Posted by Klaus on March 13, 2003 at 20:37:24:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Shall tubas have their own scale systems posted by Jeff Hildebrand on March 13, 2003 at 09:57:15:
Jeff, your choice of the Conn 10J appears to be a very intelligent one to me.
First of all: how could I ever blame anybody for choosing a traditional Conn. After all my 5 Conns (28D, 14D, 36H, 26K, and 40K) constitute 8.772% of my collection. 4 of them being core members.
And as the illustration hopefully appearing will tell, the 10J follows the US tradition of widely belled .689 bored instruments. Actually having the slightly unexpected .695 bore, which it shares with my 1928 26K.
I have tried many different tubas, but have not had the chance to have a go on the 10J, which hardly is represented in my country.
As I opposedly to the kindly expressed expectations of one of the on-board scientist am a band person with a much more practical, pragmatic, and overall conductorlike approach to tubaing than represented by our BBb's-only-for-supposedly-low-capability-late-age-returners-well-meaning-but-fundamentalist-engineer I will give you these suggestions:
The design of the 10J opens up three very important variable parameters to be handled, which are not available on my generally preferred 3+1 and 3+2 pistons designs, compensating or not.
Assuming that you by means of a stand or of a non-slipping-lap-cloth have a firm one hand grip on your 10J, then your left hand is free to manipulate 3 slides:
the main tuning slide
the 1st valve slide
the 3rd slide
The main tuning slide is a desirable option, because it does induce blrrp or plnk sounds like the valve slides might do if applied insensitively.
However the use of the main tuning slide as your main manipulation parameter will call for a return-to-the-true-pitch-device as found in the more recent main tuning slide triggers for euphs. Our on-board engineers can explain this to you in a less idiomatic English, than I ever would be able to do.
And the main tuning slide manipulation option with a return to true pitch device will encompass the limitation of being either upwards or downwards pitchwise. At least according to my level of information.
Not original, as I have seen such a set up on my King trumpet in G, I might suggest a shortened 1st valve slide, which can be jammed inwards to allow for a true-in-the-staff-C, with a spring triggered return to the slide position desirable for almost every other note fingered with the 1st piston involved.
The 10J wrapping of the 3rd valve slide allows for quite a pull allowing for true slide lengths associated with the fingerings of 1+3 and 1+2+3.
You might want to install a spring loaded mechanism, which will allow for truly pitched 2+3 fingerings.
I have left out consideration about the manipulation of the 2nd piston slide because it after all only offers very short lengths of slide extensions.
Are 3 slides to be manipulated desirable? I think NO!
That leaves you with a choice to be done:
The 1st slide shortening is next to mandatory.
So which one to choose: the 3rd slide mechanism or the main tuning slide mechanism.
There are arguments favouring both:
If you are a person with a very strong embouchure and limited skeletal mobility, then go for the main tuning slide manipulation mechanism. Its double threaded mechanism will be more expensive, and the throw of the main tuning slide will the more limited, the longer the pull for the basic-true-pitch has to be. (This would be the right choice for me).
If you are a person with dancing arms, but with a need for exact lengths of tubing to establish a good resonance, then you should opt for the slightly distant 1st and 3rd slide manipulating devices.
These hints are just outlines to which probably several engineering approaches would function very well.
Klaus