TubeNet

Take notice: I noticed your notice.

There is no such thing as an 8/4 tuba. 6/4 is an exaggeration, but it's enough fun that no one minds. Anything past that size is a joke, one way or the other.

Valve bore doesn't make a tuba that much bigger - the Cerveny piggy's valve bore is .827 in., but it barely qualifies as 4/4.

If you've ever actually held a Rudy 6/4 b flat, you just might believe.

bloke wrote:THIS:

MikeMason wrote:If you've ever actually held a Rudy 6/4 b flat, you just might believe.

This really is one of those - Ya gotta see it to believe it - things.

- pictures just can't convey the presence of this horn. Lee S. brought one by on his way to see Gene P. a few years ago - the horn felt like it was the size of my '53 MG TD. I remember it had very nice build quality and attention to detail.

Is there anybody in a major orchestra that uses one regularly?

What makes it a 6/4 and not a 3/2??

Three Valves wrote:What makes it a 6/4 and not a 3/2??

The same math that says some tubas are '4/4' size.

A 4/4 is a 1.

a 6/4 is a 1.5.

Hup

Valve bore should be like shoe sizes.

King 2341 -- 4/4 B
Besson 994 -- 4/4 C
Miraphone 186 -- 4/4 D
Cerveny piggy -- 4/4 EE.

MikeMason wrote:If you've ever actually held a Rudy 6/4 b flat, you just might believe.

Carrying it without native bearers will do it, too.

Rick "the miracle is that they can be played at all" Denney

Donn wrote:Valve bore should be like shoe sizes.

King 2341 -- 4/4 B
Besson 994 -- 4/4 C
Miraphone 186 -- 4/4 D
Cerveny piggy -- 4/4 EE.

So, my Hirsbrunner 193 is a 5/4 EE, while my Holton 345 is a 6/4 D? Something doesn't seem right about that.

Rick "dashed by the definite example" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

Donn wrote:Valve bore should be like shoe sizes.

King 2341 -- 4/4 B
Besson 994 -- 4/4 C
Miraphone 186 -- 4/4 D
Cerveny piggy -- 4/4 EE.

So, my Hirsbrunner 193 is a 5/4 EE, while my Holton 345 is a 6/4 D? Something doesn't seem right about that.

What doesn't seem right? According to specs dug up in a hurry, the piggy has a 0.821 bore and that Hirsbrunner an 0.807, so going from the examples the "shoe width" might be E rather than EE. I am too lazy to check the D numbers, as I suspect it isn't really your point anyway.

I wonder if you're thinking an EE size tuba should be bigger? My feet are for most shoes 13B. Let's say someone here is a 10D, a common size; that's smaller than my 13B, no? The problem with the analogy is really that in shoe sizes, width is really proportional to length, so EE isn't a measurement that can by itself be expressed in inches, it depends on the (length) size. We're really talking about two different shape widths, the X/4 bugle shape and the shoe size valve bore - but comparable tubas are normally close enough to the same length to support the shoe width thing as long as it isn't taken any more seriously than the X/4 thing.