TubeNet

Obviously, there are many, many differences among individual 2165's and among individual 345's.

However, if one were to generalize, what would be considered the main difference between these horns, considering that the 2165 started as a copy of the 345 and lost two bows along the way?

The 2165 is heavier.
The 2165 has a darker sound.
The 2165 seems to have a much bigger leadpipe and receiver. A lot of American shank mouthpieces bottom out.
I think that the leadpipe on a 2165 is longer than on a factory Holton.

The big leadpipe and receiver have been replaced with normal sized stuff on mine (formerly Wade's).

MartyNeilan wrote:...considering that the 2165 started as a copy of the 345 and lost two bows along the way?

bloke wrote:totally different wrap:
Ignoring the placement of the 5th rotor...
The 2165/2265 is a THREE loop tuba, whereas the Holton 345 is more faithful (at least in design) to the CSO York as a FOUR loop tuba.

And why do you think they did that? To make it more "open?"

I now own both a 2165 Cc and a 345 Bb and the first different you notice when playing is the weight.
The 2165 has much thicker material which makes the sound clearer.
The bell on my 345 needs restoration and I consider to buy a replacement bell from Kantsul - this would perhaps give the 345 a bit clearer sound.
My 2165 has short valve action compared to the 345.
The 2165 is built a bit more compact.
When it comes to the intonation the 345 is quite good - One cannot say the same about the 2165
During the years I have solved the intonation problem on the 2165 - among other things with a trigger on the main slide.
For the use in my ensemble I would say thet the 2165 gives a good bottom for the trombones, and the 345 support, and comes nearer in sound to the Doublebass.
Of course when it comes to changing sound in the bottom of my ensemble I have quite a few instruments to pick from
Roger

MartyNeilan wrote:And why do you think they did that? To make it more "open?"

I go back to my quote of one expert observer: "The York was designed to make the most of what the player had to offer. The 2165 was designed to make the most of what Warren Deck had to offer."

The Holton, of course, was trying to be like the York (despite inconsistent success).

I don't know what the 2165 needs, but I do know that in my various attempts with a 2165, I've never been able to provide it.

Rick "imagining sentences starting with, 'If only it was a little more open...'" Denney

I've been playing on a borrowed BBb Holton 345 in the Imperial Brass Band for the past 3 weeks or so. I find the intonation to be very poor, but better than some 345's that I've played.

I think the biggest difference between the two horns is consistancy in the quality of workmanship. The Holton's that I've seen, seem to have points in the larger branches that balloon out just before the joint, almost as if someone took smaller branches and expanded them. A real brass technician could speak to this observation better than I.

The 2165's seem to play very consistently. If you are a person who can play these instruments, I think that they are fairly consitent. I'm not one who can. It would make sense that a truer taper to the instrument would result in more consistent intonation from horn to horn. The Holton's seem to have alot more tonal disparities.

Just my two cents,
Frank Ortega

bloke wrote:The 1960's - 1970's Holton 345 BBb is the [1960's - 1970's] Harley Davidson of tubas.

bloke "who likes analogies - even bad analogies"

Loud, heavy, poorly made, and slow?