Duo Gravis bass vs “orchestral” bass efficiency
- Eyedoc
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mar 29, 2018
I play a Duo Gravis with the Brass Arc Mr Bass mouthpiece. I wonder if I could produce a bigger, fuller sound with less air on a more modern “orchestral “ bass. I run out of air quickly on low notes at ff. Is it my 65 y/o lungs? Several bouts of Covid (though I never had breathing problems). Curious to know experience of others who have both type basses.
Love my horn. I was in a high quality big band until Covid shut us down and never reorganized. Currently in a community band with 1 trombone on a part. We played a Halloween street gig with things like Munsters theme purple People Eater, Adams Family. I think I had the perfect horn for that. For some of the more serious things, I wonder if I have too much “sparkle” or edge on the notes. I don’t have a supplier near by to try different horns. I hate to spend over $3k to try something else and find it is just me!
I welcome comments and experience.
Love my horn. I was in a high quality big band until Covid shut us down and never reorganized. Currently in a community band with 1 trombone on a part. We played a Halloween street gig with things like Munsters theme purple People Eater, Adams Family. I think I had the perfect horn for that. For some of the more serious things, I wonder if I have too much “sparkle” or edge on the notes. I don’t have a supplier near by to try different horns. I hate to spend over $3k to try something else and find it is just me!
I welcome comments and experience.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
The first thing to do before spending a ton of money on anything is have a tech make sure your slide is sealing well and properly aligned and that your rotors are similarly sealing well and properly clean.
Another common problem to look for is the shank. On some Duo Gravis models, the mouthpiece receiver is not a standard size. Several manufacturers make special shanks to fit it (like Doug Elliott, who produces special King shanks, and Bob Reeves who has a special King size sleeve you can modify an existing mouthpiece for). That's also a lot cheaper than a whole horn, and makes a big difference.
If you find that its too bright, consider a slightly larger rim size. Mr. Bass is ~1.5G. It's perfectly fine for a DG, but if you're wanting something with a little less edge, bumping up the inner diameter of your rim slightly shouldn't be too much of a transition for your face and can help with the "sparkle" or "edge" on lower notes you're talking about. I had a DG awhile ago and typically used an Elliott LB110 rim on it IIRC. That's a hair bigger than a 108 and gives more room for timbral flexibility IMO.
Of course, there are some great basses out there that give a more "contemporary" bass sound, but for your use case, I personally don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
Another common problem to look for is the shank. On some Duo Gravis models, the mouthpiece receiver is not a standard size. Several manufacturers make special shanks to fit it (like Doug Elliott, who produces special King shanks, and Bob Reeves who has a special King size sleeve you can modify an existing mouthpiece for). That's also a lot cheaper than a whole horn, and makes a big difference.
If you find that its too bright, consider a slightly larger rim size. Mr. Bass is ~1.5G. It's perfectly fine for a DG, but if you're wanting something with a little less edge, bumping up the inner diameter of your rim slightly shouldn't be too much of a transition for your face and can help with the "sparkle" or "edge" on lower notes you're talking about. I had a DG awhile ago and typically used an Elliott LB110 rim on it IIRC. That's a hair bigger than a 108 and gives more room for timbral flexibility IMO.
Of course, there are some great basses out there that give a more "contemporary" bass sound, but for your use case, I personally don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Your setup is on the small side, so I don't think a change will help you with efficiency. The one thing I might suggest you try is a conical mouthpiece like a Stork or a Curry 1.5D or 2.0D.
If you're worried about pedal G at fff, and you can only get about 4 beats before running out of air, yeah, age will do that to you. Fight back with efficient equipment and practice.
I have had a Kanstul 1662i for maybe 12 years and always felt it was working against me. It's not the biggest bass bone, but I have called it an air hog. It does get used in orchestral settings.
I just recently got a Duo Gravis, and it is worlds better than my Kanstul for anything related to air. Yes, it can get a little barky, but maybe a mouthpiece and some focused practice can help you get past that. The Curry 2.0D helped me with volume per unit air efficiency, and it works on the DG.
I haven't played Shires or Edwards long term, only tests at shows. I don't think something like that will help your situation. I like Bach basses, but even a good one won't be more efficient than a DG. The DG is kind of unique in its design. There might be some competitors like Conn 7x or maybe Olds P24g , but I'm not sure they would be a significant improvement over the DG.
Best of luck.
If you're worried about pedal G at fff, and you can only get about 4 beats before running out of air, yeah, age will do that to you. Fight back with efficient equipment and practice.
I have had a Kanstul 1662i for maybe 12 years and always felt it was working against me. It's not the biggest bass bone, but I have called it an air hog. It does get used in orchestral settings.
I just recently got a Duo Gravis, and it is worlds better than my Kanstul for anything related to air. Yes, it can get a little barky, but maybe a mouthpiece and some focused practice can help you get past that. The Curry 2.0D helped me with volume per unit air efficiency, and it works on the DG.
I haven't played Shires or Edwards long term, only tests at shows. I don't think something like that will help your situation. I like Bach basses, but even a good one won't be more efficient than a DG. The DG is kind of unique in its design. There might be some competitors like Conn 7x or maybe Olds P24g , but I'm not sure they would be a significant improvement over the DG.
Best of luck.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
The Duo Gravis is one of the most efficient bass trombones out there. I'd look inward if I were you-no offense meant.
- JTeagarden
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Feb 24, 2025
In terms of sparkle, has anyone commented on it being too bright for what you might want to play? Might not be bad to see if it isn't up to the task with an ensemble before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
DG has efficient blow, piercing sound, but not necessarily has a bigger fuller sound. DG have no problem to being heard, but lacks some fullness of sound. A little tenorish sound, if I say? If you're after some tuba-like fullness sound of bass trombone at mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte level, which encompasses other instruments' sound with broad warm sound, then other orchestral bass trombones may be easier to achieve that sound. DG is harder to achieve that fullness at low dynamics. But, if you're after the sound concept of just being heard well, then DG is hard to beat. Because of DG's bright piercing sound, DG have no problem to being heard at any dynamic levels.
I would say, that, DG sound is a little like baritone-saxophone, and other orchestral bass trombone sound is a little like tuba or euphonium.
I would say, that, DG sound is a little like baritone-saxophone, and other orchestral bass trombone sound is a little like tuba or euphonium.
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="Doldom"]DG has efficient blow, piercing sound, but not necessarily has a bigger fuller sound. DG have no problem to being heard, but lacks some fullness of sound. A little tenorish sound, if I say? If you're after some tuba-like fullness sound of bass trombone at mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte level, which encompasses other instruments' sound with broad warm sound, then other orchestral bass trombones may be easier to achieve that sound. DG is harder to achieve that fullness at low dynamics. But, if you're after the sound concept of just being heard well, then DG is hard to beat. Because of DG's bright piercing sound, DG have no problem to being heard at any dynamic levels.
I would say, that, DG sound is a little like baritone-saxophone, and other orchestral bass trombone sound is a little like tuba or euphonium.[/quote]
The bass trombone should never sound like a tuba or euphonium. You can play a DG in an orchestra, you just back off and let the trombone give the clarity without shouting.
I would say, that, DG sound is a little like baritone-saxophone, and other orchestral bass trombone sound is a little like tuba or euphonium.[/quote]
The bass trombone should never sound like a tuba or euphonium. You can play a DG in an orchestra, you just back off and let the trombone give the clarity without shouting.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
I do find it a bit amusing to hear the 5B and 88HK described as a bass by some, while on the other hand, the 6B described as a tenor by others, and yet some describe other basses as "slide tubas" or "slide euphoniums".
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Today playing the DG and the Kanstul right back to back in tbone quartet, the Kanstul is definitely challenged in the upper range. The DG plays much more like a trombone. The Kanstul has the bigger sound, but the DG blends better with trombones. You can play the DG in such a way that it gets a big sound but doesn't get too edgy. The smaller mouthpiece (Curry 2.0D) gives it a better trombone sound, but still goes to Pedal F or Eb.
I wouldn't worry too much about people who say the DG is "too" whatever. Just play it to fit the occasion.
I wouldn't worry too much about people who say the DG is "too" whatever. Just play it to fit the occasion.
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
[quote="blast"]The bass trombone should never sound like a tuba or euphonium.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. I'm just saying that all instrument sound is not a 100% discreet entity but rather in a spectrum. If you assume DG is pure 100% trombone sound, then I safely guess other modern bass trombones as maybe 90% trombone with 10% tuba sound. I don't have scientific ways to explain it , but if I try, tuba has more energy near the fundamental freqeuncy and less to the higher overtones, but trombones has some more energy to the higher overtones than tuba, so creating the "trombone" sound. If you distribute much more energy to the higher overtones then you'll get sawtooth wave, which sounds like a chainsaw. if you distribute more energy to fundamentals, then you'll get some more tuba sound, and if the 100% energy is put on the fundamental frequency alone, eventually it will become sine wave, which sounds like a signal beep of old radio or tv.
Instrument sound itself is just a sum of multiple freqeuncies with multiple amplitudes. I think if I want a 50% trombone and 50% tuba sound, computers can easily synthesize the sound for me and I would recognize it as tuba-like trombone sound..! (though of course I think it's not a desirable sound of trombone). But, I think, a little tuba-likeliness in trombone sound (as I say above, like 90% trombone and 10% tuba) may be more appealing in orchestras.
Yes, I agree. I'm just saying that all instrument sound is not a 100% discreet entity but rather in a spectrum. If you assume DG is pure 100% trombone sound, then I safely guess other modern bass trombones as maybe 90% trombone with 10% tuba sound. I don't have scientific ways to explain it , but if I try, tuba has more energy near the fundamental freqeuncy and less to the higher overtones, but trombones has some more energy to the higher overtones than tuba, so creating the "trombone" sound. If you distribute much more energy to the higher overtones then you'll get sawtooth wave, which sounds like a chainsaw. if you distribute more energy to fundamentals, then you'll get some more tuba sound, and if the 100% energy is put on the fundamental frequency alone, eventually it will become sine wave, which sounds like a signal beep of old radio or tv.
Instrument sound itself is just a sum of multiple freqeuncies with multiple amplitudes. I think if I want a 50% trombone and 50% tuba sound, computers can easily synthesize the sound for me and I would recognize it as tuba-like trombone sound..! (though of course I think it's not a desirable sound of trombone). But, I think, a little tuba-likeliness in trombone sound (as I say above, like 90% trombone and 10% tuba) may be more appealing in orchestras.
- DCIsky
- Posts: 338
- Joined: May 09, 2020
[quote="Eyedoc"]I play a Duo Gravis with the Brass Arc Mr Bass mouthpiece. I wonder if I could produce a bigger, fuller sound with less air on a more modern “orchestral “ bass. I run out of air quickly on low notes at ff. Is it my 65 y/o lungs? Several bouts of Covid (though I never had breathing problems). Curious to know experience of others who have both type basses.[/quote]
[quote="Eyedoc"]For some of the more serious things, I wonder if I have too much “sparkle” or edge on the notes. I don’t have a supplier near by to try different horns. I hate to spend over $3k to try something else and find it is just me!
I welcome comments and experience.[/quote]
It sounds like you really enjoy playing your DG; as others suggested, investing a couple hundred in a good tune-up (or even carefully shipping it to an out-of-area pro tech) might be the move.
Balance, both in terms of equipment setup as well as approach to the horn, might be helpful for your situation. Although I do play bass trombone professionally, my primary is orchestral tenor, and I therefore center my equipment and playing around balance. I play on a middle-of-the-road Shires independent bass. Yellow brass bell with soldered rim, compact-taper tuning slide, axial valves, single-bore slide with nickel crook, #2 leadpipe. Nothing is too stuffy, nothing is too open, nothing feels uneven in/out of the valve range. My mouthpiece of choice is a Hammond 19BL. It's on the smaller side, has a comfy rim that doesn't dig into my face, and has a combination of cup depth, backbore, etc. that feels like I don't have to work hard. Is it interesting, in comparison to a vintage horn or specialized model? No. But it lets me play in tune, with stability, with core and evenness on every single note. To me, playing with ease is way more fun than a quirky setup.
My experience with sparkle and edge in "classical" settings, both from my observations as a section player and from standing in front of groups: people are totally fine with edge if 1) it's a neutral/lighter articulation, 2) it's even throughout the note and not accompanied with distortion of tone, and 3) it doesn't affect intonation or other ensemble considerations. It's worthwhile to note that the commercial player tendencies of harder articulations and more active note shaping (more of a forte-piano-crescendo approach as opposed to a "brick" note default) are much more magnified on bass trombone than tenor when you step into a classical setting.
At the end of the day, there *are* bass trombones whose smaller dimensions do lend themselves well to commercial as opposed to classical, but in general, the approach to the horn will make a much larger difference than the equipment itself.
[quote="Eyedoc"]For some of the more serious things, I wonder if I have too much “sparkle” or edge on the notes. I don’t have a supplier near by to try different horns. I hate to spend over $3k to try something else and find it is just me!
I welcome comments and experience.[/quote]
It sounds like you really enjoy playing your DG; as others suggested, investing a couple hundred in a good tune-up (or even carefully shipping it to an out-of-area pro tech) might be the move.
Balance, both in terms of equipment setup as well as approach to the horn, might be helpful for your situation. Although I do play bass trombone professionally, my primary is orchestral tenor, and I therefore center my equipment and playing around balance. I play on a middle-of-the-road Shires independent bass. Yellow brass bell with soldered rim, compact-taper tuning slide, axial valves, single-bore slide with nickel crook, #2 leadpipe. Nothing is too stuffy, nothing is too open, nothing feels uneven in/out of the valve range. My mouthpiece of choice is a Hammond 19BL. It's on the smaller side, has a comfy rim that doesn't dig into my face, and has a combination of cup depth, backbore, etc. that feels like I don't have to work hard. Is it interesting, in comparison to a vintage horn or specialized model? No. But it lets me play in tune, with stability, with core and evenness on every single note. To me, playing with ease is way more fun than a quirky setup.
My experience with sparkle and edge in "classical" settings, both from my observations as a section player and from standing in front of groups: people are totally fine with edge if 1) it's a neutral/lighter articulation, 2) it's even throughout the note and not accompanied with distortion of tone, and 3) it doesn't affect intonation or other ensemble considerations. It's worthwhile to note that the commercial player tendencies of harder articulations and more active note shaping (more of a forte-piano-crescendo approach as opposed to a "brick" note default) are much more magnified on bass trombone than tenor when you step into a classical setting.
At the end of the day, there *are* bass trombones whose smaller dimensions do lend themselves well to commercial as opposed to classical, but in general, the approach to the horn will make a much larger difference than the equipment itself.
- Eyedoc
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mar 29, 2018
Thank you all for your comments.
I did have a good tech at Tim’s music in Sacramento, CA clean and adjust. He found the bell to the tuning slide ferrule was not soldered! That was the buzz I heard on G above the staff. The F tubing does have linear cracks that are sealed by the laquer. He said they do not leak air. I need to get it back to him for replacement. The mouthpiece taper is not correct. All my pieces will rock slightly and fit deeply except the Schilke 59 bottoms out on the step inside.
I will try some of the mouthpieces mentioned above.
I do receive compliments on my sound. “I like the sound your horn makes” said by a flautist after a concert.
Thank you again <EMOJI seq="1f60a" tseq="1f60a">😊</EMOJI>
I did have a good tech at Tim’s music in Sacramento, CA clean and adjust. He found the bell to the tuning slide ferrule was not soldered! That was the buzz I heard on G above the staff. The F tubing does have linear cracks that are sealed by the laquer. He said they do not leak air. I need to get it back to him for replacement. The mouthpiece taper is not correct. All my pieces will rock slightly and fit deeply except the Schilke 59 bottoms out on the step inside.
I will try some of the mouthpieces mentioned above.
I do receive compliments on my sound. “I like the sound your horn makes” said by a flautist after a concert.
Thank you again <EMOJI seq="1f60a" tseq="1f60a">😊</EMOJI>
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
The King large shank mouthpiece receiver(4B ~ 8B) is innately big. All mouthpieces are going to insert deeper than other maker's instrument. Did the tech say taper is wrong? Fit deeply is normal. The taper(0.05:1) is same as other instruments so mouthpieces are not going to rock slightly if the taper is undamaged. And , yes. Schilke 59 will not fit.
The King shank made by Doug Elliott may be good fit, he make the shank larger so the insertion depth remains 1 inch. I think for 4B tenor the King shank is very nice match, but for 6B, I don't know. I had 6B years ago and I just used it with normal mouthpieces. I once tried King J or K shank with 6B but did not notice difference. But that's years ago and if I try the combination now, my opinion may be changed.
If you really like Mr. Bass mouthpiece, then you can experiment with various insertion depths. Encompass the shank with a little piece of paper and insert the mouthpiece, in this way you can achieve various insertion depths. The more paper, the mouthpiece will stick out more. If you really like 1 inch insertion depth more than your normal setting(I assume it would be 1.2~1.3 inch) then you can order the mouthpiece with special shank through brassark website.
The King shank made by Doug Elliott may be good fit, he make the shank larger so the insertion depth remains 1 inch. I think for 4B tenor the King shank is very nice match, but for 6B, I don't know. I had 6B years ago and I just used it with normal mouthpieces. I once tried King J or K shank with 6B but did not notice difference. But that's years ago and if I try the combination now, my opinion may be changed.
If you really like Mr. Bass mouthpiece, then you can experiment with various insertion depths. Encompass the shank with a little piece of paper and insert the mouthpiece, in this way you can achieve various insertion depths. The more paper, the mouthpiece will stick out more. If you really like 1 inch insertion depth more than your normal setting(I assume it would be 1.2~1.3 inch) then you can order the mouthpiece with special shank through brassark website.
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]I do find it a bit amusing to hear the 5B and 88HK described as a bass by some, while on the other hand, the 6B described as a tenor by others, and yet some describe other basses as "slide tubas" or "slide euphoniums".[/quote]
My native tongue is not english, so maybe there's some misunderstanding in my writings, but I also hate the term "slide tuba" or "slide euphonium". If someone call a instrument a "slide tuba" then a logical assumption would be, the instrument should have more than 50% of tuba sound, right? I write modern bass trombone has a little tuba like sound, as a intention of having like 90% of trombone sound and maybe 10% of tuba sound. Modern so-called woofy bass trombones are still very trombone, with a little tuba or euphonium characteristics, is what I wanted to say.
All instrument timbre can be decomposed to multiple simple sine waves with varying amplitude, via Fourier transform. If trombone and tuba blows a same note, trombone has more amplitudes at higher frequencies than tuba, while tuba has more amplitudes at lower frequencies than trombone. In theory, you can mix two timbres to one, because after all , all sound is just a mix up of multiple sine waves. Take DG(Duo Gravis)'s spectrogram, and cut off some higher frequencies, and add a little of , maybe 5~10% of tuba's spectrogram, and that mixed up spectrogram would sound like modern woofy bass trombones. My point is, concrete discretion of bass trombone and tuba sound is maybe not an absolute thing, rather a relative, evolving with time thing.
<YOUTUBE id="SeJXutFqjpc" t="770">https://youtu.be/SeJXutFqjpc?si=O4C_t-9LBJD209FI?t=770</YOUTUBE>
Listen to this old french recording, and the bass trombone sound has so much piercing higher overtones. Some would call this "true trombone sound" but I assume many will prefer more modern "woofy bass trombone sound with a little tuba or euphonium characteristics" .
<INSTAGRAM id="DPfBqT0CMU3"><LINK_TEXT text="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPfBqT0C ... FiMzdmNA==">https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPfBqT0CMU3/?igsh=MXUxc29vZnFiMzdmNA==</LINK_TEXT></INSTAGRAM>
How about this? Is it bass trombone sound? tuba sound? or bass trombone and tuba unison sound?
I first assumed this as a bass trombone alone or unison sound, but I was wrong. It is indeed tuba-alone sound. (bass trombone is octave above tuba) It strikingly resembles bass trombone sound. The player of this perfomance said, it was miked perfomance. My theory is, somehow microphone captures tuba sound but distorts and amplifies more of higher overtones, so the result is very bass-trombone sounding tuba.
Long writing , and my english is not so good, but what I wanted to say, is, maybe bass trombone - tuba discretion is not an absolute thing, but a relative thing. And maybe some centuries later bass trombone might evolve to some none existing, half tuba and half bass trombone sounding instrument.? nobody knows..
My native tongue is not english, so maybe there's some misunderstanding in my writings, but I also hate the term "slide tuba" or "slide euphonium". If someone call a instrument a "slide tuba" then a logical assumption would be, the instrument should have more than 50% of tuba sound, right? I write modern bass trombone has a little tuba like sound, as a intention of having like 90% of trombone sound and maybe 10% of tuba sound. Modern so-called woofy bass trombones are still very trombone, with a little tuba or euphonium characteristics, is what I wanted to say.
All instrument timbre can be decomposed to multiple simple sine waves with varying amplitude, via Fourier transform. If trombone and tuba blows a same note, trombone has more amplitudes at higher frequencies than tuba, while tuba has more amplitudes at lower frequencies than trombone. In theory, you can mix two timbres to one, because after all , all sound is just a mix up of multiple sine waves. Take DG(Duo Gravis)'s spectrogram, and cut off some higher frequencies, and add a little of , maybe 5~10% of tuba's spectrogram, and that mixed up spectrogram would sound like modern woofy bass trombones. My point is, concrete discretion of bass trombone and tuba sound is maybe not an absolute thing, rather a relative, evolving with time thing.
<YOUTUBE id="SeJXutFqjpc" t="770">https://youtu.be/SeJXutFqjpc?si=O4C_t-9LBJD209FI?t=770</YOUTUBE>
Listen to this old french recording, and the bass trombone sound has so much piercing higher overtones. Some would call this "true trombone sound" but I assume many will prefer more modern "woofy bass trombone sound with a little tuba or euphonium characteristics" .
<INSTAGRAM id="DPfBqT0CMU3"><LINK_TEXT text="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPfBqT0C ... FiMzdmNA==">https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPfBqT0CMU3/?igsh=MXUxc29vZnFiMzdmNA==</LINK_TEXT></INSTAGRAM>
How about this? Is it bass trombone sound? tuba sound? or bass trombone and tuba unison sound?
I first assumed this as a bass trombone alone or unison sound, but I was wrong. It is indeed tuba-alone sound. (bass trombone is octave above tuba) It strikingly resembles bass trombone sound. The player of this perfomance said, it was miked perfomance. My theory is, somehow microphone captures tuba sound but distorts and amplifies more of higher overtones, so the result is very bass-trombone sounding tuba.
Long writing , and my english is not so good, but what I wanted to say, is, maybe bass trombone - tuba discretion is not an absolute thing, but a relative thing. And maybe some centuries later bass trombone might evolve to some none existing, half tuba and half bass trombone sounding instrument.? nobody knows..
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
It's just hyperbole that people use, but people do seem to act on it (there are a very non-zero number of people who use a 5B as a bass). I've never been confused by the timbre of a bass trombone compared to a tuba and, in fact, if I could buy something because it replicated the sound so closely I would buy it immediately if I could afford it because I wouldn't have to keep my Bb fingerings in shape :lol:
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]I've never been confused by the timbre of a bass trombone compared to a tuba[/quote]
I found these two extreme examples.
<YOUTUBE id="N9dM6QqIYiM"><LINK_TEXT text="https://youtube.com/shorts/N9dM6QqIYiM? ... IbmpBnaHVi">https://youtube.com/shorts/N9dM6QqIYiM?si=UqKqVJIbmpBnaHVi</LINK_TEXT></YOUTUBE>
<YOUTUBE id="2MVnHAUQhqc">https://youtu.be/2MVnHAUQhqc?si=jw2cmHKBVNzd4elY</YOUTUBE>
Although I can distinguish them, low note on the trombone is somewhat (historic) tuba-like and high note on the tuba is somewhat (modern)trombone-like. :horror:
I found these two extreme examples.
<YOUTUBE id="N9dM6QqIYiM"><LINK_TEXT text="https://youtube.com/shorts/N9dM6QqIYiM? ... IbmpBnaHVi">https://youtube.com/shorts/N9dM6QqIYiM?si=UqKqVJIbmpBnaHVi</LINK_TEXT></YOUTUBE>
<YOUTUBE id="2MVnHAUQhqc">https://youtu.be/2MVnHAUQhqc?si=jw2cmHKBVNzd4elY</YOUTUBE>
Although I can distinguish them, low note on the trombone is somewhat (historic) tuba-like and high note on the tuba is somewhat (modern)trombone-like. :horror:
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
FWIW, both of those sound like tubas to me. The latter is basically a cimbasso, too.
Fully agree with what blast wrote earlier... bass trombone should not sound like a tuba. And on topic, the Duo Gravis sounds squarely like a bass trombone to me. Do some people take bass trombone too far? Sure, definitely witnessed people with diffuse sounds because they're playing on obviously too big equipment for what they're trying to accomplish, but I've never confused one for a tuba.
Fully agree with what blast wrote earlier... bass trombone should not sound like a tuba. And on topic, the Duo Gravis sounds squarely like a bass trombone to me. Do some people take bass trombone too far? Sure, definitely witnessed people with diffuse sounds because they're playing on obviously too big equipment for what they're trying to accomplish, but I've never confused one for a tuba.
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
I suspect that both those instruments are in F. I'm not sure that the F valve trombone player is serious. There is indeed, some kind of connection, but hard to say what it is without being unnecessarily rude.
- sf105
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Doldom"]If you really like Mr. Bass mouthpiece, then you can experiment with various insertion depths. Encompass the shank with a little piece of paper and insert the mouthpiece, in this way you can achieve various insertion depths. The more paper, the mouthpiece will stick out more. If you really like 1 inch insertion depth more than your normal setting(I assume it would be 1.2~1.3 inch) then you can order the mouthpiece with special shank through brassark website.[/quote]
Alternatively, try plumber's tape. Easier to work with.
Alternatively, try plumber's tape. Easier to work with.
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="sf105"]Ooooh, what show was that using a pocket tuba?[/quote]
That's our Boheme..... a little run down the section in act 4. The conductor wanted a real blast at the bottom...he got it !!!!
The mini tuba is a weapon!!!
That's our Boheme..... a little run down the section in act 4. The conductor wanted a real blast at the bottom...he got it !!!!
The mini tuba is a weapon!!!
- Doldom
- Posts: 139
- Joined: May 12, 2018
[quote="Matt K"]FWIW, both of those sound like tubas to me. The latter is basically a cimbasso, too.[/quote]
[quote="blast"]I'm not sure that the F valve trombone player is serious.[/quote]
Cerveny 576 was marketed as F bass trombone. I actually have one. maybe it's the very one what he plays in the video. It's much smaller than cimbaso and Cerveny also sells cimbasso as a different model. The 576 has medium shank receiver and 0.551ish bore and bell throat is not that bigger than normal bass trombones.
Yes, F valve bass is not a serious instrument, for modern era, but that does not mean it was also not a serious instrument in the past. Valved trombones were wildly used from late 19th century to mid 20th century, especially in Europe. If you felt the sound as a tuba , that also supports my claim that the acoustical line between bass trombone and tuba is not a constant absolute thing , but rather it's relative thing that can be changed with cultural, geological, and time background.
But I think it goes off topic. I agree that DG is perfect trombone sounding bass trombone. But sometimes it feel a little tenorish. Maybe in far future it is regarded as tenor. who knows. and DG just lacks some tuba-like woofyness, so making it harder to use in orchestras, for someone.
[quote="blast"]I'm not sure that the F valve trombone player is serious.[/quote]
Cerveny 576 was marketed as F bass trombone. I actually have one. maybe it's the very one what he plays in the video. It's much smaller than cimbaso and Cerveny also sells cimbasso as a different model. The 576 has medium shank receiver and 0.551ish bore and bell throat is not that bigger than normal bass trombones.
Yes, F valve bass is not a serious instrument, for modern era, but that does not mean it was also not a serious instrument in the past. Valved trombones were wildly used from late 19th century to mid 20th century, especially in Europe. If you felt the sound as a tuba , that also supports my claim that the acoustical line between bass trombone and tuba is not a constant absolute thing , but rather it's relative thing that can be changed with cultural, geological, and time background.
But I think it goes off topic. I agree that DG is perfect trombone sounding bass trombone. But sometimes it feel a little tenorish. Maybe in far future it is regarded as tenor. who knows. and DG just lacks some tuba-like woofyness, so making it harder to use in orchestras, for someone.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
I'll present a bit different view, maybe more in line with the OP:
if you want to make a different sound than the DG offers, then playing something closer to that sound in your head is going to be more efficient. Use the right tool for the job.
if you want to make a different sound than the DG offers, then playing something closer to that sound in your head is going to be more efficient. Use the right tool for the job.
- mikerspencer
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Jul 01, 2022
I've got a tone halo for my DG. I use it for orchestral playing as it damps some of the overtones in the very resonant bell. It's a cheap way to temporarily change the character of the instrument.
https://calderpipsmusic.com/tone-halo
https://calderpipsmusic.com/tone-halo