TubeNet

Having recently played tried the Wessex tuba that is a copy of the Besson 981, including the fabled "Fletcher leadpipe, my curiosity was piqued when I considered the fact that the 921 has a shorter leadpipe than a 982 and so I had to pull the main slide out considerably. I'd never had to do that with a real Besson so I got to wondering why.
The answer is, I'm led to believe, is the the original 981 leadpipe has a larger diameter than that on the 982, so, as the air volume is increased, clever physics makes it play at the same pitch as the longer, narrower one.
So clearly, the 981/Fletch leadpipe on the Wessex or is not a "real" Fletch leadpipe (sorry Jonathan - no disrespect to your product intended), just a shorter, straight 982 pipe.

To many this will be obvious but to me it was a revelation. Who'd have thought science had anything to do with making music!

PhilGreen wrote:Having recently played tried the Wessex tuba that is a copy of the Besson 981, including the fabled "Fletcher leadpipe, my curiosity was piqued when I considered the fact that the 921 has a shorter leadpipe than a 982 and so I had to pull the main slide out considerably. I'd never had to do that with a real Besson so I got to wondering why.
The answer is, I'm led to believe, is the the original 981 leadpipe has a larger diameter than that on the 982, so, as the air volume is increased, clever physics makes it play at the same pitch as the longer, narrower one.
So clearly, the 981/Fletch leadpipe on the Wessex or is not a "real" Fletch leadpipe (sorry Jonathan - no disrespect to your product intended), just a shorter, straight 982 pipe.

To many this will be obvious but to me it was a revelation. Who'd have thought science had anything to do with making music!

I agree that the difference in taper and volume can and will effect intonation, but hardly enough to change the pitch of the whole instrument by much
That needs to be due to difference in total effective length.

Can you remember the pitch anyway?

Well, all the 981s and 982s that I've played were pitched at A=442ish (including the 2 I have access to today) so that one could pull out the main slide a little to get to A=440. The "clone' I played was at 446/448 as it had the shorter leadpipe but no increase in air volume. The 981 to 982 leadpipe increase is probably about 2 inches.

Who says that size doesn't matter.....

He he...good one.

446/448 is sky high, thou most brass bands tends to tune sharp.
I had one and can't remember it being that sharp, but there again.
Jinbao is not world famous for consistency.

The one I had played remarkable good, but had too much
personalty like valves popping due to poor threads and a few
other issues.

In fact. 'play wise' I'll rank it up with two "Fletcter" 981s I've had and above
4(!) other sovereigns.

Here's from the sales add with the pull I needed to play ~442


Below here's an old pic of me, in my underwear for some reason
Anyways...It's one of my all time favorite instruments, a late 80s 981
The slide-pull is in fact a tad more, adding ~2" of tubing

Lectron wrote:

Below here's an old pic of me, in my underwear for some reason
Anyways...It's one of my all time favorite instruments, a late 80s 981

This brings new meaning to the phrase "horn dorn"

PhilGreen wrote: So clearly, the 981/Fletch leadpipe on the Wessex or is not a "real" Fletch leadpipe (sorry Jonathan - no disrespect to your product intended), just a shorter, straight 982 pipe.

The famous Fletcher mouthpipe was designed for a Swiss-army cavalry tuba. It was conical and short, with its diameter and taper decided by the receiver at one end, and the valve-block at the other. If you have a short conical mouthpipe that fits at both ends, then it has to be a genuine Fletcher type (assuming your valves have the same bore). The "magic" happened because with the mouthpipe being shorter, the diameter had to increase more rapidly as you moved from the receiver towards the valve-block. This has a similar effect to using a bigger back-bore on the mouthpiece, only the magic is stronger. There was also a little trickery with the ferrule at the valve-block, which had to be more conical to fit the steeper slope of the mouthpipe; If you are changing mouthpipes, make sure you get the right ferrule!

There have been earlier threads on the tuning issue: I think you will find that the Fletcher-model 981 had a longer tuning slide to compensate for the shorter mouthpipe (possibly not on the first run, but I'm pretty sure it was on the second run and later). When the "S" shaped mouthpipe was introduced, it was designed to have the same rapid expansion as the Fletcher model, but with a few inches of parallel tubing added to give it the necessary extra length: At the same time, the tuning slide reverted to the same length as the 982. Thus parallel tubing was added to the mouthpipe while removing the same length of tubing from the tuning slide - Fletcher-model enthusiasts report that the designers didn't get it quite right, and the new-model 981 lost some of its mojo. On the other hand, a taller player can hold the new model without bending his backbone into a pretzel, so its not all bad.

Incidentally: The first run of Sovereigns were notorious for playing flat - many players reported they tuned at A=437 with all the slides in, when played with a decent sized mouthpiece (24AW was popular at that time); It is at least possible that the shorter Fletcher-type mouthpipe corrected the tuning on the early 981, as it does on the "Mr Tuba" Imperial re-builds. The first run 981 and 982 were just late-model 19" Imperials, with extra goodies like stainless-steel pistons, and nylon valve-guides. For the second run, Besson/Boosey followed Fletcher's advice and built them to tune at A=442 or so. These later instruments also had the modified bottom bow and bigger bell-throat.

Having checked a JinBao EEb with 'Fletcher' leadpipe for tuning - for me it was;

All the way in A=444
2cm out = A=442
4cm out = A=440

As there is only 5cm of pull, it is rather far out at A=440 which is why I am having the slides lengthened by 1.5cm. It also means the extra length pipe on the new Wessex raised leadpipe puts it near in tune for A=442 with reasonable pull available for A-440.

It I remember correct I used to have the tuning slide out about 2.5cm on the 1980's Besson 981 I once played for A=440.

The above test were done using the ubiquitous 24AW mouthpiece

PS Lectron, Nice to discuss this on the phone with you earlier

This is interesting...!

I can honestly say I've never really moved a tuning slide on ANY of my tubas including my old 981 and the new Wessex.

Weird eh. Had no idea about all this.

Ian

That's what I say...

It's the tubaplayers privilege to decide both tempo & pitch
Let the 'background' instruments worry about those things

Lectron wrote: It's the tubaplayers privilege to decide both tempo & pitch

For a struggling amateur, that is true enough to be intensely embarassing, but it's no privilege: I suffered through many a demeaning tuning session desperately trying to lip my way up to a decent 440, and had to swallow the indignity of having the whole band tune down to me. I eventually gave in and had the back bow shortened, so the worst is now behind me, but I do dearly wish the tuba had been easier to tune when I bought it (or that I'd had the sense to get it re-tuned ten years earlier).

DP wrote:

MikeW wrote:had the back bow shortened,

how does the the "fletch cut" work on horns that are A=448?

A longer back bow would probably be a good solution.
It will inflict the sound less than lengthen the MTS, but there again
Someone needs to make that bow

MikeW wrote:
The famous Fletcher mouthpipe was designed for a Swiss-army cavalry tuba. It was conical and short, with its diameter and taper decided by the receiver at one end, and the valve-block at the other. If you have a short conical mouthpipe that fits at both ends, then it has to be a genuine Fletcher type (assuming your valves have the same bore).

Hi Mike,

That's my point - the Wessex (and other 981 copies) has the same leadpipe as a 982 (copy), just shorter. There is no increase in diameter and that's why they blow very sharp. There is a joint just before the valve block where, presumably, the increase in pipe diameter is done in one step (or at least that's how it looks to me).

Phil.

PhilGreen wrote:

MikeW wrote:
The famous Fletcher mouthpipe was designed for a Swiss-army cavalry tuba. It was conical and short, with its diameter and taper decided by the receiver at one end, and the valve-block at the other. If you have a short conical mouthpipe that fits at both ends, then it has to be a genuine Fletcher type (assuming your valves have the same bore).

Hi Mike,

That's my point - the Wessex (and other 981 copies) has the same leadpipe as a 982 (copy), just shorter. There is no increase in diameter and that's why they blow very sharp. There is a joint just before the valve block where, presumably, the increase in pipe diameter is done in one step (or at least that's how it looks to me).

Phil.

The tapering/volume would not inflict on the general intonation of the instrument, length would.

As for it not being equal the whole length, I dunno, but it doesn't seem that bad

DP wrote:

MikeW wrote:had the back bow shortened,

how does the the "fletch cut" work on horns that are A=448?

Obviously the cut only works on horns that play flat. Horns that play sharp would, as you point out, need the reverse treatment, introducing extra length into the back bow. My back-out plan (if the cut turned out to be a disaster) was to try to reverse the cut with an extra-long pair of ferrules; maybe this would work for a sharp horn ? I don't know whether I could have got the ferrules made, and I don't know what the extra cylindrical tubing and the extra stiffness would have done to the intonation - fortunately I didn't have to find out.

PhilGreen wrote: That's my point - the Wessex (and other 981 copies) has the same leadpipe as a 982 (copy), just shorter.

You appear to be saying that the Chinese horns have a narrow-bore and essentially cylindrical mouthpipe that fits the receiver end, but has a sizeable step expansion to allow it to connect to the valves.

The history of the Sovereigns, as I understand it from various threads here on Tubenet, is something like this:

Both the 981 and the 982 had conical mouthpipes, with the diameter increasing smoothly from the small end at the receiver to the wider end at the valve-block (modelled on the conical mouthpipe of the old Imperials). The difference between the two was the rate of expansion - the Fletcher-type pipe on the 981 had to expand more steeply to get its full diameter in the shorter distance available.

Most people seem to have commented on the dynamic range, rather than intonation; The 982 tends to bark at louder dynamics (some people liked that, probably because they were used to it from older Imperials), but the 981 can play a lot louder without breaking up; Some players think it has a bigger bottom end, and some also report an easier top end.

The question of intonation only arises on the very first run of Sovereigns (the notorious "bad batch" of 982s): The bells, bows, branches, tubing, and valve casings were the same as the last run of Imperials, which were notoriously flat. Putting the shorter Fletcher mouthpipe on one of these raised the pitch, much the same as the Flectcher/Parkes cut, so even in the first run the 981s had fewer tuning problems; The shorter mouthpipe also became the basis of the Mr Tuba treatment for Imperials.

At this point, Besson/Boosey&Hawkes seem to have finally got the message, and they did a bunch of mods to bring the instruments up to pitch (including changing the bottom bow and bell throat); On these newer instruments, the shorter mouthpipe caused the instrument to play sharp, so the 981 was given a longer tuning slide to make up for the shorter mouthpipe. In this generation, both the 981 and the 982 tuned a bit above A=440 with the slides in.

The low mouthpiece position on the 981 made it uncomfortable for taller players, and made it balance badly when modified for marching, so eventually the mouthpiece on the 981 was moved up to the same position as on the 982. The "rapid expansion" profile was retained in the conical section of the mouthpipe, and a few inches of cylindrical tubing were added to allow the mouthpiece to be mounted higher: At the same time, the extra length of cylindrical tubing was removed from the tuning slide.

Thus if the Chinese "clone" is modeled on a late-model Sov (either 981 or 982), it will inevitably play sharp when fitted with a shorter mouthpipe, unless something else is also lengthened - the tuning slide seems like a good candidate, or possibly the back bow. Also, if the clone's mouthpipe does not have the same rapid-expansion taper as the Fletcher mouthpipe, it won't have the same magic effect on the instrument's sound (which isn't to say that there may not be some alternative magic at work in the Chinese version).

I don't know about these playing at A 448 because every one of these horn I have sold have been spot on and very consistant. I just got a batch of silver in that are going to Canada and they were all great. Maybe the mouthpiece selection needs to be adjusted for the user in this situation. Overall, my impression is this model is one of the best models that comes out of China for intonation and sound.

JMHO

MikeW thank you for your potted history of the 981/982 - very interesting.

I think who is playing the tuba makes a huge difference to the pitch. I remember when I bought a MW 2040/5 Eb, it played so sharp for me that the tuning slide was all the way out and that was not enough, so I had to get lengthened main tuning slide - while Mark Carter at Mr.Tuba told me that in development they had had trouble with that tuba playing flat.

Then when I sold to a buyer in Australia he had to get an even longer main tuning slide fitted as my lengthened one was not long enough for him.

Mouthpiece choice can also make big difference and even between batch of the same model they can vary mysteriously - this makes no difference if German or Chinese made instruments.

Manufacturers try to allow for these variations, but on some models the main tuning slide is not long enough to allow enough adjustment, so offering choices of pipe lengths for different players is a good idea.

I don't know what the leadpipe expansion rate is like on the JinBao 700 EEb and how one would find out without cutting pipe apart. I do have a leadpipe somewhere which was damaged in transit and had to be replaced. I might try dissecting that out of interest? But I can't help thinking if the Chinese 'cloned' a 981 for the JinBao 700, why would they not copy the leadpipe profile?

But however the leadpipe expands, it definitely works - the Wessex/JinBao EEb is a superb playing tuba and I cannot detect any difference to tone from a Besson 981. That was proved by my previous 'blind test' when 40% of listeners could not tell which was the 981 either.

mctuba1 wrote:I don't know about these playing at A 448 because every one of these horn I have sold have been spot on and very consistant. I just got a batch of silver in that are going to Canada and they were all great. Maybe the mouthpiece selection needs to be adjusted for the user in this situation. Overall, my impression is this model is one of the best models that comes out of China for intonation and sound.

JMHO

I don't quite get it.

The original one is made with a pitch quite a bit above 440 (443 I think), and if this one is sharper there will have to be quite a pull to get down to 440 (?)
I am glad to hear thou that it is consistent..Somehow, at least from a sales perspective, that is quite important but I would believe that most people would
find them a tad sharp.....or as Wessex experienced....A more preferred pitch with the longer leadpipe

4 cm should bring pitch down ~4 Hz on an Eb tuba, so from the 'overall' feedback, I'm pretty sure Wessex is into something making the lead-pipe longer

Could it be that the feedback is less consistent than the instrument itself?
Or as we also know. Different people play different pitch on the same instruments.