Re: 2165 vs. Nirschl


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Matt G on August 20, 2001 at 10:48:18:

In Reply to: 2165 vs. Nirschl posted by Donal Coals on August 20, 2001 at 00:02:30:

For what it's worth comparing these two out of the 6/4 realm is a difficult thing to do. Reason being is the origin of the horns themselves. The 2165 is an attempt at mixing what was best about the old Holtons, Conns, and Yorks. The Nirscl is a copy of York #2. A Hirsbrunner is a copy of York #1 (or is that vice versa?). The 2165 IMO is a much bigger instrument that is very hard to push to the limit of it's sound capacity. If you want to establish a "Yorkalike" shootoff you only have the Hirsbrunner and Nirscl, and even they are two different horns. If you want a 6/4 shootoff you need to go through the followting list:
2165
Hirsbrunner Grand Orchestral
Nirscl York Copy
B&S PT-7P
VMI Neptune (both rotary and piston)
Willson 3050
Rudy Meinl 5/4 Rotary (as big as any 6/4)
Cerveny ACB-601 5MR (almost as big as the Rudy)
Others yet to be mentioned.

To answer your question on the differences technically between the two, here is my attempt. As I mentioned the 2165 is a "melting pot" of a few different horns. The brances and bottom bow seem to be from old Conn/Holton dies with the bell being a copy of a Conn bell that had a collar for a removable bell, hence the "tone" ring in the older 2165's. The piston set has a .750 bore through 1-3, a .787 (?) bore in #4, and a .805 bore in #5 which comes directly after the piston set. The wrap on the valve branches is "Holton-esque". The Nirchl/Hirsbrunner valveset designs are direct copies of the York with the fifth vavle after the main tuning slide, which is after the valveset. Some people think that this makes the low register a little more friendly on the York copies, and I would tend to agree. I think the bore on the York copies are the same as the Meinl-Weston. The Nirscl is very light in weight when compared to the 2165. Mainly because all parts of this instrument (Nirscl) are hand formed and the and the bell on the 2165 is a heavier thickness to keep trend with the old warhorse tubas of yesteryear.

Neither one of these horns would work very well in a quintet, but the Nirscl may be a little more freindly. These horns can do a lot of things well, but the put out a little too much sound for the average quintet. Sure, Arnold Jacobs used his in a quintet, but how many of us play in a quintet with a trumpet player that sounds like Bud Herseth, ar a trombonist like Jay Friedman, or a horn player like Dale Clevenger?

I have owned a 6/4 and enjoyed it's sound and power immensely, but did not enjoy it's impracticality. I sold it and got a MW32 and I am much happier now. The biggest secret to having and using a 6/4 horn is having a medium that justifies it's use. When most people are in a position af really needing a 6/4 horn, they are able to find one anyway. Personally, I would rather take my in tune 4/4 anyday over the average 6/4 that has multiple tuning problems and has to played delicately in all but the biggest ensembles. But I encourage you to go and try all of the big guns out there. I would buy a Rudy 5/4 if I had the money and need for a big horn, but I won't go into the details of why here. Do a lot of shopping on horns to figure out their ergonomics and tendencies. Once you have done all of that try out a few horns of the same model. With horns this big, they can vary a lot. The most important thing is to take your time.

For what its worth I prefer the Nirschl out of the 6/4 piston horns, but it is mainly for ergonomic reasons. It has to be the most comfortable horn to hold and play.

Good Luck,
Matt G


Follow Ups: