TubaForum.net

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:04 pm Hey...I could have SWORN that there were 6 (not just 5) "shut up bloke"s.

Fixed it for ya.

That store still has the 832 but the F and BBb went back to Eastman. They are going to see if they can get a 632 for a no-obligation test. And if it worked, then I'd see what else is out there "similar to that one" and do some serious considering. I presume wisest would be go to a tuba fest but don't know if that is in the cards. I think the one in San Antonio (?) would be the most likely. But plane fare is a pisser lately, if you even get there when you planned on. And it's too far for me to drive.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:41 am [Disney video]

OMG STOP SPINNING!!!

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:04 pm Hey...I could have SWORN that there were 6 (not just 5) "shut up bloke"s.

186

the elephant wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:05 am I worked my butt off for twelve years with my Alexander. It was not a bad Alex, either (so far as CC 163s go) and I could play it extremely well in tune, but I got tired of working so hard.

The new Alexanders are MUCH better. Not perfect, but much better. Except for the bottom line G which is well withing lipping range, it is very comparable to my older 186 which I think is pretty dang well in tune - even better in some respects.

They are waaaaaay out of my reach, financially. I have never paid more than $5000 for a tuba, except for my Kurath, which cost me $6000. Most of the tubas I have used for work over the years have cost me between 2K and 3K.

I've only managed to sneak into more expensive tubas by buying two or three things that scared other people away - due to the way they looked in pictures, slicking them out, selling them, and then having generated enough cash to buy something I really wanted.

It does seem as though (a couple of the) newer Alexander C instruments' inner bows are a bit smaller than older ones - at least according to my inaccurate/imprecise memory.

To me, it always looked as though the way they made a C instrument was simply to yank off the curlycue horizontal main slide and short circuit it with a vertical one... and shorten the slides a little bit.

They do seem to have retained their trademark sonic characteristics.

the elephant wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:05 am

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:47 am… having been one of these "the sound is everything" people, but wearing myself out playing badly-out-of- tune instruments in tune…

Same.

I worked my butt off for twelve years with my Alexander. It was not a bad Alex, either (so far as CC 163s go) and I could play it extremely well in tune, but I got tired of working so hard.

I looked for years for better alternatives, but eventually gave up because those searches take a big pile of money in order to make long driving trips, which are hundreds of dollars, each time, and you have to have more money than you think you need to make purchases; I have never, at any time, had a pile of money. (Read: savings.)

I finally found horns that were "good enough" and have been fixing them up as best I can in order to get what I want. Let me tell you: Once you start that process it can become a real rabbit hole, because, from an acoustical standpoint, most tubas suck.

Many of those high-zoot tubas are about as acoustically worked out as a good Olds Ambassador student model trumpet from the 1950s. Tubas do not sell enough to merit the same level of R&D that big makers apply to more profitable instruments.

"Here are our carefully researched and tested trumpet, horn, trombone, and euphonium. Oh, and we also offer <ahem> a "very fine" tuba. With three valves. And a .656" bore. And no upper slide access. It's <ahem> very fine."

Things have changed, and now the expensive software used to map out instruments is being used to create new tubas, some of which are really great. But we are still DECADES behind the curve in intonation and response compared to instruments that actually make money for the builders.

Most of the tubas I enjoy playing are inexcusably out of tune. Most have genuine response issues when compared with other instruments.

So if you all could just buy two or three hundred new tubas each in order to spur new R&D that'd be grrrreat…

Generally, I would agree with everything in this post. But I do want to address one item: the R&D. All of you may recall my Bessophone: 186 with a Besson BBb 17-inch bell, which served me faithfully for years. But it was finally showing its need for ongoing maintenance season-to-season, and I simply desired a piston valve tuba. When I was in the market for a tuba way back when, and I listed for myself what I wanted in a tuba, the prior incarnation of the Jupiter JTU1110, called the 582, seemed to fit the bill. But it was a relatively new instrument, with none available used. Alas, it was outside my budget, being in those years of building career, and supporting a family and raising a son. So I got the 186 instead and the rest is history as set forth in the old thread.

Fast forward to recent times, and I was again in the market for a good BBb tuba. At this point, I wanted a reasonably priced but solid tuba. Yes, Jupiter is still considered by many as no more than a school instrument company, but that is a disservice to Jupiter. Pat Sheridan was hired as consultant to upgrade their tubas. Jupiter did invest significant R&D into updating especially the JTU1110. So I purchased one when they were clearing pre-COVID stock at a ridiculous price, but manufactured after applying the Pat Sheridan tweaks. I purchased it through, of all places, Guitar Center, so I had the unlimited no-questions-asked return policy if it had not worked out. I think GC has a warehouse agreement with another big-box online retailer, but that is a digression.

I am most pleased with the tuba. It has the tone, refined intonation, and build quality that you usually find only on tubas costing twice as much. The bottom line is that I can play it instead of working at it. It is well received in my community band where I am often the only tuba for rehearsals and/or concerts, and other places I play. The only mods I have made to the tuba are my own ergonomics: angled the receiver for my overbite and added a water key to the 2nd valve slide due to the way I play and hold it. The intonation is as good as you can expect out of any tuba. You can "ride throttle" on the 1st valve slide as desired. It is relatively mouthpiece insensitive, so I have reverted to a Conn 120 Helleberg which works as well as any mouthpiece, at a fraction of boutique mouthpiece cost, even used (taking a lesson from Harvey Phillips). Yes, in short, the proper R&D to refine this model has been invested in and done. So yes, occasionally, a tuba does come along which the R&D has been done to keep the tuba current to needs, and not just to cater to fashion, which is what has happened to the 186 in my opinion: larger "vanilla" toned bell instead of the original point-and-shoot bell, larger leadpipe, but no work on fixing the flat fifth partials.

I can only hope that those looking for a large 4/4 BBb tuba will give this tuba a second look, because it is underappreciated, even though post-COVID the price has jumped so that it is not quite as good a deal as it was before.

I am sure there are others out there benefitting from enlightened R&D; please give this one a look, and please post examples of tubas that have been developed and/or refined in recent years, such as the B&S GR51, a great BBb 4/4 tuba, which I almost purchased when it was a new model, but didn't have the budget, and it didn't play significantly better than my Bessophone for the difference in price.

The E and Eb in the staff on my 184 are so far out of tune fingered open and 2 respectively, that all I could answer was "no." I can lip them into tune, but the tone suffers so badly that it's not worth it.

tubanh84 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:47 pm The E and Eb in the staff on my 184 are so far out of tune fingered open and 2 respectively, that all I could answer was "no." I can lip them into tune, but the tone suffers so badly that it's not worth it.

Yeah.. I haven't played any newer ones, but the half century old 84s that so very much populate the earth - and I owned two of them - are all very flat on that partial until one gets to the first valve version of that partial.

It's only recently - via some pretty complicated calculations that I don't understand - that it seems like some tuba manufacturers have figured out how to tease the fifth partial pitches upward and the sixth partial pitches downward, while also minimizing saggy third partial tendencies.

I have to believe that the model 98 was built with these advantages. There's just no other explanation for the ease with which (only barely exhibiting these tendencies, which would have been epic on any instrument of this size built a half century ago) it can be steered.

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:56 pmIt's only recently - via some pretty complicated calculations that I don't understand - that it seems like some tuba manufacturers have figured out how to tease the fifth partial pitches upward and the sixth partial pitches downward, while also minimizing saggy third partial tendencies.

I have to believe that the model 98 was built with these advantages. There's just no other explanation for the ease with which (only barely exhibiting these tendencies, which would have been epic on any instrument of this size built a half century ago) it can be steered.

I wonder if it is a concerted effort (pun intended) as to where to re-allocate the tubing, cylindrical or conical. As I set forth in my Bessophone thread, the Besson bell was shorter and had a slightly narrower throat than the old 186 bell, and because of that I had to extend the main tuning slide, adding cylindrical tubing. All else being equal, cylindrical tubing expands the distance between overtones, and conical tubing contracts the distance between overtones. The added cylindrical tubing brought my 5th partials up to tune on that tuba. I considered it a lucky happenstance, but now I wonder if computer modeling can actually do that in the design stage - allocate cylindrical and conical sections to adjust the nodes and antinodes for pitch resonance (Schilke experimented with that on his trumpets, calling it "step-bore"). By contrast, the St. Pete detachable bell that used to be on it (the tuba was a converted bell front variant) was too conical, and I was always lipping everything in the upper register up and the lower register down, because on the bugle the octaves were compressed and not fully in tune. So on retrospect it appears the Besson bell fixed the octaves compared to the St. Pete bell, and the longer main tuning slide to offset the shorter bell fixed the 5th partials.

Maybe any, all, or none of that...There were both 1960s 186 B-flat and C instruments that occasionally were built which played inexplicably well in tune - just about better than anything made today (when a few more secrets than in the past have been unlocked).

Yeah, i suppose intonation being wonky is something frequently faced. Whether it is the subtle differences in alternate fingerings disappearing with repetition, Or theoretical octaves not quite being there. I can look for excuses: condensation accruing, the horn warming up. I'm blowing stronger because i'm paying attention or less strong because i am running out of breath, i'm feeling light headed, why are so many people standing over me.

I guess i just roll with it? And sometimes i figure out a possible reason and am happy. I vote for condensation (sometimes perhaps plugging micro leaks, or just changing the resonance or air flow. It is easy to blame.

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:09 pm 1. A standard valve combination of a particular tends a bit sharp.
2. An alternate valve combination is awkward/cumbrous, yet in tune (electronic tuner/equal temperament).
3. Going back-and-forth between the alternate and standard valve combinations causes the two versions to be one - tuning-wise.
4. In fact, after running a drill of alternating between the two (both side-by-side, and approaching them from other pitches), the standard valve combination is no longer sharp, and it actually becomes difficult to (even) favor the standard fingering sharp of equal temperament tuning.

Rabbit hole.
Why it happens is unclear for me personally, but what I have noticed is that whenever I'm getting conflicting information (valve combinations that work and then don't, or visa versa) I know it's time to move onto something else and pick up the critical tuning the next time around. It's usually dissipated by then.

What I do notice is this: the fine balance of valve combinations and slide lengths have to be constantly re-evaluated with changes in temperature. The difference between summer and winter where I live can be an inch or more on the mts. This not only means that all the valve slides change as well but that sometimes that preferred fingerings also change.

Fortunately, come show time it'll be in tune no matter what. I only practice so I can be lazy during the gig.

I'm only about 180% certain that this inexplicable quirk is due to my own inconsistency.

Last night - pertaining to this, I tried something a little different. I would play an in tune (if not perhaps slightly sharp) valve combination, then switch to the standard slightly flat combination, and the pitch would stay the same - without me having to do any so-called lipping (in other words, no human effort to keep the pitch up to the same frequency).
I wonder if - when a frequency is set up inside a tuba - it sort of wants to hold at the same frequency as long as not too many things disturb it - such as a change in intensity of lip vibration (read: no crescendos nor diminuendos) or things like that...

...I don't know anything about this.

Before someone - who has read books on the physics of this - starts telling me things, I would like them to also try it themselves. In other words, instead of just reciting things from a book, I would like for them to report their experiences, so they can comment on both theory and personal experience...

Maybe this is a dumb topic, but maybe it's a different thing to discuss other than "which Chinese tubas are the cheapest", and/or (ref: labels on bottom-grade generic grocery store products back in the 70s: "suitable for everyday use") something that people don't discuss, because they don't like to admit that any of the pitches on their tubas are not naturally perfectly in tune.

Hi Dale!

Regarding the physics, if you’re changing the length of the pipe, then you’re changing the pitch…

…but…

…if you’re embouchure and airstream are already setup to buzz a certain pitch and your ear is already hearing it, then you’re likely benefiting from the “forgivability” of the pipe with respect to the frequency precision. Possibly, a good deal of this correction comes without conscious effort?

Years ago I sat in a masterclass with Phil Smith. He advocated bending pitches by chops only down as much as a minor/major third, iirc. When he would bend a half step, he lost little resonance compared to the mere mortal college trumpet player. Extending this notion to fingerings that vary by a quarter tone or less, it makes sense as to your experience.

A corollary to this is why, when being serious about learning a tuba, it may take weeks for the player’s face to actually stop fighting the tendencies from playing the prior horn in tune and learning the new horn’s quirks and requirements.

It’s also why a lot of people probably think 2-4 and 5-2-3 are closer than they really are on their own tuba. I think this combo is the main victim of the optometrist “A or B” comparison regarding intonation.

I tend to tune my instrument so that anything that's out of tune is going to be flat, because it's much easier for me to lip up than lip down. I do the same thing that a whole bunch of professionals teach other professionals to do in lessons during practice, which is too stretch pitches as far as possible and try to maintain a nice sound.

The thing that I described (different from that) - in my just previous and original posts - is that when I release an in-tune alternate fingering and then continue to sustain a pitch with a regular fingering that's not as in tune, the in-tune pitch "holds" - without me having to pull it in tune with my lips or air.