Convert C to BBb

[Doug@GT]

There are two problems here... 1) adding 2 feet of straight-bore tubing doesn't really lend itself very well to the existing dynamics of the conical bores. and... 2) not only does the open bugle have to contain 2 feet of additional tubing, all of the tuning slides also need to be extended by the same percentage of length. There may already be enough tubing to pull the slides on the 1st and 2nd valve circuits, but the 3rd and 4th valve circuits might need additional work.

Getzen "solved" this problem by putting two tuning slides on valves 1,3, and 4.

I confess I don't use the conversion often, but it does come in handy over the summer when preparing for marching band--instand BBb horn to learn the music on, so my poor fingers don't get confused.

Doug "who sounds just as bad on a converted BBb as on a regular BBb"

[Shockwave]

If the CC tuba has 5 valves (and most do) you could modify the 5th valve slide so that it drops the pitch a whole step and reverse the lever so that the valve is normally engaged. You would then pull out the tuning slides on the rest of the valves so that they play in tune and you have a BBb tuba with a whole step ascending valve. I'm curious if the valve combinations would have a positive or negative effect on intonation of some notes. I guess it's time to fire up Excel and see...

-Eric

[Joe Baker]

If the CC tuba has 5 valves (and most do) you could modify the 5th valve slide so that it drops the pitch a whole step and reverse the lever so that the valve is normally engaged.

This is precisely what Doug's G-50 does. From all reports, the horn (in its Bb configuration) is somewhere between poor and passing.

I've never really understood why that's the case, though. I've never played a horn that was so radically different just because you push the 1st valve -- which is that exact same whole-step. Maybe by the time you've also added another 1st valve, AND a 4th, it might be a little squirrely; but how often do you play fifth-line-low Eb and below?

At any rate, the instrument you describe already exists, and you can probably find any number of comments about the BBb setting.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who was disappointed when he heard that the BBb setting wasn't all that great.

[Leland]

I wonder if the GG conversion kits Yamaha makes for BBb horns sufferrs the same problems? I suspect it'd be more pronounced since the horn is lenghtened even more.

From what I've heard, yes, they do have their problems.

That might have been one of the reasons that you never heard the Yama-contra lines with exposed parts.

Well, maybe the arranging style of those corps had something to do with it, too.

[KarlMarx]

I wonder if the GG conversion kits Yamaha makes for BBb horns sufferrs the same problems? I suspect it'd be more pronounced since the horn is lenghtened even more.

From what I've heard, yes, they do have their problems.

Even within the framework of the DCI the more ambitious corps (corpses?) hardly would apply instruments, which right out of their boxes were dubious compromises.

Carolus Marximus Staywithbasisdesignius

[Doug@GT]

This is precisely what Doug's G-50 does. From all reports, the horn (in its Bb configuration) is somewhere between poor and passing.

I've never really understood why that's the case, though. __________________
Joe Baker, who was disappointed when he heard that the BBb setting wasn't all that great.

I wouldn't call it "poor." Or even "passing." I couldn't tell a difference between it and a Miraphone 186 BBb. I'm not the best judge, though. Your mileage may vary, and all that.

The CC configuration (aka "normal") is definitely better, but that is in reference to many, many other tubas besides "the Bb version." I mean, I fell in love with the thing for a reason.

Doug "who'll let Joe try the horn if we're ever in vicinity of each other"

[ThomasDodd]

An "AA" tuba would play all the way down to low Eb with only 3 valves...

I was think more like an FF, one step lower than the GG contras.

Since they are now comming with 3 and 4 valves, the GG could be a usable (sub?)-contrabass tuba. Like the Kanstul KMT-200C, (0.689 bore, 21" bell, 5/4) but in GG (KCG200 in convertible/upright form?).

[Joe Baker]

I wouldn't call it "poor." Or even "passing." I couldn't tell a difference between it and a Miraphone 186 BBb....

Doug "who'll let Joe try the horn if we're ever in vicinity of each other"

Doug, good to hear someone who has a higher opinion of the BBb configuration of the instrument. I've heard some pretty negative comments, but you know how people can be overly negative.
_____________________________
Joe Baker, who looks forward to meeting Doug in person one of these days, only partially because I'd like to try his G-50!

[Rick Denney]

Doug, good to hear someone who has a higher opinion of the BBb configuration of the instrument. I've heard some pretty negative comments, but you know how people can be overly negative.

There was a fellow who recently moved away from here who plays trombone and tuba professionally in Dixieland bands. He had a G-50 on which he reversed the fifth-valve linkage to make it into a Bb tuba with an ascending whole-tone valve. He did reconfigure the tubing on the fifth valve branch to open it up a bit. I thought it played reasonably well as a BBb tuba, but not quite as good as the King 2341 he replaced it with. If you put the fifth downstream from the tuning slide in fatter tubing (ala the fourth valve on a big euphonium), I bet it would have done even better.

For the life of me, I can't see the difference between an extra loop that is the fifth valve branch and an extra loop in the leadpipe for a tuning slide, such as on the VMI 3301. And those are excellent BBb tubas. If the design is workable, and it must be, then it's all in the execution.

Rick "who things a five-valve BBb tuba with a whole-step ascending valve is more useful than with a whoe-step descending fifth valve" Denney