Most inefficient 5/4 or 6/4 tuba

[Walter Webb]

Could you define "inefficient?" I gather some horns are "air hogs" more than others, leading to the player's exhaustion. Is that it? If so, what design parameters affect efficiency?
Thanks, Walter

[burningchrome]

I played a MW 195 once at Musikmesse and to me it felt like blowing into a 3" PVC pipe.

[k001k47]

Holton 345 in Bb: there's a reason Jake sold his. Awful horns. I heard they played like trash cans that have been used as bathtubs.

Just kidding

I'd say my CC, but it's a 4/4 horn. (Well, any horn I play on is "inefficient": I have an inefficient brain and no chops.)

[Leto Cruise]

Word on the street is the 2165 is a very difficult instrument to control. Not necessarily inefficient, but inefficient in the wrong set of "average hands" I wager.

[GC]

The general consensus is that an efficient horn puts out lots of sound for the amount of air put into it. Or as one of the Jacobs Yorks was called, an "old man's horn".

I don't think that inefficiency would be the opposite in this case. By that definition, and "inefficient" horn would be an instrument that took a lot of air and effort and produced little sound (though as pointed out below, a horn with horribly leaky valves fits this very well). An air-hog of a horn often still puts out a LOT of sound, but it takes a lot of air to play it.

I once owned a Cerveny 601 CC with a gigantic bugle and huge bore. Playing it was like putting my lips to a vacuum cleaner; it had such tiny resistance that I couldn't control it at all without a ton of air, and I was unable to control it at any reasonable volume level. Trying mouthpieces with a tighter throat and bore didn't help much. For a large band, it was okay; any smaller group, I'd cover up. I'd call than an inefficient instrument.

[bort]

In all fairness, the most inefficient tubas I've played were those with leaky valves. There is nothing less efficient than losing part of your air in non-sound-producing ways.

Besides that, the most inefficient well-repaired tuba I've played was an old Cerveny kaiser CC (similar experience to GC). It needed so much air to get going, I really could not have kept up with it. And once you were able to get a decent sound out of it, the tuba was SO resonant, it felt like it was going to vibrate and shake itself into pieces. Just not a good tuba (in my hands, at least). Actually, the most surprising thing about it wasn't necessarily how much air it required, it was how much air it could accept.

And again, in all fairness, I have also tried a Cerveny kaiser CC that was VERY easy to play, and a LOT of fun.

[jeopardymaster]

Here's another vote for the Cerveny 601 in CC. It may be because of my lack of data points - I've only played 2, didn't like either one of them. The one had a terrible scale, but didn't play badly. But the other was kind of dead, whatever I did with it. Serious lack of resonance. Probably there are good ones. Cerveny just doesn't have such a great batting average in my experience, although the really good ones can be REALLY good.

[GC]

A couple of years ago I played a used Cerveny 793 BBb at a conference and was very impressed by it. It's a compact-wrapped BBb Kaiser horn (their Arion series of compact instruments) in red brass. BIG bell, throat, and bows. Contrary to my CC Cerveny experience, I'd be overjoyed to have one of these. It had a gorgeous deep, dark sound, played very well in tune, and volume was easy to control. It didn't seem to need any more air than a 4/4 BBb. If I ever go back to BBb, I want one of these. And a roadie to carry it.

[Jerryleejr]

Every model of tuba can be placed somewhere along every individual's "it sucks" scale - somewhere between 0 (no sucking) and 100 (beneath the valley of the ultrasucking).

I'd hate to be on the wrong side of that scale...

JJ

[cjk]

5/4 Rudolf Meinls. Fafners. Rotor MW 2155. All can make a lot of racket but are a lot of work. Most "Kaiser" tubas seem to be over-bored and are therefore inefficient in my opinion.

[Walter Webb]

Why can't any one of you define what "inefficient" means, and what design characteristics would contribute to said air hogging? Wouldn't it simply be true that a gigantic tuba would require more airflow than a small one? What did you expect when you bought a gigantic tuba, easy blowing? These posts are a blather of opinionated nonsense as far as I can tell, and I have learned little from reading them. One guy hates tuba X, and another loves it! Is there no science here? What if you played a clapped out piece of worn out junk, with leaky valves, cracked branches and bad solders? Would that do it for you, and would you then condemn the rest of that species in excellent condition? Oh lordy. I can't keep up.

[joh_tuba]

Air has nothing to do with efficiency. The instrument is already as full of air as it will EVER be and even the most stuffy instrument will allow you to empty your lungs in a nanosecond. Air is just the fuel for the buzz. Your job is NOT to fill the instrument with air but to fill it with vibration(buzz).

Some instruments are more acoustically efficient than others(or more efficient in certain registers) BUT I suspect for most instruments the pure decibels produced relative to the effort exerted is fairly close across all tubas.

NOW.. all that said... responsiveness varies a LOT from tuba to tuba. I feel like this thread is really asking what horns are hard to play if I never practice... and some horns are just *really* unforgiving of a poorly formed buzz. There are examples of both 'stuffy' and 'open' horns that offer very little feedback and guidance to the player. Other horns do a remarkable job of basically 'pushing' the player's lips into place and demanding that they buzz at the correct frequency.

If you spend enough time with an unforgiving tuba and learn to give it what it needs they eventually start to feel THE SAME as any other horn. At which point, was it ever inefficient? You might still feel that it's not a great instrument.. but that's a different issue.

The fact that some horns offer more feedback to the player and are therefore more 'responsive' and easier to play may or may not have anything to do with valve type(as well as alignment and leakiness), bore size, leadpipe size, receiver size, open vs stuffy, or any other of a million factors.

All that said, yes, the 2165 is the token poster child 'inefficient' tuba... but they sure do make a LOT of noise!

[joh_tuba]

It certainly wasn't my intention to kill this thread.

I believe what makes some horns easier than others is the amount and immediacy of feedback the horn provides to the player. Some horns do a better job of this than others.

When we play a given pitch we use the buzz to establish a standing wave in the instrument that vibrates from the lip to the bell end and back.. after a few cycles this standing wave typically reinforces and guides our lips into the resonant frequency of that length of tubing and partial. This happens very quickly. The major difference between great players and the rest of us is that great players have lips that 'know their job' and produce the correct buzz with a great deal more immediacy. Most tubists buzz in the region of the pitch and wait for the horn to tell them they found the note.

With that in mind, the question should be what horns are better at providing more immediate and direct feedback to the lip and what design features or changes improve that immediacy? Perantucci places a 90 degree turn in the entry of the valve section on their rotor horns to bounce a bit of the sound wave back and create that affect. Alan Bear has expressed interest in an optimal mouthpiece gap that I suspect creates a very similar affect. Conventional wisdom suggests that smaller leadpipes can help with this process. Some think a shorter leadpipe helps or piston valves. Perhaps a magic mouthpiece tames an untamable tuba.

Perhaps I'm reframing the question all wrong but this is how I view the topic.

I'm sure I've missed something. Thoughts?

[Tuba-G Bass]

Well,
In my experience, the Rudolf Meinl 5/4 BBb that I have is the most air efficient Tuba
I have ever played. I have found it's the easiest to start a note, and the best horn
I have played to get a good soft PPP tone.
I can hold low notes longer and the high notes just go on forever on one lung full.
I will be selling my Miraphoney 1291 copy, it's so inferior to the Rudy.

My Miraphone Contrabass Trombone is the air hog,
I think it's the lack of resistance that causes that.
You can get "support" to your buzz if the tuba has some resistance.

[gwwilk]

Well,
In my experience, the Rudolf Meinl 5/4 BBb that I have is the most air efficient Tuba
I have ever played. I have found it's the easiest to start a note, and the best horn
I have played to get a good soft PPP tone.
I can hold low notes longer and the high notes just go on forever on one lung full.
I will be selling my Miraphoney 1291 copy, it's so inferior to the Rudy.

My Miraphone Contrabass Trombone is the air hog,
I think it's the lack of resistance that causes that.
You can get "support" to your buzz if the tuba has some resistance.

Some would disbelieve this based on their brief flailing around on such tubas. Learning to drive them can be very rewarding. My challenge to the 'efficient tuba' crowd is to play each line of the Tonguing warm-up in Michael Davis' '20 Minute Warm-Up Routine' (pages 8-9) in one breath on their 'efficient' tuba. I try to do this on my RM Bayreuth each time I warm up. Sure, it requires backing way off on the volume, but If I succeed all the way through the last line on page 9 in this fashion I know I'm getting the most out of my embouchure and air. I think it's not really the just tuba that's efficient, but also the player.