CC Kaiser Tuba

[poomshanka]

I have a remarkable original condition miraphone 90B (45+ inches tall... bell diameter is about 17-3/8 inches, bore is .835”) with a really well-made form fitting slimline hard case. I’ve made it known that I would sell it, and I will sell it for less then I would sell it for later, because I plan to do some things to it to enhance it, otherwise. That having been said, if I really really like it - after I do those things to it - it may no longer be for sale.
From roughly five feet away, it looks new.

Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what's the vintage on your 190CC?

It's a BBb

Ahh, OK. In the Miraphone catalog, 90B is the new designation for the old 190 CC. They don't seem to list an updated version of the old 190 BBb.

On this site, however, 90A seems to be the updated BBb version of the old 190 BBb.

https://www.vogt-instruments.com/instru ... braucht/en" target="_blank

I thought Joe might have one of the old 190 CC tubas that he was calling a 90B, especially with this being a thread about CC Kaiser tubas.

[bort]

Aah, gotcha! Joe will have to clarify.

I thought you were curious if this 190 is your old one (you owned a 190CC, right?). Or maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly. Anyway!

[poomshanka]

Aah, gotcha! Joe will have to clarify.

I thought you were curious if this 190 is your old one (you owned a 190CC, right?). Or maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly. Anyway!

As far as I know, one of Joe Murphy's students still owns my old 190 CC (he bought it from me), which I had originally bought from Tommy. The new 90B, while having the much improved .835" rotary valves that were developed for the 191 BBb, is otherwise kind of a dog compared to the 190 CCs of yesteryear. I know there are some of the old 190 CCs floating around, to include a prototype that I was about to buy for $6K before Tommy offered to sell me his for $4500. Not sure how many others were produced.

Tommy's old horn had the larger bell. Sounds like Joe's 90B (which might actually be a 190 BBb, or maybe a 90A) has the smaller offering. The 190 BBb I had some access to wasn't that great... but it was big.

http://daveamason.com/mirafone/190190.html" target="_blank

[bort]

BTW,it's good to see you posting again, Dave!

[poomshanka]

BTW,it's good to see you posting again, Dave!

Thanx! Gotta dip my toe in the pool every now and again.

[poomshanka]

one of Joe Murphy's students still owns my old 190 CC (he bought it from me), which I had originally bought from Tommy.

I would like to play that horn one time. Just because.

I have played Joe’s BBb. The bell is smaller than the big-belled CC. Joe’s is in nice condition and plays very well.

Last time I chatted with Joe (Murphy), he said he was going to try and track down that student and see if he wanted to sell Tommy's horn to him. When I owned it, I was fully a recreational player, and hardly had time for community band rehearsals, let alone practicing. Pretty much just skating by on past glories. I started having problems getting the horn to work for me, which may have (read: likely) had something to do with my chops, but there was another problem I was unaware of until after I sold it - the valves were pretty badly misaligned. Apparently the kid who bought the axe had them fixed, and it made a huge improvement.

Worth taking a toot on it, if you can get your hands on it. According to Joe, it's a lot better than his new 90B, and it's a lot better than another 90B I played here in SoCal at Hornguys. Special horn, but considering who "broke it in" all those years before I had it, no surprises there.

[poomshanka]

Regardless of the rotor diameter and vintage, the "190-CC" and "190-BB-flat" have so little to do with each other - sonically and physically (other than 21.2mm valveset bore) - that it really doesn't make much sense (at least, not to me) to refer to them as "sister" or "same model except key" instruments.

The old C was basically a rotary "BAT" (a short 6/4 with a 20" bell), and (as with many key-of-C-"BATS") offered dubious intonation.
The lets-try-it-again "190-CC" (offered several years ago) featured a bit more accessible intonation, based on the one that I serviced - shortly before it's owner decided to offer it for sale.

Yes, the 190 CC and 190 BBb I have pictured in my side-by-side gallery were quite different, but not wholly dissimilar. Also, Tommy's horn was a good one, but the BBb was noticeably less so. I think a lot of the differences in that comparison could be chalked up to one horn being great, and the other being a dog.

The reboot 190 CC/90B did seem to have a little tighter intonation than Tommy's, but not by much. With one noticeable exception, Tommy's horn had pretty good intonation. Ab on top of the staff, like a lot of Miraphone CCs, could be a little squirrely, but locked in nicely played with the 5th valve alternate fingering (provided you pulled out the 5th valve slide). Db below the staff was 125 (push in 1st valve slide), low Eb was 145 (push in 1st valve slide, low D was 345 (pull out 5th valve slide).

Where it got weird was C in the staff, which rode pretty high open fingering. I had Robb Stewart rig up a main tuning slide grenade launcher to push out for that note. Side benefit of that zone riding high was I could play Db and D without pushing in the 1st valve slide, and Eb and E could be played 2 and open (vs the usual 23 and 12 I've often had to use with Miraphones on those notes).

Lot of sparkly horns from Miraphone in the late 70s/early 80s. Tommy's horn was one of them.

[poomshanka]

That 190 BBb was actually a school horn (UC Irvine). Don’t recall the vintage exactly, but it was likely in the same time zone as Tommy’s. And given that it was a school horn, it was likely purchased and shipped, i.e. nobody drove out to Mirafone in Sun Valley and picked it out of a shipment of other 190 BBbs.

To your point about ground zero experience, my 190 CC did have more presence under the bell than the next horn I played - one of Paul Kryzwicki’s old rotary Willson 3050s. The lip of the bell on that horn was lower than the 190, but the horn was so heavy you couldn’t always tell what was getting out into the hall (which was actually a ton of sound). Tommy’s horn was a lot lighter than the Gen 2 90B, so it did have some feedback in your lap. In contrast, my buddy sat next to me playing a Gronitz PCM, which had a great deal of feel close up, but also managed to throw out a good bit of sound.

I owned a rotary PT-6 for a number of years that I bought from Bob Tucci over in Munich. Fine horn, even response, good intonation, but to my ear, it didn’t have the special character that Tommy’s 190 did. I wish the rebirth had retained some of what made the horn special, but cleaned up some of the rough stuff. It was a nice effort, but IMHO, fell short of its predecessor.

Maybe it was the wimpy flat whole step 5th valve instead of the more manly sharp 23 combo.

[toobagrowl]

All I know is that the late great Tommy Johnson sounded amazing on some early/mid 1980s soundtracks using that Mira 190 CC.

[barry grrr-ero]

She had a PT-6 as well, and now has a Nirschl York too.

[tobysima`]

The young lady in the Philadelphia Orchestra sounds remarkably fine with their YFB-822, a model I personally view as a disaster. All that causes me to do - rather than second guess my evaluation of that model - is to admire her talents and abilities all the more.

I don't blame you on that. Yamaha tubas feel robotic to play, and it feels cold and like I can't convey emotion while playing one. In terms of euphoniums, though, I quite like them.

[tobysima`]

one word: very
another word: pitchy
an incidental word: and
one more word: bland

When I've heard her play that instrument, I can imagine (in my head) how she would sound with a better instrument.

To clarify, she is such a strong player that she completely overcomes all of the wild intonation tendencies of that model.

I just imagine Yamaha F players on a 2250. Aubrey Foard's Teutonic Tales on that horn - one word: meat

[toobagrowl]

I'm not an 'F' guy, but there seem to be quite a lot of college/advanced/pro players who seem to choose the Yammy 822 F for some reason. Probably because that model does NOT sound like a traditional/typical F, but instead more like a large piston Eb, with the ease of facility of a piston F with an easy low register. It is an all-around tuba for them, and I have to say I've heard overall better sound/playing from that model than I have from the various so-called 'colorful' B&S F rotary examples. There is the inherent/native sound of the tuba; then there is the inherent sound of the player The thing with Yamahas is that it is almost completely up to the player to provide color/texture to the sound.

As for kaiser rotary CC tubas: I'd like to try the Mira 190 CC - I think I'd like it, not that I need it.
Which is kinda strange, because I'm generally not a huge fan of Miraphones. But that model seems fun

[toobagrowl]

^ Most ppl would consider the Mira 190 CC and Cerveny 601 CC to be 'kaiser' tubas. And there are kaiser BBb tubas with large, fat bells

[tobysima`]

That model is far less bland, but also somewhat pitchy...(again: referring to TENDENCIES of the model, and NOT to anyone's PLAYING of that model).

That having been said, its pitch quirks are far easier to overcome (more akin to those with a typical oversize C tuba) than with the Yamaha mentioned previously.

It definitely seems like it has better sound quality too.

[barry grrr-ero]

I have a B&S rotary "Neptune" and play it rather like a Kaiser. I use a tallish folding chair and play the tuba pointed upwards. If forced to use a short chair, I use a playing stand. I use the bigger of the two lead-pipes, and generally use funnel type mouthpieces on it. That's contrary to what everyone says you should do. I specialize in being a contrarian. I find it nearly impossible to slur smoothly on larger rotary valve tubas using a shallower, bowl type mouthpiece. Since CC tubas speak quickly - and hence, the tone stops quickly - I have little trouble playing cleanly on a funnel. If I were playing a modern work where every note had to 'bark', I'd probably play on something shallower. Anyway, this is all just an F.Y.I. I like my Neptune, but it has been a steep learning curve for me.

[groth]

The young lady in the Philadelphia Orchestra sounds remarkably fine with their YFB-822, a model I personally view as a disaster. All that causes me to do - rather than second guess my evaluation of that model - is to admire her talents and abilities all the more.

I don't blame you on that. Yamaha tubas feel robotic to play, and it feels cold and like I can't convey emotion while playing one. In terms of euphoniums, though, I quite like them.

Like..uhm, certain "Farther Eastern"(or west of Eastern) manufactured ones as well. They don't seem to resonate well.

[bort]

I have a B&S rotary "Neptune" and play it rather like a Kaiser. I use a tallish folding chair and play the tuba pointed upwards. If forced to use a short chair, I use a playing stand. I use the bigger of the two lead-pipes, and generally use funnel type mouthpieces on it. That's contrary to what everyone says you should do. I specialize in being a contrarian. I find it nearly impossible to slur smoothly on larger rotary valve tubas using a shallower, bowl type mouthpiece. Since CC tubas speak quickly - and hence, the tone stops quickly - I have little trouble playing cleanly on a funnel. If I were playing a modern work where every note had to 'bark', I'd probably play on something shallower. Anyway, this is all just an F.Y.I. I like my Neptune, but it has been a steep learning curve for me.

How long have you had it now, Barry?

My recollection of the Neptune is that:
* it uses a bell and bottom bow from an old Kaiser BBb design
* the larger leadpipe was intended to be used when the fifth valve is locked open as BBb, and has the BBb fifth valve slide
* both of the above were done so that the German players would be interested in the Neptune, and see it as a viable option

That said... when I had my Neptune, I didn't have the second fifth valve slide, and it was a pain to change out the leadpipes (they weren't both totally fitted properly... a common issue... and one of them (which one?) fit easily while the other leadpipe had a lot of tension when held into place). I didn't bother to change leadpipes around very often. In fact, I think that whole setup contributed to my dislike for "stuff you can change around to do several things with the same tuba."

Beyond this, when I had that tuba, someone sent me a few sets of tuba excerpts ("highlights" of symphony performances) -- one featuring a player on a B&S Neptune, and another with the same excerpts in other orchestras with a Fafner. I'm not sure that either of these is really a Kaiser, but holy cow, the Fafner sounded 100 times better to my ear.

I actually can't believe I've never seriously tried to own a Fafner. The sound is amazing. Physically, they look kind of boring, so maybe I've just ignored them because of that...

[bort]

I had my chance like everyone else. My brain is stuck in CC. And I'm in love with the Alex 163. Might need to be talked down from adding a 5th valve ... But the Alex is a for real keeper

[barry grrr-ero]

Bort, I test played a "Fafner" and liked it very much. That said, for the playing I do, I'm not sure I'd pick it over my "Neptune". However, the "Neptune" is not 'point and shoot'. It is more that way when I use the nameless copy of an 'original' Helleberg (Euroshank). With that smaller m.p., the Neptune is reasonably nimble for small brass ensemble playing. Personally, I don't care if it's a Kaiser or a Koenig (or Koenigen) or a sub-contrabass euphonium, whatever. My point is that I sort of play it as though it were one. The smaller lead-pipe just didn't work for me. My tech - who's a very good tuba player - felt the same way.