Miraphone 1292 New Yorker Pro CC Tuba

Jeffrey Hicks · Post by **Jeffrey Hicks** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:31 pm

if you havent played it then why even post?????

BriceT · Post by **BriceT** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:39 pm

I have a 1291 and have played a 1292. They both are superb horns in my opinion. The 1292 has a REALLY great response in all registers especially the low range.

The 1292 is also a great all-around horn. Some might say that it is too big for small ensembles, but it really depends on the person.

However, if you end up purchasing a 1292 you might need to replace the existing springs with lighter ones. The feel slow but are easily fixable.

Good Luck with your search!

TexTuba · Post by **TexTuba** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:01 pm

Steve Inman · Post by **Steve Inman** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:36 pm

The 1292 I recently played is what I would consider to be one "step" up in sound output capability from my 56J. It seemed to have about the same amount of "core" to the sound as the 2145 I also tried, but the 1292 has a broader sound. Somewhere between the 2145 sound and the sound of my 56J, but with more sound output than either.

From those I've spoken with who play 1291 and 1292 horns, the intonation quirks are not significantly different than my 56J, which are VERY manageable. I play the Eb and E in the staff 23 and 12. The G up in the staff is best in tune with 4th valve. And there are a few notes where 1st valve needs to be pushed in a little bit. Also, the E below the staff seems to be better as 3rd valve. But these are all very "standard" fingering substitutions and not at all hard to manage. MOST of the time, I just play the horn and only use one of these adjustments when I'm on a longer note. Evidently the 1291/2 are no worse than this. I would much prefer to use an alternate fingering than to fiddle with slides.

Roger Lewis uses his 1291.5 tuba in his quintet with a C4-type mpc (he plays with a loud quintet by his account). I do have my doubts about using a Thor in a quintet, but no longer have concerns about a 1292. It would be about as big as I would ever want to use, but with a smaller, shallower mpc, I think it would be okay -- especially if the other players are reasonably capable.

I quite liked the sound character of the 1292, and it was very easy to play, everywhere. Having played a PT6 and a Thor, and using these horns as my 5/4 comparison points, I would put the 1292 on the small end of the 5/4 tubas. A very useful "size" of tuba to have. Not too small, not too big ....

There are a few random thoughts to consider. There is a used 1291 on the For Sale page of this site for a reasonable price, located just north of Chicago. If you want the slightly "tighter" playing characteristics of the 1292 (I've played both and prefer the 1292), I've been told you could purchase and have the 1292 leadpipe installed for a few hundred dollars more. Just a thought.

Cheers,

pierso20 · Post by **pierso20** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:34 am

bloke wrote:A full-time player, whom I greatly respect, reports to me that the 1292-CC intonation is definitely improved over that of the 1291-CC.

Well, the two 1291's in my studio have pretty darn good intonation so I'd definetely like to get a few blows on the 1292....maybe a future horn for me??......

I'm such a tuba whore.....

MartyNeilan · Post by **MartyNeilan** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:05 am

pierso20 wrote:Well, the two 1291's in my studio have pretty darn good intonation so I'd definetely like to get a few blows on the 1292....maybe a future horn for me??......

Brooke,
Intonation aside (the 1290 does have its quirks, although they are minor for a large tuba), how would you say the 1291's in your studio compare back-to-back with your 1290 in every other respect?

pierso20 · Post by **pierso20** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:54 pm

Well, intonation-wise my particular 1290 actually is better. However, the open wrap of the 1290 requires much more air because of less resistance (I think anyway). This makes lower pedals a bit more difficult to pop out very loud (D on down). (Thought the C pedal pops out nicely).

Certain notes center differently on the 1290 vs. 1291. The F right below the staff (1st valve) tends to have more difficulty centering than on the 1291.

The 1290 has a larger bell I believe. I can get louder with a darker sound than the 1291's. It is REALLY nice, especially this year since we've been playing heavy music (i.e. Music for Prague).

The 5th valve on my horn is a flat whole step, while the 1291's are lower than that even. (I am not sure if the flat whole step on mine was typical for a 1290 or if it was due to tweaking performed on my horn before I purchased it).

Tone is a little more difficult to get even with my 1290 than the 1291, probably due to the open wrap. It allows for much more color, which is great once you get the hang of it.

1291's for some reason are notorious for having valve problems. Especially 1st valve. Both 1291's in my studio have had that issue. My horn can go 2 months without oiling any pistons and work like they've been oiled every day.

I hate the feel of the 1291 thumb paddler. If I owned a 1291 I would have a different one placed on it.

Anyway,

The size of the 1290 is my only real complain. The open wrap makes you feel like your playing a monster. And a shorter guy like me doesn't appreciate that. In all honestly, nothing feels better than a smaller feeling horn that you can hug while you play.

Any other questions??

(I'd take my 1290 over a 1291, but I am interested in trying out a 1292 to compare.)

Ed Jones · Post by **Ed Jones** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:23 pm

I have frequently played on a 1292 and in fact I spent a couple of hours on one today. Overall the horn plays very easily with an outstanding low register. The response throughout the horn is very even. I have played a few 1291's that I thought were a bit dead in the middle and upper register. The tighter leadpipe on the '92 seems to fix that. The intonation is as good as it gets on a tuba. The fifth partial is a little flat but the usual alternate fingerings brings it right where it belongs. Top line A is bit sharp (3rd valve or pull 1st) as is 4th line F (pull). What you get with the 1292 is 188 intonation (or better) with a low register that really works.

It is large enough for a large ensemble (most people play horns that are bigger than they need anyway) but will work in a quintet or as a solo horn. I recently heard an very good college band play a very difficult work which had several prominent tuba solos. The soloist was using a 1292. The sound was dark and clear and projected very well.

If I were looking for a CC tuba I would put the 1292 on my short list.

By the way, I don't get paid to say nice things about tubas.

Mojo workin' · Post by **Mojo workin'** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:55 pm

You might want to wait til the 191 C comes out. That should be a SERIOUSLY bad-*** horn.

When are they scheduled to be available?