Posted by Rick Denney on January 15, 2002 at 15:30:11:
In Reply to: Re: Size of tuba posted by Rick Denney may know .... on January 14, 2002 at 20:26:38:
Yes. I at one time thought that volume would make a better arbiter of size than the other objective measures (bell diameter, bore, and so on). So, I undertook to measure the volume of my two BBb tubas. They were both around 2000 cubic inches, but one I would call a 4/4 instrument, and the other I'm now inclined to call a 5/4 instrument. Their difference in volume was measured to be about 2%, which is not significant, and very likely less than the margin of error in my measurement methods. The York Master (5/4) has a larger bottom bow and larger branches between the valves and the bottom bow, but the Miraphone has a larger bell throat, and the bell throat is so big that its volume is a large percentage of the total volume of the tuba, and so the volume method may be too closely tied to the size of the bell throat.
Here's the article showing the measurements:
http://www.rickdenney.com/york_vs_miraphone.htm
I have never measured the volume of larger tubas, though I offered to do so on this forum some time ago. All the manufacturers would have had to do is loan me the instruments for the time it took to make careful measurements. Very careful measurements. Very, very careful, detailed, time-consuming measurements. Nobody took me up on the offer.
I have also tried to simulate a volumetric comparison by comparing photos of the instruments in another article which is linked below. This seems more accurate, despite that it lacks any precision at all. The 5/4 tubas looked bigger than the 4/4 tubas, and the 6/4 tubas looked bigger than the 5/4 tubas.
Rick "who knows it when he sees it" Denney