TubeNet

Make no mistake about it -- I am not going to publically thank Roger Lewis (and Brasswind):

... for all his help during my visit to WWBW today
... for his extra effort to ensure the horns I was interested were available
... for his normal, insightful tips & pointers on my general playing
... for taking a few minutes to personally fix a problem with one of the horns I brought along
... for being a heck of a nice guy

... because the last time I did this, some negative comments that seemed (based on the poster's own accompanying details) to be unfounded took the thread off into the weeds.

So to try to prevent a recurrence, I'm not going to thank Roger for all his help today, and for the great selection of horns available to try out.



Oh, and BTW, when I walked in with two tubas and a mouthpiece roll, the professional gentlemen at the security booth really did want to take a look at the things I was bringing in, and also wanted to check them on the way back out. Strangest thing -- they didn't want any valuable merchandise "walking off" without being paid for. This is their standard procedure (fyi), and it seems quite appropriate to me. It did take me all of 60 seconds to comply -- not at all a major inconvenience.

Also BTW, I tried the following horns, and had the following impressions:

1. Willson Eb -- hoped to be a one-tuba solution, but was too much work from BBb down to pedal Eb for me.

2. MW 2040/5 -- very nice horn, large "F-ish" sound, easy to play everywhere, not "weighty" enough to be a one-tuba solution, valve cluster a little higher than most horns, so this one feels a little different. Other than that quirk, I quite liked this horn.

3. Brasswind's "Allora" 6/4 CC horn -- very easy to play and a large sound.

4. Miraphone 1291 and 1292 in CC -- 1292 was a dream to play with a nice, large 4/4-ish sound. (I think they consider it a compact 5/4 -- whatever.) This would be an ideal do-it-all tuba, in my book.

5. THOR -- WOW!!! The weight of the sound of this horn in the low to mid registers is amazing -- absolutely amazing. I found the 1292 to be easier to find (precisely "nail") the notes in the upper register -- the Thor for me took a bit more work. But the weight of the sound in the medium to low register might make it worthwhile to work a bit more on the upper register. With very little effort, you (well -- a hack like me) can get a very big sound with this horn. Too heavy for a quintet, IMO, unless the other 4 players are pros.

My favorite today was the Miraphone 1292 in the CC category, as far as being the first CC I'd shell out money to buy with no further thought or hand-wringing (brain-wringing). But the Thor was the one tuba with a sound that made me immediately say, "I want one!"

6. But I also played the new Firebird F. As I have posted before, "I've never met a rotary F tuba with an easy to play low C. Hence, I've about given up all hope that such a horn exists." Today, my disillusionment was dashed. I consider myself to be a very picky tuba player, having the strange notion that if I pay thousands of dollars for an instrument, I shouldn't have to fight with it for either intonation or playability. Today, I found the Firebird to be a workable rotary F tuba. I can't call the low C "perfect", but this is the first rotary F tuba I've played with a low C that I felt was so good as to take only a passing amount of extra care when playing the note. Unlike other rotary F tubas, if you push the low C, it WILL still play -- gentle finesse is not required to play this note. Again -- not as good as my previous 621F, but it plays so well that I believe an ethical tuba salesman could properly say "the low C is good on this tuba". The Firebird is not nearly as weighty in sound as the Yamaha 822F Roger played for me as a comparison point (as you'd expect). So it's not a "do it all" F tuba. But as a "true, 4/4 bass tuba" it was quite good.

Cheers,

I was at WWBW a few weeks back. Roger wasn't there - I was on a tight schedule, so I wasn't able to be flexible.

I found the Miraphone 1291/1292 to have a really great sound. There was a lot of character and I really enjoyed playing them. There were many of them, so you have a lot of choice (and there was a fair amount of variation between the models). However, I did not like the intonation of those Miraphones at all. The 3rd line D was extremely flat, which is usually flat, but not that much I wouldn't think.

I also managed to try a couple of the Yamaha YCB-822. These were VERY HEAVY tubas. The intonation was superb, but the sound was lacking in colour. I just did not enjoy the sound I was making on it.

I also tried some of the Meinl Weston 2145/2155. Intonation was just as good, if not better, than the Yamaha - but again, there was lack of character in the sound.

Although the sound was not bad on the Meinl Westons or the Yamaha, I just did not get excited over the sound. It seems like with most horns they either have a really colourful sound or really great intonation - rarely both.

I found the same thing when I played the PT-606p at Custom Music. Awesome sound, but lacking in the intonation department (although not as bad as the Miraphones).

One horn that was completely different was the Rudolf Meinl 4345 4/4 piston horn. The intonation on this horn is awesome - no pulling required. I use 235 for low Gb and Db - and set the 4th slide for G and D. So, low F and Eb are a little sharp as 45 and 345, respectively, but those are the only notes that really require adjustments. All those notes in the staff are in tune - 3rd line D is not flat, Eb all the way up to top space G are bang in tune. That's right - top space G is not sharp. High Ab is a little sharp, but A all the way up to C are bang on. High Ab is very stable on this horn - which makes Petrouchka so much easier.

My only complaint is that the low register is a little stuffy. Well, at least it was. It takes a little getting used to and a very different blow.

I actually tried a used Rudy (same model) the day before going to WWBW - and found that the used one had superior intonation and sound to the brand new models of the Rudy at WWBW - so I ended up purchasing the used horn.

My teacher tried this horn and she thinks it's an excellent horn. It has a very bright sound - the whole horn vibrates when I play it. My teacher thinks it's a great all around horn. It is bright enough for Berlioz, not too much for quintet and fine for contrabass tuba parts in medium sized orchestras. She thinks I may (in time) need a slightly bigger, darker horn for Shostie, Prokofiev, etc. in larger orchestras.

I also managed to try a Willson F tuba - I believe the 3200. It was 4 pistons and a RH thumb 5th rotor. I wasn't in the market for an F tuba, so I didn't spend much time on it - I was getting bored waiting for the staff to haul in more CCs for me. I found the low register quite stuffy. The sound was nice and the intonation was pretty good... but I don't own an F tuba, and have spent less than an hour in my whole life on an F tuba of any sort... so I certainly ain't a very good judge of them!

3. Brasswind's "Allora" 6/4 CC horn -- very easy to play and a large sound.

I wonder about this. It seems that this should have been a B-flat horn. I have my doubts that the CC crowd will be proudly displaying their Allora horns. Roger mentioned in a previous thread that a new, bigger Allora was about to debut. I was hoping it would not be too expensive. But if we're talking CC, then it looks like I don't have to worry about it. I always hate it when that internal debate goes on between one's practical side and the side that wants a new toy.

I don't see it on the wwbw web site, but that isn't a surprise: The web site doesn't seem to place much emphasis on keeping the tuba stuff updated.

Or is that the tuba staff keeping the webmaster updated?

what??

What what?

SplatterTone wrote:

what??

What what?

Two what?

SplatterTone wrote:

what??

What what?

What³

What are all these whats four?


(Yes, the spelling is intentional)

THE TUBA wrote:What are all these whats four?


(Yes, the spelling is intentional)

Good show, eh, what?

SplatterTone wrote:I don't see it on the wwbw web site, but that isn't a surprise: The web site doesn't seem to place much emphasis on keeping the tuba stuff updated.

Honestly, the Web site doesn't bother me as much as the print catalog, which is riddled with typos and other errors.

Oh well, if it was between having a pretty catalog and employing Roger, I'm glad they made the choice they did.

I'm guessing the implication here was...

Although your wording was taken to a ridiculous extreme -- well beyond what I stated (or implied), the gist is essentially correct. Time will tell.