Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Rotary Euphoniums

  1. Rotary Euphoniums

    I've researched this a little, so I've seen some of the previous posts on this topic, but there were some things those didn't answer for me. And you all seem like a friendlier lot than the tuba forum for some reason, which probably doesn't have anything at all to do with tuba players, I'm sure.

    Tubas have piston and rotary configurations. Maybe I don't listen well, but I've never heard anyone complain about piston tubas and rotary tubas playing together. I've read complaints about rotary and piston euphs not playing well together. Is that mainly directed at the oval euro euphs?

    I've been curious about rotary euphoniums for a couple reasons. I really don't like taking valves apart to oil them every day, and multiple water keys just seems like massive wet spots on my pants. As a tbone player, I like rotary valves.

    But, rotaries don't seem to come in compensating varieties, and non-compensating valve instruments seem so barbaric. (Although the King 2280 system seems very interesting. A rotary with the 2280 system might be ideal)

    Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the oval euro euphs, I mean upright British style

    https://www.jimlaabsmusicstore.com/s...uphonium-gold/
    http://www.vfcerveny.cz/en/rotary-va.../134-cep-533-4

    Of course the Miraphone tenor tuba is a thing to behold, but I can't drive it or live in it, so I can't really justify owning one of those.
    https://www.hornguys.com/collections...-with-5-valves

    Other than the compensation thing, is there any reason to avoid the rotary euphoniums? Has anyone played any of these? Anywhere else I might look?

  2. #2
    I owned one of those Miraphone 56A tenor tubas (they call it a Kaiser Baritone). The intonation was awful. So bad I had to cradle the horn with my left arm and ride the main slide with my left hand. The partials didn’t line up, and it had similar wonky notes to older Miraphone F tubas on the same partials.

    The ergonomics likewise stunk. It’s a light horn, but not light enough to cradle like that. The leadpipe was way too low to rest the horn on the leg.

    Finally, the section blend was nonexistent. The sound was all German bariton, not euphonium at all. Much darker, and hard to color to be sweet enough.

    All the the above notwithstanding, feel free to knock yourself out.

    Don

  3. Yeah, intonation will be an issue. I'm weighing a rotary against a King 2280 against the Wessex Festivo. Without the opportunity to play any of them first. The King seems to have an advantage in the lower range in that it doesn't need to go back through all those valves again, so it's less stuffy. In the end, I think that's what's going to make the decision for me.

    On one of my bass bones, I set it up with an Eb slide, which would be like pulling the 4th slides all the way on the King. On the bone, the Eb slide is the way to get all of the chromatic notes with a single valve bass, but it made F/E and C/B a little awkward (7th position). That isn't an issue on euph.

    But if they made a rotary euph (in tune with itself) with a 3rd and 4th valves like the 2280, I could get everything I'm after. Maybe its asking too much.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperbolica View Post
    And you all seem like a friendlier lot than the tuba forum for some reason, which probably doesn't have anything at all to do with tuba players, I'm sure.
    Haha I'm dying, also how is there no really-good laughing emoticon on this forum...
    "Thig crioch air an saoghal, ach mairidh gaol is ceòl."
    "The end (of the world) will come, but love and music live forever."

    Euph: Geneva Symphony (4v-comp, trig)
    Euph: Besson New Standard (3v-comp 1978)
    Bari: Wessex BR-140 (3v-comp, lacquer)
    Mpcs: Euph (SM4) Bari (Stork T1)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    There's nothing wrong with a rotary euphonium any more than there's anything wrong with a rotary tuba. Get over all that stuff. Golly, aren't French horns rotary instruments? Aren't some of the best high-end trumpets in the world rotary horns? Well, best not to go there.

    Re intonation: If your rotary euphonium doesn't play in tune, then there's something wrong with YOUR rotary euphonium. There are virtually countless numbers of rotary euphoniums in use in the German-speaking world, and the Russians have traditionally liked them as well. You think they're all crap and aren't in tune with themselves? Try listening to a few things on Youtube. I have a 1965-ish Amati oval rotary euphonium -- hardly a pardigm of brass instrument qualtiy -- and it's perfectly fine (for an oval euphonium). It doesn't have a range problem and it doesn't have an intonation problem any worse than any non-compensating 4-valve piston euphonium does.

    There ARE some differences, and these can matter in terms of blending in sections -- which is why in high-level or professional organizations you rarely see rotary euphs mixed with piston euphs. But in fact the same thing can also be true of rotary and piston tubas, though normally no one makes such claims. The dimensions are a bit different in the rotary vs. piston implementations -- in particular, the length of tubing between the receiver and the valve block -- and this will affect intonation characteristics because the amount and placement of conical tubing will differ. For this reason and others, there will be some tuning DIFFERENCE between a rotary instrument and a piston instrument (as they have normally been designed and made). So it's harder for them to match in their intonation characteristics, and the tonal quality will be a bit different, but that's about it.

    A BIG difference, of course, is that most high-quality and preferred euphoniums (in the English-speaking world!!) are COMPENSATING instruments, and there are VERY FEW compensating rotary instruments. But there are both advantages and disadvantages to a compensating instrument.

    Why the dearth of compensating rotary instruments? Basically that's all about simplicity of fabrication, weight, and resulting playability. Think about what a compensating rotary valve would look like. There are a FEW of these around, but not many. A compensating instrument will play very differently and have very different intonation characteristics than a non-compensating one. "Different" -- not necessarily "better" in an overall sense. Non-compensating instruments are not "barbaric". An argument can be made that they are the more "pure" form of the instrument and provide better and more uniform tone and sound quality across the range. But this again does speak to the issue of blending.

    The other issue (and it may seem silly, but it's not) is that if you're playing a rotary euphonium in a standard American or British musical group, just exactly where do you sit, eh? Think about that for just a few minutes. Talk among yourselves. It ain't pretty. Either some "normal" euph player gets an earful of non-compensated euph, or some poor tuba player does, or maybe some poor trombone player. Bells clash together -- with resultant clanging and harsh language. But wait -- that happens with any classic front valve euphonium or baritone! However, it's still an issue.

    A lot of this is cultural (or national origin) inclination. There is no "upright British style" rotary euphonium. In terms of rotary and piston tubas vs. euphoniums playing well together, perhaps this is just because the rotary and piston tuba players are better musicians and can work around those intonation characteristics. I've played both piston and rotary tubas for decades and never had a problem matching pitch with section mates, no matter who was playing which type of instrument. Or maybe euphonium players just have more refined senses of pitch and intonation.

    I'd be perfectly happy to play a 4- (or 5- !!) valve rotary euphonium in any venue I'm ever likely to encounter. But if you want to feel like one of the in-group in a US/British band, stick with a top-valve (which means "piston") instrument. All those front-valve American baritons/euphoniums are a thing of the past, right?

    And oh ... Leaky water keys? Get new corks for them. I like the Valentino synthetic ones. They're cheap and easy to install. Your water keys shouldn't leak under any circumstances. That in itself will throw off your intonation. Now your standard British-style upright valve instrument WILL generally leak like crazy through the bottom of the valves (it's designed to!), and make a mess of your pants. But there are ways to avoid that (covered in other threads on this forum).
    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)

  6. #6
    Laetzsch did make a rotary compensating euphonium which was made more in the british-style. I think they only made one and then realized it was too expensive. I never played it but saw photos online.

    My recent oval kaiserbariton Miraphone 56L is pretty darn in tune except for when you get down into the register where the lack of a compensating system means you need to make some compromises. But the bell shape and tapers and weight of the instrument is different than a british-style instrument so it does sound different. I think it's actually brighter and more easily colored than a british-style euphonium.

    The straight-bell "tenor tubas" like the miraphone 56A were meant for the spanish market, where that shape was correct for their folk bands. Somewhere around the late 1960s roger bobo started using such an instrument (I think an alexander 151) as a "tenor tuba" because the shape matched the german style rotary contrabass and bass tubas from the same maker he was using, and that has kind of taken off -- encouraged by the instrument makers no doubt because it helps them sell more instruments, but they were not designed with that function (and with that kind of mouthpiece) in mind. It may tune better with the type of mouthpiece it was designed to be used with.
    --
    Barry

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by bbocaner View Post

    My recent oval kaiserbariton Miraphone 56L is pretty darn in tune except for when you get down into the register where the lack of a compensating system means you need to make some compromises.
    I think you should be able to pull a slide (typically first-valve) in those cases (vent the valve and lap the slide) since physically those horns are generally built like small tubas and will have at least the first-valve slide sticking up in front. Though I suppose it might be better to add a trigger to the main tuning slide. My first tuba (a Yamaha 4-valve piston non-comp 321S) had a trigger added by the original owner, and it worked pretty well.

    But the bell shape and tapers and weight of the instrument is different than a british-style instrument so it does sound different. I think it's actually brighter and more easily colored than a british-style euphonium.
    To me, my oval euph leans a bit towards a trombone sound, but without quite getting there. And I agree that, like a trombone, the sound is more easily colored than a British-style eupnonium (which sounds, dare I say it, a bit dull in comparison -- more like a high tuba).
    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)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ghmerrill View Post

    To me, my oval euph leans a bit towards a trombone sound, but without quite getting there. And I agree that, like a trombone, the sound is more easily colored than a British-style eupnonium (which sounds, dare I say it, a bit dull in comparison -- more like a high tuba).
    I think you may be conflating the oval German tenorhorn and oval German Bariton. When seen separately it’s sometimes hard to tell which is which. The tenorhorn definitely has the trombony sound (similar to a British baritone) since it has a similar less conical bore profile.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Nope. It's not a tenorhorn. But please let's not descend into a another review and analysis of the ambiguity of "baritone" vs. "tenor horn" across multiple cultures, brands, and decades.

    It's the standard Amati/Cerveny 4-valve oval euph/baritone (now apparently offered only under the "Cerveny" name). The closest thing to my horn now being offered by Amati/Cerveny is the CEP 536-4P (http://www.cerveny.biz/bariton/cep_536-4p.php), and yes, the 3rd and 4th valve circuits are a bit larger diameter than the 1st and 2nd circuits.

    The bore size on these "euphoniums" or "baritones" or "barytons" is typically about 2mm (or slightly more) larger than on the tenor horn, and tenor horns rarely have four valves. There is some variance in bell size among models and brands (but usually 10" or a bit more for the baritones and 9.5" for the tenor horns, although some baritones and some tenor horns have 10" bells). For a more contemporary re-issuing of such models, take a look at the Wessex "Kaiser Baritone" vs. its "German Tenor Horn". The Kaiser Baritone in the Wessex case appears to be a copy of the Cerveny (or maybe the Miraphone, or maybe the Miraphone is a copy of the Cerveny, or vice versa).
    Last edited by ghmerrill; 03-03-2019 at 04:04 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)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by djwpe View Post
    I think you may be conflating the oval German tenorhorn and oval German Bariton. When seen separately it’s sometimes hard to tell which is which. The tenorhorn definitely has the trombony sound (similar to a British baritone) since it has a similar less conical bore profile.
    The British Baritone / German Tenorhorn and British Euphonium / German Baryton analogy is a really rough one. In general, the two German instruments tend to be closer to each other in sound than do the two British instruments. Here's a video with a section of Tenorhorns and Barytons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyiQoO2_Qyg

    Addressing the Baryton specifically, here's a good video featuring two German Barytons playing in harmony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vB7xV1sqkU

    Notice the length of the leadpipe to the valve block. It's almost twice as long as that on a British-style compensating Euphonium. Having the valve block farther down the bugle from the mouthpiece is going to make the instrument less conical. There is no German-style instrument that approaches the sweetness and mellowness of a British Euphonium sound.
    Adrian L. Quince
    Composer, Conductor, Euphoniumist
    www.adrianquince.com

    Kanstul 976 - SM4U

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •