DirtyErnie wrote:Well, there's no physical way that thin brass can contain energy in the pedal range of a tuba....
Granted, our ears fill in the pedal tone for us, but the difference felt in the seat of the pants out in the audience (please, no 'brown note' jokes) would be most impressive.
We are looking forward to the results of your experiment.
Consider the number of watts of power required to produce 125 db SPL in the infrasonic range. When Mythbusters debunked the myth you don't want to talk about, their audio setup was fed by 25,000 watts of power. Loudspeaker excursions (intensity) were large fractions of an inch, and there were dozens of loudspeaker drivers (quantity). Tuba sound doesn't have anything like that sort of intensity, and it isn't because the brass is absorbing it. And the volume of sound is vastly less--look at the size of the bell. Consider the size of the resonating chamber needed to acoustically magnify that fraction of a watt coming from the embouchure into that much intensity and vibrating surface area.
I know you aren't prepared to believe this, but the limitation is not the material, it's the size of the resonating chamber. And that is limited by what can provide enough resonant feedback to sustain a buzz.
It's an easy experiment, by the way. Take an old sousaphone, put it in a box 4'x4'x4', with the bell rim flush with the top surface, and a mouthpipe that leads out of the box. Fill the box with concrete. Concrete weighs 150 pounds per cubic foot; you box will weigh about 900-1000 pounds. Yes, granite is denser, but I think this will be dense enough. Play the instrument. I think you'll find that the sound is, if anything, substantially deadened.
If heavier tubas were definitely better at producing sound power (i.e., intensity times quantity), we'd be wheeling them around in carts by now. We are, however, buying the biggest tubas that can be made to play the C or Bb harmonic series approximately in tune.
Rick "tuba sound is about shape" Denney