I used to play the Besson 981 in the army band, a wonderful horn that I fell completely in love with. Unfortunately I could not keep the horn when leaving the band.
A while later I had a brain meltdown (etc.) and bought myself a 982...
Having played the 982 for several years, never being completely satisfied, and having read numerous posts here about successfully changing the leadpipe to the one from 981, I decided to try to make the transplant.
I talked to my local repairman who was willing to do the job, but gave me little or no hope of actually acquiring the spare part.
Mike Johnson wrote:Do you want the early straight pipe or the modern one that looks like the 982 pipe?
I have 2 of the more modern pipes that look like the 982 pipe if you are interested.
PM me.
Mike
OK, matters are always more complex than they first seem... so now you tell me there are several varieties of the 981 leadpipe?
Well, I guess the lesser the difference, the easier the fitting would be? While I never really liked the angle of the pipe on my current horn, I will want to make the change regardless of the shape of the pipe.
That the Besson/Boosey&Hawkes brass brands have been sailing dire straits over the last years is no secret.
That already the original owner suffered unbearable logistic problems, when it cam to the supply of spare parts is no secret either. I have been there myself and didn’t get, what I wanted.
The original 981 was designed specifically for Fletch, who was a great tubist, but a short man.
Hence the original 981 had a straight leadpipe (BBb Besson tuba style). That inherently lead to a shorter leadpipe, which necessarily lead to a faster expansion of the leadpipe bore. Exactly the sonic secret behind the 981 being a symphonic tuba as opposed to the marching honker numbered as 982.
The leadpipeshortness of the original 981 was compensated by a longer tuning slide.
Some time after the untimely death of Fletch, B&H/Besson revised the 981. The leadpipe was lengthened to equal the one of the 982. But the fast expansion of the leadpipe bore was kept. Which implies, that the last portion of the 981 leadpipe already has reached the cylindrical bore of .689, whereas the leadpipe of the 982 first reaches that bore at the entry into the valve block.
My personal 981from 1999 has the modern leadpipe, but still it is as superb instrument. Only it suffers from the tuning slide being shortened a bit too much for my taste.
Creating a tuning slide with longer male branches is very easy for any competent brass making company. But Besson/B&H failed badly on my ordering a such one already in 1999. They just sent a standard tuning slide like the one already sitting on my 981.
When I soon after switched to a PT-50 with my homemade backbore expansion, I could push in the tuning slide sufficiently to let it sit safely.
What Mike Johnson offers you by my evaluation is the real thing for you! And he is within the EU, so no import problems with unexpected costs should occur.
As some of you might know, I have had to fight being virtually blind after a medicine allergy. I had to be taken care of by a friend and by my neighbours. My dog had to go a dog-hotel for 3 weeks. She is back since 9 days, as I am safe on the streets again. I can fend for her and myself again, but my reading, especially my proofreading, hasn’t recovered to a level making me proud of myself. Please be forgiving. I hope to have provided some information anyway.
Some of this text is being backed by information available through my brass galleries.
I was sorry to learn of your illness, and I certainly hope you get better soon.
I have read some of your earlier posts about the 982/981 differences, and I always find it interesting to learn more about why things are the way they are.
I will keep posting about the progress on upgrading my instrument. (or my failure to do so....)
My love for the 982 is not too blossoming. Yet the 982 is less exhausting to honk through a parade or street marching session.
Hence my suggestion would be to have the 981 as well the as 982 leadpipes mounted with a clamping system, so that you can choose the optimal set-up for any given situation.
If your local guy cannot construct such mounting system, which is surprisingly similar to the tuning bell trumpets, then I am convinced, that Mike will solve such problem in a functional way.
I did quite a lot of parade work with the 981 in the Army without passing out, but that was of course in my younger days...
The idea of a setup with an exchangeable lead pipe has actually occurred to me before. However, I have not yet asked the repairman if he could solve that for me. I imagine there would be several ways to solve this, where the difficult part would be the attachment of the pipe to the bell.
It just occurred to me that such a solution would also provide a way to attach a special (custom) "parade leadpipe", with an angle more suitable for marching. No matter how great this horn is, the top action layout is killing my back on parade.
(another solution of course would be to find a cheap, lightweight front action tuba for those 'battlefield' situations...)
Now I have finally got the new pipe attached to the tuba. It looks fine. Haven't had the time to test it more than a few tones at the instrument shop, but there will be plenty of time for that too.
As I am anyways writing something here and occupying your time, I might as well ask you fellas out there if you think I should have the new pipe silver plated, or just leave it as it is (= bare brass) for a more 'custom built' look?
I don't have any band code regarding instrument looks to consider right now. I had it soldered on, in the simplest possible manner, in order to get the opportunity to try it out before doing any major adjustments. The shop guy did a real good job polishing it too, so it looks really cool with the 'golden' shine against the silver plating.
Still out travelling without the tuba, so there has been no chance to try it out soundwise yet.
Back from band rehearsal - and the first try with the new leadpipe.
WOW - that 30 cm piece of tube really made the all the difference. It matches my PT-50 mouthpiece much better, gives more volume and allows me to really push through a lot more air.
I fully understand your description of it and your reaction to it.
What I find the possibly greatest asset of the 981-leadpipe, is the LACK of need to play loud. It is possible to play with a really carrying and foundation creating sound even at very low dynamics. But then the articulation of course needs a bit more attention to keep some clarity to it.
