TubeNet

I came across this on Ebay... it must weigh a ton! Anyone ever play or build anything like this? I imagine all the slides have to be reset for each mode. Can't tell if the mode-key locks in place - I'm guessing it does. Anyway, cool enough to share. Here's from the auction:

Excellent V.F.CERVENY professional double tuba- F/Bb- yellow brass - 100% lacquered, fixed bell. The tuba was custom made for the Philharmonic orchestra in Belgrade-Serbia, CERVENY produced one piece only. The tuba is in perfect playing condition, the intonation is excellent, no dents, dings or damages. All valves and slides move freely. No leaks. The main pitch is F, by pressing the separate valve the pitch changes in Bb. Five valves, water keys. Bell diameter:15.74inches(40cm). Bore: .83 inches (21mm.) High:38.97 inches (99cm). The year of creation is ca.1980(Hradec Kralove).The tuba comes with original hard case and mouthpiece - "Werner Chr. Schmidt".

Here are some pics I grabbed:

Double tubas like this are fairly common from Alexander... and all Besson Eb 980,981,982,983 and the older Imperials are double tubas as well (compensating doubles). Check out http://www.robbstewart.com" target="_blank for Tommy Johnson's multiple full F/CC doubles.

If it is like most double tubas, I am guessing that it is a fair to good F tuba with the Bb side mostly serving as alternate low range fingerings. Some Cerveny F tubas already have a Quint valve that drops the horn a perfect 5th, this is just taking that concept further.
Marty "thinking that a double side in CC would be more useful to compensate for F tuba inadequacies."

KiltieTuba wrote:Here's the problem I have with these double tubas:

Why would you have a problem with a tuba that displays mechanics very similar to a double F horn? Since this is a true double (unlike a Besson 983 mentioned by JC)... there is no real need to move slides when switching keys.

Plus... there ARE NOT gobs of straight cylindrical tubing involved.

KiltieTuba wrote:

If the double tuba concept was as successful as it is claimed to be, we would see more people using them.

Also, the weight of the double rotary valves have to be taken into consideration. The action on the one Alexander double-tuba that I played years ago was like molasses and made the horn in my opinion, useless.

As can be seen from the two slides attached to the first rotor, this is a compensating double tuba.

By design it has one advantage over the Alexander compensating double tuba: the shift valve is after the main valve block. The Alexander has the larger bore CC compensating loops before the smaller bore F main valve loops. This one can have an increasing bore, not an Alexander style retrograde step bore, trough the valve and compensation loops.

Klaus

KiltieTuba wrote:This, I feel, is a better design - though I have never played it - for a double tuba: .... The change valve changes the tapered tubing, not just adding more cylindrical tubing.

Ian... why all the hullabaloo about 'masses of straight tubing' when we all more-or-less demand that a tuba has a 4th and 5th valve? That's all just straight tubing (in most cases) and does little more than what we see in the so-called 'double tuba'.

The hard fact in what we are seeing here is that double horns simply cost more to produce than conventional tubas. If The Tuba World changed to the point that conventional three and four valve tubas were no longer made.... surely we would learn to cope.

J.c. Sherman wrote:Double tubas like this are fairly common from Alexander... and all Besson Eb 980,981,982,983 and the older Imperials are double tubas as well (compensating doubles). Check out http://www.robbstewart.com" target="_blank" target="_blank for Tommy Johnson's multiple full F/CC doubles.

This looks more like the old pre-merger Besson "Enharmonic System" compensators, which had double-horn style valve circuits; each valve had two separate tuning slides, except the last, which acted as a switch valve. I have read that Boosey and Hawkes abandoned this system in favour of the Blaikely comps, which had less tubing (and were therefore lighter).

I am surprised that no one has commented on the .830 bore size. I don't know much, but seems awfully big for the F side. I have to wonder if the measurement is wrong. Someone will elucidate me on this query; Wouldn't that big a bore on an F tuba make slotting the thing a nightmare, especially in the upper register, thus negating one of the main uses for an F tuba?

Bell seems REALLY small for either instrument.

Chuck"curious"Jackson

MikeW wrote:This looks more like the old pre-merger Besson "Enharmonic System" compensators, which had double-horn style valve circuits; each valve had two separate tuning slides, except the last, which acted as a switch valve. I have read that Boosey and Hawkes abandoned this system in favour of the Blaikely comps, which had less tubing (and were therefore lighter).

Sorry, but there is no way this could be anything near a full double or an enharmonic tuba. The top layer 1st valve loop is that of an F tuba and the bottom layer 1st valve loop is about half that long. The sufficient length of 1st valve tubing needed to lower the BBb side a full step is achieved by a summation of the two said loops. That is the idea of a compensating system.

As for Tommy Johnson’s double tubas I only really have seen documentation the two based on Yamaha F tubas. After the rebuild they also were compensating tubas, not full double tubas. Only the adding of the compensating loops happened via a long 4 story rotor valve, which added the compensating CC loops directly to the respective valve loops of the F side. Almost similar to the compensating double horns after the Lehmann system. Only the Lehman system integrates the shift valve in the long rotor, whereas the compensating tubas of Mr. Johnson had a separate shift valve.

Klaus

A link to the original auction would be most interesting.

Klaus

I suppose I did misspeak on Tommy's tubas... they are compensating, but of a different sort; Alexander does/did offer a full double tuba... and did have a compensating system too (I'm sitting next to one this Sunday).

The just happens to be a 5 valve compensating instrument, rather than the more typical English 4 valve comp. There's nothing wrong with the system; the only weirdness I see in this example is that there still isn't a great valve fingering for F# except on the BBb side (that would be a strange timbre) and nothing available for a solid low B. That's always struck me as the only real deficit of an F/BBb vs. an F/CC.

I'm sure it's a fine player; the rotary doubles I've played didn't have any noticable lag in the double rotors, if they're kept up.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the BBb/EEE double tuba yet

J.c.S.

Klaus - it took some digging as the auction was ended early, but here is a link to the original page:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 720wt_1119

Scroll down and it should be there, at least for a while.

It's essentially a full double tuba (with a tapered section on each side) with 6 valves and one change valve; it can be played like a typical 3 valve King. I really liked it; you never need more than 2 valves.

J.c.S.

Trevor Bjorklund wrote:Klaus - it took some digging as the auction was ended early, but here is a link to the original page:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 720wt_1119

Scroll down and it should be there, at least for a while.

Thanks for the link!

As for the large bore I see two possibilities:

The seller has measured the outside diameter of the 2nd valve male branch (or possibly measured the main tuning slide).

Or this compensating double tuba was set up to work optimally on the BBb side with the F side as a help-out in the high range.

Klaus

I played on a similar instrument in a small brass instrument shop in Hamburg back in 1962. It wasn't bad as an F tuba, but when shifted into BBb it was way too stuffy for me. The bore size may have been part of the problem, but the other part was the fact that in BBb the air had to go through both sets of valve tubing, which involved a lot of turns and constrictions. As mentioned above, it's more of a compensating system rather than a true double horn.

The better compensating tubas have a conical element, as you know; the Besson families, for instance, have a large bore in the BBb (or FFF) tubing, which can somewhat open that predicted stuffiness.

But a 5 valve tuba is every bit as cylindrical as a 4v compensating instrument... it's the same length of tubing added. Some 5v tubas do have larger 4th and 5th valves (my Kalison has neither)... but the bore profile is the same as it would/could be if compensating; just fewer bends.

The best horns have the most conical tubing, IMHO. Paxman horns are a complete delight - on several, the F tubing is larger than the Bb tubing, allowing a taper in the added F plumbing. They're practically self-playing horns.

All this is to say that compensating instruments basically have one challenge - the added bends - which someone should work on, IMHO. They can be played around. This tuba has conveniently added a second problem, by making the lower pitch extra low for added stuffiness and lack of a low B fingering

J.c.S.

I just played one of these Alexander Double tubas at the Alex shop in Mainz yesterday. I thought it was a great horn. Didn't have any of the weird low C problems and really was not a heavy horn. The double valves were a little slow, but that was due to it sitting in a window for who knows how long. I would say the low end was better than almost every rotor F tuba I have ever played. Still was no Yamaha down low but it still had that wonderful Alexander sound up high. I wouldn't use the CC side for anything above C below the staff though, and from what my wife tells me (a very fine horn player) most horn players use their horns that way too. If I had the euro for it I would have taken it home with me. Don't write these types of tubas off just because someone played a 60 year old horn and found it stuffy.

What was its price please?