TubeNet

chris combest wrote:In what order would these particular 6/4 tubas be ranked from largest to smallest?

Yorkbrunner, Nirschl, Neptune, 2165, Holton, B&S

The 2165 and the Holton are a hair bigger than the Yorkbrunner and Nirschl. The Neptune is big, but it's somewhat different shape makes it hard to compare. I assume you are talking about the B&S PT-7P, and I'll bet it's the same as the Neptune.

Rick "whose BB-345 Holton barely, barely fits in a gig bag designed for a Yorkbrunner" Denney

chris combest wrote:In what order would these particular 6/4 tubas be ranked from largest to smallest?

Yorkbrunner, Nirschl, Neptune, 2165, Holton, B&S

Also, what about the Gronitz?

Mark wrote:

chris combest wrote:In what order would these particular 6/4 tubas be ranked from largest to smallest?

Yorkbrunner, Nirschl, Neptune, 2165, Holton, B&S

Also, what about the Gronitz?

...and what about the Rudy Meinl "5/4" horn?

bloke wrote:

Mark wrote:
Also, what about the Gronitz?

Gronitz is remarkably similar in size to the Willson, but weighs much less and plays totally differently.

So, would you describe the Gronitz as a 5/4 then?

Mark wrote:Also, what about the Gronitz?

Seems a bit smaller, particularly in the top bow taper. I'd still call it a 6/4 in the tradition of fat grand orchestral tuba. The Rudy 5/4 is nearly as large, but it's a different kind of instrument, not at all in the tradition of the fat grand orchestral concept.

Not that it matters. Of course, Chris didn't ask it if mattered.

Rick "just answering the question" Denney

How do they compare in terms of sound? Looks can be deceiving.

-Eric

Shockwave wrote:How do they compare in terms of sound? Looks can be deceiving.

-Eric

That is the eternal debate. Different people get different results, so the only way to know is to try for yourself.

Rick "who suspects sample variation covers over model variation in most cases" Denney