TubeNet

Or does anyone else not really care for the famed Miraphone 186? These horns get brought up in every single "which horn should I get" discussion that takes place, and it is almost universally agreed that they are a great all-around tuba that one can keep playing for years and years. I have tried them on a number of occasions, and find them to be "eh." They aren't bad horns, but the sound just isn't what I'm looking for, and never has been.

However, I will say, on a recent trip to Dillon's I played a number of Miraphone tubas (including the Firebird F and StarLight Eb--big wow for both). The 186 didn't do anything for me (again), but I also tried a 188 for the first time...and it definitely had what I always felt the 186 was missing. I would personally recommend it over a 186 any day of the week....so why does the 186 enjoy such a spectacular reputation??

It's not just you...I had to learn C fingerings in undergrad on a 186...I loathed that horn. Tiny sound, terrible intonation. Might have just been that one, I suppose.

Whatever floats your boat. I've played a 186 BBb for a number of years and put it aside for a St. Petersburg 202. I also play a variety of other horns... some with custom modifications.... including a B & M built Marzan BBb piston horn. Being a repairman, I've had my hands on some of the most talked about horns on the block. I've done play conditioning on hundreds of horns. The Mirafone 186 BBb still remains (to me) to be the most consistant tuba that's within the reach of most players. Are there better horns? Sure... if you're ready to spend the bucks.

Bob1062 wrote:


TMurphy is to 186 is to 188
as
I am to 186 is to 191.

Maybe that doesn't actually make sense.

The Miraphone 186 is a good horn that you can't go wrong with.
The 191 has such a sweet sound though; I play on one now, and it's FUN to play in larger ensembles.
They're both worth owning.

Admittedly I haven't played a 186 in years, and nothing new since the late 90s or so.

But, the only 186s I really, really liked were CCs from the late 60s-early 70s. They were better made, thicker metal, the garland didn't get screwed up by a flea landing on it, and they just plain had great, tight, full, beautiful sounds. BBbs from that era were, IMO, good, but not nearly as special as the CCs. Newer ones (late 70s-early 90s) left me totally unimpressed.

A 186 is a good value-for-money middle of the road 4/4 workhorse. Look at it this way (setting aside the fact I own one): if I were in a position I had to play a gig cold with a new horn, and there were several to choose from, and the requirement was get the gig done, period, I'd choose the 186 because it has overall good intonation, a moderate tone and it has consistency of manufacture, so that even though each will have its quirks, knowing the generalities will help you deal with any particular specimen quicker, and get the job done.

No, a 186 is not for every player nor every gig. And I don't even use mine on all gigs. But it gets the closest to being an all-round tuba that will excel for some and "make do if have to" for almost everybody in a pinch, especially the CC version. (Mine is a BBb, and if I could go back, I'd try to get the CC I played in grad school.)

I was actually looking for something different when I happened across mine for the budget constraints I was under at the time. But with a few tweaks to the paddles and leadpipe/receiver angle to fit my personal ergonomics, and a mouthpiece recommendation from Matt @ Dillons taking into account how and what I play, it has worked out very well for me.

It's kind of like the Toyota Corolla of tubas. A lot of people won't like its lack of glamour, flash, horsepower and performance, and the driving position won't be the most comfortable for all. But it will get you there with reliability, efficiency, predictability and durability. That's why the moniker "186" shows up everywhere on this forum. It's a known quantity that everybody can or should relate to as a standard point of departure when tuba shopping.

Regarding the thin tone of some of the posters: some of the older ones shipped with the shallow C4 as opposed the the deeper but slightly smaller i.d. C3 or the Rose Orchestral. That could have a lot to do with it. Also, the older 16 1/2 inch bell is a long-throw bell. It sounds better about 30 feet away instead of close up, like the newer 17 3/4 inch bell does, which doesn't carry as far with lesser "core."

Frankly, I didn't like either bell myself, and am glad I have a detachable bell version that has had a St Pete bell retrofit. It has a wider throat than the old 16 1/2 inch bell, but no wider flare, so it has more the tuba version of a flugel bell and therefore a similar tone, looking east towards Alex territory.

I have mine with its retrofit bell, another guy in community band has an old 16 1/2 inch bell with S linkage, and another guy has a newer one with the 17 3/4 inch bell and the older version of ball linkage. The older one has the signature character, and I can see why some people think the tone of the ones with the newer bell can be non-descript. The other two guys play with the Rose Orchestra mouthpiece, and I have the Curry 128D, which is similar in geometry, so genuine comparisons of the tone of these variants are very telling.

I agree with iiipopes. Especially the comment about the sound at a distance. Things rarely sound proper right on top of them, you must hear it at various distances to judge (which is hard when you need to have your lips touching it to make a noise).

I have an older BBb 186 (late 60's) with the smaller bell, it still penetrates and fills so much better than the Jupiter student horn I was using previously that it doesn't matter. An I'm playing for my enjoyment, not as a job, and not as an 'artiste'. Now I just need it back from the shop....*sigh*

I have a 186 CC, and I've played on the BBb 186. I like it myself, the BBb ones I played on were really beat up, they belonged to a local college. For a dinged up horn they sounded pretty good. Now my CC horn. I play it in my Symphonic band, and I get a great sound on it. I believe it is a great horn, and not to pricy. I payed $6175 for mine, and get a great sound on it, (I use a TU-21 mouthpiece on it).

It is just you, but then again it isn't just you. You have the right to prefer and buy what you like. But don't fall for the hype.

Try looking at it like a car. The Miraphone CC 186 tuba ( and a few other similar tubas) suffers from the same thing as the Toyota Camry. If you only pay attention to what you read in Car and Driver or other such Automobile magazines, then it seems like nobody drives a Toyota Camry. Why is such a top selling car seldom written about? Because mid-size economical sedans are not sexy. Yet, they offer the most verstility, bang for the buck, and compromise of performance and economy for a vast majority of people. And let me give you a Readers Digest version of about every Car magazine write-up of a new car. "We ordered it with every option we could get. The lofty price tag didn't seem too high to us. Still, if only the Speeder Squeel 2000 had an extra hundred horse power, had better fit and finish, looked sexier, and had better tires, it would be a real winner." Wonder what their persepctive would be if they had to pay for the car out of their own pocket if they only earned a working class wage?

That is the world of 4/4 size CC tubas and more so BBb tubas. Tuba Geeks like to talk and brag about the sporty F and Eb tubas, or the big 6/4 CC and BBb tubas, but it is the 4/4 size all around tuba that does it for the majority of us that can only afford to buy one so there is money left over to pay the mortage and taxes. It might be fun shooting a Howitzer and in a war it's what you want on your side, but it makes for a lousy duck hunting gun. There are hundreds of guys out there making money and having fun playing their 4/4 size tuba.

If you are looking for a first CC tuba and need an all around horn at a modest price, don't discount the Miraphone CC186 without playing it first.

Perhaps I should clear things up a bit. This isn't about the 186 not being the "sexiest" or most interesting tuba out there--any older model is bound to be less talked about, because it's been around for a while. I also wasn't saying that 4/4 CC or BBb tubas aren't interesting or worth talking about. But, to ME, given the choices out there, even among the 4/4 CC or BBb tubas, the 186 has never stood out. I would (and at one point in my life, did) choose a King 2341 BBb over it. I would also prefer a Conn 5XJ horn if I were looking for a CC, both of which are in the same ballpark new as a 186. I was just wondering what it was about the 186 that has made it such a standard, and I believe (thanks to this thread) I have come to understand that--consistency. Certainly there is something to be said for that.

Also, since you responded to my post Matt, I just wanted to take the chance to thank you again for the wonderful job you did taking care of my Besson a few weeks ago. Always a pleasure!

I played a BBb 186 in college in the early 70s and was not very impressed with it. I thought it sounded very thin and tinny compared to the Holton I had played in high school. The summer between my freshman and sophomore year I bought a new King 1241 with the tuned 22" upright bell. No comparison. I've been a King fan ever since.

while I stand by my earlier comments , I will agree to the sentiment, that if I had to play a gig on a borrowed horn, cold, a 186 would be the ideal thing.

Consistency is one of the hallmarks of the 186.