Re: Compensation system


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Klaus on August 02, 2001 at 18:51:55:

In Reply to: Compensation system posted by MZ on August 02, 2001 at 14:34:33:

Lew has very briefly explained the outlines of the comp system. Starting from there I might make a very fundamentalist statement:

The compensation system has its flaws, but it is the very best intonation system for low range conical brasses. Period!

Only there is the problem, that the compensation system has been treated with a lot of bad applications on low brasses.

Of course I have not tried all models, but still enough to draw conclusions.

Sovereign euphoniums are nice lightweight instruments. Only sad, that they die above the ninth partial.

Hirsburner euphs are great. Only a bit light in sound.

Willson top valved euphs are not consistently good.

The discontinued Yamaha 641 has an unbelievable fullness and wormth over a very wide range. Needs some attention to stay flexible just below the 8th partial. Needs a main tuning slide trigger to get C and B nat just above the fundamental into tune. My personal choice.

In Eb comp tubas I have not tried the Hirsburner.

The YEB was my goal when going for an Eb comp tuba. Turned out to be a sad rattle-o-phonium. Most likely due to the proudly boasted "thin walling of the inner tubing."

The Sovereign 983 was good, but very small in sound and downwards range.

As I did not want a marching tuba I skipped testing of the Sovereign 982. The Sovereign 981 is a big bass tuba, but not a contrabass tuba. Amazingly in tune just above the fundamental. Needs some attention around the 5th and 10th partials. Still good. My personal choice.

Wanted a comp BBb. Went for Sovereigns and a Yamaha. No way close to the Sovereign 981 Eb in format. Probably due to sadly narrow leadpipes. Ended up with older US 4 valve non comp BBb’s. Not regrets from my side.

Klaus


Follow Ups: