Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Smaller CC


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Hank on April 19, 2003 at 08:52:30:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Smaller CC posted by well..... on April 18, 2003 at 10:57:04:

I find it interesting that the research and development people at Getzen and Conn as well as tuba builders (rebuilders?) like Matt Walters and Bob Rusk have determined that for this particular size tuba, the .689 bore is the best choice. I can't say that I've ever played a B&M like the one Dale has, so I can't argue fully against his theory.... however I stand behind my statement of proportionality in tuba design.

Going back to an earlier statement of mine (just because it's easy to visualize), I think a 184 with 186 size valves would be a complete disaster. PERHAPS it might feel more open, especially in the low register, but I think overall, the horn would be unfocused, would have pitch issues... and just be downright bad. I think a lot of research went into these horns in the first place. If the 184 is superior with a bigger bore, it would have been built that way decades ago. As it is, the fans of the 184 (including dp) seem to think the design of the 184 is fantastic and that this particular model is near perfect for certain kinds of performance.

So, although I've enjoyed mini-debate with Dale, I haven't been swayed in the least. I stand behind proportionality in tuba design. If Dale's B&M has a fantastic open low range, but blows vastly different than his BAT, I contend that his horns aren't as compatible as a BAT and a proportionally smaller 4/4, where the response feels the same in all registers.

Of course, as long Dale is happy, who am I to argue? We're all different.... which explains how MW can build the 2145, 2155 and 2165, three very different tubas, and use the same valveset on all three. Only one of those three models seems to click for ME (2155/2000)...

I'd love to hear from someone who really knows first hand about design issues (Matt W - you out there?).


Follow Ups: