TubeNet

Hi I was wondering why are the Mirafone vintage 186 tubas so good? What seperates them from the new miraphone and other 4/4 tubas.

Smaller bell on the old one. Maybe a more resonant alloy used in construction on the old ones too. People just seem to like the "f" over the "ph" on the 186's.

Can't tell much difference myself.

Overall are these tubas that can do everything from soloing to supporting a medium large orchestra without getting blatty?

Correct, but every tuba can get blatty

TUbajohn20J wrote:Correct, but every tuba can get blatty

Thank you. I am looking to downsize from a 5/4 to a 4/4 and I heard these are a beast of a 4/4 tuba.

The newer 186's also have a larger diameter leadpipe, larger diameter main tuning slide, and at least a larger bottom bow to go with the newer 17 3/4 inch bell, which to me sounds more "vanilla" than the older 16 1/2 inch stovepipe. But the newer bell can blend with a wider variety of ensembles, even if some of the signature tone is changed.

I have ALWAYS loved Mirafones. It is kind of a shame that that Mirafone sound has fallen out of fashion. I grew up listening to Bobo, Tommy Johnson, Toby Hanks, and Ron Bishop. Randy Anglin and Chester Schmitz (who played Alexanders) have a similar sound, but a tad LARGER. The clear, crisp, focused 186 sound still rings true in my ear. I would be curious to play a Mirafone that was a true CSO York copy, or even a copy of the Holton York copies. I think the Bruckner, is a great 'in-between' for the current crop of BAT's and the 186. I STILL have a 184 for an additional color on my palette.

tclements wrote:I would be curious to play a Mirafone that was a true CSO York copy, or even a copy of the Holton York copies.

You may know, Miraphone has a large piston valve CC tuba in the works, probably on hold right now. I don't refer to it as a BAT and it certainly isn't a copy of the CSO York. The company's goal was not to build an American sounding 6/4 but a 6/4 that sounded like a Miraphone. The prototype on display was quite good.

+1 on the older Mirafones here. 184 and 185 in the stable. Now to find an original C3...

Uh, JT, I have 2 or 3 of those around here!

I've got a great 186 I'm using now and have come back to it over the years. I've always described the 186 as the Cadillac of tubas, not the cheapest, not the most expensive, not the biggest, not the smallest, i.e. it doesn't really do one thing better than any other tuba, but it does all things pretty damned well. It's the kind of horn that if you only can have one horn, its a great choice. The quality is very good, and most of these are very good players with few exceptions. These also seem to be one of the easiest horns to play, I've yet to meet someone whose played a 186 and really had to work at it.

I've always wondered if they would make a piston version, that would be the only thing I might change.

Early Miraphones (in the days when they were "Mirafones" in the U.S. market) had a direct, punchy sound with mountains of core and clarity. They sounded like horns, not like string basses.

I was sitting around this weekend having fun with my wife, who is learning guitar. I decided to lay out some melody to the old rock tune she was strumming through, and picked up my Holton. Nope--it just didn't have the punch for rock-n-roll--it was too big and too round. I grabbed the 186 and there it was. The sound took me back.

Newer Miraphones are homogenized by comparison.

Rick "who probably should have risked missing a house payment to get that mid-60's 186 at the Army conference" Denney