Posted by js on December 25, 2001 at 00:53:32:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eb-Tuba Willson vs. Besson Sovereign posted by Frederick J. Young on December 24, 2001 at 23:10:47:
I've "written" far too much in this forum thanks, and I don't perform with my tuba "on paper". I do so in "real time".
One (of several) examples of production non-compensating instruments that plays remarkably well in tune (is spite of its very large size) are the Kurath-Willson CC and BBb tubas.
The only slight problem that I've come across on those instruments is the tendency of ONE pitch (the 2-3 third partial) to be a bit (but not disastrously so) sharp. Even the 1-2 pitches (2nd, 4th, 8th partial) pitches play well without adjustment. Many other readers will be able to site many other non-compensating instruments that play far better in tune than many compensating instruments.
As to 4-valve compensating systems, the only problem those instruments apparently try to address are pitches below (May I use "jazz" musicians slang here?) the "cash" register. I just don't make very much of my tuba-playing money (even when playing contrabass tubas) playing pitches below four ledger F, and when asked to do so, I don't run into any problems when using an adjusted 5th valve in combination with carefully-selected other valves.
The four-valve compensating system doesn't detract from good instruments, but those instruments would play well WITH or WITHOUT that gadgetry added (or perhaps even better and freer-blowing with an adjusted 5th valve). Review some of the wretched Besson euphonia of the 1960's and 1970's. What could a compensating system do to help a third space Eb that is deeply imbedded more than twenty hundredths of a semitone flat?
I've played the Chicago Symphony York tuba. That tuba is certainly no intonation "wonder", but its SOUND and ease of playing are. As to its intonation, the "wonder" is the FLEXIBILITY of that instrument which allows the player to move out-of-tune pitches in line with ease and without the resonance of the instrument suffering. I suspect that same characteristic is why Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Pokorny have both used "false" tones on some very low (and loud) pitches, rather than not only relying on compensation, but NOT EVEN relying on approximately the CORRECT LENGTH of resonating tubing!
Measurements and equations certainly have their very important place in the construction of instruments. However, there are other factors STILL not understood by manufacturers (in my view) that allow some instruments that one would not predict to be be very good instruments to be extraordinarily fine.
If numbers, manufacturing control, and technology were everything, why haven't manufacturers been able to duplicate (or exceed) the playability of 1960's Selmer saxophones, 1930's Heckel bassoons, and very old Italian violins which were quite crudely constructed?