Posted by mjg on February 26, 2004 at 17:51:24:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Miraphone BBb Contrabass Trombone posted by Sorry to say... on February 26, 2004 at 15:27:24:
Oh well...
I figured they were in the same league as the F contrabasses. Those are from all accounts and recordings I have heard, absolutely fantastic.
I'm thinking a .750 bore slide might be a little more than neccesary. Considering a euph is .591/.661 bore, and not as open as most bass trombones, probably a circa .690 slide would work well. As one other post-er alluded to, the .620 bore Miraphone works fairly well. I just wonder how much more drag you would begin to encounter with a slide of this weight and magnatude. For basic agility, I'm still guessing the out of tune cimbasso is best. For consistent sound, i'll still put money on the cimbasso, because you don't have to worry about supporting it, especially if you are extended to 6th or 7th position. Intonation might be better on a contrabass, but you could probably rig up some slide dohickeys to make the intonation a bit better on the cimbasso.
As for what it usually gets called for, i.e. Italian Opera, I would stick with cimbasso based on those trombone and bass parts. For Wagner and Strauss, the contrabass might have some advantages, but not all that many.
I'm guessing that these reasons point out why the BBb contrabass trombone hasn't gotten all the kinks worked out yet. Or the fact that in those few manufacturers that make them, that they are getting most of their input from trombonists, who have a very different view of air support than most of us tubaists.
I'd prefer the cimbasso simply because I'm lazy. Besides, most of them play stuffy, too.