TubeNet

Traditional rotary valves each add a slight bit of resistance.
A little bit of resistance is actually a good thing -- imagine playing a mouthpiece with no backbore.
However, too much of a good thing is a bad thing, especially in a large contrabass tuba.
Therefore, in my opinion, 4 valve rotary horns often play better than 5 valve rotary horns.
Discuss and dispute

my opinions:

I think that it depends what you want to use the tuba for. I am glad that my MW 32 has five valves. I am not trying to crack the ceiling with this tuba, I am looking for flexibility and a smaller sound than my Alexander. My Alexander is the tuba that I have used when I need power (although I can play it delicately). My Alex has four valves; would a fifth valve make a noticeable difference, I do not know. My second point is that I think that it depends on the tuba (model and the specific specimen).

I see no advantage of four or five valves if the tuba does what you need it to do. I have also heard some incredible playing with three valves.

Have fun with however many valves your tuba has, tubas are the best,
Mark

4 valve CC tubas are missing a valve (and therefore missing notes...), so they are cheap. Is that an advantage?

58mark wrote:Zach Bridges just won the army band spot on a 4 valve horn.

That's neat, but mostly just useless trivia for the rest of us.

What horn was it?

I think 4 piston tubas are a bit different (easier to play) than 4 rotor tubas -- my opinion.

I have owned both 4 and 5 valve alexanders in the past and when I have added a 5th to them i have not noticed much of a difference. I also owned a 4 valve hirsbrunner and wish i had the 5th valve. It would be interesting to play a 4 and 5v of the same model back to back.

bloke wrote: If four valves is better than five, SURELY three valves is MUCH better than four.

Don Butterfield apparently had several 4 valvers "improved" to 3 valves back in the day.

Many GREAT players made their living on 4 valved tubas, Bill Bell, Abe Torchinsky Joe Novotny, Dave Bragunier, etc. I was brought up a 4 valved tuba player but I am now addicted to the 5th valve for the improved intonation and alternate fingering flexibility. I also feel no difference in response between tubas with 4 and 5 valves because of the number of valves that that the tuba has.

Certainly adding or removing a valve has the potential of changing the nature of the blow on a tuba. Will it definitely make a noticable difference? Perhaps. Much of it has to do with the engineering and where on the bugle it is positioned. We have been introduced in other threads about the position of nodes and anti-nodes. I have a water key in such a positon that either open or closed, there is no perceivable difference. I believe the same could be said for where the valve was placed.

As an example, a friend had one of those rare custom made French Horns - by one of those gifted makers that shall remain anonymous. The horn was great, but one note just would not center and cracked every time he went for it. He returned it and said he just could not use it.

The horn was slightly re-engineered. Some tubing was removed from after the valve block and added in front of it. (The node was apparently happening right inside the 1st valve rotor.) This repositioned the valve block away from that node, and problem was solved.

Another friend had a Melton/MW 6 valve F tuba in the 1970s. (I had one only a few serial numbers apart) As was the case with most of them, the low C was stuffy and that entire register problematic. My friend had valves 5 & 6 removed and a section of straight tubing put in its place. (He was in the Royal Danish Lifeguard Band and would be using it as his dedicated parade tuba where he played the Tuba I part.) I played the horn both before and after. Removing those valves really opened up the low register very much like the new modern F tubas. I played it that summer in a brass quartette doing Danish silver wedding aniversary ceremonies. It was wonderful as a 4 popper. Until that time the most enjoyable F that I had played. In those situations the 5 & 6 valves were simply not needed. Ideally, if one wanted to play the entire chromatic compass of that horn and also in tune, at least a 5th valve would be necessary along with slide maneuvering.

What has that to do with a 5th valve on a Contra Bass Tuba? Same issues. If you are in situations that do not require facility in getting around the problematic low register, perhaps 3 or 4 valves will do. On the other hand, blah blah blah. Same ol' story.

No way. It's like throwing on a flannel shirt when you're already wearing a parka. There might be an infamous 5-valver or two that was a factory hackjob from a 4-valver and messed up the leadpipe, that's about it.

For trombone, the rotor is like throwing on a flannel shirt when you're naked...warmer but most say not too hot. The majority see it favorably.

A 4 will play freer than a 5 A 3 will Always play more freely than a 3
Don Butterfield played most of is work on a 3v King BBb
I played 1/2 my jobs on a 3 valve BB

I have dependent 5th valves on my F and CC BAT. Both horns play very open, almost too open. A little resistance, with some feedback now and then would actually make playing a bit easier. So I have really no issues with adding a 5th valve, if the placement and engineering were done with good design it should not really srew up the horn. Having it there adds a systematic solution to playing the horn chromatically down to the pedal note CC or BBb. Why would we want an incomplete instrument?

One of my BB flat tubas has a detachable 5th rotary valve (large side of the main tuning slide). As an experiment, I fashioned up a straight pipe that could be put in place of that 5th valve.

After playing the horn in both configurations (within 3 minutes or so of each other, not hours, as would be necessary if the valve had to be uninstalled) I perceived no difference between the two set-ups, other than my choices for in-tune notes was greater with the extra valve.

Pretty empirical evidence (at least for me and that horn, anyway).

As a side note, I studied with Don Butterfield for 3 years, and the only time I didn't heed his advice, was when he recommended I buy a 3 valve King (I got a 4 valve, instead, with apologies to our board friend, Mr. Three Valves ).

(I do have to add here that the above mentioned horn with a detachable 5th rotary valve has 4 pistons, and the O.P. specifically asked about rotary valve tubas, FWIW).

I say, "the more, the merrier".

I currently own a 4 valve instrument and am an amateur. In a previous life I did play professionally in the Army and did most of my playing on a 4 valve instrument but did own 5 valve instruments. Having a 5th valve (to me) is a nice convenience but not a necessity. Certainly symphony musicians and studio musicians have to be ready to play anything at any time and their needs are different but for the average tubist its not a necessity. I have played BBb most of my life. I did play CC for a couple of years but found that I preferred BBb and switched back. Never regretted it. I say " to each his own".

roweenie wrote:

As a side note, I studied with Don Butterfield for 3 years, and the only time I didn't heed his advice, was when he recommended I buy a 3 valve King

If it's good enough for Mr. Butterfield it's good enough for me!!

PaulMaybery wrote:I have dependent 5th valves on my F and CC BAT. Both horns play very open, almost too open. A little resistance, with some feedback now and then would actually make playing a bit easier. So I have really no issues with adding a 5th valve, if the placement and engineering were done with good design it should not really srew up the horn. Having it there adds a systematic solution to playing the horn chromatically down to the pedal note CC or BBb. Why would we want an incomplete instrument?

Ah, but those are piston tubas with nice big holes straight through the valves...

Dick Barth released a video about the advantages of a dependent 5th valve on the BMB tubas.

If I understand correctly, Dick makes the point that this is a factor of a design that maintains a constant bore size throughout vs. graduated bore sizes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uIYbLrzAyI

Steve Marcus wrote:Dick Barth released a video about the advantages of a dependent 5th valve on the BMB tubas.

If I understand correctly, Dick makes the point that this is a factor of a design that maintains a constant bore size throughout vs. graduated bore sizes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uIYbLrzAyI

Very interesting video!

Just a couple of things to consider;

The afore mentioned King tuba has a rather small bore. For it's size and configuration it plays nice. Would losing a valve open up the sound? Maybe. It's a small(ish) BBb tuba so I guess it could help.

Almost all rotary valved tubas sport a larger bore.

Many 4 valved CC tubas cannot play from the third partial D to the C# without manipulating a slide. Same holds true for many BBb tubas going from the third partial C to the B. Idem for the second partial G to F# (CC) and F to E (BBb). For this reason alone I've always found it strange that people often say that a BBb only need four valves.

These are notes in the bread and butter register. They really need to be there and in tune. If a tuba has, say a sharp F in the 6th partial, well that can be REALLY irritating but not necessarily detrimental. It is after all the 6th partial: there are many alternate valve combi's and slide pulls possible; moreover it just isn't used as often as the second and third partials.

Now if you can find a tuba with four valves that plays the way you want, go for it. I haven't. I have found more then my share of four valved tubas which seriously made me question as to whether or not I wanted to invest in adding a 5th valve (or just look for another tuba). There are more then enough 5 valved tubas out there to choose from that play incredibly well.

So there you have it: The Advantages of a 5 Rotary Valve Contrabass Tuba Over a 4 Rotors. sorry

Is it possible that sometimes, a little bit of added resistance might be useful?

Example; on a recently-constructed 5 valve monster E flat (4 piston & 1 rotary), I have found that using more valves for low register notes improves pitch centering, especially low A natural (2,3 & 5 rather than 2 & 4) and A flat (1,3 & 5 rather than 4 & 5).

The bore of the 4 pistons is .656, and the 5th rotor is .748. (I'm contemplating an experiment where I reduce the bore of the 5th valve to .728......)

Maybe the taper on large (ish) bass tubas (E flat & F) is too "open", and needs to be "choked down" a little?

As a possible example of this, York tubas sported distinctively different bores for different sized (yet similarly tapered) tubas:

Monster E flat, .656
CC, .712
BB flat, .750

No proclamation here, just a theory based on some casual first-hand evidence.