"stuffy"

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

The topic isn't intonation. It's resistance.
I agreed with someone else and a couple of specific models don't offer enough of it (for me personally) to be able to become accustomed to those models, and I believe the issue with both (limiting their critiques to resistance issues) is large capillary portions of mouthpipes.
Not everyone can seam up or bend a mouthpie, but those are still pretty easy things to change on an instrument. The 2265 is basically a 2165 with a mouthpipe tube which is more like those found on other tubas. The 5450 goes another step further and shrinks down the bell throat and a couple of feet of tubing past the valves. In other words, the most popular version of those three models - which all share a whole bunch of parts - is the one with a bunch of smaller parts.

I just finished pointing out the follwing in another thread: The most political stuff here is not the Republican/Democrat or even the libertarian/totalitarian disagreements (as in reality the Republican/Democrat stuff only argues about how much totalitarian - slightly more vs. slightly less - is acceptable, rather than whether totalitarianism is acceptable at all). Rather, the most political stuff discussed here is when specific makes and models of instruments are mentioned - along with their shortcomings, because people can perceive those criticisms as directly affecting the value of personal property that they've bought and own.
... but if we can't delve into really specific things such as this (which are probably some of the most interesting things that we actually discuss), doesn't that - then - mostly limit us to topics such as "C vs. B-flat" and "lacquer vs. silver"?

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

I was speaking toward (long-longterm) oversensitivity when we get really specific about mentioning models and anything we don't like about them. If you think I went off on a tangent, I actually was trying to compare how upset we get tend to get about the above vs. topics which are actually banned here.

your topic, F tubas and resistance:
My F tuba is the original version of many which have followed - all of which feature various parts which are larger than some parts on my own instrument. I would never trade for any of them, nor for any parts of any of them. Mine is not old enough to have been additionally manufactured with a small shank receiver formed into the mouthpipe tube, but it's early enough whereas its standard shank receiving shape wasn't quite standard (not quite Jarno), and I had to standardize it. The mouthpipe choke point measures a scant 1/2 in, and maybe even slightly smaller than that.

2265:
You are absolutely correct. I forgot that they also swapped out for a narrower throat bell with that second version... so the main things additionally shrunk with the third version were the tuning slide bow and the dogleg, as the dogleg started smaller on the third version, but ended up as large as the other two previous models where it connects to the next larger bow. Of course, there are a bunch of little differences in the third version, but those are probably the primary ones that affect so-called stuffiness or resistance, depending on whether we are looking towards a negative or a positive connotation of the same characteristic.

I do feel fairly confident that a smaller capillary portion of an instrument (to a point) can aid in legato/cantabile playing...slurring. I'm not speaking of other mouthpieces fabricated at the same place, but it's going to be difficult to find any of my mouthpiece throats that are much larger than 8.2 mm in diameter. Even the "Symphony" throat - which is a reverse taper - tapers back down to about 8.2mm down within the back bore. I also believe that resistance in the capillary portion of a tuba (the mouthpipe) offers assistance in solidity of the low range. A really strong player can overcome or work around a lack of assistance in this portion of a tuba, but I believe they would not have to work as hard with a balanced amount of it.

[arpthark]

I'll stir the pot a bit more by saying that I have never played a tuba that I would consider "stuffy" that didn't have a serious misalignment or major dent issue. I wouldn't even call an old 3/4 BBb Couesnon "stuffy." Maybe "oinky" or "grunty," but not stuffy.

Okay, I take that back. I guess I would consider the old-style Meinl-Weston 45/46, with the smaller bore and spaghetti-like valve wrap, to be sort of stuffy, but only in the sense that there is a lot of backpressure when playing. I was able to use that resistance to my advantage, though, having owned one of these models and used it on a solo recital a few years ago.

===

What brought this topic to mind was thinking about when someone was here playing one of my old tubas. I was really pleased with this tuba, a big Kaiser-style BBb. I would consider this tuba to have a big sound and to be an air hog. That's why I was so surprised that this person described my tuba as playing "stuffy." It made me realize that I have heard this term used, but that there was a plethora of definitions as to what it could mean. And I don't doubt this person or their perception of my tuba as being "stuffy" at all, because everyone has their personal preferences, approaches and tastes. And it highlighted that, as with anything when we are trying to describe sound with words, it can vary wildly from person to person. (i.e., I could open up a whole other can of worms by talking about a "dark" or "colorful" sound.)

Is the "compensating" range on a compensating instrument stuffy? To me, not really until you begin to approach the fundamental, and with that much cylindrical tubing involved, I don't detect much of a difference in "stuffiness" between 134 on a compensating Eb tuba playing low F versus 2345 on a five-valve CC tuba playing near-pedal D.

I think discussions like this where we talk about our experiences and differences in perception are interesting, but, as bloke says, verges on being TFP (TubaForum "Politics").

[arpthark]

When I first acquired my huge 601 BBb a couple months ago, I thought it played stuffy and I spent a lot of time working with the valves to make sure they were as in alignment as possible


I think it helped, but more so that that, I've been playing it bunch, and now I don't think it's a stuffy at all. It's not the most nimble tuba in the world, but it has a very sweet but rich tone. It just took me a while to get used to doing what it takes to make that happen

[Casca Grossa]

MW 37 Bill Bell model...I have played several examples of this horn, including two owned by Sam Pilafian. I wanted to like that model so much because Sam was my hero growing up. That horn made me realize two things. I have never disliked playing a specific horn so much, and it made me appreciate Sam's playing even more because of what he could sound like on that horn. It wasn't just the alternate fingerings and slide-pulling gymnastics I had to go through with the model 37 (which was every example of that horn I played). It was the fact every note starting with D below the staff and lower felt like there was a rolled up sock stuck somewhere in the horn.

[iiipopes]

Keeping in mind that the vibrations which our ears perceive as "pitch" are as a result of compression/rarefaction, otherwise known as anti-nodes and nodes. Stuffiness usually manifests on one or a few notes, not the horn generally, and are usually a result of something interfering with an anti-node: obstruction, tubing bend, brace in the wrong place, valve port, etc., with one or more interfering with or otherwise damping the antinode at that point.

For example, there is an entire aftermarket boutique devoted to the study and modification of Bach trumpets, sometimes only moving a brace 1/4 inch or so, to obtain more clarity and evenness of tone throughout the range. Schilke devoted most of his R&D to this, changing braces, "step-bore" of the tubing, all with the aim of improving evenness of scale, clarity, and evenness.

[iiipopes]

Keeping in mind that the vibrations which our ears perceive as "pitch" are as a result of compression/rarefaction, otherwise known as anti-nodes and nodes. Stuffiness usually manifests on one or a few notes, not the horn generally, and are usually a result of something interfering with an anti-node: obstruction, tubing bend, brace in the wrong place, valve port, etc., with one or more interfering with or otherwise damping the antinode at that point.

For example, there is an entire aftermarket boutique devoted to the study and modification of Bach trumpets, sometimes only moving a brace 1/4 inch or so, to obtain more clarity and evenness of tone throughout the range. Schilke devoted most of his R&D to this, changing braces, "step-bore" of the tubing, all with the aim of improving evenness of scale, clarity, and evenness.

Solutions? Difficult. Usually hit-or-miss. How many people want to take their tuba apart, or even one brace or bend, to experiment with finding the impeded antinode? Not many. I was one of the lucky ones. On my Bessophone, before I changed the bell, the collar for the detachable bell was right where 1st ledger line Eb wanted to intone, and that note was always screwy until I changed to the Besson bell. Likewise, it had the usual flat 5th harmonics until it became apparent that the replacement bell as trimmed to fit the ferrule was too short, and the main tuning slide had to be lengthened. This modified the response of the tuba as the difference between conical and cylindrical tubing does: more cylindrical, more space between overtones because of the way the geometry affects the anti-nodes. This brought the 5th partials almost into tune, with much less lipping, pushing slides, or alternate fingerings. Yes, I got lucky.

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

Curiously, a large group of trumpet players (let's call it a "plurality") I encounter view Schilke (B-flat/C) trumpet designs to generally offer not enough resistance.

...yet - in the past - tons of "jazz" trumpet players LOVED Schilke trumpets...because they were "free-blowing".



(I never thought of Renold Schilke - himself - as a "jazzer".)

someone who buys some of my mouthpiece components:
"I'm loving using blah, blah-blah, and blah-ette with blubb-blubb tuba playing blubbita-blubbita music."
bloke:
("wow...None of that that would have EVER occurred to me.")

=========================

Play some really "open" tuba for a year, and pick up one with way more "resistance"...

The "resistant" one is "stuffy"...

Play some really "resistant" tuba for a year, and pick up one that feels very "open"...

The "open" one is an "air hog".

[BRS]

.

[Mary Ann]

\ It was the fact every note starting with D below the staff and lower felt like there was a rolled up sock stuck somewhere in the horn.

I'm going to take another whack at that Hagen -- with the 4th valve engaged, even blowing directly into the lead pipe (not through the mouthpiece) it felt exactly like that, like I literally had to blow something out of the way, like a sock or whatever. Who knows, maybe somehow there WAS something in the way. That Nirschl, which is muchly more huge, did not in the slightest feel that way. Just blowing with the 4th valve engaged felt more "Resistive" than any low C I've played on a rotary F. just didn't want to play. It's unfortunate that the person I would have liked to try that while it was here, was sick the Wednesday he would have been here for quartet. Oh well. I'll get over it, but still.

[bloke]

Miraphone 98 mouthpipe tube characteristics:

- It's quite long.
- The capillary end doesn't look to be much larger than that of a model 86 (ie. 186).
- It's "conservative" in its "eagerness" to expand to the ultimate 21.2mm bore of the rotors.
- Were it larger, I could imagine that it would be more difficult to play, and that those few pitches which don't naturally sit precisely in tune - and which I'm not able to dial in the length of the instrument perfectly, via mechanical means - would be more difficult (currently: very easy) to favor in tune.

This is a huge tuba, yet there is resistance ("stuffiness"...??) designed in to the beginning of it which defines it as completely accessible to a decrepit old man - such as myself.

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

I’d be interested to know the ID measurement of the mouthpipe right at the receiver (American receiver?, bigger?), if you’re ever so inclined.

- standard shank receiver
- mouthpipe measures c. .605" past the receiver's over-tube, so perhaps +/- .6" at the choke (smallest point, at which the receiver flair begins, which would hint at little more than a .550" interior at the choke.

[peterbas]

.

[peterbas]

.

[peterbas]

.

[Mary Ann]

Do you mean blowing in as of say one inch or on the leadpipe?
Can recall blowing on the leadpipe there was much change in resistance when different valves engaged.

I don't know what you mean by "one inch;" -- but yes, blowing directly into the leadpipe. I did notice the same general pattern on the NStar, because I did compare them, but for me the NStar is doable and the Hagen is not. I don't know what to "call" it -- stuffy or an air hog. I did not have the air; by the time I managed to overcome the resistance my air was gone. I'm sure larger lungs would likely not even notice. Both of the 184 CCs I have owned did not impress me as having this perceived problem, nor did the Nirschl.