Why did the Flat Whole Step 5th Valve Become Standard?

[russiantuba]

Why did the tuba community settle on a flat whole step as a standard 5th valve? Was it due to the 4 + 2 set up of the 5th valve or something the the Vienna System? Has anyone done the research on the other common 5th valve systems such as the Miraphone 2+3 5th valve setup or the Gronitz Tritone 5th valve system, or were these experiments as different options that never gained the traction desired?

I figure there are some members here who may have dealt with this as 5th valves became more popular or might know a little more about this.

[bort2.0]

No research here, but a few thoughts:

1) Remember, some older tubas like Sander(s?) had the 4th valve as a 2-3 combo length. Perhaps that setup for a fifth valve was seen as a way to keep that valve while getting on the same 4th valve system as everyone else.

2) Ive always guessed that the flat whole step was chosen because it is the minimum length (or if not THE, then something close to it) needed to justify an extra valve. It could be any length, really. But tubing is heavy. And messy... It has to go somewhere... Thinking back to the PT6 that I had... The 23 fifth valve slide was a monster, very heavy and hard to fit in. It's a lot of tubing to add to blow air through, and it's pretty disruptive to the playing experience...? The flat whole step was much easier.

3) And really, doesn't flat whole step solve the low register issues compensated for on a 4 valve tuba? Play down low, pull the first valve. So why not just make a valve that already does this? Slide pullers will always still pull slides... But lazy people like me will always look for some other way then pulling slides. Haha, so says the guy with a 4 valve tuba!

[Rick Denney]

Why did the tuba community settle on a flat whole step as a standard 5th valve? Was it due to the 4 + 2 set up of the 5th valve or something the the Vienna System? Has anyone done the research on the other common 5th valve systems such as the Miraphone 2+3 5th valve setup or the Gronitz Tritone 5th valve system, or were these experiments as different options that never gained the traction desired?

I figure there are some members here who may have dealt with this as 5th valves became more popular or might know a little more about this.

I believe the flat whole step goes all the way back to Wieprecht. The Wieprecht F tuba didn't have what we call a third valve. As I understand it, the top two valves (left hand) do what the first and second valves do now, and the bottom valve (right hand) does what the fourth valve does now. The two valves just above the bottom valve (forefinger and middle finger of right hand) do what the modern fifth and sixth valves do--a flat whole step and a flat semitone.

By Musik- och teatermuseet - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=24894678

The intent of the flat whole step and semitone was to lower the bottom valve-engaged instrument by a tone and a semitone. So, the bottom valve turn the F tuba into a C tuba, and the valves just above it acted as a whole tone and semitone valve from there. So, the bottom valve was a sort-of switch valve between a two-valve F tuba and a two-valve C tuba. Don't you know that was a challenge to fill in the gaps that left.

The modern 4+2 F tuba becomes a C tuba with the fourth valve down, and then 5 and 6 become the whole tone and semitone valves for the C tuba. So, you have a three-valve F tuba, with a switch valve to convert it to a two-valve C tuba. That solves the valve swindle down to low Bb, but then that valves can be mixed and matched below that. All the Knoth F tubas I see are that way, except that the fifth and sixth valves are reversed from the usual B&S positions. I've played modern instruments that were set up that way, too. Knoth was the predecessor to B&S as the premier Markneukirchen-area brass instrument maker going back to before WWII. The British Blaikley compensation system was a different solution to the valve swindle problem.

The point of all this is that from the very start, there was a valve that lowered the bugle by a fourth, and another one that lowered it further by a whole tone.

That principle was applied to the York in 1931. The fourth valve turns the C tuba into a G tuba, and the fifth valve drops it an accurate whole tone from there, giving one a theoretically perfect low F. Some (possibly including me, but on the old forum so find it if you can) accused the fifth valve of being a Bb conversion valve, but a flat whole-step valve would be too long for that. The fifth valve valve was adjustable enough to serve both purposes on the Getzen G-50. The Yamaha fifth valve on the 621F comes with an inserted extension to convert it from a flat whole tone to a flat semitone.

But then all sorts of things have been tried that abandoned the notion of valves sized for C on an F tuba, or valves sized for G on a C tuba. Lots of big-name players thought of different things to do and those gained popularity for a time. The tri-tone Gronitz is just a more recent example. I doubt the Miraphone 2-3 fifth valve predates, well, Miraphone, which was started after WWII. The Sandner that Helleberg used I seem to recall had a two-whole-tone third. That would work pretty well for the series descending from C--2, 1, 1-2, 3, 4, 1-3 or 2-4, 1-4 (and a slide pull). No fifth valve on that instrument. The two-whole-tone third was pretty common, actually. Even the the early B&S Symphonie prototype (1962ish) that Cliff Bevan owned had one.

The Barlow F tuba seems to have a long semitone, or more likely a sharp whole tone fifth valve. I'm sure somebody can provide the fingering chart for it. Those designs date from the late 1890's, and it was an alternative to the Blaikley compensation system.

BarlowF.JPG (69.34 KiB) Viewed 1296 times

I don't think contrabass tubas had a fifth valve particularly often before the modern era. The York seems to be exceptional in that regard--all the contrabass tubas I see from the 19th Century have up to four valves. I don't know when the first 5-valve contrabass tuba appeared, but I can't think of any I've seen from before the York.

Rick "probably custom-made to solve specific problems" Denney

[tclements]

GREAT DISCUSSION! My first pro tuba, was a Bill Bell Model, with a 'variable' 5th valve. It could be anywhere from a whole tone, to a 4th valve. When I FIRST got the tuba (CC), I was not very proficient with CC fingerings, so as a 'safety valve' (no pun intended) I put the 5th valve (left hand actuated) in a whole tone. So when I started floundering in CC, I pushed the 5th valve and played in BBb, albeit not very well in tune. When I stopped needing the 'cheater' valve, I reversed the pipes and they laid naturally in a 2 tone (2&3) tuning. This is how I learned 5th valve technique. In the mid 1970's when I switched to Mirafones, they ALL had the 2 tone 5th valve, so that's what I learned. After I started playing in San José, I moved to a more American style tuba, which had a long whole tone. I spent a LOT of money, getting pipes built to make my 5th valves lengthened. I tired of that and learned the flat whole tone system. Shortly after that, ALL tubas started coming with a flat whole tone, even my beloved Mirafones. I guess Mirafone figured, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I have never been really happy with the long whole tone system and WAY prefer the 2 tone system. Years ago, B&S F tubas came with additional pipes so your 5th valve could go either way; they don't do that anymore. Many designs are motivated by sales, and with all the tuba guys going to the 6/4 York style tubas (which had and have a long whole tone 5th), this became the standard. I like the current crop of 6 valve Fs, as if you push 5&6, you get a very useable 2-tone '5th' valve. I like the low note fingerings with this system.

[MikeMason]

To answer the original question, my best guess is :Arnold Jacobs.

[bloke]

I've only owned ONE of those original M-W bell models (with narrow main slide crook, detachable bell and reversible 5th slides, where one could be "parked" in its own loop), which I bought to flip...and flipped it (many years ago).
I also remember the 50-years-ago brochure for that tuba...with the picture of Bill Bell (who - shockingly - looked like a corpse ) on the front...and I'm pretty sure that he died within or or two years of that brochure picture being photographed.

GREAT DISCUSSION! My first pro tuba, was a Bill Bell Model, with a 'variable' 5th valve. It could be anywhere from a whole tone, to a 4th valve. When I FIRST got the tuba (CC), I was not very proficient with CC fingerings, so as a 'safety valve' (no pun intended) I put the 5th valve (left hand actuated) in a whole tone. So when I started floundering in CC, I pushed the 5th valve and played in BBb, albeit not very well in tune. When I stopped needing the 'cheater' valve, I reversed the pipes and they laid naturally in a 2 tone (2&3) tuning. This is how I learned 5th valve technique. In the mid 1970's when I switched to Mirafones, they ALL had the 2 tone 5th valve, so that's what I learned. After I started playing in San José, I moved to a more American style tuba, which had a long whole tone. I spent a LOT of money, getting pipes built to make my 5th valves lengthened. I tired of that and learned the flat whole tone system. Shortly after that, ALL tubas started coming with a flat whole tone, even my beloved Mirafones. I guess Mirafone figured, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I have never been really happy with the long whole tone system and WAY prefer the 2 tone system. Years ago, B&S F tubas came with additional pipes so your 5th valve could go either way; they don't do that anymore. Many designs are motivated by sales, and with all the tuba guys going to the 6/4 York style tubas (which had and have a long whole tone 5th), this became the standard. I like the current crop of 6 valve Fs, as if you push 5&6, you get a very useable 2-tone '5th' valve. I like the low note fingerings with this system.

[Dan Schultz]

easy answer.... the flat step is cheaper to manufacture and install. I think the logical choice should be a 2-3 combination. Besides.... you can fix the #1 circuit sharpness with a simple 'pull'.

[bloke]

The first factory C tubas that I saw with a GG whole step fifth circuits were Hirsbrunner and Rudolph Meinl.
Custom Music did a tremendous job of promoting those brands, and that configuration began catching on, at that point.
The early B&S F tubas are thought to have featured the same proportional circuit, but actually those 5th circuits were built too short for that use (not even able to be pulled out far enough to function as a CC whole step), and I believe that some other purpose may have actually been intended by the manufacturer/designer.

[bloke]

Regardless of the length of a fifth valve circuit, no single fifth valve circuit is going to offer all the more in-tune solutions that the combination of typical fifth and six valves (which are semitones and whole tones in tune with the fourth valve circuit added to the tuba) is going to offer good intonation for the entire extended low range.
As most of us have found, the Achilles’ heel of the most popular fifth valve circuit length is the pitch one whole step above the fundamental, whereby the closest-to-sufficing valve combination is 5-2-3-4 (horribly sharp - without grabbing some slide, and pulling it out several inches farther than its normal position).
The six valve system solution for playing that pitch is 5-6-3-4, which is right on the money with most all six valve tubas. The intonation of several other pitches benefits significantly from a six valve system, but none as much as that particular pitch.

I can easily “lip” blah, blah-blah, and blah-blah-blah in tune with only four valves

...which Is not the point...as those things can probably also be done with only three valves. The point is being able to make the instrument resonate at its maximum potential, because the instrument is exactly the right length for every played pitch. Further, to be able to play any pitch at extreme loud or soft volume levels, and put that the pitch on the money (again) without the resonance of the instrument being compromised by “lipping“ (distorting the air column to suit intonation).
As an analogy, violinists do not bear down on their bows to bend pitches in tune. Simply, they put their left hand fingers in the correct places on the fingerboard.

[Doc]

Regardless of the length of a fifth valve circuit, no single fifth valve circuit is going to offer all the more in-tune solutions that the combination of typical fifth and six valves (which are semitones and whole tones in tune with the fourth valve circuit added to the tuba) is going to offer good intonation for the entire extended low range.
As most of us have found, the Achilles’ heel of the most popular fifth valve circuit length is the pitch one whole step above the fundamental, whereby the closest-to-sufficing valve combination is 5-2-3-4 (horribly sharp - without grabbing some slide, and pulling it out several inches farther than its normal position).
The six valve system solution for playing that pitch is 5-6-3-4, which is right on the money with most all six valve tubas. The intonation of several other pitches benefits significantly from a six valve system, but none as much as that particular pitch.

It's true. All of it. That often makes a 2+3 or a quint valve seem like a good idea on a 5v tuba. I've owned a 188 and 186 (not the current one) with the 2+3 5th valve. I don't remember needing big pulls on pedal D. With the exception of a note or two, the 188 was point and shoot from top to bottom. The 186 had pretty good intonation, but I simply didn't like the tuba. My 3/4 Rudy CC had the 5th valve slide that was 2+3, but it pulled apart to be used as a flat whole step (which I preferred). 3rd valve slide had easy access to pull, so I never gave it much thought. My Hagen and blokespecial 186 both have excellent intonation (pretty much point and shoot), however, both require a pull for 5234 and that is to be expected. I played a Cerveny Harmonie 6v F tuba with the 5th being a quint - that was a great playing tuba, and the low range was a breeze. My 6v Symphonie works as described above - 5634 is THE combination for low G. 564 for low A. It makes me think that @tclements was not exaggerating that his custom Alexander 6v CC was really easy to play in tune. And the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

I can easily “lip” blah, blah-blah, and blah-blah-blah in tune with only four valves

...which Is not the point...as those things can probably also be done with only three valves. The point is being able to make the instrument resonate at its maximum potential, because the instrument is exactly the right length for every played pitch. Further, to be able to play any pitch at extreme loud or soft volume levels, and put that the pitch on the money (again) without the resonance of the instrument being compromised by “lipping“ (distorting the air column to suit intonation).
As an analogy, violinists do not bear down on their bows to bend pitches in tune. Simply, they put their left hand fingers in the correct places on the fingerboard.

Well... DUH! It can't be said any more clearly than that.

[LeMark]

when I added a 5th valve to my medium sized cerveny, I built in a nearly 6 inch pull on the slide (nice and easy) to "compensate" for the sharpness of 1-2-3-4-5 Db. That's the only note I have to pull for, and it's a note that I almost never have to play. I'll take that trade off in heartbeat