Euphonium Upgrades

[Snorlax]

.....

[Snorlax]

Regarding the 5th-valve add on for the Yamaha 321, apparently they were made by Kanstul for Stauffer Brass. TheHornGuys still has the listing and description (with photos) on their website for archival purposes:

https://www.hornguys.com/collections...-321-euphonium

Interestingly, they note that Yamaha several decades ago (before they had started producing compensating euphs) had produced a similar 5th-valve add on.

Thanks for this reminder, Fujiifilm! Here is an excerpt from the explanation on HORNGUYS. COM :

This rotor tunes to a flat whole step. That means the low Eb is right in tune played as 4-5. You can also think of the "flat whole step" tuning as being a whole step in F, just like most tuba fifth rotors. The rotor is easily removable so you can return to a four valve instrument when you prefer less weight. The valve lets you play the entire chromatic scale down into the pedal note range, using fingering patterns that are the same as most any five valve tuba. Here are the fingerings for the notes below the bass clef with five valves:

• F 4
• E 2-4
• Eb 4-5
• D 2-3-4
• Db 1-3-4 or 3-4-5
• C 2-3-4-5
• B 1-2-3-4-5
• Bb 0

In any case, it isn't worth $675 to me. ;-)

[Sara Hood]

*I wonder if manufacturers keep to the same basic designs due to an orthodoxy among euphonium players?

My money is on "YES!" Over the last year or two I have been casually looking into the physics of why horns sound the way they do, how they are made, etc. And basically all my questions come back to an answer of, "Because that is how it is done. It has been that way since back in the day, and nothing since works any better." Manufacturers definitely have an orthodoxy of how to make horns that sell. Players have an orthodoxy for what makes a good horn when they go shopping. The two reinforce each other's assumptions, because that is all that is available in the marketplace. This is true for more than just the euphonium.

Little new gets developed unless someone conceives something totally out of the box, and can get a big name to be willing to try it and promote it. Innovation can be a risky business.

- Sara

[ChristianeSparkle]

i recall Project Euphonium promoting a euph that had some interesting bits. i think the air goes into 3rd valve first or something, reducing the bends that usual euph has. But it didnt caught on and it was discontinued. it was touted as an innovation before production stopped.

[Rodgeman]

For Snorlax

The King 2280 would let you switch the tuning slides on the fourth valve to tune in at Eb. This gives the chromatic scale down to Bb.

From https://www.hornguys.com/products/ki...oist-euphonium

"Fourth valve in Eb: If you reverse the fourth slides and pull them to their extremes, you can tune the fourth valve to Eb by itself.

F 1-3T
E 1-2-3T
Eb 4
D 2-4
Db 1-2-4
C 2-3-4
B 1-2-3-4

The low notes all settle in pretty well without any trigger added. And let me say this: Low Eb played on one .600" valve is completely captivating. I want to play it again and again. Loud. This pattern makes a bit more sense to me than the above Fourth_in_E pattern, but of course, your mileage may vary. The drawbacks still include having to play 1-3 and 1-2-3 with that fourth piston button sort of in the way, and also not being able to set your horn down on the bell due to the extended fourth slide."

That page has lots of interesting information. The YEP-321 used to have an extended third valve slide. So maybe instead of a 5th valve you could have an extended 4th valve slide? Just an idea.

[Davidus1]

My money is on "YES!" Over the last year or two I have been casually looking into the physics of why horns sound the way they do, how they are made, etc. And basically all my questions come back to an answer of, "Because that is how it is done. It has been that way since back in the day, and nothing since works any better." Manufacturers definitely have an orthodoxy of how to make horns that sell. Players have an orthodoxy for what makes a good horn when they go shopping. The two reinforce each other's assumptions, because that is all that is available in the marketplace. This is true for more than just the euphonium.

Little new gets developed unless someone conceives something totally out of the box, and can get a big name to be willing to try it and promote it. Innovation can be a risky business.

- Sara

This is true. I do give kudos to Wessex for the Festivo. It was nice to see someone stretch the possibilities a bit.

[Snorlax]

i recall Project Euphonium promoting a euph that had some interesting bits. i think the air goes into 3rd valve first or something, reducing the bends that usual euph hasb didnt caught on and it was discontinued. it was touted as an innovation before production stopped.

Thanks for that info! I had never heard of that company before. Some interesting instruments there...as well as a few interesting translations!

[ChristianeSparkle]

Thanks for that info! I had never heard of that company before. Some interesting instruments there...as well as a few interesting translations!

They seem to be quite famous, Rick mentioned them before, and even mentioned the owner by name! Unfortunately, I was unable to dig out that particular euph that they had. It's no longer on the website and the facebook post was from 2 years back or so. But I recall they definitely tried to mess with the leadpipe to reduce the bends. I thought it was quite cool but it never took off.

But yes, that shop has very interesting instruments! A clone of most of the major brands with a detailed guide on picking the right one for you. Looking for a British sound? Looking for more resistance? Want a more neutral/American sound? They have a euph that will suit your needs, with tons of choices of plating too! Not sure about the quality, but price wise, it seems to be in the higher range for China-made budget euphs? Would definitely love to test one of them one day!

I've never seen or heard of them outside of Japan though, only 1 sale on Reverb for it from Australia (also 2 years ago when I saw it)

[Magikarp]

I wonder if the premise of Bevan's statement about disdain for slide-pulling and extra valves holds today?
Points to ponder:
*If the Blaikely compensation system is so efficient, why do so many euphoniums require a trigger?
I've still got to think that a fifth valve would offer just as much in the low register as compensation does, PLUS offering a
number of potentially intonation-correcting alternatives for the usual suspect notes...all without foot-long valves. A fifth valve
could also take a larger bore, thus facilitating low-register clarity and response. Most horns now are dual-bore, anyway.

*Tubists are certainly not averse to five or six valves these days...maybe euphoniumists might not gripe about five.

*The euphonium is already non-ergonomic enough...would a fifth valve make it that much more non-ergonomic? There could be some reduction in weight and expense, since there would be no need for special valves and the odd tubing off the back of the valves--and parts could well be made from existing stock of valves and tubing.

*Somewhere in my vast trivia files I have a spreadsheet, perhaps created by Dr. Young, showing RMS intonation errors for different systems. IIRC, the system with the least average expected intonation error was the three-valve compensation system. I can't recall, though, if it included a five-valve option, nor can I call the exact methodology.

*I wonder if manufacturers keep to the same basic designs due to an orthodoxy among euphonium players?

Euphoniums don't require a trigger, in my opinion. There are two notes on my round stamp that need adjustment or false fingering - top B (A bass Clef) and top G (F). I think the trigger is a design feature included to partially disguise the complete lack of innovation in euphonium design. The biggest innovations I can think of in recent times, admittedly from a Brit-centric / B&H and Besson viewpoint, are the move to larger bores circa 1974, the advent of the dismal floating lead pipes circa 1993, and main tuning slide triggers around about 2000ish. Adams are making great strides, but regrettably will probably never sell much in the UK because traders are conservative and overly cautious, Besson are too dominant in advertising and sponsorship, meaning customers won't have the choice. As for other "developments", making the instrument lighter to increase responsiveness is advertising jargon to explain away cost cutting.

As for slide pulling, I doubt any top euphonium player would countenance this for an instant, when you'd be adding a playing mechanism that isn't necessary as things stands, likewise a fifth valve. I suspect that an extra valve and associated tubing would weigh the same, and probably more than the compensating system. For the determinedly amateur brass band player, you would end up with two valves to ignore.

I've been lucky in the past to sell euphoniums for a living, and to have owned a tremendous number of them. I play in a brass band and if that's not the definition of furious traditionalism I don't know what is, which is why you only see British styles euphoniums, baritone horns, and tubas. And why I suspect that no brand seeking to break into the brass band market has ever made anything that doesn't owe a huge debt to B&H Sovereign designs.

[MoominDave]

Thanks for this reminder, Fujiifilm! Here is an excerpt from the explanation on HORNGUYS. COM :

This rotor tunes to a flat whole step. That means the low Eb is right in tune played as 4-5. You can also think of the "flat whole step" tuning as being a whole step in F, just like most tuba fifth rotors. The rotor is easily removable so you can return to a four valve instrument when you prefer less weight. The valve lets you play the entire chromatic scale down into the pedal note range, using fingering patterns that are the same as most any five valve tuba. Here are the fingerings for the notes below the bass clef with five valves:

• F 4
• E 2-4
• Eb 4-5
• D 2-3-4
• Db 1-3-4 or 3-4-5
• C 2-3-4-5
• B 1-2-3-4-5
• Bb 0

In any case, it isn't worth $675 to me. ;-)

Some years ago I created a spreadsheet that takes as input a valve setup, and outputs the theoretically best available fingerings over the range, along with their cent tunings. For this set-up, it outputs the following (noting that we're in transposing pitch here, with my apologies - it was created with a brass band head on):



For further reference, here's the list of alternative fingerings that it comes up with:



It suggests 2-3-5 as much closer to ET pitch than 2-4 for the transposing F# (concert pitch E).
For the Eb(Db), it picks out 3-4-5 as close, but 1-2-4-5 as closer. 1-3-4 it flags as only an emergency possible fingering, due to huge sharpness - which of course one could solve with a pull slide, but there's no need when 1-2-4-5 is available.
For both D(C) and C#(B), pull slides are needed to get close.

[TheJH]

Adding a 5th valve would be absolutely ludicrous. You take away the compensating tubing and extra valve length, sure, but you're adding another valve casing+valve+subsequent valve tubing which is gonna need to be wrapped a LOT for it to fit in the general shape of the instrument, increasing resistance and stuffiness in the process, and you would easily gain the weight back. There is a reason why manufacturers try to make the 4th valve wraps as open as physically possible. It would also still need compensating because a 5+1 or 5+2 valve combination would still be sharp as hell, and it would making use of all valves when possible even more complicated and awkward to use, let alone hold the instrument.

The trigger is mainly for notes that are sharp anyway because of the way brass instruments work, namely the 6th partial. Yes, Bessons are notorious for the quite absurd sharpness in that area, but even my Willson 2960 is 15 to 20-ish cents sharp there, needing to be played with alternate fingerings. That's just how physics work.

And regarding orthodoxy... well, we have a certain sound concept in mind, the instruments we have now provide that, so why change? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. The only thing we have to be aware of is that the instruments don't get even bigger and almost transform in actual baby tubas.

[MoominDave]

For Snorlax

The King 2280 would let you switch the tuning slides on the fourth valve to tune in at Eb. This gives the chromatic scale down to Bb.

From https://www.hornguys.com/products/ki...oist-euphonium

"Fourth valve in Eb: If you reverse the fourth slides and pull them to their extremes, you can tune the fourth valve to Eb by itself.

F 1-3T
E 1-2-3T
Eb 4
D 2-4
Db 1-2-4
C 2-3-4
B 1-2-3-4

The low notes all settle in pretty well without any trigger added. And let me say this: Low Eb played on one .600" valve is completely captivating. I want to play it again and again. Loud. This pattern makes a bit more sense to me than the above Fourth_in_E pattern, but of course, your mileage may vary. The drawbacks still include having to play 1-3 and 1-2-3 with that fourth piston button sort of in the way, and also not being able to set your horn down on the bell due to the extended fourth slide."

That page has lots of interesting information. The YEP-321 used to have an extended third valve slide. So maybe instead of a 5th valve you could have an extended 4th valve slide? Just an idea.

[Edit: There's another post ahead of this one referencing the spreadsheet! But that one hasn't showed up yet; it's awaiting approval. I think as I'm a new user - this post must be the first one past a probationary amount of posts, I imagine? The spreadsheet is one I created a few years ago to automatically deduce fingering charts from a given valve layout.]

And here's what the same spreadsheet makes of this layout, assuming the 3rd slide stays permanently tuned for a good G(F) on 1-3:

Deduced preferred fingerings:


Alternatives:


[Edit: Oh, that's a shame, they came through much smaller than I attached them, so much so that they can't really be read. I guess attachments get shrunk to a maximum permitted size?]

F#(E) is very sharp on 1-2-3 without further pulling, and so is E(D) on 2-4, but there aren't any closer combinations.
Low B on 1-2-3-4 it rather likes already, in contrast to the HornGuys list.

[daruby]

Adding a 5th valve would be absolutely ludicrous.

I find myself in agreement with TheJH.

The Blaikley system, by and large, works well and gets rid of the need for a 5th valve. Why would I want yet another valve? Plus the joy of moving slides around in real time like a tuba player? I can play a modern euphonium sitting or standing without the need for props and stands, and my hands don't leave the horn or move around to accommodate more than the three strong fingers on my right hand and one on my left, plus my thumb.

"Look ma, my hands never leave my body (of the horn)!"

Most modern compensating euphoniums are now "designed" to be either roughly in tune or sharp on most notes. This gets rid of the need to lip notes up. The sharp notes (6th partial), 1-2-3-4 B naturals, and any other quirks (middle G's and low F's on my Bessons and Sterlings) are handled pretty well with the trigger. On my triggerless Adams, I use alternate fingering (3rd valve) on middle G and have to lip 6th partial F down a bit, but Eb and E are spot on. On my untriggered Besson Sovereign, I used 1-3 for 6th partial Eb and 1-2 for F to bring the wild sharpness under control.

OTOH, my Conn Connstellation and most Yamaha 321's that I have played have some serious "flat spots" which are harder to manage in my opinion. Typical are middle C (1st valve), the A below that (2nd valve), and on the Conn, most notes above high G (1-2 or 3) up to high C. This is a product of their extreme sharpness in the low range. The designers tend to make the 1st and 2nd valve loops just a bit longer to "compensate" in the 1-3, 1-2-3, and 4th valve notes below low Eb.

It is not true that innovative designs have not been attempted. A few years back, someone came up with a new wrap for a 3+1 compensating euphonium that was marketed as the Gemeinhardt I-808. The wrap is illustrated in a CAD drawing below. I played one at the Army Conference twice over a 2 year span. Then it disappeared from the face of the earth. It had an awkward (for me) 4th valve position and a 2-way trigger mechanism that went both sharp and flat. In spite of (or because of?) the "innovations", it played poorly, had really kind of bad intonation which the trigger didn't have enough travel to solve, and now appears to have disappeared from the face of the earth.

In the tuba world, we have at least three major layouts of horns in the "American" style, British style, and German style. We have rotors (largely German), top action pistons (American and British), and front action piston (American and German) with anywhere from 3 to 6 valves. BUT each of these designs and their wraps are dated in history at least 100 years old, and are suited (generally) for specific tasks based on their pitch (BBb, C, Eb, F) and target audience (Jazz, Orchestral, Wind Band, Brass Band, Marching band, chamber ensembles, solo, etc.).

In the euphonium world, we have just one pitch (Bb an octave above the BBb tuba), fewer accepted roles (Brass Band, Symphonic band, Marching band, and a more limited set of chamber ensembles and Jazz venues). That the horns have evolved into just two generally accepted formats (British style and German style) and that the front action American style non compensated euphonium has largely evolved into a marching horn (curved bell or DCI style) does not surprise me. Keep in mind, that the last big revolution in American wind band use of the euphonium occurred in the 1950s with the transition to the British style euphonium in Military bands (1st), College and University (2nd), and by 1970s to secondary schools as well.

The instrument we largely use works well, suits the uses to which we put it, and has been ably refined over the last 100 years, not just by B&H/Besson and its antecedants, but by the many manufacturers and artists who joined the marketplace starting with Yamaha in the 70s, later Willson, and the explosion of quality manufacturers after the demise of old Besson in 2005.

We will continue to see innovation and refinement, but I doubt we will see any revolutionary change.

[davewerden]

Just another word about the compensating system. Its benefit is enabling the same fingerings in each octave. It's very helpful to me in my practice, and now and then in performance. I'd hate to use either of the special fingering charts displayed earlier to play this etude, for example:

https://youtu.be/mO-Deb9lZM0

[euphisto]

How difficult would it be to offer a variety of receiver sizes on an Adams euphonium? The large and medium receivers work well on my Hirsbrunner. Also what about an adjustable right hand rest? Maybe it could be removable with a number of different sizes and shapes available - even one made of stainless steel or carbon fiber? How crazy would it be to redesign the lead pipe with an adjustable tuning slide on it similar to a saxhorn operated by trigger? I also like the idea of Pollard Water Keys in place of regular water keys. Anyway, I'm just babbling at this point.

Thanks,

Robert Pendergast, DM