Bb/FF double tuba

[Patrase]

Hi,

I am a brass band Bb player. I tend to get sore fingers playing piston valves. I dream of a 3+1 compensated rotary tuba without a stuffy low register.

Having spent too much time thinking about it I have convinced myself there is a solution:
- find a pt6 sized Bb bugle with great intonation
- get a hirsbrunner 3 valve compensated Bb tuba for the valves (search Brass Atelier de Wilde on Facebook to see what I mean)
Get two more regular rotary valves
Then fabricate a valve section where:
1st valve (normal not hirsbrunner) directes air from the leadpipe to either the top or bottom row of the 3 valves from the hirsbrunner.
The top row of the 3 Hirsbrunner valves are normal Bb length.
The bottom row are lengthened to FF length ie super long
The 5th valve then collects air from the last of the 3 hirsbrunner valves and feeds it into the main bugle. For the bottom row there is an addition of tubing between the last hirsbrunner valve and the 5th valve equivalent to a normal Bb 4th valve.
Valves 1 and 5 operate together using the left hand (the + 1 in a 3 + 1). The three hirsbrunner valves are operated by the right hand.

In my mind it would have the technical prowess of a 3 +1 without the resistance. Resistance is reduced as it is a double tuba and effectively only goes through the equivalent of four rotary valves.

Tell me I'm dreaming!

[Peach]

Seems logical. Low B in the first two octaves above the fundamental would still be difficult to tune without further trigger(s) as you'd have a full double but both sides with just three valves, leaving combinations short...
If you design it, and pay, someone will build it!

[NCSUSousa]

A few thoughts -
1 - If it's not compensating, which you seem to have described, it will be much less stuffy. Such a design will weigh a LOT as a BBb/FF because each valve will have both BBb and FF piping plumbed to it. Just look at how much piping is required for a 'double horn' in F/Bb. A tuba in FF/BBb would have twice as much length of pipe (as I see you've described in your post, I just want to give a visual).
This is part of the reason why the piston 3+1 BBb/FF uses compensating piping - it saves weight compared to a true double, but still gives the nearly chromatic valve combinations down to the pedal BBb (or lower if you can get there) at the cost of increased 'stuffiness' while using the 4th valve.

2 - Gronitz has a design on file for a 4v BBb / F (not FF) true double tuba similar to what you've described (not compensating) including the '5th' and '6th' valves at either end to make the switch: viewtopic.php?t=59984 I think they used 4 valves because of 1+3 intonation issues that can be solved simply by adding the 4th valve. I wonder if the low range on the F side would be useful or if it's better to use the BBb side like a normal 4V instrument in that range.
According to that thread, it is expensive (see page 3). That tuba has since disappeared from the Gronitz webpage.

[iiipopes]

I thought about this about ten years ago, and worked through many different design parameters. All had drawbacks.

1) The stuffiness is not going to get better, and it could get worse, with the more complex bracing necessary that might impede antinodes.
2) if you use the HB 3-valve rotary comp block, and simply add a 4th valve, you don't have any advantages. The 4+2 and 4+1 combinations, indeed all the combinations, will still be sharp.
3) Adding any other valves to otherwise compensate only make things worse, not better.
4) I don't know of any four-valve rotary compensating tubas, although HB would probably make one for you for a pretty price. A few years ago, I asked about a new three-valve comp, and was informed it would be @ $25,000 then, depending on the exchange rate. You can extrapolate from there.
5) If you do add everything for a true double horn, you make the tuba about half again heavier. Do you want to always be carrying around the extra weight?
6) Finally, there is nothing new in the world. What you are describing (except for the compensating feature) is similar to the original Wieprecht/Moritz 3+2 or 3+3 valve system from @1835, and would make fingering unduly complex.
7) I solved the problem for myself by putting a 17-inch Besson New Standard BBb bell on a 186 body. See my "Bessophone" thread. It does everything you describe that you want out of a tuba, in a lot simpler configuration. Yes, I gave up the "perfect" intonation of a Besson 3-valve comp (I used to own one of those), but my tuba is a lot closer than you might imagine, and a lot less stuffy, while retaining the big Besson tone.
8 ) At one point some years ago before the reorganization, for a very short time, Besson did make a 4-front valve BBb comp, but they didn't catch on. I don't know if it was because of the quality of the instrument, or that it got caught up in the reorganization, or just that BBB players didn't want to change from the traditional 3+1, but it ceased production almost as quickly as it started. That might be an option, as a front valve would have different ergonomics that might suit the hand or wrist position better.

[Peach]

I thought about this about ten years ago, and worked through many different design parameters. All had drawbacks.

1) The stuffiness is not going to get better, and it could get worse, with the more complex bracing necessary that might impede antinodes.
2) if you use the HB 3-valve rotary comp block, and simply add a 4th valve, you don't have any advantages. The 4+2 and 4+1 combinations, indeed all the combinations, will still be sharp.
3) Adding any other valves to otherwise compensate only make things worse, not better.
4) I don't know of any four-valve rotary compensating tubas, although HB would probably make one for you for a pretty price. A few years ago, I asked about a new three-valve comp, and was informed it would be @ $25,000 then, depending on the exchange rate. You can extrapolate from there.
5) If you do add everything for a true double horn, you make the tuba about half again heavier. Do you want to always be carrying around the extra weight?
6) Finally, there is nothing new in the world. What you are describing (except for the compensating feature) is similar to the original Wieprecht/Moritz 3+2 or 3+3 valve system from @1835, and would make fingering unduly complex.
7) I solved the problem for myself by putting a 17-inch Besson New Standard BBb bell on a 186 body. See my "Bessophone" thread. It does everything you describe that you want out of a tuba, in a lot simpler configuration. Yes, I gave up the "perfect" intonation of a Besson 3-valve comp (I used to own one of those), but my tuba is a lot closer than you might imagine, and a lot less stuffy, while retaining the big Besson tone.
8 ) At one point some years ago before the reorganization, for a very short time, Besson did make a 4-front valve BBb comp, but they didn't catch on. I don't know if it was because of the quality of the instrument, or that it got caught up in the reorganization, or just that BBB players didn't want to change from the traditional 3+1, but it ceased production almost as quickly as it started. That might be an option, as a front valve would have different ergonomics that might suit the hand or wrist position better.

iiipopes. You certainly make a couple of valid points - The HB valves would only have 2 double valves, the 3rd is single. Better going to meinlschmidt who I believe will make double valves for tuba.

The tuba Patrase seems to describe would also be heavy, no doubt.

Otherwise iiipopes I'm not quite sure you read Patrase's intentions, though I could be wrong.

I think he wants to have three double valves played right hand as the primary valves, tuned as standard 1-3 only with two sides like a full double horn. Left hand operates the switch valves before and after the double valves.

Basically from a B+H style compensating double, to a full double.

So no awkward fingerings, just effectively two x three-valve non comps in Bb and low F.

He also wants to preserve the 3+1 setup which is familiar and helpfully simple when playing silly low parts in Brass Band.

RE your point 1, I can't see your logic I'm afraid. Any custom horn needs custom bracing. Can't see a double or any other valve system having a bearing, no?

[Peach]

One other thing now I'm thinking about it.

The switch valves would have a port left unused, no? You would just need a port IN plus two OUT ports for the initial valve, and the opposite for the last one. Bit odd!

[Peach]

Aaaaaand lastly.
If the default was switch valves both OPEN for Bb side and CLOSED for F, it might well make the F side unduly stuffy as iiipopes alluded to.
For the sake of evenness you could have one open and one closed as standard!
Bloody complex and an expensive guessing game...!

[iiipopes]

I think he wants to have three double valves played right hand as the primary valves, tuned as standard 1-3 only with two sides like a full double horn. Left hand operates the switch valves before and after the double valves.

Yes, this is essentially, although getting there by different means, that the original Wieprecht/Moritz valve system did. Coming at it from the other end, I thought about the same thing with the Besson 3-valve BBb comp I used to own: how to add a 4th valve and extra tubing so the near-pedal tones from Eb on down to true pedal BBb could be played in whatever configuration.

RE your point 1, I can't see your logic I'm afraid. Any custom horn needs custom bracing. Can't see a double or any other valve system having a bearing, no?

Yes. And when it is all put together, then when one or more notes come out stuffy from being damped by having the braces or tubing bends in the wrong place, we start the guessing game as to where to put them and how to re-order the bends in the tubing to clear them. Very time consuming; and time equals money.

[Donn]

Do you have much experience with non-compensating BBb? From my very distant perspective, it seems to me that valve compensation is nowhere near as common in BBb tubas, as it is in Eb. That, I think, is because the intonation problems it solves, are not the intonation problems we have in our BBb tubas. If your Besson or whatever is spot on all over its range, that's excellent, but you can't just whack together a BBb tuba and expect it to be in tune because all the tubing lengths add up. Even with open notes like Bb or F. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the low range on contrabass tubas is a bit more open to persuasion when the player is determined to play in tune. As a practical matter, you might in the end find that you play better on a nice 191 or something, than the double correct-o-phone that you spent 5 times as much to get built. Not that we insist that everything be practical.

[iiipopes]

It took me awhile, but I found it: the Viennese tuba fingering method, which the last valve of the right hand is essentially a change valve to turn the F tuba into a C tuba, derived directly from the Wieprecht/Moritz system, the only real change being the addition of the 3rd short valve in the left hand block to help make sure there is enough tubing to keep things from being horribly sharp in the lowest register:
http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/nov2000 ... 36599.html" target="_blank

[iiipopes]

Do you have much experience with non-compensating BBb? From my very distant perspective, it seems to me that valve compensation is nowhere near as common in BBb tubas, as it is in Eb. That, I think, is because the intonation problems it solves, are not the intonation problems we have in our BBb tubas. If your Besson or whatever is spot on all over its range, that's excellent, but you can't just whack together a BBb tuba and expect it to be in tune because all the tubing lengths add up. Even with open notes like Bb or F. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the low range on contrabass tubas is a bit more open to persuasion when the player is determined to play in tune. As a practical matter, you might in the end find that you play better on a nice 191 or something, than the double correct-o-phone that you spent 5 times as much to get built. Not that we insist that everything be practical.

To expand on what Donn is saying, the conventional tuba designs have been "perfected" with nearly 200 years of trial and error combined.

The most misunderstood concept in brass instrument structure is that of the cylindrical versus conical tubing ratio. To keep from filling up bandwith in this thread, let me summarize by saying that the more cylindrical tubing in an instrument, the more apart the partials will be, and the more conical tubing in an instrument, the closer the partials will be. That's why there is a moderate taper throughout the instrument, designed for that particular make and model, and why it is very difficult, for example, to chop a BBb to a CC, as was done in years past. If you have too much cylindrical tubing, the upper partials will tend to go sharp, like some trumpets can do. And if you have too much conical tubing, or the overall flare is too wide, the upper partials can go flat, as some flugelhorns tend to do.

Again, to echo and reiterate what Donn has said, you can't just piece together something without a lot of trial and error to get it playable. I got lucky. The slightly tighter throat on the Besson bell, along with the extension of the tuning slide to make it play at A=440 on my Bessophone, (the bell had to be trimmed in length slightly to fit the bell stack ferrule) did what everybody wants: it raised the relative pitch of the notoriously flat 5th partials (not all the way, but enough) without affecting anything else. I am going to take my one stroke of luck and not risk anything further.

[Peach]

As a practical matter, you might in the end find that you play better on a nice 191 or something, than the double correct-o-phone that you spent 5 times as much to get built.

Hard to argue against this! You could even have the 4th valve converted to LH for a certain fee...

[barry grrr-ero]

But a 191 might not fit in so well in a traditional brass band setting, with its stubby bell and somewhat 'honky' tone quality. I recently played a Miraphone "Hagen" that was on loan to a professional player from The Horn Guys. It's a 4 valve rotary BBb that plays really well in-tune, and blows very openly. The placement of the lead-pipe makes it easy to play the horn perfectly upright, like a 3+1 Besson. There isn't room to add a 5th valve without lengthening some tubing, but you could add a tuning jigger to the 2nd valve slide and clean up your 2+3 and 2+4 fingered notes. I really liked the Hagen.

Hagen may be a good compromise between the short and stubby bell 191, and the intriguing albeit massive and ultra-expensive Siegfried.

As for double tubas: even for a 'contrabass' player, wouldn't a BBb/high F make more sense? Our Horn brethren have had this problem worked out for decades. You simply switch back to the F side where the BBb side is no longer 'tenable' down low. That makes me wonder if a BBb/E-natural tuba might not be more useful in terms of providing alternate fingerings and helping out in sharp keys.

As pointed out before, the trick would be not to add too much mass; add lots of extra braces (which are evil); ergonomics that are torturous, or valves that are unworkable. A tall order, for sure.

[Peach]

Hagen may be a good compromise between the short and stubby bell 191, and the intriguing albeit massive and ultra-expensive Siegfried.

As for double tubas: even for a 'contrabass' player, wouldn't a BBb/high F make more sense? Our Horn brethren have had this problem worked out for decades. You simply switch back to the F side where the BBb side is no longer 'tenable' down low. That makes me wonder if a BBb/E-natural tuba might not be more useful in terms of providing alternate fingerings and helping out in sharp keys.

As pointed out before, the trick would be not to add too much mass; add lots of extra braces (which are evil); ergonomics that are torturous, or valves that are unworkable. A tall order, for sure.

Your high double tuba would have no range below E, being essentially a 3v Bb right? I think Patrase wants fully chromatic down into pedals...

[cjk]

Tuba valves are heavy. Double tuba valves are heavier and slower.
Get a 5 valve rotary BBb and be done with it.

[barry grrr-ero]

"Your high double tuba would have no range below E, being essentially a 3v Bb right?"

How often do you need something below the low D, which would be 1&2 (or 3) on the F side? Also, I would assume that at least the BBb side would have a fourth valve.

But if you're wanting to have the tone sound even through the entire low range, what's wrong with the 3+1 compensating BBb tubas? The ones I've played are plenty fat in the basement. You're not looking to 'peel paint' like you may need to in a full symphony orchestra that plays in a large hall for people who can't pay attention and cough during soft parts.

[Donn]

The F pedal (1st partial) range would be F an octave below the staff, down to B? So if the sound is acceptable, it seems like the range would work out fine - use the BBb side down to Gb, then switch to F pedal down to B, below that the BBb pedal range.

But I think main objection to BBb-F would be that you'd have to use an F "bugle", am I right? So the BBb side would be like 6 feet of straight pipe with a tuba on the end.

[barry grrr-ero]

. . . "So the BBb side would be like 6 feet of straight pipe with a tuba on the end"

Good point. And since the person who posted this wants to get away from piston valves, he could get a good 4/4 or 5/4 size 4-valve rotary valve BBb, such as a Hagen, and put a second valve tuning jigger on it. That would easily make the 2+4 notes flat enough, so there's no dire need for 5 valves. How often are you really going to honk out low D's and Db's? But, 5 valve BBb tubas are certainly available.

[Patrase]

Hi, thanks for everyone's input. I will try to put my perspective against some of the issues raised:
- yes valve 1 would just have one entry and switch outputs. One exit would be redundant. Vice versa on the last valve.
- I imagine the 3 double valves would be heavy. Drilling them out would speed them up.
- The tuba would be heavy, but am only adding a few pounds of weight
- As a side note the UK Bb bass players seem to like a heavier tuba which they seem to think will be less likely to break up under extremely loud playing. I get the impression that US players crave lightweight handmade sheet brass tubas.
- In the brass band world the Bb tuba probably spends a quarter of their time below F below the stave, often written in semi quavers. That's why a 3+1 is so appealing.
- rarely time to pull slides or use triggers, so the FF side, in my mind, simply replaces what the compensating side does but with less resistance and with automatic tuning

I may get myself a 5 valve rotary Bb.

Cheers

Richard

[aqualung]

At one point some years ago before the reorganization, for a very short time, Besson did make a 4-front valve BBb comp, but they didn't catch on. I don't know if it was because of the quality of the instrument, or that it got caught up in the reorganization, or just that BBB players didn't want to change from the traditional 3+1, but it ceased production almost as quickly as it started. That might be an option, as a front valve would have different ergonomics that might suit the hand or wrist position better.

The Illinois Brass Band got two of these, rather cheaply, from Fedderly. With a lot of subs coming through the doors, there wasn't much interest of playing these instead of the players' own beloved BBbs from both sides of both oceans.
As low brass swingman, playing everything larger than a breadbox, I got stuck on one a couple of times. I had to balance it on a bucket to get it low enough to reach the mouthpipe. The front-action 4 were no problem. I don't have enough BAT mileage to comment on the response.
Here's the 994s, flanked by a pair of more friendly 982s. This is the only band photo from their 25 year history that shows a "matched" section of basses: