TubaForum.net

There is a company that sells custom made weighted “heavy” bottom valve caps to fit certain King models, including my 2341. The stated purpose is to “add mass” to the valve section. What is the advantage of this, if any?

DonO. wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:54 am There is a company that sells custom made weighted “heavy” bottom valve caps to fit certain King models, including my 2341. The stated purpose is to “add mass” to the valve section. What is the advantage of this, if any?

Shades of "Monsterweights". An idea whose time has gone? They did no harm, but the change they made was too subtle to allow confirmation by anything less than a properly controlled double-blind study, which never happened. Both the player and the listener would have to be ignorant of whether the weights were in place over a series of randomized trials--not an easy study to conduct.

I had them on a Miraphone--my detection skills, such as they are, were not up to the challenge.

Adding mass changes the resonant frequency of a structure, as does adding stiffness (either by material choice or structural design). The problem with that is that it's the air that vibrates and makes sound, and whatever influence the vibrating brass exerts on the air will be both subtle and uneven (meaning: the effect is narrowbanded, affecting the vibrating air column only on the few frequencies that line up with the resonance of the brass). It will change the feel of the instrument, to be sure. We feel the vibration of the brass through our hands and bodies, and that influences our perceptions of the liveliness of the instrument. But I doubt it influences the resulting sound enough to be detectable out front, even if it's detectable up close, which is what would need that controlled blind test.

I prefer more liveliness, by the way, not less, so I find I'm liking lighter instruments relative to their size better these days.

Rick "spending his money elsewhere" Denney

I was the one who made monsterweights (every one by hand)

I experimented putting something like them on a king tuba, and they didn't do much good. Some horns they helped, some they didn't. They helped my piggy incredibly, I like them on my big 601, but for whatever reason they make my cerveny 68 play tight. All rotary instruments from the same company and about the same vintage. Go figure.

I know trumpet players use heavy caps to help with "slotting" or making the partials, particularly in the upper register more stiff / defined. I'm not sure the additional perceived resistance would do much for the King, but I could be wrong.

The most common use I see with trumpet players is to buy a set of three, install the third one only, and then (as it extends downward) use it to help hold on to the trumpet with their last left-hand finger(s).

As a lazy-bwutt, EVEN IF I perceived that the sound was a bit improved on a EUPHONIUM, I wouldn't use them, because - as I'm already holding that large instrument sorta up in the air - four of them would define the instrument as being all the heavier.

With trumpets and heavy bits, I’ve taken to the notion that a decent bit of the perception is primarily psychological.

When Steve Jobs and team were designing the early iPods and iPhones, they were heavier than competitors on purpose. People still perceive heavy implies expensive implies better. With more ‘gravitas’, a heavier horn must play better.

There may be some acoustic effects, but I’ll agree with Rick that those are orders of magnitude smaller than perceived effects in most cases.

...YET, it's CONSIDERABLY easier to fabricate brass instruments of THICKER sheet brass (and/or brass tubes).

They might do something sometimes - as Mark has discovered, but - for the most part - I believe the heavy-wall/heavy-caps/heavy mouthpiece craze accompanied the huge-bore/huge-mouthpiece craze (across the board, not just tuba-like instruments).

OK... ...guilty as charged.
Deutsch kaiser b-tubas feature huge bores, but - then - look how long the mouthpipe tubes are (even longer than 186-style mouthpipes)...so the valveset is considerably farther down the road from the mouthpiece receiver (farther into the the expansion of the "bugle").

.

Allright.... Before everyone is content on saying :"sure the player feels a difference, but the audience can't hear any difference" let me throw this out there.

back 23 years ago when I was making monsterweights I would hear this kind of talk so I decided to put it to the test. The most unbias test I could think of at the time. I purchased audio spectrum analyzer software for my laptop, and documented the harmonic structure of my playing with and without the heavy valve caps.

Without, Higher harmonics, more treble
With, Fewer Harmonics, more core or fundamental

I wish I still had the results, but they were lost in a dead laptop hard drive a couple of decades ago. If I had any interest in making more or needed a presentation for ITEC (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) I would duplicate the test.

On my piggy, 4 caps did wonders. On my 601, I use three, and it makes a difference which valves I put them on.

on my 68, I dont think they improve anything, which really surpised me. Just as well because I only have one set, so they stay on the 601. when I sold the piggy, that set went with it.

I think this topic would be best answered by Dr. Fredrick young. He spent a great deal of time studying tuba acoustics. Don O, you may have crossed paths with Dr Young. He lived in Bradford. Don't know if he's passed on. It's been 22 years since I saw him last. Perhaps his research has been published somewhere.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk

Dr. Young is way smarter than me, but in my opinion, his theories/practices on acoustics toe the line between speculative and applicable. I believe he is still alive.

Grumpikins wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 2:47 pm I think this topic would be best answered by Dr. Fredrick young. He spent a great deal of time studying tuba acoustics. Don O, you may have crossed paths with Dr Young. He lived in Bradford. Don't know if he's passed on. It's been 22 years since I saw him last. Perhaps his research has been published somewhere.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk

Fred and I have corresponded on occasion, too, though I don't know his current status. Once upon a time he was involved on the old mail list and on the old forum.

I can't recall anything in his research that looked at mass rather than shape. His research looked a LOT at shape.

Mark, spectral analysis would still need blind controls to prevent the player from biasing the result even if unconsciously. And I'm curious also as to whether the higher frequencies are actually detectable out front, or even whether they are bad or good. My own testing tells me that "core" in the sound comes from a stack of harmonics that are favorably tuned. The fundamental all by itself is quite weak-sounding. I'm not doubting your results, of course. On my Miraphone, they had about the same (lack of) effect as on you mid-size Cerveny.

Rick "powerful low frequencies need lots of overtones to make them sound powerful" Denney

It might not be a coincidence that the miraphone is very similar to the cerveny in design. Of course there's a very good reason for that

I write out all of that to counteract the argument that there isn't a change for anyone but the user. There is, and it can be detected electronically. Now if's a positive change could be debated fairly, but there is certainly a change for the listener

Thanks to all who responded! In this particular case, the seller is a retail store/repair facility well known in this community. They sell them only to fit King tubas- no other instruments or brands. They are advertised to fit 1240/1241/2341 King models. I have a “new style” 2341, don’t know if the specs are the same as the old ones. I guess they could tell me whether they would fit or not. They are only 17.50 each, so buying 4 for $70 seems like a pretty low cost gamble. They only say they are “designed to add mass to the valve area”. They make no claims about improvements in tone or anything else. I just thought when I saw them “That seems like an inexpensive way to pimp my ride”.

DonO. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:25 pm Thanks to all who responded! In this particular case, the seller is a retail store/repair facility well known in this community. They sell them only to fit King tubas- no other instruments or brands. They are advertised to fit 1240/1241/2341 King models. I have a “new style” 2341, don’t know if the specs are the same as the old ones. I guess they could tell me whether they would fit or not. They are only 17.50 each, so buying 4 for $70 seems like a pretty low cost gamble. They only say they are “designed to add mass to the valve area”. They make no claims about improvements in tone or anything else. I just thought when I saw them “That seems like an inexpensive way to pimp my ride”.

There are people that make custom valve caps with sweet inlays. Probably costs a little more than these heavy caps, but they look cooler and may actually make the horn feel different in a tactile way.

@Rick Denney
Does the added mass change the actual resonant frequency of an instrument, or does it just change the Q of an already resonant body/circuit?

Increased Q might explain why some players feel better "slotting" with the extra weight.

I understand Q as the result of damping of the range of a resonator--which seems to be what the weights do.
Both transmitting antennas and tubas are resonating devices (better explanation: they are like waveguides)--loading (with a weight on the tuba or a coil on my antenna) might sharply decrease responsiveness as we move off the resonant frequency and sharply increase responsiveness as we move nearer to the resonant (center) frequency of the antenna or note. Thus the perception or reality of "better slotting" on tubas.

I've often felt that there are close parallels between tubas and ham radio antennas, though I have never tried to load up my euphonium. Using a physically shortened antenna with a loading coil increases the Q of the system with a result that the antenna does well at its center frequency but quickly loses efficiency as I move above or below that frequency. Putting a weight on a valve could act as a loading and that creates efficient playing AT a resonant frequency. If a player cannot control the frequency or mis-buzzes it off resonance, responsiveness/tone quality of the note will decrease markedly.

73 de Jim (10,000-mile chat a few weeks ago with a shortened and coil-loaded fan dipole with a 3:1 VSWR range of about 20 kHz) N9EJR

Jim Williams wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:27 pm I understand Q as the result of damping of the range of a resonator--which seems to be what the weights do.
Both transmitting antennas and tubas are resonating devices

I don't know anything about the transmitting antenna, but for the tuba, I think it's important to consider what part of the tuba resonates. It's the air, right? Not the brass. Bang on the brass, and you get high pitched clanking noises. It isn't like a string instrument, where the soundboard resonates to the string and creates the sound waves.

donn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:28 pm

Jim Williams wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:27 pm I understand Q as the result of damping of the range of a resonator--which seems to be what the weights do.
Both transmitting antennas and tubas are resonating devices

I don't know anything about the transmitting antenna, but for the tuba, I think it's important to consider what part of the tuba resonates. It's the air, right? Not the brass. Bang on the brass, and you get high pitched clanking noises. It isn't like a string instrument, where the soundboard resonates to the string and creates the sound waves.

Each valve combination has resonant frequencies. That's why we can't play G open on a B flat tuba.
The air we put into the tuba is analogous to the wattage my transmitter puts into the antenna--energy.
The length of the antenna or the tuba has frequencies at which they are resonant.
If I put a 20-meter signal (energy) into an antenna designed for 10 meters, I'll have a mismatch and poor performance.
If I put air (energy) appropriate for a G into my euphonium but finger an F, I'll have a mismatch and poor performance.

He's got A and B and he's workin' on G...
Big C&W and R&B and me and the chimpanzee agree that
One day soon he'll be a celebrity.
Git-it, GIT-IT, GIT-IT !!! OWWW!!!!

bloke "You left me somewhere way back there...??"