.

The bulk of the musical talk
Post Reply
winston
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

.

Post by winston »

.
Last edited by winston on Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DonShirer
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Westbrook, CT

Post by DonShirer »

To play the same pitch, the wave travels through the same length of tubing in either type of instrument. For most notes the instruments are exactly the same. For lower notes the compensating model automatically adds the extra length often provided by pulling a valve slide on a non-compensating instrument to play in tune. Compensators do add a few more curves and sharp angled bends for low notes, leading some players to think they are "stuffy" in that range, but in my very limited contact with compensating instruments, this is not a universal attribute. Perhaps others with more experience could correct me on this.
winston
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Post by winston »

.
Last edited by winston on Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Chuck(G)
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5676
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:48 am
Location: Not out of the woods yet.
Contact:

Re: Mechanical advantages of non compensating horns

Post by Chuck(G) »

winston wrote:Since there is less air to travel through on a non compensating horn, do compensating horns fall to a disadvantage towards non compensating horns?

What are the advantages and disadvantages between the two, other than tuning, and intonation?
Valves (other than the "master" valve) have to have an extra set of ports (or, in the case of rotary compensators, a second rotor section), so the valves need to be longer and heavier. The extra plumbing for the compensating path isn't trivial and decreases the low register resonance when used, resulting in what many describe as a "stuffy" feeling. Compensating horns are also heavier because of the extra plumbing.

Fingering a compensating horn on the other hand, is a piece of cake. If 4 is low F (on a Bb instrument), then 24 is low E and 14 is low Eb and so on. On a 5th valve long-whole step Bb non-compensating instrument, the low E is still fingered 24, but the low Eb is best fingered 45; with less straightforward fingerings down tot he pedal.

The valve combinations 134 and 1234 on a compensator are still quite sharp, so the problem doesn't vanish completely.

I've been puzzled for a time by the euphonium community's general insistence on compensating instruments when it seems that they would have the least use of the feature, as it has no effect unless the 4th valve is being used.

Can anyone shed some light on this one?
winston
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Post by winston »

.
Last edited by winston on Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jay Bertolet
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:04 am
Location: South Florida

Post by Jay Bertolet »

Chuck,

I think you'll find that almost all of the solo repertoire these days makes use of the very low range of the euphonium. I recently gave a lesson, just prior to the ITEC, to one of my former students who was in the finals of the euphonium competition. Imagine my surprise when, as I was getting the room set up, he was warming up on the orchestral tuba excerpt from Holst's The Planets, Jupiter. You know, the loud and low section at the end of that movement. He was playing it in the octave printed. My jaw dropped. I asked him why he was doing it. He told me he felt like it really warmed him up for playing. He had been practicing such things for a while and he felt it helped him to control the low range better.

I think today, more than ever, the range of the euphonium is really expanding. Even pieces written quite a while ago (Symphonic Variants by Curnow for example) make extensive use of the low range. Not only do these notes need to be readily accessible, the player needs to be quite flexible in this range. It would seem that having that compensator system is critical for any euphonium player wanting to play contemporary solo repertoire.

For me, the bigger question is why the 5 valve, non-compensating euphonium isn't more popular than it is. They seem to be the horn of choice among professional tubists but the euphonium community seems to eschew that style of horn. I've always wondered why, mostly because I personally haven't had really good experiences with compensator horns. As has already been pointed out, there are still major intonation issues that the compensating system doesn't solve. Even so, these euphonium artists sound incredible on their compensating horns. To me, that's simply amazing considering the range and overall difficulty of their repertoire.

My opinion for what it's worth...
User avatar
RossK
bugler
bugler
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Taufkirchen, Bavaria, Germany

Post by RossK »

mandrake wrote:Now might be a good time to explain how they work too, for those of us who have never run into them personally.
Here is a great explanation (with flash animation) of both 3- and 4-valve Blaikely compensation systems:

http://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-comp.cfm

Flash animation:
http://www.dwerden.com/comp/aCompIntro6 ... ow_F4.html
Ross "This space intentionally left blank" Kay
ThomasP
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:24 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Weight maybe?

Post by ThomasP »

Wouldn't weight be a consideration for having a large CC tuba or BBb for that matter being fully compensating. Take a Willson CC, its already heavy, I own one, I can't imagine that same horn being a compensating model. So seeing that the large tuba is the made because of demand in the US, have they not been compensating, because that is the german trend, and there aren't, that I know of at least, large compensating tubas. And the Euph, is bigger in UK and Europe than it is here, and the flagship company when it comes to production is Besson, and they have made only compensating models. I think the question pondered by Mr. Bertolet, might have a lot to do with the practices of certain places, and logistics of having a compensating model tuba for the demands of said places. I hope I made sense, I did in my mind.
Thomas Peacock
Huttl for life
Schilke 66
User avatar
Chuck(G)
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5676
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:48 am
Location: Not out of the woods yet.
Contact:

Post by Chuck(G) »

Jay, thank you for the explanation!

I'm not familiar with most of the modern solo euphonium repertoire, and you've explained it. Most of my exposure to euphonium is concert and brass band stuff which could easily be played in tune on a 3-valve compensator or a 4-valve non-compensator.

Even when I'm doing tuba-euphonium quartet arrangements, I do my best to make sure that the euphoniums don't go below second-line Bb (BC) because many players are not strong in the lower register (at least compared to the same notes played on 1st tuba).

The only places I've seen the 3+2 non-compensating instruments in use is France and Belgium, where they're generally in the form of Bb saxhorns rather than the somewhat fatter euphoniums.

I own two front action compensating euphs (one a Besson, the other a Willson) and picked them mostly because they fit my tuba player's fingering habits. Had there been a front-action 4-valve with 5th thumb trigger as a noncompensating instrument available, I probably would own that one too.
dave
bugler
bugler
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: Salinas, CA

Post by dave »

Alexander makes the 5 valve euphonium with thumb trigger, Model 151. Tony Clements had one for sale last year, it sold very quickly, so I am also surprised that more are not imported, and that there is not more interest in the euphonium community. This is the ultimate Bydlo horn. However, it is probably not the ultimate Mars tuba part horn. The compensating Hirsbrunner has a better extreme low register, there is nothing "stuffy" about its playing in that range. Where the Alex shines is the resonance, tone and efficiency of playing in the mid and upper register.

Note, before someone pipes up and points out that the 151 is a 4-valve euphonium, they add the 5th valve on order.

Dave
User avatar
Jay Bertolet
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:04 am
Location: South Florida

Post by Jay Bertolet »

There were several excerpts as I remember it. Maybe I'm mixing them up. Didn't you also do the Promenade from Pictures? There was another one too. Oh well, the mind is the first thing to go. :lol:

My opinion for what it's worth...
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: Mechanical advantages of non compensating horns

Post by Rick Denney »

Chuck(G) wrote:...
I've been puzzled for a time by the euphonium community's general insistence on compensating instruments when it seems that they would have the least use of the feature, as it has no effect unless the 4th valve is being used.

Can anyone shed some light on this one?
I have had a long-standing argument with a pro euphonium and trombone player who insists that a four-valve compensator corrects the 1-3 combination. I try to tell him that only the fourth valve can route air back through the compensation tubing, but he refuses to believe me, even after running his fingers around the tubing on his Prestige.

And another pro I know suggests that the valve on the side is not problem because, "with the compensation system, you don't need to use the fourth valve except in the extreme low register." He clearly believed (or believed) that a four-valve compensator corrects the 1-3 low C and 1-2-3 low B valve swindle.

Thus, my explanation would include a healthy dose of ignorance.

Rick "who owns a four-valve compensating euphonium" Denney
User avatar
Rick F
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1677
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Lake Worth, FL

Post by Rick F »

The fourth valve corrects the 1-3 valve combination ONLY if you use 4th valve instead of 1-3. Surely that must be what they meant (I hope since these guys are 'pros)? :?

Besides using 4th valve for any 1-3 combos, I use it to reach below low F down to peddle Gb. Also sometimes use it as alternate fingering of Eb (1-4) or E (2-4) above the staff -- especially when playing with piano accomp. In band, most of the brass is sharp up there anyhow.

The bore on the compensating size is bigger. On my Yamaha 641 the main bore is .591. Compensating tubing's bore is .661.

Of course I'm just an amateur, what do I know. :roll:
Miraphone 5050 - Warburton mpc (Brandon Jones)
YEP-641S (on long-term loan to grandson)
DE mpc (102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank)
User avatar
Chuck(G)
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5676
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:48 am
Location: Not out of the woods yet.
Contact:

Post by Chuck(G) »

Rick F wrote: The bore on the compensating size is bigger. On my Yamaha 641 the main bore is .591. Compensating tubing's bore is .661.
Well, that brings me to another interesting "I wonder why"...

http://www.yamaha-europe.com/yamaha_eur ... s/YEP_621/

is the link to Yamaha Norway's description of the YEP-621, a non-compensating 3+1 instrument. Bore is 0.571 through the first three valves and 0.661 through the fourth. I've never played one of these, but it has all the earmarks of being a much better instrument than the ubiquitous YEP-321. Yet it's not offered by Yamaha in the US or UK markets.

Why? It would seem to be a fine alternative to the much higher-priced YEP-642...
Post Reply