TubeNet

Since the 187 BBb and 188 CC are beefier versions of the 186, do they play similarly or is one noticeably better than the other?

Well...BBb tubas are better. So the 187 is better than the 188.

No sir... 188 = 187 + 1

The 188 has much less of a tendency to get that horrible, heinous, fingernails-on-a-chalkboard sound that the 186 gets (especially at higher volume levels.) The 188 is what the 186 wants to be when it grows up: it plays similarly to the 186, but with a more round, mellow tuba sound. Also, the 188 is far, far more comfortable to hold because of the way the tubing is wrapped.

There are always tons of comments about the 188. It's one of the most popular and respected horns out there. The 187 gets almost no comments at all. The fact that there aren't a lot of comments could say it all, or say nothing. I was hoping for legit comments about the 187, but this IS TubeNet, after all.

GC wrote:There are always tons of comments about the 188. It's one of the most popular and respected horns out there. The 187 gets almost no comments at all. The fact that there aren't a lot of comments could say it all, or say nothing. I was hoping for legit comments about the 187, but this IS TubeNet, after all.

My understanding is that a 187 is "a 186 with a bigger bell". True? Not true?

Schlepporello wrote:Ok, I like my 187 but I can't compare it to a 188 because I don't play CC. I'm a BBb kinda guy. I'm happy withe the horn and plan on keeping it. How's that?

It's reasonable, and thank you.

The Big Ben wrote:My understanding is that a 187 is "a 186 with a bigger bell". True? Not true?

Is that all the 188 is? A CC186 with a bigger bell? The 188 is considered by many to be superior to the 186, but is bell size the only difference? If that's all it takes, why does the 187 seem to get little respect?

I've seen a fair number of 188's over the years and have tried a few. They're excellent instruments. I guess my issue is that there are so few 187's around. I've never seen or played one. I'm curious why it seems to get less respect and doesn't seem to sell well.

Pistons by design have a mechanically defined up and down motion and longer travel than a rotor. That combined with the clear tactile feedback at the top and bottom of the stroke *forces* better finger technique and more conscious coordination of your fingers.

Rotors, often with silicone bumpers and sloppy linkage, allow 'flat finger' technique and an 'air tuba' level of finger coordination.

For this reason, a 'typical' piston tuba is easier to 'play clean' than a typical rotary horn of similar quality.

When rotors are well adjusted that difference diminishes.

I noodled around on a 187 recently for the first time ever. Very, very nice tuba. Did everything I asked it to do.

I have no idea how they sound out front, but my assumption is that the 187 projects pretty nicely, just like the 188.

Anyhow, this example was 10 out of 10 with regards to pitch and playability.

One thing to note about the 187 is that the flare begins 'way earlier, in the main tuning slide. You cannot reverse the main slide as there are two different sizes of pipe on it.

Roger