TubeNet

lauder2 wrote:As a euphonium player I always assumed that my fellow tubists were all playing compensating horns. Only recently did I realize that this is not the case. Also, more recently, now that I wish to come out of the closet and declare my bass tubist alter ego, I want to know which horns (brands and models) are compensating. However, more importantly, I want to know how much it really matters to people.

First, let's be careful about terms. Originally, "compensation" meant some mechanism to adjust for what Donald Stauffer called the "valve swindle," where the valves used in combination are too short. There are a variety of compensation mechanisms, including:

1. An additional valve (the fourth valve), that replaces the 1-3 combination, and provides a 2-4 combination that is much closer than the 1-2-3 that it replaces. This first step in compensating for the valve swindle is considered basic equipment for, hmmm, indoor playing.

2. Another additional valve (the fifth valve), that compensates for the notes in the near-pedal register where the fourth-valve combinations are also too sharp.

3. Yet another additional valve (the sixth valve), that provides one further level of refinement in the very low register of the instrument.

4. Adjusting tuning slides during play is a manual compensation method.

5. Automatic compensation, which in the modern era means the Blaikley compensation system as originally invented for Boosey. This system uses extra long valves, and the longest valve on the instrument routes the sound through its own tubing plus a second set of ports in the other valves. These come in three-valve and four-valve versions, though only the latter are still available.

Euphonium players routinely adopt the fifth method. I think that is in part because the bore of a euphonium is small enough so that the valves are light enough to begin with that greatly increasing their length doesn't make them too heavy.

Because Boosey worked the patent deal with Blaikley and enjoyed patent protection up until the early 70's, and because Boosey ended up owning Hawkes and then Besson, only Boosey and Hawkes and Besson used this approach up until the modern era. And since Boosey and Hawkes enjoyed import protection from the British government in the post-war period, British tuba and euphonium players didn't have many practical alternatives. Bevan writes of British tuba players smuggling such instruments as B&S F tubas and Alexander contrabasses during this period.

British band players have therefore always used instruments with Blaikley compensation. Tuba players in other traditions did not, because the instruments in their home traditions didn't have access to the patents. So, they developed other compensation approaches, including using additional valves and adjusting slides.

British orchestral players, on the other hand, used additional valves for the most part. There were some British orchestral F tubas with Blaikley compensation, but most of them were five-valve Barlow F tubas. The French used a six-valve euphonium for orchestral use, and Americans and Germans used four and five-valved contrabasses. When the Barlow F tubas played out, British orchestral players were pretty much force to adopt the Blaikley-compensating EEb.

The Besson 981, 982 and 983 are current models of Eb bass tubas with Blaikley compensation following the same principle as compensating euphoniums. Besson makes a Bb contrabass version, the 99something, that does not enjoy a wonderful reputation. The 983 is popular outside Britain, partly because of its front-action configuration, and partly because of Pat Sheridan. And I think the 994 is the front-action Bb equivalent, but without the popularity. The others are top-action instruments which are not favored outside countries that were not part of the British Empire into the 20th Century.

For a while WIllson and others made some compensating Eb tubas, but I think only the British brands do now. There's been so much change in the British musical instrument market in the last few years that I've lost track.

For the most part, though, tuba players outside the British influence prefer to compensate for the valve swindle using additional valves and by making slide adjustments. I think most tuba players believe that this avoids the problem of too many twists and turns through a second set of valve ports, and it also keeps the valve from becoming huge and heavy. And it's the natural development of the instruments from a time before the Blaikley system was invented, and that could continue to be developed when the patents on the Blaikley system prevented more widespread adoption. After all, the first bass tuba made by Moritz had five valves.

Rick "whose compensating Besson euphonium isn't noticeably better in tune than his four, five, and six-valve tubas" Denney

lauder2 wrote:I think all of us euphoniumists would agree that it REALLY REALLY matters that we have a great compensating horn that helps us manage intonation and keep the overall tibre of the horn consistent from top to bottom. Non-compensating euphoniums are usually for high school or middle school players that tend to fall off the end of the trumpet section and join the low brass.

Not taking umbrage, nor wanting to start a row, but do not want to imply tacit consent by letting the OP's assertion pass uncontested:
I sold my compensator (Besson Sovereign 967) in favor of a 3+1 non-comp.
I much prefer the lighter, nimbler, short-throw valves, the overall reduced horn weight, and the air-flow's single pass through the valve block.
Unlike the Besson, I can pick it up and play after a layoff without a lot of preparatory face time and it's predictable and easily managed. I.e. fun with little effort.
Everything I miss of the Besson is unrelated to the automatic compensation. I haven't needed 4+1/2/3 combos enough to have regretted the switch to non-comp. What REALLY REALLY matters to me is to enjoy playing (well), which doesn't preclude a future auto-comp horn purchase, but doesn't mandate it, either.

When I was shopping for a bass tuba, I was willing to purchase either an F or an Eb. I was not looking for a "soloistic" type of horn.

Three of the reasons why I decided upon a used Besson 983 (built in the UK by Besson itself) are:

- no note is "stuffy," despite the reputation for compensating horns having this trait
- the valves, while much longer than those on a non-compensating horns, operate very smoothly and reliably
- the intonation is excellent with a minimum of slide pulling

With tubas and their corresponding lengths of tubing, the compensating methods often cause as many ills as they cure. The "best" compensating systems for tubas, specifically contrabass but extended to bass tubas, is the 3-valve compensating system. It cleans up most of the issues cause with the adding of valves, with only the 1-2-3 combination being slightly short.

On 4-valve comps, the 1-2-3-4, 1-3-4,and 2-3-4 combinations are still short for good intonation. That's why even compensating euphoniums have triggers on the main slide or the first valve slide: They still have pitch problems because there is not enough plumbing for some notes.

When dealing with bass and contrabass tubas, players who are looking for precise intonation often want more valves (5 or 6 in most cases) and the ability to pull slides. Besson came up with a great idea in the 983 and 993, in that the valves are front action so that slide manipulation is possible. A positive side effect is that the front action valves feel quicker because the spring doesn't have to "lift" the valve back up on the return.

I have not found "good" compensating tubas to be stuffy. I have owned a 994, and played a 983, 981. They had a different feel from non-comp horns, but in the end they still took as much air to play and delivered the same amount of sound. I do feel that the 994-type compensating contrabasses (3+1, mega tall) are often regarded as "stuffy" because the bell is so damned far away from the head and the horn is so heavy that it doesn't give a lot of feedback.

One other main issue with the bass tuba world is that the British comp Eb like the 981/982 is that it is a "do-it-all" tuba. In many uses, it feels a little too big for bass tuba literature, especially like Mendelssohn, Berlioz, etc. and isn't quite enough for big stuff like Bruckner and Wagner. The typical "German" F just sounds more lyrical, and the big BBb and CC contrabasses have more weight. While the 994/993 might be similar in timbre and volume to other 4/4 contrabasses, they don't offer as much player feedback as many other brands.

lauder2 wrote:I want to know which horns (brands and models) are compensating. However, more importantly, I want to know how much it really matters to people.

There are quite a number of different makes of compensated tuba on the market today (assuming you mean the euphonium type Blaikley system), mostly aimed at the British brass band market with 3+1 valve configuration.

Besson - http://www.besson.com/en/instruments.ph ... List&cid=8" target="_blank
Miraphone - http://www.miraphone.de/" target="_blank
LMI - http://www.londonmi.co.uk" target="_blank
York - http://www.york-brass.com/englisch/inst ... 3082_e.htm" target="_blank
Mr.Tuba - http://www.mrtuba.com" target="_blank
B&S - http://www.ja-musik.com/tuba/ebtuba.php" target="_blank

There are no doubt more I have forgotten!

Regarding if compensating matters. If you ask most British brass band players they will say yes, but I think a lot of that is because of the fiendishly difficult fast moving low register passages written in modern brass band contest music, but rarely found elsewhere. Having played both compensated and 5 valve tubas - I can say that both systems work and provide sufficiently good intonation in the low register. Fast passages in the lowest register are slightly easier with the 3+1 compensated system, but against that they are more stuffy in that register.

So I would suggest you consider a compensated tuba only if you are playing in a brass band*, but otherwise you are much better off with a non-compensated front action tuba. Will give you a better, more open low register and there is much better selection of models to choose.

I don’t necessarily agree with Neptune on the stuffiness of the low range of the compensated tubas. But then I am aware, that there are several varieties of playing styles and sound concepts.

Steve Marcus comes from a medium+ or ++ Nirschl CC and selects a Besson 983 as his bass tuba after researching the market. The 983 was one of my options in 1999, but I preferred the 981 with its wider leadpipe and bell. I had no idea, that I would continue downwards to BBb and CC by then, so I preferred the fuller sound.

The stuffiness on compensating instruments occurs where that system does not correct the wrong math of added valve lengths fully: the two semitones right above the open pedal note. Steve Marcus pulls slides there, I had a main tuning slide trigger added to my euph. I don’t know the remedy of Steve Sykes, but he doesn’t sound like suffering any problems on his 981.

Willson, Hirsbrunner, and Yamaha also make Blaikly system compensators. I don’t know whether Courtois still does.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:I don’t necessarily agree with Neptune on the stuffiness of the low range of the compensated tubas. But then I am aware, that there are several varieties of playing styles and sound concepts.

I just said "more stuffy". I agree it is quite manageable. I had no problems for many years playing a Besson 981. It was only after getting used to playing my rotary Melton 2040/5, that the 981 low register seemed stuffy in comparison. If the OP is used to a compensated euphonium, then I am sure he will find a compensated tuba fine.

Hirsbrunner, Yamaha, and Willson also have compensating Eb and BBb horns in their catalogs. As for how many are actually made, that's another question.

Remember also that compensating brass band baritone horns are also made in both 3 valve and 4 valve configurations. At least until recently the 3-valve baritone horns were more popular because of the "grainy" low register the smaller bore can have, and because of the slight intonation advantage of a 3-valve comp over a 4-valve comp in the critical middle register.

My Besson comp is a BBb 3-valve. It has excellent intonation, only one really stuffy note, 1+3 2nd ledger line C, and that would probably clear up if I got off my duff and got a couple of leaks attended to. The only real limitation to it is the older traditional low E 1+2+3 as its lowest note, because it doesn't do "false pedals" well, if at all. But it's great for 99% of concert band literature. When somebody gets a new 5-valve CC tuba and starts bragging about intonation and condescending other tubas, I like to pull mine out and challenge him note for note through the range, and usually I win the tuner needle wars. The guy with the new CC tuba who has had to pull every slide at some point then sulks back to the practice room with all his preconceived superiority of intonation bubbles burst and splattered all over the place.

Everybody looks at the 4-valve comp euph and forgets that there is also the 3-valve version, as referenced above. However, I don't believe anything but one model of Besson baritone horn, and maybe the Virtuosi student equivalent, is made in 3-valve anymore, or currently.

There is also one ringer out there, very rare, and I wish I had the money and time to track it down: for a short while, to conform with some continental weight requirements, Hirsbrunner a generation ago made a few double-deck rotor compensating tubas, using essentially the same system as the Blaikley/B&H, but with rotors instead of pistons.

Until you get to the lowest register, the only advantage a 4-valve comp horn really has are the notes fingered with 2+4, 1+4 and 3+4, because of the direct effect of the compensating tubing. But even then, 2+4 is still almost automatically lippable, and 1+4 and 3+4 are only really used in the lower register unless a trill or alternate technical fingering is needed. Anything lower still needs a pull, and 1+2 are still slightly sharp because that combination is not compensated on any compensating instrument.

A three-valve comp, on the other hand, if you can live with the limitations of low range, is theoretically perfectly in tune because you can use the 3rd valve alone for those notes to be perfectly in tune instead of 1+2, and then 2+3 and 1+3 are perfectly in tune because of the comp loops. This leaves only 1+2+3 as being the only very slightest sharp, but no more so than 2+4 on a non-comp setup. And in practice, my particular example is fortunate to be exactly that way. Even the 5th partials are perfectly in tune with primary fingerings, and with only the slightest lipping, even my 7th partials can be played with Gnat top space 2nd valve and Gb top space 1st valve alone.

Neptune wrote:

imperialbari wrote:I don’t necessarily agree with Neptune on the stuffiness of the low range of the compensated tubas. But then I am aware, that there are several varieties of playing styles and sound concepts.

I just said "more stuffy". I agree it is quite manageable. I had no problems for many years playing a Besson 981. It was only after getting used to playing my rotary Melton 2040/5, that the 981 low register seemed stuffy in comparison. If the OP is used to a compensated euphonium, then I am sure he will find a compensated tuba fine.

We are down into the finer details, but still talk about the inaccuracies even of back to back comparisons, when the test person has developed to fit a new situation.

My point is that the 981 seemed stuffy to you in its low comp range after you had played the 2040 for a period not because the 981 is any less good than the 2040 in that range, but solely because your playing style had changed.

If you had not acquired hand problems, you still had played happily along on the 981, possibly supplemented by a Yamayork, a Willson BBb 3+1 comper, and that Boosey 17" F comper of recent. The problems you perceive with compers’ low ranges by now alone com from your playing style being changed to fit your current, and impressive, line-up.

I am not going after you at all. Other players have the same experiences. Who doubts bloke’s musicianship? Does he like compensating instruments?

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:I don’t know the remedy of Steve Sykes, but he doesn’t sound like suffering any problems on his 981.

And I think this statement does as well as any to answer the "does it matter" question. I think we have learned from those who should know that they are different. I think we have learned that accomplished players might prefer one or the other in any given situation. But I don't think the responses indicate that one is better than the other. So, it may matter to a given player, but my suggestion is the same as for choosing the valve type: Choose the instrument that speaks mostly closely the voice in your head, and take the valves and tubing that comes with it.

Rick "who prefers a Besson compensating euph to the few non-comp options tried, but so what?" Denney

Everyone seems to focus on the compensation system; no one has mentioned that Besson / B&H euphs, plus all the Yamaha, York, Sterling, Willson, etc. wanna-bes, are much, much larger horns than almost any non-compensating horn. What's NON-compensating? Yama-321, King 2280, 3 valve student horns, and a bunch of bell-fronts.

Play any of the compensators, then one of the small-bore, small-bell, small-shank NON-compensators, and OF COURSE there's a huge difference in tone... but the difference has nothing to do with the compensation system.

I've played a Besson 3-valve non-comp, and it had that same rich, mellow Besson tone.

For the past 18 years I have played a Sterling comp, and I love it... but the 4th-valve notes and low range ARE stuffy. It's just that the tone on everything else outweighs this problem.

John Thompson

I've had this discussion MANY times before withmost of the posters on this thread (bloke, bob1062, et. al). Most euphonium performers prefer the current (or not so current) type of professional 3+1 comp horns. BECAUSE they are bigger, richer sounding than the generally smaller bore Yamaha 321, King 2280, Conn/King, etc. bell fronts. Most tuba players I have spoken with prefer horns that feel more like the tubas they normally play.

To be fair, I just spent the best part of a week on a Yamaha 321. I have always liked the 321 and consider it a very honest horn. I like the sound and could get quite a nice full rich tone out of it throughout its useable range using a Wick 4AY. While good, the tone was not as full and open as my Besson and didn't have the same "singing" sound.

The 321 is lighter than my Besson 2051 (lots). It is generally as well in tune or better than my Besson from low concert F to high C (about 2.5 octaves). It is not as good elsewhere. The big exception to this was 6th partial concert F above middle C (WAY sharp..even more than my Besson without the trigger). Low C (normally 1-3) plays spot on with 4th and the Cb is fine with 2-4.

It goes without saying that the range between low F and pedal Bb is problematic. One must add in a half-step (2-3-4 for low D, 1-3-4 for Db, and 1-2-3-4 for a sharp C. The biggest issue for me was that the horn lost resonance and playability in the high range above high A. It took a LOT more effort. The Besson just pulls notes out of me while the 321 made me push them out of the horn. In general, I had to work a bit hard across the range due to slightly less responsiveness compared with my Besson.

The valves, after working on them and putting new pads in, were good but nowhere near in the same league as the new Bessons.

Net, net...I (as most euph performers do) still greatly prefer a pro-level compensating horn to either an intermediate non-comp or older bell-front antique. That said, I like the King 2280 and Yamaha 321 and I own a 1968 Conn Connstellation. As regards tubas, I have no opinion whatsoever....!

Doug

answering the rest of the question: DOES IT MATTER?

only if you want a compensating tuba.

There are two York 3094 compensating tubas on eBay right now. Are these newer tubas and does anybody have any opinions of the 3094?