Compensating tuba vs. fifth (etc.) valve

[Chuck(G)]

Yet again more Brit bashing - could I respectfully suggest that the reason that a great number of tubas were non -compensating was precisely because Boosey had sown up the patent on the compensating system................

No "bashing" of anyone intended. Just the reality of business. If any manufacturer fnds a sufficiently lucrative market for a technology, you may rest assured that there will be a supply of goods utilizing that technology.

I've owned several compensating Bessons in various keys (and still do) from one time to another and I was never under the impression that the compensating system gave a tuba a particular sound., rather it was the physical configuration of the instrument, with the valves playing a relatively minor part.

I've played a 60's-era Besson 3-valve compensating BBb next to a similar Besson "step down" non-compensating model (same bore size, bell and bows) and not observed any significant difference in timbre. Tuning was another matter--the non-comp predictably was rather sharp on the 1+3 combinations.

The patent on Besson's compensating system has lapsed for what, about thirty years now? One might think that if there were gold in it, we'd all be playing compers right now.

In fact, the British brass band movement has undergone several incremental changes in its history. Around the turn of the century, 3-valve instruments were the rule for basses, and, judging from the number of old English non-compensating tubas that I've seen, compensation has not always been a given.

I'm confident that if all of the sources for compensating basses wither away, the British brass band movement is resilient enough that it will find some way to accomodate the change with whatever is available..

[harrell]

The main problem I run into with with the comp system is not that it doesn't do the job, it's just that it feels so different than a 4+1 non-comp set up. The response is different. So switchers, like myself, would have a harder time going between horns.
I have a hard enough time going between the feel of rotors and pistons, F and CC. I don't even want to think about adding another set of fingerings and totally different response in the lower range.
I have strongly considered the Besson 983, but the challenges of learning to play it are great, versus say another 4+1 piston F.

My $.02

Jason Harrell

[LCTuba89]

I have played a BBb 4-valve compensating Besson during high school. I have to agree with a lot of people, it sounded very dark compared to non-compensating tubas I have played. I didn't like the weight of it, but I loved the intonation and the dark sound it produced. When my band director ordered a new King 2341, I started playing that horn(since I was first chair, lucky me! ). It was easier to blow through the King, but it also overblowed rather easily as well. Overall, I preferred the Besson over the other horns available for me to use at the time which were 2 Miraphone 186s, a Yamaha YBB-321, 2 King 2340s, and a King 2341. I have also played a Meinl Weston 2155R CC recently for about a year, I love the tone of instrument, but the horrible intonation always drove me insane. I have had better intonation on BBb tubas in general. I could always get a big sound on a 4/4 tuba anyhow, although the difference between a 4/4 and 6/4 tuba as far as sound is concerned is quite noticeable. 4/4 vs 5/4 sound wise, not a big difference really. This is just from my experience of course. I prefer great intonation over a monstrous sound any day of the week, so that's why I love Bessons and most 4/4 horns in general.

[iiipopes]

If intonation is what you're after, my Besson 3-valve comp is damn near perfect: everything is great, the 5th partials are right on, and even the 7th partials are lippable, so you can play top space G nat 2nd valve only and Gb 1st valve only.

Here's what I trade for this perfection of intonation:
1) I give up the near pedal range below Enat 1+2+3;
2) C & Bnat below the staff are a bit stuffy;
3) Overall, because the horn is a tank, it can be a bit harder to blow.

There used to be a chart somewhere in cyberspace that did a mathematical analysis of theoretical differences in intonation between 3-valve comp, 4-valve comp & 5-valve conventional, but the website it was on seems to be defunct and I cannot find it. If someone has it or can find it, please post it. Of course, it's just a theoretical chart, which does not take into account the intonation quirks all tubas have for a variety of reasons. But it's useful as a starting point looking for trends in intonation on a horn a person has not played before.

OTOH, my 186 is as easy to blow as a tuba gets; a perfect specimen for community band. Since community bands usually play in near keys, intonation is above average for that application, and on my specimen, with the retrofit upright bell, the only alternate tuning I have to use is 1+2 for midline D, and the octaves can compress a little at the extremes, so I have to make sure to keep the big "OH" in the lowest register to keep the pitch down and give the best breath support and embouchure focus I can with a Bach 18 mouthpiece for extended duration in the highest register. Conversely, with the recording bell, it has all the usual Miraphone tendencies.

[Uncle Buck]

Holy resurrection of a 5+ year old topic, Batman!!

[Brown Mule]

Is any one presently making a Besson 983 or one identacle to it?

[UTSAtuba]

(I know this topic is old, but I'm just answering the top question).

Yes, Jupiter is making a Besson 983 clone.

[GC]

They have a 3+1 Eb on one of their web sites. http://www.jupiterinstrument.com/Tuba_detail.htm I can't tell if it's a compensator or not. As for the 983-inspired horn, I was under the impression that it was to be a smaller instrument.

[iiipopes]

The Jupiter Eb is not a comp. Look closely at the valve block, and you will only see one tier of plumbing. Being primarily geared towards the student & intermediate player, I would be very surprised if Jupiter came out with a compensating anything.

[GC]

They do make 2 compensating euphoniums, the 570 and 1270.

[Bob Kolada]

I played a/the multicolor Jupiter "983" at Midwest last year. From what the rep told me, Besson didn't do everything Pat wanted on the 983 despite how many were sold because of him so he went to Jupiter.
The one I played seemed to be almost exactly like the 983 (odd to see a bigger company copy something) though they said they were going to redo the valve angle (another thing Pat didn't like on the 983, apparently) as well as some other things I don't remember.

If they can do that and make it a nice horn overall at -no more- than 5 grand, it should do pretty well.

[taipeituba]

In mid-late 80's the yamaha YEB 381 E flat seemed to be gaining some popularity. It was good example of a non-compensating top action 4p + 1 r which you could play in a brass band without looking too out of place.

I used a friends one a few times and it was much more enjoyable to play than the sovereign I had at the time. In my view, a good example of a non-comp 5v over shadowing the 4v comp system.

However, it's always hard changing from what you're used too. It took a long while to train my right pinky.

[Lew]

This is an old topic, but still relevant, even if front action compensating tubas seem to be extinct now. I will say that I much prefer playing my Besson 983 over the Willson or Meinl-Weston 5 valves that I have tried. The 983 is anything but stuffy to me. I find it the easiest tuba I own on which to play the extreme (to me) bottom range. I prefer not having to deal with a fifth valve. OTOH, I tried a couple of the Besson 993s (I think that was the model number), which are their BBb version of the 983, and found them to be too heavy and they did feel stuffy to play.

It is interesting that the euphonium of choice seems to be a 3+1 compensator, while for tubas that is only the instrument of choice in Great Britain.

[Wyvern]

It is interesting that the euphonium of choice seems to be a 3+1 compensator, while for tubas that is only the instrument of choice in Great Britain.

I think the reason 3+1 compensated is the usual in the UK mainly due to the brass band influence - the majority of brass players in Britain start in brass bands. Also, brass bands are very traditional, and will not consider changing from the 'normal' top valve tuba as has always been used.

Personally my view having extensively played both compensated and 5-valve is that for a flexible all-purpose Eb, nothing beats a 3+1 4-valve compensated in that not only can it play pretty well in tune, but can be as facile as a BBb to play fast passages in the low register. The downside is a more stuffy low register, but for British players which have grown up with that, it is no problem.

I guess the ability to play fast low passages nimbly and in tune is the reason the compensated euphonium is so popular?

In the case of BBb, the case for compensated is less clear - it makes a very heavy and quite stuffy tuba and is only really worth it for brass band, where the BBb bass has a lot of moving around in the depths.

I think compensated has never caught on for F, or CC tubas, because they were developed for orchestral use where 5/6-valves works well and gives the player more control over tuning.

[oedipoes]

It is interesting that the euphonium of choice seems to be a 3+1 compensator, while for tubas that is only the instrument of choice in Great Britain.

I think the reason 3+1 compensated is the usual in the UK mainly due to the brass band influence - the majority of brass players in Britain start in brass bands. Also, brass bands are very traditional, and will not consider changing from the 'normal' top valve tuba as has always been used.

Personally my view having extensively played both compensated and 5-valve is that for a flexible all-purpose Eb, nothing beats a 3+1 4-valve compensated in that not only can it play pretty well in tune, but can be as facile as a BBb to play fast passages in the low register. The downside is a more stuffy low register, but for British players which have grown up with that, it is no problem.

I guess the ability to play fast low passages nimbly and in tune is the reason the compensated euphonium is so popular?

In the case of BBb, the case for compensated is less clear - it makes a very heavy and quite stuffy tuba and is only really worth it for brass band, where the BBb bass has a lot of moving around in the depths.

I think compensated has never caught on for F, or CC tubas, because they were developed for orchestral use where 5/6-valves works well and gives the player more control over tuning.

I'm using my willson 4V rotary in brassband currently.
I'm playing the upper BBb part, and it works perfectly (blends quite well with the Besson compensators too).
It would be tougher when playing the pedal part, because then you need to do some fast slide-pulling...

W

[Rick Denney]

I think the reason 3+1 compensated is the usual in the UK mainly due to the brass band influence - the majority of brass players in Britain start in brass bands. Also, brass bands are very traditional, and will not consider changing from the 'normal' top valve tuba as has always been used.
...
I think compensated has never caught on for F, or CC tubas, because they were developed for orchestral use where 5/6-valves works well and gives the player more control over tuning.

I think Jonathon has it right on both of his statements quoted above. Those British players also grow up using their left forefinger instead of their pinky, and for them using their pinky feels as unnatural as it feels for us to reach across the instrument.

I have not noticed myself that the low-range tuning of compensated Eb tubas is so good as to demonstrate clear superiority of the approach. The less complicated fingering might be a better reason. As I said years ago in the earlier part of this thread, three-valve compensators seem to me a better demonstration of the Blaikley design than four-valve compensators.

We should remember, though, that the "orchestral F tuba" used in Britain before Fletcher's time was usually a five-valve, uncompensated instrument as originally used by Harry Barlow before the turn of the last century. It was still a two-handed affair, with three valves for the right hand and two for the left, not really all that strange to those of us who play six-valve rotary F's that have two valves on the left hand. That fact reinforces the notion that the use of compensating valves grew out of the brass band tradition, and not the orchestral tradition.

Rick "noting that in an orchestra, the tuba is not defining the pitch for the rest of the group as it should be in bands" Denney

[AndyCat]

Rick "noting that in an orchestra, the tuba is not defining the pitch for the rest of the group as it should be in bands" Denney

Bingo.