TubeNet

What is the difference between the Miraphone 186 and 188? My friend wanted me to go ahead and post this, he is waiting for his account to be activated. Also how much is the Miraphone 186 worth to all of you? He is thinking about eventually selling it for a trade up to a bigger horn. It only has a couple minor scratches. He thinks its around 8 years old and he is the second owner.

According to these sites, the difference new is about $440.

http://www.wwbw.com/Miraphone-186-Serie ... 16401.wwbw" target="_blank

http://www.wwbw.com/Miraphone-188-5U-Se ... 13830.wwbw" target="_blank

I'd like to add a supplemental question. To those who have used both - in what situations would a 186 be preferable?

I play a 187 and what is either an old small bell 186 Bb or maybe a 185 fairly regularly on the same kind of music (mostly concert band and marches).

Advantages to the 187-
-USABLE 4th valve slide (and thus in tune 2+4 combos!)
-bigger sound, still eclipsed by the 191 and 1291
-slightly better intonation, they're both pretty good, though the smaller one seems to have more just slightly off pitches than the 187
-low range is about even (read- can be good, can be squirrely; never what I would consider really great though)
-slightly better D-B natural right below the staff



Really, they play pretty close except that the 186/5 is pretty beat up. I would never get both of them though. I think a 191 and probably a 184 would do a better job if you wanted big and small Miraphone Bb's, either separately or individually. If I found a 187 for really cheap and could try one with vented valves before that, I might consider it. As it is, I like some things about playing them but not enough to seriously consider either one. I am just horrible on rotary valves.
Fake C and B (played 12 and 23) are OK, but I can't get a lot of volume out of them. And with the horrible 4th valve slide on most Miraphone style Miraphone Bb's, I think it would be better off to get a 5th valve if possible.

I play both with my PT48, though I would really like to try something larger and shallower. Larger because I only play them for contrabass stuff in a large band, and shallower as I felt a bit tubby for a few months after I got the 48.

The difference used to be a lot more pronounced until they started putting the bigger bell on the 186 some years ago.

The bore in the valve section is the same between the two horns, but the 188 begins to taper in the main tuning slide and maintains a more pronounced taper all the way through the horn. Even though the sound of both horns is very direct the wider taper in the 188 makes it sound bigger/rounder, use your own adjectives. If you compare the bell throat in both horns you can easily see the difference and the result of the greater rate of taper.

Richard Murrow

thought 186 Bb vs 188 CC

I noticed two big differences:

1. The 188 is considerably less "barky" than the 186.
2. While the 186's low register is garbage, the low register of the 188 is amazing.

thought 186 Bb vs 188 CC

Kinda. The 186 IS available in BBb, but it is also in CC. The 188 is only available in CC, unless I am mistaken.

The 187 is generally the accepted BBb alternative to the 188CC.

Sheesh. I wish people would let those who know the answers do the answering (it's my turn to be the grumpy old man). The 186 is available in both Bb and C. The 188 is available in C, and the 187 is available in Bb.

As Richard says, the 188 is fatter. It makes a bigger, more orchestral sound, for people who wanted a little more heft back in the Miraphone Power Sound era. The 188 may have even better intonation than the 186, which is excellent. The 188 is what the orchestral players who played Miraphone usually preferred. The 186 was frequently the tuba used by gigging non-orchestral musicians.

A Miraphone of either type with a poor low register probably has a leak somewhere.

Rick "whose old 186 plays just fine down low" Denney

Did I hear somewhere that Roger Lewis actually recommends the 188 over the 186? (If that's not true, sorry!)

bort wrote:Did I hear somewhere that Roger Lewis actually recommends the 188 over the 186? (If that's not true, sorry!)

Roger Lewis is the reason I have my 188. And I've never second guessed my decision that day .

I have the same observations as Bloke...
The vintage BBb 186 I used to play could nail some FAT low Ebs
The 188 (CC) I use now can be funny down low. Not stuffy, but does need to be "steered carefully". Especially G-F.
One day I'll get a Thor...

Tubaguyry wrote:I noticed two big differences:

1. The 188 is considerably less "barky" than the 186.
2. While the 186's low register is garbage, the low register of the 188 is amazing.

Agreed! especially cloned 186's. A horn with no low range isn't a realtuba to many.

Hi-
If you have a 186 CC clone and the low range isn't good, check the rotor alignment. The clones have a very, very good low range!
Mark

Thank you for the compliments on getting a 188 CC tuba.

In MY opinion they are the perfect all -around tuba. I've used mine in an orchestra and prefer it in a brass quintet. I have a lot of horns to choose from but use my 188 for about 90% of my work simply because it has a sound that I enjoy hearing. It blends well in a section and doesn't over-power in a quintet. I used it extensively in my recital last September at Goshen College for both solo work and with the quintet.

It has a wider flare to the bell and bows, great intonation and is easy to play in every register. Plus it has a sound that is wonderful to listen to. The rotary valves are easy on the hands and it's comfortable to hold.

In my opinion, nothing sucks and I get a lot of compliments when I use it. Why switch? The 187 is the BBb equivalent if the 188CC tuba. Great horns.

Roger