Re: Re: Re: Re: Basses and Contra B.


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

Posted by Klaus on May 23, 2002 at 20:44:41:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Basses and Contra B. posted by Alex C on May 23, 2002 at 20:09:52:

A brass instrument is in 3 dimensions. To preserve a theoretical "proportionality" between instruments in the different ranges, all 3 dimensions should be changed by the same factor.

The comparison between a symphonic tenor trombone like the Bach 42 and a tuba might not be the luckiest, but let us give it a try.

The the sake of easy math relations let us make the tuba in BBb:

The range drops an octave, the frequencies are halved, the length is doubled.

Which would give us a tuba with a bore of 1.094". I guess such a BBb tuba yet has to be seen. Chuck Guzis once had a huge Italian contrabass with a bore of something like .900". Sadly the photo is no longer available through the archives.

Let us consider the "inside bell diameter". Is that what others would call the throat diameter?

If so, your ghost contrabass tuba would have a throat diameter of 8". I think that most contrabass tubas have much wider throats.

The real, but probably few, tuba scientists on the board might provide you with some formulas.

What I mostly would criticise about your comparison is, that it is done between trombone and tuba. For me a comparison between euphonium and tuba would be more relevant.

Thoughts like yours and mine probably are not very significant for the developments towards better tubas. But somehow they still might claim some degree of relevance insofar, that they are part of a general interest for our conical low brasses. they might even contribute to some aural imagination. A factor that is very important factor in all sorts of making music.

Klaus


Follow Ups: