TubeNet

For a few minutes.

And . . . ?

Unless it is the angle, they look like different animals--the leadpipe, the tubing coming out after the tuning slide, etc.....
Mark

bisontuba wrote:Unless it is the angle, they look like different animals--the leadpipe, the tubing coming out after the tuning slide, etc.....
Mark

But really, it's close enough!

Is this the new TE horn? I played it at TMEA and I loved it. But, I've never gotten to play a tell Thor so I can't really conpare.

Whether the Miraclone, Mackatucci, Eastman reworked Conn, or now the Chino-Thor you've gotta admire the entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese. If well done there is bound to be a market for this one. Anyone know the manufacturer? Next maybe a great copy of a 5V 188?

Have the Chinese come to the point where they do there own design yet ?

Erik_Sweden wrote:Have the Chinese come to the point where they do their own design yet ?

Yes, but it's just coincidental that they look VERY MUCH LIKE the horns other manufacturers make...

Erik_Sweden wrote:Have the Chinese come to the point where they do there own design yet ?

Maybe the reason they don't is they see the results of original designs coming out of India

I wasn't super impressed. It sounded okay. The tuning was mostly good. I didn't like the way it played at all while using the 5th valve. Something about Meinl Weston tubas and the 5th valve made everything very stuffy and hard to get around on.

No I have not had a chance to play it, (would love to) however, just by visual observation: the "chino" does appear to be a slightly more ergo instrument. For instance the valve block is about an inch or so higher, resulting in the branch under the top bow being a couple of inches higher and a more comfortable place to rest the left wrist, hence overall balance. I always thought the Thor as very uncomfortable and unwieldy in that regard.

Does the elevated valve block create right hand (tendon) angle issues? I dunno. Usually with the vertical valve block, lower is more comfortable. BUT!!! I have no idea. (Yes, the lead pipe does enter at a 45% rather than 90% angle - so what)

If the bugle is comparable, results should be acceptable. The bell on the early Thor was also a tad narrow and this one may have an extra inch or so of gracious "gravitas" that were sported in later MW Thor models. If it plays well, who cares?

Next clone needs to be the CSO York.

I could be a ":sucker" for this one. But for the time being will wait on the sidelines.

Paul "who with arthritis and other senior maladies, loves it when a few ergo issues are addressed" Maybery

Bloke, looks like a "cherry" from our friends at TE. Thanks for the post.

What can we expect next?

I played this at the Musik Messe as well. It was pretty good. The horn didn't seem to have any noticeable pitch problems to me. The inner slides are much shorter than the original it copied. The horn also had that Chinese made factory grime in it. So if you get one expect to give it a major cleaning. Fifth valve tubing I think is also set up differently than the original. I couldn't tell if it was the hall but it also didn't seem to have the awesome low end that the original had as well. Not bad but not what I expected from a Thor copy. Could have been the hall though so take that with a grain of salt. Seems that stores here are selling them for a much better price than the TE. They also had rotor BBb brother to this horn which was also a nice horn.