What makes a "good" Miraphone 186

[sdloveless]

I've looked for a thread and couldn't really find one. But if there is one that I've missed, please point me to it. Thanks!

I was hoping we could have a comprehensive discussion about what's good, less good, bad, when it comes to the 186. I see references to early 70s being better than some later models, differences in bell sizes, the Blokespecial, etc, etc. Would you all mind sharing any of your experiences with it and opinions of it? Thank you so much.

[jtm]

I'm going to be grumpy if this thread makes me want a good CC 186.

[Rick Denney]

What constitutes a good Bb 186?

It's in playable condition with good valves and no leaks. That's about it.

The models prior to the early 80's or so have slightly smaller bells, and a little different sound because of that and some other things, but that's a matter of preference.

Most all of them to just about everything pretty well.

Rick "not necessarily the very best at any one thing except versatility" Denney

[bisontuba]

Early Mirafone CC's..with the smaller bell...

--great pitch

-- better metal

-- ease of playing, slotting

-- beautiful sound

--great in ALL registers

--light weight

That's a starter list....

[bloke]

The handmade ones varied quite a bit in how they sounded and (as so many players seem to concentrate on that which matters not to those who might come to hear their instruments) how they "feel".

Mostly, if one is found with an up-to-pitch 5th partial and and up-to-pitch 3rd partial, that's a "good" one - regardless of whether more bass/treble or open/resistance or whatever.

I bought a new gray-market 4-valve (which had "MIRAPHONE" engraved on the bell, and with S-arm linkage, when they had already introduced DVS) in 1974 ($1800 - during an inflationary period...Keynesian policies, combined with Nixon dumping the gold standard, as - only about five years earlier - their price had been half of that), and it was NOT a good one. Both of those sets of pitches were flat.

It was also one that they built - for a time - with a smaller small-end on the mouthpipe tube. That made them neither better NOR worse...simply: different. I was told to order the other mouthpipe, and did (shouldn't have bothered). It was no better - (again) just different...and those same pitches were still stinky flat.

Bill's (1969) and the one that I sold to Matt Gaunt (1965) are BOTH "good" (even though their resonance characteristics are subtly different), because the G/F-sharp AND E/D-sharp are ALL up to pitch.

186 B-flat tubas
To me, most all of these are flawed, in this way:
Being overwhelmingly 4-valve instruments, the 4th slide should be easily accessible, exquisitely aligned (as well as fast-moving from the factory), and it's tuning range should cover being able to play C and F in tune (close to each other, though C will need to be pushed in a bit more than F) all the way out to being in-tune for (2/4) B and E. This is not the case. The 4th slide is neither particularly accessible, long enough to accomplish this, and neither does it much overlap that range of tuning. Band directors, though, purchase these by the truckloads, no one has ever complained about this (band directors and the children playing them in schools certainly aren't going to complain), and - thus - nothing has been done regarding a design change. That having been said, most other 4-valve instruments (sold in large quantities to schools) don't address this issue either and (finally) probably most 4th valves on most school-owned tubas are never depressed (as - in my shop - I'm routinely un-seizing #4 pistons and rotors).

ALL of that having been said, a whole bunch of various makes/models of tubas made today - based on MY definition of "good" - are NO good, but are QUITE expensive - and drooled-over/boasted-about.

fwiw...The handmade (14+ inch bell) 184 instruments' 3rd partials were nearly always good, but their 5th partials (yet) were nearly always quite flat. I85 B-flats featured intonation problems, and I've rarely played a 185 C (so I can't remember). Handmade model 190 B-flats (as recently discussed) are similar to the 184 instruments, except their 5th partials were even lower, with no "lipping" option available (at least, none in my experience).

The computer programs superimposed on tuba bugle tapers (lately) have been pretty good at determining (thought to be) "best compromises" for tuning, with more new models NOT being released to the market with (what I would define as) very-difficult-to-access usable intonation. Those who claim that these computer-dictated bugle tapers cause instruments to not resonate (at least, in a tactile-and-not-particularly-sonic way) as well might possibly be (rather than that) noticing a difference between hydraulically-formed large bows (which often feature quite thick small ends) and seamed sheet metal large bows. Were all tubas made of sheet metal today (as they all once were) there would be no really inexpensive tubas...not even any of the mainland Chinese imports - which would probably start at $4500 or so, were they made that way. Even most of the sheet metal instruments (billed as hand-made) made today are plasma welded, rather than seamed in the old-world way. All of that having been said, there has been a movement (ever since the 6/4 York-like C tuba craze began around 1980) for tubas' resonance characteristics to designed (or redesigned) to be bland. As just one example, look what a stir (if not a semi-scandal) was caused by the 5450 (not bland), when it was first released.

[jtm]

Is this the old-world way, or something different?

188m - 1.jpeg (55.03 KiB) Viewed 1001 times

[bort2.0]

That's just a seam, they all have that.

[bort2.0]

If the bell has a V shaped gusset, that means that the bell stack and flare were originally almost one piece, except for the V shaped part that has to be cut so they can roll it up into a cylinder and most of a valve shape. The gusset then fills in the part that was cut out.

[bloke]

All older Miraphones look like that (some straight up with a "hat", and some with a V insert, but that type of seam).
I have no idea (??) whether they've gone to plasma welding with their standard models...It's not easy to see seams when an instrument is polished to a mirror finish.

The other bows (past the bottom) are mostly hydraulically-formed (varies from manufacturer to manufacturer), these days.

This model 98, here...
There were a couple of really small dents in the back. Removing them (just as with my 1982-made B&S F tuba) resulted in hammer marks (which remained on the interior, but which had been sanded away on the exterior) "printing" though.

Miraphone model numbers in general:
We can continue to use the old Sun Valley/San Antonio,"fone", USA "1" designation, but (as far as I know...??) the manufacturer has always referred to a series of the rotary models as 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 98 (with a "1" in front of those numbers)...and yes there are other Miraphone model numbers which feature three or four numerals.

[iiipopes]

What bloke said. From having a 186 modified with a Besson bell of different throat diameter and needing trimming at the ferrule to fit, and the resulting lengthening of the main tuning slide, by happy accident this mitigated the notorious flat fifth partials. Notice I didn't say cured; I said mitigated. Now, I have not spent much time with newer 186 tubas that have had some of the details tweaked compared to the older versions, but I wonder if anybody has compared side-by-side an older 186, even an American market "Mirafone," with its smaller leadpipe and 16 1/2 inch point and shoot bell, with a newer one with the larger leadpipe, 17 3/4 inch "vanilla" bell, and I believe the bore has even been increased a couple thou.