I'm not sure what we are debating, those are all huge tubas. But here are few thoughts:
-- Comparing BAT photo to BAT photo is difficult, there is no sense of scale. In those photos, everything looks "normal."
-- With many BATs, the front-view is unimpressive. It's not until you look at the back-view that you see how large the second and third bows of the tuba are, and then realize the true dimensions of the tuba.
-- Bell diameter has nothing to do with it (and a 24" upright bell just seems silly to me)
-- Overall height has little to do with it. There are short fat BATs and tall skinny non-BATs.
-- All 3 tubas pictured above are badass, and look like a ton of fun to play.
Side by side only works when there's actually a size difference. Ever see the picture of the Rudy Meinl 6/4 next to a Yorkbrunner (or next to a St. Pete)? The RM eats either of those for breakfast. In your photos, even the Holton looks kind of "eh" sized, instead of its true BAT awesomeness.
lost wrote:I think from comments I've read, everyone judges the RM 6/4 against other companies' 6/4's making the RM the new standard size for 6/4 instruments past and present
That's because they ARE!!! The Rudolf Meinl 6/4 is a BEAST among BAT's. They are more like an 8/4 size & if you have ever held one in your lap or have seen one side by side with a mere 6/4 BAT you would know that they are humongous!!!
King 2341 (New Style)
B&S PT-600 (GR55) BBb
Blokepiece "Symphony"
6/4, 5/4, whatever - nothing for me there, like maybe everyone but the OP. The interesting geometry point to me is that compared to the largest Martin, Holton, York etc. designs, the Conn looks like it has a narrower taper in the bell, though a wider flare. Or compared to anything out there, as far as I know, though you couldn't say it wasn't a successful design.
Someone once suggested volume as the best measurement.
Feel like filling your tuba up with water and keeping track of how much went in?
I don't.
I don't know what these fractions mean to others. I've used them to "generally" get an idea as to the "kind-of-sound" a tuba "might-produce".
Seem vague? Yup.
So 6/4 for me (and possibly me only) are big orchestra tubas; tubas that can support the bottom of a large orchestra in a large work (think Wagner/Mahler/Bruckner/etc) without edging out and without working too hard.
The 4/4 is (for me) tubas for smaller things like quintets or amplified music, especially if I'm required to play nimble quick stuff.
A 5/4 is in between, something I might use for a recording studio. Light and flexible but still enough broad-bassed tuba sound.
This doesn't mean that a 6/4 isn't nimble. It doen't mean you can't get it to edge out. It doesn't that a 4/4 isn't usable in an orchestra (etc). These are MY generalizations. So when someone talks about a tuba being a 5/4 instrument, I "imagine" that it "could possibly" be a tuba with the quality of other tubas I "see" as being 5/4.
They are just words in order to talk about something and hopefully get an idea across.
And they are only words and they don't always fit into my brain's filing system. Many have called a 40K/20K a 6/4 tuba(sousaphone albeit). In my mind they have all the sound and playing qualities of a 5/4 tuba; wide enough sound but can get edgy if pushed. For me my 40K can comfortably and easily be the (acoustic) bass for a large group (but not too large). But if I had to play Tchaikovsky's Pathetique on a sousaphone (just imagine...) I'd rather have a 48K.
They're just words, not absolute definitions.
lost wrote:excusing the snark, there are many fans of these horns. If you aren't a fan or cared to read about sizing the horns, just skip the thread.
I don't have one - though it was a close thing, as the gentleman who sold me my first tuba was pitching a couple severely hammered 21Js - so all I know is what I read. Threads about them can be interesting, and in the part of my post you omitted I tried my best to bring out something that I think actually distinguishes them, besides the short valves. Size fractions is a tuba player mentality thing and likely attached to some delusions about what it means, vs. the same sizing numbers when applied to string bass or 'cello where it makes a clear difference on the low end.
lost wrote:
Rick Denney's site and sizing instruments was an awesome resource of knowledge on big horns but he never got a photo comparing an upright 2xj with the other 6/4s as he did his many side by sides.
problem fixed!
To some extent. Rick's a skilled photographer. If you have a chance, you might see if you can get those tubas positioned where you can stand farther back and fit them into a narrower field of view. That will clean up the geometry a lot. A wide angle of view creates a sort of distorted perspective, most conspicuous here where the bell flares stretch into the corners.
The first I heard of this x/4 system was at the first tuba symposium in 73'. It was being applied to Rudy Meinl tubas being sold by Custom music. It doesn't strike me as a consistant application because of all of the variables. A big horn like a Martin Mammoth is considered to be a 6/4 by many but the bore is in the neighborhood of .700 while a Piggy, with a .835 bore is considered as a 3/4. Like what a Conn 2 or 3J would be. Mirafone 186's and Kings are, by many, considered as 4/4/ horns while one has a .687 bore and the other is .770. This is just me but I think it over simplifies the identification of horns to make them easier to sell. Many would consider an Alexander 164 to be a 6/4 but if it was photographed next to either Kiltie's Holton or the 25J it would be smaller in the big bows. I guess where I'm going here is why not this horn has XX bore and here's a picture, draw your own conclusions. The biggest sound I ever heard Paul C. in Philly get was on a Piggy and he used other much larger horns on other stuff. I guess some like the "structure" of the ?/4 system but I think it presupposes too much and pigeonholes horns rather than allow them to be judged on their own merit. Not that this will change anything, I just feel that it's too standardized and non specific. But, may everyone find the z/4 tuba of their dreams. Ed
The x/4 designation probably is derived from the standard of string instruments, where there is a definitive size/scale for each x/4. I think we're the only ones who seem to care about size. Other brass instruments have more similar qualities and sizes, eg King 3=Bach 36=Conn 6 (?),
King 4=Bach 42=Conn8 etc.
Going by bore alone won't work either. I managed to find the excerpt below, posted by Leland in 2004. I think it was Tony Clements who contributed this originally, as well as the BAT designation. This is the best size guide I can come up with.
======================
I remember one classification system that was posted eight or ten years ago on the TubaEuph email list. It's still my favorite, and probably most accurate, way to classify a tuba's size.
I hope I remember this correctly:
If the flutes say, "What a cute tuba!", it's a 3/4.
If the conductor says, "That's a good-sounding tuba," it's a 4/4.
If the trumpets say, "Man, that's a big tuba," it's a 5/4.
If the bass trombonist says, "That's freakin' awesome!", it's a 6/4, a.k.a. BAT.
===========================
Seems silly to worry about it. I haven't noticed any companies changing to match the Rudy standard. But who really, really cares.
To the OP, if one has to go, the 3valve Martin would make sense. There's a market for that in dixie players, but with a front bell it would be a quick sell. It's neat to see a fixed bell Martin. But the other 2 being 4v....no comparison in my book. To answer your further question....It's the manufacturer's ego that decides the sizes. I would never consider a Piggy a 3/4 though, based purely on bore.
eupher61 wrote:To the OP, if one has to go, the 3valve Martin would make sense. There's a market for that in dixie players, but with a front bell it would be a quick sell. It's neat to see a fixed bell Martin. But the other 2 being 4v....no comparison in my book.
Maybe I'm a dixie player - not really, but the difference isn't much. If it were my Martin, and it played like people say they play and like the Martin one of the local guys has, I would keep that thing and the missing 4th valve wouldn't bother me none at all.
eupher61 wrote:The x/4 designation probably is derived from the standard of string instruments, where there is a definitive size/scale for each x/4. I think we're the only ones who seem to care about size.
+1 million
Last edited by swillafew on Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We aren't the only ones concerned about size (otherwise, what motivated the 3/4 etc. size notation for string bass?), but we may be the most confused about why.
