TubeNet

I doubt it does exist but I guess anything is possible. I'm sure someone will convert a CC to a BBb for the right price (which my guess will be very high). I think BBb to CC conversions are more common because most pros play CCs and are more willing to fork over the $$$ for the work. It's an investment that will pay itself off with gigs and playing jobs.


Will

would it be logistically possible to simply make an extended main slide? I seem to remember something like this being discussed recently.

As mentioned above, there do exist interchangeable conversion kits for a quick BBb/CC change. MW used to offer these on some of their models, too. (I´m not sure about today).
That will include two complete sets of tuning slides for all valves and main slide. I doubt that this will represent a musically outstanding solution, though, because the comanies would JUMP at that idea, otherwise.
From a manufacturer´s point of view, this would be THE ideal solution, ´cause they could produce two one-size-fits-all main tuba bodys (one for bass, one for contrabass) and choose from those slide sets as orders come in. Those slide sets would be MUCH cheaper to store than complete tubas, and you can cut down the number of molds for the main bodys.

Just guessing here, maybe this is NOT done because that will shift the length ratios of leadpipes (and all kinds of other tubing) to overall length. But then again, that set COULD include different interchangeable leadpipes, too.

Years ago I played the trumpet and owned one that had marked slides and a detachable add-on to switch between Bb and c.
I really didn´t play that well, but actually sucked on that particular horn. No intonation whatsoever.

Hans

It is not necessary to deliver a full set of slides for a conversion kit.

For many years, maybe still, the beginners on horn were started on single F horns or single Eb horns depending on local teaching traditions. However horn makers didn't make such single Eb horns. They only made single F horns, but then they offered the option of an alternative main tuning slide for Eb. That slide has a very characteristic large circular curl integrated. The valve slides then had their branches marked, so that the players knew exactly how much to pull their slides.

Most CC tubas have so long branches in their valve slides that they can be pulled enough to suffice for a BBb tuba.

At least during the GDR era B&S would provide an alternative tuning slide for their CC tubas, so that they could be played in BBb. Sadly that alternative slide had some very narrow 180° bends to it. It is next to impossible to avoid such a narrow crook in the 2nd valve slide, but in general the better makers avoid them elsewhere in their designs.

Some older Bohemian makers used the horn-style large curl in their alternative tuning slides for tubas.

The problem with most cuts from BBb to CC is, that the tapers have to be accelerated in some places, typically where branches are joined.

The worst problem with elongating a CC to BBb is, that a considerable amount of cylindrical tubing has to be introduced in the main bugle, which is against the conicity inherent in the very idea of the tuba.

One certain tuba, the Canadian Brass/Getzen CC had the conversion integrated in its concept. The 5th valve sits in the leadpipe. The rotor can be locked in open position, and a shorter slide can be inserted, so that the instrument also can act as a 4 valve BBb tuba, when the valve slides are pulled accordingly.

The old TubeNet held a report from a tuba tech in Oregon getting in a Rampone & Cazzani tuba, which obviously had been cut from BBb to CC. It was not well in tune with itself until it was brought back to BBb. But then this instrument had very odd bore proportions.

Carolus Marximus Nonrecommendus

Miraphone used to make a long main tuning slide to make their CC into a BBb horn. It was a matter of a main tuning slide that added 2 feet of tubing.

I experimented with a Miraphone 184 CC that I owned for a while. I made a slide with the 2 foot extension but the intonation of the low C (while the horn was in BBb mode) got very squirrely and alternate fingerings would have been required on several notes. I never got good results out of the BBb mode. This is probably why Miraphone no longer sells the slides for their 186 models.

There are two problems here... 1) adding 2 feet of straight-bore tubing doesn't really lend itself very well to the existing dynamics of the conical bores. and... 2) not only does the open bugle have to contain 2 feet of additional tubing, all of the tuning slides also need to be extended by the same percentage of length. There may already be enough tubing to pull the slides on the 1st and 2nd valve circuits, but the 3rd and 4th valve circuits might need additional work.

To make a long story short.... it's physically possible to add the prescribed tubing... but don't expect smashing results.

I have seen a main tuning slide adapter for an Alexander 163 that I think was made by Alexander. The adapter was configured in a loop so one would silde in the two extra feet of tubing and pull all of your other slides out. I never played it or heard it played, so I do not know what it did to the intonation or sound.

Mark

I don't know why some people object to adding a length of cylindrical tubing in order to lower the pitch by X semitones. After all isn't this what we do when we press on those little valve-thingies? Think of all the extra cylindrical tubing you might add playing a 5-valve CC or a 6-valve F .....to say nothing of the turbulance caused by all those valve ports. A "conical" horn isn't
very!

LOTP wrote:I don't know why some people object to adding a length of cylindrical tubing in order to lower the pitch by X semitones. After all isn't this what we do when we press on those little valve-thingies? Think of all the extra cylindrical tubing you might add playing a 5-valve CC or a 6-valve F .....to say nothing of the turbulance caused by all those valve ports. A "conical" horn isn't very!

Your question is most understandable!

However the given conicity of any tuba model has, hopefully at least, been optimised to work more or less perfectly together with the exact valve system of the instrument model in question.

The best 6 valve tubas, like Bloke's old style B&S F tuba, have a very elaborate and costly bore progression through the valve block. I think there used to be at least 5 different bores between the 6 valves. There even was a conicity in the valve knuckles and their ferrules.

If we assume, that any given maker has developped the optimal conical bore progression for any given tuba model, then we may safely rest assured, that the whole internal pitch equation is skewed, if the main bugle is exposed to an additional length of cylindrical tubing.

Carolus Marximus Nonrecommendus

KarlMarx wrote:If we assume, that any given maker has developped the optimal conical bore progression for any given tuba model, then we may safely rest assured, that the whole internal pitch equation is skewed, if the main bugle is exposed to an additional length of cylindrical tubing.
Carolus Marximus Nonrecommendus

Word up! Right on! Well said!

I think BBb slides are available for the Meinl Weston 2145 CC tuba.

Also, possibly the Cerveny 691-4 CC tuba comes with an extra BBb main.
http://www.amati.cz/english/production/ ... b_691g.htm

***

I wonder if the GG conversion kits Yamaha makes for BBb horns sufferrs the same problems? I suspect it'd be more pronounced since the horn is lenghtened even more.

harold wrote:My experience has been that I have never played a cut horn that was as good after the fact as it was before. Rick Denney is the only person that I have ever heard that has played a cut horn that he thought was an exceptional instrument.

It really needs to be pointed out that most instruments are not "cut". They are converted. The instrument to which you refer was originally a trashed top-action three-valve BBb York. The instrument I played had a modern valveset and valve branches. In the conversion process, the outer branches were turned around to front action, a new valveset installed, a fifth valve was fabricated and added, the branches were shortened as necessary, the bell was trimmed to 20", and the instrument was thoroughly overhauled and plated. There was at least $8000 in added cost (NOT price) in that instrument, not including its original price. The carcass itself had to be bought very cheaply to make the whole thing a going proposition, and even then the margin is quite thin. Thus, one is not doing this to great, front-action BBb tubas. They are doing this to instruments that might otherwise be thrown away.

For example, if you made the same conversion to my Holton, it would quickly exceed what it could bring as a CC instrument. As a BBb, it's one of the very best, so even a little battered it got much more in price than the three-valve, top-action Yorks that were converted. Take that price, add $8000 in conversion costs to it, and you end up with a tuba that would have to sell for $12,000 just to break even.

Few converted instruments have received that sort of treatment, and fewer started with great tubas to begin with.

If you had to spend that much to convert a C tuba into BBb, there would be little market for it. But there is a market for great BBb tubas that have been converted from other styles of BBb instruments. Baltimore Brass took a couple of Holtons and turned them into high-end BBb tubas by putting parts together with new valve bodies.

But that converted York was not the only great conversion I've played. I recall saying have similarly positive views on the Buescher/Nirschl conversion that Matt Walters built several years ago. Conversions are risky, but sometimes they really work out. I'll bet that Sam Gnagey's conversions are excellent, and he can sell them for a much lower price because he doesn't do everything on the above list, including starting with a new .750 valveset from Germany and plating the resulting instrument in silver.

Rick "who doesn't know of too many great BBb tubas lost to CC conversion" Denney

TubaTinker wrote:
There are two problems here... 1) adding 2 feet of straight-bore tubing doesn't really lend itself very well to the existing dynamics of the conical bores. and... 2) not only does the open bugle have to contain 2 feet of additional tubing, all of the tuning slides also need to be extended by the same percentage of length. There may already be enough tubing to pull the slides on the 1st and 2nd valve circuits, but the 3rd and 4th valve circuits might need additional work.

Getzen "solved" this problem by putting two tuning slides on valves 1,3, and 4.

I confess I don't use the conversion often, but it does come in handy over the summer when preparing for marching band--instand BBb horn to learn the music on, so my poor fingers don't get confused.

Doug "who sounds just as bad on a converted BBb as on a regular BBb"

If the CC tuba has 5 valves (and most do) you could modify the 5th valve slide so that it drops the pitch a whole step and reverse the lever so that the valve is normally engaged. You would then pull out the tuning slides on the rest of the valves so that they play in tune and you have a BBb tuba with a whole step ascending valve. I'm curious if the valve combinations would have a positive or negative effect on intonation of some notes. I guess it's time to fire up Excel and see...

-Eric

Shockwave wrote:If the CC tuba has 5 valves (and most do) you could modify the 5th valve slide so that it drops the pitch a whole step and reverse the lever so that the valve is normally engaged.

This is precisely what Doug's G-50 does. From all reports, the horn (in its Bb configuration) is somewhere between poor and passing.

I've never really understood why that's the case, though. I've never played a horn that was so radically different just because you push the 1st valve -- which is that exact same whole-step. Maybe by the time you've also added another 1st valve, AND a 4th, it might be a little squirrely; but how often do you play fifth-line-low Eb and below?

At any rate, the instrument you describe already exists, and you can probably find any number of comments about the BBb setting.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who was disappointed when he heard that the BBb setting wasn't all that great.

ThomasDodd wrote:I wonder if the GG conversion kits Yamaha makes for BBb horns sufferrs the same problems? I suspect it'd be more pronounced since the horn is lenghtened even more.

From what I've heard, yes, they do have their problems.

That might have been one of the reasons that you never heard the Yama-contra lines with exposed parts.

Well, maybe the arranging style of those corps had something to do with it, too.

Leland wrote:

ThomasDodd wrote:I wonder if the GG conversion kits Yamaha makes for BBb horns sufferrs the same problems? I suspect it'd be more pronounced since the horn is lenghtened even more.

From what I've heard, yes, they do have their problems.

Even within the framework of the DCI the more ambitious corps (corpses?) hardly would apply instruments, which right out of their boxes were dubious compromises.

Carolus Marximus Staywithbasisdesignius

Joe Baker wrote: This is precisely what Doug's G-50 does. From all reports, the horn (in its Bb configuration) is somewhere between poor and passing.

I've never really understood why that's the case, though. __________________
Joe Baker, who was disappointed when he heard that the BBb setting wasn't all that great.

I wouldn't call it "poor." Or even "passing." I couldn't tell a difference between it and a Miraphone 186 BBb. I'm not the best judge, though. Your mileage may vary, and all that.

The CC configuration (aka "normal") is definitely better, but that is in reference to many, many other tubas besides "the Bb version." I mean, I fell in love with the thing for a reason.

Doug "who'll let Joe try the horn if we're ever in vicinity of each other"

bloke wrote:An "AA" tuba would play all the way down to low Eb with only 3 valves...

I was think more like an FF, one step lower than the GG contras.

Since they are now comming with 3 and 4 valves, the GG could be a usable (sub?)-contrabass tuba. Like the Kanstul KMT-200C, (0.689 bore, 21" bell, 5/4) but in GG (KCG200 in convertible/upright form?).