How big is this tuba?

[sloan]

The Harvard BBBb was apparently made by Besson. Sam Pilafian played it once a year in his younger days, and the story goes that he had to "train up" for it. There is a picture of that instrument with a girl (read: College-age woman) in the bell with just her head protruding. Pilafian was in that picture, and he looked...young.

The Paxman CCC does not require two people, one to blow and one to work the valves. The same person can blow and work the valves. That does not mean it is playable. And, yes, I have had my shot at it.

The Amati FFF is bigger than any of the above. If the dimensions are correct, it is a true FFF, 1.5 octaves lower than a BBb contrabass. Even with two people, and even with a mouthpiece design for a humanoid skull, I doubt that it is playable in any musical sense of the term.

Rick "who made pretty realistic fart sounds on the Paxman instrument" Denney

So...why should the mouthpiece RIM DIAMETER scale up? Is it not sufficient to increase the total cup volume by increasing the DEPTH?

[Bandmaster]

The Harvard BBBb was apparently made by Besson. Sam Pilafian played it once a year in his younger days, and the story goes that he had to "train up" for it. There is a picture of that instrument...

[sloan]

So...why should the mouthpiece RIM DIAMETER scale up? Is it not sufficient to increase the total cup volume by increasing the DEPTH?

Why do we not use euphonium-sized cup widths on the "normal" tubas? For that matter, why not just use a two foot deep mouthpiece with a horn-type rim?

Because a tuba mouthpiece still fits the face.

but...once the normal scaling gives you a rim that doesn't fit a face - you try something else.

All the math says that the main thing you need to match to the horn is the cup VOLUME - not the rim diameter.

OK - I've answered your questions. Care to take a shot at actually ANSWERING mine?

[Bob Kolada]

My opinion, of course.

And of course-

[TexTuba]

Was someone REALLY trying to play that beast in tune?!

[The Big Ben]

Well I found these sometime back - its pictures of the Besson Harvard BBBb. Not sure why they keep the burlap bag on the bell.

I'm guessing they are trying to keep miscreants from tossing things into the bell....

[Virtuoso]

Maybe the sound of the tuba is rather harsh, and the mat (it looks like a bathmat, with the shag inwards) is to soften the sound so it blends better.

[Rick Denney]

So...why should the mouthpiece RIM DIAMETER scale up? Is it not sufficient to increase the total cup volume by increasing the DEPTH?

I made no argument about this one way or the other, so I don't know what you are asking or why.

I was responding to the 55mm diameter dimension given for the mouthpiece that fit the Amati instrument. I'm assuming that a human skull will have some difficulty effecting a seal around the rim.

The depth of the mouthpiece has a different effect than the volume, and both are important. I don't know why, but experience suggests that it is true. If so, it's possible to increase the volume without increasing either the depth or the rim diameter, with a bulb-shaped cavity. I have no idea what effect that would have.

Mouthpieces and other dimensions are already limited in their scaling. Fred Young said that when scaling an instrument, the dimensionless ratios should remain the same, including such ratios as bore/bugle length, mouthpiece diameter to bugle length, bell diameter to bugle length, and so on. He pointed out that scaling up a fleugelhorn to tuba length using that approach would result in an instrument with a 2" bore. I assume therefore that dimensions were kept in the range that could actually be played, and other adjustments made to make the result musical.

Rick "and your point would be..." Denney

[Virtuoso]

Interesting that for it's "band locker", so to speak, it has it's own fenced in enclosure, like the elephants at the zoo....

[sloan]

Rick "and your point would be..." Denney

My point would be that rim diameter seems to me to be AS affected by the need to fit the face as it is by the need to fit the instrument. It's the interface between the instrument and the face and must take both sides into account.

Over a fairly wide range, faces are capable of dealing with a wide range of rim diameters - so it makes some sense to start with a known, good mothpiece design and simply scale it to operate in the right pitch range. At some point, you either run out of face (the rim is too large) or run out of chops (the rim is too small) and you have to do back to the drawing board.

I'm intrigued by your unsupported assertion that mouthpiece depth is an important independent variable in mouthpiece performance. Can you direct me to some evidence (where, perhaps it is shown that changing rim size and depth (but maintaining volume) WHILE STAYING WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS actually affects mouthpiece performance. I'm currently ignorant in this area - but your assertion implies that you have data not yet presented.

[Mcordon1]

Bass and contrabass saxophone mouthpieces (probably about the same as each other) are both only a little bit larger than baritone saxophone mouthpieces. Obvious human limitations come into play. Further, bass and contrabass saxophone necks do not start out twice as large in diameter as a typical tenor or baritone saxophone necks.

But the contras' do get pretty dang long...

[Steve Marcus]

What piece of music is that on the stand (can't quite make it out by magnifying the .jpg)?

What is the lowest note actually notated?

The stacked chairs, stand, and tuner were obviously set up to "practice" this piece by/for someone who, perhaps, visits this forum.

Who takes credit?

Such inquiries of global significance...

[Wyvern]

What piece of music is that on the stand (can't quite make it out by magnifying the .jpg)?

What is the lowest note actually notated?

I also wondered if on a sub-contra tuba the music would be played at written pitch, or down an octave (like contrabassoon and double bass)? The written pitch would not look to take advantage of such a tuba.

[Rick Denney]

I'm intrigued by your unsupported assertion that mouthpiece depth is an important independent variable in mouthpiece performance. Can you direct me to some evidence (where, perhaps it is shown that changing rim size and depth (but maintaining volume) WHILE STAYING WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS actually affects mouthpiece performance. I'm currently ignorant in this area - but your assertion implies that you have data not yet presented.

You are trying to lure me into an argument, but it won't work. I didn't assert anything except what I have observed through my own experience. I did clearly state that I did not know why depth seemed important in its own right, only that it did. Wave your arms somewhere else.

(Ellis Wean was conducting some experiments on this topic, by the way. He may have data, or his experiments may have been informal. He was certainly persuaded that both depth and volume independently affected the impedance curve, and he had devised a bulb-shaped mouthpiece to achieve volume without so much depth, at least at the time he and I talked about it.)

But it doesn't much matter if it fits the instrument if there is no way a human face can achieve a seal around the rim, don't you think?

Rick "who didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition" Denney

[Bob Kolada]

[engineerargument]yawn...[/engineerargument]

[Tuba Guy]

[Tuba Guy]

When I went back east a couple years ago for auditions, I got in touch with someone in the Harvard band, who let me in. As of 2008, the horn is playable. I couldn't really do much (ok, barely anything) because the bell was touching the ceiling, but it still felt pretty good to play. It was a little disconcerting having an open low F partial, but I would still love to play this in concert.

[Tuba Guy]

What do you mean "a little disconcerting" - is it just that low F 4 lines down played open (like it should given the length of the open bugle) or is it open another octave down? Cause it should just follow a normal BBb fingering chart just sounds an octave lower.

It was the same feeling that you get when you pick up a euph and everything is an octave higher than you expected.

[Kevin Hendrick]

What do you mean "a little disconcerting" - is it just that low F 4 lines down played open (like it should given the length of the open bugle) or is it open another octave down? Cause it should just follow a normal BBb fingering chart just sounds an octave lower.

It was the same feeling that you get when you pick up a euph and everything is an octave higher than you expected.

To borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams, "(it) hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't."

[Tuba Guy]

Sorry, it was a Thursday.
The horn was hard to play because of the space it was in, so I couldn't really get a clear feeling for what it played like. It did feel weird to have an open low D partial and be able to play most of the stuff in the staff open, but in a way it was just like playing a giant french horn with how the partials work out. I would love to spend more time playing this horn, if the chance ever arises but I'm happy I got to at least play it when I did.