Singing the Praises of the Besson 3-Valve Compensator

[iiipopes]

I started this thread in order to not be off topic on the Schmidt 3301 thread. I appreciate there are also others out there who know what a superlative instrument a Besson 3-valve comp can be, and thank you for your positive comments.

Rick -- it is truly saddening to me that you had such bad experiences with Besson tubas. I am sincere in that because it's not just that I'm an anglophile that I love my horn. I truly was lucky to find a superior instrument, even though after 35 years (serial number dates it to @1971) as a rental horn and numerous repairs it looks like $#!+. But, the valves are perfect. The intonation is perfect. Except for a little stuffiness, and I mean little on C and B, it is incredibly even. The dents in one of the bows must be in exactly the right places, because middle clef c, db & d are in tune, and even upper clef gb and g can be played 1st and 2nd valves, respectively, the 7th harmonic, and they are in tune, not flat! I kid you not. Being in the university community band, I've had several tuba majors play the horn, and they all unanimously love it, one better than his Kalison. Another friend who teaches band wanted to buy it off me for his school band. And so it goes.

Oh, yeah - did I tell you there are spots worn through the rim sloppily soldered from its being stored on its bell, and the obligatory flat place on the outside of the bottom bow across from the bell from falling over from the same, so many pings and such it looks like it has a hammer-peen finish, and the occasional red streak here and there on my one-piece bell (save the two small triangle shaped factory inserts so they didn't have to hammer it out so thin at the final bell flare and rim)?

OK, here are the quirks: I put a small strip of golfer's lead tape around the receiver to solidify the mid to lower intonation. I put an even smaller ring (1/8" wide) around the little link between the outlet side of the valve block and the ferrel attaching the down pipe to the tuning slide to solidify the high intonation. And I found the node for the b7th harmonic and put a 1 inch wide piece of golfer's lead tape around the dented inner bow at that point. The only thing left is to move the nearest brace to that node, which is just below the node about 1 inch to finish solidifying that intonation. Even though low C and B are a little stuffy, bottom F and E are not, and quite to the contrary, take all the air I can give them and then some! The tape also tightened up the slots, so lipping down from bottom E to bottom Eb is more difficult, If I want a big finish on the bottom Eb, I have to pull the 3rd slide out all the way, but finding pitch anywhere else on the horn is the easiest I've ever had. I sincerely doubt I will ever have need in the ensembles I play with for anything lower, and even if I do, there will always be someone around with a 4-valve of some sort to do it, and I'll play the 5th or 8va higher, as the music indicates.

The way I dealt with the ergonomics is this: first, I don't use a tuba stand. I take a standard orchestra chair, turn it 45 degrees counter-clockwise, straddle the tuba on the corner of the chair, and when not playing rest my right elbow on the chair back. I grab the horn at the first valve slide, so I took a file and knocked off the corners of the lyre holder, which fits between the index and middle fingers of my left hand. Hey, I said it already looks bad; nothing I do at this point will decrease value any further. Fortunately, the mouthpipe was already close. I actually had to crouch the slightest bit to play it. I'm 5/10, weigh 200 right now, but I'm a little long in the torso for my height. So I took a block of wood and a hammer, put the block under the receiver brace at the receiver end and gave it a heavy whack. It tilted up perfectly without breaking the solder joint on the brace or the receiver. No, I wouldn't do that on a new Rudy Meinl! I also had the tech bend the brace in towards the bell slightly to adjust the angle of the horn to my right wrist. Now it plays with no sideways angling to the wrist.

A valve up/bell up tuba is better for me as I am left-eye dominant. I have a particularly noticable dent taken out of it every so often, but I'm probably done even doing that. Here's the bottom line: bought off eBay for $401 including shipping; $40 to get the spit keys fixed, which were disclosed in the listing, a new Wick 1 mouthpiece, because I forgot it had the smaller receiver, and $100 with my tech to get the most egregious dents out of the leadpipe and valve block, which now look great. Total outlay not counting mouthpiece: $541. Period.

I know, why would bother with the fiddling and tinkering? I am a born fiddler and tinkerer. None of my electric guitars are stock, I even re-wound the pickup on my collectible Rick 360-12 with checkerboard binding. So buying a "new" tuba was out of the question. Also, as I've said elsewhere, my pinky is so short that 4 valve instruments can be problematic. Besides, with the extra loops and the 3d valve slide with its sweeping arch over to the 1st valve to me just looks absolutely cool and a paradigm of engineering interpreted as art.

I'd love to hear from other comp users how you got your horn and what you've done/had done to it, and how it's treated you over the years, so I have something to read while I have another bottle of imported English real ale. Thanks for your time and indulgence reading this thread, for all its self-indulgent hyperbole. Or is that just a nice way to say b.......!

[Carroll]

And I found the node for the b7th harmonic... to finish solidifying that intonation.

I ask in all sincerity... HOW did you find the node?

[Lew]

My first tuba was a Besson 3 valve compensator that my high school bought the year I got there, 1970. I played it for 2 years before they decided that I was too good for a 3 valve horn and the school bought a 4 rotary valve horn for me to play. I think it was a Meinl-Weston model 20. The Besson was head and shoulders a better player than the M-W. It was much more free blowing and the sound was as smooth as any tuba I have ever played. I don't know if the school still has that tuba, but I have owned 2 other 3 valve Besson comps, and none of them played the same way as my first. Of course it may just be the way I remember it .

I do remember that the Besson would dent if you breathed hard on it, while the Meinl-Weston had much thicker brass. The later Bessons that I owned also seemed thicker and harder. I wonder if that added to the resonance.

One of my main horns now is a Besson 983, which is of course a 4 valve compensator. My wife, who is not a tuba fan, has even commented on how nice that horn sounds when I am playing it. If I had to use just one horn that would be it.

[Chuck(G)]

I do remember that the Besson would dent if you breathed hard on it, while the Meinl-Weston had much thicker brass. The later Bessons that I owned also seemed thicker and harder. I wonder if that added to the resonance.

The 60's Besson New Standard were built like the proverbial masonry privy. Good players, if you like the sound.

[imperialbari]

In general: Congratulations!

I wonder a bit over the stuffy notes, which are not typical.

The reason may be the attached weight bands, but I would search elsewhere first. A good wash out/flushing may cause wonders.

If the instrument is laid securely on a towel in the bathtub, I take off the "phone" of the shower hose and send a high speed high temperature geyser through the leadpipe while activating the valves.

Be careful to run some cooler water through the tubing before lifting the tuba again. Actually I just cool down the leadpipe. And then I, without the mouthpiece, blow the instrument empty. If the bubbling loosens up more dirt, I do one more flush.

I have a 3P comper also, but that is a baritone. As discussed with RD and others years ago, that design is not entirely happy. The 2nd valve comp loop cannot be bent sharply enough due to the bore, so that 2+3 combinations tend flat. This is even worse on the wider bored euph.

As I came to the euph and the tubas via the bassbone and the double horn, I am not too happy with basses with less than 4 valves. And hence I have all 3 sizes in 3+1 comp and 4 in-line versions.

I shouldn’t like my Besson New Standard 3+1 comp BBb, as it is a bit small for my ideas (not weightwise). But it gave me a big surprise yesterday, when I wanted to start playing again after some lung problems.

At first I couldn’t go lower than G an octave below the bass clef. Not typical for me. So I shaved my upper lip, which had become quite wiry during the last months. A new try gave me the Bb pedal as well as the double pedal. I have done that double pedal on smaller instruments before, but never on a BBb. And the mouthpiece was a smallish thing like the DW 1 (non-L) with a slightly opened up backbore. My stamina is down to almost zero, but it was fun to start again.

Maybe I will concentrate on the 1870 3+1 non-comp Besson Eb. One wouldn’t believe so, but it is a very playable instrument.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[iiipopes]

Thanks for the posts. Keep them coming. I'm opening a second bottle of ale.
Observations from the posts:
1) Yes, mine is as substantial as a concrete loo. It's definitely heavier than the Miraphones I sit next to. Because of that, it does not benefit from the current fad of stainless steel mouthpieces (G&W, Loud, etc.)
2) The stuffy notes are the 1-3 C and 123 B below the staff. This is typical due to the bore being the same through the comp loops (not a millimeter wider as on most newer comps, irrespective of brand). Actually, on a lot of 3-valve comps, it is much worse, including notes played with 23 combination as well.
3) How did I find the nodes? a) I have good ears, and b) sensitive fingers from over 32 years of guitar playing. I played the note, and lightly ran my fingers the length of the bugle until I found it by the vibrations. Then you tape and/or narrow the point in the bugle (Mine's already well narrowed from historical dents!) just barely downstream of the node to damp resonance and vibration, (and yes, "damp" is the proper verb, not "dampen," as we are not trying to get it wet, it is wet enough from the amount of water I put through the horn while playing) forcing the node upstream slightly; this has the effect of shortening the column, and therefore sharpening the pitch. R. Schilke did a lot of research on this when he first started building trumpets, and Besson has done their share of it, especially when they were working on developing a trumpet years ago that ended up with flat notes caused by the location of the spit valve. Spit valve moved - intonation problems solved. That's why I have very little patience for tubas with bad intonation. The math is there. A lot of the research is there. The only difference from a physics point of view is that we're talking about an even four times the length, so it should not be that hard to engineer out some of the weak points; granted some are working on it.
4) As mentioned, I'm a little long in the torso for my height. So none of the complaints about reaching the mouthpiece or having it contorted to wierd angles as I have seen on some of the ones for sale, especially on eBay, apply to me. Also, Besson/B&H have made an incredible variety of leadpipes over the years, both in taper and placement, and this one works for me. Depending on the year of your model, your milage and results may vary.
5) And yes, my valves are perfect. As bloke helped me earlier, I put so much water through my horn while playing I even got some in the comp loops, causing burbles. Learning curve to remember to take out the valves and shake the horn at the appropriate angle to get it out. The point is the valves are tight enough the water stayed in the comp loops until I emptied it, and didn't seep down the casings and out the bottom caps, like an engine with bad rings.

Hmm. This summer I might have to ring up the Memphis U band director and make a field trip. Hmm.

Any brass banders out there who made the switch from 3-valve to the 4-valve tubas from the mid-1970's on who can give first hand experience with any differences in intonation?

[Chuck(G)]

I've got a little 3-banger Besson compensator in CC. Sweet little horn, even if I can't coax anything out of it between Gb and pedal C ("false" tones just ain't there).

[iiipopes]

Pedals, false or real, aren't there on mine, either. At best I can get something that is between a D and Db occasionally. I read somewhere it may be due to the taper of the bugle being more exponential than linear, as it is on most American tubas, like my Conn souzy, which has excellent false pedals, and the antique Eb Martin I played for a St. Pat's day parade, which had both excellent false partials and good real partials. Yes, it had both: a good Ab below the staff, then I could use progressive fingerings to get down to the real pedal Eb, then a few notes below that. The tradeoff was that it had been converted from high pitch, and the upper register tried to be flat, especially outside on a cool day. I only had a Wick 2 with me. I'd like to try it with other mouthpieces, especially a Wick 3, which has a larger throat to get more air through the horn, and get the pitch back up in the upper registers.

BTW -- how did you come across a CC? I've seen exactly two CC comps: one described in a museum listing, and Dillon had a 4-valve about a year ago, but it had intonation problems.

[Rick Denney]

Step 1 on making my non-comp Stratford holdable was to remove the un-manning device from the bottom bow. Step 2 was to remove three inches of leadpipe going into the tuning slide (which on the student-model non-comps is upstread of the first valve), which lowered the mouthpiece by a similar amount. Step 3 was to wrap a portion of the bottom bow in grippy bicycle handlebar tape so that it wouldn't slip off my lap.

After that, I could hold it up without risk to my teeth or my ability to speak in a normal deep voice.

Removing three inches from the leadpipe made tuning with my community band possible, too.

Rick "sticking by his impressions of non-compensated three-valve student Bessons" Denney

[tofu]

Bought my 1971 Comp New Standard when I was just out of college and it was 10 years old. The fellow I bought it from had developed MS and unfortunately could no longer play. He had dropped it so many times that it was really banged up.

I had no idea it was a compensator nor did I know anything about Besson. It was cheap and I had no money and it played well. A year later I had Getzen (Allied) completely rebuild and silver plate it. They did a fantastic job and it truly looked new and played extremely well. They removed the ball from the bottom and instead of changing the receiver Schilke made me a series 67 mouthpiece to fit.

When I play it I too do the 45 degree chair turn, but I'm still not a fan of top action valves from a comfort level. My valves are fast and smooth. The horn just slots notes spot on and has an excellent high and middle range. The low end is good, but it is difficult to get low f and e natural to have a lot of volume. You do have to get use to (or learn to) play low notes. The sound of the horn is more like a giant euphonium and very different from my American or German horns. It can really sing and I find mine has the playing nimbleness I find in much smaller Eb horns.

I suspect from what I hear that I got lucky and my horn is the exception to the rule in how well it plays. After owning it for 25 years I really like it and would play it more if it wasn't such a tank and ergonomic pain.

And all kidding aside I would have to agree with Rick (I said non-comp) Denny that the non-comp student models are not very good horns. It also seems that the quality of even the top end horns suffered in the 80s and 90s.

[Chuck(G)]

BTW -- how did you come across a CC? I've seen exactly two CC comps: one described in a museum listing, and Dillon had a 4-valve about a year ago, but it had intonation problems.

I worked on one for a friend who bought his from Mr. Jacobs. I really liked it and started looking for one of my own. I stumbled across one about 6 months later--exactly one serial number after the Jacobs instrument. Both of these have 15" bells, not the big 19" of the one at Dillon's. Intonation is quite good. I don't know how many of these were ever made during the 60's, but it can't have been very many.

[iiipopes]

Regarding the bottom bow, mine had the nub already hacksawed off when I got it. Yes, hacksawed. You can see the saw marks on the remains.

Chuck - I bet your CC is a great quintet/small ensemble horn, that could double on some of the higher parts with the right mouthpiece. Congrats on getting a rare horn.

Jonathantuba - the next time you do play one, try a Wick 2 mouthpiece. In my experience the Wick 2, having a more bowl cup, gives more core and projection to the tone, rather than the big broad sound the Wick 1 does.

In addition to anybody out there who has played both the 3 & the 4 valve comps, is there anybody who has played the different bells? I believe some of the oldest ones were 16 inches, mine, as are most, is a 17, and of course the newer ones are 19 inches.

[imperialbari]

To iiipopes:

If the low C and B natural are less alive than the F and E natural a fifth below, I would look after a leak or an obstacle. (The reasons can be very unlikely. All notes fingered 3 on my Conn 40K were perfect, but those fingered 2+3 sounded leaky. The leak was in the riser/chimney of the 3rd slide water valve, which had an ever so tiny radial ridge in its contact surface with the cork. I gently filed the edge of the riser flat. Problem solved).

The band you put around the exit from the valve block may rather cover up for a suspicious soldering than for a node. That’s the first place I would look.

To tofu:

I agree upon the Brit tubas being oversize euphoniums. Together with the singing playing style, that makes British marches much more alive and musical, than the more edgy German style. The Brits simply play more like bowed string basses (I have a few reservations towards some US bands, as they show off a bit too much).

I refused to buy a 994 as a supplement for my Eb 981. The 994 also is very euphonium-like, but it is limited in the dynamics in the range above the pedal.

The worst Brit BBb I have played was the transitional model from between 1978 and circa 1982: small receiver and 19" bell. I could get around 5 octaves on it, but the notes in the middle of the bass staff were totally unreliable. It may have been a matter of dirt, as it was a band instrument, which I used, when I was too lazy to bring my own York Master.

Within the last few months I have bought a Besson New Standard BBb 3+1 comper from around 1970.

It is not as good as the Eb 981, but it has something to its low range, which I like: definition. And that makes loud playing less called for.

To Chuck:

I think I have seen photos of your CC comper, but I don’t have them in my galleries. They would be most welcome there.

The 15" bell is the one of the "period" Eb. So your sample simply may be a hybrid of an old style BBb carcass, with the appropriate slide cuts, combined with the bottom bow and bell from an Eb.

The 3 comp version solved the problem with the extremely long 3rd slide of the 3+1 version.

I may have mentioned it before: the Brit tubas, the 981/982 maybe excepted, are not the largest within each their categories. But they are fairly high/tall. The Brits probably found it easier to make straight branches, so they saved a couple of main tubing bows compared to the much more compact US instruments.

I am totally unbiased, as I love the US and UK basses for each their values. I have 3 Bessons and the 3 Conns (the latter ones being circular), plus the US designed, but German made, York Master.

I hate the ball-busters of the old Bessons, but K&M makes a fine and sturdy playing stand usable with or without that annoying little brass knob. As my instruments are destined for museum purposes, I will not bust that ball.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[imperialbari]

The British military used to have huge numbers of musicians (often with soldiering duties as paramedics).

Around 1980 the total number was 5000. Now it may be only half as many.

The British makers used to design their tubas for military usage. The bottom bow ball had two distinct purposes:

In the mounted bands the saddle incorporated a bowl for that ball (the mounted bands used 3 piston compers, at they needed their left hands for the reigns).

Some marching bands used belt type harnesses with a similar bowl.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[tubatooter1940]

In the U.S. Marine Corps, bandsmen are stretcher bearers in combat.
Turned out I was lucky to wire up airplanes.

[iiipopes]

imperialbari: In January I had my horn gone completely through by my tech for valve block dents, solder joints, leaks, obstructions, etc. It's just the nature of the beast running the tubing back through the valve block twice.

Hey, it just occured to me I have heard from almost all the usual suspects except Tubatinker Dan. Hey, Dan - I'm sure you've worked on more than your share of 3-valve comps; what's your view on them?