Orchestral Equipment Survey with a Poll

[windshieldbug]

if the great composers were alive today,do you think they would still choose those period instruments?i think they just made the best of the bad instruments that were available...

I think the point of performing on period instruments in a period style is to approximate the performances as the composer heard them AND intended them at the time to be performed. One can never know what a composer's intentions would have been had they known about instruments which were not available to them. That is pure guessing. We can only know what we like, and what they had.

If you like it better on a xxxxxx, then just say so and do it!

[Donn]

I think the point of performing on period instruments in a period style is to approximate the performances as the composer heard them AND intended them at the time to be performed. One can never know what a composer's intentions would have been had they known about instruments which were not available to them. That is pure guessing. We can only know what we like, and what they had.

Speaking of which, have mouthpieces changed much in the last century or so? Do we know what a tuba player would have been using in Tschaikowsky's day, for example? One would certainly want to get that detail right, if possible.

[Chuck(G)]

I have often wondered why in the USA you generally start players on BBb tuba. It may be excellent as the bass in the band

...and, particularly for a young player, a more difficult instrument to control and get a good sound out of. I think the Eb tuba makes a lot more sense. In fact, prior to WWII, a lot of young players were started on Eb. Why else the vast quantity of prewar Eb tubas on that auction site?

The fallacy of big loud low bass notes is that human hearing acuity drops off rapidly below 100 Hz, so the sound of a tuba is more likely to be prominent above about F just below the staff and increasingly hard to hear above the general din below that.

Suppose you've got a typical loud (i.e. full of saxophones and trumpets) school band, who at p levels is playing at about an 80 db sound level at 1000 Hz. For a tuba player to match that 80 db sound level with an F 4 lines below the staff, he or she would have to pump out 100 db, something that's challenging even for an experienced player.



But if you were to suggest an Eb tuba as a starter instrument today, you'd have legions of band directors eyeing you as if you'd suggested that the garklein recorder was a valuable band instrument. Or, as one BD put it to me, "How quaint--I've never met anyone who played Eb tuba before."

[windshieldbug]

The band director has rather a small program (50 pcs.) and he's moving a trumpet player (who can read, but can't play high) over to Eb sousaphone, and giving him bari-sax music

If he's moving from trumpet to Eb, he can just read the bass clef tuba music as treble clef (and add two sharps). Works out the same...

[Haugan]

The Eb tuba has always existed as an "easy" tuba to move trumpet players to without the initial difficulty of learning a [totally] new set of fingerings being added to the challange. Many of today's band directors are "taught" somewhere along in their schooling that that this is the reason (historically)for the existence of the Eb tuba. In truth, the Eb tuba was THE tuba in American bands until VERY late in the 19th century.

Study and scrutiny of photographic evidence (in the form of photos of American town bands) shows little evidence of the very existence of BBb tubas in "town bands" prior to 1890. If anyone can produce a photo of a BBb tuba in a band before this date, I would be very interested in seeing it.

The Eb was in wide use in American bands from @ 1855 on. Historically the BBb tuba didn't even exist until 1867, and didn't "catch on" as fast as things would today in a world where words (and trends) travel at a MUCH faster rate of speed.

It would take the Sousa Band and it's compliment of [largely European] musicians to "bring" the BBb tuba to America and set an example that would catch on so quickly. At this time (1895-1920 or so) there was such a clamor for BBb tubas that the "Jumbo Eb" tubas appeared; many with bells 20" or more in diameter and tapers to match; in an attempt to duplicate the sounds of the BBb by the players of Eb tubas. Older bandsmen gave up their Eb tubas reluctantly, but by 1940 or so the BBb had "replaced" the Eb as a band instrument of choice.

There was a period (@1920-1950) where BOTH existed side by side in the American wind band; when I began playing (in 1967) Eb and BBb method books were still common among beginning band methods. The practice of doubling Eb & BBb tubas in octaves and unisons was a standard compositional practice.

A GREATER volume is capable with an Eb and BBb playing Eb (just below the bass clef staff) than can be achieved with two BBb tubas, or two Eb tubas playing the same Eb. This is due to the "mix" of the first harmonic on the Eb tuba coupled with the SECOND harmonic of the BBb (AAb when the first valve is depressed) tuba. Unisons on either two BBb tubas or two Eb tubas tend to "cancel out" each other, and the resultant dynamic will not be as great. If you have access to instruments to test this "law of physics", give it a try - it's a real "eye opener". All you need is 2 of one (Eb or BBb) & one of the other and a $60.oo "Radio Shack" decibel meter. Even WITHOUT the decibel meter, the difference should be VERY evident.

It is this "mix" that gives the British Brass Bands the enormous power and "thickness" of tuba sound; and by continuing "up" the spectrum stacking Eb and Bb instruments up to the soprano Eb cornet one can make a 20 piece band SEEM like 40 or 50 players.

It is unfortunate that today's American band directors tend to view the Eb tuba as an anomaly, or at best a "beginners" tuba or an "aid" for switching trumpeters to tuba. European wind bands tend to "mix" BBbs and Ebs (or BBbs and Fs) to take advantage of the extra color, volume and weight that comes with this practice. The Eb has FAR more potential for use in the American band system than as a "kid's" tuba. Mix 'em up in YOUR band and "see for yourself".

[Haugan]

"i think they just made the best of those bad instruments that were available"

Yeah, we ALL know that those Stradivarius violins and 1930's York tubas just suck.

[Haugan]

A CC Tuba "ceases" to be a CC tuba by the time you descend chromatically and depress the 1st valve, theoretically only the C and B harmonic series is different than a BBb tuba. For example: if you're playing a CC tuba, your "low F" 4 ledgers below the staff is played on the SAME length of tubing as on a BBb tuba, just travelling through 3 valves instead of 1. By the same token, If I'm playing BBb tuba, I'm playing on the "same horn" as your CC tuba as we ascend up from that "F" UNTIL we reach "B", when I begin to play "contra E tuba"(3rd harmonic) against your "B tuba"(2nd harmonic).When we ascend to Db, we're playing "the same" horns again. I hope this makes sense.

. Trombones and tubas have DIFFERENT fundamentals (an octave [or 7th] apart for BBb & CC tubas), and don't "cancel each other out". In fact, this octave span creates a VERY STRONG harmonic, which we are all well aware of when "doubling" octaves with the Bass Trombone.

[Chuck(G)]

It's sort of strange that if one talks to tuba players, a "dark" sound (i.e. one bald of high order harmonics) is considered to be a "good" thing.

But maybe this isn't the universal view.

A few weeks back, I thought that I'd found a mouthpiece that improved attack and articulation and gave me a much "larger" sound, so I started using it.

Comes Thursday quintet rehearsal. After the first chart, the first trumpet is frowning at me. He says "is that the same tube?". I told him it was and what did he think of my new mouthpiece?

"Get rid of it" says he. "You sound muffled; there's no edge to your sound". A quick test swapping mouthpieces confirmed it wasn't his imagination. The other players agreed with him.

FWIW, the difference between the mouthpieces wasn't major--one was a stock Conn Helleberg, the other was an AJ Helleberg to which I'd had a somewhat wider rim attached.

So much for "dark".

[Rick Denney]

It's sort of strange that if one talks to tuba players, a "dark" sound (i.e. one bald of high order harmonics) is considered to be a "good" thing.

Every orchestra pro I've ever talked to (not wannabes, but the real thing) has talked about "color" rather than "dark". When they use that word, they seem to be talking about harmonic complexity, which they say is what it takes for the sound to get our front in a big hall.

In fact, it's one of the things I like about the Holton compared to other BAT's--it has lots of those higher harmonics in the sound, or so it seems. I need to record it and do some measurements, heh, heh.

One of the things I like about the PT-48 is its anti-woof properties. The Laskey 30H is the same, promoting clarity and color in the sound. The Mike Finn 4 does the same on my F tuba. The Holton came with a Revelation 52 mouthpiece, of which I have an example. It's gigantic. And it's the woof magnifier; the exact opposite of what I want in a mouthpiece (though it's fine drinking a pint of beer out of).

A rich sound is rich in all harmonic content, not just the fundamental, which, as your graph demonstrates well, doesn't contribute much to the overall sound of an ensemble. When I measured my low Bb, I found, though, that the third through sixth harmonics were stronger than the fundamental of that note (which is, of course, the second partial of the instrument). Those frequencies are further up on your chart. And the difference between the instruments I compared were in the 8-12th harmonics, well up into the audible range. So, the tuba makes its characteristic sound in the third through twelfth harmonic. Not dark at all. It's the spacing of those harmonics that creates the correct vibration in the listener's ear for the low note.

Rick "who hates that adjective 'dark'" Denney

[Shockwave]

Although it is true that the ear is less sensitive to low frequency sound, this does not mean that the fundamental is not important. What really matters is if there are other sounds in the same range of frequencies that can mask the sound of the tuba.

If you look at a fourier transform of 1 minute of orchestral music you will see that there is a lot of energy from 200Hz up and quite little below that assuming a pipe organ is not included. The bass output of the tuba goes down to about 40Hz and all the bass in the orchestra that could mask the bass from the tuba is provided by the bass drum and 8 unison bass viols. The ear has a wonderful signal processor that is very adept at picking out steady tones in a noisy background, and this is why we are able to hear a conversation in a noisy restaurant. The rumble of the bass drum is noise easily filtered by the ear in favor of steady tones, and the sound from the 8 basses hardly adds up to twice the output of 1 bass since they are all out of phase with each other. This leaves the tuba and its steady and singular bass note with little competition and a clear shot right out to the audience. The upper harmonics of the tuba are easily masked by the basses, horns, and trombones, but the bass carries through.

Have you ever noticed that one good bass singer can balance an entire choir? One good tuba can similarly put the bottom on an entire orchestra or band.

-Eric

[MikeMason]

isn't this an argument for a large,heavy gauge,BBb tuba?(preferably with monsterweight valve caps and a megatone mp )

[Haugan]

Agreed Eric. The tympani certainly should be considered within this analysis, however. It's capacity for providing "sustained pitch" shouldn't be overlooked.

Orchestras being what they are, the tuba sound shouldn't be patently dominant in the tutti texture, nor should the function of the tuba's overtones in "strengthening and augmenting" the other existent wind (& string) sounds that occur above the note the tuba is intoning be dismissed. This "harmonic enhancement" may be the greatest contribution the tuba has to offer the orchestra, it's absence is immediatly recognizable even when the presence of the tuba in orchestral texture may not be.

Ideally there is a BALANCE of fundamental and overtones. A sound mutually exclusive of one or the other has no place in the orchestra.

[windshieldbug]

Have you ever noticed that one good bass singer can balance an entire choir? One good tuba can similarly put the bottom on an entire orchestra or band

isn't this an argument for a large,heavy gauge,BBb tuba?

Sounds to me more like it's an arguement for having one good tuba in every orchestra or band...

[Shockwave]

isn't this an argument for a large,heavy gauge,BBb tuba?(preferably with monsterweight valve caps and a megatone mp )

Actually, no. I've found that horns made of thin brass and even fiberglass make more bass than heavy instruments. I have two Eb tubas that are the same size and the same bore. One is an ancient 8lb saxhorn, the other is an incredibly heavy Besson probably made from WW1 surplus artillery shells. The saxhorn makes a LOT more bass, as much as my full size BBb tuba down to Bb.

-Eric

[Haugan]

Could player SIZE have something to do with it? The York the Nirschl emulates was designed for a smaller player to create a big sound with. In the hands of a more "robust" player, it's resultant sound is frequently overkill.

[Chuck(G)]

I used to keep a midi file of a more-or-less pure sinewave that started at C below the staff and descended about 2 octaves. At the lower octave the situation obtains that even with the volume all the way up, you can see the speaker cones moving, but can't hear a thing. The ear is remarkably insensitive to very low pitches.

What the ear does very well, however, is to infer a fundamental pitch from its harmonic structure. You may be proud as punch that you can really punch out a "pedal" C0, but the fact is that there's almost no fundamental there. Similarly, with the double-bass, there's very little fundamental on the low notes (one problem is that it isn't built to scale with the violin), but it has a large harmonic content.

The example of the bass singer lies not so much in his fundamental pitch, but rather the strength of harmonic content of the fundamental that he brings to the party.

In any case, a much larger problem, particularly in the case of live music, is that low frequencies need to be much louder to be heard as the distance from the source increases. What may be a really convincing gut-rumble by the tuba to the bass trombonist sitting next to him will be all but inaudible to someone sitting in the back of the hall. The reason for this becomes very apparent if one goes back to the loudness-vs-frequency chart. As sounds get softer, the lower frequencies must become proportionately louder than the remainder of the ensemble simply to stay balanced. But this means that for someone sitting in the first row or for the guy waving the stick, the tuba may sound overpowering.

Fortunately, much of the fundamental of the tuba is filled in by the ear hearing the upper harmonic content, so the poor tuba player is saved from a ruptured aneurysm in his attempts to reach the cheap seats with his sound.

(I've never seen a discussion for directors about how to produce the best balanced sound for any seat in the house.)

To me, this says that from a strictly musical standpoint, we ought to concentrate on the harmonics of our low notes rather than the fundamental.

[Shockwave]

I used to keep a midi file of a more-or-less pure sinewave that started at C below the staff and descended about 2 octaves. At the lower octave the situation obtains that even with the volume all the way up, you can see the speaker cones moving, but can't hear a thing. The ear is remarkably insensitive to very low pitches.

Speakers are remarkably insensitive to low pitches too. There are very, very few speakers that can output a C three octaves below the staff without a serious (extreme) reduction in volume. I have one designed to call wild elephants in Africa that reaches down to 14Hz, and tones that low are quite noticeable. Most speakers, particularly bass reflex, can show a lot of cone motion when they are making no sound at all.

What the ear does very well, however, is to infer a fundamental pitch from its harmonic structure. You may be proud as punch that you can really punch out a "pedal" C0, but the fact is that there's almost no fundamental there. Similarly, with the double-bass, there's very little fundamental on the low notes (one problem is that it isn't built to scale with the violin), but it has a large harmonic content.

A pedal C may have no fundamental, but it has strong output at C below the staff and G at the bottom of the staff. Chances are those pitches are still below the rest of the ensemble and can easily come through with little competition. The double bass doesnt need to be gigantic and produce a tremendous amount of bass because instruments are scaled like singers, not like model trains. People built double basses to sound like bass voices, and violins to sound like high sopranos.

The example of the bass singer lies not so much in his fundamental pitch, but rather the strength of harmonic content of the fundamental that he brings to the party.

The harmonic content will be there no matter what, but it is the sound that the bass singer supplies below the other singers that adds to the whole. Otherwise one could croak into a megaphone and do the same job.

In any case, a much larger problem, particularly in the case of live music, is that low frequencies need to be much louder to be heard as the distance from the source increases. What may be a really convincing gut-rumble by the tuba to the bass trombonist sitting next to him will be all but inaudible to someone sitting in the back of the hall. The reason for this becomes very apparent if one goes back to the loudness-vs-frequency chart. As sounds get softer, the lower frequencies must become proportionately louder than the remainder of the ensemble simply to stay balanced. But this means that for someone sitting in the first row or for the guy waving the stick, the tuba may sound overpowering.

I understand your reasoning, but in practice it works out almost the opposite. Higher frequencies are absorbed by the air, people, purses, seats, curtains, hairdos, coats, carpet and everything else in that hall more than low frequencies. High frequency waves are also short and tend to scatter off of objects in the hall while 20 or 30 foot bass waves reflect intact. The sum of all this is that bass carries in the concert hall, or even outdoors, better than treble.

Fortunately, much of the fundamental of the tuba is filled in by the ear hearing the upper harmonic content, so the poor tuba player is saved from a ruptured aneurysm in his attempts to reach the cheap seats with his sound.

To me, this says that from a strictly musical standpoint, we ought to concentrate on the harmonics of our low notes rather than the fundamental.

If you blow a tuba that hard it doesn't increase the bass, it just produces an obnoxious blat. That's what bass trombones are for.

The ear does not infer the existence of fundamental from harmonics. If there isnt any, you won't hear any. The ear more closely responds to the repetition rate of a wave, and that has nothing to do with whether there is fundamental or not.

It all comes down to a matter of opinion. Some people think having bass sounds good, some don't seem to care.

-Eric

[windshieldbug]

If you blow a tuba that hard it doesn't increase the bass, it just produces an obnoxious blat. That's what bass trombones are for ...

[MikeMason]

so,would you guys(i wanted to say ya'll,but i thought you would make fun of me)apply this science to the sound Gene Pokorny gets in the extreme low/loud register ie,the exerpt cd. what,scientifically,is going on there? never heard anything else come close to that sound...just astounding...

[Chuck(G)]

Speakers are remarkably insensitive to low pitches too. There are very, very few speakers that can output a C three octaves below the staff without a serious (extreme) reduction in volume. I have one designed to call wild elephants in Africa that reaches down to 14Hz, and tones that low are quite noticeable. Most speakers, particularly bass reflex, can show a lot of cone motion when they are making no sound at all.

I'm very skeptical that a human being can hear a musical tone at 14 Hz. Perhaps a pressure wave can be sensed or some harmonic content deduced, but a musical tone?

A pedal C may have no fundamental, but it has strong output at C below the staff and G at the bottom of the staff. Chances are those pitches are still below the rest of the ensemble and can easily come through with little competition. The double bass doesnt need to be gigantic and produce a tremendous amount of bass because instruments are scaled like singers, not like model trains. People built double basses to sound like bass voices, and violins to sound like high sopranos.

Precisely--thank you for reiterating my point. Tubas are best heard from their harmonic--not their fundamental content.

Actually, full-scalle basses have been constructed (even recently). Berlioz was in love with the darned thing; the major problem being that it wasn't playable with any facility (note the levers):

The harmonic content will be there no matter what, but it is the sound that the bass singer supplies below the other singers that adds to the whole. Otherwise one could croak into a megaphone and do the same job.

...and it's the harmonics of that bass voice that make him noticeable, not its weak fundamental.

I understand your reasoning, but in practice it works out almost the opposite. Higher frequencies are absorbed by the air, people, purses, seats, curtains, hairdos, coats, carpet and everything else in that hall more than low frequencies. High frequency waves are also short and tend to scatter off of objects in the hall while 20 or 30 foot bass waves reflect intact. The sum of all this is that bass carries in the concert hall, or even outdoors, better than treble.

While high firequencies are indeed attenuated more by porous surfaces than low, go back and take a look at the loudness curves I posted earlier. Note that they're extremely non-linear at the low end--that the low frequencies have to be boosted as the overall midrange volume gets quieter. That's why there are "loudness" controls on stereo equipment in attempt to compensate for the nonlinearity of the Fletcher-Munson curve.

Consider the implication that if the level of bass is perfect to the conductor's ears, it's going to be downright tinny at the back of the hall, where the volume is much lower.

Or, as anyone listening to a marching band from the top row of the bleachers can attest--"what sousaphones?".

This is a matter of human physiology--as sounds get softer, the bass goes away.

If you blow a tuba that hard it doesn't increase the bass, it just produces an obnoxious blat. That's what bass trombones are for.

I said nothing about blowing a tuba to distortion. What I did say was that harmonic content was perhaps more important than fundamental. This can be achieved with a change in mouthpiece or construction of the instrument.

The ear does not infer the existence of fundamental from harmonics. If there isnt any, you won't hear any. The ear more closely responds to the repetition rate of a wave, and that has nothing to do with whether there is fundamental or not.

I beg to differ and offer a concrete example Organ builders have been building instruments with "resultant" stops for centuries, being fully aware of this effect. Many organs with stops marked as 32' really create the effect by combining a 16' voice and 10 2/3' quint. Here's an example at random:

http://www.acbr.com/central/organ.htm

FWIW, there is a fairly lengthy list of instruments with 64' stops, but only two instruments with genuine 64' ranks.

Does anyone suppose that the tuba player honking out his pedal C is producing a fundamental tone at an audible level? Yet the ear perceives a note lower than the C an octave above. From what?

The ear is a very strange thing.