Tuba Sizing is ALL wrong, change his mind..

[bone-a-phone]

What's weird is that there's only one bass trombone in the average lineup, am I right? And yet the internal volume on those things is pretty skimpy. It's almost like for some instruments, sound isn't proportional to physical volume.

Not entirely true. With bass bones, some people talk about "small basses". The bell tapers on some (Conn 7x) is smaller, and that accounts for the sound more than anything. Some like the King Duo Gravis have a smaller bore through the valve tubing. Some have 547/562 slides and some have 562/578 slides. Some have wider slide crooks than others. There are also 9.5, 10, 10.5 and I think even 11" bells. And then there are the horns with full size pipes through the valves, like axial/thayer valves. So there's a whole range of very manly sized bass bones. You've got single valve basses, and then you've got these "tweener" horns that have a bass taper bell on a large bore tenor (King 5b, Conn 88hk, Wessex supertenor).

Nobody has classified the sizes yet. We're still arguing if a 562/578 slide is part of a slide trombone or a slide euphonium.

[Three Valves]

Just like violet and purple are two different colours.

Lavender!!

[Doc]

Just like violet and purple are two different colours.

Lavender!!

MAGENTA, DAMMIT!

[KingTuba1241X]

Just like violet and purple are two different colours.

Lavender!!

MAGENTA, DAMMIT!

Mauve!

[Rick Denney]

What's weird is that there's only one bass trombone in the average lineup, am I right? And yet the internal volume on those things is pretty skimpy. It's almost like for some instruments, sound isn't proportional to physical volume.

Should anybody care.

The equal loudness contours makes playing one octave lower equally loud requiring a 20 dB higher spl level.
As an example playing 20 dB louder with a speaker means going from 1 Watt to 100 Watts.
It levels off with the presents of harmonics and when playing louder.
The trombone also projects more horizontal at ear hight.
Higher frequencies also follow the direction off the bell better.

Bass trombone: Described by Fred Young as having the spectral characteristics of a hammer on a frying pan.

Peter is generally right that directivity is frequency-related. Meaning: Low frequencies propagate widely while high frequencies propagate narrowly, especially as they get louder. But one must assume that the mix of frequencies is different between tubas of different sizes for this to be relevant, and I'm not sure that's always or dominantly the case. (It is with bass trombones--see above--but one should not confuse pitch with timbre.)

It seems to me the main difference between tubas with relatively wider bell throats and relatively shorter bell stacks and those with less-wide bell throats and taller stacks is the way they propagate. Taller and narrower stacks are more directional and provide better localization (i.e., being able to hear where the sound is coming from), while shorter and wider bell throats provide wider directivity and less localization. These differences are more important than spectral differences, which I think are as much related to the player as the instrument, though there are more subtle differences that only tubas players notice. (Localization will also be enhanced by overtones in the higher frequencies, vs. the first couple of overtones, so a tuba strong in upper harmonics will be easier to point to by a blind person, but propagation is a bigger part of that, I think.)

Thus, a wide tuba sounds more omnipresent, while a narrow tuba sounds more like it's coming from "there", even if both have the same timbre. But in any given room, that difference in directivity will also create timbral differences, because surface reflections are also frequency-dependent.

Rick "it's complicated" Denney

[Mithosphere]

Yes, this is being rehashed again sorry. I just can't let it go because I think it's so ridiculous and don't feel like useless back and forths on social media. According to someone whom I won't mention his name that runs the Helicon 6/4 Kaiser Bass tuba group on FB says your 3/4 sized Cerveny Piggies are actually 5/4 or 6/4, St. Petersburg tubas are at least 5/4 maybe 6/4, and....wait for it.....your 6/4 American BATS are actually 4/4 size because bore size "mostly" determines unofficial tuba size measuring system we all use. Not flame post or calling anyone out specifically, just picking apart the premise of this being obscenely inaccurate according to community standards we more or less live by when it comes to tuba sizes (varying slightly depending on who you ask). Oh my God, I'm starting to post rant like Bloke now...forgive me

What's this person say about Jumbo sousaphones, like the King with it's .815" bore and 32" bell?

[Doc]

Bass trombone: Described by Fred Young as having the spectral characteristics of a hammer on a frying pan.

Peter is generally right that directivity is frequency-related. Meaning: Low frequencies propagate widely while high frequencies propagate narrowly, especially as they get louder. But one must assume that the mix of frequencies is different between tubas of different sizes for this to be relevant, and I'm not sure that's always or dominantly the case. (It is with bass trombones--see above--but one should not confuse pitch with timbre.)

It seems to me the main difference between tubas with relatively wider bell throats and relatively shorter bell stacks and those with less-wide bell throats and taller stacks is the way they propagate. Taller and narrower stacks are more directional and provide better localization (i.e., being able to hear where the sound is coming from), while shorter and wider bell throats provide wider directivity and less localization. These differences are more important than spectral differences, which I think are as much related to the player as the instrument, though there are more subtle differences that only tubas players notice. (Localization will also be enhanced by overtones in the higher frequencies, vs. the first couple of overtones, so a tuba strong in upper harmonics will be easier to point to by a blind person, but propagation is a bigger part of that, I think.)

Thus, a wide tuba sounds more omnipresent, while a narrow tuba sounds more like it's coming from "there", even if both have the same timbre. But in any given room, that difference in directivity will also create timbral differences, because surface reflections are also frequency-dependent.

Rick "it's complicated" Denney

Layman's terms describing the ol' "Bi-radial vs. exponential" thing.

[donn]

Taller and narrower stacks are more directional and provide better localization (i.e., being able to hear where the sound is coming from), while shorter and wider bell throats provide wider directivity and less localization.

Is the "taller" part of this new?

So if one were to rework this tuba for example, to be say 10 or 11 inches shorter, it would become less directional?

[KingTuba1241X]

Yes, this is being rehashed again sorry. I just can't let it go because I think it's so ridiculous and don't feel like useless back and forths on social media. According to someone whom I won't mention his name that runs the Helicon 6/4 Kaiser Bass tuba group on FB says your 3/4 sized Cerveny Piggies are actually 5/4 or 6/4, St. Petersburg tubas are at least 5/4 maybe 6/4, and....wait for it.....your 6/4 American BATS are actually 4/4 size because bore size "mostly" determines unofficial tuba size measuring system we all use. Not flame post or calling anyone out specifically, just picking apart the premise of this being obscenely inaccurate according to community standards we more or less live by when it comes to tuba sizes (varying slightly depending on who you ask). Oh my God, I'm starting to post rant like Bloke now...forgive me

What's this person say about Jumbo sousaphones, like the King with it's .815" bore and 32" bell?

I'd assume 6/4, because he called everything with .800+'' bore the same thing.

[russiantuba]

He's wrong in comparing bore size to volumetric measurements, there's no correlation. I believe most people would categorize physical volume (how much water could it hold or displace) as a better indicator of instrument "size" than the width of a single piece of pipe entering the valve casings (which tends to run bigger on rotary valves than piston valves in my observation). This isn't difficult.

Yep.

I don't think I'd want to support an 80-100 piece orchestra on my 5/4 (or 6/4) Cerveny Piggy, nor would I think a 4/4 Nirschl BAT York copy would be best-suited for quintet.

I guess I could sell all my horns and get Mike Lynch's giant Rudy BBb from Baltimore Brass and use it for everything. It defies all definitions (and logic), so it might not matter. It is quite a different experience, to be sure.

One of my professors, who has a full-time job in a ICSOM orchestra, used a Cerveny piggy as his main horn for a few years when I studied with him. I had no issues hearing him. My first year there they did a two tuba work before I was on the sub list, and I could hear him just fine, but the second tuba who had a much larger horn, I couldn't hear at all.

[humBell]

Not bothering to change anyone's mind (saving perhaps mine in the process, and i think i'm allowed to do that, perhaps even encouraged, and well i's mine anyway) but...

What is a right way of sizing a tuba?

[Rick Denney]

Not bothering to change anyone's mind (saving perhaps mine in the process, and i think i'm allowed to do that, perhaps even encouraged, and well i's mine anyway) but...

What is a right way of sizing a tuba?

3/4: is that a euphonium?
4/4: what you played in high school.
5/4: won’t fit in the back seat any more.
6/4: that’s a big-a$$ tuba.

Serious: Each manufacturer had a standard instrument, and built their scheme around that. Some (Rudolf Meinl is an example) built larger standard instruments than the norm. Thus, for RM: 4/4 meant .810 bore (?) and 18” bell rotary tuba. 5/4 meant .840 bore (?) and 20” bell. 6/4 meant .890 or something equally horrendous and a 22” bell. 3/4 meant .750ish bore and 15-16” bell. Beyond that, they were roughly similar in terms of their dimensionless ratios (except ratios that include bugle length). The 3/4 was about the same size as a Miraphone 186 or a B&S 102, which those companies called 4/4.

But the scheme doesn’t deal well with differences in proportion. Most piston tubas have a 3/4” bore (or smaller), but vary widely (so to speak) in taper and outer branch size. Believe me, my Holton is an entirely different beast than my York Master was, despite that both have a 3/4” bore.

Schemes have been proposed, but really playing characteristics only roughly correlate with dimensions (as opposed to taper design), so none of the schemes help much beyond estimating what size car you’ll need to carry it.

I once showed a picture of a York Master with the outline of a Grand Rapids York of the same size superimposed on it, to demonstrate their similarities. Chuck Guzis nearly refuted the notion that such a comparison meant anything by superimposing the outline of a Jin-Bao tuba-shaped object over a Miraphone 186. That’s what I mean by design.

Bigger tubas do sound different than smaller tubas of the same shape and general design, but other aspects can make a bigger difference in any particular case.

Rick “there is no right way that is definitive” Denney

[Rick Denney]

Taller and narrower stacks are more directional and provide better localization (i.e., being able to hear where the sound is coming from), while shorter and wider bell throats provide wider directivity and less localization.

Is the "taller" part of this new?

So if one were to rework this tuba for example, to be say 10 or 11 inches shorter, it would become less directional?

Is a new-style 2341 more or less directional than an old, tall-bell 2341?

My gut observation is that they are quite similar timbrally, but the new short design is less directional, and less easy to localize. Data would be needed to move that impression out of the confines of my gut. Others may or may not feel the same.

Rick “whose 2341-like Eastman leans omnipresent compared to the much larger Hirsbrunner 193” Denney

[donn]

whose 2341-like Eastman leans omnipresent compared to the much larger Hirsbrunner 193

Well sure - the King belongs to the wide bell throat class - both Kings - and seems to me the 193 is a radically stove pipe design, albeit with a wide taper.

[Rick Denney]

The throat on the 193 is much wider than a 2341. The flare isn’t. But the 193 throat isn’t as wide as on the Holton.

The bell flare on the King is part of it—it provides a good impedance match even at right angles to the bell centerline. It’s wider than the Hirsbrunner, which is 18” (450mm), or about 42% of the height (one of many dimensionless ratios—relevant?—who knows?). An old King is more like 54%, and a new King is 55%. The Holton is about 49%.

The 193 stack is only three inches taller than an old 2341, but 8” taller than the new 2341, despite that the two Kings are more similar than different. It’s not just the bell height. There’s more going on.

Rick “need to make some measurements” Denney

[donn]

Actually I shouldn't have said the King has a relatively big throat. I guess "throat" really means, where the bell visibly departs from conical as it expands to become the bell flare. As a classic American design, the King starts doing that, gradually, something like a foot from the end, so naturally the throat is smaller, because it's farther down in the bell.

[Doc]

He's wrong in comparing bore size to volumetric measurements, there's no correlation. I believe most people would categorize physical volume (how much water could it hold or displace) as a better indicator of instrument "size" than the width of a single piece of pipe entering the valve casings (which tends to run bigger on rotary valves than piston valves in my observation). This isn't difficult.

Yep.

I don't think I'd want to support an 80-100 piece orchestra on my 5/4 (or 6/4) Cerveny Piggy, nor would I think a 4/4 Nirschl BAT York copy would be best-suited for quintet.

I guess I could sell all my horns and get Mike Lynch's giant Rudy BBb from Baltimore Brass and use it for everything. It defies all definitions (and logic), so it might not matter. It is quite a different experience, to be sure.

One of my professors, who has a full-time job in a ICSOM orchestra, used a Cerveny piggy as his main horn for a few years when I studied with him. I had no issues hearing him. My first year there they did a two tuba work before I was on the sub list, and I could hear him just fine, but the second tuba who had a much larger horn, I couldn't hear at all.

That may be more about the player than his equipment.

Now where have I heard that before???

[KingTuba1241X]

whose 2341-like Eastman leans omnipresent compared to the much larger Hirsbrunner 193

Well sure - the King belongs to the wide bell throat class - both Kings - and seems to me the 193 is a radically stove pipe design, albeit with a wide taper.

I disagree, there's a massive difference in sound, timbre and directional presence between a (19'' old style, 20'' New Style, and 22'' very old style) King horns. All three sound, IMO very different and they are all considered 4/4 size. (I say small 5/4, but someone says a .687'' bore can't be 5/4 so...).

[bloke]

"Any tuba" - with any type of claimed-to-be-observed sound characteristics - is going to be less trouble (on a tuba gig) than showing up with "no tuba".

TRY THIS:

On tutti soft passages, try NOT playing and NOT EVEN putting your mouth up to the mouthpiece, and THEN (during the break) ask the music director how you sounded on those passages.

bloke "Other than when playing in rests, live music is MOSTLY visual."

[peterbas]

...