TubaForum.net

The most obvious differences between the 2182 and the 2182W is the bore size. The 2182 is a 0.708" primary bore, and the 2182W is a 0.750" primary bore. Also, the 2182W is about $500 more expensive and comes with the Pvak system. There is also the handmade version, the 2182/2

Ive played two 2182Ws. One was great, One was okay, but Ive never played a regular 2182.

Can anyone who has played/owned both attest to the playing differences?

Thanks!

As a point of reference, the 182 bore size is only 17.5mm (.689").

I have nothing more to offer.

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:06 am As a point of reference, the 182 bore size is only 17.5mm (.689").

I have nothing more to offer.

Some websites have the 2182 listed as 0.709” and some have it listed at 0.689” but I dont think that difference really matters.

Also interesting to note that I’ve also heard the new Eastman F is 0.689” bore.

LargeTuba wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:42 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:06 am As a point of reference, the 182 bore size is only 17.5mm (.689").

I have nothing more to offer.

Some websites have the 2182 listed as 0.709” and some have it listed at 0.689” but I dont think that difference really matters.

Also interesting to note that I’ve also heard the new Eastman F is 0.689” bore.

2182 = piston F tuba.
182 = small rotary F tuba

cjk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:32 pm

LargeTuba wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:42 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:06 am As a point of reference, the 182 bore size is only 17.5mm (.689").

I have nothing more to offer.

Some websites have the 2182 listed as 0.709” and some have it listed at 0.689” but I dont think that difference really matters.

Also interesting to note that I’ve also heard the new Eastman F is 0.689” bore.

2182 = piston F tuba.
182 = small rotary F tuba

Why not "small" on the 2182 description?
The frame is identical, yes?

first hand:
182 are really quite small...(Again: I'm assuming I'm correct that the [2]182 is the same as the [_]182, other than the valveset.)
(very tangentially related) Alex F's (larger) seem to use.728" bore, whereas some Czech knockoffs of Alex seem to use .689"...Both seem to work.

bloke wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:19 pm

cjk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:32 pm

LargeTuba wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:42 pm

Some websites have the 2182 listed as 0.709” and some have it listed at 0.689” but I dont think that difference really matters.

Also interesting to note that I’ve also heard the new Eastman F is 0.689” bore.

2182 = piston F tuba.
182 = small rotary F tuba

Why not "small" on the 2182 description?
The frame is identical, yes?

first hand:
182 are really quite small...(Again: I'm assuming I'm correct that the [2]182 is the same as the [_]182, other than the valveset.)
(very tangentially related) Alex F's (larger) seem to use.728" bore, whereas some Czech knockoffs of Alex seem to use .689"...Both seem to work.

I was under the impression that the 182 and 2182 are not the same bodies. The 2182 is a decently sized instrument.

I've been wrong PLENTY of times, PARTICULARLY when looking at three or four inch tall 2D pictures - with no other point of reference...but - to me (??) - it looks like the same bell/bows as the 182 and the other 2182...and same type of sound...



fwiw...It seems to have disappeared from the parent company's website, along with the MRP.

The 2182 and 182 bodies are completely different and unrelated.

OK...
This is what has thrown me off:

cjk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:32 pm

LargeTuba wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:42 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:06 am As a point of reference, the 182 bore size is only 17.5mm (.689").

I have nothing more to offer.

Some websites have the 2182 listed as 0.709” and some have it listed at 0.689” but I dont think that difference really matters.

Also interesting to note that I’ve also heard the new Eastman F is 0.689” bore.

2182 = piston F tuba.
182 = small rotary F tuba

The 2182(W?)s I've played have been pretty 'ho hum', I came away from them thinking that little tubas shouldn't smoke. 182s are fairly charming instruments IME, I think Cerveny 653s play better and still have that small rotary F sound.

Isn't the 2128W the one with the "Tindall mods?" Essentially a tricked-out 2182? I'm pretty sure he was involved with some F tuba with MW a while back and I believe the 2182W was the one.

Sousaswag wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:37 pm Isn't the 2128W the one with the "Tindall mods?" Essentially a tricked-out 2182? I'm pretty sure he was involved with some F tuba with MW a while back and I believe the 2182W was the one.

I think your right.


It says its a 6/4 F, and I think the bell size is wrong on the stat sheet.

I'm curious to know what "retooled design" entails.

Also, the most recent MW catalogue lists the 182 as 5 inches shorter than the 2182, and it has smaller bell.

I don’t know what they’d actually modified, BUT I remember reading about it somewhere. I’ll see what I can scrounge up.

FWIW, their specification sheets are always wrong. 6/4 F? Really? HAHAHAHA!!!

Also FWIW, I also thought they were small tubas that didn’t do much for me. They’re like, really small. So, if that’s what you want, they’re probably the best really small option you have. We all have our preferences; but I do wonder if there’s a reason that you don’t see many of them out in the wild.

Sousaswag wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:17 am I don’t know what they’d actually modified, BUT I remember reading about it somewhere. I’ll see what I can scrounge up.

FWIW, their specification sheets are always wrong. 6/4 F? Really? HAHAHAHA!!!

Also FWIW, I also thought they were small tubas that didn’t do much for me. They’re like, really small. So, if that’s what you want, they’re probably the best really small option you have. We all have our preferences; but I do wonder if there’s a reason that you don’t see many of them out in the wild.

Apparently, the 2182 is the piston version of the Alexander F tuba. In the past, it seems like the Alexander 155 F was the gold standard F, but has fallen out of favor. Aaron Tindal and a couple of his students play on them and sound absolutely unreal. Nice and dark, with lots of core.


I love the sound of Alexander F tubas, so if it translates, this would be an ideal F tuba me me. Justin Benavidez uses a 2182w, and sounds fantastic on it, not small at all.

If the bell and bugle are Alex-like (though - honestly, I can't see any resemblance), the sewer-pipe M-W bore surely defines that they differ remarkably.

I recall when Yamaha claimed the BB-641 was an Alexander and when M-W claimed that the old rotary 2155 was an Alexander (whaaaa...??)



I DO concede that Alexander is Alexander.
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions ... pendencies

I read in a super old thread on the other website that MW purchased Alexander’s 155 F tuba bell mandrel. Early 2182s even came with a garland.

I can't imagine why Alexander would ever consider selling that, but I have no contradictory evidence, so all I can do is to express polite and friendly skepticism.

You know, Arnold Jacobs only had one lung...

I know mandrels could wear out, but with the volume Alexander makes, I’d suspect their 155 mandrels to be just fine for building tubas. They still build the 155, so I’d also be a bit surprised if they actually sold that mandrel to Melton.

Found this photo.



2182w (left) and the 2182/2 (right)

They look the same to me.

The 2182W was developed with the help of Warren Deck and Aaron Tindall. It has the larger Meinl Weston valve block seen on the rest of their newer models and some updated bracing work to help the low register response.

I really liked the MW 2182, I guess W I played at SERTEC. There is no way it was a 6/4 tuba. My Gronitz F and the Miraphone Petrushka are significantly larger than it. With that being said, I only played it in a quiet-ish elephant room and liked it a lot better than the last time I played a 2182 (I would guess it was the W version), and it seems like a great solo horn and potentially great viability in a quintet type setting. It seemed like the projection in a larger group (depth of sound in particular) MIGHT struggle, but as with any horn, I would want to test it in a larger ensemble before saying anything (like the want to buy ads that say I used it in X large ensemble and it balanced amazingly).