Re: Diff. energy effort for diff. tubas


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

Posted by Rick Denney on May 11, 2003 at 14:01:05:

In Reply to: Diff. energy effort for diff. tubas posted by Volker on May 11, 2003 at 13:01:18:

There is a way to measure efficiency in terms of sound pressure level produced outside the instrument versus the acoustic power required to make the buzz, and the level of efficiency is tiny even in the best of conditions.

But I don't think that is an important issue for your friend.

It seems to me that some instruments provide an ease of speaking and a flexibility of sound that just makes playing them easy and not as physical as other instruments. I have heard many, many examples of top pros talking about the effort required to get the effect they wanted from one tuba, compared with the ease of another tuba. In all of these cases, it has been classic rotary tubas such as the Alexander, or rotary kaisertubas such as the Cerveny 601, that have been thought to require a lot of effort. The tubas that these players thought much easier were even bigger. So I don't think it is a matter of size.

Let's try to think of what might cause physical labor with a tuba. It seems to me three things: 1.) the ergonomics--the energy required just to carry and hold the thing upright; 2.) the air required to produce a passable sound, and 3.) the psycho-physical effort required to make notes issue forth, which I'll call playability.

The first category favors small tubas, to be sure. But there are mitigation measures one might take to minimize the effort required to manage the beast. One is to use a stand, even perhaps a total-control stand like a Wenger Tuba-Tamer. Another is a willing assistant to help with moving the instrument.

The second category seems to depend on how much air it takes to make the instrument work. It seems to me that the large-bore rotary tubas are always at the top of the list of instruments that require lots of air to get a good sound. The smaller-bore piston instruments, even those with larger outer branches, seem to be much easier in this regard.

I have a hard time putting my finger on what is important in playability, so I'll just have to list those instruments that seem to me easy to play: The King 2341 (the best examples of the new style, and even some superlative examples of the old 1241's), the Getzen G-50 (as a CC tuba), the 6/4 Yorks and York-alikes (but only some of them), and some particularly undemanding 4/4 rotary tubas of moderate bore such as the Miraphone 186. There are likely others that I've never tried.

Were I in poor physical condition because of illness, I would consider the King as being just about the best balance between volume of sound, smallness and lightness, and playability.

Rick "hoping he's able to haul around the Holton for a long time to come" Denney


Follow Ups: