Why another 6/4 CC or another F tuba?

[pjv]

I wonder if their responsie was based on their musical judgement or on what they saw. It seems that percussion players can show up to a gig with any old piece of scrap iron as long as they can justify it's usage but a can a tuba player can't show up with a weird looking tuba even if it is the right tool for the right job. (Ok, I might be exaggerating a bit. But still...)
Ps. The bell of a bell front tuba is not entirely pointing straight. It angles up AND can be moved to other positions, thus finding the very best placement for ones sound. As far as I can judge, that isn't up towards a ceiling that isn't there.

[roweenie]

I'll echo what pjv said...if it were a recording bell horn, rather than a sousaphone, you might have not gotten so hard a time.... (?)

I'm not sure if Joe was kidding (or not), and I'm not trying to be funny, but maybe a recording bell could be the answer. In fact, different makes have different angles of "bend" in the bell - maybe one that angles on more of a 45° angle might be appropriate? Also, a detachable bell like this could be angle to point upright, if you hold the horn on an angle.

My York 716 is quite versatile in this regard.

[Rick Denney]

Mike Sanders has said here that his Yorkbrunner is less work in Powell Hall than his Alex, which he had had the opportunity to try out years after he had sold it.

I play in a band, in high-school auditoriums. I'm mostly pointing at the curtains--these halls don't have proper shells even when they have anything but curtains. Our biggest such hall seats 1000, but it is fairly dry and optimized for amplified speech. It does have a shell at the back but no ceiling. And, yes, we have to add a couple of dynamics compared to our rehearsal space, and the front-row woodwinds a have to dial it back (which they rarely do).

In those halls, I have over about 17 years played a 5/4ish York Master, a Holton 345, and a Hirsbrunner 193, which Hirsbrunner calls a Kaiser. (I'm one of those old men Matt talked about, I guess. Probably one of the hacks, too.) The 193 is easier for my wife to hear in the hall and she loves it, but I think its voice stands out even when I might want it to melt into the general sonority of the band (the Holton is probably better at that). In a band, I don't always want the burn (Bloke's word) in the sound. The York Master worked, but it would have worked better with a proper shell, or with a section twice as large.

The other strong player in the section uses a Miraphone 187, and the 193 pairs with it better than the Holton.

The effect is illustrated by our concert last Saturday, which featured the Boston Brass. Sam Pilafian was playing a vintage Yamaha 621 F tuba, and he buried me. There is an obvious reason, of course. But it is also true that the BB were in front of the proscenium arch, and Sam's horn was pointed at a ceiling aimed at the audience, versus the becurtained emptiness above the stage that we were aimed at.

With a proper shell, I'd be more into blend than burn and might use the Holton more.

Rick "thinking both desired effect and hall acoustics deserve a more prominent role in instrument selection" Denney

[tofu]

I'm no Sousa expert, but it seems to me that Sousa really put a lot of thought into the sound he wanted out of his bass section. The pictures I've seen seem to show what looked to be a section of 6/4 raincatchers (I assume BBb) and 4/4 raincatchers (I assume Eb). Sousa's band toured so again, I assume they played a lot of different venues. So I'm wondering if any of our Resident TubeNet Sousa Experts might know what Sousa's actual thoughts/insights on this might have been and if they changed their approach based on the venue.

[Rick Denney]

I'm no Sousa expert, but it seems to me that Sousa really put a lot of thought into the sound he wanted out of his bass section. The pictures I've seen seem to show what looked to be a section of 6/4 raincatchers (I assume BBb) and 4/4 raincatchers (I assume Eb). Sousa's band toured so again, I assume they played a lot of different venues. So I'm wondering if any of our Resident TubeNet Sousa Experts might know what Sousa's actual thoughts/insights on this might have been and if they changed their approach based on the venue.

He said he wanted the sound to "float down over the audience", but sound doesn't do that. Outdoors, the upright bells would result in indirect sound, and he made up in numbers (and skill) what he lacked in directional power.

I suspect he wanted blend, and sound to be felt rather than heard (another saying from that era). His band was an alternative to a symphony orchestra, and he wanted a string bass effect. Forward bells would make the sound too penetrating and conspicuous.

But even outdoors, the tubas are not pointed into ranks of acoustically absorbent curtains trapping sound in the empty rigging space in the rafters.

A 6/4 American-style tuba makes that felt-rather-than-heard sound, at least with a lot of the usual huge funnel mouthpieces. But with something more cupped like what Geib used, even a 6/4 tuba can bark during marches, and put out a colorful sounding melody. But it will not command attention the way a 45"-tall Kaiser bell will. The dogfight in Stars and Stripes is MUCH more fun with the Kaiser.

Rick "who needs to do the sound spectrum analysis again" Denney

[Donn]

But with something more cupped like what Geib used, even a 6/4 tuba can bark during marches, and put out a colorful sounding melody. But it will not command attention the way a 45"-tall Kaiser bell will. The dogfight in Stars and Stripes is MUCH more fun with the Kaiser.

I was just listening to a recording of our band, ending with that tune. Also played Semper Fi, trio of which always got the better of me in my earlier tuba playing incarnation. Outdoors, under a tent top, but my Holton has the forward facing bell. I was plenty audible. Marcinkiewicz H4, not the deepest mouthpiece on earth but vaguely funnel shaped for the superior tone.

But ... I don't know anything about symphony orchestras, would better sound be a sufficient reason to show up with a bell front tuba? Somehow I doubt it.

[roweenie]

bloke "A REALLY FINE tuba (whatever length) with a recording bell - particularly with BOTH bells - is The $h!t."

YES! (I knew you weren't kidding... )

[Donn]

- They aren't accustomed to the appearance of recording bell tubas, and view them as not having the right sort of appearance.

In context of the nominal subject, we would be talking about a 6/4 CC recording bell tuba here, which as you point out isn't a regular factory offering in most factory catalogues. I'm guessing that the point above is completely sufficient on its own to explain why?

But I think the interesting question might be, if it were otherwise and a bell front configuration were considered solely on its merits, would that change the balance a little more in favor of the big American style CC tuba that currently is not worth building?

[Rick Denney]

bloke "A REALLY FINE tuba (whatever length) with a recording bell - particularly with BOTH bells - is The $h!t."

Agreed.

Rick "who still has just that for sale" Denney

[Rick Denney]

- They aren't accustomed to the appearance of recording bell tubas, and view them as not having the right sort of appearance.

In context of the nominal subject, we would be talking about a 6/4 CC recording bell tuba here, which as you point out isn't a regular factory offering in most factory catalogues. I'm guessing that the point above is completely sufficient on its own to explain why?

But I think the interesting question might be, if it were otherwise and a bell front configuration were considered solely on its merits, would that change the balance a little more in favor of the big American style CC tuba that currently is not worth building?

Yes, but there are many high-quality vintage Bb tubas with interchangeable bells, though few in 6/4. But the point was that a tuba with a forward bell doesn't need to be a 6/4 in an orchestra.

But I believe that in an orchestra, the forward bell will provide too much directional presence. For amateurs like me, it exposes too much truth, and for pros it is more likely to get the hand.

And there is always the maestro's prejudices. I once showed up at a band rehearsal (for a summer outdoor gig) with a 20J. This particular 20J wasn't bad, actually. But the guest director described it as a "blunderbuss". Maybe I was the blunderbuss, or maybe he was acting on prejudice, but I thought that the tuba sounded great and the fact that it couldn't make sound below mf was not relevant to that program or situation.

Rick "blunderbusser" Denney

[hup_d_dup]

no one could talk a cyclist out of wanting a big Harley...'just because'... "

No, no, no. You're thinking of 'biker' not 'cyclist.' Bikers have leather jackets, cycists have funny shoes. We want Pinarellos, not Harleys.

Hup

[Donn]

no one could talk a cyclist out of wanting a big Harley...'just because'... "

No, no, no. You're thinking of 'biker' not 'cyclist.' Bikers have leather jackets, cycists have funny shoes. We want Pinarellos, not Harleys.

Well, sure, a Pinarello would be worth considering.

It's worth mentioning that even among motorcyclists, there are plenty who don't think a big Harley Davidson would be worth the space it would take in the garage. They aren't real performance oriented motorcycles, especially pound for pound. And expensive, but for all that indeed they are very popular. While among regular bicycle riders, who have to supply 100% of their motive power, an attractive bicycle is usually the lightest thing possible. Not sure what this tells us about tubas.

But the point was that a tuba with a forward bell doesn't need to be a 6/4 in an orchestra.

But I believe that in an orchestra, the forward bell will provide too much directional presence. For amateurs like me, it exposes too much truth, and for pros it is more likely to get the hand.

The orchestra tuba never needed to be a 6/4 anyway. On the contrary I think I've been reading that they're a liability, because they lack clarity, diffuse. And without a supportive hall, they don't solve the "lost in the rafters" problem. Bell front brings back exactly what's missing, and you get the deluxe sound along with it. Do they tell the trombones and trumpets to play into their stands, lest the sounds come directly out of their front facing bells?

For me the down side is lack of feedback. It is a lot better with the bell rotated up, but of course it isn't clear in that case why I would want a "front" facing bell.

I think the performance parameters of different large bell front tubas might be different - I've heard a lot of the "can't play soft" story about the 20J family, in particular. (But they probably aren't suited to being cut to C anyway.)

[NDSPTuba]

Thank you Elephant.

It would be great if all these companies continued to put out new 6/4 CC BATs until one of them made one that actually plays well, and then sold it at a price that was not akin to gouging. When we get one of these and it is consistently well made all the other makers can give it up, as far as I am concerned, because most of them are pretty mediocre tubas, IMHO. Even my own beloved 345 cannot hold a candle to my cheapo JB 410, when judged strictly as a musical instrument and not as a tone mass generator. There is something wrong with that - also IMHO.

I have said for decades that tubas are pretty much finally getting up to the level of a really great high school trumpet. Finally.

I have my asbestos underpants on, so flame away, Freak Jury, flame away.

The answer is that it is not profitable at this time to make an awesome 6/4 CC tuba that plays GREAT at a CHEAP price. We stopped offering our Dillon DCB-1185 because even at $12K, I can generate more profit doing repair work instead of investing the time in making a bunch of parts yield a great playing tuba.

So let's look at making a new 6/4 CC tuba that plays better than what has already been made. Not just a new leadpipe better but from the bell back all new and improved.

Bell: 15 years ago Gerhard Meinl told me it cost the equivalent of $10,000 just to spin a new bell mandrel. Now your know why Meinl Weston re-used the same bell on so many tubas. Even in China it is an expensive all week process to make one and that is if nothing goes wrong. Now do that 10 times over to find the best sounding and in-tune taper. How many tubas at $3000 each do you have to sell just to get your money back on $150,000 worth of bell experiments. If you save money by copying just one that is already out there and say that is good enough, you now started down the path to making a copy of what was out there. To get your money out of that you need to repurpose that bell onto more tubas. So, a 6/4 BBb tuba has to be in the future. Can't sell those to schools as it is going to be too big. Damn, that big bell just excluded itself from the biggest market of business. Who else can afford a big tuba? Rich old people who's kids are grown and the house if paid off. Wait....they're getting too old to want to lug such a beast. Crap. Can we ever sell enough to recoup the cost of experimenting with new bell tapers for a 6/4 tuba? Even in China where it still takes a whole week to make a new tuba bell mandrel, doing that times 10 or more to see "What if we can make something that sounds better" is going to go over like a turd floating in a punch bowl.

Bottom bow: The labor in hand hammering a bottom bow is beyond most people's imagination. And then, how wide, how tapered, etc., etc. $$$$$ With enough experiments the bottom bow is now a perfect fit on your lap. Of course who is to say what width and thickness feels great to everyone. Get it right because the tooling to mass produce that bottom bow can't be cheap.

The branches: Okay. You made the basic sound that you want with the bell and a bottom bow that feels good on your lap. Read the article on Hirsbrunner making the top branch for his York copy. The work in making just that branch by hand was staggering. If you are going to make something NEW and BETTER, you will have to make several and compare them. And then make the tooling for that branch.
The smaller branches can be made quicker and are therefore easier and cheaper to replace trying to change intonation. Still a lot of time and money there.

Valve section: Do you copy the same crap already out there or make something better? What does that cost to experiment with different valve sections? This I really don't know but look at the price you guys are paying for just 4 MAW pistons. Oh, and no matter how perfect you make the valve section, there will always be an internet loudmouth that pushes sideways on the finger buttons causing the valve to stick whereas his old worn out horn that got used to him over the decades doesn't stick.

Leadpipe: Forget it. Everyone is of different heights and blow their air differently. Do you make a pipe that lets a great player play well and bend the notes or do you make a pipe that helps the hack player not sound so bad? Decide because even this last step will dictate who the customer is that will buy your new and improved 6/4 CC tuba.

What if after all that time and money the final product ends up not being any better than what is already out there? Maybe there are some basic laws of acoustics in dealing with a disproportionately enlarged bugle that the old timers already mastered by trial and error.

Who has pockets deep enough to design something totally new at a great R&D cost to build a product cheap enough that a small group of admittedly cheap customers (myself included) will buy it? How long will it take to make a profit? Now your know why the Chinese love to just copy what is out there. It's more profitable.

I realize that what I'm about to suggest would be another big expense, but it would be a one time expense that could be used through all instruments. Seems to me the instrument producing industry needs to get with the times and follow detriots automakers. The automakers have been producing higher horsepower more efficient motors than ever before, not to mention with greater longevity. How, well they stopped the old school make a mold, build it, test it, expensive as all hell methodology and had software built that would allow them to design simulate and test with great accuracy. Seems to me, that is exactly what needs to happen here. Some of the bigger outfits might already have some part of that kind of software available ( Yamaha comes to mind ). Big expense up front, but all instruments would benefit and design time would be drastically reduced and the quality of instrument would be greatly improved. And the cost of the software could be spread out across all instruments designed with it. Just a thought.

[Donn]

In my dream, it's like the tennis shoes they make while you wait, using your feet as molds.

You go to the local retail music shop (first hint that this is only a dream), select some tone parameters on a chart, blow into the hole, modify the selections based on what happens, and eventually the tonal parameters of your new tuba are established and the tuba is ready to be designed and printed out.

(I don't know if anyone actually makes tennis shoes that way, at this time.)

[Michael Bush]

an OPINION (not a "fact")

Funny that you come up with that at this moment, when I am sitting here writing about what a hopeless distinction that is. It can't stand up on its own logical legs.

[Michael Bush]

an OPINION (not a "fact")

Funny that you come up with that at this moment, when I am sitting here writing about what a hopeless distinction that is. It can't stand up on its own logical legs.

not applicable in "music" http://www.google.com/search?q=Scientific+Method

It's not applicable anywhere, except trivial preferences (broccoli or spinach).

[Donn]

That's only your opinion.

[Michael Bush]

That's only your opinion.

[Donn]

Well, I optimistically imagine that I sort of knew what Michael was talking about and that he has already savored my witticism, so may as well explain now that we've jumped to a new page.

When you say that to someone - "that's only your opinion" - you're making a point with no point. Sane people don't have opinions that they know to be significantly at variance with fact, so if you suppose that I'm reasonably sane, you can as reasonably consider all my opinions facts, as all my facts opinions.

That doesn't mean that all opinions are equally supported by facts (which would of course be themselves opinions that are strongly supported by facts (more opinions supported by facts (...)).) It may occasionally be possible to argue that my opinions are not very well supported. But that they're opinions is indisputable, and immaterial. Fact and opinion are not two different categories, they're the same.

[Wes Hardin]

When you say that to someone - "that's only your opinion" - you're making a point with no point. Sane people don't have opinions that they know to be significantly at variance with fact, so if you suppose that I'm reasonably sane, you can as reasonably consider all my opinions facts, as all my facts opinions.

That doesn't mean that all opinions are equally supported by facts (which would of course be themselves opinions that are strongly supported by facts (more opinions supported by facts (...)).) It may occasionally be possible to argue that my opinions are not very well supported. But that they're opinions is indisputable, and immaterial. Fact and opinion are not two different categories, they're the same.

Nice response, though, I need to use that on some nurses I work with. Then again, nurses don't understand logic arguments.