TubaForum.net

I know these kind of post aren't everyone's favorite thing, but I find them very helpful especially as I don't live near any places to really be able to try multiple horns side-by-side. But, has anyone played a rotary PT-20 and a Bruckner side-by-side or separately, and if so how do they compare? The Bruckner seems bigger, but aside from the bows being bigger they seem pretty similar in size.

I briefly mentioned the the Bruckner in this thread.

viewtopic.php?t=6000

Similar question to what you're asking. The army band tuba euphonium workshop this past February had the b&s 4197 (pt20p) and a Bruckner. I consider the Bruckner to be more of a 5/4 tuba than a 4/4. But the Bruckner plays very well and sounds quite nice.
The pt20p that they had felt like it had more acoustical resistance but could be the smaller bore too. I am actually in the process of ordering a 4097 (pt20) seeing as they are not as common as piston 4/4 or 5/4 CC tubas. I requested that they don't solder the lead pipe to the bell on the pt20 that I've ordered. I think that should help make the feel less, dry? The pt20p tuba could have felt dry thanks to the elephant room and where the tuba was located.

Either way you'd be happy with either. The 20 will be a better all round horn. But if you already have a F or Eb then the Bruckner might be a better pairing.

Hope that helps! And if you want more details I'll try to write more when I'm home.

Oh! I enjoy these kind of threads. But I would also have wished that companies were willing to make top action rotaries... As an option

I don't think either of these are 5/4 horns. My benchmark for that has always been the 5450/3198 lines.

Anyway...

Pick the Bruckner. I really like how they play and how they sound. Really, really good intonation on the three?? that I've tried. Two in an elephant room, one privately owned. I really like Miraphone tubas. They are all generally consistent and have good playing characteristics.

Not many play the PT 20's or the piston versions. I don't think they're marketed very well here anyway. I've never played the 20, but the 20P was "fine." Nothing about it was notably good or bad. Just sort of a "meh" CC tuba for me.

If it were ME, I wouldn't spend too much $$$ on either of these. They're hard to re-sell if you want what you paid for them, at least for the prices from Dillon's/Baltimore. Lots of options out there these days...

I have tried both years ago, but not side by side.

Bruckner all the way.

Bruckner has a bigger sound when you want it, and in Miraphone fashion, it's got that 4/4+ vibe to it just like the 1291. It's not a physically large tuba, but has a lot more output and presence than you'd expect, but you're not committed to ONLY making that sound. Quite flexible and easy to steer. I don't consider the 1291 to be a 5/4 tuba, but it does have a nice amount of output.

The PT-20 is a nice tuba too, don't get me wrong, and the build quality is every bit as good as you'd want. But in my experience, the problem with things like the PT-20, the predecessor (PT-4), and even the PT-606 is that the low range just doesn't open up the way it does on other horns. It's all there... but it often sounds constrained and just is "tight" to listen to. It either sounds like the player is struggling to make a sound that the tuba doesn't want to make, or it sounds like a low range has been forced out of the horn and has been forced to do it loudly. The Bruckner just seems to be better at this sort of thing, at least in my hands.

If you're not playing in a large ensemble, or need something that's an all-around horn (and you actually DO play in a lot of smaller groups, or mid-size, or actually have a need to try and make one tuba do many different things), then maybe the PT-20 is a better option. But I think a lot of times, people say they need an all-around tuba, but aren't actually doing much else other than playing with a large group.

Between the 2, I'd go with a Bruckner. It is not a large tuba (definitely smaller than a 5450 / pt6 / York style 6/4's).

I've never played one of the pt-4's / PT-20's and been super excited. Maybe they aren't the right tool for what I do.

I think you could get away with a Bruckner in both a large ensemble and a quintet quite well. 4/4 (plus a pinch).

If you have an Eb or F, then maybe consider how those would compare?

THe bruckner, Tuono, and the MRP CC are my favorite CC tubas. Let me know if you see a pattern forming with those.

Of those three, I think I like the Bruckner the most

Can someone post good, clear images of both horns? I have never seen either, and the Bruckner has sounded interesting to me for years, but I thought it was a CC 6/4 like the BBb Seigfried. (Please forgive my ignorance of Miraphone instruments outside of the 18X series of horns.)

In fact, I have no experience with any of the three Mark described. Mark, can you gin up some pics of those three tubas?

The bruckner is the CC version of a 191.
https://www.dillonmusic.com/miraphone-b ... r-cc-tuba/
The tuono is the Rotor version of a Thor
https://www.melton-meinl-weston.com/en/ ... 0ra-tuono/
The Mrp-C is a little like a 188, but slightly bigger
https://www.b-and-s.com/en/instruments/c-tubas/mrp-c/
All of them are amazing

My comparisons...

Mr P. Is way bigger than a 188. More like a dialed in PT-6

Tuono is also like a CC version of the GR-55

Bruckner is a rotary 1291

I always thought that the best description of a Bruckner is the rotary version of a 1291C.
Am I off base?

Neither of those are in my list of favorites, but as Matt Walters says, every tuba has someone's name on it.

Well the 191 came first, and then the BBb and CC versions of the 1291, and then the bruckner, which is a lot closer to the 191 in mechanics than the 1291, so in my opinion the bruckner seems like a cut down 191, because the 1291 BBb is a piston version of the 191, and the the 1291 CC is a cut down version of that

Chicken/Egg

I really like the 191 and the the Bruckner, but the 1291 is of my least favorite tubas that schools around here purchase.

Re: the 1291... Like 15 years ago Alan Baer did some work on my tuba while I hung out in his garage on a Sunday morning... Obviously he was expecting me, but he was mowing his lawn in some raggedy work clothes ... He told me...

Miraphone hired him to design a tuba prototype -- he did, and then he send it back to them. He said he built something great... Miraphone took a look and said "we don't build tubas this way" and gave a list of things they didn't like, and how it broke from the traditional designs and methods etc. They then took his design, proceeded to undo a bunch of stuff and that turned into the 1291. He was very not happy, to put it lightly.

After giving them an earful and threatening to quit, the 1292 was born... Which was a concession thats closer to what he designed, but not really. At any rate, it was good enough or to make amends or whatever -- or maybe just odd timing and coincidence -- that he had that NYPO headshot taken with the Miraphone logo clearly visible. But shortly after that he ditched them for real, went to Meinl Weston with a bunch of ideas, and you know how the rest worked out for him. He basically said Meinl sent him boxes of parts, and he built what he wanted. Then sent it back to Germany and they made a bunch of them.

It was a solid 45 minutes of strong opinions and profanity, and I learned an awful lot that day. Not the least of which, apparently, was don't piss Alan off.

Edit... Alan, and his tuba, look nothing like this today. Last time I saw him he was lean and trim, and his face had that kind of older and skinny look of "I lost a lot of weight and it was a great thing for me"

I generally like the Miraphone tubas. The Bruckner and 1293 seem to be the standout models. I liked a lot about the 1293…

Re: the 291- I think it’s more similar to the 1291 than the 191, no matter what the description says, it’s got that same goofy looking top bow that is shared with the 129x C tubas. I actually think the 191 is a larger tuba than the 129x series.

LeMark wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:36 pm Well the 191 came first, and then the BBb and CC versions of the 1291, and then the bruckner, which is a lot closer to the 191 in mechanics than the 1291, so in my opinion the bruckner seems like a cut down 191, because the 1291 BBb is a piston version of the 191, and the the 1291 CC is a cut down version of that

Chicken/Egg

I really like the 191 and the the Bruckner, but the 1291 is of my least favorite tubas that schools around here purchase.

Fine, but the 191 doesn't feature that messed up upper bow. Numbers are similar but shapes aren't. Personally, I don't have any use for anything made by them that ends in 91, 92, or 93, but other people are really excited about some of these models. Again, I should have been buying and flipping these things all along, but that's a flaw that I have to which I've admitted before. I often don't buy models - that I don't really care for myself - for resale. As an example, I've only flipped one or two Hb tubas.

I didn't check to see that the poster for this and Alex/Mira post was the same person XD. You already know everything that was in the link I included

I am also kinda glad that you took, if I was indeed the one, to at least consider a B&S 4097 (pt20) with your 4/4 rotary CC endeavors. But seems like the Bruckner gets the votes unless you can take a trip to Horn Guys to try the Alexs. If you ever get the chance please share your thoughts, and if allowed pictures too!

Edited with more words added.

The reason i’ve posted these is because a few years ago I owned an older Mirafone 188 and I really liked the horn but I wanted something a little bit beefier. So I sold it and bought Tommy Johnson’s Neptune and I love that horn and the sound I get from it, but as I now play Eb for most everything, and I love my Norwegian star. I rarely use CC anymore because of how good the Eb is at doing almost everything and it gets the sound and all that I want. The issue is I don’t have as much time to spend on the Neptune and it honestly needs the attention to play it right and be able to control a horn that big, which in the past I only played the Neptune and I consistently played solos on it as well as in a quintet, it did take a good bit of work to not over power everything. All of this to say, When I wanted a bigger 188 I think I went too big, so i’m just trying to see what horns our my options. I guess I should’ve made a post titled “What horns play like a 5/4 Miraphone 188?” and I might just do that.

Pakins51 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 1975 7:24 am I guess I should’ve made a post titled “What horns play like a 5/4 Miraphone 188?” and I might just do that.

OMG I've been on that quest for about 10 year now... And you are starting on the same path as me.

Give me a chance to write up some things, it might be helpful...

The think the answer to that question is the MRP-C

As far as the Bruckner goes, maybe the body is closer to the 1291, I never actually compared them side by side, but the playing characteristics are more like the 191, (but intonation is better)

Pakins51 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:44 am The reason i’ve posted these is because a few years ago I owned an older Mirafone 188 and I really liked the horn but I wanted something a little bit beefier. So I sold it and bought Tommy Johnson’s Neptune and I love that horn and the sound I get from it, but as I now play Eb for most everything, and I love my Norwegian star. I rarely use CC anymore because of how good the Eb is at doing almost everything and it gets the sound and all that I want. The issue is I don’t have as much time to spend on the Neptune and it honestly needs the attention to play it right and be able to control a horn that big, which in the past I only played the Neptune and I consistently played solos on it as well as in a quintet, it did take a good bit of work to not over power everything. All of this to say, When I wanted a bigger 188 I think I went too big, so i’m just trying to see what horns our my options. I guess I should’ve made a post titled “What horns play like a 5/4 Miraphone 188?” and I might just do that.

I would say the PT-20 is actually a hair smaller than the 188, then. I owned one for six years or so, and it always felt slightly undersized for me. Granted, it was the piston version, but the bodies/bugles/bells are the same.

I have a student with a PT 20P and I own a 1291CC. I feel when I played a Bruckner and a 1291CC side by side; it felt like I was playing the same model, just one had rotors.

The PT 20P is very point and shoot, would be a very good pit orchestra horn IMO, chamber brass, band section horn. I don’t feel you can push it as much down low and it breaks up at extreme dynamics.

The 1291CC has a quite a large bore, and while not physically the same size, I feel the depth and timbre are similar to larger 5/4 horns.