TubeNet

While idling today I found what I think is an interesting tuba on a UK based tuba retailer's website.
F-Tuba "B&S-Perantucci" 3199 (PT-10P) 5 valves (Big Valve), 5th valve rotary, Eb-slides available

I bought a travel tuba this year that came with a eb slide and found it to be usable and fun and was set to wondering why more F tubas don't come with eb slides.

Are there any good technical reasons for not doing so or do they want to sell two tubas rather than one?

Has anybody here played the above mentioned B&S F tuba with or without the eb slide?
Is it any good?

Has anybody made their own conversion slide?

Oh and happy new year everyone

They generally don't work very well. In a pinch, it could work to use a special slide, depress the 5th valve, or make an extension from vinyl tubing. Generally though (at least on the 4 tubas i've tried it on), the response is dulled, any existing intonation issues become exaggerated, and the open notes are all over the place even when the tuning slides are adjusted to the correct proportions.

The biggest reason is because the development of either key horn takes a bit of time to establish stuff like brace locations, crooks, and other things that could be 'node-sensitive'.

Basically... all you need to do is add about 18" to the open bugle of an F tuba to convert it to and Eb tuba... and that could conceivably be done with a longer main tuning slide. The results of simply adding that much straight-bore tubing are mixed. Also... you would need to make sure that all of the tuning circuits are capable of about a 12.5% 'pull'. The basic tuning circuit lengths for F and Eb tubas are as follows:

1st valve = 18"
2nd valve = 8"
3rd valve = 27"
4th valve = 48"

Eb
1st valve = 20"
2nd valve = 9 1/2"
3rd valve = 29 1/2"
4th valve = 52"

If you made tuning slide sets like the ones for F to Eb horns for a 5 valve tuba, that's six slides. As labyrinthine as some tuba slide wrappings are already, that could require some interesting changes in slide bendings and shapes.

Just pulling the existing valve slides could be a problem if you're one of the type of player who keeps his slides pulled way out to begin with.

GC wrote:If you made tuning slide sets like the ones for F to Eb horns for a 5 valve tuba, that's six slides. As labyrinthine as some tuba slide wrappings are already, that could require some interesting changes in slide bendings and shapes.

Just pulling the existing valve slides could be a problem if you're one of the type of player who keeps his slides pulled way out to begin with.

On my travel tuba it is only one slide with the others pulled for pitch.
The B&S product guide does not show the eb slides but it does say slides plural.
Has anybody played the PT 10P with factory eb slides?

Such a product services people reading transposed music. Review your own music and you get the answer.

In conical brasses the specific bore progression is very important for sound and intonation. Adding cylindrical valve tubing hasn’t lead to perfectly even scales yet (some designs obviously are more successful than others in that respect). Adding cylindrical tubing to the conical main bugle adds to the intonation problems.

The reason that the dual main pitches work on the travel tuba comes from the conical bore progression being very slow anyway, so that the insertion of a longer cylindrical main tuning slide does not change the bore profile too radically.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:In conical brasses the specific bore progression is very important for sound and intonation. Adding cylindrical valve tubing hasn’t lead to perfectly even scales yet (some designs obviously are more successful than others in that respect). Adding cylindrical tubing to the conical main bugle adds to the intonation problems.

The reason that the dual main pitches work on the travel tuba comes from the conical bore progression being very slow anyway, so that the insertion of a longer cylindrical main tuning slide does not change the bore profile too radically.

Klaus

Klaus, have you noticed anything about trombones where you constantly change the cylindrical part of the instrument but usually leave the conical part as is (unless you tune it with a tuning slide in the bell)?

For me I have noticed different behaviors from instrument to instrument (trbns) in that some of them play with overtone series that requires almost the same adjustment in 1st to last position while some others require constant adjustment for every position. Have tested this with no tuning slides, TIS and TIB instruments and I can not say that either type has exactly the same problems, everything is dependent of the particular instrument, at least from my observations. There could be large variations with instruments of the same make and the same model too.

As far as I know there where early bass trombones which could be used in F or Eb with excahngeable tuning slides?

So does the behavior differ in the same way for conical instruments, tubas, too or is it worse then? On tubas there are always cylindrical tuning slides that will be moved whenever you play in different contexts so maybe they will also require constant monitoring of the tuning regardless if the differences are as small as a couple of Hz or up to a half step?

I have next to zero experiences with tuning-in-the-slide instruments.

It more or less is inherent in the trombone methods that I know of that there are short and long variants of all positions. In most trombones these variations are quite predictable and consistent. The only one of my good trombones that I have disliked at some point of time is my Bach alto, which had very different 4th positions for the 3rd and 4th partials. The problem diminished, when I started using smaller mouthpieces.

But my point is that trombones generally stay more uniform in intonation tendencies and in timbre with much cylindrical tubing added than conical brasses do when they have much cylindrical tubing added. The reason the travel tuba survives when changed to Eb likely is, that it basically is a rewrapped cimbasso in the first place.

Klaus

Changing slides does not convert an F tuba into an Eb tuba. You can experiment with a 5 valve F tuba which has a flat whole-step 5th. Hold down 5th valve and you have an E flat tuba of sorts. Play the tuba in that configuration and you will find that pulling the slides out for intonation purposes does not make it in tune.

In addition, the additional tubing is all small-bore cylindrical tubing. This changes the way the instrument responds and completely throws off the coorelation between the taper and the nodal points.

Trumpets which use slides to change key are not the first choice of musicians with high standards. The Eb/D and Bb/A combinations work best, but there's always a compromise.

I played a Mirafone 184 CC with a Mirafone supplied extention for the main tuning slide (which turned it into a BBb tuba) in a performance once. It was a bad idea.

imperialbari wrote:The reason the travel tuba survives when changed to Eb likely is, that it basically is a rewrapped cimbasso in the first place.

I do not think the Bubbie travel tuba is quite so cimbasso like. Examining, each loop is slightly larger diameter tubing making is mostly conical, although admittedly a very shallow cone.

And another tuba at the other extreme that works equally well in two keys is the 6/4 Neptune. It is fitted with reversible 5th valve and Bb slide, so as well as a CC, it can also play as BBb with ascending valve. Something I have found works very well indeed with no stuffiness, or intonation issues.

I have been considering this matter quite a bit myself - if best to initiate manufacturer of dedicated rotary Eb, or rotary F with Eb slide???

It is interesting considering expansion rates that both the Neptune CC and PT-15 F use same conical main tuning slide although tubas in different pitches and tubas which both work very effectively.

It seems a bit of a mystery why some tubas work and others don't!

There have been some interesting responses so far but nobody has responded so far that has played the B&S f tuba that caught my eye or anyone that may have any other convert able tuba either factory or technician made.
Anybody have first hand experience they would like to share?

I'd guess the answer is "no".

How about emailing Dan Perantoni? He'd be as likely as anyone to know about that instrument, the whys and wherefores.

I think the only tubas I have ever seen this done with that are well done have been Alex conversions. My solid Nickel 163 had an extension loop, and it was a KILLER BB flat!!! As far as E flat crooks for F's, I have never been so brave.....

Getzen made a replacement set of slides that turned the G-50 from CC to BBb, if my memory is correct. I don't recall ever reading a positive review from its users, though.

Neptune asks if he should make a make a rotary F with E flat slide or a dedicated E flat rotary. Here's a few assorted thoughts. The large Yamaha F was as we have heard, developed from a cut down Besson E Flat-Being a real big F, how would it play as a conversion back to E Flat?. Also larger bores may be more tolerant of adding tubing, and the traditional compensationg E flats are small bores. I'm thinking a bore large enough to be free blowing in E flat but not too big in F. Consider that if the F has six valves, then the Half step valve could have a whole step slide for it, and the valve could be made reversable, then it could play in E flat as a normal 5 valve (but still with the option to use the sixth as a reducing valve.) The valve bore on the current Jin Bao at .748 seems good but a more in tune bugle should be developed. A 16.5 inch bell would be closer to the current norm, here in the states, and would also be better for versitle E flat. So a plausable course would be to use the existing Jin Bao vavle set, and use a bugle with better intonation, and hopefully little bigger bell. Develop a excellent F tuba, that with one slide as above, and hopefully, it will make a good E flat. It's possible that a change in leadpipes might help going from F to E flat, but I'd try this only if this makes additional expense makes the difference between sucess and failure.
If you are going to make a dedicated E flat I would like to see something like Miraphone Norwegian Star with a 16.5 or 17 inch bell. And any rate good luck with your ventures, and keep us informed.
P.S. Might be worth the trouble to put the 5th and 6th valves after the first 4, especially if the sixth valve is used to change it too E flat.

FWIW, I tried my Jin Bao F with the 6th valve down as a quasi Eb and it did not work at all.

Bingo - cylindrical vs. conical. Most tubas are vey conical but the "Bubbie" is the rare exception as a mostly cylindrical instrument.

imperialbari wrote:In conical brasses the specific bore progression is very important for sound and intonation. Adding cylindrical valve tubing hasn’t lead to perfectly even scales yet (some designs obviously are more successful than others in that respect). Adding cylindrical tubing to the conical main bugle adds to the intonation problems.

The reason that the dual main pitches work on the travel tuba comes from the conical bore progression being very slow anyway, so that the insertion of a longer cylindrical main tuning slide does not change the bore profile too radically.

Klaus

I enquired with Bob Tucci about the use of Eb slide in the B&S PT F and he replied;

In regard to the slide, we did have a set made up years ago. The low register of the F-tuba was much, much better, with the long length of cylindrical tubing. At that and with a longer slide for the first, the other pulled, the end result was not good. Two points won and eight points lost.

So sounds not such a good idea!

Jonathan "who is thinking better to develop dedicated rotary Eb and separate F tubas"