TubeNet

I'm curious about people's thoughts about a compensating system compared to a fifth (and sixth) valve. Particularly:

1. Now that Besson has proven that it is possible to make a good, front action compensating horn, why aren't other manufacturers following suit?
2. Are there any good compensating F tubas on the market?
3. Is a front action, compensating CC tuba a possibility?
4. Does a fifth valve provide more options than a compensating system? How important are the extra fingering combinations for trills, etc.?
5. Has anyone ever considered making a compensating tuba with a non-compensating fifth valve?

I am not even close to being smart enuff in the reason why a compensating system would/ would not work on a CC. But with that do remember that Bessons new CC tuba (995) is NOT compensating...it is a 5 valver just like the rest. So I would speculate there must be a reason for them not using a compensating system. (perhaps cost of making the vale sets/tubing) It is a good question though, especially given the success of the 983 EEb and such.

I suspect that compensating tubas are coming into their twilight with the sale of Besson to TMG. You'll note that Besson's as-yet--not-in-production BBb is a 4p+1r non-compensator. Compensating tubas don't seem to be as popular as the non-compensators, the valve clusters are much more labor-intensive to build, and tuba players seem to be perfectly comfortable with a 5th valve.

"Now that Besson has proven that it is possible to make a good, front action compensating horn, why aren't other manufacturers following suit?"
If Besson can't stay out of the red with them, why should any other manufacturer make the substantial investment required to follow suit?

"Is a front action, compensating CC tuba a possibility?"
Certainly! But the list of potential buyers is too short. And most of those tubists already are accustomed to non-compensating instruments.

"Does a fifth valve provide more options than a compensating system? How important are the extra fingering combinations for trills, etc.?" -Not a big issue, in my opinion.

"Has anyone ever considered making a compensating tuba with a non-compensating fifth valve?" -Probably, but what would be its purpose? (What problem would it solve?)

In my humble opinion the compensating Eb tubas like Patrick Sheridan's work very well, although I find them awkward to hold.
But I have not yet played on a compensating four-valve BBb instrument that wasn't stuffy in the low register. The pistons on those instruments are also heavier than I like. I'm not saying that it can't be done right; I am just saying that I don't think it's been done right yet.

If and when a good compensating contrabass tuba appears on the market and a good player like Mr. Sheridan starts to show us all what he/she can do with it, then we may see them everywhere. But I'm not sure that will ever happen because I don't feel the need to play "Flight of the Bumblebee" in ledger lines below the staff.

LT wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:I suspect that compensating tubas are coming into their twilight with the sale of Besson to TMG.

Surely if Besson ran into further difficulties, the other manufacturers of compensating tubas (Courtois, Yamaha, Miraphone, Hirsbrunner etc) would continue to build and sell these instruments...or do you not think there is any demand in the global marketplace?

As a significant portion of overall sales? No I don't. I think the second-tier compensating tuba manufacturers (Willson, Yamaha, Courtois, Miraphone) atempted to capitalize on a market opportunity with the British brass band segment (who has traditionally used Boosey instruments almost exclusively) when Boosey/Besson had fallen on hard times.

You can't really say that compensating tubas make up a significant part of the overall population of Willsons, Yamahas, or Miraphones, can you? Usually, the reaction from another tuba player is "Willson makes a compensator?".

Besson BBb compenstors were pretty popular among the US school crowd during the 1960s and 1970s, but I suspect that it wasn't due to the compensation feature, but rather because Bessons of the time were built like tanks. Most band directors that I've talked to who still have one of these relics aren't aware that they're compensating instruments, nor do they much care.

With Gerhard Meinl running Courtois and TMG owning Besson, I can't see compensating tubas in their future; Meinl is a very savvy businessman and TMG is a heavily debt-laden investment consortium; which says if production of other instruments is more profitable, then compensating tubas will be dropped from the product line.

Art Hovey wrote:But I have not yet played on a compensating four-valve BBb instrument that wasn't stuffy in the low register. The pistons on those instruments are also heavier than I like. I'm not saying that it can't be done right; I am just saying that I don't think it's been done right yet.

Yup.

There are so many factors that go into a successful tuba design, and the intonation of certain valve combinations is just one of them. The Blaikley compensating system worships at the altar of intonation, and really just one aspect of intonation--the length of the tubes. But a study of physics reveals that the taper design is just as important as the length of the tubes in determining the intonation tendencies.

In getting the length of the tubes just right, they add a range of tubing with all sorts of twists and turns. This limits their options on taper design, and complicates the natural tuning of the bugle with any given combination of valves pressed. The design is highly refined in euphoniums and Eb tubas, but there has never been the sustained, decades-long multi-generational refinement process applied to compensated BBb instruments.

There has, however, been decades of refinement poured into uncompensated BBb instruments. And this refinement has focused on other aspects than tube length. The openness of the instrument, its resonance in the lower register, and its sound are also important factors, especially for the instrument used to make those low sounds most often.

The 983 is a fun tuba to play, but if I wanted to buy a state-of-the-art Eb for general purpose playing, the Willson would be my preference. It just sounds bigger and reflects a different set of priorities in its design.

And even in the domain of intonation, compensation is no guarantee by itself. I've never played a BBb four-valve compensator that was any better in tune than the average uncompensated BBb tuba. I've even played more than a few compensated euphoniums that would not rock the world in the intonation department, even compared to, say, an uncompensated Weril four-valve euphonium.

Three-valve compensators--well, that might be another story. There was this Besson one time...ooh-la-la.

Rick "who can play out of tune on anything" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: Three-valve compensators--well, that might be another story. There was this Besson one time...ooh-la-la.

We've got some of those at MSU. They are much better not that they have properly fitting mouthpeices:) If only we had upright bells for them...

How do I figure out the model and date on these? I've been told they are 60 years old or made in the 60's. No one seams to know for sure:(

***

ThomasDodd wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: Three-valve compensators--well, that might be another story. There was this Besson one time...ooh-la-la.

We've got some of those at MSU. They are much better not that they have properly fitting mouthpeices:) If only we had upright bells for them...

How do I figure out the model and date on these? I've been told they are 60 years old or made in the 60's. No one seams to know for sure:(

There are a lot from the 60's, including bell-fronts in the US. Older ones tend to be silverplated; the newer ones lcquered, but that's not a lead-ppe cinch. Serial numbers will always tell the story, however.

Rick Denney wrote: ... a study of physics reveals that the taper design is just as important as the length of the tubes in determining the intonation tendencies.

Rick "who can play out of tune on anything" Denney

I'm still waiting for someone with a math IQ and the ability to use it, to make a properly-tapered leadpipe for a rotary F tuba, that takes care of the low range problems; possibly bell taper would also have to go into the design. If someone would do that, every rotary F tuba owner on the planet would be inclined to buy a new leadpipe, and Rick would have one more category of tubas to play out of tune on.

MA

MaryAnn wrote:I'm still waiting for someone with a math IQ and the ability to use it, to make a properly-tapered leadpipe for a rotary F tuba, that takes care of the low range problems; possibly bell taper would also have to go into the design. If someone would do that, every rotary F tuba owner on the planet would be inclined to buy a new leadpipe, and Rick would have one more category of tubas to play out of tune on.

MA

I don't think the shape of the bell will affect the issue of fuzzy low C's on rotary F tubas much. I think the intonation story is mostly told by that time. The bell shape might affect the tone, however.

F tubas may actually taper too fast and too late in the bugle. The old rotary F's that had a constant bore through the valves and the typical rotary-tuba long leadpipe were worse in the low register than later models, and for them to have any size, they had to taper very quickly downstream of the valves. The little Yamaha avoids this fate, I think, by just being smaller in the first place. It has a very small bottom bow and I suspect gets its big sound from a fast-expanding bell stack. But the taper design puts the valves closer to the mouthpiece so that the instrument taper starts earlier.

But B&S F tubas have a relatively short leadpipe, since they don't take the usual path around the top of the upper bow. The bore at the 5th and 1st valves of the old Symphonie models is perhaps a bit less than the Yamaha, but the taper starts just after the first valve. It's pretty fat by the fourth valve. That earlier introduction of the main taper may well account for that instrument's relative improvement in the low register.

So, you might affect some things with a different leadpipe, but I'm not sure it will remove the low-register effect completely. After all, this has been Topic 1 for F tuba players in the U.S., and I'm sure the manufacturers have been trying to eliminate the problem without taking away the other important instrument characteristics (including a characteristic F tuba sound and response).

As far as math IQ goes, there is a computer program that is supposed to be able to design a taper to have particular intonation characteristics, but I think intonation is all it looks at. The math to consider the resulting harmonic structure (i.e., tone), based on an assumption of lip and mouthpiece impedance, would be challenging indeed. I'm sure I couldn't figure it out even if I wanted to.

Rick "who may talk analysis but who has more fun with the empirical approach" Denney

Yet again more Brit bashing - could I respectfully suggest that the reason that a great number of tubas were non -compensating was precisely because Boosey had sown up the patent on the compensating system................

Certainly in the UK the compensating system is the norm, and although there is a greater influx of other instruments I suspect that this will be the case for some time to come.

As for the concept of Rotary Valve tubas in Brass Bands - I very much doubt it. Although not a brass bander there is much to be said of the homegeneity of sound produced by instruments of similar bore etc. Past experiments with french horns and alex's have failed for precisely this reason - the sounds are to too distinctive to blend with the rest of the band.

jmh3412 wrote:Yet again more Brit bashing - could I respectfully suggest that the reason that a great number of tubas were non -compensating was precisely because Boosey had sown up the patent on the compensating system................

No "bashing" of anyone intended. Just the reality of business. If any manufacturer fnds a sufficiently lucrative market for a technology, you may rest assured that there will be a supply of goods utilizing that technology.

I've owned several compensating Bessons in various keys (and still do) from one time to another and I was never under the impression that the compensating system gave a tuba a particular sound., rather it was the physical configuration of the instrument, with the valves playing a relatively minor part.

I've played a 60's-era Besson 3-valve compensating BBb next to a similar Besson "step down" non-compensating model (same bore size, bell and bows) and not observed any significant difference in timbre. Tuning was another matter--the non-comp predictably was rather sharp on the 1+3 combinations.

The patent on Besson's compensating system has lapsed for what, about thirty years now? One might think that if there were gold in it, we'd all be playing compers right now.

In fact, the British brass band movement has undergone several incremental changes in its history. Around the turn of the century, 3-valve instruments were the rule for basses, and, judging from the number of old English non-compensating tubas that I've seen, compensation has not always been a given.

I'm confident that if all of the sources for compensating basses wither away, the British brass band movement is resilient enough that it will find some way to accomodate the change with whatever is available..

The main problem I run into with with the comp system is not that it doesn't do the job, it's just that it feels so different than a 4+1 non-comp set up. The response is different. So switchers, like myself, would have a harder time going between horns.
I have a hard enough time going between the feel of rotors and pistons, F and CC. I don't even want to think about adding another set of fingerings and totally different response in the lower range.
I have strongly considered the Besson 983, but the challenges of learning to play it are great, versus say another 4+1 piston F.

My $.02

Jason Harrell

I have played a BBb 4-valve compensating Besson during high school. I have to agree with a lot of people, it sounded very dark compared to non-compensating tubas I have played. I didn't like the weight of it, but I loved the intonation and the dark sound it produced. When my band director ordered a new King 2341, I started playing that horn(since I was first chair, lucky me! ). It was easier to blow through the King, but it also overblowed rather easily as well. Overall, I preferred the Besson over the other horns available for me to use at the time which were 2 Miraphone 186s, a Yamaha YBB-321, 2 King 2340s, and a King 2341. I have also played a Meinl Weston 2155R CC recently for about a year, I love the tone of instrument, but the horrible intonation always drove me insane. I have had better intonation on BBb tubas in general. I could always get a big sound on a 4/4 tuba anyhow, although the difference between a 4/4 and 6/4 tuba as far as sound is concerned is quite noticeable. 4/4 vs 5/4 sound wise, not a big difference really. This is just from my experience of course. I prefer great intonation over a monstrous sound any day of the week, so that's why I love Bessons and most 4/4 horns in general.

If intonation is what you're after, my Besson 3-valve comp is damn near perfect: everything is great, the 5th partials are right on, and even the 7th partials are lippable, so you can play top space G nat 2nd valve only and Gb 1st valve only.

Here's what I trade for this perfection of intonation:
1) I give up the near pedal range below Enat 1+2+3;
2) C & Bnat below the staff are a bit stuffy;
3) Overall, because the horn is a tank, it can be a bit harder to blow.

There used to be a chart somewhere in cyberspace that did a mathematical analysis of theoretical differences in intonation between 3-valve comp, 4-valve comp & 5-valve conventional, but the website it was on seems to be defunct and I cannot find it. If someone has it or can find it, please post it. Of course, it's just a theoretical chart, which does not take into account the intonation quirks all tubas have for a variety of reasons. But it's useful as a starting point looking for trends in intonation on a horn a person has not played before.

OTOH, my 186 is as easy to blow as a tuba gets; a perfect specimen for community band. Since community bands usually play in near keys, intonation is above average for that application, and on my specimen, with the retrofit upright bell, the only alternate tuning I have to use is 1+2 for midline D, and the octaves can compress a little at the extremes, so I have to make sure to keep the big "OH" in the lowest register to keep the pitch down and give the best breath support and embouchure focus I can with a Bach 18 mouthpiece for extended duration in the highest register. Conversely, with the recording bell, it has all the usual Miraphone tendencies.

Holy resurrection of a 5+ year old topic, Batman!!

Is any one presently making a Besson 983 or one identacle to it?

(I know this topic is old, but I'm just answering the top question).

Yes, Jupiter is making a Besson 983 clone.

They have a 3+1 Eb on one of their web sites. http://www.jupiterinstrument.com/Tuba_detail.htm I can't tell if it's a compensator or not. As for the 983-inspired horn, I was under the impression that it was to be a smaller instrument.