The 'Big Tuba'

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:20 pm

Ah, they just don't make 'em like they used to!

tubatooter1940 · Post by **tubatooter1940** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:16 am

I wish they had placed someone or something close to the tuba to give us a sense of the scale.
If one person has to blow and another work the valves, there goes your spontenaety.

quinterbourne · Post by **quinterbourne** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:52 am

Another fine instrument to bring into quintet rehearsal.

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:20 am

Wouldn't this tuba be technically called a DOUBLE F (FF)?

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:27 am

Eh, actually, to be technical, it's somewhere between contrabass and subcontrabass. All the subcontrabass tubas I know of are BBB-flat!

sub-bass?

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:55 am

Actually, being in the next octave and a fourth down, instead of just a fifth down like the "Sousa" EEb tuba that got left in England and ended up in the basement, wouldn't it be called an FFF subcontrabass tuba? Just don't call it one big F tuba, you might get censored!

tubeast · Post by **tubeast** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:11 am

IÂ´ll double the FFF tuba thing.
An F tuba has, what, 3.9 meters ?
An FF tuba would be twice the length, which makes it 7.8 meters.
A FFF tuba will have twice THAT length, then, which at 15.6 m pretty much fits the specs on that link.

Dang, imagine a horn with F-1 being itÂ´s lowest partial !!!

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:40 pm

LoyalTubist wrote:sub-bass?

You know, where the navy keeps all the subs...

circusboy · Post by **circusboy** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:49 pm

This is effing ridiculous.

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:42 pm

No, I'll stick with FF. The tuba that is an octave higher is an F, so, logically speaking it's a single F.

(I still stick by the American definition of BB-flat tuba, being defined by range and not size.)

Dean E · Post by **Dean E** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:13 pm

LoyalTubist wrote:No, I'll stick with FF. The tuba that is an octave higher is an F, so, logically speaking it's a single F. . . .

The specs provided with the photo do not help matters:
"Length (rolled out): 15770 mm (620.9")" must refer to the combined lingth of all of the valve tubing and the open bugle.

An F open bugle is about 12 feet = 144 inches = 3657.6 mm. Doubling the length of that bugle results in 24 feet = 288 inches = 7315.2 mm.

The 15770 mm stated tubing length is 4.3 times the nominal 3657.6 mm length of a F tuba with a 12 feet long open bugle.

Don't go figure. It won't work.

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:21 pm

Sounds like a TGI Friday's knickknack.

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:30 pm

LoyalTubist wrote:Sounds like a TGI Friday's knickknack.

That would be DGZ Vrijdag's, and they just fill up the holes in the bell with corks when they unscrew it from the wall...

passion4tuba · Post by **passion4tuba** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:16 pm

I kno it's huge and all..but cant a really...really... really big person play it all by themselves? like shaq or yao ming size people?

just a question

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Maybe, but that'd be one heck of an arm length. I suspect that they built it SO THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE TWO PEOPLE. That's half the attraction...

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:04 am

Or did they build it in "scale" (pun intended) and proportion so it still looked like one of their regular tubas, and the need for two people was a result, not a plan?

Paul Scott · Post by **Paul Scott** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:45 am

If this is the tuba that is in Stauffer's book, (Treatise on the Tuba?) it's a VERY big instrument. The photograph in the book includes two people to enable a comparison for scale-it's BIG!