TubeNet

I've not really given this much thought since I've never owned a 188. However... I'm curious... with the bore and bell being the same size on these horns (according to the Miraphone website), what's the primary difference?

Woodwind/Brasswind calls the 188 'A 186 on steroids'. I don't get it.

The bell throat is larger and the main branches have a larger taper.

This Website has the best side-by-side comparison photos of the full Miraphone CC lineup, but it's not too helpful for this discussion.

http://www.daveamason.com/mirafone/cctubas.html" target="_blank" target="_blank





Every time I see the two side-by-side in person though, it's easy to tell which is which. The 188 body is the same height as the body of the 186, but the 188 is wider. Especially on the non-bell end of the bottom bow, it's wider.

This post has some nice pictures of a 188 (which was an excellent deal, as well!):

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39230" target="_blank" target="_blank

Interesting, Wade... I had forgotten that the older 186's had smaller bells, you're right about that.

A few years ago when I got my 188 from Dillon's, I had the opportunity to do side by side play-tests of my 188 with other tubas, including a new gold brass 188 and a new gold brass 4-valve 186.

The new GB 186 was an awesome tuba, but looked, felt, and played like a smaller tuba than the 186. It actually almost felt like a toy, compared to all of the larger tubas. While the stats might be pretty similar, but it was a much different tuba than the 188.

That said, this GB 186 was an AWESOME tuba. Incredibly easy to play, sweet sound, and although "smaller," it was still plenty of tuba for just about anything. I wonder where that one ended up?

I feel that although similar horns, the 186 has a more "band" friendly tone, while the 188 is an orchestra horn.

Dan - are you comparing the modern 186 CC with the 188 or also including the BBb?

Although not perhaps the right comparison, my department has a couple of decent 1960s era BBb 186s (now in fairly good condition after I dusted them off and had them cleaned and tuned up). Even though they have longer tubes than my 188, they definitely feel smaller, have noticeably more resistance, and are harder (for me) to keep the tone beautiful when I try to get a really big sound. And, of course, they only have 4 valves. They are good tubas.

I wonder how different they would feel and/or sound with the modern, larger bells?

the elephant wrote:

bloke wrote:One would have to bend a mouthpipe themselves to fit a either model's mouthpipe on the other model. The bend is different and they will not lay down on each other's tuba bodies...

venting of 1 and 4.

I understand venting 1, but what purpose would the venting of 4 be on this horn? Is this something you would recommend for all 4 valve rotary tubas or just the 186?

Common practice on a 4v 186 is to yank on 4 to tune 42, 432, 431 and 4321 (pull 4 & 1 for this baby) combinations, varying length of pulls of course. I would assume identical maniputaions for a 188.

bloke wrote:.....Dan: Everything past the main tuning slide (ie. entire "bugle") is larger on the model 188. You know as well as I do that - just because two bells both end up with 17.75 diameter bell flairs - doesn't mean that those two bells are going to have the same interior area.

All of that having been said, by today's standards (both in actual size and in the way that they play) I would not label the 188 as a '5/4'.

So... why are folks 'ga-ga' over the 188? Isn't it true that it's just another model of tuba with slightly different characteristics. .... Sort of like the Meinl 20 to Meinl 25 comparison.

Dan, the other two tubas in my concert band are: 186 4V BBb & 188 5V CC so I see & hear
both side by side every week. My impressions are that while very similar in sound, I feel that
the 188 has just a slightly darker sound than the 186 & is also slightly larger as Joe has stated,
but definitely NOT a 5/4 by my standards. The 188 seems to have a larger throat & bell flare
too. A rock solid 4/4 5V CC tuba in my mind..........nothing more, nothing less

TubaTinker wrote:So... why are folks 'ga-ga' over the 188? Isn't it true that it's just another model of tuba with slightly different characteristics. .... Sort of like the Meinl 20 to Meinl 25 comparison.

I think the 188 is one of the few tubas that people are generally agreeable with. I never really noticed the "ga-ga" impression of it, apart from it being hard to be *too* critical about the "bad" characteristics of the tuba. It's balanced and it just works, and if you don't like it, it's because you don't like the style of instrument, not because it's a poorly designed instrument.

While I don't think it is the #1 best tuba in every single possible way, I do think it's probably in my top 3 for every single thing. Too many other tubas out there are like pretty girls that aren't smart and have no sense of humor.

As for gold brass vs. yellow brass, I think that's a separate topic, and you know where I am on that.

I'm still unclear on the gold brass/yellow brass thing. I might have posted this here before, but here goes again. In the early 80's, I bought a 188. At the time, when they were a fairly new model, they came in regular lacquered brass, or in red brass with nickel silver trim and that one was called the Anniversary Model. It was also more expensive. I bought the lacquered model, but I had an issue with F just below the staff ringing after I stopped playing it. It bothered me. I called in Miraphone in LA to inquire about getting another 188. Miraphone told me that there were no other lacquered 188's available at the time, but they had an Anniversary Model that I could have for the same price because of my inconvenience. They also gave me the phone numbers of several prominent tubists who were using a 188. They told me to call them and ask them if they experience the same thing I complained about and bill the phone call to Mirpahone. I had a lot of fun doing this. None of the guys I called had experienced the resonating F, but one, although he never experienced it on a 188, told me I wouldn't be happy with it and to send it back. When I mentioned the Ann. Model option from Miraphone he recommended not to get it as it is a dull sounding instrument ( non present upper frequencies) and not dark as Miraphone advertised. I thought about it for a few days and decided to order it anyway. As soon as I received and played it, I realized what the pro tubist had told me and I really didn't like the sound at all. I kept it for a few months and then sold it. I haven't played any Ann. Models since, but I've played a few lacquered examples, and I noticed the resonant F on them too, maybe in different degrees, but I felt it. It's not something that the listener hears, but only that it resonates in your hands and on your lap on that one note.

So, my original question would be, is the Anniversary Model what many of you refer to as gold brass? If not, what's the difference between gold and yellow brass? Also (while I'm at it), have any of you 188 players experienced the ringing f?

Sorry if I steered the topic off course. Back to 186 vs. 188.

Warning -- I own an Anniversary Model, so my opinions are biased.

The main difference between the Anniversary Model and the current gold brass model is that the AM valve block (mouthpipe through main tuning slide) is ALL nickel silver, as opposed to having the slide tubes being either yellow or gold brass. I'm not sure how or if it affects anything, but it looks cool, and will last forever.

I've never noticed any problems with the low F on mine, but I'll pay attention to it when I play later. I tried my 188 side-by-side with several other 188's (GB and YB). For me, the YB was brighter and had better projection than the GB, but the sound was less interesting. The GB had a darker and prettier sound. I wouldn't necessarily say that it was dull or heavy, but it is slightly less bright than that YB.

However, I will say that the choice of mouthpiece DOES seem to make a difference with this tuba. The other day, I pulled out my old Bach 18 -- the tone was woofy and dull, and I couldn't believe how different it sounded. Everything else I tried was much better -- the TU-31 and TU-27 worked well, and the Bloke Symphony worked very well.

In short, there are lots of factors to what makes a tuba good or bad for certain people. I have an AM 188, and it works great for me, and I like it more than any other 188 of any style I've tried before.

I wonder how many Anniversary Model 188's were made and are still around. I currently know of 3 of them:
-- mine (formerly owned by one of the USAF bands)
-- Norm Epley recently bought on the board here and re-sold it
-- a pro in northeastern Switzerland

Any others out there?