TubeNet

If you only had one tuba, and play mostly quintet, which do you like best. I am looking at two older (70's and 80's) tubas of these models. Both about the same price and condition. Which do you veteran players like best?

I haven't played the MW20, but I have tooted on its BBb kin, 25. I have used my 186 to good effect in the few times I've done quintet gigging. The 25 would have been less than optimally responsive. The 20 may blow differently, but probably not that differently.

The 20 is actually a different beast from the 25. It plays better in tune and is far less stuffy.

The Meinl 20 and 25 share the same rotor section... with some minor differences in the way the tuning circuits are routed. The basic difference between the two horns is the 25 has a larger bottom bow and bell.

Now that that's out of the way.... choose the Mirafone 186 .... hands down... over either of the Meinls. I've had several of each and in my humble opinion the 186 is by far the better horn.

Another vote for the 186

Is "blaring" the same as "barking?" I have heard it said that the 186 low range in easy to get to but a little "barky." I had a Mira for a little while and found that to be true. Difficult to play the low range in a soft, warm, manner, but the notes popped right out. Would the MW 20 be 'mellower' overall, but not as direct and slotted? I also found the Miraphone to have a couple intonation issues, most trouble were both B nats, on and below the staff, and the 2nd space C. The horn I had was very beat, though, and may have been a 184. I should have measured the bell. Do the designation numbers for Miraphone mean bell diameter - ie the 184 has a 14" bell, the 186 a 16" bell? Lots of stupid questions but it IS confusing with no model numbers on the horns.

vintage7512 wrote:... Do the designation numbers for Miraphone mean bell diameter - ie the 184 has a 14" bell, the 186 a 16" bell? Lots of stupid questions but it IS confusing with no model numbers on the horns.

It's not likely the Germans intended for the model numbers to be a reflection of the bell size. My guess is that it's just an easy-to-remember coincidence... seeings all of the other characteristics are spelled out in metrics.

Actually.... the even-inch bells sizes are just for basic identification and comparison. The REAL bell sizes are slightly larger.

I agree, having sat next to a newer 186 with the 17 3/4 inch bell that looks like the tuba version of a Bach 37 bell, and a guy with the older 16 1/2 inch stovepipe bell, that the newer versions can sound a little too vanilla for anything but in a section of more than one player in a concert band.

It is also my observation, from direct comparison and measurement, that the newer 186's, in addition to the larger bell, have slightly larger bottom bows and initial diameter at the receiver leadpipes, as well as slightly larger diameter tubing in the main tuning slide.

As far as any relation to metric, I don't see any, especially on the older models. For example, the "classic" bore for the 186/7/8 BBb or CC has always seemed to be .770, and it does measure at least that on mine. the corresponding metric, which is used by "everyone" else, would be only .768, or 19.5 mm, so it is my wild-*** speculation out from nowhere that when the guys finally got back on their feet after being dislocated out of Graslitz and ended up in Waldkraiburg after WWII and setting up a shop from scratch, they engineered the first editions of their tubas to a standard, as there would have not been any ready-made tubing or other supplies than sheet brass available in (then) West Germany right after WWII, and once the tooling produced a viable instrument, they kept it.

Someone please provide details, if they can be provided.

I have a late seventies model miraphone 186, and it is definitly a very good tuba if you need one that is appropriate in different elsemble settings. Currently an undergrad education major, I use the 186 in solo and quintet settings to large brass and orchestral performance. The extreme low register can be a little "barky or blatty", but I only experience this problem in louder dynamics. It speaks very well during soft passages. The lead pipe isn't to small on the one i own. I currently use a common helleberg, and the shank fits about 2/3's of the way in. I have heard of people exchanging these with the new nickel plated lead pipes that start a little larger on the front end. The 186's from the 70's and early 80's tend to be very consistent. But from my experience and understanding the MW 20's tend to be hit and miss. Some of the 20's have strange intonation problems, but the one's that are good are VERY GOOD. If at all possible, I'd take a trial one with each. It all boils down to which "flavor" you prefer as a musician.

I own an 80's186 and Ive played both and if I had the chance to buy a MW I still would have gone with my 186 it just is a great all around horn that you can use for anything