TubeNet

Alexander 163?

I made it out to Ferguson's Music near LA yesterday (if you can get anywhere near SoCal, this is where you want to go) to trial CC tubas. Nothing like sitting in a room full of professional horns with no-pressure professional musicians running the store.

Unlike many of the accomplished players on this site, I'm a community band hack who is relatively new to tuba, but looking to do a one-time upgrade from my Cerveny CCB 681 - a fine but smallish CC. My current horn actually has a very nice Germanic-flavored sound but needs more work the farther you go below the staff and just doesn't have the beef I'd like on the lowest notes.

I walked in figuring that my short list would probably be the 188, the Bruckner and the 1293, and that's the way it turned out. I played the Alex last, almost forgetting that it was there. Sitting there in the chair, it has a sound that you notice right away - hard to describe what it is, but you certainly notice it. Checking it briefly against the tuner, I could tell it was not nearly as point and shoot in tune as the other three, but the sound and the Mercedes-like build makes you pause for a minute.

I can confirm what others have posted about these instruments - the 188 sounds great, is wonderfully in tune and a super-solid instrument. However, the lowest notes do take more user input than the Bruckner or 1293. The 1293 has - dare I say it - the balls you might expect from a 19" bell in the bottom range, but the real surprise was how well it could play quietly from bottom to top with ease. The dynamic potential of this horn is unreal - it's just that pistons are more work for me, especially compared to fantastic rotors of the other horns. The Bruckner would seem to fill the gap between the 188 and the 1293 - a big full sound that leans a little to the Germanic side. It feels surprisingly light for its size.

As others have suggested, I recorded my playing while switching among the horns. I highly recommend this practice; once I got past how bad my playing sounded, I could focus on the sound characteristics of the different horns (using 2 different mouthpieces) and draw some good comparisons.

This leads me to my question. The sound captured in the store does not necessarily equate to the sound in the performance space. I anticipate I'll be playing mostly band music - where the tubas essentially are the bass rather than an orchestra where the tuba is a supplement.

For those of you who have played and/or heard these horns in a performance venue which would you choose to anchor the band?

Looking forward to the discussion

Yellow or gold brass 188?

In my opinion, recording wasn't of much value to me when trying out instruments. There are just too many variables to get past before you really get to listen to the tuba such as mic/recorder placement, recording levels, recording in a (usually) unfamiliar space, and even trying not to listen to the "music" (ie getting bogged down in your own playing weaknesses).

Sound out front can be determined by a trusted friend or teacher. Teachers are usually best for this because they are the most familiar with your playing. BUT...don't put too much stock in this because it is impossible to try the tuba out in every possible venue to see what it will sound like. It is also extremely important that you enjoy sound BEHIND the bell...you're playing it and will, I suspect, spend far more time working with this instrument alone, in your home, than you will playing it in a group in a large hall. If you don't sound good in your seat you'll probably be miserable playing it and it won't matter what it sounds like out front.

You also need to be realistic about what you're going to do. Do you have the time to learn an Alexander to get the most out of it or do you really need a point-and-shoot tuba (188)?

There is absolutely nothing like playing an Alexander 163 in a big room with a good group, but it's not for everyone. When the sound has a chance to really develop, it's amazing.

You might (???) be able to get Steve to let you take them out on approval so you can try them out of the store, but you'd have to work that out with him specifically.

Tuba shopping is imperfect since the only chance most people have to play instruments side by side is to do something similar to what you've already done. Most people cannot afford to have multiple tubas out on approval at once so that they can play them at home.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that any true issues you find now will remain issues outside of the store. Buy the one you enjoy the most which being honest about your needs and what makes you happy.

And, while we might hate to admit it, 99.99% of people listening to us play will never be able to tell the difference out front between a 188, 1293, a Bruckner, and an Alexander. Other tuba players with good ears might, but how many of those do you have in your audience?

Mark Horne wrote:The Bruckner would seem to fill the gap between the 188 and the 1293 - a big full sound that leans a little to the Germanic side. It feels surprisingly light for its size.

Sounds like you have found the one for you in the Bruckner!

However, very difficult to know how it will sound out in the hall, or fit with your band. The only way is to trial out of the shop, if the dealer will allow.

IMHO for band playing, a broad tonal foundation is preferable to in the face projection, so a 5/4 size Bruckner may well work the best?

Jonathan "who thinks larger tubas can make a band sound better"

I think that you would most likely have the most enjoyment and least hassles with the Mirafone 188 in yellow brass.

Lee Stofer wrote:I think that you would most likely have the most enjoyment and least hassles with the Mirafone 188 in yellow brass.

Any particular reason for yellow over gold? I agree though, for band and most everything else, a good 188 would never let me down.

Lee Stofer wrote:have the most enjoyment and least hassles with the Mirafone 188

I am curious about why? Not questioning the 188 a good tuba (even if not one to do it for me), but surely the Bruckner would provide as much enjoyment and no more hassle? (and being a new model, would probably be easier to sell if later changed mind)

Mark seems to be leaning towards the Bruckner, and surely always best to get the tuba that one personally prefers (unless teacher/ensemble/financial/domestic pressure otherwise) for greatest pleasure and motivation to practice/advance

I recently play tested those 3 Miraphones. I owned a 1291/2 for about 4 years, and also used a 188 for a concert series for a few weeks.

The 1291 series has *no* trouble projecting, and for the groups most of us play in, it was more than plenty. My problem with it was that the sound could sometimes be a little bland compared to other tubas. Personal preference. That tuba was easy to play all around, and the low register was *really* easy. The 1293 I tried didn't do much for me, but it might have been a less-than-stellar example. Or, more likely, just me.

The 188 takes a little more work to project and sound as round and full as a bigger tuba. You can bark and sound bright, but it's fully capable of being big and dark if you just relax and learn how to play it.

The Bruckner I tried was great, but felt a little too "live" for me. Seemed like volume could get out of control quickly, it was just that easy to play (like resisting punching the gas pedal in a sporty car). The Bruckner was great, but might be a little big for what some people need.

To me, without a doubt, the 188 was my favorite all around tuba. Not the perfect tuba at everything, but really really good at everything. But you really couldn't go wrong with any of these!

bort wrote:I recently play tested those 3 Miraphones. I owned a 1291/2 for about 4 years, and also used a 188 for a concert series for a few weeks.

The 1291 series has *no* trouble projecting, and for the groups most of us play in, it was more than plenty. My problem with it was that the sound could sometimes be a little bland compared to other tubas. Personal preference. That tuba was easy to play all around, and the low register was *really* easy. The 1293 I tried didn't do much for me, but it might have been a less-than-stellar example. Or, more likely, just me.

The 188 takes a little more work to project and sound as round and full as a bigger tuba. You can bark and sound bright, but it's fully capable of being big and dark if you just relax and learn how to play it.

The Bruckner I tried was great, but felt a little too "live" for me. Seemed like volume could get out of control quickly, it was just that easy to play (like resisting punching the gas pedal in a sporty car). The Bruckner was great, but might be a little big for what some people need.

To me, without a doubt, the 188 was my favorite all around tuba. Not the perfect tuba at everything, but really really good at everything. But you really couldn't go wrong with any of these!

I agree completely with bort's assessment of the 188. I have never played a 186 I liked (blasphemy, I know), so when I picked up a 188, I wasn't expecting much. I was completely surprised with how great that horn was. If I was in the market to purchase a big horn to go with my 983, the 188 would definitely be on my short list.

I heard you say you prefer rotors and that you want to help the tuba section provide a solid bass line for a band setting. So you will want the tuba that provides the right sound for band, and not primarily for quintet or smaller groups.

As an amateur player, I do not fear "upsizing" my bigger tuba, because I know I'm less likely to overpower the group -- especially a band.

If you were going to play 50/50 smaller groups (quintet) and band (assuming multiple tubas), I would recommend the 188 based on what YOU have said is important to YOU. If 75% or more of your playing will be band, then I would recommend the Bruckner, based on your stated requirements. If used in a quintet setting, you might then wish to consider a shallower mpc to help "tame" the Bruckner in this type of setting. Read the forums about the "Blokepiece" mpc options for some interesting findings by some players with Joe's mouthpiece.

Cheers,

Another thought (while I'm in line at the post office... ) I think the 1291 and Bruckner sound kind of big for their size, and the 188 sounds like its size (strictly an observation, not a positive or a negative). For me, physically, the 188 is among the most comfortable tubas to hold, carry, and play that I've tried -- a major reason for swtiching from my Marzan.

Ok, enough from me. I obviously like the 188 and won't be much help otherwise. You have a fun but tough decision between all of these tubas. Just tell us what you choose, and post some pictures of the new horn.

Everything so far says Bruckner for you. You liked it, you compared side by side with other worthy choices.

I attended the NAMM Show today and last Thursday and had a chance to play the Bruckner and the 1293. Miraphone brought only 3 horns to the show, but luckily included these very fine tubas. Both played very, very nice with my favorite being the 1293. I also had a chance to try the MW Thor and it was an equally nice horn to play. All 3 had great response. But if these are the type and size of tuba you are looking for I would remiss if I did not tell to give the new Kanstull CC Model 90 tuba a test play. The Horn Guys should have one available, if not when you were there then surely very soon. I found the Kanstul CC very easy to play and it responded excellent! If was my absolute favorite of all the tubas I played at the show.

Man, this is really tough. I took the audio that I recorded (Sony D-50 field recorder) and imported it into the audio software I use to produce concert recordings. I was able to add some concert hall ambience to give a sense of how the horns might sound in a larger space. I've been critically listening to the audio to sort out the tradeoffs among the horns. The two mouthpieces I used made a definite difference in overall tone - the Wick 3XL gives a pure tone that takes a little of the edge of the smaller horns (a good match for my Cerveny) but the smaller rim diameter makes the near-pedal range more difficult to produce. The PT44 seems to "scoop out" some of the midrange and provides more lows and highs - providing a good match for the larger horns. I had put this piece away several months ago because the 33.5mm diameter was a bit much for me to manage.

My audio observations:

188 (yellow brass) - the overall sound was fairly sensitive to which mouthpiece I used. It has a clear speaking voice that could be very soloistic if desired. It lacked some of the depth that could be readily heard from the Bruckner and 1293, but the full spectrum of sound was there. When pushed, the sound got "aggressive" - not overly bright but definitely more present. I wonder how hard it would be to play loud and low on the 188 without so much edge? No doubt there are playing situations where this aggressive sound is what the music call for. . .

Bruckner - this is a tough one to figure. It has nearly the depth of the 1293 and a voice that can sound very 188-like (as I swithced among horns I was not always good about announcing which one I was playing - on one extended segment I was convinced I was listening to the 188; just as I was marvelling about it's depth, I heard myself say that I had been playing the Bruckner). The question here is what happens when the horn is pushed? My wife, who has very sensitive hearing, observed that she could hear some sonic artifacts when certain low notes were played farily loud (something not present on any of the other horns). I can't say that I noticed anything, but definitely felt that the lightness of the Bruckner was a double-edged sword - it was clearly very efficient with the sound production, but what character did the sound take on when pushed hard? As I mentioned, the 188 would get more aggressive when pushed, and the 1293 just sounded bigger. I didn't play any extended fortissimo, just a few shorter notes. I'm wondering if the Bruckner would benefit from a bell garland? Can anybody comment on how their Bruckners handle the low ff passages?

1293 - May be the ideal band horn if you're a piston player. It has a beautiful sound and seemingly unlimited depth. It matched well with the PT44 - very clear without any excessive brightness. My attacks were noticeably cleaner with this horn (vented valves could be part of the story) and the pitch felt very stable. In my recordings the rebound noise of the pistons against the bumpers was clearly audible and a bit of a distraction when listening to the quieter runs. Is this type of extraneous noise a problem in an actual performance environment? By the way, this horn can play pianissimo just beautifully. I love rotors (too many years on french horn I guess), but the 1293 just might get me to switch to pistons.

Alex 163 - Sadly, my recorder's memory ran out before I played this horn, so I can't compare the audio directly. I just know that the sound made me smile.

By the way, I did play some of the other CC horns there. . .

Kanstul 90 - I wasn't expecting to like this one since it's a whole different approach from the German horns. Super nimble, and a great and even tuba sound from top to bottom. The sound had character with a substantial bottom end to support it - you probably could do anything on this tuba. The 5th rotor was being sluggish and we didn't take the time to oil it, so I didn't do a lot of moving on the lowest notes, but they were most definitely there. The F near the top of the staff played sharp for me, and I wasn't quite sure how to get to the first slide. . .

185 - had a tonal response that most closely matched my Cerveny (which I had brought with me), but much more nimble. Like driving a sports car.

1291 - Great overall tuba, very solid. Very much like the 1293; just a little more restrained in the low register.

I don't think I'm any closer to making a final decision. . . .man, this is tough!

I think Hornguys still has a gold brass 188 there -- maybe give that a try too? When I've tried out the yellow and gold side by side down at Dillon's, I found that the gold had more depth, presence, and could take more "pushing." For me, they played very differently from each other.

Or, another approach... sounds like you don't dislike any of these, and wouldn't be unhappy with any of them. Buy whichever of these is cheapest.

ben wrote:Sounds like another trip is in order. You don't have to buy them to play them in the shop!

Good chance of that. With a 650+ mile round trip, I need to make the most of my visits!

bort wrote:I think Hornguys still has a gold brass 188 there -- maybe give that a try too? When I've tried out the yellow and gold side by side down at Dillon's, I found that the gold had more depth, presence, and could take more "pushing." For me, they played very differently from each other.

I believe the gold brass version is in their Long Beach store - we'd have to work something to get the horns in the same place to compare.

bort wrote:Or, another approach... sounds like you don't dislike any of these, and wouldn't be unhappy with any of them. Buy whichever of these is cheapest

No doubt, I'll be looking to get the right horn at the right price - I really want to see if I can make this a "one-time upgrade."

Aah, forgot they have 2 locations. B'oh!

A bit off-topic, but while we're talking about the 1293 has anyone played the 1293CC and the 1291BBb back to back? )The BBb, not the 1291 CC).

Regards

Gerard

Mark
Good luck with your deliberations.

Termite
Yes, I played the 1293 CC and 1291 BBb at Dillons 1-2 months ago.
The 1291 BBb is .835 throughout (big all the way) low resistance. But can produce a sweet sound and can be played softly.
Both horns have great intonation.
I preferred the 1293 blowing and voice characteristics to the 1291. The graduated bore on the 1293 goes from .750 to .835 (finishes same bore as the 1291 BBb. It speaks easily and really produces when called upon. Maybe that less free-blowing nature and the bigger bell were the right combination for my ear.
Did not get to try the Bruckner.
If Miraphone made a 1293 BBb that would be the production tuba for me.

Thanks David.
I was curious as several years ago a couple of people liked the 1291 BBb better than the 1291 CC (back when they first came out). I have a 1291 BBb and I'm wondering what the 6/4 BBb will be like when it comes out.

Regards

Gerard