TubeNet

Is a 4-valve F tuba very common/usable? I know that would mean you wouldn't have the low Gb/F# as a fingered note, but does anyone here have only a 4-valve? Or are 5 valves pretty much standard/necessary for an F tuba?

I have an F helicon that had 3 valves until someone added a 4th. I see many old F helicons and thing 3/4v was standard 100 years ago, but with limitations similar to old Eb Bass parts in Sousa marches - I tend to avoid the low register due to intonation issues. It works fine for marching gigs.

Get one with 5 or 6 valves, the alternates can be invaluable.

I've owned a four-valve F tuba--it was the instrument on which I learned to play the F. It was rather nice in the upper register, but it was worthless below the staff--there were just too few fingering combinnations to play things in tune, and the battle for each note took too much. So, I could play high stuff, including some orchestral stuff intended for F tuba, but forget stuff like quintet or other chamber music where my use of the F is for reasons of color rather than range. And most solo material explores the low range as much as the high--the run in the first movement of the Vaughan Williams would be nearly impossible on a four-valve F.

When I replaced that instrument with a Yamaha F tuba that had 5 valves, my world was transformed. My current most-used F tuba has six valves. I only use the sixth valve occasionally, but when you need it you need it.

So, to me, five valves are necessary, six are nice to have.

Rick "unless you get it dirt cheap just to learn the fingerings" Denney

I was afraid of that.... I'm just contemplating (down the road) turning my Eb into an F and figured a 4 valve set would be easier to come by than finding/making a 5 valve set.

The bugle on my Eb is in relatively good shape, whereas the valves are super worn and one of the knuckles is broken off the casing. I'm just wondering if it would be better just to use the bugle for something else rather than fix up the valve set, only to take it off later anyway. I hope this ramble makes sense to someone.

My main reasons for cutting it down to F are simply that if I was going to flip the bows for a front action and replace the leadpipe in the process, that would remove several inches of open tubing (the current leadpipe has a "loop" in it). There is also a good stretch of straight tubing leading into the 3rd valve that could be cut to get the pitch up to F, or that whole branch/bow if necessary. If you haven't seen my other thread, this is the tuba to which I am referring.

So then, going back to my "It's easier to find a four than a five-valve set" theory, are there any severe limitations to a four-valve, non-compensating Eb if I don't cut it to F?

tuben wrote:

tstryk wrote:hmmmm - why would an F be more beneficial than an Eb? Thinking this is akin to the BBb/C debate

Because lots of the orchestral bass tuba rep is bloody awkward on Eb tuba?

Do you have any specific examples? This statement is thrown around quite a bit, but I have yet to encounter real examples of it. Of course, my knowledge of orchestral bass tuba excerpts is somewhat limited.

And, when you say Eb do you mean all Ebs? (Including compensating 3+1 horns)

______
Off topic, sort of: "Bloody awkward" sounds awfully "British" to my ears. Probably because some of the Brits I know use "bloody hell" once in a while.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bloody" target="_blank

...Oh, the irony...

My other reason is simply that I got it super cheap and thought it would be a fun project. Again, this isn't happening any time soon. I was just curious about the usability (is that really a word?) of a 4-valve F if that was what it became.

Tubajug wrote:So then, going back to my "It's easier to find a four than a five-valve set" theory, are there any severe limitations to a four-valve, non-compensating Eb if I don't cut it to F?

If you plan on playing the best known concert for bass tuba, it will be tough on 4 valve tubas in either of the two pitches, F or Eb, as Gb and E natural are prominent notes. One solution might be a 4th valve loop with a very long and well accessible slide.

Klaus

I don't play in any orchestras, so that's not an issue. The only place I might actually end up using this horn would be my brass quintet that gets together when we have a gig or Tuba Christmas.

Thanks for all the input so far. On a side note, any guesses as to my horn's age? I looked on horn-u-copia and found horns that look similar in the Lyon and Healy catalog from 1912. Could it be that old?

I play 4 valve Amati F. Its intonation is horrible, low range inaccessible and it sounds a bit more like a trombone than a tuba.
Everyone here who starts to play F plays this type of horn - yes, even VW concerto or Hindemith or whatever. You will learn how to handle anything if you have time and no other solution.
Since you need about a year of regular work´s salary to buy a Miraphone or something better, its not rare to see excellent players play such a bad horn. Truth is, it can be mastered and can actually sound quite nice, just like any instrument.

tuben wrote:

tstryk wrote:hmmmm - why would an F be more beneficial than an Eb? Thinking this is akin to the BBb/C debate

Because lots of the orchestral bass tuba rep is bloody awkward on Eb tuba?

It is?!?

A 4 valve Eb has a few uses... a 4 valve F, IMHO, can't cover very much of the repertoire effectively... except euphonium and ophicleide parts. You can play VW on almost any 4v Eb.

I use my 183 Miraphone from time to time, and I'm tinkering with the idea of putting on a 5th valve. But I've largely learned to work around it. It's an occasional-use horn, more for Dixieland and some lighter bass tuba rep. It's mostly holding a space for when I get my preferred instrument.

However... I just looked at your picture, and this is a very easy cut to make if you can find a main tuning slide assembly which can suit... it might make a better F than a C. Either way, you're going to end up with a vastly different instrument!

J.c.S.

DP wrote:Gosh a 4 valve f is fine for Tuba 2 or "even" Tuba 3 in most decently-voiced quartet arrangements
and quite use-able for high parts in larger ensembles (Berlioz )
It used to be that people looked to replacing their equipment when what they had was limiting their playing.
Now it seems the common advice is to get the most versatile, flexible, feature-laden horn you can find
just in case you "need" those capabilities somewhere down the line.

As I said in my post, based on actual experience with a four-valve F tuba, I ran into limitations in about a year. And I was a second-rate amateur. Very few second-rate amateurs have access to situations where they can play Berlioz outside the practice room, but they are likely to want to use the instrument for quintet and other chamber music. I found the 4-valve instrument grossly limiting for quintet--some of the lit is voiced for bass tuba and some of it for contrabass tuba. If you want the lighter sound of an F for the former and you don't want to have to bring along another tuba for the latter, then five valves will make your life much easier. Certainly a 5-valve F tuba, for a person who actually wants an F tuba, would be at least as reasonable as a very small C tuba, which would have to be an additional instrument for most folks.

I've played a lot of tuba quartets, at all levels. And the third part (first tuba in an EETT quartet, which is by far the most common arrangement) often goes down low enough so that four valves would present some significant challenges.

So, the question is this: Should we advise an amateur to play a versatile instrument with the one extra valve, and play in the low register in the near term with the hope of decent intonation, or spend a decade learning the special fight required to play a 4-valve F tuba in the low register without skipping the bad notes?

It's not like your average 5-valve F is all that rare or expensive. In fact, I bet it's easier to find than a 4-valve F, at least anywhere English is the native tongue.

Of course, the agenda of the OP was hidden at first--he wants to cut an Eb tuba and adding the 5th valve makes that much more challenging, whereas I've written in my prior post and above applies to someone considering a 4-valve F versus a 5-valve F bought afresh. True enough--adding the fifth valve to a project makes it more challenging. Having done a similar project (without the fifth valve), I can say with some confidence that the lack of a 5th valve might be the least limitation on such an instrument, but maybe past performance is no guarantee of future results. My own project ended with an instrument that played reasonably well in and above the staff, and with a nice sound. But the scale below the staff was a whole other thing.

But for TubaChristmas only? That's where a 4-valve F might actually be at least a possibility--the first tuba part sits high, and the size of the ensemble will allow one to skip the notes that don't work, just like the guy does around here who shows up with a Civil-War-era over-the-shoulder Eb bass saxhorn (with three valves).

Rick "who hasn't met many ancient pea-shooter bass tubas with good false tones" Denney

I appreciate all the great replies and discussion this has got going. For now I think I'll get it playing as a three valve, then see what happens. If it works out as a nice playing three valve, I might not even need it as an F. I can always chop it up down the road if I find the funds/time.

KiltieTuba wrote:Just add a rotor to the main slide - not unlike the dependent Yamaha fifth on the Eb tubas, though yours would be independent.

You mean to turn my 3V into a 4V? Would that go into the side that connects to the 3rd valve or the lead pipe/main tuning slide?