Discussion of tuba sizing

[Alex C]

I was once in a very intense discussion about the nomenclature of 6/4 vs 5/4 vs 4/4 when Ed Jones, suggested that if the manufacturer says a tuba is a 5/4... it's a 5/4. When they say it's a 6/4, it's a 6/4.

If they don't say, I don't suppose it matters.

[matt g]

I was once in a very intense discussion about the nomenclature of 6/4 vs 5/4 vs 4/4 when Ed Jones, suggested that if the manufacturer says a tuba is a 5/4... it's a 5/4. When they say it's a 6/4, it's a 6/4.

If they don't say, I don't suppose it matters.

There’s a nice subtlety here. Melton/Meinl-Weston, and Rudolf Meinl both make a fairly nice lineup that spans sizes over the same design ideal. Rudy tubas can be labeled whatever and are relevant to that brand. The 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, and 6/4 all size up respectively. Same with the once 2145, 2155, 2165 and now 3450, 3225, 5450, 6450. In other words, if the manufacturer is making a complete lineup, then the sizing makes sense in context of their product offerings.

[lost]

158 replies and growing. Clearly a topic of interest for those who dismiss the topic.

I agree manufacturer's have their own lines and can call them what they want. I think the OP was meant to apply some useful standard across product lines since this is what we do already. Example is the prevalence of tuba players calling vintage American monsters or mammoths 6/4 horns when they were according to the manufacturer lines one step above their regular size horns (5/4). This makes things murky because they wouldn't be comparing them to their product lines.

Also medium, standard, monster, mammoth are just better branding terms for 4/4 and 5/4. This has always historically been done by companies to distinguish size difference in tubas they sell. This is useful information to know for a buyer and not just clever marketing. There are many tuba players who don't like big horns.

[bloke]

Sizing can be either plastic or vegetable, whereas starch is always vegetable.

' just sayin'...

[donn]

How happy would you be if Ford sold you a mustang 5.0L but with a 2.3L ecoboost under the hood, even if Ford says it is a 5.0L .

Though I have only the vaguest idea what those numbers mean, I know there's loads of hard data attached to them that translates into performance.

Some people say my BBb Kalison 2000 is 5/4, others 6/4. That distinction didn't mean anything to me when I chose to buy it, and it doesn't mean anything to me now. Dimensions are similar in places to my Holton 109 which is a definitive BAT, but it plays utterly different. There isn't any real need to establish a standard sizing that applies across all tubas, because such a datum wouldn't capture anything important.

[donn]

If tuba manufactures start providing some simple measurements like volume, length and angle of the different conical parts, impedance graph... it would much easier to categorize the instruments. But I guess that would kill the medieval magic halo surround the instruments and in one sweep kills like half of the threads on this and other forums.

I think not. The best you've got there is the impedance graph, and you aren't going to get very far with that.

It used to be conventional wisdom that if you really wanted the good stuff, it wasn't about buying the right model, as much as going to the retailer and playing half a dozen examples of a model to pick out the great one, or at any rate the great one for you. (I haven't seen that advice so much in recent years, for all the chest beating about our discriminating play-before-buying rules.)

Here we've been talking about the much less nuanced question of which tuba is bigger, but my point here is that

1. for artists, which we are, it's futile to speak to us about the gross parameters that theoretically predict performance, and
2. particularly when those parameters don't do a really good job in practice. It's like measuring horses to see which one will win the race. I'm serious - those two tubas measure similar, sound utterly different.
3. who needs to measure tubas to compare, when we can get a cheap copy of anything we like?

But for all that it would an interesting project if you want to take it on. To get a significant data set, I think you'd have to enlist everyone's help to get dimensions of their tubas, but you can measure a few yourself to work out the protocol. How do you measure a bell flare? How do you adapt your system to a tuba with a forward facing bell? Etc.

[KingTuba1241X]

How happy would you be if Ford sold you a mustang 5.0L but with a 2.3L ecoboost under the hood, even if Ford says it is a 5.0L .

Though I have only the vaguest idea what those numbers mean, I know there's loads of hard data attached to them that translates into performance.

Some people say my BBb Kalison 2000 is 5/4, others 6/4. That distinction didn't mean anything to me when I chose to buy it, and it doesn't mean anything to me now. Dimensions are similar in places to my Holton 109 which is a definitive BAT, but it plays utterly different. There isn't any real need to establish a standard sizing that applies across all tubas, because such a datum wouldn't capture anything important.

Only the data that helps one decide if the horn is for them, and will give them the right sound they are trying to achieve. Otherwise any tuba-shaped object will do, but only specific shaped ones will work for certain jobs. You wouldn't likely want to perform the Gregson or the Vaughn Williams on the largest BBb Kaiser you could find, when a small CC or F would be better suited. I think a sizing system of some sort is a very good thing for many reasons.

[KingTuba1241X]

How happy would you be if Ford sold you a mustang 5.0L but with a 2.3L ecoboost under the hood, even if Ford says it is a 5.0L .

Though I have only the vaguest idea what those numbers mean, I know there's loads of hard data attached to them that translates into performance.

Some people say my BBb Kalison 2000 is 5/4, others 6/4. That distinction didn't mean anything to me when I chose to buy it, and it doesn't mean anything to me now. Dimensions are similar in places to my Holton 109 which is a definitive BAT, but it plays utterly different. There isn't any real need to establish a standard sizing that applies across all tubas, because such a datum wouldn't capture anything important.

If tuba manufactures start providing some simple measurements like volume, length and angle of the different conical parts, impedance graph... it would much easier to categorize the instruments. But I guess that would kill the medieval magic halo surround the instruments and in one sweep kills like half of the threads on this and other forums.

I'd love to see this actually. Off with their heads...

[donn]

You wouldn't likely want to perform the Gregson or the Vaughn Williams on the largest BBb Kaiser you could find, when a small CC or F would be better suited. I think a sizing system of some sort is a very good thing for many reasons.

You've seen photos of my BBb Kalison. If you were trying to decide whether it would work for your purposes, would it be a problem for you that we can't decide if it's exactly 5/4 ... or possibly 6/4 ... although likely smaller than a Rudolph Meinl 5/4 (though not in every particular)?

I'm going to admit that when I bought that thing, I knew it was "big", it was BBb but somehow related to their 2000 in C, and it was beat up and available for a price I could meet. My only real thoughts were about how I could get it to me.

This is not, of course, the complete evaluation process that would be needed for someone who needed to decide whether it would do for the Gregson (which I've heard of a couple times, but never heard.) I have to assume that for that person, by the time the precise dimensions of the tuba would be of interest, they would already be irrelevant because the tuba would already have been played in person, and the real sort of questions would be more like "how would it sound in a hall like ___." I really, really doubt that Rudolph Meinl's size scale would ever be any issue at all here.

[KingTuba1241X]

You wouldn't likely want to perform the Gregson or the Vaughn Williams on the largest BBb Kaiser you could find, when a small CC or F would be better suited. I think a sizing system of some sort is a very good thing for many reasons.

You've seen photos of my BBb Kalison. If you were trying to decide whether it would work for your purposes, would it be a problem for you that we can't decide if it's exactly 5/4 ... or possibly 6/4 ... although likely smaller than a Rudolph Meinl 5/4 (though not in every particular)?

I'm going to admit that when I bought that thing, I knew it was "big", it was BBb but somehow related to their 2000 in C, and it was beat up and available for a price I could meet. My only real thoughts were about how I could get it to me.

This is not, of course, the complete evaluation process that would be needed for someone who needed to decide whether it would do for the Gregson (which I've heard of a couple times, but never heard.) I have to assume that for that person, by the time the precise dimensions of the tuba would be of interest, they would already be irrelevant because the tuba would already have been played in person, and the real sort of questions would be more like "how would it sound in a hall like ___." I really, really doubt that Rudolph Meinl's size scale would ever be any issue at all here.

Well considering I won't be performing those 2 pieces I mentioned, probably ever in my life and I think your Kalison would do just fine for me whether it be 5/4 or 6/4 (even though I prefer a large 4/4 or smaller 5/4). I meant in the general sense according to what "you" the collective might pursue musically when maybe less than 5% of all Tuba players actually are solo artists and nothing more. I'd agree most of us have different concerns like you say, "how would it sound in this particular hall, or whatnot"..but that goes back to the size issue because many people have concerns over the logistics of a super large horn, or how it's size affects how easy or hard it plays. I'd like to see the % of players who simply buy a horn on it's visual merits? (Not that I haven't done that and been disappointed with the way it played).

Another issue with "I don't need to know what size it is", is in particular how certain Miraphones all have the same "relatively basic shape" and it's hard to figure out what it is based on what you want. I purchased a "186" once that ended up being a 184/185 and due to the lack of an official sizing system or tell tale traits was stuck with a smaller model that looks identical to what I wanted, but wasn't. Recently as well, I was told something was a 187 when it was in fact a 186 where neither of myself or the other party knew otherwise and that deal kind of fell through. Had there been a system in place based on (at least measurements of the structure), we could have avoided the nonsense and not wasted time.

[donn]

Read the final paragraph - I invite you to try it, it would be interesting indeed. I'm just saying that for myself, here's why I'm not distressed about the ambiguity of "5/4".

Or perhaps this kind of work has been done for some other musical instrument, so one can comparison shop with graphs and numbers. If so, that would go far to support your idea.

[Rick Denney]

Read the final paragraph - I invite you to try it, it would be interesting indeed. I'm just saying that for myself, here's why I'm not distressed about the ambiguity of "5/4".

Or perhaps this kind of work has been done for some other musical instrument, so one can comparison shop with graphs and numbers. If so, that would go far to support your idea.

Like I already said there is no project, the measurements are known by the manufacturer. How do you think he puts his instrument together if he hasn't the numbers of how big, long, wide ... everything has to be.

Based on trial and error, at least in many cases, perhaps based on simulation and optimization using numerical methods. I think the big manufacturers have standardized transducers for the mouthpiece, but I rather doubt any of them have an anechoic chamber big enough or with anything resembling deep enough traps for the frequency range of a tuba. So it would have to be a system that could pull the frequency response out of the time domain. These are not necessarily that accurate below about 200 Hz, though. I suspect there is still quite a bit of subjective trial and error even in the most scientifically equipped of workshops, which is not very many of them, I suspect.

I agree with you that there could be many objective measurements that would make it easier to distinguish instruments from each other, and impedance across the frequency spectrum would be one of them I'd like to see.

Rick "we need a Klippel NFS for tubas" Denney

[matt g]

Internal volume of the tuba should be sufficient to parse the various sizes of tubas quantitatively.

However, creative marketing has remained healthy in selling musical instruments.

[donn]

Based on trial and error, at least in many cases

And even if that isn't every case today, it sure wasn't when many tubas were made that are of interest today. Anyone have the data file for Chicago York? My 1941 Holton?

[Rick Denney]

Finely summarized.
I don't know how much tech is used nowadays for designing tubas but I sometimes feel that diy audio people use more tech.

It’s a lot easier to standardize the source signal with audio equipment. Not many of us have access to those standardized transducers. And tools like REW make room measurements of speakers relatively easy, though they still can’t say much about the speaker itself below the Schroeder frequency.

Even something like the Klippel depends on knowing the characteristics of the test signal that it provides. But a Klippel that could measure the far sound field of a tuba would require a warehouse.

Rick “who has REW and a calibrated mic, but no way to provide an objective tuba source signal” Denney

[Rick Denney]

Based on trial and error, at least in many cases

And even if that isn't every case today, it sure wasn't when many tubas were made that are of interest today. Anyone have the data file for Chicago York? My 1941 Holton?

Didn't somebody wrote a book about the York?

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ique_sound

Lots of people believe that Pop Johnson, who ran York in the 20’s and 30’s, understood things others didn’t, though theses like the one linked are usually ex post facto speculation, kinda like arguing about whether it’s the wood, the varnish, the misaligned F holes, etc., that make Strads special (if I need they are special). Whatever he knew, he learned by trial and error, and didn’t pass it along, so there is only that speculation.

Most of the difference, of course, was Arnold Jacobs.

Rick “doubting that Pop had ever used or had any understanding of the word impedance in the sense we are discussing” Denney

[bort2.0]

Based on trial and error, at least in many cases

And even if that isn't every case today, it sure wasn't when many tubas were made that are of interest today. Anyone have the data file for Chicago York? My 1941 Holton?

Didn't somebody wrote a book about the York?

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ique_sound

Ooh, sounds cool. I just requested a copy from my University, will see if they can get it for me!

[Rick Denney]

Ooh, sounds cool. I just requested a copy from my University, will see if they can get it for me!

Can I borrow it after you are done reading it?

Rick "no access to academic libraries" Denney

[bloke]

Just as a set of reminders (and - after all these years - feel like a broken record)
pertaining to C-length...
That York tuba (which is used in the CSO, yet I tend to see that musician playing their Yamaha quite often)
- has had the HOLY CRAP buffed out of it.
- back when it had a satin silver finish (and buffing away such a finish removes an INCREDIBLE amount of material), SURELY weighed CONSIDERABLY more, and surely featured the same wall thickness as all of the other York tubas that I've encountered.
- brass is not reddish in color, and does not resemble bronze. The few worn-through places that I've spotted - in the past - appeared to be fairly run-of-the-mill yellow brass. That having been said, I believe it would sound about the same were it thicker and made of another type of brass, bronze, or even copper.
- along with many thin-wall instruments, provides a tactile sensation to a player which can affect a player's (regardless of level of experience) aural perception.
- doesn't innately play in tune any better than most of the other York-alikes.
- in most of it's vintage recordings, featured a "ping" type of sound - with (often) a strong attack followed by a less-strong sustain, and possibly even some vibrato. Those were PLAYER (not "tuba") characteristics.

Of all of those "6/4 piston things" that I've played, the Yamaha - intonation-wise - is the most manageable, most even-responding, and certainly feature the best build quality.
The less-than-one-third-the-price versions are not the equals of the Yamaha (in spite of the fact that people who can do more tricks than I can - or what-have-you, and make more money than I do playing) may have chosen others over Yamaha.


I'm not fond of Yamaha instruments in general, but - were I coerced into playing a "6/4 yorkalike" in some ensemble (assuming funding) I would choose the Yamaha, and it would be an easy decision to make.

[bort2.0]

Ooh, sounds cool. I just requested a copy from my University, will see if they can get it for me!

Can I borrow it after you are done reading it?

Rick "no access to academic libraries" Denney

I'll let you know if/when I get it. Although, I wonder if Hodapp is on either of the forums himself, and may want to share it himself?