TubeNet

OK, I'll bite.

I like the overall sound color of PT-6 tubas; I just wish they would project better in large spaces. Every time I have heard one (even played by some top pros), I have been a little disappointed in it's projection/power. They sound/project more like 4/4 tubas instead of the 5/4 tubas they are. There are 4/4 tubas that project sound better in large halls/auditoriums. Hope that wont get too many PT-6 fans pissed

I have not heard many Fafners, but I would guess a Fafner bell would dense up the sound of a PT-6 and make it project better

That's the new one, right?

I work with guys that play both models of the 6 (2 rotaries, 1 piston). I don't like either but the rotary models play much clearer. They have more definition, sound nicer, and blend in real time better.

tooba wrote:OK, I'll bite.

I like the overall sound color of PT-6 tubas; I just wish they would project better in large spaces. Every time I have heard one (even played by some top pros), I have been a little disappointed in it's projection/power. They sound/project more like 4/4 tubas instead of the 5/4 tubas they are. There are 4/4 tubas that project sound better in large halls/auditoriums. Hope that wont get too many PT-6 fans pissed

I have not heard many Fafners, but I would guess a Fafner bell would dense up the sound of a PT-6 and make it project better

To agree with some other people, I've heard some players project just fine with a PT-6. The biggest example of this I've seen is Carson McTeer with the Cincinnati SO; he rocked the hall with his sound, and I had absolutely no trouble hearing him play within the orchestra.

LJV wrote:The B&S Perantoni MRP-CC Tuba.

Fafner bell, 6450 (which has a 2265/Fafner bell) bottom bow, PT6 rotary valves/guts.

If a PT6 and a MW6450 mated.

As a very satisfied owner of a rotary PT-6, I have to say that the MRP-CC sounds awesome.

I've never put a PT-6 rotary horn physically next to an Alexander 163 but I know a 163 will fit nicely in a PT-6 case. Seems to me the PT-6 was designed to be pretty much a 163 clone. No?

I had a chance to play the MRP-CC at MidWest. REALLY liked it, and I'm not usually a rotor person. But if I were to change my mind and switch to rotors, it would be my first horn to revisit. If I won the lottery, I'd just buy one just to have it.

bloke wrote:yes, but ia Fafner bell won't physically fit on a PT-6...and I suspect that part of the PT-6 muffled-natured tone is due to the bows, and not only the bell.

B&S/M-W already came up with a solution: the 5450
...and you already own the solution to any 5450 "over-exuberance" - a blokepiece Symphony

I know some here disagree, but maybe that's why I thought the PT-6 didn't project as well as other 5/4 tubas, was due to it's "muffled-natured tone".
Of the ones I have heard, I liked the rotary versions better and I have heard pretty decent color from them.
To the PT-6's credit, at least they do not suffer from tubbiness and woofyness like some modern tubas do. Just wish they would have a bit more 'punch' in the sound.

jeopardymaster wrote:I've never put a PT-6 rotary horn physically next to an Alexander 163 but I know a 163 will fit nicely in a PT-6 case. Seems to me the PT-6 was designed to be pretty much a 163 clone. No?

The B&S PT-6 was listed as a "York Model" 5/4 CC in the old Custom Music booklets. They sound 'Yorkish" with a bit of a German accent to me.

How does the "PT-6 w/Fafner Bell" relate to the new 6/4 horn that Mr. P. was showing at Midwest as a replacement for the PT-7? Are they one in the same?