I've rarely played a M-W ROTARY 45 or 46 F tuba ...

[bloke]

(I'm referring to the modern version which is about the size of a B&S F tuba, and not the small older ones.

I played Matt Good's 46 a long time ago, and today I played the first 45 I've ever played.
Simply, the 46 has six valves and the 45 has 5 valves.

I thought both of them were quite good with good tuning characteristics, and very reminiscent of a PT-10 type of tuba (including the characteristic sound).

I don't know why, but - re. the piston version of these - I've just never been able to make work for me. I don't know why the tuning is so good on the rotary version and it's so crazy on the piston version. I've worked on - and tooted on - quite a few of the piston version instruments.

As implied above, I haven't seen very many of the rotary versions, but the two that I've played (now) are darn good.

[arpthark]

I owned the old-old style 46 (“a division of Getzen”).

The larger versions are definitely a bit better.

I echo your sentiment on the SLP.

[bort2.0]

BBC had a rotary 45 a million years ago when I lived out there. I thought it was a surprisingly decent tuba.

Most SLP's seem to suffer from the "let's put these valves on everything" design. Also, the 5th valve lever was weird, IIRC.

Best part of the SLP was the leadpipe.

Note -- I also remember playing a somehow-modified SLP at BBC that was a really nice tuba. Not at all like the regular version on the floor.

[russiantuba]

BBC had a rotary 45 a million years ago when I lived out there. I thought it was a surprisingly decent tuba.

Most SLP's seem to suffer from the "let's put these valves on everything" design. Also, the 5th valve lever was weird, IIRC.

Best part of the SLP was the leadpipe.

Note -- I also remember playing a somehow-modified SLP at BBC that was a really nice tuba. Not at all like the regular version on the floor.

I have a former student who has a 45SLP. I couldn't even hold the horn with the valve set and thumb ring size. I don't have small hands, but it was uncomfortable. I also wasn't a fan of the low range. I kind of feel the PT 10P was just a PT10 that had a piston block put on to give a better "low C". I am a big fan of building a horn from the ground up, or at least taking the existing model and changing. The Bruckner 291 plays very similar to a 1291, but you can tell they redesigned a lot. Same with the Meinl Weston Tuono (though I liked the Thor better).

I was seeing some unique, interesting designs being experimented with. One very popular import company was doing that (or releasing horns that were discontinued from a (now former) American tuba maker, and now that one of their tuba sales force members is no longer with the company, has gone to copying other existing models. I guess copying and editing is easier than full designing.

[bort2.0]

I guess copying and editing is easier than full designing.

Unfortunately, yes.

With some models they just don't make enough of them to get through the full cycles of R&D and refinement. The PT-10p and PT-15p were obvious afterthoughts. They functioned, but I wouldn't say they really worked.

The PT-10p, in 2026 terms was like this:
Hey AI, show me a rotary F tuba, but make it piston.

[JC2]

The 45S and 45SLZ are very underrated instruments.
Lovely clarity with a compact, colourful tone in a very easy to play package.

[Rick Denney]

The only piston F’s I have played that I really admired have been the Yamaha 621/821, the Hirsbrunner large model (289?), and the Willson 3200 (if your objective is an F that plays like a small C in the case of the Willson).

Rotary F’s, traditionally being the standard tuba in German orchestras, have gotten more attention. But even then, it was B&S that pointed the way to successful large models, and that just in the last 60+ years. Prior to that, the favored models were Alexander, and maybe Knoth, with their resplendent intonation challenges and stuffiness in the low register.

The British Barlow orchestral F is an exception to my oversimplification, and I think the Yamaha has roots in that design, valve layout differences notwithstanding. But nobody outside of the UK was using those, and even then they were replaced by the Eb decades ago. And they were certainly tiny.

Piston F’s have always been derived from rotary models, or from piston Eb tubas, it seems to me, with the exception of the Barlow F. Seems like Eb tubas shortened to F have the same challenges as Bb tubas shortened to C.

Rick “has a 621 and a Symphonie-style B&S, and enjoys the differences” Denney

[bloke]

Even the person who brought me my 4 + 2 config Symphonie F hand-delivered from Germany in 1982 (back when there was no real wide distribution of them in the US) was trying really hard to talk me into having him bring me an Alexander instead, but - having played both - I knew damn well what I wanted.

Alexander F tubas are for Alexander fans vs. "I need this to sound good without me playing on it every single day" fans.