Re: Re: A grab-bag of questions (about bore).


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

Posted by Rick Denney on February 07, 2002 at 12:42:22:

In Reply to: Re: A grab-bag of questions (about bore). posted by Steve Dedman on February 07, 2002 at 00:44:09:

I went to that page, and I couldn't make any sense out of it at all.

Wait a minute...

Concerning bore:

Bore is measured as the diameter of the inside of the second-valve tuning slide. This is the unofficial standard place to measure it, though not all manufacturers agree with that standard.

I'm just about convinced that bore size has little or nothing at all to do with the sound of the instrument. It has some effect on the way a horn plays, though. I have played a Getzen G-50, which should be considered a medium-bore tuba. But it indeed has that fat tuba sound, despite its small dimensions.

What it lacks, though, is the bottomless depth of a big tuba, though it gives you clarity in return. But the deepest-sounding tubas still don't have a huge bore--3/4" is typical. That's much smaller than some rotary tubas with a huge bore as large as .9". They may feel like a sewer pipe, but they don't make a bigger sound out front.

I'm thinking that the bottom bow and the bell have an awful lot to do with the sound of a tuba, though shape seems as important as size. Once you have the bottom bow defined, and the valves, then the tapers in between are pretty well fixed except for tweaking.

But the correlation between different sound characteristics and the physical characteristics of the tuba that could be reasonably measured and sensibly reported seems quite tenuous to me, which leaves us where we are: letting our ears describe the instrument instead of our eyes.

Rick "a boor on the subject of bore" Denney


Follow Ups: