Since PT5's are very uncommon, I'll talk some about these horns in general, and invite you to check out the many posts about these on the old site. These are the predecessor to the PT6, and are, in my opinion, extremely similar in playing characteristics. They have 19 inch bells, and the rotary ones (like this one) have graduated bore valvesets of the same size as a modern PT6. In comparison to a PT6, they're a touch smaller when measuring the top and bottom bows, but end at the same bell size, just with a different taper / profile. The metal that these tubas are made out of is substantially thinner than a PT6's, resulting in PT5s weighing a lot less than PT6's. This one was made in GDR, but I believe they were also produced post unification, at least briefly. There are piston versions as well, 4 valves only, but I've never seen one of those in person.
As far as my particular horn, it's a lot like a PT6 (hence all of my comparisons to this more common benchmark), and is a really effective large ensemble horn. The thinner material makes it feel a bit more alive in your hands, but probably doesn't have a huge effect out front. It is easy to get the the same fluffy, conductor pleasing sound out of it, just like a PT6, and the sound and response are pretty consistent up and down the horn. I've never felt outgunned with this horn, but it might have just a touch less "max volume" potential than a modern PT6, though I've never pushed a PT6 that hard. Intonation and response is also a lot like earlier PT6's. The G, F#, and F in the staff are very high, addressable with 4, pull 2nd valve, and pull 1st valve respectively. There's also the typical 2+3 mismatch between Eb below the staff (slightly sharp) and Ab at the bottom of the staff (spot on). Everything else is close enough to pitch that I don't need to make special efforts to address issues. With the tuning slide all the way out, it plays right at A=440, so if you play in hot rooms frequently or are a bit sharp natured as a player, you might need an alternate slide made or extensions put on this one. I can provide a sound sample if requested from my community orchestra's performance of Tchaik 4, so you can hear me dealing with some of the problem pitches. I'm definitely the limiting factor, not the tuba.
As far as physical condition, there are some dents and one odd scar on the bell that predates me. Some of the bumps and bruises are pictured below (higher quality images can be provided). Rotary valve compression is very good. The leadpipe is likely a replacement, as it's unlaquered. It is placed higher than a typical PT5/6. I am 5'11, and it is a very comfortable height for me, but if you are very small, you'd need to check it out in person. This has the older style ball in socket linkages, but they're whisper quiet when maintained properly (I pack the joints with lithium grease to fill gaps, then use rotary valve bearing oil on top, clean and reapply the grease yearly). The horn was recently chem cleaned by Dana Hofer
Fun fact: the serial number, if you look it up in B and S's records, actually ties to a piston valve PT3-like C tuba made in 1987. (Thanks to the extremely generous with their time BerlinerTuba and Bob Tucci for these details). It's likely that the receivers were switched around by either the factory or an importer, as there was another PT5 1 serial number off from this one sold on the old site.
Since people usually ask about mouthpieces, when I was practicing constantly and playing in a testosterone fueled college orchestra, I played a PT-88 and went full max output. Nowadays, with tuba as an avocation and in an ensemble where people don't use quite as extreme volume, I find I'm a lot safer going with Bloke's recommendation for horns like these (Imperial + cup extender). I might produce 5% less glorious of a sound but gain a lot of security and efficiency. Hellebergs aren't bad either.
Pics below, thanks for reading!
