First, let's be careful about terms. Originally, "compensation" meant some mechanism to adjust for what Donald Stauffer called the "valve swindle," where the valves used in combination are too short. There are a variety of compensation mechanisms, including:lauder2 wrote:As a euphonium player I always assumed that my fellow tubists were all playing compensating horns. Only recently did I realize that this is not the case. Also, more recently, now that I wish to come out of the closet and declare my bass tubist alter ego, I want to know which horns (brands and models) are compensating. However, more importantly, I want to know how much it really matters to people.
1. An additional valve (the fourth valve), that replaces the 1-3 combination, and provides a 2-4 combination that is much closer than the 1-2-3 that it replaces. This first step in compensating for the valve swindle is considered basic equipment for, hmmm, indoor playing.
2. Another additional valve (the fifth valve), that compensates for the notes in the near-pedal register where the fourth-valve combinations are also too sharp.
3. Yet another additional valve (the sixth valve), that provides one further level of refinement in the very low register of the instrument.
4. Adjusting tuning slides during play is a manual compensation method.
5. Automatic compensation, which in the modern era means the Blaikley compensation system as originally invented for Boosey. This system uses extra long valves, and the longest valve on the instrument routes the sound through its own tubing plus a second set of ports in the other valves. These come in three-valve and four-valve versions, though only the latter are still available.
Euphonium players routinely adopt the fifth method. I think that is in part because the bore of a euphonium is small enough so that the valves are light enough to begin with that greatly increasing their length doesn't make them too heavy.
Because Boosey worked the patent deal with Blaikley and enjoyed patent protection up until the early 70's, and because Boosey ended up owning Hawkes and then Besson, only Boosey and Hawkes and Besson used this approach up until the modern era. And since Boosey and Hawkes enjoyed import protection from the British government in the post-war period, British tuba and euphonium players didn't have many practical alternatives. Bevan writes of British tuba players smuggling such instruments as B&S F tubas and Alexander contrabasses during this period.
British band players have therefore always used instruments with Blaikley compensation. Tuba players in other traditions did not, because the instruments in their home traditions didn't have access to the patents. So, they developed other compensation approaches, including using additional valves and adjusting slides.
British orchestral players, on the other hand, used additional valves for the most part. There were some British orchestral F tubas with Blaikley compensation, but most of them were five-valve Barlow F tubas. The French used a six-valve euphonium for orchestral use, and Americans and Germans used four and five-valved contrabasses. When the Barlow F tubas played out, British orchestral players were pretty much force to adopt the Blaikley-compensating EEb.
The Besson 981, 982 and 983 are current models of Eb bass tubas with Blaikley compensation following the same principle as compensating euphoniums. Besson makes a Bb contrabass version, the 99something, that does not enjoy a wonderful reputation. The 983 is popular outside Britain, partly because of its front-action configuration, and partly because of Pat Sheridan. And I think the 994 is the front-action Bb equivalent, but without the popularity. The others are top-action instruments which are not favored outside countries that were not part of the British Empire into the 20th Century.
For a while WIllson and others made some compensating Eb tubas, but I think only the British brands do now. There's been so much change in the British musical instrument market in the last few years that I've lost track.
For the most part, though, tuba players outside the British influence prefer to compensate for the valve swindle using additional valves and by making slide adjustments. I think most tuba players believe that this avoids the problem of too many twists and turns through a second set of valve ports, and it also keeps the valve from becoming huge and heavy. And it's the natural development of the instruments from a time before the Blaikley system was invented, and that could continue to be developed when the patents on the Blaikley system prevented more widespread adoption. After all, the first bass tuba made by Moritz had five valves.
Rick "whose compensating Besson euphonium isn't noticeably better in tune than his four, five, and six-valve tubas" Denney
