I'm looking into this tuba as I need a solid 4/4 tuba to go with my BAT. My question is: How does the 188 CC and 186 CC compare in flexibility, sound, and extremes of register?
I know this question has been asked a bunch of times and I do apoligize. I just need a little background before I try one.
Thanks in advance
Question for Miraphone 188 owners
-
tubaman5150
- 3 valves
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:53 am
- Location: Manhattan, KS
Question for Miraphone 188 owners
No one who tells you what you want to hear at someone else's detriment is acting in your best interest.
-
tubacdk
- pro musician
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:26 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
188 & 186
I'd call the 188 a large-ish all-around tuba and the 186 a middle-of-the-road all-around tuba. If you have a BAT that you like to use, I'd lean more toward the size of a 186 (or my personal preference, an older RM-43). I recently played a brand new 188 next to a brand new 186 and I preferred the 188. The 186 seemed a little dull to me. I think that the new larger bell with the heavier gague brass doesn't fit well with the rest of the horn. The 188 seemed better "balanced," as far as how the horn seemed to resonate with itself. If you are interested in a 186, I'd recommend going for an older one with the 16" bell. But even more than that, I'd go for an older RM-43. 
But to specifically answer your question, the 188 generally acts like a big tuba - it takes a little more effort to play, the sound is broader & heavier. It's best suited for large ensemble playing but it can work in smaller situations as well. The 186 is an easier instrument to play, more suited for chamber music but it can certainly hold its own with large groups. Both horns have better than average intonation and good response in the low register. High register I think varies from horn to horn. If you already have a large ensemble horn, I'd go 186.
But to specifically answer your question, the 188 generally acts like a big tuba - it takes a little more effort to play, the sound is broader & heavier. It's best suited for large ensemble playing but it can work in smaller situations as well. The 186 is an easier instrument to play, more suited for chamber music but it can certainly hold its own with large groups. Both horns have better than average intonation and good response in the low register. High register I think varies from horn to horn. If you already have a large ensemble horn, I'd go 186.
-
Will
- 3 valves
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:36 am
- Location: Somewhere between Miami and Ottowa
188
I agree with what's been said. I love my 188. Every note on the horn is open. It's fun to play and versitile for almost any setting. I've used it for orchestra, wind ensemble, brass ensemble, brass quintet and solo on two recitals.
After saying all of this I do think about selling/trading it. The only problem for me is the angle of my wrist when playing. I have noticed stiffness and slight pain after long rehearsals or practicing. It's just the way I hold the horn. I've tried using a stand to help correct it but it just doesn't feel natural.
But I haven't come accross a horn that plays as well for me as my 188. Oh well.
After saying all of this I do think about selling/trading it. The only problem for me is the angle of my wrist when playing. I have noticed stiffness and slight pain after long rehearsals or practicing. It's just the way I hold the horn. I've tried using a stand to help correct it but it just doesn't feel natural.
But I haven't come accross a horn that plays as well for me as my 188. Oh well.
Music Teacher