PT-6R vs. 188

[Wyvern]

Two very different beasts! The PT-6 is a big tuba with a broad tubby, virtual BAT sound - while the 188 is a medium size CC with a more direct sound.

If you want to hold up a big orchestra, you are better with a PT-6, but if you are playing a solo, then the 188 may be better.

The 188 is more comparable to the smaller B&S PT-20, although I feel the latter still has a bigger sound.

[Rick Denney]

Two very different beasts! The PT-6 is a big tuba with a broad tubby, virtual BAT sound - while the 188 is a medium size CC with a more direct sound.

If you want to hold up a big orchestra, you are better with a PT-6, but if you are playing a solo, then the 188 may be better.

I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. A 188 can hold its own in any orchestra, if the 188 sound concept is what you want. It will make a sound that is plenty big and loud, and it has been used successfully in many large-scale orchestral situations.

The 188 sound is forceful and direct. The PT-6 is a bit broader and not as forceful. The 188 supplements the trombones, and the PT-6 complements them.

Both are orchestral tubas. I wouldn't think of a 188 as ideal for chamber or solo work because it's too big and powerful. The modern trend has been for the tuba to have a broader, deeper--I didn't say darker--sound that complements the trombones rather than the greater intensity and presence implemented (very differently) by Miraphone, Rudy Meinl, and Alexander. That's why the 188 is not so popular in orchestras as it once was.

Depending on where you are in the hall, the sound of the hall, and the musical context, the difference might be negligible. So the generalizations above are just that. No orchestral tuba player should reject a 188 out of hand, it seems to me, if they are looking for something suited to a particular playing circumstance.

That's just my observation of hearing them from the second balcony.

Rick "who has never had any trouble hearing a well-played 188 from the cheap seats" Denney

[Wyvern]

Rick,
I do agree with you! I was rather unclear in my previous post. What I really meant was that the 188 does not have the tonal characteristics to provide the tubby foundation sound to an orchestra which many of us like. It of course is suitable for orchestral use, as listening to some recordings of Roger Bobo well prove.

Jonathan "who thinks virtually any tuba can be used with an orchestra in the right work and setting"

[Gorilla Tuba]

I now play a PT6. I used to own mirafones that were both 186 and 188 flavored. I like all three equally.

As was stated earlier the 188 tends to be "punchier" than a PT6. However, I found that Mike Finn mouthpieces tamed my 188 in a way that made it seem almost as mellow or "chocolately" as the PT6. I like that it (the 188) can have a cutting sound and also be mellowed out with a different mouthpiece. Mouthpiece changes on my PT6 offer far more subtle tonal differences.

I use my PT6 as part of a team with my F tuba. If I were to exclusively (or even predominantly) play CC tuba, I'd likely choose a 188. In fact, if I were buying a horn without trying it first, a 188 would be among the safest bets.

[Easty621]

This is a little off topic, but do you guys think the 188 and HB2 are a lot alike? And what would you rather play in an orchestra?