TubaForum.net

I know, this is one of those topics. But maybe I can get away with it because I'm just a trombone player. :D

I've got a compensated euph. And a non-compensated 4v BBb tuba. The euph is stuffy in the compensating range unless I use a huge mouthpiece. The tuba isn't.

As a trombone/bass trombone player, we deal with the issue of compensation differently, and without any stuffiness, but we do have the limitation of the missing low B and C, and I get that.

Here's the question. If the compensation (on euph) is just to get notes below the staff in tune without pulling slides, (and euphs don't seem to play down below the staff that much anyway) but those notes are always stuffy, what's the point? Also, is it just me, or is there a difference in attitude toward compensation between euphers and tuba players?

I have two euphoniums. A king 2280 and a Packer 274

As a tuba player, I find I like to have 4 valves in my right hand. +1 for the king

Comfort wise, the king is a taller instrument
Another point for the king

The king has shorter, lighter, quicker valves
3-0 for the king, this a bloodbath

Both have excellent intonation, we'll call it a draw

I like the king so much that I added a 5th valve to it, giving it a full chromatic down to the fundamental.

Buy every time I play or teach euphonium, I play the Packer. Why??

Tone. It has a glorious sweet tone that sounds like angels singing. The king is nice, but not one that blends in with a section of Bessons or reminds you of great euphonium recordings

I wish someone made a 5 valve non compensating euph that had the tone of a Besson, Willson, ect, but no one has, so that's the only reason I play a compensating horn

here's another post, one that answers your question more directly

If a compensating horn is stuffy, it's just a bit stuffy, or at least the good ones are. A little resistance is not always a bad thing, and can actually help the low range. Try to buzz below low Bb on a tuba mouthpiece,and cover half of the end of the mouthpiece shank with your finger, and you'll see what I mean

I notice no range difference between my compensating and non comp horns. Is the king a little bit freer? maybe? but that doesn't mean I have any trouble playing the notes, and the noticeable difference fades away after a few seconds of playing either instrument

Adapting (hopefully not misquoting) one of Jake's quotes: everyone only plays three valves at a time.

The first comments are more about euph, and you can get more info from David Werden's forum http://www.dwerden.com/forum/forum.php#.XzasKehKiUk . The rest lower down are about all comp instruments, including tubas.

The negative first: if you have a four-valve comp instrument, especially euphonium bass clef, only second line B natural 2+4, E natural below the staff also 2+4, and E flat below the staff 1+4, really benefit from the compensation. The compensation then really comes into play starting with E flat below the staff, 1+4, and all notes lower down to the pedals. By contrast, the primary fingerings of all other notes from second space C 4th valve and going up from there are all the same fingerings whether comp or non-comp, as 4th valve is not used, and therefore the comp loops are not triggered.

So for most community band players, with most moderate level of difficulty repertoire, the lesser expensive non-comp 4-valve euph does just fine.

For a compensating instrument, I have always preferred the 3-valve comp, especially for 3-valve BBb tuba. Yes, you lose everything below 1+2+3 E natural below the staff. Yes, 1+3 and possibly a few other notes can be a little stuffy, but the instrument can be tuned to itself much better. Instead of slightly pulling 1st and 2nd valves so the 1+2 combinations aren't a little sharp, everything 1 alone and 2 alone are tuned dead, and instead of 1+2 (except for obvious passages for smoothness of articulation or phrasing) anything that would be played 1+2 is played 3 alone, tuned dead (the exception: top of the staff B natural, which being a fifth partial, may be flat and therefore benefits from being played 1+2). The comp loops take care of everything else along the way.

This is particularly applicable for notes fingered 2+3. On both non-comp instruments and 4-valve comp instruments, the third valve slide has to be pulled to get 2+3 in tune. On a 3-valve comp, the comp loops work on the 3rd valve, since there is no 4th valve, so 2+3 combinations are in tune with the comp loop tied in between the 2nd and 3rd valve. See the aplets on Dave Werden's website that illustrate this.

The only drawback of a 3-valve comp besides losing the near pedal pitches is the same with 4-valve non-comp instruments: B natural second line and E natural below the staff are 1+2+3, can be slightly sharp, but less sharp than a non-comp instrument playing the same notes 2+4.

For me, until I started playing repertoire that required the 4th valve for the near pedal register, my favorite instrument was a Besson New Standard 3-valve comp BBb tuba. And even then, I liked the tone so much, I transplanted a Besson New Standard 17-inch bell onto a Miraphone 186. See my thread in the repairs and modifications section of the forum, Bessophone. I did that instead of getting a 4-valve comp instrument because I didn't want to carry the additional weight, and as above, it only really affected two rather uncommon notes for community band repertoire, and I didn't want to pay the difference just for the two notes that can easily lip, and pull 1 for 1+4 E flat below the staff for the rare occasion. On the occasion I play baritone or euph, I use an American style 4-valve non-comp instrument for community band that to me blends better with both brass and woodwinds; and for low brass ensembles, I use a 3-valve comp euph, knowing there will be others to play the low notes.

So - why do professional and other high-level euph players play 4-valve comp instruments? They do need it all: wide range, consistent, if not perfect intonation, and good tone quality. So the manufacturers who manufacture comp instruments tend to put all their R&D into a 4-valve comp instrument rather than anything else. The Besson 3-valve BBb comp tuba I used to have was dated @ 1971, the bell on my Bessophone is @ 1959, and my B&H 3-valve comp euph is mid-1960's.

Thanks for your patience with this long post.

Sometimes the few-inches-long mostly-vertical tube connecting the 4th casing to the 3rd casing is loaded up with solder, because that's a place that no manufacturer can visually inspect without going to some trouble.

Otherwise, some euphoniums play better than others in that range.

I picked up a stupid-expensive one (decades ago) for a stupid-low price (stupid school system being stupid on eBay). The reason that I never sold it and took the profit is because the overall tuning is good, and the low range (one of the main things for which I use it) is stupid-good.

bone-a-phone wrote:Make the case for compensation

Because compensated valves are often attached to really good instruments.

If you find an instrument stuffy in the extreme low register, you might consider using a mouthpiece with a slightly larger throat to open it up. I assume that this is why the 24AW is popular in the UK. I used to poo poo the 24AW quite a bit. really narrow inner diameter, really wide rim, deep with a really big hole in it. I couldn't see how anyone would want to use one.

I came into possession of three compensated E-flats for a few months (one I actually bought and the two others belonging to someone else being temporarily stored at my house). I still have one. I elected to try out something 24AW-ish just to be open minded and bought a Wick 3L. The Wick 3L really does play well on a compensated E-flat, so I can actually understand the 24AW attraction. I'm not saying I *like* it necessarily, but I am saying that I *get* it.

The 4V compensation system handles the low register pitch problems just as well and sometimes better than a 5 valve system.

cjk wrote:Because compensated valves are often attached to really good instruments.

Yeah, but say a bird feeder was attached to a really good instrument.... It seems the compensated valves aren't what make the instrument really good.

Ok, well, I think that answers my question. Thanks everyone. It's hard to appreciate good advice until you have played a few horns. I probably didn't need a compensated euph. I don't (haven't) even played it outside of the house, I really just bought it to have something that doesn't exacerbate my left shoulder problems the way bass bone does. Front valves are helpful, but the compensation really isn't. The Bach 1.25G or Ferguson L make the stuffiness almost disappear, and with it the euph has a very nice low C.

The tuba I have is all I'll ever need on that front, and leaves me plenty of room to learn.

bone-a-phone wrote:I know, this is one of those topics. But maybe I can get away with it because I'm just a trombone player. :D

Don't count on it. :lol:

Here's the question. If the compensation (on euph) is just to get notes below the staff in tune without pulling slides, (and euphs don't seem to play down below the staff that much anyway) but those notes are always stuffy, what's the point?

But when they do, it needs to be in tune. That's why there are compensating Eb and BBb tubas. And this is attributable (and maybe originates with) British Brass Band/Military Band tradition. Top action tubas and euphs that absolutely MUST play in tune, and slide pulling is not really a convenient option, especially when marching with them (watch some videos of the Welsh Guard Band).

Also, is it just me, or is there a difference in attitude toward compensation between euphers and tuba players?

Outside of the banding world, compensated tubas don't get much traction. Non-comps can be played easier/less stuffy, and can easily have slides manipulated for intonation. And if we want to march here, we use sousaphones. The Germans play their noncomps because that's what they build there, that's what they do. I've seen plenty of bands marching in German parades and other events, and all used noncomp German rotary tubas. I've seen helikons numerous times, but those were in Oktoberfest or Blasmusik bands. Regardless, the finest tubas generally available are nearly all noncomp, so the compensating tuba is a niche for sure. For euphonium, compensating instruments have been a standard in the industry for a long time. As a tuba player, my observation is that top quality manufacturers were producing superb instruments that happened to be compensating - maybe part of the driving force in that was marketing to the banding world? So, if you wanted a really exceptional euphonium, it would be compensating since most of the exceptional ones being made were compensating. I may be all wrong about the origin and fruition, but that's the observation from next door. I'll stand corrected (but I'd rather sit - I'm tired!).

I picked up a demo Packer 274 euph at a really low price (and I had the cash in my pocket). I almost bought the comp Eb really cheap, too, but I exercised restraint - I had other tuba business to do this year, and I wasn't quite ready to become an EEb player. But the euphonium is as singing and pretty as I could hope for on euph. And I have come to really like the compensating system. I don't have trouble down low with stuffiness, and the intonation is superb. And like Mark said, the tone is the real deal.

And I'm playing on whatever mouthpiece it came with (anyone have a clue what it is or what model it is supposed to be like?). I don't know enough about euph mouthpieces to begin to know what I might want or need. But it's fine like it is.

Doc wrote:...

Outside of the banding world...

Thanks for the perspective. So this sounds more like a cultural/historical issue than a technical or musical one.

Also, did you just avoid saying that there aren't any F or CC compers? I've never thought of it, but I've never heard of one.

...slowly starting to get it.

Partly it's that the compensating euphoniums have been so ubiquitous that they have defined the euphonium sound. For euphonium artists, non-compensated instruments just don't provide the sound.

But for euphonium doublers, a competent product can be produced without it. Many, many tuba players who double on euphonium do so using a Yamaha 321, which has four-top-action non-compensated valves, but which is otherwise very similar to the compensating 642 (I think I'm remembering that model number correctly).

I have a compensating euphonium solely because one happened to come my way. it's a Besson from the 70's, not marked "Sovereign" but made like one and with pretty much all the same features. It has compensating valves, a large mouthpiece receiver, and nice detailing. But it was in truly terrible condition with a collapsed bell and bottom bow. I approximately straightened the bell and reinflated the bow, though I ended up replacing the bow with one from a Yamaha (which fit perfectly, if that provides a hint). The fourth valve stem had been sawed off. I took it to Matt Walters, and he found a fourth valve button and stem to install, among other things. When I picked it up, I spent some time with a new (at the time) Sovereign, but frankly didn't notice much difference. Matt brought mine out to me, and I asked him what he thought of it. "Try it," he said. And side-by-side with the then-new Sovereign, I could tell much difference in sound or playability. But it sure as anything looked better. Despite it's battered appearance, it plays very well and that I think is the key insight--the best euphoniums are compensated not because the compensation makes them so, but because nobody would buy the best euphonium without the compensation.

All that said, I think I would prefer a three-valve compensator with an uncompensated fourth valve. That is theoretically more likely to correct the scale and allows the fourth valve to be more open. But my Besson certainly uses a larger bore in the compensation loops than in the regular valve branches.

Every time I've ever played a Willson 2900 (the smaller bell), I've thought truly positive things about it. But my Besson is better than I deserve and I already own it. For the once every few years when I want to play a euph, it's more than enough.

Rick "not a fan of euphoniums sounding like tubas, however" Denney

bone-a-phone wrote:

Doc wrote:...

Outside of the banding world...

Thanks for the perspective. So this sounds more like a cultural/historical issue than a technical or musical one.

Also, did you just avoid saying that there aren't any F or CC compers? I've never thought of it, but I've never heard of one.

...slowly starting to get it.

The only F comp I know of is the British F tuba. I tried the new Wessex, and I like it. Not a wide open blow in the low range, but very playable. Sounded like a... British F tuba. Not a traditional F tuba sound, and not an overgrown euphonium. Maybe some sort of combination, but still its own voice.

I know of no CC compers.

Doc wrote:

bone-a-phone wrote:

Doc wrote:...

Outside of the banding world...

Thanks for the perspective. So this sounds more like a cultural/historical issue than a technical or musical one.

Also, did you just avoid saying that there aren't any F or CC compers? I've never thought of it, but I've never heard of one.

...slowly starting to get it.

The only F comp I know of is the British F tuba. I tried the new Wessex, and I like it. Not a wide open blow in the low range, but very playable. Sounded like a... British F tuba. Not a traditional F tuba sound, and not an overgrown euphonium. Maybe some sort of combination, but still its own voice.

I know of no CC compers.

I saw a real Besson F-comp at the last Tuba Christmas I attended a couple of years ago. Interesting little horn. I wish I could have spent more time talking about it with its owner, and hearing it on its own and not just in section.

All of the Besson compensating F tubas are a bit quirky, and are a bit flatter than most F tubas along the 8th partial.

I might say that Jonathan's replica is no worse - and possibly slightly better in-tune - than all the Besson's I've played, over the years.

They ARE handy little buggers - as far as getting about town with them is concerned.

=============================

the case for the Blaikley System:

If I tuba or euphonium is "GOOD" - and features that valve system - then there's the case for it...at least, as far as that particular "GOOD" tuba or euphonium is concerned.

reaching around with the other hand:
My goodness...Is that REALLY something about which to get all hung up?

bloke wrote: reaching around with the other hand:
My goodness...Is that REALLY something about which to get all hung up?

I don't have 3+1, >I have a 4 in front compensating (Festivo). I use as few combinations as possible, so I'm wearing out 3 and 4. I'm just a trombone player so I don't know I'm not supposed to use my pinky for valves. My tuba is 4 in front as well, but not compensating. It's nice to have both valve instruments the same configuration - almost)

Do tuba players generally mix types? I mean comps and non-comps? There are only a handful of lower notes that require an extra slide pull on the non-comp.

I've found the tip on playing without combinations when possible to be very useful. And the tip to not forget about extended positions for high notes is another good one that seems to escape most bone players (because we play short and long positions as far up the slide as possible. Because we can.)

I have a couple of 3-valve instruments, a couple of four-valve instruments, a couple of four-valve ***(3+1) compensating instruments, a three **five-valve instruments, and a six-valve instrument. *I use them all, when - for any particular gig - any one of them helps me sound as if I've been practicing some...

...I like being hired back.
_____________________________________
*I can also use a few subtly different circular saws, a couple of reciprocating saws (which have two different blade engagement systems), a table saw, a compound miter saw, a hand saw, a chainsaw, a hacksaw, a coping saw, and even a jeweler's saw...maybe: several of them on the same project...and I don't seem to forget how to use any of them. When playing in the pit with touring Broadway shows (and they always super-cheap-out, and uber-condense the scoring), it's typical for each of the woodwind players to be surrounded with five or six little-to-do-with-each-other woodwind instruments.

**Five-valve systems (compared to six-valve tubas) feature one glaring weakness: The closest-to-in-tune fingering for one-step-above-the-fundamental is - nearly always - several inches too short.

***WIth the Blaikley System, the ability for the system to "compensate" seems to run out of gas with the two longest valve combinations...but there's a way to "compensate" for that, which is to lengthen the #3 compensating loop, and deal with the slight flatness of one other effected pitch.

cjk wrote: Because compensated valves are often attached to really good instruments.

Rick Denney wrote:(...)the best euphoniums are compensated not because the compensation makes them so, but because nobody would buy the best euphonium without the compensation.

LeMark wrote: I wish someone made a 5 valve non compensating euph that had the tone of a Besson, Willson, ect, but no one has, so that's the only reason I play a compensating horn

This is collectively the most correct answer. Doc's points about the British band world are also spot on, and Art Lehman pulled that tradition of instruments into the American military band. In Germany you see some interesting alternatives, but it's a different sound.

I am one of the few euphonium players who does not care for the 3+1 configuration (which of course I still play anyway because limited options), but I have to admit it really does help with the crazy technical passages in brass band test pieces.

Rick Denney wrote:But for euphonium doublers, a competent product can be produced without it. Many, many tuba players who double on euphonium do so using a Yamaha 321, which has four-top-action non-compensated valves, but which is otherwise very similar to the compensating 642 (I think I'm remembering that model number correctly).

The 321 is an excellent little horn. It is smaller bore than most concert euphoniums (including the 642) and it also takes a small shank mouthpiece; I believe this is specifically why Denis Wick produces a 4AY (Y for Yamaha) which is a small shank version of the classic 4AL. When I was a freshman at UIUC, we had a blind sound test of tubas and euphoniums in the great hall of the Krannert Center. Out of a Willson 2900, Besson Sovereign, B&S PT-37 (my horn), and a YEP 321, the Yamaha's sound was preferred by the majority of the tuba/euphonium studio. (All 4 horns were demonstrated by the extremely talented Ken Steinsultz, who had to reach up and around with his left hand to play the Yamaha since the 4th being inline was driving him nuts. )

Of course, Ken still preferred his Willson, and I still own my B&S. ;)

For me, starting out as a trombone player, and having played Bb / F trombones for most of that time, a Bb/F compensating Euphonium and Tuba just makes more sense in my head. I also haven't found the compensating range to be particularly more stuffy on the three I have. As long as you are ready for it, you can adjust.

I'd much rather have to adjust my breathing than worry about learning specific fingerings to utilize the 1st valve slide or a kicker on some other slide. Yeah, I'm lazy.

There were a few Besson 985 compensating F's made that were a huge improvement over the prototype. I saw one a decade ago at Lee Stofer's shop that he was selling for a well-known college professor who is a super tubaist. It looked much like a 983, just smaller, less bell flare, and a weird D-shaped pull loop on the end of one of the valve slides. I thought it played very well from the short time I had with it. If I'd had the cash, I would have bought it on the spot.

And as for the "case for compensation", doesn't that depend on what you're compensating for?

I always thought the Besson 983/993 was a slick concept in that you get all of the intonation advantages of the compensating valves but with regular slide accessibility on the left hand for minor adjustments.

I owned a 994 which was basically the same bugle and it played well enough and wasn’t tremendously stuffy.

Seems like the 9X3 variants came along at a bad time market wise.

matt g wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:03 am I always thought the Besson 983/993 was a slick concept in that you get all of the intonation advantages of the compensating valves but with regular slide accessibility on the left hand for minor adjustments.

I owned a 994 which was basically the same bugle and it played well enough and wasn’t tremendously stuffy.

Seems like the 9X3 variants came along at a bad time market wise.

It's a mentality thing.

Americans: Eb is for brass band, the proper bass tuba is in F.
Brits: Proper Eb's are 3+1, the bell on this one points the wrong way.

In spite of its typical "high euphonium intonation" type problems, I still occasionally miss my Willson 2975...