TubaForum.net

When did Mirafone start putting in a whole step 5th valve on the 186 CC horns? And was the 3rd step valve more common place at the beginning of production of that line until they added the Whole Step or were both commonly used and an option at purchase? Mainly talking about the 60's Mirafones but curious when the whole step horns were made.

The flat whole step is something from the last 20 years.

The two whole step fifth was the default on 5V CC tubas throughout the 70s-90s.

I’m not sure I’ve seen many 5V CCs from the 60s.

My Miraphone 184 5U CC had the major 3rd fifth valve. I liked it a LOT better than the flat whole step fifth valves that I had on my F and Eb. Because you don't have to have nearly as many valves down in that octave above the pedal, and it is more free blowing.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:53 am My Miraphone 184 5U CC had the major 3rd fifth valve. I liked it a LOT better than the flat whole step fifth valves that I had on my F and Eb. Because you don't have to have nearly as many valves down in that octave above the pedal, and it is more free blowing.

I’d agree. Plus, low F (on a 188 CC) played 5-2-3 was bone crushing when needed. And having access to a (slides pulled) all 5 valves pedal C for really soft entrances was cool.

The flat whole step thing was alignment to conventions, I believe.

I cannot state a year, but I’m pretty sure it was about the same time that Miraphone introduced that short-lived 1290 model piston C tuba - with the valve block crowded up towards the top right of the instrument.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:53 am My Miraphone 184 5U CC had the major 3rd fifth valve. I liked it a LOT better than the flat whole step fifth valves that I had on my F and Eb. Because you don't have to have nearly as many valves down in that octave above the pedal, and it is more free blowing.

I played the same model for a while. Also LOVED IT. I am considering selling my CC and F and replacing them with the 184. Because I miss it.

My late 80’s/early 90’s 188 CC and 187 BBb both had the the major 3rd 5th valve. Works well on a contrabass tuba.

The horn in Question I went in on a joint venture with was a 1965, and it had a 3rd step 5th valve and wished it had a Whole step instead. Was wondering if it was common place back then. So then, the Whole step 5'ers didn't show up until the 90's?

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:10 amSo then, the Whole step 5'ers didn't show up until the 90's?

For contrabass, yeah. @bloke’s recollection of the 1290 (when they, along with many others, were trying to make gains in the 4/4+ piston CC market) and mine line up in time pretty well. I think that the 1290 hit the market right around Y2K. Digging around over yonder looks to confirm this but those conversations are disjointed.

Just fwiw...
(for anyone who longs for "the good ol' days")
To CONVERT the standard/modern 186C/188 5th valve shorter circuit length to the vintage longer circuit length (ie. build an ALTERNATE SLIDE to insert into the pair of modern-era factory outside slide tubes) would not be complicated, and nor would it either be overly-long nor look "bad"...

...so: "tortuous bends"....??

If you want to see "tortuous bends", check out any standard #2 valve (half-step) slide circuit.

...and it wouldn't be all that hard to convert one of those 5th valves to "left hand index finger" either.

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:53 am Just fwiw...
(for anyone who longs for "the good ol' days")
To CONVERT the standard/modern 186C/188 5th valve shorter circuit length to the vintage longer circuit length (ie. build an ALTERNATE SLIDE to insert into the pair of modern-era factory outside slide tubes) would not be complicated, and nor would it either be overly-long nor look "bad"...

...so: "tortuous bends"....??

If you want to see "tortuous bends", check out any standard #2 valve (half-step) slide circuit.

...and it wouldn't be all that hard to convert one of those 5th valves to "left hand index finger" either.

The horn I mentioned is a left hand 5th valve trigger and 3rd step. Is there a way to convert up to a whole step without major surgery and cost effectively?

The fact that the old left-hand-operated o.e.m rotors were "stem down" defines the process as either a bit pricey, or a good-bit "custom" (ie. also a bit pricey).

> more new parts and more swap-outs (if the rotor assembly is replaced with brand-new stem-up)...

~or~

> fewer parts (but more in-shop customizing) if the original stem-down rotor is left in place.

Buffalo Bill can post some pictures (though the silver plating might ?? make it a bit difficult to see what was done, when viewing two-dimensional pictures) of my solution (customized way) to allowing the original stem-down rotor to stay in place, while BOTH converting to GG whole-step length AND right-thumb-operated.

issue: The STOCK conversion (shorter circuit) tubing parts are going to be "in the way of" the stock-LOOKING (yet, just a bit improvised) right-hand thumb conversion parts.

I'll try to do that when I get home.

My roommate in college bought a new 184 with a right thumb flat whole step 5th in about 1975.

Stryk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:52 pm My roommate in college bought a new 184 with a right thumb flat whole step 5th in about 1975.

Regardless of the config', a whole bunch of us bought those as "fake F tubas", during that era (me: 1976).

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:40 pm

Stryk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:52 pm My roommate in college bought a new 184 with a right thumb flat whole step 5th in about 1975.

Regardless of the config', a whole bunch of us bought those as "fake F tubas", during that era (me: 1976).

As someone who came up when F tubas were ubiquitous, I've wondered - When you bought these as F tuba substitutes, was it in addition to a larger CC?Or did you get them to cover contrabass as well as bass tuba parts?

tubanh84 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:34 am

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:40 pm

Stryk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:52 pm My roommate in college bought a new 184 with a right thumb flat whole step 5th in about 1975.

Regardless of the config', a whole bunch of us bought those as "fake F tubas", during that era (me: 1976).

As someone who came up when F tubas were ubiquitous, I've wondered - When you bought these as F tuba substitutes, was it in addition to a larger CC?Or did you get them to cover contrabass as well as bass tuba parts?

I bought a 184 C, already had a larger C, and did not sell the larger C.
Speaking up for the 184, I found that it was capable of putting out quite a bit of sound.
Due to one person being bumped down to the “scholarship band“ (lack of technical prowess) and the other capable player dropping out of school, I found it I was the only player left in the concert band. I’ve posted a picture of that band more than once – to show how many people were in it (and mostly just seemed to garner comments about the “hot 1970’s babes” ) , but it was just me and the 184 (not using my larger instrument) playing the tuba parts with that band. To me, the clarity was appealing.

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:04 am

tubanh84 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:34 am

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:40 pm Regardless of the config', a whole bunch of us bought those as "fake F tubas", during that era (me: 1976).

As someone who came up when F tubas were ubiquitous, I've wondered - When you bought these as F tuba substitutes, was it in addition to a larger CC?Or did you get them to cover contrabass as well as bass tuba parts?

I bought a 184 C, already had a larger C, and did not sell the larger C.
Speaking up for the 184, I found that it was capable of putting out quite a bit of sound.
Due to one person being bumped down to the “scholarship band“ (lack of technical prowess) and the other capable player dropping out of school, I found it I was the only player left in the concert band. I’ve posted a picture of that band more than once – to show how many people were in it (and mostly just seemed to garner comments about the “hot 1970’s babes” ) , but it was just me and the 184 (not using my larger instrument) playing the tuba parts with that band. To me, the clarity was appealing.

I never thought that the 184 I played couldn't handle a group. It was certainly a different instrument than my Rudy 5/4, and I had to play it with a different philosophy. But I loved it.

tubanh84 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:34 am As someone who came up when F tubas were ubiquitous, I've wondered - When you bought these as F tuba substitutes, was it in addition to a larger CC?Or did you get them to cover contrabass as well as bass tuba parts?

I never knew a tuba in F even existed until about 10 years ago. I was in college in the 70s and no one I knew of had one at that time.