TubeNet

In the current thread on Miraphone S models RD mentions a Mira 3RV compensator. I do not have any documentation of that model, but Hirsbrunner has made a BBb after the same principle. Some photos in this and the next posting:

...

wow,
I think Mr. Hirsbrunner must have had some sleepless nights before he came up with this solution. He sure knows how to make a tuba!
Are there no 4-rotary BBb compensators yet?

oedipoes wrote:wow,
I think Mr. Hirsbrunner must have had some sleepless nights before he came up with this solution. He sure knows how to make a tuba!
Are there no 4-rotary BBb compensators yet?

The routing principle is well known from the mostly British made 3 valve Blaikley compensators.

Two story rotors have been known for more than a century in compensating and full double horns. The Lehmann-system compensating horns employ 3 single story rotors and one 4 story rotore. The latter was the inspiration for Tommy Johnson’s compensating double F&C tuba.

As mentioned in the recent threads on the Miraphone S model and the upload of Miraphone catalogue pages, RD noted, that continental Europe uses 3 valve rotary tubas, which are next to unknown in America. These 3-bangers are the European equivalents of the sousaphones for marching in military and civilian bands. 4 valve basses are not wanted there for weight reasons. The Hirsbrunner model illustrated to my knowledge has been discontinued. The market niche wanting in-tune 3 bangers apparently was too small to sustain production.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:...The market niche wanting in-tune 3 bangers apparently was too small to sustain production.

Apparently that was true even in Britain. I know of no 3-valve compensating tubas still on the market. Too bad, too--some of them were wonderful instruments.

I think a cogent argument could be made that a three-valve compensator is as usable as a four-valve non-compensator. The latter is a standard instrument. Even in the register between, say, the pedal Bb and E that is normally the justification for the fourth valve on a Bb tuba, false tones can be brought to bear (and are, with many instruments, more reliable anyway). Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, but I don't think either approach is clearly superior.

That doesn't mean that three-valve compensating rotary tubas turned out great in practice, but I can sure see why they might have been attempted.

Rick "not recalling the details of the Miraphone" Denney

MartyNeilan wrote:WHY???

I agree. Why add just that much more restriction to a rotary tuba, anyway! If I like the way compensating horns played, I would own a Besson. I always thought one of the primary selling features of a rotary horn was LESS restriction.

The 3 valve Blaikley comp system makes sense in baritones, which go do down to written G, but hardly ever have a written low F#. Of course I would want one of the newer 4 valve compensating baritones, but there is no way to justify paying the prices they come at even on the 2nd hand market.

The 3 valve euphoniums and tubas in Eb & BBb had one rationale: the British mounted military bands which together with the 4 or 5 Guard^s bands have a special status as ceremonial bands and hence have 48 members versus the 35 or so of the usual regimental bands. These mounted bands also were the reason for the Ball Busters to be placed in a sort of cup in the saddle horn.

In the current UK 2nd hand market quite a few 3 piston compers may be found at attractive prices. So far I have looked intensely on them, and still abstained. I simply use the side piston too much on the 3+1 compers already herein my house.

Klaus

It is my understanding that the HB 3-valve rotor comp was developed for certain military and civic bands that had weight limitations and/or 3-valve limitations specified.

I agree about the viability of a 3-valve comp for all but the near-pedal register. Over 99% of concert band repertoire never goes below 1+3 F. And owning a 3-valve comp, I can tell you that there is no problem with any inertia of the valves or valve block. The only quirk is that 1+3 C is a little stuffy, and so you have to be careful in any scalar sequence so you don't blat out open BBb after 1+3 C. But having checked it with a tuner, and play-tested it against some of the more famous CC tubas, it has every bit as good a scale, and is better on some of the notes that are traditionally quirks on a lot of rotor horns, both BBb and CC.

I had a chance to buy a HB 3-valve rotor comp @ 2 years ago, and just couldn't get the cash together. I want one.

oedipoes wrote:
Are there no 4-rotary BBb compensators yet?

BBbs I'm not sure about. I have played an Alexander four rotor comp. F tuba. That was a fine horn. I think the extra resistance helped the low range on that F. Best low C I have ever played on a rotor F. Didn't compare to my York F but not much does.

bububassboner wrote:

oedipoes wrote:
Are there no 4-rotary BBb compensators yet?

BBbs I'm not sure about. I have played an Alexander four rotor comp. F tuba. That was a fine horn. I think the extra resistance helped the low range on that F. Best low C I have ever played on a rotor F. Didn't compare to my York F but not much does.

Are you sure that tuba hadn’t 5 rotors like this one:
Klaus

imperialbari wrote:

bububassboner wrote:

oedipoes wrote:
Are there no 4-rotary BBb compensators yet?

BBbs I'm not sure about. I have played an Alexander four rotor comp. F tuba. That was a fine horn. I think the extra resistance helped the low range on that F. Best low C I have ever played on a rotor F. Didn't compare to my York F but not much does.

Are you sure that tuba hadn’t 5 rotors like this one:

Alexander 166.jpg

Klaus

Nope it had four rotors and it was a comp. Played the horn for about a month. Really sweet yet needed a valve rebuild.