Why another 6/4 CC or another F tuba?

[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.

[Michael Bush]

Sane people don't have opinions that they know to be significantly at variance with fact

Exactly.

And all opinions except trivial expressions of personal preference are factual claims, more or less well-supported by evidence. (Even the trivial expressions are, if you look close enough, but this is getting too complicated for TubeNet, to say nothing of hijacking the thread.)

[MartyNeilan]

When the cloud was removed everything in my job became more difficult, especially projection. I pretty much disappeared, and our wonderful brass section sounded faint, at best.

So we still have no cloud. And my life sucks as I search and search for horns that sound clear and balanced in that hall. I may never get what I need, but it will definitely have to be huge and dark as my hall now makes tuba sound thin and soft. Our entire brass section has become used to playing everything at about twice the indicated volume and we have to really dial it back on freelance gigs or MSO performances outside of TMH.

It is amazing how the acoustics of your "office" can affect your apparent work output, regardless of your actual effort.

Until we get a new hall or they fix ours I will be seeking ever-larger horns.

TWO WORDS:
Bell Front

[Rick Denney]

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.

When I was riding (which for anyone who has seen me recently will attest, is getting rather deeper into my past), I absolutely did NOT want the lightest thing possible. The lightest bike would have folded under me like a house of cards, even when I was at 8% body fat.

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.)

When I see orchestral players universally getting rid of their 6/4 tubas, I'll take your first claim at face value. My own Holton is not "diffuse". I've heard recordings of my band with microphone placement out in the hall, and even on a solo part that tuba has quite a clear tone. What it lacks is penetration of a band playing too loudly, but it keeps its round tone even when played very loudly, while even the kaiser gets that burn in the sound when really pushed. And I don't really think orchestras will accept front bells any time soon. The tuba is only occasionally a melody instrument. More often it's no more than a unique tone color, and more often still it's part of a denser fabric. Much of the time, it doesn't need to penetrate the overall sound, but rather to fill it up with additional weight, and a front bell works at cross purposes to that.

You are right that we absolutely cannot lump 6x4 tubas into a single homogeneous category. Some are highly efficient, resonant, and colorful, while others are dead, dark, and dull. The latter might become magical in the right hand, but the former have the magic even in mediocre hands. I have played 20J's that could play softly with great beauty, but the one I owned was not one of them. The good ones look just like the bad ones, and often have the same name engraved on the bell. That's one of the problems Matt brings up--it's too hard to end up with a great one, and the possibility of never getting there is quite real, even for experts, especially when using repurposed parts.

Rick "whose Holton is NOT for sale" Denney

[Rick Denney]

I think we have to recognize that the instrument that is optimal for getting an orchestral gig may not be so for playing the gig, an vice versa.

Most of the audition is in a solo setting--one person playing. Most performance is in an ensemble setting, where only rarely is the tuba by itself. Weight won't be so important when listening to one person, but it will be important (maybe as important as crispness) when filling the sound of a large ensemble.

Rick "noting that many who won a gig using a smaller instrument still later bought the larger instrument" Denney

[Jay Bertolet]

As someone who fits exactly into that mold, I can say that I prefer my sound on the bigger horn. Not just within the ensemble, I prefer it generally. The last time I did a solo performance (Hindemith) I used my 6/4. Others have mentioned that 6/4 horns are overly loud and harder to play soft and much more difficult to play cleanly or clearly. None of that is true with my 6/4 tuba. I know firsthand that it is possible to make the horn to perform in ways that others seem to believe are not possible. I still believe that all of these generalities are ultimately affected by the player involved at the mouthpiece. Knowing how to play such a horn will have as much effect on the outcome as the horn itself.

[MartyNeilan]

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.

When I was riding (which for anyone who has seen me recently will attest, is getting rather deeper into my past), I absolutely did NOT want the lightest thing possible. The lightest bike would have folded under me like a house of cards, even when I was at 8% body fat.

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.

My wife and I rode for two and a half days straight on Memorial Day weekend. Her motorcycle is about 450 lbs wet weight, mine about 750 lbs. At the end I was ready to go for more and she was beat. There is a reason most cross-country touring bikes are over 800 pounds wet. The same can be said for tubas. I would much rather play a 5/4 or 6/4 tuba at 70% for three hours straight than a 4/4 tuba at 100% for three hours straight.
Another bike analogy - I have a friend with a sportbike who chooses to ride a trike for long tours. There is a big difference between zipping across town and riding across states. Hence the smaller "solo" F and 186 sized "orchestral" F.

[Michael Bush]

My wife and I rode for two and a half days straight on Memorial Day weekend. Her motorcycle is about 450 lbs wet weight, mine about 750 lbs. At the end I was ready to go for more and she was beat. There is a reason most cross-country touring bikes are over 800 pounds wet. The same can be said for tubas. I would much rather play a 5/4 or 6/4 tuba at 70% for three hours straight than a 4/4 tuba at 100% for three hours straight.

In a forced choice, I'd rather carry your wife's motorcycle to the gig, and take my chances on not having to play it for 3 hours.

(I will say, though, that if I had a 6/4 tuba as light as yours, I might feel differently. My 4/4 weighs more than your 6/4, I would guess.)

[Donn]

My wife and I rode for two and a half days straight on Memorial Day weekend. Her motorcycle is about 450 lbs wet weight, mine about 750 lbs. At the end I was ready to go for more and she was beat. There is a reason most cross-country touring bikes are over 800 pounds wet. The same can be said for tubas. I would much rather play a 5/4 or 6/4 tuba at 70% for three hours straight than a 4/4 tuba at 100% for three hours straight.

My old Guzzi is in between in weight, but still a big barge eminently suited to touring. If I went out for a 300 mile day, I'd be whipped, but I don't think I could really blame it on the motorcycle.

Above you may find reference to extra work required to play a 6/4 -- "gunning it" to get a more defined tone apparently. Some of this depends so much on the specific tuba, that I wonder if it really does just depend on the tuba, and not at all on 4/4 vs. 6/4. There's a famous quote or two that backs your premise that a big tuba is less work to play at volume, but far from a consensus I think.

Another bike analogy - I have a friend with a sportbike who chooses to ride a trike for long tours. There is a big difference between zipping across town and riding across states. Hence the smaller "solo" F and 186 sized "orchestral" F.

Analogies ... such fun. I wouldn't get near a motor trike - they take a special 3-wheel operator license here and for good reason. Any sane person would get a convertible instead. I'm sure there's some tuba out there that's the motor-trike of the tuba world, but can't think of it.