Compensating vs. non compensating Euphonium

[Peach]

If a player plays moderate difficulty band repertoire that is common with many community bands, and does not play anything below f at the bottom of the bass clef, then my answer is: neither (the comp Euph being referred to as a 4-valve comp Euph). The second best horn for this repertoire is a 3-valve compensating euph, which does not have the problems with the C and B nat as does the non-comp, and since you can play G and D with 3rd valve alone in tune, is not sharp on these notes as is a 4-valve Euph using 1+2, as 3rd valve still has to be pulled long to get 2+3 in tune.

Yep.

I'm always amazed here in the UK that players in decidedly average brass bands insist on having the finest (most expensive) Euphoniums, then to play concert C 1&3 (since they used to be a cornet player). The instrument MUST also have a main slide trigger, even though they don't know when to use it, so never do and then it seizes up.

Strikes me players in UK 2nd-ish section bands and below would be very well off with 3v comps like we used to have. That would apply to Euphs as well as Eb tubas. One of the Bb players could have a 4v... =)
Would save bands a LOT of money and players wouldn't have to lug around really heavy instruments.

[tbonesullivan]

Yep.

I'm always amazed here in the UK that players in decidedly average brass bands insist on having the finest (most expensive) Euphoniums, then to play concert C 1&3 (since they used to be a cornet player). The instrument MUST also have a main slide trigger, even though they don't know when to use it, so never do and then it seizes up.

Strikes me players in UK 2nd-ish section bands and below would be very well off with 3v comps like we used to have. That would apply to Euphs as well as Eb tubas. One of the Bb players could have a 4v... =)
Would save bands a LOT of money and players wouldn't have to lug around really heavy instruments.

I believe Willson now has a range of 3 valve compensators, like from the old days. They may be targeting that exact audience.

The "buying too much horn" thing seems pretty ubiquitous with hobby players, across the musical industry. However that really is what keeps a lot of companies going. There are only so many professional players out there, and most aren't the type of gear obsessed people that hobbyists can be. Like the ones that won't buy a Yamaha 600-series horn, because there is something "better" in the 800 series, so they need the 800.

[iiipopes]

Yep.

I'm always amazed here in the UK that players in decidedly average brass bands insist on having the finest (most expensive) Euphoniums, then to play concert C 1&3 (since they used to be a cornet player). The instrument MUST also have a main slide trigger, even though they don't know when to use it, so never do and then it seizes up.

Strikes me players in UK 2nd-ish section bands and below would be very well off with 3v comps like we used to have. That would apply to Euphs as well as Eb tubas. One of the Bb players could have a 4v... =)
Would save bands a LOT of money and players wouldn't have to lug around really heavy instruments.

Thanks. This also brings up another issue: mouthpiece. Many players insist on using a large diameter mouthpiece, when one size or two sizes smaller may fit a particular player's embouchure better to have better tone, range and flexibility. For example, I do not use a DW 3 or 4 or 5. I use an Ultra 6, as it is essentially the same diameter as a Bach 6 1/2 AL, but with a little deeper cup to keep the low range from getting grainy, and a little smaller throat that helps me with breath control and support. I have one in the medium shank for my older B&H 3-valve comp and one in the baritone (trombone) small shank for my Wessex.

[tbonesullivan]

Thanks. This also brings up another issue: mouthpiece. Many players insist on using a large diameter mouthpiece, when one size or two sizes smaller may fit a particular player's embouchure better to have better tone, range and flexibility. For example, I do not use a DW 3 or 4 or 5. I use an Ultra 6, as it is essentially the same diameter as a Bach 6 1/2 AL, but with a little deeper cup to keep the low range from getting grainy, and a little smaller throat that helps me with breath control and support. I have one in the medium shank for my older B&H 3-valve comp and one in the baritone (trombone) small shank for my Wessex.

I will continue to tell this story until I am in the grave. I went to a Trombone master class with Michael Mulcahy of the Chicago Symphony. There was a bass trombone student there, and he played for the class. Well Mr. Mulcahy said that his sound was a bit diffuse, and asked what size MPC he was using. Then he asked if he had a slightly smaller one with him. The answer was yes, and the improvement was noticeable and immediate.

There's no award for using the widest rim on a mouthpiece, though often it seems like some feel that there is. You use the equipment that allows you to get the best sound and playing with the least amount of extra work. If you're fighting your equipment, it usually doesn't result in optimal results.

The same, of course, applies to bore size, bell size, etc etc etc size.

[MSchott]

I know this is probably a dumb question, but does a compensating euphonium offer any advantages other than being able to play notes below low E in tune? I have played a non comp 4 valve horn for years and have never felt deprived or anything, but it seems like even the cheap Chinese horns now are compensating, so I am starting to feel compensation envy. As wind band lit is about the only thing I use it for, is there any real reason to have a compensating horn, other than a few bars in one of the Holst Suites that goes to a C below the staff?

Modern euphonium solo and brass band literature often has notes in that pedal region. That in itself is reason to buy a 3+1 compensating horn. I guess if one plays in a community concert band and their horn compensates for the B and C, it's fine. There are other notes that can be helped with the use of the compensating system. If your 3rd partial F is quite sharp which is common, 4th valve is an alternate fingering.

[iiipopes]

I've owned 2 3 valve compensating euphoniums. The newer of the two was made in the late 50's. The older one had a really flat 2-3 combination with all the slides pushed in, but the 1-3 and 1-2-3 were perfect. I eventually shortened the 3rd valve slide to make the 2-3 just slightly flat, but of course that made the other combinations slightly sharp.

I have also owned two 3-valve comp instruments: BBb Besson New Standard tuba and currently a B&H 3-valve Euph (mid-sized shank). If you shortened the primary 3rd valve circuit, then to bring 1+3 low C and F back into tune the compensating 1st valve slide should have been lengthened by the same amount. But even that does not solve the issues. Did you check to see that low D and G were in tune with 3rd valve alone? This is the function of a 3-valve comp, to play low D and low G 3rd valve alone, because 1 & 2 are tuned "dead," which makes low D and G intonate sharp when played 1+2, defeating the purpose of having the compensation.

[iiipopes]

It's been years, I don't remember if the d was sharp playing 1-2, but the length of the 3rd slide combined not only with the 2nd slide, AND the extra compensating tubing on the back of the valve, made the 2-3 combination flat. I think that's the weakness of that system. Sure adding the 1st valve or 1st and 2nd to the 3rd valve kicks in extra tubing that is needed, but it also adds extra tubing to the 2+3 combo, which is not needed

Because of how tight the 2nd valve comp loop has to be, yes, the 2+3 combination on all of the Besson/B&H instruments, including Baritone, Euph, and both Eb and BBb tubas does tend to be flat, because of the physical limits of just how short the 2nd valve comp loop can be and still be a loop. Kind of like the 2nd valve on a picc trumpet, it is usually part of the block and must be cleaned, er, um, *very* carefully, if you can get to it at all! So it is a combination of the physical limitations of just how short the comp loop can be made along with the difficulty in keeping it clean is what contributes to 2+3 being slightly flat, even in the best of circumstances. And yes, if 3rd valve is tuned "dead" so that G and D are in tune, 2+3, just like on a non-comp instrument, would be sharp if the 2nd valve comp loop were not there.

Oh - and look again: pressing 1+3 does NOT engage the 2nd valve comp loop. Pressing 2+3 together does not engage the 1st valve comp loop. The second set of ports in the 1st and 2nd valves only engage that particular valve's comp loop when pressed together with the 3rd valve in a 3-valve comp system. Please review Dave Werden's excellent article and applet on the subject:
http://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-comp.cfm" target="_blank