Lengthening a sharp tuba

[bloke]

Fairly soon, I will be lengthening – somehow – an old B&S 5-rotor C tuba.
It’s not that little “symphonie” piggy thing that they used to make, and it’s not the 4/4 (four valves only) one that shares the same bell with a “symphonie” F tuba…
It’s something else.
The main slide has already been lengthened, and I don’t see it as advisable to lengthen that more.
Inner bows are so buried, that I was just about have to take apart the entire tuba to get access to one of those.
I am seriously considering pulling out the bottom bow and leaving one-inch bore gaps on each side within the ferrules.
Someone can lecture me all they want about doing that, but - as far as having some sort of effect on intonation – the open G’s on this instrument are already sky high, actually requiring the 1-3 alternate to LOWER the pitch - rather than raise it, so I just don’t see how much harm I can do, in this regard.

If I remember, I might stick up a few pictures and comments when I get to this repair job.
Usually, I’m eager to complete a repair – not relishing the “doing" of a repair – and it doesn’t occur to me to post all about it in the midst of it.

[bloke]

IDEA #2:

I scrounged around and found two sizes of nickel outside slide tubing that are the same sizes as the two (different) sizes on this tuba's main slide.

Since the instrument's owner is tall and tall-waisted, I'm considering
- loosening one side of six of the eight braces which support the valveset. (These are the feather-footed delicate braces as found on instruments of this manufacturer, which are easy to heat and loosen.)
- installing 3/4" longer main slide outside slide tubes on both sides. (Someone already lengthened the inside slide tubes by about half an inch.)
- elevating (UP towards the bell rim, NOT up away from the bugle) the entire valveset by 3/4", which also requires moving the mouthpipe up the bell, and (yup) might require a bit of ovaling of the mouthpipe and - once reinstalled - pulling drilled dent balls through it to re-round it (which could actually result in the mouthpipe tube being rounder than it was previously).
- Two braces (from the bottom bow to the #4 circuit tubing) will need to be removed, altered, and reinstalled.

bloke "a little bit involved, but that's why the tuba's owned dragged it up here seven hundred miles in the back of his car "

[UncleBeer]

As for your first idea (lengthening the bottom bow ferrules), I find that the farther away from the leadpipe, the less effect the added length has. Just my observation, and kinda makes intuitive sense, although I can't back it up scientifically.

[matt g]

As for your first idea (lengthening the bottom bow ferrules), I find that the farther away from the leadpipe, the less effect the added length has. Just my observation, and kinda makes intuitive sense, although I can't back it up scientifically.

Seems like it would mainly be a ratio/proportionality issue.

The wall thickness of brass tubing throughout an instrument, particularly past the valves, is fairly consistent. However, the bore is expanding. So an offset of a millimeter or two where the cross-section of the bore has a diameter of 100mm would be far less impactful, acoustically, compared to where the bore is 30mm.

[bloke]

I think you’re probably right, but I had good success shortening a low pitch Holton euphonium from the early part of the 20th century (I normally don’t refer to any of those instruments as “euphoniums”, but this one featured a very large bell and a .580” bore size.) I shortened both the main slide and the bottom bow on that instrument, and - when I was finished - their relationship to each other remained the same as before, so it was aesthetically/visually pleasing and still offered good tuning range.

…so if there is less of an effect, there is still an effect…and (in my experience) two inches - removed from even the bell section (such as when someone has used “whatever they had at hand” to make an upright bell for a Conn 2XJ (shorter than oem) - etc., etc. - defined that the tuning slide (or something else) had to be lengthened to make up for that.

The second plan is the one that I’m currently favoring. It’s more work, but - somehow - I think it’s a better idea.

I might come up with a third or fourth idea, or might go back to the bottom bow thing. The bottom bow thing is certainly less work, and also offers a little better shot at removing some dinks from the instrument.

Again, with the open G’s being proportionally quite high, I feel a bit liberated from worrying over “messing with the overtone series“.

[Casca Grossa]

I'm a complete idiot when it comes to this stuff, so I'm asking this question out of interest and stupidity. What if you did something like you talked about with the old style HB-2P? Put on a new leadpipe with a second tuning slide facing up so it can be manipulated with the left hand. I'm assuming this isn't an easy solution though.

[cjk]

@bloke Interested in seeing a picture of this tuba as it sounds like something out of the ordinary.

[bloke]

CG,
It’s not that much too short.

not one those old piggy CC Symphonie tubas, nor one of those short-lived design doofus tall ones, either.

[2nd tenor]

@bloke Interested in seeing a picture of this tuba as it sounds like something out of the ordinary.

Seconded.

[bloke]

After looking at this even more (and noticing the "Sanders" scratching - above the B&S logo), that tells me that this instrument was imported into and sold out of Michigan...

...so the 16.5" bell (rather than 15") and the larger bore sizes (rather than the five graduated bore sizes - otherwise 17mm - 21mm) hints to me that this MAY well be an EARLY adulterated version of the B&S "piggy" Symphonie CC tuba (as the Michigan outlet seemed to use that wonky-intonation bugle for several subsequent rotary and piston models).



When the Iron Curtain came down, Michigan (again) had already been selling some other (19" bell, piston, etc.) config's pasted to that old "Symphonie CC" bugle. When Gerhard was given the company - and began to offer them to other US retailers and distributors - I'm pretty sure that he himself sort of decided that this bugle was a bit wonky - and (thus) the creation of the "VMI" stuff (which combined model 32 (CC) and model 20 (BB-flat) bugles/bells with B&S valvesets.
(I'm THEORIZING here...and NOT stating.)

"Thank" if you think my GUESSES are possibly correct, and post a if you suspect my GUESSES are full of $h!t.

[cjk]

How much longer does it need to get?

Is it really longer enough that you'd want to move the whole valve section? That sounds like a LOT of effort.

Is replacing the main tuning slide ferrules with longer ones not a desirable option?

Sounds like it might benefit from a bicycle pump like Chuck's old piggy as well.

[bloke]

How much longer does it need to get?

Is it really longer enough that you'd want to move the whole valve section? That sounds like a LOT of effort.

Is replacing the main tuning slide ferrules with longer ones not a desirable option?

Sounds like it might benefit from a bicycle pump like Chuck's old piggy as well.

Main slide - pulled out TO A=440 (for me - and ALREADY LENGTHENED) - already hangs out BELOW the bottom bow.

the owner: Is not as "open" a player...and canNOT get it to A=440 (again: though the main slide is ALREADY lengthened.

moving the valveset: less work for me (perhaps...??) than some others...

[2nd tenor]

This is just a thought and maybe the idea has already been considered and rejected.

When the UK moved from high pitch to low pitched a lot of instruments needed to be changed. The change was done by either lengthening the main tuning slide with either leg extensions (as already tried here) or by adding a loop to one side of the mts. Adding a loop (coil) can introduce a bit of stuffiness and isn’t the most elegant of solutions but it works.

[Doc]

@bloke Interested in seeing a picture of this tuba as it sounds like something out of the ordinary.

This tuba belongs to one of my long-time compadres. I like this tuba, and (similar to Joe’s observation) I have an easier time getting close to 440 than he does. But it still doesn’t have enough wiggle room for my taste.

I have always called this instrument the GDR predecessor to the PT 3. I don’t know if that description is necessarily accurate, but it seems to convey the general idea.

I’m sure the right solution will reveal itself to Joe soon enough.

[cjk]

This is just a thought and maybe the idea has already been considered and rejected.

When the UK moved from high pitch to low pitched a lot of instruments needed to be changed. The change was done by either lengthening the main tuning slide with either leg extensions (as already tried here) or by adding a loop to one side of the mts. Adding a loop (coil) can introduce a bit of stuffiness and isn’t the most elegant of solutions but it works.

I like the loop if one can get parts to do that. Something like a York Doughnut on the big side of the main tuning slide.

Are y'all sure there isn't something else wrong with it?

[2nd tenor]

Looking at the lead pipe it has a graceful diagonal before it enters the first valve. If the lead pipe were to descend down the bell then two sides of a triangle would be completed rather than one, similarly if it went horizontally, variations on that theme could add tubing length.

It’s also not uncommon to have a/the tuning slide before the valve set …

The original UK low pitch Tubas were pitched below A440 and that led to problems. John Fletcher invented the Fletcher cut in which the main bugle was cut either side of a main bow and some length taken out. I wonder if a reverse process is possible for this tuba, Perhaps using some extended length ferrules.

[cjk]

probably dumb idea:

swap the bell with a taller one?

[cjk]

dumb ideas 2.0:

Symphonie cup + nylon spacer + XD rim + bigger shank than one would normally use for the receiver size.

Alternatively, this might be the ideal use case for one of those Dr Young mouthpieces.

[bort2.0]

After looking at this even more (and noticing the "Sanders" scratching - above the B&S logo), that tells me that this instrument was imported into and sold out of Michigan...

...so the 16.5" bell (rather than 15") and the larger bore sizes (rather than the five graduated bore sizes - otherwise 17mm - 21mm) hints to me that this MAY well be an EARLY adulterated version of the B&S "piggy" Symphonie CC tuba (as the Michigan outlet seemed to use that wonky-intonation bugle for several subsequent rotary and piston models).



When the Iron Curtain came down, Michigan (again) had already been selling some other (19" bell, piston, etc.) config's pasted to that old "Symphonie CC" bugle. When Gerhard was given the company - and began to offer them to other US retailers and distributors - I'm pretty sure that he himself sort of decided that this bugle was a bit wonky - and (thus) the creation of the "VMI" stuff (which combined model 32 (CC) and model 20 (BB-flat) bugles/bells with B&S valvesets.
(I'm THEORIZING here...and NOT stating.)

"Thank" if you think my GUESSES are possibly correct, and post a if you suspect my GUESSES are full of $h!t.

I played one of these tubas in college, school-owned tuba that I used my entire time there. Played very well, much bigger sound than you'd expect for the size. No complaints on intonation or anything funky. Point and shoot with a Bach Megatone 18 (the only mouthpiece I owned). Aah... simpler times!

[bloke]

Yours must’ve had a magic dent to fix the wildly sharp G’s.