TubaForum.net

He's just saying that since he's been playing a Miraphone-made instrument, he might consider a Miraphone-made F tuba...(yes?)

Paulver wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:51 am I'm a bit late to the party, so..... what model is the Miraphone F that you're talking about??

I'm very curious as I'm sort of deciding whether to get an F for myself. I really like my present Miraphone 186, so I'm naturally considering the same brand. Price will be a limiting factor in the final decision.

Welcome to the F tuba adventure.

We're talking about a Miraphone F tuba that's unmarked but appears to be a very early version of the 181 series, from about 1980. Bort2.0 started the thread summer, 2022, when he imported it from Germany. In September, 2022, I bought it from bort2.0 as my first F tuba. Some comments in the thread after that are from me about learning how to cope with the instrument's tuning problems, along with comments from other folk about how rotary Fs can be much worse, or sometimes better, and other stuff.

I recently sold the tuba, after deciding that (1) I like F tuba, and (2) I didn't like the intonation problems of that particular F tuba. My new F tuba is also a 1980s Miraphone 181, and there are a few comments in the thread about that one, but mostly the thread is about the first unusual maybe-181.

Price was probably a factor for all the recent sales of this particular tuba, since they were all $3000 or less.

Bloke........... yes. That's correct. Being that I have a rotary Miraphone 186, (built in 1971) I'm curious about getting a Miraphone F tuba. Mary Ann mentioned a learning curve specifically regarding the rotary valved F tuba. I don't know what she's referring to. Is it merely the physical act of pushing pistons down as opposed to pushing levers on the rotary? If so, I don't see any reason for a "learning curve." As a former/retired high school band director, I've used/played/taught students both on piston and rotary BBb's tubas and countless other piston and rotary valved brass instruments for 30+ years. Is there something I simply don't know about F tubas that I should be aware of, other than the fingerings and some possible intonation issues?

jtm........ thanks for the "Cliff Note" version on the topic. Much appreciated.

Paulver wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:54 am Bloke........... yes. That's correct. Being that I have a rotary Miraphone 186, (built in 1971) I'm curious about getting a Miraphone F tuba. Mary Ann mentioned a learning curve specifically regarding the rotary valved F tuba. I don't know what she's referring to. Is it merely the physical act of pushing pistons down as opposed to pushing levers on the rotary? If so, I don't see any reason for a "learning curve." As a former/retired high school band director, I've used/played/taught students both on piston and rotary BBb's tubas and countless other piston and rotary valved brass instruments for 30+ years. Is there something I simply don't know about F tubas that I should be aware of, other than the fingerings and some possible intonation issues?

jtm........ thanks for the "Cliff Note" version on the topic. Much appreciated.

I'm not Bloke, but I'm also a band director.

F tuba is a completely different animal from BBb / CC. Different response (particularly in the mid-low range around low C), resistance is different, pitch quirks are often different. Nothing wrong with a rotary F tuba (Miraphone has several nice ones), but they often take a different approach than the Big horn.

Different response, resistance, and intonation would all be obvious and natural considerations........ smaller instrument, makes, models, designs, etc. Having played/experienced, God knows how many different makes and models of brass instruments (and woodwinds & percussion) in my previous career, I'm well aware of possible issues in those areas. That said, having never played an F tuba, I thought maybe there was something else that I hadn't been taught, thought of, or been exposed to. At one point, in my last job, the previous band director had bought several horns, trumpets, and trombones made by a "certain" well known company. Those things were hard blowing and couldn't be tuned with any reliability. The valves sounded and moved like there was sand in them no matter how clean and oiled they were, and the tone quality was for crap!!! The tines/slides on the bones were not true by any stretch of the imagination and stuck all throughout the positions.The kids hated all of them, I hated them, and as soon as I could, I unloaded every one of them to another well known company, and replaced them with much better playing and quality instruments. (Trying not to mention either company.)

Thanks for the responses. I'll be on the lookout for the noted issues in my quest for a horn that might be best suited for me. Always good to seek opinions and info BEFORE laying out the cash!!!

Paulver wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:54 am Bloke........... yes. That's correct. Being that I have a rotary Miraphone 186, (built in 1971) I'm curious about getting a Miraphone F tuba. Mary Ann mentioned a learning curve specifically regarding the rotary valved F tuba. I don't know what she's referring to. Is it merely the physical act of pushing pistons down as opposed to pushing levers on the rotary?

After a year playing rotary Fs, with only a few chances to try some piston Fs (both of which were fun and easy to play), I’m not an expert, but it’s not about the difference between pushing buttons or paddles. It’s more about the constraints that rotors put on how you can arrange the rest of the tubing. Somehow, piston Fs are supposed to have easier low ranges, and rotary Fs are supposed to all have a dreaded “low C problem”.

To me this seems mostly because people expect to be able to play as low on an F tuba as they do on a contrabass. The low C on my rotary F does not sound like the low C on my 188. Big surprise. It sounds a lot more like the low G on the 188, which makes perfect sense. But the top several pedals on the F tuba, like F down to C, are perfectly useable and easy to hear, so players would like for the notes between pedal F and the C above it to also be useful and easy to play. The equivalent range, below F on a contrabass, just doesn’t get a lot of use, so people don’t complain as much.

Not that I know anything about this from experience, except ... I did have a rotary valve F helicon, a long while ago. I'd do it again, too, because it was quite easy to play, low C and whatever. You'd think it was a regular tuba, not the dreaded rotary F.

My point being, it seems kind of preposterous in principle that some valve mechanism would 1) be generally useful for brass instruments, and 2) consistently cause specific playing difficulties for certain notes. And sure enough, there are examples where it doesn't cause those difficulties. (OK, full disclosure, they were clock spring rotary valves.)

I'm fairly sure you all surmise it isn't because of the rotary valves themselves, it's because of some common characteristics of F tubas that come out of a certain tradition, also including rotary valves, vs. F tubas like the YFB-822 that come out of a different idea about the instrument. It's like in essence my Amati helicon was acoustically more like the YFB-822, regardless of the valve mechanism, and as best I can recall it kind of sounded like that too. It was somewhat popular in Romanian/Gypsy/Balkan popular music, and you bet they approach it like a tuba.

I don’t think valve type has anything to do with it. Anymore, maybe.

If we were to say all rotary F tubas struggle with low C, we can’t, because there are several that don’t. (My Willson comes to mind, the Firebird also… I’m sure others would have more suggestions)

They’re not unplayable down there, but certain designs DO indeed make things easier. Some guys can really get great sounds from low register Pt-10 style instruments. I just prefer to not think about changing the way I play when I play the F tuba.

So, what really is it, then? My thought is that it has to be somewhere in the main bugle or the taper of that bugle, yes? All German style F’s are based on generally the same body. What is it about the Willson, several Miraphone models, or the piston makes that really change the response?

Donn’s right, probably not the valves as some piston horns are marginally better like the 45slp.

One of my students has this exact F tuba, and I played it and had no low C issue when I played it. Some of these stovepipe Fs sit further away from the ears and make it sound stuffy in my opinion.

I teach at a high school that has Miraphone 186 tubas for concert horns, and I notice the same thing is true in the low range using the 4th valve. If a student doesn't buzz a note in the center/core of the horn...it has a low C issue, while when you do, it sits very focused. People tend to play rotor F tubas like big, piston CC ones and you just can't. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that piston F tubas do not have a better low range, just have a more forgiving range of error. They sound fine, but I feel rotor tubas give better feedback on our input, while pistons don't.

russiantuba wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:38 pm One of my students has this exact F tuba, and I played it and had no low C issue when I played it. Some of these stovepipe Fs sit further away from the ears and make it sound stuffy in my opinion.

I teach at a high school that has Miraphone 186 tubas for concert horns, and I notice the same thing is true in the low range using the 4th valve. If a student doesn't buzz a note in the center/core of the horn...it has a low C issue, while when you do, it sits very focused. People tend to play rotor F tubas like big, piston CC ones and you just can't. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that piston F tubas do not have a better low range, just have a more forgiving range of error. They sound fine, but I feel rotor tubas give better feedback on our input, while pistons don't.

Yeah, that Miraphone F has a great low C. First time I tried it I really wondered what the fuss was about. I had a fun brass band season playing Eb parts with it. I'm still playing a rotary F because the low end doesn't bother me and I love the sound and the handling.

I think a lot of the "fuss" with the low end on F tubas is related to how it feels versus how the big horn feels. I learned on an older rotary F tuba, but often when I recorded myself the sound was fine, even if I felt uncomfortable with the what I perceived as resistance around low C-B-Bb. The piston F I use now, has a little less of that, and is a little bigger. It also plays in tune easier than my old instrument did, especially after adding MAW valves and going down to the smaller "0" shank on my Sellmansberger Solo.