TubeNet

There has been discussion of how some Rudolf Meinl tubas are remarkable sounding instruments while others are more bland in color of sound.

There has been mention that RM tubas, particularly the larger ones, can be real "air hogs."

A few days ago, I played a relatively new 5/4 Rudi CC that was magnificent. Warm, rich colorful sound throughout its range, excellent intonation without having to search for alternate fingerings and/or slides to pull, and--here's the surprise--VERY easy to play. The notes in all ranges spoke immediately and responsively. The dynamic range was phenomenal. I just didn't want to put the horn down, but I had taken up enough of its owner's practice session time.

There are stories told about how the Steinway pianos built in certain years were great, while those built in other years were not as consistent in quality. As a Steinway representative for 17 years, that claim is at least partially true (however, a good technician can work wonders on a less than stellar Steinway). The pianos that left the factory during the years that CBS owned Steinway (1972-1985) could be great pianos, but some left the factory during that period with much for the retailer to do to present the piano at its best potential. Thankfully, the pianos built at the Steinway factory today are very consistently high in quality.

Were there "good" and "bad" years for Rudolf Meinl tubas? Is it true that, thanks to computer assistance, they are now much more consistent in quality than they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago?

Interesting point about computer assistance. Last year when I got a PVAK put on my Marzan by Alan Baer, he made a similar point about designing and manufacturing tubas now vs. 40 years ago. The precision and consistency that can be achieved is pretty remarkable, and just that extra "lining everything up perfectly" adds up and makes a lot of difference.

I can't speak to which years were great and which were not. Rudy Meinl's shop is a last bastion of family craftsmanship - A small enterprise with mastercraftsmen who have been in the business for decades. When I visited the shop in the early 90's, Rudy Jr. was already using computer-aided design. I do know they have, at times, used parts that weren't made in their shop, pistons for example. This may account for some level of variation in quality, but when things are made the old fashioned way, the chance of variation is definitely increased. I have played Rudy Meinl instruments that were air hogs, but even those had that wonderful Meinl sound.

Before you fork out the dough for one, you really need to put it through it's paces. Some are way better than others; which is to say, some ain't so great. I had one made in 87 or so and when I sold it I clearly explained all the intonation issues, which were many. They probably are more consistent now as I imagine they have to be with all the extra competition from the interplanetary production and sales system.

I played a new 5/4 RM at the Brasswind around 2004 or 2005. I played it with a tuner. Pitchwise, it was fantastic. No super sharp g; fifth partial notes were fine. It was very in tune with itself. Soundwise, it was fantastic. So was the RM 4345 piston CC tuba, but it was easier to play. I bought a RM 4345 piston CC tuba later. I left that day thinking that I either needed a RM 4345 piston tuba or a Miraphone 188. I bought a used RM because it had a prettier sound and was better in tune with itself than a 188. The 188 was actually easier to play and articulated better than either RM.

On that same day, I played a 3/4 RM CC which was particularly out of tune with itself. It was a bowser.

I have been told that RM was re-designing their instruments with software that made major improvements in the intonation department. I'm guessing this was around or before 1998. I'm certain that they did not redesign all their instruments at once. I'm pretty sure they started with the 5/4 BBb, likely creating the Bayreuth model. I'm certain the new 5/4 RM CC I played in 2004 had been redesigned as it was superb. I was also certain that the new 3/4 RM CC I played on the same day had not been redesigned. Obviously, this is based on second hand information and reasonable conjecture on my part. I could be way off.

The newer the 5/4 RM is, the better I would expect it to play. I would like to have one, but I wouldn't want it to be my only CC tuba.

As with any new tuba, you might have been experiencing a honeymoon period. About half the folks I see playing those things seem to use more F tuba sized mouthpieces in them. Stuff that's similar to the Marcinkiewicz N3 or N4.

My 5/4 BBb Rudy is not an Air Hog, in fact it is the most efficient tuba I have ever played,
I don't know how old it is, just that is must have been made after German Reunification.
It has the older style lead pipe, not the straighter one the Bayreuth version has.
My Miraphone CBT, that is the air hog!.