TubeNet

Hello guys ....

One could talk a little about the 182 MW ...
How is the bass of this instrument?
How is this instrument in soils?
Works well in the Rite of Spring, Symphony Fantastic, bydlo ...
In the quintet ...

Thank you my friends ...

Nobody has anything to say??

These might help you out.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1478" target="_blank

viewtopic.php?t=1889&p=12107#p11930" target="_blank

viewtopic.php?t=10729&p=83988" target="_blank


https://www.google.com/search?q=Meinl+w ... 20&bih=890" target="_blank

What do you mean by "How is the instrument in soils" do you mean solos?

PMeuph wrote:What do you mean by "How is the instrument in soils" do you mean solos?

I started to respond to that but got busy. I think he might mean, "If I bury one in ph6.5 soil without a case and dig it up 30 years later will it still play?"

Seriously, I had one on tryout for a week once and dismissed it as too small for anything but soils(whatever). However, in the hands of a pro it put out a big full sound.

I find the MW 182 significantly less nice to listen to than a B&S F tuba.

cjk wrote:I find the MW 182 significantly less nice to listen to than a B&S F tuba.

I'm glad you have magic tubas that play themselves....The tuba I have in my living room just stands there and never makes a peep...

The 182 is not an "all round" F tuba, it is too small for that. The bell and bore are smaller than a normal F tuba so the sound is leaner. This is a good thing for some occasions, but most situations benefit from a fuller bass-tuba sound. (I use a MW 2250 for most bass tuba works). Having said that, the 182 is a fun instrument to play, and it projects very well in the orchestra. I use it for Berlioz and Midsummer Night's Dream and it works very well for those types of works. I'm looking forward to trying it for Mahler 1 next time it comes up.

Although it is a small tuba, it's not quite as small as it looks. If it was unwound and re-wrapped in a similar way to traditional rotary F tubas the bell would be a more normal height and it might be less likely to be viewed as a "toy" by some people.

The low C is easier to play than many rotary F tubas I've tried, but although the lower register is solid it is lean in character. I've used it in a Gabrielli piece where the sound fitted well with the trombones (a full tuba sound was not needed - or perhaps even appropriate), but for quintet I think the 2250 is much better.

If I was looking at having only 1 bass tuba (F or Eb) I wouldn't choose the 182, but at least a couple of pros in major UK orchestras use the 182 on occasions where they want a lighter sound than the Eb tubas.

I hope this helps

Cheers

Cam

I have a pretty high opinion of these. They have much more capacity than their diminutive stature would indicate. They have a solid low end and are extremely free blowing compared to some similar-sized piston instruments. It rocks, and I personally think it's a lovely solo and quintet horn. It makes a much larger sound than a Miraphone 180 and if tenderly coerced, can put out as much sound as a Yamaha 621 F. Only finding a screaming deal on a 621 convinced me to get the Yammy over this instrument; it's a true F tuba.

And it's cute as hell, well made, and has very good pitch.

YMMV.

I'd like to play the MW-182, Yamaha 621, and Cerveny 653 all back-to-back. I own the Cerveny, and it fits all of these same descriptions. It's quite a little rocket to play, one of the easiest and most fun tubas I've played. The only downfall is that it's small, and sometimes you just need something a little bigger. Same "problem" that happens with CC tubas, only now with F tubas. If I could afford 2 F tubas, I'd never get rid of it!

These are sweet little horns. They can get a little tight, but no more than the size would suggest. 621's and 653's are a bit more open. It LOOKS like the 5th valve is readily usable for all your low range stuff, though I have not tried that.
I really wish I had bounced on the one that was listed for $2000 a few years back; I had the money but had not played one at that point!!

cjk wrote:I find the MW 182 significantly less nice to listen to than a B&S F tuba.

I find ANY other brand of tuba significantly more nice to listen to than ANY B&S tuba. Though I do know a guy with a rotary PT6 that doesn't sound TOO bad and I did play a guy's rotary PT4 that DIDN'T suck.