TubaForum.net

I'm thinking you tried a flawed Hagen. I spent some time with Richard Murrow yesterday, and he called the 494 the best tuba he's ever played in his life. That's high praise from someone that has been around playing and teaching for over 50 years.

I'm going to get to play two of them in the next month, I'll post up what my impression is.

so-called "free-buzzing" = practicing something that has (in my estimation) little to do with causing an air column to vibrate...no resistance...also (I tend to suspect) "free-buzzing" involves jamming the lips together (to create resistance in ANOTHER way) and forcing them to hit against each other whereas playing (at least, when I play) - I strongly suspect - does not. When I manage (difficult!) to buzz into a mouthpiece in the same manner as with "free-buzzing", it's not a marketable sound.
Those who can do that thing well are doing something that not everyone can do well, but I'm not convinced that they are doing something that contributes to their playing.
science: There's no 'science' that can demonstrate that it's beneficial (regarding playing an instrument), because all the same people - who religiously engage in "free-buzzing" - practice - a tremendous amount - vibrating their lips WITH their instruments (and resistance) in place.
People who vibrate their lips into a mouthpiece (particularly with a significant chunk of "mouthpipe tube" attached) might (??) actually be doing something beneficial and more related to playing.

"I lift weights every day, so that I can hold up my paint brush for hours and paint their beautiful pictures." = non sequitur

LeMark wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:53 pm I'm thinking you tried a flawed Hagen. I spent some time with Richard Murrow yesterday, and he called the 494 the best tuba he's ever played in his life. That's high praise from someone that has been around playing and teaching for over 50 years.

I'm going to get to play two of them in the next month, I'll post up what my impression is.

It cost me $600 shipping to try that flawed Hagen, and that does not make me happy. Maybe that is why they still have it, hmmm?

I do remember trying the Wessex version of the Mira 282 and sent it back but do not remember that its fourth valve felt like that. I think I did send it back because of my own air supply problems, but I am a way better player how than I was then and have no idea how I would respond at this point in time to that particular instrument.

.

I don't know why, but I seem to prefer the Ridgid brand versions of Ridgid tools, rather than the Harbor Freight versions of Ridgid tools...(??)

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:48 pm I don't know why, but I seem to prefer the Ridgid brand versions of Ridgid tools, rather than the Harbor Freight versions of Ridgid tools...(??)

Do you find the 9 gallon Ridgid shop vac to be stuffier than the 9 gallon Harbor Freight shop vac?

peterbas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:26 pm I'm with Mark on this, there had to be something really wrong if you simply can blow easy through the instrument.

What question that brings up for me is, since they are tuba players at that store, why they didn't fix that problem before they tried to sell it, or --- did they try and couldn't, or, is it really a problem? I'm pretty sure they are monitoring this discussion. Obviously I do not put the name of the store here. And the question still remains as to whether I have a problem or it had a problem. Not until I play another one, will I have the answer to that.

.

arpthark wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:52 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:48 pm I don't know why, but I seem to prefer the Ridgid brand versions of Ridgid tools, rather than the Harbor Freight versions of Ridgid tools...(??)

Do you find the 9 gallon Ridgid shop vac to be stuffier than the 9 gallon Harbor Freight shop vac?

I don't know if they make one, but I would imagine that it would stuff more stuff in there and in a more stuffing manner, so as I would probably tempted to recite the old midwestern US expression, "That's the stuff!"

Playing while sick with a plugged nose, stuffy....

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk

Welp, I gonna find out SUMTHIN tomorrow. Other NStar owner is bringing his VMI 301 tomorrow evening for TE4tet. Ifn I kin play THAT, I will assume that the Hagen had a problem. Ifn I have de same problem -- then I gots da problem. Will report in on Thursday.

Isn't that a big 19.5mm bore 4/4 - 5/4 size tuba?

I'm not arguing, but I'm not understanding how one of them playing as you like for a tuba to play diagnoses the other.

So then we are back to stuffy, no? How does bore size affect playability? And why have I zero problem playing horn, all the way easily down into the tuba range? Surely all horns are stuffy by definition?

The best stuffy: https://www.seriouseats.com/rhode-islan ... ms-7852619

I lived in RI for 15 months between engineering schools. Learned how to pronounce Quahog, but was never fond of clams. I did like picking mussels and eating within a few hours. Yum.

When we blow a raspberry into a mouthpiece, we are creating a series of pressure pulses at a specific frequency. When that pulse hits the outside air, it reflects a pulse back to our lips. If that return pulse reinforces the next pulse such that the pulses at that rate become self-sustaining, we have resonance.

From the Oxford online dictionary, resonance has two definitions:
1. the quality in a sound of being deep, full, and reverberating. "the resonance of his voice"
2. (PHYSICS) the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object.

Most tuba players will gravitate to the first definition, which to me defines tone, but I'm using the second definition. I hate using a common word to mean something uncommonly technical, but in this case I can't think of a better word.

Alternatively, tone is the combination of frequencies that are amplified or damped by the system, and the system includes the embouchure buzz, the mouthpiece, the instrument, and the room. We love tubas that make the tone we want uniformly throughout the range of the instrument and under different playing conditions. But a bad-sounding tuba can be resonant (in the second sense) and can strongly reinforce the buzz, just as a great-sounding instrument can demand that we provide the buzz without that reinforcement.

Resistance in a resonant system can be simple resistance which we feel just blowing air into the mouthpiece, or it can be impedance, where it resists our signal at specific frequencies (or ranges of frequencies). Every part of the system creates impedances. Impedance serves a purpose--it gives the signal something to work against, which helps preserve the pressure needed to help sustain the buzz. In electrical circuits (which are theoretically somewhat similar), a signal at a frequency going into zero impedance looks like a dead short--it takes more and more current to sustain the amplitude of the waveform until something burns up. Similarly, free-buzzing is impossible without impedance--we simply can't provide enough air power to sustain the waveform. So, as Joe suggests, for free-buzzing to work at all we have to physically provide the impedance by clamping our chops together in ways we might not want to do when playing the instrument. Particularly open-blowing tubas provide relatively little impedance, and that either requires that we make up for that with embouchure or mouthpiece impedance, or that we have extraordinary air power (I said "power" not "pressure"--it's about flow not force--current not voltage).

For giving the embouchure something to work against, both simple resistance and frequency-specific impedance work. I can buzz a mouthpiece more easily if I block the opening partially with my little finger, or use a BERP, or, as Joe suggests, an unattached leadpipe. That is mostly simple resistance, but there is also a bit of frequency-specific impedance in there, too.

Some people use the word "stuffy" to describe instruments with a lot of simple resistance that they don't need, and that prevents them from making as much racket as they want to make. Others use the word "stuffy" to describe instruments that do not strongly reinforce the buzz, which makes them less responsive and harder to play at the air/embouchure power they are willing or able to supply. But these will be very different instruments.

And some use the word "stuffy" to describe instruments with tone lacking in the qualities of Definition 1 above. (I find that after over 50 years of playing the tuba, I think I finally sort-of get what Joe has repeatedly said--it's possible on nearly any reasonably competent tuba to find a way to make a pleasing or usable tone, but it may not happen automatically on the first attempt.)

So, there are three definitions of "stuffy" for you, each describing a different effect and each having a different cause.

Applied to specific instruments I have played:

1. Joe's FatBastard: I have a total of about two minutes playing this instrument, half of which was on the occasion when Joe purchased it, and the other half of which was at the Army conference when they were still being made. In that former occasion, I put it down, because I had already bought my Hirsbrunner and the last thing I wanted to do was undermine my loyalty to an instrument I'd payed real money for. In those two minutes, my impression was: Highly resonant in that it strongly reinforced my buzz. This made it easy to play, with clean articulations and an output that seemed to me to exceed the input. The tone was powerful and energetic. For me, the combination of easy to play and good tone is a winner. This tuba doesn't have much simple resistance, but it has a good measure of impedance that gives the buzz something to work against. But it's also good at amplifying the good stuff and damping the bad stuff.

2. Hirsbrunner HB193: My Bb rotary kaiser. Likewise, this tuba has strong buzz reinforcement and is easy to play, which distinguishes it from some other Hirsbrunners I have played over the years. So, the impedance it presents creates rather than undermines resonance. Tone is commanding--more German kaiser than FatBastard. The bore of this tuba isn't as large as some kaisers, but it's still large (.807). It may be slightly less efficient than FatBastard, but I have not compared them side by side. I've never found the ceiling of this instrument, though my own air power certainly does have a ceiling when I play it as loudly as I can. I do know that I played a low Bb on it in the Elephant Room at the Army Workshop and had an immediate (positive, obviously) visceral reaction as much from the sound bouncing down from the ceiling as anything.

3. Holton BB-345: Again, this is resonant in the sense of reinforcing the buzz. But it feels a bit more open than the Hirsbrunner despite being a smaller bore. The tone is quite different, however, being less commanding and more present and encompassing. But it still has "zip" in the sound, which to me means it provides a lot of spectral color for the signal put into it. This Holton is quite different than, say, a 2165, in that it provides a lot more resistance (impedance), and therefore sounds a lot less hollow and more colorful with someone of my limited air power playing it.

4. Miraphone 184: This tuba provides quite a bit of resistance, which is the reason I wanted it. I needed an instrument that I could play loudly without it coming out...loud. For quintet, playing softly all the time to balance the ensemble was exacerbating my tremor problems. It's easy to play, but takes more work to create a pretty sound. I put this in the same category as the B&S Symphonie: Learn it once and it stays with you forever. This is a tuba that many would find stuffy, because it is resonant more by the second definition than the first and it takes a little getting effort and time to achieve resonance by the first definition. And, similarly to most F tubas, it has a ceiling above which it will not go, though someone with a stronger embouchure could probably get more out of it than I can.

5. Eastman EBB-534: Like the King 2341 on which it improves, this instrument is highly resonant in both senses of the word. It's a little too "deep and full" for quintet, and too efficiently loud, which is why I wanted the 184. But it would probably seem stuffy to a person who brings huge air power to it, or who tries to get a power sound out of it.

6. B&S 101: Old and battered, but still representative of the breed. Lots of good impedance and a fat, high-energy sound output. This is an Alexander design, but just enough smaller (especially in the leadpipe) to prevent what I perceive as the usual preferred coupling of Alexanders with high-air-power players. So, it gives some of the Alexander output but probably has a lower ceiling than a 163. I use the term "fat" to describe the tone, which is different in my mind from "round and full". It's punchier than the Eastman because of that.

7. Ancient Besson three-valve Bb with "enharmonic" compensation, which means similar to Blaikley but just enough different that Besson wasn't stepping on Boosey's patent. Of course, that was only relevant in the 1920's and before, so this one was old. Stuffy, stuffy, stuffy. Lots of simple resistance, but also a general lack of impedance-derived resonance that means it was hard to reinforce the buzz. It responded to strong chops that could provide their own impedance (as with free-buzzing).

Rick "too much too late" Denney

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:12 pm I lived in RI for 15 months between engineering schools. Learned how to pronounce Quahog, but was never fond of clams. I did like picking mussels and eating within a few hours. Yum.

For me, Rhode Island is more about Italian food than it is about clams, at least in Providence.

Rick "some of the best he's ever had" Denney

It's really quite a challenge to define this term - that we freely use - without resorting to "I like mine / I don't like mine" type of rhetoric, isn't it?

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:00 pm It's really quite a challenge to define this term - that we freely use - without resorting to "I like mine / I don't like mine" type of rhetoric, isn't it?

Which is why I wrote what I wrote. At least we can attribute our subjective impressions to specific effects, instead of turning the word into an idiot light.

Rick "not much is measured in the tuba world, at least not publicly" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:09 pm
Which is why I wrote what I wrote. At least we can attribute our subjective impressions to specific effects, instead of turning the word into an idiot light.

Rick "not much is measured in the tuba world, at least not publicly" Denney

To turn a corner on terminology, I have a really funny story about "idiot light." In my job, I worked with the guys on the Transmission Desk, the ones who ran the power system. It was a good match. One day, my friend Tom (who worked on the Transmission Desk) called me up and said, "What do *you* call the light that comes on when something is wrong with the engine in the car?" And I said, "That's the Idiot Light." He said that he had referred to it as that in a conversation with his wife and she went off on a rant that he was calling her an idiot. And so forth. He was pretty frustrated and I offered to to talk to his wife. And frankly I have laughed about it ever since. Maybe stuffy WILL end up that way.