Alexander 163 CC vs MW 5450 comparison experiences

[EMC]

Hey everyone! I'm having some trouble making up my mind, I currently own an Alex 163 CC from 1975, and quite frankly it's probably the best tuba I've ever played, it is a prime example of a great Alex, Now, I'm not planning on getting rid of the Alex however I've always wanted to try a Thor or even a Tuono as I've heard phenomenal things about them, so what I want to is if anyone has had hands on experience with both an Alex and Thor and can tell me how different are they? Would one be suitiable for certain situations or others one being piston one being Rotor, in other words, would it be worth it, in your opinion of course, to have both? Do they distinguish themselves from each other enough that would justify having both? Any thoughts would be appreciated, and please keep in mind this is a "I want something" not an "I need something" Thanks!

[EMC]

Thanks everyone for the quick responses I really do appreciate it , I have tried a Thor before and I really loved the response it had and the sound, of course I Only had it for 20-30 mins so that really is a shallow opinion, and I do understand that they are two different animals, but that is the reason why I feel it may be beneficial/convenient/awesome to have both, I know there is a fellow tubenetter on here who is selling his Thor and Petrushka , and if I decide upon it I'd really like that one particularly because his has the OG bell size which is virtually impossible to find now, but thank you very much I will be consulting a few other people before I make a decision, I bid you all a pleasant rest of the day.

[jasoncatchpowle]

None of them play themselves. All require finesse. The best way to find the info you seek is to arrange to have your Alex, a 5450, and yourself in a quiet room for a good period of time.

I had a very good 5450 (had first pick from the same batch as some guy in Blokeville's tuba), sold it, and the subsequent owner has sold it as well. If I had limitless funds, I probably would have kept it, but I very much enjoy the BAT I acquired since selling (easily the nicest tuba I've owned among a couple of Yorkbrunners, the 5450, a 6450, etc...) so it's all good.

And BTW, I prefer the BBb brother of the 5450 a bit more. It was based on an old B&F BART...

FYI I was the second owner of Curmudgeon's Thor. I have also played a really good Alexander.

They are really totally different in both sound and playability. The Alex sound is really direct, full of core with very little excess fat to the sound. Its very easy to get a lot of colour in the sound without having to play very loud. I've never played an alex in a section or orchestra however.

The built in intonation of alexanders can be quite severe, the one I tried wasn't too bad- only the 5th partial was wildly flat.(play E-12 Eb-23 D-13 with first slide pull). As with any Rotary big tuba, slurring smoothly and cleanly is much more difficult than with pistons. (I haven't spent enough time practicing a rotary CC-tuba to slur cleanly, i can just about tolerate a rotary F tuba)

The Thor is very well in-tune, it still requires normal slide pulls for 2-4 and 1-2 combinations, pretty much everything else is close to spot on. 5th partial is slightly too low. Its very easy to articulate, and blows very freely in all registers. The low range is very responsive- for my taste its too responsive. The low range is incredibly forgiving of poor technique, which I think makes it a bad idea for a student (like myself) as it won't punish or reward you for what you put in to it.

For me the biggest downfall of the Thor is the sound, which is the main reason why I sold it. I find I have incredible difficulty getting a warm and beautiful sound. Monochromatic is a close description. When I owned it I never really enjoyed playing it very much. I will Admit though that 'valkyries' sounds awesome on a Thor.

My replacement was an old 2165 turned into a 2265, it has the sound that i enjoy. I do have to spend many hours a day keeping my chops in shape to play it well. It has many intonation and response issues, but are all worth dealing with to have that sound that I love.

My wisdom for what its worth. (not much)

JC

[Z-Tuba Dude]

I really suspect that...
- tuba players worry a lot more about this sort of thing than in the past...becoming more-and-more like horn players

I blame that on the internet!

[toobagrowl]

- various tubas (with the same player behind them) don't sound as different as tuba players think they do. I believe tubas *feel* more different than they sound, and the *feel* taints players' perceptions of how tubas sound.

- tubas don't sound the same from under the bell as they do out in the hall.

- 6/4 tubas (in general) don't *sound* as good (to others) as they *feel* to us (the players of them).

+1

[bort]

And I would also suspect that you would find similar differences between the Alex and any large piston CC tuba.

I know when I tried my Rudy alongside of some other brand new piston CC's (Thor and PT6P), I knew the piston tubas were easier to play and easier to make a bigger sound with less effort. I was actually surprised that I could make those sorts of sounds out of a tuba (which are often the kinds of "big and soft" sounds that directors like to hear). Even the Tuono seemed the same... in the short time I spent with it, I thought it felt like a Thor with different buttons, and no real difference in sound. Just a first impression there, I could be wrong.

However easy it is to play one of those tubas, my brain wants to hear something else out of a tuba. And trying to make a Thor or PT6P sound that way is a lot of counterproductive work. Maybe you will have a different experience though!

[itai]

And trying to make a Thor or PT6 sound that way is a lot of counterproductive work.

I tend to agree about your statement on the Thor / PT-6 Piston, but the Rotor is a whole complete story.
It seems as if the PT6 (r) sound has become standard and not "unique" due to its popularity, but I cannot seem to find another model that matches its sound color.
YMMV

[bort]

Ah, you are absolutely correct. I have updated my post to be specific about the PT6P. I always forget to make that distinction!

[J.c. Sherman]

Apples and oranges.

I really enjoy playing the New Thors. They are practically "think it and it'll come out" tubas. But their sounds, the Alex and the Thor, are not relatable to one another. They are wildly different tubas.

To those who think the music director/conductor could give a $#|+, I give you today's experience: introducing my new-to-me King Monster BBb to my orchestra. The doe-eyes and adoration I received from the section and the conductor verified my thoughts on the matter; a tuba should be felt, and blend with its neighbors. A spectacular sound will win you multitudinous points with everyone.

Alexander tubas are very, very good at that.

J.c.S.

[toobagrowl]

I do not own a Thor or Tuono. However, I have owned my 'prototype' M-W 2155R (the supposed predecessor to the Thor/Touno) for quite a few years, and have tooted on several Alex 163 CC & BBb tubas.

Here were/are my observations:

The M-W 2155R has a slightly larger bell/bugle than the Alex 163. The 2155R is a true 5/4 tuba (roughly the same size as the PT-6), the Alex 163 is really more a 4/4+ tuba.
Both the Alex 163 and 2155R have large, dark, dense focused sounds that project very well. However that is where the similarities end. The Alex 163 sounds 'sweeter' up close and has a lighter, more 'puffy' sound, with fewer overtones. The 2155R has a heavier sound with more weight/bass, and more overtones. The Alex 163 sounds dark up close and from a distance. The 2155R sometimes sounds 'bright' up close, but quite rich and velvety out in the hall (and on recordings). I'm just guessing most of this applies to the Thor/Tuono.
Depending on mpc and sound concept, I can make my 2155R sound almost like a Yorkbrunner or a gigantic F tuba and anywhere in between.
I haven't spent enough time with the Alex 163 to see what different sounds it can make. 'Color' is just one aspect of sound; you also have overall 'shape', 'breadth', etc.

[toobagrowl]

Alex 163 is really more a 4/4+ tuba.

I would have to take exception to this. I think a .808 bore would qualify for a 5/4.

So you "size" a tuba based solely on it's valve bore size? Okaaaayyyyyyyy.....
Guess all those 6/4 York-a-phones are really 4/4 tubas since they have smaller valve bores than the Alex 163
No.......valve bore size is only one facet to 'sizing' a tuba or sousaphone. You also have to take into account height, bell size, and most important, bugle size/girth. Most ppl determine how big a tuba or sousaphone is by how 'fat' the bell throat and outer bows are.
The Alex 163 is tall and has a large valve bore, but has a modest bell size and bows. Some consider it a large 4/4 (like me) and others, like you, consider it a 5/4 tuba.

[caseys186]

I recently got a chance to play on the Tuono , and I must say the Tuono has a huge sound, great upper register, and being a fan of rotor horns, I really like the response and the valves felt great. I have not had a chance to play on the piston Thor, but having played other large piston horns (PT6 PS and MW 2165) I think the Tuono is worth checking out.