TubaForum.net

Has anyone here gotten a chance to try a true F/CC or F/BBb tuba? To my limited knowledge, I know Alexander and Gronitz have made a couple of very rare examples, but I'd be curious to see how many are played outside of a museum/collection context and what they sound like.

I played one at Baltimore Brass like 15(?) years ago, an F/CC. Maybe Cerveny...?

It wasn't a very good F tuba, and it wasn't a very good CC tuba either... But it was a better F tuba than it was CC tuba. It sounded okay as an F tuba, but the low range was very hard to play... Likely because it was intended that you switch to CC for the lower range. The CC side sounded pretty lightweight, and everything was a little weird to center the pitch. IMO, it's too much cylindrical tubing on the CC side.

Maybe there are some good ones out there... But the one I tried was not great.

The system works with double horns, because their design involves a tremendous amount of cylindrical tubing for the longer F "side" of the instrument, anyway.

As euphoniums are compensating double instruments - and the double portion of the instrument is only used on a handful of pitches in the low range, it works out okay as well.

I've just never seen a successfully designed C or B-flat tuba with four to six feet of cylindrical tubing in its main bugle.

Once or twice when someone has brought by some E-flat tuba that was lengthened from 13 ft to 16 ft - via cylindrical tubing - to make them into C instruments, I wasn't particularly impressed with the way those played either.

The other problem is mechanical. Double tuba-bore rotors are going to need to be massive, and thus slow.

For anyone who owns an F tuba, just imagine removing the main tuning slide and inserting one that fits the instrument that's 2 ft long - de facto 4 ft of tubing, along with substitute valve slides that are between a half a foot to a foot long or longer each. Intuition tells us that our F tuba - lengthened to C - is not going to play very nicely for us... and this methodology doesn't even add any additional twists and turns - which are necessarily involved in a double tuba.

Played an Alexander F/CC some years ago. I would not have been tempted to make an offer had it been for sale. Its owner appeared to like it.

Tubas and euphoniums which use the 4 valve Blaikley compensating system work like compensating double horns.

With a 4v compensated Eb tuba, press the 4th valve down, then you've got a 3 valve BBb tuba. It's not a great BBb tuba at that point, but a BBb tuba nonetheless.

cjk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 12:08 pm Played an Alexander F/CC some years ago. I would not have been tempted to make an offer had it been for sale. Its owner appeared to like it.

Tubas and euphoniums which use the 4 valve Blaikley compensating system work like compensating double horns.

With a 4v compensated Eb tuba, press the 4th valve down, then you've got a 3 valve BBb tuba. It's not a great BBb tuba at that point, but a BBb tuba nonetheless.

yeah...
I made the point very poorly...

...the point being that the FEW pitches that are played on the "compensating/double" side of a Blaikley System instrument (on the "double"/compensating "side") are just as stuffy whether built as a "double"/Blaikley tuba or an inline-valves tuba.

On double tubas with rotary valves, the valves are double height and can (usually?) end up being very heavy.

I am going beyond the OPs original question, but perhaps some might find it interesting.
Double tubas have been around since the first double french horns were invented in the late 19th century and basically follow the same concept. They were mostly "one off" custom instruments built for specific clients, usually employed by an opera house or orchestra. Likely the most well known tubist who used them was Paul Humpel who played in the Berliner Philharmonic before Alexander von Putkammer, the current tubist there. Paul used a number of Gronitz double tubas for quite a bit of his work.

In my opinion there were three reasons why "full" double tubas didn't "breakthrough", at least in Germany.
1. Cost. Double tubas are from a maker's perspective, engineering marvels of complexity and as such are time consuming to produce which greatly increases the cost of what is already an expensive instrument. Even restoring one is a daunting task for a proficient maker.

2. Playability. When the first double tubas were made in the 1890s, the rational behind the design was as other here have clearly stated, to use the lower side, whether CC or BBb to address issues with the low range of Bass F-tubas, ie the low C-Db-D etc and visa vera with the F side as well.Other benefits were the extra mass added by the double valves which helped in projection and volume without requiring a larger tuba.
However if one is to be completely objective, a decent large model Cerveny F from 1900 or a Sander CC tuba from the same time period, both play rings around any double tuba from that time period. One can always make the case for "character" etc, but even my Viennese F tuba from 1920 (also formally used in the Berliner Phil from that time) is far far easier to play than any double tubas I've tried.

3. Culture. So if the double tubas were more expensive and harder to play than other tubas, why did tubists even use them in the first place?
Before WW1 there tended to be a harder separation between musicians who played in Symphony Orchestras and Military Windbands. Tubists who primarily worked in Symphonies tended to use far smaller instruments than their military brethern. For example the Viennese tubas used under Mahler when he conducted the Vienna Philharmonic were small bass tubas in F rather than huge F/Eb/CC/BBb tubas used in the Austrian and German militaries. The orchestra brass players often saw themselves quasi "higher" in society than their military colleagues and the choice of instruments reflected this. One can see it as two parallel streams in society.
After the horrors of WW1 with countless dead, the military players began to filter into the Symphony orchestras bringing their "larger" instruments with them.
The parallel streams began to merge and classism was slowly replaced with nationalism and militarism. In short, the double tubas were seen as a sign of bourgoise or royalty, only available to those with deep pockets and the "right" background.

And now to answer the OPs question. Yes I've played around 8 different versions made by a variety of different companies.
Out of all of them, there was only one that I would buy. It was a Gronitz Double F-CC originally owned by Mark Evans who played in the Deutsche Oper here in Berlin. It honestly worked great as a large F-Tuba with a CC low range. It has some interesting design details, the ports for the CC side of the valves was a larger bore than the F-side. It had a unique sound with more "weight" than most other F-Tubas. If I can find a photo, I will post later on.

Sorry for the long post, hope it was interesting.
TLDR: try before you buy;)

Great informative post. Thank you and happy holidays.Ed

TheBerlinerTuba wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:05 am 3. Culture. So if the double tubas were more expensive and harder to play than other tubas, why did tubists even use them in the first place?
Before WW1 there tended to be a harder separation between musicians who played in Symphony Orchestras and Military Windbands. Tubists who primarily worked in Symphonies tended to use far smaller instruments than their military brethern. For example the Viennese tubas used under Mahler when he conducted the Vienna Philharmonic were small bass tubas in F rather than huge F/Eb/CC/BBb tubas used in the Austrian and German militaries. The orchestra brass players often saw themselves quasi "higher" in society than their military colleagues and the choice of instruments reflected this. One can see it as two parallel streams in society.
After the horrors of WW1 with countless dead, the military players began to filter into the Symphony orchestras bringing their "larger" instruments with them.
The parallel streams began to merge and classism was slowly replaced with nationalism and militarism. In short, the double tubas were seen as a sign of bourgoise or royalty, only available to those with deep pockets and the "right" background.

Interesting points often not considered. Thank you for all of the information.

The parallel streams began to merge and classism was slowly replaced with nationalism and militarism. In short, the double tubas were seen as a sign of [bourgeois] or royalty, only available to those with deep pockets and the "right" background.

I must admit. This made me chuckle. If true, it's a bit like today - whereas tuba players view themselves as within a hierarchy, with everyone else viewing them as tuba players.

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:26 pm

The parallel streams began to merge and classism was slowly replaced with nationalism and militarism. In short, the double tubas were seen as a sign of [bourgeois] or royalty, only available to those with deep pockets and the "right" background.

I must admit. This made me chuckle. If true, it's a bit like today - whereas tuba players view themselves as within a hierarchy, with everyone else viewing them as tuba players.

I think someone brought it up here. Tuba players can talk all they want about CC vs. BBb, Eb vs. F, Silver vs lacquer vs bare brass. And then the mouthpieces! The people in the audience are saying, "Look. There's a tuba. It sounds nice."

----

Didn't Tommy Johnson have a CC/F double of some sort? I thought I saw a picture of it one time.

TheBerlinerTuba wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:05 am Tubists who primarily worked in Symphonies tended to use far smaller instruments than their military brethern.

I have the impression that the C tuba used by the French symphonic players - smaller, enough valve tubing to practically make a double - was a little more successful than double tubas. Either because it was better, or maybe the French military band players didn't have big tubas either.

Not fooling myself into believing that I'm on the front end of a trend - but growing bit weary of using the (actually fairly large - 16-1/2" belled) F tuba on Berlioz/Mendelssohn/etc., and (unless subbing in an orchestra that would expect otherwise) will probably use the compensating euphonium for that stuff. I tend to use the F tuba when I can (almost all quintet engagements...some of you saw that I used it on the CSS "Organ" Symphony, etc.), pull out the F cimbasso for an extremely large percentage of "pops" stuff (will be using it for another entire "pops" concert in February, to cover 4th trombone parts in a bunch of Nelson Riddle-sque scored arrangements), like to use the 32"-tall under-7/10" bore B-flat (phat-sounding, but not sousaphone-sounding) on a lot of things, and pull out the great big B-flat (about which I've recently endlessly posted) for stuff that needs to sound bass-y, cavernous, jolly, or Hollywood-ish...

...so - on average - I guess I'm a "small tubas when called to play in orchestras" type of person...and that's not to imply "timid-playing".

community bands: I see all sorts of stuff - a lot of Jinbao, though.

bloke "completely realizing that the only one of my contraptions that might possibly be noticed by anyone on stage or out in the seats might be the cimbasso, due to its goofy appearance...ie. just another lowly tuba player - neither middle-class nor high-class. I have it figured this way: If I'm told when to be somewhere, exactly how/what to play, precisely what to wear, and even just how to behave (all the onstage etiquette, etc.), I'm amongst the lowly."

A 3+1 conpensator is really a 3 valve compensating double tuba with a change valve.

I think my Besson Eb is a decent 3 valve BBb with the 4th valve down.

For that matter, the 5th and 6th valves on a typical F tuba are no more than most of a manual double tuba.

Gary Buttery has/had a 7 valve Alex F that was effectively three valves in F and three in C.

The third valve on the C side would be nearly the same length as 2+3 on the F side. Makes sense why that 7th valve might be superfluous in most cases so people deemed 6 sufficient for playing chromatically on an F tuba.

Nonetheless, seems like a pretty good solution of making a double tuba without all of the potential issues.

matt g wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 6:45 am Gary Buttery has/had a 7 valve Alex F that was effectively three valves in F and three in C.

The third valve on the C side would be nearly the same length as 2+3 on the F side. Makes sense why that 7th valve might be superfluous in most cases so people deemed 6 sufficient for playing chromatically on an F tuba.

Nonetheless, seems like a pretty good solution of making a double tuba without all of the potential issues.

Yeah... a squirrely is the 2-3 valve combination is, it seems to me that combining that with a double tuba application would be super squirrely.. but I've never experienced it, so...

matt g wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 6:45 am Gary Buttery has/had a 7 valve Alex F that was effectively three valves in F and three in C.

The third valve on the C side would be nearly the same length as 2+3 on the F side. Makes sense why that 7th valve might be superfluous in most cases so people deemed 6 sufficient for playing chromatically on an F tuba.

Nonetheless, seems like a pretty good solution of making a double tuba without all of the potential issues.

I chatted with Gary at the most recent TubaChristmas and he said he still has it.

@arpthark, nice! It’s one heckuva tuba and he plays it well.