TubeNet

tbn.al · Post by **tbn.al** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:34 pm

Would you happen to have another 184 valve lying around? I'm looking to add a 5th to mine.

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:32 pm

My feeling is that the 184 CC is the "ultimate quintet horn"...

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:54 pm

Tony E wrote:Time to put it to the tubenet board. Is the 184 BBb really the ultimate quintet horn, or the far weaker sibling of the venerable 184CC...too stuffy to even be considered against other small BBbs.

I think that Dale would agree with my modification of his thesis: The 184 BBb is the ultimate quintet horn for Bb tubas players.

In the end, though, I disagree with the thesis, but not based on my own trials. I've never played a 184.

But I have heard them played. In the settings where I've heard the Bb 184 in a small ensemble, it has always had a weak sound that didn't seem to balance the rest of the quintet. There several possible reasons for that. One is that the tuba sounds loud to the player compared to what gets out front. Another is that the sound doesn't have a lot of core to project. Neither is consistent with descriptions of the 184 CC, but I've heard what I've heard. I conclude, therefore, that the 184 Bb and C tubas really are different--more different than the 186 Bb and C tubas.

The quintet repertoire can be a challenge on an F tuba (though that's what I usually play in quintet), and here is a where an Eb might really shine. Many believe, though, that a C tuba is an essential part of a quintet, rather than a bass tuba. I find the quintet tessiturra a real challenge on Bb tuba, however--limited as I am by my skills. The F makes it much easier to manage with reasonable sound and style.

Going back to my modification of Dale's assertion, maybe the 184 is the best BBb tuba for quintet, but I think that would be because there aren't many good choices for Bb tubas for quintet, at least for use by Bb tuba players.

Rick "curious to try out a 184" Denney

JohnMCooper · Post by **JohnMCooper** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:33 pm

Rick Denney wrote:...sound doesn't have a lot of core to project...

My primary horn is an older 184 BBb. I'll have to agree that the sound does not have a lot of core. I used it in a quintet for several years but find that it works best in a big band environment where I'm trying to blend with 3 trombones but still give the band some bottom, particularly on ballads. Listening to recordings we made with the quintet, I wasn't particlarly pleased with the sound I was getting. I have heard that changing to a 186 leadpipe can help get a fuller sound, that might be an option down the road.

tofu · Post by **tofu** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:50 pm

On memorial day we did a combined band concert with one of the army field bands. Their one and only tuba player had a 184BBb which looked brand new - so I assumed they were back in production.

He had a huge sound sitting next to me. What it sounded like in the audience I don't know, but the horn seemed capable of a fair amount of sound for the size. In fact, I mistakenly thought it was a 186 at first. The horn had a lot of core to the sound and would seem like a good quint horn for a BBb player who didn't want to deal with an F or Eb. He seemed to have no problem supporting his field band with it.

cjk · Post by **cjk** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:19 pm

JohnMCooper wrote: I have heard that changing to a 186 leadpipe can help get a fuller sound, that might be an option down the road.

I think this idea is fallacy, a TubeNet Urban Legend. The 186 leadpipe will be much too big to mate to the 184 valve section, it just won't fit. The end of the leadpipe will be .770ish inches which will have to mate with a .705 valve.

JohnMCooper · Post by **JohnMCooper** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:58 pm

cjk wrote:
JohnMCooper wrote: I have heard that changing to a 186 leadpipe can help get a fuller sound, that might be an option down the road.
I think this idea is fallacy, a TubeNet Urban Legend. The 186 leadpipe will be much too big to mate to the 184 valve section, it just won't fit. The end of the leadpipe will be .770ish inches which will have to mate with a .705 valve.

There you go, saving me money!

Gravid · Post by **Gravid** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:38 pm

Allthumbs wrote:I am curious if some of the impressions people have regarding the 184 (both Bbb and Cc) may be clarified somewhat by the two following observations:
1) Differences in design and construction between older and newer 184 Miraphones (ie. are the newer ones bigger/better sounding and playing?)
2) Do these instruments sometimes sound smaller to a listener at a performance because this smaller instrument appeals to those of us who want a gentler, quieter tuba. Used with restraint it has a nice focused, yet deep contrabass voice. It can get loud if I blast, but that was not what I was looking for in an instrument. There are plenty of other options for BIG sounding tubas.

Some very astute observation, IMO. I also purchased a new Mir 184 CC from Dillon's, bk in Jan, for reasons very similar to your own. Compared to a 70's 184 CC which I owned many moons ago, the new 184 has been surprisingly stiff and monochromatic. However, you've inadvertently reminded me that it's quite normal for a new horn to require a bit of "breaking in," esp when compared to one that wears like an old pair of Birkenstocks. Furthermore, when I owned the older 184, it was a completely different time in my career. I was an undergraduate, and it was the only horn that I owned/played. As a result, I was very familiar w/how to blow (or, not overblow) the horn. Nowadays, my new 184 seems like just a toy. The temptation is to maul it with the same jetstream that I use on my large contrabass tuba, when in truth (as you so aptly put it), it works best as a "gentler, quieter tuba." As much as I hate to admit this, I guess it's not always about "The Ride."

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:01 pm

I've got a 1961 184 BBb that plays very nicely with little effort. That being said, I woiuld never use it as an "all around" horn--it's just too small for large ensembles.

I'm seriously thinking of selling it as I don't have a lot of use for it. I much prefer the Willson 3400 as an "all around" instrument.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:17 am

richland tuba 01 wrote:okay, so what's the opinion of the "experts":

is the BBb 184 or BBb 186 better?

Two different animals, entirely. Not really comparable.

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:06 am

richland tuba 01 wrote:okay, so what's the opinion of the "experts":
is the BBb 184 or BBb 186 better?

What, are you kidding? Two different animals, two different applications.

As an aside: Since the 184 is such a good small ensemble horn, I had the water key closed off on mine, and dump water like a horn, rather than subject listeners to the "pppppssssshhhhhhhhh" of clearing it in a concert.

tbn.al · Post by **tbn.al** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:23 am

We should talk about mouthpiece selection for the 184 BBb. I was recently amazed at the change to the overall core of sound when I accidentally inserted my PT-88, instead of my normal Miraphone TU17 into my 184. I have not been satisfied with the core of sound I was producing nor the intonation on the 184. The sound was somewhat thin and the 12 combinations horribly, 2 inch pull, sharp. With the 88 both problems surprisingly dissapeared. The 88 is not the answer however due to upper register effort. This has put me on a mp quest. The 184 BBb should be the ultimate quintet horn for an old Bass Trombone doubler like me. I play either Tuba or Bass Trombone in quintet, which ever is called for. I now have the following:
PT 20
PT 65
PT 88
Shilke Helleberg
Yamaha Jim Self
Miraphone TU 17
Playing these in succession has revealed an incredible range of differences in the sound and intonation of the tuba. To my surprise, the best so far is the Yamaha. I have been told it was modeled after the Miraphone C4. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome. My 184 is a good little horn and with the right mp might be a great little horn, especially if I could find a better player for it.

tbn.al · Post by **tbn.al** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:55 pm

Than ks for the input. I played a Conn Helleberg for about a week. In fact it was the first alternative I tried. It didn't seem to help much over the TU-17 I was comparing it with. I'm going to check with a couple of guys who studied with Perantoni and see if they can shed any light on the PT design and nomenclature and then I may start a thread on that topic. I was really surprised in the outcome of my initial test. Of course I may change my mind over the next few weeks. Thanks again for the input.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:35 pm

richland tuba wrote:uhh...okay. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I just wanted to know if one was considered better than the other as an all-around horn.

The 184 is pretty much a small-ensemble 3/4-sized horn. The 4/4 186 comes much closer to being an "all purpose" instrument.

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:21 pm

To broaden the tone of the 184, try a Wick 1L.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:33 pm

richland tuba 01 wrote:okay, thanks, just looking for a horn to buy after high school, since I use a brand new 186 BBb right now, and I don't exactly have a lot of money.

The 186 is a great all-around horn--you'll not easily find another with its intonation and versatility for the price. Unless you're looking to spend a pile of cash for one of the super-duper orchestral models, you can hardly do better.

If you're looking for more of a solo horn, keep the 186 and buy a small F or Eb.