1917 Buescher Truetone Eb tuba

[bigbassman]

I'm using a no-name small shank mouthpiece similar to a 24AW.
It goes in about halfway up the stem, seems right.
With tuning slide all the way in, I still have to lip up to get the open notes in tune.
When any valve or combination of valves is pressed down, the notes are almost a half-step flat.

What do I have to do to fix this?
Could it just be the wrong mouthpiece?
I can't believe the horn would be that out of tune with itself.

[David Richoux]

It seems like this Wiki article on concert pitch is generally correct, from what I can find in my musical reference books at hand.

This other article seems a bit confused to me.

Musicolologists report!

[windshieldbug]

(finding two of these, so I'm answering both)

The original mouthpieces that came with these were similar to a modern Bass Trombone mouthpiece in size and shank size.

The horn also may have been built to A=435, although with a horn made that late, I doubt it.

You probably have two options:

1. Change the mouthpiece. That would mean getting a period Eb mouthpiece (there ARE a bunch still around, and from time to time they show up on eBay) or trying a big Bass 'Bone one.

2. Cutting the horn to make it play in tune with a mouthpiece you can live with. I'd get someone who knows what they're doing to help you, because not only do you need to get the open notes in tune, but the valve slides will also be proportionately too long, and it's very easy to make a mess of this. Cutting it down will also decrease any historical value.


If it were me, I'd try the smaller mouthpiece and see if that works. I'd avoid taking any more drastic action.

[Biggs]

Had the same problem with a similar Eb tuba of approximately the same vintage. Got a small shank mouthpiece (Denis Wick) and all was well.

[bigbassman]

Copy of Tuba.JPG

Here is a picture of the infamous Eb. Hope it helps with the mouthpiece question.

[ghmerrill]

I don't see a "w" tuning slide on the horn, so converting from low pitch to high won't be easy. You're probably going to have to cut the main slide by at least 2 inches, and then cut 1/2 an inch off of each individual slide.

Actually it's quite easy -- except if you want to cut the second valve slide which probably isn't necessary. 2 inches is probably way too much to cut, even if it is pitched to A=435 as my horn was. Certainly don't do that all at once! I cut 3/4" off each side of the main slide and that still leaves me room to sharpen the instrument when it's used in a quite cold environment. I cut about 1/2" off each side of the first valve slide, and about 1.5" off the third valve slide and fitted a (still prototype) kicker to it. The kicker was necessary to get the middle staff B natural (and the lower one to some degree) in tune, and also to ensure that the F and E-natural below the staff can be played fully in tune. I've left the 2nd valve slide alone because on my (1924) horn, it is impossible to get to with a saw, and any adjustment would be minor and have very little effect. I also installed Amado water keys on the first and third valve slides and de-dented it rather significantly (still working on some details of that over time). The horn plays in tune at A=440 now and is a pleasure with the Denis Wick 5 mouthpiece. Very nice small Eb tuba sound. I am using it regularly until my new Eb compensator arrives.

Before you do that, contact doug elliot and see what he thinks. I'm VERY skeptical that the mouthpiece is causing the horn to be so flat, especially now that you have one that is the right shank size.

You are right to be skeptical. It is almost certainly a pitch problem, and not an intonation problem or mouthpiece problem. Unless it's a leak problem. Of course, you should also CLEAN IT, CLEAN IT, CLEAN IT. It took me several cleanings to see that there had been so much build-up of crud in the receiver that even a "small European" shank mouthpiece would not seat fully. My horn was tight (very slight leak through third valve), but work with a tuner showed that it was pitched at 435 and had quite a good scale at that pitch. It did have "LP" on the second valve, but "LP" had multiple meanings at the point that these horns were manufactured, and 435 was one popular "low pitch" in the years after WWI and prior to the shift to 440 which took into the 30s to broadly succeed.

[bigbassman]

If the tuba was made to play below A440, I can accept that -- however, I can't figure out why the fingered notes are so flat compared to the open notes. I've been playing brass instruments since 1969 and I have never come across one that had this problem. It has been suggested that a shallow, bowl-shaped mouthpiece similar to the original would help it play in tune with itself. I don't know, but this sounds reasonable to me. I would rather have a Bb horn, but I can't find one that I can afford.

[Lectron]

How long are those slides?

They should be in the area of

• 1st valve = 20"
  2nd valve = 9 1/2"
  3rd valve = 29 1/2"

of tubing

They do look long. A flat 1st and 3rd is by all means heard of, but these look VERY long

[ghmerrill]

Maybe the main was shortened a little at one time, and the valve slides never were?

Interesting hypothesis. Really difficult to confirm. But in the end it's a matter of theoretical interest rather than practical interest since the horn is what it is. What I mean by this is that IF the open horn is in tune (really in tune at least on the low Eb, the Bb and the Eb in the staff (and probably the Bb just above the staff as well), THEN the open horn seems okay. (Mine was not, by the way, and was basically 20-30 cents flat.)

Then you test each valve for pitch and intonation. If a given single valve plays flat across the range (e.g., if first valve Db, Ab, Db, and F are all flat), then there's clearly something off with that valve circuit -- it's too long. So it can be adjusted by making it shorter. Do that to each valve circuit and you have a tuba that plays in tune on the open notes and on the notes for each individual valve circuit. With luck, it will then play in tune with valve combinations. However, acoustics being the sort of complex phenomena they are, there may be some surprises there. With still a little bit of luck, any problems won't be show stoppers and may be adjusted by judicious slide adjustment or slide pulling.

This all assumes that the horn is clean, leak free, and that dents or other physical problems aren't intruding. I experimented a LOT with various mouthpieces in different sizes and bowl configurations (ranging from bass trombone/euphonium mouthpieces by Wick and Schilke, through a Bach contra bass trombone mouthpiece (!), the really odd Besson #13 (which I thought for a while was the Holy Grail), and the Wick 3 and Wick 5. Each of these made it possible to more easily bring certain notes in tune, but NONE of them yielded a decent scale.

There is some danger, when switching from a BBb to an Eb or to a euphonium, of playing quite flat because of the different mouthpiece and embouchure required. At least this is true for me. And it may take some time to overcome this. But if you've played the instrument a reasonable amount, the open notes are all in tune, and the valved notes are more or less uniformly flat, that would not seem to be the problem either.

One additional suggestion is to find some other Eb tuba player and have him/her try it and see what they think. It at least would provide a bit more data and another perspective. If they concur that "Yeah, the open horn is fine, but everything else is flat," then all the evidence points in the same direction.

I'm sure Doug Elliott would send you some mouthpieces on trial, and that might be worth the postage to you (what, about $5 each way?). But my bet is that it won't yield a solution.

[ghmerrill]

How long are those slides?
...
They do look long. A flat 1st and 3rd is by all means heard of, but these look VERY long

They don't look any longer than mine. I think they look long mostly because of the overall dimensions of the instrument. I'm sure they're a bit long. Looking at his slides, they line up just about exactly where mine do -- or, in the case of the tuning slide, did before I cut it.

And yeah, that 3rd slide is LONG.

[windshieldbug]

It was the practice at that time to make valve slides too long, rather than to short, and for the player to lip the note to the required pitch.

ie: Look at a trumpet/cornet built at the same time.

The fixed 3rd valve length is longer than it is now. A horn made with a third valve "kick-out" is built where the 1-2 combination is correct, 2-3, 1-3, & 1-2-3 require different lengths of adjustment.

Horns then had fixed slides where the length was a compromise.

By the time you get down to a tuba, this compromise is more length.

[ghmerrill]

I guess what I'm confused by here is the idea that you would be prepared to "lip up" pitches by as much as 20-30 cents -- which is how much mine were off EVEN WITH A SHALLOW TROMBONE MOUTHPIECE.

I could easily go along with maybe 5 or even 10 cents -- and that might explain the dour expressions on the faces of the low brass players in period photographs. But 20-30 cents? On that I have to remain skeptical.

However, I'd be REALLY interested in any references you have for this since I find the history of brass instrument development to be fascinating and often surprising.

[windshieldbug]

I could easily go along with maybe 5 or even 10 cents -- and that might explain the dour expressions on the faces of the low brass players in period photographs. But 20-30 cents? On that I have to remain skeptical.

However, I'd be REALLY interested in any references you have for this since I find the history of brass instrument development to be fascinating and often surprising.

First off, I have no idea why all three of your slides would be off unless the horn was built to 435. I was referring to third valve length.

I base my statement on owning and playing about a hundred horns made from c.1870 - c.1930. Glutton for punishment I guess.

But for some others:
OPTIMIZATION OF VALVE TUBE LENGTHS FOR BRASS INSTRUMENTS
The Harvard Dictionary of Music
Dave Werden
Early History Part 6: Acoustical Problems of Three Valves

... just in a quick run-through
These suppose Eb's and euphoniums with valve slides not constructed for valve pulling, and as a compromise for large conical expansion.

[ghmerrill]

I guess my own hypothesis would be that in fact the horns were just built to a lower pitch, and that this pitch (actually "these pitches" since there were several ranging from below 435 to about 460 as far as I can see in various historical contexts) was what ensembles used for tuning. I'm having difficulty imagining why instrument makers would build brass instruments flat with the idea their players would constantly have to "lip up" the pitch, or that they would build brass instruments flat while not doing the same with, say, woodwinds (which would be significantly more difficult to "lip up" in a consistent way).

I do have in my possession a copy of the "True-Tone" quarterly, Vol. VII, July 1909, published by Buescher which indicates that the manufacturers (at least certainly Buescher) were attempting to manufacture instruments that played to "true-tone" standards and did NOT require constant adjustments of various kinds by the player. They advertise cornets that are "Multi-Pitch Perfect in Bb and A, High and Low Pitch" and say

In these days -- when standards of Pitch differ, not only in different cities, but in different organizations and in different theatres in the same city -- it is a satisfaction to know that no matter where you may go, or in what Pitch or Key you may be called upon to play, your Cornet is immediately available for that service, and the intervals just as precise whether played in a Flat Key or a Sharp Key, in High Pitch or Low Pitch.

They offer the same capabilities in their other instruments as well, including tubas where

True-Tone Tubas are immediately available for use in any variety of Pitch, without the use of detached slides or other vest-pocket devices.

The picture of the front-action 3-valve Eb tuba in the newsletter shows a slide labeled as "Instantaneous low pitch slide", but the picture of the top-action horn does not have this. The front-action horn appears to have both that "low pitch slide" AND a tuning slide in the lead pipe, but the top-action horn (which looks pretty much identical to the 1917 one) does not have a tuning slide in the lead pipe. Unfortunately, nowhere in this issue do they given an account of what "low pitch" or "high pitch" means in terms of frequencey, but they repeatedly emphasize that their instruments are built to cover "any variety of Pitch".

Anyhow, 435 seems to have been one of the fairly popular pitches in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was even recommended by the Austrian government at one point (how's that for government intervention?). And 440 was only adopted as a kind of informal standard in the mid/late 1920s, and only formally (in the US) in 1936. Some summaries of this sort of pitch history can be found in several Wikipedia articles, and with pointers to more reliable historical literature -- for anyone who cares. Another intestesting source is the article "History of U.S. Standard Pitch, A=440 Hz" http://www.mmdigest.com/Archives/Digest ... 05.05.html where it's pointed out that 435 was favored for tuning pianos, by the French for a long time, and also by the American Federation of Musicians. There are also some interesting remarks on the effect of temperature in this note. However, it appears that some of the information in this article is not quite correct, such as the claim that the US "officially adopted A-440 as standard pitch in 1920" (which is inconsistent with just about every other history I have seen). There remains a certain degree of confusion concerning the very complex history of musical pitch, and it's difficult to sort out.

I wish I had been aware of all this when I started my mouthpiece searches/trials and struggles with the 1924 horn. It would have made my experiences with the pitch of that instrument considerably less surprising and given me confidence to proceed in a direction I was otherwise reluctant to.

A primary reason that I started with the third valve slide when I decided to introduce the tuba to Mr. Hacksaw was that it was clearly so long that even if I did screw up a bit it almost certainly wouldn't have made any practical difference .