TubeNet

Hey guys,
About a year and a half ago I picked up a Besson Sovereign 982 EEb from my accompanist for free, and man it was a steal! I've used it in orchestras, quintets, concert bands - you name something and I've probably used it in that situation.

I've been using it with a number of larger mouthpieces (Wick 1L and a couple of large PT's) and ran into a number of intonation problems, but my teacher suggested it was just down to it being one of those 'lemons' that Besson were pumping out when every man and his dog needed a Sovereign. But since, I've gotten onto a PT-65S and the horrible intonation problems seemed to disappear and now it's just up to general playing of the instrument.

When I went to my local brass shop to try out a few mouthpieces (ultimately deciding on the PT), their repair tech was really confused by the sheer weight of the thing (something I was always aware of, but thought it was just a normal thing for some 982s). It is significantly heavier than any other Sovereign EEbs that him or I had seen. We were thinking it might be a bell thickness thing...

I did some research on the serial number and from what I've found, it seems like it is a '93 model, but haven't seen any information on a heavy bell or even just a heavier version at all.

Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on what the reason for it's heaviness might be? I've also attached some pictures for some reference. Let me know if I need to get any better photos which would be more useful.

Sorry for the wordy post, thanks in advance.
Sean.

This is a UK made one, with imperial (vs German metric) sheet metal. Made it a tad thicker.
I believe all the tubings (valve circuits) are thicker metal too.

Combine it with a fair amount of metal guard and you've got yourself a heavy (and nice) Eb

I worked on on like that at the end of last year. It had a copper bell! It was considerably heavier than the other 1980s 982s I've worked on.

I haven’t played a 982, but I own a 981 built in the UK in 1999.

For several years I played it with a PT-50, because I liked that big warm sound. The 5th partial and its fingered derivatives were quite flat, but the beauty of the compensating system is that these notes may be played as 6th partial by using the same fingerings as the octave below.

As for the weight, I don’t think you should complain. While I waited for the 981 to be built, I played on a loaner Besson 7XX with the same large bell as the 981 and the 982. Very easily played, but not reliable in louder dynamics, where some notes would break up. Most notably Ab on the top line in the bass stave. I attributed that to its light weight. Non-compensating with lighter short pistons, and probably worst: less guard wire on the top bow.

Klaus

Thanks for your replies! It definitely sheds some light on the origins of the heaviness of the horn. Being only 2 years into playing tuba a lot of things are probably operator error, and this I believe played a large part. The mouthpieces I was on were doing me no favours in learning how to play an EEb tuba, and the move to the PT-65 has helped that immensely in only three weeks.

I'm only really using this tuba for the 'little tuba' excerpts that I need to do in auditions, where achieving the same sound on a CC is something far beyond anything I'd be able to do right now.

I do need to give it a good clean and service, but it will have to wait until I have some spare time to put to it.

I have a Boosey & Hawkes Imperial version of the same horn from the early 80's and it is a tank. Heavier metal than most other horns I have played.

kk

bloke wrote:

Guess what I did to each of them...?? (If you're guessing, guess quick, because I'm revealing it in the next line...)

I CLEANED them. They all ended up being FINE instruments.

Did you boil them first, or after??