TubeNet

I loved the (brand-new) school 186 I played on for a year. It was fabulous. The sound was great (so long as I was doing my part) and it was a breeze to play. The valves were always quick and the slides are easily accessible. I used it for band, orchestra, quintet and a few solos and it was great in every role.

I think many will agree with me when I say that it's hard to go wrong with a 186. It's just a great horn.

I have the opposite opinion- I do not like 186's much at all. I think the VMI 2103 is a much better choice if you want a tall 4/4 rotary Bb.

Intonation is good for a tuba, but it is still a TUBA. Some common alternate fingerings I would suggest:
D in the staff - 12
Db / C# in the staff - 23
C in the staff - push 1st slide all the way in. Can also use just 4, but response is different
D below the staff - 3 instead of 12
B below the staff - pull 4th slide or lip down (unless you have a rare 5 valve BBb)

A 186 can get very edgy when pushed - think of playing loudly as "moving air as wind" instead of just "blowing hard."

MartyNeilan wrote:B below the staff - pull 4th slide or lip down (unless you have a rare 5 valve BBb)

The problem is that most (all?) 186's have a very short 4th slide that's tightly tucked into the body of the horn. It'd do just as well to get the valves vented and play it as a 3 valver most of the time (pulling 1 for 123 combos). For me, it's another good reason to not get a 186.

It is the BBb variant of the 186 which has the short 4th slide tucked in.

There have been many subtle changes to the 186 over the years: bell flare, bugle profile, bow diameter and expansion, leadpipe initial and terminal diameters and tapers, diameter and spread of the main tuning slide, garland or no garland, nickel or copper outer slide tubes, linkages, even the basic rotor block used to be advertised as .770, and now I believe is advertised as .772.

The blow of a 186 is dependent on the geometry of the lead pipe. I find the newer ones with a slightly larger initial diameter at the receiver, which lend them to a different nodal behavior, a little bit more "freeblowing" than the older ones like mine. Depending on whether you like to put a lot of air through a horn, or need help managing the breath support, like I do, will dictate which variant you would prefer.

The bugle will dictate some of the intonation. Traditionally, the 186 has flat 5th partials, which seems to have been addressed somewhat on the newest horns. However, my retrofit St Pete bell is too short, which necessitated lengthening of the main tuning slide, which has changed its intonation characteristics. On my personal instrument, 2nd space C is fine, mid line Db 2nd valve is lippable, and only midline D needs the alternate 1+2 fingering. But this is at a cost of the throat being effectively larger in proportion to the bugle, and a redistribution of the cylindrical verses conical tubing, so the octaves outside the "cash register" are slightly compressed, like on a flugelhorn. This is manageable by mouthpiece selection and slight lipping at the extremes in register, and moderation is the key.

The two best mouthpieces I have found that work for a 186 are a Curry D cup in your choice of diameter, as recommended to me by Matt Walters at Dillon Music, if you need help with breath control; or a blokepiece symphony if big tone is what you're after, as has been discussed on the threads here on TubeNet. A Kelly 18 with golfer's lead tape around the throat works well outdoors, especially in extreme temperatures, either Independence Day or Christmas. Others can work well; I use a custom Kanstul 18 in my preferred cup diameter and rim profile for the recording bell to get more of an "American" (easy, TNFJ) tone out of the horn when I use that bell, as that is the market the bell was designed for. I have also used a PT34 for high range or solo playing, and a Wick 1 gives an immensely broad tone, but at the slight loss of definition of intonation and articulation in the lowest register and with its really deep funnel and wider throat a lot, and I mean a lot of breath support. But these are all degrees of subtlety. The horn is fairly mouthpiece tolerant, so your favorite piece will probably work. A LOUD LM7 with its proprietary throat will tighten the slotting up so tight you will constantly ride throttle on the valve slides, but if you want the ultimate in immediate response and projection, and are already riding slides anyway to match a wire choir, then go for it.

Tonally, the 186 is the most sensitive to change in bell. The traditional 16 1/2 inch "stovepipe" is German point-and-shoot in all its glory. My St Pete bell, with its slightly wider throat in relation to a smaller rim flare, broadens and darkens the tone, giving "core," looking east towards Alex. The recording bell, having a similar flare to the classic American recording bell tubas, makes the tuba sound like one. The new 17 3/4 inch bell is a tad too "vanilla" for me, but very versatile, and helps the horn blend in a variety of ensembles, including especially concert bands in all of their various configurations and sizes. And Dan Schultz even uses Chinese bells and Yammy 201 bells to get more tonal variants, so you can puruse his website for more info, and tailor the exact tone you want out of the instrument accordingly.

I'm not so sure that the BBb version needs a 5th valve, because you can play low Eb three ways: false pedal open, 1(shove)24, or 1(pull)4, depending on the circumstances, and the rest of the notes down from there accordingly.

Yes, especially the older variants with a smaller bottom bow, a 186 can "bark" if you try to push it too hard in the lowest register. But mostly that is from people who try to play a 186 like a 5/4 or 6/4 tuba, or use a mouthpiece with a too large throat or too shallow cup, and try to push it the wrong way. It's made to play in section with other tubas, not necessarily as a lone tuba in an orchestra, although it will function well in that capacity in a smaller orchestra, especially if the bell is traded out for something like Dan's Chinese bells to get a little more breadth than the point-and-shoot stovepipe, with care in the selection of a mouthpiece.

If you're careful about setting slides, very little slide manipulation is needed overall, and much can be played without any manipulation at all, or with only a moderate amount "riding throttle" on 1.

After you get it and live with it for awhile, do take it to a good tech so you can have the receiver adjusted, if necessary, to your torso height and embouchure, and the paddles configured to your fingers and wrist. I did, and it made all the difference in the world. Instead of constantly fidgeting, I simply play, "wearing" the tuba like a Saville Row tailored suit.

I will not state categorically that I will never purchase another tuba, because one never knows what a situation will be down the road, whether economic, or the type of gig to be played, but it would have to take a very special tuba to replace my detachable bell variant with both bells, and a selection of carefully chosen mouthpieces to complement my embouchure (I prefer a 1.28 cup diameter) and the different bells for different gigs. About the only gig I now do not use my 186 on, with three instruments in the stable and access to borrow others, from a Conn 2J to King souzys to a stable at the local university that has a MW25, YCB641, Rudy 18 inch bell, among others, etc., is when I have to single-handedly support a larger concert band outdoors, and for that I do use the 38K; and I've used a Conn 2J in a jazz quintet when improvising bass lines off leadsheets or fakebooks, as with my trumpet and bass guitar experience I tend to think of "open C" instead of "open Bb" as my reference for those types of gigs. Because of that, I'm seriously considering getting one of the new Chinese copies of a CC186 to play those gigs, so I have a tuba with similar characteristics to my BBb186. But I've used the 186 for everything else, from classical quintet to small bands to large community bands; save only orchestral gigs which I have not played.

I agree very much with iipopes. I have an 'older' 16.5" stovepipe version (serial # gives it a date of '68 or '69).

I find that if I play within myself (not trying to blow out an ensemble and audience), the intonation is very good. I do very very little slide fiddling once the whole horn is warm. And control of the bark-y-ness in the low register doesn't mean eliminating it. Sometimes that's what you want.

For Mouth pieces i've been using either a Bach 22 or a blokepiece #1.

I used to play a CC 186 from the mid-70s exclusively. A well-known, major symphony orchestra conductor once told me that the sound that came out of the bell and "settled over the orchestra" provided one of the best fundamentals he had ever heard. I was quite pleased when I heard that.

I first used a Miraphone "Rose" (?) mouthpiece, then switched to a Schilke-Helleberg, then landed on a PT-88. The PT-88/186/me combination was fantastic.

Steven

SRanney wrote:I used to play a CC 186 from the mid-70s exclusively. A well-known, major symphony orchestra conductor once told me that the sound that came out of the bell and "settled over the orchestra" provided one of the best fundamentals he had ever heard. I was quite pleased when I heard that.

I first used a Miraphone "Rose" (?) mouthpiece, then switched to a Schilke-Helleberg, then landed on a PT-88. The PT-88/186/me combination was fantastic.

Steven

Used to? What ultimately replaced it? Do you miss it?

bort wrote:

SRanney wrote:I used to play a CC 186 from the mid-70s exclusively. A well-known, major symphony orchestra conductor once told me that the sound that came out of the bell and "settled over the orchestra" provided one of the best fundamentals he had ever heard. I was quite pleased when I heard that.

I first used a Miraphone "Rose" (?) mouthpiece, then switched to a Schilke-Helleberg, then landed on a PT-88. The PT-88/186/me combination was fantastic.

Steven

Used to? What ultimately replaced it? Do you miss it?

I wish I had a good answer. Ultimately, I drifted away from playing seriously, sold the horn (along with a nice Kurath F) under less-than-ideal conditions in the late '90s (boy, would I like to know what happened to those horns; I'm sure someone got a KILLER deal on them from a pawn shop in Murfreesboro, TN), and have since moved into fisheries science (with a little bit of music thrown in) rather than music (with a little bit of fishing thrown in).

What replaced it? I now fart around on a BBb Amati with a PT-88 and am learning to play bluegrass fiddle. The Amati is a nice horn, but isn't as dark and creamy as my Miraphone was.

Steven

Bummer. But, we all do what we've got to do!