TubeNet

Strike while the iron is hot, but get out before it burns you.

A few resellers have already 'bitten the dust'. It will be interesting to see who emerges victorious in the 'clone wars'. What surprises me here is that prices of the older European (and Japanese) horns of known good quality have held up rather well in the market place despite the fact that there have been enough 'clones' sold the last few years to put at least a couple of them in every music room.

I thought i would chime in here as i dont post very often. Our business, when started over 6 years ago was mainly due to helping out my students get an affordable horn that wouldn't break the bank but yet be of a high standard so they would last and sound great over the long haul.

When we started mack brass the intention was to keep it small and manageable as i never thought of giving up a very lucrative day job. When the business grew to a point where I couldn't handle working both at the same time we decided to give up the day job and pursue mack brass full time as we thought the potential of growth was huge and it's been almost 4 years since that decision was made.

I have never felt the need to just carry anything to make a quick sale or a buck so we keep the lineup very lean on the website. Although there are literally hundreds of different models to choose from that are made in China, we feel as though we carry the very best horns that any pro can pick and play. Being a pro myself makes it very easy to evaluate a a horn and if its something I would play myself or a pro that plays other models would play it's only then we would consider it.

We are not into the niche instruments that have a tiny market nor are we into selling models that would get very use if any for that Manor. We only carry what is in high demand and because of the volume we sell, and I stress volume, we are able to keep the prices we have today. It's been about 4 years since we had a price increase and this is mainly due to the strong dollar but we did have some price increases this year as some of our horns actually did go up in cost.

One of the major improvements we have just completed were on our paddle assemblies for all our tubas. When JinBao came out with the PT15 copy f tuba they also copied the paddle assembly for that horn which is very different for the paddle assemblies on the other tubas. Since the B&S paddle assemblies are so much more robust than the Miraphone style, we now have those on all out tubas as i had the factory make this change. This was the biggest part of our price increase to take into account so it not like we just increased our prices for no reason.

Refitting all tuba models with the new paddles took some time but the next improvement will be the stop arms. Again our goal is to change from the Miraphone style to the B&S style.

One thing I knew early on was when we started selling to schools, was the volume would pic up and it certainly did as we are now in about 600 schools colleges and universities in all 50 states. Schools do make up for almost 65% of our business. If anyone wants to question the durability of these horns, or at least the models we sell, all you have to do is look at how they have stood up over the past 6 years in those environments.

The corner stone of our business is, customer service, amazing prices and great horns.

I have purchased new instruments from Mack Brass, Jim Laabs, and John Packer. All of the instruments that I purchased were acceptable quality and I never had anything "break" or "fail." Proper maintenance is required for optimal performance, however that could be said about any "brand" of instruments. Perhaps I was "lucky," who knows I think at the very least "these" instruments offer an affordable option for students, amateurs and "professionals" to make music.

As far as other products that were manufactured in "other" places, I purchased a weed eater a while back to maintain my lawn. My lawn was average size. After using the weed eater once a week for about two months the "plastic" head melted off of the metal shaft At least the weed eater was inexpensive...

bloke wrote:

bloke "alcohol-free gasoline: an absolute 'must' "

Don't get me started....

bloke wrote: Jonathan's 4/4 piston C tuba is another instrument that (the best I can tell) isn't really a "clone"...shares characteristics of other model(s), but what instrument doesn't ?

The TC590 Wyvern is not a 'clone'. It has design features inspired from three different models of tuba. I will let you work out what those models are?

I am increasingly moving Wessex Tubas away from selling 'clones' and away from standard JB designs. While at the same time enhancing quality wherever possible. I believe people would prefer to pay a bit more, but still reasonable price for higher-quality and unique great playing designs.

Mack Brass and Wessex Tubas have two completely different business strategies - both of which seem to work. Tom is a good friend and as time goes on we less and less compete against each other as we go our different routes.

There were so many knock offs at TMEA it was ridiculous. I got around to playing most of them. Some were okay..Some not. Just for kicks I played the fiberglass sousaphone one company had there. (Adamson I think?) The lady quoted me $1995. I can buy a "brand new refurbished" Conn 22K for two grand. It's sad (to me atleast) that these off brand horns are becoming the norm now.

I can only speak for Tom at Mack Brass. Over the years, I would help Tom check on instruments as they come in from time to time and have purchased a 186 clone early on. The improvement in current quality is dramatic. When I first bought my 186 clone I had to take it to Matt Walters to get it playing how I like(valves, slide alignment etc..) I was just helping Tom go through horns and was shocked at the improvement. They work great right out of the box. Slide alignment, valves and machine are like night and day from early on. I know this is due to Tom's constant communication with his rep. at Jinbao. I can't speak for other brands, but I can say Tom is responsible for dramatic improvements on all the instruments he carries in both ergonomics and quality.

I view the current state and popularity of stencils and clones as much less of a danger to the German/European brands than it is a "kicking them while they're down" death-blow to American-made tubas (especially for schools).

Tell us the one about the traveling tuba salesman and the farmer's daughter...

Manufacture and assembly issues have always been a numbers game, though, right? I mean, no one thinks every tuba that left the Miraphone factory since it opened has been perfect, and conversely there's no reason to think a Jinbao couldn't be perfect once in a while.

Donn wrote:Manufacture and assembly issues have always been a numbers game, though, right?

Not just a numbers game though, the learning curve problem isn't always recognized. Chinese factories in other areas (sporting equipment, airguns, etc.) have been very quick to move up that curve, initially being very questionable quality and eventually learning how to do it right.

With people like Tom (he's my neighbor, by the way) helping them improve their product they can shorten that learning curve time period.

I look at the whole thing as a a bit of "everything old is new again." Allow me to explain...

There have been stencils for a very long time, at least 100 years or so based on what I've seen discussed here and the links I've checked out over the years, so the concept isn't new. You may be able to buy a Jinbao under a dozen different brand names but a hundred years ago they were being done by the likes of Conn, Buescher, and Martin.

Importing cheap (read that as "inexpensive," not as "bad") isn't new either. That has been done many times including notably by Walter Sear with Cerveny tubas and by the Tuba Exchange with St. Petersburg tubas.

I don't have any issue with Chinese tubas or their importers to the United States and wish them all well...but they have not come up with a new idea here.

(and yes...my name is Tom, but I'm not Tom from Mack Brass - I get emails or PMs every now and then intended for them and always re-direct the sender to the correct Tom)

It's hard to re-ivent the wheel and come up with something better.
Wyvern claim his CC is not a clone, but there again. Put a MW engraving on it and many would be fooled
(Or Hirsbrunner if you prefer )

Point is. There are many good designs and new stuff will be "spin off" of those designs.
What makes it better or worse is often build quality, quality of metal and sub components.

No one has so far been able to combine good with cheap.
Wyvern is a good example of that. From what I've heard, it really is good, but not cheap.

58mark wrote:I still laugh at the concept of clones.

Do trumpet players get upset when someone makes a trumpet that looks just like a Bach? Of course not

What about clarinet makers?

Flute?

Why are tuba manufacturers expected to reinvent the wheel every time?

Pictures of weird, outlier trumpets, clarinets, and flutes incoming.

At least that's what happened when this point was made here once a few years ago.

I think it's a good point. Why is that only tuba players think it's a travesty if one instrument looks like another, when almost every other section in the ensemble is holding instruments that are indistinguishable from ten feet away?

Michael Bush wrote:... almost every other section in the ensemble is holding instruments that are indistinguishable from ten feet away?

Indistinguishable only to tuba players. I know trombones can tell the difference in trombones from 10 feet. Trumpets only care if the trumpet 10 feet away is better then their own.

Michael Bush wrote:

58mark wrote:I still laugh at the concept of clones.

Do trumpet players get upset when someone makes a trumpet that looks just like a Bach? Of course not

What about clarinet makers?

Flute?

Why are tuba manufacturers expected to reinvent the wheel every time?

Pictures of weird, outlier trumpets, clarinets, and flutes incoming.

At least that's what happened when this point was made here once a few years ago.

I think it's a good point. Why is that only tuba players think it's a travesty if one instrument looks like another, when almost every other section in the ensemble is holding instruments that are indistinguishable from ten feet away?

Tubas are far more variable than a flute clarinet or even a trumpet. Changes large enough to create a visual difference often result in a completely different instrument. There is a lot of difference between the largest contrabass tubas and the smallest F tubas, a lot of room for difference. There are just a lot of options for molding the appearance of tubas where there really isn't for smaller instruments. So when company A shapes their tuba almost exactly like company B, they obviously copied. If flute A and B appear the same, it's because there aren't that many different ways to make a flute (that look different outwardly)...

Probably a moot point, but the Wyvern, listed at €6050, is very cheep. A CC tuba with five valves 2nd hand will easily cost this or more. This tuba is new.
And by the way: aren't 95% of all tubas clones in one way or another, if only because designing a tuba totally from scratch is practically impossible if not rediculous?

Anyway even an attempt at exactly cloning another tuba will still produce a different tuba.
Some mistakes can be an improvement.

Any tuba that can be produced with better intonation than the competition has the potential of becoming a serious player.

The weird looking viola is an attempt of correcting a basic design flaw of the traditional viola. Compared to the violin and to the cello this traditional viola simply is too small to supply sufficient resonance for the range of notes that the C-G-D-A stringing will allow for.

Which is odd as there historically were larger string intruments held under the chin. Bach likely wrote his cello suites for a 5-string violoncello da spalla. Rarely used today, but the 4-string version is here played in a very lively performance of Bach’s Brandenburgische #3:

https://youtu.be/HEbkxYfk0Go

So it should be possible to make a viola with a larger resonance body without skewing the tradition shape of the violin family.

Klaus

bloke wrote:re: the viola (and carbon-fiber cellos, etc, etc...)

I see manufacturers of they-all-look-the-same instruments (yep, including clarinets and flutes), these days, doing whatever they can manage to do to look different...which is surely the explanation for the wild finishes on saxophones (and now: euphoniums).

Yeah! and red brass bells, all that hokey stuff. Anyway, it's nothing compared to electric guitars. I don't mind the stuff that's honestly about looks, but boring an "acoustical" chamber in a solid body electric, or making a fuss over the tonal difference in a body of solid maple vs. ash? Jail time for fraud is indicated.

Speaking of which ... that viola is a little goofy. If they're trying to make a bigger viola - it's a natural and age old ambition, but the need is not for more enclosed volume, as the viola does not work on the acoustic principles of an ocarina. What really looks kind of stupid about it is that he almost has a good idea, but missed it. As best as I can make out, anyway, the direction of the grain, the waist, the f holes, the top arch are all lined up with the strings, so the effective soundboard is as small or smaller than usual. (In an article about it, a player who favors big violas confesses to having tried one, and like it but found the C and G strings lacking. The low ones. Of course - because it doesn't help at all that the sound waves have more room to travel around, the viola needs a longer soundboard.) If he were to build a real diagonal viola, with the neck and tailpiece off the body axis, he might have something. (I'm not saying it's a great idea - I believe acoustical input to the sound board is parallel to the strings, so it would also be off axis and no telling how well it would work - so I'm graciously releasing this idea to luthiers at no charge.)