I have a question...

[tclements]

My take on the topic:

I pull tuning slides simply to play in tune. I believe that if you want to play the note the 'horn wants to play,' you will be centering each pitch, thereby always having the optimum tone for each pitch. The concept of 'lipping' notes, to me, means that you are playing off center, playing a note the 'horn doesn't want to play.' I believe that this causes uncentered notes, thereby making the tone LESS THAN optimum.

Lately, I have been putting tuning jiggers on my main slides. This really makes fine tuning each note easier. I tune the horn a little sharp, and lean on the trigger so the slide is out a tad. If I need a note a little higher, I let go of the trigger. If I need a note a little lower, I squeeze the trigger. Hopefully, each note is centered, and I am playing with a good tone on each pitch.

[imperialbari]

Had I know about the latter option, I maybe had taken that road, when going tuba for real, at least beyond the Conn 26K. I calculated the pitch discrepancies of various valve configurations. Cannot be done with accuracy due to partials acting differently to addition of valve tubing. Still one can get a good idea, which tells that with no triggers the 3+1compensating system wins.

I seem to recall an analysis done by Fred Young back in the day that shows that a 3-valve compensator wins. That makes me think a 3-valve compensator (i.e., third valve switches in the compensating loops on 1 and 2) plus an uncompensated fourth valve might be closer to that mathematical ideal.

But then reality sets in. I have a compensating euphonium of good quality despite its condition, but it is certainly not as in tune (at least when I'm playing it) as Dr. Young's spreadsheet would suggest. Makes me thing your next-to-last statement is the one people should take from the paragraph.

Rick "whose ears are the problem" Denney

Math should be your strength, so it is most surprising that you even mention the combination of 3 compensating valves combined with a non-comp 4th valve. First of all the idea that the 3 valve compensator wins is wrong. It is slightly better on 23 than the 3+1P compensator, but equally worse on 123 versus 14 so even within its own limited range the 3P compensator is not better than the 3+1P compensator.

The useless hybrid of a 3P compensator with a non-compensating 4th valve is bad on all fingerings but for 2.

4 alone is good, but as it is the same 13 that fingering of 4 adds nothing to the range or tuning.

24 is even sharper than 123

14 is too sharp and 124 is too flat, compensating loops not involved

234 becomes significantly too flat exactly because of the 2nd compensating loop

134 is in tune, but so is the same note fingered 234 on a 3+1P compensator

1234 is too sharp

The semitone above the open pedal is not available.

You win one in-tune note by adding a non-compensating 4th valve to a 3P compensator. That note isn’t adjacent to any in tune notes, so there is no useful expansion of the range. Certainly not worthwhile considering costs and added weight.

The two most useful constellations, when it comes to tuning, are a 3+1P compensator with an added main tuning slide trigger and the 4+2 non-compensator with an added trigger for the 5th valve. At least if the main bugles are acoustically well designed.

Klaus

[imperialbari]

Not sure whether these are basses, but the scales are true.

[ginnboonmiller]

I haven't played a tuba yet that I couldn't bend any pitch by a whole step in either direction. An inch or so on a tuning slide wouldn't do crap for me, since I use my ears and lips to play in tune. So, if you can't do that, maybe that's on you.

Bending a pitch is one thing. Let's say you CAN bend a pitch even a half step. Do this.

Tune your open instrument to 440.
Then adjust your tuner 45cents sharp.
THEN have the tuner produce an audible pitch (something like a G in the staff for tuba)
THEN play that pitch, without moving a slide (or alternate fingering) and have it match pitch with a tuner AND not crack, chip or scoop into the note more than 35% of the time and then you will have proven your point, which seems to be that the length of the instrument makes no difference on your ability to play it in a successful manner.

RC

Done and done, and not a big deal.



But not my point.



Like everything else about music, pitch is CONTEXT. Sometimes it's nice to move the slides to nail every pitch comfortably. Sometimes it's nice not to be a slave to your equipment and blow through a phrase without worry. Sometimes it's nice to play a little bit out of tune. Or a lot out of tune. Or without relation to any kind of scale or tuning standard.

If you lock yourself into a box in which you have to have the horn just so, you're sunk.

I haven't really done much classical ensemble playing in the last 15 years or so, so I get to play around with pitch and tone color more than a lot of folks, but I know for sure, from the previous 20 or so years, and from the classical playing that I HAVE done since the post-grad-school burnout, that an E-flat is almost never the same E-flat you just played, and it shouldn't sound like it, either. And if you need your slides all set just-so in order to make something sound pretty, like I said before, that's probably on you.

[tbn.al]

Robert, you are just too encumbered by scientific priciples and the laws of physics to see the possibilities that exist when you jump down the rabbit hole into a world full of wonder. The trip might just loosen you up, put a smile on your face and have you dancing a jig. 45 cents sharp without sacrificing tone.....................of course it's possible. Just ask the cat.

[ginnboonmiller]

tuben,

I'm not saying it's easy or pretty or desirable or a point of pride to be able to do what you're saying. I'm also not saying it's worth $100 of your time, as opposed to maybe 15 minutes of practicing on your part to develop the technique.

I do that a lot. I do a lot of other stuff that people consider bad technique, too. It's not a big deal, and it doesn't break any laws of physics. I wouldn't do it in the back of an orchestra, but then, I don't really do a lot in the back of an orchestra.

It's STILL not my point.

Are you worried about physics? Show me a perfect tuba and I'll show you a predictable one that has no quirks. Show me a real tuba and I'll show you how it doesn't use simple math, it doesn't lock in every pitch without variance, it has notes that are tough to play (whether you pull slides or not), and I'll remind you not to get too worked up about where your slides are. It's really not a strange point at all.

[cjk]

. . . I wouldn't do it in the back of an orchestra, but then, I don't really do a lot in the back of an orchestra.
. . .

I have never seen any tuba player do what I would consider to be "a lot" in the back of an orchestra. Now, those fiddle players, they do a lot.

[J.c. Sherman]

I'm not sure that combining a 3-valve comp with a non-comp 4th was posited save for tearing down the idea... and it wouldn't work, it's true (I've seen an F tuba like this). However, mathematically and in the normal working range, a 3 valve comp is "theoretically" perfect, save for 123 which should only be very, very slightly too short. The same can't be said for 3+1 compensating, which is essentially a duplex instrument with two out-of-tune 3 valve instruments joined together.

As for the OP question, Rick hit it exactly on the head. Perfect description.

J.c.S.

[Rick Denney]

There is something I want to add to the discussion.

(No, it's not trying to refute Klaus. I was channeling Fred Young, and as Tolkein wrote it is dangerous to use tools made with an art beyond what you possess.)

In the radio world, if an antenna is not tuned to resonate with the transmitter, some energy will be reflected back instead of radiated. The signal quality that is radiated might still be sufficient, or even pretty good with respect to the signal quality requirements. But not all the transmitter's power will be radiated.

So, it seems to me likely that a note will become stuffy, which I have always defined as backing up in the instrument, if the bugle is not tuned to the buzz. Rather than reinforcing the next pulse, the return pulse will come a bit too soon or too late to fully reinforce it, and the amount of sound the player can produce will be diminished.

I know that when I play in the center of the resonance, I can make a bigger sound. That is separate from the tone issue, unless you define tone as including both volume as well as color.

Rick "aiming for zero reflected power" Denney

[Rick F]

This makes sense to me Rick. You're seeking a VSWR of 1:1... not really achievable, but seeking it with having zero reflected power.

[imperialbari]

Exactly the duplex nature of the compensating euphonium eliminates the worst weaknesses of the Bb side, namely the accumulated shortness of tubing in the fingerings 13 and 123, as these notes are played on the F side.

The 3P Blaikley compensating system addresses, amongst other problems, a problem, which in my opinion isn't really a problem very often: the theoretical sharpness of notes fingered 23. I have many instruments. So many that I havent played them all in real life music, but among those several ones used for real, I only experienced one having a sharp 23 combination. It was so surprising to me, that I still remember the situation in March or April of 1989 when I found out about it and when I solved the problem.

I had played for a few years on my Hoyer single Bb horn with 5 valves. It is remarkably well in tune also on a few notes often causing problems in many horns. Only I found the bore on the restricting (narrow) side. So when the then Conn importer in Denmark cleared his stock, I bought a Conn 28D double with a huge sound, but also with some odd pitch problems in the midrange of the Bb side. So I play it on the F side up to the 9th partial. One of the first tasks on the Conn 28D was playing 2nd in Brahms' 2nd symphony, which opens with an important two-horns' entry. The 2nd horn plays a descending D major triad down to the leading note C# (all note references in concert pitch). The D major triad is easy: just press 3rd valve. But the C# was sickening sharp already in my own first read-through in the practice room. I suspected the 3rd slide being too long. But the real problem was an anomaly with the 2nd slide on the F side. Normally 2nd slides are a shade too long to allow for better pitches in combined fingerings, but this 2nd slide is on the short side. No problem when played alone. And I always used 3 for 12, so I hadn't noticed that shortness during my then short acquaintance with that 28D. I pulled the 2nd slide to normal slight flatness: Problem solved.

As I hear it, a stuffy sound is about lack of overtones. It occurs, when there is no correct physical resonance for a given buzz. Player's intended pitch doesn't match available resonances in the actual instrument. But there are some strong players, which are so powerful in their air supply and in managing their inner body resonances, that they can make good sounds: they can force the overtones to sound. Sometimes the result sounds exactly a bit forced, but it is in pitch and it matches the dynamic context. I could mention at least one TubeNet'ter with this capacity, but I wont (isn't myself). I have heard Denis Wick in vito doing amazing things in the gap of a non-valved 0.547" trombone. And I have a strong suspicion that the late William Bell also had that capacity. Anyway other tubists were not always impressed with the instruments on which Mr. Bell had done amazing performances and recordings.

Klaus

[pigman]

I BOUGHT A TUBA THAT PLAYS IN TUNE

[J.c. Sherman]

coming up on 1400...

Feeling really stupid right now... unable to follow the meaning of bloke's posts.

[gwwilk]

coming up on 1400...

Feeling really stupid right now... unable to follow the meaning of bloke's posts.

Check the 'views' of the thread...that's how Bloke counts his 'catch' on his trips to the ole fishin' hole.

[imperialbari]

And in his own Phreudian way he admits being kind of fishy.