Posted by Joe S. on April 23, 2001 at 16:08:38:
In Reply to: Re: Fiberglass upright tuba posted by Frederick J. Young on April 23, 2001 at 08:35:11:
I have strongly disagreed with you on many points, but here I agree.
I believe that people look down on sousaphones because they consider them "common" and "outdoor" instruments. On one point I agree with many others re: sousaphones (same complaint as "recording" tubas) - Having the bell face forward and revealing all of the valve noise and other tonal imperfections is (to me) undesirable, but a helicon-style or bell-up sousaphone (with ideal dimensions and an adequate valve system) surely would be a superior instrument to most tubas.
Example: Pick up an old Conn standard bore (player's choice - fiberglass 36K or brass 14K) sousaphone in good playing shape, and turn the bell "up" (at an unusual "upward" angle). Play the Conn sousaphone and then play a Miraphone 186 BBb. After REALLY critical listening, which instrument, the sousaphone or the Miraphone tuba, REALLY sounds more like your (the "hopefully unbiased tester's") personal concept of the tuba "ideal"? My prediction (if one is not prejudiced) is that EITHER the fiberglass or brass sousaphone (bell turned towards the sky) will be the choice, tonally, over the Miraphone 186.
Joe "I am aware that you, Dr. Young, prefer Holton, and they are OK too, but Conn's deserve another trial after 40 years, IMO." Sellmansberger