Re: Re: Re: Tuba Quality


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

Posted by Rick Denney on November 11, 2002 at 15:38:39:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Tuba Quality posted by jerry on November 11, 2002 at 15:17:14:

I think the bland sound of Yamahas is entirely a design issue. The character that Tim mentions is not the character of the sound, I don't think, but the individual voice of each instrument. Being extremely consistent is only a compliment if the instrument is consistently excellent. With inconsistent horns, the average may be the same but you always have the possibility of something truly excellent.

I will go further and suggest that the design feature that I most suspect for that blandness is the bell shape. In my case, the little Yamaha is so playable that it makes me sound better than I am, so for me right-notes-and-good-sound-plus-blandness trumps fracks-and-uncentered-notes-but-the-unrealized-potential-for-lots-of-character. The only tweak that would fix the bell shape is a new bell. The new Conn F tuba prototype differs from the little Yamaha primarily in its bell, which makes me really want to try that horn out. In the case of the Yamaha, however, I believe that blandness was thought to be a positive feature. Many world-class players have produced plenty of character on those Yamahas, so the designers may have thought the blandness a sign of versatility. It's a successful design that is remarkably playable for those who cannot achieve lots of character, but able to produce character in the hands of a master. It's sort of like a golf hole that gives you safe fairway but also lets you knock off a stroke if you can clear those trees. Some tubas are like the long par 3 with the island green--only top pros need apply.

I also didn't mean to imply that the flow of needs to requirements to design is always an explicity process. I think that most things that are designed by increment would require determining the requirements and needs by backing up from the product.

There are better tools for design now than in decades past. Tapers can be computer-analyzed for intonation, and so on. But we are chasing smaller targets now, and we may be exercising the law of diminishing returns. So, we may still be spending a lot on design, even though the result of that effort is quite subtle.

But the main technique for design is the same as it has ever been: Make a prototype and then tweak it until it works. We may get away with fewer prototypes these days, but I'm not sure I see evidence of it. There were only two examples ever made of the CSO Yorks, and both were prototypes.

The main period of innovation was in the middle part of the 19th century, when the innovators were using government money to experiment. The basic top-action design derived directly from the saxhorn, and the basic front-action designs, both piston and rotary, derived directly from the Wieprecht and Moritz approach. By about the 1870's, these categories were in place. We've probably never designed a tuba completely from scratch since then.

Rick "who has no idea where the golf analogy came from today" Denney


Follow Ups: