Switching from CC TO BBb

[andrew the tuba player]

Keep the Kalison pride comein. I know i will

[TubaRay]

It has been my experience as a player and teacher that a given note is easiest to produce using the least amount of pipe possible. As as example, play your 4th partial note, (2nd line Bb if on a BBb tuba, or 2nd space C if on a CC tuba).

This is not an exact comparison. When one plays a second line Bb on a BBb tuba and one plays a second line Bb on a CC tuba, the length of the tubing is essentially the same. Is it not?

[windshieldbug]

It has been my experience as a player and teacher that a given note is easiest to produce using the least amount of pipe possible. As as example, play your 4th partial note, (2nd line Bb if on a BBb tuba, or 2nd space C if on a CC tuba).

This is not an exact comparison. When one plays a second line Bb on a BBb tuba and one plays a second line Bb on a CC tuba, the length of the tubing is essentially the same. Is it not?

It is the same length for the same actual note, but the over-all bore profile is different. The more valves used, the more cylindrical tubing.

I'm not sure I agree that one is necessarily easier than the other, but I do agree that they are different. Saying that more valves used = harder to play is like saying a trombone is harder to play than a baritone horn.

[andrew the tuba player]

I agree with the Situation point of view. I love my Kalison. But, there are instances when the 20J or even the 20K souzy would be better for a song. So, It depends on what you're doing. I'm a big fan of Souzys. If I needed a hobbie gorn I'd probably go for my own 20K. But, for what I'm doing now (Church, Highschool concert, community band) the Kalsion is excellent. And, I will say that depending on the horn you can go low on a CC. The Mirafone I used to have had a very blatty low end. So I'd usually end up with the high line. But, with My Kalison which is considerably bigger yet still a CC, I can go down as low as most BBbs (excludeing the 20J). So, It depends on what you're used to, what you want and what you're doing with it.

[The Big Ben]

TexRex:

Thanks for the considerate post and welcome to the group!

[markaustinhowle]

It has been my experience as a player and teacher that a given note is easiest to produce using the least amount of pipe possible. As as example, play your 4th partial note, (2nd line Bb if on a BBb tuba, or 2nd space C if on a CC tuba).

This is not an exact comparison. When one plays a second line Bb on a BBb tuba and one plays a second line Bb on a CC tuba, the length of the tubing is essentially the same. Is it not?

Yes it is the same. The segment of my post that you quoted wasn't about a comparison at all. It was a single example about the 4th partial on either of the two instruments in question. If you will re-read my entire post, I think you will see that I was simply using this example as a way for you to make the comparison yourself between the note C played two or three ways on your CC tuba or the note Bb played two or three ways on a BBb tuba. Here is a larger portion of my quote.

It has been my experience as a player and teacher that a given note is easiest to produce using the least amount of pipe possible. As as example, play your 4th partial note, (2nd line Bb if on a BBb tuba, or 2nd space C if on a CC tuba). First play the note open, then finger it 2/3, then finger it 1/4 or 1/2/4. As you add pipe it gets harder to produce for the following reasons:

[Rick Denney]

If you will re-read my entire post, I think you will see that I was simply using this example as a way for you to make the comparison yourself between the note C played two or three ways on your CC tuba or the note Bb played two or three ways on a BBb tuba.

Some notes on one instrument can be played on a lower partial. For example, C below the staff is played using the third partial of the open bugle plus the fourth valve branch on a Bb tuba. On a C tuba, it's played using the open bugle alone on the third partial. For that note, the C tuba may be a bit more open sounding and resonant. Maybe not. Some instruments sound better with some cylindrical tubing in the taper design, and I would want to design an instrument to be optimal with, say, the first valve branch included to provide a better balance over the whole scale.

But the number of notes that can be played on a lower partial with fewer valves is actually not that large when comparing Bb and C. The number of notes is almost the whole scale when comparing contrabass tubas to bass tubas, however.

And the Bb tuba uses fewer valves than the C tuba on all the remaining notes. For example, Ab at the bottom of the staff requires only the first valve on a Bb tuba, but requires the often-troublesome 2-3 combination on a C tuba.

If the instruments are optimized for first valve use as I think is a reasonable approach, the Bb tuba vs. the C tuba is about a wash. Some notes will be closer to the optimum on the Bb tuba, and some will be closer on the C tuba.

For instruments of the same volume of air, differences in the energy of vibration and resonance in producing the same sound must be caused by differences in the taper design. Smaller instruments are often easier to play with clarity than larger instruments because of that (F vs. Bb is an extreme example). C tubas often have less volume for instruments of the same general design. For example, a Miraphone 186 C has the same bottom bow and bell as a Bb 186, so all the difference between the two is between the main tuning slide and the bottom bow. That's about 8 feet of tubing on a Bb and 6 feet of tubing on a C, and the tubing is wider than the basic bore. That substantially changes the taper design between the two, and somewhat changes the volume of air contained, yet they are both still more like each other than either is like other tubas.

The inherent difference in taper design may be at the root of intonation difficulties with very large C tubas. In the BAT class, the old Bb examples don't have quite the same reputation for squirreliness as their C counterparts (when the comparison can be made). That's probably the same reason C tubas made from Monster Eb bass parts often have better intonation than the original Eb design.

Saying that Bb is inherently better or worse than C is, of course, unsupportable by science. Each can be optimized for its pitch. But they will be different, just because of the necessary difference in taper design and volume. Since the bells are usually the same, however, my suspicion is that the differences are 99% perceived by the player and less than 1% perceived by the listener.

Since playing a tuba is such a subjective experience, that difference in how it feels still counts. But those of you able to follow Jacobs's advice and play by sound instead of feel probably notice the difference less than others do.

Rick "who can make any C tuba sound like a Bb tuba" Denney

[markaustinhowle]

I'm not sure I agree that one is necessarily easier than the other, but I do agree that they are different.

It may be that the amount of cylindrical pipe vs. conical doesn't affect the difficulty of note production. I'm just not sure. However, I still believe that adding valves does increase response difficulty when comparing its total length to a similar length of an open bugle. It may be caused by the shape of the tube while going through valves or going through bends while going through the valve tubing, or as I stated, the increase in cylindrical tubing. Does anybody have any science on this?

[iiipopes]

Physics and inertia. The bugle of a CC tuba is about 24 inches shorter than a BBb. So there will be those who say the response is "better," simply because on a lot of the notes a person is not having to put as much metal in motion.

[Rick Denney]

I'm not sure I agree that one is necessarily easier than the other, but I do agree that they are different.

It may be that the amount of cylindrical pipe vs. conical doesn't affect the difficulty of note production. I'm just not sure. However, I still believe that adding valves does increase response difficulty when comparing its total length to a similar length of an open bugle. It may be caused by the shape of the tube while going through valves or going through bends while going through the valve tubing, or as I stated, the increase in cylindrical tubing. Does anybody have any science on this?

On most tubas, it is easier for me to play lip slurs when more valves are in use. The resistance does increase. But beyond, say, adding valves 1-2, more valves also make the instrument sound less resonant, with some exceptions. My York Master can really rock and roll on the fourth valve, for example.

Thus, response seems to prefer a bit more resistance and resonance seems to prefer a bit less (or a shorter taper profile). This makes sense physically. The quality of resonance is a function of pure resistance, which affects the entire frequency domain, and impedance, which is resistance at a certain frequency. More pure resistance lowers the quality of the resonance in electrical circuits, and the principles are the same. The best resonance comes when inductive and capacitive impedance are equal and there is no pure resistance. In acoustic terms, that probably means when the impedance of air pressure matches the impedance of air movement so that they directly feed each other at that frequency. Pure resistance slows down that feeding process by impeding movement and pressure changes across the frequency domain. That can happen as a result of both obstructions (including twists and turns) and leaks.

As I said, if it were me doing the design and testing, I would optimize the instrument for a middling number of valves. "Optimum" is probably the best balance between resonance quality and resistance.

Rick "then there is intonation" Denney

[Allen]

Here's another method of choosing BBb/CC: let the horn pick you. That's what happened to me.

When I decided a few years ago to go back to playing tuba, I assumed that I'd get a BBb horn, as that was what I was used to. I tried out a bunch of BBb tubas, and just for fun, some CC ones. I just loved one tuba, and it happened to be a CC. In a couple of weeks, I had learned the fingerings, and in a few months I no longer needed to think of fingerings at all.

So, here's the method: Try tubas. Let the one you like best pick you. Learn new fingerings or not, as needed. Practice. Play. Enjoy.

Cheers,
Allen

[markaustinhowle]

If you will re-read my entire post, I think you will see that I was simply using this example as a way for you to make the comparison yourself between the note C played two or three ways on your CC tuba or the note Bb played two or three ways on a BBb tuba.

Some notes on one instrument can be played on a lower partial. For example, C below the staff is played using the third partial of the open bugle plus the fourth valve branch on a Bb tuba. On a C tuba, it's played using the open bugle alone on the third partial. For that note, the C tuba may be a bit more open sounding and resonant. Maybe not. Some instruments sound better with some cylindrical tubing in the taper design, and I would want to design an instrument to be optimal with, say, the first valve branch included to provide a better balance over the whole scale.

But the number of notes that can be played on a lower partial with fewer valves is actually not that large when comparing Bb and C. The number of notes is almost the whole scale when comparing contrabass tubas to bass tubas, however.

And the Bb tuba uses fewer valves than the C tuba on all the remaining notes. For example, Ab at the bottom of the staff requires only the first valve on a Bb tuba, but requires the often-troublesome 2-3 combination on a C tuba.

If the instruments are optimized for first valve use as I think is a reasonable approach, the Bb tuba vs. the C tuba is about a wash. Some notes will be closer to the optimum on the Bb tuba, and some will be closer on the C tuba.

For instruments of the same volume of air, differences in the energy of vibration and resonance in producing the same sound must be caused by differences in the taper design. Smaller instruments are often easier to play with clarity than larger instruments because of that (F vs. Bb is an extreme example). C tubas often have less volume for instruments of the same general design. For example, a Miraphone 186 C has the same bottom bow and bell as a Bb 186, so all the difference between the two is between the main tuning slide and the bottom bow. That's about 8 feet of tubing on a Bb and 6 feet of tubing on a C, and the tubing is wider than the basic bore. That substantially changes the taper design between the two, and somewhat changes the volume of air contained, yet they are both still more like each other than either is like other tubas.

The inherent difference in taper design may be at the root of intonation difficulties with very large C tubas. In the BAT class, the old Bb examples don't have quite the same reputation for squirreliness as their C counterparts (when the comparison can be made). That's probably the same reason C tubas made from Monster Eb bass parts often have better intonation than the original Eb design.

Saying that Bb is inherently better or worse than C is, of course, unsupportable by science. Each can be optimized for its pitch. But they will be different, just because of the necessary difference in taper design and volume. Since the bells are usually the same, however, my suspicion is that the differences are 99% perceived by the player and less than 1% perceived by the listener.

Since playing a tuba is such a subjective experience, that difference in how it feels still counts. But those of you able to follow Jacobs's advice and play by sound instead of feel probably notice the difference less than others do.

Rick "who can make any C tuba sound like a Bb tuba" Denney

My case is really simple:

1. The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

2. Half of all the notes from the bottom of the bass clef upwards use less pipe on CC compared to BBb. All the other notes use the same length as BBb. No notes use longer pipe on CC than BBb.

You stated the 2/3 valve combination was problematic. On beginner quality instruments the third valve tubing is made long so the 1/3 and 1/2/3 combinations won’t be sharp. This causes the 2/3 combination to be flat. On upper quality instruments there are at least 4 valves and there is no need to make the 3rd slide too long. Every CC tuba I have ever seen or heard of has at least 4 valves so the 2/3 combination is no problem for CC tubas.

[windshieldbug]

The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

Gee, silly me, I would think notes should be optimized for intonation and response, not short or long length.

[markaustinhowle]

The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

Gee, silly me, I would think notes should be optimized for intonation and response, not short or long length.

Well of course they are! That is why short fingerings are desirable in the first place. They produce the best tone, intonation, response. I used the word short to describe the pipe used to play that beautiful note. But who said short notes couldn't be purdy.

[Rick Denney]

My case is really simple:

1. The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

2. Half of all the notes from the bottom of the bass clef upwards use less pipe on CC compared to BBb. All the other notes use the same length as BBb. No notes use longer pipe on CC than BBb.

I would argue against your first point, and will do so at length. A tuba is measured by the sound, response, pitch, and general ease of play (with "play" meaning different things to different players).

It is no better than an assumption that the shortest possible tubing achieves the best balance of these objectives. And if a tuba really provided the best balance of those objectives on the open bugle, then most notes played by the instrument will be sub-optimal. Why would you want a tuba like that?

I could just as plausibly assume that meeting those objectives requires that the tubing in use contain less cylindrical valve tubing and more conical tapered tubing. Another way to express that is by a smaller percentage of valve tubing in the total bugle in use. I have heard that argument made many times, and even in this thread, by high-end performers. But I think that is simplistic, too.

Let's look at the list of notes for which the C uses less tubing on a lower partial over the range from the pedal B to G above the staff:

B, Pedal (1st partial)
C, Pedal
B, 2nd partial
C, 2nd partial
Gb, 3rd partial
G, 3rd partial
B, 4th partial
C, 4th partial
Eb, 5th partial
F, 5th partial
Gb, 6th partial
G, 6th partial
B, 8th partial
C, 8th partial
Eb, 9th partial
E, 9th partial
Gb, 10th partial
G, 10th partial

That's 18 notes out of 46, and all but five of them are on or above the staff. And on those 18 notes, the Bb tuba needs more than the first two valves on only six of them.

Of the 25 or so notes on and above the staff in that range, the C tuba plays on a lower partial with less tubing on about half, which means it doesn't on about half (see below).

On the other hand, the Bb tuba uses a lower percentage of cylindrical valve tubing on ALL the remaining notes, which is 28 of the 46 notes in that range, and half the notes on and above the staff.

So, using your assumed strategy to achieve our desirable objectives, the C tuba is advantageous over 18 of the 46 notes in a professional's working range. (That advantage is smaller as a percentage of an amateurs working range, by the way.)

Using the often-stated objective of minimizing the addition of valve tubing, the Bb tuba is advantageous over 28 of the 46 notes in a professional's working range, and the Bb advantage covers a greater share still of the amateur's working range.

Of course, neither of these strategies consistently lead to those objectives. As I said before, those objectives compete. I contend from my own experience that most tubas are more resonant on the the open bugle and more responsive and easier to play when more valves are used, because of the greater resistance. So, whether an otherwise identical Bb or a C tuba really works better in a given situation depends on the particular strengths and weaknesses of the instrument. Those will overwhelm simplistic design approaches, such as using a lower percentage of valve tubing or playing on a lower partial with less tubing.

After all, an F tuba uses less tubing than a C tuba over that entire range except on 9 notes, and most of those are in the typical F-tuba danger zone from low C down to Gb just above the pedal. Would that mean the F is the better instrument over the remainder of the range? No, because that rule doesn't really relate directly to the sound, response, pitch, and ease of play. The F will be better in some of these categories and not in others, depending on the needs of the music at hand.

Of course, even Bb and C tubas of the same make and model are not identical, and they can't be. But their differences defy generalizations. I have played many C tubas that were hard to steer and many Bb tubas with a light and responsive feel. Each instrument has to stand on its own.

Rick "who has done this arithmetic here before now" Denney

[markaustinhowle]

My case is really simple:

1. The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

2. Half of all the notes from the bottom of the bass clef upwards use less pipe on CC compared to BBb. All the other notes use the same length as BBb. No notes use longer pipe on CC than BBb.

I would argue against your first point, and will do so at length.

Sir: I posted my thoughts in response to a question by the Piper. I stated the logical reasons for my thoughts. I don’t need to counter your verbiage in order to feel complete. I am perfectly content knowing of your beliefs and have no desire to change them. I am happy for you to pass those thoughts on to all of your friends and family not only now but long into the future. So, good luck with the procreation of your thinking.

[The Big Ben]

My case is really simple:

1. The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

2. Half of all the notes from the bottom of the bass clef upwards use less pipe on CC compared to BBb. All the other notes use the same length as BBb. No notes use longer pipe on CC than BBb.

I would argue against your first point, and will do so at length.

Sir: I don’t get out of bed every morning so I can argue on the internet. I posted my thoughts in response to a question by the Piper. I stated the logical reasons for my thoughts. I don’t need to counter your verbiage in order to feel complete. I am perfectly content knowing of your beliefs and have no desire to change them. I am happy for you to pass those thoughts on to all of your friends and family not only now but long into the future. So, good luck with the procreation of your thinking.

Well. Procreation. We do that now on TubeNet? I shall have to notify The Authorities. We sha'n't be having that here, now shall we?

Jeff "You sure told *him*" Benedict

[markaustinhowle]

Jeff "You sure told *him*" Benedict

I could have remained silent but that would have implied that I thought my case was inferior to Mr. Denny's. I could have argued with him but that would have been entering his arena of operation, and I really don't have time to list and refute each fallacy within his argument. Instead, since Mr. Denny stated that my case was "no better than an assumption".

[The Big Ben]

Jeff "You sure told *him*" Benedict

I could have remained silent but that would have implied that I thought my case was inferior to Mr. Denny's. I could have argued with him but that would have been entering his arena of operation, and I really don’t have time to list and refute each fallacy within his argument. Instead, since Mr. Denny stated that my case was “no better than an assumptionâ€

[windshieldbug]

As the late, great James Brown would have said:

"Heh!"

(But he would have done a full spin and a full split before doing so
"Awwwwwwww")