TubeNet

I'm learning my way around a new (to me) Buescher Eb helicon. Bottom line: with all slides pushed all the way in, with a wide array of mouthpieces (from tiny to much too big) it's just a bit flat - across the board.

Now, it's almost winter and my practice room is about 68F, and I probably haven't played it continuously long enough to really get it *warm*. I have no doubt that were I to take it out in the noonday sun on July 4 this would not be a problem. But, I'd really like some headroom here. I'm looking for suggestions on what to try before applying a hacksaw (well...someone else's hacksaw, wielded by someone with experience...)

How flat is it? (I hear you say). Well, the sharpest notes (perhaps as many as half the notes from the F at the bottom of the staff to the top of the staff) are within 20 cents of top dead center according to my trusty meter. The worst note is the Eb below the staff - at it's most natural, best resonance, it's a perfectly good D - meter centered and both lights on! If I'm paying attention and trying hard, I can make that a 45 cent flat Eb. The good news here is that the 1-3 BBb is nicely intune with all the "sharp" notes (the ones that are only 20 cents flat...)

I'm playing it with one Conn bit (if I contort myself so that I can play a few notes without the bit the pitches are the same), which is necessary to get a good playing condition. As it is, the bit is oriented to turn straight DOWN. I would need a 2" neck extension (for *my* neck) to get the mouthpiece flush against my lips without the bit. And, as noted - the bit doesn't really seem to be the problem.

Just to round this report out - I've been experimenting and find that the note played open just below the 1-2-3 low A seems to be a nice solid G. Everything all the way down to a 1-2-3 Db seems about right (does this mean that I finally have a C tuba?) - but this is mostly theoretical since I don't plan on spending any time in that register on this horn. Instead, I've been working on the other end, trying to extend my puny high end. But, if I do go down there, it looks like the only impossible note is Ab.

Back to the question at hand - any tips on equipment/technique that will get me the 25 cents I need? That would leave me with only the bad Eb and the missing Ab. Actually, I'd *really* like 50 cents, so that I have just a bit of slide pull at 440. Should I be looking for leaks? something else?

I'm curious, because that's exactly what I have on my old kaiser.
I suspect the big dent + tiny hole in the top bow.
Don't know about your horn...

Wim

If the horn is a low pitch Eb (sharp modern D) the easiest soulution would be to pull out the tuning slide and play it as if it were in D. Roger Bobo had me play on his DD Miraphone and it was a really good (mental) ) exercise.

or...

if you have enough pull on the tunung slide, try to tune it to CC. Depending on how wide your tuning slide is you would have to pull about +/- 16 inches (8 inches on each side) or the equivilant of your first valve slide.

These old horns have a great sound but are known to have tuning problems.

oedipoes wrote:I'm curious, because that's exactly what I have on my old kaiser.
I suspect the big dent + tiny hole in the top bow.
Don't know about your horn...

Wim

Hey, I taped-up the location where I thought the hole was, and it's much much better now !!

Wim

bloke wrote:Quit frettin', and quit believin' that NOT shortening SOMETHING will result in the thing playing at a higher pitch level.

Throw up a good side-view pic, and we'll get out the ol' red marker and show you where to chop.

I remember reading, maybe in Song and Wind, that Jacobs found the York to have become unmanageably flat when the orchestra raised its pitch a notch. The instrument was a low-pitch instrument back when there was a difference, and low pitch is a bit lower than A440. He mentioned it to Renold Schilke a little later, and Schilke pulled a hacksaw out of his locker and they fixed the problem right then and there.

Rick "whose Missenharter was already a third of the way to F before cutting it" Denney

bloke wrote:Quit frettin', and quit believin' that NOT shortening SOMETHING will result in the thing playing at a higher pitch level.

Throw up a good side-view pic, and we'll get out the ol' red marker and show you where to chop.

First, we CL&A...and then...as long as it's already in your shop...with new bloke-felts & corks and looking smooth all over...we'll schedule the bris.

this thing has a realLong main tuning slide. Much longer than it really needs to be, I think. Just for grins, I think I'll try pulling it all the way out and see how low she goes. D doesn't really appeal to me, but C might tempt me - but...only in the short term. Right now it's really a "flat Eb - with two notes that are really, really, flat". It needs to be turned into an Eb (with tuning latitude in BOTH directions) - with two notes that are a bit flat compared to the rest of the notes. It's much too nice a horn for it to be my "project" - as with a bris, it should be done by someone who has done it before. I'm betting that only the tuning slide needs to be modified.

I was just trying to avoid the bad result of chopping first AND THEN finding the real problem.

The 1895 "Symphony" Eb helicon will be more challenging. At least the Buescher is (almost...) internally consistent in its tuning. The "Symphony" isn't (I think, or perhaps I should say "in my hands").

Current plan is to use both of these at the Nashville TubaChristmas (one for me, one for my son). After that, I think we'll see if there is another section of I-22 open. They were supposed to open the next-to-the-last (I think) stretch recently, but slipped the deadline. One more big push and it will be connected to I-65. Something to chew on - the "Symphony" is obviously a much smaller bore overall - but it has a bigger receiver. I tried to swap bits and found that the bit that fits the "Symphony" will not fit in the Buescher. I have a suspicion that the entire gooseneck is a not-quite-right restoration. How do you feel about fabbing an historically (and musically) accurate replacement?

The Buescher is brass (mostly lacquer-free). The "Symphony" is some flavor of nickle.

sloan wrote: Current plan is to use both of these at the Nashville TubaChristmas (one for me, one for my son).

I will look forward to seeing you and the horns there!

Don't know the age of the horn, but Low Pitch A was set at 435 internationally before it was set at 440...

windshieldbug wrote:Don't know the age of the horn, but Low Pitch A was set at 435 internationally before it was set at 440...

Yup. 435 sounds just about right for the "natural" pitch. SN dates it to 1922, but who knows what may have been done to it along the way.

I have a 1907 Conn double-belled baritone that was presented by the Italian-American to Simone Mantia. It was built to A=435 with those Conn "W"-shaped Low Pitch tuning slides.

I had to re-make new tuning slides (because I didn't want to cut the originals) without the double-bend to be able to bring it up to 440 and be able to use it with modern instruments.

You may have something similar... if you shorten the horn, check that the valve tubing isn't a hair too long, too [made so much easier by having the tuners that we do now]!

No way was it designed to come from the factory a whole step flat on some notes, but not all. It's leaking or something. Pending a fix for that, however many trips to however many repairmen it may take, it seems somewhat premature to shorten it.

I had a baritone that ran at least a half step flat on low Bb - open 2nd partial just like the present case. Took it to a local repairman, who was unable to do anything with it, but the next owner reported his repairman was able to substantially correct the problem with a fix to the leadpipe.

windshieldbug wrote:I have a 1907 Conn double-belled baritone that was presented by the Italian-American to Simone Mantia. It was built to A=435 with those Conn "W"-shaped Low Pitch tuning slides.

I had to re-make new tuning slides (because I didn't want to cut the originals) without the double-bend to be able to bring it up to 440 and be able to use it with modern instruments.

You may have something similar... if you shorten the horn, check that the valve tubing isn't a hair too long, too [made so much easier by having the tuners that we do now]!

I don't anticipate any mods to the individual valve slides. Any benefit that might bring is *probably* down in the noise compared to the other, quite normal, variation in intonation. I *think* that a slightly shorter main tuning slide is the right prescription. Right now, it plays at a pitch (everywhere except perhaps 2 notes) that would ordinarily prompt me to "push in a half-inch" - except that the slide is already pushed all the way in. And, the current slide has "pull" to spare.

bloke wrote:Classic 1920's large Eb tuba intonation involves the 2nd partial being quite flat, and often the 8th as well.

Tiny little mouthpieces (maybe resembling what some refer to as "cimbasso mouthpieces" might fight this tendency, but the resulting sound will probably then not be (in the year 2009) what one is trying to achieve.

Are you talking about the kind of "difficult" intonation that some tubas are notorious for, where you have to work to keep the intonation spot on? I believe that.

That isn't sloan's tuba, though. To believe that it was designed to play D instead of Eb, we would have to believe that in its day, either Eb players never indulged in that particular note, musical standards of the day embraced a 45-cent flat bass note, or this model of tuba was designed and produced without meeting players' requirements. The alternative explanation, that 85 years later it's leaking, seems a good deal more likely.

Donn wrote:

bloke wrote:Classic 1920's large Eb tuba intonation involves the 2nd partial being quite flat, and often the 8th as well.

Tiny little mouthpieces (maybe resembling what some refer to as "cimbasso mouthpieces" might fight this tendency, but the resulting sound will probably then not be (in the year 2009) what one is trying to achieve.

Are you talking about the kind of "difficult" intonation that some tubas are notorious for, where you have to work to keep the intonation spot on? I believe that.

That isn't sloan's tuba, though. To believe that it was designed to play D instead of Eb, we would have to believe that in its day, either Eb players never indulged in that particular note, musical standards of the day embraced a 45-cent flat bass note, or this model of tuba was designed and produced without meeting players' requirements. The alternative explanation, that 85 years later it's leaking, seems a good deal more likely.

Now, boys...play nice.

Recall that there are probably two different effects here:

a) the whole horn is about 45cents flat (to A440) with all slides all the way in
b) the Eb just below the staff is about 100cents flat (to A440) or about 50 cents flat (to whatever the horn was originally built for)

Cutting the main tuning slide is aimed at fixing a)

b) is a completely different question. No one is suggesting that the proposed cut is motivated by, or will fix, the way-flat Eb.

I asked here about things to check BEFORE cutting, and I still expect to do that. Step 1 is to make it tip-top at the current length. Step 2 is to consider whether chopping off an inch or so is called for.

So...let's discuss - is a "leak" most likely to affect individual notes, or individual partials, or the whole scale?

bloke wrote:Classic 1920's large Eb tuba intonation involves the 2nd partial being quite flat, and often the 8th as well.
Tiny little mouthpieces (maybe resembling what some refer to as "cimbasso mouthpieces" might fight this tendency, but the resulting sound will probably then not be (in the year 2009) what one is trying to achieve.

My Conn Giant is almost spot on with my Bach 18 (only the 5th, slightly flat, is off), although it did take me a few days to find a good spot for the main slide (Bb tuned anywhere and octave Eb's were off until I put it where I have it now). My little King Eb can tend to have a spread octave even with a very small mp, but I've gotten used to it. Mostly.

Donn, you have to accept that old American basses up to 1920 or in some cases later were designed to be played with much smaller mouthpieces. These smaller mouthpieces were narrower and shallower than even moderate modern tuba mouthpieces. They kept the partials in line within the given pitch be it high or be it low. The same concept could be found in piston instruments from European makers up to at least 1970 (B&S in GDR, Amati/Lignatone in Czechoslovakia, Schenkelaars in the Netherlands, Mahillon in Belgium, and Couesnon in France just to mention makes I met during my band youth).

The problem is that we do no longer have the same sound concept. We tend to put larger mouthpieces on these low conical brasses. These mouthpieces tend to skew the 2nd partial downwards.

You are right that an instrument should be tested for leaks before any hacksaw is applied. One more aspect ignored in some cases is about the leadpipe/neck/bits. Conn and King sousaphone necks possibly are the ones easiest to get today. But if they are of a larger bore than the original lower leadpipe, then one invites intonation problems by using them.

Klaus

sloan wrote: So...let's discuss - is a "leak" most likely to affect individual notes, or individual partials, or the whole scale?

In my limited experience, individual notes - which I believe also makes sense in principle. Assuming that leak will affect sound waves in terms of phenomena local to the area of the leak - nodes etc., if it affects more than one note, it's more likely to be different partials of the same series, than different notes of the same partial. Acoustic properties that affect the intonation of a partial in general would have to be non-local - proportions, tapers, etc. Maybe the mouthpiece.

As a final check before making the drive to Memphis, I remembered (duh) that I could set my tuner to A=435.

Voila! Problem solved!

Well, there are still a few problems:

a) getting the conductor to agree on A=435. One of my regular conductors is married to a clarinet player, so it would be no problem with him - but others might not be so cooperative.

b) at A=435 almost all notes are within lipping distance of the tuner (still all on the flat side - but this was in a chilly basement without a lot of warmup)

c) even at A=435, the low Eb, D, and C (that's all I checked in that partial) are significantly flat - but at least now the tuner agrees with me on the note. The 1-3 BBb is actually in-tune with the Bb in the staff (and all the other notes except the flat ones). This strikes me as "typical" behavior for many horns. It's the entire partial, so I'm not inclined to suspect a leak, but...we'll see what we can find. This instrument is in *remarkably* good condition; the valves actually "pop". It also has an impressive "basement register" starting at G and descending to Db. I haven't determined how "in tune" these notes are - only that they are all there and sound reasonable.

All of this leads to the conclusion that this is a perfectly normal scale found on many A=435 horns.

Now for the Homework: how much do you remove from the main tuning slide to raise an Eb bugle from A=435 to A=440? To my un-educated eye, there seems to be plenty of main tuning slide to play with.

So...what did I get wrong?

sloan wrote:So...what did I get wrong?

"It's time for the portion of the show where we find out where we screwed up."

bloke wrote:

sloan wrote:
Now for the Homework: how much do you remove from the main tuning slide to raise an Eb bugle from A=435 to A=440? To my un-educated eye, there seems to be plenty of main tuning slide to play with.

So...what did I get wrong?

I'm thinking that I'll be seeing you in person before you even read this response...but my best guess is that IF there is 2-1/2 inches (per side) that can be removed from the main slide - still leaving at least 2+ inches of usable tuning - that may be where (and by how much) it will be shortened...However, there may (??) be a more obvious/elegant place to shorten the instrument.

Naah...I don't leave until 6am or thereabouts. I'll call you from a Waffle House somewhere on Corridor X. 4.5 inches total might be tight....let me go and measure...my calipers say 141.53 mm (5.572") of straight line tubing for the fixed portion of the main tuning slide.

We can discuss other obvious/elegant places to find 5 inches, but that seems like the right plan, to me. But first, perhaps you should take it for a spin and see how much of that flatness is me and how much is the helicon.

I should be there in 12 hours, give or take.