TubaForum.net

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:34 pm
*lots of stuff*

And

And even for the best of the best, my enduring mantra is "It's okay; they made more."

We know these things about you, but you take all the ribbing and grief, so well!

YorkNumber3 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:45 pm I understand that Thein makes exactly what you’re seeking, Mr. Bort.

Yep. 18-20 month leadtime, cost before shipping is €41.710

So Thein is a company that would probably make me a Siegfried sized Eb tuba with top action rotary valves. Or any key, size, shape, and valve combination I could ever dream of ... I wonder if they give family and eventually employee discounts ... It'll probably still be too expensive though.

Try an Alexander 164 if you can find one. I was able to try one in the 1970s (BB flat). I liked it but I did not want to switch from my 163. I always considered an Alexander 163 a 4/4 tuba and the 164 a 5/4 tuba. This was the 164 that Connie Weldon used when she was young.

best,
Mark

OK...
I guess I keep getting hung up on "version of".
Things that come to mind to me to line up with these two words would include
- C length open bugle
- trouble-free intonation characteristics
- at least as large as a M-W 5450 model, in order to be bigger, though the 188 was introduced as - and indeed is - a 5/4 version of a 4/4 size 186 ... and probably not only physically larger, but also a wider sound (vs. 188)
- rotary

If not all of these, then the "version of" rubric is abandoned, yes?

...and the model 188 is ~unique~ as are most all models - other than Asian inferior-or-equally-good knockoffs of known models.

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 1:13 pm
…
If not all of these, then the "version of" rubric is abandoned, yes?

...and the model 188 is ~unique~ as are most all models - other than Asian inferior-or-equally-good knockoffs of known models.

I guess I’m surprised that there aren’t two or five other tubas that are basically like a 188.

So, what makes the 188 unique?

Is there some other style or model of tuba where several makers tried to make essentially the same thing (and not counting the many recent Chinese 186 clones)?

The unique thing about the 188 to me is the compact and wide wrap, with the very low top bow. Just incredibly comfortable to to hold. It's hard to photograph, and most pictures are a little "meh" and make it look just like the 186. But IRL, it's definitely wider and fatter, especially noticeable when viewed from behind. Rear view of the 188...

I'm guessing it hasn't been cloned because why would they? The 186 clones sell so well there's just no need.

I also think the 188 is special because it does everything well. It's not really "the best" at any one thing, but it's really good at everything.

Ugh... I really need to spend a little time with a 188 again...

Mirafphfone Bruckner maybe?

It seems like Miraphone would finish off their line of C instruments with something one size larger regardless of what type of valves, but in reality, the 291/1291-2-3 aren't really any bigger than a 188, but just different.

With with all of those various Chinoyorks being shoved into containers and sent over here, perhaps Miraphone was pretty clever to stop where they did. Even if a Mirayork - or Mirotoyork - were put together twice as well (which would be typical with Miraphone), from most of the posts here that I read here, no one would care about the build quality, and people would go for the $8,500 bucks stuff instead of Miraphone's (were it to exist) $19,000 thing.
.

The problem with going bigger: A 6/4 is linearly that much bigger than a 4/4, but sound isn't linear. Sound is logarithmic. So you probably get 50% more output in one sense, but it seems more like 15%.

Sometimes that's enough to get some reverberation from the shell or understage pit. But more likely it's marginal.

And the bigger problem is those gains are only for the low end (sonically, not necessarily register-wise). The low mids up to dipping into mid-mids may be actually less than a 4/4 tuba. Then again the mids could be crowded then that would be a good thing. Like playing bass with multiple guitarists...it's a mid war you better just stay below.

The problem with going bigger: A 6/4 is linearly that much bigger than a 4/4, but sound isn't linear. Sound is logarithmic. So you probably get 50% more output in one sense, but it seems more like 15%.

Sometimes that's enough to get some reverberation from the shell or understage pit. But more likely it's marginal.

And the bigger problem is those gains are only for the low end (sonically, not necessarily register-wise). The low mids up to dipping into mid-mids may be actually less than a 4/4 tuba. Then again the mids could be crowded then that would be a good thing. Like playing bass with multiple guitarists...it's a mid war you better just stay below.

My ears tell me that many of the York style piston tubas don't really offer an increased amount of sound in any range in particular. High frequencies seem to be dampened, and I think players can get away with putting more energy through or in them without being called out, because of the fact that the high frequencies are dampened. Getting a deep wide sound out of a tuba can be gratifying and fun, but it also presents challenges in clarity. Admittedly, it's also a lot of fun to be able to blow the crap out of a tuba (as long as one is healthy and energetic enough to be able to do that) WITHOUT being called out by the music director.
Someone could point directly me and say "Look at the pot calling all the kettles black", but the reason I'm attracted to the particular large tuba that I recently chose (a non-York-like model that I have admired for quite a few years, but that I had no idea I'd ever be able to own) is due to the fact that somehow it manages to offer a wide deep sound PLUS clarity, and without me having to resort to using some shallow mouthpiece - or other type of trick, and without having to blow the crap out of it.

Were I studying music in Philadelphia quite a few decades ago, maybe only owned a wretched tuba, and my teacher offered me affordable terms on a great big York tuba, I would probably have taken them up on it - particularly when there were so few choices, very little importation, only trial and error bugle tapering technology, no internet, no woodwind/brasswind catalogs, and no tuba shindigs) but those medium large Conn instruments - such as the one that person's teacher ended up keeping and using, were probably more practical and more flexible, as far as application...
... and those silly stories about that person's teacher being too fat to play the York tuba are just as silly as the stories that person themselves only having one lung.

I don't think the problem is volume as much as it is output, and the effort required to get that output.

Also, I swear that I saw something like 10+ years ago that Miraphone had a prototype of a 6/4 CC tuba. I saw a photo, nothing again ever after that

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:31 pm I don't think the problem is volume as much as it is output, and the effort required to get that output.

Also, I swear that I saw something like 10+ years ago that Miraphone had a prototype of a 6/4 CC tuba. I saw a photo, nothing again ever after that

@bort2.0
I hope it’s not against board policy to include a link from the other site. I found this discussion searching for the photo you were talking about.

http://forums.chisham.com/viewtopic.php?t=64529

That's some good sleuthing @graybach, thanks!

I'm not very good at hot linking the best version of a picture when just using my phone. I do better with my laptop...

... but hopefully this saves someone from a bunch of dating ads and whatever else might be there.

Here is the other 6/4 Miraphone photo:

I dunno how that thing plays - and there's no way to put a measuring tape on it, but it looks just a bit "a bridge too far"-ish.

I wonder how man pros would be playing on a Miraphone 6/4 CC if they came out with one. I bet similar levels to the Gronitz or 2165 (not much).