TubeNet

Perhaps it's just 'stupid question' time... but here's one that's been bugging me for some time and I have not stumbled onto a reasonable answer.....

Why are the valves arranged in the order they are....

#1 = full step
#2 = 1/2 step
#3 = 1 - 2 combination
#4 = 1 - 3 combination

In terms of logical progression, it seem like #1 should be the 1/2 step and #2 be the full step.

Is this a matter of "that's just the way it's always been"?... or was there a logical reason 150 years ago?... or is it a matter of evolution where horns had one valve... then two... and then a third one was added.

An inquiring mind wants to know if any time in history things might have been different.

Not necessarily an authoritative reference this:

http://home.att.net/~bobbeecher/bari-eu ... -euph.html

"Eventually, the arrangement of "2-1-3" (semitones) became the standard valve arrangment due to the ease of placement of the smallest loop in the middle."

It seems to me that certainly makes sense, especially given that the oldest instruments using this system were trumpets where that would have been an issue. KISS always being an issue with instrument design.

I really don't know much about the whys of what valves were assigned. I do know that with 7 slide positions on the trombone, the fingerings that correspond to the slide positions make sense, in a linear fashion: 1st position=open, 2nd position=2nd valve, 3rd position=1st valve and so on. As for the 4th valve tubing, and why an F attachment adds what it does to the 'bone...maybe because it matches that partial. I don't really know, I just know that, for me, when I think in terms of slide positions, the assignement of valves makes sense.

BTW, cool link, Jim

Ally"demonstrating first learned best retained"House

Going strictly on assumption here. But it seems to me you would want to put the most frequently used valve on the index finger, for ease of use. And the second most used to the middle finger, and so on.

TubaTinker wrote:Perhaps it's just 'stupid question' time... but here's one that's been bugging me for some time and I have not stumbled onto a reasonable answer.....

Why are the valves arranged in the order they are....

#1 = full step
#2 = 1/2 step
#3 = 1 - 2 combination
#4 = 1 - 3 combination

Don't forget that some early 4th valves were 2 step (2-3), and a few were 3 step (1-2-3) 4th valves.

TubaTinker wrote:An inquiring mind wants to know if any time in history things might have been different.

My guess would be that when building the transitional omnitonic horns, putting the smallest valve/tubing in the center made for the cleanest design.

So yes, probably because they were always (for a short period, anyway) that way.

But alternate 3rd, 4th, and 5th length systems still survive.

tubashaman wrote:Think about it, there is (with 4 valves) only 1 fingering that uses the 3rd valve as a primary finger, which is 2 and 3. However, you have many that use one and 2 in the harmonic series

...and think about it, the same would still be true if the first and second valves were reversed...

tubashaman wrote:Think about it, there is (with 4 valves) only 1 fingering that uses the 3rd valve as a primary finger, which is 2 and 3. However, you have many that use one and 2 in the harmonic series

I believe the Germans tend to use 3 instead of 1+2. I recently watched a German tuba player and noted this. I asked why they used 3rd and they said it produced a slightly better tone - interesting!

euphoniumguy227 wrote:The way I heard it is that 3 insted of 2+3 is more in tune and in the high range it can be eaiser

euphoniumguy227 wrote: ... 3 insted of 2+3...

This doesn't seem to add up; if 3 is more "in tune," then the other (2-3) fingering would put you a semitone below that (which would certainly sound extremely flat by comparison).

Not quite sure how this works out in making things "easier in the high range."

tubashaman wrote:I agree with JB.

Plus, I feel 1+2 gives better response than 3

previosly

tubashaman wrote:My 12 valve combination on my miraphone 1291 CC is real sharp, and I have to pull out near 2 inches if not more.

On many German tubas, using the third valve by itself is much more in tune on certain notes (particularly E one ledger below the staff) than the 1-2 combination. This is common practice and often a better alternative than playing trombone with the 1st valve slide on every note.

http://www.usd.edu/smm/UtleyPages/Doubl ... klist.html

cites

Joe R. Utley and Sabine K. Klaus, "The 'Catholic Fingering'—First Valve Semitone: Reversed Valve Order in Brass Instruments and Related Valve Constructions," Historic Brass Society Journal, 15 (2003), pp. 73-74.

And I'm sure their must be published articles in the American Musical Instrument Society journal as well.

*wes is waiting for the horn players to chime in*


Mary Ann, where are you?


There is a very specific reason why horn players would be adequate in answering this question.

Isaac Fiske Eb Soprano

Another reason I think has to do with woodwind fingerings, where that pattern was already fairly well-established before the valved brass instruments came along, probably for the reasons described above.
I have believed for a long time that a rotary-valve tuba should have the second rotor on top, with its valve slide vertical and easily accessible. The next one down should be the first valve, and so on so that each valve in the series has longer tubing an bigger bore than the previous one. Valve linkage could be arranged so that conventional fingerings would still be used.
(But I still prefer pistons.)

I´m just guessing, but I can´t help but notice the piston trumpets´ triggering system:
whole and 3/2-step valves get triggered (1/2-step would be WAY too short to even bother triggering).
Left hand thumb and ring finger (or pinky) seem to be most convenient to do the triggering, because a person´s palm is just wide enough to hold all three pistons AND operate triggers.

The rest would simply be a transition of fingering patterns throughout the brasses.
Sounds logical ?

tubeast wrote:I´m just guessing, but I can´t help but notice the piston trumpets´ triggering system:....... The rest would simply be a transition of fingering patterns throughout the brasses. Sounds logical ?

Sounds logical but quite demeaning that the fingering patterns for the far more noble tuba was influenced by the much lesser trumpet!

TubaTinker wrote:

tubeast wrote:I´m just guessing, but I can´t help but notice the piston trumpets´ triggering system:....... The rest would simply be a transition of fingering patterns throughout the brasses. Sounds logical ?

Sounds logical but quite demeaning that the fingering patterns for the far more noble tuba was influenced by the much lesser trumpet!

It's a chicken and egg thing. I have not studied this and don't know your answer, but considering the natural progression, it may be that the trumpet did indeed follow the tuba.

Remember that the invention of the valve is what made the tuba possible. Before that time, brass instruments (trombone excepted for obvious reasons) could only provide a reasonably selection of notes when played high in their harmonic series. When the valve was invented, this restriction was relaxed and that is what made a tuba possible. Before that time, note selection between partials was accommodated using tone holes, and these were impractical on a large tuba. Thus, we had instruments such as the ophicleide and serpent that used tone holes for all note selection outside the harmonic series, but that were relatively narrow.

The ophicleide was the standard predecessor of the tuba, and was held similarly to a bassoon. The first tuba by Wieprecht was also held similarly to a bassoon, with valves operated by both hands. I wonder (but do not know) if the Wieprecht and Moritz valves did the same things under the same fingers as did an ophicleide of the day.

It may also be, as has been suggested, that the horn played the pivotal role. But I don't think it was the trumpet. I suspect trumpets were played using crooks and few valves well into the middle 19th century, after tubas had been introduced.

Rick "also curious about the connections" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:I wonder (but do not know) if the Wieprecht and Moritz valves did the same things under the same fingers as did an ophicleide of the day.

No. Even simple ophilceides were 9 keyed, while some had as many as 11+. Another interesting point is that keyed bugles and ophecleides had an normally open tonehole at the end of the horn as part of the "open" bugle. And as one presses more keys, the effect is ascending, rather than the descending effect of using valves.

I suspect that the pattern has much more to do with woodwind fingering than with the transitional brasses.

Rick Denney wrote:I wonder (but do not know) if the Wieprecht and Moritz valves did the same things under the same fingers as did an ophicleide of the day.

No. As mentioned above, the Oph has 9 to 13 keys like a woodwind instrument, and the original W-M F tubas had 5 valves: 2 left hand, 3 right hand, similar to modern 6-valve F tubas, which can claim direct descendancy. They were made long and narrow, with the two handed valve setup, probably so that Wieprecht could convert oph players. Here's a link with a picture and fingering explanation:

http://www.rugs-n-relics.com/Brass/tuba ... -Tuba.html

Towards the bottom of the text:

"Counting the valves 1 to 5 from top to bottom, a scale can be played: F-Open; G-5 (like 1+3 or 4 on modern tubas); A-1+2; Bb-1; C-open;  D-1+2; E-2; F-Open."

Unfortunately, this simple example doesn't explain what valves 3 & 4 do, but I imagine from looking at the picture they are longer for other combinations, and function similarly to what 5th and 6th valves actually do on modern F tubas. 3 seems to be a long half step and 4 seems to be a long whole step -- kind of inverse of the "modern" fingering.

With Oph players being used to using their left hand more in fingering notes the middle of the range, it makes sense that the basic semitone & whole tone valves would be in the left hand on these tubas, before convention switched to using mainly the right hand.