TubeNet

Had these three models in my vicinity and decided to take a few pictures for your entertainment. I will withhold comment and let the pictures speak for themselves.

Enjoy

I have the PT 605, I have not seen the PT 6. When ordering a bag for my horn, the Thor bag that was shipped was too tight, and the replacement bag said PT6 and it fits perfect. The photo would make me think otherwise. The price spread of these is worthy of it's own thread.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Well... I thought the comparisons were pretty interesting and worthy of discussion. Figured others would eagerly jump in.

Emperical observations(perhaps more obvious in person):
-The Thor and PT605 are *identical* in the out bows. The additional 2' of length to put the PT605 in BBb are in the top inner bow and leadpipe.
-The PT605 has a longer leadpipe, smaller bore valve section, smaller dogleg, and smaller tuning slide.
-The PT6 is a notably physically larger instrument at every point along the bugle.

My personal take:
-All three horns are VERY different concepts with very different sonic goals and require a different approach to get there.
-The Thor and PT605 are NOT huge tubas. They are normal human sized tubas that happen to make a LOT of noise efficiently.
-Generally smaller tubas have more accessible low registers, this is a case in point.
-Despite similarities in the bugle the Thor and PT605 play NOTHING alike.
-The Thor is a bit more point and shoot out of the box and after spending time with one outside of an elephant room I better appreciated what it has to offer. It's a very good instrument.
-The PT605, interestingly, takes the strengths of the Thor(clarity and 'hammer' sound) and puts them on steroids. The response isn't *quite* as even on the PT605(it requires a different quality of air and is not 'plug n play') but the clarity and sound are a bit demonic. For me, this is counter-intuitive.. BBbs are tubby, right? I wonder if other instruments could be 'improved' with a smaller valve section and leadpipe/dogleg?
-I will *never* be ok with the MW giant piston valves. I lack ogre hands.
-The PT6 is a completely different concept from the Thor/PT605. I pictured it for size reference.
-All three have extremely good intonation. That's my number one criteria for any horn I would personally own.
-The PT6 sound is MUCH larger and teutonic. It's not a subtle difference. It's definitely much more 'York' inspired than I would like to admit.
-The PT6 is not nearly as forgiving or 'plug and play' as the Thor when it comes to playing clean and clear. Perhaps that's the price for the notably bigger sound? The Thor is nearly always clean no matter how you feed it. In contrast, the PT6 requires a very specific approach to reach a similar level of clarity. I would chalk that up to rotor vs. piston BUT the PT605 ruins that theory by hands down being hyper clear all the time.
-Once clarity on the PT6 is achieved it is a more satisfying final product... but it's more work.
-Both the PT6 and Thor can hide a lot of poor sound production technique if this is a beginner's first horn. The PT605, in contrast, will force you to fix your flaws.
-I've not played the new MRP model CC but I understand that it's a PT6 with a Fafner bottom bow and bell? IF that's true, I can't help but think they are barking up the wrong tree with that approach. The PT6 is already a large tuba with a plenty large sound. I think more fruitful gains could be made by revisiting the first few feet of the bugle rather than the last few feet.

Please discuss.

Interesting analysis, joh_tuba.

You compare the PT-6 to the two smaller horns. Among these horns, what would your comments be about the PT6P?
Folks have stated in the past that the rotor and piston versions of that horn play quite differently from each other.

joh_tuba wrote: -Generally smaller tubas have more accessible low registers, this is a case in point.

Interestingly, I think the Neptune has a more accessible low register than the PT6. Maybe it has something to do with the PT leadpipe?

Sure, I agree, tubas should be as easy to play as possible. Why not? We are on the same team.

The PT605 just demands a bit more 'precision' and 'evenness' in the sound production and rewards by becoming remarkably easy to play once you've crossed over. In contrast, an Alex will always be work. It's really no comparison.

TheHatTuba wrote:

joh_tuba wrote: -Generally smaller tubas have more accessible low registers, this is a case in point.

Interestingly, I think the Neptune has a more accessible low register than the PT6. Maybe it has something to do with the PT leadpipe?

That's basically what I've been thinking. Alan Baer makes a big fuss about a very specific receiver 'gap'. Perhaps the next big tuba mod fad should be replacing PT6 leadpipes and receivers with some variation of a Baer version?

Just like Bloke spent a lot of time and effort making his personal 2165 play more like his Thor. I wouldn't mind making my PT6 play like a Thor(it was embarrassingly easy to sound 'professional') or PT605. My gut says that a smidge smaller progression through the valve section might be part of that solution.

Curmudgeon wrote:Of course, you have to keep in mind that perspective has a lot to do with opinion. Depending on what other horns you've owned or now use regularly will color your opinion.

Right, I'm painfully aware that any time I'm offering an opinion I'm really just declaring my personal issues. For me, coming from mostly playing a PT6, the PT605 was a learning curve. Once learned I've found it a very pleasant experience.


Who wants to buy a smaller bore valve section so I can install it on my tuba? If it works I'll refund the money. If it doesn't work I'll give it back to you. :p