Besson 982

[peter birch]

To each their own; I love the ergonomics of the TA 3+1s... except the 981

Euphers don't tend to protest TA much either...

J.c.S.

What is TA?

I've got to say I wondered the same thing - it means Top Action (I saw it on another site )

[Wyvern]

To each their own; I love the ergonomics of the TA 3+1s... except the 981

Euphers don't tend to protest TA much either...

J.c.S.

What is TA?

I've got to say I wondered the same thing - it means Top Action (I saw it on another site )

I was mystified by Lectron's original mention of TA, but worked it out after seeing JcS reply

[Lectron]

I still like the horn, it's just that it forces you to have a rather sharp right elbow angle AND you kinda blocks the finger movement having the thumb under the top backbow and having it on top makes the instrument less stable.

Still.....not selling it, but have a FA project coming

[imperialbari]

My hands are huge, but somewhat vulnerable from arthritis. They don’t like the stretching forced upon them by placing my thumb under the hand rest (inner top bow) of my Besson 981 made in 1999.

I have made ergonomic adaptions on many of my instruments. All with simple materials and in a reversible fashion. As seen from the attached, not very good photo taken by iPad, I one day took one of my trombone slide cleaning cloths and tied it around two stays between the bell and the nearest branch. By placing my thumb above the said inner bow and inside the textile loop, I can hold the 981 steady while playing. If I were to march, which will never happen, I might steady the loop a bit more by letting the cloth take a turn around the bow.

Klaus

[Lectron]

Smart ^^
I've been thinkkng of soldering a ring there, but it never seem to happen
Think that might be the first new year's li'll projects

[peter birch]

I still like the horn, it's just that it forces you to have a rather sharp right elbow angle AND you kinda blocks the finger movement having the thumb under the top backbow and having it on top makes the instrument less stable.

Still.....not selling it, but have a FA project coming

I was wondering about that, and then found that I don't actually put my thumb under the top bow, I take all the weight of the instrument on my left arm, I rest my right hand palm on the bow, but don't take any weight on it, this might solve your problem

[elihellsten]

I still like the horn, it's just that it forces you to have a rather sharp right elbow angle AND you kinda blocks the finger movement having the thumb under the top backbow and having it on top makes the instrument less stable.

Still.....not selling it, but have a FA project coming

I was wondering about that, and then found that I don't actually put my thumb under the top bow, I take all the weight of the instrument on my left arm, I rest my right hand palm on the bow, but don't take any weight on it, this might solve your problem

I also do this. Works just fine IMO.

[Jess Haney]

I’ve been playing a Besson 982 from the same era for over a year now with the Fountain Creek Brass Band. I'm using the Sellsmenberger Imperial with the Fair Dinkin #2 medium round rim with great success. The PT you use to use with your CC will have too deep a funnel cup for the Besson. I've played the horn with the Wicks mouthpieces and I've found in my experiences the stainless steel of the Imperial seems to give a quicker response than the Wicks. While the Wicks mouthpiece was created for that particular horn the Imperial is still a bit better. And the Imperial is part of a two piece system that has about 20 different rims to help match what is most comfortable for your embouchure.

The creator of these mouthpieces likes to lurk around here under the name of Bloke. He is a TubaNet sponser and you can message him through our board here and he will be glad to talk with you directly about his mouthpieces.

I will agree with Gill here since I play with him in the same ensemble. But as others have said the 981 and 982 have very little differences other than leadpipe angle. silver polish is great if you make sure you get it all off when your done. Some polishes will eat through the silver plate if left on. In my opinion, when playing both horns for a number of years, large and deep mouthpieces do great for the low register but make the upper more difficult to navigate (especially Besson 981/982) And shallower pieces clear the highs but make the lows foggy and stuffy when you have to move quickly through the horn. A medium sized F tuba piece does great for all aplications and makes the horn a blast for quintet and smaller ensembles, and also allows it that clear and robust Besson sound for larger applications. That little horn has a great timbre for band applications in a concert setting with multiple tubas. If you have any questions about the componsation system let me know.

[tubalux]

I'm playing a Besson 982 with a PT-65 mouthpiece at the moment. It works well for me - generally playing the top line of brass band Eb Bass parts.

[Lectron]

I still like the horn, it's just that it forces you to have a rather sharp right elbow angle AND you kinda blocks the finger movement having the thumb under the top backbow and having it on top makes the instrument less stable.

Still.....not selling it, but have a FA project coming

I was wondering about that, and then found that I don't actually put my thumb under the top bow, I take all the weight of the instrument on my left arm, I rest my right hand palm on the bow, but don't take any weight on it, this might solve your problem

I'm not saying I do not use my left arm, but admittedly....the 981 lo-leadpipe takes some more effort to hold

I'm playing a Besson 982 with a PT-65 mouthpiece at the moment. It works well for me - generally playing the top line of brass band Eb Bass parts.

I'm using the Warren Deck 3 be course the guy next to me insist on the PT-65S
Not saying that PT65 can't be used to make a real foundation, but one need to be a heck of a player to do so
...and the piece easily expose the players limitations.....but ease the work when it comes to articulation, definition...

[tubalux]

Thanks Lectron. I'm sure you're a heck of a player too...even if you play on a Warren Deck 3

[Lectron]

Thanks Lectron. I'm sure you're a heck of a player too...even if you play on a Warren Deck 3

Ha ha...

It's really not a bad piece for the instrument, and allows you to produce some extreme SPL without breakin' up
Don't use is solo and ensemble thou ........and it's pretty close to lifting weights with your chops.
But.....sure fun to play

[tubaholic007]

Hi there,

I am a student who recently got his hands on an older Besson 982. By older, I mean circ. 15+ years.

don't you have any intonations problems with this instrument? i played an old 982 +/- 15 years ago (brand new), the intonation was very bad (too flat all over the range) so i changed to a yamaha yeb 632, which was perfekt at that time. now, nearly 15 years later i tried the old 982 again (thinking the fault was maybe mine concerning the intonation) but it's still the same.

of course the new current models of besson 982 are very good and as far as i know the problems with intonation has been solved.

[J.c. Sherman]

Never played an out of tune Besson Eb... they've been really, really consistent.

Just played 2 days of recording sessions on a 20 y/o 982... tuned exactly the same as my old Imperial - spectacularly!

J.c.S.

[MikeW]

I play an old Imperial, and have never been trusted with (or rich enough to buy) a genuine Sovereign.

From my reading, I think you will find that the first production Sovereign EEf was just an Imperial with stainless valves and a few minor goodies (valve dampers, nylon guides...). As far as I know, all Sovereigns had/have the American Standard receiver, and all 981 and 982 have the 19" bell.

The 982 had the same mouthpipe as the Imp, and was sold as the "parade model" complete with rings and a lyre mount. The first batch of 982s were notoriously flat (just like the Imperial they were based on); Also,they could be overblown relatively easily - some treasured this as "snap and sparkle" (ie. a feature), others complained about "barking" (ie. a bug).

The 981 had the mouthpipe from a cavalry tuba. This was a few inches shorter, which corrected the tuning issue (so even the first batch 981 was reasonably in tune), but also caused the receiver to sit low (this mod was originally made for John Fletcher, who preferred a lower receiver). This made the instrument balance badly for marching, so they took off the marching hardware and marketed it as the "concert model"(so yes, the only significant differences were the mouthpipe and marching hadware). Being shorter, the 981 mouthpipe had to flare more rapidly from the receiver to the valve cluster; this turned out to be the "magic" that made the instrument stable over a much wider dynamic range (no more "sparkle", but it doesn't "bark" either) so, if you have the chops for it, you can push a 981 a lot harder.

In the second run of Sovereigns, the instruments were re-tuned (various changes to tubing, bottom bow, and bell). Eventually (late 80s or early nineties ?), the 981 was given a 982-style swan-neck or S-shaped mouthpipe, to bring its receiver up to the same height as the 982. The interior of the new 981 mouthpipe has the same flare as the old-style "straight" mouthpipe, but an extra section of cylindrical tubing was added at the valve-block end to provide the necessary length. The tuning slide was shortened to allow for this. Some voices complain that the new mouthpipe isn't quite right, and claim the "new 981" has lost some of its mo-jo.

It is said that John Fletcher's intent during the development of the 981 was to match the performance of a fair-sized CC. As a result, the 981 can live with a fair sized orchestra, but even Fletcher used a big CC for the heaviest repertoire.

I think there is a 980 with a 17" bell, but you don't seem to hear much about them.

There is also the 983, with front action valves and a 17" bell. This of course has a much longer mouthpipe, and (by reputation) it lacks the power of the 981, but is an excellent horn for solo, chamber, and small ensemble work, or when close-miked.

[Wyvern]

From my reading, I think you will find that the first production Sovereign EEf was just an Imperial with stainless valves and a few minor goodies

I thought the Sovereign 981 had Monel valves up until 1990's when the leadpipe was raised and different valve guides were fitted.

In the second run of Sovereigns, the instruments were re-tuned (various changes to tubing, bottom bow, and bell)

I did not know about this - can you explain more. In particular how was the bell and bottom bow changed?

It is said that John Fletcher's intent during the development of the 981 was to match the performance of a fair-sized CC. As a result, the 981 can live with a fair sized orchestra, but even Fletcher used a big CC for the heaviest repertoire.

I would say an EEb with 19" bell is equal to a 4/4 CC and 6/4 F tuba combined. Many British orchestral tubists have managed with a 19" bell EEb (not just 981, but also 982, York, etc.) for everything, although as Fletcher found, a 5/4, or 6/4 CC is more desirable for real contrabass repertoire such as Prokofiev and Shostakovich.

[MikeW]

From my reading, I think you will find that the first production Sovereign EEf was just an Imperial with stainless valves and a few minor goodies

I thought the Sovereign 981 had Monel valves up until 1990's when the leadpipe was raised and different valve guides were fitted.

I believe the Sov cornets, horns etc all originally had Monel valves, but when the tubas were introduced it was widely reported that they had stainless valves, which led to much earnest but rambling, pointless, and ill informed (but well lubricated) discussion of the relative merits of Solbron, Nickel plate, Monel, and stainless pistons. I never heard that B&H had switched to Monel, but then again I never got near enough to a Sov tuba to find out for sure. Current adverts all seem to mention stainless valves.

As for the valve guides, the Imp had brass tacquets screwed into the side of the piston, the early Sovs had fat white nylon rings on top of the pistons, and later versions had (have ?) black "Delrin" disks, also on top of the piston. I don't know the dates at which they changed.

In the second run of Sovereigns, the instruments were re-tuned (various changes to tubing, bottom bow, and bell)

I did not know about this - can you explain more. In particular how was the bell and bottom bow changed?

I believe the bugle was shortened by taking a slice or two out of the bottom of the bell, resulting in a shorter bell with a larger throat. The bottom bow had to be enlarged to match the new bell. I have seen postings that describe the new bow as "blocky looking". EDIT: This is almost certainly wrong: it seems the bell flare was changed, but not its length, and not the bottom bow, which is standard on all Sovereigns (see later in this thread). The retuning was achieved by shortening the back bow (effectively applying the Fletcher cut at the factory).

This corrected intonation on the 982, but naturally caused the 981 to play a little sharp (because at that point it still had the shorter mouthpipe), so the 981 tuning slide for this generation was lengthened, but was shortened again when the swan-neck mouthpipe was introduced on the 981. I believe this explains why Besson ask for the serial number of the instrument when you order a new bell - they're not just being snippy, they need to know the s/n so they can send the right bell. I think they may also have switched to thinner brass when manufacture moved to Germany.

[Lectron]

So if any wonders about Besson and consistency....

[Wyvern]

I think they may also have switched to thinner brass when manufacture moved to Germany.

My understanding is that all the dimensions were converted to metric when production moved to Germany - so parts are not interchangeable with previous UK production and it also affects how they play too

[Peach]

I play an old Imperial, and have never been trusted with (or rich enough to buy) a genuine Sovereign.

From my reading, I think you will find that the first production Sovereign EEf was just an Imperial with stainless valves and a few minor goodies (valve dampers, nylon guides...). As far as I know, all Sovereigns had/have the American Standard receiver, and all 981 and 982 have the 19" bell.

The 982 had the same mouthpipe as the Imp, and was sold as the "parade model" complete with rings and a lyre mount. The first batch of 982s were notoriously flat (just like the Imperial they were based on); Also,they could be overblown relatively easily - some treasured this as "snap and sparkle" (ie. a feature), others complained about "barking" (ie. a bug).

The 981 had the mouthpipe from a cavalry tuba. This was a few inches shorter, which corrected the tuning issue (so even the first batch 981 was reasonably in tune), but also caused the receiver to sit low (this mod was originally made for John Fletcher, who preferred a lower receiver). This made the instrument balance badly for marching, so they took off the marching hardware and marketed it as the "concert model"(so yes, the only significant differences were the mouthpipe and marching hadware). Being shorter, the 981 mouthpipe had to flare more rapidly from the receiver to the valve cluster; this turned out to be the "magic" that made the instrument stable over a much wider dynamic range (no more "sparkle", but it doesn't "bark" either) so, if you have the chops for it, you can push a 981 a lot harder.

In the second run of Sovereigns, the instruments were re-tuned (various changes to tubing, bottom bow, and bell). Eventually (late 80s or early nineties ?), the 981 was given a 982-style swan-neck or S-shaped mouthpipe, to bring its receiver up to the same height as the 982. The interior of the new 981 mouthpipe has the same flare as the old-style "straight" mouthpipe, but an extra section of cylindrical tubing was added at the valve-block end to provide the necessary length. The tuning slide was shortened to allow for this. Some voices complain that the new mouthpipe isn't quite right, and claim the "new 981" has lost some of its mo-jo.

It is said that John Fletcher's intent during the development of the 981 was to match the performance of a fair-sized CC. As a result, the 981 can live with a fair sized orchestra, but even Fletcher used a big CC for the heaviest repertoire.

I think there is a 980 with a 17" bell, but you don't seem to hear much about them.

There is also the 983, with front action valves and a 17" bell. This of course has a much longer mouthpipe, and (by reputation) it lacks the power of the 981, but is an excellent horn for solo, chamber, and small ensemble work, or when close-miked.

A lot of good stuff in the above but also some innacuracies:

Over the years I've probably had between 20-30 incarnations of B&H/Besson Eb's.

ALL bells and bottom bows from late Imperial 15" and all Sov's (980, 981, 982, 983) are interchangeable - no changes were made to the bottom bow or bell throat/tapers (just the flare).

Main tuning slides are also the same (afaik) - already short on an Imperial on the narrower 'valve' side.
They ARE cut on the 983 to almost unusably short.

The only cut ever made was to the BACK bow - known as the Fletcher Cut.
Very late Imperials with 19" bells retained the longer back bow and did play notoriously flat.
Either first run Sov's or pretty soon-in the back bow was shortened at the factory and has remained that way since.

B&H were (are?) notoriously against re-tooling anything (source - Fletch & Wick) so if they could make something work with existing parts they did.

The early, 'Globe' model Sovereigns retained the metal valve guides of the Imperial. I don't know at what point they changed to white plastic, but I'm guessing it was when the 'Globe' went from the bell (was that also when the company went from Boosey & Hawkes on the bell to Besson??).

Modern, German made Besson Eb's have the same advertised bore as old models but the valve slides are bigger bore and aren't interchangeable. I think everything slide-wise before that was interchangeable.

I'm not even sure the flat 981 original pipe was any shorter than the 982 pipe. It wrapped considerably further around the bell, giving some the cramped RH position noted. Jonathan H would likely know since he's re-jigged his Wessex Eb with both leadpipe styles.

The earliest swan-neck 981 pipes WERE different to the 982 pipes but not long after that introduction they became identical - no idea whether it was a new taper or one of the older ones but they were the same (source - B&H/Besson factories, Edgeware and Watford).

So the evolution goes:
15" bell Imperial
19" bell Imperial (flat, and with small bass trom size receiver). Only the Bell changed.
19" bell Sovereign 981/982 'Globe' model: metal valve guides, still long back bow = flat. US Shank receiver.
1980's 981/982's had different leadpipe shape and taper, also marching hardware (otherwise identical. Plastic valve guides. Cut back bow.
1990's 981/982 - identical save marching hardware.

Thanks,
Mal