TubaForum.net

I'm not any sort of acoustician. Just because I've read a few articles and googled some terms (which I recognized that I didn't know their precise definitions) certainly does NOT qualify me - in any way - to discuss acoustics or sound.
That having been said, I do observe things. Accomplished players put up recordings (social media, YouTube, etc.), and - with some of them - their sound changes when they play loud and low-to-very-low. Without pretending to have any insights, I tend to wonder whether it's a way to attempt to compensate for low amplitude (if that's the correct word?)
A couple of decades ago, I believe I was engaging in the same type of strategies. "Way back when", I auditioned for a job, and one of the comments was that the sound changed when in the low range. I thought a lot about that and - ever since then - I've tried to have a more consistent sound when descending Into the ledger lines. Risking stepping over into braggart territory, I was encouraged that I had made progress in this regard when a very fine recording engineer, Jamey Lamar - who has recorded a number of fine ensembles http://artmusicrecording.com/jamey-lamar , commented (unsolicited) on this specifically, and told me that he always enjoyed recording me because of the way the really low notes sound versus what he was accustomed to encountering.
One thing that attracted me to the instrument that I currently own - whereby I determined a decade ago that I would eventually own one (if I could find one that I could afford) - is the way that it makes it so easy for me to produce a broad, resonant, easily heard, not harsh > yet not dull < type of sound in this range (a range of pitches that tuba players always find that they're competing with timpani and other percussion as well as the bass trombone), and whereby - more and more often - composers are writing parts in this range and asking us to play quite loudly in this range (as their own playback speakers and digital equipment have no trouble synthetically producing this range of pitches with a nice resonance and high amplitude). Even the smaller contrabass tuba that I currently use for selected music helps me avoid making that harsh type of low range sound, even though it does "pop" noticeably more in that range - compared to the really large instrument referred to just above.
I believe that "concept of sound" is obviously the most important factor, but I've also found that instruments and mouthpieces can make it easier for me to achieve these goals. I'm really glad that I received that audition critique years ago, because I feel like - previous to that moment- I was just doing what I heard other tuba players do, rather than offering forth something that prompts my colleagues and the patrons to react more favorably.
I work on this, because it does require effort and focus to (not just play loud but) to play "broadly" in that range, but I'm also thankful that I have instruments that make it easier for me to achieve this.
Finally, with so much writing in this range in the last two or three decades, I'm thinking that this pitch range has become that which people mostly associate with the sound of a tuba. ex: A few days ago, a choir director passed out an arrangement for orchestra that they had done to accompany their choir, and the tuba part was mostly all in the staff.
Knowing that they would be bombarded after the rehearsal with questions from others, during a pause to deal with an issue while running the piece, i meekly asked if they would like to hear my part in "the more customary range", to which they responded "yes, please", whereby the trombonists and woodwind players - who were surrounding me - all nodded their heads "yes" when I dropped the octave (simply to mostly the two - three ledger lines range) on most of the written part.
...a related topic on which I'll only briefly touch:
the old band director adage that "Good tone equals good tuning"...
I'm thinking that when resonance is optimized, the overtones produced offer us (ie. ourselves) context clues which assist us in hearing whether or not we are tuned, because those higher pitches that occur in our sound spectrums become more prominent...eh?

“I like turtles.”

MiBrassFS wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:10 am “I like turtles.”

Piston or rotary?

(yeah... From time to time I try to throw out topics that actually involve playing. For the most part - subscibers don't seem to be particularly interested in them, but do get all worked up - pages-and-pages worth, even when openly warned that they are being trolled - over tablets, stands, stand lights, contracts, strikes, and such. My boring threads re: torch-n-soldering - and Wade's considerably more interesting/elaborate ones - I suspect - are looked at way more than most other threads, particularly more than those which actually discuss playing.)

Uh, rotary…

Ok, that was just me jokingly “non sequitur”-ing your post. No criticism of post or poster in any way. Choosing equipment, learning that equipment, and adaptation is what all it’s about to get results. As someone wisely said:

bloke wrote:Everyone has different weaknesses/strengths, and - thus - different things work to individuals' advantages/disadvantages.

Seems like people get tangled up (or at least get less than optimal results) when they choose what works for other players thinking those shoes will fit them, too.

Well, ... to be the dull fellow with a serious response - hello, engineers: it seems to me that the offensive type of loud low range, comes with some wrong upper partials. Not super high partials - I can't tell you exactly, but low enough that they make the pitch seem a little queer to me. Or at best, sort of baritone saxophone-y, a tonal quality that we might call "nasal."

My favorite fellow amateur sousaphone player had a big Holton that had been grievously splinted up, and he could get the best loud sound out of it. It didn't sound anything like soft, it was ... well, sort of square waved, similar to what we might call "blat" but with a lot more focused pitch quality. That was good, because you could hear the trombone coming right through it. The less favorite player had more like the soft sound made loud, and everyone had to play louder to carry over that. Now, of course, this was not legit music. I don't think I recall hearing the above mentioned wack partials coming out of the sousaphone scene, I guess it's a special skill.

MiBrassFS wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:21 pm Seems like people get tangled up (or at least get less than optimal results) when they choose what works for other players thinking those shoes will fit them, too.

I continue to remember when two of the three "superstars" I was studying with (during the blokonservary once-a-month "driving for knowledge" marathons era) were both using HbII-style mouthpieces, so I bought one, and then another version of one, and then yet another version of one. I struggled for a couple of years (even auditioning with those things) until I picked up (not "amazing" but closer to "a good fit" for bloke) the mouthpiece that I had formerly used. Suddenly, I wasn't thinking about the mechanics of playing and was back to thinking about the tunes I was playing...and (topical) the raspy loud low range thing (again: it's peculiar to me, and I'm not denigrating the HbII cup shape in the least) diminished.

I'm pretty sure that's why I recently revisited this cup shape, in order to ascertain whether I could make it into something that I myself would actually enjoy using. The answer ended up still being "no", and my hope is that those who purchased them are among the (obviously) legion players for whom that cup shape is a good fit, and hope that they (as did I) found my version to be a bit more palatable than the production versions. Anyway, I really appreciate them being guinea pigs and funding the research. If friends test theirs (and tell me they like them), I'll crank out some more. ?

donn wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 1:13 pm Well, ... to be the dull fellow with a serious response - hello, engineers: it seems to me that the offensive type of loud low range, comes with some wrong upper partials. Not super high partials - I can't tell you exactly, but low enough that they make the pitch seem a little queer to me. Or at best, sort of baritone saxophone-y, a tonal quality that we might call "nasal."

My favorite fellow amateur sousaphone player had a big Holton that had been grievously splinted up, and he could get the best loud sound out of it. It didn't sound anything like soft, it was ... well, sort of square waved, similar to what we might call "blat" but with a lot more focused pitch quality. That was good, because you could hear the trombone coming right through it. The less favorite player had more like the soft sound made loud, and everyone had to play louder to carry over that. Now, of course, this was not legit music. I don't think I recall hearing the above mentioned wack partials coming out of the sousaphone scene, I guess it's a special skill.

Blatts (plural noun) have their place in so-called "classical" music, but mostly (nearly exclusively) when accompanied by a bunch of "white noise" created in the percussion section and bass trombone. Also, certain tubas/players can "blatt" so loudly that it ends up not being "in the sound" of all of that white noise, so even those "classical blatts" require just a bit of restraint.

As far as pianissimo to fortissimo "donuts" are concerned, my ear tells me that a bunch of 12th and 24th partial - in a tuba's resonance - draws in the critical listener.

.

Thanks, bloke, for pointing out a common goal we both share and seem to be passionate enough about to not pass up a chance to engage in nerdy conversation...

Back when I switched from trp./flgh. to tuba, (1990) I made it a point to immediately go and find tuba-related CDs and, consuming those, chose "evenness of sound quality throughout the range" to be a goal to aim for (and it seems to be a fun and rewarding, but never-ending search for the proverbial kettle of gold at the end of a rainbow).

For quite a while, that search may have resulted in an even, but rather "sweet" and not quite "commanding" sound, though. After entering semi-pro symphonic wind bands, that problem increased and remains a challenge.

There are differences between enveloping cloud of sonic glory, commanding column of sound and a laser beam of "Blatt", and I experience pure joy on the rare days I show signs of control over all three of them.

whatever works, as far as a sound concept...

I try to think of low loud short events as "whomp" to avoid "blatt". It's my understanding that timpanists and bass drum players lift their mallets off the heads as quickly as possible to sort of achieve the same thing.

When short - but not super-short - sounds, I feel my lips closing down at the ends of those sounds (as the amplitude diminishes). This really assists a lot in imitating the string basses and/or generally producing more pleasing-sounding/marketable "oompah" bass lines - as those occur.

I have a good friend who's a great trombone player but/and was thrown into a professional orchestral bass trombone position several years ago - with little bass trombone experience, and had to actually scramble to get a bass trombone. In my late teens into my early thirties, I was able to work with a fabulous bass trombonist who had been a student of Remington at Eastman (Dr. Russ A. Schultz), who had even premiered an Alec Wilder bass trombone solo. That gentleman basically "taught" me (in my head) many of the bass trombone excerpts, and my thrown-into-playing-bass-trombone friend has such control of his ego that he allowed me to whisper things to him when he would encounter unfamiliar-to-him excerpts. One thing that I encouraged him to do - generally - was to match the tuba (which appropriately matches the string bass pizzicatos). It's so often that a tuba player is doing a pretty-good-to-excellent job of matching those pizzicatos, yet the bass trombone player - who's also doubling those lines - is playing really "square" sounds, which don't match. This particular friend has become quite good at the pizz. thing, and it's really nice to work with him.

On the other side of the coin, to come as close as possible to a brittle trombone short/staccatissimo/"commercial" short sound, I'll not hesitate to stop lip vibration with the tongue...or (sometimes) determine that a particular part is better played on a "4th trombone" (cimbasso). btw - if played WELL (yeah, and in tune), and it's genuinely appropriate for a particular piece - trombone sections universally seem to really like the cimbasso - in my experience - because it matches what they're doing.

@bloke My professor at Ithaca College, David Unland, had a wonderful dark and resonant tone. It was one of the most beautiful I've ever heard. I'm sure the York Master with a 22" bell helped. Anyway, he seemed to be more in favor of resonance (let the horn do the amplification) rather than a forced (straining?) type of loudness. I try to make an effort when I am playing loud and may be inclined to hammer a note, to pull back slightly and let the horn resonate.

I could also swear that David Fedderly (and my memory may be wrong about WHO and WHAT) once did a presentation demonstrating this with a decibel meter. I don't recall the details, but it seemed to mirror Unland's teachings. Backing off the forcefulness of the attack, but still providing lots of air to fill the horn, results in higher decibels.

Edit:
To your point, the plethora or mouthpieces, horns and their relative access, means we have more options/access to finding the equipment that make this more achievable for each of us.