TubeNet

Disclaimer -- I'm not a euph player, and I'm sure this has been discussed to death here...however, I searched the archives but couldn't find what I wanted...

Is there a general consensus one way or the other between 3-valve compensating and 4-valve non-compensating euphoniums? I happened to check out the Dillon's Web site today, and saw a few Bessons on there, one in each "flavor." What is the general preference? Thanks!

Hey Bob, good catch, I just edited my post...

I don't know too much about Euphs, at least to the point to feel comfortable putting down $2k+ on one. Around $1k feels more comfortable right now.

intonation with a compensator should be much better, even a 3 valve. You don't really need the 4th valve range all that much in most literature.

bloke wrote:You can do a lot with a 4V non-comp (assuming its a good instrument).

With a 4th valve spring trigger added, you can play chromatically from low Eb down to low C. You can also micro-tune your 4 and 2-4 combination pitches. To me, this system is "the" preferred system "period".

It certainly would imply fewer valve passages and few tightly bent knuckles. A 5th valve would give full chromatism.

Only which are the great 4 piston non-comp euphoniums to choose from?

The YEP-321 is spoken more favourably about than I ever understood.

The Weril is reported to be priced unrealistically high by now.

The YEP-621 IS good, but can you get it in the US?

The King top valved one has a trigger in the 3rd slide. Why isn’t it sitting on most of the US market?

The Besson 700-series version was very much out of tune with itself.

Klaus

Personally, I prefer the 3 valve compensating. I have a Besson that I really like. I would play it all of the time if I could. It has a more traditional "euphonium" sound and is a better blending instrument with the 4v comp instruments.

Both the 3v comp and the 4v non-comp have tricky low registers. I have found the Besson to have usable false tones, Eb being the only missing note. I have not played and of the newer 3+1 non-comp instruments. For me, instruments like the Yamaha YEP-321 leave a lot to be desired in terms of upper and lower register intonation, flexibility, and a general ability to manipulate and change colors.

Graham

this is probably a daft question, but why would you not go for a 4 valved compensated euph, and enjoy the best of both?

there was a 5th valve available for the 321, it goes inside the 4th slide, LH operated. It wasn't graceful necessarily, but better than nothing.

For most concert band section usage, it's a toss up. As we all know, the main reason for a 4th valve on a euph in section usage is intonation, which is what the comp loops do. Since even the 3-valve comp setup (I should know since I have one) has its limits when you get to 1+2+3, it still needs slight lipping, as does 2+4 on a 4-valve non-comp euph, and about the same amount.

Trivia fact for the day: Blaikley knew this from the beginning, and the original patent drawing for the 3-valve comp setup has an extra 4th valve just for 1+2+3. Obviously, it wasn't needed in production.

The supposed main advantage of a 4-valve non-comp euph over a 3-valve comp is theoretically the elimination of a couple of "stuffy" notes from the return path through the block.

And, of course, since a 4-valve non-comp is just that, 4 valves, you do have a few more usable notes on the low end if the particular 3-valve comp does not have good false pedals. My Besson does not have good false pedals, so my range that particular instrument does effectively end at 1+2+3 low E nat, unless I have an opportunity to set up a long 3rd pull for an Eb.

Either will do just fine for 99% of concert band section repertoire.

As a practical consideration, I don't believe there have been any 3-valve comp euphs made for at least a generation or so, so if a person does want to play one, just like any other older instrument, the same caveats about checking condition apply.

imperialbari wrote:
The King top valved one has a trigger in the 3rd slide. Why isn’t it sitting on most of the US market?

Klaus

I took the trigger mechanism off. It got in the way; the valve slide wouldn't stay where I put it, little rubber ring or no, and I prefer to set my slides so that I can lip things into tune.

MA

peter birch wrote:this is probably a daft question, but why would you not go for a 4 valved compensated euph, and enjoy the best of both?

Well, a 4 valve comp still has out of tune notes. Anytime you use the forth valve, in combination with any two (or more) other valves, there are mathematically wrong tube lengths at work! Also, any 2-3 combination notes are not compensated at all!

Low D (1-2-4), Db (2-3-4), C (1-3-4), and B (1-2-3-4) will all still be out of tune (B being the worst). All of this being said, how much time does a euphonium actually have to play these notes?

A 3 valve comper should only have problems with tuning the 2nd line B, and low E, but the trade off is no low Eb -> B range (unless false tones are available), which, as noted above, are not called for very much in the literature, anyway.

Fred Young's analysis reveals that the three-valve compensation system gets more notes more closely in tune than the four-valve compensation system. The four-valve Blaikley system provides the compensation only on notes that involve the fourth valve, which is only used in the low register. The three-valve system allows the use of three-valve fingerings without the resulting intonation disasters.

There are folks who still play student-model baritones (read: three-valve euphonium, such as old American baritones and newer instruments such as the Yamaha YEP-201) in community bands, playing euphonium parts without complaining about not having enough notes.

And I can't think of any orchestral part where the tuba player might double on a euphonium where a three-valve compensator would run out of notes.

So, in my opinion, the valve and compensation system should not be a principal decider. What should be is how the instrument plays otherwise. I have played Besson three-valve compensators that were just lovely instruments with a beautiful singing tone and good intonation. I've played four-valve euphoniums that might as well have been three-valve instruments because the fourth valve was unreachable by humanoid hands. I've played many euphoniums that just demanded something I didn't have to make them sound good at all or play in tune. Pick the instrument that lets you make music and then worry about whether the valve system is workable.

And price is not always the issue. I paid $400 for my Besson four-valve compensator that is probably a New Standard from about 1974 (large receiver, but not a Sov). It plays quite well, if you don't mine looking at the gouges where some school buffoon straightened the flattened bell with pliers. They had cut off the fourth valve stem at the top of the cap, so that tells you how important they thought the fourth valve was. Matt Walters installed a new stem for me, and found a button to go on it. Then, he invited me to compare it to a new Sovereign. I rather preferred mine. Granted, I did have to reinflate parts of that instrument that had been squashed. Good solder practice, and I only have a little bit of electrical tape left on it. I like it not because it's a compensator, but because the Bessons of old have a sound quality that is unique to them. It's just fun and satisfying to play. I have an old American 4-valve euphonium in the form of a top-action Reynolds from before the war. Fun to look at, but not at all fun to play, either in terms of ergonomics, intonation, or sound.

I like the idea of a five-valve front-action euphonium. Alexander makes one: Its called the Tenor Tuba, Model 151. Too expensive, because when they are available, people investing in their profession are willing to pay the price to get one. I wish more of the rotary tenor tubas made it to the U.S.

Rick "greatly preferring the 3+1 Besson, despite the awkward operation for a tuba player, to the 4 in-line Reynolds euphonium of old" Denney

Dr. Young’s calculations are correctly done math-wise. But they build on the assumption that the partials of any low brass are in tune with themselves. Which of course is rarely, if ever, the case. The error of the partials is much worse than the microscopic benefits on a very few notes of taking a 3 valve compensator over a 4 valve ditto. A brilliant low brass player, who actually has some cultural scope, but who now literally dives into other waters, used a very strong expression on Dr. Young’a calculations. I won’t quote that very fitting term, as Dr. Young in other matters has contributed to a greater understanding of the physics behind music. I find his tuba interesting, but wouldn’t like to move it.

One factor in Blaikley compensators, especially the 4 valve version, is the weight combined with a very rigid structure. In Besson Eb tubas I have played next to identical 3+1 samples. Only one was a compensator and the other was a non-comper. The latter was not bad, but some notes in the range, where compensating does nothing for the tube length, were wildly over-responsive. I discussed this with a tuba person of Besson. He ascribed the much greater evenness of the compnsator to the weight and rigidity.

That Reynolds of yours, which size of receiver? If large or medium I might be interested, and after your sermon above here it must be a cheap buy for me. Of course the valves should be tight enough to make a musical evaluation of that model relevant.

Klaus

I own and play three, 3-valve compensating Besson instrumentes: Eb tuba, Euphonium and baritone horn. I've had 3+1 compensator and non-compensator euphs including Besson and Miraphone, a Besson 4-front compensator Eb tuba, 3+1 Besson Eb and F compensator tubas, Yamaha non-comp euphs and baritones and Yamaha non-comp Ebs in both 4 and 5 valve versions. I have a YEB321s Eb tuba now.
I'm very happy with the Bessons that I own and use. They play well in tune with the excetpion of the middle D and C on the euph/baritone(4th line F on the tuba) 1&2 and 1+3 brings those up to pitch. They really meet all the needs that I have for those instruments. I think the 3-valve compensators are underappreciated. Sure they don't have the low range of a 4 valve, but, for what I do with them, I seldom feel that deficit hampers my style.
If you can pick one up for a good price you should go for it. You'll learn to live within their limitations and appreciate the fine qualities they have.

imperialbari wrote:...A brilliant low brass player, who actually has some cultural scope, but who now literally dives into other waters, used a very strong expression on Dr. Young’a calculations....

That Reynolds of yours, which size of receiver? If large or medium I might be interested, and after your sermon above here it must be a cheap buy for me. Of course the valves should be tight enough to make a musical evaluation of that model relevant.

I agree with you regarding Dr. Young's calculations. They are based on a host of unrealistic assumptions, including that music is performed using an even-tempered scale. But my point in bringing it up was that one should not assume that a four-valve comper is automatically better in tune than a three-valve comper. Instead, the person should judge each instrument on what it actually does rather than on what sort of this-or-that system it has.

The Reynolds is not for sale. For one thing, it is pretty and I like looking at it. For another thing, it was poorly overhauled during its life, and shows evidence of it on close inspection. Many might not notice because it IS shiny, but I know you would. Thirdly, the receiver and leadpipe are not original, and that is part of the reason for its poor ergonomics--the leadpipe wraps too far around the bell. The receiver is the typical small American baritone receiver for a tenor trombone-sized mouthpiece, and that is another problem with it. I have considered replacing the leadpipe and receiver, but then I acquired the Besson and that scratches my itch for a tenor tuba.

Here's a pic of the Reynolds. I've dated it around 1937 or 1938--in the first year or two of the existence of F. A. Reynolds.



Rick "noting that Pete Rodriguez in San Antonio usually farmed such projects to trainees who were a little too aggressive with the buffing wheel" Denney

Real men can make music with 3 valves

Bob1062 wrote:Bloke, what do you think of the Willson/Marzan FRONT action comp euph with the usable main tuning slide?

If the instrument of which you speak is the Willson 2975 (also sold under a Canadian Brass label), then while I won't speak for Joe I will speak for me: I think they are wonderful. I would own one if there had been the right confluence of cash and price. And there may still be someday. It seems to me the perfect compensating euphonium for the tuba player.

But it is a compensating euphonium, and for someone who would prefer a five-valved uncompensated instrument in a tuba configuration of that size and pitch, the Alex 151G might be the preferred choice. There are no uncompensated front-action piston euphoniums except for very old American designs that most would consider pea-shooters today.

Rick "who played a Besson front-action compensator from the 20's, but found it rather stuffy, which the Willson is NOT" Denney

Rick - I'm going to take slight issue with you on one point. For the more casual players, there are some excellent finds among the older Conn and King horns, especially if money is an object. I've been lucky enough to get my hands on a couple of very sweet old Conns, one a 3 and the other a 4 valver (both front-action), with interchangeable detachable bells - upright and bell-front flavors. Although I'm glad it hasn't come to this, if I had to I wouldn't think twice about selling my Besson Imperial. They both play really well, and I picked them up for less than $200 total.

TUbajohn20J wrote:Real men can make music with 3 valves

Hey! I resemble that remark!