TubaForum.net

Played the local NStar tonight. Ballparks more easy to play than what I have, a truly astonishing difference. But -- what it reminded me of, was back when I had my other 184, a guy showed up (brass band again) with a new 186. Trying to remember how many years ago this was, 15 maybe. It played easily like the Star does. Both 184's I have played have been quite a bit more difficult to play than that 186. There seems to be a difference between the old ones and the new ones, and I have no idea why that is.

Those computer programs that can predict the intonation characteristics of a tapered bugle - and even the valve pitches depending on where the cylindrical tubing is jabbed into the bugle - are uncannily accurate, and manufacturers who have used those programs have greatly improved their models.

I expect that Fat Bastard greatly benefited from this technology in its design, because instruments in that size range that the same manufacturer built decades earlier were pretty wretched, tuning-wise. (If Fat Bastard's intonation wasn't so close to spot-on in the first place, I wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to dial it in the last little bit of the way.)

I haven't played newer model 84 Miraphones, because they are not that common, but I have to suspect that they have benefited from the same technology. The B-flat 86s have mostly been pretty good, but some of the older ones featured saggy third and fifth partials. Many of the old instruments in C - which were Model 86 - featured the same problems, but there were quite a few older C model 86 anomalies (1960's) made that offer extraordinarily fine intonation, and I have no idea what they might have done inconsistently that made some of the 50-year-old C instruments wonderful and others pretty wretched. I bought a wretched one new in 1974. Two different five valve ones that I have sold in the past few years after restoring offer wonderful intonation...(??)

For those examples, what's easier (or more difficult)? Is it mostly intonation that's easier with the newer tubas? Or something else -- valve action, responsiveness?

The only new Miraphone's I've played lately are a Norwegian Star and a Firebird. I'll admit that they seemed spectacularly easy to play, but that was also for just a few minutes in a convention center with so much other noise that I couldn't tell much beyond how they felt.

I always heard that the early 60s 186s have a larger lead pipe which makes them better/mo special than the later ones. I don't remember what the "better" was in regard to. My horn does have great intonation. I also notice someone added a short extension to the lead pipe. I have very little experience with other Miraphones. The local community college had several old BBb 186s - looked like hell but played very well. To my dismay they let them deteriorate and bought new cervenys to replace them. A heartbreaking situation as the replacements were very hard to play and the fact that I was not consulted was a let down.

TJ

jtm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:01 am For those examples, what's easier (or more difficult)? Is it mostly intonation that's easier with the newer tubas? Or something else -- valve action, responsiveness?

The only new Miraphone's I've played lately are a Norwegian Star and a Firebird. I'll admit that they seemed spectacularly easy to play, but that was also for just a few minutes in a convention center with so much other noise that I couldn't tell much beyond how they felt.

Hitting the notes, strange as it sounds, above about Eb in the staff. And I can play up to a G above the staff with a good sound, but it's the same comparison --- that same range on the Star is easier to play. The Star is just easier to "make it go."

The 184 is also harder to "make it go," as was the previous 184, although I think that one was a bit better than the one I have now, at least in terms of intonation, or I am more picky now. However it had the same difference between it and that new 186. The 186 did not take a lot of work to "make it go." It's like it's heavier metal or something, which shouldn't have anything to do with how hard it is to make it respond. (?) My horn also is extremely easy to drive, which is one of the reasons I have it (instead of something like an 8D,) and come to think of it, it is made of exceptionally thin metal. Hmmm.

My 1974 wretched intonation 86c had both the smaller and larger mouthpipes on it at different times, and was wretchedly out of tune with either one. I believe that people put too much stock in mouthpieces and mouthpipes, where they should be looking farther down the instrument. That having been said, repair shops and individuals really can't do much farther down the instrument, so that's probably why they don't look down there.

=============
I also - by the way - had a model 88 with the stock mouthpipe and I made it interchangeable to also accept an extra large very custom factory-made larger mouthpipe. Those also had no effect on intonation characteristics.

Instruments offer very subtle differences in how they feel and how they sound, even when both are good in just about every punch list aspect. They are all assembled by people and made by people and they are not all quite exactly the same. This is known by all of us already.

I almost always buy used instruments, because I'm a cheapskate. The one or two times in my life where I was able to choose a new instrument from an array of instruments, I've always prayed that the one I would like the most would have a lacquer finish, because silver is a mess, and customizing a silver instrument is a nightmare. To be even more clear, subtle differences on the inside will easily trump the difference between a near microscopically thin coating of silver on the outside vs. a thinner-than-plastic-wrap coating of clear paint on the outside.

What makes the old horns nice is the smaller bells (coupled with contemporary milder expectations as to how loud one must play in an orchestra) and the very thin, hand-hammered branches and bells, which are superior in many ways to forming these parts in a hydraulic blow-out press.

What makes the new horns nice is the CAD mentioned by Joe that can discover and then work around the many flaws in the bugle taper and wrap, and the "acoustical mess" of the machine. The same blow-out press that produces parts that have a variable wall thickness rather than one that is more uniform also produces parts that are more predictable and reliable in quality.

If today's standards were applied to yesterday's methods you would get a much better tuba, but it would cost as much as a top-shelf bassoon. And no one would buy it. So it would quickly be taken out of production and become a special order item, meaning no one would have much experience assembling one (like the Holton 345 issue).

It seems to me that the VAST majority of tuba players are unwilling/unable to drop a hundred thousand shekels to own an F and a CC tuba of such quality. We keep fooling ourselves into thinking that "two grand and some work" will net us something significantly better than a tuba that costs "two grand and some work".

If we were also willing to pay for all the beautiful engraving, knurling, super-heavy plating, and gold-washed bells of yesterday, we would also have these things regularly available, but we aren't, and that is why these things went bye-bye on us brass players, collectively.

A super-well-designed, super-well-built, super-pimped-out tuba featuring modern CAD, hand-rolled-seamed-and-hammered-over-a-mandrel branches and bell as accurately made as hydro-formed branches, in a world with more realistic volume expectations, all pimped out with 1920s-level of engraving and decoration would probably make a Thein look Jinbao-cheap by comparison.

We get what we pay for, or more accurately, we get what a maker thinks we will be willing to pay for.

I have played many Miraphones/Fones over the years. I currently own 2 model 184's. One built in 1985 and the other in 1989. I find them both extremely easy to play and easy to play in tune. Of the Mirafones I have owned, the ones I enjoyed the most were built pre 1990. I owned a 185 from the mid 70's that was spectacular. I had an early 80's model 187 that almost made me switch back to playing BBb. My 188 was from the presto valve era. The only thing I didn't like was the presto valves. I have test played a newer 187 and a brand new North Star about 4 years ago. Neither knocked my socks off but were good solid horns. Not sure if any of my older Mirafones were built with computer aided technology, but I would take them over anything built now.