TubeNet

According to the manufacturer, it lessens the disruption of the airflow, intonation, and tonal problems that occur when the 5th valve is in its conventional position, since the 5th valve is used on such a limited number of notes. The down side is that, for example on a CC tuba, you lose the ability to trill cleanly from Ab to Bb by using 5+1 to 1 instead of 2+3 to 1, and a couple of other situations. But when has a tuba, outside of any study material or etude, ever really had to do that?

Doesn't one of the Jake York CC's have a dependent 5th valve instead of the conventional 5th valve?

iiipopes wrote:But when has a tuba, outside of any study material or etude, ever really had to do that?

- brass band compositions and arrangements
- quintet compositions and arrangements
- etc.

Not common, but occasionally a nice tool for cleanly trilling with your 5th valve, 'specially if the rotor is as quiet as it should be.

Steve Marcus wrote:

iiipopes wrote:But when has a tuba, outside of any study material or etude, ever really had to do that?

- brass band compositions and arrangements
- quintet compositions and arrangements
- etc.

Not common, but occasionally a nice tool for cleanly trilling with your 5th valve, 'specially if the rotor is as quiet as it should be.

I'd really like to see some excerpts, as I have never seen any examples in concert literature. No, my experience is not the broadest, but it's not the narrowest, either.

iiipopes,

I agree with your point of limited use, but I can assure you on occasion the 5th is a a life saver. I have a CC horn with the 5th for the left hand (don't ask), and I found it invaluable for a brass choir arrangement of Stars and Stripes Forever. The piece was in the standard key with, of course, the piccolo part given to the tuba and euphonium. By flapping like a seal with my left hand, all the trills were cleanly executed and (almost) musical.

Karl "now if I can only figure out what to do with my RIGHT hand..." H.

KiltieTuba wrote:So on a four valve BBb, which fifth valve would be bettet - a dependent or independent?

For my instrument a dependent would be bettet because I have no real room to place the fifth valve in the open bugle, without investing in a very expensive large valve.

What notes would I not be able to play, possibly, better?

I'm talking about a sousaphone.

I'm all for experimenting (and you're young - now's the time to do it), but I don't see much logic in you wanting to add a valve which, by your own admission, you don't really know the purpose of, let alone the pros & cons. Maybe I'm missing something here.

With that in mind, if you're going to do this is there a way of doing something reversible?
If your sousa has a decent length of 4th straight tubing between two slides maybe you could remove the original (to save) and pop two shorter pieces of "new" slide at either end with the rotor somewhere in the middle?
The linkage to RH thumb could be naughty; LH might be a lot easier.

Have a look here also: http://galvanizedjazz.com/tuba.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Good luck!
MP

Karl, you hit one of my pet peeves: S & S Forever. I am a proponent of the "straight" renditions of playing it, keeping the parts where they belong, keeping the tempo pretty much even, meaning possibly a slight tenuto going into the last strain on the last time through, but then resuming original tempi, neither accelerating nor broadening, and keeping the piccolo part as just that in both orchestration and in the context of countermelody, and therefore subdued, and overall making music out of the march with proper dynamics, articulation and style rather than "in your face" with the dogfight and piccolo parts.

To me, the march has been cheapened and weakened by all the garbage arrangements, and nobody listens to the real music in the march anymore, for example the lilt of the second strain and how it sets up the dogfight, which is usually played too fast, before the triumphant final strain, which no rendition should attempt to guild the lily.

Thank you, Sean, for the time to rant.

I can see no reason for a 5th valve on a BBb. It adds weight and the horn ALWAYS suffers. The more valves the worse the instrument plays . ALWAYS.
Ray

I once had one on a tuba and liked it. But that was because the 1+3 was quite in tune, allowing me to have the 4th pulled out a bit to catch a tunable 2+4.

On a Contrabass tuba, a dependent valve has possibilities. (I wouldn't want it on a bass tuba). Lets face it, we're talking about five notes (considering that 2+3+4 works great on many BBb tubas for the low D, this makes 4 notes!) And having said that, consider this; if this is a factory 4 valved sousaphone than its probably a vintage horn, unless it a Yamaha I guess. Do you REALLY want to go mucking around with history just for 5 (or 4) notes in a register that's practically NEVER asked for and is already attainable on a 4 valved BBb?

If I were you, I'd make a tunable main slide and a longer 4th valve slide tuned to an augmented 4th (instead of the standard perfect 4th).

My very first CC tuba (Conn) had four valves and two 4th slides; one being the longer tritone slide. It was great actually. My right hand was on the 1st slide anyway, pushing in for the standard D & C#. Pulling it for the lower D was a cinch.

Yes, there'll ALWAYS be something you can do with 5 valves that you can't do with 4. And if you had 6 you'd never want to go back. You need to ask yourself whats really important; which notes are hanging you up trying to tune them on time and play them accurately. It's a BBb, which means >90% of your gigs are playable with a standard 4 banger, assuming you can easily play in tune on the instrument.

On the other hand, if the sort of work you do requires a lot of low playing, you might want something quicker than pulling a slide.

Good luck
-Pat

Messing irreversibly with vintage instruments really is a problem to be very much aware about.

American makers, at least Conn, used thinner sheet metal after WWII than before, so I am not entirely sure modern slides will fit the receivers of old instruments. Just tried to swap the 1st slides of my 1928 (or so) 26K and my 1946 28K, which was possible. Even if the 28K is relatively lighter than the 26K, its valve block still may be a pre-war left over, so that my test might be insignificant for comparing old and new slides.

The 3rd and 4th slides of my 40K have the same radius of crook, so they would be swappable if they had had the same length of branches (the 3rd is the longer one).

I don’t know which sousaphone model Kiltie will modify, but if it were a 40K it might be possible to realise Brian’s idea of a rotor in the 4th crook by getting a 3rd slide for a 20K, mount the rotor, shorten the branches, and still have the original instrument fully intact.

If I had the tech skills, I would have mounted a rotor just above the tenon in a modern neck for a 20K. With the same receivers I would have 3 different slides for multiple purposes.

As the 26K, the 28K, and the 40K all accept the same neck, I would have long whole step slides for the 28K and and for the 40K. For the 3 pistons’ 26K I might go for a slightly shortened whole step allowing for an in-tune F in the staff. The low Ab would be quite close with all 4 valves. Or I would try a fourth (=2 and a half steps) slide. Also giving options for an in tune F in the staff.

Klaus