TubeNet

The Conn does come in two smaller bell sizes than the 20 inch on the 56J: 19 inch on the 54J and 18 inch on the 52J.

For a CC, what's wrong with the tried and true Miraphone, either 186 or 188, that will function everywhere from quintet through concert band to orchestra?

Then for a similar price, there's the PT-4 or PT-6?

I know, I asked a similar question recently regarding BBb tubas, but I also have a tight budget to deal with, hence the two horns that I mentioned are at the very top of my financable budget. But since you are talking about more expensive horns, why narrow your choices?

I haven't heard very many great things about the Conn's.

When I was thinking about getting one before I decided on a PT-6 I asked around alot that horn as well at a 2155. Everyone I talked to, including many professionals, told me that the 56 was not an orchestral or versatile horn.

I believe Matt Good played a 2155 in Dallas for sometime but he doesn't anymore. I do like this horn but it feels alittle stuffy to me.

I have to go with some of the previous posts and say go for a 188. That horn can hold down an orchestra as well as work great in a quintet.

This is an amateur opinion from an amateur player -- ymmv.

I use my 56J for everything from quintet to community concert band to brass choir to church orchestras. It does (theoretically) have too broad of a sound for quintet in MY opinion, but the quintet members really like it. I've tried to brighten up the sound a bit with a C4 type mpc, but the quintet prefers the Conn Helleberg. I do get a little bigger and slightly edgier sound with a Bach 7, which I also like with this horn. The intonation on my particular horn is pretty good and I almost never fiddle with any of the slides. I do use an occasional alternate fingering.

Regarding Wade's observations above:

1. can't comment
2. good intontation with mine, which I bought from Andy Smith, who tried several of these before picking this one. If you buy a used one that someone invested some time selecting, you should be able to get a good one.
3, 4, 5. yup, yup, yup.
6. I've got satin silver, which hides blemishes well, so I can't comment.

Since you will get very consistent results with almost any Miraphone you would buy, you indeed can't go wrong with a 188. I used to own an older 186 (4V, 16.5" bell) that I traded in order to purchase the Conn 56J. I also liked that horn. I played a MW 25 BBb in high school many years ago, and really liked the quality and construction of that vintage of MW horn, fwiw. So I believe the 2155 would also be a great choice. As I haven't played one in a while, and then only briefly at Brasswind, I can't provide a comparison, sorry.

The Conn is fairly easy to play high and doesn't demand a lot of air low. One other TubeNet Conn 56J player had the 5th valve replaced with a larger bore valve, which he reported really opened up the low end, but I don't find this troubling on mine, with the factory set-up. The 2,3,5 notes are the only ones that are a little stuffy (say Db for example), so I might consider such a mod some day, finances permitting.

The one thing the 56J will not do well is cover a 2nd 'bone part playing the notes as written. My Yamaha Eb (or my previously owned smaller F tubas such as the Yamaha 621) are much better choices for extended upper register playing, not so much based on ease, but on a nicer, clearer sound. So when playing my quintet folder and encountering higher parts like this, I find myself wanting to go brush up my Eb fingerings again. (I personally think an Eb that's a bit bigger than mine would be the ideal quintet horn -- say the MW 2141 for example.)

Cheers,

Have you considered the Meinl Weston 2145?

The biggest question is: what is your MAIN playing going to be? Not just in school, but for a bit afterwards, too. If it's 5tet, the 56j might be a little broad sounding for you. If it's large ensemble, it would probably work OK. Like Steve, I use a smaller MPC for smaller ensembles.

Mine does very well supporting a very good 50-piece community band with 10 trumpets, 6 horns, 6 bones and 3 euphs. It's work, and I play on a milking bucket of a mouthpiece, but it will hold its own. Fortunately, I have a section-mate that is there most of the time. But when he's not there, my 56j does just fine without having to overblow it.

My 56j has remarkably good intonation, with only a slight push on the D in the staff, and a slight pull on the E's both right below and in the staff. Low register can boom if you finesse it. It doesn't respond well to trying to power your way through the low stuff.

As to the sound, I love it. But I also have a very particular sound in mind when I play. I also love the way I sound on a 188, but I don't sound the same on a 188 as anyone else.

What I'm getting at is that you need to do a needs analysis as to WHAT you will be playing and in what kind of ensemble. Then you need to decide what kind of sound you are going for. Are you going for a Jacobs sound that wraps itself around you like a warm blanket, or are you going for a Bobo sound that is somewhat more directional, or are you going for a Pokorny sound that comes up from the core of the earth and rattles your sternum with it's core? Or do you want the sweet, soloistic sound from Sheridan's Eb?

Once you get the sound in your head that you want to produce, the sound that speaks to your inner musician, then you go out and find the horn that is most favorable to producing that sound in the vast majority of playing situations you will be in.

So to answer your question, either will work very nicely. As will a 188, possibly a Getzen G-50, a 2145, a 186, a 4/4 Rudy, possibly a Piggy, a smaller PT, or any number of other horns.

Buying a horn and trying to make it fit your style and circumstance doesn't tend to work as well as knowing that you have a round hole before you buy the peg.

Well said, MMZ.

JustinLerma wrote: ......Everyone I talked to, including many professionals, told me that the 56 was not an orchestral or versatile horn.
........

Slight tangent, but why is a certain horn not an orchestral horn!?
Do folks just mean that 'tuba X' is less desirable in an orchestra compared with 'tuba Y' because of projection and/or blending/whatever issues?

MP

I have played on both of these horns are some time now and I would take the 2155 in a heartbeat.

I have played on both of these horns for some time now and I would take the Conn in a heartbeat.





Errr, let's just make that another vote for the Conn.

I figure the reason for lack of "powerful sound" is probably not the size of the 56J but more specifically the size of the horn's bore. The Conn's have a bore of .689 I believe which is rather small. The 20 inch bell helps compensate a little and yes a BAM (big *** mouthpiece) would help as well. The Meinl Weston 2145/2155 has a larger bore, .748 I believe, so that would enhance the sound. Smaller bells though. Try them both. The 2155 may not make a good quintet horn.

quinterbourne wrote:I figure the reason for lack of "powerful sound" is probably not the size of the 56J but more specifically the size of the horn's bore.

I'm inclined to dispute this. My evidence is all those old York BAT's, many of which had a smaller bore, and all of which can produce plenty of power.

I think power in the sound is a function of the volume of air set to vibrating, and the amplitude of such vibration. A bigger instrument has the potential to vibrate a much larger sound field as a result of greater volume. That greater volume happens in the outer branches, not the valve tubing.

In some tubas, a poor taper design, which could be represented by too small a bore in a given particular design, will affect the amplitude of the vibration because it will not resonate effectively. Some tubas work well with larger bores because they fit with their taper design (e.g. Alexander and Rudolf Meinl). The whole design has to be considered as a system.

Rick "noting that a bigger horn makes more sound but not necessarily more intensity" Denney

I would assume that the output of a horn would be a combination of the horn's size as well as the bore. I do not think that the bore is the only factor in determining the output, but I do think that it may be a main factor in the case of the 56J. The 56J isn't really all that small, and has a big bell, yet doesn't seem to necessarily shape up to other horns of similar size.

I guess part of the problem is the definition of "powerful sound" which I guess would be a factor of amount of sound as well as the intensity of the sound. I do believe that the 56J would be a much more powerful horn with a larger bore.

I'm inclined to theorize that the 52J might be perceived as being "louder" than the 56J due to focus of sound. The rather broad voice of the 56J due to its 20" bell may reduce the perceived volume???

Speculating,