Re: considering a Conn 56J


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

Posted by Dave on March 23, 2001 at 19:28:11:

In Reply to: considering a Conn 56J posted by Dan on March 23, 2001 at 13:03:10:

I'll concur with Matt's comments regarding the MW. I owned a 2155 piston a couple of years ago, and not only did the slides need aggressive lapping, but I actually had to unsolder the braces on the first valve slide, realign and resolder. My fifth valve slide complete with stopper guide was useless. I also had some solder joints pop loose (I think it was the 2nd valve slide. There was also a "click" whenever I set the horn down on the bell which led me to believe the bell wasn't securely fastened. These are all foibles that occured within the first month of ownership. Never had problems with my valves like others have had though. To their credit, the MWs use very thick metal which I think corresponds to my personal generalization that after spending that time with the 2155 and recently about a month's time with a 2145, the horns sound dead and lifeless to me. Maybe it's a result of that thick metal but they are too dark for me, even the 2145.

I recently sold my 56j because I felt that the sound wasn't what I wanted. Others have played this particular horn and loved it including the ecstatic buyer but it just wasn't lining up for me. Great low end, decent pitch, and I'll agree with Rick's assesment of the construction (although I think the satin looks sharp). The sound, however, was a little too "old timey" for me (if that makes sense) and have since visited Brook Mays and came home with a Miraphone 188 and will soon take delivery of a 52j for comparison. The focus of the 52j is a lot of what I'm looking for and Charlie has a GREAT one in satin. I have a propensity for sounding pretty big on smaller horns so I like the focus I can achieve with the smaller horn but still be able to have the output of a big 4/4 or 5/4.

I'll go against the stream and say the Miraphones are EXCEPTIONAL instruments! The 188 I'm currently test-driving is extremely well-crafted (the first valve trigger and the long whole-step 5th valve are GREAT additions), feels alive, resonates well, projects well, and is the most in-tune tuba I've ever played. It is nimble, slots well (maybe a little too well below the c below the staff) and has great focus. I've never really understood the complaints that the Miraphone sound lacks color and flexibility. The Miraphones, unlike most other horns, really seem to give you what you give it. If you play with a big, colorful sound, you will have a big, colorful sound on a Miraphone. If your tone lacks color and flexibility, the horn will sound stubborn and stiff to you. If you haven't played a 188 in a while, you owe it to yourself.

For your purposes though, the 52j sounds like a great match unless you like the darkness of the MW, then the 2145 would be a good choice if you could get over some construction anomalies. Also check out the S186-5U. The it played darker than the Pro 186 all else being equal.



Couple of other observations from my weekend with Charlie. I did not care for the big Willson CC. It, like the Meinl Westons felt too heavy and distant for me. Also tried a 2165 for the first time and came away feeling equally left out of the playing process. The MWs in general and the Willson CC give me the feeling that I'm pressing the buttons but someone else is doing the playing.

The MW45SLP is a nice F with an acceptable low C. He had a 5 valve Piggy that pleasantly suprised me. He had a nice Mirafone 181 F that was a blast to play: a nice "pocket" tuba. All in all, I was underwhelmed by the high price items, and suprised by the playability of the "budget" wares.

Hope I've helped in some rambling sort of way.


Follow Ups: