TubeNet

They seem very similar online. Does anyone have any thoughts between the 2 brands for someone who was somewhat serious in college, but hasn’t played really in 30 years?

Rotary or piston?

Mouthpiece thoughts?

Thank you.

Dulac 79 wrote:They seem very similar online. Does anyone have any thoughts between the 2 brands for someone who was somewhat serious in college, but hasn’t played really in 30 years?

Rotary or piston?

Mouthpiece thoughts?

Thank you.

The "Tuba Exchange" house brand horns are pretty decent but, spent a little bit more for the Imported St. Pete and you will be much happier. The bore is a little smaller on the house brand and they don't play quite as good. Hirsbrunner clone Mack is good too, but very mouthpiece specific and sometimes can be fickle on tuning like it's Schiller counterpart (even with the extended slide).

As far as mouthpieces, what were you using 30 years ago? Might want to try with something similar to that and adjust as you go.

groth wrote:

Dulac 79 wrote:They seem very similar online. Does anyone have any thoughts between the 2 brands for someone who was somewhat serious in college, but hasn’t played really in 30 years?

Rotary or piston?

Mouthpiece thoughts?

Thank you.

The "Tuba Exchange" house brand horns are pretty decent but, spent a little bit more for the Imported St. Pete and you will be much happier. The bore is a little smaller on the house brand and they don't play quite as good. Hirsbrunner clone Mack is good too, but very mouthpiece specific and sometimes can be fickle on tuning like it's Schiller counterpart (even with the extended slide).

As far as mouthpieces, what were you using 30 years ago? Might want to try with something similar to that and adjust as you go.

Interesting comment, personally i think all tubas can be mpc sensitive but that is only until you find one that works for you as every one is different. Also, when you mention pitch, what do you mean by fickle? I don't mean to put you on the spot as i know everyone has their own personal preference to what works and what doesnt for them so are you speaking about what works better for you or what you think works better as a whole? Just curious?
After selling about a thousand of these i havent found these to be fickle when it comes to pitch and i found the moc i use on my Thor and alex works great on the 210 and the 410. Maybe I just got lucky and found a great mpc that works for me?

groth wrote:

Dulac 79 wrote:They seem very similar online. Does anyone have any thoughts between the 2 brands for someone who was somewhat serious in college, but hasn’t played really in 30 years?

Rotary or piston?

Mouthpiece thoughts?

Thank you.

The "Tuba Exchange" house brand horns are pretty decent but, spent a little bit more for the Imported St. Pete and you will be much happier. The bore is a little smaller on the house brand and they don't play quite as good. Hirsbrunner clone Mack is good too, but very mouthpiece specific and sometimes can be fickle on tuning like it's Schiller counterpart (even with the extended slide).

As far as mouthpieces, what were you using 30 years ago? Might want to try with something similar to that and adjust as you go.

Just to clarify, yes the St Pete is imported (from Russia) but about 98% of all other tubas made today are imports as well. Like the mack 210, all Mack brass instruments are made in our own factory to our own specs and each one is tweeked in secret to be different than all the others.

Now I was trying to sound like someone else in that last sentence, gggggggg

To answer your question without recommening another horn, they are both made at the same factory. I don't know if they have modified their model but here is what we have done with ours. We have added about two inches to the main tuning slide and changed the whole paddle assembly. The standard paddle assembly is based on the round miraphone style and we have all our tubas using the same style paddle assembly inspired by B&S. The rectangular paddle arms are much more robust than the standard round stock. Aside from that I would imagine both models are the same although I have never seen or played a TE one.

mctuba1 wrote:

groth wrote:

Dulac 79 wrote:They seem very similar online. Does anyone have any thoughts between the 2 brands for someone who was somewhat serious in college, but hasn’t played really in 30 years?

Rotary or piston?

Mouthpiece thoughts?

Thank you.

The "Tuba Exchange" house brand horns are pretty decent but, spent a little bit more for the Imported St. Pete and you will be much happier. The bore is a little smaller on the house brand and they don't play quite as good. Hirsbrunner clone Mack is good too, but very mouthpiece specific and sometimes can be fickle on tuning like it's Schiller counterpart (even with the extended slide).

As far as mouthpieces, what were you using 30 years ago? Might want to try with something similar to that and adjust as you go.

Interesting comment, personally i think all tubas can be mpc sensitive but that is only until you find one that works for you as every one is different. Also, when you mention pitch, what do you mean by fickle? I don't mean to put you on the spot as i know everyone has their own personal preference to what works and what doesnt for them so are you speaking about what works better for you or what you think works better as a whole? Just curious?
After selling about a thousand of these i havent found these to be fickle when it comes to pitch and i found the moc i use on my Thor and alex works great on the 210 and the 410. Maybe I just got lucky and found a great mpc that works for me?

Hi Tom, Yes I have found that even with the Main tuning slide mods that are standard order on Mack horns as well as the "non modified" ones on the Schillers they still seemed to have quirky partials (sharp on some, flat on others) with certain mouthpieces and different players I've talked to and horns I've tried myself. Also the low end of the Schiller or Mack 210 is very stuffy (across the board consensus) but has been mostly resolved with a larger mouthpiece. It's kind of common but comes with the territory of a Jinbao horn, but since so many have been sold and so many are happy with them (in general) I suppose it's nothing to worry about. Just an observation and opinion.

mctuba1 wrote:

groth wrote:

Dulac 79 wrote:They seem very similar online. Does anyone have any thoughts between the 2 brands for someone who was somewhat serious in college, but hasn’t played really in 30 years?

Rotary or piston?

Mouthpiece thoughts?

Thank you.

The "Tuba Exchange" house brand horns are pretty decent but, spent a little bit more for the Imported St. Pete and you will be much happier. The bore is a little smaller on the house brand and they don't play quite as good. Hirsbrunner clone Mack is good too, but very mouthpiece specific and sometimes can be fickle on tuning like it's Schiller counterpart (even with the extended slide).

As far as mouthpieces, what were you using 30 years ago? Might want to try with something similar to that and adjust as you go.

Just to clarify, yes the St Pete is imported (from Russia) but about 98% of all other tubas made today are imports as well. Like the mack 210, all Mack brass instruments are made in our own factory to our own specs and each one is tweeked in secret to be different than all the others.

Now I was trying to sound like someone else in that last sentence, gggggggg

Actually since about 2013-2014 or so the St. Petersburg horns have been built and imported from their factory in Ukraine. The St. Petersburg factory no longer builds tubas and is closed as far as I know.

Question for mctuba1: You played Bordogni #14 beautifully on the 210, what mouthpiece did you use?

Bigsum90 wrote:Question for mctuba1: You played Bordogni #14 beautifully on the 210, what mouthpiece did you use?

I think i was using Joe's Symphony mpc for that one. I have since switched to the imperial mpc on all my large tubas now.

Hi Tom, Yes I have found that even with the Main tuning slide mods that are standard order on Mack horns as well as the "non modified" ones on the Schillers they still seemed to have quirky partials (sharp on some, flat on others) with certain mouthpieces and different players I've talked to and horns I've tried myself. Also the low end of the Schiller or Mack 210 is very stuffy (across the board consensus) but has been mostly resolved with a larger mouthpiece. It's kind of common but comes with the territory of a Jinbao horn, but since so many have been sold and so many are happy with them (in general) I suppose it's nothing to worry about. Just an observation and opinion.[/quote]

Now you say that the stuffy low register can be fixed with a larger mpc? If this can be fixed then how is this an issue? I guess its the 3rd and 5th partials your referring to are the flat ones and the 1st and 2nd valve combos are the sharp ones? Those are pretty typical on most instruments and has more to do with the nature of the beast or are you speaking of totally different notes?

I dont have an issue with ones oberservations or experience but as soon as you or anyone starts to paint with a broad brush then thats a different ball game.

i am not going to start a pissing contest with you but your comments are not accurate accross the board in the mannor your speaking of.

Show me a tuba without a flat 3rd or flat 5th partial or a tuba that doesnt require a slide pull here and there.

mctuba1 wrote:Hi Tom, Yes I have found that even with the Main tuning slide mods that are standard order on Mack horns as well as the "non modified" ones on the Schillers they still seemed to have quirky partials (sharp on some, flat on others) with certain mouthpieces and different players I've talked to and horns I've tried myself. Also the low end of the Schiller or Mack 210 is very stuffy (across the board consensus) but has been mostly resolved with a larger mouthpiece. It's kind of common but comes with the territory of a Jinbao horn, but since so many have been sold and so many are happy with them (in general) I suppose it's nothing to worry about. Just an observation and opinion.

Now you say that the stuffy low register can be fixed with a larger mpc? If this can be fixed then how is this an issue? I guess its the 3rd and 5th partials your referring to are the flat ones and the 1st and 2nd valve combos are the sharp ones? Those are pretty typical on most instruments and has more to do with the nature of the beast or are you speaking of totally different notes?

I dont have an issue with ones oberservations or experience but as soon as you or anyone starts to paint with a broad brush then thats a different ball game.

i am not going to start a pissing contest with you but your comments are not accurate accross the board in the mannor your speaking of.

Show me a tuba without a flat 3rd or flat 5th partial or a tuba that doesnt require a slide pull here and there.[/quote]


The topic of stuffiness with the factory mouthpiece and others it's size has been discussed quite a bit here and on the Tuba Facebook group. There are a handful of folks out there having the same issues, but again of the many you've sold maybe a fluke. As far as tuning goes my personal 202 St. Petersburg locks in with very little or no slide pulling. I've also played half a dozen 186 Miraphones in my life and they have also all been point and shoot with no pulling required. Again, just an observation not a pissing contest. Hopefully it helps improve the product with constructive opinions. With utmost respect for your business, thank you.