TubaForum.net

Define this term, as applies to tubas and euphonia.

Not free blowing
Significant backpressure
Lack of focus slots

"possibly (??) an instrument that bloke might really like, whereas many others might reject"

It's much harder for me to play this tuba than to play mine.
I don't like the way this tuba plays compared to what I'm used to.
Check this tuba for stuffed toys in the bell!
My problems playing this tuba can't be my fault, it's the tuba's!

Typo in this reply. Please refer to my other one.

Lacking resonance and having a "muted" quality.

Plays like it has a gym shoe stuffed down the bell just out of sight. (I experienced that with the first school sousaphone I played.)

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:04 am "possibly (??) an instrument that bloke might really like, whereas many others might reject"

Interesting here as I kinda like the 2/3/4/5J whereas you find those stuffy. I just think about horns like that as “cruise control” tubas.

Anyhow there’s two basic camps of stuffy:

1. The horn literally has something stuffed in it.

2. The horn has something weird going on where the player is working harder and the horn isn’t responding as desired. Could be leaks, alignments, mouthpiece mismatch, etc.

I think a lot of the “stuffy” feels come from number 2 and the player has some megacontrapowerblower mouthpiece shoved into something like a 184 and is approaching the horn like an Alex.

Beyond that, I just think some horns have a lower ceiling with regards to volume with a good sound and just deal with it as a feature and not a bug.

I'm not much of a fan of mouthpipes that begin really large or mouthpiece throats that are really large.

I like the California/Olds-made of those (smaller Conn tubas) vs. the Abilene/Eastlake versions of those, but my main problem with all of them is that it's a bit difficult for me to get any of those to make quite enough racket - for quite a few types of musical situations...They are probably OK for mic'ed situations, but why feel the need to (in other words: necessarily) rely on a microphone, when playing a tuba? ... the sound is always "stuck down in the bell somewhere"...Actually some of the tall German 5/4 tubas are SOMEWHAT the same (in that regard), but - well - even though (with the big German ones) the sound seems to sort of be "stuck down in the bell throat", it's still LOUD enough.

People pooh-pooh a bunch of F tubas because the-low-C...the-low-C...the-low-C...the-low-C...the-low-C...the-low-C...the-low-C...the-low-C...but what about the SAME C on a compensating euphonium...?? (It's way "stuffier"...and euphonium players never complain about having to play it in any of their show-off euphonium solos.)

It can be played, and it's not hard...unless the person approaching the execution of that pitch is approaching it as if they are playing the same C on a C tuba.

There are some F tubas that have apparently (obviously?) been engineered specifically towards making that single pitch easier to play (without focusing the embouchure), but "C tuba-like low C" and "really curious intonation characteristics" always seem to go hand-in-hand with F tubas.

Stuffy: When you are playing it feels like a towel or some kind of obstruction is in the way even though there isn't.

Actually the low range of a King tuba can feel stuffier compared to other tubas. The small Conn tubas play stuffy.

Like say the low of the top action Besson compensator. Although, didn't feels as much stuffiness or resistance with a 983 one time and especially with the Eastman Model EBE853. The low range, to me, responds very well.

Normal resistance though feels like there is more sensation, and when there is too much it feels like your lips are fighting the instrument. And if the "normal" resistance is too much it feels like your playing a tank or moving a building, with your lips.

[

‘Stuffy’ describes an instrument with significant back pressure. This is very subjective as everyone is used to the instrument that they play.

I’d describe the low register of a Besson compensating Eb or Bb as stuffy. I’ve also owned a B&S symphonie that was stuffy. Every Cimbasso I’ve played has been extremely stuffy.

A MW 2165 or 45SLP are at the other end of the spectrum being very ‘free blowing’.

With a more open instrument you have a larger dynamic range, easier facility and easy articulation. It requires a lot more air from the player.

A more resistant instrument usually makes soft playing easier. Brighter sound. Less effort on the face. Limited ability to make a large fortissimo sound without breaking.

A good balance is nice. Not too open that it’s a beast to play, not too resistant that your sound is limited.

I've perceived stuffy as "not open / free blowing" to the point that it has an adverse affect on technique or tone.

That being said too open can be just as limiting, sometimes depending on where it is coming from, even more so. A miss match can make that worse I.e. 6/4 with a bath tub size mouthpiece or one with an exceptionally large throat.

I would agree with the examples offered forth of the off the shelf 2165 and the 45 SLP being at the opposite end of the spectrum - as opposed to so-called "stuffy". I do NOT dismiss either one of those models as "bad:, and I'm glad to sell them to someone else who really likes them, but tubas - such as those - work me to death, and based on that overly-open (in my experience) physical playing characteristic, it doesn't seem as though all of that extra effort goes for much additional result.

After playing almost exclusively on a Conn 20J and sousaphones the last two years... any other tuba feels stuffy until U have a chance to recalibrate internal my air vs sound quality vs volume equations.

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:58 am I would agree with the examples offered forth of the off the shelf 2165 and the 45 SLP being at the opposite end of the spectrum - as opposed to so-called "stuffy". I do NOT dismiss either one of those models as "bad:, and I'm glad to sell them to someone else who really likes them, but tubas - such as those - work me to death, and based on that overly-open (in my experience) physical playing characteristic, it doesn't seem as though all of that extra effort goes for much additional result.

I would completely agree that the 45 SLP and 2165 work the player very hard. They were originally designed for WD to produce maximum sound in the NY Philharmonic. I would tend to believe that the end result (maximum performance) was by far the main consideration in their design with player effort a secondary thought. If 1% more performance could be obtained at a cost of 5% more effort, that was how it would be. Exceptionally strong players have a different set of values in instrument characteristics than mere mortals (myself included here). Unsurprisingly both the 2165 and 45 SLP are not particularly popular anymore.

Linking back to the original topic, resistance is a balance. A York style 6/4 and a PT 10 (or derivative) have significantly more resistance than a 2165 and 45 SLP. The former being much more popular these days for good reason. On the flip side there's also not many people playing small bore B&S Symphonies and Miraphone 184's. Each to their own I really, but I there's a slow shift to a middle ground across the board. I do think there will probably be a shift towards playing slightly smaller 5/4+ CC tubas over the next decade instead of 6/4's.

More of the highest-paid tuba players I personally know (and I occasionally chat, email back-and-forth, and even host some of them here at blokeplace...ie. repairs/mod's/etc.) are NOT AT ALL into gigantic capillary portions of mouthpipe tubes nor (though the 45SLP taper is not gigantic, it's a taper - from start to finish - more suited for contrabass application, at least: in my >personal< opinion) "wide-open" playing instruments.

I'm not-at-all denying (and would never deny) the prowess of WD, but I am wondering if "gigantic mouthpipe tubes" actually helped them achieve anything-in-particular...possibly not even 1%...and (maybe...??) even having to work harder for the same 100% results.

Many have heard the recording of the stunning performance of excerpts (when this particular player was leaving one job and heading towards their next one)...and I - having attended in-person - would like to assure everyone that the live witnessing of it was considerably more stunning that the recording...but that was performed on a Holton 345, and - though that mouthpipe taper is quite large, and the receiver is absolutely "euro" - the stock 345 mouthpipe taper's capillary portion (two of those sitting right here, as well as a few oem 2165 ones) is considerably more conservative than the capillary portion of a 2165 mouthpipe tube.

As your previous post pointed out - regarding design: "balance".

As happens when I question anything at all about any of my (and they are unquestionably) betters: Someone's likely going to take offense to this post.

I tend to interpret stuffy as "hard to make resonate with the input you're giving it." One confounding factor here is that, at least in my experience, the instruments tuba players find the stuffiest (smaller basstubas) are a lot more sensitive to poor maintenance (particularly valve alignment) and require less condensation to affect the playing characteristics. Both of these problems, which are easily solvable, are indistinguishable from "stuffiness."

As an anecdote, my F tuba is a B and S Symphonie, and I used to play a PT 5 rotary C tuba. On my C, if I got lazy and didn't notice the bumpers were worn, or the I didn't drain the condensation frequently, I'd not notice a playing difference for a pretty long time. But with my Symphonie, I notice immediately. At rehearsal a few days ago when trying to play a low C loudly, I ran into a ton of "stuffiness." I was worried something severe was wrong until I remembered it was 30 degrees out, the horn got cold in the trunk, rapidly warmed up in the room, and then had the bright idea to drain the fourth valve slide. Violà, it was back to playing wonderfully.

And while we're sharing masterclass stories, the most impressive tuba feat I've witnessed in person was Jeff Anderson, during a masterclass, on a "stuffy" F tuba (looked like an old PT10 but not sure), playing Fountains of Rome very, very well.

Jeff Anderson could make a dirty boot sound "not stuffy"!

A lot of people say that (French) horns are stuffy, but -- for me, nope, they are just horns. Some are harder to make go than others, but the variation, for me, is not huge. Squirreliness is much more of a problem than stuffiness.

I have though run into perceived huge differences in tubas as to how easy they are to put air through, and thus play, but have no idea what terms are accepted. And I suspect it is the relative size of instrument vs person that determines how problematic that range is.