TubeNet

No. I have a 3+1 Euphonium and it is not compensating.

I cant express myself well in English to explain well what compensating means. But I will try.

A trombone have 7 slide positions. the distance between 6th and 7th position is bigger then the distance between 1st and 2nd position. Ok? Another exemple: a Guitar fretboard has different distances between frets. Why?
Because the smaller the string (or the tube) the smaller the distance to low a half step.
In a brass instrument we have several ways to compensate for this:
1 - lip pressure
2 - Slide pushing and pulling
3 - Using a compensating horn a forget about this matter (almost).

A compensating Euphonium has a double set of slides. the normal ones and a small set of slides. It is easy to see in photos.

I realy cant do this in english... sorry.

EuphoniumDude wrote:Are all 3+1 euphoniums considered compensating? Is it possible to have a 4 in line valve system that is compensating? or in other words, what exactly do they mean by "compensating"

There are many 3+1 (the 1 being a side valve) valve euphs that are not compensating, for example the Besson 7065.

Yes, 4 valve euphs can be compensating, for example the Willson 2975.

Compensating euphs have extra tubes that pass the air thru the 1 2 and 3 valves a second time when the 4th valve is pressed. Additional tubes are added to 1 2 and 3 when 4 is pressed. This improves intonation in the lower notes (with the proper compensating fingerings). It also extends the lower range down a couple notes. The added compensation has a couple disadvantages: $, less full sound when the 4th valve is used, and longer/heavier valve stroke.

No, not all 3+1 euphs are compensating. You can visually distinguish a compensator by its extra tubing. From the front you will see a small loop between valves 1 and 2. From the back the first three valves all have an extra loop each.

As a point of interest, Besson/Boosey & Hawkes used to make 3-valve compensating euphs and tubas and they may still, but the older models of both that I have played were stuffy. In fact when I was a sophomore or so in high school I played for a very fine euphonium player who was the low brass teacher in one of the better programs in the South. I had to use one of their school horns, which were 3-valve compensating Besson tubas. After I played he asked what I thought of the horn, and I told him that it didn't blow freely and was particularly stuffy in the low range. It was like blowing into a foam pillow. Unfortunately he had personally chosen that model for his program. Good thing I hadn't really planned on going to that school!

A similar thread came up in the past couple of weeks in which Bloke, I believe it was, argued eloquently that the compensating system doesn't help on many notes, but the highest quality horns all have it. So if you want the best, you have to take the compensating system. The good news is that the compensating system is free blowing on 4v horns made in the past several decades, so you don't pay a price really in performance, only in dollars. I love my Boosey & Hawkes Sovereign 4v euph but the standard these days and for many years has been the Willsons.

Ojannen wrote...

I had just made all-state on a very old school 321 and was looking into new horns. Due to money issues, all I could afford was a used 321. Looking back, that was the best decision I could have made. Though I didn't realize it at the time, I was ont ready for a real horn. In my college auditions about a year ago, I was accepted to the studios of Marty Ericson, Perantoni, and Kellogg. On a horn that cost me $800 dollars, I beat out everyone who had spent $5000+ on their horns.

At that point, I was ready for a good horn.

-----------------------------------------------

Scott, does this sound like a familiar scenario? This is good advice.

BTW, one of the recent winners of a prestigious euphonium competition (it might have been Leonard Falcone, but I'm not sure) won it on a non-compensating euphonium. A compensator doesn't solve all the problems.

EuphoniumDude wrote:That website that explained the compensation system said that in order to go another half step lower, another 6" must be added... and another is another 6" and so on and so forth... so would this effect how the fingerings of notes, (would a "C" be 4th valve, a D 1st and second, e flat 1st, and so on... )

A four-valve compensator like the instruments you are considering will finger exactly like your 321 down to a low F. Below that low F, you hold the fourth valve down, and finger down according to the standard series: E-2, Eb-1, D-12, Db-23, C-13, and B-123 (all with the fourth valve held down). On your uncompensated 321, those notes would require different fingering. All other notes on the instrument are fingered the same. (A compensator should also play the low B in tune better, too. But it's still fingered 2-4 as it would be on the Yamaha 321, it will just supposedly be a bit better in tune.)

Think of it this way: With any euphonium, the fourth valve turns it into a really small F tuba. On your 321, though, the first three valves aren't as long as the first three F-tuba valves, so they will play sharp with F-tuba fingerings. You'd have to mess around to find fingerings that would work, and there would be notes where nothing works very well. A compensator uses an extra set of ports in the valves, and the fourth valve runs the air back through that second set. That adds enough tubing so that when the fourth valve is down, the other three are as long as F tuba valves, so they play in tune using F-tuba fingerings when the fourth valve is down.

You could also think of it in the trombone sense. When the trombone player is using the trigger, the positions needed to play notes in tune are stretched out. For example, a trombone player might play an Eb with the trigger depressed and the slide at 3rd position, because it is convenient in the particular tune he is playing. The 3rd position he must use, however, is farther out than it would be without the trigger. It would be 3rd position for an F trombone, which is what he has when the F attachment is in use.

Compensation adds the extra tubing automatically.

Rick "thinking the left-handed operation of the fourth valve will be a bigger challenge than the few different fingerings" Denney

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but does the compensating/non-compensating thing apply to tubas as well? It seems like, if it did, then the low range would be much easier to get in tune than it is for me.

tubafour wrote:Sorry if this is a dumb question, but does the compensating/non-compensating thing apply to tubas as well? It seems like, if it did, then the low range would be much easier to get in tune than it is for me.

Not a dumb question at all. Besson believes that tuba should also have automatic compensating valves.

We should adopt a broader definition of "compensation", and I think that will help. For me, compensation is something you do to correct for the sharpness that results from using valves in combination. Again, when you press the fourth valve, you've lengthened a BBb instrument into an F instrument, and the other valves are no longer long enough to serve their usual purpose. Donald Stauffer called this the valve swindle. Thus, the 2-4 low B is a bit sharp, and the notes in the very low register below low F are all much sharper than they would be with valves of the proper length.

That said, there are several ways to attack the problem. You can use alternative valve combinations for those notes. You can pull slides. You might employ some sort of trigger, which may actuate like a valve but really is just an easier way to pull slides. You might use a fifth valve. And you might avoid the low register issue altogether by playing those tones as false tones (in which case the valves are the proper length and the pitch is flexible enough in any case). Finally, you can use automatic compensation as designed by Blaikley and used originally by Boosey and now standard on high-line euphoniums and British tubas.

Each method has strengths and weaknesses, of course. The problem with automatic compensation is that the length of the tubing is not the only thing that affects intonation. The taper design is at least as important as length. Thus, if the taper design isn't just right, throwing compensation on it won't help. If the partials are unusably out of tune, compensation is just more clutter. I would add that this isn't easy to achieve. I don't know of an instrument that plays all the normally used partials in tune, compensated or not.

The other disadvantage to compensation is that it adds a lot of twists and turns to the large amount of straight tubing to the instrument in the low register. On euphoniums, the bore is relatively bigger compared to the length of the bugle than on a tuba, and thus all that straight tubing on a tuba has more negative effects on the way the instrument blows. (If we scaled a euphonium up to a tuba, the bore would be huge. Fred Young suggested such scaling should take place using the dimensionless ratios, such as the ratio of bore to bugle length. A BBb tuba is twice the length of a euphonium, and should therefore have twice the bore to be in scale with it. I don't think we want to blow instruments with a 1.16" bore!) The bottom line is that many four-valve compensating tubas have been thought to be stuffy in the low register. And Blaikely compensation has two complete sets of ports on each valve, making the valve substantially longer and heavier than uncompensated valves. It's apparently not a problem for euphonium players, but tuba valves are much larger in the first place.

Another issue is that the notes in the fourth-valve range are rarely played in practice. This is true for euphoniums, too, but it's more true for tubas.

Most tubas use a fifth valve to compensate for incorrect valve combinations. The fifth valve is usually tuned to provide a proper first valve when the fourth valve is in use. Thus, an F tuba with the fourth valve down becomes a C tuba, and the fifth valve is a proper first valve for a C tuba. This corrects the worst of the fourth-valve notes, the whole step right below the low fourth-valve note. On a BBb tuba, this is a low Eb. Many play it 1-2-4 if they don't have a fifth valve, but this is too much compensation and the note is flat. As those combinations use more and more valves, you reach a point where the valves add up to something that's a full semitone sharp, and it works fine (for the note a semitone above the nominal note for the valve combination). The fifth valve is generally design to fill the gap between the low fourth-valve note and the note where fingerings on the four valves line up a semitone high.

For example, an F tuba plays a C on the fourth valve, and the A below it usually works perfectly using the 2-3-4 combination. 2-4 gives you a usable low B, and the fifth valve, used with the fourth, gives you the Bb.

There are, of course, many other fifth-valve strategies.

Thus, the fifth valve approach to compensation has some advantages over Blaikley compensation, in that you don't have as many twists and turns in the valve branches to get through those compensation branches, leaving a more free-blowing instrument (supposedly).

But here's the main reason why tubas don't usually have Blaikley compensation: They never became popular. They have been available for over 100 years, but most players outside the current and former British empire prefer what they get from tubas that use additional valves for compensation. People select tubas on a range of issues, with sound and response being foremost. If the intonation is manageable, the instrument will be acceptable is the sound and response is what the player wants. Thus, the market has spoken.

Rick "whose tubas' intonation problems are not related to the valve swindle" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:... I don't think we want to blow instruments with a 1.16" bore!

Bet they wouldn't be stuffy!

I'm always extremely thankful for in-depth explanations. Many people would be annoyed by my question and leave it unanswered. Your post cleared the muddy water of compensation for me.

So thank you, Mr. Denney.