TubeNet

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:34 am**

Today in Symphonic Band I was bored out of my mind so I traded tuba with my bandmate and I started playing on the YBB-321. I was playing a Miraphone BB 186. The difference in sound was amazing. The Yamaha had this very deep, warm sound and straightforward that I like, and it projected very far compared to the Miraphone that had this bright sound that was fat and sat around like a keg. I think I liked the Yamaha better sound wise. The valves IMO were sh!t.

Anybody else have an opinion on this observation?

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:53 am**

Don't judge projection from the tuba chair, the 186 throws a lot of sound out there as well. You're correct, though, they are two very different tubas. The 321 is a big, big horn, and played well, will give you the commensurate sound. I played one of those in high school, and it gets a lot of work done in fine fashion. Too bad about the valves, because a 321 is a solid horn. The 186 is, too. Different strokes for different folks...

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:38 am**

Since the 186 is a front-action (rotary) horn and the 321 is a top-action (piston) horn... some of what you are hearing is the difference in bell angle. I've owned and played both and from my perspective, the Miraphone 186 projects MUCH better than the Yammie.

FYI... the bells on the Yamaha YBB-201, YBB-321, and the Miraphone 186 are nearly identical dimensionally.

The pistons on the Yamahas are, in my opinion, fit too closely for use as school horns. a piece of lint can cause problens. This, along with the crummy plastic piston guides, make the Yammies a real pain in the a** to maintain.

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:32 pm**

TubaTinker wrote:Since the 186 is a front-action (rotary) horn and the 321 is a top-action (piston) horn... some of what you are hearing is the difference in bell angle.

I think the Tinker may have hit on something...
Years ago (93!) when I bought a new Saturn something about their "top of the line" stereo bugged me. It seemed like the balance was always out on it. Turns out that the hearing in my left ear was noticeably different than the hearing in my right ear.
Perhaps that may contribute to the different perception. The hearing in many people's ears is not symmetrical. Could also be a room acoustics thing.

Marty "who hated almost everything about that Saturn by the second month and should have bought a 'Stang or SHO" Neilan

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:49 pm**

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:13 pm**

joshstanman wrote:The 321 was the horn that inspired me to purchase my own 186. Terrible, just utterly terrible. If it's one of the convertible models like mine was, the leadpipe wouldn't stay secured in its receiver. .

A convertible YBB-321 ?

That's a mighty big instrument to be carrying on one's shoulder! Are you sure you're not thinking of the 105?

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:39 pm**

Chuck(G) wrote:
A convertible YBB-321 ?

That's a mighty big instrument to be carrying on one's shoulder! Are you sure you're not thinking of the 105?

No, I have the Holtoha version of this. It really is a convertible 4/4 size 4 valve tuba!

The brass on mine is very thick. The valves work fine. I'm guessing its from the early eighties.

As to differences in tuba design US vs British, a while back we were talking about "Worcester"-era Conn tubas (1890's). It seems like these were some of the last US tubas made with the top bow very near the bell rim, like the Yamaha. Starting around 1900 or so, (or whenever they stopped saying "Mass" on the bell) Conn tubas begin to resemble modern American tubas. Is that because they did the extra loop of tubing? Were the Mass Conns a throwback to British design?

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:05 pm**

My yEb-321 (381) is a very decent Eb tuba.... The 5th valve extension, custom made by Lee Stofer provides a long whole step instead of long half step 5th valve, which allows for more standard fingerings in the low register. (A former owner added a long 5V lever extension so it can be played by the RH instead of LH -- also nice.)

I can't believe that a yBb-321 (in good condition) is a bad horn....

Cheers,

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:56 pm**

bloke wrote: If you're looking for a little more "whomp" out of a 186-style BBb, you should try an old B&S-made BBb Schneider

There's one of those excellent Schneider horns for sale at this very moment!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Great-4-Valve-Bbb-T ... dZViewItem

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:19 pm**

jacobg wrote:No, I have the Holtoha version of this. It really is a convertible 4/4 size 4 valve tuba!

The brass on mine is very thick. The valves work fine. I'm guessing its from the early eighties.

Crikey, that's just plain silly. What does that awkward excuse of a chirorpractor's dream have that a good sousaphone doesn't?

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:25 pm**

MartyNeilan wrote:
TubaTinker wrote:Since the 186 is a front-action (rotary) horn and the 321 is a top-action (piston) horn... some of what you are hearing is the difference in bell angle.
I think the Tinker may have hit on something...
Years ago (93!) when I bought a new Saturn something about their "top of the line" stereo bugged me. It seemed like the balance was always out on it. Turns out that the hearing in my left ear was noticeably different than the hearing in my right ear.
Perhaps that may contribute to the different perception. The hearing in many people's ears is not symmetrical. Could also be a room acoustics thing.

Marty "who hated almost everything about that Saturn by the second month and should have bought a 'Stang or SHO" Neilan

Sorry to hear you bought a '93 Saturn (so did I!) What a dissapointment. Saturn was making such a big deal how they were going to be different than any other car maker....wrong!!! Oh well live and learn.

As to the topic of this post. In my mind there is no comparison. I would take the Miraphone 186 any day over the Yamaha 321.

ken k

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:06 pm**

joshstanman wrote:Ahhhhh........

On second thought, the horn that I played was NOT a 321--it was a 201.

uhhhh.... isn't a YBB-201 a three piston horn... while the YBB-321 is the same horn 'cept it has four pistons? I'm confused

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:21 pm**

joshstanman wrote:
TubaTinker wrote:
joshstanman wrote:Ahhhhh........

On second thought, the horn that I played was NOT a 321--it was a 201.
uhhhh.... isn't a YBB-201 a three piston horn... while the YBB-321 is the same horn 'cept it has four pistons? I'm confused
So are they both convertible? I DID play a 201. It is a three piston (upright) tuba with changable leadpipes. Maybe I should look it up, instead of looking like an idiot.

http://www.wwbw.com/Yamaha-YBB201MWC-Co ... 8121.music
http://www.wwbw.com/Yamaha-YBB321-Bb-Tuba-i28122.music

Yeah.. I think they did make two versions of the YBB-201/321 horns. It IS pretty confusing. I've had several of the YBB-201's in the shop and even though they had removable valvesets, they weren't convertible horns. Both models have been around for a while and have been through some manufacturing changes. Not bad playing horns but I have a natural hatred of top-action horns.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:33 pm**

I've tried both a single 321 and a single 201. If they're anything like my experiences with them regularly, there are much better horns out there. The 201 was a REALLY dented school horn, so I doubt it is typical, but it played badly. The notes didn't slot, and were willing to wobble for as long as you (didn't) want. There was no correction that could get that tuba to change notes without a wobble. Best for oom-pah at the bottom of the band. The 321 was dirty, but it exhibited the same reluctance to change notes. It sounds like others have had better experiences with them.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:51 pm**

I had the pleasure to play both last week. The 321 reminded me of the Besson New Standard I used to own, and (partially) why I sold it. It playes nice with ok intonation, but I find the tone without any edge (I have though heard people play these tubas with much better tone than me).
The Miraphone on the other hand is one of my favorites. It have never let me down.

Bottom line, I had the opposite experince as you

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:21 pm**

TubaTinker wrote:... I think they did make two versions of the YBB-201/321 horns. It IS pretty confusing.

It's even more confusing than that ... the YBB-631 is the 3+1 comp version.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:24 pm**

The 321 was the horn that inspired me to purchase my own 186.

My situation exactly.

Just curious, was this a new YBB-321 or an old one you were comparing to the 186?

For three+ years in high school I played one that was purchased new by our school in 1985 (I played it from 1999-2002) and it was awful. I couldn't get anything below low BB-flat to speak clearly; the intonation was horrible; and the valves were very sticky. I don't think all these problems were due to the horn itself, but more to the people who had it before me. In 2002, a middle school in my district purchased a new YBB-321 (which no middle schooler could even hold upright), so they let me play it, and a few of the problems I had with the old one were solved. The low register still wasn't great, and the valves still sucked, but it was an alright horn, although I could never get it to play really loud.

Six months after playing the new 321 I got my new 186CC and it projected much, much better than the 321.

Posted: **Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:44 pm**

One of my playing partners has a silver plated YBB 321 that is in very good condition. (two others have the YEB 321's) I have read some of the replys on here, and it is suprising how many seem to fit what I have noticed or what he has stated about the horn. I have played it a few times, and I found it to play rather well, but not anywhere near as brite as my MW-25. (I have only played the Miraphone 186 a few times, but found it to be very close to my MW-25) I am sure that some of it is all getting used to a particular horn. I felt that the 321 was easier to play softly on but felt that the valve throws were very long and my friend has to keep his oiled constantly. He has complained that the thing is so thin, that it is very fragile. I can't really say for sure, but I try very hard to keep from dinging anything so who knows. It seems harder to really play loud accents on it and keep the sound from getting blatty. The other thing is the ergonomics of the horn take a lot of getting used to. He finally resorted to a DEG stand and is the only way he can play it. The lead pipe comes off at an uncomfortable angle so you can't hold the horn on squarely on your legs, it has to be at an angle which always wants to slip off of your legs.

Steve

TubeNet

Yamaha YBB-321

Yamaha YBB-321

YBB-321