TubaForum.net

compare the winner to the runner-up, face to face.

98 vs. 195P

Dragon versus Dragon Slayer. Should be a fun battle.

just got back about 25 minutes ago...no tickets - lots of radar. Mike Valentine is my hero.

195P is throaty-sounding (ok...like a classic kaiser tuba is expected to sound...as I've described before: "throaty" - a lot like an extra-large Meinl-Weston 25...same type of sound, but bigger...Talking in circles: "kaiser-like" as it's a kaiser).

195P C-sharp and D in the staff are too flat to play with "beginner band book" fingering chart valve combinations, and must be played with 1-2/2-3.
I've always found that to be a stumbling block. Others are accustomed to it. I prefer to not be forced to become accustomed to those.

195P bottom bow is astonishingly thick (best guess is as thick as 2mm). There was a dent on the back that I "courtesy" removed (took my magnet tools along with me). I couldn't completely remove that dent which - normally - would come out after two or three passes. The top bow isn't as thick, but thicker than typical. It's a heavy tuba.

The valve section (piston) is a repurposed B&S-made valve section, whereby it's a C tuba valve section with a set of "B-flat slides" (ferrules are several inches long)...sorta cheesy.

98 is the winner.

- broader, more widely-applicable/marketable type of sound
- all beginner book valve combinations
- dent-prone: yes (thin/handmade), but - though larger - lighter weight and easier to balance
- the 98 mouthpiece receiver is a bit high but the 195P mouthpiece receiver is QUITE high, and anyone with an upper body shorter than mine would likely find it annoying/problematic.

My particular 98 was flat-natured, and I had to shorten the main slide ferrules for reliable 440 - 442 usage.
This 195P is sharp-natured (note position of main slide).

The 195P is a very good tuba, but I won't be competing anyone for ownership of any of them - other than for flipping purposes.

Thanks, for the great review! I’m with you, on the alternate fingerings, and that’s one reason I find the compensating systems to be appealing. Alas, I lack the fortitude for a big heavy tuba, and the funds for something fancy like a compensating BBb.

Keep doing the good work, sir!

I always forget how tall those 195 tubas are. I distinctly remember that because it was the first time I thought a tuba stand would be totally necessary.

FatBastard isn't all that tall (roughly the height of a typical 6/4 - and that is not tall).

The 195 is about the same height as a M-W 25 or B&S 101/PT-1/Schneider B-flat (perhaps - as seen - 1-1/2" taller...maybe c. 39" tall)...but the 195 receiver is mounted quite high.

The receiver is mounted just a bit high on the 98, but noticeably higher on the 195.

I'm pretty sure that the 195 is still under 40 inches, whereas some vintage genuine kaiser tubas (including the Miraphone model 90 tubas of the 70's) towered on up, as those old model 90's were about 44-1/2 inches tall.

Notice the 186 height vs. the vintage 190 height...and also that the 186 (newer-style) bell is 17-3/4" in diameter, whereas the vintage 190 bell diameter was only 17-1/3".





I dunno if anyone will see this - way at the bottom, but if the 195 (regardless of shape, mouthpipe location, type of valves) PLAYED BETTER THAN a 98, I'd have picked it - because the 195P(5) tubas far more common, lower priced on the front end, and (therefore) cheaper to buy.

I realize that the 195P and the 195"R" play a bit differently, but they (in my experience) sound about the same. I know that a bunch of European pros play various versions of 195 rotary tubas, but (and everyone here knows this...) I've never based any equipment decisions on "because Billy Bob does too".