Besson New Standard BBb - Leadpipe change

[TheGoyWonder]

I bought a Besson New Standard BBb to get back into tuba. I figured that .73 bore was understated due to the short leadpipe, and that it was a lot of tuba for the money, plus it was tank-like enough to not bother casing. I figured the small shank was a non-factor, since they are mouthpieces plenty large for the small shank and in the trombone/baritone world I never had a problem getting a big sound from a small shank instrument.

Now after playing for a couple months and obtaining a loaner Miraphone 191 I feel like the Besson is not playing its size, and has too much resistance despite hearty bore and body size. I wouldn't expect the bottomless sound of the 191, but I need a 20-30% bigger sound out of it if I'm going to keep it.

So I've been looking for the definitive word on leadpipe swaps: There are other Bessons with basically the same body design and a standard shank, or there are Yamaha 201/321 which look like non-compensating copies, or there are from-scratch options. I'm skeptical of changing just the receiver because I doubt it would line up well with the rest of the leadpipe and don't really want to move it further up the leadpipe taper to compensate. There's a little dent in my leadpipe anyways.

The mouthpiece I was using was a Wick 2. It's already larger than a Helleberg so I'm not willing to go larger. When I put plumbers' tape around its shank and try it on the Miraphone, I have the same problems of blowing bricks in the low range. I really just want to play this with a Helleberg, so who has made the leadpipe switch and is ready to report?

[iiipopes]

The Wick 2 is a stuffy mouthpiece. It is really curved in at the bottom of the cup, to the point of producing turbulence in spite of its large throat and backbore. I could never get a consistent tone or intonation with a Wick 2. These horns really sound their best with a Wick 1 instead, as the Wick 1 was designed for these tubas. It has a deeper funnel cup that gives back the depth and response you find missing using the Wick 2. Because the Wick 1 is a more efficient mouthpiece than a Wick 2, intonation in the mid to upper register is actually more secure as well.

Another reason the horn feels stuffy is the inherent nature of the compensating valve block. There are so many places that the tubing wraps around and back and through that nodes and anti-nodes can get hung up and just not want to speak. It is surprising the horn blows at all.

Look closely at the leadpipe. It is already as big as you can get. It flares out quickly from the receiver and is full bore well before it even gets to the valve block. Besson knew their horns were stuffy and the lead pipe has already been modified by the factory. The legend is that the rest of the horn was built to make the upper register as stuffy as the lower register on purpose so it would feel even when you played it.

I know you aren't going to like this advice: use a Wick 1 and live with the stuffiness, or get a new horn. This is the inherent nature of the New Standard. I used to own one. It was the most perfect horn for in-tune intonation that God ever allowed man to manufacture. Once I was challenged to an intonation contest by a guy who claimed it couldn't play in tune as well as his Kalison. We went up the scale with a tuner. Mine was in tune. His was not.

But as open as low Bb was, the next whole tone up, 1+3 C, (mine was a 3-valve comp; the 4-valve comps are worse) it felt like you stuffed wadding in the tubing, and the rest of the scale had varying degrees of resistance. Nothing was consistent for feel, and low F below open BBb 1+3 , in contrast to C, was so open you had to be careful about breath management.

Now, on the good side, using a Wick 1, what comes out the bell has no relation to how it feels. It is big, glorious, sonorous, even-toned, foundational and in tune. And as you say, it is built like a tank. I loved the tone so much I grafted a New Standard 17-inch bell onto my Miraphone.

Why did I sell mine? Three reasons: 1) all the solder joints were falling apart, and like Lucas automotive electrics, it was going to the shop too often. 2) I got into a community band that actually had some literature needing low 1(pull)+4 Eb's, and my 3-valve comp stopped at E nat. The upright valve slides did not lend themselves to slide pulling, and with the interference with the nodes, especially the lack of a good terminal node at the bell rim since the 17-inch bell does not have much flare, it did not have usable privilege tones. 3) I got to where I could not manage my breath with the open throats of the Wick 1 or 2. Instead of a .343 open throat, I now play a mouthpiece with a .323 tapered throat.

One thing to try: A Bach 18 makes a New Standard sound like the "Our American Cousin" of tubas. A Bach 18 has the same open throat as the Wick, but with the rounded cup it can even out the resistance, at the expense of brightening up the tone of the tuba, from its characteristic British-vowel long "ah" tone to approaching an "ä" tone. But it will sound grainy in the lower register. If you actually get one that is close to spec, it is supposed to have the same 1.26 internal cup diameter that a Wick 2 has. But if you have the small receiver, it will barely fit, and may fall out. A Kelly 18 also works well, and of course being lexan, it doesn't matter if it doesn't go into the receiver that far. The Kelly lexan 18 has a deeper cup compared to Bach 18, so you don't lose all the girth.

Would I get it back? If I went back to playing in another band that played simpler repertoire, I'd have it back in a heartbeat, even with the bad solder joints, holes in the bell next to the rim where it was improperly stored on a concrete floor on its bell, dent in the primary knuckle between the 1st and 2nd valve that kept the 5th partials in tune with simple fingerings (no need to resort to 1+2 or 3 for mid-line D - open was in tune), and even made the 7th partials playable with top space Gb-1st valve & Gnat-2nd valve, and all.

[TheGoyWonder]

Your experience with the instrument is interesting, thanks for sharing. It is a good blender with low brass sections, maybe the overtone structure sits in a comfortable place instead of leaving a big sonic gap between trombone and tuba. I have the 3v comp and intonation is great. Not really concerned about no low Eb/D because I've never sounded good on those notes anyways, besides on the false partial which is a novelty not a must-have. I would say technical playing is its strong point as it plays very coherently and not muddy, and fantastic at soft low note attacks.

So you think the leadpipe is already pretty open? Then what about changing just the receiver, what are the chances of finding something that fits? would the receiver from a BE9xx or YBB-321 do it? That's got to be a cheaper job than the leadpipe, and then I could use Wick 1L or find another big mouthpiece that works. I guess the big MP counters the resistance of the horn, so why not have a big throat.

At the same time, do message if you're interested in the tuba, I'm not going to run out and do this stuff tomorrow. Mine is in very sturdy physical shape although the bell isn't pretty.

[tofu]

[bilmac]

The Besson BB flat can be a stuffy brute if you get a bad one . I have a Besson BB but I bought it with a non Besson mouthpipe . It's a bit bigger at the receiving end and the sound is correspondingly more open and less dense than a normal Besson. I think it has an almost Meinl Weston quality ("open") to it but it is predominantly a Besson sound. I have played Bessons for 45 years and was always a reluctant about them. Some of them are stinkers ,some are very good . At their best and in combination they are as good as it gets--Grimethorpe, Black Dyke etc etc,you'll go a long way to hear a better sound but
1. they are not pretty on their own .Note the use of the word "combination"
2. they do not and never have liked a pure Helleberg mouthpiece, they just do not sit with the instrument. The Wick is dull. The Perantucci pt 50 or 88 work well. They have some Helleberg characteristics but they are not pure Hellebergs . The pure Hellebergs create too brash a sound if you push the instrument . Very nasty indeed. That is not what a Besson is about. FYI, I have owned/played Cerveny and Meinl Weston contras in the past-- now they did like a Helleberg. That's just their nature.
3. you need to be very careful when working with mouthpipes on these instruments. They can be a bit under at the best of times. If you widen the mouthpipe, you'll drop the pitch even further and if you start to fiddle about with tapers , you can distort pitches . Of course a good repair man can make a good job but be careful.
They can be a hugely satisfying instrument to play if you go about them the right way and complete brutes if you don't. It has taken me a lot of years to work that one out not to say expense experimenting with a variety of makes some of which did many things well and a few things badly. The Besson (a good one) does most of it pretty well ,not enough to set your soul on fire the way a Hirsbrunner or an old Cerveny might but still very satisfying.
BTW-- "good " in this context probably means " older".

[iiipopes]

The Yamaha upright valve BBb tubas are copies of the Besson. Their receivers fit the Besson leadpipe. It is common to change out the receiver. However, since the Wick 1 fits the horn so well, I would leave it. I left it alone on the one I used to own.

Where reasonable players may differ - I agree that the horn is better in section, rather than alone. But often I was the only tuba, and it still provided a great foundation for some of the smaller ensembles I played with. I agree that the horn does not like the Conn Helleberg 120S. I disagree with the comment that the Wick 1 is dull, although I can understand that perspective compared to something like a King 2341 with a bowl mouthpiece.

[TheGoyWonder]

Yes, the pads/felts were shot so there's a chance to improve valve alignment. Please post if you know the correct thickness for these, and I'm getting a cheap borescope to check alignment myself.

Lots of opinions...however the guy who thinks this is a 5/4 tuba and can play the false tones on it is talking about a different instrument. I call the x/4 size 80% by the bell throat, 10% bore, 10% bell diameter. This is as 4/4 as it gets.

I think the wick 1 would help 10%, and the receiver with wick IL another 5% which pushes it into Good Enough territory. What about the fact that everything is soldered together, maybe there's some resonance to free up?

1. The leadpipe is soldered to the bell. What about unsoldering it and floating it on a single brace, and the receiver brace? I think enough space could be found by unsoldering the leadpipe and rotating it a couple degrees, which would space it away from the body due to its swan-neck shape.

2. The bell is soldered to the outer branch. Would it be remotely possible to replace that with a brace? Could enough play be found to solder in a very low profile brace?

[MikeW]

When researching the Sovereign Eb tuba, I read somewhere that part of the delay in launching the Sovereigns arose from trying to develop a mouthpipe for the BBb that gave the same kind of performance improvement as the Fletcher mouthpipe reportedly does on the 981.

I don't know if this was ever achieved, but if it was, then upgrading to a Sovereign mouthpipe may give you the boost you are dreaming about.

Does anyone out there know if a magic mouthpipe was actually found for the BBb ?

[iiipopes]

Lots of opinions...however the guy who thinks this is a 5/4 tuba and can play the false tones on it is talking about a different instrument.

The instrument referred to may be when the bell was changed to 19 inches, and Besson quit making 3-valve comps and made just 4-valve comps.

I think the Wick 1 would help 10%, and the receiver with Wick IL another 5% which pushes it into Good Enough territory. What about the fact that everything is soldered together, maybe there's some resonance to free up?

Having owned and played both mouthpieces in both shank sizes, it's more like 20 to 25% better over the entire range with the Wick 1. The receiver only makes sure the particular shank of the mouthpiece matches the start of the leadpipe. The internal backbore is the same on both the number and letter versions, so there is no advantage to changing receivers other than being able to try a wider range of mouthpieces.

The leadpipe is soldered to the bell. What about unsoldering it and floating it on a single brace, and the receiver brace? I think enough space could be found by unsoldering the leadpipe and rotating it a couple degrees, which would space it away from the body due to its swan-neck shape.

That happened with my Miraphone when I changed out the bell to the same kind of bell that was on my 3-valve comp and is on yours. The bell throat, being slightly narrower than the Miraphone, facilitated a floating mouthpiece. There is so much metal on the bell that there is no discernable difference. You are correct. with the bell proportions, a Besson 3-valve BBb comp is squarely a 4/4 tuba, however you wish to define it.

The bell is soldered to the outer branch. Would it be remotely possible to replace that with a brace? Could enough play be found to solder in a very low profile brace?

No. Again, due to the heavier brass, all you will do is put stress on the branch, which will interfere with the nodal resonance and cause even more response issues.

Forgive me if I am direct to the point of being blunt. It is just that I considered all these things and more, including adding a change valve to the bottom bow of the 3rd valve slide to add enough tubing to manually flip the valve to get a low Eb, reworking the 1st valve tubing so it is easier to grab to "ride throttle," putting some metal tape in the through port of the 3rd valve to increase its resistance to match the resistance when the 3rd valve is pushed in order to get a more consistent blow, put "the dent" back into the primary knuckle between the 1st and 2nd valves in order to stabilize and bring the 5th partials into tune, flip the 3rd valve side back and forth to see if the short change in where the water key is makes any difference, and more things I have forgotten. The New Standard 3-valve comp is as it is. It is a love-or-hate horn.

Final pointer: with the comp loops, you don't have to play bottom line G and low D 1+2. You should not. The tubing is designed and cut "dead" to pitch instead of slightly long. Play these two notes with 3rd valve alone, which is also cut "dead" to pitch because it does not have to be long to get 2+3 in tune. That is the function of the really short comp loop brazed integrally into 2nd valve casing. Otherwise, you will be sharp to the band.

[Bbfoghorn]

Hello Pope,
I was reading this in regards to the 4th valve addition I was considering. I was amazed at how thorough your analysis is. I have a 3v and a 4v New Standard BBb. The 3v is the better horn in as-made condition. I traded this horn off a couple years ago, and when it came back to me it was wearing a 19" Chicom bell (Mack brass). The intonation was all over the place with the Helleberg I had normally used. Tried a Wick 2L, too stuffy. Ironically, I had a Wick 3L that came with my 981 that I didn't use. What the heck...All the correct intonation was restored. Plays down to E with only minor stuffiness. I find that the 2.5cc works just as well and better on the bottom. My 4v New standard was only good to D with the Helleberg and ate air like crazy. I don't have the size to play a Wick 1L. I've read about Mike Johnsons 981/2 rotary 4th step valve conversion in the UK. Seems to be a nice upgrade. I would wonder if that is possible for the BBb? I've never cared for rotary valve tubas myself, but I see the advantages in airflow and actuation as a nice possibility for the 4v. Perhaps A sovereign leadpipe might help also since mine is wearing the original recording bell leadpipe, modified. Foggy

[kathott]

Hi, an interesting dialogue. I accept many viewpoints here. Musicians frequently make assumptions about the ‘blowing qualities’, of an instrument, based on what they are trying to achieve musically. A physicist (which I am not) with an interest in acoustics might scoff at the uninformed conclusions/generalities musicians often make. Conversely, they might be impressed with the instincts we have in overcoming the challenges of blowing into a garden hose.

I own and use the following:
-Sovereign EEb (mid 1980’s, large receiver)
-Sovereign Sovereign BBb (mid 1980’s, large receiver)
-B&H BBb New Standard (1970’s, small receiver)
-Besson BBb Recording Bell tuba (1970’s, small receiver)
-Eb Imperial, 1970’s, small receiver)

I play them all professionally in all kinds of ensembles, in a country where they are not viewed as ‘thoroughbred’ I should add.
I’ve come to accept the way they all play, and have abandoned any plans to turbocharge any of them by tinkering. Dennis Brain famously played on a beater. Custom repair is an expensive gamble, and I don’t know if I could appreciate any improvement.
I have the full line of Wick mouthpieces, plus many other makers to experiment with, so I feel that I have most mouthpiece design concepts covered. Bit by bit, I am learning that each instrument is an individual, with faults, but with it’s own personality.
K.