Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Pitch madness -- insight invited

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369

    Pitch madness -- insight invited

    This really isn't a maintenance issue, but it's not really euphonium specific or tuba specific, and I don't see an obvious topic for it, so I'm throwing it in here. It's a bit lengthy, but I've put a lot of effort into this experiment at this point.

    In December I acquired (see sig) a 1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba. I have been working with it since, and the pitch and intonation is driving me mad. I invite any insight and speculation before I apply the hacksaw. I do NOT want to cut this instrument unless I am highly confident that this is necessary and will be beneficial, but it really is driving me nuts after all the time and experimentation I've put into it.

    Here's the story ...

    I have done the usual leak tests and the horn just doesn't seem to have any significant leaks. It leaks a LITTLE bit through the valves, but I mean that you can just barely force some air through them under significant pressure by blowing through the mouthpiece and with the tuning slide tube(s) blocked. I also mic'd the valves and cylinders and they are all within or close to 0.001" clearance. The horn has a bunch of dents, but no deep ones. Mostly shallow ones on the outside tubing. Some of the valve knuckles have very shallow dents, but that's all.

    It is a "small european" shank, and the best mouthpiece I've found for it in terms of tone and intonation is a Wick 5 (heritage style). The second best is a Schilke 60 bass trombone mouthpiece, but this doesn't yield quite the right tuba sound and the intonation is not as good as with the Wick.

    I've done repeated "pitch mapping" to see where it is playing sharp or flat, both by myself and then with my wife using the tuner and recording results while I play the scales. This is done from Bb below the staff to Bb above the staff. The results are pretty much described as:


    1. The Bb below the staff (1+3) tends to be 10-15 cents sharp.
    2. From B below the staff through the D, it tends to be about 5-15 cents flat.
    3. The open Eb is in tune.
    4. The E and F are quite sharp (around 20-30 cents for the E; about 10-20 cents for the F). The E is 1+2+3 and the F is 1+3.
    5. In the staff from G through Db, the horn tends to play from 15 to 30 cents flat.
    6. From Db up to the Bb just above the staff, the horn comes closest to playing uniformly in tune, but still around 10 cents flat for the most part. But the open Eb is right on.


    During this experiment I did my best not to "lip" notes one way or another but to play with a comfortable embouchure that seemed to produce a nice tone quality. And this was with the tuner set to A=440.

    If I set the tuner to auto-tune and play an A, it settles on 435. If I play a Bb, it settles on 462. This seems the most compelling evidence that the horn is pitched to something lower than A=440, probably A=435. It has "LP" stamped into the second valve casing, indicating that it is a "low pitch" instrument, but as I've remarked in another thread, "low pitch" was highly ambiguous in the early 20th century. The thing that bothers me about this fairly obvious conclusion is that the open low Eb appears to be in tune (if I'm not unconsciously correcting to that). On the other hand, with the tuner set to 435 I can play the low Eb, the Bb, and the Eb in the staff in tune with ease as well.

    I measured, as accurately as possible, the lengths of the valve circuits, and these appear to be in the correct proportions for the half step, full step, and 3 = 1+2 configuration.

    Here are my alternatives going forward:


    1. Keep the horn as it is, use it for a "Tuba Christmas horn", lip everything or pull slides as necessary. Give up on using it for concert band or decent small groups.
    2. Try to find a magic mouthpiece that will make everything perfect. (Okay, this isn't actually a sane option. Just thought I'd include it for laughs.)
    3. Say, "Well, the horn clearly is pitched below 440. Cut the main tuning slide and go from there, cutting valve slides if really necessary but hoping not."
    4. Say, "Well the open horn plays to pitch. Cut the tuning slides to get the rest of the notes in tune."


    At this point I'm leaning mostly towards either 1 or 3. I would REALLY like to get a horn that I can play with confidence (and not excessive effort) in a number of contexts. I don't like the idea of cutting it, but the results of the mapping and particularly the auto-tune experiment do seem to indicate that it's not a 440 instrument.

    I am open to insight, thoughts, wild speculation.
    Last edited by ghmerrill; 02-01-2013 at 02:53 PM. Reason: Typos on mouthpiece size and tuning notes.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  2. #2
    You say your number two option is just for laughs, but the intonation on these early 20th century instruments is wildly mouthpiece dependent. Sometimes there are just no modern mouthpieces that work right in them. You might try to find someone who has a selection of antique mouthpieces to see if anything they have magically makes it work better. Many times I have experienced the right mouthpiece making a bunch of problems that shouldn't have anything to do with each other just go away.

    If the second partial Eb is in tune and then the second valve D and first valve Db are flat with the slides pushed all the way in, then cutting those slides would certainly help. However, it's going to make your 1+3 and 1+2+3 problems worse. Is the 3rd partial Bb flat open by the same amount that the 2nd valve A and first valve Ab are? Because if so and you cut the slides, it's going to throw that off.

    however, 1+3 and 1+2+3 notes are always sharp, and 2+3 notes are usually slightly flat in order to get the 1+3 and 1+2+3 combos closer, so I would chalk those items up as being perfectly normal.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    I definitely agree about the 1+3, 1+2+3, and 2+3 combinations. Those kinds of tuning issues I expect. What's really swaying me now is the results for the auto-calibration where the A and Bb results are consistent with one another and with the horn being pitched below 440. If I set the tuner for A=435 and just play an exercise, it plays quite well in tune modulo those usual multi-valve tuning issues.

    The reason I made the mouthpiece comment is that I've already tried several different mouthpieces. And you are quite right that this puppy is VERY sensitive to mouthpiece selection. What I've tried include several of the Wick AL series bass trombone mouthpieces, the Schilke 60, and (believe it or not) a Bach CB30 (what a hunk!). Then the Wick 5 tuba mouthpiece (which I got off Ebay for a good price) and a Wick 3 (which was just too big for the horn). The Wick 5 is clearly the best. Another alternative is to turn down the shank on a couple of others, but I'm not sure I want to wait on this and it requires getting my son's lathe back together. I'll concede that there might be some antique mouthpiece out there that could be "the one", but at this point I'm pretty skeptical.

    I'm also quite leery of cutting the valve slides and not the main tuning slide -- again primarily because the auto-calibration points to the open horn being a bit long.

    Another alternative would be to switch the receiver for a standard American receiver and open a host of opportunities. But Doug Elliott generally recommends against that (though of course it could be switched back). However, I'm also a little skittish about spending all my money on shipping charges for trying mouthpieces!! Possibly they'd let me try some of their old stuff at the Tuba Exchange. That might be worth the effort, I suppose. But I'm betting it wouldn't work any better than what I've tried so far.

    Also, my feeling is that if I do cut the main tuning slide (I'd probably start with 1/2"), then I essentially wouldn't lose anything because I can retune it to the original length by just pulling a half inch. And as it is, it tunes to the open Bb easily with all the slides all the way in. And I suspect it would continue to do that even when cut because of the minute embouchure difference required for that degree of deviation at that point. Or so I'm thinking.

    Another consideration is that I now have (including this horn), two tubas and two euphoniums that are functional. The other three play wonderfully in tune (except for one or two really minor things that you expect). And this horn is just completely different. But the tone is great.
    Last edited by ghmerrill; 02-01-2013 at 03:44 PM.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  4. #4
    I have an old 20's or 30's American euphonium which has had the 1st valve branches cut down. It's really too bad because when played with an old Conn mp, it plays perfectly in tune (except the 1st slide needs to get pulled 1/2"!). With a small shank Bach 5G or 6 1/2, the tuning is ok, but not as close as with that old mp. The old mp is similar in shape to a Wick Heritage, but has a very shallow cup.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by carbogast View Post
    ...when played with an old Conn mp, it plays perfectly in tune...
    How far does the Conn mp stick out from the receiver compared to a modern mp?
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by carbogast View Post
    It's really too bad because when played with an old Conn mp, it plays perfectly in tune (except the 1st slide needs to get pulled 1/2"!).
    But I don't regard this as bad -- i.e., having to pull your 1st valve slide out a half inch to tune the horn. And this raises another question I've been wondering about for years.

    Why don't the instrument manufacturers build tubas and euphoniums so that they are pitched just a bit sharp -- so that the "normal" setting of the slides is that each is pulled out a bit? This has the advantage that in different situations (e.g., temperature) you can sharpen the instrument to get it in tune.

    In fact, my Cerveny BBb horn is normally in tune with the main tuning slide pulled about 3/4". But why not build the instrument so that you have even more adjustability. There is at least 6" of main tuning slide you can pull on that horn, and I have NEVER had to pull more than about 3" under the worst of conditions.

    And I swear that virtually every instrument I've owned has a second valve circuit that is either right on at the "ideal" temperature or, more often, a bit flat! The Cerveny is definitely this way, to the point that the second valve is just about always a little flat and requires at least some minor change in embouchure to get it to play exactly in tune. I've thought for years about cutting it a bit, but just never taken the plunge, partly because I just didn't want to do that to the instrument (there is very little room to work in order to make the cut -- it would likely involve a lot of unsoldering and resoldering, and then realignment, etc.) , and also because the embouchure adjustment is fairly minor and I can live with it. But it's irritating. And this is far from the only instrument I've had that seems to exhibit this "feature". There is WAY more than enough length on that valve slide to take even an inch off it and still be able to tune it to anything you would ever want. So why not make it shorter and provide that flexibility? I don't get it.

    I know that on a euphonium (and even more so on a trumpet), there is much less length to work with on that slide, and small changes make a bigger difference; but even so it seems to me that it could be done in such a way as to provide a bit more flexibility. And on a tuba, the valve slides and tuning slide are very long. On this Eb horn, for example, you can easily pull 2" on the 2nd valve slide and still have at least an inch of slide in the outer sleeves, no air leaks, and no danger of it falling out. On the 1st valve you can pull at least 6"!!. On 3rd valve you can pull at least 2", and then you're limited only by the the fact that at that point it starts to extend below the bottom of the horn (that tuning circuit is about 36" long! -- about 15" on each side). And the main tuning slide allows a pull of a bit less than 3".

    So why not make these things a bit sharp and give you a better capability of adjustment under different conditions?
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by davewerden View Post
    How far does the Conn mp stick out from the receiver compared to a modern mp?
    The old Conn mp extends about 2 1/16" from the receiver to the rim. The newer Conns extend about 1/8" further, 2 3/16".

    In both cases, they seat very well into the receiver.
    Last edited by carbogast; 02-02-2013 at 05:06 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ghmerrill View Post
    But I don't regard this as bad -- i.e., having to pull your 1st valve slide out a half inch to tune the horn. And this raises another question I've been wondering about for years.
    Yes, it's not a problem, just ironic. However, whoever did the cutting did not do as nicely as the manufacturer, so the horn was degraded slightly.

  9. #9
    OK, then I doubt 1/8" could make too much difference in the kind of tuning trouble you're having. Too bad, in a way, because that could have been an easy fix!
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by davewerden View Post
    OK, then I doubt 1/8" could make too much difference in the kind of tuning trouble you're having. Too bad, in a way, because that could have been an easy fix!
    It's not a actually a problem, just an observation that the old MP seems to suit the horn really well.

    It's Gary that is having the tuning problem with his Buescher Tuba. I wonder if in his case, an original MP might help?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •