Your sound... Discuss

[Mark E. Chachich]

A few months back I did a blind listening test between my king 2280, my Adams e3, and my besson 3 valve compensating euphonium. My wife picked a clear winner between the three.

she thought sounded the best and it wound up being the king which is why I sold the Adams. There's no logical reason why the king should have sounded as good or better than the adams except for the fact the only thing they really have in common is the player. If they sound that close to each other I decided there was no reason for me to own a $7,000 euphonium when I could sell it and buy my Norwegian Star. Really got me thinking about how the instruments take the characteristics of the owner instead of the other way around.

With all of the horn swapping that we all do, does anybody else think that the player has a tone that the instrument emulates for better or worse?

[Mary Ann]

Yes. I have a sound I recognize that spreads over all the brass I play. There was a time when I was shopping for a (French) horn that would give me a different sound, but realized that no matter what I got (I was looking at getting a Lewis) I was going to end up sounding like me anyway, and might as well have a horn that wasn't fighting that. Sort of like what I've read about very high level tennis players -- instead of spending all their time trying to make their bad points better, spend their time making their good points better because that would give them more wins. Sounding more like yourself with ease makes you a better player.

Another case in point: my trumpet-playing friend who is transitioning to euph sounds "notably good" on his $50 yam 201, and I doubt he'd sound as good on my old $2500 Sterling.

[Three Valves]

Yes.

My chairmate in HS had terrible tone.

I mean, his-tone-sucked!

Whereas mine is World Class!

He was a better technical player than me so....

Life is unfair!

[bloke]

Being an anti-American rejector of C tubas, and now owning three B-flats, I have uses for all three, and it is because of their different types of sound. I also have two euphoniums which are used for different types of things because of their different types of sound. I also use the F cimbasso/contrabass trombone because of its type of sound, and the F tuba because of its type of sound. I don't rate them. Sometimes a bobcat is the best thing, and sometimes a track hoe is the best thing.

[Richard III]

Laughing a bit here. Euphonium players all want to play compensating euphoniums and through conditioning think they sound right. They don't. All that extra tubing and weight reduces the high overtones. Non-comp euphoniums do sound better with a fuller sound. But banding and the industry will not be swayed.

[Mark E. Chachich]

With all of the horn swapping that we all do, does anybody else think that the player has a tone that the instrument emulates for better or worse?

I agree.
I think that matching a tuba (and mouthpiece) to the player is a good thing. I also believe that learning to play an instrument (and mouthpiece) is also good. There are no perfect tubas, mouthpieces or players. That said, there are exceptions.

I have not engaged in horn swapping (played my Alex 163 for 49 years and my MW 32 as my back up tuba for around 40 years).

Best,
Mark

[matt g]

As a tuba player, I always preferred the sound of those King euphoniums as they seemed to have a bit of bass trombone bite in them. The typical 3+1 comp (albeit 30 years ago, no idea about now) was too poofy or pretty.

The YEP-321 was something some of us would noodle on and pretend we were Rich Matteson, although Yamaha would use his likeness with the 3+1 comps they made at the time and I think he never really played. They offered a clean and light voice with fast response that made sense for jazz stuff.

On contrabass instruments, I would sound the same, with the size of the horn just being the upper bound on wattage. This required being smart about mouthpieces…

When I started on trumpet, I had a pretty ‘dense’ sound compared to others with a heavy attack. When I bought a flugelhorn, I had a really strong low register and realized how important mouthpiece matching was and how it affected the timbre. Plugging in a trumpet mouthpiece it sounded bad. I’d also offer that most trumpet peeps (at least in the USA) are playing the wrong mouthpiece on cornet as well, and that’s why they don’t have the sound they hear on those golden age recordings of British brass bands.

Anyhow, point of this ramble is that we do likely have a ‘sound’ that’s governed somewhat by our sinuses, oral cavity, tongue, lips, etc coupled with the feedback mechanism (ear) and the sound we have in our heads, BUT we also could probably benefit from some honest recording and equipment selection to match up our face with the tuba to get the sounds we wanna emulate.

[MiBrassFS]

This is how I see it…

We each produce a unique signal that we’re putting into an amplifier. Each of our signals work better in some amplifiers than others.

This is why there are differing opinions and why dealers sell all sorts of instruments that one player hates and the next loves. There is no universal signal, so no universally perfect amplifier.

Now, we all seek the best and most consistent signal we can produce. Despite our best efforts, our signals may subtlety, and sometime significantly, change over time. Sometimes we can easily adapt, sometimes an amplifier change is the best thing for our product.

Plus, new tubas and euphoniums are fun!

[Sousaswag]

How I see it:

We all “sound” like ourselves, but different size/configuration instruments make a difference type and size of sound. Some are more “in your face” while others are more spread out.

So, while I may sound like me on a 2165/5450/HB2P, each of those instruments offers a different type, size, or quality of sound that the others can’t quite replicate.

[bloke]

There is something about King instruments though. The tubas sound good, the sousaphones sound good, the euphoniums sound good, the marching brass sounds good, and the long discontinued saxophones sound good . King has been on the right track for a long time.

[tubanh84]

There is something about King instruments though. The tubas sound good, the sousaphones sound good, the euphoniums sound good, the marching brass sounds good, and the long discontinued saxophones sound good . King has been on the right track for a long time.

I mentioned it in another thread - I was rehearsing Tchaik 4 with an orchestra, and we played/rehearsed on the local high school's stage. I was playing my PT6. On a whim, I pulled out one of the old beat up King BBb's (I think 1241, but my memory isn't good enough, and I didn't really stare at it for that long) and put an upright bell on it. It sounded so good I considered playing the concert on it.

[Three Valves]

I convince myself that a new horn or mouthpiece sounds better.

After a few months, I try the old horn or mouthpiece and magically that one sounds better again!

[bloke]

Sidebar:

1241 King tuba was the one with the first and third circuits that were way too long, and 2341 - whether old detachable bell style or new short style - is the one with first and third circuits that are only slightly too long.
Also, 2341 has an upper number one circuit slide, but they typically aren't of much use due to alignment issues.

[LeMark]

Funny, the one on my Eastman 534 moves great!

At first they were a little stiff, they must use some really thick grease at the factory, but once I put some of my stuff on there it moves awesome

[bloke]

Why is it funny?
Some of the King 2341 upper slides are lined up pretty good, and some of the B&S factory upper slides are lined up pretty good. Even some Swiss upper slides are sometimes lined up pretty good, but never all of any of those.

Anyone who is really in to having properly fitting slides on valve sections shouldn't be buying silver instruments, because just about none of any manufacturer ever are fit together so as to be dialed into the last 1/1000th of an inch. That's the sort of thing that I do for people when it's not the summer and I'm not reconstructing stomped flat school owned-instruments. I charge a lot of money for that. Were it that manufactured instruments were put together that well, I suspect a whole bunch of people wouldn't be able to afford their pricing.
I have had quite a few customers tell me that their slides that they move regularly on the fly move well, but that's because they've never felt or used slides that are perfect. To them, if they're within three to five thousands or so, slides feel pretty good.

[gocsick]

As a middle aged amateur striving to become a better musician, posts like this are the reason I love this forum. It helps keep the "If I could only afford that XYZ tuba.. I bet it would sound so much better" thoughts at bay. You can see from my signature that I already have instrument acquisition disorder.

I know that the best way for me to improve as a player in to find more time to get behind the horn and work on fundamentals. That will do much not for my time than trying to optimize equipment. It is hard to not covet many of the awesome instruments I see here and other places online. Thankfully I am in two ensembles with serious talented musicians that help keep me motivated to put in the time to improve. I've improved more in the last two years simply by being around really strong players and by getting to work on challenging parts, on both tuba and euph, in a non judgemental environment. But those "oooh I wish I had that" thoughts do keep popping up.

[donn]

Yes, and no. Tubas are not all the same, but you can't get a particular sound just by picking the tuba that makes that sound.

I'm glad that after all these years, people are starting to catch on to this.

[bloke]

After 5 years of messing with instruments, I could do some stuff. After 10 years, I could do more stuff. After 25 years I could do a good bit more. After 30 years I could do even more and do a whole bunch of stuff really quickly. I'm partially in to year 46. When people ask about getting training to work on instruments, think about 12th graders who have taken an automotive shop class versus that mechanic you know who used to build race cars and all the stuff that person knows and can do. As far as teachers are concerned, it seems to me that the best Instrument repair people can make a good bit more money repairing instruments than teaching students, but I don't know for sure. It's obvious that automobiles have geometrically and even more than geometrically more parts than tubas, but very little of what mechanics do doesn't involve getting things down to the last 1,000th of an inch. For that sort of stuff, they either replace parts or send them off to specialty shops to have them rebuilt. Sometimes we have to send stuff like that off, but mostly we are expected to do that stuff in our little shops.
There is an advantage to having these skills as a player, in that - when playing, morphing, or having purchased a really promising instrument - there are things that we can do to make that really promising instrument more close to effortless in regards to its playing characteristics, but we still have to do it and some of the most finicky type of things that we have to do to get them there still are not absolutely quick and easy. People show pictures of stuff on this and other platforms, but those pictures are the results of hours of work, sore muscles sometimes, even some pouring sweat, and buffing dirt having flown in their face... probably some chemical fumes having been inhaled. I suspect that a lot of people view instrument repair/alteration as sitting at a table with a piece of white freeze paper on it and nice little sterilized parts laying around with a set of micrometers or dial calipers along with some European made screwdrivers.

A friend of mine - who owns a Chinese cimbasso, and seems to enjoy playing it enough whereby they and some other professional players meet weekly to play through a whole bunch of brass quintets for their own amusement - finally played mine, and asked me if I would build them one like mine. I rolled my eyes (without them seeing me rolling my eyes). I'm not sure I would even do that for my own son, were it that my son played the tuba. They just have no idea how much work, how many hours, and how much trouble I had to go to to round up the pieces and parts that I needed and to fabricate a whole bunch more parts that were not able to be purchased. I even had to pull in a few favors to get some of the things I needed. Based on having played several of the really expensive ($2X,XXX) European made ones when they rarely show up at tuba elephant rooms, I might - with humility for having lucked into a design - rate mine as possibly the best one that exists, and for someone too play the very best of something that exists and to ask, "I need you to make me one", I'm not sure they understand what they're asking (in the same way that other people can't possibly understand what musical instrument repair actually entails).

[LeMark]

Why is it funny?

Because with all of the crap that Chinese instruments get for QC, the quality I'm seeing from Eastman and Packer is way ahead of King and conn

[bloke]

I try very hard to never comment about Eastman instruments here, because I don't sell them and I sell something that's probably considered to be a competitor. I'm sure they've gotten better and better. The first one of those tubas to which you refer that I ever played didn't impress me regarding assembly, and things felt scratchy. I believe I play tested it at a regional conference in Arkansas. I have to believe that with a fine player of tubas as their USA head person, their build quality - at least, on the tubas - has gone way up since those several plus years ago. I haven't had any of those things in my shop, but a few schools around here have bought them. Again, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman that administers to the USA Eastman company, and we are on good terms. Whether you measure across slide tubes on a JP or an Eastman, and that includes your upper number one slide, I doubt that you're going to find any that are dialed in to .000"
.000" has a particular feel that not many experience, this may sound presumptuous, but nevertheless it's true.

A noticeable percentage of the King 2341 tuba upper number one slides are movable on the fly, but none of them that I've seen are dialed in to zero.

I'm not an apologist for Conn-Selmer, but we both know that US manufacturers have a very hard way to go, face many obstacles, and most of them have simply given up and shut down, and I'm not just discussing musical instruments. Besides all the obvious obstacles that us manufacturers face, I'd wager that it's just about impossible for a factory manager to speak even in the least harshly to workers who aren't assembling things as they should, because they will probably be written up for hate speech, the worker will be able to go off to a safe room and eat candy bars for a couple of days, and nothing will be resolved as far as build quality.
... Think about the current political situation:
When someone tells us the blunt truth - rather than lying to us or using a bunch of euphemisms that cloak the truth, half of us find that person to be offensive, refuse to embrace the truth they delivered to us, and say that we will never vote for them because of the type of language they used to report that which is actually the truth. People are mostly into how they feel, and are very little into what actually is.

Something else is that I believe a lot of people tend to ignore those manufacturers that originally came up with the excellent designs which are simply measured and copied by others.

Whether slide alignment on tubas is off by 5/1000th or so - and people judge it to be good - or whether it's off by 25/1000ths of an inch, personally view both of those is about the same - compared to slides which actually have been dialed in.