TubaForum.net

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.

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).

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

tclements wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:54 am This sizing thing is just a bowl of baloney.

tclements wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:54 am I suggest this designation: small, medium, large, BAT.

How do I determine if my tuba is "BAT"? Hm, does that mean Big American Tuba? If I remember right this term is actually attributed to you, and A didn't stand for American, but it does seem to evoke the proportions of the classic oversized American tuba. And if it's to be official terminology, it would be nice if A referred to some real attribute of a tuba. I think my tuba would not earn the coveted BAT designation, and it's Italian, so that adds up.

Anyway, what you say makes sense, but the sizing thing is a bowl of baloney because occasionally people take it too seriously as a well defined category system, as you'd hope they wouldn't with small/medium/large. It probably isn't going away, and it's equally useful if not taken so seriously - maybe even more useful, since it allows intermediate values like 7/8.

edfirth wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:12 am 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

For the internet I suppose, or even modern terminology as well too since "it's my tuba and it can identify as anything it wants to". There has to be an agreed upon scientific system of measurement. Imagine if your system of determining tuba size was how the Police determined speed on the highways? "Sir you were going REALLY fast, not just a LITTLE fast. Not Quite SUPER fast, just REALLY fast. I have no idea what the actual number was, just REALLY fast. The posted speed in this zone says you are only allowed to go KINDA fast, and REALLY fast is breaking the law, sign here".

KingTuba1241X wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:23 am There has to be an agreed upon scientific system of measurement. Imagine if your system of determining tuba size was how the Police determined speed on the highways?

There hasn't been and isn't going to be any such scientific system of measurement in our lifetimes, so we're just going to have to hold off on issuing citations.

My 184 has decided to identify as a 6/4. #transtuba

donn wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:52 am

KingTuba1241X wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:23 am There has to be an agreed upon scientific system of measurement. Imagine if your system of determining tuba size was how the Police determined speed on the highways?

There hasn't been and isn't going to be any such scientific system of measurement in our lifetimes, so we're just going to have to hold off on issuing citations.

There actually has, you just refuse to ignore it.

Yes, it certainly could… But in my post above, I offered a size designation that has never been used before: 5/8
I view the King 1140 - as well as all of its past and current knock-offs - as being 5/8 size:

They won’t fit in a case for a 3/4 size 14+” bell / 32+” tall 3/4 tuba case, but would flop around in a case for a 7/8 size Olds 99/Reynolds TB-10/1980’s Bach-alike/Conn 2,3,4,5,10J case.

Do you agree, then, that the 5/8 designation is of use? The Schafer/Dynasty - clearly - is a King 1140 knock-off, as is (though larger valveset bore) one of the Jupiter models.

lost wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:27 pm I agree. And the dynasty/deg stuff I would classify as 7/8.

I would suggest numbered size designation is no different than words like junior, standard, medium, giant, mammoth, symphony, monster, jumbo which have always been used to not only designate horns, but to sell them as well.

These terms are not universally understood nor consistent. For example a king monster tuba is largely considered a 4/4 tuba, while a York monster are what most people consider a 6/4 tuba.

The fractional size designation borrowed from stringed basses makes sense based on empirical dimensions we can actually measure. And indeed it is what tuba players use today by convention.

Considering the general public thinks a 3/4 tuba is big or large, I respectfully disagree with that system of designating tubas.

It feels like home!
Anybody else getting that sentimental feeling that things are "back to normal".
You know, like how we all used to yell at each other around the dinner table.
And by "dinner table" I mean TubeNet.

Can't wait for the piston v. rotary thread!

Violin, viola, cello, and bass size designations actually refer to specific body/neck lengths.

Such specificity can never be assigned to tubas.

I hate these discussions, but yet, there is a solution to this problem. Measure internal volume, like they do engine blocks. (as per pjv in a previous comment)

Then you would have people bragging about their 28 gallon tuba, and looking down on someone who likes their 26 gallon tuba more