Mfone 85

[Mary Ann]

Does anyone know right off the bat the difference between this and the 184 5U CC?

https://www.dillonmusic.com/miraphone-model-85-cc-tuba/

[the elephant]

An 85 is pretty much halfway between the 84 and 86 in size.

The horns in this photo are pretty beat, but here is a 186 BBb next to a 185 BBb…

[Mary Ann]

Thx. Dillon according to the web site has a new one that is not as expensive as a new 186 but way more than a 410.
Is this difference bore size? As noted in the past it doesn't seem to be bore size that affects me as much as bugle length. NStar was pretty big bore. I still need to get that local lady to let me try her 410 before I go honking off spending a bunch of $$$. I really don't want to pay shipping (not good for either seller OR buyer) just to play test and find out.

[MN_TimTuba]

Someone here recently posted some nifty photos or brochure pages showing a full lineup of 184 thru 190 horns from a couple of different angles, but danged if I can locate it now.
Maybe one of you knows what I'm talking about and will repost the link, eh?
Tim

[bort2.0]

Someone here recently posted some nifty photos or brochure pages showing a full lineup of 184 thru 190 horns from a couple of different angles, but danged if I can locate it now.
Maybe one of you knows what I'm talking about and will repost the link, eh?
Tim

http://www.daveamason.com/mirafone/cctubas.html

[MN_TimTuba]

Nice work, Brett!
BUT, now I see it doesn't include the 185 that MaryAnn was specifically looking for. Sorry about that, MA! I tried.
Tim

[the elephant]

MA —

An 85 is just smaller. Everything is smaller. Bore, height, width, weight — all are slightly smaller numbers. And the 84 is slightly smaller than the 85 in all the same ways. To me, the 85 looks like a skinny 86, but the 84 looks like a miniaturized 86. It's hard to explain. The "tweener" 85 model is pretty rare in the US in both the BBb and the CC versions, and I do not feel like Miraphone has the intonation as well ironed out as with the fatter 86 and 88. The 86 has known and understood intonation quirks that are very consistent. The 85 is a bit more hit-or-miss.

I would have no qualms about buying another 410 from Tom at Mack Brass. Mine was lacquered and had the gold brass bell. I liked it a lot. If I had not later purchased an old 86 that blew it out of the water I would still happily play it in the orchestra; I only sold it because I needed money. I was not in any way unhappy with it. And I was able to buy it with cash from about five freelance gigs. It *did* need some cleanup work to the valves and slides, but I think most new tubas today need this.

Any real Mirafone or Miraphone product — unless a dog or a beater — will cost more than a new 410. Also, knowing how small you are, I would look at the 84 instead of either of the larger tubas. But I am sure you have already looked at and dismissed the 84, for whatever reason.

If you can trial an 85 and find it is to your liking and in your price range it would be a great tuba. Just be *very* sure it is to your liking by taking a tuner with you when you give it a honk.

[bloke]

I completely agree with Wade, but (as much as 84's are beloved by so many, and I owned two of the C's - one of which ended up being owned by Ron Bishop later) their intonation characteristics (from the era the vast majority of them were produced) are nothing particularly sterling about which to write home, either...perhaps better than 185's which (per Wade's accurate assessment) were pretty wonky. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of 185 C instruments (when new) were shipped from Germany to California to Cookeville, TN.

You know me: currently on a B-flat kick, so...

As far as Jinbao is concerned, the B-flat Hirsbrunner knock-offs play fairly well in tune, are considerably shorter in stature than Jinbao knockoffs of Miraphone 86 C's, and play a nice "low F" without a 5th valve.

https://www.jimlaabsmusicstore.com/stor ... tary-tuba/

If you would consider throwing mo' money at a more well-made Chinese instrument, I'm really proud to sell these, they are smaller yet (still with a "big" sound), and I LIKE THEM JUST ABOUT AS MUCH as that compact Holton B-flat that I built for myself:

https://www.jpmusicalinstruments.com/pr ... ng-bb-tuba

again: 4-valves, plays "low F" without having to work your thumb

Hey...
If I can learn to mash buttons and blow a B-flat tuba, anyone can - certainly a power plant operator/engineer...

[tofu]

.

[Mary Ann]

I'm currently holding up a 35 piece band of relative newbies with my 183. You can definitely hear it over them in the oom-pah pieces, and the conductor keeps smiling and telling people to "listen to Mary Ann" (Haha, because they do not pay enough attention to he arm-waving up front!!) Perhaps part of this IS because it is an Eb and my lungs are not blowing themselves inside out to fill it.

I have not discarded the idea of the 184 in Idaho and am waiting for the seller's response to my request to do a Zoom showing it to me. He may have found a buyer by now, anyway. I'm just trying to keep a wide open mind and consider what I think are reasonable alternatives, while remembering my last venture into longer bugles, and how the lights came on when I first played an NStar. When I tried that Wessex 3/4 BBb Miraclone, it clearly was not as good a build as a real Mfone, although usable, and the bugle was clearly too long for my comfort.

When I had the 184, someone in the brass band had a (real) 186, let me play it, and it was EASIER to blow than the 184. I have never figured that one out, frankly. I was told by pro players that my 184 was a most excellent representative of those tubas, but it was a lot older than that 186 the guy had. I also long ago tried a 188 at WWBW when Roger was there, but did not yet have anything resembling correct use of air and it sounded wimpy with me playing it. Really, I won't know until I get a hold of a CC to try, whether I am trying to climb the wrong tree or not. Sigh -- I think it's more fun while the money is still in the bank, than after you spend it. And I continue to have fun with the 183. Just found out today it's not that good an idea to play it two days in a row, because it is a whole lot heavier on the second day than the first.

One thing about the 184 in Idaho is that it is probably the most re-saleable of the lot.

[the elephant]

Again, due to sales numbers, I think that Miraphone has invested a LOT more R&D time and $$$$$$$ in the 186 as compared to the 184. It is easier to play despite the size because it is a very well-developed model. I think the 84 and 85 are somewhat less developed, based on intonation and response/blow. I think your observation was correct and not some weird placebo thing. It is a great tuba.

If you are big enough to hold one, a classic 186 (smaller bell) is very light and easy to hold for long stretches. The modern one is heavier with a larger bell. It has hydraulically formed branches, which are thicker. The old ones have hand-formed tubes cut and rolled to be the correct taper (and not requiring a blow-out press to shape them), with uniformly thin, light bell and branches. The classic ones are light and thin because of the care used to make them and would be stupid-expensive if made that way today.

If you can find a decent 186-5U CC from the 1970s with good intonation you will have a winner, almost sight unseen. The 1970s had two versions of this horn, with the earlier ones coming with a larger leadpipe (I think this actually was used from about 1968-1974, but I am no expert) and the later ones used a smaller, sweeter-playing leadpipe that tended to get an edgy tone when pushed really hard, but was a better quintet or solo tuba, better as a section tuba in a big group, etc. The earlier ones were better by themselves in a big group, IMHO.

I am a huge cheerleader for the earlier tubas for what I do, but I usually recommend 1975-1980 (more or less) 186s to local players who want to play in a community band or other large group where other tubas are usually present. Other than the leadpipe change I am not sure anything else was altered. I have been told that something was done to the inner branches to improve the intonation, but this is hearsay. Or heresy. Or both. ;-)

If you can survive on a CC tuba with only four valves, one of these (1970s-era 186-4U CC) frequently can be found for under $3000. Adding a 5th later can be done (unlike many rotary tubas like the MW-32, which requires a new 1st slide, too, for the factyr 5th to be installed) but parts and labor are upwards of $1500.

[bloke]

...???

https://www.ebay.com/itm/304641341857

[Casca Grossa]

I currently own two 184 CC tubas. One was produced around 1985 and the other around 1989. Love them both. Intonation is on par with a 186 but more nimble. I briefly owned a 185 CC produced around 1972. I still regret not holding on to that tuba. It was hands down the best tuba I have ever played. My financial situation at the time caused me to sell it. Intonation was fantastic, it was nimble, and I could put out a lot of sound without it breaking up. I have also owned the Miraclone 186, a Miraphone 186 CC and a 188. All but the clone had the old style 5th valve. I enjoyed all of these horns. It is why I recently went back to the 184. I know there are some bad examples of any of these models but I kind of lucked out on all of mine. Intonation was pretty much exactly the same on all of those horns. Very point and shoot. On all I played E in the staff 1-2 and Eb in the staff 2-3. The Miraclone was better for me to play low Db 2-4 with a slide pull rather than use the 5th valve. If you find a 185 you like, I'd say get it.

[Mary Ann]

Thanks. The 184 I had, the E in the staff was flat open but "almost" lippable and I usually played it open, depending on its position in the chord, and knowing that in amateur groups intonation really wasn't needed to be on a professional level. They were a whole lot more interested in the "tuba driving the beat" than any minor intonation challenges.

Nice to know that I wasn't imagining things with that 186 being easier to blow.

I'll just be hanging out for a while I think until something really snags me. No response to the zoom request to Idaho but perhaps he doesn't check his email every day. Sounds like if I actually want a 186 I should wait for an older one --- and I missed that one that sold here recently. I'm actually doing fine with the 183 with only four valves, but it has the most open low range of anything I've owned so far. My 184 was very open but took more air; one lungful = one second of a note in the lower half of the pedal octave.

[bloke]

Doc has a blingy (as well as inexplicably in tune) 186 C (with five valves) from the 1960s

Maybe, ask him if he’s tired of it yet.

[Yorkboy]

Does anyone know the bore size of the 183/184? I think they are the same, around 19mm/.748, iirc

[bloke]

I believe that later 83 E-flat tubas were 18mm, along with the old small 80 F’s and 84 contrabasses.

I liked those 80 F tubas.
Being something other than a five-bore-sizes B&S rotary F tuba, I suspect that the second space C was probably sharp… ‘ seems to be an across-the-board trait from one brand and model to the next (with the noted exception).

[iiipopes]

Somebody else please confirm this, but historically one item about the BBb tuba numbering was the last digit in the model number roughly equalled the second digit of the bell diameter, with the bugle to match and a couple of different bores to the valve block:
184 - 14"
185 - 15"
186 - 16 (or in reality 16 1/2)
187 - 17
Of course, in recent times, the 186 has a larger bell now.
Please correct me.

[arpthark]

Does anyone know the bore size of the 183/184? I think they are the same, around 19mm/.748, iirc

I just checked a #2 183 slide I had in my parts drawer: bloke is right, 18mm.

[bloke]

I’ve heard that theory about the sizes, but - if that’s really what happened - why do they all start with an “8”, instead of simply being “14, 15, 16, 17, 18” ?

A further counter-argument is that - when the various Miraphone bells are measured - they ALL come out to even numbers of millimeters, and NONE of them come out to even numbers of inches.

This is even true for that odd size of bell on the earlier Kaiser model 90 B-flat. Via the theoretical system, 90 (aka 190) should somehow equal 20 inches… but that B-flat tuba (and the C version was a sort of parenthetical/sidebar/“for export” goofy version – as far as they were concerned) featured an unusual 17-1/3 inch bell (carefully measured: 420mm).