6/4 glut

[arpthark]

Are there woofy uncomfortable 6/4 F tubas, too?

Yes. Many.

[Mary Ann]

So well, ok, what about that (6/4?) Nirschl I played? not only was it EASY to play -- like the NStar -- but certainly not woofy -- a very clear sound. So what is this woofiness about? Not that I EVER would attempt to carry that thing around or even hold it up long term.

I could ask the owner to bring it back and get a recording and see if ya'll still say "woofy."

Some of the 6/4 issue is instrument, some is player. Both have to be in synch.

If a player has a diffuse sound concept, then a 6/4 is going to provide more of that sound. If the player has a clear sound concept, the 6/4 will provide more of that.

On any tuba, including euphoniums, I’ve always sounded like “me”. That’s also because I like to pair up the interface (mouthpiece) sensibly with the tuba and focus on a clear tone with lots of core.

What a 6/4 offers, in my experience, is simply more headroom before the timbre changes. What that means in practice is that there can be more overall tuba volume being output before the conductor objects, since a lot of times the “hand” comes from the sounds when those upper overtones start to appear when the horn is being pushed.

But for smaller ensembles, sometimes the player wants that color available as part of the palette. So the smaller tubas work better there.

While @DonO. attributes the rise of 6/4 instruments to Arnold Jacobs, I’d also attribute them to the rise of higher fidelity playback capabilities as well as electronic music. People expect for those lower tones to be felt more than heard, and a 6/4 does a better job there as well. Note that this can still be a clear and compact sound concept.

To your original point, Mary Ann, I’d agree that the Nirschl and Yamaha variants of these horns typically have the quickest response and excellent player feedback that makes them feel extremely easy to play which further helps with returning the players sound concept. On other big tubas, a lot of this can be overcome with some smart choices regarding mouthpiece.

I think there is merit for the typical decent tuba performance (not education) major having familiarity with bass, 4/4 contrabass, and 6/4 contrabass. That being said, plenty of excellent students can and have somewhat shortcut this with a good 5/4 (Thor, PT-6, etc.) for all contrabass playing.

I think the market will handle these problems well enough.

[arpthark]

Someone sent me the link to this and asked if I would comment with the equipment myself and many students have been using on the audition circuit… I don’t normally have the time to peruse around on here, but what an interesting thread and several opinions presented!…(I guess there is an *** for every saddle , so here are some of the saddles we like to ride on!)

Students have used: YCB 826, MW 2165’s, HB 50, MRP CC, Culbertson Neptune, PT6, PT6P, Thor, modified Thor, Tuono, YFB 821/822, Alex F 155, HB 10, many different MW 45SLP’s, PT 10/16, 4450/4460, 4260, MRP F.

A nice selection of instruments! I don't think I'm far off in saying that you have the most successful (as defined by jobs won) studio these days. I'd say a bit of that has more to do with the excellent teaching and environment than the instruments used.

I suppose my point/thought when making this post is that a lot of students in a lot less prestigious programs than Miami, Indiana, Eastman, and so forth (can we call these Blue Bloods, like in college basketball?) feel the need/have been pushed to play on tubas that are just too damn big for realistic needs. But, big tubas are fun. It's hard to really fault anybody, and it's just my opinion.

[Breavdah]

There should be a minimum stature to play a 6/4 tuba.
Some combination of height and chest circumference.
And if you're fat, we subtract some off both. Don't think a fat tuba will look "slimming" on you!
When skinnyfat Zoomers show up with a 6/4 I'm already underwhelmed.

[bloke]

When I started playing my big B flat, I went ahead and got a license, so I would be doing it legitimately.

[humBell]

Wait... do i need a license?

[arpthark]

Wait... do i need a license?

Unfortunately, yes. The bbbauthorities are en route.

[bort2.0]

Wait... do i need a license?

Only if you get caught!

[Rick Denney]

I suspect the notion of changing orchestral sounds resulting from changes in audience experiences and expectations comes into this at least as strongly as the long arm of Arnold Jacobs. We can't discount the familiarity most people now have with loud playback of recorded music that contains strong deep bass.

In 1970, the Moog Synthesizer was brand new and still mostly use for psychedelic sound effects. That was only the beginning of the use of electronic sounds that could extend deeply and loudly into the bass region. That was also about the time when really large solid-state amplifiers started to appear. One of the largest of these was the Phase Linear 700, which sported 250 watts per channel. Rick Wakeman, when playing in Yes, used one for his stage monitors. Yet his first recording, in 1975, of Merlin the Magician on his King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table album is even today one of my standard tests for the ability of a system to play deep electronic bass loudly. There was nothing like that in anybody's experience even a mere decade earlier.

Now, my home stereo uses a relatively inexpensive Class D amplifier the size of a shoe box--for ladies size 5 shoes. It produces an honest 330 watts per channel into my 6-ohm (nominal) speakers. And no home theater owner worth his joystick owns a system without at least one subwoofer. Point being: Home playback can be much louder and much lower than stage equipment was when the Mira(f)one 186 was the standard college instrument.

Orchestras reflect this trend. Very few orchestras of the 50's and 60's could produce the volume of sound that the CSO could produce, particularly from the brass, and still sound good. I would say that most orchestras today can easily play as loud as the CSO did back then because they've been asked to. People going to concerts expect the same kind of visceral experience they get from their (now very powerful) home sound system, and most of those people grew up on highly amplified rock music rather than the much more sedate big-band swing music of their parents.

Remember that Jacobs was uniquely attracted to that York and it was uniquely attracted to him. He did not sound woofy in the least. But he did play in an orchestra along with a room full of performers like Herseth, et al. who could rearrange the structure of the biggest concert halls, and do it in tune well enough to create a deeply visceral effect. I think a 186 would run out of steam attempting to sustain balance with that section with anybody less than Roger Bobo. But being able to play with that dynamic range has become a major objective in the last half century, and lots of orchestras play far louder than they once did, and often with a pretty good sound.

Mike Sanders has reported many times that the Alexander would do anything the player asked of it, while the Yorkbrunner required the player to relax and let the horn do the work. That doesn't challenge the one-trick-pony idea expressed above. But he also thought the Alexander was much harder work than the Yorkbrunner, especially in Powell Hall. He certainly never sounded woofy on his Yorkbrunner.

My Holton 345 is a Bb tuba, so Bloke will put it in a different category, perhaps. But it can play with plenty of zip in the sound, even with me playing it. But what it doesn't do as well as my Hirsbrunner kaiser Bb is punch through a dead hall from a stage with no shell, again with me playing it. Not that the HIrsbrunner is much like a 186. When I bring smaller tubas to rehearsal, the conductor asks me to bring the big one. That's the sound he wants.

Rick "tuba players may be responding to more of a trend than Jacobs fantasy" Denney

[bloke]

Someone can tell me that I've interpreted incorrectly what I've read in the past, but the original US-made 6/4 piston C thing was first rejected (by America's premier orchestra), and then purchased by a student - the transaction of which had a lot to do with opportunity and financing terms.

Those things - as a genre - are all right, but I've always had to overplay them in order to get them to sound brassy. By brassy, I don't mean ugly; I mean powerful... and it's an effect that - whether or not tuba players choose to deny it - is one that's desired and desirable for particular passages in particular pieces.

I play for an incredibly talented and insightful music director who is basically unknown, but who grew up in the UK and was trained in central Europe probably a quarter of a century ago or longer. Besides possessing remarkably fine conducting technique, he knows what he wants out of every instrument in every passage, completely knows every score, and completely knows how he wants each instrument in each passage to phrase their passages. He appreciates the value of what he calls the "hard" type of brass sound for effect (even in the Mozart Requiem, but only at the very beginning - for three chords). He doesn't want it ugly, but he wants it (again) "hard", and I think we all understand that. It's difficult to get that type of sound with the type of tuba discussed in the very first paragraph without working really (well...) hard, and without also working really hard keep a lid on it - once that type of sound has been achieved. (Anyone who's read enough of my posts knows that I like to find an easy ways to do things, as well as instruments that don't require hours of daily drills simply to remind myself of the quirks those instruments possess - which need to be worked around in particular or particularly awkward ways.)


Having owned several of the 6/4 C things (various makes), I was used to having to do all of those things (everything mentioned previously) but was also aware that I was having to do them- and didn't care for having to do them (particularly while owning an F tuba that could just be picked up and played - without having to be concerned about anything in particular). Each of them ended up being sold - not only for that reason, but for reasons of wonky intonation, as most of them seem to offer that as well.

With two feet less expansion, they're also a little bit more difficult to coax a "noble" type of sound from them when they are in C, and tend to sound a bit bland (when played from soft to regular-loud - at least, for me). I don't know of a better way to express that - and I don't know of a more effective synonym, so I'm just going to have to stop there.

The more B-flat playing I do, the more (thinking back) I convince myself that the 186 is probably the ideal size C instrument, and size - ideally - tends to go with length, at least to some extent.

I realize that people are tired of me defending my decision to become an exception, and/but no one needs to read my stuff that I post here either.

Sometime, I'm going to need to play Rick's kaiser. It could end up being the first instrument made by that manufacturer that I actually like, and it would be nice to like at least one of their models.

[russiantuba]

I think the generic US university tuba studio has been producing a lot of really woofy and indistinct players for many years now.

On a personal note, I remember going to an audition where all these young guys showed up with 2165s. It was hilarious. Listening to them woof and hoot their way through Fountains and The Ride had me in stitches. It sounded like a bunch of blue whales yawning and groaning in the warmup room. That was a long time ago. I cannot imagine what happens today in these situations. But I imagine the same sort of impromptu "Mutual Admiration Society" springs up and no one gets better because everyone is "satisfied" with being hooty and woofy.

"Dude, I like your 2165. You sound awesome."

"Thanks, dude. I like *your* 2165. And you sound awesome, too."

"Thanks, dude. Is that a Prana 94?"

"Yeah, dude. It's really making this 2165 dump maximum darkness and volume."

"Great to hear, dude. Mine arrives in three to six months."

"Awesome, dude."

"Thanks, dude."



What would kids like this do without Stage Mom and Stage Dad bankrolling this sort of idiocy?

I literally saw this a couple months ago but replace 2165s with Baers.

People have said I won’t ever win an audition because I’m not playing a 6/4 foghorn. I steer students away from them with recordings of great tubists who project more on smaller horns. I guess giant 6/4 foghorns make playing solo repertoire and brass quintet sensitive playing easier too?

Then again, I don’t even require CC tubas. I suggest them to performance majors wanting to go to graduate school because there are graduate programs that have required CC and F tubas to even audition (which I am very much against in terms of equitable education).

[Rick Denney]

Bloke, you’ve tooted my Hirsbrunner before, though it was brief and you may not remember it.

It is not like your 98–it’s more of a traditional Kaiser design while the 98 has some American Orchestra Grand Bass blood in it. The 98 is zippy the same way my Holton is zippy, and it’s easier to play with a lot of self-reinforcing resonance. The Hirsbrunner has that resonance and power but more pointed.

Rick “always thought rotary Hirsbrunners sounded tubby but not this 193” Denney

[Tubeast]

As to woofy F tubas:
Yes, there are, and I own one. But it´s very comfortable.

Exchanging the originally issued brass bell with a brand new goldbrass one made the sound even softer and more "pleasant".

But then, the #1 valve bore is some 18.5mm and #4 is 21.5mm.
That´s more bore than my (huge) Willson BBb has (19mm straight) and will match the (also huge, for an F) Kodiak.


When I want a laser-like sound or varying sound colors, I´ll use something else.

[bloke]

Bloke, you’ve tooted my Hirsbrunner before, though it was brief and you may not remember it.

It is not like your 98–it’s more of a traditional Kaiser design while the 98 has some American Orchestra Grand Bass blood in it. The 98 is zippy the same way my Holton is zippy, and it’s easier to play with a lot of self-reinforcing resonance. The Hirsbrunner has that resonance and power but more pointed.

Rick “always thought rotary Hirsbrunners sounded tubby but not this 193” Denney

I know I played on it, but not long enough to really get a feel for it, and I believe at this point in time I'm more ready to quickly get a feel for an instrument like that, and you understand why.

I don't remember anything about your instrument in this regard, but the most distracting thing to me about the few Kaiser tubas that I've played has been the acoustical wonkiness regarding how they line up with the pitches that we use in our music. So many of them- including the ooh-ahh unicorn models - seem to call for an on-the-fly main tuning slide moving device. The fact that mine is easy to manage, and it's sort of a hybrid - due to the bell shape (which is nearly exactly 345 model shaped) - is what made me raise my eyebrows to the sky the first time I played one of this particular model.

[Mary Ann]

Ok, I need "woofy" defined.

A couple of guys I play with, one on a Yamaha 822 and the other on a Firebird -- both, I would say using my terminology, have what I would call a growly sound in the low register, basically below low C. Very penetrating but for me, a bit difficult to determine what pitches they are playing, and this shows up when they are playing fast. Rattle rattle rattle with some pitch in it, and very loud. I actually cannot make that sound, and don't know if I "should," and have sort of concluded that I don't have the air and they do, both being typical tuba-sized guys. Listening, it is certainly tubas playing and could not EVER be mistaken for anything else, and I don't know what carries out into the hall. These are both guys in the brass band, and both studied tuba in college. In the concert band I play in, I don't hear this sound, but -- I am across the room from them (and it's different guys.)

is this a "woofy" sound? Can you aim me at a video with a woofy sound?

[jtm]

I’m not the expert, but “woofy” has me thinking of tuba tone that’s kind of indistinct and really emphasizes the low harmonics (loses the high harmonics that sound interesting). I wouldn’t expect that from a Firebird, by reputation, but I’ve never heard one in person. Maybe with the right (wrong) mouthpiece?

[Rick Denney]

MA, think "hollow" in tone and lacking in articulation clarity, like the notes are starting with "ph" instead of "t" or "d".

Growling low pitches is a whole other thing, it seems to me.

When the B&S F tubas were expanded in bore, presumably to make them more contrabass-like and to (at least in perception) address the low-C issue for contrabass players, they lost some of the singing clarity that marked the Symphonie models. That made them more "woofy".

Woofiness is, of course, a spectrum.

Rick "prefers Geibish mouthpieces on big tubas simply because they don't woof" Denney

[Bob Kolada]

So well, ok, what about that (6/4?) Nirschl I played? not only was it EASY to play -- like the NStar -- but certainly not woofy -- a very clear sound. So what is this woofiness about? Not that I EVER would attempt to carry that thing around or even hold it up long term.

I could ask the owner to bring it back and get a recording and see if ya'll still say "woofy."

Some of the 6/4 issue is instrument, some is player. Both have to be in synch.

If a player has a diffuse sound concept, then a 6/4 is going to provide more of that sound. If the player has a clear sound concept, the 6/4 will provide more of that.

On any tuba, including euphoniums, I’ve always sounded like “me”. That’s also because I like to pair up the interface (mouthpiece) sensibly with the tuba and focus on a clear tone with lots of core.

What a 6/4 offers, in my experience, is simply more headroom before the timbre changes. What that means in practice is that there can be more overall tuba volume being output before the conductor objects, since a lot of times the “hand” comes from the sounds when those upper overtones start to appear when the horn is being pushed.

But for smaller ensembles, sometimes the player wants that color available as part of the palette. So the smaller tubas work better there.

While @DonO. attributes the rise of 6/4 instruments to Arnold Jacobs, I’d also attribute them to the rise of higher fidelity playback capabilities as well as electronic music. People expect for those lower tones to be felt more than heard, and a 6/4 does a better job there as well. Note that this can still be a clear and compact sound concept.

To your original point, Mary Ann, I’d agree that the Nirschl and Yamaha variants of these horns typically have the quickest response and excellent player feedback that makes them feel extremely easy to play which further helps with returning the players sound concept. On other big tubas, a lot of this can be overcome with some smart choices regarding mouthpiece.

I think there is merit for the typical decent tuba performance (not education) major having familiarity with bass, 4/4 contrabass, and 6/4 contrabass. That being said, plenty of excellent students can and have somewhat shortcut this with a good 5/4 (Thor, PT-6, etc.) for all contrabass playing.

I think the market will handle these problems well enough.

My tuba instructor during my brief attempt at music school owned Warren Deck's Nirschl and I always thought, and he agreed, that it was a pretty zippy horn. I played a BM 6/4 C at Midwest that seemed even hotter than that though it wasn't a bank to back experience. In contrast I've disliked every PT6P I've ever heard or played, they seem purposely tubby. My Army band had 2 rotary PT6 tubas and one PT6P, I greatly preferred the sound of the rotary version.
Of course some very fine musicians play the PT6P so what do I know! I don't like the 606 either...

[Doc]

My tuba instructor during my brief attempt at music school owned Warren Deck's Nirschl and I always thought, and he agreed, that it was a pretty zippy horn. I played a BM 6/4 C at Midwest that seemed even hotter than that though it wasn't a bank to back experience. In contrast I've disliked every PT6P I've ever heard or played, they seem purposely tubby. My Army band had 2 rotary PT6 tubas and one PT6P, I greatly preferred the sound of the rotary version.
Of course some very fine musicians play the PT6P so what do I know! I don't like the 606 either...

It seems to me that the “zippyness” some 6/4 CC tubas have can become harsh when you step on the gas. And I agree that with the PT6 line, at least for me, the rotary is the one to play. Not overly impressed with the 606 either. Similar to the PT6P, the HB21 is a boat anchor, but an HB2 or HB2P are worthy.
YMMV, of course.

[Mary Ann]

Ok, I can identify with what "zippy' means. To me, that means I don't have to work to get a response. The two 184s I've had, both of them I felt I had to do some "work" to get a response. So I would say they were not zippy. The MW 182 and the NStar, I didn't / don't have to do that "kind" of work. There are horns too, that are like that -- Lawsons and 8Ds and 28Ds, kind of like driving a 747 -- takes a lot to get them going, but when they do go, they really go. My Schmid, zippy in the extreme. Some will overplay it, but if they can take a more delicate approach, it will outplay the 747s.

What I'm going to do, next time the quartet plays, is ask the Firebird owner to bring it and I'll see if I can get the Zoom H4 far enough away (!!!) so that I can record what I'm talking about with the rattle rattle. He makes it sound, below the staff, the same way that the Yammy 822 sounds below the staff (with a different guy playing it.) And that is fast notes, not sustained ones. I personally prefer to produce a clearer pitch, but maybe my sound concept comes more from horn playing. I will say that it's cool what they do (especially since I can't do it) and definitely is what I'll all a "low range tuba effect." Like dragons marching in the attic or something.