Neptune wrote:Very true! People do tend to think new equipment is going to make the sound in their heads - while lessons and practice would often be a better strategy
Certainly a valid point, but I will say it can be frustrating have to make the sound that is in someone else's head instead.
For example, I played for many years in a band where the conductor was a 40+ year (now 50+ year) clarinet player with a major US orchestra. His idea of "tuba sound" was based on what he heard in the orchestra, that of a 6/4 York-style tuba. I like to think I'm a pretty decent tuba player, and can reasonably make a tuba do what it's supposed to do... but playing a rotary 4/4 tuba for someone who expects a 6/4 York style of sound just isn't something grounded in reality.
Eventually, I sold that 4/4 tuba for a Miraphone 1291, which gave a broader sound and more output per effort, and was a much better match for what he desired, and was all around less work and more enjoyable for me to play as well.
Maybe this wouldn't have been an issue in a band with a "tuba section," but frankly, I've yet to really understand what the heck a "tuba section" is. Besides high school "honor bands" where there's a set quota of tuba players that they MUST select, I have very rarely played in bands that have more than 2 tuba players, and frequently I have been the only tuba player (or the only tuba player of significance -- reality, not ego here).
So yes, although you can make a tuba sound differently based on different and better technique, that only goes so far (unless you're one of those freak of nature tuba players who can do anything on any tuba... and TubeNet is NOT the place where those folks hang out). I think it's about getting the biggest sound per effort, and sometimes that just means using a bigger tuba... even if someone else can make an equal sound with a smaller tuba.
