TubeNet

The basic design of the 994, the upright valve model, has its origins in the original Saxhorn design when Perinet valves were first invented and adapted by Antoine Sax for his family of instruments. Then after Blaikley invented the automatic compensating system and applied it to an upright valve block in the 1870's, while working for Boosey, which later combined with Hawkes, and then even later combined with Besson, everything else since has basically been refinement for tone, intonation and tuning until the 19 inch bell Sovs came out with a change in emphasis of the tone to a deeper and lower from the prior tonality of a tad more overtones to knit the rest of a brass band together.

A simpler answer is :
It's hit and miss, a shorter, wider and more out of tune version than the 992 (BTW do you mean 994, or 994GS?).
Almost impossible to play comfortably without help or a very strange body shape, and many of them had terrible quality control and lacquer problems as they were rushed out during the "Lottery Frenzy" when lots of bands in the UK suddenly wanted them. I tried 7 at Besson when I bought one 10 years ago(?) and 2 were unplayable, 3 awful and 2 just ok.

If you want specifics and you know the model pm me!

AndyCat wrote:Almost impossible to play comfortably without help or a very strange body shape

The one I played with a local village brass band was literally the worst tuba I have ever tried. Like blowing into a bucket with ergonomics for a gorilla (need very long arm and long body).

The band now has two obtained on the lottery sitting in the store cupboard virtually unused as no-one is prepared to play (they have four Eb bass players!), while I cover the BBb bass part on my Cerveny 701 Kaiser.

AndyCat wrote:A simpler answer is :
It's hit and miss, a shorter, wider and more out of tune version than the 992 (BTW do you mean 994, or 994GS?).
Almost impossible to play comfortably without help or a very strange body shape, and many of them had terrible quality control and lacquer problems as they were rushed out during the "Lottery Frenzy" when lots of bands in the UK suddenly wanted them. I tried 7 at Besson when I bought one 10 years ago(?) and 2 were unplayable, 3 awful and 2 just ok.

If you want specifics and you know the model pm me!

Why keep it at PM-level?

I find your writing refreshing on topics, where others have written more conservatively.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

This is the front-action valved version, right? I confess I don't remember trying one, though I do recall being warned not to. All the same, I do enjoy my 983 Eb quite a lot. Surely there are a FEW copies of the 994 out there that play well. So I ask: 1) Is the critical problem more of distance from receiver to valves or more of balance? 2) Could the ergonomic issues be mitigated using a stand?

The front action compensating BBb is the 993.

Klaus

jeopardymaster wrote:So I ask: 1) Is the critical problem more of distance from receiver to valves or more of balance? 2) Could the ergonomic issues be mitigated using a stand?

I did not have a stand when I tried one, but the height of the mouthpiece could certainly be mitigated by a stand. But that still leaves the problem of the reach to the 4th valve - too far away to reach without contortions unless one has exceptionally long arms (I am 5ft 11ins, so not a midget).

Then there is the tone, but I may have just played a bad one.

The tone is woofy, and very hard to play nimbly and accurately by your "average" player.

I get the feeling the 994, and 994GS were made to make average players able to achieve the massive sound that the top brass band players already achieved. Very easy to overblow, hard to control and tuning pretty dire, but you can easily get a cushion of sound for a band to sit on. At the expense of clarity!

The 992 was the BBb equivalent of the 981 Fletcher model in that it was a concert model (straight leadpipe) and quite nimble, with less troublesome tuning and less woofy sound. An "inbetween" Imperial 17" bell models and the 994.

I've recently got an excellent BBb Imperial, and I find it superb, so much so that the 992 is going up for sale! I have an LMI Royal (994GS clone, only better) at my band for brass band work, but find the Imperial a better, more focused sound, and a lot more agile for anything besides brass band work!

Having now got access to all models (Imperial, 992, 994, 994GS and LMI Royal) I've come to the conclusion that the Imperial and the LMI are keepers!

Bob1062 wrote:

jeopardymaster wrote:This is the front-action valved version, right? I confess I don't remember trying one, though I do recall being warned not to. All the same, I do enjoy my 983 Eb quite a lot. Surely there are a FEW copies of the 994 out there that play well. So I ask: 1) Is the critical problem more of distance from receiver to valves or more of balance? 2) Could the ergonomic issues be mitigated using a stand?

Rest assured jeopardy, that the 993 kinda sucks.


Impossible to hold (and I'm almost 7 feet tall) and no upper volume. It did sound kinda nice and intonation seemed OK.

It kinda reminded me of a physically oversized 1291 C without the volume to back it up.

I would definitely get a 1291 or a Neptune (if you want a physically big horn, though I find the Neptune pretty comfortable) instead.

The valves were great though, and the insanely long throw wasn't that bad. I believe that horn is owned by one of the brass bands here in Chicago, so I'm assuming that it is a GOOD example of that model.
I did like the 983, but have never played any other Besson Bb. Nor am I sure that I want to.

I disagree. I'm only 6'4" and had no problem holding or playing the instrument. I was also very impressed with its volume potential. Far greater for me than a stock 1291. Which I seem to be able to break up very easily for some reason. They just don't respond well to me. The 1292 is a completely different story however. But everyone is different. Isn't that grand?

and saw that the 994 is top action with a side-mounted 4th valve. But a considerable redesign relative to the older "tallboy" models.

I HAVE played some of those, including an extended tour with an old beast, during my HS years, at Morehead State's summer music camp. One of MSU's instruments, since consigned to the deep in Cave Run Lake for all I know. My fingers, wrists, arms, neck, back and testicles all suffered serious damage from that horn.

So why in the name of all things holy would these guys take an ergonomic abortion of a tuba, redesign it, and come up with another ergonomically-challenged horn?

So why in the name of all things holy would these guys take an ergonomic abortion of a tuba, redesign it, and come up with another ergonomically-challenged horn?

Damaged testicles help you play the high notes.

My not so humble opinion is that Besson sold their soul to the devil to get those extra few low notes on the 19 inch bell 994 at the expense of incredible clarity, flexibility, superior intonation, and imminent musicality of the 17 inch 3-valve comp New Standard of the previous generation, which was the culmination of over a century's worth of ongoing refinement to get it perfect.

I just got in from Shrine band rehearsal tonight. I've played a wide range of tubas and souzys with this small band over the past few years with them, and for this particular small mixed wind ensemble, nothing supports and helps the band blend better for indoor gigs than my Besson. It should be. It's what it was designed to do, support about 20 to 30 other guys, and it does it better than anything else. Other tubas lack the stability of intonation or have the wrong tonality, and even my 186 is the wrong tonality for that band to stack up on top of its foundation with clarity.

I guess if you're a championship brass band wanting the biggest, broadest, deepest tonality possible in that context, then the 994 does that. But so does a large washtub, broom stick, and baleing twine, with about the same definition as to articulation and intonation, and difficulties as to ergonomics.

iiipopes wrote:My not so humble opinion is that Besson sold their soul to the devil to get those extra few low notes on the 19 inch bell 994 at the expense of incredible clarity, flexibility, superior intonation, and imminent musicality of the 17 inch 3-valve comp New Standard of the previous generation, which was the culmination of over a century's worth of ongoing refinement to get it perfect......

....I guess if you're a championship brass band wanting the biggest, broadest, deepest tonality possible in that context, then the 994 does that. But so does a large washtub, broom stick, and baleing twine, with about the same definition as to articulation and intonation, and difficulties as to ergonomics.

Which is why I've just got an incredible deal on my 17" Imperial. 2 bands have merged, and they're keeping the 994's one of the bands had and are getting rid of the Imperials!

Modifications (rough and ready) are now done on the Imperial (chopped 1st and 2nd slide) and it's great! More in tune and handleable than any Sovereign I've played. Although I am investing in a stand....

That one had already gone as far as I know!

I played the Sov BBb at Hendon after being on E flat for a while (2nd. on the right next to Barrie Perrins);

http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k309/ ... endon1.jpg

Totally the worst two B flat basses I've ever tried!

The earlier Imperials were a dream;

http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k309/ ... bass4a.jpg

CB