Comparation between B&S PT-6R and Melton 25

[joshealejo]

Greetings,

Just curious. Both seem to be quasi same size (I could be wrong, please elaborate). Both seem to be "smaller" versions of B&S MRP and Melton 195 respectively. I own a PT6R and I would describe the sound as colorful wide and I would like to know from that perspective how a Melton 25 would sound. Unfortunately I do not have one here in Peru to compare.

Please share all your thoughts here. Thank you ver much.

José

[prodigal]

I'd hold onto that PT-6R if I were you!

[joshealejo]

I'd hold onto that PT-6R if I were you!

Oh, not thinking about changing. I am just curious.

[bort2.0]

Jose, my friend! How have you been! I need to catch up with you!

They're pretty different:

The Melton 25 is taller (about 106cm) than the PT-6 (about 100cm)
The Melton 25 has a smaller bell (450 mm) than the PT-6 (480mm)
The Melton 25 has a straight bore of 19.5mm, and the PT-6 has a graduated bore (19-21mm)

The bore of the PT-6 makes a big difference in the way it plays. The bell profile makes a big difference in the type of sound.

I think the MW-25 is about as classic German BBb as it gets, both in style and sound.
The PT-6 is a bit more hybrid... Bob Tucci once told me that someone described it as a York-xander -- sort of a hybrid between an Alexander sound, but with a more York-like weight to it. IIRC, the PT-6 came out in the late 80s, a time when people were d**king around with Alexander CC tubas with terrible intonation, Cerveny tubas with belts attached to them to dampen the vibrations, and (I think by then) cutting all sorts of nice classic 6/4 BBb tubas into questionable CC tubas. The other alternative was Miraphone CC tubas, which obviously are very nice, but are not particularly big, especially not compared to something like the PT6. So when the PT6 was invented, it became popular pretty quickly, and filled a need for American tuba players who wanted a big CC tuba that was actually good.

I've never really loved the MW-25, but they aren't bad. I just don't think I'm much of a 4/4 BBb player, so I'd need to get used to playing that style of tuba, before I could really judge if I liked it or not.

If I wanted a 4/4-ish BBb tuba, I would be looking at an Alex 163 BBb. (The 163 CC that I owned was amazing.)
If I wanted a 5/4+ BBb tuba, I would get a Rudy Meinl 5/4 BBb. (The Rudy 5/4 BBb that I owned was even better!)

[russiantuba]

Bort answered it well with the Yorkander, but the PT 6 to me has always felt like a tubbier rotor tuba. It was around this time the Yorkbrunner became more of a popular horn too, and those weren't very easy to control. The PT6 is a great medium of those who are wanting the breadth and width of sound of a 6/4 but the control and center of a strong 5/4.

Ironically, I feel I can get more sound out of my Miraphone 1291CC, mainly due to the larger bore, but I feel the PT 6 is better in the upper range with center. Not all PT6s are created equal, and some play much better than others (especially the piston versions). I feel overall the rotor version is better overall, but I have played examples of the piston version that are amazing, and others that are total dogs.

[prodigal]

I remember trying a PT-6, then a PT-7, then a random Neptune at the Army Band Conference a while ago.

PT-6. "Oh, that's a nice, big, round, sound than I can't get on my (then big-bell) 186CC. It was $5450 then, I paid $4500 for my 186 new.

PT-7 and Neptune: Way to big for this guy, air hogs IMO.

The PT-6 is a nice American lager. Hints of the the new world balanced with the classic German sound, but hard to get a sharp edge like my little Miraphone.

[bort2.0]

James, thanks for reminding me about the Hirsbrunner. That, plus the Warren Deck stuff was being developed. Some were hard to control for sure. Also, slide pulling.

[bort2.0]

I remember trying a PT-6, then a PT-7, then a random Neptune at the Army Band Conference a while ago.

PT-6. "Oh, that's a nice, big, round, sound than I can't get on my (then big-bell) 186CC. It was $5450 then, I paid $4500 for my 186 new.

PT-7 and Neptune: Way to big for this guy, air hogs IMO.

The PT-6 is a nice American lager. Hints of the the new world balanced with the classic German sound, but hard to get a sharp edge like my little Miraphone.

I've owned all 3 of those, and the PT-6 was my clear favorite. I had an older handmade rotary PT-6, and it was fantastic. I sold it because we were buying a house, and I needed money for a down payment more than I needed the tuba. Still have the house, at least.

The Neptune... To me, that tuba was very good, but just didn't click the way I wanted it to. It was a physically large tuba with a sound that was about 80% of what you thought it would be. A nice sound... But lacked the oomph of something that large. If I'm going to carry all that around and navigate the hassle of a 20.5" bell, there needs to be a payoff. Gorgeous tuba though.

The PT-7 that I owned was incredible and had all the size-of-sound issues figured out. The issue was, the valves were farther across the horn, which required a longer reach for my arm to the valves. Sounds ridiculous, but it put constant strain on my arm, and my elbow started to really hurt from it. I'm a very average sized guy, so it was weird to have this sort of issue, but I eventually had to bail on it. The next owner found the same to be true. The owner after that had no issue, loves it, and I believe still owns it

I didn't think any of these were air hogs. In fact, the Neptune was very efficient, to the point where I wish it would have taken more and done more with it.

We are lucky to have so many options.

[catgrowlB]

I own a PT6R and I would describe the sound as colorful wide and I would like to know from that perspective how a Melton 25 would sound. Unfortunately I do not have one here in Peru to compare.

Please share all your thoughts here. Thank you ver much.

José

The MW-25 has a denser, more focused sound than the PT-6. Some say the MW-25 has a throaty-yet-majestic sound, and I'd agree with that. It is still a relatively thick sound with a deep velvety quality to it.

The PT-6 sounds 'pretty' up close, and has a wider sound. But I'm almost always dissatisfied when I hear someone play one in most ensembles. There are other good 4/4 and 5/4 CC tubas which project (carry) sound out to the audience and sound better, imo. The PT-6 seems to have a 'muted' or 'muffled' quality to the sound.

But I guess the PT-6 was (is?) a good audition tuba

[joshealejo]

Dear gentlemen,

Thank you for your responses on this topic. I really appreciate It.

Jose, my friend! How have you been! I need to catch up with you!

They're pretty different:

The Melton 25 is taller (about 106cm) than the PT-6 (about 100cm)
The Melton 25 has a smaller bell (450 mm) than the PT-6 (480mm)
The Melton 25 has a straight bore of 19.5mm, and the PT-6 has a graduated bore (19-21mm)

The bore of the PT-6 makes a big difference in the way it plays. The bell profile makes a big difference in the type of sound.

I think the MW-25 is about as classic German BBb as it gets, both in style and sound.
The PT-6 is a bit more hybrid... Bob Tucci once told me that someone described it as a York-xander -- sort of a hybrid between an Alexander sound, but with a more York-like weight to it. IIRC, the PT-6 came out in the late 80s, a time when people were d**king around with Alexander CC tubas with terrible intonation, Cerveny tubas with belts attached to them to dampen the vibrations, and (I think by then) cutting all sorts of nice classic 6/4 BBb tubas into questionable CC tubas. The other alternative was Miraphone CC tubas, which obviously are very nice, but are not particularly big, especially not compared to something like the PT6. So when the PT6 was invented, it became popular pretty quickly, and filled a need for American tuba players who wanted a big CC tuba that was actually good.

I've never really loved the MW-25, but they aren't bad. I just don't think I'm much of a 4/4 BBb player, so I'd need to get used to playing that style of tuba, before I could really judge if I liked it or not.

If I wanted a 4/4-ish BBb tuba, I would be looking at an Alex 163 BBb. (The 163 CC that I owned was amazing.)
If I wanted a 5/4+ BBb tuba, I would get a Rudy Meinl 5/4 BBb. (The Rudy 5/4 BBb that I owned was even better!)

Dear Brett,

Thank you very much for your kind salutation. Still awaiting your arrival to Lima, you're always welcome!

I understand the pancake of the PT6R is wide than the Melton 25, but is the throat the same on both? I do not remember where I read that both share the same bell (Melton 25 being ended before for a more traditional bell flare).

Bort answered it well with the Yorkander, but the PT 6 to me has always felt like a tubbier rotor tuba. It was around this time the Yorkbrunner became more of a popular horn too, and those weren't very easy to control. The PT6 is a great medium of those who are wanting the breadth and width of sound of a 6/4 but the control and center of a strong 5/4.

Ironically, I feel I can get more sound out of my Miraphone 1291CC, mainly due to the larger bore, but I feel the PT 6 is better in the upper range with center. Not all PT6s are created equal, and some play much better than others (especially the piston versions). I feel overall the rotor version is better overall, but I have played examples of the piston version that are amazing, and others that are total dogs.

Mr. James, I was surprised how similar was the sound of the PT6R to the Neptune in withness. The sound was really wide, quite close to the bigger Neptune. Never tested a Miraphone 1291 CC tho. The only Miraphone I have played was an 86 BBb. A really nice instrument.

I remember trying a PT-6, then a PT-7, then a random Neptune at the Army Band Conference a while ago.

PT-6. "Oh, that's a nice, big, round, sound than I can't get on my (then big-bell) 186CC. It was $5450 then, I paid $4500 for my 186 new.

PT-7 and Neptune: Way to big for this guy, air hogs IMO.

The PT-6 is a nice American lager. Hints of the the new world balanced with the classic German sound, but hard to get a sharp edge like my little Miraphone.

I've owned all 3 of those, and the PT-6 was my clear favorite. I had an older handmade rotary PT-6, and it was fantastic. I sold it because we were buying a house, and I needed money for a down payment more than I needed the tuba. Still have the house, at least.

The Neptune... To me, that tuba was very good, but just didn't click the way I wanted it to. It was a physically large tuba with a sound that was about 80% of what you thought it would be. A nice sound... But lacked the oomph of something that large. If I'm going to carry all that around and navigate the hassle of a 20.5" bell, there needs to be a payoff. Gorgeous tuba though.

The PT-7 that I owned was incredible and had all the size-of-sound issues figured out. The issue was, the valves were farther across the horn, which required a longer reach for my arm to the valves. Sounds ridiculous, but it put constant strain on my arm, and my elbow started to really hurt from it. I'm a very average sized guy, so it was weird to have this sort of issue, but I eventually had to bail on it. The next owner found the same to be true. The owner after that had no issue, loves it, and I believe still owns it

I didn't think any of these were air hogs. In fact, the Neptune was very efficient, to the point where I wish it would have taken more and done more with it.

We are lucky to have so many options.

Totally agree about Neptune efficiency. For that big instrument, It is a really nice instrument to blow. I am quite small and Never thought Neptune was air hog. I once played a Melton 2165 Deck which was really physically demanding.

I own a PT6R and I would describe the sound as colorful wide and I would like to know from that perspective how a Melton 25 would sound. Unfortunately I do not have one here in Peru to compare.

Please share all your thoughts here. Thank you ver much.

José

The MW-25 has a denser, more focused sound than the PT-6. Some say the MW-25 has a throaty-yet-majestic sound, and I'd agree with that. It is still a relatively thick sound with a deep velvety quality to it.

The PT-6 sounds 'pretty' up close, and has a wider sound. But I'm almost always dissatisfied when I hear someone play one in most ensembles. There are other good 4/4 and 5/4 CC tubas which project (carry) sound out to the audience and sound better, imo. The PT-6 seems to have a 'muted' or 'muffled' quality to the sound.

But I guess the PT-6 was (is?) a good audition tuba

Would you prefer the Melton 25 sound Sir?

[catgrowlB]

^ I personally prefer the Melton 25 / MW-25 sound, yes.
I believe the MW-25 and B&S PT-6 share the same bell. BUT the flare is spun out to about 19" on the PT-6, and spun out to 17.7" on the MW-25. Otherwise same bell, same taper/dimensions. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Everything else (bows, mouthpipe, valveset, key) are different between the two horns.