TubaForum.net

So what's the difference between the 282 and the 494?

The 494 is a medium bore tuba with a larger bell

The 282 is larger bore with a smaller bell

Thanks.
Any comment on playing characteristics between those things? Larger bore vs smaller bore, larger bell vs smaller bell? Is Mphone replacing the 282 with the 494? I'd of course be most interested in intonation characteristics. I'm terribly spoiled at this point in time.

I would guess the smaller bell would be more "barky" but my NStar is very, very barky if pushed, and it doesn't have the stovepipe bell.

I've never played a 282, I can't recall miraphone ever bringing them them to any of the conventions

The hagen 494 is very new, but I'm looking forward to playing on in February at both the DC workshop and again the next week at TMEA

I hear it's an amazing instrument from people who's opinions I trust. I came very close to buying one a few weeks ago, but decided to hold off until I had a chance to play one

I'm finding that the NStar continues to be perfect for brass band, but concert band stuff below the staff, with me playing it, it doesn't have the timbre of a contrabass, and if this thing is physically small enough, I'm also considering it. I played the Wessex version of the 282 quite a few years ago, but I was not 'back into tuba' yet and didn't have the air flow I have now. Back then, I concluded it was too long for me to adequately handle. That might not be the case now. The Starr requires plenty of air. (And of course there was that Nirschl that changed my entire attitude.)

If I don't jump the gun, I'll be very interested in your feedback.

You may have noticed that I've had a chance to play a 282, and was impressed with it. It's a bit strident - but you know that I am attracted to really good intonation characteristics, and it certainly impressed me along those lines. (It may not actually be all that strident - because I've been spending so much time with a gigantic instrument, so my ear might be a little screwed up towards "deep bass" - as far as judging resonance characteristics is concerned...??)- I always fairly quickly find things that perhaps design engineers don't think of - even though I can't really do everything that they do, but I find what they fail to do. There are probably two or three things on that model that I would do different, but those few things don't keep it from playing quite well. I believe the bore size is the same as a 186, but it's a smaller tuba.
It's too much of an overlap with my F instrument to be of interest to me - regarding ownership.