hobson27 wrote:I have played the 186 and I wasnt too impressed with it, I prefer my King to it, but thats just me.
My dream horn is a 5v Bb 1291
A kindred spirit.
Except that my dream horn is a Conn 36J (oh, wait...I have one!)
But seriously - I came late to the Miraphone hype. I agree that they appear to be consistent and competent. But, the first time I played one, my reaction was "meh! It's a tuba". Nothing to complain about, nothing to rave about.
For 90% of what *I* need to do, the new style King 2341 (be sure to get a "good one") does it all.
Of course, both King owners and 186 owners are allowed to share the ambition of moving up to a 1291.
sloan wrote:But seriously - I came late to the Miraphone hype. I agree that they appear to be consistent and competent. But, the first time I played one, my reaction was "meh! It's a tuba". Nothing to complain about, nothing to rave about.
That's why I said the 186 is the dependable sedan of the tuba world.
sloan wrote:Of course, both King owners and 186 owners are allowed to share the ambition of moving up to a 1291.
Uh, no. You haven't seen my right hand, and how I have to have the paddles repositioned accordingly.
Couple of things....
Used does not equal your experience of "second hand". While there might be some laquer wear, small dents and such, many used horns are in excellent shape, and pretty much had all the 'bugs' worked out of them. I would say aim high, but when discussing the purchase of a tuba, shouldn't it be "aim low" (but I digress...) If you want a Miraphone 1291/191, do what needs to be done to find one and buy it. As many have said, the 186 will do just about everything most tuba players need, do it fairly well, and do it for a long time--but it is a "sedan". If you really long for that "muscle car" (or pick-up truck, or convertible), work towards that as your goal. It might take a bit longer, but you'll be happier with the result.
Now, the payment component. Yes, financing is there to help with "regular folks getting what they want" but have you ever looked at what it costs to finance something? Banks don't do stuff that they don't get really good bang for the buck for, and loaning money nets the loaner a lot of return. Yeah, $7-8,000 is a lot of money, and few folks have that lying around. Save up, and pay at least half in cash; check with a credit union for other options they might have.
Ally"whose impulse control was impaired by buying both a motorcycle and a tuba in October but paid cash for them"House
Mattheus wrote: ... Financing is there for a reason...
Yes, to make money for the banks. Car loans are of debatable value, but boat loans and tuba loans are not "helping" average folks like you and me. Going into debt for anything other than a house is a losing proposition for the borrower. Also, you get the wonderful depreciation factor as soon as you take delivery of that new car/horn/boat - you are instantly upside down on the deal. I know because I have made these same mistakes. OK, off the soapbox - it's your life and your money.
As Ally said, there is used and then there is used. I would consider the offerings by TubeNet sponsors as "certified pre-owned" vs. the crapshoot of buying through private sellers on eBay, craigslist and, yes, even TubeNet. Make it clear to whoever you deal with buying used or new that you expect the horn to be thoroughly gone over and QC'd. There were things wrong with several new horns I have purchased in the past.
Eric "very unlikely to purchase another new horn" L.
Last edited by WakinAZ on Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
On the subject of Miraphone 186's--there are more of them because Miraphone has been making them since the 60's at least. And they've been making them that long because people keep buying them. If you can't play a 186 well enough for any amateur and nearly any professional application, the instrument ain't the problem.
On the subject of borrowing money to buy a tuba--I have borrowed money to buy tubas in the past. One borrows money when the price of the borrowing is less than the cost of the waiting. The problem is that we often inflate the cost of waiting and ignore the price of borrowing. There is much opportunity for self-delusion, which is a much bigger mistake than borrowing money.
But borrowing money is a risk. It puts you at the mercy of others, and makes you more vulnerable to disaster. So, it should never be done on a lark. Do a credit check on yourself before agreeing to incur that sort of risk. Imagine that you are your brother-in-law who has come to you and asked to borrow money. Does the story "he" tells persuade you? Think about that carefully.
Personally, I would never incur that risk just to have a shiny tuba. To have a tuba that allows me to enjoy playing more--yes--but not just to have a new-looking instrument.
There are more people than you think who have the money for a tuba lying around, and not because they are rich.
Rick "who has borrowed money for tubas and not regretted it" Denney
This group can expected to be fairly cohesive (compared with the general population) on the topic of Miraphone 186's - but it's really *very* diverse on the topic of whether or not borrowing money to purchase a tuba is a good idea.
Any attempt to declare that it's a no-brainer either way is deluded.
I tend towards the attitude that some banks have: you should take out a loan if, and only if, you don't need it. This attitude is clearly wrong if we're talking about a house (and perhaps even a car). In my opinion it's pretty close to correct when talking about tubas - but might *not* be in the special case of someone winning a BIG, STEADY gig that required an upgrade in equipment. The key words there were BIG and STEADY.
Borrowing money has a cost - you should know what it is (only, be sure to understand the concept of the time value of money when doing the computation).
NOT borrowing can also have a cost - as Rick notes, this is often hard to calculate.
Depreciation can be an important issue. Houses do not depreciate the moment you move in. New autos *do* depreciate the moment you drive them off the lot. It's important to understand how your NET value changes when you exchange money for a durable good.
For example: if you buy a good quality USED Miraphone 186 for (what do they go for these days? call it $4000), you lose the $4000 but gain an asset. How much is the tuba worth? How much can you sell it for, tomorrow, next week, next year...
This is where the discussion on "renting" comes in. If you buy used, most of your cost is in maintenance - keeping it in condition so you can exchange it for the original purchase price, sometime down the road. The "purchase price" is really a damage deposit: you break it, you buy it - otherwise, you're just renting. Note that part of the purchase price is also the lost opportunity to spend that money on something else, or put it in a savings account, or invest in the stock market... There are also (usually minor) costs associated with the transactions (buying, and then selling).
Stock traders often say: "when you get in you should already have a plan for getting out". I think this applies to tuba trading, too. The difference between what you pay for that nice, new, shiny flavor of the month tuba and what you can get for it 5 years from now is the true cost.
Another way to compute costs is to amortize the purchase price over a reasonable period of time. How long should a brand new, shiny tuba last? I think 20 years is as good a number as any (for a privately owned instrument). The difficulty is that this computation works out if you keep it for 20 years (and, if it's still worth something, it's "free" then) but if you need to get out after only 1-5 years you may find that depreciation is much bigger (the tuba may still last for 20 years, but it may lose more of it's value in the first few years than in it's last few years). This is not so much of a problem with used tubas. If you either plan to keep it for a long time, or are buying used, you might consider 1/20th of the purchase price to be your "yearly cost". So, is that $4000 used 186 worth $200/year to you?
$200/year is a much nicer number than $4000 on the barrel head.
Again - note that a brand new tuba might cost you $1000 (or more) per year for the first couple of years. Are you *certain* that you'll hold onto it long enough to bring that average cost down to (say) $400/year rather than $1000/year? How often are you going to change equipment? Everyone is different - and those differences lead to different (right) decisions.
And to quote Steve Martin's old comic line, "...and if I could sell 1000 tickets at $50,000 a ticket, that would be $50,000,000. One show...goodbye!"
We're musicians. Most of us are amateur musicians, even though there are some who have actually been able to earn a little money here and there on gigs. Unless we are doing this primarily for a living so that there is some actual depreciation or other write-off over time that can be done from a tax standpoint, is cost per use really a relevant factor?
iiipopes wrote:is cost per use really a relevant factor?
Absolutely.
How can you justify owning $$$$$.$$ worth of horns, if (excluding teaching and other music related activities that don't positively require owning a horn) performing on those specific horns only make you $$$.$$ to $$$$.$$.
(I haven't been able to.)
iiipopes wrote:And to quote Steve Martin's old comic line, "...and if I could sell 1000 tickets at $50,000 a ticket, that would be $50,000,000. One show...goodbye!"
We're musicians. Most of us are amateur musicians, even though there are some who have actually been able to earn a little money here and there on gigs. Unless we are doing this primarily for a living so that there is some actual depreciation or other write-off over time that can be done from a tax standpoint, is cost per use really a relevant factor?
iiipopes wrote:is cost per use really a relevant factor?
Absolutely.
How can you justify owning $$$$$.$$ worth of horns, if (excluding teaching and other music related activities that don't positively require owning a horn) performing on those specific horns only make you $$$.$$ to $$$$.$$.
Well ... cost per use is relevant because you're incurring it. It may not be compelling, if your financial situation is such that cost isn't important, but assuming that both cost and use do matter to some degree, then it's hard to argue that cost per use isn't relevant.
That doesn't mean that there needs to be any revenue potential at all, that's really not what we're talking about. If there is, it matters only if that revenue is likely to be different between two alternative courses of action. If we're talking about a new tuba vs. a used one, to take the example I believe precipitated this discussion, you'd have to decide whether a used tuba might compromise your earning potential.
