Why a BBflat tuba????

[dmmorris]

"At least, we could finally tune to the oboe."

Man ..........that would be a wonderful thing!

"dweee...dweee..dwee..dwee"

[Mitch]

I disagree with the notion that the Bb will be the same on either horn, with regard to overtones. The combination of overtones produced relates to the note's position in reference to the open fundamental. On a BBb horn, the Bb (below the staff) is open, whereas on the CC, it's below the fundamental, and the Bb produced will have overtones proportionate to the fundamental below, which is CC. Some CC horns that are cylindrical through the valve section (bore remains unchanged) sometimes produce an odd array of overtones in a flat key (Bb, Eb, Ab, etc.). I've heard expensive horns played by extremely competent players that produced enough timbral variations via overtones in a one-octave scale as to sound like 4 different horns in one octave. I've frequently thought this is part of the reason some players have difficulty advancing past a final round with a trombone section. I've sat on audition panels where we heard players who played incredibly on their own but had some real difficulty blending with a trombone section. It's not just about intonation. While I've never seen it clearly specified, I believe this is partially why European orchestras use BBb horns. They've had orchestras far longer than we, and their brass sections produce a sound unlike most American orchestras do, if you like the warm, round, fundamental-heavy sort of brass sound. The "American" sound by contrast is usually a little more top-heavy. By reference, many have said that the CSO brass section never really took off until Herseth arrived. The ability of a BBb horn to blend with a trombone section is uniquely easier than a CC, IMHO, and I believe it's due largely to the alignment of the overtones parallelling the trombones. Not that CC's can't. But it takes and EXTREMELY well-trained ear. Overtone training is usually not part of American "ear-training" programs.

I did my undergrad and MM on CC. I did a second MM in a different area soon thereafter, but kept playing. I promptly was involved in an accident, and was unable to play for a long time. I sold my CC (biggest mistake). When I wanted to try playing again, I was looking for a 5/4 or 6/4, the most for the $$. I came across a ridiculously resonant Martin 6/4 BBb. Never thought I'd go back. I haven't done enough orchestral playing with it to be sure, but the ensemble playing I have done with it was a lesson in just how RIDICULOUSLY easier it is to blend with all the other brass.

I'm starting to reconsider that the Europeans are, in fact, on to something.

[Joe Baker]

On a BBb horn, the Bb (below the staff) is open, whereas on the CC, it's below the fundamental, and the Bb produced will have overtones proportionate to the fundamental below, which is CC.

I agree with -- or at least am not qualified to DISagree with -- everything else you've said; but this sentence is just wrong. Once you press the first valve on a CC tuba, the fundamental is no longer CC (or C); rather, it BECOMES BBb. The difference in conical vs cylindrical tubing might change some of the upper overtones, but the fundamental of a CC tuba with the first valve down is the same as that of a BBb tuba with all valves up.
___________________________
Joe Baker, who doesn't know everything, but does know a bit about the fundamentals!

[Rick Denney]

I disagree with the notion that the Bb will be the same on either horn, with regard to overtones. The combination of overtones produced relates to the note's position in reference to the open fundamental.

The point you are making (as opposed to how it reads which is what Joe respoonded to) is that the overtone structure of the instrument is based on the open bugle taper design, not on a shorter bugle supplemented by a couple of feet of first-valve tubing. Thus, playing a C tuba in flat keys might entail a mix of valve tubing that does not produce the most effective collection of overtones.

I suspect this has much more to do with how the instrument is optimized during development, as opposed to the relationship to the open bugle. There are many instruments that have a good scale, in that the overtone series is quite even up and down the scale even with valve tubing in play. And there are instruments with a poor scale that have a different sound with different combinations of partials and valve tubing, as you describe. Since it is impossible for valve tubing to be truly conical (at least consistently across different combinations of valves), tuba designers have to find a good compromise between a forgiving overall design and taper tweaks to optimize for an average use of valves.

I don't think a C tuba is necessarily at a disadvantage there. Firstly, orchestra music still includes plenty of flat keys. Further, many of the sharp keys are using the same notes as in some other flat key. Yes, the scale degree for a C# might entail slightly different intonation than for a Db, but the mix of open bugle and valve tubing is the same either way.

When I listen to the CD of the CSO low brass playing excerpts together, I marvel at how well Jacobs, playing the fat York, blends with the trombone section. I've heard it said by those who have played the instrument that its main strength is that you can bend the pitch without losing the overtones that give it its characteristic sound. As you say, blend is not all about intonation, though theirs was perfect. I would add that it does not require homogeneous sounds, as many often expect. Thus, the bass instrument does not even have to sound like a trombone to blend. In fact, it might blend better because it has different overtones and projection/propagation characteristics. The overtones must be in tune with each other, however, or the sound will contain beats that upset the blend (though not all intonation beats in the upper harmonics upset the blend). Some instruments are better at that than others, and some players are better at that than others.

But I don't think it's related to the BBb/CC issue except by specific example, where it is the instruments themselves that make the difference not the length of the open bugle.

Perhaps your Martin is just a great tuba, Bb or no.

Rick "who has heard many C tuba players who blend beautifully with trombones and many Bb players who don't blend even with themselves" Denney

[MartyNeilan]

I came across a ridiculously resonant Martin 6/4 BBb. Never thought I'd go back. I haven't done enough orchestral playing with it to be sure, but the ensemble playing I have done with it was a lesson in just how RIDICULOUSLY easier it is to blend with all the other brass.

One of the easiest to play contrabass horns I ever owned was a 6/4 Martin BBb - an early Handcraft model with a 26" bellfront. It required less effort than any 4/4 or larger C tuba. Perhaps it was due to the relatively small bore size, or because the horn acted as a huge amplifier requiring less effort on my part, or because of the degree of handcrafting, metal guage, who knows?!?
The Mirafone 190 BBb I owned for years was also an extremely nimble and responsive horn, moreso than many CC's I have played. Perhaps it was due to the thin brass, seemingly small leadpipe, or something totally different.
And the large, heavy rotary 2155 I have now is MUCH more resonant than the significantly smaller 2145 I had previously. Now about that third partial......

Marty "who sees an exception to every rule and an exception to every exception" Neilan

[Mitch]

Allow me to restate, with an aim of clarification. The horn, as an open tube, is built to be a BBb. The amount of tubing that is cylindrical versus the amount that is conical is a given ratio. When you add a length of cylindrical tubing, i.e., pressing a valve, you alter that ratio. The overtones produced are not only a result of the length of tubing, but the way that pitch relates/sympathizes with the physical nature of the horn, i.e., it's physical resonance, it's alloy/ability to vibrate, it's bracing/where it can vibrate. In other words, where/how/at what pitch the metal will vibrate when struck. Every horn I've ever played (and there've been hundreds) has notes for which the horn itself vibrates more than others, whether it be in the bell, through the valve cluster, the springs, etc. Every object has a natural/inherent resonance, and the sounds that eminate from the object are affected by the frequencies at which the object itself will vibrate, whether it be sympathetic or antithetic.

So whether the Bb is played 1st valve or the C is played 4th valve, the ratio of cylindrical to conical is changed from the "natural" horn, and will therefore create a different overtone set by nature, however subtle it may be. That, added to the physical resonance of the object, and you have a different timbre.

To follow Joe's argument, a Bb on a clarinet and a Bb on a trumpet should sound exactly the same; they are, after all, the same pitch in the same octave. Or a BBb on 5' baby grand piano should be as resonant, with the same timbre, as a 9' concert grand; it's the same pitch on the same instrument. But they're not.

So while the overall length of tubing might be the same for 1st valve Bb on a CC, or 4th valve C on a BBb, the way those notes relate to the horn's natural state (open) is different, and a C on a Bb will not have the same overtone set as a C on a CC.

To review, "proportionate" was perhaps not the best word choice. A better word might be "relative" or "responsive." The horn's ability, depending on the horn, to produce natural sounds is limited, on a CC, to CC and C in that first octave. The overtones produced for each note of a scale in that octave will be affected by their position relative to the horn's fundamentals (open pitch series) and will be a different set than for the next octave up, once again, affected by the horn's natural ability to resonate in that octave, also affected, once again, by the material/construction of the horn and it's inherent physical ability to vibrate. Those same pitches in the next octave up will have a different overtone set, and a different set in the next octave set up from that.

[iiipopes]

What Mitch said. If the physical aspects change, there will be a difference, albeit ever so subtle, in the response, intonation and overtones. It has to be. Two items of different size cannot within the laws of physics react exactly the same. It is a difference that is probably so subtle most people can't hear it, and also so subtle that most people, myself included, do not play to a degree where any differences heard can be solely attributed to a horn. Whether Mr. Bobo, as discussed in another thread, can hear or produce these subtle differences I leave to another discussion.

[Rick Denney]

So while the overall length of tubing might be the same for 1st valve Bb on a CC, or 4th valve C on a BBb, the way those notes relate to the horn's natural state (open) is different, and a C on a Bb will not have the same overtone set as a C on a CC.

You say again that you think the instrument is optimized for the open bugle, and again I dispute that. I believe design is tweaked to find the best balance between the open bugle and the valved notes. The best note on the horn (or, more accurately, the note that provides the overtones most desired by the designer) might occur when the first valve is pressed. You cannot generalize on this, it seems to me. A C tuba that plays optimally a first-valve Bb might have a better overtone series (on that note) than a Bb tuba that plays optimally on a first-valve Ab. Even then, everyone has a little different idea of what that overtone series should be.

Rick "thinking each instrument must be evaluated by what comes out of the bell, not by the brass" Denney

[sloan]

Show me the oscilloscope tracings, please...

[Mitch]

Okay, let me try this again...

To be exact, I never said the instrument is optimized for the open bugle. Many/most aren't.

What I'm saying is that the open bugle has, as a result of construction/size/shape/density of alloy/temperature/humidity...,
a predisposition toward a certain set of overtones, and these may or may not be a product of design/purpose.

As a tangential analogy, a basketball is going to be round (with regard to generally accepted principles) when filled with air. How it bounces depends on the p.s.i., the composition and orientation of the surface against which it is going to strike, the composition of its outer skin and its coefficient of friction, etc. But it will be "round" and it will "bounce." By its nature, it holds a volume of air, which, when compressed, will respond by expanding, i.e., bounce (a combination of Newton's First and Third Laws - well, Two also, allowing for the vector created by downward direction, speed, and the acceleration due to gravity).

An open bugle has certain tendencies by nature. It is a tube, part conical, part cylindrical, and has by its physical nature certain tendencies. Changing the proportions of cylindrical vs. conical will change those tendencies, whether designed to behave in a particular manner or not.

It's not about whether any note will have a "better" overtone series. It's rather that it will be different. It's not about the overtones that are most "desired." I haven't seen anything that makes me believe most designers are actually taking deliberate steps to address this. If they were, tubas might look radically different. Additionally, tweaking tubas in this manner could be ridiculously expensive, given the unique talents required of the tweaker and the time and effort necessary to render the tweaking.

With regard to evaluating what comes out the bell, it's a tail-wagging-the-dog way of design, which, IMHO, is why the marketplace has a lot of expensive horns that are still problematic, be it in resonance, intonation, etc. You don't start the house at the shingles, you don't start the fire with the flame. Antonio Stradivari didn't get lucky; there's a reason why he had a "Master Period." He didn't carve the violin hoping it would come out okay. He had a deliberate tonal plan for the wood from the first cut. If manufacturers are looking to strike a balance between open bugle and valve section, that means to me that nothing's winning out. They're continuing to use 100-year-old designs, hoping to come up with something new. Look out Fred Flintstone...

[Rick Denney]

...If manufacturers are looking to strike a balance between open bugle and valve section, that means to me that nothing's winning out. They're continuing to use 100-year-old designs, hoping to come up with something new. Look out Fred Flintstone...

You know, this all sounds profound. But I'm going to call you out.

What would a manufacturer actually do to avoid having Mitch (or someone like him) call him a Fred Flinstone?

Near as I can tell, the manufacturers indeed do consider the overtone series on their instruments, and do seek to balance them across the range of the instrument. But, as with those who would design highly complex valve systems to achieve a theoretical objective regarding intonation, going too far down this road tempts one to forget other problems.

Some observations:

1. There is no agreement on the most desirable sound. Sound is more than overtones, it is also projection and propagation in a hall. If we can't agree on what sound we want (in terms that can be measured), how can we optimize?

2. There are other requirements than sound. The instrument must, for example, fit on the player's body. It must be carryable. It must be affordable. It must play in tune. It must be maintainable. You must be able to produce it.

3. There are no models of taper designs and their resulting overtones that go beyond the fairly simplistic mathematical models written by such as Benade or Fletcher and Rossing. A real model would have to take into account all the effects: The curves, the vibration of the material (though I think you greatly over-emphasize the importance of this in the sound out in the hall--tuba sound isn't as related to the brass as violin sound is to the wood, since in the latter the wood is specifically acoustically linked to the resonating chamber via the bridge), the tuning slides, the valves (even when not pressed), the impedance of the mouthpiece, the manufacturing methods, etc.

Research ain't cheap! You must define requirements and then have models that allow you to optimize for those requirements, if you are going to adopt a system design approach rather than a craftsman's trial and error approach. Then, you have to figure out how to make it three-dimensional, and not just a pile of paper. In the end, does that work out better than the ears of a master tuba maker? Maybe it will. Bring your checkbook.

I have no doubt that the master tuba makers in our history have had as much of a tonal plan as did Stradivarius with his violins. Those plans may or may not have been quantitative, but they surely had to be qualitative.

In the end, though, you still have not persuaded me that Bb instruments are necessarily better for band, or that C instruments are necessarily better for orchestra, just because of the relationship to the open bugle, in producing "blend". That was your first thesis, was it not? The effects you are talking about might or might not be a trend, but they are surely lost in the noise of sample variation within different examples of the same model, let alone across models.

Rick "whose ears are thankfully not as refined" Denney

[windshieldbug]

In the end, though, you still have not persuaded me that Bb instruments are necessarily better for band, or that C instruments are necessarily better for orchestra, just because of the relationship to the open bugle, in producing "blend". That was your first thesis, was it not?

In fact, jump up an octave, and in the ochestra you find Bb trombones. They READ untransposed bass clef, but they are still in Bb

Jump up another octave, and you find the trumpets. Bb was chosen as an "easier" key to master, the Bb trumpet being really a long Bb cornet, which descended directly from the C/Bb/A/G cornopean. There, a step difference has a discernable change in length/bore ratio, which I can confirm, actually having been paid to play Bb and C trumpets and cornets (it's a long, and not very interesting story). These ARE harder instruments for an amateur to master.

But the "commonness" of the Bb cornet seems to have followed it to the band, and there rubbed off on the BBb tuba as guilt by association. No one that I know of asserts that C trombones should be used in a symphonic setting. I did, indeed, use a CC tuba with the symphony, but I think that was FAR MORE a matter of finding the right sound, blend, and the ABILITY to change all of that on a dime if the conductor asked.

[Mitch]

In the end, though, you still have not persuaded me that Bb instruments are necessarily better for band, or that C instruments are necessarily better for orchestra, just because of the relationship to the open bugle, in producing "blend". That was your first thesis, was it not?

No, it was not. Nevermind.

[iiipopes]

And in the end, we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one, keeping in mind that for the majority of American school programs, the instructional literature is for BBb tuba, not CC tuba. This tradition will probably stay with us for another century or so unless something as much as a leap forward comes along as the tuba was over the serpent and ophicliede. This being said, acknowledging that the basic design of all brass instruments, save the institutionalisation in the UK of Blaikley's compensating system, has basically been the same for roughly 175 years, since the invention of valves in the 1st third of the 19th century, and with the inherent shortcomings known and described for just a few years shy of almost as long.

So the answer to "Why a BBb tuba?" is the circular answer, "Because I do," which is another way of saying what the first page of posts to this thread do.

[Rick Denney]

No, it was not. Nevermind.

Rather than shrug your eyes, look back to your explanation to see where you weren't clear. Everyone seems to have missed your point, now several times. Maybe we are just mired in the topic of the thread.

As Richard Feynmann said, if you can't explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it yourself.

Strong words, yes, and probably not justified by what you understand. But one reason we have these discussions over issues nobody really cares about is to make sure we share our understanding. The "nevermind" response therefore gets my goat. It reminds me of the "whatever" I get from teenagers who won't explain themselves, either.

In each of my resonses, I have tried to restate your point to make sure I understand it. You have not corrected me, just told me I missed the point.

Rick "whatever" Denney

[MaryAnn]

Reminds me of a similar horn list discussion a couple years ago.

I was playing 2nd horn on an early classical piece, one that was written for "horn in X" but I don't remember what the X was.
In particular, I noticed that when I was in octaves with the 1st horn, it blended considerably better if I used the Bb horn in a range (below concert middle C) where normally one would use the F horn. The 1st horn, with his higher note, was playing on the Bb side of the horn.

I posted about this to the horn list, noting how much better it sounded if I also used Bb horn, and tried to make arguments about the overtone series being different for the note if I played it on F horn as opposed to playing it on Bb horn. Now I would argue about the tapers I guess.

Anyhow, list response was along the lines of that note on the F horn being flat due to its position in the harmonic series, and that I must be hearing an intonation issue. (As if I were too stupid to bend the flat note up to pitch.)

They all argued that what I said just couldn't possibly be true.
No one, even the engineers on the list, came up with why this could be so, and also no one made the effort to try the experiment of playing in octaves with the lower person switching between the Bb and the F horns.

So I left them to stew in it, and I continue to play my lower half of octaves in that kind of music on the Bb horn, knowing that what I hear is what I hear. Put another way, the sound of the lower note on the F side of the horn, is darker than the sound of the same pitch played on the Bb side of the horn. I haven't sat down and figured it out, but it seems like the same pitch on the F side uses more tubing than when played on the Bb side, because of the relative position in the harmonic series. Innate flatness or sharpness has nothing to do with it; beatless octaves are beatless octaves.

MA, who realizes this has nothing to do with BBb tubas.

[Lew]

Why a BBb? You might as well ask why a duck?:

Hammer: ...You're a peach, boy. Now, here is a little peninsula, and, eh, here is a viaduct leading over to the mainland.

Chico: Why a duck?

Hammer: I'm alright, how are you? I say, here is a little peninsula, and here is a viaduct leading over to the mainland.

Chico: Alright, why a duck?

Hammer: (pause) I'm not playing "Ask Me Another," I say that's a viaduct.

Chico: Alright! Why a duck? Why that...why a duck? Why a no chicken?

Hammer: Well, I don't know why a no chicken; I'm a stranger here myself. All I know is that it's a viaduct. You try to cross over there a chicken and you'll find out why a duck.

Chico: When I go someplace I just...

Hammer: (interrupts) It's...It's deep water, that's why a duck. It's deep water.

Chico: That's why a duck...

Hammer: Look...look, suppose you were out horseback riding and you came to that stream and you wanted to ford over...You couldn't make it, it's too deep!

Chico: Well, why do you want with a Ford if you gotta horse?

Hammer: Well, I'm sorry the matter ever came up. All I know is that it's a viaduct.

Chico: Now look, alright, I catch ona why a horse, why a chicken, why a this, why a that...I no catch ona why a duck.

Hammer: I was only fooling...I was only fooling. They're gonna build a tunnel there in the morning. Now is that clear to you?

Chico: Yes, everything excepta why a duck.

Hammer: Well, that's fine...then we can go ahead with this thing. Now look...I'm gonna take you down and show you our cemetery. I've got a waiting list of fifty people down at that cemetery just dying to get in it, but I like you.

Chico: Yeah, you're my friend.

Hammer: I like you, and I'm gonna shove you in ahead of all of 'em.

Chico: I know you like me.

Hammer: I'm gonna see that you get a steady position.

Chico: Atsa good.

Hammer: And if I can arrange it, it'll be horizontal...Now, remember, when the auction starts, if somebody says a hundred dollars?

Chico: I say two hundred.

Hammer: That's grand. Now if somebody says two hundred?

Chico: I say three hundred.

Hammer: That's great! Now, you know how to get down there?

Chico: No, I'm a stranger...

Hammer: (interrupting) Now look...now look, you go down there, down that narrow path there...until you come to the...that little jungle there, you see it? Where those thatched palms are...and there's a little clearing there...a little clearing with a wire fence around it. You see that wire fence there?

Chico: Alright...why a fence?

Hammer: Oh no! We're not gonna go all through that again!

[Donn]

They all argued that what I said just couldn't possibly be true.
No one, even the engineers on the list, came up with why this could be so, and also no one made the effort to try the experiment of playing in octaves with the lower person switching between the Bb and the F horns.

I think that just proves that you want to go to the tuba players for your engineering analysis.

The last time this came up here, though, Haugan was saying that the Eb and Bb tubas sound better together than the sum of the parts, because their different harmonics for the same note reinforce each other. Should be true albeit to lesser extent for different octaves. Blend in the unobtrusive sense would be the other side of the coin.

For Bb vs C, fewer notes count for this issue, like B,C below staff, F#,G, B,C, etc. on up.

(Disclaimer: not an engineer.)

[windshieldbug]

That's why a duck...

Somebody rang!?

[Leland]

But should a college freshman music major dump his otherwise very nice BBb for a CC because he'll need a "serious" tuba for school?

I haven't read this whole thread, and frankly, I'm not going to bother, but it just occurred to me...

Can a tuba actually ever be "serious"??