TubeNet

I'm test driving a Thor at the moment and I am quite pleased with the characteristics of the instrument, but before I take the plunge I wanted to see if anyone has played a Thor and a 1291 CC back-to-back, in an effort to contrast the differences of the two instruments.

The only generalized knock on the Thor's I can find is that some of them play too "harshly". Having played one that WAS too harsh in the low range, I have to agree with that assessment on some level. The only generalized knock I've heard on the 1291 is that it doesn't project as well into the hall as well as you think while sitting under the bell. Not having had more than about 3 minutes on one, I really can't form a decent opinion.

I've found the Thor to be a 4/4 - 5/4 sort of hybrid (maybe a 9/8?) that plays with much more center, response, and focus than you would expect for a "bigger" horn. My only complaint *so far* has been water accumulating in the 3rd and 4th valves, and I'll figure that out eventually. I'm going test drive it in a brass quintet tomorrow and then I'll have a better idea of how it fits what I need, but I am lacking the information on the 1291 at this point.

So, if anyone can help by comparing and contrasting these two instruments, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for the responses.


Rob

the 1291 CC has always had it's quirks with me. it had always felt like it took too much effort in the lower range and the upper range didn't slot right (FOR ME!). paired in a section i think this horn would do well but within a collegiate symphony orchestra the horn might get "eaten up" a bit. i got to play one in a decent size hall and this is what i got out of it.

the thor is classified on tubadome.com as a 5/4 and it's never struck me as anything else. i've played 3 different ones 2 that i REALLY REALLY liked and 1 that i was indifferent about. that one sounded "blatty" for some reason. it was probably me on for any reason letting loose in the mid/low register; pushing past my desired sound concept. the other 2 felt like they played themselves. they were awesome. they projected well and centered nicely. the slide layout is nice (for me) and, for being such a large horn, was able to sing away in the high end of the horn (for me). i wouldn't however put this in a brass quintet. i think it would be quite overpowering unless your played Mp or less. oh and i played this in the same hall about a year later.

hopefully you've noticed that there is a lot of "for me". everyone plays differently so take this suggestions with a grain of salt. hope this helps!

I have played both back to back, and there is no comparison. The Thor blew the 1291 away. i should preface these comments by saying that I play a Meinwl Weston 2155R (Rotary Thor)

The Thor had alot of color to the sound. Very large sound. Phenomenal low register. I like the demonic edgy sound it produces when pushed. But it takes alot of effort to get it to break up. I cannot say the same for the 1291. The one I played broke up way to easily. Sounded too "American" if thats a way to describe it? Too marshmellow sounding. The Thor basically played like a piston version of my horn. Very commanding almost Alexander type of sound. Projects very well. I also played the 1292 alongside the 1291 and the Thor. The 1292 was much better than the 1291. The different leadpipe makes a big difference.

Two different instruments, different design goals, different results.

To me the 1291 is a more versatile instrument. I've never found had complaints about the different registers or the carrying power. Alan Baer used one in the Phil for some time. It is the most bang for the buck you can buy today.

The Thor seemed to me to be a purely orchestral tuba. The sound was not particularly pretty but, coupled with the right mouthpiece, the response and projection is surprising. I don't know if it'll win any auditions but I bet it will work wonders in the orchestra.

Oh, yeah, Thor = $9300+ / Miraphone 1291 = under $8000

I love my 1291.

I used to have a piston 2155 i liked it but then i switched to the Thor and like it way better, I do disagree with the statement about the Thor playing like the piston version of a 2155. I have played both and both are different beasts at least in mho. I have not played the other horn but i really do enjoy the Thor. It can be harsh if you make it harsh but it can sing if you want to. I enjoy the Thor, give it a try.

Greg wrote:

Scooby Tuba wrote:The Thor isn't an "orchestral" horn. It was designed as large do-it-all tuba.

I've played many, many 1291 tubas and I bet more Thors than anyone, excepting maybe two guys while testing batches for students/friends/students of friends. IMVHO, they are really:

I find this to be true. I use my Thor for nearly everything. This past Sunday I played a Church gig with a ten piece wind ensemble, a quintet job, and then a St Louis Wind Symphony concert. I didn't feel like the Thor was better suited for orchestra at any point. In fact, most of the day I was just glad I didn't feel like I needed to bring the Eb with me as well!

Was this tuba a bad match for these ensembles? I hope not, but I keep getting hired back so somebody must like it at least a little!

Can anyone else comment on the use of the Thor in chamber ensembles? I liked the one I played last year, and if it can prove to hold up in small group settings, I might consider one (after a trial obviously). I know it will hold down the bottom end of any small/medium groups I play in.

Scooby Tuba wrote:The Thor isn't an "orchestral" horn. It was designed as large do-it-all tuba.

I've played many, many 1291 tubas and I bet more Thors than anyone, excepting maybe two guys while testing batches for students/friends/students of friends. IMVHO, they are really:

The one thing these horns DO have in common is they are designed as larger, do-it-all horns, which is why I am asking about these two in comparison to each other (produce reference duly noted). My smaller, do-it-all horn, it's a really REALLY good horn but I think I want to go after a bit different sound right now these two guys are my first swipe in that direction.

Scooby, since you've played a fair amount of both horns, could share your thoughts on the two in relation to each other?

And Greg, could you share how you feel your Thor works in the quintet setting?

Thanks.


Rob

What is your favorite tuba?



Miraphone 1291...er...Thor... Aaaghhhhh!

Anyway...

I own a 1291, and have played the Thor several times now. My thoughts:

-- the Thor was a little easier to play (maybe b/c of the smaller bore?)
-- the 1291 sounds "rounder" to me
-- the 1291 felt like it took more air (or maybe just faster air?)
-- both have different intonation
-- in my hands, both feel big for a quintet (in more capable hands, I'm sure either tuba could probably work)

That little graphic of the apple and orange on a scale is right on, EXCEPT my scale would be balanced. If you've got $10k laying around, try them both.

My real thought, and answer to the question no one asked: as a 4/4 tuba option, I like the new "BBC tweaked" MW 2145 better than either tuba. Played one last week, and simply put, it was just my favorite.

tubashaman wrote:Let me reiterate and agree.
Comparing the 1291 to the Thor is like comparing A PT 7 to a Willson Euphonium....

How many Thor's have you played (or even seen?)
The 1291 isn't that big; I wouldn't even barely classify it a full 5/4; the 190 was a full 5/4 Mirafone. Except for the final bell flare size (aka pancake), the Thor is physically much larger than the 1291. It is a BIG tuba, very tall and with a huge bottom bow, just with a narrow bell. The Thor puts out more sound and has greater projection. The 1291 has a darker sound. The Thor sounds more "German" and the 1291 more "American". Is either the ideal quintet horn? Probably not. If I had to choose one for quintet, it would probably be the 1291 unless the Thor could be toned down, as it will cut like a knife.
Apples and Oranges.
NOT
6/4 to euph.

hard to answer. I own a 1291 that has a factory 1292 leadpipe on it. I've used it for everything and it's a great horn. The quintet loves it and some of the orchestras I play in prefer it. I've played a lot of Thor tubas as well and they are excellent instruments as well.

The Thor has a little more presence, but it is a bigger instrument. They are both easy to play with the Thor having a little better intonation than the 1291/2 that I own. Again, neither horn sucks at all. I found that, in an orchestral setting, the Thor was a little easier in getting the sound "out" to the audience than on the 1291/2. It was less of a wrestling match and more of a musical experience, but both horns like the way I play and complement that and I feel either will work in any situation.

I have not used a Thor in a quintet but I don't see that as a problem. I think it would do just fine, especially in MY quintet. We tend to think of ourselves as "The Canadian Brass, on steroids, combined with Def Leppard" - knee deep in the carburetor when necessary.

Meinl Weston and Miraphone both make fine products. Comparing these, as apples and oranges, would be like comparing flavors. Both horns are extremely playable by almost everyone and it comes down to - pick the flavor that you like.

I was once accused of saying one of the stupidest things in the world on TubeNet (later rescinded when found to be true) - "A horn has to like what YOU do to it". It also has to have a sound that YOU love or you will never practice. I loved the way my 621 Yamaha F payed, but I hated the sound of it. I would avoid practicing on it unless I absolutely had to. I don't have that horn, or that problem anymore.

Just my meager observations.
Roger