TubeNet

I know these guys aren't as common in the US as the E-flats, but does anybody out there play on one of these? What do you think? What is the intonation/feel of the lower range? Do you like it better or worse than the 4+1 set up of most pro tubas? Just curious.

-DC

I play on a compensating yamaha neo bb flat neo tuba.The intonation from the concert f to the pedal b flat is very good with no bad notes.I primarily use mine to play in a british style brass band and you play in and around the pedal bb flat alot, more than any wind band or orchestal literature.These tubas are very popular across the pond but not so much in north america.I have played every type of tuba in my 30 year career and have found that the compensating bb flat suits my playing needs. It is no easier or harder to play than a front action cc tuba.

I use a 3v compensated BBb Tuba Boosey&Hawkes Imperial from 1931. It has a phantastic sound and is heavy like a tank.

tuben wrote: With the exception of the York (UK) BBb, all the Besson/Boosey/Yamaha examples had the mouthpiece centered in my forehead if I held the tuba in a comfortable manner. I'm 6'1" and was too short for those (

Question: were you situating the tuba in your lap or on the chair? When I have played test these tubas, they worked quite well just resting on the chair and I'm about three inches shorter than you.

tuben wrote: They can also seem stuffy, especially in the +4 valve range. Again, excepting the York.

You put this in an interesting, and I think accurate way: They can SEEM stuffy.

I've been playing my compensating EEb for over a year now and only recently have truly adapted to going into and out of the compensating (4th valve) range in a competent way. It isn't "stuffy" in the usual sense of this term, but any of these 4-valve compensating instruments (euphoniums or tubas -- or even trumpets I suppose) will have some added and generally noticeable "resistance" in the 4th valve circuit. It takes getting used to.

bloke wrote:Of these, I still haven't played any that are better than the old "Besson" (English) ones.

Change Besson to Boosey (&Co. / &Hawkes) with the small 17'' Bell and I will agree.

As someone brought up with compensators, I've never then been able to get on with non compensators, despite several attempts and purchases!

Anyway, the Yamaha Neo I have now is the best I've played. More like an Imperial/Early Sovereign than other current models. Then, in descending order of pleasure: 1970's Imperial 4 valve (17" bell), a Besson 992 (Concert Model, straight after Imperials), a London Musical Instruments 994 copy, a Besson 994, and last, and definitely least, the current Besson 994GS/York/Buffet incarnation.

I've got a '71 Besson New Standard with the 17 inch bell. First owner was an older gentleman and I'm the second owner so it's always been adult driven and not abused. I had it rebuilt and removed the ball buster etc. Not stuffy at all with a powerful low range and a singing high range - even has false tones, a set and forget about it intonation and a sound to die for. I've had it 30 years and while it's not my main axe these days - every time I think about selling it I play it and it hangs around. Built like a tank, tall and heavy - but a portable playing stand makes playing it a breeze. While not super free blowing - that results in great note slotting. These horns put out a lot of sound and it is really hard to over blow them and they blend so well. Listen to one of the Great British Brass Bands and you really will hear how great they sound.

I think a couple of things account for some of the bad impressions out there: bad horns - Besson/Boosey had some periods where quality control must have been a four letter word. These horns don't live well with bad build quality. Besson/Boosey must have been very aggressive in the US school market in the '50s and '60s as a lot of these horns showed up in schools and while they were capable of looking like a tuba and making sound after decades of abuse and poor maintenance - they just didn't play well banged up and people remember a bad school horn experience.

Remember too, that there are two very separate KINDS of compensation-
a 3 valve compensating horn makes up for the length distance when using valves in combination, a 3+1 is essentially a compensating DOUBLE horn which does not compensate for valve combinations, only making the horn uniformly longer when the 4th valve is used.

I used to have a 3-valve comp. The tone and intonation were perfect. Yes, even open 5th and 7th partials were not flat. No, they really weren't. But it doesn't do the near-pedal range, as the comp loops and the nodes get in the way of each other. But I know where it is if I ever want to borrow it back.

To me, for community band, small concert band, brass band, etc., the Besson 17" BBb bell is just about the best bell out there for uniformity of tone, consistency of intonation, and the right blend of fundamental and overtones to properly support the ensemble. Next week I will get a thread going about my "Bessophone," grafting one of those marvelous bells onto my 186, and selling off the detachable bell stack and extra bell.

Being left-handed, but playing conventional right-handed instruments, I don't do the 3+1 well, because my left hand wants to take over. I can't afford the 4-valve-front version (993?), and I don't like its 19 inch bell, anyway. Since I do occasionally need the near-pedal tones, this is the best solution for me. Your mileage will vary.

windshieldbug wrote:Remember too, that there are two very separate KINDS of compensation-
a 3 valve compensating horn makes up for the length distance when using valves in combination, a 3+1 is essentially a compensating DOUBLE horn which does not compensate for valve combinations, only making the horn uniformly longer when the 4th valve is used.

The 3+1 is not making the horn uniformly longer when using the 4th valve. It depends on which valve combination you use.

The 3 valve compensators in BBb may be considered compensating double tubas in BBb and in GG with only 2 valves plus a shift valve.

The old 5 valve F tubas with 2 valves in the left hand could be considered full double tubas in F & CC with only 2 valves on each side plus the shift valve.

P@rick wrote:

windshieldbug wrote:Remember too, that there are two very separate KINDS of compensation-
a 3 valve compensating horn makes up for the length distance when using valves in combination, a 3+1 is essentially a compensating DOUBLE horn which does not compensate for valve combinations, only making the horn uniformly longer when the 4th valve is used.

The 3+1 is not making the horn uniformly longer when using the 4th valve. It depends on which valve combination you use.

Quite.
A 4v comp ignores the issues with valves 1-3 used in combo. Rather it addresses the more considerable shortfall in tubing only when using 4th PLUS any other valve(s).

Having spent considerable time on both comp & non, a comper is certainly more restrictive with a lot of valves down and must be blown differently. The gain is good intonation with really easy fingerings which is a godsend in modern Bb Bass brass band writing.

What I was trying to say is that the horn makes the correct PROPORTIONAL addition for valves 1,2,3 when used with the 4th valve.

That is what I meant by double horn.

windshieldbug wrote: That is what I meant by double horn.

Ah, I get it now! compensating double non-compensating!

windshieldbug wrote:What I was trying to say is that the horn makes the correct PROPORTIONAL addition for valves 1,2,3 when used with the 4th valve.

That is what I meant by double horn.

Right

Peach wrote:...certainly more restrictive with a lot of valves down and must be blown differently. The gain is good intonation with really easy fingerings which is a godsend in modern Bb Bass brass band writing.

This is my experience too. I blow differently depending on the valve combination used. I got used to it and the audience certainly doesn’t hear or notice this. I prefer blowing a non-comp but having only 4 valves on a comp instead of 5 on a non-comp is also an advantage (especially for amateur players).

I guess this is also a reason why you see so many compensating tubas in Dutch amateur HaFaBra (Harmony, Fanfare and Brassband).

What I didn’t get used to is the 3+1 layout of the valves in the short time I played it. I played a Besson with a 3+1 valve layout and I didn’t get used to using the left hand for the 4th valve (but I guess this just takes time). I don’t think I would ever like (or get used to) the playing position on a 3+1 valve layout. The way you left arm is wrapped around the tuba to reach the 4th and how your upper body is twisted annoyed me.

This is why I’m very happy with my Besson 993 (4 valve front action comp)!

Peach wrote:

P@rick wrote:

windshieldbug wrote:Remember too, that there are two very separate KINDS of compensation-
a 3 valve compensating horn makes up for the length distance when using valves in combination, a 3+1 is essentially a compensating DOUBLE horn which does not compensate for valve combinations, only making the horn uniformly longer when the 4th valve is used.

The 3+1 is not making the horn uniformly longer when using the 4th valve. It depends on which valve combination you use.

Quite.
A 4v comp ignores the issues with valves 1-3 used in combo. Rather it addresses the more considerable shortfall in tubing only when using 4th PLUS any other valve(s).

Having spent considerable time on both comp & non, a comper is certainly more restrictive with a lot of valves down and must be blown differently. The gain is good intonation with really easy fingerings which is a godsend in modern Bb Bass brass band writing.

Wait, hang on, I need some clarification. I was under the assumption that the 4th valve on a 3+1 compensating tuba would, when depressed, lower each valve and the open bugle by proportional amounts. Like for example, pressing the 4th valve on an Eb comp would essentially turn it in to a 3-valve BBb tuba. Of course, having had no experience with compensating instruments, this was really just an uneducated assumption. The first comment quoted seems to back up my assumption, but others are disagreeing. In short, what I'm asking is: does a 4-valve compensating system make a horn uniformly longer, i.e. able to be played in 2 different keys (although I know that's not the system's intended use) or does it simply add small enough lengths of tubing to each valve to correct intonation, without completely changing the key?

SousaWarrior9 wrote:but others are disagreeing.

I disagree - no one has disagreed.