TubaForum.net

YorkNumber3 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:21 pm Interesting that the KingConn CC tubas were pretty much regarded as compromised and kinda craptastic and now seem to be “collectible.”

They’ve aged like some sort of cheese.

I actually like them, particularly the smallest bell one, the 52j.

I like how they play, but the valve set sticks out like a mile from the wrap... And I could never get comfortable with that

$5K vs. $5K, I'd probably choose the eastman 6YZ thing...

...but Eastman vs. my also-in-the-same-size-family Holton B-flat...

...well... → HOLTON !!!

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:09 pm $5K vs. $5K, I'd probably choose the eastman 6YZ thing...

...but Eastman vs. my also-in-the-same-size-family Holton B-flat...

...well... → HOLTON !!!

You should try the 832. Maybe I'll make it down to blokeplace one of these days. Only a scant 5 hours and 55 minutes from my folks' house in KY.

A good B-flat in the same size range as a C as going to make more racket...and we all love racket, yes?
@arpthark
One of my small-circle/half-century-plus friends lives in Bowling Green now, with the last two places having been the mountains of Colorado and Alaska prior to that. How close do your parents live to Bowling Green?

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:56 pm A good B-flat in the same size range as a C as going to make more racket...and we all love racket, yes?
@arpthark
One of my small-circle/half-century-plus friends lives in Bowling Green now, with the last two places having been the mountains of Colorado and Alaska prior to that. How close do your parents live to Bowling Green?

About 2.5 hours, plus a timezone change.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:56 pm A good B-flat in the same size range as a C as going to make more racket...

I question this. Toby Hanks opined that an F tuba makes much more 'noise' (aka: acoustical wattage) than a contrabass tuba playing the same pitch. I can't prove it, but this makes intuitive sense to me: that it takes more energy to drive a larger instrument at a comparable volume.

You might be right, Carl, at least in a practical sense.
I posted a clip from the Organ Symphony - playing my f tuba demonstrating how much racket it would make (here: not long ago), so I guess I'm sort of contradicting myself...
... there is something different about the resonance - though - with similar size tubas with different lengths of expanding bores.
When I was playing what was heard on that clip, I was putting an awful lot of energy into that instrument. I suspect I could have gotten about the same amount of sound out of the B-flat with less work.
I own a vintage 12-in Polytone "Minibrute" Amp. It can be turned up to be way too loud. I also own a vintage Kustom PA with two towers with four 12's in each of them and a very powerful amp ("head"). It can also be way too loud, but can also be way way way too loud, if it's turned up much above 3. Obviously, I never turn it up much above 3.

In the Saint-Saens video, I was cranking my f tuba up to about 10, and it was quite loud. I suspect if I had cranked up my B flat to 10, it would have been pretty obnoxious...
... so practically speaking, their potential is the same, because I would probably never play my B flat as loud as it could actually be played - at least not in the symphony orchestra ( but I might play my sousaphone nearly that loud in a New Orleans style brass band... but it wouldn't seem all that much louder, because of the context and likely being outdoors).

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:33 am When I was playing what was heard on that clip, I was putting an awful lot of energy into that instrument. I suspect I could have gotten about the same amount of sound out of the B-flat with less work.

That could also be attributed to quality differences between the two horns being compared. I've been goofing around alot lately with a tool called the Brass Instrument Analysis System (BIAS), and one feature is that it will tell you exactly how much acoustic energy is coming back from the bell to the mouthpiece (and back and forth, repeatedly, forming a standing wave; that's how brass instruments work). This is essentially an objective measure of "resonance". I see readings anywhere from 12% (think Indian "Bessson" horns) to 48% (well-designed horns which are easy to play; shall remain nameless). What you're experiencing could just be differences in how those horns rate on this scale.

Acoustics are a science which is still being learned about by humans, but it's real.

As far as quality is concerned, there are some real things that define that as well, but other things that are subjective. As far as the quality of the (not all that large) B-flat referred to that I'm still considering in my comparison, my perception of its quality is that it is high, and then I wouldn't surrender it for casual money. ... it's the same one that - when I completed building it, you wanted me to build another similar one and chop all the tapered bows down so it would play in C - to which I sort of thought back to other 19" bell compact 4/4 York and Holton B-flat tubas which have been ruined in the same way (some of which I've seen and played over the years)...

... but I guess I'm rambling off topic, encouraged by your insertion of "level of quality" in the discussion.

... and I too was formerly a person who only viewed C tubas to be "quality" contrabass tubas.

UncleBeer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:36 am

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:33 am When I was playing what was heard on that clip, I was putting an awful lot of energy into that instrument. I suspect I could have gotten about the same amount of sound out of the B-flat with less work.

That could also be attributed to quality differences between the two horns being compared. I've been goofing around alot lately with a tool called the Brass Instrument Analysis System (BIAS), and one feature is that it will tell you exactly how much acoustic energy is coming back from the bell to the mouthpiece (and back and forth, repeatedly, forming a standing wave; that's how brass instruments work). This is essentially an objective measure of "resonance". I see readings anywhere from 12% (think Indian "Bessson" horns) to 48% (well-designed horns which are easy to play; shall remain nameless). What you're experiencing could just be differences in how those horns rate on this scale.

OMG... I love the idea of a scientific tool used to measure qualities of sound that are typically purely subjective... and it's called BIAS. Who says Austrians aren't funny?

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:48 am OMG... I love the idea of a scientific tool used to measure qualities of sound that are typically purely subjective... and it's called BIAS. Who says Austrians aren't funny?

It's a valuable diagnostic tool. No experience with this, I'd wager?

UncleBeer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:36 am

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:33 am When I was playing what was heard on that clip, I was putting an awful lot of energy into that instrument. I suspect I could have gotten about the same amount of sound out of the B-flat with less work.

That could also be attributed to quality differences between the two horns being compared. I've been goofing around alot lately with a tool called the Brass Instrument Analysis System (BIAS), and one feature is that it will tell you exactly how much acoustic energy is coming back from the bell to the mouthpiece (and back and forth, repeatedly, forming a standing wave; that's how brass instruments work). This is essentially an objective measure of "resonance". I see readings anywhere from 12% (think Indian "Bessson" horns) to 48% (well-designed horns which are easy to play; shall remain nameless). What you're experiencing could just be differences in how those horns rate on this scale.

Looks to be a pretty interesting software tool.

The techniques for finding the impulse response are conventional calibration techniques for other acoustic devices.

matt g wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:28 pm Looks to be a pretty interesting software tool.

The techniques for finding the impulse response are conventional calibration techniques for other acoustic devices.

Also has a physical modeling component, where you can input a bore profile of a hypothetical instrument, and it will tell you the intonation propensities. Pretty cool.

but - not having that at my disposal, not having Miraphone or B&S to fabricate bows for me, and having - in hand - a York or Holton B-flat with really nice intonation (and - again - probably more potential resonance than if chopped to C) I'm not going to start chopping on one of those. I've played chopped-on ones, and they were ruined.

Some exceptions are some of the 4/4 century-old Buescher B-flat instruments, which play goofy and with quirky intonation - due to too much of those instruments being capillary. They actually benefit from being shortened to C (simply by removing two feet of capillary, and not laying a finger on their bows). Frankly, I'm puzzled by those ancient Buescher 4/4 B-flat layouts (both "concert" and "shoulder-mount").