TubaForum.net

Hi,

what is your experience playing B, c, des and probably d in the staff on a Bb tuba. These notes, for me, do not resonate as good as the other notes and sometimes are more work to center them, make them sound good and speak clearly (Bob Kolada described this as „squirellyness“ in this forum Jun 2023). On C or F tubas, I do not have this issue, neither in the equivalent partials nor with the exact same notes. When I started F Tuba, a B&S Symphonie 6 valve, early in the 1980-ties, it took me a while to get used to the low C, B, Bb area. No problem today. But these B, c or des in the staff on a Bb tuba always need a lot of attention (playing a lot of Bordogni or Kopprasch then irons out that range) What is your experience ?

Best
Chris

Three things are working against you:

- 18 foot (~5.5 meter) bugle length inherent in BBb tubas

- For B in the staff played 1-2, you're adding an additional ~40 inches (102cm) of cylindrical tubing

- That partial on most tubas tends to be flat

So, trying to fight pitch (maybe you are hearing the corect pitch but the horn is forcing your buzz lower) while dealing with over 100cm of added cylindrical tubing, not to mention the longer bugle length, can all be a recipe for squirrelliness. Of course, the cylindrical tubing is less the problem on C, C# and the (open) D, but everything else stands.

It's also tuba-specific. Your horn could just have that quirk. What instrument is your BBb tuba? Next time you take it in or do work on it yourself, check valve alignment, as well.

In particular, tupas built with the classic Kaiser bugle taper place the fifth partial overtone (the pitchs which you specifically mentioned) quite flat.
Most of the Kaiser instruments that I've encountered offer a fairly in tune open d, but d flat down to B natural is fairly flat.
There's not much to be done with d flat other than lipping or using a whole bunch of additional tubing and playing it with 2-3.
C and B-natural should be able to be adjusted, but a whole bunch of first valve slides on B flat tubas don't push in far enough to tune those notes up to pitch. I've had to alter that on some of my own instruments in order to accomplish that.)

I'm making some really specific claims as to specific bugle typers here, but I found it those that are fairly similar to King or four quarter York bugle tapers don't feature this problem - until reaching C and B (which defines that it's nice that d flat doesn't have to be a problem).

There are quite a few 4/4 old Holton and York tubas with virtually identical bells and bugles (compact, 32 inches tall, 19 inch bell). My B flat Holton is such that I can play D & D-flat using the beginner band books' fingering chart, but - if I want to make myself and the trombone section happy - I need to push in the first valve slide to place C and B natural.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that the lack of focus / resonance on those pitches that are all on the fifth partial might be due to most of them featuring a flat tendency and the player trying to overcome it with their mouth.

In a similar vein, those 4/4 Hirsbrunner C tubas (whether made in Switzerland or in the new place with the new name) tend to feature a pretty wretched second partial, once the player descends below B natural - the issue typically being the opposite, whereby B flat, A, and certainly low A flat all ride quite sharp. Many people refer to that as a response problem, whereby I refer to it as a tuning problem.

bloke wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2026 12:13 pm In particular, tupas built with the classic Kaiser bugle taper place the fifth partial overtone (the pitchs which you specifically mentioned) quite flat.
Most of the Kaiser instruments that I've encountered offer a fairly in tune open d, but d flat down to B natural is fairly flat.

I would second that statement.

Both my (in terms of german rotary bugle) classical shaped tubas have this issue although I consider the response and intonation D, Db, C, B (or equivalent partial range on F-tuba) as absolutely fine, even "very good for the bugle shape", my F-Tuba being far more "squirrely" in the equivalent range than my current Kaisertuba (which is "almost as responsive" as modern 5/4-6/4 Kaiser designs but at least for Db and D the player can "feel" this issue, B with 12 again is really good without effort). And yes, as discussed in the 5th valve thread, working against intonation issues results in compromises regarding response which is probably what you feel. My 164 needed alternate fingerings and slide pulling to "resonate" as intended. From my personal experience, it's even worse for the player if the intonation issues are +- "acceptable" and amateur players as me either hit or miss the spot needed for good articulation/intonation which just feels squirrely and results in tone issues.

My saxhorn/British shaped 3+1 compensated tubas with a very moderate bugle shape (17" BBb, 13" Eb) both do not have this issue.

[Off topic comment to Bloke as it is somehow a similar issue and result: after your comment in the 5th valve thread I counter checked my intonation on 24 on low E. You were right regarding FF intonation. From a solid mezzoforte or forte onwards 24 tends so high that 14 is the way to go for E if acrobatics shall be avoided. Both valve combinations need concentration on intonation and therefore airflow of course.]

Edit: I also address that issue with classical etudes and in addition stretching both low and high range above what is usually needed which really helps.

I'm old, I play "well" (not as well as I did 30 years ago), and have played a bunch of tubas and have made tons of observations.

There's only one F tuba design (if found in good condition or faithfully reproduced...as most of the copies of that design are not faithful) that is really easy to play, but the PLAYER must play it as an F tuba, and not as a cut-to-F C-tuba.

If the first slide's range is wide enough to play C and B IN TUNE with the first slide all the way in - and the OCTAVE LOWER C with 1-3 (obviously with the first slide pulled out quite far) that allows for the 4th slide to be pulled out to favor B-natural (2-4)...not enough to "ruin" the low range (with or without 5 valves), but enough to effortlessly "favor" 2-4 B-natural to pitch.

(2-4 "low" E will still be quite sharp as - unlike the 4th partial 2-4 B-natural - the second partial tends sharp - rather than flat, as the 4th partial tends flat.)

Hi,

Arpthark, Bloke and Thomas thanks for your comments.

After a 12 year intermezzo with french Horn, I came back to tuba in 2024 with an Alexander double tuba Modell 166 in F/C (probably the last 166 made by Alexander around 2010/2011, this was the tuba sitting in Mainz since probably 2011 and described by Ted Cox and others here and in the other forum). I play the tuba with a PT64 for sound, responsiveness and intonation reasons.

Since this year, I have also an old Alex Bb 164 (presumable from the 1930-ies, engraving on valve caps, from and location of protection covers) made in 438 Hz. The tuba has also a slightly larger bore of 21,8 mm vs the current 21,5 mm. I had Alexander make a new main tuning slide, basically shorter bow, to be able to play in tune up to 443 Hz. In addition, Alexander also made some adapters to fit "normal" shanks into the mouthpiece receiver (16,2 mm; Thomas your shank modified PT50+ was even a little to too small to fit in there).

For pictures see the drop box link below (hope you can see it)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vyg50njv ... j4ayp&dl=0

I had played a PT82 on the 164, tuned to 443 Hz (Symphonic tuning, 442 Hz in bands), with following fingerings:
in the staff
d: 3 (30 cents flat)
des: 23
c: 4 (1 is 25 cents too low, 13 is 25 cents too high)
b (=h): 3
Bb: 0 or 23
As mentioned, notes getting better (sound, response etc) with exercising, exercising, exercising.

Now a tried an older Alexander Mouthpiece No. 35 (35 mm cup diameter, interestingly does not feel so much bigger than the PT82, "shallow" cup" and 7,8 mm bore, maybe also some different backbore). Fingering has changed:
d: 0 (almost i.e. a few cents too low only), 3 spot on
des: 23
c: 1 (ver open note and sound, very different vs. PT82 on 4)
b: 12
I use now the Alex 35 due to responsiveness and openness in this range (b to d "feel" mich better and are less work to let them speak)

Amazing, as always, how mouthpiece effects an instrument. Besides fingering and responsiveness changes, this "old fashioned" mouthpiece has also a positive effect, on this tuba, Alex 164, on air efficiency, especially in the low register, responsiveness especially in the low register and color (difficult to describe, but more compact, more overtones and better projection without sounding small or bright at all, the reverse being still heavily fundamental and massive without being blatant).

All other notes are also in tune.
C, F: 4
B (below the staff): 24
E (bdito) 24
Eb (dito): 14 40 cents too high, 124 20 cents to low
D (dito): 234


Best
Chris

PS: Mary Ann, what is your experience having played french horn and tuba ? are you still plying french horn ?

Chris Mayer wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2026 11:13 am Now a tried an older Alexander Mouthpiece No. 35 (35 mm cup diameter, interestingly does not feel so much bigger than the PT82, "shallow" cup" and 7,8 mm bore, maybe also some different backbore). Fingering has changed:
d: 0 (almost i.e. a few cents too low only), 3 spot on
des: 23
c: 1 (ver open note and sound, very different vs. PT82 on 4)
b: 12
I use now the Alex 35 due to responsiveness and openness in this range (b to d "feel" mich better and are less work to let them speak)

My former tuba colleague played the original 35mm Alexander Mouthpiece with his 164 until he retired from playing in his late seventies back then 20 years ago.

He never used alternate fingerings and slide pulling on this tuba and what I remember regarding intonation is what you describe. And yes, his Db was surely quite flat using 2nd valve, but as he played so good and with impressive ease, I would never have criticized him for a few cents flat.

On my old Alex 163 CC, which came with the original very shallow mouthpiece, I was able to play all the notes in tune with that mouthpiece but at the expense of a good deal of breadth of sound. I would describe that mouthpiece as sounding “grainy.” I think with something bigger like a 164, that would be mitigated somewhat by the much larger size of the horn.

Many players have found success pairing large tubas with small to medium-small mouthpieces.

Thomas, Arpthark,

thanks for your interesting comments. I have added some pictures with the mouthpieces (PT64, Newer Alexander 35, older Alexander 36 from left to right) in the dropbox folder.

The 35 and especially the 36 sound massiv with a broad colourful sound and direct response and penetrating and carrying sound. Perfect and very effective and efficient for playing marches polkas etc. Although these mouthpieces feel bigger than a PT64 for example, they do not feel as big as the numbers would indicate.

@Arpthark: I can fully understand what you mean. I have tried an Alexander 32 on my 166, as also recommended in some old Alexander catalogues. Although very clear and responsive in the upper registers, I liked the breadth and depth sound of a modern Mouthpiece in the lower register much better.

Regarding the issues with B, C, db and d in the staff, I have significantly improved in the last days with the Alex 35 mouthpiece (c on 1,...). (I put it aside in the beginning, because I was afraid that the larger cup diameter could potentially impact my embouchure in a negative way. But overall now, it fits best).

Although it is a very special issue I have encountered, I hope that the comments might be useful for others players.

Best
Chris

Those are your 5th-partial notes, and they tend to be flat on virtually every brass instrument. You just have to play those notes a little higher—unless you’re playing the 3rd of the chord, in which case you’ll find that the natural 5th-partial resonance is much closer to where the note belongs.

tclements wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2026 8:38 am Those are your 5th-partial notes, and they tend to be flat on virtually every brass instrument. You just have to play those notes a little higher—unless you’re playing the 3rd of the chord, in which case you’ll find that the natural 5th-partial resonance is much closer to where the note belongs.

100%... and Tony knows that playing some church gig where there's a heavily mic-ed grand/electronic piano or pipe/electronic organ or playing a piano concerto are the exceptions to flatting the third for major chords. (In other words, favoring any pitches for perfect intonation goes out the window anytime there's any sort of prominent keyboard instrument unless - of course - it's during a section where the keyboard is not playing.) Also, if the keyboard instrument is playing down fairly low and we are playing along with the keyboard instrument, we should play as flat as the keyboard instrument rather than something that would line up with an electronic tuner (as the lower below the middle octave of the piano range a keyboard instrument descends, the intentionally flatter those pitches are tuned. (This is to avoid having the perfect fits grinding so badly in equal temperament.) Our own double low range approaches 20 cents flat on keyboard instruments.