TubeNet

In the archives, one can find several discussions of old on the subject of the Symphonie-model F tubas and the newer Perantucci F tubas made by B&S.

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/aug2003 ... 44226.html

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/oct2002 ... 08695.html

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/feb2004 ... 63957.html

One of these was a discussion I started when I purchased my current Symphonie 5-valve model. I just received a newer B&S 3100 with six valves that I purchased from Alex Kidston, and that gives me the opportunity to compare the two side-by-side.

In several of those old discussions, a certain bloke remarked that the current B&S Model 3100 (non-PT) had the same dimensions as the old Symphonie model. That is exactly correct. All the valve branches are the same, including the graduated bore that starts with a small-diameter 5th and 6th valve (17mm) and increases slightly for each valve up to 21mm at the fourth valve. Most of the Perantucci models increased the size of the branches for valves 1, 5, and 6 (if provided) to the same diameter as the second valve tubing, which is 19mm). From there on, all Symphonie and PT tubas (that don't have the wider bell as does the PT-15) are the same, dimensionally.

And the PT-9, which I've never actually seen marked as such in the three-dimensional world, has those same dimensions as the old Symphonie. But the PT-9, as shown on the JA-Musik web page, also has the interchangeable leadpipes of the Perantucci models, while the leadpipe on mine is fixed and seems to have the same taper as the leadpipe on my older Symphonie.

http://www.ja-musik.com/tuba/ftuba.php

The tuba that I just received is not marked "Symphonie", and it is marked "Made in Germany". That dates it post-unification (1991). There is no PT marking on it, nor any model-number marking at all. My Symphonie has only "Symphonie" as the model marking, and says "GDR", making it a Communist-era B&S, perhaps from the 70's by the look of it.

The cosmetic differences between the old and new are pretty small. The older one uses a different brace style, which is a little more modernist (and to my eye a bit more elegant) than the newer one. The older one has a bell ring, and the newer one does not. The newer one has a slightly larger mouthpiece receiver, allowing the mouthpiece to insert about 1/4" deeper. Of course, my old one has clock-spring valves, which have shorter levers and a different feel than the open-wire newer model that has long spatulas. And the 5th and 6th valve spatulas are on the front, rather than the back-side, left-thumb fifth as with my old one.

The calipers would find little difference between the old and the new, yet one person in the threads above asserted that the newer PT-9 was no match for an old Symphonie. But I'm guessing that a PT-9 does differ from the 3100 I have received, at least in one of the leadpipes.

They do play differently. One significant improvement in the newer model is that the fifth valve branch is a true 9/8 branch. The PT-9 description says that both 7/8 and 9/8 tuning slides are provided. For playing Bb 4 and 5 the way I'm used to on my Yamaha, it's necessary. My old Symphonie's fifth slide, when pulled all the same is about the same as the first valve. I guess that makes it a 7/8 slide. The newer instrument's fifth slide has longer ferrules to make up the difference.

Intonation-wise, both have quirks (expected) that have to be managed, but, of course, the six-valve model provides more options. The third valve on the 6-valve model is still a bit long (as Joe pointed out in one of those old threads). The PT-9 is advertised with a second-valve kicker which mine does not have, and again I think that is a Perantucci modification. With the third valve branch trimmed a bit, the 2-3 combination would be dead on (instead of 6 or 8 cents flat) and I see no need for a kicker.

They sound different, too. I have not put my finger on it--my chops run out just about the time I form an opinion. The 6-valve model seems a bit more open and resonant, but maybe not as smooth. I hear something but I'm not sure just what as of yet. There's no way I would be prepared to announce that one sounds "better" at this point. The difference could be the bell ring, or just the difference one might expect between two examples of the same model. Both have what is for me the characteristic fat F tuba sound that my Yamaha does not have, and both can project in ways the little Yamaha cannot, but I will be curious to see if the 6-valve model ends up having the same playability. In the playability department, the Yamaha 621 is nearly in a class by itself. But the sound lacks that ethereal quality up high and the fat energy down low that the B&S has in either vintage.

The low C seems pretty solid on both of the B&S tubas, perhaps a bit more solid on the 6-valve model. Below that, the 6-valve model is easier to manage because of the fingering alternatives and the longer fifth valve branch. The C is more solid on both of these than on any of the PT-10's or PT-15's that I've tried over the years. And the sound on both has more of a German accent than the bigger-bored PT models. I know I'm in a minority here, but I still cannot determine why the larger bore leading up to the second valve is an improvement.

Some mystique has arisen around the old Symphonie models, but it would appear that the newer plain 3100, without any PT enhancements, is basically the same instrument. Some have said that the 3100 is identical to the PT-9, but that has apparently not always been the case even if it is now. It is not shown as such on the VMI web page:

http://www.vogtlaendische-musik.de/tuba/

I do find it curious that the product descriptions on the JA-Musik web page are different than on the VMI web page.

Rick "needing to borrow some ears" Denney

I went through and read all of those links (some of which I originally participated in) and remembered the conclusion I drew many years ago:

A lot of tubas have become too cylindrical. With piston valves and their short valveset (normally under 6" for 4 valves), a cylindrical bore isn't too big of a deal. Even then, most companies have increased the bore of the fourth valve to enhance the lower register. That's fine but the problem is...

...rotary valve horns and their much longer valve section. Putting a valve section of a much more consistent bore in a rotary valve horn seems risky to me. I know many of the BBb and CC horns have the same issue, but the length of the valve cluster is much smaller proportionately to the overall length than it is with an F tuba.

The new PT horns are like the YFH-2310 versus a YFH-6310Z (old B&S). The *-2310 seems "easier" at first reaction because the horn feels like it has more definite slots, specifically in the middle and upper registers. Where this falls apart is the lower register. It works, but isn't as full and colorful as the low register on the (ironically smaller bored but more conical) *-6310Z.

Matt Walters used to make a good number of horns that were quite interesting. I once had a chance to play (pre Conn 52J) a Conn Eb to CC conversion with a short action (.738 bore?) valveset and a .689 valveset. The short action version felt easier up front, mainly because finger dexterity was improved and the slots were a bit more definite. With a few minutes of playing, it was noticeable that the smaller bore version actually spoke better out front and had more presence, even in the low register.

I am sure in the case of a relatively short tuba like an F, that keeping a valve section that has a more conical bore will make a huge difference out front. I wish I had the chops and the time to carry out a comparison like this. I am sure you will find that the horns with the more conical section that stays in best proportion to the overall expansion of the instrument will always sound and play a bit better. For this reason, I think that the 5-valve might have a slight advantage in the low register. As I mentioned in a thread you referenced, I played a 5-valve B&S something or other that was quite old with a 2-3 combo on the fourth valve. It had a fine low register. Of course low C was some funky fingering like 5-2-3, but it worked nonetheless.

I honestly think the PT horns have a bit of American marketing flare to them. They understand that "bigger is better" in terms of numerical specifications, so they crank out some over-bored horns and people pick them up because they feel easy in a lot of registers, with highly definitive slots, and deal with the low register problems as is.

Finally, I played with a guy for a bit in and Orlando band who played in the Navy with an F as a primary horn. His name completely escapes me right now. However, I remember him on that F and it was an older B&S. Low register issues? None that I could tell. He seemed to lose out a bit in the volume department in the extreme low register, but I was playing a VMI 5198 (Mel Culbertson piston Neptune) that had a huge amount of "wattage" in the low register.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:...I am sure in the case of a relatively short tuba like an F, that keeping a valve section that has a more conical bore will make a huge difference out front. I wish I had the chops and the time to carry out a comparison like this. I am sure you will find that the horns with the more conical section that stays in best proportion to the overall expansion of the instrument will always sound and play a bit better. For this reason, I think that the 5-valve might have a slight advantage in the low register. As I mentioned in a thread you referenced, I played a 5-valve B&S something or other that was quite old with a 2-3 combo on the fourth valve. It had a fine low register. Of course low C was some funky fingering like 5-2-3, but it worked nonetheless.

In terms of bugle placement, the fifth valve on both instruments is the same, as is valves 1-4. The 5-valved instrument has a dogleg between the fifth and the first. The 6-valve instrument has curved ports with a short straight section between them.

The bore of the fifth is smaller than the first, and the same between the two instruments on both valves. The sixth valve has the same bore as the first valve and comes before it. If there is a difference in the conical taper between the two, it has to be extremely tiny.

The low register is a bit easier on the six-valve instrument, as it turns out. But the old Symphonie has a little bit more weight in the sound in the middle and upper register, and I'm currently exploring that.

Rick "preparing to bring out the calipers" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:The low register is a bit easier on the six-valve instrument, as it turns out. But the old Symphonie has a little bit more weight in the sound in the middle and upper register, and I'm currently exploring that.

Have you been recording the two? I'd also give that a shot. I am not saying that it would contradict your findings, but it may be enlightening. I owned a MW32 that gave some odd feedback. However, it sounded pretty solid out front.

I am also curious about the taper of that short gooseneck that connects the 5th and 1st valve. I have no idea if it would have a taper. My gut says no.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:I am also curious about the taper of that short gooseneck that connects the 5th and 1st valve. I have no idea if it would have a taper. My gut says no.

The Army Conference is coming up, bringing with it guests who have the ears I need to borrow.

The fifth valve inner slide fits neatly inside the first valve inner slide, which will give you an idea how much the tubing size steps up between them. The valves are designed around the tubing size for that branch, with each rotor having a different diameter. So, that dogleg on the Symphonie must have some taper to it. They might well have made it from the waste end of the leadpipe. On the 6-valve model, the sixth valve has the same tubing diameter as the first valve, so that taper has to be made a bit quicker. The curve ports allow the connecting tubing to be a straight section, and again it might be the thick-end trimming from the leadpipe.

The ferrules that connect the ports between Valves 1-4 are tapered enough to be visible without measurement. You can see this in one of the pictures I made when I converted the valve linkages.



Rick "doubting the presence of step bores" Denney

I really love this topic. I will just list some facts that I have gathered in the past couple of years.

I have played 5 different of these B&S f-tubas. 3 model Symphonie 5v instruments, one 6 valve model Symphonie and a PT-10 5v.

The most surprising (to me) is that the 3 5v symphonie instruments, played and where built differently. And even more interesting, one of them was very similar to the PT-10. No kranz on the bell, factory 2'nd valve kicker and different valve diameters. I think that valve 5 and 1 was the same (bigger than the two other 5v Symphonies) and valve 2-3-4 was larger in diameter, but the same in all tree valves. I believe that this horn is a transition instrument from between the Symphonie era and the PT era.

All 5 horns played nicely, but the sound of the "different" 5v symphonie and the PT-10 was more dull and flat than the 3 others. These 2 newer disigned horns had no kranz and a bigger 5th valve.

The two other 5v symphonies played a little different, one slightly easier in the middle register than the other. And the 6v symphonie was soundwise in between the old and the new (Symphonie and PT-like) versions of these horns, but was one of the best to play.

My conclusion so far: A B&S "Symphonie" F tuba is not one tuba. To me the newer ones blow more like CC tubas and they are missing something in the tone. The older ones (like the one I currently own) plays a little differently. Better sound, equally good intonation but a little different (not difficult, just not like a CC) to play.

Søren wrote:I really love this topic. I will just list some facts that I have gathered in the past couple of years.

Thanks for the information. My later 6-valve tuba dates from after 1991, and could be 10 years after the introduction of the Parantucci line. Still, it has those smaller valve bores on 5, 6, and 1. 2-4 are the same for all B&S F tubas, PT or Symphonie, near as I can tell.

One experiment I'm going to try is the old 5-valve Symphonie with the longer fifth-valve slide from the newer instrument (and, yes, they do interchange easily). I want to make sure that the desire for the playability of the 6-valve version isn't just because the fifth valve is too short, though I'm nearly sure that's not the case. Plus, now's the time for the comparison while both are still here.

Your impressions are quite similar to my own, including the warning that these are not all identical. I have spend some time measuring the bows on both, and in some spots one is bigger, and in others the other is bigger. The difference is as much as 1/8" diameter (measuring around such details as guards), and that reinforces something that we should all realize: No two tubas are identical, especially tubas with hand-shaped bows. I think thats why comparisons of the things we love to argue about get lost in the noise. Despite those variations, the valve slides are still largely interchangeable.

Rick "who'll compare them to the Yamaha next" Denney

It appears like the samples with Kranz/garland tend to have a more alive and present sound.

It would be interesting if somebody with godd measuring tools would measure the thickness of the bell brass. The most interesting point for comparative measuring will not be available without destroying the Kranz, namely right at the edge of the bell, or rather right inside the belle thread.

The second most relevant measuring would be at the distance from the rim comparable to the width of the garland. And then measurements should be taken with small increments all around the 360° perimeter. Every single instrument likely would display some unevenness in material thickness.

My take is that the instruments with Kranz are build to a generally thinner standard of bell metal.

Measurements including guards are bound to be false, as they introduce an element, which hasn’t to be exact by the maker’s acoustical standards. When a guard has been hammered for the final fit to a bow, it is more important that the fit is so close that the soldering will hold the guard, than that a measurement of the outer diameter might fit any standard, which will be irrelevant anyway.

When a bow is bent the old way with lead and hand (rather chains and pulleys, when it come to tubas) then the brass on the inside of the bow will wrinkle. The old style German remedy for the bad cosmetics is not sanding but scraping. Even with the exactness of a craftsman wall thickness will deviate from sample to sample.

And then there is one factor, which varied already during GDR-days: the size of the receiver. There were the larger receivers which lead to a more potent sound, and the ones with the small receivers.

And then I wonder why I never heard about the Perantucci term associated with B&S during the GDR-era, even if I frequently talked tubas with the B&S importer in my country. PT-mouthpieces were known, but they were a West German thing.

Klaus

LJV wrote:I just can't help but wonder if more information regarding these fine horns couldn't be found searching using the spelling "Perantucci." As in Daniel Perantoni and Robert Tucci.

Thanks for the spelling correction. I'll go back and fix it for the benefit of the search engines.

Of course, I knew who it was, I just had a lapse of memory on the spelling.

Rick "Denny" Denney

imperialbari wrote:It appears like the samples with Kranz/garland tend to have a more alive and present sound.

It would be interesting if somebody with godd measuring tools would measure the thickness of the bell brass. The most interesting point for comparative measuring will not be available without destroying the Kranz, namely right at the edge of the bell, or rather right inside the belle thread.

The second most relevant measuring would be at the distance from the rim comparable to the width of the garland. And then measurements should be taken with small increments all around the 360° perimeter. Every single instrument likely would display some unevenness in material thickness.

My take is that the instruments with Kranz are build to a generally thinner standard of bell metal.

I have some deep-jawed micrometers, and I'll attempt some measurements. I can't usefully measure through the kranz, of course, but I can measure right next to it.

As to being "alive", I find that, if anything, the 6-valve version seems more resonant in my hands. Both are about equally "present". I'm still trying to put my finger on the difference in sound.

Rick "fun with measurement tools" Denney

*

jonesmj wrote:Just a general observation, assumption, and/or thought--is it me, or do all or most rotary F tubas that are 6 valves play and sound better than 5 valve versions?

The physical difference between the 5 and 6-valve versions (other than production differences that are just as likely to be between two 6-valve tubas) is about three inches of tubing. In the 5-valve version, there's a dogleg between 5 and 1. In the 6-valve version there's a valve and a shorter dogleg. To add the sixth valve, you would remove only the 3" dogleg. (You would also have to replace the first-valve branch, which is shaped to avoid the 6th-valve branch.

I suspect they have 5 and 6-valve versions for the same reason there are 4 an 5-valve C tubas. Some people want the extra valve for the music they play, and others would prefer not to carry the extra weight and work around the lack of the extra valve. (And he 6-valve version is indeed heavier.)

Rick "who has played 5-valve F tubas forever" Denney

jonesmj wrote:Hi-
Just a general observation, assumption, and/or thought--is it me, or do all or most rotary F tubas that are 6 valves play and sound better than 5 valve versions? Is it possible that these horns are designed as 6 valve instruments, and then for the American market are offered as a 5 valve version? Just my 2 cents....

Regards-
mark
jonestuba@juno.com" target="_blank" target="_blank

More valves = more mass to the instrument. That can either be a good or bad thing depending on the instrument. My smaller Cerveny sounded better with additional braces and more solder. My big Mirafone sounds better with less extraneous weight.

More valves also = slightly more resistance. A slight bit of additional resistance seems to be a good thing on F tubas designed with overly large bores.

Hello,
I have an older B&S 5v F that says "Made in GDR" but does not say Symphonie or any sort of PT numbering system on it. Just at first glance it looks very similar to a buddy of mine's PT-10, but I'm sure there are many differences the naked eye cant see. Where does my horn fall in all this? I have tried to do some research and figure out what my B&S compares to, but have found little to nothing on my specific type of horn. This may have been talked about earlier and I've overlooked it. Can somebody please help me identify my horn? I can post pictures if need be. Thanks!
-Vic

contravic wrote:Hello,
I have an older B&S 5v F that says "Made in GDR" but does not say Symphonie or any sort of PT numbering system on it. Just at first glance it looks very similar to a buddy of mine's PT-10, but I'm sure there are many differences the naked eye cant see. Where does my horn fall in all this? I have tried to do some research and figure out what my B&S compares to, but have found little to nothing on my specific type of horn. This may have been talked about earlier and I've overlooked it. Can somebody please help me identify my horn? I can post pictures if need be. Thanks!
-Vic

Pull the first-valve slide and see if it fits inside the inner tubing of the second-valve slide. Then, pull the fifth-valve slide and see if it fits inside the inner tubing of the first valve slide. If so, then it has the completely graduated bore where the tubing is narrowest on the 5th valve and increases in size for each subsequent valve. The PT-10's all have larger tubing for 1, 5, and 6 that is the same diameter as the second valve. The Symphonie models (whether marked as such or not) have smaller tubing with a minimum bore of .66something at the fifth valve.

Most of the PT instruments came with two leadpipes and two fifth-valve slides. Neither of my instruments have that.

The PT-9 is similar to yours (and mine), but has the PT extras. I do not and never have seen it listed by Custom Music for sale in the U.S.

If the trigger for the fifth valve is operated by the left thumb, then it's an older design like my GDR-era Symphonie.

I'm becoming unsure of what "Symphonie" means, and wonder if it is a model designation that was used in some cases and not others for what is otherwise the same instrument. Or, perhaps, they just stopped using that model designation at some point.

Rick "thinking the smaller bore fifth is the real difference" Denney

contravic wrote:Hello,
I have an older B&S 5v F that says "Made in GDR" but does not say Symphonie or any sort of PT numbering system on it. Just at first glance it looks very similar to a buddy of mine's PT-10, but I'm sure there are many differences the naked eye cant see. Where does my horn fall in all this? I have tried to do some research and figure out what my B&S compares to, but have found little to nothing on my specific type of horn. This may have been talked about earlier and I've overlooked it. Can somebody please help me identify my horn? I can post pictures if need be. Thanks!
-Vic

To make things even more confusing Custom Music sold some of the small bore B&S f tubas marked with the Sanders brand name for a few years in the 1980's. They were identical to my non PT small bore B&S f I bought in 1986. A DMA student at USC owns one of the Sanders B&S f tubas tubas and it is excellent. I assume they did this so the old style tuba would not be confused with the then new PT10.

My tuba had the B&S logo on the bell and a small CMC (for Custom Music Company) engraved under the logo.

FWIW

Norm Pearson

My first encounter with a B&S Symphonie F tuba was at the Second National Symposium Workshop (ITEC) at USC in 1978. There were two of them played at the conference: Zdzislaw Piernik used a six valve in his recital and Gary Buttery played one in the Coast Guard band tuba quartet. I really liked the sound Gary got on the tuba and he let me try it and I was hooked, I had to have one. In the fall of 1978 Steve Seward moved to Los Angeles and was a consultant for Custom Music. I had mentioned to him that I was looking for a B&S f tuba and he remembered that there was one sitting around at Custom Music. They sent me the tuba and I bought it.

I foolishly sold it in 1986 to jump on the PT10 bandwagon and ended up selling the PT10 5 months later. I bought another small bore B&S from Custom Music. This one had no garland on the bell (like the PT10) and the response was a bit tighter than the old one but it still had incredible pitch and sweet but powerful sound that really projected into a hall.

I have bought and sold dozens of tubas in my lifetime but the B&S Symphonie is the one I regretted selling the most

Norm Pearson

Some time has gone by, and two big things have happened. One is that I had both of them down at the Army Conference, where they were played by others with me comparing, and played by me with others comparing, and everything in between. We also compared them with an Alexander F tuba. And I compared them (not A-B) with all the current PT models that Custom had brought, plus the new Petrouschka. Helping me with the test were Mike Lynch and Ray Grim.

In the test, it seemed to us that the newer 6-valve instrument had more core to the sound, and the older 5-valve Symphonie had more warmth. The 6-valve had more clarity, and the 6-valve more bottom in the sound. Given that I'm a clarity freak and a bottom nut, this presented no firm conclusion. The difference was least noticeable with Ray playing--he by a vast distance the best player in our group.

In comparison with the Alex, the sense of what the Alex was doing was markedly different under the horn compared with out front. The B&S models were both more predictable. The Alex, despite being significantly smaller, made lots of sound--no more than the B&S models but not much less, either. But the tone of both B&S's was much smoother, and much more refined. The comparison with the newer PT models showed no comparison at all. The new ones all sound hollow to me. The low range on the Symphonie model (even the newer ones not marked such) is much cleaner and clearer, with more core and energy in the sound. Sorry--I call it like I hear it.

The Petrouschka was another matter altogether. That's a tuba I could seriously covet. But it was in demand and I could not sneak it out into the hall to test it side-by-side with the B&S's, especially since I was just kicking tires with it. Plus, by that time we'd overstayed our welcome in the hall and some of the vendors, who had thought they were safely outside the Elephant Room, were giving us mildly dirty looks.

The bottom line of these comparisons was that the two Symphonie-style B&S's were very close to similar, and very different from everything else, including other B&S models. They only seemed different in comparison to each other.

Another result of the test was that I seemed to manage more accurate play on the 6-valve model than on the 5-valve model. This was hard to prove, because as soon as I started thinking about it, accuracy went through the floor. And I think I was the only one to notice it at the time.

So, the next big thing I did was to record myself. I did this on the Sunday after the conference, after TubaRay had left and when my chops were still warmed up from the morning of duets and mouthpiece trials we had played. I used my minidisc recorder on manual record level, and my Audio-Technika stereo microphone on a stand about 8 feet in front of the instruments and at about 8 feet in the air. The room was my living room, which is 15x24, and has a sloped ceiling that slopes up into a loft area that also has a vaulted ceiling. The volume is pretty good, and there is no echo in the space. I recorded a wide range of material, including several brass quintet parts that I'm currently playing, some Berlioz excerpts including Faust, Witches Sabbath, and the Dies Irae from Fantastique. I played parts of the Marcello Sonata in F, and parts of the Cheetham Scherzo. Since it was on the stand, I played a couple of bits of the Roger Jones 21 Duets. Finally, I played extended excerpts from my current band folder to test low-range stuff, in particular a piece I was intending to play on F before we had to reschedule our upcoming concert because of rehearsals canceled as a result of ice and inauguration. That was Scenes from the Louvre, in particular the string bass cues in the second movement.

The sound of the 5-valve Symphonie is slightly more full, but it is also fuzzy in the attacks and lacks the clarity of the 6-valve instrument. The 6-valve instrument had cleaner attacks and articulation, and more purity in the sound. The recording confirmed what we'd heard during the test. I suspect a better player than me might be able to exploit the 5-valve instrument in ways I cannot, and might prefer it at the limit of its potential to the 6-valve model. Or maybe, as was the case with Ray, they would get closer together. No matter; by the time I'd finished listening to a wide range of material on both instruments, a real preference finally started to emerge.

Rick "choosing for clarity and core" Denney

LJV wrote:The Symphonie was, as the bass trombone player called it, "dainty." (This is a guy who went through the whole "leadpipes are for girly-men thing," but is still a fine player.)

One issue that I have not mentioned is who I play with. If I was looking for an orchestral F to balance against a bass trombone player who has no use for a leadpipe, I might be looking for sheer weight of sound. Of course, if I was in that situation, they'd fire me and hire a good tuba player. My situation is a little less extreme. For large ensemble, my purpose for the instrument is to play upper band parts, mostly on orchestral transcriptions. I'm one of those who believes that a band can tolerate some voice variation in the tuba section, especially if there is an upper part that is more than just something to keep an Eb player from having to use false tones (as was usually the case with parts doubled at the octave in the really old band war horses). On orchestral transcriptions, those are usually the parts lifted from the orchestral tuba part, while the lower notes provide the string bass transcriptions. One example is a band transcription that we have played a couple of times of the Berlioz Damnation of Faust. So, I'm specifically looking to add the F-tuba character to the section sound as a distinct voice. But it does no good if it doesn't get out. For our group, the Yamaha 621 didn't do it, but the B&S does. The only way to get the 621 to carry was to put a very shallow mouthpiece in it and go trombone-like. Short of that, the ceiling was just too low for me.

For any orchestra that I'm likely to ever have the opportunity to join, the trombone section won't be the sort that will think a Symphonie "dainty". And we should remember that it's a BIG F tuba by any standard prior to the last 15 years or so.

I don't know what it takes to avoid that hollow sound on a PT-12/15, but great players do it so my hat's off to them. For that, I might be more tempted by the Willson 3200R (the rotary version).

Rick "always interested in how people make these choices" Denney