Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:29 am
Great photo! I've never seen this one. It's interesting to me that someone would go to the trouble to make a tuba this size with only 3 valves.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:16 am
Well, considering it is already a subcontrabass, with the fundamental being an octave below a BBb tuba, what advantage would a fourth valve, designed to give a tuba increased low range, give, apart from having to play low FFF 1+3?
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:02 pm
Cut it to CC and add two valves. 
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:06 pm
I would think that due to the increased length of the tubing, 1+3 combinations will be even more out of tune than on "normal" sized tubas. The 4th valve would therefore be more important to playing in tune. I think though that this was probably not intended to really be played much, but is more of a display piece anyway.jacobg wrote:Well, considering it is already a subcontrabass, with the fundamental being an octave below a BBb tuba, what advantage would a fourth valve, designed to give a tuba increased low range, give, apart from having to play low FFF 1+3?
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Looks familiar --
1-3 combinations wouldn't be any more out of tune than on a regular tuba, non-compensating euph, baritone, flugel, or trumpet (assuming the 1st and 3rd slides aren't used). Those valves' lengths are determined by a percentage of the overall instrument's length, so if the instrument is longer, the valve pipes will be similarly longer.
You'll see that a CC tuba's valve pipes are shorter than those on a BBb, too.
1-3 combinations wouldn't be any more out of tune than on a regular tuba, non-compensating euph, baritone, flugel, or trumpet (assuming the 1st and 3rd slides aren't used). Those valves' lengths are determined by a percentage of the overall instrument's length, so if the instrument is longer, the valve pipes will be similarly longer.
You'll see that a CC tuba's valve pipes are shorter than those on a BBb, too.
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:05 pm
The images shown of this horn are quite old. I know its current owner. I was told it is CCC. If memory serves, it was not actually built by Paxman (not sure who) but the firm did have possession of the instrument for some time.
Daniel C. Oberloh
Oberloh Woodwind and Brass Works
www.oberloh.com
Daniel C. Oberloh
Oberloh Woodwind and Brass Works
www.oberloh.com
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:00 pm
If I'm not mistaken, this is a more modern picture of the same instrument. If you'll notice, the bell is now cut. Supposedly this happened because the horn was moved to a brass shop in London that was later renovated, making removal of the horn impossible without cutting the bell. FYI...
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:12 pm
But is the third valve slide in lacquer or brass 
Super BAT
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Whoever owns that now really is BAT-man.
OK, I realize the horn was built more for show than for function, but the pictures made me wonder about mouthpiece size. The size of the human face really makes it impossible to make a mouthpiece much bigger, in terms of rim diameter at least, than a standard tuba mouthpiece. What are the results of playing this kind of double-contra-bass tuba with a contrabass tuba sized mouthpiece?
OK, I realize the horn was built more for show than for function, but the pictures made me wonder about mouthpiece size. The size of the human face really makes it impossible to make a mouthpiece much bigger, in terms of rim diameter at least, than a standard tuba mouthpiece. What are the results of playing this kind of double-contra-bass tuba with a contrabass tuba sized mouthpiece?
Re: Super BAT
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:42 pm
Judging from the valve size, the bore is fairly standard, so I would guess it would be like playing a really-long Freedom HornUncle Buck wrote:What are the results of playing this kind of double-contra-bass tuba with a contrabass tuba sized mouthpiece?