F Tubas: are five valves enough?

[jon112780]

I've been wondering about that myself lately...

-On a BBb tuba, the 5th isn't usually a 'need' to play the required literature in tune, especially if the 1st valve slide is mostly straight and can be pulled quite far. On the compensating BBb's (Bessons), this is not a need anyway...

-On a CC tuba, 5 valves seem to be the standard, as the fingerings are pretty constant on 'most' horns.

-On an Eb tubas, either 5 valves, or 4 compensating valves are fine...

-However on F tubas, it's another story. It seems that the piston F's are fine with 5 valves, but the (German rotary F's in particular), often need a 6th valve to play in tune down low(???). It seems like the horn makers would put a bit more emphasis on making an in-tune 5 valve F than just slapping on a 6th valve and saying there are more fingering options = (this helps our out-of-tune horn play in tune).

Keep it simple.

Is there something 'mystical' about the F tuba that requires 6 valves when all other tubas use 5 (or 4 compensating)? Why is there also the dreaded 'low CC' problem on some F tubas, where tubas in other keys don't have these two issues (are these really issues)???

That's why I play Eb. There aren't as many models of Eb's to choose from as F's, but I would consider (some may disagree), that 5 valve Eb's are pretty consistent, and compensating Eb's are even more consistant.

KEEP IT SIMPLE.

How many cars (not big rigs mind you) do you see with an *optional* manual 8+ speed transmission?

[Tom]

Eventually (better sooner than later) - if it is a 5-valve version, add a 6th valve.

Bloke-

Would you apply the same logic to CC tubas?

(i.e., add a 5th valve to instruments with only 4)

[oedipoes]

I don't play F or CC
for a BBb, I think 4 valves are enough, if the 1st valve slide can be pulled.
4 valves is still the standard in Europe for BBb. (have you seen Hilgers on his 4 valve kaiser in the German brass youtube movies? it seems like 4 is enough)
A 5th valve just works faster than than moving a slide up and down...but puts another restriction in the airpath+ adds a lot on the price of a high-end horn.
If it works with 4 valves, I'd go for that.

Wim

[tubeast]

I own both a 5-valved BBb and a 6-valved F.
The BBb I ordered against German tradition with the long-whole-step fifth valve to be activated using my right thumb.
I did so with a reason, based on what my tuner tells me about ME and MY horn: a 5th valve designed to yield an in-tune Eb1 (using 4-5) and E1 (2-3-5 rather than 4-2) will force You to use 1-3-4-5 on low C1 if operated by left hand.
B0 (fingered all 5 valves, no slide pull) will be VERY sharp.
Consequently, I prefer the setup more common in the States, so I can play B0 in tune (all down + considerable 4th slide pull) and choose between 1-3-4-5 or 2-3-4-5 + slide pull for C1, depending on neighboring notes.
This, of course, calls for a free left hand, so no 5th valve on the left for me.
I wasn´t interested in a six-valver because of cost and weight (WILLSON builds tank-like horns, mine weighs in at 15 kg as it is, and they surely are NOT CHEAP)

On F-tubas, You´ll find Yourself using 4th valve combinations all the time as soon as the part is below the staff.
It´s much more convenient here to have six valves tuned to serve.
My 5th and 6th valves tune exactly like valves 2 and 1, respectively. This is NOT a good idea.
I´d find it much more convenient, were they tuned to SHORT 1st and 2nd valves.
This way I could think of them as "little" (5th), "more" (6th) and "most" (both) compensation.
This will leave right-hand fingerings as they are, which would turn playing fast passages in tune into a no-brainer.

So in order to give an answer to the original question:
5 valved F-tubas don´t really make sense. IF You have to cover the full range of tuba parts, You need six.
If You cover the upper half of the tuba range only and have a section mate on contrabass tuba, four is enough.

[samulirask]

I have a six valve B&S Mel Culbertson model, and at work I use five valve PT11. Of course six valves give you more options, but on the other hand, I´ve not had big problems with the intonation of the PT11.

I guess that the answer to OP:s question is that five valves is enough, if the tuba is in tune in the low register. I would say that it depends on the instrument.

[pierso20]

What I really wonder is, would it better to have a tuning slide trigger rather than a 6th valve? This could also be a MUCH MUCH less expensive option if one purchases a brand new tuba.

[Wyvern]

Having a 6th valve has two disadvantage - must make the tuba more stuffy and means the left hand is no longer free to pull slides if desired.

A good 5 valve F should be able to play as well in tune as a C, or Eb with 5 valves, so I see 6 valves on an F in much the same way as 5 valves on a BBb - an optional extra which some find useful.

I see from videos that Alex von Puttkamer in the Berlin Philharmonic plays a 5 valve F, so if that is good enough for him - five valves must be enough!

Jonathan "who has experienced no great intonation problems on his PT-15"

[Wyvern]

If my F was my "do-all", then 6 might be my choice.

6 valves seems more popular in Germany itself. I rather guess it is because they tend to use F as their main axe and it allows easier movement around in the low register?

[imperialbari]

No brass instrument is in tune with itself all over the range, so calculations alone are bound to be faulty. Yet calculations tend to fit with the tendencies of most empirical findings.

When I wanted to progress from the 26K to a real bass tuba i had no biases between F and Eb or between rotors and pistons. I simply set up a spreadsheet telling the assumed errors in tube lengths of a 5 valve F (6 valves would be too expensive) and of a 3+1P Eb compensator. The combined sum of errors was less with the Eb compensator, hence the 981.

With my state of knowledge 10 and a half years later, I might after all have gone with the 6 valve F in the version modified by bloke. As I see it the trigger on the vented 5th valve makes good fingerings available on all notes. But then my bias now is heavily with piston tubas.

Klaus

[imperialbari]

There obviously are two main schools of thinking:

Pressing the buttons as a consequence of the black dots on the paper.

Thinking in lengths of tubing, trombone style you may say, to express the music read from the paper.

Klaus

[UTSAtuba]

Some time this year I'm planing to buy my first F tuba (mostly for orchestral use). My first choice would be the new Miraphone "Petruschka," although I'm wondering if five valves will be enough for the lowest fifth (low C to ped. F). Alternately, there are the six-valvers like the "Kodiak" etc. to consider. I guess this could boil down to whether it's better to leave the left hand open to pull slides or use the additional flat half-step (4 & 2 setup) to vanquish low note (and intonation) problems.

I, personally, have not used an F tuba long enough to determine whether having more than five is necessary, but I do have a 6 valve Cerveny with a 5th Quint Valve that lowers it a perfect fifth. This definitely helps in the low register of the horn.

Just my $.02

Joseph

[jonesbrass]

I believe there are plenty of pros who demonstrate that 5 valves are adequate. There are other folks that do the same with 6. Are 5 valves enough? Sure, in the hands of the right player. Are six valves enough? Sure, in the hands of the right player.

[imperialbari]

Why not 7?

[eupher61]

I heard the Gewandhaus in the early 80s, the guy wasn't old but spoke almost no English, and me with my Hogan's Heroes Deutsch, but we established that he played 5 valve B&S F (pre-PT) and had a Kaiser BBb of some make I don't remember. He was fascinated that I played a CC Piggy.

They played Tchaik 4 on that concert too...but again, bloke, the guy wasn't old. Encored Die Meistersinger. Absolutely awe inspiring on both pieces.

Many will roll their eyes when I say it again...I use F (5 valve PT 10) for nearly everything, every so often I'll use my tiny BBb for jazz, and my F helicon (Cerveny, 4 valve) for strolling or whatever else I feel like I can use it on. "The Dent" helped the low range dramatically, and I have little intonation problem with any range. I do use 3 for As and F#s as appropriate, but that's the only adjustment I make any more. Maybe I'm lipping more than I realize?

[iiipopes]

Maybe I'm lipping more than I realize?

So what if you are? You're making your favorite horn work for you and what you play. Sounds good to me! Even Arnold Jacobs once said that fundamentally, no matter how many valves may be on the horn, we're all at heart 3-valve players. that probably means that's all we really focus on at any one time, but he has a point. With the right valve slide pull, 3-valves can do for anything, and if a player can't really play, 8 valves are not enough.

It is fitting that F tubas are standardizing to the "long whole step" combined with the "long half step" 6-valve configuration. There is nothing new in the world. The original Moritz/Wieprecht 5-valve tuba was a similar configuration, divided up as a 2L+3R for the low brass players, as they were switching over from ophicliede.

From the "Rugs-N-Relics" website:

As in most early brass instruments, there is no waterkey.  The bell is only 8 inches in diameter and the overall height is 30 inches. The mouthpiece receiver is too large for any modern mouthpiece shank - 1.53 cm (.6125 inches). An old Conn 2 Mouthpiece fits all the way into the receiver. The medallian is elaborately engraved with a floral design - instead of carrying the maker's name - possibly as the tuba may have been made for a military contract.  The decorative braces and ferrules are made of German silver. Counting the valves 1 to 5 from top to bottom, a scale can be played: F-Open; G-5 (like 1+3 or 4 on modern tubas); A-1+2; Bb-1; C-open;  D-1+2; E-2; F-Open.. The tuba has a great big sound for a small tuba. 

[Rick Denney]

I had a five-valve B&S, and when I had the chance, replaced it with a six-valved instrument of similar design. I gave up one or two things to get the increased playability. But I use that instrument for brass quintet, where I spend a lot of time playing low. For the orchestral music where U.S. tuba players use an F (versus German practice), great facility in the low register is not as important as playing loudly and clearly. In quintet, and for a lot of solo work, it goes the other way. I also own a five-valve F tuba, and that instrument misses the sixth valve less than the B&S.

One of the things that makes the sixth valve worth having, in addition to the official reasons, is that I know have a built-in semitone trill valve.

When I sat down with a Petruschka, I was greatly impressed by that instrument. But that was in the Elephant Room. I did not drag it over the corner where we were comparing other F tubas. In that and in previous comparisons I have made, the differences between instruments were rather profound compared to the presence or absence of a sixth valve.

No tuba has to be the tuba for life. Just remember that.

Rick "assess your requirements" Denney

[Dean E]

. . . . bloke "who has posted too much in this thread, but cannot resist expressing my ****-stirring talent"

For discussion-stirring purposes only: Theoretically, ideal tuba design calls for a constantly tapering bugle. Therefore, the more valves (four to seven), the greater the length of straight tubing involved in the valve block, deviating from ideal design.

The effect of a greater length of untapered tubing passing through the valves is a design trade-off, considering the advantages of more valves, but the effect of the straight tubing needed for each additional valve is minor when compared to the total length of the open bugle.

A closely-related design strategy, in some instruments, is to increase the size of tubing for some of the valves beyond the first three. For example, the Willson 3050 RZ CC, with five rotary valves, uses a 20 mm bore for valves 1-3, a 21 mm bore for 4, and a 22 mm bore for 5. However, the Yamaha YFB822S F has a 19.5 mm (.768 inch) bore for all five valves and tubing.

[imperialbari]

Piston blocks could have a progressive bore also, even if it had to be arranged in a different fashion than with the rotor valves. The latter ones have a longer distance between the exit of one casing to the entry of the next casing because exit/entry are offset and because the rotor casings have a far wider diameter than the piston casings. The knuckles usually are longish and they are connected by means of ferrules. This arrangement allows for an increase in bore between two rotors. I have seen this in vito on a B&S Symfonie F tuba with 5 rotors.

Piston casings are joined into blocks by fairly small shared knuckles hardly allowing for a significant increase of bore. Yet we see gradual bore progression applied in two fashions, which may be combined.

The compensating 3+1P instruments have a conical tubing leading from the third to the fourth piston, so that the bore of the fourth valve loop is larger than the shared bore of the three first pistons. These 3 first pistons also have passages with the larger bore, but these all are part of the system of compensating loops, which are added to the 4th valve loop depending of the usage of the 3 first valves.

The Besson 983 Eb comper with 4 front action pistons sitting next to each other would not offer the bore progression between the 3rd and 4th pistons had they been joined by the standard knuckle. The increase of bore is applied by the 3rd and 4th pistons being joined via a detour through a loop.

From the Conn short action pistons we know that it is possible change the internal knuckles in the pistons. The knuckles carrying the airpath of the open bugle start oval and end oval. But the internal knuckles leading the air from the main bugle through the valve loops are changing from oval to circular at the entry of the valve loop and vice versa at the exit of valve loops.

This ability to change the shape of the inner knuckles may be applied to make them conical. This does exist in real life instruments like my YEP-641, where the 4th slide has a conical bow, so that the bore is increased no matter whether the 4th valve is activated or not.

The same principle could be applied to the usual 4 piston blocks. The visual implication would be that the valve loops each had at least one conical bow and that the slide branches were of different diameters.

When the tooling is made the added demands on logistics would be manageable.

Klaus

[Rick Denney]

For discussion-stirring purposes only: Theoretically, ideal tuba design calls for a constantly tapering bugle. Therefore, the more valves (four to seven), the greater the length of straight tubing involved in the valve block, deviating from ideal design.

I can't think of anything to suggest why a straight taper should be ideal. All modern tubas are a mixture of tapers of different rates, with some straight tubing and a wide bell flare (compared to a straight taper). I don't have my Fletcher and Rossing handy, but I seem to recall the harmonic structure emanating from a straight taper would not be particularly tuba-like by modern standards.

A wide expansion of the bugle is characteristic.

In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the recipe. I've never played an F tuba that I thought had a better combination of playability and characteristic bass-tuba sound than the classic B&S F tuba. Yes, it has a graduated bore (much moreso than Perantucci models from later years). Yes, it has a down-pulling main slide. It has a shorter leadpipe--yada, yada, yada. But none of that matters if the tuba doesn't work, and a lot of discussion about it stems mostly from trying to explain why it does work. There are great tubas that don't have those features.

Rick "who'd rather have a five-valved F tuba with playability and sound than a six-valved F tuba that sucked" Denney

[MartyNeilan]

My Yamaha 621 F was a 5 valve horn, the only way they come. Low range was great, but no matter how you set it up, there was always a compromise - something around low Ab, G, or Gb needed to be lipped or have a slide moved.

My Cerveny 6 valve F had a unique configuration. A flat half step on the left hand, and a thumb-operated large bore perfect fifth valve located after the main tuning slide. You could always find a valve combination in the low register that blew straight through on pitch. Great little horn. Would love to see that valve layout on the newer, bigger F's.

I have been fooling around with the different 5th valve slides on my current F, a 1st generation Miraphone 181 (B&S PT10 wannabe.)

My favorite combos are the flat wholestep pulled 2 - 2.5 inches, and the two step slide pulled almost completely out (!) With the latter, I can play a low F 1-3-4-5, and only need to work the 4th valve slide on two notes.
Either way, there are at least one or two notes that are out of tune enough to require conscious lipping or slide manipulation. I believe this comes down to the simple laws of physics. Within 5 valves of the traditional lengths, you will not be able to come up with the exact distance of tubing required to perfectly match every pitch.

This brings me the conclusion:
NO 5 valve F tuba can play perfectly in tune on every note in the mid to low register without at least some lipping or slide pulling. Fortunately, many horns are very bendable in this range, so it becomes second nature to a good player after a while.

Maybe someday I will have Lee or Bloke add another valve to the 'phone, maybe not. There is something said for a lighter, more responsive instrument in an F tuba, and that massive goldbrass horn is big and heavy enough already.