TubeNet

I've had this question for awhile:

What is the functional difference between a Mira 186 BBb and a MW 25 BBb? They are approximately the same size horn and they are very similar in design and construction. But, when discussion of a "good, journeyman 4/4 German style BBb" comes along, the MW 25 is infrequently mentioned. Is there a reason other than there seems to be so many more Mira 186 BBb horns out there in the marketplace?

The 186 feels more slotted and open than the 25. The difference is small, but it's something. I actually feel that the slide layout on the 25 is better.

The MW is a good deal heavier. That is about all I noticed sitting alongside one for many years.

A better comparison might be the Meinl 20 and the Miraphone 186.

In my opinion... the Meinl 25 was just a feeble attempt at the 'bigger is better' mentality of the 60's and 70's. The valve sections and everything else up to the bottom bow are identical. The Meinl 25 has a slightly larger bottom bow with a slightly quicker taper and a bell that has a flare about an inch larger in diameter.

All that being said... from my perspective of both a repairman and a tuba player... the Miraphone 186 is superior to both all the way around.

The MW 20, no longer produced, is closer to the 186. The bell stack on the 25 is wider, and the tone is darker. The 25 is built like a tank and is pretty durable. It has excellent valves.

Some complaints about the 25 include stuffiness and overly narrow slots. I owned one in the '70's, and it was very inflexible, though the overall pitch was quite good. I've often regretted selling it, even though I was never quite satisfied with it. I've never played a more current version.

My son has owned and played a MW 25 at home for two years, and now plays on a 186 at school. He agrees with most of what was said above. The 186 feels more open, the 25 more stuffy (which is funny, since the 25 is slightly larger everywhere). The 186 seems to have tighter slots. Both have a similarly flat 5th partial (the D in the middle of the staff). Both are easy to get to the pedal tones, but with just four valves, everything down there is an intonation struggle. On the 25, the slides are much easier to get to. Physically, the 25 is a bit bigger, and considerable heavier.

His 25 is mechanically in good shape, with good lacquer, but the bell is ugly (must have really badly crunched a decade ago, and rolled out). We religiously maintain it, and oil the valves. The 186 at school is old and beat up, and the valves are hard to use. This does obviously not apply in general. Whether the 25 is generally more sturdy (thicker brass), we can't tell.