TubeNet

G'day
I'm in Australia and play a 1291 BBb which I had shipped over sight unseen.
About the only BBb's which exist here are the Besson Sovereign four plus one (compensating) and the Yamaha 321.

Although I like the 1291 very much I keep reading discussions about other tubas and find myself constantly wondering how I would like some of these other instruments if I had the opportunity to play them back to back. (Which I don't).

If anyone is familiar with both the Holton and the Miraphone can you tell me: is the Holton much bigger and does it play significantly bigger?

Also, if you were in the market for a large American BBb would you start a great search for a good Holton 345 or would you just go straight to Sam Gnagey and ask him to put together a monster BBb out of whatever he could find with five valves. (I use my fifth valve all the time).

Regards

Gerard (In Melbourne, Australia).

termite wrote:If anyone is familiar with both the Holton and the Miraphone can you tell me: is the Holton much bigger and does it play significantly bigger?

Absolutely yes to the first, and "somewhat yes" to the second. The Holton is a true grand orchestral tuba in the York tradition, with all the advantages and disadvantages that entails. The advantages are a rich, huge, colorful sound, probably with more zip than a Miraphone. The disadvantages of the Holton are mainly two-fold: 1.) The construction quality ranges from mediocre to downright bad, but all the right pieces are there so that can be corrected, and 2.) the intonation can really be squirrelly. Some are worse than other in the intonation department, and some are good enough to be "not bad". The Miraphone has more consistent and predictable intonation, but that doesn't mean it's perfect, of course. Of course, the Miraphone is much better made. Compared to the Yamaha, the sound of both will be bigger and fuller, and compared to the Sovereign, the sound will be bigger and in the case of the Holton more colorful.

Also, if you were in the market for a large American BBb would you start a great search for a good Holton 345 or would you just go straight to Sam Gnagey and ask him to put together a monster BBb out of whatever he could find with five valves. (I use my fifth valve all the time).

I would look for a real Bb Holton first, and then have it repaired to bring it up to solid, playable condition. It may take a while to find one. Depending on how good you want it to look, you can spend about as much as you want, but budget about six grand for a Holton that has been brought to solid, playing condition with redone valves, etc, but not restored better-than-new beauty. If it's pretty as well, it might be more. If Sam already has the pieces in hand, then that may be an option.

My opinion: If you want a fifth valve, stick with the Miraphone, or consider a five-valved Rudy Meinl 5/4 or a Meinl-Weston Fafner. These will end up costing less than restoring a Holton with new valves plus an extra fifth valve. They will also move earth as needed similarly to a Holton.

Rick "thinking the false tones on the Holton are too good to warrant the risk of mucking it up with a fifth valve, especially considering how rarely those notes are needed" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: My opinion: If you want a fifth valve, stick with the Miraphone, or consider a five-valved Rudy Meinl 5/4 or a Meinl-Weston Fafner. These will end up costing less than restoring a Holton with new valves plus an extra fifth valve. They will also move earth as needed similarly to a Holton.

Rick,

You suprise me...
Would you put a typical german kaiser like a Rudy or Fafner (roatary) soundwise in the same 'league' as a Holton 345?
I would have thought they were extremes of the German vs American sound concept (discussed in other topics).

For a Fafner, the rotary version has only 4 valves as a standard...
For the Rudy BBb, a 5th valve is an expensive extra. With some slide pulling and false fingerings on a 4-valver, you get it where you want imho.

Wim

It seems to me that you would be better getting yourself an airline ticket and fly to somewhere you can try before buying.

A tuba is a substantial investment, so worth always trying first. We all have different tastes, which means different people like different tubas. I have been left 'cold' by tubas that other people on here have raved about - while the Neptune which I adore, is not to everyone's taste.

oedipoes wrote:Would you put a typical german kaiser like a Rudy or Fafner (roatary) soundwise in the same 'league' as a Holton 345?
I would have thought they were extremes of the German vs American sound concept (discussed in other topics).

They aren't the same, but they are just as good and much better made. For someone willing to buy a Miraphone sight unseen, it's a strategy with a more predictable outcome. Some Holtons are unplayable.

But my main point was that putting a fifth valve on a Holton would be really costly compared to the benefit, and someone needing a fifth valve for whatever reason would do better buying a tuba that came with one and that could be tried beforehand. The plain Fafner may not have one, but I bet Meinl-Weston has a version of it that does.

Rick "who loves his Holton but would never recommend buying one sight unseen" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:The plain Fafner may not have one, but I bet Meinl-Weston has a version of it that does.

M-W does provide the option of a dependant 5th on the rotary Fafner. It is within the 4th valve loop, so will only work in conjunction with the 4th valve.

I heard that tests showed putting a 5th valve in-line had a detrimental effect on the Fafner's playing, so that is why the dependant option.

Not sure what your tuba need are and the ensembles you're playing in, but...

If you only have 1 tuba, I'd say go with the 1291 instead of the 345. The 1291 will be a good size for almost everything. The 345 will be too big for a lot of things.

I love Holton tubas but I would side with those who say that you should stick with the Miraphone.

If you want a particular type of sound (American, however you describe that), the Holton tuba can produce it. On the other hand, the Miraphone 1291 will have a more universally accepted sound and will be easier to handle regarding intonation. Intonation is the trump card for this decision, in my opinion.

Hi everyone, thanks for the replies.

I'm not in the market for a new tuba, I was just trying to draw out peoples personal reactions to these two tubas. I'm always interested in matching my experiences of a certain tuba against other peoples.

I bought my 1291 after many months of reading pretty much every word I could find on this forum written about large BBb tubas. If a Rudy 5/4 had been available at the time I probably would have jumped on that. My playing consists of British style brass band, concert band and solo competitions. (That is, I pay to play - they don't pay me). If I can find the right people I'd like to get a brass quintet going.

Whenever I pull out my wife's old YEB321 to play something which is supposedly better done on bass tuba I turf it pretty quickly - everything is so much more satisfying to play on the 1291. The 1291's versatility probably makes it the best one tuba solution for what I do. I did pick the thing for a reason.

However, whenever I see pictures of old oversized American 6/4 BBb's they seem to be calling to me to pick them up and swallow everything for miles around with sound - hence my wanting to tap into everybody's experiences playing these instruments.

I have a very good idea of the difference between the Rudy 5/4 and the 1291 thanks to a very kind gentleman from this forum who sent me some recordings of himself playing both instruments and a bell front 186 in a terrific traditional jazz band.

If I ever win the lottery the first thing I will do is jump on a plane to the US and spend a few days doing the rounds of the main tuba shops and play everything in sight. I would of course go home with both a Rudy and some sort of American BAT - just to make sure.

I'm aware that finding a good 345 is not easy and that adding a fifth valve to one would be an expensive exercise with no certain outcome.
I've been aware of Sam Gnagey's 4/4 CC tubas for a while and when he recently posted pictures of a 6/4 he'd made I started thinking. I did a bit of a search and found out that Sam had made a 5 valve 6/4 BBb in the past. Sam's prices seem pretty good value compared to serious restoration and valve adding exercises and I get the impression that anything bought from Sam would be a very well sorted out instrument.

My 1291 will swallow most groups I play with, however I've spent the last few Tuesday nights sitting next to a massive 5/4 Hirsbrunner BBb (Looks like a 186 on steroids - a LOT of steroids) and a 5/4 Rudy CC and I've started wondering what something bigger would be like. The bottom bow on the Rudy is considerably larger than either the Hirsbrunner or the 1291. I tend not to hear too much from the guy playing an EEb up the other end of the section.
I'm not a total beginner but the Hirsbrunner's player is six foot four plus and born to blow large tubas. The Rudy player is more my size but he's just finished college and has had a lot more instruction and practice time than I've had over the last few years.

To the best of my knowledge there are two 5/4 Rudy BBb's and three 1291 BBb's here in Australia. We have a LOT of Besson Sovereign BBb's (four plus one compensating), and a lot of older three valve Imperial BBb's - I have one of these myself that I use for marching. There are also quite a few Yamaha 321's floating around here. The amateur tuba scene here is well and truly dominated by the Besson EEb. Professional orchestral players here play CC and F - the big Rudy is very popular. The various service bands issue their players with the Besson Sovereign, mainly the EEb, although a few players use their own instruments including a couple of CC's.

Since getting the 1291 I've completely lost interest in playing any pitch of tuba other than BBb, I just wonder what a much larger instrument would be like. I imagine that to play substantially bigger than a 1291 would take pretty much the biggest tuba you could find.

Regarding the fifth valve - a lot of brass band test pieces use the notes between low F and pedal BBb a lot - I've seen parts going down to pedal G. (I'm talking concert pitch here). Facility in this register is expected in the brass band scene - these notes are not just for the final chord - no one's impressed just because you can actually hit them. If you listen to recordings of the best British brass bands you will hear a lot of low register stuff not written in the part - it's part of the playing culture. I've sat next to a guy who used to play in the Besses o' th' Barn Band band when he lived in the UK - I can hardly believe that a human being can make that much sound in the low register and he does it on a Sovereign! (The only Sovereign I've ever played felt like it had a rag down it compared to my 1291). This guy's sound was the real British brass band tuba sound - all fundamental and it swallowed the whole room in a way I can't describe in words.

I practice all my scales, exercises etc. down to pedal BBb. Etudes and solos I practice twice - once as written and once down an octave. (This saves having to buy low register etudes). I would go out of my mind trying to play a non-compensating tuba without the fifth valve and easily pullable slides.

I hope someone finds some of this interesting and I'd really like to hear about people's experiences playing 6/4 BBb tubas - I'd do it myself if I could get my hands on some. (Maybe I could apply for a grant to do a study on this?????)

Regards

Gerard

Gerard, the biggest difference (no pun intended) is the tone quality produced. This BBb 345: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35068 and others like it produce a tone quality unlike what you'll typically get from a Hirsbrunner BBb, a Sovereign, or a Miraphone. Two entirely different "concepts" of tuba sound. True, you will still have your aural "fingerprint" to your sound when playing it, but it's a whole different thing.
You could buy this thing sight unseen, and I guarantee you it would turn heads "down under," even before they see the sheer physical size of the thing.

jonesbrass wrote:Gerard, the biggest difference (no pun intended) is the tone quality produced.

That really sums it up. The big difference between medium and large size tubas is tone. 6/4 size ones just have a depth and breath of tone which cannot be produced on smaller tubas.

My Neptune turns heads wherever I play it, because no British tubas have that kind of tone. I am sure the same would be the case for a Holton 345.

the elephant wrote:Most newer tubas do not really sound Germanic or American to me. They sound like something in between the two, which is a shame. The Fafner is the one exception.

That is really surprising as the Fafner has a bell very similar (if not identical) in profile to a Holton.

To me the M-W 197 Hilgers Kaiser is more what I think of as a real German tone.

But as been said before, this is all very subjective and influenced a lot by who is behind the mouthpiece.

Playing British brass band music is, to most Americans, a specialty exercise. The modern low range requirements for contest literature were not in anyone's mind when creating the archetype American BATs. Rather, they were looking at professional band and orchestra music at the time, which rarely requires playing below low F. On those rare occasions when I need to play below F, I use the false tones, but frankly I'm just no good down in that register.

The Holton, like most of the best American-style Bb tubas, was not designed for that sort of literature. Rather it was designed to make a monstrous orchestral tone played in the register most often used in orchestra. I know that what I suggest sounds nutty--a tuba the size of a Holton designed for middle and upper register--but that's where the orchestra and professional band literature of the day lives.

Even music known for being low, such as the Shostakovich 5th or the Prokofiev 5th, sit down low but not that low. I think the Shosty only goes down to Eb (possibly D), and the Prok down to maybe E. And those are not technical notes, but rather intended to build a sonic foundation for the ensemble--big, broad tones. It is for this sort of literature that the Holton shines.

The Holton is a real air hog in the very low register. I'm sure a better player than me would feel completely comfortable with it playing technical stuff down in the false-tone register. But if I had to become proficient in that register, I think I would use a smaller instrument with a bit more resistance to blow against.

To sum up, the Holton and tubas like it seem to me designed to make the normal middle register sound deep in an ensemble that includes a wide range of timbres. In a brass band where the music is an octave down from there and the range of timbres more limited, such an effect might turn the sound to mud. I might prefer a smaller instrument that had more clarity in that register, especially if I was trying to keep up with better players sitting next to me.

Rick "with lots of experience in that position" Denney

Prokofiev 5th has one low Eb, a few E's I think, and a bunch of F's. I don't remember Shostakovich 5th being that low, but I was also playing a different instrument on that (bass trombone).


I've not played a 345, and only a few BAT's at all (Neptune, 2165) but I am a HUGE fan of the 1291 Bb.