Orchestral Tuba

[jtm]

I'm pretty sure I asked this a while ago, but I'm still trying to refine my question so I can get an answer that I am looking for.

What are the important models of tuba within orchestral tuba playing? (For example, the 2 CSO Yorks and the Sander C tubas that the BrassandPipes blog says were used to premier Fanfare of Common Man, and Dvorak 9)

Hey! I have a Sander C, sort of. Hmmm. Should really practice more so I can do it justice.

[UncleBeer]

What are the important models of tuba within orchestral tuba playing?

That's like saying "What are the important colors when making a painting?" It's a question of circumstance, context and to some extent personal taste. Since the tuba is so new (only 186 years!) and was the last permanent addition to the orchestra, composers have spent awhile figuring out the tuba's various incarnations. It's worth spending the time to figure out what the composer intended, and not just inflict your shiny 7/4 Blast-o-phone on colleagues, audience and repertoire for every piece that's put on your stand.

[matt g]

This thread is delving into nerdy minutia, but (on the nerdy minutia topic) I’m pretty sure that any model 184 tuba that gentleman recorded with featured a bell diameter of only about 360mm…(less than 14-1/4 inches).

Sonically, my observation has been that a bell throat diameter offers a much more profound effect on “focus” than does the width of (whether or not one exists) a flattened-out bell edge. A tuba that I just finished putting together sports a 19” bell, but - sonically - can be pretty “punchy”, when pushed...as the bell throat size is conservative. Compared to a 15” bell tuba that I recently sold (Chinese copy of a Cerveny Arion Bb), the sonic characteristics are quite similar, as their throat sizes are pretty close to the same.

Physically, that last few inches where the pancake happens is likely far less impactful than the volumetric differences from the throat/stack size, as you note.

My 4/4 horn has a slightly larger bell diameter than my 6/4. The 4/4 has a good bit more clarity in the mid range and a bit more “front” to the sound from the smaller volume in the bell throat/stack and bows.

[bloke]

Maybe I shouldn’t post without asking to read what you read, but - yes - I’ve heard by word of mouth that Tommy Johnson - and perhaps Mr. Bobo, as well - tried out various bells (that were available on the west coast) with their factory instruments, examples being sticking Olds O-99 bells on model 184 tubas, and sticking Miraphone model 185 bells on to B&S Symphonie Modell F tubas.
I suspect that both of us have a pretty good idea of what that tack would do to the resale value of either of those models, today.

This thread is delving into nerdy minutia, but (on the nerdy minutia topic) I’m pretty sure that any model 184 tuba that gentleman recorded with featured a bell diameter of only about 360mm…(less than 14-1/4 inches).

I thought Bobo eventually got a bigger bell on his 184... at least that's what his site says!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[tobysima`]

Maybe I shouldn’t post without asking to read what you read, but - yes - I’ve heard by word of mouth that Tommy Johnson - and perhaps Mr. Bobo, as well - tried out various bells (that were available on the west coast) with their factory instruments, examples being sticking Olds O-99 bells on model 184 tubas, and sticking Miraphone model 185 bells on to B&S Symphonie Modell F tubas.
I suspect that both of us have a pretty good idea of what that tack would do to the resale value of either of those models, today.

This thread is delving into nerdy minutia, but (on the nerdy minutia topic) I’m pretty sure that any model 184 tuba that gentleman recorded with featured a bell diameter of only about 360mm…(less than 14-1/4 inches).

I thought Bobo eventually got a bigger bell on his 184... at least that's what his site says!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I can provide the link if you like.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[bloke]

There's no need for that; I'm not questioning it.
For those who really was interested in such things (not me) there's likely no date, so (for any nerds who were actually curious enough) any bell-swaps probably could not be cross-checked, date-wise, with symphonic works' recording dates.

============================

This thread has got me thinking, though...

I suspect the reason that I'm so long-term pleased with my 5450 (C-length) tuba is because:

sonically (resonance qualities and decibels output), it imitates a kaiser B-flat, YET...

...with only a 19mm bore size, conservative mouthpipe taper, and only an 18'-long expanding bugle it's considerably less work to play, and - in addition...

...it's intonation characteristics are easier to address than those encountered with the typical kaiser B-flat.

[KingTuba1241X]

Physically, that last few inches where the pancake happens is likely far less impactful than the volumetric differences from the throat/stack size, as you note

When talking about the King 22'' versus 19'' bells, the throats are relatively the same and only the pancake area is where it spreads the largest and it makes a HUGE difference in sound and playability.

[bloke]

There are several King's (both 12XX and two-piece 23XX series) here...as well as a 19" upright bell and a couple of 22" upright bells.
I may not be sensitive enough, but I'm not noticing much difference, when those bells are swapped out on the same bodies.

play-ability issues:

Perhaps (??) a more significant difference is that the 22" bells were sold with 1241 tubas (with #1 and #3 circuits which were built w-a-y too long), where as the 19" bells were sold with 2341 tubas (with shorter, much more well-tempered #1 and #3 circuit lengths)...??

With "old school" 4-valve American BB-flat tubas, the 4th valve was viewed as an "add-on" (with the player continuing to utilize the 3-valve system, and to ONLY utilize the 4th valve to extend the low range) whereas later, the 4th valve (re: the shorter #1 and #3 circuits on the 2341 model) became more integrated (likely: due to the proliferation of Miraphone 186 tubas into the USA) into the normal playing range of the instrument.

[tobysima`]

What are the important models of tuba within orchestral tuba playing?

That's like saying "What are the important colors when making a painting?" It's a question of circumstance, context and to some extent personal taste. Since the tuba is so new (only 186 years!) and was the last permanent addition to the orchestra, composers have spent awhile figuring out the tuba's various incarnations. It's worth spending the time to figure out what the composer intended, and not just inflict your shiny 7/4 Blast-o-phone on colleagues, audience and repertoire for every piece that's put on your stand.

That's my main question! I like to learn about what the composer envisioned for the tuba, but I also try and think about what the piece is trying to convey. I would give an example, but everyone interprets sound and orchestra recordings differently!

[tobysima`]

There are several King's (both 12XX and two-piece 23XX series) here...as well as a 19" upright bell and a couple of 22" upright bells.
I may not be sensitive enough, but I'm not noticing much difference, when those bells are swapped out on the same bodies.

play-ability issues:

Perhaps (??) a more significant difference is that the 22" bells were sold with 1241 tubas (with #1 and #3 circuits which were built w-a-y too long), where as the 19" bells were sold with 2341 tubas (with shorter, much more well-tempered #1 and #3 circuit lengths)...??

With "old school" 4-valve American BB-flat tubas, the 4th valve was viewed as an "add-on" (with the player continuing to utilize the 3-valve system, and to ONLY utilize the 4th valve to extend the low range) whereas later, the 4th valve (re: the shorter #1 and #3 circuits on the 2341 model) became more integrated (likely: due to the proliferation of Miraphone 186 tubas into the USA) into the normal playing range of the instrument.

That's how my band director teaches to use the Yamaha 641. Or any other tuba. I had to unlearn that habit.

[tobysima`]

There's no need for that; I'm not questioning it.
For those who really was interested in such things (not me) there's likely no date, so (for any nerds who were actually curious enough) any bell-swaps probably could not be cross-checked, date-wise, with symphonic works' recording dates.

============================

This thread has got me thinking, though...

I suspect the reason that I'm so long-term pleased with my 5450 (C-length) tuba is because:

sonically (resonance qualities and decibels output), it imitates a kaiser B-flat, YET...

...with only a 19mm bore size, conservative mouthpipe taper, and only an 18'-long expanding bugle it's considerably less work to play, and - in addition...

...it's intonation characteristics are easier to address than those encountered with the typical kaiser B-flat.

http://wwwtemp.rogerbobo.com/instruments/d_tuba.shtml
According to his website, a "Besson Eb Imperial" bell (Whatever that is) was put on the Miraphone, and then it was cut to D.

===========================


I do very much enjoy your sound on that 5450. You sent me a couple band clips a few months back, and I find myself going back to them.

[tobysima`]

So stuff like the 186 and the Kaiser tubas are better suited for the ideal orchestral sound?

Yes. Large(er) German style rotary horns punch through the mix of orchestras nicely and blend better with the trombones. Have you seen some of Perry Hoogendijk's videos on YouTube? You just hear more TUBA versus when the player is using a York Style horn. It's all about what sound you're aiming for, neither are a bad thing.

Hoogendijk sounds especially incredible on his Adams F tuba.

[matt g]

There are several King's (both 12XX and two-piece 23XX series) here...as well as a 19" upright bell and a couple of 22" upright bells.
I may not be sensitive enough, but I'm not noticing much difference, when those bells are swapped out on the same bodies.

I’ll agree with this. The sound is effectively identical in my experience as a listener. However, sitting under the bell, there are some differences, but not huge. Maybe the bigger bell sounded darker, but “the baffles” on a good bit of the reflected sound are larger.

The bell front is a bigger difference, but that’s because you’re aiming the sound and bouncing it off different surfaces.

[Casca Grossa]

I find this to be a very fine sounding orchestral tuba with a very fine bloke steering it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkF-XhOME2g

[tobysima`]

I find this to be a very fine sounding orchestral tuba with a very fine bloke steering it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkF-XhOME2g

Now THAT'S a tuba!!! That's the sort of orchestral sound I like!! I do prefer the fat tubas for wind band, though. Gives the wind band a proper bass.

[KingTuba1241X]

There are several King's (both 12XX and two-piece 23XX series) here...as well as a 19" upright bell and a couple of 22" upright bells.
I may not be sensitive enough, but I'm not noticing much difference, when those bells are swapped out on the same bodies.

play-ability issues:

Perhaps (??) a more significant difference is that the 22" bells were sold with 1241 tubas (with #1 and #3 circuits which were built w-a-y too long), where as the 19" bells were sold with 2341 tubas (with shorter, much more well-tempered #1 and #3 circuit lengths)...??

With "old school" 4-valve American BB-flat tubas, the 4th valve was viewed as an "add-on" (with the player continuing to utilize the 3-valve system, and to ONLY utilize the 4th valve to extend the low range) whereas later, the 4th valve (re: the shorter #1 and #3 circuits on the 2341 model) became more integrated (likely: due to the proliferation of Miraphone 186 tubas into the USA) into the normal playing range of the instrument.

I was referring to swapping those newer 19'' bells back onto older 1241's that previously came with the 22'' bells factory and it made a large difference. I haven't played a 2341 with an older 22'' bell however so I am not sure.

[KingTuba1241X]

I find this to be a very fine sounding orchestral tuba with a very fine bloke steering it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkF-XhOME2g

Was that a 186 CC with the flat 3rd 5th valve slide on it?

[bloke]

I dunno either...but all of the lipping required with the 1241 circuit lengths defines them (to me) as more effort to play than the 2341 tubas (any bell).

[KingTuba1241X]

I dunno either...but all of the lipping required with the 1241 circuit lengths defines them (to me) as more effort to play than the 2341 tubas (any bell).

I concur, I think the 1980 and later model 2341's with detachable 19'' bell (bell size aside) were much more ergonomic and tune friendly simply for the fact they had top pull slides and a slightly better 4th wrap and water drainage. Something to do with that newer leadpipe as well me thinks..Norm put one from a 2341 on mine and it's a completely different animal.

[bloke]

I dunno either...but all of the lipping required with the 1241 circuit lengths defines them (to me) as more effort to play than the 2341 tubas (any bell).

I concur, I think the 1980 and later model 2341's with detachable 19'' bell (bell size aside) were much more ergonomic and tune friendly simply for the fact they had top pull slides and a slightly better 4th wrap and water drainage. Something to do with that newer leadpipe as well me thinks..Norm put one from a 2341 on mine and it's a completely different animal.

The two-piece 2341 tubas featured conservative-size/standard-shank receivers (with a mouthpipe tube smaller on the small end), whereas the "new-style" (shorty) 2341 seems to have gone back to the 1241-ish in-between-standard-and-euro shank receiver.