piston valve 186 CC

[LeMark]

piston horns are built with short leadpipes and valve sections that are almost never larger than .750. after the short leadpipe and valve section, they start opening up quickly

Miraphones have leadpipes over 2 feet long and a bore close to .790. they really don't start opening up for another couple of feet after that.

In other words, the DNA is so different between the two types of horns are such that one really won't ever remind you of the other

[matt g]

I think the Eastman 4/4 CC tubas meet the criteria of the OP. The prototypes built by @Matt Walters had a lot of this intention regarding intonation. My 4/4 (not for sale) abides by the rules set forth in this thread. From what I’ve heard, Eastman did a pretty decent job sticking with the recipe handed to them.

[bloke]

Whenever a 19.5 mm bore rotary tuba has been offered in a piston version – Hirsbrunner did this first, and others have done it as well - the bore size has been reduced to 19 mm and the mouthpipe tube (after Hirsbrunner’s first outing) has been shortened.
The piston version of the Fafner reduces the bore size by much more than this, and it’s still called a Fafner. PT6 is another example.
Rotary valves present more of a feel of resistance than do piston ones, so smaller bore piston valvesets feel more like larger bore rotary valvesets.
——————-
The Eastman piston tubas follow (though better done than most) previous patterns of the cut down or shortened King tubas, which were (and only medium large bore) piston models to begin with. These are popular, but are not Miraphone-like.

I’m going to have to stick with my original best answer which is a particularly nice playing (unfortunately, a bit rare) Kalison DS…

… but even if Miraphone themselves gave this a shot, it would have to really be altered, because they would have to find a place to put quite a bit of tubing, and quite a few things would have to be changed.

This is an interesting thread, and it reminds me - once again - of those who rate all sorts of things of secondary importance first, and stuff like intonation, resonance, and flexibility below those secondary things.

[cjk]

Does it need to be similar in shape as the 186? If not, I'd recommend the MW 3450. Not a popular model it seems

Works well enough for me for brass quintet

It does not need to be the same shape. thanks!

[cjk]

I think the Eastman 4/4 CC tubas meet the criteria of the OP. The prototypes built by @Matt Walters had a lot of this intention regarding intonation. My 4/4 (not for sale) abides by the rules set forth in this thread. From what I’ve heard, Eastman did a pretty decent job sticking with the recipe handed to them.

Aren't the bells on all these over 18"? The Conn 52j is the only one of these "Matt Walters" type CC tubas that I recall with an 18" bell or smaller.

[matt g]

I think the Eastman 4/4 CC tubas meet the criteria of the OP. The prototypes built by @Matt Walters had a lot of this intention regarding intonation. My 4/4 (not for sale) abides by the rules set forth in this thread. From what I’ve heard, Eastman did a pretty decent job sticking with the recipe handed to them.

Aren't the bells on all these over 18"? The Conn 52j is the only one of these "Matt Walters" type CC tubas that I recall with an 18" bell or smaller.

True, the bells are a little bit larger. If you’re dealing with a case (or trunk) issue, I guess this is a concern. The throat and stack of the Walters/Gnagey style tubas is about the same size or even possibly a smidge smaller than the 186.

[bloke]

Haven’t I seen some weird Jimbo stuff that is just about exactly what the title of this thread defines ?

As far as messing around in someone’s own garage, I’m thinking that the 186 B-flat body would add some length back - that would be lost in the mouthpipe tube length - in such a conversion.

Things that would discourage me from such an experiment would be
- the fact that old 186 B-flat valvesets are usually in better shape than their bodies
- I would be reticent to trash a B-flat tuba that is in such demand by Miraphone-on-the-brain band directors.
- Since the plannedemic, I have not been able to get those really nice completely-assembled JP piston C valvesets.

[dp]

...

[matt g]

…but are not Miraphone-like.

When I read the OP, I was taking this to be “point and shoot” quality, as you mentioned earlier in this thread. I wasn’t really considering the timbre of the 186 vice whatever.

Depending on the room, once the audience is more than 5 meters or so away (and certainly at 10+) from the bell, tubas start to sound a lot alike. The response of a tuba under certain demands is going to make a bit of a difference. For example, a 186 will have a bit more bite in the low register with lots of valves when compared to something like my 4/4 (or even a 2145).

Nonetheless, I’m sure someone, potentially even the smart people at Miraphone, has tried something along the lines of a “piston 186” without a ton of luck. If they had truly nailed it in the 186-like form factor and sonic qualities, I’d assume it would’ve hit the market and be doing okay in terms of sales.

There is a homemade piston 186 somewhere out there, but it’s uniqueness might imply why it’s a singleton.

[bloke]

I’m not trying to disappoint or offend anyone, but that picture (to which you refer) was really challenging me to find anything “Miraphone“ about that Instrument.

[cjk]

If somebody wanted effectively a "piston valved Miraphone 186 CC", what tuba would you recommend to them and why?

I'd recommend they stop taking whatever they are on and go home and sleep it off.

I’m proud to have garnered the ire of dp on tubaforum.

[cjk]

When I read the OP, I was taking this to be “point and shoot” quality, as you mentioned earlier in this thread. I wasn’t really considering the timbre of the 186 vice whatever.

Yep. The first thing in my list:

• 186 / 188 intonation (ie, "stellar". maybe a flat open E, pull on some 1+2 combos, maybe one sharp 2+3, then all the low pitch problems built into the 5 valve system)

[the elephant]

Up to about 1990, the Miraohone '80 series of tubas do not really sound like the tubas made by other companies and do not really sound like the more modern Miraphone offerings. All of them share this quality of sound (except for the 90, which isn't really a part of the 80 series, but is related to it) likely due to their specific bell profile and the leadpipe taper. I don't really know.

I can say that the only thing that sounds and plays like a classic 186 is another classic 186. The old BBb and CC horns — to my ears — sound more alike than the modern CC compared with the classic CC.

The only way to duplicate that in piston form is…

• get a .769" piston set
• purchase an unbent 186 leadpipe
• bend the leadpipe and water key knee (Miraphone's in-house name) to allow the piston set to live where it needs to be
• fit a rotor @ .769" on one end of the piston set or the other
• use all .769" runners, crooks, and inner/outer slide legs
• end up with some weird layout like the Yamaha 621 horns
• prepare yourself for intonation issues

Yes, it can be done so that it sounds like a 186, and it might respond like one, too. But the pitch will likely make it a real dog. And it would take thousands of dollars of parts and labor to create what likely would be a bowser of a tuba.

I think I would refrain from advising someone in a "186-like" piston tuba.

[cjk]

…
Nonetheless, I’m sure someone, potentially even the smart people at Miraphone, has tried something along the lines of a “piston 186” without a ton of luck. If they had truly nailed it in the 186-like form factor and sonic qualities, I’d assume it would’ve hit the market and be doing okay in terms of sales.
….

While I very much agree that there are SUPER smart (and super nice as well) people at Miraphone, I wouldn’t be so sure that they would have considered a piston version of the 186 or 188. Miraphone’s R&D interest seems to go mostly in the BBb direction in recent years.

[tubanh84]

I’m not one to know the guts or lineages of most horns. Nor do I know how they play. But wasn’t the Jupiter CC horn designed to be mostly a piston 186?

As far as one that plays/acts like a piston 186, a 2145 is about as close as I can figure, but the low range isn’t as good as the really good 186’s. But again. That’s a caveat for the REALLY GOOD 186’s.

[bort2.0]

As far as one that plays/acts like a piston 186, a 2145 is about as close as I can figure, but the low range isn’t as good as the really good 186’s. But again. That’s a caveat for the REALLY GOOD 186’s.

I don't know that I understood the low range was very good on the 186. I've always thought it was fine, but nothing outrageous. The 2145, based on my experience playing next one for a year, being played by a military band player, had a very full and open low range. That guy could pop out some pedal e flats that were pretty awesome

[bloke]

This is redundant, but is in bullet point form:

- This wasn’t the original question nor premise, but - if someone really was to think about creating a piston 186… a real one - they would start with a good 186 B-flat body (because a piston valve section and mouthpipe are going to be shorter than the rotary one)… but they wouldn’t do this, because - if a 186 B-flat body is in good shape - the rotary valve section is going to be in good shape too, and these instruments are instruments worth too much to take apart and screw around with.

- Commonly, when a rotary instrument is later offered in a piston version, it’s a 19.5 mm rotary instrument that is offered in a 19 mm piston instrument. They don’t play the same, and they wouldn’t play the same - even with a Miraphone 19.5 (ok: 19.6) mm piston valveset.

=====================
blather warning: !!!

- I wonder how many people who say they don’t like rotary valves have only played $1500 - $2500 Chinese instruments with rotary valves.

- I wonder how many people -,who complain about this tuba’s or that tuba’s “ergonomics” have tried tilting the instrument a little farther this way or that, changing out valve springs with lighter ones, or taking off the thumb ring, and tossing it in the trash. Whether I have weighed 220 pounds or 320 pounds or anything in between, somehow I seem to find a comfortable position with all of my very different instruments, and without bending (and ovaling) their mouthpipe tubes.

[jtm]

...
- This wasn’t the original question nor premise, but - if someone really was to think about creating a piston 186… a real one - they would start with a good 186 B-flat body (because a piston valve section and mouthpipe are going to be shorter than the rotary one)… but they wouldn’t do this, because - if a 186 B-flat body is in good shape - the rotary valve section is going to be in good shape too, and these instruments are instruments worth too much to take apart and screw around with.
...

I just got my Bb 186 back from lending it out for a couple of years, so I gave it a try yesterday. It's from 1965 and it was in public schools the first 30 years, so it's a little ... rumpled. But the valves are great!

I'm now (I believe) a better player than when I had last played that tuba, so I played along with some recordings, and it's so easy to play in tune! Not something I had properly appreciated two years ago.

[tubanh84]

As far as one that plays/acts like a piston 186, a 2145 is about as close as I can figure, but the low range isn’t as good as the really good 186’s. But again. That’s a caveat for the REALLY GOOD 186’s.

I don't know that I understood the low range was very good on the 186. I've always thought it was fine, but nothing outrageous. The 2145, based on my experience playing next one for a year, being played by a military band player, had a very full and open low range. That guy could pop out some pedal e flats that were pretty awesome

I’ve always had more success with the low range on the Miraphones. And you clearly have not experienced the same sample size of 1 that I have on the 2145s. I loved my 2155, but I have never ever felt a need to sit down with another 2145. Literally 100% of the ones I’ve tried have been rough.

[matt g]

…Kalison DS…

Looking at the Kalison DS (and Pro 2000) currently posted in the off-site for sale forum, I’m reminded that the leadpipe on these is pretty long since it loops down towards the bottom of the horn to enter a tuning slide, and then enters the 4th valve first.

That configuration likely makes the total length from the receiver to the exit of the fifth valve about the same as a 186 and the bore sizes are close.