Fingering chart, F tuba with 6 valves

[imperialbari]

Sort of clarification:

The right fingering for a given note may certainly not be the one I pointed to as the ideal one for the ideal theoretical tuba. But be sure your ideal fingering is in the table, with or without slide pulling. There simply are no potential fingering permutations available on a 6 valve instrument, which are not in the table.

Klaus

[imperialbari]

One insane idea:

Is there a young maverick out there with a 6 valve F tuba, who would memorize all the fingerings in the above table and rush them off in a microtonal almost glissando between the two first partials. Please record the flourish upwards and downwards and send me the mp3.

I don’t think older guys can do that. My own, extremely valid, excuse i, that i don’t have a 6 valve instrument.

Klaus

[Toad Away]

Is this helpful?

[iiipopes]

So, where's the missing "F" on this recorder fingering chart?

[imperialbari]

Whistle in D

[Rick Denney]

I've had two five-valved F tuba with ostensibly the same intended length for the fifth valve, and found that the two instruments still had different fingering requirements in the low range. The sixth valve adds even more complexity. In fact, having the sixth valve adds potentially dozens of combinations that may or may not play a given note in tune at a given time.

Given how little resemblance the perceived pitch of a conical bugle has with any model based on straight organ pipes, flutes, whistles, or guitar strings, most of the numerical analyses done just make no sense. Dr. Young did it anyway. The instruments that look good based on such analyses are still often seen with various slide manipulation triggers, etc.

Rick "every F tuba has a unique fingering chart in the low register" Denney

[sloan]

I've had two five-valved F tuba with ostensibly the same intended length for the fifth valve, and found that the two instruments still had different fingering requirements in the low range. The sixth valve adds even more complexity. In fact, having the sixth valve adds potentially dozens of combinations that may or may not play a given note in tune at a given time.

Given how little resemblance the perceived pitch of a conical bugle has with any model based on straight organ pipes, flutes, whistles, or guitar strings, most of the numerical analyses done just make no sense. Dr. Young did it anyway. The instruments that look good based on such analyses are still often seen with various slide manipulation triggers, etc.

Rick "every F tuba has a unique fingering chart in the low register" Denney

Everything makes sense if you carry out the computation to 8 significant digits.

[imperialbari]

Any extra valve doubles the number of fingering permutations thereby making the grid of obtainable pitches twice as tight. Whereas that grid by any standard is unevenly spread over the octave between the two first partials and even deviates from instrument to instrument, it makes good sense to calculate the relative lengths of the various fingering permutations in a theoretical tuba tuned to equal temperament.

I doubt my ears allow me to play equal temperament. I never strived to do that. The closest would be my hard fight to learn playing even chromatic scales on the trombone. Even there I have a suspicion that my ears adjusted to some sort of just intonation determined by starting and ending notes. However I use equal temperament as a metering tool, when I check notes with a chromatic tuner. If any given fingering allows me to center the needle or the LED’s without strain on my embouchure, I am confident I can adjust to any sane pitch situation involving that note. With some notes I become aware that the equal temperament sits close to either of the edges of the slot for that note. There I prefer to have two or more fingering options for the notes in question.

And then the theoretical equal temperament tuba presented in the above tables has a purpose. I trust it to have one analogy with any real world tuba with the same common 6 valve disposition with any quirks taken account for in the (static) pulling of the valve slides (no pulling on the fly is possible unless there are triggers and/or (elbow) push rods as seen in tubas played by bloke and Baer):

Applying the sequence of fingerings suggested in the tables will make next to every real world tuba either uniformly descend or uniformly ascend between the two first partials.

And here the purpose of the table enters:

Hardly any non-autistic tubist will be able to find all possible fingering permutations and sequence them correctly just by intuition or by head calc. The table allows any tubist to find the full series of potential fingerings in a given range and then systematically work through them to find the optimal fingering variant for any given note on his/her tuba.

I am not too much of a fan of modern composition music. I am not at all attracted to the recently discussed Virginia etude. But I have done some talking trombone improvisation. Being able to play series of ever so uneven micro intervals might be a relevant tool for some players improvising on the tuba. The table tells where to find the ranges with clusters of micro intervals. These clusters of course may be displaced to some of the mid-upper partials also. And the valved series of micro intervals will have a different effect than what slide pulling can do.

Doctor Young’s approach was about assuming perfectly in tune partials and then skewing the slide tuning systematically to make for the best compromise of static slide positions. My approach is different, as I want my instruments set up to give me as many correct notes as possible. And then I will handle problem notes from there, my main tools being re-fingering and embouchure adjustment.

The number of digits may be laughed at, but the table are derivates of my old spreadsheet, where it took some adjustments to the logarithmically found twelfth root of 2 to make a plain 2 when that root was multiplied by itself 12 times. If some freak out there might want to work on my numbers he might be better of with as many digits as possible. And I can easily live with smiles not producing tuba relevant solutions.

bloke some time ago suggested adding two microtonal valves to any tuba, one ascending, the other descending. They should allow for fine pitch adjustments. In six valve tubas these options are already there.

Klaus

[iiipopes]

What is also not always taken into consideration is these are extra lengths of cylindrical, not conical tubing, on conventional instruments. So, while a particular fingering may work on one note, it does not follow necessarily that adding the next sequential valve will get the expected next sequential tone. Remember, cylindrical tubing expands the distance between the partials, and conical tubing contracts it.

Just try to play a harmonic series with all those valves down, and watch how the upper partials get squirrely really quickly.

Again, it all goes back to the player plays the tuba; the tuba does not play itself. When you whittle down the permutations of valve combinations, you will get a handful (pun intended) that will work on each individual instrument, that may not work on the next one, even a sequentially serial numbered instrument.

When you learn your particular instrument, make notes to yourself and practice so you have the necessary faculty through the range.

For example, low Eb below open BBb on my BBb 186 with the upright bell plays really well 1(shove)24, but doesn't do so well on 1(pull)4 or false open. But with the recording bell, it plays better 1(pull)4 and is marginally acceptable (due to the larger bell diameter) false pedal open, but doesn't center well with 1(shove)24. Likewise, with the upright bell, the dreaded 5th partials are confined to midline D needing 1+2, everything else is actually in tune. With the recording bell, the general drift is there so C needs 1(shove) Db needs lip up, and D needs 1+2.

The charts can give general references, but the player has to make the final determinations through trial and (lots of) error.