TubaForum.net

lost wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:26 pm Donn, a Kalison 2000 would most definitely be called a 6/4 in most parts of the world. But it would be okay if someone called it a 5/4 too.

And in fact that's where it ended up in a recent discussion on this subject, in this part of the world, so ... possibly, but I think "most definitely" is carrying it a little too far. Bearing in mind that this is a BBb tuba; if the standard for BBb is 18½ inches, the proportional for C is 16½ inches.

donn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:11 pm

lost wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:26 pm Donn, a Kalison 2000 would most definitely be called a 6/4 in most parts of the world. But it would be okay if someone called it a 5/4 too.

And in fact that's where it ended up in a recent discussion on this subject, in this part of the world, so ... possibly, but I think "most definitely" is carrying it a little too far. Bearing in mind that this is a BBb tuba; if the standard for BBb is 18½ inches, the proportional for C is 16½ inches.

I'd love to put a .687'' bore King valveset inside that Bugle. Oh dang...

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:28 pm I'd love to put a .687'' bore King valveset inside that Bugle.

Why??? Actually the valves remind me of the 1240 I used to have - in a bad way. Water collects in the 1st valve tubing - maybe not if the bell points straight up while playing, but I guess I hold it at a slight angle. Anyway, the valve section is removable, so an owner who can't settle for a normal .750" valve section could just have alternative valve sections made up with matching mounting points.

It seems to me that only measuring a tuba at that point in its expansion ignores an awful lot of stuff.

The reason that I coined the term, “lap sousaphone” (to describe what - I’m thinking - a *Swiss maker - of a York knock-off - labeled as “6/4” c. four decades ago) is because what I am seeing is that tubas referred to as such are basically tubas that feature roughly the same expansion characteristics as a Conn 20/38/40K sousaphone, but are wrapped in the shape of a sit-down tuba. They don’t quite sound like a bell-front sousaphone, because the sound goes up into the rafters, and because their bells only flare out to about 20 inches.
______________
*Go dig out your old-old T.U.B.A, Journal (the issue where that model was first advertised), and see if I’m right.

I’m thinking there’s actually more sizes:
The 14-inch bell Yamaha stuff (and knock offs) are 3/4 (and other stuff that’s roughly that size, such as Miraphone 184, etc.)

The King 1140 - and all of those knock-off’s - are 5/8.

The Olds/Reynolds/Conn stuff (etc.) is 7/8.

...and so on.

The capillary portion of the instrument should be ignored for tuba size designation, and that includes the mouthpipe and the valveset bore.

donn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:41 pm

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:28 pm I'd love to put a .687'' bore King valveset inside that Bugle.

Why??? Actually the valves remind me of the 1240 I used to have - in a bad way. Water collects in the 1st valve tubing - maybe not if the bell points straight up while playing, but I guess I hold it at a slight angle. Anyway, the valve section is removable, so an owner who can't settle for a normal .750" valve section could just have alternative valve sections made up with matching mounting points.

Set the horn on the bell and pull the top slides down and out should eliminate this problem. If you ever get tired of this horn notify me.

The Olds/Reynolds/Conn stuff (etc.) is 7/8.

Was going to post this myself. I had an Olds O-99-4 a few years back (wish I had kept it, great quintet horn), and it really felt like a 7/8 size.

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:46 pm

peterbas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:36 pm

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:01 am

Well as they say "The Burden of Proof lay with the claimant"..he's definitely incorrect on his definition and if he wants to defend it with an explanation of why he can. The standards are fairly clear how to determine this.

Well you claimed the debate and what he said in it so...

But that wasn´t my point, my point is that the biggest tubas on the voight scale aren´t build nowadays.
You can see that on the old cerveny site, there is no tuba listed as a 6/4 not even a 601 or 696. A compact model like a 793 is even listed as an 4/4.
On the new site they adapted to the fasion with marketing the 696 and 793 as a 6/4 size.

By the way if a 6/4 means 18,5 inch what is the lenght of the other sizes 5/4, 4/4...?

HE originally claimed in his "FOR SALE" posting that the St. Pete was a 6/4. Not me, I made mention of it here ..there's a HUGE difference. I would agree on the fact none of the Rotary horns made in modern history (except the one at Baltimore Brass right now true 6/4 Rudy) are 6/4 size horns and indeed 5/4. The one that comes to mind that has changed model numbers and shrunk by 6 inches in length was the Mirafone Kaiser 189 (proceeded by the 190 which was smaller). I was not the one who mentioned 18.5'', that was Lost.

So no debate but probably a typo or a reference to the bore, 21 mm, of the StPete.
I mean if you have as many kaisers as Uwe has you´re not going to miss that it is a rather small instrument. I´ve played mine besides to miraphones 190 and it looked ridiculously small. Nobody is going to call the StPete a 6/4.

This Bb rotary is called a 6/4, is it or not?

https://www.dillonmusic.com/copy-of-dil ... -bbb-tuba/

donn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:11 pm

lost wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:26 pm Donn, a Kalison 2000 would most definitely be called a 6/4 in most parts of the world. But it would be okay if someone called it a 5/4 too.

And in fact that's where it ended up in a recent discussion on this subject, in this part of the world, so ... possibly, but I think "most definitely" is carrying it a little too far. Bearing in mind that this is a BBb tuba; if the standard for BBb is 18½ inches, the proportional for C is 16½ inches.

Good point. When both Bb and Cc are pure conical the Cc will look fatter because it has less length to get to the same bell size (asume for both)
but the Bb will have 10 percent more volume.

So no debate but probably a typo or a reference to the bore, 21 mm, of the StPete.
I mean if you have as many kaisers as Uwe has you´re not going to miss that it is a rather small instrument. I´ve played mine besides to miraphones 190 and it looked ridiculously small. Nobody is going to call the StPete a 6/4.

I remember having a long personal discussion with Uwe and he stuck to his guns that they are 6/4 horns, which is false.

This Bb rotary is called a 6/4, is it or not?

Dillon Music has been historically wrong about their titles and descriptions of tubas listed for the past few years. Notably all the 1241's listed as 2341's, and yes, this listed a 6/4.

peterbas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:37 pm

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:46 pm

peterbas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:36 pm

Well you claimed the debate and what he said in it so...

But that wasn´t my point, my point is that the biggest tubas on the voight scale aren´t build nowadays.
You can see that on the old cerveny site, there is no tuba listed as a 6/4 not even a 601 or 696. A compact model like a 793 is even listed as an 4/4.
On the new site they adapted to the fasion with marketing the 696 and 793 as a 6/4 size.

By the way if a 6/4 means 18,5 inch what is the lenght of the other sizes 5/4, 4/4...?

HE originally claimed in his "FOR SALE" posting that the St. Pete was a 6/4. Not me, I made mention of it here ..there's a HUGE difference. I would agree on the fact none of the Rotary horns made in modern history (except the one at Baltimore Brass right now true 6/4 Rudy) are 6/4 size horns and indeed 5/4. The one that comes to mind that has changed model numbers and shrunk by 6 inches in length was the Mirafone Kaiser 189 (proceeded by the 190 which was smaller). I was not the one who mentioned 18.5'', that was Lost.

So no debate but probably a typo or a reference to the bore, 21 mm, of the StPete.
I mean if you have as many kaisers as Uwe has you´re not going to miss that it is a rather small instrument. I´ve played mine besides to miraphones 190 and it looked ridiculously small. Nobody is going to call the StPete a 6/4.

This Bb rotary is called a 6/4, is it or not?

https://www.dillonmusic.com/copy-of-dil ... -bbb-tuba/

Yes it's a true 6/4. Played it and it's an awesome horn.

bloke wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:25 pm I’m thinking there’s actually more sizes:
The 14-inch bell Yamaha stuff (and knock offs) are 3/4 (and other stuff that’s roughly that size, such as Miraphone 184, etc.)

The King 1140 - and all of those knock-off’s - are 5/8.

The Olds/Reynolds/Conn stuff (etc.) is 7/8.

...and so on.

The capillary portion of the instrument should be ignored for tuba size designation, and that includes the mouthpipe and the valveset bore.

I agree. And the dynasty/deg stuff I would classify as 7/8.

peterbas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:54 pm When both Bb and Cc are pure conical the Cc will look fatter because it has less length to get to the same bell size (asume for both)
but the Bb will have 10 percent more volume.

Depends on the comparison. The more common C version of that tuba is very likely built on the same bell and bows, and shortened on the small end where you can't see it. So it would look the same - and it would have quite close to the same volume - but for a higher key tuba. Obviously (I think?) if we were to apply these categories to different keys, we wouldn't require the same dimensions for a 6/4 F and a 6/4 BBb, so maybe the requirement should likewise be discounted for C. That might explain why someone might have the impression that the 2000 is a 6/4, because the C version certainly would meet the discounted standard. While in BBb it's a 5/4.

What happened to the link of the unrestored Lidl tuba?

Liters/Gallons: that would be the best way to determine a tubas size if you ask me.

So do we have a consensus? If not, I'll continue to use these fractions as a vague sound=function indication as a means of roughly honing in on what someone is referring to (6/4=big orchestra horn, 4/4=small ensemble horn, etc).

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:31 am What happened to the link of the unrestored Lidl tuba?

This thread is split of from the Lidl thread, you can find the link there.

donn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:02 pm

peterbas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:54 pm When both Bb and Cc are pure conical the Cc will look fatter because it has less length to get to the same bell size (asume for both)
but the Bb will have 10 percent more volume.

Depends on the comparison. The more common C version of that tuba is very likely built on the same bell and bows, and shortened on the small end where you can't see it. So it would look the same - and it would have quite close to the same volume - but for a higher key tuba. Obviously (I think?) if we were to apply these categories to different keys, we wouldn't require the same dimensions for a 6/4 F and a 6/4 BBb, so maybe the requirement should likewise be discounted for C. That might explain why someone might have the impression that the 2000 is a 6/4, because the C version certainly would meet the discounted standard. While in BBb it's a 5/4.

Indeed this points out that the proposed one measurement isn´t enough. The CC will have much more volume for its length then BB tuba.
So volume/lenght, see mensur on Uwe´s site, will probably be a beter indication of size.
I guess this summer there need to be a lot of BBQ´s where we can fill up our tuba´s with water to finally see who has the biggest.

WARNING! HIGHLY OPINIONATED OPINION FOLLOWING:

This sizing thing is just a bowl of baloney. This was a phony construct invented buy a long gone tuba retailer in the 1970s. This was an attempt to define the undefinable, and as a marketing ploy at the start of the "mine's bigger" movement. The first "designation" was devised to delineate on what was a 'full sized' tuba, along the lines of stringed instrument designation. To clarify the difference, say, between a Mirafone 186 and a student model like the small King or Olds. The current designations arose through comparison to the 4/4s. Rudolph Meinl makes what is called a 3/4. This is ABOUT the size of normal 4/4 tubas, but is quite a bit larger than say a Yamaha 103. Alexander 163 is larger than the Mirafone 186, but are both considered 4/4s. Mirafone's 185 is smaller than the Rudy 3/4, but is considered a 3/4. Mirafone's 184 is considered a 1/2 size, but is bigger than most student 3/4s. Let's look at the other end. Rudy Meinl's 5/4 CC, Willson 3050RZ, and MW Tuono are all large .835 bore tubas, but are considered 5/4 and are VERY large tubas, larger than the 6/4 .750 bore CC BATs. What would be the designation for the Mirafone 190, the large Rudy BBb, and the Wexxes Kaiser, 7/4? Or would they be 5/4s, as the last branch is quite a bit smaller than the 6/4 BATs?

I suggest this designation: small, medium, large, BAT.

Respectfully submitted,

pjv wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:50 am Liters/Gallons: that would be the best way to determine a tubas size if you ask me.

I don't disagree. However who does that? What we can do is measure the tapers which is a good indication of how much water could fit inside a space.

I'm with Tony on this. The 70's retailer who started it was Fred Marrick(sp.?) who owned Custom Music and it was for the purpose of selling Rudy Meinl tubas. Tony, your designations of small, medium, large, BAT is far more realistic. Thanks for weighing in. Ed