186!

[Wyvern]

but the sound leans towards the bland side

That's what turned me away from the 186 and 188 I have tried. Not enough color to their tone for my liking

[iiipopes]

Here's something that occurs to me:

Older ones were more fun to play (unique soloistic sound, but a few challenging pitches).

Newer ones are easier to play (improved intonation, but the sound leans towards the bland side).

In the university community band I play in (I'm out for a couple of years right now while my son is in Scouts, [meets the same night] but I'll be going back eventually) there were three 186's: an older one with the 16 1/2 inch bell, a newer one with the 17 3/4 inch bell, and mine. From sitting next to these guys for a couple of years, I can vouch for Bloke's comments, which were exactly why I was looking for anything but a 186 until I found mine with the replacement upright St Pete detachable bell. The wider throated bell gave more character, and by luck of the draw, since it was too short and needed the main tuning slide lengthened, most of the dreaded flat 5th partials went away, so I only need the alternate 1+2 on midline D. The low range broadened as well, so it doesn't "bark" like a lot do.

Also, a 186 is one of the few rotary tubas that sounds good with a funnel instead of a moderate bowl, so I recommend that anyone who thinks a 186 "barks" too much to try a deeper funnel: something like a Schilke HII, a Curry D cup, a Wick 1L (if you have the breath), a PT50, or even Miraphone's own Rose Orchestra mouthpiece with them.

Dan Schultz can put any one of a number of different "replacement" bells on a 186. So if you like the ergonomics and overall feel, but don't like the tone, from my experience of playing and listening to them, a 186 is very amenable to changing the tone color, and possibly intonation characteristics, by bell change.

[jeopardymaster]

I bought my 186-4U BBb (used, 1970 vintage) from Dillon's so I would have a BBb for the occasional brass band call. I use it when I need it - which isn't very often - but it gave me just what I wanted for Rachmaninoff 2 and Prokofief 5. I've played better BBbs, but the price was right and it's very, very consistent. And since I never practice, that's absolutely critical. My only beef is low B natural and E natural. As I've said before, when everything else is in tune those 2 are painfully sharp 2-4, and the 4th valve slide is not nearly as user-friendly as, say, a M-W. Tubatinker put a 2nd valve kicker on it for me; problem solved.

[Bob Kolada]

My only beef is low B natural and E natural. As I've said before, when everything else is in tune those 2 are painfully sharp 2-4, and the 4th valve slide is not nearly as user-friendly as, say, a M-W. Tubatinker put a 2nd valve kicker on it for me; problem solved.

"Mine" has a usable 4th slide (which is why I thought it was a 187), but it also doesn't have the straight dogleg that 187's seem to have. It also has this funny covered up valve linkage, so I dunno....
B natural can work without, but E NEEDS that pull!

[Nick Pierce]

Used an older model back in the early '80s in college. Learned CC fingerings on the thing too. Stuffy, smallish feeling and a very bad sound. Hated Miraphones ever since.

Some of the 186 CC tubas (for a while) featured a very small bore mouthpipe tube. They were built c. 1974 or so, maybe for a few years. I owned one and "knew" (the genius that I was at age 18 ) that I needed to retrofit the tuba with the larger-bore mouthpipe tube (bigger is better, etc...) However, as I've gone back and played a few of the those over the years and tried them with something fairly similar to the factory-supplied mouthpiece (something with a C4-ish cup), I really believe they were on to something with that smaller bore mouthpipe tube.

And what, pray-tell, were they on to (not being a smart-mouth, genuinely curious about what the advantages may have been)?

[Keith Sanders]

I had one, got rid of it, and regretted it........went through about five other horns only to come back another 186!! 1970s 186s have a certain sound that is rich, wholesome, and warm.............at least mine is. I think the sound of the Mira 186 CC is great!! Not stuffy at all, and with the right mouthpiece, I found that the Alan Baer MMVI CC works REALLY well for giving the low register a fatter sound with less edge, and sings in the other registers......They just have that "sound", and it makes the older ones very attractive......Just my 1.5 cents...

Keith "practicing his 186 right now" Sanders

[oedipoes]

Never owned one, never played one. Don't feel like I missed something.
Miraphone tubas are not common over here, although the factory is relatively close.
Maybe they focus on export to the States.

Wim

[Wyvern]

Miraphone tubas are not common over here

Yes, I have noticed Miraphone uncommon to see played in Europe - much rarer than Melton (MW), B&S, or Cerveny. I guess they must predominately export to the USA???

[Rick Denney]

I rarely play mine, but I would never sell it. The reason I rarely play it is that I have specialty tubas that fit specialty situations--BAT for band, F tuba for quintet, etc., but there are times when the Miraphone is just right. For example, any standing gig, particularly outdoors. The Miraphone sound can loud and penetrating and it works well outside, while the big tuba's sound can get lost altogether (unless you are listening at 10,000 feet). The Miraphone is also lighter.

The tone is a little barky, and I control that by using a large, deep funnel mouthpiece. I use more bowl-shaped mouthpieces on my Holton, and shallower mouthpieces on my F tubas.

Part of the reason I wouldn't sell it is that I spent so much of my early tuba-playing days wanting one and never being able to afford one. It's sorta like the muscle car that guys my age buy and restore--it's rarely driven but prized nonetheless, as much for what it represents as for what it does (and it does a lot).

I have owned two 4/4 rotary tubas, including one at the same time as the Miraphone. I've sold or traded both off, without really missing either one. I just found that when I grabbed a Bb horn to take to a gig or rehearsal, the Miraphone was the one I took. That was true until I got the York Master, which sent my tone concept in a different direction, and in that my story seems similar to Dan's.

I think one reason the Miraphone keeps getting recommended is that it's not bad at anything, including such mundane concerns as availability, consistency, and price. The Meinl-Weston 25 is a solid workhorse, but I have a hard time overcoming a closed, muffled sound on one. The Communist-era tall-bell B&S's, which have gone under various names, might have been the best of the lot, but they were pretty rare. The Yamaha 641 was shiny, and that's about all I could ever find to recommend it. The Rudy was too expensive for most folks and too limited in production to bring within our experience back in the Miraphone heyday. Any given Cerveny may or may not be a good player, but they are all soft as can be and dent if you breathe on them. Alexanders were, well, Alexanders--great when great but forget consistency. Of all of those, the Miraphone is about the only one that a young player could buy sight unseen with minimal risk, including the ability to sell it predictably when (and if) the player decides to move in a different direction.

Rick "who would probably use the Miraphone for playing the bottom position in a quartet" Denney

[TUBAD83]

The 186 was my horn in college--had stringed rotary valve action which was very fast but a little noisy at times. It was perfect for solo and small ensemble work but I thought it was a little light for concert band/orchestral work (I NEVER told my teacher that since he had one). It had always responded well and never had problems with intonation. I would definitely have one today if I was doing alot of small ensemble work.

[iiipopes]

Some of the 186 CC tubas (for a while) featured a very small bore mouthpipe tube. They were built c. 1974 or so, maybe for a few years. I owned one and "knew" (the genius that I was at age 18 ) that I needed to retrofit the tuba with the larger-bore mouthpipe tube (bigger is better, etc...) However, as I've gone back and played a few of the those over the years and tried them with something fairly similar to the factory-supplied mouthpiece (something with a C4-ish cup), I really believe they were on to something with that smaller bore mouthpipe tube.

Indeed. My 186 has a smaller bore leadpipe than new ones, and I think it adds something to the character of the horn, just that little added bit of "conical" tone, in the same vein as why a cornet has a smaller leadpipe although it will share basically the same valve block with at trumpet.

I think one reason the Miraphone keeps getting recommended is that it's not bad at anything, including such mundane concerns as availability, consistency, and price. The Meinl-Weston 25 is a solid workhorse, but I have a hard time overcoming a closed, muffled sound on one. The Communist-era tall-bell B&S's, which have gone under various names, might have been the best of the lot, but they were pretty rare. The Yamaha 641 was shiny, and that's about all I could ever find to recommend it. The Rudy was too expensive for most folks and too limited in production to bring within our experience back in the Miraphone heyday. Any given Cerveny may or may not be a good player, but they are all soft as can be and dent if you breathe on them. Alexanders were, well, Alexanders--great when great but forget consistency. Of all of those, the Miraphone is about the only one that a young player could buy sight unseen with minimal risk, including the ability to sell it predictably when (and if) the player decides to move in a different direction.

I got to play everything in the stable of the local university one day, which included the MW25, the Rudy 17 inch bell, the Yammy, etc. Another guy in community band has a stencil Weltklang and I got to try it with upgraded linkage.

From my experiences, I absolutely concur with everything Rick says about the observations and relative merits of the tubas listed. The Rudy was a close second, but not quite as secure in the upper register for me as the 186, and of course a few thou more, but just as nimble, consistent, and sonorous.

There is one contender: the B&S GR51/PT605, and if I were twenty years younger and $8000 richer, I'd seriously consider it.

[Chriss2760]

The sound of the 186 is the standard of our craft.
There are horns that will perform better for some specific jobs, (I use a Yamaha 621 for my quint and jazz gigs,) but the 186 produces the sound you play the tuba to produce. You like it. Your director likes it. The audience likes it. Play it well and you'll never be disappointed.