Discussion of tuba sizing

Tubas, euphoniums, mouthpieces, and anything music-related.
Forum rules
This section is for posts that are directly related to performance, performers, or equipment. Social issues are allowed, as long as they are directly related to those categories. If you see a post that you cannot respond to with respect and courtesy, we ask that you do not respond at all.
Locked
donn
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:31 pm
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by donn »

There might be a pitfall in the apparent assumption that the largest American tubas are all built to the same pattern. Let's say that Holton 345 is pretty close to a big York, but to my eye the Conn 2XJ bell is not as wide, up to the point where it really starts flaring out. Maybe my eyes deceive me, maybe not, but there's no real reason that bells would have to be all the same on one side of the Atlantic.
LeMark wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:55 amMeasure internal volume, like they do engine blocks.
I think there may be some apprehension over the weight, but ... does it really capture the differences? It's possible for something like a Conn 52J to hold a lot of water in a generously sized bell, but the bows aren't so big (just looking at pictures)? If the bows aren't so big, it will make a lot more difference to the playing, than it does to the water reservoir capacity, I suspect - the bell is important to sound, but not as important as it is to internal volume?

(I see this post starts a new page. See previous page for more illuminating recent commentary.)


User avatar
pjv
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:17 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by pjv »

bloke wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:29 pm When a tuba is built 7 - 9 inches taller than another tuba (as the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones are often not much taller than three feet tall...37" tall seems common), the equivalent place in the expansion of the bugle of the taller one (compared to the shorter one) is necessarily going to occur (rather than "up top") around the area where the taller tuba's bottom bow ends...so the taller tuba's upper bow is going to necessarily be smaller diameter than the squatty CSO-style lap sousaphone's upper bow...though the taller one (where both straight bugles and laid out side-by-side) might be easily seen to sport just about as much overall bugle interior volume as the stubbier one.
Additionally, I doubt that an inch or two of bell pancake is going to add much interior volume (cubic inches/cubic centimeters/what-have-you) to a tuba.

Image
This Hirsbrunner kaiser B-tuba is 44 inches tall with a 19" bell and am 807" valveset bore , and

Image
this Miraphone kaiser B-tuba is about 45-1/2 inches tall, with a 17-3/8" bell diameter and a .835" valveset bore

again: if you look towards the small ends of the bottom bows of these very tall tubas, that's roughly the same place (in the overall bugle taper) where the apex of the top bow occurs in the key-of-C lap-sousaphones.

These kaiser B-tubas (to me) resemble huge "blown out" Miraphone 186 or Meinl-Weston 20 tubas, whereas the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones (to me) more resemble huge "blown out" and "cut-to-C" King 2341 tubas.

SUMMARIZING: It's a mistake to compare the upper bow of a tall kaiser B-tuba to the upper bow of a CSO key-of-C York-style lap sousaphone, notice that the lap sousaphone's upper bow is fatter, and - from that - determine that the entire instrument is fatter, because to do so is to look at two DIFFERENT percentage locations of the overall length in the tapers of those two instruments.


Really glad you took the time to map this out.
I wanted to as well back when this discussion flared up in another post.
But then I thought “nah” and suggested that this could be a lovely new topic.
And look what’s become of this monster!
Entertaining for sure.
But in the end...???
A tuba is very conical and they’re all so different.
So determining different “sizes is, like has already been said (over and over), is like giving it any other name: useful within the scope of the manufacturers own products.
Any further than that might as well be taken with a grain of salt. Just a general indication.
Very general.
Now, we can all live with that, right?
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:24 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by Rick Denney »

Here’s a Holton and a 20J side by side.

Image

In playing characteristics, this particular 20J was more of a lap sousaphone the is the Holton. But my Holton has quite a lot of zip in the sound.

Rick “the front bell is bigger, not sure about the throat” Denney
donn
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:31 pm
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by donn »

Rick Denney wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:00 am Here’s a Holton and a 20J side by side.

Image

In playing characteristics, this particular 20J was more of a lap sousaphone the is the Holton. But my Holton has quite a lot of zip in the sound.

Rick “the front bell is bigger, not sure about the throat” Denney
To put a Holton into the same bell front format ... proportions unreliable because of different perspective, but I'm going with bigger. Makes me wish I had a kid, this is where you put them -
Image
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 19373
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 3859 times
Been thanked: 4119 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by bloke »

This is a bit off topic (though an analogy to my previous post), but – in the same way – my very large kaiser bariton (rotary) - at first glance - appears no larger than a typical English-style top-action euphonium…UNTIL someone actually measures down to the same distances on the instrument and measures the bugle’s diameter at those places.
Just as with fat (vs. really-fat) tubas, the *sound isn’t much different and (as with some people’s tastes with really-fat tubas) the largest mouthpieces do not seem to be the best choices for the kaiser.
—————
*Just as with with fat vs. really-fat tubas, more of the differences are found to be in the “player experience” vs. “how they sound to patrons and colleagues”.
peterbas
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by peterbas »

bloke wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:29 pm When a tuba is built 7 - 9 inches taller than another tuba (as the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones are often not much taller than three feet tall...37" tall seems common), the equivalent place in the expansion of the bugle of the taller one (compared to the shorter one) is necessarily going to occur (rather than "up top") around the area where the taller tuba's bottom bow ends...so the taller tuba's upper bow is going to necessarily be smaller diameter than the squatty CSO-style lap sousaphone's upper bow...though the taller one (where both straight bugles and laid out side-by-side) might be easily seen to sport just about as much overall bugle interior volume as the stubbier one.
Additionally, I doubt that an inch or two of bell pancake is going to add much interior volume (cubic inches/cubic centimeters/what-have-you) to a tuba.

This Hirsbrunner kaiser B-tuba is 44 inches tall with a 19" bell and am 807" valveset bore , and

this Miraphone kaiser B-tuba is about 45-1/2 inches tall, with a 17-3/8" bell diameter and a .835" valveset bore

again: if you look towards the small ends of the bottom bows of these very tall tubas, that's roughly the same place (in the overall bugle taper) where the apex of the top bow occurs in the key-of-C lap-sousaphones.

These kaiser B-tubas (to me) resemble huge "blown out" Miraphone 186 or Meinl-Weston 20 tubas, whereas the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones (to me) more resemble huge "blown out" and "cut-to-C" King 2341 tubas.

SUMMARIZING: It's a mistake to compare the upper bow of a tall kaiser B-tuba to the upper bow of a CSO key-of-C York-style lap sousaphone, notice that the lap sousaphone's upper bow is fatter, and - from that - determine that the entire instrument is fatter, because to do so is to look at two DIFFERENT percentage locations of the overall length in the tapers of those two instruments.

...but why is it that this entire thread continues to remind me of the works of Lewis Carroll...??



bloke "Drink me."
Like I said in short, you must measure on the same spot not take the first tennon because it differs a lot.

Image

Taking the distances from the patent of Cerveny I measured my 191.
bell kaiser 191 existing oldtuba
247 220 180 178
1250 115 83 87
2000 77 60 57

So the 191 is just the size of an old tuba described in the patent.
I've also tried calculating the volume using a conical shape.
Kaiser tuning slide 23mm vs 21
Total length 530 cm minus 80 cm for distance from tunning slide to mouthpiece = 425.3 cm. The bell volume is estimated by a conical shape from the last 24.7 cm to the same size bell of 48 cm.

Kaiser = 60 + 24.9 = 84.9 liters
191 = 41 + 22.6 = 63.6 liters
Say the 191 is a 4/4 then the kaiser is 5.32/4 in volume.
A true 6/4 would need 95.5 liters.

Make the 191 a CC tuba the volume drops to 51.6 liters.
A CC kaiser would then be 68.6 liters.
A true 6/4 needs then 77,4 liters

These are estimated figures!
peterbas
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by peterbas »

Rick Denney wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:19 pm Okay, guys.

The quarter system was a way for any one company to distinguish instruments in their own product line. All Rudi Meinl rotary tubas are similarly configured, and their dimensionless ratios are sort-of similar. So, the 6/4 Rudi has a bigger bell, a bigger bore, a bigger throat, more volume, and a taller stack than a 5/4 Rudi. It isn’t just the 22” bell versus the 20” bell, but everything is bigger. Within the Rudi line, the quarter system applies to all dimensions, not just a few.

But RM’s idea of the standard full-size tuba is different than Miraphone’s, which is different than Alexander, which is different than Meinl-Weston.

I own a Hirsbrunner HBS-193 (pictured by Combatant B above), and also a Holton 345. The Holton is about five inches shorter, but it has a bigger throat and more volume. The sound is bottomless. The sound of the 193 is powerful. It’s like comparing a Bentley—a very large car with sporting intentions, to a Humvee, a tank with tires instead of tracks. Neither will get you quickly around a race track. But both support such different use cases that sharing a size designation beyond “big” is a fool’s errand. The Hirsbrunner is a Kaiser, which implies a range of characteristics common do all large and tall rotary tubas. The Rudi 5/4 is also a Kaiser, in my considered opinion. The Rudi 6/4 should be called a Döppelkaiser.

The Holton is a grand orchestral tuba, in the sense that the original 36J was called the Orchestra Grand Bass. It definitely has more volume, but the sound is different rather than greater.

The use of impedance is an interesting idea. Impedance is frequency-dependent resistance. Resonance implies low impedance, but there’s more to it than that. In the world of loudspeakers, the propagation and resonance of the speaker can be measured as a function of amplitude, decay, and direction. It avoids room effects by measuring single waveforms before reflections make it back to the test microphone. Equally interesting is measuring speakers in the room to see how the room affects resonance and frequency response. Propagation pattern is important—reflected paths arrive at the ear later than direct paths, and in a reverberant room, you’ll get a lot of phase cancellation and comb filtering in the upper harmonics relative to the lower ones. Reverberant rooms will favor clean articulations, fast attacks, higher harmonics, and direction propagation, while deader rooms will favor wide dispersion, lower harmonics, and smoother attacks.

Here’s a spectral decay plot showing where a loudspeaker resonates (bad) or nulls (also bad) across the frequency spectrum. These speakers are decent cheapies.


It’s not specifically useful for measuring tubas, which are intended to be resonant. But it’s more interesting than the simple Fourier transform frequency display like the one I used to measure tuba sound back in the deeps of time.


Here is a way to picture frequency response in a room. This room is fairly dead, but the waviness is caused by reflections out of phase with the main signal at some frequencies—the comb effect. The farther the test microphone is from the sound producer, the more it measures room effects. I’m going to play with this software to see if I can use it for measuring tuba sound. I think propagation has as much effect as harmonic content, but in a live hall, those two attributes are linked, sometimes to good effect and sometimes not. That more than anything drives preferences of those who make their decisions more thoughtfully that buying the currently hip thing.

Image

By the way, here’s a Rudi 5/4 C tuba next to a Holton BB-345.


Differences are easy enough to see.

Rick “not at home, so having to file this away for a future project” Denney
Like speakers it is best to measure the tuba outside with nothing to close by that can give a reflection. Furthermore producing mostly low frequencies you should also make a groundplane measurement. Microphone on the ground and the tuba also flat on the ground so to eliminate the reflection with the ground.
This will be your baseline measurements, only the tuba measured.
Then inside the room you can put the microphone in different places to seen what the frequency response is at different spots, like players head...

Could you show some more curves like phase response...
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 19373
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 3859 times
Been thanked: 4119 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by bloke »

sorry...no charts/graphs/numbers (and I respect and am fascinated by them)...but (only relying on observations, memory, personal anecdotal, and the like...)

If an ancient Conn 36J is a "grand orchestral" (yes...?? no...??) tuba (am I wrong, that this was the first tuba with that sort of designation...?? ...and - yes - I could easily be wrong), The Rudy 5/4 tubas' bell shapes seem (to me) to mimic some of those old Conn (non-detachable...and NOT the 25J bells that some stick on the recording version 36J) bells. Further, the Cerveny 601 tubas (which were bought by some - often due to their pricing) seemed more like double-oversize-bore rotary valvesets stuck on Holton/York/etc. 6/4/lap-sousaphone-shaped bugles/bells. With this, too, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong...so I wouldn't really put either the Rudy 5/4 B-flat nor the Cerveny 601 B-flat quite into the "kaiser" category, BECAUSE...

...I have a bit of a stricter concept of "kaiser" in my head...The two pictured in my last post qualify (and they must be B-flat tubas), the Meinl-Weston 197 certainly qualifies (well: duh) and others that are close to that shape/size/height...and I believe the somewhat towering height is part of the definition, because (just as with the stubby height of the lap sousaphones - mostly in C) the distance from the tuba's opening to the player's ears (ie. how a tuba is heard by its operator) has definite effects on how a player reacts to their instrument...and the other characteristic (as Rick points towards) is their NOT-sousaphone-bell-shaped bell throats.

' no need to argue these points...They're just MY personal concepts of "kaiser" (B-flat), and no one's else.
donn
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:31 pm
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by donn »

I believe the "Kaiser" designation will also be applied to helicons - like the "Kaiserhelikon mit Walzenventilmaschine" on the 5th (bottom) part in Daniel Ridder's lovely Tannhäuser excerpt.
User avatar
lost
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:38 am
Location: Massachusetts
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 24 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by lost »

peterbas wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:17 am
bloke wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:29 pm When a tuba is built 7 - 9 inches taller than another tuba (as the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones are often not much taller than three feet tall...37" tall seems common), the equivalent place in the expansion of the bugle of the taller one (compared to the shorter one) is necessarily going to occur (rather than "up top") around the area where the taller tuba's bottom bow ends...so the taller tuba's upper bow is going to necessarily be smaller diameter than the squatty CSO-style lap sousaphone's upper bow...though the taller one (where both straight bugles and laid out side-by-side) might be easily seen to sport just about as much overall bugle interior volume as the stubbier one.
Additionally, I doubt that an inch or two of bell pancake is going to add much interior volume (cubic inches/cubic centimeters/what-have-you) to a tuba.

This Hirsbrunner kaiser B-tuba is 44 inches tall with a 19" bell and am 807" valveset bore , and

this Miraphone kaiser B-tuba is about 45-1/2 inches tall, with a 17-3/8" bell diameter and a .835" valveset bore

again: if you look towards the small ends of the bottom bows of these very tall tubas, that's roughly the same place (in the overall bugle taper) where the apex of the top bow occurs in the key-of-C lap-sousaphones.

These kaiser B-tubas (to me) resemble huge "blown out" Miraphone 186 or Meinl-Weston 20 tubas, whereas the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones (to me) more resemble huge "blown out" and "cut-to-C" King 2341 tubas.

SUMMARIZING: It's a mistake to compare the upper bow of a tall kaiser B-tuba to the upper bow of a CSO key-of-C York-style lap sousaphone, notice that the lap sousaphone's upper bow is fatter, and - from that - determine that the entire instrument is fatter, because to do so is to look at two DIFFERENT percentage locations of the overall length in the tapers of those two instruments.

...but why is it that this entire thread continues to remind me of the works of Lewis Carroll...??



bloke "Drink me."
Like I said in short, you must measure on the same spot not take the first tennon because it differs a lot.

Image

Taking the distances from the patent of Cerveny I measured my 191.
bell kaiser 191 existing oldtuba
247 220 180 178
1250 115 83 87
2000 77 60 57

So the 191 is just the size of an old tuba described in the patent.
I've also tried calculating the volume using a conical shape.
Kaiser tuning slide 23mm vs 21
Total length 530 cm minus 80 cm for distance from tunning slide to mouthpiece = 425.3 cm. The bell volume is estimated by a conical shape from the last 24.7 cm to the same size bell of 48 cm.

Kaiser = 60 + 24.9 = 84.9 liters
191 = 41 + 22.6 = 63.6 liters
Say the 191 is a 4/4 then the kaiser is 5.32/4 in volume.
A true 6/4 would need 95.5 liters.

Make the 191 a CC tuba the volume drops to 51.6 liters.
A CC kaiser would then be 68.6 liters.
A true 6/4 needs then 77,4 liters

These are estimated figures!
I don't read german. I don't think anyone would claim 6/4 implies a true 6/4 either. The terms are to denote general sizes that have become traditon when referring to tuba size.

If a Kaiser is a bigger version of a standard full size tuba, then that would be called a 5/4 by the company. The whole reason this thread started was people claiming kaisers are called 6/4. Rudy does make one, and I'm sure a few more exist that would rise to that level. The majority of kaiser horns though today fall into 5/4, because it's a size higher then a companies' full size horn.

If same company creates something even larger, like an American piston squatty, tubby, call whatever floats your boat, york Grand orchestral lap tuba copy, they have a right to call it a 6/4 because who wants to buy a 5.137/4 tuba. Doesn't ring as nice and would probably confuse people.
J.W. York & Sons Performing Artist
http://www.YorkLoyalist.com
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2472
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:48 am
Location: Downtown Browntown
Has thanked: 846 times
Been thanked: 767 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by Doc »

lost wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:29 pm
If a Kaiser is a bigger version of a standard full size tuba, then that would be called a 5/4 by the company. The whole reason this thread started was people claiming kaisers are called 6/4. Rudy does make one, and I'm sure a few more exist that would rise to that level. The majority of kaiser horns though today fall into 5/4, because it's a size higher then a companies' full size horn.
My B&S 104 Kaiser was definitely a huge tuba. Joe's 190 looked like a younger brother by comparison, and the 190 is not anything I would consider "4/4." The 104 had been labeled a "6/4 Kaiser," and I would say it certainly qualified on both counts. Subjective? Probably. Instructive/descriptive? Definitely. @SteveMarcus and I shared a couple of emails regarding size, measurements, etc. as compared to the Wessex Kaiser (which I have played a couple times), and the numbers were very similar. Even so, the 104 "felt" fatter, whereas the Wessex "felt" taller. Was it a small difference in wrap and overall design that accounted for the difference in perception? Does it even matter? Both are BARTs... make that HARTs (Huge-Assed Rotary Tubas). Are they big enough to be 6/4? I'm not sure, but the 104 had that extra BAT presence/vibration/bass knob when you wanted it, but it could still do the daisy-cutter sound unique to Kaisers. Maybe Kaisertubas are really their own unique class of BARTs?

I've played the biggest Rudy. While it is a MASSIVE cannon (it's in its own class - 7/4???), it is not what I would call (in terms of design) a traditional Kaiser, and neither is the 5/4 Bayreuth, despite both being fantastic large BBbs.

Doc (who'll likely have a Bayreuth model if he wins the lottery if, of course, he ever plays...)
Welcome to Browntown!
Home of the Brown Note!
peterbas
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by peterbas »

lost wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:29 pm
peterbas wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:17 am
bloke wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:29 pm When a tuba is built 7 - 9 inches taller than another tuba (as the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones are often not much taller than three feet tall...37" tall seems common), the equivalent place in the expansion of the bugle of the taller one (compared to the shorter one) is necessarily going to occur (rather than "up top") around the area where the taller tuba's bottom bow ends...so the taller tuba's upper bow is going to necessarily be smaller diameter than the squatty CSO-style lap sousaphone's upper bow...though the taller one (where both straight bugles and laid out side-by-side) might be easily seen to sport just about as much overall bugle interior volume as the stubbier one.
Additionally, I doubt that an inch or two of bell pancake is going to add much interior volume (cubic inches/cubic centimeters/what-have-you) to a tuba.

This Hirsbrunner kaiser B-tuba is 44 inches tall with a 19" bell and am 807" valveset bore , and

this Miraphone kaiser B-tuba is about 45-1/2 inches tall, with a 17-3/8" bell diameter and a .835" valveset bore

again: if you look towards the small ends of the bottom bows of these very tall tubas, that's roughly the same place (in the overall bugle taper) where the apex of the top bow occurs in the key-of-C lap-sousaphones.

These kaiser B-tubas (to me) resemble huge "blown out" Miraphone 186 or Meinl-Weston 20 tubas, whereas the CSO York-style key-of-C lap sousaphones (to me) more resemble huge "blown out" and "cut-to-C" King 2341 tubas.

SUMMARIZING: It's a mistake to compare the upper bow of a tall kaiser B-tuba to the upper bow of a CSO key-of-C York-style lap sousaphone, notice that the lap sousaphone's upper bow is fatter, and - from that - determine that the entire instrument is fatter, because to do so is to look at two DIFFERENT percentage locations of the overall length in the tapers of those two instruments.

...but why is it that this entire thread continues to remind me of the works of Lewis Carroll...??



bloke "Drink me."
Like I said in short, you must measure on the same spot not take the first tennon because it differs a lot.

Image

Taking the distances from the patent of Cerveny I measured my 191.
bell kaiser 191 existing oldtuba
247 220 180 178
1250 115 83 87
2000 77 60 57

So the 191 is just the size of an old tuba described in the patent.
I've also tried calculating the volume using a conical shape.
Kaiser tuning slide 23mm vs 21
Total length 530 cm minus 80 cm for distance from tunning slide to mouthpiece = 425.3 cm. The bell volume is estimated by a conical shape from the last 24.7 cm to the same size bell of 48 cm.

Kaiser = 60 + 24.9 = 84.9 liters
191 = 41 + 22.6 = 63.6 liters
Say the 191 is a 4/4 then the kaiser is 5.32/4 in volume.
A true 6/4 would need 95.5 liters.

Make the 191 a CC tuba the volume drops to 51.6 liters.
A CC kaiser would then be 68.6 liters.
A true 6/4 needs then 77,4 liters

These are estimated figures!
I don't read german. I don't think anyone would claim 6/4 implies a true 6/4 either. The terms are to denote general sizes that have become traditon when referring to tuba size.

If a Kaiser is a bigger version of a standard full size tuba, then that would be called a 5/4 by the company. The whole reason this thread started was people claiming kaisers are called 6/4. Rudy does make one, and I'm sure a few more exist that would rise to that level. The majority of kaiser horns though today fall into 5/4, because it's a size higher then a companies' full size horn.

If same company creates something even larger, like an American piston squatty, tubby, call whatever floats your boat, york Grand orchestral lap tuba copy, they have a right to call it a 6/4 because who wants to buy a 5.137/4 tuba. Doesn't ring as nice and would probably confuse people.
No need to read german, it was just to point out where the three points to measure the diameter come from.
A true 6/4 is used in a merely mathematical point of view, we don't know if this was chosen on measurements or just by looking at tubas side by side and the 'normaal' one was a one or 4/4 so the biggest one had to be something like 50 percent bigger or 6/4.
Needed is the volume of a bunch of tubas so we can see if they can be categorized in a quarter scale.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2472
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:48 am
Location: Downtown Browntown
Has thanked: 846 times
Been thanked: 767 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by Doc »

peterbas wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:58 pm Needed is the volume of a bunch of tubas so we can see if they can be categorized in a quarter scale.
Sounds like a great research project for a doctoral student. :thumbsup:
Welcome to Browntown!
Home of the Brown Note!
KingTuba1241X
Posts: 1045
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:41 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by KingTuba1241X »

@SteveMarcus and I shared a couple of emails regarding size, measurements, etc.
Hopefully it was about tubas :laugh: You walked right into that one :cheers:
06' Miraphone 187-4U
User avatar
Three Valves
Posts: 4613
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:07 pm
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Has thanked: 818 times
Been thanked: 505 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by Three Valves »

N. America will do quart scale.

EU can do liter scale.

:cheers:
Thought Criminal
Mack Brass Artiste
TU422L with TU25
1964 Conn 36k with CB Arnold Jacobs
Accent (By B&S) 952R with Bach12
The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2472
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:48 am
Location: Downtown Browntown
Has thanked: 846 times
Been thanked: 767 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by Doc »

KingTuba1241X wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:22 pm
@SteveMarcus and I shared a couple of emails regarding size, measurements, etc.
Hopefully it was about tubas :laugh: You walked right into that one :cheers:
My leadpipe is bigger than yours...
Welcome to Browntown!
Home of the Brown Note!
KingTuba1241X
Posts: 1045
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:41 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by KingTuba1241X »

Doc wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:27 pm
KingTuba1241X wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:22 pm
@SteveMarcus and I shared a couple of emails regarding size, measurements, etc.
Hopefully it was about tubas :laugh: You walked right into that one :cheers:
My leadpipe is bigger than yours...
"Kaiser shank is bigger than Standard and no you can't touch it! It belongs to the wife!" :laugh:
06' Miraphone 187-4U
User avatar
lost
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:38 am
Location: Massachusetts
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 24 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by lost »

This is the earliest ad I can find about the Hirsbrunner. It's from 1986-87 I think. Quarter systems were used by custom music earlier for sanders and RM as well.

Image
J.W. York & Sons Performing Artist
http://www.YorkLoyalist.com
User avatar
bloke
Mid South Music
Posts: 19373
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:55 am
Location: western Tennessee - near Memphis
Has thanked: 3859 times
Been thanked: 4119 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by bloke »

Someone's going to have to dig up the issue which introduced the "HB-50 York Model"...(1980...??)
I believe there was not only a huge article, but also a full 1-page ad.
That HB-2P came later, as I remember...as they were finding additional uses for that Nirschl valveset...including (as seen in your ad) pasting that Nirschl valveset on to their rotary C tuba body.
=============
more "my tuba's better' n' yours" braggin' rights:

My Holton BB-flat "wiser" tuba is ONLY 32 inches tall...NOT 32.5"...NOT 32.2".

I challenge ANYONE to UNDERachieve THAT !!!!
User avatar
LeMark
Site Admin
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:03 am
Location: Arlington TX
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 821 times

Re: Discussion of tuba sizing

Post by LeMark »

cool, I remember that ad
Yep, I'm Mark
Locked