TubaForum.net

Thanks everyone, for the responses. They and all your suggestions were excellent. Sorry to be so slow in responding, but it’s been a busy week. The old saw is true that you are much busier in retirement than you were in your working life.

It sounds like a Miraphone 184 is the way to go, but those are about as hard to find as chicken teeth. Fortunately, I have some time before I have to make a decision, and I intend to wait until after the upcoming surgery. I would prefer to keep my Mack 410L and may do so, but I have to be prepared for change. Giving up the tuba is a non-starter.

Some thoughts: I really really wish I had never sold my Meinl-Weston 30, but my crystal ball was broken at the time, and I didn’t think I would ever get back to serious playing. House payments and starting a family got in the way, too.

The Mack 421S is very tempting and may very well be the best choice for reduced wind and lighter weight. I’m not fond of the bright(?) sound on the videos I’ve seen and think it would be pretty difficult to blend with the BBb’s in community band. Also, some of the ergonomics are not ideal. But again, it may be the very best bet. I bought my 410 from Tom at Mack Brass and have been very happy with it and with him.

I still can’t find anything on the Schiller, but my friend has the 3/4 BBb version of this horn branded as Wessex (which they don’t carry any more) that he calls his "old man tuba", and I have played it and like it. He recently bought a Schiller rotary valve “bent bell” euphonium and has been very happy with it. Now if I could only make a quick trip from Texas to Wisconsin, I could try it out and settle my mind.

I will keep the 184 as my goal and decide when/if I have to. Thanks again for all the great help.

Pauvog1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:10 pm Oh the MW 30 or 32 might be good choices too.

The older MW 4/4 horns were much heavier than the Mirafones for a 186 sized instrument. My model 33 has the added bell collar so it is even heavier, at close to 25 pounds. A Mirafone 184 at about 16 1/2 pounds would be a lighter alternative. The old large Cerveny tubas were very light for their size, so were some of the pre PT B&S tubas. It might be worth calling a few shops like Dillon and BBC and asking what they have had go through that was very light.

As money is an object, this is probably not worthy of consideration...

...but the thinwall Gronitz PCK (that I owned, years ago, before selling it to my student, Austin Howle) weighed the same as my F tuba.

Money was an object when I bought it...but the nice man who sold it to me priced it (silver plated / new condition) at $6600.

Also people (well - other than me, seemingly) who own those tend to dent them up badly, because they don't seem to understand that the extraordinary light weight comes - hand-in-hand - with consequences.

...and other consequences as well...including quite a bit of #1 and #3 slide-yanking busy-work.

Was the PCM of similar wall thickness? That would make for a light tuba.

It is more than just the weight of the tuba for me; I'm looking for something easier to blow (smaller bore) so I can carry a phrase better. I thought the little Schiller would be a bit of a compromise with the smaller bore but a more mellow sound than the even smaller bore Yamaha621/Mack421 CC. After doing some deeper digging, if I am reading it right, the Schiller is a rebranded Jinbao 400, also marketed as a Stagg 77-TU RC. It is apparently known for being difficult to play in tune. I can probably get it done, but do I want to work that hard at playing? I'm not sure the Schiller is even available. My Mack 410 is just feeling better and better to me.

@Jperry1466, if you read @Matt Walters [very funny] post in the 4 vs 5 valve thread, you’ll see him hint at what horn he’s got in his back pocket, so to speak.

The Conn 2J/3J operate pretty well without much effort.

matt g wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:04 pm Was the PCM of similar wall thickness? That would make for a light tuba.

The only one of those that I've ever encountered was thicker-wall (seemingly more typical...ie. maybe .6mm thick), and also featured some (at least, to me) unsolvable intonation issues.

============================================

Jperry1466 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:43 pm It is more than just the weight of the tuba for me; I'm looking for something easier to blow (smaller bore) so I can carry a phrase better. I thought the little Schiller would be a bit of a compromise with the smaller bore but a more mellow sound than the even smaller bore Yamaha621/Mack421 CC. After doing some deeper digging, if I am reading it right, the Schiller is a rebranded Jinbao 400, also marketed as a Stagg 77-TU RC. It is apparently known for being difficult to play in tune. I can probably get it done, but do I want to work that hard at playing? I'm not sure the Schiller is even available. My Mack 410 is just feeling better and better to me.

[1] Am I mistaken, or isn't the Jinbao 400 the same as the legendary "Cb" tuba (from over a decade ago) on eBay - that offered horrible intonation, and wasn't able to be tuned to 440?

[2] If the looks/size/shape of the 400 appeals to you, should you possibly have already pulled the trigger on this (handmade by true craftsmen, remarkable condition) tuba?
https://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/msg/ ... 39001.html

==============================================

4-valve tubas weigh noticeably less than 5-valve tubas, and 3-valve tubas weigh REMARKABLY less than 4-valve tubas.
As I recall, the bore size (B&S-made Selmer-USA-imported "Schneider") is only 19mm...not even 19.5mm nor 19.6mm, and certainly not 21mm. Rotary tubas (sporting the same bore size as piston models, and sure: depending on other factors as well) have a tendency to play with more playing-ease resistance than same-bore-sized piston tubas.

Having just crossed the 68year threshold I've given some thought to this. For me, the best light, easy to play, great sounding bang for the buck are a Cerveny Piggy, very open blowing and extremely small and light... and Conn 3J, small, light, and makes the Harvey sound. I've owned both and found them very satisfying and a good fit in whatever you would want to use them for. Welcome to the golden years and best of luck. Ed

bloke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:55 am [1] Am I mistaken, or isn't the Jinbao 400 the same as the legendary "Cb" tuba (from over a decade ago) on eBay - that offered horrible intonation, and wasn't able to be tuned to 440?

I'm afraid it may be exactly that, and no one seems to have this Schiller in stock, so I'm thinking this Schiller is a lost cause either way. I was hoping someone would indicate differently.

bloke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:55 am [2] If the looks/size/shape of the 400 appeals to you, should you possibly have already pulled the trigger on this (handmade by true craftsmen, remarkable condition) tuba?
https://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/msg/ ... 39001.html

I wish that had been available when I bought mine, but a 16 1/2" bell, .748 bore, and 37" tall (if I read the specs right are not enough difference to make the jump, pay shipping, etc., although it is most likely a better horn. Mine plays well for me. Arthritic hands and less lung capacity prompted me to look at a more "junior" tuba, but I still would rather have a CC.

Thanks bloke, for the wealth of information that you post. If this surgery goes as easily as the surgeon seems to think, the Mack 410 may do ok for me for a while yet. My local university tuba teacher likes my sound on it - now if I just had more air and fingers that moved without hurting.

Hopefully...
When we eventually die, it's with our chaps, spurs, and holsters in place, yes...??

(That four valve B&S is going to weigh less, and those valves - after they're serviced by someone good - would feel really nice underneath your fingertips...think "laptop vs. manual typewriter")

Again...(from another thread) I've already pointed out that the bell is the same bell (top-to-bottom) as the B&S "Symphonie" F tuba bell.

edfirth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:27 am Having just crossed the 68year threshold I've given some thought to this. For me, the best light, easy to play, great sounding bang for the buck are a Cerveny Piggy, very open blowing and extremely small and light... and Conn 3J, small, light, and makes the Harvey sound. I've owned both and found them very satisfying and a good fit in whatever you would want to use them for. Welcome to the golden years and best of luck. Ed

Thanks, Ed. Just passed 69 and on the way to 70, myself. I keep hearing a lot of good things about the Piggy. Just seems with an .852 bore, it's going the other way. The Conn 3J or 2J would probably get the sound I want; just curious about the weight. We had a lot of Conn 12J's in a school where I taught back in the 70s and 80s. I remember them being pretty cumbersome.

I'll see how this surgery goes. I may be able to stay with mine, but I want to have options if it results in even less air capacity.

Because of the thickness of the metal, I think the conn is a lot heavier than the cerveny

If bore size concerns you, maybe you could find a 795 bore cerveny or amati. They are very light and easy to play. A little shorter than a Miraphone 186, and lighter

martyneilan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:25 pm

Pauvog1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:10 pm Oh the MW 30 or 32 might be good choices too.

The older MW 4/4 horns were much heavier than the Mirafones for a 186 sized instrument. My model 33 has the added bell collar so it is even heavier, at close to 25 pounds. A Mirafone 184 at about 16 1/2 pounds would be a lighter alternative. The old large Cerveny tubas were very light for their size, so were some of the pre PT B&S tubas. It might be worth calling a few shops like Dillon and BBC and asking what they have had go through that was very light.

My old MW32 was way lighter and shorter than the 4/5 valve 186/188 miraphones I've played. Maybe that was just my horn. Though I've never played the 184 or 185. I agree they would be much lighter / smaller.

I can image the old bell collar and Bill Bell horns being heavier.

[/quote]
The Conn 3J or 2J would probably get the sound I want; just curious about the weight. We had a lot of Conn 12J's in a school where I taught back in the 70s and 80s. I remember them being pretty cumbersome.
[/quote]

The 12J that I just sold recently was deceptively heavy for it's size, it might have been a model built specifically for schools. It sounded nice, but did not have the punch to back a community band with by yourself. I'm still looking for my lighter "Old Man" horn also.

I kind of like the Mack TU 421S and it only weights 15 lbs. It seems to check all the boxes with graduated bore, larger bell and 5 valves.

Furguson11 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:31 am

I kind of like the Mack TU 421S and it only weights 15 lbs. It seems to check all the boxes with graduated bore, larger bell and 5 valves.
[/quote]
That's starting to look like the best bet for me, too. There just isn't much demand for a 3/4 CC. I'll wait and see how this surgery turns out. If I can still handle the Mack 410, I'll stick with it, as I do like it. Maybe with this hernia gone, it'll be a whole new world.

both of those horns are amazing value for the money.