The bigger bell applies only to the tenors. On altos I measured the bells on a TT, an early Big Big and a 50's 140 and they were all the same or within a quarter inch if I remember correctly. The tenors are a different story.JL said:I suspect the earliest Big B with the smaller bell is essentially the same as the series one. Although, you didn't ask about it, the later Big B/156 with bigger bell definitely has a different sound and feel. More "free-blowing," with a more spread sound. I think that is where a real distinction can be made--between the "series one" and later Big B/156.
Good point. Thanks. Actually it's not clear whether wind.miller was asking about altos or tenors, or both.saintsday said:The bigger bell applies only to the tenors. On altos I measured the bells on a TT, an early Big Big and a 50's 140 and they were all the same or within a quarter inch if I remember correctly. The tenors are a different story.
Well, yes and no. Guess as with anything like this I need to explain my terms. (Also, in my initial post, which I trimmed down, I might have stated that I was curious about the tenors only in this instance, but I must have edited that out. Sorry.... )JL said:I doubt it would be anything you could see with your eye.
Going back to the original question, I'm wondering what exactly you are looking for, wind.miller? It sounds like you want a discussion of bore size, tone hole placement, etc, but will that get you anywhere as to how these horns differ in terms of how they sound, or how they play? Which is the important thing, right?
Is there any particular measurement you'd like on an NA tenor?wind.miller said:I've actually measured a few Buescher bores in multiple spots, but not any NAs because I've not had the opportunity.
I believe there have been a few threads right here on SOTW, but I'd have to search them out. If you do see a curvature in the tubing that suggests an outward, exponential flaring (like the main bore of a brass instrument as it approaches the bell), and it's consistent along most if not all the body tube, how about providing some metric measurements?vivace1 said:If the parabola thing has been debunked, give me something I can quote...I'm at FSU fer cryin' out loud!
I've looked down the tube of my NA and it looks the same as my Mark VI. The actual tube curvature is different though between the two. I'll have to try and make some more detailed observations tonight.
Maybe the parabola topic should be carefully side-stepped here. My own personal "belief" is that makers built horn bodies with straight conical mandrels and that the tonehole side of the body is structurally the weakest and most prone to a mild buckling over time, creating the arch that many people see and describe as a segment of a parabola. But I'd be thrilled if I were proved to be plain wrong about this. There are people on SOTW who most certainly know a great deal about that; I'm not one of them. As to tonehole placement, I suspect Buescher and the other makers were constantly -- within any given model production run -- moving some around and resizing them, too, tweaking for better intonation and a desirable timbre defined by players of the day.Pinnman said:My (admittedly vague) recollection is that there were at least three different sets of toneholes placements and/or tonehole sizes for the The Buescher/TT series vefore the NA.
Regarding the parabola, this one has been discussed before without any joy. A pity; it is one of these eternal enigmas that seem to be incapable of solution. One mildly tangential point here is that The Sarge at Worldwidesax claims that the parabolic curve was replaced when the Big B became simply the 'Crat model 156. No-one else has claimed any other difference between these two models, believing them to be the same. I think he is pushing it, but have never got round to e-mailing him to ask about it.