feedback" that cannot really be measured, these items definitely do make a difference to the player.

[MaryAnn]

Pipsqueaking in. I think perhaps the points made that got my attention the best were the life of the instrument plus who can play well on what. My position as a musician but not a pro is within both.....I never put that many hours into brass playing (except for ten years on horn pre-dystonia) but always could easily tell the difference between "crap" and "not crap." Everyone has his own dividing line between the two, and being able to discern the difference doesn't imply that one can achieve the same performance level as someone else, playing on either crap or not crap. I found I simply more enjoy playing on not crap (don't have to fight it to play in tune or with a tone acceptable to me) and could afford to do it, so I did, helping to keep the German makers in business by taking used instruments out of the buying stream. If I were ever to be lucky enough to go back to playing, very likely I would join in on a lesser level of instrument and be happy I could play it, even if it were in the possibly-crap category due to expected short useful life. It's fun to banter back and forth on technical/scientific data (me being an engineer and all) but it's the enjoyment of playing that matters, no matter be it on crap or not crap.

[tokuno]

[/quote]
And he doesn't even feel the need to drop the dudes name! What a legend.
[/quote]
Wow, that's quite an old photo of Nicholas Cage . . .

[tokuno]

Citation for the pic that's being shared: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Yeah, that name came up a few times in my Econ class at Cal, taught by none other than a very pregnant Laura D'Andrea Tyson, so many years ago . . .
I remember her smacking the lectern one day and saying, "When I'm the President's economic adviser this is what I'm gonna tell him!" I thought she was cracking wise . . . the power of the tongue . . .