Rudolf Meinl CC

[hrender]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285154036258

[arpthark]

Does every Rudi Meinl tuba in existence have a big ironed-out crease in the bell?

[hrender]

Just the ones <$6K.

[arpthark]

I think the BIN is fair, if it plays well. This looks like the "4/4" size Rudi?

I had a great-playing Rudi 3/4 CC that I sold about seven years ago for around that price.

[bort2.0]

This is round 2... First auction I guess didn't meet the reserve.

Seems like the right price, you dont see these with the Kranz often either.

Of course, you have to get it here from Sweden though...

[arpthark]

This is round 2... First auction I guess didn't meet the reserve.

Seems like the right price, you dont see these with the Kranz often either.

Of course, you have to get it here from Sweden though...

Maybe they will IKEA it and we have to re-assemble it here.

Yes, I used IKEA as a verb.

[bort2.0]

Pro tip -- don't waste your time with those dreadful little allen wrenches. Just set your drill on the lightest torque setting and you won't over-tighten or break any screws.

As long as everything is in good repair, this is a nice tuba. Not known for having the "magic" of the 3/4 CC or the 5/4 CC, but as the later-developed in-between model, it was pretty decent. Later versions were re-engineered, and I forget the "tell", but it was something about the top bow and/or the leadpipe arrangement around the top bow.

I had one for a while and it sounded great and intonation was just fine. If I played it regularly, it was amazing and completely rewarding. If I set it down and came back to it a week later, it reprimanded me and made me work to get "it" back.

Would love to have another run at it with one of these someday.

[sugawi]

How would this compare to Eastman 632?

[bloke]

I ended up being a finalist auditioning for a full-time orchestra with one of those, but I don't know how the hell I got that far. The intonation with the 4/4 model is wretched, and it was all I could do to keep it out of the ditches.
They probably sound a little bit prettier than a 188, but instruments need to speak the language of music, which is pitch.

[bort2.0]

I ended up being a finalist auditioning for a full-time orchestra with one of those, but I don't know how the hell I got that far. The intonation with the 4/4 model is wretched, and it was all I could do to keep it out of the ditches.
They probably sound a little bit prettier than a 188, but instruments need to speak the language of music, which is pitch.

Didn't the 4/4 get redesigned at some point?

I thought I always heard that the original was an afterthought to the 3/4 and 5/4, which were considerably better. The 4/4 just either embiggened the 3/4 or reduced the 5/4... I forget. But it didn't do it very well.

Sometime around the early 90s, it was redesigned with CAD and computers and all that... The result was better.

True?

Either way, expect it to be a whole lot different than an Eastman 632.

[bloke]

Mine looked like that one (other than no kranz), and I actually had sold it (new) to Richard Brown (who specifically asked for one) in the early 90's, I'm thinking. He sold it back to me... I believe he went through a ton of tubas...

In my experience, the 5/4 is the easiest to play in tune (owned one, and used it for a while). the 3/4 is the runner up (sold one, added a genuine RM 5th valve assembly to it later, eventually bought it back, messed with it for a short time, and then re-sold it), and third place is the 4/4.

The 5/4 is p.d.g. with 5 rotors and the #2 slide trigger...never really got used to the sonic characterics...sorta 36J-ish.

As far as this 4/4 is concerned, my opinion aside - I've seen a lot of praise for these, and a friend played his angelically.
This one looks to be in fine shape, and I like the way the kranz looks on the bell.

[jtm]

I'm trying to picture what "prettier than a 188" means about the sound?

[bort2.0]

I'm trying to picture what "prettier than a 188" means about the sound?

Speaking for myself, since I've owned both, I agree with this as well... the 188 can get a little barky when pushed hard (possible to overblow), and the Rudy 4/4 had more high-end output (harder to overblow).

I also think the Rudy has an overall darker sound to it, which sometimes is "prettier" under the bell... but out in the hall, the projection and bit of brightness that the 188 has can be more useful than the Rudy darkness.

Basically... stuff tuba players think and say, and nobody else cares about. Maybe the bass trombone player cares, but sometimes I get the feeling they're just bored and playing along to be polite. Or, maybe they're just happy to have a break from talking to the other trombone players.

[arpthark]

In band rehearsal:

Conductor: "Euphoniums, I need you to fit inside the tuba sound."

Euphonium: *eyes my bell* "I don't think I can fit in there."

[jtm]

I'm trying to picture what "prettier than a 188" means about the sound?

Speaking for myself, since I've owned both, I agree with this as well... the 188 can get a little barky when pushed hard (possible to overblow), and the Rudy 4/4 had more high-end output (harder to overblow).
...

Thanks. Now that you mention it, my little old Scherzer sounds "prettier" than a 188.

[cktuba]

I'm always tempted when I see these available. Then I remember how much I had to adjust pitch and remember what I really want is a 5/4 or MW Tuono... possibly a Miraphone 291. Or a Lidl 715 or Eastman 825 made in CC... because rotary. Other than that, I'm good with my DS.