TubaForum.net

I wrote some blather about this on our store's fb page.
If you deem it as possibly helpful, we would REALLY appreciate you "liking" (not just the "mini-article", but also) the Mid-South Music fb page...

https://www.facebook.com/midsouthmusic7 ... 6566300171

If you're not on fb (and are interested in the topic) simply ask someone to copy/paste it, and send it to you as a p.m.

I have heard that the much maligned yamaha 641 tuba designs their valve slides to be in tune if all of them are pulled at least an inch out. That system makes a lot of sense to me.

The mini-article really doesn't address any specific models of tubas, but offers a method to determine whether one or more valve circuits - on "brand-X instrument" - are actually too long...and even "by about how much".

Nice. Thanks for posting.

I've thought about this often. Especially with old American horns, that 3rd valve circuit is usually way too long. My 38K had an absolutely unusable F# (bottom of the staff). I could not lip that note up as far as was needed and there is no alternate fingering. I could actually pull the 3rd slide out far enough to get the F# with just using the 3rd valve. I had to do that for a recording once.

I had my repair guy shorten the circuit and now it's much better. We didn't use any math in determining it. We just cut it close but not too close to a brace that we didn't want to move. Eventually I'd like to have him shorten the first circuit a tad and give me an upper slide on it.

Personally, I much prefer having things a bit sharp as I find it easier for me to lip down while still having decent tone. So the low C and B are still reachable.

Ideally (in my view), the circuits (for USA consumption) should probably (??) be just short enough so that (when a main slide is set at A=442) the flattest pitches on each circuit are in tune with that circuit's slide pushed all the way in...ie. "as long as possible, but no longer".
This strategy offers the most available length for pulling, as well as the least amount of bore diameter distortion.

Kirley wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:41 amPersonally, I much prefer having things a bit sharp as I find it easier for me to lip down while still having decent tone. So the low C and B are still reachable.

We all have our own tuning strategies, and (reasonable) reasons for our own strategies.
(and I'm not trying to convince ANYone of ANYthing; as long as we pitch-match and tune intervals, those are the most important things, yes?)

I choose to tune slightly flat, as...
> It's so easy to "blow sharp" (particularly with loud passages, and we seem to be assigned plenty of those).
> I find it much easy to very slightly "tighten up" (while retaining resonance/control) rather than to "relax down", as relaxing tends to call for releasing control of the embouchure somewhat.
> I suspect that critically-tuned/the-best-tuned-sounding large ensembles (though I can't seem to convince many others of this) strongly resembles piano tuning, whereby the lowest pitches sound best flat, and (gradually, as pitches gets higher throughout the mezzo and soprano instruments of the ensemble) pitch ascends remarkably. The only extra thing that a one-note-per-player ensemble can do (other than "fix" the open fifths - which is what piano tuning systems accomplish) is to favor/"purify" the 3rds and 6ths in various types of chords.
> When there is a piano in the midst of a large ensemble (particular if prominent - such as with a piano concerto, a vocal soloist in a pop concert - who is singing and playing the piano, or a heavily-mic'ed piano), the large ensemble had BEST conform to the piano's tuning system anyway.

Notice how the extreme ranges of a well-tuned piano are a quarter-tone (according to the chart, but NOT according to critical ears) "out-of-tune" with each other.

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:41 pm

Kirley wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:41 amPersonally, I much prefer having things a bit sharp as I find it easier for me to lip down while still having decent tone. So the low C and B are still reachable.

We all have our own tuning strategies, and (reasonable) reasons for our own strategies.
(and I'm not trying to convince ANYone of ANYthing; as long as we pitch-match and tune intervals, those are the most important things, yes?)

I choose to tune slightly flat, as...
> It's so easy to "blow sharp" (particularly with loud passages, and we seem to be assigned plenty of those).
> I find it much easy to very slightly "tighten up" (while retaining resonance/control) rather than to "relax down", as relaxing tends to call for releasing control of the embouchure somewhat.
> I suspect that critically-tuned/the-best-tuned-sounding large ensembles (though I can't seem to convince many others of this) strongly resembles piano tuning, whereby the lowest pitches sound best flat, and (gradually, as pitches gets higher throughout the mezzo and soprano instruments of the ensemble) pitch ascends remarkably. The only extra thing that a one-note-per-player ensemble can do (other than "fix" the open fifths - which is what piano tuning systems accomplish) is to favor/"purify" the 3rds and 6ths in various types of chords.
> When there is a piano in the midst of a large ensemble (particular if prominent - such as with a piano concerto, a vocal soloist in a pop concert - who is singing and playing the piano, or a heavily-mic'ed piano), the large ensemble had BEST conform to the piano's tuning system anyway.

Notice how the extreme ranges of a well-tuned piano are a quarter-tone (according to the chart, but NOT according to critical ears) "out-of-tune" with each other.

This is due to two unrelated phenomona:
1) The average person's ears psychoacoustically don't hear octaves, so when presented with a "true" octave, especially in the upper ranges, the upper note is perceived as flat, even though the math and the frequencies may be exactly 2:1.
2) Inharmonicity. This relates to the actual physical characteristics of piano strings. Strings don't vibrate in a "vacuum," so to speak. They actually roll on and off the bridge as they vibrate. This microscopically changes the witness point, and causes the string to vibrate sharp in its overtones. When you analyze the actual fundamental pitch variance on "full stretch," notice that there are different curves for different pianos with different string lengths, from spinet to full grand. So before all these technical measurements and charts and graphs, the piano tuner would tune the bass notes so the octave harmonic was in tune with the octave key above. By definition, this made the fundamental slightly flat, but that is how the ear perceives the octaves better: the overtones coordinating and not heterodyning, not the fundamental.

I wish they would still do that instead of relying on an electronic tuner, however programmed for which stretch, because to my ears, I can hear those overtones either mesh or clash, both in the bass and treble. It is actually more annoying to me in the treble, especially from 3rd space c up an octave and a half, which to me sounds flat, and I wish the "stretch" charts started their upward curve a little sooner.

Everything you stated is true and insightful, but the worst and most obvious problem that stretch tuning addresses is the horribly flat (wah-wah-wah-wah) open (avoiding the word, “perfect”, because they are not) fifths encountered in equal temperament.

bloke “and no one should ever have an open fifth while driving“

It’s fun to see “heterodyning” in a music post. Now I’m trying to remember if that implies signals that are multiplied rather than added?

jtm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:07 am It’s fun to see “heterodyning” in a music post. Now I’m trying to remember if that implies signals that are multiplied rather than added?

Actually, it's a phenomenon that I personally despise.

My LEAST-favorite brass quintet pieces are where the tuba, trombone, and horn are accompanying a piccolo trumpetS duet (baroque transcriptions, mostly).

Almost NONE of those resultant lower frequencies have ANYTHING to do with the chordal harmonies, and ALL of those resultant tones are LOUD.