The quest to find a 5/4 version of a 188

[Rick Denney]

I have nothing useful or valuable to contribute to this thread. I don't play C and I've never owned or understood the 188. But I'm going to contribute it anyway. :)

At my level of talent, I value ease of response and sound efficiency above most other attributes (assuming workable intonation, of course). Sound efficiency means that the sound it makes has some color to it and some energy, giving the impression that the player has spirited intentions. I'm not interested in sounds like a black hole.

My direction has at times been the wide American concept--a York Master (at best an approximation of that concept) plus the current Eastman EBB534 (a King clone) and, of course, the Holton 345. The latter two in particular put zip on top of the wide floor of sound that sort of tuba makes, so that they avoid black-hole woofiness and speak with clarity. But they make round tones that don't punch in a dead hall, or that don't align well with the more brilliant shape of trombone and trumpet tone. I had bought the Eastman in hopes of having a contrabass that would work with quintet, but it's too broad, too circular. These are, to me, the opposite of the 188 concept, which seems to me clear, penetrating, and focused--the bass singer in the big choral group that gets tapped to sing the bass solos because his voice carries with operatic authority.

I think the 188 was Miraphone's answer to the Alexander 163--more output than a 186 in a big ensemble and more ability to punch through--but with workable intonation. We should remember that Miraphone is a commercial concern, just like Alexander, and as such needed a product in their line that would fill that niche and compete. I think the West-Coast tuba royalty really made the 188 famous.

More recently, I've been exploring that direction--penetration and focus--because it works better in the dead, deader, deadest school auditoriums we play in. Less floor but more voice. That has led me ultimately to my three rotary Bb tubas, a Miraphone 184, a Giardinelli (B&S) 101, and a Hirsbrunner HBS193. I think that lineup skips the niche filled by the 188 altogether. The 101 was originally designed at the Hess factory by the same guy (Andreas Cronlein) who created the seminal designs of Alexander back well before WWII, and well before Hess was absorbed into VEB Sachsen (later B&S) under Communist East Germany. But it is smaller (by a shade) than the 163 and can't be called an oversized 4/4 like the 188 and the 163.

Bort, I know that a 163 was part of your quest, and you didn't think of it as a 5/4, but it wasn't intended to be, just as the 188 wasn't intended to be. The classic German 5/4 is intended for Kontrabasstuba parts with a capital K, not as the German rotary version of a Yorkophone. All those 6/4 rotary tubas you have tried seem to be to attempt that role--a Yorkish tuba to tap the American appetite for width. But you were thinking of the Alex as an enlarged 188, while really Miraphone was thinking of the 188 as competition for the 163. The 163 was the model the 188 was trying to simulate, not the reverse--it was there first. The enlarged version would be the 164.

If you want it to be like a 188 but bigger, you first have to be able to articulate what it is about the 188 that appeals to you. I suspect it has something to do with the response, agility and clarity of a 4/4 but with a more carrying power (just like the 163). A 5/4, though, isn't trying to do that. It's trying to move earth first, but do so with as much agility and clarity as possible while doing so. My Hirsbrunner makes a much bigger and more powerful sound than that Giardinelli/B&S 101, but at a cost of playability. You can't have one (more size and power) without the other (less agility and playability), though some come closer than others. Kaisertubas do not start with response, agility and clarity as the primary attributes and then add oomph, they start with oomph and then try to find as much of that other stuff as possible without undermining the oomph. They were not made to be generalists--they were made to be specialists. A German 5/4 may look like a 4/4 on steroids, but to me it's a different animal.

(Actually, Joe's FatBastard comes about as close as any of them, and I've never played a C that played like that Bb FatBastard.)

So, the Rudi 5/4 would be less likely to be like a bigger 188 than would a 4/4, but Rudi isn't trying to be like Miraphone, he's trying to be like Alexander of old (or he's trying to be like what Alexander of old was trying to be, predating Miraphone altogether). And the 5/4 RM isn't trying to be like a 163, it's trying to be like the 164.

There is a lesson in your story, though, to be heeded by younger folk: If you love a particular instrument and what it does for you, don't sell it. Just don't. Sell other things first, up to and including pencils on the street corner. I do not regret selling the tubas I have sold, even including the 186 and the York Master. I enjoyed them, and learned from them, and was humbled by them, but eventually they were business partners not lovers. Selling the tubas I have kept would be like selling children. But I hung on to the York Master and the Miraphone both for long years after I knew I was done with them, just in case I was wrong.

Like I said, nothing to contribute at all, but whatever.

Rick "don't ask a cat to do a dog's job" Denney

[jtm]

Rick reminds me....

I have an early 188 and also a fairly early Bb 186. The bore through the valves is the same size. The 186 bell is smaller; the 186 bottom bow is smaller.

The Bb 186 sounds fuller and deeper. The 188, by contrast, like Rick said, can really punch through. The 188 is more agile -- the difference is not even subtle -- I guess by being 2' shorter, but maybe there are other differences, too.

I would assume (without having one to try) that a C 186 is even more agile and less big sounding than a 188, which makes the Bb 186 and C 186 quite different, so why do they even have the same model number?

[Doc]

@bort2.0, after reading your posts, here is my short list in order:

Tuono
HB6
Vintage PT6
MRP (larger than you think)

If you dare consider BBb:

Hagen 496
Eastman 562/825
Fafner
Alex 164 (BBb is superior in every way to the CC )

If you wanted big BBb and had big money: Rudy Bayreuth BBb

If you don’t need a true 5/4: 2155, Alex 163 (new), Bruckner

Based on everything you’ve said, I postulate that the Tuono best checks all the boxes, including intonation. Regardless, it is certainly fun to drive.

[bloke]

I keep getting chided for mentioning an MRP as a larger version of a 188, but the 188 is already pretty large so we're sort of being boxed into a corner.

Additionally, I'm trying to respect the words in the quest "version of", and not just naming anything that's larger and built-in c.

Come on. I've played some MRPs; they're not as big as fat bastard.

[Doc]

I keep getting chided for mentioning an MRP as a larger version of a 188, but the 188 is already pretty large so we're sort of being boxed into a corner.

Additionally, I'm trying to respect the words in the quest "version of", and not just naming anything that's larger and built-in c.

Come on. I've played some MRPs; they're not as big as fat bastard.

No argument here. It might be my first choice… but you know how picky Brett is.

[Sousaswag]

Reading this post really opens the eyes to how many choices we have in today's market. @Doc listed the HB6 as another possibility. I've read that those are somewhat questionable with their intonation. Anybody have real experience with them? Rare as hen's teeth, it seems.

I agree that Willson needs to get their $h!t together and redesign their rotary valveset to where it's actually comfortable to play. Maybe that could come with their new partnership? It's a shame, because their big tubas are quite nice. They're just too heavy and uncomfortable!

[jplynd]

I've spent the past few years on a similar quest.. I played on a 186 5V CC in college and always wished for something larger.. I sold it after school and when I got back into playing again a few years after graduating, my horn progression went as follows:

1/ Dillon 410 CC - Purchased with like 5 different credit cards and only adding to my at the time still exorbitant student loan debt
2/ Conn 56J - Upgraded to this horn when i got a better job but immediately missed rotors
3/ MW Tuono - Upgraded to this horn when i got a better job (notice a trend?) but couldn't deal with the 3rd valve slide wrap - loved the sound though.
4/ Eastman 836 - Wanted to see what all the fuss was about but immediately missed rotors
5/ MW 2155 - This was really out of left field and never really felt at home w/ this horn - sold it about 6 months after i bought it
6/ Miraphone 188 - Gave up on finding something better than a 188 and decided to just go back home to it... I was planning for this to be the last horn I owned (and it probably could have been) but along came...
7/ B&S MRP - (Current Horn) - Wound up finding one of these used but like new and for an amazing price and feel like i've never locked in with a horn so quickly. Felt like I knew exactly how to drive it after it was in my lap for 5 minutes and haven't looked back. Exact sound concept i'm looking for, great intonation, and it sure is pretty to boot. Its also the first horn I've ever owned where I've actually found it to be more comfortable ergonomically WITHOUT a tuba stand.. Sure do enjoy not having to lug one of those around with me.

I briefly had the MRP and the 188 at the same time and took a side by side of the two.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

[Casca Grossa]

I think you should just go back to the 188. Just kidding...not kidding. I always find these threads interesting. I have mainly played Mirafones during my 'fessional playing days. I miss my 188 and especially my 185 terribly. Biggest mistakes ever letting those go. I find it interesting how differently we enjoy or dislike certain horns. In my case, the 188 was the best all around horn I ever owned. I played it in orchestra, wind ensemble, quintet, traditional jazz, etc. It was perfect in all settings. I also absolutely love B&S F tubas, especially older ones. I've had a couple of PT-10's that were incredibly good. On the flip side, I despise pretty much every CC that B&S has ever produced. I played on a PT-6 for work for about a year and really wanted to like it, but didn't. We all like what we like and have a particular sound concept in our heads. That's a good thing. The interesting part for me is how much one horn is the be all end all for me and another, quality, well built, popular instrument is the bane of my existence. Good luck with the search. My rambling hijack of the thread is over.

[dp]

Try a 187

I thought it sounded like you want a fafner. But thats BBflat. It also plays nothing like a Miraphone

Then I thought it sounded like you want a Tuono. But that doesn't play like a Miraphone either.

Now I am thinking you might want a PT6 again, there are a few great ones out there....and tons of pretty unblemished newer ones. Do they make one in Chinese?

[matt g]

I keep getting chided for mentioning an MRP as a larger version of a 188, but the 188 is already pretty large so we're sort of being boxed into a corner.

Additionally, I'm trying to respect the words in the quest "version of", and not just naming anything that's larger and built-in c.

Come on. I've played some MRPs; they're not as big as fat bastard.

Yeah, and the photo in this thread affirms this.

It seems like the MRP is a reworked Neptune from the looks of the bell.

[PlayTheTuba]

Try a 187

You were reading my mind. Seeing as the beef in Bb is already implied.

[Sousaswag]

It's much more in-tune than any Neptune. Supposedly they've just messed with the big bows and bell that are largely from the Fafner.

[Doc]

I briefly had the MRP and the 188 at the same time and took a side by side of the two.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

@bort2.0

^^^Check the link^^^

Problem solved.

[bort2.0]

I briefly had the MRP and the 188 at the same time and took a side by side of the two.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

@bort2.0

^^^Check the link^^^

Problem solved.

What's interesting is that this photo makes the 188 look a LOT bigger than it actually is.

The MRP is top of my list of things to try, but I haven't been in any rush to do anything about that. It's so far beyond out of reach, there's little sense of me getting attached or having any ideas in my head. No chance I'll be buying a 188 any time soon either. Heck, I'll be lucky if I'm able to hang onto the Martin to be honest.

Anyway! That's a very cool photo, one I have never seen before!

[bloke]

I haven't seen any bargain priced MRP C tubas. Honestly, I kind of like those regular old rotary pt6 tubas, which would probably be my preferred answer to the question were those things still being cranked out. Those seem to offer a little bit more definition and a little less puffiness and poofiness than the piston version.

I've always enjoyed listening to recordings (and live for one concert) of Jeff Anderson playing the PT6 that he played up until recently. I get them impression that he switched to a Yorkophone simply to do something different for a while (or for a long while?), and not because he was looking for something different for any specific reason. In other words, I suspect he switched just to find out what those things are all about, since they are all over the place.

[MN_TimTuba]

Brett,
I wish I had enough experience to offer something of value, but let me just suggest this - if you'll be at the April event, why not contact David Paulson, find out who the Miraphone rep will be. Contact them and ask them to bring specific horns, such as a 188, a 496, a Bruckner, a 1291. You could get some back to back playing time, also compare them to my Stofer King and others on display. Last, but not least, you'll have the empathetic ears of a number of your friends there to offer honest opinions, and maybe some heckling, whatever is necessary.
Can't hurt.
Much.
Tim
PS. I have Dave Paulson's info if needed.

[bort2.0]

Thanks, Tim! Unfortunately, I think I'll be traveling home from Chicago that afternoon... So it won't work out. Would be just about perfect though.

Perhaps the honest opinions are what I fear the most.

[kingrob76]

@bort2.0 's horn adventures always fascinate me because he comes across as very fickle, when in reality he simply has a shifting set of priorities that, for a myriad of reasons, have forced horns to come and go. I get that, I can respect that. But I do think he's searching for the horn that creates zero musical and logistical issues, and that's tough. Plays great, doesn't fit in car or go down to the basement easily... etc. Compromise doesn't seem to hold up - again, I think that's actually pretty cool. He wants what he wants.

I think the PT-6 is the closest to the 188 in terms of a bigger rotary tuba (the MrP as well), but, it's a different kind of sound for sure. This is where I wish the 190 actually worked, and I'm a bit bugged Miraphone never used the computer to solve the quirks of the 190 because I do think there's a market for that horn (if they can make it play closer to a 188).

[bloke]

bloke bias, which my skew bloke's view of reality...
I believe r&d - as far as Miraphone and large tubas (certainly those with rotary valves) is concerned - has shifted to (remained with) B-flat (where it belongs - re: my recent reformed-smoker-ish formed biases).

Something that's here - regardless of how well in tune some model 90 (C) instrument were made to play - is something that a model 90 C could never hope to approach...but I DID play one of those re-issue 190 C tubas (with the lighter/smaller rotors - owned by Ben Pierce), and they WERE better than those which were produced c. 50 years ago...and not only better "valve action", but better tuning as well.

[bort2.0]

@bort2.0 's horn adventures always fascinate me because he comes across as very fickle, when in reality he simply has a shifting set of priorities that, for a myriad of reasons, have forced horns to come and go. I get that, I can respect that. But I do think he's searching for the horn that creates zero musical and logistical issues, and that's tough.

There are many reasons, including the ones you mentioned.

Other considerations that are made:
* Changing priorities (what suits my current playing situation the best)
* Only owning 1 tuba (if I could have kept two or three or four, this would have been really easy)
* Sometimes, just wanting to have something else for a while (I'm not a pro, and honestly some of my playing enjoyment is just switching things up now and then. Only reasons you need for buying a tuba are that you want it and that you can afford it. Owning a particular tuba is not a life sentence, nor is it a guarantee it'll stick around for life)
* Sometimes, it's to keep myself interested in the hobby at times when I'm not playing very much. For example, when my children were first born and going to rehearsals and stuff like that just was not a reality. Or, during covid, where I couldn't do much of anything at all, buying, selling, and trading... Sure, why not
* And then money. More than a few times, I've sold tubad because I needed the money instead of the instrument. People always say things like don't do that or, you'll regret doing this later... But to be honest, a very low use and expensive object makes no sense to sit around my house if it's not being used, no matter how much I like it. I wouldn't sit and look at his stack of $5,000 and $100 bills bundles when I needed $5,000. I wouldn't something look at a tuba worth $5,000 in that situation either.

And even for the best of the best, my enduring mantra is "It's okay; they made more."