Re: BBb Opinion


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Tom Mason on July 11, 2003 at 13:14:22:

In Reply to: BBb Opinion posted by MP on July 11, 2003 at 12:54:54:

I know a lot of people will not agree with my assessments, but here it is:

1. The newer king 2341. Although many people are fans of the older ones, I liked having the 20 inch bell and having it closer to my ears. It is setup closer to what a lot of 4/4 CC horns are, and tends to blow closer to that kind of horn. (ease of note production and sound quality). It plays relatively close to pitch in the normal range.

2. Jupiter 582. The horn is a jupiter, but they are better built than the 3 valve models that draw criticism. It has a good sound, and is a good blower as well.

3. Mirafone 186/187. Although these are differeing horns as far as the bottom branch and bell flare, bith are good horns for general playing.

As far as tuning, many of the tuning problems with horns are as much products of the person as the horn. Granted that dents, slide lengths and other construction issues are also in the game, the person and the embouchure make as much difference.

An example that comes to mind is TubaChristmas 2002 in Memphis, TN. After the concert, Joe Semmansbarger tried my conn orchestral grand for the first time. As he played, we noticed that he played a 5th partial F almost F#. As I play the horn, I can get it in tune without much change. Although there is a dent in the horn about the area in the second branch that would affect the 5th partial, I also believe that our differences in embouchure also make an effective difference.

The mouthpiece used will speak to tone production as far as difficulty/ease along with practice.

As far as choices, mine are:

1. My conn
2. king 2341/mirafone 186/187
3. VMI 3301/Jupiter 582 (Although not mentioned above, the 3301 I tried for about 5 minutes was a pretty good horn, and had some tradeable good points with the jupiter 582)

Enjoy

Tom Mason


Follow Ups: