Why no 5-valve euphoniums?

[Chuck(G)]

I've found it more than a little incredible to hear the 3+1 euphonium players defending the configuration of their instrument by saying "The 4th (pinky) finger isn't as strong or fast as the other three".

Tell that to any piano, woodwind, string or tuba player!

[JTJ]

On this pinky thing. I play a 3+1 compensaing euphonium, and I play the 4th valve wih the pinky of my left hand. Works fine. Why? A slight disability involving an accident when I was a kid, which left my left hand compromised.

I would a love a Bloke euphonium (assuming it played as well as the best), because I find the traditional 3+1 configuration an ergonomic nightmare. Beyond just my particular issues with it, it is just awkward to hold and play.

John

[quinterbourne]

4 in-line vs 3+1:

The one thing that I truly love about my 4 in-line euphonium, as well as my 4 in-line tuba, is that it leaves my left hand totally free.

I can easily adjust my music stand, pencil marks into my music, turn pages, scratch myself and adjust tuning slides with my left hand without compromising my ability to play.

The trombone player in one of the brass quintets I play in finds it extremely hilarious whenever I make pencil marks in my part, on the fly, while we continue to rehearse the piece (I do it since I might forget if I wait until the end).

When I moved from 3 valve tuba to 4 valve tuba, sure it was difficult with the weak pinky. For the first few weeks it was very painful. Eventually your pinky just gains enough strength so it is no longer a problem. Keep in mind all the work woodwinds need to do with their pinkies. Clarinets and Bassoons need to use each pinky for multiple keys.

I think that the left/right hand co-ordination of a 3+1 tuba/euphonium is a somewhat reasonable argument for wanting the instrument to be 4 valves in-line. However, you do get accustomed to the left/right hand co-ordination over time, so that really isn't that much of an issue. Almost every instrumentalist in the band/orchestra has to do the two hand co-ordination - including strings, all woodwinds, percussion and trombones with triggers. We aren't all brain dead - if they can do it, we can too!

Unfortunately, you just have to deal with the 3+1 valved euphonium if you want a large bore, compensating professional euphonium.

[quinterbourne]

Front action vs top action:

I believe this is a personal preference. I believe front action is more comfortable and natural. Someone else may think top action is more comfortable and natural. Neither of us are wrong.

As far as valve friction goes - I believe the difference, if at all, is negligible. There are many more factors including springs, valve condition as well as valve oils used. Don't forget the individual's talent. Nimble fingers are nimble fingers whether the valves are front or top action.

Cars - use pistons. Some cars have "front action" pistons, some have "top action" pistons and some have pistons moving on an angle (similar to the 4th valve in a 3+1 euphonium). Different manufacturers do their own thing for their own reasons. There is no established "better way" of organizing the pistons - as far as efficiency is concerned. The amount of work used to move a piston up+down is = to the amount of work used to move a piston forward+backward.

[MikeMason]

this thread makes me think of that Getzen/Willson/Canadian Brass euphonium Gene Watts used for years with the CB.i've always wanted one of those,though i really have no use for one.It is compensating though,but this would be a good blueprint for the 4+1 we're talking about.They have come up on ebay a time or two...

[Chuck(G)]

Unfortunately, you just have to deal with the 3+1 valved euphonium if you want a large bore, compensating professional euphonium.

I don't know if Willson has resumed making the 2975 or not, but that's definitely a large bore, compensating 4-valve front-action instrument (and the CB model mentioned in connection with Gene Watts above).

Playing a 2900 and 2975 side by side, the 2975 feels more "tuba like" and a bit more open to me, as little as I get to play euphonium. It certainly is easier to hold and the upward-pointing main tuning slide is very easy to manipulate with my otherwise unoccupied left hand. One water key drains the whole shebang, save for the 4th slide (which doesn't need dumping very often as it is).

[quinterbourne]

Unfortunately, you just have to deal with the 3+1 valved euphonium if you want a large bore, compensating professional euphonium.

I don't know if Willson has resumed making the 2975 or not, but that's definitely a large bore, compensating 4-valve front-action instrument (and the CB model mentioned in connection with Gene Watts above).

Playing a 2900 and 2975 side by side, the 2975 feels more "tuba like" and a bit more open to me, as little as I get to play euphonium. It certainly is easier to hold and the upward-pointing main tuning slide is very easy to manipulate with my otherwise unoccupied left hand. One water key drains the whole shebang, save for the 4th slide (which doesn't need dumping very often as it is).

Yeah, I realized after I posted it that there are a few 4 valve front action euphoniums. An acquaintance of mine has a 4 valve front action Willson that you speak of. From what I've heard those horns are very quirky. I don't know if it was the particular instrument, or the model in general - but the high F was actually very flat, and that harmonic is usually quite sharp.

The problem is that these instruments are no longer in production. All of the quality popular 4 valve, compensating, professional euphoniums being produced are in the 3+1 configuration: Willson 2950/2900, Yamaha 842/642, Besson 2051/2052 Prestige and Besson 967/968 Sovereign.

Take a look on WWBW, Dillon's and Baltimore Brass - you won't be able to find a euphonium on there with front action 4 valve in-line configuration (besides the Cerveny CEP5314MR, which uses rotary valves).

Not that there's anything wrong with 4 valve in-line front action pistons, but it is unusual. This is probably the reason why they are not being produced - nobody will buy them because they are unusual.

[Chuck(G)]

Not that there's anything wrong with 4 valve in-line front action pistons, but it is unusual. This is probably the reason why they are not being produced - nobody will buy them because they are unusual.

Twas not ever so, however--until the "invasion of the British bariphoniums", 4 valve-front-actoin (as well as 3 valve) models could be found quite easily, made by US manufacturers. I don't recall any 5 valve models, save for the double-bell units. Some were quite remarkable (e.g. the Conn Connstellation) and still command good prices.

[windshieldbug]

Twas not ever so, however--until the "invasion of the British bariphoniums", 4 valve-front-actoin (as well as 3 valve) models could be found quite easily, made by US manufacturers.

Oddly enough, though, when performing on my Conn 5 valve front DB euphonium, I'd cradle it in my arms and use BOTH 4 & 5 with my left hand. My horn was built with a 5th valve cap locking mechanism, though, which would allow one to play through either bell using only the right hand.

[quinterbourne]

Not that there's anything wrong with 4 valve in-line front action pistons, but it is unusual. This is probably the reason why they are not being produced - nobody will buy them because they are unusual.

Twas not ever so, however--until the "invasion of the British bariphoniums", 4 valve-front-actoin (as well as 3 valve) models could be found quite easily, made by US manufacturers. I don't recall any 5 valve models, save for the double-bell units. Some were quite remarkable (e.g. the Conn Connstellation) and still command good prices.

My argument is that the 4 valve front action euphoniums are no longer currently being made - not that they were never made. The "new" norm is the 3+1 configuration.

Most of the front action euphoniums being produced nowadays are mainly 3 valvers. Of those, produced in the USA, most of them are bell front (or double bell front)... "baritones." Also include most of the previously made 4 valve front action euphoniums. These "things" are, in my opinion, good for marching bands and marching bands alone. I don't think they fit in the solo, tuba/euph quartet or Wind Ensemble settings.

If you are looking to purchase a 4 valve compensating professional quality euphonium for use in solos, tuba/euph quartet or Wind Ensemble settings, you have little choice but to get one in the 3+1 configuration, unless you are able to find an old Willson or Canadian Brass model.

[imperialbari]

Most of the front action euphoniums being produced nowadays are mainly 3 valvers.

The 4 pistons’ front action bell front baritone/euphonium has a fine and very alive existence in a not so likely geographical area:

Austria with its German speaking neighbouring areas in Bavaria and Northern Italy plus in Slovenia. The standard set-up of the folk music groups there is

clarinet and trumpet playing in thirds or sixths
accordion (often also the leader and singer)
guitar (Ovation is a very popular make there)
drums
baritone carrying the bass line and frequently played in a way most resembling an overblown bassbone (this player may double on double-bass)

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[UDELBR]

Most of the front action euphoniums being produced nowadays are mainly 3 valvers. Of those, produced in the USA, most of them are bell front (or double bell front)... "baritones."

Is there double-bell anything being produced nowadays? (as you seem to assert). I'd certainly be interested in hearing about it.

[windshieldbug]

Is there double-bell anything being produced nowadays? (as you seem to assert). I'd certainly be interested in hearing about it.

Just check eBay, and you can certainly find one of those fine Tristar echo cornets produced in India

[Chuck(G)]

My argument is that the 4 valve front action euphoniums are no longer currently being made - not that they were never made. The "new" norm is the 3+1 configuration.

The last time I looked, the Jupiter 474L was still called a euphonium and had 4 front action valves and was still in current production.

The same applies for the King 2268.

Maybe not a big sample, but they're still made.

[P.J.]

I have contracted Mr. Bloke to act as my lawyer. We are going to file a class action suit against Besson, Yamaha, and Willson in order to "guide them" into producing large 5 front valve euphoniums, or at least 4 with an optional 5th.

Doesn't Besson have enough problems without havingto worry about a 5 front valve euph?

[Bob Mosso]

What do you guys think of the 4-valve King?

A 0.562 bore is quite small.

http://www.kingwinds.com/catalog/detail.php?item=2268

[Bob Mosso]

I don't have recent experience blowing on the various bore horns, but I have a .560 bore Bueshner (sp?) and a .571 bore Yam 321. In my opinion the mouthpiece has the largest effect on how "free-blowing" the horn feels, then the bore size. The King likely has a small shank. Perhaps a 51D, SM4B or LM-47 would give you the large free blowing feel you want.

In general (for euphoniums):

.560 = small bore, student type
.571 = meduim bore, intermediate
.591 = large bore, just about all professional euphs

[UDELBR]

Er, obviously there's a distinction of two half steps. Aside from that, the differences are negligible: bore is almost identical, so your analogy of bass / tenor trombone isn't an accurate one.

There is most certainly a difference between bass trombones and tenor trombones.

You've misunderstood. I'd said that aside from the difference of a whole-step and some extra valves, the differences between French tuba and euphonium are LESS than the differences between tenor and bass trombone.

Great post; wrong tangent.

[JTJ]

"Perhaps the function of the instrument, with the French C tuba playing a bass role, rather than the traditional role of a euphonium (tenor tuba) player."

Yep, I agree that function is most of the difference. I am working up the Casterede "Sonatine," originally for the French C tuba. When playng that work, the whole philosophy and scoring of the piece brings out the tenor tuba nature of the euph. It is much different than playing something written for euph by, say, Philip Sparke -- one horn becomes two different instruments.

John

[J.c. Sherman]

I've found it more than a little incredible to hear the 3+1 euphonium players defending the configuration of their instrument by saying "The 4th (pinky) finger isn't as strong or fast as the other three".

Tell that to any piano, woodwind, string or tuba player!

Was googling "french tuba," and this thread came up...

I play a YEP-321 with the added 5th. It was converted to a flat whole tone before I got it and it's amazing. I hate the pinky fourth, but the bottom end is SO much more open in the bottom... well worth it and pitch is very easy to maintain.

That said - my main ax is a 3+1 Eb tuba. It's vastly easier than anything with a pinky on the right hand, which I hate, but few tubas are manufactured any other way. The tendons for 3 and 4 are shared, and the finger is week (especially for "Big Valve" tubas. Again, there's few option save for customization, but it's definitely not our strongest finger - and mine is abnormally short as well.

I play flute regularly and piano... the pinky sucks.