Dreaming, I know, but WTB 3/4 Rudy CC

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:50 pm

Ok, I know I am probably dreaming, but....I recently played a 4/4 Rudy CC and liked it. It is too big for me to haul around but the ergonomics worked (I could reach all five valves at the same time.) So...I'm thinking 3/4 Rudy CC. Could not find a price on a new one, but assume I would find it prohibitive. So if one of you has one of these hiding in a closet feeling lonely...contact me, ok? It's Be Kind to Pint-Sized Tuba Players Week.

MA, who has never been told she has cheap taste

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:21 pm

Looks like a new one's around $8500 (probably list price):

http://musicalinstrumentsforsale.net/72670.html

tubastudio.com has this one available:

http://www.tubastudio.com/32826.htm

Hope this helps!

Chuck Jackson · Post by **Chuck Jackson** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:38 pm

MA,

While I don't have one for sale, a bit of forewarning is needed. I owned one, probably the best all around instrument I have ever owned. It is not really for short people unless you have the lead pipe moved down. They may have changed, but when I put mine on a chair, the MP was right on my chops. I am 6'2" tall. Great horns, that would be the one that got away.

Chuck

tubacdk · Post by **tubacdk** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:01 pm

the one at tubastudio looks almost exactly like mine vintage-wise, which I think is a good thing. mine has very quick response, a very balanced sound, and great intonation.

Chuck Jackson wrote: While I don't have one for sale, a bit of forewarning is needed. I owned one, probably the best all around instrument I have ever owned. It is not really for short people unless you have the lead pipe moved down. They may have changed, but when I put mine on a chair, the MP was right on my chops. I am 6'2" tall. Great horns, that would be the one that got away.

that's interesting, cuz this Chuck is 6'-6'1" and the mouthpiece is only high enough if the horn is sitting on my lap. A ~5'7" buddy of mine plays it once in a while and has no problems if he has it sitting on the chair. Being that they're hand made and all that, maybe Chuck J's happened to have a tall leadpipe or something. Or maybe the leadpipe is lower on mine...

MA, you're in Phoenix, right? If you want to make the trip out to Los Angeles I'd be glad to let you play mine. there are plenty of other horns out here you could try out too.

-ck

cjk · Post by **cjk** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:05 pm

Every Rudi tuba I've played and every one I've owned has had pretty much the same leadpipe height. That includes 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 4345 piston, and 4345 rotary CCs and 4/4 and 5/4 F tubas. (I've only owned 2 4/4 CCs)

The intonation varies quite a lot on the CCs. My present one has a VERY nice scale, the one I used to own was not so nice. I played a new 5/4 that had a very nice scale and a new 3/4 that was not so nice. I played both on the same day at the same shop.

Chuck Jackson · Post by **Chuck Jackson** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:01 pm

The whole leadpipe thing was really strange. I bought the horn from Lee Stofer in 1990 and was concerned that the lead pipe was going to be a problem, but the thing worked on a chair or stand. Lee's 5/4 wasn't near that high. Go figure. I don't think I have played one since I sold it in 1993 so your mileage may vary in concerns to the leadpipe issue.

Chuck

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:20 pm

The owner of the 4/4 is pretty tall...and as you know I'm quite short, but I think it would work with a stand. Frankly I don't remember how I had to hold it!
I wrote the guy at tubastudio...

OK, you guys with experience: compare *sound* of rudy 3/4 with *sound* of :

1) piggy
2) 188
3) 2155
4) Mfone 184
5) rudy 4/4

I can learn more, sometimes, by hearing a really fine player test tubas, than testing them myself....to hear what comes out the bell.

Thanks,
MA, who may drive to LA sometime soon

tubacdk · Post by **tubacdk** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:59 pm

MaryAnn wrote:OK, you guys with experience: compare *sound* of rudy 3/4 with *sound* of :

1) piggy
2) 188
3) 2155
4) Mfone 184
5) rudy 4/4

I can learn more, sometimes, by hearing a really fine player test tubas, than testing them myself....to hear what comes out the bell.

I traded my Piggy to Ike Harris as partial payment for my 3/4 RM. The RM is a more powerful, darker horn than the pig. It has a clearer core to the sound and can play a lot louder without breaking up.

The only 188 I have played next to my RM is one of the brand new ones. I actually tested the new 188, new 186, and my RM on back to back to back sets with the Disneyland Band. It was a fun testing time. The report from the band leader was that the RM actually projected better than both the Miraphones. I think compared to the 188 the RM was less broad sounding and maybe a touch brighter. But the RM had a clearer core, thus the better projection.

I hope that makes sense.

MA, who may drive to LA sometime soon

Woo! it'd great to meet you!

cjk · Post by **cjk** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:56 pm

The owners (even former owners) of the RM-3/4 will be on auto-flame mode, as this is a fiercely loyal club, but I have found these instruments to be just a bit bland (though definitely "rounder" sounding than equivalent Mirafones) and quite high above proper pitch from 4th space G up to "middle" C. In addition, the RM bells (if & when creased) aren't particularly "repair friendly" and are just a bit resistant to being ironed smooth.

The last NEW RM 3/4 I played had a pretty flat d-d#-e in the staff AND every note from f in the staff through middle c was a mile sharp. My 4/4 piston RM has none of those problems. I have played better 3/4 RM tubas than that last one.

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:28 pm

DP wrote: 2 thoughts, first that no matter who is playing the horn, you are likely to hear more of "their" sound out of the bell, but if you know "their" sound, you may be able to discern the differences between the horns. Or not.
Second, when people talk about projection and core and especially my favorite term "blossom" they are discussing completely different aspects of a horns signature sound which may or may not be relevant to you and your type of play. I won't address your list really, except to say that you should only be comparing the RM "3/4" to the 184 and pigpig on your list, the rest are either entirely different design horns (2155) or bigger (RM "4/4", 188)

I know that the usual reply when querying about sound is that you hear the player, not the horn. Yes and no; when I was trying out the bell for my (french) horn that I now use...I got to hear it compared (by pros, lucky me) with 1) the original bell 2) two other high $$ custom brands of horn. All these combos were played by three pros...and I could definitely hear a difference between what I call "the sound" of the horns. Yes, each player sounded "like him/herself" but there were still differences in sound, between the horns played. Recently when I played the 4/4 RM, it was "the sound" that blew me away.

Hmm. I'd have to hear "blossom" and "not blossom" to know what you're talking about. So far, what appears to be the characteristic of the 184 that is most appreciated (but not by me) is its ability to bark and keep the entire brass band on the beat, when they have their noses buried in the music instead of pointed at the conductor. That isn't my preferred sound but I am requested to use it. I'd love to be asked to "blossom." If I have the air. Barking is easy.

Thanks for the feedback.

Bloke,
I thought Roger Lewis told me the 188 was basically the same as the 186. Am I mixed up? Also, I had thought of getting a 185, but wouldn't that have the same overall type of sound as the 184? There were a couple available a while back, and I passed on play testing them because I didn't think they would be much different from what I have. I want something different. Something Rudy-ish.

MA, whose spoiled-rottenness due to owning a FAB horn may be transferring itself over to tuba

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:58 am

MaryAnn wrote: I'd love to be asked to "blossom." If I have the air. Barking is easy

Have you tried bigger, deeper mouthpieces with the setup you have now? The band that puts up with me now likes the quick attack of my 184, and I love the response, but I've gone to a much bigger mouthpiece setup than I used in the orchestra. Rounder sound, different intonation, but still great response.

tubacdk · Post by **tubacdk** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:22 am

bloke wrote:The owners (even former owners) of the RM-3/4 will be on auto-flame mode, as this is a fiercely loyal club, but I have found these instruments to be just a bit bland (though definitely "rounder" sounding than equivalent Mirafones) and quite high above proper pitch from 4th space G up to "middle" C.
bloke "opinions...opinions...opinions..."

I'm only fiercely loyal because of how well my horn plays

I have played rudys that are a bit bland, tho I have never ever ever felt that way about mine. the pitch issue you mention is only present on my horn in the top space G, which does sit quite high. Ab through top C are spot on using normal fingerings. The only other RMs I have played are the 4345R and 4345P. they both seemed to have excellent pitch, but I didn't spend enough time with them to know the exact tendencies. I think that my 3/4 has a more interesting sound than either of those, but that's only a passing observation.

regarding comparison to older mirafones, I did have a chance to play it next to a 1970's Mirafone 186 and my RM had more even response, a fuller & rounder sound, similar pitch tendencies and better projection.

nothing against mirafones at all, I love playing them. but my RM is better. IMHO.

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:29 am

windshieldbug wrote:
MaryAnn wrote: I'd love to be asked to "blossom." If I have the air. Barking is easy
Have you tried bigger, deeper mouthpieces with the setup you have now? The band that puts up with me now likes the quick attack of my 184, and I love the response, but I've gone to a much bigger mouthpiece setup than I used in the orchestra. Rounder sound, different intonation, but still great response.

I may get into trying Doug Elliot mouthpieces... I have one now that a friend lent me to try on my F tuba. It does work noticibly better than my PT 64. It has the N cup (?), which I need. If I could find a deeper cup that is also not wider, I might try it on the CC. I have a 7B which I used for a while on both the CC and the F, and while it got me a deeper sound I didn't seem to have the chop strength to use it. (remember that what for you is a mouthpiece, is for me a teacup on my face. No corners are visble; I am essentially free buzzing into the cup, since there is no "support" from it. It sits on my face bones, not my lips.)

MA

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:12 pm

MaryAnn wrote:I may get into trying Doug Elliot mouthpieces... I have one now that a friend lent me to try on my F tuba. It does work noticibly better than my PT 64. It has the N cup (?), which I need. If I could find a deeper cup that is also not wider, I might try it on the CC. I have a 7B which I used for a while on both the CC and the F, and while it got me a deeper sound I didn't seem to have the chop strength to use it. (remember that what for you is a mouthpiece, is for me a teacup on my face. No corners are visble; I am essentially free buzzing into the cup, since there is no "support" from it. It sits on my face bones, not my lips.)

Just looked at Doug Elliott's website -- these are the available cup depths:

TU G - shallow, for euphonium doubling with a tuba rim ... it works!
TU J - medium-shallow, good size for cimbasso with a tuba rim
TU L - medium, for solo or quintet, quick response, easy high range
TU N - medium, good solo or quintet mouthpiece for any size tuba
TU P - medium-deep, all-around mouthpiece
TU R - deep, Helleberg style, excellent on all 4/4 and 5/4 tubas
TU T - very deep, Helleberg style, huge centered sound on large tubas.

(so your "teacup" could actually be a "T cup", if that one works for you)

Hope this helps!

IkeH · Post by **IkeH** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:30 am

[quote="tubacdk"]I traded my Piggy to Ike Harris as partial payment for my 3/4 RM. The RM is a more powerful, darker horn than the pig. It has a clearer core to the sound and can play a lot louder without breaking up.

[quote]
Since my name was brought up, I thought I would chime in. I had the same horn Chuck mentioned above and now have his old Piggy(as well as former owner of a 188, 184, among others). I have a different take on the differences on the two very same horns. I thought the Piggy was darker, but in a less complex way. The Rudy projects like a cannon and has a nice blend of overtones to give a rich, more complex tone. I had very few problems playing in tune with this horn and it doesn't have the problematic top-line Ab attack as a lot of German style horns have. I got it after going through various Miraphones, looking for something in-between the 186 and 185 but a darker tone(pungent, as Fletch says).

The leadpipe was a little low, so I had Lee Stofer raise it for me, as well as some other mods. The problem is, once you do that and sit in a fluffy chair that raises the horn up, you may have the worse problem of it being to high.

At this point, for me, the Piggy is just fine. Fat, lightweight, and a nice easy playing allrounder.

Ike

tubacdk · Post by **tubacdk** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:04 am

IkeH wrote: I thought the Piggy was darker, but in a less complex way. The Rudy projects like a cannon and has a nice blend of overtones to give a rich, more complex tone.

The leadpipe was a little low, so I had Lee Stofer raise it for me, as well as some other mods.

At this point, for me, the Piggy is just fine. Fat, lightweight, and a nice easy playing allrounder.

ya, that piggy is a great horn for a lot of things. I still miss how light it was for playing stand up gigs. You're making me double check my memory of how the piggy played, and I think I'm comparing the piggy's tone with the Self mouthpiece to the RM with the much larger Dillon G3. I think using the same mouthpiece on the two horns, you're right about the piggy being darker.

Also, it's interesting that even though you raised the leadpipe on the RM, it still fits me fine sitting on my lap. I really wonder how different the leadpipe heights might be on different RMs, considering others earlier in the thread had said they were rather tall.

-ck

Chen · Post by **Chen** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:43 am

If the Rudy CC you played was Doug's Rudy CC, it is actually the 3/4 (model 43), not a 4/4 (model 45). The discussion becomes moot if that's the case because Rudy doesn't make a smaller CC than the 43.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:37 pm

I don't know if it is clear here, but we should take note that Rudy Meinl sizes are about 1/4 different from other makers. Their 3/4 is equivalent to most makers' 4/4, and their 5/4 is certainly what most people call a 6/4 tuba. [Of course, there is the Rudy 6/4 for the giants among us...]

Another tuba that perhaps should be on your dance card is the Meinl Weston model 32 CC. It is the same size as the Rudy 3/4 CC, and some (including me) think it has a great tone. It's certainly worth a try.

Allen Walker

Lew · Post by **Lew** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:30 pm

Doc wrote:
...

Regarding leadpipe height, I always had to sit my Rudy on a paperback novel which was placed on the chair so the leadpipe would reach me. These days, we have tuba stands. I bought one, and anyone who doesn't use one ought to have their head examined. There is NO mid and lower body tension, no upper back and arm tension. The less tension, the better. The stand does the work, and the arms simply balance the horn. Put it at any height you wish. The MA's and Schlepps of the world finally have a solution to height issues. A stand is a small investment with a great reward. Buy one.

...

I have a K&M tuba stand, and owned a DEG and I have to disagree with the absolute nature of your statement. I have never been as comfortable using a stand as just having the tuba on my lap. In fact I find more back tension created by using a stand because I can't hold the horn as close to my chest.

I use the stand for my King Bill Bell model tuba because the thing weighs a ton and is too much for my lap, but I am more tired after playing using the stand than when I had it on my lap, my thighs are just not as sore. To each their own.