Miraphone 1291 B-flat intonation vs. 1291/2/3 C intonation

[bloke]

I'm not bidding on them, but - when we see not-that-commonly-seen stuff on eBay for sale - we start yapping about that stuff on boobuh-forum, yes?...(guilty as charged).

For those who've NOT owned EITHER a 1291 B-flat OR a 1291/2/3 C - YET have spent time playing BOTH the B-flat version AND the C versions, how are the B-flat version's intonation characteristics vs. C versions' intonation characteristics?

[LargeTuba]

I would say the intonation on the 1291 C was better, but that was a remarkable example of that tuba. Maybe one of my favorite tubas of all time.

[bort2.0]

I would say the intonation on the 1291 C was better, but that was a remarkable example of that tuba. Maybe one of my favorite tubas of all time.

I hope it wasn't my old 1291!

[Breavdah]

If it's like the 191...it does a bit of the Yamaha thing where even if valves 1 and 2 are set flat, combination 1+2 is sharp. 3rd valve for sure on D, possibly G. And the 2-3 notes have some issues...but isn't that all tubas.

[bloke]

Yeah, I'm not super fond of the 191 - which is basically a piggy, and have sort of wondered if the 1291 B-flat is just a smaller bore version of the 191 with pistons. (I've never actually been able to play a 1291 B-flat.)
I'm pretty sure I've noticed that the 1291/2/3 C instruments tend to be owned by college students, and very few seem to be owned by working tuba players. Of course, these days college students are attracted like flies to those inexpensive chino-jumbos.

[russiantuba]

Yeah, I'm not super fond of the 191 - which is basically a piggy, and have sort of wondered if the 1291 B-flat is just a smaller bore version of the 191 with pistons. (I've never actually been able to play a 1291 B-flat.)
I'm pretty sure I've noticed that the 1291/2/3 C instruments tend to be owned by college students, and very few seem to be owned by working tuba players. Of course, these days college students are attracted like flies to those inexpensive chino-jumbos.

I use a 1291CC. I know several who use the 1291CC, not as prominently as others because it’s so easy to get a 6/4 Eastman CC that people think they need

[Breavdah]

I remembered the real weird thing about the 191.
D 3rd valve would still be kinda sharp...yet Db 23 would be flat, defying math. And Gb 23 would be sharp, opposite of nearly every other BBb tuba, a formula for some surfable-level audible waves. Though not as bad as a D played 12.

[Sousaswag]

I think the 129x horns are really just “stepping stones” for college kids who then move on to a Pt6, Thor, China-York, etc.

Maybe less so now, but they consistently were filling that role.

About the C’s- I owned a 1293. It was fine. Nothing stuck out to me as particularly out of tune. I just used 3rd valve a lot.

The 1291 Bb- Never played one for more than 5 minutes. Cannot comment.

[PlayTheTuba]

According to Miraphone the 1291 BBb and 191 have the same 0.835" (21.2 mm) bore. If I'm correct I think they are the same bugle too. The only difference outside of valve type is the 191 has a garland where's the 1291 BBb doesn't.

Although, a Miraphone 289 BBb has the bore size as the 2 horns above but has a different bugle to my knowledge and slanted rotary valves

[bloke]

I could be wrong, but I sort of assumed that - with the pistons - the bore size would be under 8/10 of an inch.
I wonder (??) if that's an error on the website that was just transferred over from the 191 information.

[bort2.0]

.835 is the bore of the 5th rotor

Anyone else think to check their website...

[PlayTheTuba]

Right, the CC's are conical in the bore sizes. The BBbs are not.

[bloke]

Maybe I'm different from most people, but when someone tells me the bore size of a German-made front-action piston tuba, I'm usually expecting them to tell me the bore size of the first three valves.

[PlayTheTuba]

Very true, @bloke about measuring the first 3 valves but I do not own a 1291 BBb. Perhaps if someone on the forum will be kind enough to take measure for us that would be great
But, if there is something I a not quite understanding my apologies, I will edit my posts as needed

Still, taken directly from Miraphone's own web site

https://www.miraphone.de/bbb-tuba-27.html

Miraphone 1291 specs.png (60.09 KiB) Viewed 569 times

[cjk]

@bloke IIRC, Roger Lewis owned 1291s in both BBb and CC at one time.

I have read that the BBb was better in tune with itself. I have only played the CC.

[bloke]

I've never had a chance to play the 1291 B-flat. I've always thought that the 191 B flat featured too large of a "carburetor"
(bore) which makes the low range nebulous. In other words, the bore size seems too large for the size of the rest of it, even though rotors do seem to add some resistance just via their design. It's not that different from the Cerveny "piggy" models which people seem to like, but honestly I don't like those either for the same reason.

It's odd how the huge 98 model doesn't offer the same nebulous feel in the low range with the same bore size, yet a much larger body. It would be easy to say that I've decided that I like the 98 because that's what I have, but I noticed this about the 98 a decade ago and have been thinking about buying one for that long (and in spite of the manufacturer sort of walking away from the model and promoting a replacement model). The 98 - to me - is a model that looks like it shouldn't work, but yet it does. There are things I don't understand and probably never will understand. It's easy to theorize, but then one's theories are shattered when exceptions are encountered. I think other people can throw numbers around, but probably don't understand the why of some of the things about instruments either, with calculations and quotations of others theories wallpapering over a lack of actual knowledge of the whys.

Finally, I'm not trying to claim that playing a Model 98 isn't a bit of an athletic event, but it's a pretty easy one - and worth it (a hell of a lot easier than making straight-over-my-head one-handed chainsaw cuts of tree limbs that need pruning which are - reality - out of reach of my ladder, and the consequences of messing up when playing the 98 are certainly less than if I mess up doing the one-handed chainsaw ladder dance).

[peterbas]

.

[bloke]

Thanks for the advice...

' only five left to do, and (next time) I'm dragging the tall-@$$ extension ladder down there...assuming I can fit it up into the trees where it would need to go.

Also (after cutting several hundred fairly good-sized tree limbs out of the double-row of trees) it's time to resharpen the chain.
I sharpen it myself (as places that do it for money have usually ruined my chains - both cutting into them incorrectly and overheating them - ruining their temper). A sharp chain defines quick cuts, which ALSO defines less runtime THUS less chance of a bad boo-boo.

With the lowest limbs - now - hanging out over the road into here c. 15 feet off the ground (as they had drooped/grown - over the last year - down to c. 9 feet) that "way" in is beginning to look sorta "majestic"-like...

...sorta like what some of y'all saw last week...

[kingrob76]

I owned a 1291 CC for about 11 years, and pitch was the least of my worries. My biggest challenge was finding a mouthpiece that gave me the right colors I wanted in the sound. I probably should've never sold that instrument but it funded something new and I was in a rut. I've heard people knock the projection but I didn't find that to be the case, either.

[bloke]

With the C instruments, others report otherwise, but I find the C's to all line up pretty well, but the open G's and E to all be flat to the C's.

OK...but I'd much rather lip up some than relax down. Lipping up is much easier.