TubeNet

Okay, this is for the techs, collectors, and, of course the TNFJ...

I have this King Eb 3 valve recording tuba....
The picture belies its size - it's teeny. It's only slightly bigger than the comparable Euph. And it's practically a Cimbasso, with a small receiver, a .625 bore all the way through the tuning slide and for over a foot afterwards. It's a little stuffy, but plays very consistently with a pleasant, light tone.

The problem is, it's flat. After triple-checking the porting, making sure it's airtight several ways, and free of obstructions, it's 15-18 cents flat. Even with a bass trombone mouthpiece (the pictured mouthpiece is a lathed-down Mirafone C-4). Trouble is, it's in such nice shape.

I've always wanted a tuba in D, as I play a lot of horn literature, and have always hated transposing the D horn literature. A D tuba like this would be visually striking and would involve a relatively easy "crook" to make for the main slide.

But D would be useless for small Dixieland duos and trios. Eb would make its use more flexible. But that means loads of burned lacquer to cut the tubing feeding the slide (which could be buffed and touched up, but there's no way to make that invisible), or inelegantly chopping the slide outright.

I'm pretty sure this is an unusual tuba. It's here in Cleveland, and could very well be a one-off for an elementary student or some such.

All right, ladies and gentlemen: your thoughts?

J.c.S.

Put it in D. Give it to a beginner as their first horn.
Assuming they stick with it and keep the horn, they should be fine.

BWAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAH!!

I love the idea... but I'm keeping it

J.c.S.

I say cut it to Eb and have an extra slide for D. Even better, cut it and add a rotor to lower it into D. You might have to do a lot of slide pulling but I think it's worth it.

I've just obtained an old Martin catalogue from ca. 1914 and they actually offered a "D" crook as an accessory for Eb tubas, (brass $1.75, silver plate $2.25!). So I guess there really isn't anything new under the sun!

Bob1062 wrote:Could you cut the inner top bow? I vote to keep it in Eb if you can find a way that you're happy with. I also vote against adding a 4th valve unless your really need it (and with 2-3 other bass tubas and a couple low trombones, DO you? ). Flipping the first slide might be a good idea, and it would still look stock-ish.

J.c. Sherman wrote:The picture belies its size - it's teeny. It's only slightly bigger than the comparable Euph. And it's practically a Cimbasso, with a small receiver, a .625 bore all the way through the tuning slide and for over a foot afterwards. It's a little stuffy, but plays very consistently with a pleasant, light tone...Even with a bass trombone mouthpiece (the pictured mouthpiece is a lathed-down Mirafone C-4). Trouble is, it's in such nice shape.

This won't help your pitch problem, but have you tried using your contrabone mp on it? I used my 2A in my old Eb occasionally (finally, a horn smaller than that! ), and it worked really well. Much better than my 60.


How similar is this to Bill Bell's King F tuba?


Friggin' cool horn!! How did you come upon it?

Cutting the inner bow's not a bad idea...

While we're at it, let's add to the question... who know's how to calculate how much tubing to remove to raise the pitch 20-25 cents? I usually make pretty close guesses... but I'd love input to this - would it be the same as the length of the second valve loop of an Eb trumpet?

The instrument was traded in to our shop towards a BBb. I would guess that Bell's F may have shared an assemble table with this, though not in the same age. It's an interesting question. I don't have enough information on Bell's F to guess much, save that I bet the bore profile is similar to either this or the slightly larger small Eb in mass production.

J.c.S.

If you did put it in D, would it be a mezzocontrabass, or what?
At what point does it change from bass tuba to contrabass?

Bloke: OW! I pray I look this good in 80 years. Sure it's been through an overhaul. But the condition is quite nice for it's age IMHO, especially the valves. And if you can find me one other example of one of these this size, I'll take the dremel cutter to it tomorrow.

And if I wanted to play the D concerti at the right octave, I'd use a horn

TubaGuy: I'd still call it a Bass, myself... Bass trombones and sackbuts from the 16th -18th centuries were often in D too. Thanks!

MH: Utterly certain it's not .689. It doesn't get that big until a good 18 inches after the tuning slide. No joke - this thing is miniscule! Never seen a catalogue from HN White that mentions a recording bass this small. This is close, though:

http://www.hnwhite.com/King/Low%20Brass ... 0Large.jpg" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

My shop has all of these in the graveyard- but the tuba we speak of is even a little smaller, though slightly taller due to the wide, tilted bell.

Funnily, some argue that Baritones differ from Euphoniums by having a cylindrical main tuning slide. This has that. Is it a Bass Baritone?

J.c.S.

Tuba Guy wrote:If you did put it in D, would it be a mezzocontrabass, or what?
At what point does it change from bass tuba to contrabass?

If you interpolate between the upper common contrabass key (C) and the lower common bass key (Eb), the dividing line falls between D and Db, so I would think it would still be a bass. If you do the same thing between the upper common bass key (F) and the lower common *tenor* key (Bb), the dividing line there is between G and Ab. Using those dividing lines in all octaves gives you equal-sized (half-octave) categories as far up and down as you want to go, i.e. contrabass from AAb to Db, bass from D to G, tenor from Ab to Db, alto from D to G, etc.

Mind you, all of the above makes sense -- to me, at least -- so it might well be totally off-the-wall ...

Kevin Hendrick wrote:

Tuba Guy wrote:If you did put it in D, would it be a mezzocontrabass, or what?
At what point does it change from bass tuba to contrabass?

If you interpolate between the upper common contrabass key (C) and the lower common bass key (Eb), the dividing line falls between D and Db, so I would think it would still be a bass. If you do the same thing between the upper common bass key (F) and the lower common *tenor* key (Bb), the dividing line there is between G and Ab. Using those dividing lines in all octaves gives you equal-sized (half-octave) categories as far up and down as you want to go, i.e. contrabass from AAb to Db, bass from D to G, tenor from Ab to Db, alto from D to G, etc.

Mind you, all of the above makes sense -- to me, at least -- so it might well be totally off-the-wall ...

Not to press this, this is just something that interests me (then again, for the next concert where i'm playing euph, I'm going to ask them to put me in the program as playing the "oneba").
So, assuming that they made tenor tubas in higher pitches, would an Eb tenor tuba (or euph) be considered an alto tuba?
Likewise, would a flugelhorn be a soprano or a piccolo tuba?
I know most normal people wouldn't call it that, but still...

Tuba Guy wrote:So, assuming that they made tenor tubas in higher pitches, would an Eb tenor tuba (or euph) be considered an alto tuba?
Likewise, would a flugelhorn be a soprano or a piccolo tuba?
I know most normal people wouldn't call it that, but still...

A conical brass instrument pitched on Eb above the euphonium is often called an "altohorn".

But words mean what people think they mean, so call it what you want and see if you have to spend all your time explaining yourself.

As to the length change needed, I'll let Art handle that one:

http://galvanizedjazz.com/tuba/howmuchpull.html

Rick "who would probably experiment with a length of vinyl tubing" Denney

Tuba Guy wrote:... assuming that they made tenor tubas in higher pitches, would an Eb tenor tuba (or euph) be considered an alto tuba?
Likewise, would a flugelhorn be a soprano or a piccolo tuba?

Exactly -- an Eb (or F) euphonium (altonium?) would indeed be an alto tuba, and a Bb flugelhorn is a soprano tuba. It's as confusing as if the members of the (for instance) saxophone family all had different names, obscuring the fact that they're all saxophones.

This sound very familiar.

When was it built, exactly? A standard of A=435 was established by a French Commission in 1859, and in 1887 this was formally adopted by the Vienna Congress, an international conference on musical pitch. Many U.S. horns were built to this standard, instead of 440 until the AFM adopted 440 in the 20's IIRC.

I have a handful of horns that were made to 435. My Conn/Mantia/Italian American Club double bell euphonium was built to 435, and after struggling mightily, I made slightly smaller tuning slides for it (thus keeping the originals original), and have never had problem since.

I'm not aware of anyone making a D instrument, except as an additional crook for a mellophone.

windshieldbug wrote:
I'm not aware of anyone making a D instrument, except as an additional crook for a mellophone.

Except Horns and Trumpets for hundreds of years, and Trumpets still

Roger Bobo had a D tuba made from a 184 CC and a Boosey Eb bell.

As for year, I think it's 1921, but I'll have another look.

J.c.S.

J.c. Sherman wrote:Except Horns and Trumpets for hundreds of years, and Trumpets still

Roger Bobo had a D tuba made from a 184 CC and a Boosey Eb bell.

As for year, I think it's 1921, but I'll have another look.

J.c.S.

I'm not aware of anyone making a D BAND-SHAPED INSTRMENT, except as an additional crook for a mellophone, but you already knew that...

Ain't I a stinker?

Hmm. Just like the common orchestral D/Eb trumpet, why not get a pair of main tuning slides, and adjust the individual valve slides for each pitch, marking an engraved line on the individual valve slides for each pitch?