Re: 4/4 -vs- 4/4 -vs- 4/4


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

Posted by Rick Denney on March 22, 2001 at 16:34:35:

In Reply to: 4/4 -vs- 4/4 -vs- 4/4 posted by A Guy in CA on March 22, 2001 at 15:53:46:

I've come to the conclusion, stated around here before, that I think volume is the relevant parameter for these dimensions.

My Miraphone 186 BBb has a volume of about 2000 cubic inches. The York Master (not a heck of a lot different than your B&M) has a volume of about---2000 cubic inches. The York has a bigger bell, but is fatter and more squat in the American tradition. I'd have called both 4/4 instruments before making my measurements, even though the York sounds more like a bigger instrument.

Rudy Meinl bases it entirely on bell diameter, but all Rudys are proportional, so that bell diameter is directly related to volume.

But it is true that the efficacy of a particular horn to a particular situation is only loosely related to volume, and even less related to bore and bell diameter, but both of the latter are commonly tied to the performance of the instrument in sales literature.

In the end, horns will be rated by how they perform. A PT-4 might be smaller than a 186, but if PT-4 owners feel like they can get more done sound-wise with a PT-4 than a 186, then it might as well be as big or bigger.

At rehearsal the other night, I blew a few notes on a 4/4 Musica BBb rotary tuba. It had the same bore as the York, and it was an easy horn to play, with a singing upper register and good access to the lower register. But when I then picked up the York Master and played the same lick, the guys who were participating in the comparisons were amazed by the difference. The York and the Musica probably hold about the same amount of air, but the Musica sounded like a pea-shooter by comparison--deprived of bottom. I was expecting the difference, but it even surprised me.

Rick "size does not matter--well--maybe a little bit" Denney


Follow Ups: