M&Ms new CC tuba !

[J.c. Sherman]

I believe the most copied tuba to be the King 1140.

There are copies of it made in Taiwan, America-Germany (Blessing), Czechoslovakia, and mainland China.

And I'm not fond of any of 'em

J.c.S.

[Michael Bush]

You cant hardly buy the case and shipping for $900.00 so please before you write comments check your facts

Not so. He isn't the one who needs to check his facts.

A. These horns are not all one with those they imitate. If the "real thing" is worth the price difference to you, you should definitely buy it. For example, if you really need to hear the exact pitch of that grace note, the response of the Jinbao may frustrate you. (Maybe not, though. It's more than possible that I'm not good enough to get a quick 32nd note to sound clearly no matter what horn I'm playing.)

B. For me as a forever-amateur community band tubist, neither a Hirsbrunner 192 nor a Miraphone 181 is six to eight times better than the Jinbaos that imitate them, but they cost about that many times as much as I have paid for the Jinbaos.

C. By paying M & M's price, you are getting a warranty. That's not to be despised. For the risk-averse, it may well be worth it. Since I'm not very risk averse, I don't know. If you're a betting man willing to take the risk of self-warranting (and perhaps getting an outright lemon) you can get these horns for a great deal less. I came out so well on the "Schillbrunner" that I sprung for the Jinbao F. This 181 semi-clone (it's not an exact duplicate, smaller bell for example) when all is said and done cost a little more to land in this country than what tubamlb says won't buy a case and shipping, plus a bit more to get it from the port to my door. It may cost me somewhat more beyond that in a tech's time to get it into satisfactory playing shape. But it's not going to come within shouting distance of $3700, to say nothing of the actual 181's price tag.

I'm excited about this CC. I started resisting learning to play a CC in 1982, because I never felt seriously limited by a BBb, which I already knew how to play. Old habits die hard, and I haven't changed my mind yet, but this has me thinking about it like nothing has before.

[Roger Lewis]

My experience has been that there are 3 levels of tubas:

1. Quality horns developed at great cost and manufactured with great precision.

2. Inexpensive horns that have been made as copies of the great horns and play well at a lower price point. They may not have the exact sound and feel of the high level instrument but will get the job done.

3. Tuba shaped objects that are slapped together poorly with an all profit/no quality mentality. They do not have a Western scale on them anywhere and no two notes are in any way related to each other.

For the record, I think that Michael at M&M is providing a very needed service during these financially challenging times, and he stands behind what he sells.

Just my observations.

Roger

[Dan Schultz]

I believe the most copied tuba to be the King 1140......

Of all the 'good' tubas out there... I cannot understand for the life of me why the Asians picked that particular horn to copy. That one ranks pretty close to the bottom of my 'favorite' list.... if it makes the list at all.

Copying the 1240/41 or the 2340/41 would be an entirely different matter.

[Lew]

Ok..... Im confused..... Its ok for Yamaha and others to base their designs on Besson, York and others.....but if a Chinese firm does it its Cloning which is bad? How many firms have based horns on York designs? Isnt the new Kanstul (over priced I think) nothing but a well done clone? ...

I didn't see anyone bashing M&M for making these, or cloning in general. I do think that there is a difference between copying the design of a current production model of anything vs. coming up with an original design. Still this is done for many different products. I don't see anything wrong with it, unless one tries to fake a logo and claim their product as the original, like fake Rolexes, many of which do come from China.

In this case there is a product selling for what seems to be a competitive price compared to alternatives and not claiming to be anything other than what it is. How this price compares to the cost of manufacturing and distribution is irrelevant. Pricing for anything is not based only on cost, but on the market. If people try them and like them and the price is good relative to alternatives, they will be successful. If the marketplace decides that these are not worth the price being asked, because of performance, durability, or some other reason, then they will not sell and the manufacturer will have to rethink their pricing strategy.

In any market there are those who come up with the new products to solve what consumers perceive to be problems with usability or reliability. In the case of tubas the main issues that companies play around with design to deal with seem to be intonation and sound qualities. Since we have many products which seem to provide what most people want in these qualities, it is reasonable for other companies to come in and try to provide similar products for a lower price to support different price points in the market.

I have had a long conversation with Tom Treece about them and, the Kanstul York is different not only in the way the accurately copied the dimensions of historic, no longer made instruments, but they did have a metallurgical analysis done to match the metal that was used in the old Yorks. You could call it a well done clone, but you can't buy a new J. W. York today. Whether they are better than buying an instrument based on a more modern design is up to the player I would think.

[UTSAtuba]

Here's the new ad. I emailed Michael, and he said the specs are correct. It looks like they upgraded some things from the older CC 5/4 piston (19" bell and .802" bore).

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tuba-CC-5-4-Size_W0 ... dZViewItem" target="_blank

[MartyNeilan]

I talked to a fellow who had played a prototype piston CC that was a decent horn with a smaller bell, who raved about how good the pistons were. Has anyone played THIS model?

[kanstulbrass]

Ok..... Im confused..... Its ok for Yamaha and others to base their designs on Besson, York and others.....but if a Chinese firm does it its Cloning which is bad? How many firms have based horns on York designs? Isnt the new Kanstul (over priced I think) nothing but a well done clone?
Before we start throwing around negative comments about horns....lets be realistic.
If I could buy a decently made well playing horn for even a third more than whats coming out of the Asian markets I would....but I cant. For reasons that are beyond me, American firms cant get their act together to produce a decent horn at a decent price. If this is a market driven economy.....and it is.....guys..... we are the market. It can be done, but profit is more important than the musical product.
Not to be overly cynical, but the music in schools movement, of which I suspect most of us are a product, was driven by the need of the music manufacturers to replace the lost revenue from the demise of touring pro bands and municipal bands.
Im on the fence myself about this very horn. I own a Shiller CC clone and its working for me. But I want a piston CC and I know that I can get a decent used one if I wait a little longer.....but who likes to wait right? Then again, the CC clone I have plays better than some of the very horns its made from, so whos to say this clone isnt actually an improvement over the very horn its based from? Sure the guys selling these things want to make money, and if it were in the high 2K range it would be more attractive to me. But it is what it is. Given the likely rise in prices of Chinese goods that are sure to come, this is a bargin, as are all the Asian horns right now.

Based on the rising cost of raw materials, the development of all-new tooling, R&D, marketing (including tradeshows, advertising), etc., we don't think that the Kanstul tubas are overpriced. We believe that we are bringing these to the market at a competitive price. A quality instrument in not cheap, and it should not be expected to be cheap.

Or as my dad used to say "you get what you pay for". =)

Charles

[Keith Sanders]

Hey everyone,

I keep seeing everyone say that this large CC tuba is a 1291 copy. I beg to differ. I have been looking at getting one of the chinese instruments myself and in my searches trying to figure out what this particular tuba is modeled after. It is definitely not a 1291 CC... I owned a 1292 and they look nothing alike. Therefore I propose it is based on the PT-20p CC tuba!!! Here are some links so that you may judge....



http://cgi.ebay.com/Tuba-CC-5-4-Size-/2 ... nstruments" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.customtubas.com/proddetail.p ... 0P_CC_Tuba" target="_blank" target="_blank

If someone could post the two pics side by side that would be nice..... I can't do it right now.

Now talk amongst yourselves!!

Keith "these chinese instruments are definitely looking better and better" Sanders

[tubamlb]

Just to set the record straight

#1 You will not see this Model CC on any other site
#2 This no more a clone than a Chevy is of a Ford
#3 We brought out this CC to have a affordable instrument in the market place
#4 This model 4500 CC is not like other C tubas we sell

Question was who has played this tuba and checked it out to make sure it is a great Tuba at a great price
The U of M Miami Low brass Professor , John Olah has and can fill you in on what he thinks of the instrument

Thank you