58mark wrote:Look at the meat slicer on this thing...
That looks like that oddball Cazzani (or something like that) that Chuck Guzis used to talk about. And I'm pretty sure that is the rug in Chuck's living room. It wasn't that large but the bore was monstrous. I expect the sound to be a bit brittle, too, with that "flare".
As to the question, I had a Bb Besson Stratford in the deeps of time, and I simply had the flange holding the ball unsoldered. Took the technician about 15 seconds. I intended to keep it with the instrument, but I trade that instrument decades ago and I think I still have that ball and its flange around here somewhere. On mine, the flange was several inches long and was soldered onto the bottom bow guard, and removing it had no effect. It could easily be reinstalled if sold to someone who has not yet learned about the effects of the Unmanning Device.
I would not recomment removing the flange which has 3 purposes:
Obviously holding the ball.
Quite as obviously strengthening the outher perimeter of the bottom bow, where the metal has been stretched the most and hence where it is thinnest.
The maybe less obvious purpose of acting as an acoustic stiffening agent and damper-by-weight.
While I waited 3 spring months of 1999 between the ordering and the delivery of my British made Sovereign 981 Eb 3+1P comper, the seller loaned me the non-comping 7XX-version of the same instrument, which had the exactly same main bugle tubing (maybe except for the leadpipe).
Where the 981 has an even response, the 7XX was much more temperamental with some notes, especially top of the stave Ab, popping out much louder than the surrounding notes when playing scale type figures. To my eyes and ears that was caused by the lighter bottom bow guards and by the lesser amound of guard wire on the top bow (as compared to the 981).
I have recently been increasing the size of bow guards and ribbing on Wessex tubas and euphonium not just to reduce susceptibility to dents, but also to improve playing response. I don't know the science why, but it does seem to have a beneficial effect.
imperialbari wrote:I would not recomment removing the flange which has 3 purposes:
Reluctant as I am to disagree with Klaus, I still do. The flange that holds the ball is really quite small, or at least it was on my instrument--not more than three inches in length. It resides over a bow guard that already covers the bottom of the bow, and it's purpose is solely to distribute the force applied by resting the instrument on the ball. Removing it will do no harm.
Of course, it is a reversible experiment, if you find yourself unsatisfied with the results.
Rick "quite sure that big of brass plate did not affect the sound of that instrument" Denney
The ball flange may be small, but it is thick and stiff. It sits quite exactly where the metal is thinnest and most distant from one of two relative fix-points, the heavy bottom bow ferrules. It has a noticeable acoustic dampening effect on the amplitude of the wall vibrations at that sore spot.
Never been close to a British made recording bell tuba, even if it was a Besson case that came with the recording bell for my York Master BBb.
So I cannot tell from first hand experience whether the British recording bell basses in general came without the ball buster.
But if they did I would not primarily ascribe that fact to these instruments being non-marching instruments. I would rather see it related to all of these instruments being intended for the American market. Maybe the US importer didn’t want them or maybe he even negotiated them away as part of a price bargain.
The up-right-one-piece-bell-models were the same for all markets and the flexibility of the factory stocking would have been hurt by adding one more listing parameter.
The best players likely also were those that were most exact in selecting the instruments that fitted them well in the first place.
You after all was the one pointing out that the non-ball British tubas kept the ball flange.
In an odd way this question relates to recent discussions about stays. Here stays cannot be applied so they are replaced with factors of stiffness and of weight.
You have said some instruments come with too few braces for structural stability. That could be because the bugles of these instruments have not been acoustically optimised, so that they would be very un-responsive if equipped with the necessary amount of braces.
