TubeNet

.

A few come to mind...

I like the Miraphone 1293 and MW Thor. The Miraphone Bruckner is a pretty awesome rotary horn, and MW has a new model, the Tuono I think, which is a rotary version of the Thor. All 4 of these are of similar size. The B&S PT6P (MW GR41) is well spoken of also.

Kanstul has 2 new 5/4 piston instruments, called The Grand BBb and The Grand CC, .750" bore, oversize 5th rotor, all gold brass body. Robert Carpenter is at Kanstul testing them tonight, and the word is that he can't put them down. I'll play both tomorrow morning. They're similar in size to a PT6, but not a copy of it. Kanstul has some Facebook posts up of Sunday's tuba gathering there, with pics.

The Willson 3050 is heavy for me, but awesome.

YMMV

Ferguson

Going by my definition of 5/4... which is "bigger than normal, but not a BAT":

If you like York-style tubas, some of the old Marzan or B&M CC tubas are awesome. My old one was great (and apparently even better since it's been repaired, whoops!). It was REALLY heavy though, too much for me to carry around!

1291/2, and probably the 1293 as well; though the 1291 Bb still beats them out.

Kalison. duh.

That was a typo, I meant Thor.

If you are looking for a true 5/4, the Thor's sound completely outweighs the 129X's (and I'm a Miraphone fan). I haven't played the Bruckner in a couple of years but I thought it was about the same size as the 129X tuba.

OK, to paraphrase Edwardo Jones, a tuba is 5/4 when the manufacturer says it's a 5/4, but the MW Thor is simply a much bigger 5/4 horn that the Miraphones.

However, that doesn't take away from the 129X Miraphones being really fine instruments.

The PT6 is still the gold standard for big hall filling sound and near perfect intonation. You might prefer a slightly different quality of sound or response but I think it's difficult to argue with the overall package.

The 5/4 Rudy is another strong contender for overall best package ever made. I will not buy the argument that it's really a 6/4. Rudy is a smart family. They got it right.

The Miraphone 1293 is a truly great tuba. It's the first in the 129X family that I've thought was worth any attention at all. I think they finally got it right. I don't consider it a 5/4 though and while the response and intonation are perfect the sound doesn't have the beauty of the Rudy, PT6, or Willson.

The Willson 3050 is capable of a truly truly gorgeous sound(some of my favorite sounds ever) but for my tastes plays 'small' and has a few questionable intonation issues that need addressed in the design. I also feel that it's more of a big 4/4. That said, if you are willing to work it out these horns have the ability to produce truly beautiful music at either a whisper or a roar.

The Thor is certainly big and in tune but lacks the refinement to even be considered for best 5/4. I believe it is in the same league as the MW45SLP and will eventually have a similar fate. It's my opinion and I'm open to being wrong on this one.

LJV, you might be right. Jens is a heck of a great player. Doubtful that he would put his name on a horn that wasn't great.

FWIW, I also have a PT605 which is essentially the same horn in BBb. It does it's job very well.

Perhaps my complaint is that the Thor is a CC pretending to be a BBb? In many people's hands the sound it produces is quite heavy and thwacky.

Or perhaps I just haven't spent more than a few minutes playing one in an elephant room and the people I've heard play it were not 'partnering well' with the horn. You are correct that many that play it sound 'out of control'. Sometimes that is the result of a poor design and sometimes it is because the player isn't giving the horn what it needs. Your point is VERY valid.

What gives me pause, is that players that sound 'out of control' on the Thor will still be really happy with the sound and praise how easy it is to play. Usually, easy playing horns are easy to partner with and horns that are difficult to respond demand a more heavy handed approach to steer. My question is: is is the nature of the Thor to sound heavy or is it just one of its many strengths and that strength attracts a certain type of player?

When I play a Thor, it feels just fine but sounds heavier and more aggressive out of the box than is my personal preference. That's what I mean by not being 'refined'. Perhaps I'm just not giving the horn what it needs. I've been wrong before but I'm inclined to trust my instincts.

Full disclaimer: This is my current tuba collection: PT605, PT6, 3/4 Rudy CC, and PT15. That should tell you a lot about my tastes and habits.

joh_tuba wrote: The 5/4 Rudy is another strong contender for overall best package ever made. I will not buy the argument that it's really a 6/4. Rudy is a smart family. They got it right.

Ditto that. The Rudy and the Neptune were the ones I've played that spoke to me the most.

Kanstul's new 5/4 Grand CC, pictured next to their 4/4 model 90 CC. I'll post a bunch of pics in a new thread shortly.

Ferguson

Any snowball's chance that Kanstul will ever make a rotary tuba?

The Thor is certainly big and in tune but lacks the refinement to even be considered for best 5/4. I believe it is in the same league as the MW45SLP and will eventually have a similar fate. It's my opinion and I'm open to being wrong on this one.

This was my impression of the instrument as well. For me the Thor was an incredibly tempting instrument. The way it slots, and the ease of the low range are second to no instrument that I've played. The low G for example is not just easy to play it is explosive for someone who is used to a low G not so easy to produce. This was beguiling to me as visions of no more hard low range work and an instant bump in clarity overall would be the rewards of an investment in this instrument. Fortunately I'd been beguiled by another MW instrument before. I'd moved away from it to an instrument that was by all accounts more difficult to play but was closer to my ideal of tuba sound.

Ironically I had the same issues with the MW45SLP when comparing it to my PT15. Slotting and low range go to the MW45SLP no question. Great singing sound and ease and ability to finess the mid to high range, where the F tuba normally plays, go hands down to the PT15. So I appreciated the comparison here as I had not put the two together.

For me the Thor's sound has a ton of core, indeed so much core that I would describe it as one dimensional...All core, no halo of other colors. While I've never played it on stage I imagine the Thor's sound would get off the stage likely easier than any other sized tuba. My *guess* is that this is the ultimate 'reach the back of the hall' horn, that likely will play louder in terms of penetration than even most 6/4 tuba. The truth is that after playing it for an hour or two my ears were so greatful to get back to a sound with some character to it that I welcomed the continued hard work for clarity and power in the low range that I would have gained by the purchase of the Thor. No more apt description of a tuba has ever been given than when the Thor is described as having a 'Hammer' sound. For some people in some situations this would be the ideal instrument. It wasn't for me.

LOVE the Bruckner. The 3050 I have is LISTED as a 5/4, but I think it is bigger than that; it certainly SOUNDS bigger. The Rudy Meinl 5/4 is an excellent horn, but again, I think it is larger than its 5/4 designation. Gronitz PCK (listed as a 5/4) is an outstanding tuba (but in reality is bigger). PT-6 is a fine instrument. No opportunities to play the Meinl Westons. I hope one day someone east of the Rockies will stock some. I LOVE Alexander 163's. Brass, goldbrass, silver, 5 valves, 6 valves, LOVE those tubas!!

Does anyone own a PT-606? I always love these horns at the conferences but I rarely hear anything about them which makes me suspicious that there are flaws that I'm not noticing.

LJV wrote:

Monstertuba wrote:...likely will play louder in terms of penetration than even most 6/4 tuba.

A 6/4 shouldn't penetrate. It should fill. It should be felt as much, or more than, be heard.

I disagree. IMO It should both be able to fill and penetrate, and more importantly it should do the bidding of the musician who is operating it. That is exactly why I love the sound of a good 6/4, and why the Thor is not for me. If the two ends of the spectrum are string basses, which I would discribe as being more to the 'felt'/'fill' spectrum, and the bass trombone which is all core, and on the pure penetration side of the spectrum, then for me the ideal tuba sound is something capable of complimenting either section as the need arises in the music. Tubas that are 'felt' more than they are heard tend to have very little definition/clarity to the sound. Tubas that are all or mostly core, to my ears, do not sound as beautiful/colorful. This is a generalization that in my opinion happens to fit the MW Thor (which I have not owned or played in concert) and MW2000 which I have. Finding an instrument that has a good balance of both was my goal and I felt like I achieved it.

But that is the glorious thing about participating in music. We as individual musicians have the ability to craft our product/art into anything that we wish. There is no right or wrong here, only right or wrong for my sound concept, for my product.

bort wrote:Any snowball's chance that Kanstul will ever make a rotary tuba?

None.

Best,

Ferguson

Doc wrote:Steve, I assume the Grand Orchestral has the York alloy bell. Any publicized pricing yet?

Yes, it has the York alloy bell. Not only that, but the entire body after the tuning slide is made of that same bronze alloy, like his F tuba is. Pricing looks to be around $10K for the Grand BBb and CC, but is not set yet.

Ferguson

cktuba wrote:Will there be any of these available for trial in the Mid-West anytime soon?

You'll want to check with Mr. Stofer, who's the dealer in that area. I don't believe Kanstul will show at the Midwest show in Chicago this December.

Ferguson

Ferguson wrote:

bort wrote:Any snowball's chance that Kanstul will ever make a rotary tuba?

None.

Best,

Ferguson

Aww nuts. I thought you west coasters used to be rotary people?