TubaForum.net

I played many of both of these when I worked for brook mays. I really like both, but never thought the 2000 was worth the extra money

The most in-tune one that I ever played was a 2155, not a 2000.

The 2155 was originally advertised as Warren Deck's perfect quintet instrument. I'm not sure anybody believed that for a second except perhaps for Warren.

I almost bought one of these in 2005 as my first instrument, but I ended up buying a Miraphone 1291 instead. I thought both of them were very comparable instruments, except for the 1291 had a much easier low range for me. No real complaints about the 2155.

I think it's some combination of low production numbers and people that buy them keep them. I've known a couple people over the years who have had 2155, and they seem to hold on to them.

Don't forget the 2157 as well. Which is a very short-lived special version from Dillon music. I honestly don't remember what the difference was, but it was a special version that lasted only for a little while.

I wouldn't mind trying one of these again sometime.

Oh, and to answer your question. I think that this is such a classic tuba design... No frills, nothing fancy, just a very plain Jane kind of tuba that works. I think that lends itself to players who are the types to not want to switch to was a lot anyway. I've known a few people who have used the 2155, and they've all been pretty much no nonsense kind of people.

I don't know if that's "delighted by," but that's the closest option...

Good tubas.

I think a good number of 2155s were made. Good tubas for general purpose playing. Biggest drawback would be the big valve set, imo.

The 2000 felt a bit more alive than the 2155, but otherwise indistinguishable.

I haven't been able to play one, but how does the Ursus compare in this? I have only heard great things about the horn.

russiantuba wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:17 pm I haven't been able to play one, but how does the Ursus compare in this? I have only heard great things about the horn.

*edited*

IIRC, the 3450 is something of an evolution of the 2145 whereas the Thor (5450) is the evolution of the 2155/2000.

I think the 3225 is something of its own design based on the upper bow of the horn.

That being said, I’ve not laid hands on an Ursus.

I thought the Ursus played really well, incredible low register, and absolute sh$t ergonomics.

May have played better than the 2155, but for me, it was just a disaster and virtually unusable.

Everyone has their own opinion about models, and those opinions tend to contrast and differ wildly - as perceptions differ so wildly, and “how players weigh the importance of different characteristics” varies so wildly.

In an instant, I would pick the best 2155 I’ve ever played (which, spookily, required no on-the-fly slide pulling) over an “Ursus” (at least, over the particular one that I encountered at Midwest, several years ago). It was there on display, and its namesake was also there who - I believe - played a recital on that instrument.
===============
ergonomics: I rarely have encountered any issues with any tubas, along these lines. Maybe (??), I just adjust my own posture and tilt of the instrument, and - most of the time – I am able to find a way to make things comfortable.
A couple of exceptions have included some defunct-company California made tubas, and the very first of those (also: defunct) Brazil-made Nirschl-style tubas (with crazy-short mouthpipe tubes)… oh yeah and a pair of B-flat and C very heavy Swiss made tubas - which might (??) possibly be more manageable, were they not so top-heavy.
I am no strong man, but I do a great deal of extended-time upper body work (straightening out nasty old huge brass instruments), and also seem (??) to be able to hold my interior thigh muscles locked at a particular angle for long periods of time without discomfort…and perhaps those two things are factors which help me to play more shapes and sizes of tubas comfortably…??

One of the best instruments I've ever played was a MW 2000, another was a 2155 with the 45 SLP leadpipe. Both were strikingly good. I haven't tried a 3225, but I really want to.

I played a 2155 for a few years before I was mature enough to appreciate it. Phenomenal horn. Great in most orchestra settings. Works in quintet. All these years later, I wouldn’t buy or trade for another one simply because it’s too serious a horn for me. Like my old PT6. It’s a tool, and a great one, not a toy. I’m into toys now.

I have several instruments, but they all have specific purposes and they all get used.
If it were that I allowed myself to keep more instruments than I probably would regularly use, I would’ve never sold that 186 that I sold to Bill, and I would’ve never sold a particular 2155 that I sold to a Canadian military band (and yes: I would swap out the mouthpipe immediately for a 45SL-P mouthpipe) - as I would have no interest in collecting instruments based on their historical significance, but certainly could based on the excellence of their playing characteristics.

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:43 pm as I would have no interest in collecting instruments based on their historical significance, but certainly could based on the excellence of their playing characteristics.

I have had/played two horns based in part on historical significant/interest. As you point out, the historical satisfaction very quickly gives way to a lack of joy while playing the horns. And historical significance won’t keep me coming back for more practice….