What makes a 1/2 or 3/4 size tuba?

[Tubajug]

I've always been curious about this, is it just bore size? Because the length of tubing would have to be the same in order to get it to be pitched in BBb (or whatever key it is). I know student models (1/2 and 3/4 size) are smaller tubas. Are they simply "wrapped" tighter to be smaller? Any insights would be most welcome. This is something that I've always wondered but never got around to asking. I've had students ask me the same question and I've been unable to give them a definitive answer. Thanks!

[tuba-tobias]

Back in '76 when I bought my first Rudolf Meinl 3/4 this maker offered a 1/2 size CC. Looked very much like the bigger brother but had smaller diameter throughout the entire length of the instrument. Saw the model at some exhibitions a few years after but guess they were discontinued due to lack of popularity.

[Wyvern]

Surely this is just a manufacturers way of describing their 'smaller than normal' size tuba. Does not have a precise meaning. In the same way as;

4/4 = normal size
5/4 = large
6/4 = very large

[SousaSaver]

I think Bloke's very accurate point should be repeated: there is NO across the board standard for determining size.

What qualifies as half size? I have seen a Meinl Weston smaller than this:


What about this? What size is this Meinl Weston?

Certainly not 6/4.

[The Big Ben]

The King 2341, then, would remain in the 4/4 class due to its bell size, but many of the Conn single-digit J/California Olds O-99 - Reynolds TB-10/King 11XX instruments (and clones) would be classified as '3/4 size'.

I've had a King 2340 and presently have an Olds 0-99-4. I agree with bloke that the King is 1/4 horn larger than the Olds. All of the tubes of the King are significantly larger than the corresponding branches of the Olds.

There are Amati BBb horns with a .640 bore being sold as 'children's tubas' They are about 32" tall and could be referred to as '1/2 size tubas". They are available in CC also for those who want their tyke to have a head start on college.

[SousaSaver]

I've had a King 2340 and presently have an Olds 0-99-4. I agree with bloke that the King is 1/4 horn larger than the Olds. All of the tubes of the King are significantly larger than the corresponding branches of the Olds.

But another issue rises from this: The bore size on an Olds 0-99 and a King 2340 are both .687". Should bore size play a factor in this decision. "3/4" Tubas tend to have bore sizes smaller than .687". A Conn 5J bore is .658". I think that this is a larger "3/4" size Tuba, especially compared to a newer King 2341. I think once a horn gets larger than a 5J, it is safe to assume it falls into 4/4 territory.

[Rick Denney]

The quarter system is a way for a manufacturer to distinguish his own product line. For manufacturers that mde tubas all of one style, everything might be proportional. The only real example of this I can recall is Rudolf Meinl before they added piston instruments to the line. The quarter system made sense in that line--each instrument up the scale had larger bore, larger branches, and a larger bell.

But for comparing tubas of different configurations across different manufactures and lines, it makes no sense at all, and really leads more to confusion than to clarity.

If there is one dimension that would capture it best, it would probably be volume. And volume puts more emphasis on the outer branches, given that a change in bore or a change in bell flare diameter has relatively little influence on volume. But that's not how anybody does it.

So, basically, you use the quarter system just to identify the specific instrument, such as "Rudi 5/4", rather than expecting it to tell you much on an absolute scale.

This is a bit old at this point, but it still shows the inconsistencies and trends:

http://www.rickdenney.com/tubas_compared.htm

So, the answer to your question is: A 3/4-size tuba is generally smaller than that manufacturer's "4/4"-size tuba. No more, no less.

Rick "who would prefer terms that do not imply precision, such as 'kinder' and 'kaiser', or 'petite' and 'grand'" Denney

[Rick Denney]

We, the hapless throng of formerly happy-go-lucky tuba players, attempt to "scientifize" a system-that-is-not-a-system.

That's the problem with using numbers. Numbers imply precision, and most people (incorrectly) equate precision with accuracy.

Better to use words that don't imply precison, and in the end become more accurate. The term "kaiser", for example, could be interpreted in many ways, but when we use that word, people form a visualization of a big rotary tuba--much bigger than the Miraphone 186 (or Yamaha 321) they played in high school. When I use the term "grand orchestral tuba" to describe the York or one of its many imitators, I don't need any additional precision for people to know it's going to be large.

And if I described my Yamaha 621 F tuba as a small F tuba with a big sound, most people will visualize something between a standard contrabass and a standard euphonium. When I describe my B&S as a "large orchestral F tuba", nobody is surprised that it fills up the same gig bag as my Miraphone 186.

Rick "quarters are like grades and dollars: subject to inflation" Denney