TubeNet

Need some help here. Im considering a PT horn...and yes I will eventually get to a dealer and play them....however, I like to know a little something in advance so I can narrow down my choices. There are several CC horns with piston valves.....What makes them different....anyone have a preference and why?
As an aside.....can someone talk to me about the response difference between rotary and piston valves?
Thanks
Craig

There are people worlds more experienced than I who may chime in here, but I own a PT-20PS and am quite happy with it. It's a 4/4 horn with a great sound and easy slotting. I've used it in small and large ensembles and I find it to be pretty nimble in that regard.

There's also a PT-606P, based on a 4/4 York CC tuba, which a lot of people seem to really enjoy, but I've never played. Superficially it seems to be similar to the PT-20P, but with "chunkier" tubing.

If you're looking for something bigger, the PT-6P is their 5/4 size piston CC, and the PT-7P is their (apparently very unpopular) 6/4-size orchestral model. I've never had the opportunity to play these bad boys, but out of all of B&S's Perantucci CC horns, you hear the most "buzz" about the PT-6 and PT-6P (at least, I have). Whether the buzz is warranted or not is up for debate. I recommend that you assess your playing situation (i.e, whether you need a 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, or 6/4 horn) and try out all the tubas you can. Before you jump the gun on getting a PT horn, you might wanna consider some other brands, too. Miraphone, Meinl Weston, Cerveny, Yamaha and others all make great horns, and WWBW is only a few hours away from Custom Music.

Pistons vs. rotors? If they're both well-maintained, I don't think it really matters, but I'd rather have smooth rotors over gummy pistons and smooth pistons over clanky rotors. I know a dude who sold his Miraphone Firebird to buy a Petruschka because he said he just "couldn't get used to rotary valves." I have no preference. I played on a Cerveny 686 in high school, learned CC on a 1970's-vintage Sanders 4rv tuba that I borrowed from a local professor, and now play a PT-20PS and an old PT-10. Unless you know you're a piston-valve dude through-and-through, I wouldn't limit myself to one particular set-up. The PT rotary valve horns have left a lot of people happy. Play around on lots of stuff and see what suits you best!

Agreed

+1. I got to play the line when Jeff Rideout came through town a couple of years ago. Don't buy more tuba than you need or know you can navigate well (both playing and physical transport).

I've only tried the PT tubas for a short while at TMEA but I really enjoyed the short time I had with the PT-606P.

As far as the piston vs. rotary thing. For me personally I find the piston tubas freer blowing and easier to slur.

I'm surprised no one has talked about the difference in sound between rotors and pistons.

I'll let someone with a greater knowledge about it than I post, but I will say that rotors are considered more towards the German School of brass playing (IE I can recall watching a video of Mahler 5 played by the Berlin Philharmonic where the trumpets and tubists are all using rotor instruments). I think the big draw to the PT-6 is because it has a more "germanic" sound quality to it. When I was faced with buying an orchestral tuba I was told, "PT-6's are usually good, but play test a PT-6P before you buy it." PT-7's are a little ridiculous, if a PT-6 is big enough for Philadelphia and San Francisco, I'm pretty sure it's big enough for everyone else.

I ended up buying a Gronitz PCK anyway because I have a dislike of rotors.

Bo "Although truthfully when I buy an F it will have rotors" Atlas

I'll try not to get too off topic...

To be honest, I don't think there's really any difference in sound between a rotary and piston horn of the same model (ie. PT-6 and PT-6P). I do notice a very, very slight difference in articulation. The legato comes a little more easily on a rotary horn, rather than a piston horn...but I can still articulate on a rotary horn.

As far as the topic goes, I am a fairly new B&S fan. At the TMEA Convention in February, I absolutely hated the horns...but at the time, I wasn't sure what I was looking for in my own sound. Ever since I got my VMI 3301, I have fallen in love with the sound B&S horns produce. The sound is bright, to me, but I like it. You should always go with what you like.

Joseph

UTSAtuba wrote:I'll try not to get too off topic...

To be honest, I don't think there's really any difference in sound between a rotary and piston horn of the same model (ie. PT-6 and PT-6P). I do notice a very, very slight difference in articulation. The legato comes a little more easily on a rotary horn, rather than a piston horn...but I can still articulate on a rotary horn.

Never played a rotary PT CC long enough to form an opinion, but that could be because the PT CC rotary horns aren't really quite as "Germanic" as their Miraphone and MW counterparts. They don't have that tall body, stovepipe-esque bell, long tapering leadpipe before the valve section and (thus) the larger bore, instead being a bit squatter and wider.

Back to the OP's question, I believe Rick Denney has extensive sections on his website about the differences in sound/response between a tuba with pistons (York Master) and a tuba with rotors (Miraphone 186). http://www.rickdenney.com/york_vs_miraphone.htm" target="_blank
http://www.rickdenney.com/the_tuba_sound.htm" target="_blank


arpthark "just observing'"

UTSAtuba wrote:
To be honest, I don't think there's really any difference in sound between a rotary and piston horn of the same model (ie. PT-6 and PT-6P).

This is something I actually went through about 4 years ago. Like I was saying in my last post, I was extensively searching for the right orchestral horn for me. At the time I LOVED the PT-6, but I also had a dislike for rotors. Naturally, my instinct was to buy the PT-6P...until I tried it. One of the big differences (as previously mentioned) was in the higher overtones, the PT-6P just seemed somewhat deader than its rotor counterpart. My teachers at the time confirmed this, one of whom plays the PT-6 90% of the time at work. The way it was explained to me (and I still very much believe this), was that the PT-6 was a German style tuba, and that to put pistons on it was an odd combination of American and Germanic Schools. Rick Denney's article explains this concept excellently and eloquently.

I'd also like to add that the notable professionals who use the PT-6 all use the rotor model (to my knowledge, if I've skipped someone using a PT-6P in this scenario please feel free to correct me, I know the generalization police are going to come after me)

This entire debate is what led me to buying a Gronitz PCK, because it was
A) the sound concept I wanted
B) Pistons on an appropriate style horn
(I'd also add that gronitz does not make a PCK version with rotors, because that probably wouldn't fit very well either)

BAtlas wrote:the PT-6 was a German style tuba, and that to put pistons on it was an odd combination of American and Germanic Schools.

I have been told the PT-6 was originally designed as a rotary valve tuba, with the piston version developed later.

Going back to the original poster's question. The big differences in the models is the bore size of the outer bows, bell throat and bell. Basically the larger the size, the broader the tone. In ascending order of size;

PT-3 (3/4 or small 4/4 size)
PT-20 (4/4 size replacement for the previous PT-4 to improve intonation)
PT-606 (larger 4/4 size modelled on a 'York' design)
PT-6 (5/4 size - the most popular for orchestral use)
PT-7 (6/4 size - based on the piston Neptune but with slightly smaller diameter bell and modified valve looping)

BAtlas wrote:PT-7's are a little ridiculous, if a PT-6 is big enough for Philadelphia and San Francisco, I'm pretty sure it's big enough for everyone else.

It all depends on the sound concept and personal attributes of the player. The PT-7 is no more 'ridiculous' in size than the CSO York, or any other 6/4. I have tried a PT-7 and preferred to the PT-6, but then I am a Neptune player, with that being my sound concept, so not surprising

Might as well try the MW piston tubas too... the valve blocks all come from the same place, right?

arpthark wrote:Never played a rotary PT CC long enough to form an opinion, but that could be because the PT CC rotary horns aren't really quite as "Germanic" as their Miraphone and MW counterparts. They don't have that tall body, stovepipe-esque bell, long tapering leadpipe before the valve section and (thus) the larger bore, instead being a bit squatter and wider.

Actually, some years ago, Miraphone changed their bells to have quicker flares. For example, A current production 186 bell is the analog to the Bach 37 trumpet bell: middle-of-the-road tone, good consistency from register to register, adaptable to many playing situations & genres, and relatively mouthpiece insensitive. It is @ 17 3/4 inches diameter at the rim, as opposed to the older 16 1/2 inch "stovepipe."

I'm going to chime in here a bit. I have always purchased a tuba because it makes the sound I hear in my head. In the 1970's, the ideal sound I heard was the one with which I was most accustomed, and that was the sound of the Mirafone 186. As my own concept changed, it moved to a 188. Once I played a Hirsbrunner (HB-2, rotary) and heard the playback, this sound was more to my liking. With everyone playing the so called 6/4 piston tubas, I tried several. MW, Hirsbrunner, old Holton. I settled on the HB-50 Hirsbrunner. For MANY years, this was the ideal sound I was after and I owned 2, one brass, one silver. Once I played a Gronitz PCK, PCM and PF-125, I was a convert. The Gronitz made the sound both on tape and to my own perception that most closely resembled what I imagined I sounded like. In smaller settings, the PCM was ideal. Recently, I have been playing a Willson 3050 rotary. It is a bit brighter than I imagine, but my trombone section LOVES it and I even have recieved kudos from my horn section. I like playing this tuba and have ordered one for myself. As well, I have another HB-2 on the way. Recently, I have played both PT-6's and PT-6P's and I definitely prefer the rotary version. Again, it is a matter of sonic concept, not mechanics.

Good luck in your quest.

Since the OP question was about the difference between two valve types, i have a question along the same lines and i'd like to get some edukashun.

Other then the aesthetic/ergonomic issues, and having both a rotary valved horn and piston valved horn myself, why should the type of valve have a significant effect on the sound since the valve just routes the air through another section of tube? Even if the air has to take a different angled turn because the construction style of the valve, all other things being equal, why would that significantly alter the sound? Thanks for any answers.

This thread is definitely starting to get past where I'm knowledgable...

Now, I'm going to take a swing at this valves and sound thing. The Tuba is a giant resonator, the vibration starts at the lips and travels through the horn until it eventually gets to the bell flare and then uses the air as its means for sonic travel. Along with this, the vibrations have to travel through the valve set before getting to the bell. My understanding is that because pistons are larger and heavier, they dampen the sound a little more creating less overtone than rotors.

That was probably a rough description, if anyone wants to take a shot at that I welcome them

And in that regard, I currently own both piston and rotary instruments, and have played many variations on both themes over the years. Both do the job in an exemplary fashion.

Oversimplified, but to sum up: those who prefer pistons do so because of perceived "precision" with articulation and slurring or because they want the "York" aspect to the horn; those who prefer rotors prefer the ergonomic flexibility of being able to align not only the receiver position and angle, but the rotor paddles in all three axes: length, width, and vertical travel, to perfectly tailor the instrument to the person. Folks will talk about the relative tonalities, but in my experience that is a justification discussion, not a leading discussion.

With modern manufacturing, the reliabilty/durability/suppression of linkage noise/etc. of either pistons or rotors is excellent, and the major companies have built both long enough it doesn't matter anymore if an instrument was designed one way or the other, or was designed/retrofitted/modified/further developed for one type of valve block or the other. It does now just come down to personal preference, and the inherent manufacturing tolerances in drawing the brass and the various parts, soldering the parts and braces, final buff out, etc., will present more variation in manufacturing run of a given instrument than whether it is rotor or piston.

The traditional advise still holds true, even more importantly than ever:
1) Try before you buy, as many and as often as you can before pulling the trigger;
2) Take someone knowledgable with you who can tell you what it sounds like at a distance;
3) Don't get hung up on a particular brand or model, or automatically exclude a particular brand or model without giving it a good go;
4) Don't buy more tuba than you need or can afford;
5) A used tuba from an established reputable manufacturer, with proper care, will hold its value as opposed to a new tuba of whatever make or model, and will usually have all the kinks and quirks sorted out of it;
6) Avoid GAS or tuba du jour syndrome.

Crap, I broke rule number 4

One more important thing -- don't get too hung up in trying tubas. If you buy something that doesn't work for you, sell it. Especially if you buy used, you stand to lose little or no money on the transaction (new tubas, you'll lose some $$). I've seen people shop and shop and shop... at some point ya gotta get off the pot, so to speak.

Coming from a PT player, I hope to offer a little advice. Currently, I play on a PT-606P. Some of the posters have hit on this, and it is absolutely correct.

When I took the trip to Michigan and walked in the doors at Custom Music Company, I wasn't yet sold. I had heard many good and bad things about PT tubas. I played many different horns. Mostly PT's, but I did play a couple of HB's as well. What has been said previously cannot be further from the truth. Find the horn that makes YOU have the SOUND you want. Once you find that sound, make sure the horn has good response and intonation, for YOU - YOU are the one looking for the horn. I played the popular HB's and PT's and found that the SOUND that I wanted came from the PT-606P. It was the 7th or 8th horn I played. The only horn that rivaled it, in my opinion, was the PT-4. Both horns, though very different, had the sound that I really wanted to hear and had invested in my head. After narrowing the choice to those two, I played for a while to see which had the best response. I had two friends go with me and once I had made my choice, I asked Jeff Rideout and my two friends to go out in the room, without looking, and tell me which horn sounded the best out there. I played loud, soft, high, and low. The result was clear. I made the right choice based on what I wanted to hear, and, ironically enough, the 3 in the "audience" agreed unanimously.

I love my PT-606P. I only get more used to it every rehearsal and practice session I play on it. Invest time! People say don't pay for too much tuba, but if that is the horn for you, then you should do what is best for you!

Enjoy shopping! Enjoy playing! And most of all, enjoy picking your tuba!

Best,

Cameron

Piston and rotary tubas are necessarily different in their mechanical construction, and this will impose a different set of limitations on the designer. Thus, there will be differences. It is quite difficult, for example, for a piston valve set to have the same bore as what is possible with a rotary valve set and still accommodate a human hand. And rotary instruments tend to place the valves, and therefore the straight tubing, at a different point in the bugle.

Nobody out there gives a rat's patootie, however. To any person out in the audience, the sound coming from a tuba sounds like "tuba".

I prefer piston valves to rotary valves because of the way the instrument slices the air when changing notes. That is my preference, but I don't pretend that it makes any difference to anyone hearing me. And that is just one aspect among many. I own tubas with both types of valves, and they aren't for sale, if that says anything.

Rotary valves tend to have a bit more inertial mass than piston valves the same size. But Pat Sheridan is really fast with pistons (and those are really long pistons with compensating ports, too), and Oystein Baadsvik is really fast with rotary valves. That difference is not holding anybody back.

There is much greater difference between big tubas and little tubas in their timbre, and these differences stand a better chance of holding true across manufacturers than most other construction details. Big tubas have depth that little tubas may lack, but little tubas have clarity that big tubas may lack.

Play what you like and can afford. The more you play, the more empowered you will be to have preferences. The more you know your preferences, the less you'll need to ask the opinion of a bunch of fat, middle-aged tuba players on the Internet.

Rick "who likes old B&S rotary designs a lot" Denney