TubaForum.net

yes...I just did some moderately-extensive work on yet another one of these - to be passed from grandfather to grandson...

What are you talking about, bloke?

I haven't really liked old/vintage/1960's Besson 3+1 compensating euphoniums for quite a while, and probably not 1970's versions much better - if any better.

but bloke, Brian Bowman played one.

yes...and he came to my high school with the Navy Band around 1973 or so and was playing one, but within a very short number of years (just about the time the Blaikley Compensating System's patent ran out) he was playing another make.

They play flat down low, and sharp up high.

but bloke, it's up to the player to play in tune, by the way, does the instrument feature it's original intermediate shank? Dr. Bowman believes that changing the shank size to large ruins them.

I actually removed the "euphonium" shank, pulled another (identical) one from the drawer, put it on the lathe, reamed that spare out to large shank, and A/B'ed the two shanks with similar mouthpieces (though intermediate shank vs. large shank mouthpieces, obviously). Both played the same...sorta crappy...and it certainly is up to the player to play in tune, and it's up to the player to choose an instrument whereby this isn't such a tremendous struggle.

It's also difficult to get a really full/rich sound.

Yes bloke, but you're only a doubler...

...so why is it so easy to to produce a full/rich sound with (and with apologies to those who sell them) even most of the Jinbao ones, compared to one of these?

Well, maybe technology has moved along.

I think that's probably true, but I suspect that I might have a better chance of getting a full/rich (ok...but not "world-class" ) sound out of one of these old Besson instruments, were the valve tolerances better (including those which are in original condition, and not worn from age).

Again, bloke, technology has moved along.

OK, but King baritone horns, tubas and sousaphones from the same era (comparing new-condition to new-condition) certainly featured pistons and casings with closer tolerances than Besson.

...but we LOVE our vintage Besson euphoniums.

Yes. I know you do.

preach.

You could have just said “Besson was a _____ist” instead of introducing all this fact based gobbledegook!

Dang, I'm selling one of these. Can you edit your post to let everyone know that mine is actually "one of the good ones"?

One of my weaknesses which I've already admitted is that I tend not to buy stuff that I don't like myself even if it's a bargain and there's obviously money to be made. I used to buy these and flip them all the time. I should probably get over that trait which is costing me money. Other people like these things.

I did have friends who were euphonium majors when I was in college in the 70’s. A Besson 3+1 compensator, VERY preferably in satin silver, was what you HAD to have back then. I really believe that, in spite of all the faults you pointed out, they were popular because they were the best available AT THE TIME. That last phrase is the key. There are better alternatives now, but back then, I’m not sure what else would have done the job.

The whole “compensating” system has always seemed problematic to me. The system adds an awful lot of extra weight, and a well designed non-compensating instrument can be made to play pretty darn well in tune by a player who knows how to do it.

DonO. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 7:28 am I did have friends who were euphonium majors when I was in college in the 70’s. A Besson 3+1 compensator, VERY preferably in satin silver, was what you HAD to have back then. I really believe that, in spite of all the faults you pointed out, they were popular because they were the best available AT THE TIME. That last phrase is the key. There are better alternatives now, but back then, I’m not sure what else would have done the job.

The whole “compensating” system has always seemed problematic to me. The system adds an awful lot of extra weight, and a well designed non-compensating instrument can be made to play pretty darn well in tune by a player who knows how to do it.

A long time ago on Facebook I suggested that a really good non-comp might offer faster valve action, lighter springs and more tuning options. Steven Mead chimed in and scoffed at that suggestion. I didn't argue back with him.. ' no point... someone who does extraordinarily well with what they have - yet no willingness to except the possibility of equipment options for others: any discussion there is not going to end well. I'm thinking a prominent Marine band player just had one of the European manufacturers build them a non-comp, yes?

Personally, I think that some of the manufacturers need to put more acoustical research into lining up the overtones better, so they can rid their instruments of those ghastly main tuning slide triggers. Even if their fifth partial pitch sags a little bit when a retapered bugle manages to lower the six partial, in my opinion it's a lot easier to lip up the fifth partial than to lip down the sixth partial.

A couple of times, I've made the ill-advised decision to purchase tubas which featured really high six partials. I didn't own them very long.
=========
I do really like my compensating E-flat tuba, which I use nearly exclusively for playing in small sit-down jazz combos. It's just nice to be able to push buttons and blow, particularly when there's no sheet music, and I'm sort of busy listening to someone's solo and where it's probably going, or during ensemble choruses - paying attention to the trombone and clarinet, so as to strive to predict the best possible bass notes which should be played next. I've heard recordings of myself playing in bands at gigs when I've allowed myself to become lulled into playing (what I refer to as) "auto-bass" ( or even worse: "selfish-bass" (whereby maybe I was being creative, but not paying attention to others' creativity). I wasn't impressed with myself . Creating bass lines that are really good requires a lot of concentration. Comp E-flats - for the most part - tend to offer really loosey-goosey wide-open tuning, as far as pitch being able to be favored by the player is concerned. They seem to mostly all offer a saggy 8th partial, but that's not the worst sin, and a few of the newer ones - design-wise - have just about conquered that flaw.

I have an early-70's compensating Besson--new enough for the large shank but old enough to precede the Sovereign.

It's good enough for me for the once every five years I have occasion to play it, and I paid $400 for it in a hard case with interesting stories implied by the markings thereon. Plus, making it work was a fun project. (It was in worse condition than the B&S 101 I just played with.) Nevermind the electrical tape sealing a leaky solder joint.

If I had need for a euphonium today for situations requiring a higher standard (to which I would have to attain as a player, and that would take LOTS of practice time away from the tuba), I'd aim for (probably) a Willson 2975, mostly to get the 4th valve under my trained pinky. Or a Chinese lookalike, if any of them play reasonably well. I'm far more apt to screw something up because of the time it takes my dumbass brain to relocate a signal from my right pinky to my left forefinger than I am from an instrument that is suboptimal in some particular way.

Or, I could just get a Yamaha 321 and call it a day. But those aren't that cheap, either.

Rick "standing pat" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 8:42 am Or, I could just get a Yamaha 321 and call it a day. But those aren't that cheap, either.

This is all rehash, so I shouldn't post it, yet I feel my fingers doing so...

Regarding a couple of remarkably-fine (and - believe it or not - NOT stolen, but actually "surplussed") euphoniums that I've owned, I'm not going to boast - here - by revealing the stupid-low prices that I paid for them...

...but I will confess that I surrendered $100 for this "adequate" and "just a bit rugged, yet mechanically perfect" (Yamaha) euphonium.

I gave the still-serviceable case (1970's black) to a friend, and moved it over to one of those more-rugged Jupiter cases (a salvage instrument, yet with a new-condition case).

The widely-sought-after genuine Yamaha (fully chromatic dependent valve) accessory: I did a bit of trading - which still left me "to the good"...so I suppose (??) one could classify it as "free". I use a came-with-some-sort-of-used-trombone Schilke 51 (NOT "D") with it - which seems just about ideal.

I have a huge euphonium (compensating) which I use for most things (not "euphonium solos") and this 321 is my "emergency" (re: 11" bell, .571" bore, small shank mouthpiece) euphonium (for things such as Mars, Bydlo, etc...)

bloke " 'same as Rich Matteson, except ONLY up towards 'high B-flat', and not 'DOUBLE high B-flat' "