up for debate

[peterbas]

...

[Dan Tuba]

I own two Conn 24/25J tubas. Both made in Elkhart circa 1960's. Both have been "restored", taken apart, but back together again. However, only one had the finish restored, buffed and relacquered. The relacquered one is noticeably different in weight. The two tubas sound different to my ears, and on recordings. One has a brighter sound, one has more "thump" like a string bass. Could it be because of weight, or finish? Maybe...but could be other reasons.

[bloke]

Feeling a .5mm thick tuba vibrate in one’s hands (vs. a 6mm or thicker wall tuba) is interesting, but I will continue to maintain that the sensation is tactile, and not aural.

[Dan Tuba]

That's probably the case

[donn]

So, you are saying research says thicker brass in horns is better than thinner? You DON'T want the horn to vibrate?

I have been having a fun time with a new (to me) tuba - and an interesting comparison with my old one. Very far from scientific, there are a boatload of reasons why these two tubas could turn out different, but their dimensions are somewhat similar - same piston valve bore, roughly same size about a yard from the large end - but not nearly the same weight.

The old one - the heavy one - is very noticeably more powerful in the low frequency partials, the floor shaking stuff.

I have in the past experienced feelings of skepticism when I read about miraculous improvements from adding a brace here and there, even if it comes out of one of the finest of tuba workshops, but I've seen the light on that. Brass weight could easily be a similar principle, if it stabilizes the tuba body in a way that prevents any damping.

As bloke mentioned at the top, a tuba is in this respect quite unlike a violin. The violin creates a really audible sound by vibrating its soundboard, so the acoustical properties of the soundboard material are critical to the result. Vibration in the tuba material doesn't create the sound - but it can harm it. I'm not saying weight can reliably improve the low frequency output, just that it could conceivably play a role.

The perfect experiment: pour concrete around a tuba, let it dry, and see how it sounds. I bet it would sound fine. Sort of tricky work, if you want everything to still work (valves, water keys) and no concrete inside it.

[djwpe]

Others will chide me for neither being a scientist nor an engineer by trade.
That's fine. Those assertions make me smile.

bloke "trying very hard, here, to rope more tubaforum subscribers into a discussion"

Those assertions make me smile, too. As an engineer who attempts to eschew the stereotypes (stilted writing not among them), I enjoy watching my peers get drawn into the Bloke net. I suppose that constitutes a Peer Review, so at least the engineers writing here can claim that.

[iiipopes]

I have played horns with thick bells. I have played horns with thin bells. I have played horns with plain bells. I have played horns with a kranz. My observation is that perceived response from the mouthpiece end was similar, and the plain thinner bells were more likely in need of something like a length of split clear tubing installed on the edge of the rim or bead to damp overring of the bell.

[kingrob76]

At present, I own a VERY thin / light tuba: a Wessex Chicago Presence prototype. I'm moderately convinced I could crush the bottom bow with my bare hands if I wanted to - there's no question it's light. I've listed to it on tape in a large ensemble, it gets on mic without issue. I've also owned in the distant past a Kalison Pro 2000, which was h e a v y. Built like a tank with no apologies about how much work it was to carry around. That horn got on mic just fine as well in similar situations. The same can be said as true for all the horns I've owned and played, they seem to get on mic just fine regardless of the thickness of the metal.

I believe the thickness of the metal on the instrument makes no difference on the ability of the horn to get out in the hall.

I am equally convinced the feedback DOES vary greatly to ME based on the thickness of the metal. I prefer thinner and light instruments because they feel more expressive in my hands (completely subjective) and I feel more "in sync" with them at quieter dynamics (also subjective). I get the feedback I prefer from the thinner instruments, and have to "trust" the sound more in the thicker instruments.

I know when I pick up to play a horn I immediately get a sense of how it will "feel" to me by the weight, but there are several factors I look at / listen for before I even think about the weight of the horn. My Wessex, with a small mouthpiece, is pretty damn nimble and has plenty of color and clarity in the sound, and with a bigger mouthpiece the sound is broader - just as you would expect. The minimal bell flare is a better fit for this style of instrument as well I believe.

So yeah, the thickness is a matter of feedback and durability more than anything else in my opinion. Your mileage will vary, of course.

[Snake Charmer]

The perfect experiment: pour concrete around a tuba, let it dry, and see how it sounds. I bet it would sound fine. Sort of tricky work, if you want everything to still work (valves, water keys) and no concrete inside it.

Not a new idea, I saw a concrete block trumpet at the Frankurt Musikmesse ca 20 years ago. Most players liked it when trying (I didn't try it myself) for the feel of feeding all energy into the sound without any loss due to unwanted vibrations. But being a bit unpractical it was not for sale and all the high-pressure trumpet guys still use heavy valve caps instead.

I like the difference in playing of two of my everyday-saxhorns: one is very thin-metal leightweight with stripped laquer and a sanded bell inside, one is built-like-a-tank and heavily silver-plated (and both are 4 valve Couesnon, one Monopole and one Monopole Conservatoire). When recorded I sound not too different on them (with the same mouthpiece). More interesting: I can reach the same loudness with both.

[pittbassdaddy]

I think I understand enough to ask some questions:

So basically when we some of the energy within the instrument and the rest and makes sound.

Does energy get absorbed by the instrument trying to make it vibrate sympathetically or does that energy go into making more sound?

When the instrument does vibrate sympathetically is that lost energy that could be making sound, or does the instrument itself become a passive radiator?

Which is better? More efficient? How does all of that impact the overtone series?

Summary:

Some musicians at this while others

In any case the audience still

[bloke]

' pretty sure that the vibration of the metal instrument bodies (the vessels for the sound columns) is mostly absorbed by our clothing and by our bodies (since - after all - we physically sense the vibrations...and more so with thinner-walled instruments).

[donn]

Some apparently view this as a potentially reliable factor. Like the hypothesis is that if a tuba is constructed of thick, heavy brass, it's guaranteed to have a certain tonal character that's recognizably different from a tuba of thin brass.

Which indeed seems most unlikely. But that doesn't mean that mass is never a factor, it just means that it isn't a great deal of use to us when we're trying to design a tuba, unless we have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the effects of resonances around a complicated air path and how they'd be affected by the mass and resonant properties of the column walls.

[bloke]

...and (with the added-on complication that no two of the VERY SAME MODEL of tubas are ever precisely the same) when manufacturers (Miraphone comes to mind) have moved from a-bit-thinner to a-bit-thicker materials, they nearly simultaneously changed other things...such as (well...) bell diameter (such as from 420mm to 450mm)...

...so (again) as much as we would like to involve science (and science IS - obviously - there) we never can access science, because there is no "control"...

...and sure: We can retreat to pseudo-science, and use language such as "settled" and "consensus" (as such things may be "settled" and viewed as "consensuses" by contingencies, but not-at-all proved - with the same sorts of words having been applied back when people believed that everything in the heavens rotated around the earth), rather than "Scientific Method".

bloke "Science is never 'settled', as men know very little about the universe, compared to all that is in it."

[KingTuba1241X]

Can't access "Science"? That's new. I'm pretty sure if guys like Elon Musk exist, we can sure as heck figure out how air moves and tuba metals work for and against us...Or of course our perceived views on the topic could just be...

[Kirley]

I'm interested in the perfect balance of dent-resistance and weight-reduction. Those 2 factors matter to me.

In general, I've found resonance issues to be my fault.

[marccromme]

Glass sousaphones are the bomb. NEXT!!

I once heard Holmegård Glasorchester playing, very nice sound, crystal clear, so to speak.

On the minus side, no valves. , on the plus side, you never need to bring it to a tech to get dents fixed. or bother picking the tuba up from the floor when slipped

Actually, the sound is very much as you expect from brass instruments, despite being made of glass.

[DandyZ629]

Speaking for the instruments that I own...My 1923 Conn 5/4 feels considerably lighter than my recently acquired late70's-early 80's Conn 3J. I absolutely adore the sound of both instruments. The 5/4 I play with a stand. I tried one as an experiment and the sound was more preferable to me up close, as well as out in the hall with a trusted set of ears listening. The instrument vibrates more freely. The 3J I still play in my lap, because it sounds great the way it is. It is absolutely built like a tank. It's braced very well, and the attention to detail on this instrument is impressive. I'm not sure this made any sense...

[marccromme]

In general, I've found resonance issues to be my fault.

In my experience resonance and response and slotting are best if partials do align properly. Including pedal notes. More a function of the shape of the air column and the match of mouthpiece than anything else.

And that goes for all tubas, euphs, bass and tenor trombones I owned or tried through 40 years.

The worst was my first B&H bass trombone, which had particular off tune partials, despite being light in construction the response was like a stiff, or a piece of lead.

[Mary Ann]

The perfect experiment: pour concrete around a tuba, let it dry, and see how it sounds. I bet it would sound fine. Sort of tricky work, if you want everything to still work (valves, water keys) and no concrete inside it.

I'll quote my friend the now-retired college physics professor / horn player who said that a concrete flute with the exact same internal dimensions / smoothness / etc as a zillion dollar platinum custom handmade flute, would sound exactly the same because the sound has to do with the internal dimensions. I have no idea how that relates to tuba but it is fun to post it in this thread.

[bloke]

Can't access "Science"?

No...Not in this case...Not when there is not enough "control" - certainly not enough control - neither in players nor in manufacturing consistency - to make any accurate determinations regarding what most believe to be a minuscule effect.