TubeNet

I'm playing on a mira 186 bbb (old, bit leaky) for allmost a year. It's a good instrument, but a handfull. I need to be at my best to play this instrument well.

If I would play the instrument everyday this would be no problem. The thing is that trombone is my primary instrument..... I only play tuba 2 days a week.

So now I'm looking for a hardware solution. I'm looking for a more userfriendly instrument (I know it's possible because I've had good experiences with some tuba's in a shop: little Cerveny, big new york symphonic and the yamaha 621), at a low price (that's the catch!) and I would like to play an instrument with a more mellow timbre.

Would it be a good idea to swap the 186 for Boosey Imperial with 3 valves? I've read that it's intonation is very good, better even than the 4 valve version. What is the dynamic output? I've found that my 186 can't handle crescendi very well. It edges out very quick (rattle).

I hope you can help.....

I would hate to be the one to steer you away from the 186. Those are great horns. Could you get the leaks fixed?


Even still. I played a Besson 3-valve all through college in the mid '70's. also Great horn. My only other choices were Conn 21J's. I would take the Besson over any of the 4 Conns anyday!! The Besson would put-out some some serious volume with the band, but also worked well for quintet and jazz band. quick slotting of the notes and easy intonation.

bloke wrote:The big 3+1 Besson has a majestic sound and good intonation...as long as the Besson isn't leaky as well. Many of the old compensating Bessons (20 years old and olders) are worn and leaky - just like you claim is your Mirafone.

Mmm... the 3 valver is not so majestic? I'm going to do a playtest next week. I hope it's tight enough.

Assuming no leaks, the very low range on the big comp. Bessons is a bit stuffy, but (I suppose) no worse than a 186 or 188 Mirafone.

For me from low G to low E is stuffy on the mira (using a c4 btw). What's very low (I've read that the 3 valve version is more free-er flow, correct?). The instrument will be used in band and I've come only once across an E flat and not lower. And i'm assuming false tones will work on a compensating instrument??

dmmorris wrote:I would hate to be the one to steer you away from the 186. Those are great horns. Could you get the leaks fixed?

That's going to be costly I'm afraid and since the outcome is unsure I'm not very eager about it. The mouthpipe needs to be replaced (red rot, but not leaking), the transition between the bottom bow and the upper bow on the opposite side of the bell has a big leak and all the rotor's leak at the back (you can press the 4th valve out of it's casing with your thumb!).

bloke wrote:

Mmm... the 3 valver is not so majestic?

I don't remember typing that...

I'm sorry, I was taking your point about the 4 valve version further.

bloke wrote:

What's very low (I've read that the 3 valve version is more free-er flow, correct?).

I notice no response difference between the two plumbing systems. Again the key is this: How worn are the valves? To me "very low" is (I suppose) Eb down to C...2nd partial pitches that require tons of tubing.

bloke "who disqualifies the low B natural, as this pitch is unusably sharp on 3+1 compensating systems...and fortunately rarely written"

O.K. besides tonal quality, can you really detect worn valves by pulling the slides and listening for pops?

I won't play that low luckally...

Thanks

Wilco wrote:...I've found that my 186 can't handle crescendi very well. It edges out very quick (rattle).

While the Miraphone will have an edgier or brighter sound than many rotary tubas of similar size, I have this feeling that what you are describing is not a fault of the instrument. Tubas are different than trombones--they require large volumes of slow air rather than the fast air needed to get the characteristic trombone sound. I think you'll find that your sound won't be any better on any other tuba if you are bringing a trombone concept to the instrument.

It works both ways, of course. You don't want to hear my feeble attempts at getting a characteristic trombone sound.

One thing the Miraphone 186 is noted for, however, and that is being user friendly.

If there is a noticeable leak in any of the tubing connections, then wrap electrical tape around the joint until you can have it repaired. You really should stop all those leaks before even worrying about the valves.

The valves may or may not be leaking even if the rear cap no longer fits as tight as it should on one of them. The only way to know is to stuff something down the bell to seal it, and blow into the mouthpipe, listening for air leaks. That is much more reliable than pulling slides, which doesn't work at all if your valves are vented (and I have seen Miraphones that came from the factory with vented valves and those that didn't). An even better test to see if valve wear is affecting intonation is to oil the valves with heavy oil to see if that improves the intonation, but of course that test method has to be followed by a thorough cleaning. Rotary valves usually become quite the percussion section before wearing enough to leak noticeably, or so it seems in my experience.

Three-valve compensating Bessons tend to be stuffier on combinations using the third valve than four-valve compensators, and third-valve compensators tend to be flat, which is not a design flaw but rather an execution issue in my view. The compensation loops may be too long. The 2-3 combination is where I have experienced it. But they are nice-playing instruments when you have a good one. Note that they are all old, with attendant potential wear problems of their own.

Rick "who has never met a 186 that required a fight to get reasonable results" Denney

My 1971 Besson BBb 3-valve comp is great. EVERYTHING is in tune. Even the dreaded 123 needs only a little lipping and a little extra air. I sit next to two guys with matching Miraphones in the local university community band. Their tone may be a little "rounder," but my Besson has more projection and seems to blend better with the rest of the lower brass. It could be any number of factors, larger bore of the rotaries, 18" bell vs my 17" bell, etc.

Likewise, my horn is in general a tad sharp, not flat. I have to pull the main tuning slide @ 3/4 inch, the 1st slide @ 1/8 inch and the 3rd slide @ 3/16 inch. With the Wick 1 mouthpiece, it is as free in the low register as a comp gets. In the upper register, the deeper Wick 1 actually helps intonation better than the more Bach 18-ish Wick 2. Middle staff C, C#/Db, and D are right on. Upper staff Gb actually intonates really well with 1st valve, and likewise G - 2nd valve, although they're "supposed" to be flat (b7th harmonic). Not perfect, but good enough on the "dogfights" of marches. 3d valve alone is perfectly in tune, since it does not have to be pulled for 2-3 combinations to be in tune as do non-comps. Ironically, I have to use 1-2 more than 3 alone, even though slightly sharp, to match the rest of the section!

It will go to the extremes of dynamics really well. Any raspiness in the low register may be because of embouchure, and focus on keeping the right lip aperture keeps the tone in the tuba range, and completely away from the bass trombone range.

Now, for the mouthpiece. The Wick 1 is in my opinion the best mouthpiece for the horn, not the least because it is the horn it was designed for, but it takes more effort to keep focused. But when you do, you have a much greater range of expression available to you.

Sorry to hear the Miraphone has effectively seen the end of its days. The one I played in grad school was marvelous. But be just as careful if you want a Besson 3-valve comp, as they stopped being made, I believe, in the late 70's as 4-valves took over. So they are out there in all sorts of conditions, and, like with leaks, problems may not be visible or evident until after the fact. In my case, the valves are perfect, so I can deal with bugle dents later. I would recommend you not get one any older than the mid-60's, because that's when production of "high pitch" instruments ceased, and Besson took the opportunity to refine the horn to its full potential of the time.

No, you can't get anything below lowest E natural, but, frankly, unless you are in something orchestral with a lot of support, including from contra trombones and (gasp!) double bassoons, who wants to?!

Thanks for putting up with my rant. Good luck finding a replacement. I know it can be frustrating as it took the better part of a year to find my Besson.

iiipopes wrote:Thanks for putting up with my rant. Good luck finding a replacement. I know it can be frustrating as it took the better part of a year to find my Besson.

Thanks, I'll try the Wick 1 on it!

Rick Denney wrote:..I have this feeling that what you are describing is not a fault of the instrument. Tubas are different than trombones--they require large volumes of slow air rather than the fast air needed to get the characteristic trombone sound. I think you'll find that your sound won't be any better on any other tuba if you are bringing a trombone concept to the instrument.

You're right to some degree. I know my approach has to be different (F.E. legato playing). I was a lot better on the 3 tuba's I mentioned in the 1st post.

Ultimately you'll sound virtually the same on any instrument if you rule out the extremes, but some are so much easyer to handle....

If there is a noticeable leak in any of the tubing connections, then wrap electrical tape around the joint until you can have it repaired. You really should stop all those leaks before even worrying about the valves.

The valves may or may not be leaking even if the rear cap no longer fits as tight as it should on one of them. The only way to know is to stuff something down the bell to seal it, and blow into the mouthpipe, listening for air leaks. That is much more reliable than pulling slides, which doesn't work at all if your valves are vented (and I have seen Miraphones that came from the factory with vented valves and those that didn't). An even better test to see if valve wear is affecting intonation is to oil the valves with heavy oil to see if that improves the intonation, but of course that test method has to be followed by a thorough cleaning. Rotary valves usually become quite the percussion section before wearing enough to leak noticeably, or so it seems in my experience.

I did do some work on it and I've taped the leaky branches. I've put plastic discs at the back of the valves and this helped a lot. Furthermore putting Hetmans' bearing and linkage oil on the axes made a difference. I've now exhausted my options to improve it's playabillity. The valves are quiet btw. Only possible improvement is the replacement of the leadpipe.

Rick "who has never met a 186 that required a fight to get reasonable results" Denney

Anticipating a housecall

Wilco wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:..I have this feeling that what you are describing is not a fault of the instrument. Tubas are different than trombones--they require large volumes of slow air rather than the fast air needed to get the characteristic trombone sound. I think you'll find that your sound won't be any better on any other tuba if you are bringing a trombone concept to the instrument.

You're right to some degree. I know my approach has to be different (F.E. legato playing). I was a lot better on the 3 tuba's I mentioned in the 1st post.

Ultimately you'll sound virtually the same on any instrument if you rule out the extremes, but some are so much easyer to handle....

See Nirschl / Yorkbrunner comparison in a thread from last week, "Playing Low Loudly vs. Sounding Like a Bass Trombone". If you think different tubas can sound different, you're not alone.

I, too, played a Besson three valve all through the 70's and 80's. A 3/4 sized horn that was a joy to pack around to gigs when doubling on the bass 'bone. I kept it in a little Miraphone gig bag. I lived in L.A. then and had lots of work. Intonation was automatic, (i.e., I didn't even have to think about it. When I needed to correct, I heard it and pulled the slide without thinking.) Great little horn, the 2-20. Wish I hadn't let that one get away.

I've played on both. I find the besson in question to have rock solid intonation.... but to be very stuff in the lower register... even into the pedal.

I found the miraphone to be way more free blowing, much harder to keep in tune. Especially in the lower register. Plenty of lipping room. Works fine if you use alternate fingerings for G and D (1+2=just use 3, D in staff=1+2, G on top and above staff= 1+2)

I like the miraphone much more, much warmer and thicker sounding. Besson was thin, dark and harsh....

Booerns for besson

Of all my horns the one that absolutely slots the notes the best is the 1971 Besson New Standard that I bought used in 1981 and had completely rebuilt by Allied. It is a 3 valve comp and it really does have excellent intonation such as others have commented on.

Mine has a terrific high end, but it is stuffy in the low end and the low end is also difficult to achieve any volume. You do learn to cope with the stuffy low end but I still find it hard to get use to still when I switch from a free blowing horn like my Rudy.

Mine has almost a trombone sound to it at times and other times it sounds like a big euphonium. It blends very well with trombones/euphoniums and sounds best in a brass band. It definitely lacks that big broad american tuba sound.

Negatives:
The ergonomics in a word "SUCK"
- it weighs a ton
Built like a tank but the back side tubing is really vulnerable to dents.
Mouthpipe on the left side and if you play in a section with rotay or front piston horns with the opposite mouthpipe you have to be careful not to knock bells.
Low end stuffy

Positives:

My valves are extremely fast and reliable
intonation
Great middle and high end
Notes slot extremely well
Very nice sound but not everyone's cup or tea and not suitable for every group
Used good ones can be found for very reasonable prices and you don't pay the "miraphone premium" -- not a knock on Miraphone but the demand has caused the price premium. On the other hand if you go to resell it probably will be easier to sell a Miraphone and to recoup you're investment in the horn versus a Besson

For my use I have found the Dennis Wick 1 and the Schilke 67 work well in this horn. Smaller mouthpieces seem to make it way to Bright with no bottom in my experience.

Good Luck!

Two things to do to make a Besson more user-friendly:

1) Have a good tech reposition your lead pipe at both the height and angle that helps you get to the valves best.

2) A good tuba stand.

So I went to the shop today......

The Boosey had a nice engraving on the bell and it was reasonably dentfree. The open notes had the glorious sound Bloke mentioned, but the valves were a big disappointment..... The sound difference between open en fingered notes was huge. Really a shame because the open notes were very nice.

Since I was around I played:

A MW 18 'handy', brand new (it arrived today and was litteraly coming out of the box, I was the first one playing it). A very nice instrument. Good tone, handles very well.

A BIG rose brass Cerveny. Wow, huge.... Had a huge receiver as well (Euro-shank I guess). Sound was ok, playability: managable.

A Jupiter 582, very nice tuba. Good sound, though somewhat thin, and handled well. Some intonation issues.

Then I tried some mpc's with the 186 and went home with a Wick 2SL. Not a 'new' tuba, but 'an improvement' (had a c4).

Isn't the C4 pretty shallow? I'd think you'd get a better overall sound out of the Mfone with a more helleburg style cup. Just an observation. I have no idea what the Wick tuba mpcs look like, but my Wick alto mpc is pretty deep.

MA

A plain Denis Wick 2L would be deeper, vaguely conical and wider bored than the C4 - comparison with Conn 7B would be interesting, if anyone has both. I haven't seen the 2SL. Apparently it's shallower, but presumably still wider bored.

Nice shop.

Yes it's more conical than C4. I tried the Wick 1 too (they didn't have a 2), but is was to large. The rim profile different too on the 2sl, it's more round and has sharper bite. The bore is indeed larger.

Indeed a nice shop........

My impression of my Wick 2, which is the same as a 2L, just the difference between the smaller Besson receiver and the standard American receiver, is that the 2 is rather Bach 18-ish, with a rather rounded, moderately deep cup that provides a brighter tone compared to my Wick 1, which has about the same rim, but has the deeper Helleburg style funnel cup, though not quite as extreme, think a little bit of an inverted arch more than a straight funnel.

If anyone is in the market for a Wick 2, mine is for sale. PM me for details.