Re: Differences between Miraphone 1291 CC, 1292 CC, and 1293
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:58 pm
I owned a 1291 for several years, and really liked it. Low range totally roared out of the tuba, and it was exceptionally easy to play. I think the sound was not quite "right" for me, and not as "interesting" as my 188 is now. But it was point-and-shoot and still quite a fine tuba. I did the 1292 leadpipe swap, and it improved the response even more, and the "slotting" in the low range became easier. Intonation was very good before and after the swap. The current owner of that 1291, as far as I know, has really enjoyed it and has gotten great feedback with it.
While I owned my 1291, I tried several other 1291's and 1292's. Sometimes I liked the 1291 better, other times the 1292. I think it was good and bad examples of each horn, and I'm not sure my experiences led me to think that one was always better than the other.
I have only tried one 1293, and thought it was a complete dud. I think it was just that one particular example of that model, it seemed like it should have been a great player. I'm not sure quite how the low range of the 1293 would be bigger/fatter/easier than the 1291 or 1292, but that would be a pretty monster low range if it was!
Recap: 1291 and 1292 about the same (try both and don't pay attention to the model #), 1293 was 0-for-1 to me (not enough data).
While I owned my 1291, I tried several other 1291's and 1292's. Sometimes I liked the 1291 better, other times the 1292. I think it was good and bad examples of each horn, and I'm not sure my experiences led me to think that one was always better than the other.
I have only tried one 1293, and thought it was a complete dud. I think it was just that one particular example of that model, it seemed like it should have been a great player. I'm not sure quite how the low range of the 1293 would be bigger/fatter/easier than the 1291 or 1292, but that would be a pretty monster low range if it was!
Recap: 1291 and 1292 about the same (try both and don't pay attention to the model #), 1293 was 0-for-1 to me (not enough data).