Alternative bell Eb?

[tubanh84]

So as I'm pondering the future, I'm wondering - We hear about the small bell British Eb tubas vs the larger bell ones. And there are benefits and drawbacks to each. Understanding that the size of the bell is a factor in intonation and maybe that is prohibitive, has anyone seen/developed a British Eb with a screw-off bell system? Seems like a setup that would cover 90% of anything you'd ever need to do.

[bloke]

I've learned (from someone else, who cleverly ascertained what was done at the Edgware Road factory, over a half century ago) that the (A=440) 1950's - 1960's DETACHABLE RECORDING BELL Besson E-flat tubas were achieved by installing the old/obsolete HIGH PITCH (considerably shorter) upper large bow on those instruments, which SHORTENED them enough to allow for the detachable recording bell to be installed WITHOUT making those instruments flat...

...so what I'm suggesting is that - without that "trick", a detachable bell (on a conventionally-shaped British-style compensating E-flat tuba) is going to be quite steeply-tapered (possibly presenting a problem, when attempting to fit male/female detachable collars) and quite short.

...so - if swapping out 15" and 19" bells on a conventional 3+1 comp E-flat, I would suspect that (again) the taper would be quite steep, and the detachable bells would be quite short/stubby...and that some sorts of allowances/compromises would need to be made, due to the very steep bell taper within the collars themselves.

Even though it would require several detachable braces (with brass screws, etc.), WERE IT THAT I was determined to accomplish the 19" AND 15" bell with ONE instrument, I would probably approach the task by fashioning collars down at the top of the large side of the bottom bow...
...much as with the 1960's - 1970's chrome-plated F. E. Olds GG contras.

one other consideration:
These instruments tend to play at a lower pitch level (requiring a 2" to 3" shorter instrument overall, to achieve A=440), when a 15" bell is replaced with a 19" bell (at least, in my experience). Some refer to this at the "blah-blah [someone's name] cut"...though I really don't understand why anyone deserves credit for realizing the need for such a cut, as the need is so very obvious.

[tubanh84]

I've learned (from someone else, who cleverly ascertained what was done at the Edgware Road factory, over a half century ago) that the (A=440) 1950's - 1960's DETACHABLE RECORDING BELL Besson E-flat tubas were achieved by installing the old/obsolete HIGH PITCH (considerably shorter) upper large bow on those instruments, which SHORTENED them enough to allow for the detachable recording bell to be installed WITHOUT making those instruments flat...

...so what I'm suggesting is that - without that "trick", a detachable bell (on a conventionally-shaped British-style compensating E-flat tuba) is going to be quite steeply-tapered (possibly presenting a problem, when attempting to fit male/female detachable collars) and quite short.

...so - if swapping out 15" and 19" bells on a conventional 3+1 comp E-flat, I would suspect that (again) the taper would be quite steep, and the detachable bells would be quite short/stubby...and that some sorts of allowances/compromises would need to be made, due to the very steep bell taper within the collars themselves.

Even though it would require several detachable braces (with brass screws, etc.), WERE IT THAT I was determined to accomplish the 19" AND 15" bell with ONE instrument, I would probably approach the task by fashioning collars down at the top of the large side of the bottom bow...
...much as with the 1960's - 1970's chrome-plated F. E. Olds GG contras.

one other consideration:
These instruments tend to play at a lower pitch level (requiring a 2" to 3" shorter instrument overall, to achieve A=440), when a 15" bell is replaced with a 19" bell (at least, in my experience). Some refer to this at the "blah-blah [someone's name] cut"...though I really don't understand why anyone deserves credit for realizing the need for such a cut, as the need is so very obvious.

Come on, it was a serious question, and I was looking for serious answers here. Not everything needs to be a joke.

Honestly, thank you for the information. Seems like you have to pick your poison on tone.

[bloke]

I’ve never proven it to myself, but I’m just about as sure as I can be that the Yamaha YEB–321 bell is virtually identical - in taper and complete dimensions - to those original 15 inch Besson/Boosey & Hawkes bells…

… so if someone were to order and receive one of those Yamaha bells (not cheap, but affordable, depending on dealer markup), came up with some collars that are compatible with the bottom bow, and constructed a set of detachable braces, they would have what I described above.

The “compromise“ bell is the 17 inch bell, and my view is that – at least with the (first-issued/now: shelved) Yamaha 3+1 compensating model YEB-631, that’s a remarkably fine instrument, which I consider superior to the subsequent 19-inch bell Yamaha compensating versions..

[greenbean]

I’ve never proven it to myself, but I’m just about as sure as I can be that the Yamaha YEB–321 bell is virtually identical - in taper and complete dimensions - to those original 15 inch Besson/Boosey & Hawkes bells…
...

You mean... you have never actually measured these bells?...

[bloke]

No one around here owns a 321 E-flat.
I owned one for a very short time - several decades ago, but I wasn’t doing any repair work in 1976, and wasn’t interested in various bells’ compatibility. The main things I noticed about it were that “it plays darn good, but runs out of notes at the bottom too quickly, with only four valves”.
All of that having been said, I’d probably be willing to wager $100 that a YEB–321 bell’s overall dimensions are darn close to a recent-era (1960’s, etc.) 15-inch bell Besson/Boosey E-flat bell’s dimensions, as long as some very small margin of error of discrepancy could be defined, prior to the wager.
I bought one of those bells from Balinda at the Yamaha warehouse in California within the last couple of years, but sweet-talked her into making an exception and drop-shipping it to someone who also lived in the southwest, so I never touched it nor even laid eyes on it. I believe their purpose was to substitute it for a 19-inch bell on an E-flat compensating tuba… I didn’t get a lot of feedback from them, but they did not complain.

[funkhoss]

...has anyone seen/developed a British Eb with a screw-off bell system? Seems like a setup that would cover 90% of anything you'd ever need to do.

I did this very thing: a compensating E-flat with interchangeable bells AND leadpipes. You can read more about it here; be sure to read the later posts too about my experiments with different/custom shank sizes: http://forums.chisham.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=95316

The only thing that has changed since that writeup is that I've swapped the 19" upright King bell for a 22" upright King bell. So I have three bells: B&H 15" and King 22" upright and recording; and two leadpipes: original narrow Imperial with an American receiver, and modified 981 with an XXL receiver.

It plays great, and as you say: it can do just about anything!

-Funkhoss

[bloke]

Yes. This gentleman is the one who showed me about the old-style high-pitched upper bows being used on the A=440 recording model E-flats.

… but I doubt if anyone really is willing to yank their a 440 upper bow off of their compensating E-flat and stick on a high pitch upper bow, thus my suggestion of making (modern and uncut) 15 or 19 inch bells detachable at the bottom bow - with a connector there.