The Wonderful Neptune

[Wyvern]

My love of the Mel Culbertson Neptune 6/4 CC is no secret to those regular readers of this forum. Of all the BIG tubas I have tried, it remains my very favourite and would be my BAT of choice, however much money I had to spend.

Ever since I got mine (4 years ago) I have wondered how the Neptune came into being in that as far as I know it is quite unique in have the general tone, easy playing characteristics and ¾ inch valve bore of an American ‘Yorkphone’ 6/4, but with rotary valves. Unlike other big rotary CC, such as the Rudolf Meinl, Cerveny, or Alexander which are built like German Kaiser tubas with large (>0.8”) valve bores.

Does anyone know what inspired the Neptune (rotary version)? How it came to be developed and when?

I have tried contacting Mel Culberson with these questions, but without success.

As a footnote, I have made friends with a couple of other Neptune owners, but would be pleased to hear from others (in this thread, or by PM). How do you find and use your Neptune? Do you prefer the medium (M), or large (L) leadpipe?

Thanks!
Jonathan

[imperialbari]

..

[THE TUBA]

I think the Neptune is, essentially, a rotor version of the PT-7 with a slightly larger bell. I know a few people with the Neptune piston versions, and the resemblance to the PT-7 in uncanny.

[Wyvern]

Jonathan, since you also have a man's tuba (huge rotary Bb I seem to remember this joke being made on here before), how would you compare the two?

Bob, The Cerveny has the broadest most wall shaking tone, but its sound is not as focused as the Neptune. As a bass under a large band in team with a smaller tuba/s (Eb in my band) to give definition, the Kaiser works very well indeed, but I am not so sure of its use for orchestral playing - does not give the more solistic tone I want in such a setting*.

The Neptune by comparison is a much more adaptable tuba, in that it can provide a lovely rich bass tone, or be singing a solo equally well. The two leadpipes are also very useful to vary its tone between American BAT (M) or German Kaiser (L) as desired.

So I enjoy playing both of these BIG tubas, but the Neptune is by far the most useful.

* I did consider playing the Cerveny for Shostakovich 5 this season, but on play comparison, soon decided to use the Neptune

[oedipoes]

Hi Mr. Neptune,

I wondered how your both rotary tuba's respond in playing band repertoire (Sparke, Wilby etc...) where some pretty fast notes are required in the lower tuba part.
Are the rotors and response as quick on these big tuba's as pistons on for example a Besson 994 or willson 3100 FA-5 would be?

Additional question, have you played the rotary Rudolf Meinls (5/4 or 6/4) and how do they compare to your Neptune and Cerveny?
I would like to buy my own BBb or CC tuba once, and I'm exploring the market. Did not find any Neptune in Frankfurt this year.

Thanks for sharing your experience!

wim

[Wyvern]

Hi Win,
My experience is that the rotors themselves are just as fast as piston valves and the distance of finger movement is half of operating large pistons, so I personally find easier. Although when I first got a rotary tuba, that little finger on the right hand needed a lot a exercise and use before it responded so well to playing fast passages. Which system is preferable is very much personal choice.

Yes, I have played a 5/4 Rudolf Meinl. I had a BBb on trial for a couple of weeks when I was choosing a BIG tuba. It had a really wonderful tone - possibly even better than the Neptune. However, for me at that time it was just too large for me to control (even the 5/4 is a bigger tuba than the Neptune, or Cerveny) and I reluctantly returned and soon after bought my Neptune instead.

I did not make it to Frankfurt this year.

[pierso20]

As a footnote, I have made friends with a couple of other Neptune owners, but would be pleased to hear from others (in this thread, or by PM). How do you find and use your Neptune? Do you prefer the medium (M), or large (L) leadpipe?

Thanks!
Jonathan

you know....if you gave me yours....then I could tell you all about it......

[jeopardymaster]

I am an unrepentant serial monogamist with regard to intimate human relationships. So it feels really disloyal to admit that I doubt I could ever choose to leave any of my 3 CCs: a 34 year old 184 I bought new, a Gnagey acquired from Sam in '06, and the Neptune I bought last year. Whichever one I'm playing at the time is my favorite. Last night I took the Neptune to a rehearsal - Prelude to Die Meistersinger - and it was marvelous for me. I'm not so sure how the bassist to my left felt, but the bass trombonist to my right was happy albeit envious.

To answer Jonathan's question, I bought it on Ebay from a guy in Colorado. It was offered with a buy-now price of $6000 (plus mute) and I jumped. I don't even know which leadpipe I am using, though I suspect it is the medium. The other is still wrapped in the plastic it was shipped in. I haven't needed to know - it was love at first toot. The darn thing plays like a dream. Bottom-line g is a smidgeon sharp, but otherwise it's spot-on, and I never have to pull anything to play in tune. It's the best 6/4 CC I've ever played.

[circusboy]

I have no need for a horn this size, but I must say that if I did, it'd likely be a Neptune. I blew on one once and found it to be just dreamy: easy to play, in tune, gorgeous sound.

Sign me up for the fan club.

[jeopardymaster]

Anyone out there have his/her Neptune valves vented? Aside from #2 I mean. I've been thinking of getting that done someday - it does get a bit of compression 'pop' now and then, though it isn't a huge problem by any means.

[Wyvern]

I have received an interesting message from a friend that he was told by Mel Culbertson himself at the time the model was developed that the inspiration for the Neptune was John Fletcher's old Holton CC (which was also played by Bob Tucci on the famous Solti/VPO Ring recording) - interesting!

I have never played a Holton 6/4 CC. To anyone who has played both, how does the Neptune sound compare with a Holton?

[jeopardymaster]

I've never played a Holton CC that started out that way. All were cut down from BBb, and the only one that really impressed me is the one still at Dillon right now - $10000 and hasn't moved in over a year I think. But even it does not compare to my Neptune, most notably in the upper register. If that is how Fletcher's horn responded, it explains a lot. I don't sound remotely like him, although I've always aimed for Schmitz instead. Never got close to him either.

[jimgray]

I suppose I'll weigh in since I play and love one of these.

These are really interesting horns in that they have a HUGE beautiful Germanic sound, excellent intonation/response, great build quality, and are very nimble/efficient to play. I used to have a very nice PT-6r, and this horn has all the same character of that instrument, just more breadth/sound, and more clarity.

I sit next to a guy in the Metropolitan Wind Symphony who has a really nice Rudy 5/4 CC. I have spent a lot of time comparing these instruments, so I will give my impressions on this sub-topic, since it was raised.
1) the Rudy has a great sound, but it is more "covered" or "veiled", whereas the Neptune has the same basic character with more "core" and clarity. As a result, they sound GREAT together! If I had to chose one sound, I think the Neptune is perhaps a bit more flexible/useful, and projects better, particularly if you are playing anything active or remotely technical.
2) The Neptune sounds much more like the classic Alex sound to my ears (just bigger), whereas the Rudy is darker. Again - cool for some things, but SO much fundamental. If I want that sound, by the way, I can put the large leadpipe on (yes, there are two and they are interchangeable), and here comes Fafner!
3) the Rudy has a more difficult "UI" for me, meaning I find it much less "playable" than the Neptune. The Neptune, by comparison, pretty much plays itself - an impression my standmate shares (as well as others that have played this horn).

With the availability of these amazing horns, I encourage folks to reconsider the dominance of piston valve horns as the only option for big tubas. Do you love the Alexander sound? Do you love the (old) Empire Gabrielli recording? Do you love the richness of true German-style sounds like Walter Hilgers, Michael Lind, Sam Pilafian, etc? Do you love the 70s recordings of Chester on his Alex? I sure do. That is why I play my Neptune.

Plus, they are cheap! You can find these on the used market for $6K.
I find that baffling.

I'd love to see these things catch on and be more adopted by pro players.
It seems like some are beginning to rethink things in this direction, and I find that very interesting.
What goes around...
I hope it catches on!

cheers-
jim

[Wyvern]

the Rudy has a more difficult "UI" for me, meaning I find it much less "playable" than the Neptune.

What is a "UI"? Not a term I know.

Thanks for an interesting post Jim!

[oedipoes]

Jim, Neptune,

Can I conclude here that the Rudy 5/4 and the Cerveny 701 are more or less the same in the sound they produce? (apart from the fact that you can buy almost two cerveny's for the price of one Rudy...maybe it is time that someone explains to me why this is...) With the Neptune's sound having more core and project better in more technical passages?

Can you people extend this comparison with the Neptune to more brands of high-end tuba manufacturers?
I'd love to see detailed comparisons like the one Jim gave on Neptune vs. Rudy.
Neptune vs. Hirsbrunner (rotary and piston), Willson, Miraphone, ... maybe we can stay into the 5/4 sized instruments.
Oh, and I'm particularly interested in BB tubas, like them better.

This is very usefull information for me, it gets better every time I look at this forum!

(getting pretty depressed with the band's Yamaha YBB321, looking for better and 5/4 sized)

[Wyvern]

Can I conclude here that the Rudy 5/4 and the Cerveny 701 are more or less the same in the sound they produce? (apart from the fact that you can buy almost two cerveny's for the price of one Rudy...maybe it is time that someone explains to me why this is...) With the Neptune's sound having more core and project better in more technical passages?

I believe your conclusion is broadly correct. It is a while since I played the Rudy, so have never been able to directly compare with the Cerveny, but they both have similar sound characteristics. As did the Miraphone 190 5/4 BBb I have tried, although I felt that had less color to its sound. They all have the broad sound of a German Kaiser tuba, without the focus/core to the sound which I believe the Neptune shares with York-a-phone BATs. In my opinion the Neptune incorporates the easier playing characteristics of an American BAT with some of the tonal color of a German Kaiser which is why I have never played anything else I like as much.

[NDSPTuba]

I'm assuming that everyone who has commented on the playing characteristic's of the Neptune (great name by the way ) is referring to the Rotor version of the instrument. I seem to remember comments that the piston variety of the Neptune doesn't share the same love and high praise of the rotary version. I'm particularly interested in this, because of my recent reiteration of the fact that piston instruments slur much easier than rotary instruments. I have been practicing Holst's First Suite on my 11J and had the opening smooth and flowing and when I get to band rehearsal and pick up the 186 BBb, that first F to C slur is a bitch to get smooth. Requires a considerably greater effort to get smooth.

[Wyvern]

I'm assuming that everyone who has commented on the playing characteristic's of the Neptune (great name by the way ) is referring to the Rotor version of the instrument. I seem to remember comments that the piston variety of the Neptune doesn't share the same love and high praise of the rotary version.

I believe we are all talking about the rotary Neptune. My understanding is that the piston version is basically a PT-7 and a very different beast. Incidentally the latest B&S catalog only shows the rotary Neptune (4098), so it looks like the piston version (5098) might have been discontinued.

Regarding slurring. Having played piston tubas, before changing over to rotors, I would agree that slurring is more difficult with rotary valves. Piston valves seem to aid you in the slur, while a rotary valve does not give that natural assistance. Still quite possible to slur smoothly with rotary valves, but requires greater control by the player.

[jeopardymaster]

A difference in ease of slurring between rotors and pistons? I confess I never thought about it.

I can say I tried a Neptune piston horn at WWBW around 10 years ago and was very much disappointed in it. At the time I was aspiring to a MW 2165 but hadn't liked any of them either, at least not enough to buy one.

One further testimony to my Neptune and slurs. You guys all know the a-to-b trill in the Prelude to Meistersinger. On some horns I find it more of a chore to get the lip trill the way it wants to be. Well, I just performed "PMS" on the Neptune this past weekend. It feels like - like - coming home after a too-long trip. Unbelievable.

[Wyvern]

One thing that has not been mentioned in this thread is how the CC Neptune is unusually made to also play as a BBb. The connection to the 5th rotor is via a thumb screw which can be easily moved to the other side as shown in the pictures below. This causes the air to go through the 5th valve loop by default and with some adjustment to the slides quickly turns the Neptune into a BBb with one tone ascending 5th valve.

You would expect it to play as stuffy as hell and have bad intonation as a BBb, but my experience is that it plays just fine like that, maintaining its full tone and having quite manageable intonation.

A very useful facility to play the BBb Bass part in brass bands as I did a number of times before I owned a 'real' BBb in the form of my Cerveny.