Advantages of 4 rotary valve contrabass tuba over 5 rotors

[k001k47]

Less **** to mess up, and thus, less **** to fix.

[PaulMaybery]

Rotary tubas traditionally had a much longer lead pipe than piston tubas. This in effect establishes the valve block somewhat further down the bugle where the bore is somewhat larger. Though not always the case, the euro rotarys listed the bore, as with Miraphone at .770. The St. Pete is over .800. But yet these are not monster instruments. The American BATS had bore measurements at the valve section somewhat less than the Euro, (nominally around .740 - .750) but as far as general overall volume where much much larger. (But the leadpipe on the BAT could be half the length of the rotary tuba.) I suppose the addition of the 5th valve in a larger instrument that is already very open blowing would be rather different from one that already had a rather tight sound. Some older pistons were rather narrow in diameter and had a much more restricted wind way than the larger pistons of today. I had an musical instrument engineer from a recognized factory tell me once, that the nature of the horn is all about turbulence and resistance. Like anything, too much or too little is not good.

Usually the America procedure (as with the old York) is to place the rotary 5th valve after the valve block where it can be a larger bore. (Yes some are ahead of the valve block - as was the Getzen - but that does dictate a bore no larger than the 1st valve. The European tradition has been to place it ahead of the 1st valve. (But with the longer lead pipe, the valves are already into a someone comfortably larger bore.) I always felt the BBb could stand a 5th valve tuned to a major 3rd to aleviate the problem with Gb and Db.

There is also a practical/ergonomic issue to a 5th valve, particularly on a BBb. WEIGHT. Whatever the difference of a comparable BBb over a CC, you can add at least that back on again with the 5th valve on a BBb. (moreso if it is a 2/3 circuit) If the BBb is a BAT or a Kaiser you're getting into some serious weight lifting. When you consider that the BAT or the Kaiser is a more of a specific use instrument, you may consider that you do not need so many bells and whistles.

Admittedly old timers usually are seen with fewer valves. They tended to play what they could get. Today there seems to be more "gear jocks" out there (myself included) who like to sport the latest gadgets and aftermarket customizations on our tubas. Maybe it's "one upsmanship" maybe it is truly the desire to have an extremely well fitted instrument. If it actually helps your playing, then it is indeed an advantage. So who cares what someone else thinks.

[PaulMaybery]

Rotary tubas traditionally had a much longer lead pipe than piston tubas. This in effect establishes the valve block somewhat further down the bugle where the bore is somewhat larger. Though not always the case, the euro rotarys listed the bore, as with Miraphone at .770. The St. Pete is over .800. But yet these are not monster instruments. The American BATS had bore measurements at the valve section somewhat less than the Euro, (nominally around .740 - .750) but as far as general overall volume they were much much larger. (But the leadpipe on the BAT could be half the length of the rotary tuba.) I suppose the addition of the 5th valve in a larger instrument that is already very open blowing would be rather different from one that already had a rather tight sound. Some older pistons were rather narrow in diameter and had a much more restricted wind way than the larger pistons of today. I had an musical instrument engineer from a recognized factory tell me once, that the nature of the horn is all about turbulence and resistance. Like anything, too much or too little is not good.

Usually the America procedure (as with the old York) is to place the rotary 5th valve after the valve block where it can be a larger bore. (Yes some are ahead of the valve block - as was the Getzen - but that does dictate a bore no larger than the 1st valve. The European tradition has been to place it ahead of the 1st valve. (But with the longer lead pipe, the valves are already into a somewhat comfortably larger bore.) I always felt the BBb could stand a 5th valve tuned to a major 3rd to aleviate the problem with Gb and Db.

There is also a practical/ergonomic issue to a 5th valve, particularly on a BBb. WEIGHT. Whatever the difference of a comparable BBb over a CC, you can add at least that back on again with the 5th valve on a BBb. (moreso if it is a 2/3 circuit) If the BBb is a BAT or a Kaiser you're getting into some serious weight lifting. When you consider that the BAT or the Kaiser is a more of a specific use instrument, you may consider that you do not need so many bells and whistles.

Admittedly old timers usually are seen with fewer valves. They tended to play what they could get. Today there seems to be more "gear jocks" out there (myself included) who like to sport the latest gadgets and aftermarket customizations on our tubas. Maybe it's "one upsmanship" maybe it is truly the desire to have an extremely well fitted instrument. If it actually helps your playing, then it is indeed an advantage. So who cares what someone else thinks.

[Tom]

Is it possible that sometimes, a little bit of added resistance might be useful?

Somehow, I believe old-school players (or, at least wind instrument designers) instinctively knew this.
I believe this is being rediscovered by many wind players and instrument makers today...

Yes, exactly.

In the last 15 or so years, SMALLER leadpipes for big tubas have been "discovered" to offer significant improvements in efficiency (and thus playability), control, and even intonation. A rather widespread modification was to add an. F tuba sized mouthpipe to a 6/4 CC tubas, such as 45-SLP mouthpipes on a 2165. It is my understanding that the 2265 and the 6450 use 45-SLP size/taper mouthpipes and that the original 2165 design has been deemed detrimental.

"Smaller" mouthpieces are also coming back around in an effort to add resistance, increase efficiency, and improve control and intonation. Look at Alexander tubas, for example...on a 163, the bore is .808 which is on the large side already. Then, they stuck on a very open leadpipe and a very large receiver (yes, I know Alexanders don't really have a receiver). However, what many are not aware of is that Alexander supplied mouthpieces for those tubas that were quite wide, but VERY shallow and had VERY small throats despite the large shank size. Cup volume was much less than most modern mouthpieces, in my own estimation it was probably even less than a Miraphone C4. Playing an Alexander with a small / shallow mouthpiece is an interesting experience and certainly makes them easier to manage.

But, it's not just about Alexanders. Smaller mouthpieces have started to be discovered for big tubas years ago...even Floyd Cooley developed his small Cooley Helleberg to be used on the 6/4 Nirschl. Plenty of other smallish mouthpieces have been successful, too, including - of course - the original Blokepiece. Many of the initial reports, as I recall, were "hey, I bought this for my F tuba, but it's awesome with my BAT."

I have mentioned before that some tuba designs are, in my opinion, too open. I think my Alexander CC is a pretty dang "open" tuba and I feel that the lack of resistance does make it a lot of work to play. Not impossible, just a lot of work. The leadpipe is probably just too big, but I'm too chicken to experiment with it for fear of wrecking an otherwise exceptional Alexander. I haven't added a 5th valve to it for much the same reason - I'm just too chicken to do it...though I must say that I've looked on to Tom's (the 'other Tom,' of Mack Brass) Alexander project with interest. If I were to do anything, I think I'd order an entirely new leadpipe an do my work with that rather than chop the original one...maybe someday.

[bort]

Having owned both 4- and 5-valve tubas, both piston and rotary, my opinion is that (for the sample of tubas that I've owned), there is no difference. Or at the very least, it's a wash between any benefit in more open playing and work required to play in tune down low. That is, who cares if it's easier to play a note, if it takes extra work to make it in tune.

I asked a question once a while ago about using a first valve trigger in place of a 5th valve. While it's not quite as versatile (because it only makes the 1st valve into an ersatz 5th valve), it still seems like it might be a reasonable solution (and better than adding valves to tubas). There were a number of replies, but Paul referred me to a few pictures of a German shop that made the same modification. I wonder how well it works compared to just pulling the slide?







http://www.josefgopp.de/index.php?id=8&L=1

[Bill Troiano]

I've stated my opinions in other posts regarding 4 valve versions of tubas that are also available in 5 valves. I've owned a 4 valve, 186 CC, a 4 valve Hirsbrunner HB-1P and a 52J where I removed the 5 valve assembly. In all cases I thought the 4 valve horn played more openly, and blew more freely. I perceived this as being better. Not all may agree and some might prefer the the added resistance that the 5th valve creates on these models of instruments. So, as far as the feel of it being more open blowing (and lighter in weight), I really like these tubas in 4 valves.

We all know the advantages of 5 valves and I admit that I had a few instances on these tubas where I wished I had 5 valves. With the Hirsbrunner it was at a series of Long Island Symphony concerts where we were playing Pictures. I had difficulty consistently hitting the low F's in tune with only 4 valves. With the 4 valve 52 J, it was in a small wind ensemble where I was the only tuba and we were playing the Hindemith Symphony in Bb. Lots of low stuff where I was moving slides all of the time. I used my 4 valve 621CC (not available in 5 valves) on an Easter brass quintet, choir and organ gig this year where I discovered how easy it was to drop my left hand down and pull the short 2nd valve slide for low Db's - pretty cool.

So, I look at it as a compromise in either set up. It was pretty cool to be able to remove the 5th valve on the 52J. I know it wasn't designed this way and it actually is a negative on the production of the 5XJ models, but it worked out being able to play it as a 4 valve or 5 valve tuba. So, I think it's a matter of what kind of playing you do. If I played CC in an orchestra, or where I was the only tuba in a concert band, I would definitely want 5 valves. For solo and quintet, I prefer 4 valves for the feel and the fact that I would play low less often. And for trad. jazz (or any popular type of music), I prefer 4 valves for the feel and the weight.

[pjv]

As is well known the implementation of the 5th valve on the 5xJ's wasn't one of the instruments succeses and indeed many had the 5th removed.
One might argue that this could very well be the case on many tubas that have played better without the 5th: the 5th valve design was flawed in some way.
Just a thought...

[LCTuba89]

I've played 4 and 5 valve tubas. The only time I ever needed the 5th valve was when I was playing my old Melton 2155R. It was the only way to play 3rd partial E and Eb in tune. With my latest horn the 6/4 BMB BBb, I opted for 4 valves simply because all the pitches were manageable without the need of a 5th valve(That and the fact that the 5th only effects the 4th valve combos.) It was additional weight, additional cost, and an added potential point of failure. I also like the sturdy feel of a fixed thumb ring.

[southtubist]

Given identical models of tuba, the 4 valve tuba is lighter. That means I can throw it farther

Very important when the conductor mouths off one too many times.

[bort]

How about: Advantages of a LH 5th valve over a RH 5th valve, besides slide pulling being easier with all RH.

[southtubist]

I don't know that. Some others who have posted on tubenet know that.
Conn(King) 52/54/56J tubas probably aren't the world's greatest tubas, but (when I was a practice room jock - perhaps a decade ago or more) I had absolutely no trouble playing "Fountains of Rome" on a run-of-the-mill 52J brought by a friend (Mudman - memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=329 , here on TubeNet) into my (former) brick-and-mortar store. (I couldn't imagine playing that passage on any 4-valve tuba C tuba, unless it was sousaphone-like in its response, and offered amazing "false" tones.)

I played on a 52J for a while- using the smallest Helleberg type mouthpiece I could get my hands on. Strangely enough I got a big/loud sound out of it on recordings. It sure sounded tiny under the bell, and felt like a toy in my hands, but out front it projected like crazy and wouldn't get edgy. The 6/4 Miraphone and my Alex could barely compete despite being larger instruments. I liked that horn, but it wasn't my horn. Plus, I liked the edginess I could get on my Alex more.

[EMC]

What about the difference between 5 and 6 valve F tubas?