TubeNet

.

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the Firebird design is based on the old 180? If so, I think the answer is obviously no, at least not directly. The fact that they are (were) both made by Miraphone is going to lead to SOME similarities.


Sorry, I don't see it.

.

Your point?

I once had a retired college band director / tuba prof mistake my 181 F at first glance for an early 186. Why? Height about the same, bell diameter the same, raw brass 181 looks older than it actually is. Any relation???

I had a knowledgeable tuba / bass player ask if my big Kalison was a Nischl at first sight. Why? Both are big silver piston tubas with oversized 5th rotors (Rotax on the K2001.) Any relation???

I took my 9 year old to the Corvette museum about a month ago, and we saw examples of every vette ever made, and plenty of prototypes that never made it to production. Now every sports car he sees, he thinks it is a Corvette. Any relation???

My point being that it is easy to mistake things at first glance. Ask any of the professional LO on this board about eyewitness descriptions.

James, be careful what you post here. You imply a lot of derogatory things, and a lot of people read this board, including the designer of the Firebird.

.

Nice edit, James. Your original post makes the same point without the unnecessary "dig."

I have edited my post as well.

Bloke said:

ORIGINAL 181 - (hardly ANYONE knows about this who is around today...or they forgot) was a straight-up B&S "Perantucci" copy. It came out in the mid-late '80's. It did not play as well as a B&S.

Bloke, someone in the know told me Mr. Tucci was a clinician for Miraphone, and they made the 181 F for him. Shortly after, he moved to B&S. So I believe the 181 was first.

more recent 181 - totally redesigned. A stinker, because the 2nd-space C (fairly oft-requested pitch in tuba music) is so sharp as to be unusable without some goofy alternate fingering

I've played several, and they all had a decent playing C, so perhaps the 181 has been updated even since then. The low C isn't to my liking, but it's par for the course for a rotary F.

281 - slightly redesigned version of the more recent 181, with the most notable difference (beyond all physically observable differences) being the improved (ie: "good") intonation

The 281 IS the Firebird, which is a totally different instrument than the other Miraphone F tubas.

Best,

Ferguson

.

the elephant wrote:1987 is the earliest I can remember, maybe 1988. It has a curly-headed, blonde guy with facial hair and a big mug of beer practicing one.

That rang my old nostalgia bell, so I dug up my oldest one, Spring '89, and there he is - "The Miraphone Freak". Inside, in a little industry blurb, Mel Culbertson and Richard Nahatzki visit the factory, and Mel "gave a lot of attention to our new F tuba No. 81." Referred to as 81b in the ad in back.

tubashaman2 wrote:As I am still in the market for a better F in the future, I was just curious, I am debating between a potential YFB 621 and a miraphone rotary F (181.5/281).

Apparently Baer's modifications help any tuning problems

Why debate, James? Save your pennies and go buy one . . . until then, your time is probably best spent playing and practicing. When the time is right, you and the right horn will find each other.

.

the elephant wrote:1987 is the earliest I can remember, maybe 1988. It has a curly-headed, blonde guy with facial hair and a big mug of beer practicing one. That is the type that Mary bought, formerly Ev Gilmore's. It has two leadpipes (or had). I performed on this tuba several times over my first few seasons here. It was a lot like the B&S.

Who are ya callin' Mary?


(And, yes, it still has the two leadpipes.)

Uhmm, I'm still trying to figure out where the line between bass tubas and contrabass tubas is. I was surprised to find (after reading this thread) that the 181 has a 0.83+ bore. . .should sound pretty good below GG. But the sounds I can identify on recordings (and I have no idea which instruments they are) are pretty "trombony"., and I'm not going there.
I'm shopping for a horn. I'm also kind of set in my ways, and having rotator cuff problems. If the Ffer is really a good way to go. . .I can learn new fingering. The bottom line, however, is that I seek a big, round DDDb or CCC.
Can a 181 or Firebird compete with an organ pedal down there?

sailn2ba wrote:Uhmm, I'm still trying to figure out where the line between bass tubas and contrabass tubas is. I was surprised to find (after reading this thread) that the 181 has a 0.83+ bore. . .should sound pretty good below GG. But the sounds I can identify on recordings (and I have no idea which instruments they are) are pretty "trombony"., and I'm not going there.
I'm shopping for a horn. I'm also kind of set in my ways, and having rotator cuff problems. If the Ffer is really a good way to go. . .I can learn new fingering. The bottom line, however, is that I seek a big, round DDDb or CCC.
Can a 181 or Firebird compete with an organ pedal down there?

Rotator cuff or similar arm ailments lead me to think rotary valves would be easier on your body, due to lighter spring tension, shorter throw, and ergonomic finger placement. But, playing low on a F tuba meas lots of valves down, and that can be more stressful on your hand as well.

Beyond that, I wouldn't think the 181 would be the best low range F tuba, even though it's fairly big. One can get used to the quirks of rotary F tubas, to which many posters will attest. Most any piston F tuba seems to have a broader sound to my ears. But again, you get a longer throw with pistons, which could be tiring to your body.

Had you considered a smaller rotary CC, or a rotary Eb? Just due to their extra length, many models of these would have a beefier low range, with fewer buttons down as well.

Best,

Ferguson

.

"1987 is the earliest I can remember, maybe 1988. It has a curly-headed, blonde guy with facial hair and a big mug of beer practicing one. That is the type that Mary bought, formerly Ev Gilmore's. It has two leadpipes (or had). I performed on this tuba several times over my first few seasons here. It was a lot like the B&S."

I've played a few of those versions of the 181, and they were fabulous. I really liked them - and I don't like B&S Fs at all. Nor do I like the newer 181s at all. Really liked that late 80s version - I have the same beer-swilling ad in my collections too

J.c.S.

sailn2ba wrote:Uhmm, I'm still trying to figure out where the line between bass tubas and contrabass tubas is. I was surprised to find (after reading this thread) that the 181 has a 0.83+ bore. . .should sound pretty good below GG. But the sounds I can identify on recordings (and I have no idea which instruments they are) are pretty "trombony"., and I'm not going there.
I'm shopping for a horn. I'm also kind of set in my ways, and having rotator cuff problems. If the Ffer is really a good way to go. . .I can learn new fingering. The bottom line, however, is that I seek a big, round DDDb or CCC.
Can a 181 or Firebird compete with an organ pedal down there?

Bass Tuba = F or EEb tuba
Contrabass = CC or BBb tuba
Bore size has nothing to do with it, other than the effect on the playing characteristics of an individual horn. Overall length has far more to do with sound (ie, F tuba is far shorter from mouthpiece to bell than a CC or BBb tuba), as does overall flare profile over that length. Not to mention your own personal "tonal fingerprint" that only you produce.
If you want "organ pedal," I definitely think you're going to get closer to that sound with a longer horn (CC or BBb tuba). Its not that an EEb or F tuba can't play down there, they definitely can in the right hands, it's just that you're not going to produce that same "organ" darkness and breadth of tone as easily down there. Of course, YMMV.