Tuba tactics and false news.

[2ba4t]

The more I study this the angrier I get - on our behalf. A great scientist player worked for Boosey and Hawkes in the 1970's. I just quoted him from 1977 in another post on Bell size. Basically, he proved absolutely scientifically - that trombone bell material, plating etc made no difference - blindfold. But when we see a bright copper, goldbrass, silver, raw brass bell - our minds seize up and mouths and pockets open. Similarly, this venturi nonsense needs answering. Every trombone has a moving venturi at the end of the inner slide stockings. That is two per bone - and they move relatively as the slide goes in and out. Surely we must invent a gadget to solve this problem no one had noticed since 1400s. Those poor sackbut players.

This applies absolutely to tubas. Obviously contrabass sound broader than bass and huge instruments sound 'bigger' but do they make any difference in a full orchestral passage - if absorbed by basses, bones and others? Yes, in an exposed passage we can hear a broad, organ-like sound. But was this the sound the composer wanted? Only Russians etc and 20th century. I think we have become, as I posted elsewhere, string bass players forced to play cello parts.

Against every tubist and manufacturer in the world, I am convinced that large bells and huge bore tubas are deceptive. Arnold Jacobs called them his ‘amplifiers’. But that is how we hear them close up or without the effect of string basses and timpani. I think we were influenced by the Sousa bell, ‘bigger is better’ and those monster instruments really made for commercial reasons in the old days.

Go ask a recording engineer.

If we feel better ‘heard’ then that is no harm. But think - what cuts through the orchestral texture more – the bass trombone,(not blasting) cimbasso (not blasting), euphonium (Planets, Heldenleben, Quixote], narrow bore F tuba, old really narrow bore BBbs or our beloved humangeous, weight-lifters’ monsters.

I would be grateful to be (yet again) put right. I know hundreds of players will swear that in a particular performance a great player on a modern monster tuba was incredible and drowned the orchestra etc [not, of course, that anyone approves of that.]

I suspect that a clever tubist can make himself heard and felt through tactics, rather than breathing exercises, sheer volume or size of bell or bore.

We all know the two tricks: in a loud, tutti passage you first conserve your energy but bang out only those notes (if any) that are not swamped by other instruments and secondly, on those long notes when you are just blasting ffffff beneath ‘bones with basses and timps, you simply play very gently mp at first and then as they all run out of breathe and the loudest front edge of the chord peters out slightly, you crescendo really hard. You force through the tuba’s voice. The effect is that the audience hear - at the very end of the chords - this huge organ like tuba sound (which they presume was there all along). Obviously, I utterly distance myself from such appalling and unprofessional behaviour, completely disassociate myself from even contemplating it and would never advise it. Horrifically, it often earns an approving nod from conductors and annoyed questions from people like, ‘What mouthpiece do you use?’ ‘You don’t look that big.’ Or just ‘Shut up.’

[bort]

[Mark]

?

Don't you mean

[Donn]

It's kind of a grab bag of thoughts, and for a topic of discussion it might better have been split up, but don't be dismissing it just because so much of it is counter to convention.

I personally find the comments pertaining to red brass bells etc. to be perfectly sensible, so I'll leave that alone, but as for large tubas --

I think we were influenced by the Sousa bell, ‘bigger is better’ and those monster instruments really made for commercial reasons in the old days.

OK, so how about those commercial reasons? No longer apply today?

I don't think anyone would claim that a larger instrument makes no difference, indistinguishable to the listener. A lot of that is tone, which makes it hard to evaluate the effect on volume alone. I'd like to just put a possibly novel idea out there for your consideration, that
1) the instrument contributes only partly to the sound, tonal quality, whatever, and the rest is the player, and
2) players are very different, so
3) good choice of instrument is naturally different.

(2 is only true when it's true -- maybe there's a tuba player norm that accounts for 90% of players who all sound about the same, I don't know, but I'm quite sure it isn't 100%.)

[michaelrmurrin]

I didn't find the "?" comment to be dismissive (though I didn't actually watch the "okily dokily" clip nor hear the tone) - but I imagine they are more confused than anything. I was. Meaning, I was a little confused as to what the original post is actually saying and what is the point of it. But there were some statements in the post, that I agreed and disagreed with.

Different players will sound different on the same instrument. People play the tuba differently - they use their air differently, they have different sized lips, different shaped mouth, different tongue size/shape, different lung capacity, different mental concept of what sound they want, different habits, different training - all these things affect the sound. But despite all this, some of the physical specifications of the instrument affect the sound as well.

Bore size and wrapping of the instrument have a significant effect on the sound. Mouthpiece affects the sound.

Bell size, I don't know. I imagine that the shape of the bell flare and the overall size of the bell have SOME effect on the sound - but how much effect, I don't know.

Plating and finish, I don't know. I have played great brass instruments that are lacquer-plated, silver-plated, raw brass, rose brass - I'm not partial to any type and I don't know how the plating affects the sound. I just try instruments and the instrument is either good or bad - and I've found good instruments of all 4 of the above plating types. There's a saxophone forum where people get into the most toxic arguments about plating - who knows why.

I imagine thickness of the metal affects the sound, though that's not really what's being discussed.

Regarding the "tactics" of orchestral tubists - I don't have experience in professional orchestras, so I can't comment on that.

I guess I'm still unclear as to exactly what the original poster said they were angry about, but those are my thoughts on some of the statements made.

[eutubabone]

You are not supposed to give away tuba tonal secrets. Playing the tuba is really hard, much harder than bass trombone. Much more important than bass trombone. Let the arguments begin.

[Kpen]

so what other tactics can we use other than the two that you mentioned?

[MN_TimTuba]

[quote="2ba4t"]The more I study this the angrier I get - on our behalf.

Thanks, but no need to get angry on my behalf. I'm mostly happy, even with my large-bell tuba.

[tbonesullivan]

I'm just angry that some companies (like Bach) charge extra for things like a gold brass bell or nickel outer slides, which is just dumb. For some reason the Conn 88H, made by the SAME COMPANY, has all three bell options (Rose, Thinwall Rose, and Yellow) at the same price point. Yamaha also does not charge extra for that. I'm fairly certain that there is little to no difference in labor required for the different materials, and that from a material cost, it is negligible.

I remember reading at the old TTF that Frank Holton had also done bell material experiments, and also found that shape was more important than anything else.

HOWEVER, these things also fail to take into account that there are things that cannot be measured easily, such as non-linear characteristics of the medium. In other words, when the instruments are really pushed, that is when the differences start to become more apparent from a construction standpoint. A thicker bell will be able to withstand higher volumes, but at the same time will in some ways be deader "feeling" than a thinner one.

[Donn]

Musicians are after all entertainers. Engineers can tell us a lot about how things work, but you don't want to take their advice on how to look.

[hup_d_dup]

If you believe this, this is your reality.

That's definitely true, I guess.

Hup

[pittbassdaddy]

Perhaps look at it this way:
An instrument is a tool that we use to make music. Just as different construction jobs need different tools, different music needs different instruments. One wouldn’t recommend a sledge hammer for installing trim or a trim hammer for demolition. One also wouldn’t recommend a travel tuba for orchestra work.

The more specialized the job, the easier it gets with specialized tools. Most professionals realize this too and have an array of tools that work well for them for the scope of work that they perform.

Some music needs more volume and others more color. So long as you are able to produce an appropriate sound to fit the music, the tools don’t really matter to anyone else.

Some believe one size and key of tuba can do it all. I say good luck with your crescent hammer.

[Donn]

One "?" isn't cause for any concern, it's when they start to pile up, or "pile on" maybe. Tubenet can come off like a gang of adolescent boys sometimes.

I personally thought the "large bells and huge bore tubas are deceptive" argument was way off the mark,

the "trombone bell material, plating etc made no difference" likely correct for the audience, and

"this venturi nonsense" we're innocent - that's trumpet players, isn't it?

[The Brute Squad]

I guess the partial anonymity of the Internet still affects some people so that they don't care about details.

The Greater Internet (bleep)wad Theory still holds true 15 years later.

[Matt G]

A thicker bell will be able to withstand higher volumes, but at the same time will in some ways be deader "feeling" than a thinner one.

As mentioned above, shape is the determining factor. A while back (probably over a decade ago) it was put forth that the bell shape alters the critical point for the impedance change that governs the resonating air column.

I also think that the reason the rapid taper bells often come with pitch quirks is that the impedance change region is sort of "locked in" to one harmonic series whereas a stovepipe bell has some wiggle room (the gradient of impedance change is less).

This could also be made up.

[Donn]

Our Original Poster comments about what I think is that same impedance effect, in another thread:

Yes, that bell width does make a big difference. The sound is, yes, ‘broader’ to our ears for good reason. The larger bore in last few yards also has an effect. And this not just because we imagine the difference.

The bell and the leadpipe control the physics as follows:

The vibration/push [sound wave] created by one single buzz [resonance] of your lips travels down the tube [air column]. [When you play the note A at 440 Hz your lips vibrate 440 times a second.] It then bounces back when it hits the ‘wall’ of the outside world air pressure AT THE BELL. The air pressure inside the tube is less than outside so the waves bounce back.
...
From all this, we see that the ‘bouncing back’ from the ‘wall’ at the bell is absolutely fundamental to each note. A bell will make the lower resonances respond better. This is why the fundamental harmonic is easier to play when the bell is larger. This is because the bell graduates the change to the outside air pressure and allows the sound waves to, conceptually, ‘slow down’ and bounce back with less interference.
...
So, yes, big bells make for easier fundamentals and a broader sound. However, they militate powerfully against a focussed clarity, immediacy of response, a ringing sound higher up and can produce an over-bearing, booming, un-brass-like sound when played as loud as possible.

... in short, it's why the tuba isn't a big trombone.

For a much more technical but very readable investigation, see "Rick Denney"'s The Tuba Sound article, wherein he looks at audio spectrum data from a wide bell York Master and a more stovepipe Miraphone.

[Matt G]

The spectra are interesting, but limited in scope. Rick points to the test being improved in terms of dynamics. I'd appreciate a sampling of players with their mouth piece of choice plus. Also be interesting to fiddle it the mouthpiece as a variable as well.

I was thinking the acoustic pressure inside the horn is really all that matters. Ambient should be similar otherwise. The change in surface area of the wavefront becomes too rapid at some point in the bell and it just wants to go home; that's the impedance drop. Well actually, it's a principle of least action deal, but that calculus is messy.

There's likely something going on with the idea that the tuba as a waveguide supports a higher number of (horizontal) modes depending on bell/throat dimensions. The wider the throat, the larger the number of modes supported, which would show in the spectrum as higher overtones, like Rick's experiment. It's somewhat contradictory in thought to the "bigger throat, more fundamental" concept, but acoustically and mathematically, it makes perfect sense.

[Donn]

There's likely something going on with the idea that the tuba as a waveguide supports a higher number of (horizontal) modes depending on bell/throat dimensions. The wider the throat, the larger the number of modes supported, which would show in the spectrum as higher overtones, like Rick's experiment. It's somewhat contradictory in thought to the "bigger throat, more fundamental" concept, but acoustically and mathematically, it makes perfect sense.

You lost me on (horizontal) modes, but he does talk about the perceptual issues around "more fundamental" in this context:

The principle overtones in the Miraphone sound are two or three dB lower than the York. But the high overtones, starting with the 8th and going up from there, are much lower than the York. On the face of it, we would assume this meant the Miraphone had a darker sound than the York. Yet, the York's sound is deeper to my ear and those who have heard both instruments. By deeper I mean that it seems to have more depth or bottom to it.

I would therefore like to define darker as having less prominent higher overtones, and deeper as having an overtone series that reads to the ear and brain as a deeper note. And now, at last, I understand why some orchestral players love the big American-style instruments. They praise their depth and color, and that color, with its more even range of overtones, is interpreted by the listener as deeper. And why others praise the dark, focused sound of the German-style instruments, which less emphasis on the overtones, and more of the sound coming from the core frequencies--those closer to the fundamental.

Unfortunately, while that seems to be a fairly central point to the whole discussion, I don't see where he really nails down how its overtone series makes the York Master sound "deeper." He focuses solely on the higher overtones, and you could infer that he sees that as the deep factor, but he doesn't really explain how that could make sense - and as I read the figures, its 2nd partial is significantly stronger than the Miraphone, which would be such an obvious explanation that it isn't very interesting. Where did the big 2nd partial come from - is it, too, a function of the big bell? Maybe along with the more dynamic levels, players and mouthpieces, we need a couple more tubas. I think it's fair to say the large tubas of the world don't all sound the same.

[Matt G]

You lost me on (horizontal) modes...

Just to clarify: the tuba bendy parts instill particle motion that isn't uniform; not only is the air column vibrating longitudinally down the axis of the bugle, it's got some transverse motion as well. That's what I'm labeling as a horizontal mode. I think those are helping support the upper harmonic structure as well.

The "deeper" timbre is likely a misnomer. It's got a lot more presence of upper harmonics.

I think the same issue would show up on other instruments as well. Bass trombones that "sound bright" are probably lacking upper harmonic levels as well. They, too, usually have smaller throats in the bell.

[2ba4t]

Just caught up on Tubenet. Well, I did write, “I would be grateful to be (yet again) put right.”

And boy, did I get put. Many thanks.

It certainly would have been clearer to have entitled the post ‘Fake news: Are we too suggestible?’ and added some link material between the paragraphs. Sorry to have again raised so many hackles, especially those of the pachyderm. And I one hundred percent agree with:

“ by the elephant » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:15 am
I just hate careless writing. I hate intellectual laziness in general. I guess the partial anonymity of the Internet still affects some people so that they don't care about details. That says a lot about them as people, though.”

Sorry.

The idea was that:
1) Trombone bell material is a proven deception (– yes, unless you want a particular bell just for its colour.)
2) This suggestibility idea applies to tuba size and bell size – with respect ONLY to the effect in tutti fff passages, out in the auditorium or at the recording mixing desk.
3) Obviously huge tubas sound different from tiny ones and low tubas are much more effective down the bottom, high ones less hooty at fff up the top.

Still the total effect on the general orchestral colour may IMHO not relate to size or pitch alone. But, following this idea, a clever player can use tactics – not brute size or volume. This is what the best guys I know did and even I also tried this.

Bloke kindly posted on this and mentioned recording bells. I had the same experience of hearing an entirely different sound. Obviously practising right up against a smooth hard wall helps at first. But because the sound (standing) wave actually completes itself only about one to two feet beyond the bell, before the bounce back, I left a space of about the size of an inverted tuba mute. But, thanks, bloke, I loved ‘rhinovirus’. Please explain PWWP. What is not PWWP? I am now deeply concerned about my trousers - as we call them here.

Kpen mentioned other suggestions for ‘tactics’. That would be a wonderful separate thread IMHO. I will now again anger the world by doing just that – unless I have been locked out of Tubenet for not yet grasping its culture.

I note that I was dubbed a ‘lurker’ but now am a ‘bugler’. If the answer can be legally printed, what do these epithets mean? In England, ‘lurker’ would be deemed libellous probably – unless proven to be true, in the public interest, expressed as a personal opinion etc. But I just love it: I have always crept around in a mask leaping out at people late at night.