TubeNet

Sounds like a pretty daunting task, but I'd buy one if it didn't suck. And wasn't too expensive.

I think the OP is asking about a configuration where the low side would be f-tuba length, and the high side would be Bb euphonium length.

I'm not sure I see much of a need/market for this configuration. The bigger need is for an F tuba is a stronger low end, not a stronger high end.

Plus, I don't see much of a need for euphonium players to have the F tuba range added to the bottom of their range.

Maybe I'm missing something.

the comments made about the horn at dillon were that the F portion played fine but the CC half was lacking something. i am, however, intrigued at the idea of a well playing F/CC tuba; not as a main axe but more as a do it all horn to travel with. i could see it working finely in a brass quintet to cut down on the amount of equipment and since airlines are charging an arm and a leg for bags/tickets, one horn as opposed to two would be more feasible. just my $.02.

-CT

Uh, all 4valve compensating euphoniums are Bb/F double tenor/base tubas. They work great.

As do the Eb/BBb compansating tubas made by Besson, Yamaha, Wilson, et al.



J.c.S.

tuben wrote:

J.c. Sherman wrote:Uh, all 4valve compensating euphoniums are Bb/F double tenor/base tubas. They work great.

As do the Eb/BBb compansating tubas made by Besson, Yamaha, Wilson, et al.

Technically, these may qualify as double tubas, but as their fourth valves are viewed as such and not as 'change' valves, I don't think they are quite the same.

RC

I will respectfully disagree Double horn players (I am one) do the same thing we do, especially if they have their instrument set up to play in Bb predominantly (as I do). The 4th is used to change horns for the low register.

YMMV

J.c.S.

J.c. Sherman wrote:

tuben wrote:

J.c. Sherman wrote:Uh, all 4valve compensating euphoniums are Bb/F double tenor/base tubas. They work great.

As do the Eb/BBb compansating tubas made by Besson, Yamaha, Wilson, et al.

Technically, these may qualify as double tubas, but as their fourth valves are viewed as such and not as 'change' valves, I don't think they are quite the same.

RC

I will respectfully disagree Double horn players (I am one) do the same thing we do, especially if they have their instrument set up to play in Bb predominantly (as I do). The 4th is used to change horns for the low register.

YMMV

J.c.S.

I disagree with J.c.S. The fourth valve on a compensating euphonium does not add a full new set of slides, for a "double" euphonium. The extra tubing in the compensating system is not the same thing as a second set of slides.

tuben wrote:

Uncle Buck wrote:I disagree with J.c.S. The fourth valve on a compensating euphonium does not add a full new set of slides, for a "double" euphonium. The extra tubing in the compensating system is not the same thing as a second set of slides.

Just so. The fourth valve is not a change valve, but rather a fourth valve. The compensating tubing does not a double instrument make.

Gronitz made a true double tuba for Paul Humpel (Berlin Philharmonic).

RC

There are two types of "double" french horns, "full doubles" and "compensating doubles".

Full doubles have two sets of slides, longer F slides and shorter Bb slides.

Compensating doubles have Bb slides and shorter compensating slides, so the F "side" actually goes through each valve twice.
just for reference: http://www.hornplanet.com/hornpage/muse ... tory4.html" target="_blank

A 4-valve euph or tuba compensated on the Blaikley system operates exactly the same way as a compensated double horn, so I would consider it to be a compensated double.

They aren't full doubles, but neither is the Alexander double tuba or that MW thing that Dillon music had for sale. They're both compensating doubles, just like the Besson 980 or 981 or any 4 valve compensated euph.

So, I would agree with J.C.S.

All the best,

Christian

I've played on 2 F-CC double tubas in my life. One had a marginal F side and the other was a BAPW (big**s paper weight). Both were heavy as sin and seriously flawed on the CC side.

I suppose a Bb-F double MIGHT be a little more practicable. Practical? I can't comment - I leave that to the experts.

Something like this might fit the bill for a really BIG tenor tuba with enough lower notes to make some of those Berlioz parts and Barat solos a lot more feasible. Of course, if I were to practice some it might not be such a big deal --- ah, never mind.