Parker/Fletcher cut on a 983?

[Alex C]

What is the Parker/Fletcher cut?

The 983 I play has similar tuning. I haven't yet run into an ensemble pitched too high for it but, if you are pushed all the way in to start with, your options are limited. The internal pitch is just fine, the overall bugle length is too long.

If I keep the horn or play it somewhere besides a brass band, I would cut the main tuning slide half in inch on both sides.

Parker/Fletcher?

[cjk]

Have y'all considered using slightly smaller mouthpieces?

I found this at viewtopic.php?p=231875" target="_blank" target="_blank

I have a Side MB-L in my possesion. I played a couple notes on it with my Besson 983 and I like the sound very much. I seems to cause the pitch to be a little lower on this instrument than my LM9. I played with a tuner a bit and it was quite workable and a great mouthpiece in my opinion.

Then there's also this:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26365&p=227923&hilit=sidey#p227923" target="_blank" target="_blank

Maybe you could go back to the LM9 or get the Sidey with the smaller throat to get the pitch up?

Hope this helps,

Christian

[jeopardymaster]

That's an excellent observation --- I can testify that I don't have this problem when I use the Wick 3L mine came with. Back in '98 when I picked it out among quite a few at WWBW, I was intially frustrated at the pitch and response weirdness all of them exhibited. But then Charlie Krouse recommended I try them with the Wick, and subsequently it was very easy to weed out the bad ones. Still only 2 out of 6 or 7 were to my liking, but the better of them was really good. Never have had a problem with being too LOW --- but that short tuning slide leaves me little margin against, say, a really flat organ when I have a church gig.

[Alex C]

If you look at the back of the tuba there is a round section that is attached to the bugle and comes into the valves. The cut is to take this section off and remove about an inch and a quarter(I think). Then you leave the (teeny) tuning slide as is. There are a few threads discusing it in the past and it seems to be effective. My concern is that if you have the cut right before the bugle of the instrument, will it make all for valves tuning slides a little too long? In doing so, will I end up with a hopelessly out of tune instrument? I'm hoping someone who has already been through this can give us some insight.

There is one rule in cutting a horn that you should take to heart: "Never cut a tapered tube." You can cut one if you understand that you are changing the taper of the horn which can affect the overtones, response and pitch. If there were a replacement part or the horn was a junker, I might consider trying the cut... but I don't think I will in this case. The valve slide length will be the least of your problems.

I think that a shorter main tuning slide is preferable. A half inch on either side will not shorten the tuning slide significantly and pulling the tuning slide is not the issue anyway; pushing the tuning slide in is the issue.

Mine plays with the main slide about 1/4" out as it is; my mouthpiece fits into the receiver all the way to the bowl of the cup. I would feel more comfortable if I had just a bit more room to push in, however, it's still a great horn.

[J.c. Sherman]

I must be lucky - My Imperial EEb has never had to be more than 1/8 inch out, and usually is 1/4-1/3 of an inch out, with either my Miraphone C4 or my Yamaha Self mouthpieces. But I did overhaul it, and made sure all joints touched in the ferules on reassembly, so who knows if I helped it up a bit... I did chop 1/2 inch off the 4th valve, however.

J.c.

[EdFirth]

I owned one of these , and my solution was to make a shorter leadpipe . There is no room to trim the main slide , and as Alex said , don't mess with tapered tubing . The shorter leadpipe would turn the horn to a "side action" kind of set up but would be very easily switched back as opposed to cutting the afore mentioned tapered tubing in the back . My section mate in the Disney World Band had an F Besson that had the tube cut in the back and it was converted from a great , slightly flat F tuba to a cement mixer . Also , you can shave down the shank of your mouthpiece to go further in . Good Luck , Ed

[TMurphy]

I'm with Jeopardymaster on this one; I have no problems with the pitch being too low on my horn. If anything, on those really hot summer days, I find myself getting very frustrated trying to keep the pitch down...sometimes there just isn't enough slide to pull. I'm also using a Wick mouthpiece, although a 2SL rather than the 3L that came with it. I 3rd the motion to experiment with the mouthpieces a little bit.

[imperialbari]

Until 1970 Besson/B&H made parallel versions in high and low pitch. The difference in the Ebb tubas was said to be, that the LP version had the legs of one of the inner back bows extended with some cylindrical tubing.

The LP instruments were considered generally being on the flat side, because the test player was a non-tubist testing the instruments with a very small mouthpiece. The said Parker cut was about removing some or all of that cylindrical tubing on the back.

The 983 was designed after the HP & LP era. I don't think any cylindrical tubing was incorporated in the main branches. When I hunted for an Eb I tried a 983. I was told that my wish to test it with a DW1L was no good, as I would come out very flat, because the 983 was designed very specifically with the DW3L in mind. Might be true for some players, but the DW1L/983 set-up had to have the tuning slide pulled for me to keep down at A=440. (I took the 981, because I wanted that larger sound).

Changing the 983 leadpipe may cause problems, as the whole point of that design is the long and slow bore expansion.

It appears like this model is one people either like or not more than many other models.

Klaus