my own comparison of the new-style King 2341 to the Eastman knock-off

[bloke]

Believe it or not, this is the first Eastman King knock-off to ever find its way into my shop.

I'm going to try to AVOID paragraphs...

EASTMAN positives:
- better slide alignment
- closer piston tolerances and superior piston construction (though I still would not put these up against Meinlschmidt, but whatever on that)


Eastman negatives:
- third circuit is too long...The only pitch that can be played close-to-in-tune with 2-3 is "low" F-sharp (a pitch which is sharp on most contrabass tubas).
- third PARTIAL is flat (Though many other models of tubas feature a flat 5th partial, King is much better, which is has always been a huge plus for both the old and new styles of King 4/4 BB-flat tubas.)
- Eastman bottom bow seems thinner than King (more and more-severe denting, and had to back WAY off on the size of balls and power of magnets to avoid "tracking" when removing the large dents from the Eastman bottom bow)
- Japanese-esque "laziness" in valve casing construction...thin-walled valve casings define no room for countersunk tops and bottoms of casing interiors, which defines that heavy scale build-up can "lock" the pistons into the instrument...ie. They can't be removed without manually chipping away at scale deposits and still - even at that - then having to spray a bunch of PB Blaster on the scale deposits, and then pull like hell.
- Even though most all currently-made student tubas feature top-mounted valve guides, that doesn't mean that they aren't always really annoying - which they most certainly are (as they mislocate - even if they don't rotate, and the stems - to accommodate them - necessarily must be made fragile and way too small in diameter at the insertion end), and (even though metal and noisy) TRADITIONAL valve guides have been (from a repair standpoint) a saving grace of the King...along with King's (related to the same thing) remarkably sturdy valve stems.
- Euro shank receiver (Eastman) is dumb for school use (where surely the overwhelming majority of these end up), inconvenient for most individual consumers, and totally unnecessary (considering the size of the instrument). In contract, the "new-style" King apparently features (what I refer to as) a "fake euro" receiver, whereby the receiver is extended outward (to cover up enough of a euro shank mouthpiece enough to appear appropriate) yet a standard shank mouthpiece won't bottom out in a King. (One of my "emergency glovebox" standard-shank German mouthpieces - a fine mouthpiece made by a mainstream German maker (no, not PT nor RT) - ends up being "caught" by the choke-point - ie. the beginning of the mouthpipe tube - in the Eastman, which defines that this mouthpiece rattles in the receiver.)

my personal biases:
- An (ancient) York model BB-flat 33 19-inch bell and smaller bows after the bottom bow (or the same made for Holton and Holton-engraved) - being just a bit smaller, offer a far more pleasing type of resonance (with a King-bore valve section) than this config (whether King or this Eastman knock-off).
- Disliking all Yamaha tubas other than the 826S, when I see this tuba (the entire valve section of which is completely Yamaha-styled) all of my anti-Yamaha biases are going to be activated.

why the hell didn't they...
...fix the #4 circuit water evacuation issue

and bloke...King is moving production to China...!!!

Whatever...That's off-topic. I'm comparing what-is to what-is.

but bloke, I don't care about...

Write your own review.

bloke, you didn't list a bunch of King negatives.

People should be familiar with King, and - again - King didn't copy Eastman...but I clearly implied TWO in the Eastman "positives".

[LeMark]

you sure about that euro shank? My eastman has an American shank. it doesn't rattle, and the euro Shank MP sticks out farther than what would say is normal

[dsfinley]

The horn I bought for my school’s band program is also an American shank receiver. I can post pics tomorrow. Is this maybe a newer thing or something Eastman tried at one point in development and then ditched? The Eastman we bought is 5 years old now.

[bloke]

you sure about that euro shank? My eastman has an American shank. it doesn't rattle, and the euro Shank MP sticks out farther than what would say is normal

Don't argue with me. Argue with your spouse; that's what they're there for.

I believe I recall seeing this tuba at that school - not yet unboxed - just last year.

bloke "No...sorry...I don't know anything about shank sizes of tuba mouthpieces; Likely, I'm mistaken."

For the same school, I also repaired a couple of old gnarly YBB-201M tubas today (for the same school...so I could complete the purchase order and GET PAID !!!)
Those are a common whipping boy throughout the tuba world.
In particular, they develop looseness (wear - a LEAK) at the mouthpipe detaching point as well as those annoying valve section screws which buzz if not absolutely tight.

All of that having been said (once I addressed all of those two 201 model tubas' issues) the ugly ol' widely-cursed 201 tubas put out about 50% more sound (and a good quality and focused sound) vs. the Eastman King knock-off...sort of a Meinl-Weston 25 type of sound (except clearer, less throaty, and less covered vs. the M-W 25).
The YBB-201/321 tuning is certainly not to die for, but (well...) neither is the Eastman (now that I've played one)...and (in my experience, as I've expressed before) a 4th non-compensating valve really doesn't do all that much for low range intonation, unless there's at least one more (5th) valve that's set up to work in conjunction with the 4th valve.
...and (of course) these old 17-inch bell 201 tubas (bells which copied the best-era Besson tubas' bell profiles) are pretty gnarly-lookin' by now, but (based on the circular creases that I had to remove from the Eastman, as well as epic bow dents), I'm pretty sure this Eastman is going to be able to compete in the gnarly category quite soon.

I'm thinkin' that - if I find some $3XXX case-included fairly-shiny new-style Kings for sale (which show up fairly often), I can slick those out and offer them to band directors for c. $4XXX. Band directors aren't going to much care about slide alignment precision (and how many kids - other than a very few all-state types...who pull 'em but often randomly - just as I've witnessed videos of advanced players and professionals pulling/pushing their first slides very inconsistently - several different positions when playing the very same pitch...?) and fit/finish of the pistons (as long as they don't stick). Hell, based on the $5XXX USA-made nickel-brass recently-made double horns that band directors have continued to buy for their schools (and the workmanship of those), they're not going to have any complaints about the new-style King tubas.

The Seeburg Corporation-era OLD STYLE (two-piece) King 2341 tubas (with the 19-inch detachable upright bells) are better (in my view) than either the new-style King or the Eastman copy of it.

[LeMark]

The horn I bought for my school’s band program is also an American shank receiver. I can post pics tomorrow. Is this maybe a newer thing or something Eastman tried at one point in development and then ditched? The Eastman we bought is 5 years old now.

I just had a student buy one a few months ago and It's an American shank. Every one I've ever seen and played, including 8 of them owned by a school I teach for, is American shank.

The 832 CC tuba has a euro shank, but the 500 series tubas come with an American shank. If the one Joe has is a euro shank, than it's a one off freak. Maybe someone at the factory reached into the wrong bin of receivers

[bloke]

The horn I bought for my school’s band program is also an American shank receiver. I can post pics tomorrow. Is this maybe a newer thing or something Eastman tried at one point in development and then ditched? The Eastman we bought is 5 years old now.

I just had a student buy one a few months ago and It's an American shank. Every one I've ever seen and played, including 8 of them owned by a school I teach for, is American shank.

The 832 CC tuba has a euro shank, but the 600 series tubas come with an American shank. If the one Joe has is a euro shank, than it's a one off freak. Maybe someone at the factory reached into the wrong bin of receivers

Again...It's probably not really a euro shank receiver...I really don't know how to tell the difference.

If that was the only impractical thing about it, and none of the other things I mentioned were issues, a large receiver wouldn't prevent me from "liking" it over King. Intonation uber alles. ' interesting how so many threads zero in on the least important thing mentioned in the original post.

[DonO.]

I am of course famously a big fan of my King 2341. I know it has faults but the two biggest things in its favor I feel are the intonation and the tone quality. Especially the tone. I just sound better on this horn than I do on any other horn I’ve tooted on. Admittedly, I haven’t played every horn in the world. But this King is my happy place.

I have had people say to me that I should have bought the Eastman copy because it wasn’t just a copy but an
“Improvement” over the original. I’d like to thank bloke for pulling back the curtain on that nonsense. The emperor has no clothes. Just because almighty Eastman, czars of marketing and “professional endorsements”, makes a copy of something doesn’t automatically mean that they “improved” it.

[bloke]

I wouldn't mind putting a Eastman valve section on a new-style King body.
That might be an improvement (and adult players wouldn't find the crappy Yamaha style valve guides to be a problem). ...but I would first cut the first circuit a little bit and cut the third circuit quite a bit... and - for pity's sake - add some fourth circuit water keys.

That said, the York 33 bugle (as well as those made for Holton by York) is - in my view - superior to either of those.

The York 4/4 bottom bow was/is the same as King, but all the rest - including the York/Holton bell - is just slightly smaller with a sound that is just a bit more appealing. Additionally, for those who enjoy a compact design, who would choose 37 inches of height over 32?
(When brought back by Holton as those Harvey Phillips things, something got lost in the translation. I'm referring to those Holton instruments - with York bells and bows - made before that time.)

[Rick Denney]

I've looked at three or four of the 534's in addition to the one I own. And I've looked at no fewer than half a dozen 2341's of the new style (although "new" requires a bit of perspective there--the short, wide-belled version of the 2341 has been in the catalog for nearly 25 years).

I've seen a couple of the Kings that should never have been let out of the factory because of poor assembly where braces were smooshed into the branches, etc, to make stuff fit. Maybe that was shipping damage, but the dealers still sold them as new. The good ones were excellent, of course. The removable valveset sounded good in theory, but in practice was not perfect.

My 534 has something no King I've seen so far has: properly aligned slides. And the valves are vented, which is also something rarely provided in new instruments. And it has a nickel-silver leadpipe to minimize future red rot. Are they better than Kings? The best of them is no better than the best of the Kings, I don't think, but on average they might be closer to a properly finished product. I have not played a 534 that I thought was substandard.

But clearly they are the same design. The squatty 2341 came out in 2002, as I recall, and the EBB-534 was first announced in late 2013. Even in the first decade of that model, King's quality control was not what it should have been. But the good ones were great, and they sold a bunch of them, especially to adult amateurs. I stopped seeing them, though, before the Eastman came out, and I wondered if Conn-Selmer had simply cut back on production.

But the Eastmans had their own issues, too. I had to clean mine several times to get all the crud out of it so that the valves wouldn't stick. The top tackets for valve alignment is good and bad, in my view. It works--Yamaha has used that approach forever--and it makes the guides easy to replace. But the guide pin itself isn't nearly as deep as a traditional side-mounted guide. I've replaced the tackets on my Yamaha F tuba several times over the years, but I can't say I've had any significant reliability concern because of it.

Like Bloke, I would equate construction with Yamaha, which isn't as heavy as a King, but neither are anywhere near Planet Germany/Switzerland in terms of construction.

Intonation-wise, mine is not perfect, but it's good enough to be manageable. There are better tubas out there in that dimension, including most Miraphones. But there are lots that are worse, too.

Rick "would have considered a used 2341 instead of the Eastman had a good one been available at the time" Denney

[LeMark]

I have had people say to me that I should have bought the Eastman copy because it wasn’t just a copy but an
“Improvement” over the original. I’d like to thank bloke for pulling back the curtain on that nonsense.

better valves
better construction
no removable valve section and leadpipe
vented valves
thousands cheaper

sure, if you take away those, they are practically the same horn

[bloke]

Less lipping with King, third valve circuit is already short enough, King is more dent resistant (other than the bell, which is just as flimsy as Eastman), found from time to time (new style) for about $3,XXX used/shiny including a case, whereas most used Eastman's seen are usually $5,XXX or more. (I'm not much of a new tuba buyer. I choose to have someone else take that hit, just as with cars.)

If either's owner needs valves fit to professional standards, the King valve section unbolts and can be sent off to a valve rebuilder (OR...my experience is that Martin Wilk's King-fitting pistons are just barely too large, so the simple act picking up a set of those new or used and fitting those into King casings will basically result in piston-casing fit up to professional standards). Eastman valve fit is still not really up to my personal standards, but both Eastman and King valve sections are plenty good enough for any school, and both will likely suffer abuse, though the Eastman is likely to soon sport considerably larger bottom bow dents than will a King.

BOTH need to have their bells made of c. 0.2mm thicker gauge sheet brass, and need to be brought down to a more manageable (vs. an out of proportion and easier to fold 20-inch diameter) 19-inch diameter. The smaller diameter will not only make those bells be less of a target and less likely to fold, but increasing the gauge of the metal will also cause them to be more fold resistant and the smaller diameter will keep the weight of the bell about the same and prevent the bells from from becoming top heavy with the increased thickness.

Whatever anyone decides to do, for pity's sake try not to buy a silver-plated anything. Damage for alterations which result in messed up silver plating cannot be addressed without refinishing and replating the entire instrument, whereas damage or alterations resulting in messed up lacquer can be addressed by simply refinishing and relacquering the damaged area.

bloke "Mark and I have played this 'How redundant and repetitive can we make our argumentative bullet points back and forth against each other?' game quite a few times."

[LeMark]

I'm not sure where the idea came from that the Eastman is a more out of tune instrument. the only note on the whole horn that I'm adjusting is the low B natural (I'm using 123 with a 1st valve pull instead of 2-4.

I don't see either instrument come up used very often, but when I do the King is over 8K. Here's the cost of a new one. Brace yourself

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/brass-i ... PYQAvD_BwE

[bloke]

Less lipping with King, third valve circuit is already short enough, King is more dent resistant (other than the bell, which is just as flimsy as Eastman), found from time to time (new style) for about $3,XXX used/shiny including a case, whereas most used Eastman's seen are usually $5,XXX or more. (I'm not much of a new tuba buyer. I choose to have someone else take that hit, just as with cars.)

If either's owner needs valves fit to professional standards, the King valve section unbolts and can be sent off to a valve rebuilder (OR...my experience is that Martin Wilk's King-fitting pistons are just barely too large, so the simple act picking up a set of those new or used and fitting those into King casings will basically result in piston-casing fit up to professional standards). Eastman valve fit is still not really up to my personal standards, but both Eastman and King valve sections are plenty good enough for any school, and both will likely suffer abuse, though the Eastman is likely to soon sport considerably larger bottom bow dents than will a King.

BOTH need to have their bells made of c. 0.2mm thicker gauge sheet brass, and need to be brought down to a more manageable (vs. an out of proportion and easier to fold 20-inch diameter) 19-inch diameter. The smaller diameter will not only make those bells be less of a target and less likely to fold, but increasing the gauge of the metal will also cause them to be more fold resistant and the smaller diameter will keep the weight of the bell about the same and prevent the bells from from becoming top heavy with the increased thickness.

Whatever anyone decides to do, for pity's sake try not to buy a silver-plated anything. Damage for alterations which result in messed up silver plating cannot be addressed without refinishing and replating the entire instrument, whereas damage or alterations resulting in messed up lacquer can be addressed by simply refinishing and relacquering the damaged area.

bloke "Mark and I have played this 'How redundant and repetitive can we make our argumentative bullet points back and forth against each other?' game quite a few times."

I've only so far repaired this one Eastman, so I don't know whether the euro shank receiver is a new thing or whether it's an anomaly, but it doesn't look like it's an accident, and every King I've ever played features a nice up to pitch fifth partial, which is a rarity amongst tubas, particularly those which additionally offer a manageably not very sharp at all six partial, as those two partials tend to be paired with each other, typically...
- flat fifth, good sixth
- in tune fifth, sharp sixth
Again, King breaks the rule with both 5th and 6th being pretty close to dead on.

With more redundancy, again, I was shocked at how much more resonant (candidly, in a good way) a couple of old beat up and bloke straightened out Yamaha 201 top action tubas (a widely berated model) are compared to the Eastman, and I tend to suspect they out resonate the King original as well.

[bloke]

Here's a picture of a York 33 which has been completely straightened out (dent removal) and upgraded to a professional instrument with a 5-valve front action (King) valveset.

Quite a few people have taken these and done conversions like this while additionally cutting them to C, whereas (my opinion) they shouldn't have been cut, as nearly insignificant tuning quirks become significant - when two feet of these instruments is cut away and thrown in the scrap box.

In my opinion, this is what should be offered to the market by some manufacturer, rather than either the new style King or the Eastman knockoff of it, which (either) is a slightly larger, sort of vanilla sounding (as well as with less projection) bugle.

Moreover, these are much nicer sounding instruments with much more clarity of tone. Again: 19 inch bell, a scant 32 inches tall. I love mine.

I built myself one of these, but mine is less traditional - as far as valve section plumbing is concerned, so I asked a friend of mine who built himself this very nice one - to send me a picture of his (seen below) which they assembled in a much more traditional way.

[bloke]

As seen, mine is less traditional regarding strategies involving assembly of the valve section, and it's sitting right next to a new style King 2341, so the slight - though undeniable - difference in size can easily be seen - enough to make a difference in resonance and clarity.

(As mentioned earlier, the King and York/Holton bottom bows are virtually interchangeable, though everything else is smaller.)
... and my instrument has seven water keys (no clanking noises during oboe solos)

[Three Valves]

Don't argue with me. Argue with your spouse; that's what they're there for.

[York-aholic]

Now that is a creative 5th valve routing on the King. Me like!

From what I’ve seen, while the King bottom bow has the same diameters at the ends as the old Holton and York bottom bows, I believe the King bottom bow (its “legs”) is “taller” by a little bit? Maybe half the ferrule’s width with a Holton bell I have here. The King is taller than a York monster Eb bow here by about the full width of the ferrule. Does it matter? Guess that depends on what you’re doing.

[catgrowlB]

With more redundancy, again, I was shocked at how much more resonant (candidly, in a good way) a couple of old beat up and bloke straightened out Yamaha 201 top action tubas (a widely berated model) are compared to the Eastman, and I tend to suspect they out resonate the King original as well.

I actually have an old 1970s silver YBB-201 in a back room down in my studio. I've used it on a few band concerts in the years past; it still plays very well. The valves have some pitting, but the compression and valve action is still excellent when oiled. I don't care what anyone says about the YBB-201/321 tubas --- they sound very good and blend well in concert band. Not only have I played mine in band and have the recording, but sat next to other tuba players playing them, hearing recordings of them, as well as sitting up in the balcony in the audience hearing them during a live concert. Those tubas are gangly/awkward in design, but they pleasantly surprise me when I hear good/decent players on them. They sorta sound like a brighter, yet more 'vanilla'd' MW-25.

As for the King 2341 and Eastman copy tubas -- it's been a while since I tooted on a King 2341/1241. They are nice; I prefer the older tall detachable bell version. Haven't played the Eastman yet....
Hearing other players on those tubas (modern King and Eastman) ----> meh.

[tofu]

I’ve got a 2341 I bought new in 2001 from Dillon’s - only new horn I’ve ever bought - although it was B Stock at a steal of a price. If I recall they came out in 2000. Matt Walters told me he thought it was the best sounding & in tune one he had played up to that point in time. The valves were seriously good - which is why I was surprised to subsequently hear how bad the valves were on so many of them later on.

It was B stock because the slide alignment was seriously jacked - better described as dis-alignment. How in the world they could ship a horn like that to dealer is hard to believe. I figured at the price I negotiated - I could have Lee S do a complete re-alignment and still be far ahead of the game - which I did first thing. I also had him add two spit valves, swap in Yamaha Springs and I think we changed the valve felts etc as well. I think we also added a brace and I’ll have to check (been 25 years - can’t remember), vented the first valve and maybe all of them - can’t remember. lol It’s not my main horn, but this thing rocks. It’s the best by far of any “new style” 2341 I’ve played and I personally prefer it to the good 2 piece old ones I’ve played in the past - better intonation.

The QC from King wasn’t great to begin with when they started up production and it seems like what was wrong with the horn build varied somewhat from horn to horn, but certainly the amount of bad QC increased through the years. I’m guessing the disappearance of a lot of the old school craftsman at the factory over the last 25 years has played into that. The video that was circulating of the interview with the one remaining tuba guy who would lose his job if production moved to China didn’t inspire confidence. If he’s the only guy making them how is it the QC varies so widely now. Doesn’t make me think he’s a true craftsman and he didn’t look old enough to have a lot of years under his belt. I also got the vibe that there was a lot of the old “never buy a car from Detroit built on a Friday or Monday vibe” at that facility.

I can’t comment on the Eastman as I haven’t played one. I’ve seen a few and they seem to have a much more consistent build quality from horn to horn vs the kings which seem to wildly vary in build from horn to horn.

[bloke]

@York-aholic

I didn't add that fifth valve to that King tuba. It was in the shop here for some other reason. I don't even remember for what.

If the Eastman
- bottom bow was thicker
(This particular one is as thin as the sheet metal on the USA sousaphones...just too thin for school use, IMO.)
- 5th partial wasn't flat
(open D, C-sharp, etc.)
- put out just as much sound as the King...

...(again) the Eastman valve section build quality would otherwise put the Eastman over the top...
... yet (used vs. used) I still see new-style Kings for lower prices than the Eastman copy.

My Holton/York tuba pictured (with both a stout upper bow and lower bow old school large bow cap, as well as a fifth rotor) weighs 24 lbs. Without an upper bow cap and with a reduced lower bow cap - and no fifth valve, surely it would still weigh 21-1/2 to 22 lbs... this, even though it's clearly a bit smaller than the King.

Outer bows of school tubas and sousaphones - particularly these days (whereby so much school-owned stuff gets torn up so severely and quickly, due to over the top carelessness) - should probably be at least 0.65mm thick. I recently had a German manufacturer build some Holton 345 replica 6/4 size bells for me that are 0.7mm thick... and those bells are for adult use.

My own 6/4 tuba features very thin outer bows (seemingly, about the same gauge as this Eastman thing). I have to be extremely careful with it, and I would never consider carrying it around in any sort of bag. (The instrument and its hard case is over 70 lbs.)...
... Now consider taking a tuba this thin and carrying it around in a room jam-packed full of inattentive juveniles moving around too fast with all of their equipment, and not looking where they're going...