Posted by Rick Denney on November 21, 2001 at 11:14:11:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marzan/Willson euphonium posted by Jay Bertolet on November 20, 2001 at 21:52:20:
It seems to me that there is a difference between slide tromboning (to coin Chuck's description) and compensation by means of slide movement.
The compensation systems I've seen that work by slide manipulation have mechanical devices to move the slides by a set amount when the appropriate valves are pushed, or when a trigger is activated along with the appropriate valve combination. For example, if the 1-4 combination produces a sharp low Eb on a euphonium, and 1-2-4 is flat, then a thumb trigger that extended the fourth valve tubing automatically by the appropriate amount would render 1-4 in tune, and would also provide compensation for most of the combinations with the fourth valve from Eb on down. This isn't as theoretically accurate as the Blaikley system, but it is compensation. Slide-moving compensation systems were the standard form of compensation before Blaikley invention.
This is much different than manually tuning each note by adjusting slide positions as you play.
Another example is the enharmonic compensation system used by Besson in the earlier part of the 20th century. It's not like Blaikley, even though it does use multiple passes through the valves and is theoretically accurate.
So, an automatic system that moves slides can still be a compensation system. The problem with the term is that we've now associated "compensation" with "Blaikley compensation" because of the dominance of the latter. So, if the term is ruined for the general application, it's because we've ruined it.
For the longest time, Blaikley's system was called "automatic compensation" because it required no additional moves than pushing the valves. But even that line is fuzzy, because some of the early slide-moving compensation systems also operated off the valve buttons.
Rick "no fan either of 'fully' compensated" Denney