The problem with a quality instrument...

[Donn]

Could 'a, should 'a, would 'a. There's always ebay.

[Donn]

One man's garbage is another man's quality instrument.

[Donn]

One man's garbage is another man's quality instrument.

That's what the schlock peddlers are counting on.

Note the context, ebay resale of old tuba (where you're supposed to go if a $10K new, quality instrument isn't in the budget and you don't want to go to the schlock peddlers.) I think, in that context, it's truthy. I've got so I'd be uncomfortable with a tuba that was all shiny and new looking.

[Wyvern]

There are various areas of quality;

- Quality of design
- Quality of materials
- Quality of assembly
- Quality of valves
- Quality of finishing (polishing, etc.)
- Quality of playing (tone, intonation, etc.)

Some people get most of their pleasure from looking and feeling a beautifully made tuba, while others are mostly concerned with how it plays (obviously valves must be reliable, etc). It is not a firm rule, but my observations from selling this last 6 years is that the higher the standard of the tubist the more important is the playing aspect, and of less important the finishing aspect.

Quality of build/finishing is not directly linked to quality of playing (unless there is a leak or mis-aligned valve). Bloke's cimbasso is an example of apparently poor build, but great playing.

Everyone to their own thing! The most important is making music, whatever your tool (and tubas are tools for making music).

For Wessex, feedback is most of the horns already play well and I am now mostly working with factory on improving materials, assembly, valves and finishing to satisfy everyone's requirements. We are not quite there yet, but my prediction is in the not too distant future Chinese made brass will be made with as great a care as German built. After all a country that can assemble something as complicated an an iPhone, can surely make first class tubas too!

[iiipopes]

particularly annoying:

REOCCURRING problems.....

Grammar Nazi here: the participle is recurring, not re-occurring.

[Donn]

It is not a firm rule, but my observations from selling this last 6 years is that the higher the standard of the tubist the more important is the playing aspect, and of less important the finishing aspect.

Is this kind of like the idea that the greats played nearly unplayable tubas, because they were so great they'd kind of transcended the need for good equipment?

Or are we talking about purely cosmetic finish? It seems to me that the preceding discussion is hardly about that at all.

You don't have to be a super star to make good use of a good quality instrument.

[Wyvern]

Or are we talking about purely cosmetic finish?

That is what I am talking about. Right or wrong that is what seems to concern many people the most.

Of cause whatever the tuba, it needs to be in full working order, with no leaks and good compression to function well.

[Cthuba]

My definition of a Quality instrument.

A. Do I have to work hard to play the instrument in tune. No? Then it is quality.
B. Do I have to worry about the horn falling apart during a performance. No? Then it is quality.
C. Does the horn have a good overall sound? Yes? Then it is quality. That is more subjective, but important to all of us.

If one of these are not met. Then it is not a quality instrument. I don't care where it came from as long as it can do those three things.

[Wyvern]

My definition of a Quality instrument.

A. Do I have to work hard to play the instrument in tune. No? Then it is quality.
B. Do I have to worry about the horn falling apart during a performance. No? Then it is quality.
C. Does the horn have a good overall sound? Yes? Then it is quality. That is more subjective, but important to all of us.

If one of these are not met. Then it is not a quality instrument. I don't care where it came from as long as it can do those three things.

I agree with all those criteria. You sound like a true professional

[Michael Bush]

My definition of a Quality instrument.

A. Do I have to work hard to play the instrument in tune. No? Then it is quality.
B. Do I have to worry about the horn falling apart during a performance. No? Then it is quality.
C. Does the horn have a good overall sound? Yes? Then it is quality. That is more subjective, but important to all of us.

If one of these are not met. Then it is not a quality instrument. I don't care where it came from as long as it can do those three things.

Exactly.

[Donn]

B. Do I have to worry about the horn falling apart during a performance. No? Then it is quality.

Is this very often a worry? I hope I'm not failing to appreciate a humorous comment, but in the context I'm afraid this may be very nearly the standard we hold a new tuba to.

Vs. for example,

instruments which feature substandard rotor assemblies, substandard links, substandard action arms, or which feature carelessly fabricated pistons

[Three Valves]

If the Germans shipped one of those machines that made the rotors to China, that could solve a few things!!

[Cthuba]

I'm not sure I agree entirely on the quality of design in the miraphone rotors. Specifically the 188. I remember playing older ones that simply felt more sturdy where I could pound on the valves more to slur through 16th note runs. The new ones of today, while they do feel lighter they also don't feel as strong. The new f tubas like the firebird feel really great, but for whatever reason I do not think the quality matches that with the newer 188's.

The absolute best rotors I have ever felt was on a new PT-6 I had played on this year.

Though thats my preference...

[Three Valves]

If the Germans shipped one of those machines that made the rotors [...], that could solve a few things!!

A machine is a tool that is used by a skilled crafts[person].

I simply contend that turning something on a lathe requires more skill and craftsmanship than programming the CNC machine!!

[Dan Schultz]

If the Germans shipped one of those machines that made the rotors to China, that could solve a few things!!

The Chinese have access to the same great machines as the rest of The World. In fact... some very good machinery is made in China. There is also A LOT of trash machinery made in China (Harbour Freight and the like being the main US dealers).

The Chinese are quite capable of making quality instruments (by EVERY definition of the work 'quality') but will not until the consumer insists on it and is willing to pay the price. As long as the US consumer is willing to 'settle' for not-so-good stuff in favor a cheap price... it's just not going to get any better.

To me, 'quality' is one of those terms that does not have a specific definition. From the perspective of a person who is often called upon to work on some of this trash, I KNOW the difference but it's hard to convey this in terms that 'little Johnnys' parents can (or want) to understand.

[roweenie]

This.

The Chinese are quite capable of making quality instruments (by EVERY definition of the work 'quality') but will not until the consumer insists on it and is willing to pay the price. As long as the US consumer is willing to 'settle' for not-so-good stuff in favor a cheap price... it's just not going to get any better.

However, I don't see why it would be in their best interest to improve quality to the level of the European manufacturers, since they are filling a niche that no other manufacturer wants to (or more correctly, is able to) fill.

[Donn]

However, I don't see why it would be in their best interest to improve quality to the level of the European manufacturers, since they are filling a niche that no other manufacturer wants to (or more correctly, is able to) fill.

Wants to, is able to, both. They're no-name manufacturers. A name manufacturer strives to avoid that niche.

[bisontuba]

When I picked up my new B&S F tuba in the early 1980's (brought to me from Europe by a European orchestra tuba player, and left with their parents - as that person and I were not quite in the same city on the same date), I noticed that the polishing job and lacquer were not quite up to the level of that of (just as an example) Miraphone. My observation of that reality (still, a beautiful and beautifully-crafted instrument) distressed me to approximately a level of ~0.000~ Immediately, though (just as with the B&S F tuba that I had been borrowing from a friend - a seemingly "semi-famous" one with "Giardinelli" hand-engraved on the mouthpipe receiver brace), I noticed that the rotors were really well-fit in their casings and (admittedly, unlike the rotors used on those similar-model instruments today) minimalist...very lightweight and very crisp. Fairly early on (as the tuba featured old-school steel ball/nickel silver socket linkage - which requires craftsmanship to build, but also requires fairly regular re-adjusting), I replaced the links. For many years now, that maker (Meinl assignment of the factory) has used large Minibal (virtually trouble-free) links. The rotors (arguably) fit better than ever, but - as their rotors now greatly resemble (supplied to them by...??) MS rotors - which are not particularly minimalist in their design, the touch is not as light. However, the touch is RELIABLE and QUIET on their new ones.

Miraphone:
I believe it would be difficult for someone to argue against Miraphone rotors, consistently, being some of the very finest and lightest-touch rotors. In recent years, Miraphone (as I've compared reissues of a had-been-discontinued model to original versions) has seemed to have (even more than before) embraced the smaller-diameter/smaller-mass/even-lighter-touch concept. I believe that I have observed, as an example, new versions of the old 190 model with (though true .835" bore rotors) rotors with a body size resembling that of model 186 rotors' (a smaller rotor body size than the old model 190 rotors) body size. Notably, those new 190 rotors (with very large .835" cutouts making that smaller rotor body size even more lightweight) rare astonishingly light and crisp... (and yeah, I'm aware that past-and-present - very few model 190's have been built, but I also believe that I've observed that minimalist style of rotor body also having been applied to Miraphone's new 6/4 rotary BBb models...again, really nice and crisp)

...but any new minimalizing design change (with larger bore rotors) is not the main reason why Miraphone rotors work so well. The main reason is their precision fit and the skill and workmanship that must go into fabricating those Miraphone rotors.

Joe-
You should play the Symphonie F/Giardinelli now after Houghton horns did a valve job on them back in 2004..... absolutely incredible......better than new
Mark

[Three Valves]

Works with relationships too!!

[Wyvern]

The key to happiness when owning a tuba is to not know what you're missing.

As you know I own a very expensive handmade Neptune and in the past have owned several Meinl-Weston, B&S, Cerveny and Besson tubas.

Now a days I 100% play the Wessex tubas I am selling as I genuinely want to know how they stand up in everyday use and how they perform. I would be a hypocrite to sell inexpensive tubas, and play very expensive ones myself.

I can in complete honesty say the Wessex play every bit as well as their expensive counterparts. I have never had one fall apart while playing and have actually suffered far less valve problems than playing the expensive tubas.

I know you will say "You would say that" as I am selling them - but I talk with complete honesty. I get as much pleasure playing with bands and orchestras now playing Wessex as I did playing expensive tubas costing several times the amount and no-one has been less than complimentary of the sound I produce.

I make this post as an active tubist (play in four bands and two orchestra), rather than as a sponsor or dealer.

However as I said before, everyone to their own thing. If buying expensive/quality tubas gives you pleasure and you have the money, then do what you enjoy. But don't think that some horns that are a lot less expensive will be just as good tool for music making.