186 vs 184 CC

[Tim Jackson]

I have really been enjoying my 1960s 186 CC 5U lately. I think a 184 would be a great addition to my stable. (since I'm loving the 186 as a solo horn - maybe I'll like the 184 even better. I am mostly doing solo playing with a pianist friend. My G50 is perfect for this playing and the the 186 as well. I like the response of smaller bore G50 and the slots in the high register of the 186. Seems like the 184 might be a good road to go down.

So, if you have owned a 186 & 184 what are some of the pros and cons in comparing these models.

Thanks, TJ

[bloke]

SOME of the early-vintage 186's offer remarkably good intonation.

MOST of the early-vintage 184's offer remarkably wonky intonation.
We BOUGHT these because non-wonky F tubas (which play as well as B&S Symphonie F tubas, which also weren't absolutely consistent) weren't widely available until well into the late 1970's.

[Casca Grossa]

I have 2 examples of a Mirafone 184 CC. One built around 1985 and the other around 1989. The older of the two plays really well in tune if the main tuning slide is pulled out pretty far. Everything lines up as long as you don't mind the tuning slide hanging out far. The 1989 version plays quite well in tune with the MTS pulled out maybe an inch but the G at the bottom of the staff has to be played 1-3. Everything else lines up nicely. Both require 1-2 and 2-3 for the E and Eb in the staff, but I don't consider that alternate fingerings for a Mirafone (and yes, they are both spelled with the f rather than ph). Super agile horns with an easy and open bottom end. Upper end sings and slots much nicer than most CC tubas. The intonation issues might be fixed by a much better player than me. I have been using the Blokepiece solo on both, but might go back to the Imperial which might cure some of the small intonation issues I have.

[bloke]

Both require 1-2 and 2-3 for the E and Eb in the staff

yes.

I'm not "calling you out" - and nor am I trying to be a "snoot" - but (though I dealt with instruments demanding these valve combinations for quite a few years) I don't choose to own such instruments, these days.

Admittedly, with "remarkably easy tuning" being the first thing (and in bold) on my punch list, my choices are quite limited.

Within the last not-so-many years, I've owned-and-sold two different 186 5-rotor C instruments, neither of which called for those alternates.
One was made (though I cannot remember precisely) around 1964 or so, and the other around 1968 or 1969...and I've also encountered 186 C instruments (from that same era) which featured quite serious quirks; not only did the E and D-sharp require alternates, but the G below those those pitches - occasionally - was nearly as problematic as with some of the 6/4-size C instruments.

[Pauvog1]

Both require 1-2 and 2-3 for the E and Eb in the staff

yes.

I'm not "calling you out" - and nor am I trying to be a "snoot" - but (though I dealt with instruments demanding these valve combinations for quite a few years) I don't choose to own such instruments, these days.

Admittedly, with "remarkably easy tuning" being the first thing (and in bold) on my punch list, my choices are quite limited.

Within the last not-so-many years, I've owned-and-sold two different 186 5-rotor C instruments, neither of which called for those alternates.
One was made (though I cannot remember precisely) around 1964 or so, and the other around 1968 or 1969...and I've also encountered 186 C instruments (from that same era) which featured quite serious quirks; not only did the E and D-sharp require alternates, but the G below those those pitches - occasionally - was nearly as problematic as with some of the 6/4-size C instruments.

Agreed! Definitely a try before you buy with the 184 or 185. I wonder if a more efficient (read as smaller / brighter) mouthpiece for the 186 might cover the difference better. Maybe like a Sellmansberger Imperial. I know more tubas is more fun, but sometimes a second mouthpiece with a good horn is just as good (if not better), it works for a lot of our trumpet playing colleges. I know a lot of commerical style trumpet players who use 2-3 mouthpieces on the same Bb for different gigs. The trumpet players often have a concert/orchestral piece, a middle of the road (think pops), and a dedicated lead piece on the same horn (usually a variation on a middle of the road horn), like a 186. Just food for thought, while you find that extra 184.

I wonder if a Eastman 632 might fit that same bill totally different style, but arguably more consistent.

[bloke]

Who knows...?? but I wasn't trying to sell a mouthpiece, here.

You also seem to forget...

I gave up your mouthpiece in favor of a K&G because it plays so much better in all aspects.

[tofu]

Both require 1-2 and 2-3 for the E and Eb in the staff

yes.

I'm not "calling you out" - and nor am I trying to be a "snoot" - but (though I dealt with instruments demanding these valve combinations for quite a few years) I don't choose to own such instruments, these days.

Admittedly, with "remarkably easy tuning" being the first thing (and in bold) on my punch list, my choices are quite limited.

Within the last not-so-many years, I've owned-and-sold two different 186 5-rotor C instruments, neither of which called for those alternates.
One was made (though I cannot remember precisely) around 1964 or so, and the other around 1968 or 1969...and I've also encountered 186 C instruments (from that same era) which featured quite serious quirks; not only did the E and D-sharp require alternates, but the G below those those pitches - occasionally - was nearly as problematic as with some of the 6/4-size C instruments.

Agreed! Definitely a try before you buy with the 184 or 185. I wonder if a more efficient (read as smaller / brighter) mouthpiece for the 186 might cover the difference better. Maybe like a Sellmansberger Imperial. I know more tubas is more fun, but sometimes a second mouthpiece with a good horn is just as good (if not better), it works for a lot of our trumpet playing colleges. I know a lot of commerical style trumpet players who use 2-3 mouthpieces on the same Bb for different gigs. The trumpet players often have a concert/orchestral piece, a middle of the road (think pops), and a dedicated lead piece on the same horn (usually a variation on a middle of the road horn), like a 186. Just food for thought, while you find that extra 184.

I wonder if a Eastman 632 might fit that same bill totally different style, but arguably more consistent.

I own a couple 185’s. The BBb has good intonation - the C is ok but requires a fair amount of slide pulling. I use both an LM-10 and an Imperial. The LM-10 (Tommy Johnson) for more solo playing. The Imperial by far offers the best intonation of any mouth piece I’ve tried in either of these 2 185’s.

[Casca Grossa]

Both require 1-2 and 2-3 for the E and Eb in the staff

yes.

I'm not "calling you out" - and nor am I trying to be a "snoot" - but (though I dealt with instruments demanding these valve combinations for quite a few years) I don't choose to own such instruments, these days.

Admittedly, with "remarkably easy tuning" being the first thing (and in bold) on my punch list, my choices are quite limited.

Within the last not-so-many years, I've owned-and-sold two different 186 5-rotor C instruments, neither of which called for those alternates.
One was made (though I cannot remember precisely) around 1964 or so, and the other around 1968 or 1969...and I've also encountered 186 C instruments (from that same era) which featured quite serious quirks; not only did the E and D-sharp require alternates, but the G below those those pitches - occasionally - was nearly as problematic as with some of the 6/4-size C instruments.

I always seem to gravitate back to Mirafone tubas over other horns I have owned. They just “feel” right and sound the best for me. Over the years, I have developed problems with my hands. First I couldn’t play piston horns, and now only small bore rotor horns fit the bill. I have owned the 184, 185, 186, and 188 CC models. All required the 1-2 and 2-3 for the E and Eb in the staff so they don’t seem like alternate fingerings for me. My two favorites I wish I still owned was a 185 built around 1972 and a 188 built around 1990. My physical limitations don’t allow me to be a snob, but I enjoy my 184s.

[tubanh84]

I love my 184. It's not at all an easy instrument to play, though, in a couple important ways. The intonation is bad. There is a lot of slide pulling I have to do, and alternate fingerings for C#, D, Eb, and E are a must. Even for shorter notes. They're that far out. The bottom line G is sharp. Top of the staff takes a lot of getting used to. 2-4 simply doesn't slot. Etc...When I want something that plays easy and is point and shoot, I grab my Gnagey 4/4.

HOWEVER, for things like the Gregson concerto, Bach cello suites, excerpts like Lohengrin, Meistersinger, even the Planets, it's incredible. The sound is exactly what I want, it is very nimble, and has a very VERY accessible low register. I would play it in most community/smaller orchestral settings, as it won't blow anyone away and can literally do anything, even if it's not the best at any one particular thing. I.e., whatever you are using it for, there is probably another horn that can do it better. But there are very few horns that can do the breadth of what the 184 can do as well as it can do all of them.

If I had a 186, I would probably get an old 180 if I wanted a vintage smaller Miraphone. I don't know that the 184 gets you much that the 186 doesn't do better or that an F tuba wouldn't do better. But I also get wanting one. I played one in 2005-06 for a few months, and pined after it ever since, finally buying mine in 2021. It's a very unique, fun horn. It's the right horn for the right person in the right setting. But it's not a replacement for anything.

Sorry if this is all over the place. I don't really know how else to describe the 184. It's a completely useless horn that somehow makes itself indispensable.

[bloke]

The crazy-huge Miraphone I'm currently using (and B-flat length to boot), features a not-in-the-least-flat D, and a "possibly hints at sharp" (until completely warmed up) F in the staff. The C-sharp (2nd valve) "centers" flat, BUT (that word: "slotting") is "barn-door wide", and sounds the same (as well as feeling the same to my face) when played at pitch. I've CONSIDERED playing that pitch with 2-3, yet - every time I glance at the tuner, checking on it - it's at pitch. ...and (I know this comes off as a lame excuse) I find myself playing in keys such as A major, D major, (etc.) so often, that "flat" re: C-sharp (unless there's a keyboard instrument in the mix) is "good".

Moreover, that C-sharp is probably the "worst" pitch on the instrument, but is not-at-all "bad"...not even an issue. LOUD 2nd valve C-sharps...?? ...They're going to creep sharp anyway.

It's pretty obvious that Miraphone employed new-fangled "best compromises" bugle taper technology with the model of tuba I use (I'm thinking it may only be about a 12-years-developed model). I very strongly suspect that the 186 bugle taper was (quietly/unceremoniously) analyzed and altered at some point (though - again - SOME of the 1960's ones are absolutely amazing...with others from that era being wretched). I'm wondering if they get enough orders - these days - for 184/185 instruments to have gone to that expense and to retool their bugles.

bloke "a good bit of speculation - vs. known facts - in my post"

[tubanh84]

. I'm wondering if they get enough orders - these days - for 184/185 instruments to have gone to that expense and to retool their bugles.

bloke "a good bit of speculation - vs. known facts - in my post"

The 185 I played a couple years ago would be pretty strong proof that they haven't. May be the worst-in-tune instrument I have ever played.

[bloke]

. I'm wondering if they get enough orders - these days - for 184/185 instruments to have gone to that expense and to retool their bugles.

bloke "a good bit of speculation - vs. known facts - in my post"

The 185 I played a couple years ago would be pretty strong proof that they haven't. May be the worst-in-tune instrument I have ever played.

Several years ago (other than worn nitrocellulose lacquer) I bought a "cream puff" condition (EARLY 1960's) BB 185.

(Jeff Anderson - amazingly nice man - actually helped me get it shipped to me.)

The tuning was "interesting"...but (being SUPER-vintage) I have no idea whether later versions behave a bit better.

[Stryk]

All I can speak of is the 184 I own. It uses beginning band book fingerings and plays very well in tune.

[bloke]

All I can speak of is the 184 I own. It uses beginning band book fingerings and plays very well in tune.

184 config's have varied.
- B-flat bottom bows have BOTH been like the C ones AND different.
- C mouthpipes and main slide connectors have BOTH been like the B-flat ones AND different.

[Mary Ann]

The two 184s I had were quite different.
Question though -- do the NEW 184s/ 186s have as good intonation as the Hagens? The Hagen is not "perfect" but it is "perfectly manageable."