Thinking of getting a CC Cimbasso at some point, really looking for that brassy low-end sound.
I'm wondering why it is that a CC pitched travel tuba might cost only $3-4k USD while a CC cimbasso, with maybe only 1 valve extra, just being in a more open / vertical configuration, is typically $12-25k USD?
An additional question would be, would it almost be worth it to have a travel tuba converted to a bell-forward configuration? Would probably only require having one or two new pieces of tubing created, so maybe an estimate could still fall under half the price of a Cimbasso?
travel tuba vs. cimbasso
-
- lurker
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:08 pm
travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Last edited by Tremozl on Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- bugler
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Wessex already did a forward facing Travel Tuba. But it's in Bb only.
It's called the Mini Jazz Tuba.
https://wessex-tubas.com/collections/bb ... tuba-tb162" target="_blank
It's called the Mini Jazz Tuba.
https://wessex-tubas.com/collections/bb ... tuba-tb162" target="_blank
1940 Conn 32k Sousaphone
1962 Conn 20k Sousaphone
1920 Conn 38k Sousaphone
Wessex Bb Mighty Midget
Reynolds Contempora Bb Tuba
1965 King 1250 Sousaphone (Sold)
1962 Conn 20k Sousaphone
1920 Conn 38k Sousaphone
Wessex Bb Mighty Midget
Reynolds Contempora Bb Tuba
1965 King 1250 Sousaphone (Sold)
- bort
- 6 valves
- Posts: 11223
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:08 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Lousy picture, but this is a modified Mira 184 at BBC for travel purposes. $3,900bloke wrote:If the goal actually is "practicing while traveling", a Miraphone model 184 C tuba (in a case) probably takes up less space than a contrabass cimbasso (in a case)...and (if flying) clothes and toiletry items can be stuffed around the 184.
A used Miraphone 184 5V 3/4 CC tuba. Assembled using a 184 body with a custom short bell and long lead pipe. All of the convenience of a travel tuba with the playability of a full size instrument. The best travel horn you can buy! Used w/mute, no case.
- anotherjtm2
- 3 valves
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:18 pm
- Location: Austin, Texas
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Maybe the goal was to get a tuba with front bell and small enough bore that it might sound a little like a cimbasso for less expense. Seems like a real stretch to get the right sound, though.bloke wrote:If the goal actually is "practicing while traveling", a Miraphone model 184 C tuba (in a case) probably takes up less space than a contrabass cimbasso (in a case)...and (if flying) clothes and toiletry items can be stuffed around the 184.
John Morris
- 1960s CC Scherzer/Sander
- 1960s CC Scherzer/Sander
-
- 4 valves
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:10 am
- Location: Tewksbury, NJ
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
The post is confusing. At first I thought he was looking for a travel instrument, but I think actually he just wants a cimbasso in CC, for cheap.anotherjtm2 wrote:Maybe the goal was to get a tuba with front bell and small enough bore that it might sound a little like a cimbasso for less expense. Seems like a real stretch to get the right sound, though.bloke wrote:If the goal actually is "practicing while traveling", a Miraphone model 184 C tuba (in a case) probably takes up less space than a contrabass cimbasso (in a case)...and (if flying) clothes and toiletry items can be stuffed around the 184.
Hup
Do you really need Facebook?
- pjv
- 4 valves
- Posts: 879
- Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:39 am
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Have you ever played the two?
Cimbasso=open, lots of volume
Travel tuba=stuffy, not so much volume.
The Tornisters I've tried fall into the same category as the Travel tuba's, but mileage may vary.
My opinion is that a travel tuba is great if you have money to burn. But so is a private jet.
Cimbasso=open, lots of volume
Travel tuba=stuffy, not so much volume.
The Tornisters I've tried fall into the same category as the Travel tuba's, but mileage may vary.
My opinion is that a travel tuba is great if you have money to burn. But so is a private jet.
-
- lurker
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:08 pm
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Hmm, I'd describe my goal as having more of a low and brassy sound projected with bell towards an audience or microphonebloke wrote:If the goal actually is "practicing while traveling", a Miraphone model 184 C tuba (in a case) probably takes up less space than a contrabass Cimbasso (in a case)...and (if flying) clothes and toiletry items can be stuffed around the 184.

Only managed to play an F Cimbasso so far, pretty fun, but I'd want something pitched lower for myself. I play BBb Contrabass Trombone; I just like the sound of that F1 and below to be partials instead of fundamentals, and am thinking of a valved horn in CC for the fun of it.pjv wrote:Have you ever played the two?
Cimbasso=open, lots of volume
Travel tuba=stuffy, not so much volume.
The Tornisters I've tried fall into the same category as the Travel tuba's, but mileage may vary.
My opinion is that a travel tuba is great if you have money to burn. But so is a private jet.
The Rudi Meinl CC Cimbasso sounds amazing in all the soundtracks I've heard it in, basically thinking of how to get the sound of that horn out of something much cheaper, haha. Maybe my idea of bending a cheap travel tuba is a little far fetched.
I've edited my OP a bit to provide more clarity for anyone else who sees the thread. Was also curious as to why an instrument with theoretically a very similar amount of tubing in it would be so much cheaper.
-
- lurker
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:08 pm
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Fair enoughbloke wrote:yeah...ok...I get it.
I have a really nice cimbasso...and I wouldn't trade it for a hundred "travel tubas" (regardless of length).
- bort
- 6 valves
- Posts: 11223
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:08 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: travel tuba vs. cimbasso
Cimbasso in soundtracks... 
