TubaForum.net

Has anyone played both, and with enough recollection about each to compare their playing characteristics.

Other than pictures, I've not laid eyes on the new 494.

I recently/finally played a 282.

Obviously (you know me...) there are SEVERAL things I would change, but the 282 (the one that I played) plays REMARKABLY well in-tune...not very much slide-pullin', particularly if someone is willing to play G-up-in-the-staff and low G (down below the staff) with 3rd valve.

Maybe (??) the 282 seems a bit "turbo-charged". Even though a (albeit large-@$$) 3/4, it's got quite a "carburetor" on it - featuring the same bore size as the 186 tubas. It's pretty easy to get really "bright" on a 282...maybe even easier with a 184...and (282) peaking out the decibel meter (in conjunction with the bright sound), as well.

The thing is that the JP 379B - Cerveny Arion copy (and no...This isn't an ad for a model that I sell...only noticing differences) has an even slightly larger bore and no larger of a bell, but the sound is noticeably more "covered" than with the Miraphone 282. ...and (again) I'm curious as to whether anyone has played a Miraphone 494.

Yeah...This probably looks like an old "vs." post from the early boob-net days...Maybe (??) that's just what it is...

EDIT: I also just discovered that Miraphone makes a model 1272, which is a front-action PISTON version of the 282.


These are all - very roughly - in the same size range and - very roughly - in the same valveset bore range:


Miraphone model 494:

' looks as if this could easily be hot-rodded to a 7-valve tuba and - with a bit more effort - an 8-valve tuba... ie. It seems to stay small for quite a ways, with considerable hesitation in the expansion of the bugle.



Miraphone 282:

282 requires quite a long pull on the #3 slide for good intonation, which causes it to nearly interfere with #1 slide manipulation, if desired. It also calls for a long main slide pull for A=440, which tells me that the best place for a 5th rotor would be (as with some piston tubas) past the LARGE side of the main slide - just before the dogleg...also with a bit of main slide ferrule-shortening. Assuming the #3 slide (issue previously mentioned) could be dropped down, that upper #4 cylindrical loop would double as a nice comfortable left hand rest, were it that it were also protected with a nickel "hand shield".



Miraphone 1272:

I know less than nothing about horn design, but the lead pipe on the 494 seems oddly configured, and in kind of a perilous position.

I started seeing funny turns in their instruments when the 1291 C and the something-or-other F tuba were introduced. I think the same player probably influenced both of those things, yes?

I'm skeptical that either one of those things hurts or helps anything.

As far as small really bright sounding tubas go, that sort of resonance can become addictive, but being a cimbasso owner, I believe I'm immune.

The 494 leadpipe reminds me of the Firebird... except the Firebird is smaller and a tighter wrap, so the leadpipe isn't way out in the open like that.

And in a 2D photo, I can't much tell what's happening on the 494 in terms of routing front to back. Could be a totally different shape altogether.

@bort2.0

I don't need to tell everyone about the respect I have for Miraphone (having paid more for one of their instruments than - likely - most people do), but I've always thought that F tuba's appearance was unnecessarily goofy, though it never concerned me, because I'm not a much of a fan of that model (as far as playing them is concerned).

It just seems to me that they could have done this (much nicer-looking - even though the really high-mounted valveset still has an odd appearance), and (notice the main slide) taken away any extra mouthpipe length from those excessive-length main slide ferrules.

Also, the 6-5-1-2-3-4 (with the left hand semitone given to the index, and the left hand whole tone given to the middle finger), throws off the mirroring of the functions of the hands...but whatever on that.

Finally, with a 4+2 config, what's the purpose of the pull ring on the 1st valve slide - with no hand there to pull it?
ie. Where's the right-hand thumb trigger for the 1st valve slide?



bloke "I send Christian too many 'constructive criticism' emails regarding various models, and he accepts them in a good-natured way."

That all totally makes sense Joe

Just remind everyone Though, I used to own that Alexander 163 with That long funky lead pipe that stuck up above the top bow. The work had been done forever ago, and had never been damaged. Not that I think it was ever truly tested, but it wasn't fragile or delicate.

I also can't quite recall right now what the f tuba lead pipe looked like on the funky horn @jtm bought from me... but I seem to recall something odd there too.

None of this particularly matters for anything though, it's all a function of I need such-and-such amount of tubing to get from here to there. It's always some kind of curve. Just when it's a lot more tubing, there's a lot more curve.

I'm just glad I never had a Hirsbrunner style tuning slide in the lead pipe. Maybe that's not a big deal either, but it's always been a turnoff.

Since @bort2.0 mentioned it, the interesting F tuba is on the right. There's room for another valve, for sure, but otherwise the lead pipe doesn't seem too remarkable. Nice sounding tuba, nice looking, I loved the S-links, and I hope the new owner is enjoying it.



The one on the left is a PT-10 Miraclone. Its lead pipe is less complicated (from the outside -- I don't know about the tapers), but it's also removable. This, too, is a nice sounding tuba. Doesn't look as good, and has more pedestrian rotor linkages, but it's mostly in tune with itself, which is a convenience that's worth a lot to me.

Bloke says the Firebird looks unnecessarily goofy, but I was thinking it looks like a lot of fun and that I'd like to try one. Are you sure the top key works the top rotor? Miraphone has some other F tubas where the valves are not in the same order as the keys that work them. I'd like a 1st valve trigger on the left hand, like a trumpet; doesn't much matter which finger.

Whenever I see giant loop mouthpipes, I immediately assume that they were replaced. There just aren't that many people that can bend those - as the factories bent them - free-handed, and that's a non-elegant but functional workaround. When I made that replacement mouthpipe for that thing that you folks told me was a pt2 , that was quite a challenge right there, and I've been messing around with this crap for 45 years. Whenever someone tells me something is original and it looks weird. I'm prone to believe them just about as quickly as I'm prone to believe that Mike Pence is a devout Christian and a brave warrior for justice.

You want crazy leadpipes...? Here's my old Alex. Bpb Pallansch did the work long ago. Looked ridiculous. Played amazingly well. Obviously I don't have it anymore, but I do know where it lives. And that guy is never ever letting g go of it.



Dave Kirk's Alex 163 looked even crazier than mine:

Aren’t all top bows non-symmetrical?

I'm no scientician...



But I think when a new leadpipe fixes things, it's because of an improvement (correction?) in length and taper. The length ("needs to be longer") is the reason for this leadpipe to have the appearance of "10 inches of leadpipe in a 5 inch sack," so to speak.

Dents Be Gone! wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:52 am

jtm wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:10 am Aren’t all top bows non-symmetrical?

Not like the 1291 and it’s cousins.

I think what people are looking at is a non-constant radius on those Miraphone upper bows. Not unlike the “droopy” tuning slides on Monette (and imitators) trumpets.

About the nicest thing I can think of to say about those upper bows is that they look odd, and probably the same for that mouthpipe bend - which apparently has now been transferred from an F model to a smaller B flat model.

I don't know what that upper bow thing on those various extremely similar models was supposed to accomplish, but - holding my tongue - I believe I could point out one thing it didn't accomplish.

If only one of each of those models were in the tuba museum, I could do some research.

When I see the Monette et al non constant radius slides, I think of the preferred line through a hairpin turn.

If you look at a hairpin turn and the preferred line, you’ll see something akin to what’s going on with the traditional single radius versus “odd” bows.

If the research behind this design is about maintaining fastest overall speed, like in the driving example, then it’s a not-so-great idea. As has been pointed out elsewhere, no one is blowing sound through a brass instrument. The air column does the work.

Also, if this approach were completely valid, why wouldn’t more crooks and bows within a tuba use it?

For reference as pertains to the discussion above: