"pre-Thor"...

[cjk]

I see no relation to a Thor, this is the basic old "original" 2155 rotary, never seen two that were exactly the same, except none were readily playable (but most could be "learned" with time) Its about a 2 thousand dollar tuba, but if I found 2000 dollars on the sidewalk, I'd spend it on something else.

There is MY sterling endorsement

I agree with the assessment (as I made the serious mistake of buying one, and - luckily - got back out of it unscathed a couple of months later), but (as I *did* own one, and now *do* own a "Thor") I strongly believe that the outer branches and bell (a design obviously mothballed for years) were re-born as the (quite reasonably in-tune, and quite playable) "Thor".

I'm really not intending to pick on any of you, but I do think tuba players are "funny" when it comes to intonation.

Those tubas actually have OK intonation, just different than what most folks are used to. The only thing that's bad is the third partial G (just like many 6/4 Holtons) so you have to play it 1+3. They also sound magnificent.

So, if your bottom line G is flat and you are playing a 6/4 piston tuba, that's perfectly acceptable. But, If your bottom line G is flat and you are playing a big rotor tuba, the instrument is terrible?

So a flat bottom line G makes for a terrible instrument? But, if your open E is tragically flat, that's quite fine ? But, if your sixth partial G is a mile sharp, that's fine too?

What truly stinks about these rotor 2155s is that unless you're seven feet tall (or hold the tuba so the bottom bow is BELOW the seat of the chair), the mouthpiece will be square in your forehead. But then again, that's not much more difficult than trying hold and play a BAT at a 45 degree angle from your body while trying to manipulate the first valve slide, either.

[MartyNeilan]

Those tubas actually have OK intonation, just different than what most folks are used to. The only thing that's bad is the third partial G (just like many 6/4 Holtons) so you have to play it 1+3. They also sound magnificent.

So, if your bottom line G is flat and you are playing a 6/4 piston tuba, that's perfectly acceptable. But, If your bottom line G is flat and you are playing a big rotor tuba, the instrument is terrible?

The one I owned possessed (good choice of words) a crazy low third partial G. However, intonation on all other partials was good, and the high register intonation was outstanding for a very large horn. I agree that there should not be a double standard between the piston BATs and the rotor horns.

What truly stinks about these rotor 2155s is that unless you're seven feet tall (or hold the tuba so the bottom bow is BELOW the seat of the chair), the mouthpiece will be square in your forehead. But then again, that's not much more difficult than trying hold and play a BAT at a 45 degree angle from your body while trying to manipulate the first valve slide, either.

Mine had a removable leadpipe, so I fabricated a bracket and dropped it some. Then I used way too much solder and made the whole thing quite solid.

I agree with DP that no two 2155Rs were ever alike. I believe that the ebay model may be a prototype as was mine, since there are no markings as to the model number.

[toobagrowl]

Hey Joe... I have always wondered how one of the old 2155's would play with a reasonable leadpipe. The stock leadpipe was ridiculously large (Alexander Large-- they had a bit of a rep for playing out of tune as well). I think that the right leadpipe and possibly a few other tweaks could turn an old 2155 into a very nice instrument. Didn't a couple of guys ( Marty Neilan and maybe Chuck Koontz??) own these and have better luck with the intonation and response at lower dynamics? It would be interesting to hear their thoughts again. After all it is a Tuba board, what else do we have to talk about?

Resurrecting an old thread here...

I own one of those rare MW-2155Rs and have thought the same thing. Have had the horn for almost 10 years now. Bought used. I am thinking that a lot of the "issues" (which are not as bad as ppl here say) are due to the large mouthpipe. The mouthpipe is very large and soldered all around the bell and high up on the horn. I am a big guy and I have to sit the horn between my legs with the bottom bow dipping slightly below the seat. Slides are not easy to access or reach for playing. Not very friendly on ergonomics.
Intonation is OK; it's really not that bad. Bottom space G and Gb/F# is about 20-25 cents flat naturally and can be lipped up in tune because of the big slots on this large-bore horn. Eb below the staff is sharp, but is in tune using 1 + 5 or pulling the 3rd valve slide and using 2 + 3. Top of staff A is sharp, so I use 3rd valve. Same for E below staff. Those are really the only intonation issues. This horn does not have the flat first valve D in staff and flat E in staff that other "better in-tune" tubas have; these notes are spot-on in tune. Sound is just beautiful and superior to the piston 2155..

[toobagrowl]

I agree with DP that no two 2155Rs were ever alike. I believe that the ebay model may be a prototype as was mine, since there are no markings as to the model number.

Yup. Mine only says "Meinl Weston" on the bell and "Made in Germany" on the leadpipe. There is no model number because, as you say, these tubas were all prototypes; they never really went into production. Too many ergonomic/playability "issues" for most tubists. It also didn't help at the time that rotary CC tubas were falling out-of-style, while the new piston CCs were becoming more and more popular.

[toobagrowl]

I see no relation to a Thor, this is the basic old "original" 2155 rotary, never seen two that were exactly the same, except none were readily playable (but most could be "learned" with time) Its about a 2 thousand dollar tuba, but if I found 2000 dollars on the sidewalk, I'd spend it on something else.

There is MY sterling endorsement

I agree with the assessment (as I made the serious mistake of buying one, and - luckily - got back out of it unscathed a couple of months later), but (as I *did* own one, and now *do* own a "Thor") I strongly believe that the outer branches and bell (a design obviously mothballed for years) were re-born as the (quite reasonably in-tune, and quite playable) "Thor".

I'm really not intending to pick on any of you, but I do think tuba players are "funny" when it comes to intonation.

Those tubas actually have OK intonation, just different than what most folks are used to. The only thing that's bad is the third partial G (just like many 6/4 Holtons) so you have to play it 1+3. They also sound magnificent.

So, if your bottom line G is flat and you are playing a 6/4 piston tuba, that's perfectly acceptable. But, If your bottom line G is flat and you are playing a big rotor tuba, the instrument is terrible?

So a flat bottom line G makes for a terrible instrument? But, if your open E is tragically flat, that's quite fine ? But, if your sixth partial G is a mile sharp, that's fine too?

What truly stinks about these rotor 2155s is that unless you're seven feet tall (or hold the tuba so the bottom bow is BELOW the seat of the chair), the mouthpiece will be square in your forehead. But then again, that's not much more difficult than trying hold and play a BAT at a 45 degree angle from your body while trying to manipulate the first valve slide, either.

Spot on I will agree with Bloke that the rotary MW 2155 isn't the easiest horn to play and that the "Thor" looks like a new-and-improved MW 2155R. You really have to be "ON" to play it well (MW 2155R) as it is not a very forgiving horn. But when you are well rested, energized and focused and channel that into the horn, is plays and sounds amazing!! I would describe the gorgeous sound as: lots of Alex CC mixed with a bit of VMI Neptune and Yorkbrunner
I am REALLY wondering how the horn would play with a slightly smaller mouthpipe at a lower angle I am tempted to try it.....if I can get in touch with a good brass tech in my area.