Pt-7 vs Piston Neptune

[LargeTuba]

Is there any differences between the Piston Neptune and the Pt-7? Can anybody who’s tried both attest to their individual playing qualities? I know the Neptune’s bell is a little larger, but is that the only difference?

Are they both just souped-up Pt-6Ps, with a bigger bottom bow and a bigger bell?

[bloke]

Both have been here - and sold from here, and I believe one has a slightly larger bell diameter/pancake...

Are they both just souped-up Pt-6Ps, with a bigger bottom bow and a bigger bell?

I believe so, which defines that they have different good notes and different bad notes from all of the other B&S factory 6/4's (2165/2265/6450) which ARE all different, but which feature more similarities than differences.

[matt g]

Yeah, the Neptune has a slightly bigger bell, gold tint lacquer, and a cooler engraving.

I owned one and it was alright. I like the 2165 better.

One issue I had with the PT-6/7P and Neptune was the slide layout for the valves. Accepting that one needs to pull some slides on occasion, first and third competed for the same real estate and fourth (nice to have for low register adjustments) was kinda out of the way.

Good sound, a little more lean than a typical 6/4.

[bort2.0]

I've had a PT-7 and a rotary Neptune.

From what I've been told, the 7 and the piston Neotune are very similar, with the Naptune having a 20.5" bell (with a lot more flare in the final inch or two), and the 7 has a 19" bell that was made on a mandrel that had been used for Kaiser BBb bells.

The goal of the 7 was much like the MRP -- capture the classic kaiser BBb sound, in a CC tuba format. And heck, why not piston valves, too.

People warned me against the 7 for various reasons. I thought it played fantastically well, and I loved the sound. Not at all like the big American 6/4 sound, but much more like a big rotary tuba... Dense focused sound that projected like crazy. I don't think it was quite a 6/4 tuba, but maybe it was to the people who consider the Gronitz PCK to be a 6/4 tuba. Probably not really, but I have no interest to get in a debate about it. Suffice it to say, it's a big tuba, and you'll never run out of sound. The main reason I sold it was because the ergonomics were poor for me. I had to reach my right hand too far around the front, and the big valves were too much for my hands to handle at that angle. It almost made me appreciate the York 6/4 style leadpipe. Almost.

The Neptune is most of that. The larger bell makes a less focused sound, but it's weirdly not as 6/4 of a sound as you'd think, for how big of a tuba/bell it is. I think it really just feels like a 5/4 tuba with a big bell. Proper 6/4 tubas seem to have bigger top bows. Between the piston and rotary Neptune, I prefer the rotary. Big sound, still very German style and not the "big piston tuba sound" you might be expecting.

As the story goes, when Mel Culbertson designed the Neptune, he tricked it out exactly how he wanted it and then it was pretty much locked down and no more changes were made. B&S didn't make many of the 7's, but based on the R&D of the 6, a lot of that trickled down to later iterations of the 7. That is, the later PT-7's saw more incremental improvements than the Neptune, because since Mel didn't say to change things, they kept their hands off of it for the most part.

I'll be honest, I actually preferred the rotary PT-6 to any of these. And from nearly all reports, the MRP is the latest and greatest model, to advance the development of the modern large CC tuba.

[bloke]

You are nearly as good at filling up a text box with rhetoric - while saying very little - as am I.

[matt g]

I don’t think that difference in bell size impacts the sound in any significant way. If there’s a sonic difference between a PT-7P and a Neptune, I’d wager it’s in the leadpipe.

[the elephant]

I am taking a risk here by expressing an actual opinion based on actual information from the actual maker of these (actual) tubas, actually. (Heh, heh…) Sometimes expressing things like this opens one to derision and flaming in this community. So flame away. I know what I was told, and I know which of these horns plays better than the other. That being said…

IMHO — the rotary PT-6 and the rotary Neptune are far better tubas than the piston versions. (I have never seen a PT-7.) I was told that both were designed at rotary tubas and that the weirdness of the piston horns was due in part to them having pasted on pistons and then having to try to fix the pitch oddities retroactively.

I was told this by a few reps, and Gerhard Meinl confirmed to me face-to-face that the Neptune was "really a rotary tuba," but pistons were added because they were the hot, new thing for the large US market, and these were CC tubas, again, aimed at the US market. It seems to me — IMHO — that the PT-6 is a superior tuba to the PT-6P (when the ridiculous American bias for pistons has been factored out) that it too was "mapped out" as a rotary tuba first, then pistons were added after the fact.

So if the Neptune and PT-6 are both outstanding rotary tubas with — IMHO — less-stellar pistons versions, this would also apply to the PT-7.

People here often forget just how much better the intonation and response of the rotary horns are when directly compared to their piston siblings.

Wade "laughing at the 'I don't like rotary valves' crowd for their silliness" Rackley

[the elephant]

@the elephant, that’s been confirmed by many, regarding the rotary Neptune being better than the piston version.

I’ll admit that I was one of the people wanting a big piston tuba, and when the VMI came out, it was a bargain. I think I paid $8k from WW&BW in 1998. Bonus was me working in a warehouse at the time and being able to easily take delivery of it with a little less handling.

Speaking to only my horn, it wasn’t so much the intonation that made it odd as it were. It was the change in timbre and response across registers. It sounded kinda big in the middle register, but down low, it was fairly bright and edgy. In cases where the room was sufficiently large, like a large cathedral, that wasn’t an issue.

To your point, Wade, I think a lot of this was engineered for sales more so than musicianship. The PT-7P was pretty much just made for Custom Music or whoever so they had a “6/4” offering in the B&S line. But I think the PT was $4k to $6k more than the VMI.

I reckon the MRP has ironed most of the issues out and isn’t trying to plug-and-play with valve sections like the PT brand was in the past (likely due to USA market distribution).

For all that can be said about the variety of York-inspired horns from the turn of the millennium, I do think some interesting developments came from that.

[joshealejo]

I am taking a risk here by expressing an actual opinion based on actual information from the actual maker of these (actual) tubas, actually. (Heh, heh…) Sometimes expressing things like this opens one to derision and flaming in this community. So flame away. I know what I was told, and I know which of these horns plays better than the other. That being said…

IMHO — the rotary PT-6 and the rotary Neptune are far better tubas than the piston versions. (I have never seen a PT-7.) I was told that both were designed at rotary tubas and that the weirdness of the piston horns was due in part to them having pasted on pistons and then having to try to fix the pitch oddities retroactively.

I was told this by a few reps, and Gerhard Meinl confirmed to me face-to-face that the Neptune was "really a rotary tuba," but pistons were added because they were the hot, new thing for the large US market, and these were CC tubas, again, aimed at the US market. It seems to me — IMHO — that the PT-6 is a superior tuba to the PT-6P (when the ridiculous American bias for pistons has been factored out) that it too was "mapped out" as a rotary tuba first, then pistons were added after the fact.

So if the Neptune and PT-6 are both outstanding rotary tubas with — IMHO — less-stellar pistons versions, this would also apply to the PT-7.

People here often forget just how much better the intonation and response of the rotary horns are when directly compared to their piston siblings.

Wade "laughing at the 'I don't like rotary valves' crowd for their silliness" Rackley

Now that is REALLY good information. I loved my Neptune, It was my favorite tuba and I consider It the best tuba I ever had until now.

[LargeTuba]

A MW employee hinted at a Piston MRP-C possibly coming in the near future…

[bort2.0]

A few other random thoughts on each:

* I thought the low register of the PT-7 was awesome. Easy to play and it roared. All out FFF was a ridiculous amount of sound, not required in 99% of situations but for that 1% everyone around you had better buckle up. Mid and upper range spoke clearly and easily. For a tuba of this size, the clarity was quite enjoyable. If the ergonomics were better, it would have stayed with me longer. The next owner liked it a lot, and the owner after that loves it.

* The (rotary) Neptune was a really easy to play tuba, top to bottom. Low range was really nice, but again, for such a big tuba, it wasn't as big of a sound as you'd expect. Projection was pretty good, but I think the large bell tends more to presence than projection. My recollection was that this was designed to be a tuba that could either sound like a Kaiser BBb with one leadpipe or like a large CC with the other leadpipe. I'm not sure I experienced that much difference, but I didn't own it for very long either. Mine was really weird around D and Db. Maybe because of a dent in the 4th valve tubing, but the response on those notes was kind of dead compared to the rest, and it took some thinking. Ergonomics on the Neptune were fantastic. But, this was the original "bort sold it because it didn't fit in his trunk" tuba. That 20.5" bell is really just too big. Visually striking and the most tuba bling I've seen... but it's a lot to haul around.

* The (rotary) PT6 was the best of both worlds. Clarity, presence, easy to play, and good ergonomics. A flexible sound that didn't have to be huge, but if you wanted huge then it's ready to go. I regretted selling that tuba, but I needed the $ for real-life needs far more than for my own indulgence and having fun with a nice tuba needs.

All of this said... if you can find a PT-7, I'd say to buy that and give it a try. There are fewer of them around, and are harder to find for sale. You will have less opportunities to get one later if you pass now. If you have a particular one in mind, send me a PM -- I did quite a bit of research on this model a few years ago before I bought mine.

[AvrTuba]

* The (rotary) PT6 was the best of both worlds.

[bloke]

glomming on:

Yeah… When I hear “I don’t like ________ (whatever might be in this blank) tubas” (some of which are AMAZING), I can’t help but hear “I don’t like GOOD tubas”.

[Tubon25]

Yo vendo una Pt 7 P, para más info por privado o por tlf

[bloke]

I think the only piston versions that I like better than the rotary ones are the 5450 and the 195.

There may be some sister models that I've not compared, but I may have played more different models than a lot of people.