Redesigning The Euphonium

[spkissane]

I think the biggest issue right off the bat is airflow, since 4th valve comps are already very restricive and muffled on certain 4th valve fingerings, and adding more tubing bends would just make the instrument possibly unplayable, at least altering the tone drastically. Maybe a different valve design is necessary to accomodate this?

Martin Wilk actually designed a prototype MAW 4th valve for the Willson 2900, which I purchased off him a number of years back (and have since sold when I switched to an Adams). One of the primary goals with MAW valves overall is a more open airflow with the elimination of a lot of the "bumps" inside the ports. Obviously his euphonium valve hasn't caught on, but that might just be because most people aren't even aware it ever existed!


I have a few thoughts and opinions on this thread's subject as a whole, so bear with me while I ramble...

- Even by brass instrument standards, the euphonium that we know today is a pretty young instrument. On one hand, that means there haven't been as many total years of innovation, but on the other, I think it means that the instrument has to a certain extent reaped the benefits of innovations in the rest of the brass family. Improvements to trombones, trumpets, and tubas have all likely carried over and informed design improvements to the euphonium.

- I don't personally think it's likely that a "redesign" would benefit most modern instruments - when we use words like that, it could understate or underestimate the tremendous amount of design that's ALREADY been put into these horns.

- I think a lot of the "improvements" that people think about are subjective and based on the individual's preference/comfort. I personally prefer the 3+1 configuration to the 4 in-line style by a huge margin. I also really dislike tuning triggers because I've never met a horn with one that didn't have an emergency trigger malfunction (so I guess maybe one thing I think would be a less subjective improvement would be trigger mechanism design, ha!). But I know that plenty of people who are not me have different opinions on those and a million other features - bell material, bore size, ergonomics, blow resistance, overall weight of the instrument, etc., etc. One reason why I (and many people on this forum) tend to push back against the "best horn" debate, and also why it's great that manufactures make all these options available!

- Instrument design is an enormous balancing act. Intonation improvements can come at the cost of tone quality or ergonomic comfort. You may have to deal with a heavy horn in order to get the core and projection that you like. Again, etc., etc. Most improvements in one aspect will come at the cost of something else.

- One of my strongest opinions on this subject is that we as players and enthusiasts can get bogged down in changes and adjustments in "gear" that to a very, VERY large degree are incremental at best, and at worst, possibly make no real, functional difference, at least to 99 percent of players. I'm certainly guilty of this from time to time - but I think we can get a little too picky for our own good. We've got to keep in mind that the best and most noticeable improvements we can make are in the practice room. And the more we grow as players, the more we can actually appreciate these design improvements/options. It's a great exercise to think about this stuff, and obviously we should never stop innovating, but it can get a little dangerous, especially for newer players to center "gear" in the conversation over musicianship, practice, and skill. A $10k Adams isn't going to make a student play their scales better than a Yamaha YEP321.

And of course when I say this stuff I'm most definitely NOT talking about thing that help players with physical limitations/needs. If it helps you get the horn in your hands and the mouthpiece on your lips, it's a wonderful choice!

I hope that any of what I just typed made any sense at all, ha!

[davewerden]

We've got to keep in mind that the best and most noticeable improvements we can make are in the practice room. And the more we grow as players, the more we can actually appreciate these design improvements/options. It's a great exercise to think about this stuff, and obviously we should never stop innovating, but it can get a little dangerous, especially for newer players to center "gear" in the conversation over musicianship, practice, and skill. A $10k Adams isn't going to make a student play their scales better than a Yamaha YEP321.

And of course when I say this stuff I'm most definitely NOT talking about thing that help players with physical limitations/needs. If it helps you get the horn in your hands and the mouthpiece on your lips, it's a wonderful choice!

Great comments in your whole post! Looking at the practice aspect, I am reminded of a blog post I did on mouthpieces, in which I quoted a famous trumpet player:

I always remember Claude Gordon's advice to a trumpet player who seemed obsessed with always trying the latest and greatest mouthpieces. He suggested the following:

Take all the mouthpieces your own and put them in a brown paper bag. Take the bag and row out to the middle of a lake. Reach into the bad (without looking) and pull out a mouthpiece. Then throw the bag overboard. Take the remaining mouthpiece home and practice with it!

(Of course, throwing a bag of euphoniums into a lake could be costly and not environmentally sound.)

FYI, that blog post is here:

http://www.dwerden.com/forum/entry.p...ect-Mouthpiece

[Magikarp]

The great Lyndon Baglin once told me, when I was lamenting playing on a Boosey Solbron, that instruments are only amplifiers. He loved the Solbron, as well as the Imperial, and then the Sovereign, but he also insisted the intonation issues we make so much of are little more than tiny inconveniences. I don’t recall him playing out of tune, even on the most hastily recorded LPs, or John Clough or Stephen Lord for that matter. Curiously I can find recordings of Bob Childs playing horrendously sharp on Besson sovereigns that had many decades of “improvement”. (The Groundforce album with Black Dyke for those interested, amongst others)

Maybe we focus too much on what we play and not enough on how we play.

[RickF]

Lyndon Baglin has always been one of my favorite euphonium soloists. What perfection! If you're not familiar just search for Lyndon Baglin playing "Rule Brittania". He uses alternate fingerings when necessary.

[franz]

I am surprised that there isn't a 5 or 6 valve euphonium as there are with tubas. That would be an interesting instrument to play.

Wessex makes a 6-valve C French tuba, a copy of a 1931 Cuesnon model that plays free and in tune over 4 octaves, with many alternate positions and is very fun to play.

[Magikarp]

Lyndon Baglin has always been one of my favorite euphonium soloists. What perfection! If you're not familiar just search for Lyndon Baglin playing "Rule Brittania". He uses alternate fingerings when necessary.

Some of which I have adopted myself, depending on the role of the note I'm playing. The only false fingering I have ever used is middle A on 3rd valve on my E2, and occasionally 1/4 for top F and 4 for top G on my Bessons. Otherwise, I just get around it. What "it" may be.

[Micah.Dominic.Parsons.]

Hello everyone,

I have to admit that I have found this thread absolutely fascinating! I really hope that we may see some of these ideas featured in this thread bought to life in the near future!

Best Wishes,

Micah Dominic Parsons

[notaverygoodname]

Sorry I'm very late to the party, but this is an interesting thread. Unfortunately, I was too busy to be reading forums until kinda recently. I've been trying to catch up now that I've had time.

Overall, the Euphonium as we know it is really sophisticated and capable. It doesn't have a lot of intonation issues, and the ones it has are completely blown out of proportion. You can play it with almost any sort of reasonable mouthpiece and it's perfectly fine. There's not a lot to change that hasn't already been tried and likely abandoned for some reason. I admit that I kind of wish we had more options in the modern day, but at the same time, I don't know who would be buying them. Bigger is more popular.

RE: Double compensating
I actually ran the math on this many years ago, and it is actually possible (mathematically) to do this. For example, if a Bb horn compensated for both F and Eb, then the combination making BBb would actually be close enough to work. No doubt it would perform tragically, but it would work. Of course, finding room for all of this tubing, the extra weight, and the stuffiness would be awful. Could you combine the Enharmonic system and the compensating system? Technically, yes. You'd have a boat anchor of a horn, but sure. Do you want the extra leadpipe length that it takes to make the Enharmonic system work? Never tried it, but a healthy guess is...NO.

I had the idea some time back that what would work best (IMO) is an inline 4 system when you combine 3 valve compensating with a single loop for 4+3. This gives you entirely enough tubing for low B natural while also providing effective compensation for the 1+3 combination. This is a great solution for us blow-to-pitch heathens that don't ever use 3 or 4 by itself, but might occasionally want to play in that range. Unfortunately, this introduces a big problem for bore distribution and valve alignment. Do you go single bore 4-valve compensating? Absolutely not. The other option is to make the 3rd and 4th valve have the same (larger) bore. Does that work? Dunno. I know that I don't want my 3rd and 4th valves to have like .040" extra throw, though.

It's not what you want to hear, but the easiest solution to this problem is to just make a horn with an easier false tone partial. Find a way to make that work without the low end of 2nd partial being stuffy and you win. 4th valve not needed. Surely, modern engineering can do this.

RE: 3+1 upright shape
I'm surprised to see so much love for the 3+1 upright. This is one of the least ergonomic possible arrangements of an instrument. Not saying I want to go trumpetform, but seriously. You have no real grip on anything, the weight distribution is bad, and it's not much better with a shoulder strap. If you want the best ergonomics, then you need to find an arrangement that gives you the overall shape of the ovalform horns while still being a Euphonium. Is that possible? Yes. Will it be as attractive? Not sure, but probably not. I think that the most effective way to make this possible is to use the French style wrap (right hand on top bow) so that the bell is "longer". The overall horn would then be shorter, but the weight distribution would be much better, and better suited for a shoulder strap.

Some new features that I'm surprised aren't a thing:
* Seat peg
Seriously? I don't think I've ever seen this on anything except for instruments that come close to the ground. Provide an adjustable peg to use the seat as a balance point. Yes, it would need all sorts of adjustment to work well for everyone and it would be ugly. Too bad. This combined with a shoulder strap should completely eliminate the ergonomics issues of the upright form factor. Yes, I think this is better than using a pillow.

* Full-double Rotary w/ double rotor system (like some Wagner Tubas)
I know it would be stupid heavy and completely unacceptable in most circles, but come on. You know it would be cool to have those super fast rotor valves and no return loops. What form factor? Dunno. It'd be ugly, but this could actually be done as a normal upright horn.

* Just completely new alternative instrument...
Ok, hear me out. Ovalform is really ergonomically good. Playing Bb music on an Eb instrument is pretty easy, as is reading BC. So uhh...just make a very small bore (.550"ish?) ovalform Eb Tuba no larger than the largest size of Rotary Euphonium. Would that work? I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to try it. I've tried this with my Eb Contrabass and it's not tragic, but that horn has a 13" bell and is considerably larger than what I'm picturing. I think if it were smaller, the sound would be richer, and the slotting would be practical. Compared to other instruments that have tried this sort of approach, this probably sounds stupid, but the fact that the BBb Tuba hasn't been replaced gives me some hope.