TubeNet

I'm just curious, does anyone make a four-valve front-action euphonium rather than the 3+1 configuration? Do they just do the 3+1 to allow for the compensation tubing? I've just always found it interesting that you see student model tubas with top action, and student baritones with front action (I know there are quite a few top actions as well) valves. I was just wondering if there's a reason for it all. Thanks!

I think there have been or are others, but the one that comes to mind immediately is the Willson 2975FA front-action, full compensating euph. http://willsonbrass.com/instr_e/euphoni ... 75fa-e.pdf
I belive at least part of the reason for the 3+1 design is ergonomic. the 3+1 allows for cradling the horn and supporting the weight conveniently with the left arm. Makes it very easy for marching! Notice the Brits do the same with the compensating tubas, even though they can and do make four valve front action compers like the Besson Eb 983.

King makes one but it is not compensating. The only front action comp. one i can think of is the Marzan/Wilson/CB.

Cool horn.

Willson's play well but they tend to be heavy. At least in the Tubas they are. The weight probably lends to the dark color.

The more common 3+1P compensating euphonium figuration allows for a smooth way to increase the bore from the 3 main loops to the larger bore of the compensating circuit. If the same smoothness shall be had in the 4-in-line set-up of front action instruments, then the main bugle knuckle connecting the 3rd and 4th pistons shall be extended by a detour allowing for a more gradual bore expansion.

This detour is most prominently seen in the Besson 983 Eb tuba. It is there in my Marzan euphonium, but less pronounced.

Klaus

Is it just me or do I see a trend toward top valve Euphs and front valve tubas? Maybe looking for a loud clanging sound at the Tuba Euphonium interface in band...

Elbee wrote:Is it just me or do I see a trend toward top valve Euphs and front valve tubas?

Now that's just rediculous

I used to play a Willson 2975. I believe it was the last one they had before a valve manufacturing change or something like that. I've always been more comfortable with the front action valves, and it was a fun horn.

That being said, virtually everything was out of tune above middle C. I wish another company would make a similar horn, but there's no market for it. 3 + 1 is the standard for the foreseeable future.

If I could get one that played like my Hirsbrunner, I'd scoop it up in a heartbeat!

I suspect it's just the product of tradition more than anything.

Besson made a front-action compensator back in the deeps of time (before the war), but it did not play that well and it didn't catch on. Euphoniums emerged from the saxhorn design concept because of the interaction between French and British designs in the late 19th century. (American instruments from that era are top-action, too, because of the interaction between American and British traditions--Distin is an example.)

So, they are top-action because they have always been.

The 2975 is an anomaly that was motivated by tuba players (Fred Marzan, Chuck Daellenbach) and that never caught on in the UK. The 983 exists because Pat Sheridan wanted a front-action Eb tuba and Besson was his sponsor--I suspect the vast majority of those were sold in the U.S. Front-action piston tubas are uniquely American in their origin and that extended to American-style baritone horns. And those were the euphoniums used in the U.S. until after WWII, when the Marine Band switched from Conn Doublt-Bell euphoniums to Boosey & Hawkes Imperials at the behest of Art Lehman.

The current design standard for euphoniums was set by Besson, Boosey, Hawkes, and the other British makers of the turn of the last century. When the major American military bands switched to that design, front-action baritones in the U.S. started their decline. It wasn't until around 1970 or so (give or take five years) that the patents on the Blaikely compensation system finally expired, but by that time, the American-style front-action piston baritone was already passe, at least for professional euphonium players in military bands. None of the U.S. makers would have been motivated to add compensation to their baritone instruments, because it would have priced them out of the school market. And that was the only market they had left.

So, now, kids who want to play pro-style instruments embrace the dominant paradigm--top-action saxhorn designs. The recent attempts at front-action piston instruments were motivated by tuba players.

Germany has always had front-action euphoniums, but they have rotary valves just like their tubas. The pinnacle of that design is probably the coveted Alexander 151, with five valves.

Rick "a conspiracy of inertia" Denney

One of the big reasons for the 3+1 has already been mentioned - room to enlarge the bore. The other big reason is that the index or middle finger of the left hand tends to be faster and stronger than the right hand pinkie.

Those ergonomic considerations preceded the Blaikley compensating patent of 1879. My 1870 Besson Eb tuba has a 3+1P non-compensating set-up, only not the same as the modern ones. That old one has the 4th piston before the main tuning slide, which in turn is before the 3 main valves, which have their loops placed on the rear of the body. The bore through all 4 valves is 0.632".

Klaus

Rick Denney wrote:I suspect it's just the product of tradition more than anything.

Besson made a front-action compensator back in the deeps of time (before the war), but it did not play that well and it didn't catch on. Euphoniums emerged from the saxhorn design concept because of the interaction between French and British designs in the late 19th century. (American instruments from that era are top-action, too, because of the interaction between American and British traditions--Distin is an example.)

This really spiked my interest! Do you have any pictures of the said pre-war front action compensator. I own an old Solbron from the war era and I have yet to come across a front valve compensator. I would really enjoy to see one of these horns or try it out.

PMeuph wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Besson made a front-action compensator back in the deeps of time...

This really spiked my interest! Do you have any pictures of the said pre-war front action compensator. I own an old Solbron from the war era and I have yet to come across a front valve compensator. I would really enjoy to see one of these horns or try it out.

Chuck Guzis had the one I played. I don't know if he still has it.

Rick "who compared it side-by-side with a 2975" Denney

There are some German and Austrian manufactures which make these type of instruments.
They are widely used by German folkmusic groups.
Be aware that the German Bariton is the same size as your euphonium.
Your barytone is called tenorhorn in Germany.
One of these makers is Lechner http://www.musik-lechner.com/lechner_pa ... _body.html
It's here called Belfront-Bariton.
Rudolf Meinl does also have a version http://www.rudolf-meinl.de/uploads/media/bbariton.pdf
This one is also available in an upright version.

Lechner certainly is a high-end maker well known for trumpets and Wagner Tuben. Still the usage of the non-compensated front action bell-front Bariton(e) is closely connected with one band which spawned countless imitators: Slavko Avsenik und seine Original Oberkrainer.

Immensely popular in the whole German speaking Central Europe, I am not even sure the band members spoke German, as the band was Slovenian. I saw them at least once on German TV where they specifically were NOT interviewed for language reasons. Their string bass player doubled on a 4 valve front action bell front baritone, which I back then thought was a King, possibly because it didn’t have the spring loaded tuning slide of the equivalent Conn. That baritone was in my ears mostly played like a not especially low bass trombone with a few tenor range solo strains in between.

To get my spelling right I read this article today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavko_Avsenik

which in turn lead me to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian-style_polka

I many years ago heard a Polish polka band from Chicago with an extremely aggressive tenor saxophone, but until now I was totally unaware of the Slovenian influence on the Cleveland polka scene. But then that connection makes the usage of a King baritone in the Avsenik band quite likely.

I have considered buying a European made baritone of this type, but the 4 valve versions from Böhm & Meinl and from the better Austrian makers are rare on the second hand market, and they end up with auction bids, which in my opinion are disproportionally high for their musical potentials.

Klaus

Chuck G. still has the horn. He played the trombone parts in "The Nutcracer" that the community orchestra did, and I subbed for him on tuba. Cool horn. Heavy, though. And no, I didn't think to get a picture.

bearphonium wrote:Chuck G. still has the horn. He played the trombone parts in "The Nutcracer" that the community orchestra did, and I subbed for him on tuba. Cool horn. Heavy, though. And no, I didn't think to get a picture.

He was using the Besson instead of his Willson? That surprises me.

Rick "though the Besson might have been a better approximation of old British pea-shooter trombones" Denney

Looks like if you made the 4th valve a rotor, you could have a piston looking thing (ala some fiske rotors) for the right hand and a lever for the left. After having besson Eb tubas 981 and a 983 there are times when each has its advantages.

Lars Trawen wrote:Rudolf Meinl does also have a version http://www.rudolf-meinl.de/uploads/media/bbariton.pdf

I do like the look of that! The great ergonomics of rotary front valves with left hand operated 4th.

I would rather like to try that layout on a tuba with the 4th & 5th valves left hand operated. I think might facilitate easier moving around in the low register, but that is probably just because I'm British and grew up with the 3+1 valve layout