Posted by Rick Denney on September 11, 2003 at 14:48:37:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New tuba for Brandon posted by Brandon Ostrom on September 10, 2003 at 19:31:11:
The Imperial was B&H's top of the line up until the early 70's when the Sovereign was introduced. I have a euphonium of that vintage. The three-valve compensators are theoretically more in tune than any other tuba, though, of course, the length of the valve tubing is not the only contributor to good intonation. But most folks I've known who have owned late-model (let say post-war) three-valve compensators thought they were wonderful instruments. The only weakness is the lack of enough valve tubing to play below E, but if you can master false tones on the instrument it might still work down there.
I found a much earlier version for a family member as a restarter tuba. It was a 1920's era enharmonic three-valve compensator from Besson. Not at all the same thing as what you have. I didn't like it much, but it was good in its day for what it attempted to do, and its current owner (who wanted a period instrument) seems happy with it (hi, Steve).
I have also played a three-valve compensating Imperial euphonium from the 60's that I thought was a jewel.
One weak note on many three-valve compensators is the low Db, which uses the 2-3 combination. This is often flat on those instruments.
I think if you want to do significantly better than a good-playing Imperial, you'll need to be prepared to spend a couple of thousand bucks, or likely more, for a used, pro-quality BBb four-valve tuba. The four-valve instruments might have a more open feel, their intonation will be manageable, and they will have more low-range options. They may also have a bigger sound. But no uncompensated three-valve tuba will have intonation as good as yours, and if you are picky about that, then I think you should avoid them.
Rick "who would also prefer the Besson to a 321" Denney