compensating rotaries

[basshorn]

Good question MaryAnn; i was asking myself some weeks ago why there is no market for rotary compensators comparing it with the relatively large market for piston compensators. Knowing that there have been and are some rotary compensators in production. Alexander, Gronitz and HSM Schmidt in Markneukirchen are currently offering double compensating tubas. In the past there was Kruspe and some others.

After having met with a well known tuba manufacturer to talk about an Eb 4 valve rotary compensator conversion i understand that there never was an effort by anyone to improve the playability of rotary compensators as opposed to the British Eb-Bass with John Fletcher as its promotor among professionals and the British Brass Band movement providing a mass production market. British Brass Bands ask for compensators because of the ease of Instrument adaptation, playability and virtuosity for amateur players. 3+1 Pistons are traditional, descending from the early Brass Band days with its Saxhorns. In the 'rotary' countries the more open blow of the non compensating instruments is preferred and professionals spend enough time on the instrument to develop sufficient virtuosity even with 'weird' fingerings.

By the way 4 or even 5 valve rotary compensators where often equiped with the famous double rotor nylon/triplene valves made by Meinlschmidt. Doesn't Meinlschmidt offer double rotors with carbon valves for tuba nowadays?

Greatings basshorn

[iiipopes]

There is another reason you don't see many comp rotor horns: price. Over a decade ago now I emailed Hirsbrunner about a new 3-valve rotor comp. The price came back @$27,000 then!

Somewhere in the cobwebs I vaguely remember that the purpose of the development of the 3-valve comp tuba was for Swiss military bands to keep the weight down compared to a 4-valve conventional tuba. Please correct me.

J.C. - someone about a year or so ago rebuilt a Hirsbrunner as a 4-valve conventional and sold the 3-valve comp block. I thought about purchasing it for myself, but in the end I stayed with my Miraphone valve block. If it is still out there, you could do the reverse, and then graft a Besson bell on like I did with my "Bessofone."

[MaryAnn]

Some people seem to be mixing doubles with compensators. That, I kind of don't get. My (french) horn is a double horn; in the horn world, "compensating" means something entirely different, with the 3rd valve shortening the tubing rather than lengthening it. I've never played one and so know nothing about them, really. But a regular double horn has two full sets of valve slides, one for the F side and one for the Bb side, and a change valve that sends the air through the Bb side or the F side. Horn players have the full set of fingerings for both keys of horn, to use depending on what works best with what is on the page in front of them.

What I'm talking about is compensating like my 3+1 euph is compensating. It's not a double euph because it has only one set of valve slides. That is, tubing that goes (only) between valves only has air flow when those valve slides are connected through the extra piston ports because more than one valve are depressed. So a double tuba that is CC/F isn't, as far as I can tell, what I'm asking about; I'm asking about a "single" tuba with "taller" rotors and some extra tubing between valve slides.

[basshorn]

As a professional french horn player i know exactly what i'm talking about. Don't confuse the compensating system with the french ascending 3rd valve system as it used to be popular among french horn players in France. Your Euphonium, as well as all other 4 valve compensating tuba instruments are built after the same principle that Gumbert and Kruspe used to develop the first ever double french horn. The origin of the full double horn is the compensating double horn. While the compensating double just adds the extra tubing to lower the instrument to an other pitch, the full double ads extra tubing (compensates) to the shorter side to lower it and provides independent valve slides for each of the two pitches. As far i know there where experiments with full double tubas, but imagine the weight.....

Try it out: You could use Youre Euphonium as double french horn substitute playing it the same way as the full double horn on french horn scores. Just the change valve might be the wrong way round; depends on if Youre double horn is set up Bb/F or F/Bb.

[imperialbari]

Sorry Ma, but it is you, who have gotten the terminology all wrong.

It is true that the French tradition had a compensating double horn, which had an ascending 3rd valve. But they also had single F horns with an ascending 3rd valve, so compensating systems and ascending valves are not linked to each other, they just happened to be applied together in that French tradition.

Technically a full double horn is a single horn in Bb. Within the main bugle there is a shunt valve that shunts off the Bb valve block and sends the air through a longer F extension loop, which then happens to have its own F valve block. That the two valve blocks are stacked into one does not change the fact that they handle separate airstreams. The Bb and the F valve loops never will be acoustically active at the same time.

With compensating double horns the Bb valve block is NOT shunted off, when the F extension loop is activated by the shift valve. The F valve block has shorter loops which only add to the Bb loops, what they miss in being of full F length.

Aside from the bore and bell proportions plus the wrapping style the compensating euphonium is exactly the same as a compensating double horn, F extension loop, stacked valves, and all.

The principle then may be moved down a fourth, a fifth, or an octave for compensating tubas in F/CC, Eb/BBb, or BBb/FFF.

The German rotor valve compensators vary from the British style Blaikley piston compensators by most often having 4 valves within the main and within the extension loop. They also often have a fifth between the two sides (F bass and BBb contrabass), whereas the Blaikley 3+1 compensators invariable have a fourth between the two sides. It doesn’t chance the Blaikley principle that the 4 valves are place as 4 front action valves apparently sitting in a row. The Besson 983 exemplifies this by not having the 3rd and 4th valves joined directly. Their connecting tube takes a detour allowing for a smoother bore expansion.

Klaus

[iiipopes]

As a professional french horn player i know exactly what i'm talking about. Don't confuse the compensating system with the french ascending 3rd valve system as it used to be popular among french horn players in France. Your Euphonium, as well as all other 4 valve compensating tuba instruments are built after the same principle that Gumbert and Kruspe used to develop the first ever double french horn. The origin of the full double horn is the compensating double horn. While the compensating double just adds the extra tubing to lower the instrument to an other pitch, the full double ads extra tubing (compensates) to the shorter side to lower it and provides independent valve slides for each of the two pitches. As far i know there where experiments with full double tubas, but imagine the weight.....

Try it out: You could use Youre Euphonium as double french horn substitute playing it the same way as the full double horn on french horn scores. Just the change valve might be the wrong way round; depends on if Youre double horn is set up Bb/F or F/Bb.

No. The Boosey/Blakely automatic compensating system was invented in 1874 to keep pitches in tune on valve combinations by re-routing the output of the terminal valve (3rd on 3-valve horns, 4th on 4-valve horns) back through the other valves to add the necessary additional tubing to bring the pitches down to where they need to be, since the progression of semitones is geometric, not linear. It is not related to any of the french horn variants. It does not rely on a change valve or other similar separate tubing. It is self-contained in the feedback loops, hence being termed "automatic" in the original patent. See the following link:
http://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-comp.cfm" target="_blank

By contrast, Besson, before the merger with Boosey & Hawkes, did have a compensating system that was more similar to the french horn compensating systems, in that when you pressed the fourth valve, it directed the air towards a different set of ports and slides on the other valves. It was called the "Enharmonic" system, and had both three-valve version on the tubas and the 4-valve version on the euphoniums. Here is a recent listing for one, that I think the pictures are still up:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Besson-4v-039 ... true&rt=nc" target="_blank

It should be obvious from the pictures why Besson's pre-Boosey merger version fell out of favor.

[basshorn]

iiipopes wrote:
No. The Boosey/Blakely automatic compensating system was invented in 1874 to keep pitches in tune on valve combinations by re-routing the output of the terminal valve (3rd on 3-valve horns, 4th on 4-valve horns) back through the other valves to add the necessary additional tubing to bring the pitches down to where they need to be, since the progression of semitones is geometric, not linear. It is not related to any of the french horn variants. It does not rely on a change valve or other similar separate tubing. It is self-contained in the feedback loops, hence being termed "automatic" in the original patent. See the following link:
http://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-comp.cfm" target="_blank"

Whether a system was developed to 'keep pitches in tune on valve combinations' or to combine two instruments of different pitches in one, the result concerning 4 valves, as mentioned earlier, is based on the same principle: rerouting the airstream. Just keep in mind: even with the system that was developed to 'keep pitches in tune on valve combinations' there is no compensation using just valve 1 to 3 on the 4 valve system.

[iiipopes]

Whether a system was developed to 'keep pitches in tune on valve combinations' or to combine two instruments of different pitches in one, the result concerning 4 valves, as mentioned earlier, is based on the same principle: rerouting the airstream. Just keep in mind: even with the system that was developed to 'keep pitches in tune on valve combinations' there is no compensation using just valve 1 to 3 on the 4 valve system.

Indeed. That is why, if I had my 'druthers, and didn't need the extreme low range that is tending to crop up in some concert band pieces, my favorite is the 3-valve comp version of the Besson BBb tuba: you play concert low G's & D's 3-alone, which tunes dead on, and the only valve combination that is off is the 1+2+3 for B-nat and low F#, and even those two notes are a lot closer to pitch than anything but a 4-valve comp horn. I used to own a Besson BBb 3-valve comp; now a friend of mine has it, and my "Bessofone" functions well for me (Besson BBb 17-inch bell on a Mirafone 186 bugle and valve block).

[MaryAnn]

Wow, I'm getting a quick education here. I'm going to have to read the thread a couple more times to get all this straight. Thanks.

[Mike-Johnson-Custom]

I had an Alexander F/Bb for a while. I'm a big guy with strong paws. It was the worst instrument I've had for playability!
Meinlschmidt do make carbon valves but cost twice the brass valve. But they are a light action.
You could get a set and have them retro fitted to what ever you are playing these days. Expensive but doable.

Hope that helps

Mike