What tuba(s) do YOU consider to be optimal for orchestras?

[cthuba]

I have two separate categories for this that being:

A community/ upper level orchestra (30-40 members)

Professional (Like Chicago, NY Phil)

Preferably just contrabass.

I'm very curious what people think.

Me personally? I once owned a Miraphone 188 and later a Rudy 3/4. Both were fine for community situations but the pro/ upper level in my area made me feel intimidated with my smaller sized horns. Likely because the principal plays a PT6

[bloke]

...Both were fine for community situations but the pro/ upper level in my area made me feel intimidated with my smaller sized horns. Likely because the principal plays a PT6

[cthuba]

thank you for that.

[bort2.0]

For community orchestra, my old 188 was perfect. For groups where the trombones and brass were strong, it was more than plenty to keep up. When the trombones were weaker in other groups, it wasn't overpowering. And when the strings weren't so strong (which seems to happen a fair amount!), it was particularly important to now be overpowering, especially considering the relative boringness of most orchestral tuba parts

For professional groups, I'd also say it's whatever you want, just don't suck. If it's a top level pro group, I'm not sure if there is any pressure for equipment choice by the conductor or the other brass players, based on the sound they are expecting to hear. Like if they expect 6/4 BAT and get Rudy 3/4... Would they notice or care? Not sure, but they are more likely to notice.

Or, I guess I'm supposed to say Alex 163 for.all! :)

[LargeTuba]

Post of the year

[matt g]

Way back when I got a call for a few regional gigs, I had a 6/4 BBb I’d haul to orchestra works. It was 3 valve to boot. But the horn made the work easy, insofar that I could round out the trombone section at any dynamic (again without much effort) and the horn blended with the bass section well.

If I were in that situation again, I’d probably pull out the 2165 for the same reason. It’s easier for most of the repertoire where a contrabass is indicated.

If I had to play a bass tuba, I’d probably search out something like a PT-10 or whatever since those make ~that~ job easier.

I’ve played a 188 in a university orchestra and it was fine. Would’ve been nice on a few pieces to have the options I have now.

The 4/4 might get a call for Brahms or similar.

[bloke]

Everyone says that what I use is great, but I just don't see many people using what I use...so I'm just going to post the group-think thing (which I don't actually believe), and say,

"Son...What you need a grande archestrul six-quahter sea chtubar !!!"

[Yorkboy]

A - “Boy, is this water cold”

B - “Yeah, and it’s deep, too”

[KingTuba1241X]

I have two separate categories for this that being:

A community/ upper level orchestra (30-40 members)

Professional (Like Chicago, NY Phil)

Preferably just contrabass.

I'm very curious what people think.

Me personally? I once owned a Miraphone 188 and later a Rudy 3/4. Both were fine for community situations but the pro/ upper level in my area made me feel intimidated with my smaller sized horns. Likely because the principal plays a PT6

The 188 was "smaller" and intimidating against a PT-6? They are basically the same size...

[Vegasbound]

Besson 981/2 but I am in the UK ( and studied with Patrick Harrild)

Or a CC if the rep calls for it

[matt g]

The 188 was "smaller" and intimidating against a PT-6? They are basically the same size...

A PT-6 is noticeably larger than a 188.

[davidgilbreath]

Everyone says that what I use is great, but I just don't see many people using what I use...so I'm just going to post the group-think thing (which I don't actually believe), and say,

"Son...What you need a grande archestrul six-quahter sea chtubar !!!"

The 2155/2000/5450/etc and the PT-6(P) would be excellent “go-to” tubas as well.

The problem with “optimal” is that it’s like trying to find the best objective solution to a very subjective problem.

[KingTuba1241X]

The 188 was "smaller" and intimidating against a PT-6? They are basically the same size...

A PT-6 is noticeably larger than a 188.

The PT-6 bell is only 1'' larger in diameter and the bell throat from the ferrule upwards to the flare is slightly fatter. Otherwise they are the same height and roughly the same bore size (PT-6 graduating up from .748'' to it's 5th valve). Not enough to be intimidatingly larger IMO. (Also talking about a PT-6R) .

[bort2.0]

The 188 was "smaller" and intimidating against a PT-6? They are basically the same size...

A PT-6 is noticeably larger than a 188.

The PT-6 bell is only 1'' larger in diameter and the bell throat from the ferrule upwards to the flare is slightly fatter. Otherwise they are the same height and roughly the same bore size (PT-6 graduating up from .748'' to it's 5th valve). Not enough to be intimidatingly larger IMO. (Also talking about a PT-6R) .

But they aren't the same wrap or girth. You could easily have two tubas that are the same height, bell diameter, and bore, but are completely different sizes.

I've owned both the 188 and rotary PT6. On paper, yes, the numbers are similar. In real life, the PT6 is absolutely one size larger than the 188. The wraps are totally different, and the PT6 gets larger faster than the 188. They both start and end similarly, but the stuff between the valves and the bell is totally different. And bell diameter is kind of a bad basis for measurement, given that the final couple of inches of height could have a LOT of flare (or not). I consider the PT6 to be 5/4 and the 188 to be 4/4 (a big 4/4, but still 4/4).

BTW, I consider the Alexander 163 to be somewhere between the 188 and PT6 in size.

To me, all 3 of those tubas are about as good as it gets for a full size rotary CC tuba, and all sound great in an orchestra.

[KingTuba1241X]

To me, all 3 of those tubas are about as good as it gets for a full size rotary CC tuba, and all sound great in an orchestra.

This is a true statement for sure beyond the measurements. I'm going simply by first glances and size-ups, kind of an odd statement to say his 188 was technically not "adequate" for Orchestras of the Professional Level considering Roger Bobo and Tommy Johnson both used 188's in the L.A. Phil and Major professional studio recordings for motion pictures. Obviously they worked just fine and no one ever told Tommy his horn was too small

[bort2.0]

To me, all 3 of those tubas are about as good as it gets for a full size rotary CC tuba, and all sound great in an orchestra.

This is a true statement for sure beyond the measurements. I'm going simply by first glances and size-ups, kind of an odd statement to say his 188 was technically not "adequate" for Orchestras of the Professional Level considering Roger Bobo and Tommy Johnson both used 188's in the L.A. Phil and Major professional studio recordings for motion pictures. Obviously they worked just fine and no one ever told Tommy his horn was too small

True, too... but times change, and so do instruments and conductor/player/listener/other musician expectations.

For example, how much bigger are orchestral bass trombones today than when Tommy was in the LA Phil? Does that affect the size/type need of a tuba? At least in my experience, when you've got a weenie bass trombone sound in the group, a bright tuba with more edge is a good thing. But if the bass trombone is pretty killer, then you can go full round with your sound and back off the edginess, and the tuba + bass trombone together make a good blended sound. Edgy bass trombone and edgy tuba... not usually a good combination to my ears, unless it's some kind of goofy-ass splatty movie soundtrack thing, with 8 trombones and a cimbasso....

Then again, I'm not an orchestral tuba player, so what do I know. I haven't played an orchestra gig in 7 years!

[KingTuba1241X]

To me, all 3 of those tubas are about as good as it gets for a full size rotary CC tuba, and all sound great in an orchestra.

This is a true statement for sure beyond the measurements. I'm going simply by first glances and size-ups, kind of an odd statement to say his 188 was technically not "adequate" for Orchestras of the Professional Level considering Roger Bobo and Tommy Johnson both used 188's in the L.A. Phil and Major professional studio recordings for motion pictures. Obviously they worked just fine and no one ever told Tommy his horn was too small

True, too... but times change, and so do instruments and conductor/player/listener/other musician expectations.

For example, how much bigger are orchestral bass trombones today than when Tommy was in the LA Phil? Does that affect the size/type need of a tuba? At least in my experience, when you've got a weenie bass trombone sound in the group, a bright tuba with more edge is a good thing. But if the bass trombone is pretty killer, then you can go full round with your sound and back off the edginess, and the tuba + bass trombone together make a good blended sound. Edgy bass trombone and edgy tuba... not usually a good combination to my ears, unless it's some kind of goofy-ass splatty movie soundtrack thing, with 8 trombones and a cimbasso....

Then again, I'm not an orchestral tuba player, so what do I know. I haven't played an orchestra gig in 7 years!

Maybe I will be making the switch to a 186 then because the King over powers those Weeny "Bass/Tenor w/F attachment" trombone players in community bands playing 3rd and 4th parts. I need to send you a video, let me try to e-mail it.

[cthuba]

Everyone says that what I use is great, but I just don't see many people using what I use...so I'm just going to post the group-think thing (which I don't actually believe), and say,

"Son...What you need a grande archestrul six-quahter sea chtubar !!!"

The 2155/2000/5450/etc and the PT-6(P) would be excellent “go-to” tubas as well.

The problem with “optimal” is that it’s like trying to find the best objective solution to a very subjective problem.

I understand that this is hard to pin down... But I wasn't really looking for answers just opinions namely to see of the general consensus had changed at all.

[tubanh84]

Played a 2155 in college. It worked great.
So I got a Rudy 5/4. It worked great.
Spent some time with a 184. It worked great.
Then I had a PT6. It worked great.
Now I play a Gnagey 4/4. It works great.

I've never had a complaint about sound or volume, because I produce the sound I want. Some horns make that harder or easier in some settings. It's harder to produce the extreme fffff on the Gnagey, but it can keep up. It was harder to produce the pppp on the Rudy, but it could do it. Like everything else, it's a compromise.

My criteria is what will help me sound my best at any given time. Sure, the Gnagey is smaller than the PT6, and it made Mahler 5 a bit more of a chore. But it's also easier to play when I'm slightly out of shape, so I sounded better than I would have on the PT6. Maybe the Gnagey couldn't do Gliere 3 with the NY Phil, but I'm not entirely convinced it couldn't. Given the choice, I'd use the PT6 for that because it would make it slightly less work for me. In an ideal world, I'd be in great shape and use the Rudy for it because it would be more fun (I got to do Gliere 3 on the Rudy in college. And it WAS fun.) But right now, I'm always slightly out of practice, so the Gnagey produces the best results consistently. Also it's the only CC I have right now. Which narrows down my choices :)

I'd love to spend time with a Miraphone set - 184, 186, and 188 - for a whole season and see how that plays out. I can guarantee that they would all be fine, and I wouldn't get any complaints, because conductors don't care that much as long as you meet a certain basic level (don't sound bad, and don't stick out). I also guarantee that the 184 would be the most fun. And right now, for me, the ideal tuba is FUN.

So I'll go on and say that this isn't an answer. But optimal is so subjective that there is no answer. Optimal when you're being paid, the orchestra is professional, and the audience is paying? PT6. It will do the job, regardless of what that job is. Optimal when it's a community group, I want to have fun, and I can play around a bit? 184. Optimal when I had a rehearsal tomorrow? Gnagey.

[DandyZ629]

My favorite horn I've had for orchestral applications, and honestly I play it for almost anything now aside from quintet and a jazz/funk band I play in, is my Rudy 5/4. It's extremely versatile and very easy to manipulate the sound to what it needs to be for the situation. It also more easily achieve the sound that is in my head. Find the horn that lets YOU do this, and that is your answer. That being said, I won't be using the Rudy for Mendelssohn or Berlioz.