Knowing what we know now...

[Bob Kolada]

Doesn't Lazstch make a front action 3+1 comp euph?

Regarding two step third valves, would that on an otherwise regular four valve horn, allow for an intune one step above the pedal? Like low C on a Bb, G on an F,... I've never had access to a horn that would pull that far on 3.

[DaTweeka]

Dera tweeker,
As for the superiority of Hagman valves: you would have to demonstrate that to me.
Here's why: the tuba even a small one has a huge bore size. You can really blow though it.
This doesn’t mean you can play through it, but it means that you should be able to.
What causes problems seems to be the valve placement in the length of the horn...
If you really have the dough to do something as expensive as you're talking about ...........Go for it !

As far as I can think down the road, the Hagman valves would serve to make 3/4 horns easier to fill up without becoming stuffy. Same for small solo F tubas. And in terms of valve placement, I think that the closer the valves to the mouthpiece, the better off the intonation; I've observed this on euphs with their tuning slides in the leadpipe, rather than after the valve block. The intonation is truly awful, compared to horns with tuning slides in the standard placement, and they're stuffy beyond belief. And I've been thinking about swapping the 4th valve on my Besson euph with a Hagman valve for a loooong time. Only problem is, it'd be a custom job, and I'd have to pay for the labor as well; I'm not quite up to the par of your transparent tuba fame.

[pjv]

The MW Kronos tuba. Maybe this is were DaTweeka got the idea that Wilfried Brandstötter also plays on a 3+3 setup?

[J.c. Sherman]

Doesn't Lazstch make a front action 3+1 comp euph?

... I've never had access to a horn that would pull that far on 3.

Yes you have

And Lazstch does make a rotary 4 v comp.

[joh_tuba]

By my math to turn the 3rd valve into a double whole step you would need:
BBb 6" pull
CC 5.3" pull
Eb 4.2" pull
F 4" pull

My personal horns don't have that much room.

[joh_tuba]

Borrowing from Art Hovey's *wonderful* website: http://galvanizedjazz.com/tuba.html

I downloaded his excellent spreadsheet and added a sixth valve to it and have experimented ad naseum with theoretical tuning systems.

According to the spreadsheet a double whole step 3rd valve isn't particularly helpful on a three or four valve instrument.
The math:
Finger Patter  standard three and four valve tuning BBb tuba
2 = half step
1 = whole step
3 = tuned so 23 is a major 3rd
4 = perfect 4th

Bb 0 in tune
A 2 in tune
Ab 1 in tune
G 12 10 cents sharp/ 0.7” pull
Gb 23 in tune
F 4 in tune OR 13 15 cents sharp/ 1.2” pull
E 24 24 cents sharp/ 2” pull OR 123 38 cents sharp/ 3.2” pull
Eb 124 21 cents flat/ 1.9” push
D 234 8 cents flat/ 0.7” push
Db 134 24 cents sharp/ 2.4” pull OR 1234 35 cents flat/ 3.6” push
C NOPE
B NOPE

VS

Finger Patter  BBb tuba, with major 3rd third valve, perfect 4th fourth
2 = half step
1 = whole step
3 = major 3rd
4 = perfect fourth

Bb 0 in tune
A 2 in tune
Ab 1 in tune
G 12 10 cents sharp/ 0.7” pull
Gb 3 in tune
F 4 in tune OR 23 19 cents sharp/ 1.6” pull
E 24 24 cents sharp/ 2” pull OR 13 38 cents sharp/ 3.2” pull
Eb 124 21 cents flat/ 1.9” pull
D 34 8 cents flat/ 0.7” push
Db 234 28 cents sharp/ 2.8” pull
C 1234 5 cents sharp/ .5” pull
B NOPE

I found this exercise highly illuminating and not what I would have expected. Basically, the intonation is not helped on a 3 valve instrument and a four valve instrument is nearly the same. Not worth the effort.

THAT SAID, I've proven to myself that a double whole step 3rd valve is extremely beneficial on five and six valve tubas.

[jacobg]

This is brilliant.
He doesn't show where the two pieces connect, but I think with a little clever attention to the connecting piece, the instrument could be made adjustable for the size of one's torso.
Is this design scalable? Could it be done with a 6/4 tuba or a 3/4 tuba?

[J.c. Sherman]

When's the F version coming out?

[iiipopes]

I want to see what a modern American rotary CC tuba would be like. Doesn't have to be a 186 copy, why not start with something 4/4 York sized, use a smaller bell taper, and make a rotary valve set. If they can make rotary french horns, they can make tubas.

The Miraphone recording bell variant, with a small throat, quick flare 22-inch bell, is exactly that. I use a cup mouthpiece on it for projection for those concerts that need it, as opposed to my funnel mouthpiece on my upright St Pete bell.

To a lesser extent, but still along those same lines, the current 186 has a moderate taper to a marginally larger bell rim, and it has a tone more like the "Bach 37" of tuba bells, with more "spread" than the old 16 1/2 inch "point and shoot" bell.

[iiipopes]

When "experts" discuss "nodes" in a brass instrument are they referring to pressure nodes, or velocity nodes? The two are very different from each other, and failure to distinguish between them reduces any discussion to pure mumbo-jumbo.

+1 Yeah!!! Someone finally said it!!! Now we can get on the real road as to why some notes are "stuffy," and why bore really has nothing to do with how an instrument will "blow."

Along the same lines, with both pressure and velocity, Bernoulli's principle needs to be considered when studying breath support, the embouchure in general, and why cup geometry and throat diameter (a mouthpiece is just a different kind of carburetor) are important to be fit properly to the player.

[iiipopes]

Finally, knowing what we know now...we are still trying to fit a linear concept of music into a geometric design of hardware. So there are always going to be compromises. The same things have been done with keyboard instruments: shifting mechanisms, split keys, non-standard keyboards, etc., to find the "perfect" instrument. We settled on equal temperament for general use about the time of Bach, and have used it for Western music ever since, save strings and voice, who intuitively "correct" intonation on the go.

I imagine it will be the same with brass instruments. The balance between cost, flexibility, playability and ergonomics on one side versus tunability on the other will always be there.

As for me? I don't need the near-pedal tones, so for personal playing I would still prefer the old Besson 3-valve comp I used to have, and can borrow back any time. But everybody else I play with really likes the tone and foundation of my BBb 186 with the detachable bells, so that is probably what I will play until I can no longer play tuba.

Wide slots with refinement (read: practice) of embouchure and ear. That is the final answer.