Re: Strange system of measuring bore


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Klaus on December 03, 2002 at 01:48:55:

In Reply to: Strange system of measuring bore posted by Chuck(G) on December 03, 2002 at 00:11:34:

As so very often I again was the evil behind a posting of a respected tubenetter.

I happen to have the "non plus ultra" (bad joke, mpre or less) Eb tuba model, the B&H Sovereign 981. I have heard so much about the Willson being much better just because it was so much bigger.

Recently some other poster put that in perspective by telling of the proportions of its outer branches. which made me remember a correspondence with a very respected test rider of the non-Besson Brit euphs. He had protested their publicising the bore of their euphs as the measurement of outer diameter if the 2nd slide male branch, but the company in question would not give up that "leverage" in marketing, as Willson used the same way of measuring.

The Willson still is slightly larger in bore than is my 981, which has an (inner) bore of .689" through the first three valves and a bore of .739" through the comp loops and through the 4th valve.

Much bad has been said about the 3+1 comp system. For ages I had played a 3 valved comp Brit style baritone, which acts as a normal 3 valver, just better. Along with that one I had played 1 and 2 valved bassbones with various valve lengths: Bb/F, Bb/E, Bb/Eb, Bb/G/F/Eb, Bb/F/E/C, Bb/F/F/C#, and now Bb/Gb/F/D. So I was fairly well trained in thinking in tubelengths when aiming for a certain note. Something also enhanced by my playing a 5 valve single Bb and a double Bb/F French horn. And by playing a YEP321.

All of that training backfired, when I got my first 4 valve comper, a YEP641. My brain was used to do all of the compensation itself, so when the 641 did most of that work, I consequently ended up (or would that be down?) a semitone flat in the low register. Until I after a few weeks could persuade my brain to let the 641 do that part of the playing procedure.

I have heard two strong arguments against the 3+1 981, one of them even being valid: a weak left eye. If one has to depend on ones right eye, then the 981 is a very bad choice.

The other argument has been the lack of ability to adjust to the 3+1 set-up. I have mentioned my own temporary problems, but I have not been able to understand a very pro tubist telling, that he could not adjust to that system. That was until I saw a photo of that tubist. Then I immediately came to think of a former bandmate, that we could not persuade to use the 4th valve of his pre-Sovereign Besson New Standard Eb. He claimed, that his left arm was too short. And he truly had a very good reason to rest that tuba very close to his knees. I have the same reason seated below my ribcage, but then I have very long arms. I can play my York Master BBb with my left hand if I want to. Which I do not very often.

If some maker dared to produce a quality 3+2 compensating tuba with the 5th valve being an ascending major second, then all other valve set-ups would loose out at once.

A provocative posting? Honestly, that depends more on you than on me.

Klaus


Follow Ups: