Meinl 25

[KingTuba1241X]

Ok, tell me everything about them. How they blow, good & bad notes, pros and cons....Best suited for what types of music and is it a good alternative to a Miraphone 187/188 sound and play wise?

[DonO.]

I assume you mean a Meinl-Weston model 25, not a Rudy Meinl? That was my first “good” tuba. I bought mine used in late 1974, and it got me through undergraduate studies very nicely. I had a friend who had a Miraphone 186, which I played, and in comparison to that it was noticeably heavier in weight. It seemed heavier built, with thicker brass, heavier bracing, and more nickel silver trim. Still, I thought it played just fine and it did everything I needed it to do. I always had the feeling that the valves had a sluggish feel. I could play speedy passages just fine, but it was just that I felt the valves lagged behind by a fraction of a second. It’s something I got used to and worked around. At the time, it was the best horn I could afford. I eventually sold it and bought a Cerveny 686 to replace it. I don’t have any idea what the modern version is like, but after playing one for a number of years I would say it’s a good sounding and good playing horn, well made, but before buying one make sure the valves are not sluggish.

[KingTuba1241X]

I assume you mean a Meinl-Weston model 25, not a Rudy Meinl? That was my first “good” tuba. I bought mine used in late 1974, and it got me through undergraduate studies very nicely. I had a friend who had a Miraphone 186, which I played, and in comparison to that it was noticeably heavier in weight. It seemed heavier built, with thicker brass, heavier bracing, and more nickel silver trim. Still, I thought it played just fine and it did everything I needed it to do. I always had the feeling that the valves had a sluggish feel. I could play speedy passages just fine, but it was just that I felt the valves lagged behind by a fraction of a second. It’s something I got used to and worked around. At the time, it was the best horn I could afford. I eventually sold it and bought a Cerveny 686 to replace it. I don’t have any idea what the modern version is like, but after playing one for a number of years I would say it’s a good sounding and good playing horn, well made, but before buying one make sure the valves are not sluggish.

I assume "sluggish" valves can be remedied by a tech along with an ultrasonic cleaning...maybe?

[matt g]

The MW-25 is a bit between an Alex and a Miraphone in terms of timbre. Pitch may not be as easy as a 188 (which is super easy) or a 186 (either flavor is quite good), but it’s certainly workable. I believe the fifth partial is flat per most horns of that ilk. For whatever reason, 3rd is often a better choice than 1+2.

I owned a MW-32 for a few years and thought it was a fine tuba.

[GC]

I bought a 25 back in 1972 because I was sick of the inconsistent Miraphone 186's at college. It was a larger horn, taller, heavier, wider bell and bows, darker tone. It could take a ton of air without breakup. Valves were fabulous. Both high and low register were easy. However, it was stuffy and the slots were very narrow. I ran out of need for it and sold it in 1977.

I've played several in the last few years, and they are similar, but much less stuffy and inflexible. The relocation of the slides sometime after my horn was built made them play much better. If I come across a reasonably priced recent one that plays well, I'll grab it. I had the opportunity to buy one or an early new-series King 2341 about 2002; I bought the King and later regretted it. If I'd bought the 25, I'd probably still have it.

I love my JP377, but there are times that a BBb is better for concert band.

[tofu]

.

[KingTuba1241X]

ok so alot of not so good reviews here, surprised. I don't like the word stuffy or "tight slotting" and doing a deep search I've seen "sluggish valves" or slow valves a few times. It's not "forever" do all horn either...more like a "well my college had them back in the old days, and it was just "decent" and did it's job". I'm coming off the easiest horn in the world to play (King 2341) and it's my first rotary in awhile, maybe I will keep eyeballing the 187 instead.

[Three Valves]

I will keep eyeballing the 187 instead.

If I recall, they have one in stock at Taylor music for about $8,500.



Yep!!

https://www.1800usaband.com/products/view/147

[bloke]

really solid 5/4 rotary tubas.

JP (John Packer) offers a super-duper / high-quality / fabulous-fit-and-finish copy (gold brass), which – depending on just how competitively dealers (such as myself ) price them – can compete (though this is one of JP's higher-priced models) with used prices on good condition model 25 tubas.

They're outfitted with the large lightweight aluminum-body European Minibal links, and feature the same spring-system linkage stabilizers as found on the German-made models.
I'd be proud to mount any JP complete valveset (piston or rotary) on a tuba that would build for myself.

https://www.jpmusicalinstruments.com/pr ... g-bbb-tuba

[York-aholic]

I played a 186 in college and my teacher had a 25 in his arsenal. I don’t remember why, but he loaned me the 25 for a week or two.

To me it was similar, but “more”. Physically more and a bigger sound. I don’t remember any issues/concerns with it.

[bloke]

very similar tuning characteristics to a 186 (flat-but-not-horrible 5th partial, etc.).
The (apparently abandoned) model 20 was slightly smaller than a 186 (perhaps "Rudy 3/4 sized", YET with a .768" bore).
The model 25 (which has survived) features the SAME .768" valveset, but a larger bugle and larger bell.

I played a 186 in college and my teacher had a 25 in his arsenal. I don’t remember why, but he loaned me the 25 for a week or two.

To me it was similar, but “more”. Physically more and a bigger sound. I don’t remember any issues/concerns with it.

[KingTuba1241X]

very similar tuning characteristics to a 186 (flat-but-not-horrible 5th partial, etc.).
The (apparently abandoned) model 20 was slightly smaller than a 186 (perhaps "Rudy 3/4 sized", YET with a .768" bore).
The model 25 (which has survived) features the SAME .768" valveset, but a larger bugle and larger bell.

I played a 186 in college and my teacher had a 25 in his arsenal. I don’t remember why, but he loaned me the 25 for a week or two.

To me it was similar, but “more”. Physically more and a bigger sound. I don’t remember any issues/concerns with it.

But is it an Air

[matt g]

The MW-25 wouldn’t be an air hog for most people.

It plays a lot like most German rotary tubas. In fact, the “stuffy” term that gets thrown around with these horns is usually because the user is blowing the horn wrong (like air that’s “too fast”).

They’re well made horns and used professionally by players in Europe. Alessandro Fossi uses one as a smaller contrabass in his orchestra work.

[KingTuba1241X]

The MW-25 wouldn’t be an air hog for most people.

It plays a lot like most German rotary tubas. In fact, the “stuffy” term that gets thrown around with these horns is usually because the user is blowing the horn wrong (like air that’s “too fast”).

They’re well made horns and used professionally by players in Europe. Alessandro Fossi uses one as a smaller contrabass in his orchestra work.

Guess I can't picture fast or slow air in how it relates to whether a horn is stuffy or not. Alessandro Fossi is a seriously underrated player, enjoy his videos.

[matt g]

I put the term in quotes because it’s not completely accurate.

Low range on those midsize German BBb tubas is a lot like the silly concerns about low C on a German F. It’s usually fine provided you’re giving the horn what it needs and using a proper mouthpiece. Lots of people say stuffy because they are trying to overblow the low register and the old “use slower air” phrase was a mental trick to help them stop overblowing.

[bloke]

The mouthpipe and valve machine are no larger than a 186, and I’ve never felt like those instruments needed a lot more “air“.

Being a couple of inches taller than a 186, the sound is that much farther away from the player’s ears, and it may be a little bit easy to overplay them - just as it is with an even taller Kaiser model or a bell-front model.

I’m not accusing… These are things that I’ve caught myself doing.

[DonO.]

One other thing I forgot to mention. Mine had a large shank receiver. Every mouthpiece I used had an American shank and the receiver swallowed the shank almost up to the shoulder. I probably should have had an adapter made, but everything seemed to work ok so I never bothered. Maybe they have changed that in the newer ones.

[LargeTuba]

I have one, it's decent. I would probably prefer a 186, and I much prefer my Eastman rotor BBb.

It's very easy tuba to steer and controll.

[York-aholic]

If I recall, they have one in stock at Taylor music for about $8,500.

https://www.1800usaband.com/products/view/147 wrote:

“Nickel resonance band on bell”

So the kranz is now a nickel resonance band?

When did that become a thing?

[tubaing]

I found the 25 to be awkward to carry, the upper range didnt slot really nice, and I didnt like the super tall bell.