Posted by more flame bait on November 09, 2003 at 11:46:40:
In Reply to: Re: Another MW2000/2155 post... posted by flame bait on November 08, 2003 at 13:20:27:
I've thought the following stuff every time a 2000/2155 thread has been posted here.
I've never played either horn, but the general consensus of all these threads is that the 2000 has a better scale and is better ergonomically. I'm sure the 2000 is a fantastic tuba and that the 2155 is also a very fine instrument.
My understanding is that intonation is affected by the taper of the bugle of the tuba and leadpipe. This is a design/engineering issue.
Ergonomics are also a design/engineering issue.
Here's where I begin speculating (guessing :) as to why the big difference:
There must be two sets of tooling for these two horns. If the intonation is so different, they can't be the same. That also means that MW continues to make the lesser of the two on purpose for marketing purposes.
MW must believe that if the 2000 and the 2155 were of exactly the same design minus the "handmade" part, that they would sell significantly less 2000s.
The development of the 2000 might have cost MW quite a bit. I see nothing wrong with their wanting to recoup those costs.
Some people will think they are getting screwed, others will see this as appropriate.
The same sort of thing happens in the automotive industry, but nobody would expect a BMW 325i and 330i to cost the same.
Alternatively, (but still speculating):
perhaps lesser MW 2000 intruments are never allowed to leave the factory, therefore their manufacturing process has a higher number of rejects. That also raises the cost of manufacturing them.
The DESIGN changes for the 2000 could be made to the 2155's tooling and the 2155's would probably be better than they are now. The thinner, hand hammered 2000 would probably still be the better of the two instruments, but the difference would be significantly less.
Just making a educated guess :)