TubeNet

I love compensating Eb tubas. I learned how to play a compensating Eb about three years ago and it was definitely worth the effort.

I have owned a 981 since the mid 1980's. The low register below the low concert bb flat is spectacular. No stuffiness at all. It is a very free blowing horn in all registers. I have used it for every conceivable playing opportunity that has come my way. With a denis wick 3L mouthpiece it can do anything.

Yup. A good early model Sovereign or even a late, 19" bell Imperial is slightly sought over here in the UK. There's just something about those 80s vintage models that really works. Plenty of 90s and later models play great but there's a larger number of duds from the 90s.

Glad some Eb love is to be found on the other side of the pond... =)

Peach wrote:Yup. A good early model Sovereign or even a late, 19" bell Imperial is slightly sought over here in the UK. There's just something about those 80s vintage models that really works. Plenty of 90s and later models play great but there's a larger number of duds from the 90s.

I've heard from a few people hew in Australia that we got sent the dud's in the 90's. I would attest to that with mine. They just don't have the oomph that I have seen in a friends 80's 19'' bell Imperial.

I also have found with the 980 series that like a lot of horns, the MP makes a HUGE difference. I played a 982 for two years and hated it's low range. The horn came with a Wick 5, which at 21 I assumed was the appropriate English MP for this English horn....

The guy I sold it to put a Schilke HII on it and still plays it today....

I now use a Wick 3L or a Laskey 28F. Never underestimate a $125 fix on a 5K horn....

AnorakHorn wrote:

Peach wrote:Yup. A good early model Sovereign or even a late, 19" bell Imperial is slightly sought over here in the UK. There's just something about those 80s vintage models that really works. Plenty of 90s and later models play great but there's a larger number of duds from the 90s.

I've heard from a few people hew in Australia that we got sent the dud's in the 90's. I would attest to that with mine. They just don't have the oomph that I have seen in a friends 80's 19'' bell Imperial.

Everyone got dud Sovereign tubas in the 1990's, as the UK National Lottery scheme gave a lot of money to bands, and Besson couldn't keep up with demand.

Huh? They are sure not examples of the same thing.

The Nazis designed a car, and built it, and maybe they had some highly unlikely ideas about people owning them, but I believe before that could pan out, they decided conquering Poland etc. would be more fun.

The result? Wasn't it a '30s car design, first to be tested in a wind tunnel, with unprecedented pre-production testing, that was eventually the most popular car of all time?

It's like you're trying to make a case that Besson could have done better with some fascist government direct involvement in industry.

I previously owned a 1989 Besson. Low range was quite stuffy. My teacher at the time told me to put on a perantucci mp that was bowl shaped. Cant remember the model off hand but in hindsight isn't using a funnel shaped mp one way to overcome a stuffy instrument? Would a bowl shaped one exacerbate the problem?

If you google the 4 bars rest review of the LMI Eb and Bb tubas both reviewers remark on how free blowing they are in the low range. My understanding is that LMI is/was made up of former Besson employees. The ability of the employees to make great instruments must have been there all along just the motivation to do so was not. Perhaps the key to good quality is motivated employees with an ownership stake. Saying that I have no idea of the current state of LMI.

bigboymusic wrote: I now use a Wick 3L or a Laskey 28F. Never underestimate a $125 fix on a 5K horn....

For living in the contra range, I find the 3L less than ideal on my horn and use the 2XL. But for an overall bass tuba sound I prefer a smaller bowl-shaped mouthpiece. It still handles the low range, but with a different feel and resonance, and the larger mouthpiece allows for louder playing down there as well. But it is more difficult to control.

I think that no matter what you do, the physics of the instrument must result in a noticeable difference between a compensating and non-compensating horn. Unless you go to larger diameter tubing than is common, that extra length and recirculation through the valves must have a definite effect on both the feeling and the sound. Trade offs.

Patrase wrote:I previously owned a 1989 Besson. Low range was quite stuffy. My teacher at the time told me to put on a perantucci mp that was bowl shaped. Cant remember the model off hand but in hindsight isn't using a funnel shaped mp one way to overcome a stuffy instrument? Would a bowl shaped one exacerbate the problem?

If you google the 4 bars rest review of the LMI Eb and Bb tubas both reviewers remark on how free blowing they are in the low range. My understanding is that LMI is/was made up of former Besson employees. The ability of the employees to make great instruments must have been there all along just the motivation to do so was not. Perhaps the key to good quality is motivated employees with an ownership stake. Saying that I have no idea of the current state of LMI.

I had an LMI at my last band. Very well made, but essentially a 994. Just played a little better. Still a sod to hold though!