TubeNet

What's the difference between these horns? They both share a lot of specs but the 696 is cheaper.

I play a 5V 691 CC, (says 691 on the bell) and absolutely love it, it is the best rotary CC I have ever played. I have no experience with a 696 or 601 though...

696 is the newer model, 601 is older unless it has gone thru multiple generations. same for 691. They all look like the same basic gist, in different wraps. Would be interesting to know what really differentiates.

I have a 601 Which looks like it has a much more open wrap than any horn I see them selling currently.

Just stumbled over this old chat. History is interesting. Difference is just the history of german bohemian and czech instrument making industry.

Cerveny 601 goes back to the Cerveny Model 1024, THE Kaisertuba developed by Cerveny in the 19th century. Said to be copied by other manufacturers at the end of the 19th century (Bohland und Fuchs, Alexander). 3rd and 4th valve wrap as you can see at Alexander tubas today.
Cerveny /Amati / Lignatone 696 goes back to Bohland and Fuchs Model 69 1/2. This model was the base for the Melton 197. Bohland and Fuchs also had a Kaisertuba model 69 (horizontal main tuning slide) which was sold as Cerveny / Amati / Lignatone 691. Roland Meinl Bayreuth looks like a twin. 3 rd and 4th wrap is graslitz style as you can see with the RM or miraphones.

Challenge with more modern (cerveny ) horns is that due to thicker sheets, manufacturing methods (blowing from tubes rather than bending and hammering from sheets etc) the „modern“ tubas lack the color, resonance, sonority , „beef“ of the old pre-war instruments of czech 50-ies early sixties instruments….(compare a 195/2 hand-made vs the 195 and you know what i mean)

chris