TubaForum.net

Kirley wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:51 am I'm interested in the perfect balance of dent-resistance and weight-reduction. Those 2 factors matter to me.

Carbon Fiber?

TubātōTubŏtō wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:58 pm

Kirley wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:51 am I'm interested in the perfect balance of dent-resistance and weight-reduction. Those 2 factors matter to me.

Carbon Fiber?

I'd definitely be interested in trying a carbon fiber tuba. I've played a small bore cf trombone. It was fun and sounded fine. The group of musicians standing around all agreed that my old King 2B Silvertone sounded better. But I'm sure there was all kinds of bias at play. And whiskey.

My post was referring to brass. Just adding my $0.02 to the conversation. I'm not looking for a magic tonal quality as much as I'm looking for a durable horn that doesn't break the back. And by horn, I mean sousaphone (cuz thats what I do). So my preferences might be slightly out of line with the sitting down and counting rests set.

curious:
The King Silvertone trombones that I’ve seen feature solid silver bells and are actually smaller than size 2B King trombones. They are quite old and did not have a slide lock. Is that what yours is like?

No, it's almost identical to an HN White 2B Silversonic.
Similar size with a slide lock and sterling bell.
I believe it dates to '42 or '43.

We've made ships out of concrete, why not tubas?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Atlantus

I recall seeing the wreck as a little boy.....all the time before that, my father building up the excitement in my incredulous mind the concept of such a crazy thing.....

All the comments about what the player feels seems to indicate the player gets much (or at least part) of the perceived effect.

So.. Does thickness of the brass, hydro vs. hammered, etc/whatever have more effect (perceived or real) on the sound column or on response? Is it really about sound or ease of play? Or both? Neither? Or simply the player's perception?

bloke wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 2:38 pm Over the many decades, brasswind instrument players have argued that thicker/thinner instruments and heavier/lighter instruments project more/less.

We're neither percussionists nor stringed instrument players.
Rather, we are sympathetically-activated air-column vibrators...and it's not even about "moving air". Rather, (again) it is about vibration. Were it that (and it's not possible, obviously) we could vibrate our lips without moving air past them, the air column within the instrument would still (I believe) vibrate sympathetically with the lips.

Of course, thinner/lighter instruments are going to physically vibrate more in our hands/laps/against our chests (which will affect our own perceptions of what we're hearing being emitted from our instruments), but that physical vibration - by/of a wind instrument - has very little (imperceptibly little, I believe) to do with what is heard by others.

<snip>

Maybe slightly unrelated to this, but in a survey conducted by real scientists, violinists could not tell the difference between century-old Garnieris/ Stradivaris and new violins, and in fact preferred spanking new off-the-shelf instruments.

Link here: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... d-new-ones

Maybe a similar experiment involving thin/thick and light/heavy instruments would yield the same result?

Going from a very thin Cerveny to a tank-built JP, my experience is this: Thinner instruments DO dent more easily.

A trend - with all types of musical instruments, since the mid-1970s - has been to figure out ways to make them be able to be played louder…this: over all other characteristics.
Not only (with so many makers, and so many dollars chasing high-end violin consumption) must there have been developments in improved aesthetic sonic characteristics of violins, but surely many makers have figured out how to make them (simply) play louder.

perception/belief = reality

Before all of the entertainment venues/acts/ensembles were *systematically destroyed, one of the orchestras that hired me to play paid more than a token amount, and it’s music director is known more than locally.

One of the cellists used a carbon fiber cello. As we understand it, those instruments actually do vibrate in order to amplify the sound of strings vibrating.

No one has ever said anything to them about that instrument, and they were certainly never sent home - due to bringing and using it.
___________
*

two weeks, to flatten the curve

There's one of these ALCOA basses, painted brown, for sale somewhere online at $10K. From what I can make out, they sound better than you might think, but not exactly the same as any kind of wood bass.

I straddled one of those (no bridge nor strings mounted...painted to look like wood) and took it out on Green Lake (Interlochen) late one night, about 45 years ago...

Two years ago I purchased a 36K to replace my 14K, both from the 60’s. Why have more weight on your shoulder (which is on top of your lung) than necessary, right?
No 2 instruments could ever be alike, but fortunately Conn was pretty consistent in making quality instruments during the Elkhart years, so at least that wasn’t an issue here.
On recordings no one ever heard a difference other than that there was a little difference (go figure). The difference is in how they feel. The 36 feels more nimble but I tend to work harder in larger ensembles. I’m certain that’s more of a perception thing from behind the mpc. Also important.

Hands down, I have never enjoyed playing a tuba made from red brass. They “feel” like they absorb all my input, thus I work harder. Again: it’s perception from behind the mpc. I’ve recorded with a red brass Cerveny oval baritone and also with an Amati B&F yellow brass. I like the Amati better but for the life of me I have no idea which one I played during the professional (as opposed to iPhone) recordings.

There’s been some great research done with carbon fiber trombones. Like has already been mentioned, part of one’s perception of playing is transferred physically through our body (bones). And also we as brass players are not used to hearing how an instrument responds from behind the mpc when it isn’t made of brass. So companies like Butler trombones have busy research where to put the real brass, and how much, so as to compensate for what we are want to hear and feel.

That’s my experience to date.

With fiberglass sousaphones (as the sound bounces through the two elbows) I actually HEAR a subtle "baaaoou" sound (from bouncing in a particular way off the plastic surfaces, I believe, but not really from the composition of the material).

Of course, we're all familiar with brass sousaphone bell "after-ring".

Whatever causes it, there's an odd ingredient in the sound (similar to when one makes sounds into a PVC pipe) when a fiberglass body and bell elbow are encasing the end of sound column.

bloke wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:43 pm Whatever causes it, there's an odd ingredient in the sound (similar to when one makes sounds into a PVC pipe) when a fiberglass body and bell elbow are encasing the end of sound column.

It could be that the “periscope” design of those two elbows sets up another mode that can be excited.

Even though the sound pressure is moving longitudinally through the horn, those two elbows, specifically because they can “see” each other could set up their own standing wave.

A few measurements and spectral analysis could verify this.

peterbas wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:03 pm

Stryk wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:21 pm

peterbas wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 4:40 am
About light/heavy, it is obvious that we want the tuba as least as possible to vibrate because that is a power loss. So thicker brass wil help but also the rigidity off the instrument has to be considerd.

So, you are saying research says thicker brass in horns is better than thinner? You DON'T want the horn to vibrate? Can you please explain? Interesting, I always assumed the opposite of each was better.

I´m not saying which is better because that is more a human feeling.
Since the air colum is what makes the sound anything of the tuba vibrating steals energy of the air colum.
The addition of the tuba vibrations can make the tuba sound better or worse and have other effects.

Here you can see that trumpet bell vibrations changes the instruments impedance.
https://www.comsol.se/paper/download/83 ... _paper.pdf

Here a short abstract, to bad not a free paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_A_review

I'm wondering if this might (at least partially) explain why I've had bad experiences with red brass tubas. Maybe too much of my energy gets lost in the tuba itself.

Probably, most people haven’t spent much time messing around with 4 inch and 6 inch plastic pipe…but I have, since I own some rural land.

When talking or yelling at the person who’s helping you (with some or most of the sound from your voice going into the pipe), you hear a funny “plastic noise“ inside a plastic pipe. It doesn’t happen with other types of pipe.

bloke wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:02 pm Of course, we're all familiar with brass sousaphone bell "after-ring".

What's up with that?

I played a brass sousaphone in college marching band and confess I was not familiar with bell "after-ring". Maybe just not attentive enough, or maybe never practicing alone. But when I tried one recently I definitely heard it and was even wondering if I need to get something fixed?

after-ring...

Some do, and many don't.

Those that do (often, oddly, some of the thick/heavy ones) are really annoying (to me).