up for debate

[bloke]

Over the many decades, brasswind instrument players have argued that thicker/thinner instruments and heavier/lighter instruments project more/less.

We're neither percussionists nor stringed instrument players.
Rather, we are sympathetically-activated air-column vibrators...and it's not even about "moving air". Rather, (again) it is about vibration. Were it that (and it's not possible, obviously) we could vibrate our lips without moving air past them, the air column within the instrument would still (I believe) vibrate sympathetically with the lips.

Of course, thinner/lighter instruments are going to physically vibrate more in our hands/laps/against our chests (which will affect our own perceptions of what we're hearing being emitted from our instruments), but that physical vibration - by/of a wind instrument - has very little (imperceptibly little, I believe) to do with what is heard by others.

An alternate-belief theory - purveyed a two or three decades ago (as well as in past decades) - was the "mass transferring the vibration" theory, which resulted in the marketing and consumption of "heavy" wall instruments (read: yep...those instruments sure are heavy), as well as massive (again, read: heavy) mouthpieces...as well as heavy, unneeded add-ons.

We - and even our colleagues - often hear differences when (even precisely the same on the inside...or non-bore-related) weight is added, but this is never scientific, as (if we believe there is a difference) we are going to affect a difference. Even if we do not affect differences, we (or our colleague/witnesses) are going to perceive that difference are occurring.

Moreover, most all instruments (even of the very same model) are different, and - this being so - any scientific conclusions regarding these particular things (with a complete lack of a "control" - either in terms of the operators or the machinery) are impossible.

Wind instrument "projection" (ie. how well/easily others hear the sounds that are emitted from our wind instruments) overwhelmingly has to do with
mostly: the way someone is playing an instrument
somewhat: the interior shape of the instrument (which includes the interior shape of the mouthpiece)
also: the mechanical condition of an instrument - both as originally received from a maker, and also as related to wear-and-tear and maintenance
almost not at all: the thickness/mass/weight of a (wind) instrument

<sidebar>
fiberglass sousaphone bells:
I will admit that - with some of them - there is a subtle extraneous sound that occurs, which prompts recollections of sounds created from "thunking" against the end of a plastic pipe...but (assuming this isn't particularly desirable) a desirable trade-off is the lack of a non-musical "after-ring."
</sidebar>

I suspect many will disagree with much of what I typed, above.
Others will chide me for neither being a scientist nor an engineer by trade.
That's fine. Those assertions make me smile.

bloke "trying very hard, here, to rope more tubaforum subscribers into a discussion"

[donn]

Would the large family of "copies" of That York serve as a reasonable case study? Assuming some are lighter weight than others, but all are roughly the same size throughout.

[KingTuba1241X]

Would the large family of "copies" of That York serve as a reasonable case study? Assuming some are lighter weight than others, but all are roughly the same size throughout.

And of course, Lacquer or Silver Lives Matter too.

[Yorkboy]

The main difference I can see is that thinner horns are easier to dent.

[lost]

is this a german tuba sound vs american tuba sound argument?

[Three Valves]

Glass sousaphones are the bomb. NEXT!!

[KingTuba1241X]

Glass sousaphones are the bomb. NEXT!!

Or is it Lap Woof Mobile O'Phones?

[bloke]

' usual suspects...

[Stryk]

The main difference I can see is that thinner horns are easier to dent.

But....easier to schlep around...

[bloke]

...or lose only 30 pounds, and the tuba then weighs -5 pounds

[peterbas]

...

[bloke]

As always, that is all interesting, as long as everyone understands that terms such as “acoustically dead“, “professionals“, and “rate”, are not scientific words, and are all opinion-based words.
Just as I put forth, not much at all about this can be scientifically measured, other than size measurements, and readouts on screens - imaged on those screens by microphones - all of which imperfectly react to sound waves.

[groovlow]

Too many variables ....
We might get more accurate [fun] results with Chinese Astrology [CA],
The character traits of the animal year relate to the year of the instruments manufacture. The CA can be pursued deeper for additional qualities.

Year of Dragon....outdoor projection
and opposite
Year of the Dog ... inside parlor faithful servant

Do a quick search for the CA animal that matches the year of your horns,
You might be surprised!
Joe H

[peterbas]

...

[peterbas]

...

[KingTuba1241X]

I'd rather discuss what makes a "Woof-O-Phone" actually "Woof". Honestly, this term makes me genuinely laugh every time I hear it used because of how accurate it is to describe a Lap Sousaphone as they are called. Maybe we need an official TubaWiki page with these terms officially coined. Yes Peterbas, I hear you loud and clear.

[jtm]

Too many variables ....
We might get more accurate [fun] results with Chinese Astrology [CA],
The character traits of the animal year relate to the year of the instruments manufacture. The CA can be pursued deeper for additional qualities.

Now if only I could find out when my tuba was made...

[jtm]

I'd rather discuss what makes a "Woof-O-Phone" actually "Woof". Honestly, this term makes me genuinely laugh every time I hear it used because of how accurate it is to describe a Lap Sousaphone as they are called. Maybe we need an official TubaWiki page with these terms officially coined. Yes Peterbas, I hear you loud and clear.

Since this is a thread for learning, what kind of tuba fits the label "lap sousaphone"?

[Furguson11]

is this a german tuba sound vs american tuba sound argument?

Probably not, it seems like the stack is higher and the bell sizes smaller on many German instruments. More bazooka-like. Though bell sizes do seem to have generally grown in my lifetime on all tubas.

When I hear conversations about "thin-walled" I always think about the "warm" sound of Cerveny tubas. They also would build the same horn out of red or yellow brass, which could effect the sound. The more professional instruments seemed to be the 700 series in the "red" brass, though I have also seen red brass bells on yellow brass horns.

[Stryk]

About light/heavy, it is obvious that we want the tuba as least as possible to vibrate because that is a power loss. So thicker brass wil help but also the rigidity off the instrument has to be considerd.

So, you are saying research says thicker brass in horns is better than thinner? You DON'T want the horn to vibrate? Can you please explain? Interesting, I always assumed the opposite of each was better.