Discussion of tuba sizing

[peterbas]

sorry...no charts/graphs/numbers (and I respect and am fascinated by them)...but (only relying on observations, memory, personal anecdotal, and the like...)

If an ancient Conn 36J is a "grand orchestral" (yes...?? no...??) tuba (am I wrong, that this was the first tuba with that sort of designation...?? ...and - yes - I could easily be wrong), The Rudy 5/4 tubas' bell shapes seem (to me) to mimic some of those old Conn (non-detachable...and NOT the 25J bells that some stick on the recording version 36J) bells. Further, the Cerveny 601 tubas (which were bought by some - often due to their pricing) seemed more like double-oversize-bore rotary valvesets stuck on Holton/York/etc. 6/4/lap-sousaphone-shaped bugles/bells. With this, too, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong...so I wouldn't really put either the Rudy 5/4 B-flat nor the Cerveny 601 B-flat quite into the "kaiser" category, BECAUSE...

...I have a bit of a stricter concept of "kaiser" in my head...The two pictured in my last post qualify (and they must be B-flat tubas), the Meinl-Weston 197 certainly qualifies (well: duh) and others that are close to that shape/size/height...and I believe the somewhat towering height is part of the definition, because (just as with the stubby height of the lap sousaphones - mostly in C) the distance from the tuba's opening to the player's ears (ie. how a tuba is heard by its operator) has definite effects on how a player reacts to their instrument...and the other characteristic (as Rick points towards) is their NOT-sousaphone-bell-shaped bell throats.

' no need to argue these points...They're just MY personal concepts of "kaiser" (B-flat), and no one's else.

Two valid points.
MW calls the 197 a 5/4 and likewise Cerveny did call the 601 a 5/4.
When you see the Mira Hagen in a line the difference between 4 and 5 seems smaller then between 5 and 6.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/384987468131876226/

The Hagen is a compact Mira 90 it seems, so does the 497 still sounds like a kaiser. Maybe in the hall but not for the player?

[bloke]

I don't view rotary valves as disqualifying a tuba from being a lap sousaphone.

I view the Miraphone 98 as such...but (arguably) the very BEST of them...and it happens to be a Bb instrument.

Just because something has rotors, I neither see it as necessary to either stamp some fraction on it, nor to stamp "kaiser" on it.

[hup_d_dup]

Matt Walters said my tuba is a 5/4, but I think it’s more like a 19/16. According to the Hodges tenon measurement system it comes out to more like 37/32, or maybe 75/64.

Hup

[peterbas]

Matt Walters said my tuba is a 5/4, but I think it’s more like a 19/16. According to the Hodges tenon measurement system it comes out to more like 37/32, or maybe 75/64.

Hup

I'm sure you're making that up.

[bloke]

Matt Walters said my tuba is a 5/4, but I think it’s more like a 19/16. According to the Hodges tenon measurement system it comes out to more like 37/32, or maybe 75/64.

Hup

Why cant tuba-sizing join the modern world, and move to the metric system…??
SHEESH

[JeffT96]

Here’s my idea for a way to measure better especially when comparing short bell horns to longer bell horns. Why not measure from the end of the bell but from the center point straight down by the same amount on both tubas then measure the bell circumference at that point. In my mind I’m thinking 18” on a B flat vs 16” on a C tuba since we know C tubas tend to have a faster expansion rate. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work on bass tubas as well. On an f you could measure 12” vs 14” on an Eb. It seems to me that would take bell height factor and expansion rates out of the equation. I know there are probably variables I’m missing that might make my idea still too arbitrary. Like if it seems to work on a lot of horns but there are too many outliers.
Anyway, I’m open to anyone’s thoughts on this. In thinking more about this maybe I have the distances backwards? Maybe a C with it’s faster expansion rate you should measure the longer distance. Then use the shorter distance on B flat tubas.

[peterbas]

Here’s my idea for a way to measure better especially when comparing short bell horns to longer bell horns. Why not measure from the end of the bell but from the center point straight down by the same amount on both tubas then measure the bell circumference at that point. In my mind I’m thinking 18” on a B flat vs 16” on a C tuba since we know C tubas tend to have a faster expansion rate. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work on bass tubas as well. On an f you could measure 12” vs 14” on an Eb. It seems to me that would take bell height factor and expansion rates out of the equation. I know there are probably variables I’m missing that might make my idea still too arbitrary. Like if it seems to work on a lot of horns but there are too many outliers.
Anyway, I’m open to anyone’s thoughts on this. In thinking more about this maybe I have the distances backwards? Maybe a C with it’s faster expansion rate you should measure the longer distance. Then use the shorter distance on B flat tubas.

That is exactly what I did to estimate the volume in a previous post.
But I took the distances mentioned in the Cerveny patent. 247 (9.7), 1250(49) and 2000(78.7)mm starting from the bell.
Problem for the two last is that you are passing the bottom bow so you need to measure from the outside so it isn't that accurate.

[lost]

Jonathan was trying to make sense of what companies were already doing by sizing tubas. He didn't invent it, and yes it isn't perfect, but it is probably accurate 85 percent of the time from the many many tubas I have had the privilege of collecting as an unapologetic collector.

It's also better than filling up your tuba with beer, water, or whatever.

[Three Valves]

....It's also better than filling up your tuba with beer, water, or whatever.

Oh yeah?? Says who??

[donn]

Why not measure from the end of the bell but from the center point straight down by the same amount on both tubas then measure the bell circumference at that point. In my mind I’m thinking 18” on a B flat vs 16” on a C tuba since we know C tubas tend to have a faster expansion rate.

That's about what I did to compare a couple large tubas. For me, the most interesting dimension is more or less as lost proposes around the beginning of this thread, the small end of the bell or the large end of the bottom bow, but it's more important to take that measurement at a consistent depth, as opposed to the actual location of that joint, as that's quite variable.

Here we're measuring the "bugle" size at a point where I'm guessing it's a product of relatively consistent, regular albeit exponential geometry. Once we get to the bell, the geometry may visibly change - some bells appear to switch to a sort of widened cone, others may taper out more gradually - and while this may have a huge influence on the volume - in air, water, beer, ping pong balls or whatever - I'm guessing it isn't so dominant an influence on tone.

However, a couple doubts, as I mentioned earlier, essentially about getting that depth consistent down to less than an inch -

1. Where do I measure to find that reference spot on my Holton 109 - a bell front tuba? Eyeball estimation of a center line?
2. The end of the tuba's air column, I'm sure I've read, is some ways past the physical bell - and the difference varies, affected by bell and bell flare geometry. Presumably the ideal point of measurement would take that into account.

So ... I don't know, might be ideal to combine an axis measurement with a measurement along the bell surface, and make some kind of a weighted average.

[KingTuba1241X]

sorry...no charts/graphs/numbers (and I respect and am fascinated by them)...but (only relying on observations, memory, personal anecdotal, and the like...)

If an ancient Conn 36J is a "grand orchestral" (yes...?? no...??) tuba (am I wrong, that this was the first tuba with that sort of designation...?? ...and - yes - I could easily be wrong), The Rudy 5/4 tubas' bell shapes seem (to me) to mimic some of those old Conn (non-detachable...and NOT the 25J bells that some stick on the recording version 36J) bells. Further, the Cerveny 601 tubas (which were bought by some - often due to their pricing) seemed more like double-oversize-bore rotary valvesets stuck on Holton/York/etc. 6/4/lap-sousaphone-shaped bugles/bells. With this, too, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong...so I wouldn't really put either the Rudy 5/4 B-flat nor the Cerveny 601 B-flat quite into the "kaiser" category, BECAUSE...

...I have a bit of a stricter concept of "kaiser" in my head...The two pictured in my last post qualify (and they must be B-flat tubas), the Meinl-Weston 197 certainly qualifies (well: duh) and others that are close to that shape/size/height...and I believe the somewhat towering height is part of the definition, because (just as with the stubby height of the lap sousaphones - mostly in C) the distance from the tuba's opening to the player's ears (ie. how a tuba is heard by its operator) has definite effects on how a player reacts to their instrument...and the other characteristic (as Rick points towards) is their NOT-sousaphone-bell-shaped bell throats.

' no need to argue these points...They're just MY personal concepts of "kaiser" (B-flat), and no one's else.

Two valid points.
MW calls the 197 a 5/4 and likewise Cerveny did call the 601 a 5/4.
When you see the Mira Hagen in a line the difference between 4 and 5 seems smaller then between 5 and 6.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/384987468131876226/

The Hagen is a compact Mira 90 it seems, so does the 497 still sounds like a kaiser. Maybe in the hall but not for the player?

So you mean to tell me that both of THESE 2 horns are 6/4 size? Because we know the York Lap Sousaphone on the right is a 6/4.

[LeMark]

Unrelated point... kind of.

When I first started playing a 601 back in the late 80's, I was told it was a special purpose tuba, too large to be used as an everyday, do-it-all horn.

Here 30 years later, there are a LOT of 5/4, do-it-all tubas that people use every day that are just about the same size

[bloke]

Here’s $5 for bloke, just because he's so great.

Well...Thanks...I actually can use that, right now, during these Orwellian times, but: back to the discussion.

I would just like for you to see how I pulled together all of my artistic and technical skills to photoshop Jake's Holton knock-off of his York into a Meinl-Weston 197:

bloke "game...set...match"

[JeffT96]

Why not measure from the end of the bell but from the center point straight down by the same amount on both tubas then measure the bell circumference at that point. In my mind I’m thinking 18” on a B flat vs 16” on a C tuba since we know C tubas tend to have a faster expansion rate.

That's about what I did to compare a couple large tubas. For me, the most interesting dimension is more or less as lost proposes around the beginning of this thread, the small end of the bell or the large end of the bottom bow, but it's more important to take that measurement at a consistent depth, as opposed to the actual location of that joint, as that's quite variable.

Here we're measuring the "bugle" size at a point where I'm guessing it's a product of relatively consistent, regular albeit exponential geometry. Once we get to the bell, the geometry may visibly change - some bells appear to switch to a sort of widened cone, others may taper out more gradually - and while this may have a huge influence on the volume - in air, water, beer, ping pong balls or whatever - I'm guessing it isn't so dominant an influence on tone.

However, a couple doubts, as I mentioned earlier, essentially about getting that depth consistent down to less than an inch -

1. Where do I measure to find that reference spot on my Holton 109 - a bell front tuba? Eyeball estimation of a center line?
2. The end of the tuba's air column, I'm sure I've read, is some ways past the physical bell - and the difference varies, affected by bell and bell flare geometry. Presumably the ideal point of measurement would take that into account.

So ... I don't know, might be ideal to combine an axis measurement with a measurement along the bell surface, and make some kind of a weighted average.

I see what you mean. Anything bell front would be an outlier for sure. I guess measuring at only one point in the bugle’s taper is likely to prove arbitrary with tons of outliers. I do think the liquid volume test would be useful and pretty accurate. It seems like the manufacturers could do that and use it in advertising if they had the will to do so. Maybe leaving things subjective and somewhat arbitrary adds to a “mystique” that certain tubas have from an advertising standpoint?

[peterbas]

sorry...no charts/graphs/numbers (and I respect and am fascinated by them)...but (only relying on observations, memory, personal anecdotal, and the like...)

If an ancient Conn 36J is a "grand orchestral" (yes...?? no...??) tuba (am I wrong, that this was the first tuba with that sort of designation...?? ...and - yes - I could easily be wrong), The Rudy 5/4 tubas' bell shapes seem (to me) to mimic some of those old Conn (non-detachable...and NOT the 25J bells that some stick on the recording version 36J) bells. Further, the Cerveny 601 tubas (which were bought by some - often due to their pricing) seemed more like double-oversize-bore rotary valvesets stuck on Holton/York/etc. 6/4/lap-sousaphone-shaped bugles/bells. With this, too, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong...so I wouldn't really put either the Rudy 5/4 B-flat nor the Cerveny 601 B-flat quite into the "kaiser" category, BECAUSE...

...I have a bit of a stricter concept of "kaiser" in my head...The two pictured in my last post qualify (and they must be B-flat tubas), the Meinl-Weston 197 certainly qualifies (well: duh) and others that are close to that shape/size/height...and I believe the somewhat towering height is part of the definition, because (just as with the stubby height of the lap sousaphones - mostly in C) the distance from the tuba's opening to the player's ears (ie. how a tuba is heard by its operator) has definite effects on how a player reacts to their instrument...and the other characteristic (as Rick points towards) is their NOT-sousaphone-bell-shaped bell throats.

' no need to argue these points...They're just MY personal concepts of "kaiser" (B-flat), and no one's else.

Two valid points.
MW calls the 197 a 5/4 and likewise Cerveny did call the 601 a 5/4.
When you see the Mira Hagen in a line the difference between 4 and 5 seems smaller then between 5 and 6.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/384987468131876226/

The Hagen is a compact Mira 90 it seems, so does the 497 still sounds like a kaiser. Maybe in the hall but not for the player?

So you mean to tell me that both of THESE 2 horns are 6/4 size? Because we know the York Lap Sousaphone on the right is a 6/4.

Don't understand your question and I don't know the 2 tubas in your picture.

[peterbas]

....It's also better than filling up your tuba with beer, water, or whatever.

Oh yeah?? Says who??

Filling with water from tuning slide to bell is the easiest way to measure the volume.
And it is going to be rather accurate since water isn't bothered with the shape of the tubing being conical, hyperbolic...

[KingTuba1241X]

Don't understand your question and I don't know the 2 tubas in your picture.

That's true 6/4 Rudy and a 6/4 American style..

[donn]

Filling with water from tuning slide to bell is the easiest way to measure the volume.
And it is going to be rather accurate since water isn't bother with the shape of the tubing being conical, hyperbolic...

It measures the volume accurately, but so what? Does a unit of volume in the bell have the same acoustic effect, as the same unit of volume in the bottom bow? There's many times more volume in the bell, than in an equal length of the largest branch tubing, so volume really ends up measuring how big the bell is. Looks to me for example like the YBB 621 has a relatively large bell, for its size - so its volume would be deceptively large, for a small tuba. But arguably that isn't really what makes a tuba play big.

[peterbas]

Filling with water from tuning slide to bell is the easiest way to measure the volume.
And it is going to be rather accurate since water isn't bother with the shape of the tubing being conical, hyperbolic...

It measures the volume accurately, but so what? Does a unit of volume in the bell have the same acoustic effect, as the same unit of volume in the bottom bow? There's many times more volume in the bell, than in an equal length of the largest branch tubing, so volume really ends up measuring how big the bell is. Looks to me for example like the YBB 621 has a relatively large bell, for its size - so its volume would be deceptively large, for a small tuba. But arguably that isn't really what makes a tuba play big.

The extra volume in the bell is only that part of the bell that is bigger than a pure conical shape. The tuba needs to be the correct length so you minimum going to have a concical tube (stovepipe like the very old tubas used to have) so only the volume from where the bell starts to go wider then the conical shape minus that same conical shape is extra volume. So from my example of a bell volume of 20 to 25 liters the extra volume can be something around 10 liters maximum.
A Conn 2Xj has a very larger bell but it opens up very late so the extra volume isn't going to be that big.

[donn]

So from my example of a bell volume of 20 to 25 liters the extra volume can be something around 10 liters maximum.
A Conn 2Xj has a very larger bell but it opens up very late so the extra volume isn't going to be that big.

Yes, that's how the 2XJ looks to me, too, compared to a Holton - two indisputably big tubas, but the 21J bell is a little more slender towards the bottom.

And no doubt it has some influence on the sound, but ... suppose we had a third tuba, with the Holton's bell and the Conn's volume. OK, evidently the difference in volume comes from the branches. I don't know how much difference, but say it's only 2 liters between the Holton and Conn - really only a slight difference in bell volume - but here the bells are the same, so the 2 liters must come out of the branches. It's a bigger difference there in the branches, right?

Fundamentally, measuring an exponential-conical shaped bugle in terms of total volume, will weight the observation very strongly towards the large end. If tubas were invariably designed to the exact same exponential geometry all the way to the bell end, then it would be immaterial, but they clearly aren't - they particularly differ right where it will confound the measurement the most. Some tubas may have mostly conical bells with a small flare near the top, others are more exponential, etc. Manufacturers do this by mutual agreement, a policy begun long ago with the intention to discourage tuba players from filling their tubas with beer.