TubaForum.net

When the 2165 first hit the streets, there were a good number of pros playing them. I mean, it’s been around for a little over 30 years now.

A Miraphone Hagen 496 BBb would fit your specifications nicely, imho...

It took me longer then I intended to add to this thread, but it seemed like I was about to be on the same track as @bort2.0 before I made a couple previous post and he reached out to me. So I appreciate everyone's responses!

But anyways, my first CC tuba was a 1987 Mirafone 188 and I loved the horn. It was easy to play and did just about everything I needed it to, but(like most people I wanted something bigger with a more rounded sound) so I sold the 188 and bought a Miraphone 1295(predecessor to the 1291) and I actually really loved that horn. In my opinion it pretty much played and sounded like a beefier 188, BUT I found out I have Arthritis and after played on those pistons for a while my hands began to hurt worse and more often. So it was back to rotors for me, even though I loved the way that horn played and sounded!

I then bought Tommy Johnsons old B&S Neptune, which he described to play like a "Big miraphone 188" and while I see what he meant, that's not quite how I would describe it. It just seemed like it was one of the only 6/4 Rotary CC horns available so it was easy for people to compare it to a 188. But I've played that horn for over a year now and loved the sound I got from it and got a lot of compliments from it, but what I didn't like was the amount of work it felt like it required to keep in dialed in. The intonation wasn't terrible but definitely had to be kept up with, and also it didn't feel like the dynamic range on it was quite what I wanted. You put little in the horn and you got a big sound and when you put a lot into the horn you got an even bigger and louder sound but not as much as you'd expect to be getting. I think they're great horns especially for someone who mainly plays CC or has the time to give it a lot of attention. My issues with it arouse as I started to play me Eb Norwegian Star more and it just produced the sound and everything I was wanting, so the Neptune was only really pulled out for Wind Ensemble. But, it is not a horn you can just pull out and play when needed. I mean I was still practicing fundamentals on it, but the Eb really is really taking up most of my practice time as it is what I use more.

So, I have debated selling the Neptune for a while now, and I probably will or trade it. I'd love to try a rotary PT-6, MRP, and a Bruckner and I will probably take a trip down to the Jacksonville showroom when I get a chance to try the B. In my opinion the closest to a bigger 188 was the 1295, and if there was a rotor version out there I would try it in a heartbeat, some would say that's what a Bruckner is but it seems closer related to a 1291/2/3 and to me those that I've played just didn't "hit the spot" like the 1295. I've also played a MW Tuono but I wasn't a fan of the ergonomics on that horn, while it did sound and play well.

All of this to say, there's definitely not a horn that's going to be just like a 188 but larger, BUT that doesn't mean we can't keep looking

I loved the sound of the Neptune. I had one on trial for a week. My biggest issue was a Piggy-ish one: I couldn't get the octave C's to line up. The octave was slightly compressed, so I ended up returning it. I have no experience with any Neptunes other than that one, so it could vary horn-to-horn.

The (now really old) rotary 2155 had a great sound and horse power to spare (crazy projection) but HORRIBLE intonation. The Thor (I believe) has the same basic setup with pistons and great intonation. Which would make it closer to what I imagine the Tuono to be (although I've never gotten a chance to play one). I've found the GR-51 to be the BBb version of this, really nice sound and intonation and a high output to input ratio. Like the rotary 2155 an incredibly efficient amplifier. The Miraphone Hagen, Eastman 563/825 and Lidl 715 really intrgue me. I'd love to give them a try. Miraphone and MW are probably forever out of my price range (maybe used at some future date). have considered a switch back to BBb... but I really like my current DS, even though I prefer rotary valves. If there was ever a CC version of the Eastman or Lidl I would really like to give it a shot. I don't think it would take to long to re-acclimate to BBb... but... As far as new students, personally, if they had one of these horns, I would see no reason to make the switch to CC. Unless it was something they wanted to do... performance major etc.

cktuba wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:31 am The (now really old) rotary 2155 had a great sound and horse power to spare (crazy projection) but HORRIBLE intonation. The Thor (I believe) has the same basic setup with pistons and great intonation. Which would make it closer to what I imagine the Tuono to be (although I've never gotten a chance to play one). I've found the GR-51 to be the BBb version of this, really nice sound and intonation and a high output to input ratio. Like the rotary 2155 an incredibly effificient amplifier. The Miraphone Hagen, Eastman 563/825 and Lidl 715 really intrgue me. I'd love to give them a try. I have considered a switch back to BBb... but I really like my current DS, even though I prefer rotary valves. If there was ever a CC version of the Eastman or Lidl I would really like to give it a shot. I don't think it would take to long to re-acclimate to BBb... but... As far as new students, personally, if they had one of these horns, I would see no reason to make the switch to CC. Unless it was something they wanted to do... performance major etc.

Yep, the 2155R can make a ton of racket, but I remember it having an unusable 3rd partial.

Tuonos seem to be pretty rare stateside.

arpthark wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:38 am
Yep, the 2155R can make a ton of racket, but I remember it having an unusable 3rd partial.

Tuonos seem to be pretty rare stateside.

Unusable, might be a generous way of phrasing it.

I made the bad choice of buying one. It wasn't particularly expensive, and the fifth partial was spot on. 1&3 felt as good as open, but I still shouldn't have bought it. Basically, the intonation was about like one of the worst of the cut down 345 Holton tubas.
I owned a cut down Holton at the same time. That era was definitely a detour in my playing career.

odd:
all of the sudden honesty about faulty intonation characteristics of particular models

arpthark wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:25 am I loved the sound of the Neptune. I had one on trial for a week. My biggest issue was a Piggy-ish one: I couldn't get the octave C's to line up. The octave was slightly compressed, so I ended up returning it. I have no experience with any Neptunes other than that one, so it could vary horn-to-horn.

Trying to remember, but I *think* that the piston Neptune I owned had a flat open C in the staff or sharp low C vice the remaining open Cs. Something required a tug on the third valve slide… maybe Eb below the staff?

The most impressive thing about those VMI Neptunes was the looks. Beautiful engraving, gold tinted lacquer, top-notch assembly. Great valves as well, piston or rotor.

Similar to the B&S concerns I have that VMI was a bit uneven in sound across the registers. The low register was fairly edgy, and was indeed like a 188 on anabolics. The mid register was kinda mellow and what not, but the upper end was possibly a little hollow?

It was an interesting horn and served me well for a few years. What I went to after that was a MW32, which offered a lot of 188-ness with a hint of Alex. I had my Holton-o-fone in reserves if I needed a 6/4, albeit a 3V Bb.

Suffice to say, I’ve tried to find something like a bumped up 188 myself in the past, and kinda realized it doesn’t really exist.

Good intonation can be found on bigger horns.

The zing in the 188 can also be found on slightly larger horns.

Finding them together? Not so sure.

matt g wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 8:36 pm Here is the other 6/4 Miraphone photo:

I'm genuinely curious why the Miraphone 6/4 CC never turned into a product offering.
(Not that I expect matt g to know either, but I just quoted him because he posted the picture. )

I love my PT-5P (It is essentially a PT-6P). It is a fantastic horn and a sound like no other instrument I have played. I have had that horn for 30 years and do not plan on giving it up.

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:01 am I made the bad choice of buying one. It wasn't particularly expensive, and the fifth partial was spot on. 1&3 felt as good as open, but I still shouldn't have bought it. Basically, the intonation was about like one of the worst of the cut down 345 Holton tubas.
I owned a cut down Holton at the same time. That era was definitely a detour in my playing career.

odd:
all of the sudden honesty about faulty intonation characteristics of particular models

I am still waiting for a for-sale ad that says "This tuba has dents that DEFINITELY affect the sound."

on topic:
it's clear through this thread that Miraphone doesn't really make the OP question of a 5/4 188.

Summary of possible candidates:
Neptune?!?
2155R?!?
PT-6
Tuono
MRP
HB-6 / HBS 293

I wonder if that tuba player in the Miraphone picture is only 5'3" or so. If he is a normal sized man who is at least 7 inches taller, that thing looks more like a 7/4 tuba.

My guess is that camera angle and tuba angle have the bell slightly pointed towards the viewer which makes it look a lot larger than it probably is.

I'm 5'6" and that might look similar on me, though.

We associate that company with some smaller instruments such as 184, 185, and these days even 186, but - when they've come out with new things - they've always tended to try to be a little bit bigger than everyone else.
If my observations are valid, I'm not sure that's a particularly good tack.

Back to the 188...

What do you think would happen if a larger bore valve section was put on a 188? The Bruckner valves are graduated from like .770 to .835... and the 191 valves are a constant .835, I believe. What was the bore of the newest incarnation of the 190CC?

Yeah, yeah, intonation... but would a larger bore give more output? That seems to be the Alexander recipe, which seems to have more output potential from a similar size tuba (and again, yes, intonation stuff on the older ones).

I think the bad intonation on the older Alex horns was really magnified by the huge friggin' lead pipe and the fact (I beleve I remember reading somewhere) that the 163 CC was just a cut down 163 BBb. I think the larger valve section would probably throw off the intonation on a 188. But it would be interesting to see what the result would be.

cktuba wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:03 am I think the bad intonation on the older Alex horns was really magnified by the huge friggin' lead pipe and the fact (I beleve I remember reading somewhere) that the 163 CC was just a cut down 163 BBb. I think the larger valve section would probably throw off the intonation on a 188. But it would be interesting to see what the result would be.

The strategy of sticking a swollen bottom bow and giant bell onto a pt6 - reusing the rest of it, and morphing it into a 6/4 instrument - didn't do any favors for the intonation of that set up.

So many other manufacturers have been goofing around with 6/4 York style C tubas for three or four decades, and Miraphone has simply avoided that arms race - other than this prototype, I suppose. Most people don't agree with me, but the only really successful one - so far - is Yamaha, based on ease of access to good intonation. (The Yamaha is also slightly smaller than most of the others, so it also offers a little bit more clarity of sound.)...

...but "pistons" and "6/4" are off topic, yes?