F/CC

[TUBAMUSICIAN87]

Ive been looking around at different F tubas and Ive seen(very rarely) a double wrapped F/CC I was just wondering if maybe these are worth looking at. From what I see an advantage to this is in playing a peice that plays in the upper ranges and would be easier with the F activated and not having to blast peddal tones because of the CC. Another being that its cheaper and easier to carry than having 2 horns. I havent heard of many people using them. Any input on these horns would be greatly appreciated

[MaryAnn]

Since I play a double (french) horn and doubles are the rule in horn playing, a double tuba sounds like a good idea. The drawbacks: the leadpipe and bell won't be exactly correct for either side of the horn....so it will take a lot of design work to come up with a compromise that works really well. When triple horns started coming out, of course they had to have two change valves; one manufacturer makes the high F change valve route the air through a second, much shorter, leadpipe. But the bell is a compromise. There are still a lot of people who think that everything possible should be played on the F side of a double horn because of the sound, which they prefer over the Bb side. On recordings of horn octets or whatever, it's pretty easy to hear which people are playing their parts on the high F side of a triple.

Then there is the weight problem. Yes, a double tuba would be easier, perhaps, to cart around than two tubas, if you can lift it. Double horns weigh quite a bit more than single horns, but everybody is used to them now. Since triples are beoming necessary at higher levels because of their accuracy (you can't win an audition without one, many times, because the guys with triples simply don't clam as much) the weight issue is starting to have solutions creep in. One of the solutions is plastic valves, and another is a collapsible long stick type of horn stand that allows people to rest the weight of the horn on it while playing standing up. Of course tubas already use stands, so maybe that isn't as big a deal for them.

I think we're a ways off from having a useable double tuba; there is a lot of expensive design work that needs to be done first.

MA

[Chuck(G)]

Golly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

A compensating Eb instrument is, for all intents and purposes, an Eb/BBb doiuble horn. Push that 4th valve down and the other three valves are almost exactly the same as those on a BBb. Some of the old Bessons even used to have a completely different set of tuning slides.

The Alexander F/CC rotary double just adds tubing to the existing F side rather than using a completely different set of tuning slides. The Gronitz may do things differently.

Because of the problem of one side or the other being a mismatch in terms of taper for the pitch as MA noted, most double instruments have at best, a good primary pitch and a not-very-spectacular secondary one.

For example, it's possible to play a Besson 983 as a BBb by holding the 4th valve down, but I don't know anyone who seriously advocates that it would make a decent BBb.

It might be possible to incorporate different large branches on a double tuba, but the result require a huge downstream valve and would weigh more than anyone would like.

My take anyway.

[winston]

.

[windshieldbug]

The drawbacks: the leadpipe and bell won't be exactly correct for either side of the horn... the bell is a compromise... Then there is the weight problem... I think we're a ways off from having a useable double tuba; there is a lot of expensive design work that needs to be done first

I have to agree with MA. Plus, just because you can make something doesn't mean you should. I can't think of any usable full triple or even double trumpets, for example. Just big trumpet cases. Trombones work with valves by the nature of having the slide to adjust when you have to, and the bore there is mostly cylindrical, so there are no leadpipe issues.

I never had use for a triple tuba case, when I had a series that needed more than one horn, I just left the additional ones at the hall. I prefer a purpose-built horn, not a compromise.

[Lew]

...
A compensating Eb instrument is, for all intents and purposes, an Eb/BBb doiuble horn. Push that 4th valve down and the other three valves are almost exactly the same as those on a BBb. Some of the old Bessons even used to have a completely different set of tuning slides.

...

I had one of those "enharmonic" Besson tubas once. Intonation was a challenge and the thing weighed a ton for its size. There's a reason they are no longer made.

[funkcicle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody has ever made a "true" double tuba(in the sense that a double french horn is "double"). I've played an Alexander and a Gronitz F/CC horn and neither of them were really practical as a CC.. a few notes in the low register that were a bit more workable, but you still essentially only had a 3-valve CC down there so the range wasn't really any wider than a good F tuba, just slightly more comfortable on the low end.

[Kevin Hendrick]

Most tubas that have at least five valves (arguably only four) are "double tubas".

-The 4th valve is the "change" valve.
-The 5th valve (assuming the length most of us are accustomed to) is a "first" valve for the other "side".
-The 6th valve that we're accustomed to (on F tubas) is the second valve for the other "side".

Interesting! That, of course, implies that you'd need 7 valves to have a complete set of 3 for each side ... hmmm ... a 4+3 setup would work (and it would put the corresponding valves on the same fingers on each hand, potentially reducing confusion when improvising). In fact, 8 valves (where 8th = long 4th) would give you the equivalent of a triple (with 4 & 8 down, 2 & 6 would lower the tone a half-step, 1 & 5 a whole step, etc.).

[Chuck(G)]

That, of course, implies that you'd need 7 valves to have a complete set of 3 for each side ... hmmm ... a 4+3 setup would work (and it would put the corresponding valves on the same fingers on each hand, potentially reducing confusion when improvising). In fact, 8 valves (where 8th = long 4th) would give you the equivalent of a triple (with 4 & 8 down, 2 & 6 would lower the tone a half-step, 1 & 5 a whole step, etc.).

Seems like someone says you can do it in 6, if 5 of them are doubles:

http://www.penn.com/~youngfj/

[MaryAnn]

Most tubas that have at least five valves (arguably only four) are "double tubas".

-The 4th valve is the "change" valve.
-The 5th valve (assuming the length most of us are accustomed to) is a "first" valve for the other "side".
-The 6th valve that we're accustomed to (on F tubas) is the second valve for the other "side".

Nah. Ya gots three basic slides that you use for 1, 1/2, and 1-1/2 steps. They are one length for a Bb horn and completely different lengths for an F horn. You can't use a single valve to compensate (lengthen) for the three different valves and expect the thang to play in tune. It won't. For a double, you need six valves plus a change valve. Horns stack three on three and put the change off to the side somewhere. Triple horns stack three on three on three, with two change valves off to the side.

A compensator isn't a double either; it blows differently and generally is more stuffy. And when you get valve combinations you run into some of the same problems you run into if you're trying to use one extra-length valve to make up the difference between having the 4th valve down or not on a single horn.

On a double french horn, assuming you have all your slides set correctly, very little compensation with the right hand is needed to correct intonation, and the intonation that needs correcting is inherent to the harmonic series, i.e., the concert A that would be the top line of the bass clef, is flat. If you are wiggling your right hand all over the place to get it to play in tune, either you don't know how to tune your horn or you have a lousy one to start with.
MA

[Rick Denney]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody has ever made a "true" double tuba(in the sense that a double french horn is "double"). I've played an Alexander and a Gronitz F/CC horn and neither of them were really practical as a CC.. a few notes in the low register that were a bit more workable, but you still essentially only had a 3-valve CC down there so the range wasn't really any wider than a good F tuba, just slightly more comfortable on the low end.

Dr. Young's tuba is a true double.

And Donald Stauffer included a picture of a York true double that was captioned as being in Vince Simmonetti's collection. It had four double piston valves with two sets of branches each that were at least a foot long, plus ganged change valves upstream and downstream of the valve section to add in the needed main bugle and to switch to the other valve ports. The downstream valve was a rotary that was at least 4" in diameter.

Tubas are the most conical of the instruments being discussed, and the more conical, the more difficult building a true double will be.

I disagree with Mary Ann that a compensator is not a true double. It is indeed a true double--the valves are bona fide BBb valves when the change valve is depressed and bona fide Eb valves when the valve is up. The plumbing required to make it so might cause problems, but that's a separate issue.

Rick "thinking all tubas are a compromise of competing requirements, not just double tubas" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

If you're looking for a good solution to the bass-contrabass problem, why not consider an Eb tuba and forget all of this double-tuba nonsense?

Pitched a minor third above a CC and a major second below an F, it's not a bad way to go.

[Shockwave]

Adding enough cylindrical tubing to an F tuba to make it play in the key of CC really takes it out of the proportion and tone of the tuba family and puts it in the cylindrical camp with the trombones. It would be interesting to try a large saxophone style key along the flare of a large CC tuba so that when the key opens it tunes the open bugle to F rather than CC. In this manner a CC tuba could be shortened to F and retain conical proportions instead of an F tuba being lengthened to CC and becoming too cylindrical. Alternatively, an F tuba bugle could be built concentrically within a specially modified C tuba bugle. The inner and outer bugle would line up at the large end, but the small end of the shorter F bugle would exit through the wall of the CC bugle. The CC bugle would be expanded so that its cross sectional area is correct when the cross sectional area taken by the inner bugle is subtracted.

-Eric

[Chuck(G)]

Adding enough cylindrical tubing to an F tuba to make it play in the key of CC really takes it out of the proportion and tone of the tuba family and puts it in the cylindrical camp with the trombones. It would be interesting to try a large saxophone style key along the flare of a large CC tuba so that when the key opens it tunes the open bugle to F rather than CC. In this manner a CC tuba could be shortened to F and retain conical proportions instead of an F tuba being lengthened to CC and becoming too cylindrical. Alternatively, an F tuba bugle could be built concentrically within a specially modified C tuba bugle. The inner and outer bugle would line up at the large end, but the small end of the shorter F bugle would exit through the wall of the CC bugle. The CC bugle would be expanded so that its cross sectional area is correct when the cross sectional area taken by the inner bugle is subtracted.

I see--your basic 50 pound coaxial tuba. In either case, how would you get a mute to work?

[Shockwave]

Mute? People don't actually use those things do they? Anyway, a plunger mute would still work.

-Eric

[windshieldbug]

Mute? People don't actually use those things do they?

Actually, I ended up using the plunger from an aluminum trombone mute; still got the visual, but was much easier to control the sound!

[Mikelynch]

I have one of the Alex "double" tubas-4 rotary valves, with a dual set of ports and slides on 3 valves for the F side and the CC side, with a (4th) change valve. Let's just say it's an interesting horn, but not a "perfect" solution (not--at all--a perfect solution...)

I recall a number of years ago when Bob Pallansch had the horn in his shop he said he used it to play the V-W, but was very concerned about the maestro's ability to hold the correct tempo, as the (very long and heavy) rotors were pretty much maxed out on how fast they were going to allow the pice to be played...

I played one of the M-W F-CC prototypes years ago, and the main thing that has stuck with me is that it ergonomically didn't sit well, and always wanted to twist away from playing position. After fighting the "escaping tuba" for a while, I finally set it free...

Ivan Hammond worked with double tubas back in the 70's (and maybe before). Anyone know anything about what he worked with?
Mike

[Yama861]

I heard, or read here, that Tommy Johnson had Robb Stewart modifiy a Yamaha 822 as a double tuba. Anyone know details on that?

[Lew]

I heard, or read here, that Tommy Johnson had Robb Stewart modifiy a Yamaha 822 as a double tuba. Anyone know details on that?

I don't know about that, but Jim Self has a Yamaha 621 that he had made into a double bell tuba.

http://www.jimself.com/hardware.htm

[Dave Hayami]

If you were to look at the links from Winston (pg 1) you can see the Yamaha 822 F/CC "double" tuba that Robb Stewart made for Tommy Johnson.
Dave Hayami