TubeNet

I tried Chicago Presence, Chicago York, Wyvern, and Grand.

I loved all of them. They felt very responsive and articulate. Wyvern a bit more.

Wessex York: Like other Yorks, it had the most beautiful sound I have ever played. Good response.
Presence: similar to York but does not have the best of York.
Wyvern: I could play fat hammer low notes. Tone wasn’t as dark as York but still pretty darn dark. My favorite out of the four Wessex horns to play Fountains.
Grand: is fat bass.

I have decided going with Wyvern because although I loved the York’s sound, I need to win a state audition and people look for clarity, something Wyvern has. Tbh I would buy a Wessex York but I need to fulfill needs. Overall they all played nice I felt they were the most responsive I have ever played. Chris Olka was spot on on descriptions.

Rant:
ALL of them, even Grand which is one of wessexes more sluggish horns, make my 191 feel like it’s a s***ty horn. Apologize for the language but 191 feels absolutely bad in terms of response, tone, and intonation when compared to Wessex

Mira 191 response is sluggish with its large bore. It’s intonation is wierd as I has to pull all the way out on right below staff D. I did not have to pull so much out on a Wessex CC tuba on right below staff E which is basically the same fingers. Also, the slide design is weird. I have to bend my
Wrist and put my hand so high to pull tuning slides. This is not good for my wrist and it hurts.

Rant ends. Now for the question:
Why do people say the Miraphone 191 is a good horn? What makes it good? Saying that interests me as I do not agree with this statement.

Overall, I like the Miraphone 191, especially the 5-valve model. It does have some quirks, like most tubas. However, from my experience, the Miraphone 191 offers the player a very free blowing/wide open instrument from top to bottom. The lack of resistance from the large bore can be advantageous for some, and a real crutch for others. It really just depends on the player. For me, I enjoyed the compact design, lighting fast rotary valves, the punchy low range, the excellent upper range, and the flexibility to provide a broad foundation under a Wind band, or to provide a clear bass-voice in a small chamber ensemble.

I like the 191. Maybe you're playing a bad example? The couple examples I've played had a really solid low range and fairly straightforward intonation. You really can't beat Miraphone rotors either, as mentioned above. Are you playing on a school/university horn? Typically when I read about complaints here there is generally a reason for it, such as the instrument being in a state of disrepair. That's my best guess. The horn may also just not be a good fit for you. One horn is not a perfect for for everybody. Keep that in mind!

I think that large bore Mira’s might not be for me, feels a bit like a hassle. When I played Wessex horns the smaller 0.75 bore felt easier as I loved the response. In my experience it provides a deep bass as mentioned but lacks a bit of color.

I too do not like shoddy made instruments, bloke. But I did not find any of those bad qualities on the Wessex horns I tried. Perhaps Wessex has gotten better?

I like the tone, clarity, and precision of Wyvern. It might be something Wyvern has but 191 does not.

doddyhop wrote:Perhaps Wessex has gotten better?

Every batch gets better than the last, as Wessex spends one week each month at the factory working with production for perfection. Not just working to be good, but to be the very best possible. I am at factory now with professional euphonium player John Powell, and nothing is getting passed approval without perfect build and silky smooth quiet valves and perfect aligned slides. And you know the factory workers do not get upset and annoyed, but pleased of our feedback to make a better job, as their aim is also to make the best.

Were early Wessex perfect? - no. We had to make compromises, or would have had nothing to sell, but with each visit the benchmark of acceptability is raised still further.



Pleased you like the Wyvern! I have just been play testing one during QA and really enjoying the experience and sound.

I said that I tried Wessex "5/4" Wyvern. That is more apples to apples to a 191. It felt like a more responsive and clearer 191. My 191 is indeed a school horn and perhaps it is time I have a Wessex tuba to myself. As you said, York does feel different but Wyvern feels more of an upgrade to my 191.

I have had the opportunity to own 2 Miraphone 191 5V. They play and sound amazing. The issue re hand position being a big angle is valid. My second 191 new to me this year, initially concerned me as I couldn’t seem to get the tuning slide in far enough to tune the horn. I changed the main tuning slide to something shorter and this fixed my issue. What I have since learned is given the bore and size of this tuba it is more sensitive to temperature changes than the smaller tubas I have owned. For each 3 degrees F, I have to pull or push 1 inch (2 inch total) of main tuning slide. Which was an issue when my practice room was 5 to 8 degrees cooler (62 to 65 degrees) than the rest of my house. Not an issue at all now. Love the horn. As has been said already the openness, full sound and speed of the rotary valves is 2nd to none...IMO.

The 191 is a BBb horn, the Wessex models you mentioned are CC. It may be an odd comparison. You may want to compare your 191 to a Viverna or Luzern, or in the alternate, try a Miraphone 291.

Over the last 6 months, I have played just about every example of BBb tuba built in last 30 years that wasn't a one off, including each of the models you have mentioned.

I chose the Miraphone 1291-5V, and concur with Doc's feelings. For me, the 1291 was as good in terms of intonation, build quality, playability, and comfort as any other horn I played. Aside from a wonderful Fafner piston, I found no other horn that did all of these things as well as the 1291. This is the 3rd Miraphone I've owned, and my experience with easy of repair, customer support, and accessibility of parts and technicians willing to service them, made it the right choice for me.

There can certainly be, on occasion, a particular example of a particular model that does not meet the standard. In my experience Miraphone is not a company that suffers from this regularly. Your particular 191 may be that exception, or it may very well be a bad fit for you. If the Wyvern is a good fit, by all means. I would suggest trying another example of a 191 or even a 1291 if you can. Doing so my affirm your current assumptions, or it may affirm that of others.

.

Some people like different tubas than other people.

doddyhop wrote: Mira 191 response is sluggish with its large bore. It’s intonation is wierd as I has to pull all the way out on right below staff D. I did not have to pull so much out on a Wessex CC tuba on right below staff E which is basically the same fingers. Also, the slide design is weird. I have to bend my
Wrist and put my hand so high to pull tuning slides. This is not good for my wrist and it hurts.

Rant ends. Now for the question:
Why do people say the Miraphone 191 is a good horn? What makes it good? Saying that interests me as I do not agree with this statement.

Try 3 instead of 1-2 for that D - that is required on many German BBb tubas.
My guess is that the valves may have serious alignment issues. Also, a medium sized mouthpiece (Blokepiece Imperial?) may work better than an overly deep or open mouthpiece on such a large bore horn.
And the ergonomics may just not work for you; I had an early Mirafone 1290 (very tall piston horn) that required pull rods to make the slides work for someone my height.
I realize this response is a "day late and dollar short" but may be useful for whoever reads this in the future.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The tubas you set as your standard are all piston valve CC tubas, unless you left something out. The Miraphone 191 is a rotary valve, BBb school tuba.

If you want real comparisons you have to be more discriminating in your parameters.

Ltrain wrote:As the previous poster mentioned, you can’t compare BBb and CC horns point blank.

That being said, I had the exact opposite experience. I had a brand new Wessex (“high-grade” Viverna model) that was a complete dog, and I didn’t realize how bad it was until I tried my sectionmate’s 191... which was SO open, round, and in-tune by comparison. It was playing that 191 that made me realize it was time to break up and see other tubas.

Side-note: I played a 5-valve 191 a couple months ago at Dillon’s that was also dogtastic. Personal takeaway: Wessex is a gamble.... and BBb tubas have better resonance without the extra 5th valve plumbing.

You had previously praised this horn in other posts. Why is it now a "dog"?

bloke wrote:

Alex C wrote:You are comparing apples to oranges. The tubas you set as your standard are all piston valve CC tubas, unless you left something out. The Miraphone 191 is a rotary valve, BBb school tuba.

If you want real comparisons you have to be more discriminating in your parameters.

Post-1980's Miraphone tubas may be considered "school" tubas in uber-wealthy *states such as Texas, but not everywhere.

Another major German manufacturer drove up my driveway a couple of years ago, pulled out a 4-rotor Bb tuba, told me that it would cost me ~only~ $7500 (incl. case and shipping), and that that I "could sell a ton of them to local schools"...

...I've never sold a school - around here - a tuba for as much as $7500, much less $7500 + a mark-up.
______________________________________________
*not implying that everyone in Texas is wealthy, but it's government certainly seems to be wealthy.

Our school bought 2 new 186's 2 years ago, and are buying 2 more...... I'm happy cause I'm first chair ANYWAY
were currently phasing out an arsenal of brown tubas and messed up Westons... I'm happy I never got the chance to play on those
But yea bloke, in general, our region and surrounding areas are pretty well off, compared to the more west you go (obviously there are exceptions but I'm just generalizing here)

Davidus1 wrote:

Ltrain wrote:I had a brand new Wessex (“high-grade” Viverna model)

You had previously praised this horn in other posts. Why is it now a "dog"?

We can learn from this, that the owner of an instrument isn't necessarily the ideal source of information.

If you like your tuba, you aren't alone - lots of us like our tubas maybe a little more than they deserve, and our evaluation might be a little suspect for this reason. You'll be sure to imagine that anyone could enjoy playing this tuba in any circumstances.

But if you've become dissatisfied with it, you'll likely think about selling it, and it will surely occur to you that it would be foolish to complain about its defects, to the potential buyers. Now it will occur to you that many people like different things than you, and who knows but what this might be the perfect tuba for someone else, so there's no point in being negative about it.

Davidus1 wrote:

Ltrain wrote:As the previous poster mentioned, you can’t compare BBb and CC horns point blank.

That being said, I had the exact opposite experience. I had a brand new Wessex (“high-grade” Viverna model) that was a complete dog, and I didn’t realize how bad it was until I tried my sectionmate’s 191... which was SO open, round, and in-tune by comparison. It was playing that 191 that made me realize it was time to break up and see other tubas.

Side-note: I played a 5-valve 191 a couple months ago at Dillon’s that was also dogtastic. Personal takeaway: Wessex is a gamble.... and BBb tubas have better resonance without the extra 5th valve plumbing.

You had previously praised this horn in other posts. Why is it now a "dog"?

What part of:

I didn’t realize how bad it was until I tried my sectionmate’s 191... which was SO open, round, and in-tune by comparison. It was playing that 191 that made me realize it was time to break up and see other tubas.

did you not understand?

bloke wrote:

Ltrain wrote:As the previous poster mentioned, you can’t compare BBb and CC horns point blank.

Who is this "you"...or is someone actually named "point blank"...a super-tuban, perhaps...??
If so, what's their daily/mild-mannered/horn-rimmed glasses identity?

Bloke - I’d be happy to review your posts for perfect comma placement and critique your use of formal vs informal pronouns. Would you find that to be a productive use of time for either of us?

Addendum: this post struck a bit of a personal nerve and it appears I may have inadvertently added some noise. I already fielded some questions about my experience over DM, but not to leave any bad or confusing vibes out there. To add a simple summary of what I'm talking about: I owned an early (mass production) Wessex Viverna (5-valve BBb) that was a great player — this is the horn I praised in previous posts — but it had some minor mechanical and cosmetic issues that were resolved by the next generation. I "upgraded" to a newer version which had the severe problems I was describing (in which playing a 191 felt amazing by comparison). That horn was warranty swapped a month later — it turned out to be misaligned valve plumbing (not the valves, the actual tubes and their relation to the open bugle, as well as the 5th valve rotor... basically everything was out of alignment). While waiting for the replacement, I had fallen in love with a Eb. The horn I sold here on TN was the final warranty replacement — I would never sell an objectively bad horn to a community member. Hopefully the 3rd horn for me was great 1st one for the buyer (I never put it through its paces as I wanted to sell the horn as close to "new" as possible). He hasn't reached out to me post-sale... so I guess no news is good news!

*Try before you buy anything; exchanging a tuba via internet/mail is a PITA
**YMMV
***Currently available Chinese <$5K BBb tubas with more than 4 valves are not as resonant as their 4-valve counterparts; convince me that I'm wrong.

pgym wrote:

Davidus1 wrote:

Ltrain wrote:As the previous poster mentioned, you can’t compare BBb and CC horns point blank.

That being said, I had the exact opposite experience. I had a brand new Wessex (“high-grade” Viverna model) that was a complete dog, and I didn’t realize how bad it was until I tried my sectionmate’s 191... which was SO open, round, and in-tune by comparison. It was playing that 191 that made me realize it was time to break up and see other tubas.

Side-note: I played a 5-valve 191 a couple months ago at Dillon’s that was also dogtastic. Personal takeaway: Wessex is a gamble.... and BBb tubas have better resonance without the extra 5th valve plumbing.

You had previously praised this horn in other posts. Why is it now a "dog"?

What part of:

I didn’t realize how bad it was until I tried my sectionmate’s 191... which was SO open, round, and in-tune by comparison. It was playing that 191 that made me realize it was time to break up and see other tubas.

did you not understand?

The part where you insult Wessex instruments............

From the sale ad you posted:
HUGE sound, easy blowing with superior intonation. Before packing it up I blew through some notes to remind myself how dead-on this thing is. Even the “D” I had mentioned earlier hit right on the zero when I switched to my Helleberg cup, which is not a setup I normally use. The point is, with the right mouthpiece combo, this becomes a stupid-easy-to-play tuba. The 4th and 5th valve notes are particularly open, which is an uncommon delight.

Not seeing where this horn is a dog. I get the Miraphone may have felt better to you but it can do damage to others that are looking for a horn when you are calling a brand's horn a dog. If you truly feel it is then fine but there are two versions to the story here. I don't know Jonathan at all but I do believe his horns are improving and that he is working to make things better. Just don't agree with the brand slam.............

See my post right above yours. All is explained. I jumped back on here to clarify to the community that I had 3 different iterations of this horn across 5 months (each with wild variances). If I could do it all again, I would have kept the first one. I'm happy to provide objective details about my experience with the aforementioned brand/model via DM. I already derailed this post enough; I should have just said, "I was impressed with my sectionmate's 191" and left it at that. I let my direct experience with the brands mentioned by the OP get the best of me. I guess I'm not over my ex

School is out for the summer.