Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Repair and modification discussion
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

I thought I’d share with everyone here a tuba project that I completed recently.

First, a little about myself. I’m primarily a euphonium player, but I’ve dabbled in both tuba and trombone playing over the years. Until 2019, I didn’t have any experience with instrument building or repair. However, last year I decided to build my “dream trombone;” you can read about that project here: https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?t=10763" target="_blank. I basically just bought a torch, bought some parts and parts horns, and went at it.

I ended up building a large-bore trombone that can also be configured as a “bass trombone substitute,” a “small bore trombone substitute,” or a large-bore valve trombone (that actually plays and sounds like a trombone). I highly recommend taking a look at that trombone project, as it gives context both to what I learned about brass instrument construction/modification last year and to what I wanted to accomplish when I began this tuba project.

In short: as with the trombone I built, I wanted to have one tuba that could be used effectively in most playing contexts, and to build it on a very modest budget.

In the past, the majority of the tuba doubling I've done has been on four-valve compensating E-flat tubas. I was able to borrow a Besson 981 with the straight leadpipe for a while, and then I also owned a 15" bell Imperial for a time, too (selling it ~10 years ago). These instruments work well for me as a euphonium player. The layout is the same, and I can read bass clef music like it's E-flat treble clef and use the same fingerings as I would on euphonium. They are also versatile enough to be useful on almost any repertoire. As many of you know, tuba players in the UK have used compensating E-flat tubas as "do it all" instruments for many years.

My plan, then, was to use a 3+1 compensating E-flat tuba as a basic platform, with interchangeable bells and leadpipes to achieve different sounds. I wanted to have a setup that sounded more like a “bass” tuba, one that sounded more like a “contrabass” tuba, and a recording bell setup for when that could be useful as well. The big question was: what would be the best way to achieve those goals, on a tight budget?

I did some research, and concluded that I wanted to find an older high-pitch B+H Imperial. I had learned that the only difference between high- and low-pitch Imperial tubas was a shorter upper branch. I also deduced that this shorter upper branch was what allowed the recording-bell low-pitch Besson variant to have a taller bell and still play in tune. Finally, I discovered that the tenon and receiver on the recording-bell Bessons was basically the same diameter as that of a King (1240, etc.) tuba, and that King bells interchanged and worked on recording-bell Bessons. With these bits of information in mind, I devised a more specific plan: I would put a King bell receiver on a high pitch B&H compensator, and then find both an upright and a recording King bell. I’d also put a King male tenon on the original 15” bell, and then either pull the main slide or make slide extensions so that the original bell could be played at low pitch. Finally, I’d set it up for removable leadpipes, using the original small Imperial leadpipe and finding a second, larger leadpipe, too.

I started watching UK eBay, since older compensating tubas show up there more frequently (and usually for lower prices) than they do in the US. I first found and purchased a 1925 three-valve high-pitch Boosey tuba for a very low sum:

3v Imperial
Image

My thought was that I could install the upper branch from this tuba onto a factory low-pitch instrument, since I had assumed that I’d be much more likely to find a low-pitch four-valve example in good shape with good (not worn) valves than I would a high-pitch one. However, it wasn’t too much longer before a high-pitch four-valve model (from 1955) also appeared on UK eBay—which I also purchased. This one sold for a higher price than the one with three valves, but still for a price that I considered to be very reasonable:

4v Imperial
Image

I took a gamble on this one, but it turns out that it had good compression! So, now I wouldn’t have to deal with the hassle of swapping the upper bow. I also had a lot more spare parts at my disposal, and I figured I could just sell the extra parts that I didn’t use once I was finished.

I then slowly but surely acquired a King 19” upright bell, 22” recording bell, and a female bell receiver. I got the male bell tenon and removable leadpipe to valve section fittings (as found on newer King 2341s) new, directly from Conn-Selmer, and a removable leadpipe brace directly from Yamaha. I then went to work!

I figured I’d cut the 1925 bell, which wasn’t in quite as nice condition, for two reasons: if it didn’t work the first time, I wouldn’t have wasted the nicer bell, and if it did work the first time, I’d have the nicer bell left to sell. Thankfully, it did work the first time—I cut it just about exactly right, so that the female receiver fit on the stack, and the made tenon fit on the flare. I installed the stack with receiver on the four-valve tuba, and now I could use any of the three removable bells!

Three removable bells
Image

1925 Boosey engraving
Image

As for the leadpipe, my original plan was to install removable fittings on the nicer of the two Imperial leadpipes, then buy a 981 leadpipe, add fittings to it as well, and use it as a second removable leadpipe. It took me a while to find a 981 leadpipe, so at first I enlarged the uglier Imperial leadpipe by annealing it and expanding it. That worked OK, but I was glad when one of the retailers I had contacted (in the UK) about purchasing a 981 leadpipe finally got back to me. They were able to order a brand-new uncut 981 leadpipe and receiver, and both parts shipped from the UK ended up being about $125—which I thought was very reasonable. So, I set up the 981 leadpipe with removable fittings as well, and not surprisingly, I ended up liking it better as a “large” leadpipe than the Imperial leadpipe that I had enlarged.

Imperial and 981 leadpipes
Image

Leadpipe fitting
Image

Leadpipe brace
Image

The final question was tuning. I started by removing the tuning slide extensions from one of the tuning slides to turn it back into a normal “high pitch” tuning slide. I then experimented with this slide and the longer King bells installed. Thankfully, the King bells played in tune with the main tuning slide pulled out about 1/2”! I didn’t have to remove any additional tubing from the instrument (i.e., the “Fletcher cut”). I had initially assumed that with the Imperial bell I would have to build a second tuning slide with low pitch extensions in place to bring it down to pitch. However, I discovered that earlier Imperials (like this 1955 model) have a fourth valve that’s placed closer to the 1-3 valve cluster, which allows for a longer main tuning side than more modern compensating E-flat tubas (the shorter leg is 2.75”, and the longer one is 3.5”). Because of this, and because the horn was a hair flat to begin with and the King tenon added a little over 1” of length as well, I found that there was enough “pull” with the main slide to correct the sharpness of the shorter 15” bell without needing a second, longer tuning slide.

The higher-placed fourth valve did have one drawback, though. To add extensions to the third-valve compensating loop (to correct the sharp low F and E-natural), I wasn’t able to just add straight pieces of tubing, as the fourth valve loop would be in the way. Instead, I had to add curved extensions to get it to fit:

3rd valve comp. loop
Image

The rest of the tweaks I made were pretty minor. I used the bottom valve caps from the 1925 Imperial, as they had “nipples” and allowed me to install a gutter under the valves. I also added Amado water keys to the third valve slide and the fourth valve circuit, as these spots tended to collect water and were a pain to empty.

Here’s what the final product looks like, in each configuration:

Imperial bell:
Image

19” upright bell:
Image

Recording bell:
Image

With the 15” bell, the original small-shank leadpipe, and a shallow mouthpiece, it has a clear, characteristic bass tuba sound—as you would expect. With the upright 19” King bell, the 981 leadpipe, and a deep mouthpiece, it definitely has more of a contrabass character to the sound—even more so than “normal” 19” bell E-flat compensators. This is probably due to the fact that the King bell is longer and has a larger throat than a standard 19” E-flat compensator bell. With the upright King bell, it stands 38” tall.

Truth be told, I actually prefer the way the King recording bell plays, in comparison to the upright bell. It seems to have a richer, fuller, smoother sound. It’s too bad that the recording bell isn’t “socially acceptable” for some of the contexts in which I might use this horn; nevertheless, I hope to use it as much as I can.

So, in short: I’m extremely pleased with the way this project turned out—it met exactly the goals that I set when I started it. I now have an instrument that can be configured to work for most kinds of tuba playing, and the total cost of the project was only about $1900. :shock:

I know this has been a lot to read, but I hope it has been interesting! There’s more that I could share, but I tried to keep this initial post brief.

I welcome any observations or questions you may have! :tuba:

-Funkhoss
Last edited by funkhoss on Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bone-a-phone
bugler
bugler
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by bone-a-phone »

Congrats! That looks like a big project, finding and fitting all of those parts. The trombone project is just wild. Really insane. But brilliant at the same time. Thanks for sharing!
User avatar
SousaWarrior9
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:22 pm

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by SousaWarrior9 »

Great work and a fun read. Both on the Eb tuba and the trombone project.
"Some men are macho men. Others are Martin men"

It's that word "handcraft"...
User avatar
cjk
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:16 pm

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by cjk »

Just curiosity questions below. I'm truly quite impressed with your project.

Did the high pitch upper bow still prove to be necessary for clearance since you used taller King bells? I would expect it would certainly be desirable for pitch.

How much shorter is the high pitch upper bow compared to a normal 981 one?
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

Thanks for the positive feedback, everyone!
SWE wrote:
funkhoss wrote:Truth be told, I actually prefer the way the King recording bell plays, in comparison to the upright bell. It seems to have a richer, fuller, smoother sound. It’s too bad that the recording bell isn’t “socially acceptable” for some of the contexts in which I might use this horn; nevertheless, I hope to use it as much as I can.
Maybe 22" straight bell?
I've thought about that--I'm sure there's someone out there who would trade a 22" upright for my 19" upright. I don't know how much of the effect is because of the larger diameter, and how much is because of the curve, though. The biggest thing holding me back is that a 22" upright bell wouldn't fit in my gig bag. :lol:
cjk wrote:Just curiosity questions below. I'm truly quite impressed with your project.

Did the high pitch upper bow still prove to be necessary for clearance since you used taller King bells? I would expect it would certainly be desirable for pitch.

How much shorter is the high pitch upper bow compared to a normal 981 one?
Based on how everything lined up, I'm guessing that the shorter branch is necessary for clearance, too. The branch would soon start to interfere with the bell if it were much higher than it is on mine in relation to the receiver.

I don't have access to a 981 currently with which I can compare it. However, based on the length of the factory-fitted "low pitch" tuning slide extensions, I'd guess that the high-pitch branch is approximately 5" shorter overall than the standard low-pitch branch.

-Funkhoss
toobagrowl
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1525
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: USA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by toobagrowl »

Great job 8) You have a versatile tuba there!
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

So…I’ve got some questions about another modification for this horn for the TNFJ. :tuba:

I’m considering putting a larger receiver on the 981 leadpipe (or reaming the stock receiver) and using a mouthpiece with a larger shank (and thus, backbore).

The stock 981 receiver is very short overall; additionally, the internal receiver taper is only about as long as the inserted mouthpiece shank itself. There's then a large internal "step" at the end of the mouthpiece out to the small end of the leadpipe tube. "Small end" is a curious term for it, though--it's between .590" and .600" in inner diameter! Reaming the receiver to a larger size, or replacing it with a larger receiver, would minimize or eliminate this “step” into the leadpipe. Doing so would also allow the use of a larger shank, with a larger backbore, and in theory open up the sound and blow somewhat. A mouthpiece shank with a small end of .590” or so would be just about right. I’m using a Doug Elliott setup already, and he could provide me with one of his “H” (Hirsbrunner) shanks that has an end that size (.590”).

So, the questions:

-Do you think such a modification (enlarged receiver and shank/backbore) would be beneficial?
-If so, would it be better to ream the stock receiver, or replace with a bigger one?
-If better to replace, is there an off-the-shelf option that would BOTH accept a .590” mouthpiece shank AND accept a leadpipe with an o.d. of .640”?
-If better to ream (which I’m leaning towards, as it would ensure that the receiver fits both the leadpipe and the mouthpiece), does anyone have a Jarno #5 reamer I could borrow? :lol:

-Funkhoss
User avatar
iiipopes
Utility Infielder
Utility Infielder
Posts: 8556
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:10 am

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by iiipopes »

Since different bells can have different tapers so that they are subject to being trimmed to different lengths, how do the different bells tune up? On my 186 with its original detachable collar, somebody made an upright bell for it from a St Pete tuba, and it ended up being too short and I had to have the main tuning slide lengthened to compensate. When I got a recording Miraphone bell for it, I needed a regular length tuning slide, and when I did the bell swap for a Besson New Standard 17" BBb bell and eliminated the detachable bell stack, luckily, the longer tuning slide worked fine.
Jupiter JTU1110, RT-82.
"Real" Conn 36K.
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by Donn »

funkhoss wrote:A mouthpiece shank with a small end of .590” or so would be just about right. I’m using a Doug Elliott setup already, and he could provide me with one of his “H” (Hirsbrunner) shanks that has an end that size (.590”).
Matt Walters wrote:KAISER SHANK: With a measurement of about .585" in diameter at the small end of the shank, this truly is a "Kaiser" size. It fits the largest Alexander model 164, a few "one off" model 163's, and some original York receivers we've come across. Anyone needing this size shank will need to get a custom built mouthpiece, or have an adapter made.
I do have the impression these sizes are almost as ambiguous as rim interior diameter measurements - Conn and Schilke mouthpieces from back in the day seem to be made to "European" dimensions even though they're quintessentially American - but at .590 it seems to me like you're falling off the chart. It sure does seem to make sense to enlarge the receiver to closer to the leadpipe's size, but maybe some compromise would work just about as well and give you more mouthpiece options.
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

iiipopes wrote:Since different bells can have different tapers so that they are subject to being trimmed to different lengths, how do the different bells tune up? On my 186 with its original detachable collar, somebody made an upright bell for it from a St Pete tuba, and it ended up being too short and I had to have the main tuning slide lengthened to compensate. When I got a recording Miraphone bell for it, I needed a regular length tuning slide, and when I did the bell swap for a Besson New Standard 17" BBb bell and eliminated the detachable bell stack, luckily, the longer tuning slide worked fine.
As I described in the initial writeup, the two King bells are in-tune with about 1/2" of the main slide pulled. The 15" imperial bell, which is significantly shorter, needs an additional pull (about 1-1/4" or so). However, the main tuning slide is long enough to comfortably accommodate this.
Donn wrote:
funkhoss wrote:A mouthpiece shank with a small end of .590” or so would be just about right. I’m using a Doug Elliott setup already, and he could provide me with one of his “H” (Hirsbrunner) shanks that has an end that size (.590”).
Matt Walters wrote:KAISER SHANK: With a measurement of about .585" in diameter at the small end of the shank, this truly is a "Kaiser" size. It fits the largest Alexander model 164, a few "one off" model 163's, and some original York receivers we've come across. Anyone needing this size shank will need to get a custom built mouthpiece, or have an adapter made.
I do have the impression these sizes are almost as ambiguous as rim interior diameter measurements - Conn and Schilke mouthpieces from back in the day seem to be made to "European" dimensions even though they're quintessentially American - but at .590 it seems to me like you're falling off the chart. It sure does seem to make sense to enlarge the receiver to closer to the leadpipe's size, but maybe some compromise would work just about as well and give you more mouthpiece options.
I'm pretty committed to Doug's mouthpieces, so whatever I end up doing I'm going to be using one of his setups. He can make shanks to any specification for no additional cost. Again, though: his "H" shank, which he has stated has a small end diameter (no ambiguity) of .590", sounds just about right.

The big question is: will removing the "step" and enlarging the backbore be worth it?

I put in an order today for a Jarno #5 reamer. I think I'm going to try it and find out. :mrgreen:

-Funkhoss
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

bloke wrote:...a man after my own heart...
Yep. Your postings about that tuba were a source of both information and inspiration for this project. 8)

You should consider experimenting with leadpipes on yours. It's remarkable how much of a difference in sound and response there is between the original, small-shank leadpipe and the (significantly larger) 981 leadpipe (especially when used with different mouthpieces that maximize the potential of each design).

-Funkhoss
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

True. I guess it depends on what you use it for. If you use a particular instrument for one basic job/style/setting, then it would make sense that you would settle on "one" setup. I don't have any desire for different bells or leadpipes for my euphonium, for example.

From posts that you've made on here, you have multiple tubas with each tuba doing their particular "job" well (including the one in the photo you posted). My situation's a bit different--I'm going for one tuba that does a bunch of jobs "OK." :mrgreen:

I do wonder, though, based on the way in which mine plays, if a larger (981 style) leadpipe might do the particular job for which you use yours better than the "stock" leadpipe.

-Funkhoss
2ba4t
bugler
bugler
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:42 pm

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by 2ba4t »

Truly inspiring and, as you indicate, inspired by the inimitable ‘bloke’.

Concerning sound - do the lowest notes - FF# down - speak easier and have more body with your bigger bell.
I went to Booseys in 1969 (!) and blew each of 24 EEbs they had ready to export. 4 were brilliant, 4 duds and the rest excellent-ish. A major difference was the clarity of the lowest five or so notes. I got the 2nd Fletch 19” tuba after he chose his. But I have not met an Eb that is truly free-blowing at the bottom – like a CC.

However, concerning pitch – not sound - that third valve compensating slide lengthening really helps the lowest notes. Otherwise comps do play very sharp on those last low notes.

Because of the extra weight – for an old man - I tried using non-comps and knocked up an alternate 4th valve slide with a dependent fifth valve, which adds truly enough tubing (73 cms + or -) for the lowest EEE.
Resizesm.jpg
This amateur piece of ironmongery (does NOT leak and) plays FF# and down better in tune than comps and being dependent does not affect the general bugle’s air column. It provides plenty of alternate fingerings and can easily be slipped off when not needed.
Photo0007resize.jpg
Photo0008resize.jpg
Because the tube length is almost perfect you can play without any lipping down, and the note rings out better. Yes, I have yet to polish and lacquer it. This picture is of an F Cerveny. This slide also fits my Eb Cerveny. They remain much lighter than a 4v comp. Sorry, Mr Blaikley.

Any tips on really opening up the bottom register on an F or Eb. Even the biggest mouthpieces and mouthpipes etc do not sound like a CC or BBb. Have you ever got your hands on one of those huge York Ebs? Has anyone made a vast bore EEb? Just making the 4th valve tubing large does not seem to make a true difference.

[Sorry then pics are blurred. I had to reduce 'size' and they are on their sides 'cos that's what happened even though I rotated them on my pc. ]
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

2ba4t wrote:Concerning sound - do the lowest notes - FF# down - speak easier and have more body with your bigger bell.

[...]

Any tips on really opening up the bottom register on an F or Eb. Even the biggest mouthpieces and mouthpipes etc do not sound like a CC or BBb. Have you ever got your hands on one of those huge York Ebs? Has anyone made a vast bore EEb? Just making the 4th valve tubing large does not seem to make a true difference.
The low register does seem to have a rounder, fuller sound (more "bass-like" and less "bass trombone-like") with the King bell, 981 leadpipe, and deep mouthpiece (for me, a Doug Elliott T cup). In terms of response (ease of playing) and sheer volume output, though, I can play those notes just as easily and just as loudly with the narrow bell, narrow leadpipe, and a shallow mouthpiece (DE L cup). For me, the ease of response and volume output doesn't change--just the tone color.

Then again, I'm primarily a euphonium player, and I've spent a lot of time over the years working to get a big sound and easy response out of the low register on that (much smaller) compensating instrument. From my perspective, then, the low register of a compensating E-flat tuba is a piece of cake...

I've always been kind of incredulous when I hear others say that a compensating E-flat tuba doesn't sound or play "big enough" in the low register. I've played a number of brass quintet gigs in the past using my euphonium to cover the "tuba" part (quite successfully)--so that's the perspective from which I view this subject.

Recently (about two weeks ago), I was "noodling around" on my euphonium before a rehearsal, playing some melodies in the low (compensating/pedal) register. A very fine trumpet player in the group looked over at me and said, unsolicited: "That sounds like a tuba."

Hmm...

-Funkhoss
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

Another thought: I think that sometimes we as brass players falsely equate "feel" with "sound."

Do the lowest pitches in the compensating register "feel" different to play than other pitches? Yes. However, if we can learn to listen objectively (or better yet, listen to a recording of ourselves) they do not necessarily sound different than other pitches, once we learn how to give the instrument what it needs to resonate them well.

-Funkhoss
UDELBR
Deletedaccounts
Deletedaccounts
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:07 am

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by UDELBR »

2ba4t wrote: Has anyone made a vast bore EEb?
Dunno about "vast", but this is my Eb which I cobbled together about 25 years ago. 19mm/20.5 valveset and 20" bell. I haven't seen anything larger.
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

UncleBeer wrote:
2ba4t wrote: Has anyone made a vast bore EEb?
Dunno about "vast", but this is my Eb which I cobbled together about 25 years ago. 19mm/20.5 valveset and 20" bell. I haven't seen anything larger.
Cool horn! From which manufacturer is the bugle and bell? And, about how tall does it stand?

I'd be really interested to play the tuba I built side-by-side with one like yours. I very seriously considered, when I started this project, finding an older American "monster E-flat" body and pasting a compensating valveset onto it. One of the main reasons I went the direction that I did with this project, though, was because of intonation--most of the American monster E-flat tubas I've played have had challenging intonation, while most of the compensating E-flat tubas I've played have had very good intonation overall.

With the King 2340 bell installed, the tuba I built would have a bell throat at least as large as the one on yours. And, if the bugle on mine could be re-wrapped to make it the same (shorter) height as yours, I'm guessing that the bottom bow would be close to the same size, too.

Yours has a larger bore through the valve block, but the leadpipe appears to be much longer--probably twice as long, from the way it looks. So the valveset on mine is placed significantly "sooner" in the overall taper than the valveset on yours. So, as I said, it would be fascinating to be able to play them side by side...

Again--thanks for sharing!

-Funkhoss
UDELBR
Deletedaccounts
Deletedaccounts
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:07 am

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by UDELBR »

funkhoss wrote:[ From which manufacturer is the bugle and bell? And, about how tall does it stand?
HN White (predecessor of King) from 1904. It's 33 inches tall. I really dig the pancake bell, and wish more manufacturers would revive 'em.
funkhoss wrote:One of the main reasons I went the direction that I did with this project, though, was because of intonation--most of the American monster E-flat tubas I've played have had challenging intonation
This has very good intonation, and speaks really easily with a broad sound. I've used it on Bruckner symphonies (4, 5 and 6) and Tchaikovsky symphonies. Here's a video of me playing it in a solo setting: https://youtu.be/7gg56mOtWz4
User avatar
roweenie
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 2165
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:17 am
Location: Waiting on a vintage tow truck

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by roweenie »

Very cool and interesting, Uncle Beer! I've been kicking this idea around for some time, but one thing has stood in my way to make this happen -

Question: do you recall how you addressed the bore taper, from the end of the dogleg into the large size of the MTS? Every monster E flat I've seen has a bore of +/- .750 there, while the .748 valveset is .787/20mm at the small side of the MTS.
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day".
funkhoss
bugler
bugler
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:53 pm
Location: Edinburg, VA

Re: Multi-purpose “do-everything horn” E-flat tuba project

Post by funkhoss »

UncleBeer wrote:
funkhoss wrote:[ From which manufacturer is the bugle and bell? And, about how tall does it stand?
HN White (predecessor of King) from 1904. It's 33 inches tall. I really dig the pancake bell, and wish more manufacturers would revive 'em.
funkhoss wrote:One of the main reasons I went the direction that I did with this project, though, was because of intonation--most of the American monster E-flat tubas I've played have had challenging intonation
This has very good intonation, and speaks really easily with a broad sound. I've used it on Bruckner symphonies (4, 5 and 6) and Tchaikovsky symphonies. Here's a video of me playing it in a solo setting: https://youtu.be/7gg56mOtWz4
I wondered if it might be King/H.N. White, based on what I could see in the picture you posted. Given that mine stands 38" tall with the King bell, they both probably do have similar proportions overall.

I agree about the pancake bell! As I said earlier, I actually prefer the way that mine plays with the 22" recording bell.

And--thanks for sharing that performance. You get a great sound out of that horn, and as you say, it's clear that intonation is not a struggle on it. :tuba:

-Funkhoss
Post Reply