Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why CC, really?


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

Posted by Rick Denney on October 12, 2003 at 21:53:28:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why CC, really? posted by Larry Zaidan on October 12, 2003 at 17:16:45:

Yup, you're right. But I think my point still holds.

The "cash register" notes where a CC uses shorter tubes on a lower partial are B and C below the staff; F# and G at the bottom of the staff; B and C on the staff; Eb and E on the staff; and F# and G on the staff. On these notes, the CC uses shorter tubing as you say.

But on notes lower than these, the CC uses just as much tubing as the BBb counterpart until you reach down to B and C in the pedal register, which almost never happens in the repertoire. So, Joe's assessment that for low and loud passages, the shorter tubing is a help doesn't quite add up, because on low passages the tubing isn't shorter (depending on your definition of low, of course).

On the other hand, for all other notes the BBb tuba uses a smaller percentage of valve tubing in the total bugle, which is normally considered to be a desirable thing.

I'll agree that because of the higher percentage of valve tubing in the bugle, those low passages require vibrating less volume of instrument, for CC and BBb instruments of the same general dimensions. This may well account for what Joe feels. But I don't think it's a given that all CC tubas will play low passages more easily than BBb tubas. I have played BBb Miraphone 186's, and I've played CC Miraphone 186's. The CC's seem a bit more responsive, to be sure. But they are also smaller and have a faster taper and thus a different design in rather fundamental ways. Compare them side-by-side and you'll see what I mean.

On larger instruments, however, the differences do not seem as profound, and I think these differences are mostly theoretical with little practical effect. I've played CC BAT's and I own a BBb BAT that is similar to many of the CC orchestral instruments. Mine is more responsive than many of the CC's that were made by cutting instruments identical to my BBb into CC. So, the loss of the two feet of tubing didn't make them more responsive--it made them less responsive (or they were less responsive to begin with). I've also played CC tubas of that size that I thought were as responsive as mine. The responsiveness that makes playing low passages with clarity easier seems to be based on factors much more important than whether it is a BBb or a CC.

Rick "noting that an F tuba uses much less tubing than a contrabass on nearly all notes" Denney



Follow Ups: