TubeNet

Thanks. That was concise and helpful.

Why isn't something like the Blaikley system popular on piston contrabass tubas?

I thought that compensating valves just bought themselves red Corvettes...

The common usage, where for practical purposes "compensating" is short for "equipped with Blaikley compensating system valves", seems pretty useful to me. A tuba may have that, or it may have from 3 to 6 valves.

anotherjtm2 wrote:Thanks. That was concise and helpful.

Why isn't something like the Blaikley system popular on piston contrabass tubas?

It is in the UK and parts of Europe. Part of the issue is, I believe, that it was a patented system, and for quite some time I think only Boosey & Hawkes / Besson were able to manufacture the items. the original patent was for the 3-valve compensating system, and it was designed to work on pretty much ANY three valve instrument. Later there was the 4 Valve compensating system, which was most likely patented separately.

With most areas already used to manually compensating with adjusting valve or the main tuning slides, it had limited appeal, and the patent holder may not have allowed licensing.

bloke wrote: For entertainment purposes, hit the "quote" button to view hidden text at the very bottom of my unedited original post.

That's a trick to remember, for the passive aggressive among us.

So what does "size = 1" mean? Invisible to the naked eye?

anotherjtm2 wrote:Thanks. That was concise and helpful.

Why isn't something like the Blaikley system popular on piston contrabass tubas?

I can't speak for sales, but Besson, Packer, Wessex, Willson, Yamaha, and Miraphone all make them (and certainly others that I can't remember at the moment), so they're not just a niche item. It's likely that British brass bands are their primary market, but I'd love to see more of them in concert bands. There have been some efforts made in the last few years to reduce the ergonomic horror of the beasts.

bloke wrote:People buy tons of electric guitars that look-like/sorta-sound-like Fender Stratocasters.
They like having something that sounds sorta like a Stratocaster, and they like catching glimpses of themselves in the mirror (and on facebook) holding something that looks like a Fender Stratocaster...
...and - in the tuba world - the same thing is true with front-action piston (particularly: 6/4) tubas...even if there were/is a top-action 5/4 tuba that plays in tune more easily, and with equal-or-better low range response and clarity...
...and there probably are people who are attracted to knock-offs of PRS guitars, but (well, again...) not very many.

Well, there are quite a number of boutique makers that specialize in bolt-on Strat and Telecaster style guitars. There are also a lot of knockoff chinese makers pumping them out so they hit here at 200 retail.

However they ALL bow before the majesty of this guitar:



And if you are saying : " that looks like something spinal tap would use", it is.

anotherjtm2 wrote:Why isn't something like the Blaikley system popular on piston contrabass tubas?

I can think of 2 reasons why it's not popular:
1 - Ergonomics. Most compensating contrabass tubas are built top-action with the 4th valve on the far side of the instrument. I don't like the reach-around to operate the 4th valve as it's located on most top-action Blaikley system EEb or BBb tubas.
Regarding this issue - The Besson 983 uses Blaikley system piping with 4 front action pistons. Some European makers have also produced a rotary EEb design with Blaikley system piping. I've never actually played one, but they seem like a worthy idea compared to a standard bass tuba with 5 (or more) valves. I've never seen a contrabass tuba with a similar front-action Blaikley system setup.

2 - There's a bit of a change to the perceived resistance of the tuba when the 4th valve is pressed and the air goes through the bends in the valve block a 2nd time. I'm not sure that's really a big deal - it's certainly something that players in the UK (where this is popular) have learned to live with.

Edits -
I agree in general with Bloke's take below on tuba ergonomics. Each tuba was designed by a tuba player to be held comfortably in some position while seated, and possibly a different position while standing.
My issue with the 4th valve reach around is specific to an old left shoulder injury that I got playing sports in HS. I doubt that very many people will have that same issue.

Thanks also to Hup for posting about the Besson 993. I never knew that tuba existed. I wonder why it's no longer in their catalog/website.

NCSUSousa wrote:

anotherjtm2 wrote: Regarding this issue - The Besson 983 uses Blaikley system piping with 4 front action pistons. Some European makers have also produced a rotary EEb design with Blaikley system piping. I've never actually played one, but they seem like a worthy idea compared to a standard bass tuba with 5 (or more) valves. I've never seen a contrabass tuba with a similar front-action Blaikley system setup.

I have one; a Besson 993. Bb front-action 5/4 contrabass.

I have a 983 also, and except for the huge size difference, the design of the two horns is quite similar.

Hup

Might depend on one's introduction to the top valve tuba. Hand one group of new tuba players a cute little top valve Besson 3V compensator Eb, and the other a Conn 20J. See which group likes top valve tubas, decades later when they're shopping for their own tuba.

Baltimore Brass had a 3 Valve Hirsbrunner Rotary Eb tuba for a while, which they listed as "compensating", and looking at it, it was definitely a rotary automatically compensating tuba. That was tempting, but I stayed strong.

I also don't understand the issue with Top Action tubas vs Front Action. With either, if you aren't holding it comfortably, you're gonna have issues, which is the same with virtually any instrument.

I had long been a fan of front action tubas, though I was quite happy with the top valves of my 25J. Unexpectedly, when I bought my compensating JP377, I had no problems operating the 4th valve with my left hand. I actually like it better.